Clark Praised Bush AGAIN in 2002 Speech

There, is that any better? Can we not use punctuation marks around here anymore?




So anyway, here's the piece AGAIN

http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,524416,00.html


Catch it fast, before it's locked!

And most ordinary people felt a sense of patriotism and presidential support right after it, let alone a distinguished general.

Nice try.

I supported Bush's Afghanistan actions at that point too and would have said similar things. It would have been different if he said those remarks in October or November of 2002.

This is a big disconnect I have with Clark supporters. March 2003 was 6 short months ago.

I hadn't heard.

... they would find that ALL of the Dem candidates, even Dennis Kucinich, at some time or another said SOMETHING nice about Shrub.

(How juvenile are these people? Let me count the ways ...)

They don't see that by digging up innacurate dirt on the Dems, they are doing rove's dirty work.

I'm much more skeptical then you, IranianDemocrat.

...I think Kucinich was a 10 percenter on September 12th 2001. But yes, many people on this board said "positive things" about Bush, which they later regretted...

"Board" then when people were saying "positive things about bush"...

I was one of those "10%ers", too!

NOBODY on this board said anything positive about Bush!

Some, very few did rationalize the war and push Lieberman but they had the decency to slink away only to have re-emerged lately but even they NEVER praised Bush.

I think you are confusing this board with some other one.

This board was and always has been a Bush-hating board.

Nice try but too unfounded in fact to count.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

if you could find such quotes, I agree it would add to the discussion, it would put Clark's quotes in context.

But I don't really think a lot of dems have given Bush such unqualified praise.

I did not feel a shred of confidence in or support of GWB.

Neither did I feel a rush of patriotism. I felt about my country the way I always have; proud of the great things, aware of the flaws.

This is not a comment about Clark; I'm withholding judgement either way for now. Just a response about "ordinary" people.

..it's a fact.

I'm not ordinary? LOL.

Is that a compliment or an insult? :wow:

Ordinary people backed whistle ass when he wanted to bomb the crap out of innocent Afganis, w/o any proof they had anything to do w/the attacks and when not one single "hijacker" was Afghani.

Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me, nor did make sense to me in October 2001.

I guess I am not ordinary.

Perhaps "not ordinary" is a good thing.

Who were these ordinary people? They were not the heart and soul of the Democratic Party because that heart and soul was praising Robert Byrd and Dennis Kucinich as they condemned the President.

That heart and soul was us, right here at DU, taking up our pathetic little flower collection to send a big THANK YOU arrangement to Senator Byrd.

We were faxing and writing and calling like mad. Walking around downtown handing our cell phones to ordinary people saying "please leave a message here for Tom Daschle".

The heart and soul of the party was balling its eyes out as it read about US pilots dropping hard cold cash attached to propaganda flyers from their cock-pits or dropping little yellow packages of food and candy that looked JUST like the yellow mines as kids got blown up trying to retrieve them.

The ordinary people you're talking about were stupid fools. Are these the ordinary people you suggest we hand the reins over to? The same ordinary people who sleep-walked America into this mess?

If I wept over politics, I'd be weeping now.

We were appalled! By then we all already knew what kind of a man Bush was. He had already passed the tax cuts, Wall Street had already crashed, informed people already had the Enron maps of oil pipelines in Afghanistan and were aware of the Bush, Bin Laden, Carlyle connection.

It is all fine and well to defend Clark but it's not ok to advance that his praise was ok because most ordinary people did it.

We are not most ordinary people and we are not looking for someone who thinks and acts like most ordinary people to be President during these treacherous times.

I think it would have done Clark's cause a lot more good if his supporters stopped minimizing this and started showing a clear, time-lined evolution.

Clark made comments enthusiastically praising Bush Inc as late as March 2003 when even most ordinary people had stopped doing so.

The day the Clark campaign addresses those and explains them intelligently, the sooner Clark can get around to the business of convincing us that he is the extraordinary contender we are looking for.

He's your candidate. Help him out better than that because sadly, these explanations insult me and thousands like me who were on this board at the time and just undid some good that someone else did for Clark.

Sorry ID but you guys aren't helping him by saying this on a Democratic Board. It would help a lot more if you could dig up some quotes condeming Bush and this administration (quotes from before he started to run) and/or quotes praising Democrats and what they were trying to do.

The heart and soul of the Democratic Party.

Defeat before compromise.

Well, fellas, see you at the primaries.

and you?

All of us came to DU because we knew that Bush was an usurper who resides in the White House thanks to the Opus Dei cabal in the Supreme Court (Scalia, Thomas).

No liberal would ever refer to the Chimp as "our president!"

No one would ever take him seriously if he said Bush wasn't the president. The only person who has said something like that is Kucinich..and well...just look at his poll numbers...

like to hear it, he said it. And my opinion of Gore did not change because he said that. Likewise my opinion of Clark won't change because he said the same thing that Clinton, Gore and 90% of dems said at the same time.

Time to send an email to Weisskof to remind him.

Just where exactly is a link to the videotape mentioned in that piece?

Is a President Clark planning to continue or expand on the Bush regime's manipulation of the media?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Go Clark

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

didn't you post this while ago? I know it was locked but do you really think this is significant enough to try to slip in again? Who really gives a shit anyway?

:eyes:

:hi:

It's getting painful to watch.

Truly it is.

Whooo-hooo!

:loveya:

Named cuz threads get locked? :hi:

Don't understand why a thread would be locked unless it was posted intentionally to disrupt and/or print false info.

Hurry, step right up and get your free snake oil!!

They all kind of stand around and high five each other and congratulate themselves for being so wise and pure.

Because it contained this little gem:

Whoever is fooled by this neocon opportunist is a MORON! Out and Out MORON!

That is an obvious Rule 4 violation.

DTH

>>Whoever is fooled by this neocon opportunist is a MORON! Out and Out MORON!<<

Are you sure it wasn't:

Whoever is fooled by this neocon opportunist is a MORAN! Out and Out MORAN!

Compare 'Closer's' 'moron' accusations with your Dean quotations. And Dean had had lots and lots of personal contact with Clark before he made those statements. Priceless. They're insane, some of these Deanites, but they do have their value as entertainment on occasion.

And so funny!

So how does it feel beating up on your own chosen candidate, Closer?

:evilgrin:

DTH

The endless one-note posting of material trashing a single candidate has no credibility.

praises as of January 2002.

Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Perle, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Hadley, Rice, Powell and O'Neill. High praise and good wishes in March 2003.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark

Clark supporters, please, get your facts and dates down and defend from there because these dodges and rationalizations are coming out flat and undoing all the good a few other Clark supporters have been doing.

I bet you can find quotes showing every single democrat praised bush somehow.

I don't think you can even find one of Dean or even one of Kerry.

We all know Sharton wasn't. Graham wasn't.

But I would be partucularly interested to see one quote of even off-handed praise from Kucinich.

Now don't you feel better?



Retyred In Fla
So I Read This Book

I'm so sick of tis garbage.

I'd rather watch ducks flatulate that waste my time rebutting this crap....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...by the actions of their supporters, many will understand that every tree has a few rotten apples, and will take that into account.

Doesn't match the MO IMO .. I wouldn't change my opinion of Dean cuz of this poster nor any other, no matter who their sig showed they supported, if they did snake oil hit and runs :D

So the only candidates that pass your smell test are those who never said anything positive or supportive of a Republican anytime, ever.

Just what we need more entrenched partisanship. If Dean represents this kind of blind partisanship, I want nothing to do with him. :crazy:

MzPip
:dem:

I don't get why We are allowing the RW to dominate our discussions about our candidates. This is a RW talking point meant to ensure that Clark is not the nominee. For obvious reasons, they are terrified of clark. Can we not be "smarter" than these manipulating assholes?

by all means, post the quotes so we can compare them.

unless you were on the other side of the moon, surely you remember the idolotry heaped on Bush from both sides of the aisle following 911? With his soaring approval ratings immediately following, nearly all of our elected DEM Senators/Congressmen and women were rushing to show their support. Almost none would speak out against him. Wellstone was one exception, along with WV Senator Byrd-- there were a few others. But all you have to do is take a look at the vote and comments on the Iraqi resolution and Patriot Act to confirm this. Try GOogle, I'm sure you'll find plenty, if you have forgotten.

First of all, you were the one that made the assertion, so logically you should be the one providing the links. Saying "go Google it" is B.S.

But I was interested, so...

from January 2002:

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/lieberman/lieb011402sp.html

America’s great military strength, including particularly the precision air attack and special forces capabilities built up by President Clinton during the 1990s, and commanded so well by President Bush over the past year, has been stunningly impressive in this war to date.




I looked for something similar from Gephardt, and couldn't find anything. Here's a foreign policy speech from June 2002 where he expresses agreement with Bush foreign policy, and discusses some success in Afghanistan, but without so irresponsibly crediting Bush for it.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gephardt/geph060402sp.html


edit: actually he does give Bush credit for Afghanistan:

“We must be prepared to build alliances in regions that flare up unexpectedly. Afghanistan is the best example of this today. The Administration deserves credit for the military victory there. However, it will be shortsighted if we stop now and withhold support for expanding the international security presence beyond Kabul, as Interim President Karzai has urgently requested. Instead, we must take steps to make that nation a prime example of the coalition’s unbending commitment to democracy and development.

Why are the Clark followers taking this bait? I'm not espousing either candidate and I could see through the original post.

Isn't it possible that CLOSER isn't really a Dean backer? Please, tit for tat is no better than what happened as a result of 9-11!

Can't you make your voice heard about THE POST instead of about the poster/supporter?

I mean it's simply meant to antagonize and you've fallen prey which is sad :(

Please, please lift yourselves up, dust off your sleeves and move past these type of posts. If you are truly upset, maybe you should leave it and come back instead of post out of your anger/frustration or whatever you are feeling?

:grouphug: Come people.. fellow Americans...citizens...!! We have terrorists (cabal)to dispense with...not each other!!!!

EDIT: typos

Like you I have not made up my mind so Dean supporters, Clark supporters, Kerry, others, have nothing to be concerned from my current stance. I'm just interested in our viewing things through our own prism and not that provided by RW manipulation.

The following are statements by Congressman Dennis Kucinich. He does not mention * by name. But if you read his words, you will see him opposing the president and his agenda even then:

On September 11, 2001:

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr010911.htm

Statement of Congressman Dennis Kucinich
Reaction to Terrorist Attacks Against U.S.

America grieves this day for the victims of these terrorist attacks, and for their families and friends. Our prayers are with them and our hearts go out to those who have endured unbearable loss today. Our most hopeful thoughts are with those who have risked their lives in heroic rescue efforts. In this grim moment, we must be resolute in protecting the fabric of our democracy and the individual freedoms that make America a great nation. As we grieve, we cannot let terrorists win by turning the United States into a national security state. We cannot let their dialogue become our dialogue.

America must remain calm because such calm is essential to preserving our liberties. America must bring to justice those responsible for these cowardly deeds. We must be cautious about rolling back freedoms at home or placing blame in the wrong place.

America must continue to be a beacon of democracy for the world. Let this sad moment cause all governments and all people of good will around the world to unite and to move together to challenge and uproot those who have destructive goals which seek to create death and drive the world toward chaos. Now, more than ever, America must continue to be a force for peace in the world. We must not let the terrorists win.

On September 20, 2001:

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-010920-defense.htm

Statement of Congressman Kucinich
Floor Statement on Defense Authorization

Air Force Colonel John Boyd, perhaps our nation’s greatest military strategist once said, “Machines don’t fight wars, people do. And they use their minds.” Last week a group of terrorists shattered all of our established notions of warfare commandeering four of this country’s commercial airlines and utilizing them as weapons that wrought catastrophic damage on two of our major cities.

And yet today, we gather to debate a defense bill oriented towards the type of war fought in past generations. The tactics, the perpetrators employed for this generation of warfare are vastly different from traditional modes of battle. They are unorthodox and irregular and are likely to be carried out by non-state actors as nation states. They seek to create chaos by attacking people, cultures and institutions rather than militaries. They’ve been in development for years. And on September 11th, they became impossible to ignore.

The bill we debate here today allocates $343 billion for the defense of our nation. Will the expenditure of this money protect our nation from the type of attack we faced last Tuesday? That’s a key question. But the thirteen F-22s we’ll buy next year for $4 billion, would they have been able to prevent the hijacking of these four airliners? What of the role of the 55-ton Howitzer, the Army is requesting $500 million for? What of the role of land attack missile destroyer? And what about the ballistic missile defense system, the development of which, to date has consumed over $60 billion in taxpayer money? Will any of this equipment help prevent or counter the next attack against our nation? Will this equipment for instance, be of any use against a suitcase bomb that uses conventional explosives to distribute nuclear waste products?

Our military establishment seeks $33 billion more than last year, the largest defense increase since the Cold War for a total budget as large as the next 15 defense budgets combined in order to leap ahead into the future. But this leap-ahead technology is rooted deeply in the past. Our current forces are more than adequate in dealing with conventional battlefield threats, what we lack is the ability to deal with this new sort of warfare.

We need then a new set of principles to form the backbone of an efficient and effective national defense. First we need a force that is able to adapt to changing circumstances, a force that is comfortable and capable countering a terrorist infiltration as an invading army. To accomplish this we need accurate and comprehensive information upon which to base our decisions. This includes information about our selves, our systems, our current capability, our expenditures as well as our potential enemy’s.

Finally, borrowing from Colonel Boyd, we need to acknowledge that our people, not our machines are our most effective assets. The Pentagon, for example in this context, has never passed an independent audit and cannot properly document trillions of dollars in accounting entries. Cannot account for all of its equipment. Overpays its contractors and uses unrealistic assumptions in all aspects of planning according to audit agencies. We have the opportunity to construct an efficient and versatile force, oriented towards the diverse threats facing our nation, one that exploits the ability of a talented officer and an enlisted corps and utilizes the machines as their tools. The nation has much work to do before we complete that task and we’re in a position to accomplish it.

November 15, 2001:

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-011115-tribunals.htm

In a one-minute speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) became one of the first Members of Congress to speak out about his concerns over the recent Executive Order on military tribunals, saying it threatens the American justice system. Following is his speech.

We all agree that terrorists should be brought to justice but what kind of justice? The American jurisprudence system is the envy of the free world, with its emphasis on due process. Yet the recent Executive Order substitutes our American justice system for military tribunals where officers sit as judge and jury, with secret evidence, secret witnesses, secret verdicts and even secretly handed down death sentences. This order is not reflective of the workings of the great solons of the law whose likenesses ring this chamber.

This is not reflective of Jeffersonian Democracy. This is Kafka’s “The Trial”, writ large. We can not, we should not let the actions of terrorists cause us to reject our American system of justice. The ultimate terror in a democracy is the destruction of constitutional principles.

Let us defend against terrorism. And may we always remain “one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

The first time you posted this, you called anyone who supports Clark a "moron." Thanks, I appreciate that. It's probably not a good idea, though, to insult someone who potentially may vote for your candidate. See, I'm not totally sure who I'm going to vote for in the primaries just yet. So far I think it's going to be Clark, but like all of our candidates, and I may very well change my mind by the time I vote. I like Dean a lot, but calling me a "moron" is not the best way to persuade to vote for him.

Now, to answer your concern, this was something Clark said back in January of 2002, when EVERYONE was still praising Bush for his response to 9/11. I don't think it's a big deal. I agreed with the War against the Taliban too, so I guess you think I'm horrible as well.

Everyone of what?

No fucking way was I praising whistle ass.

I am not ordinary.
I am not a part of everyone.

about 90% of people were. Even I kind of didn't hate him quite as much as I normally do for about six months there. I still didn't LIKE him, mind you, but I didn't hate him quite as much.

Anyway, that really wasn't the point of my post. The original poster, Closer, called me, and anyone else supporting Clark, a "moron." That's not the way for Dean supporters to endear themselves to me. I like Dean a lot, and I may switch my support to him, but not because of his particular followers who called me "moron."

this thread stands on its own merits, not on what another thread had to say.

and his CULT following would rationalize it away.

Clark could say just about anything, and the Clark haters would find a negative way to spin it.

How completely insulting to call his supporters a "cult." It's also irrational, illogical, and utterly inappropriate.

The man does not walk on water, but he's also not the Satan some who post here would lead you to believe.

Move on, there's really nothing of note here.

the action was plainly WRONG and vengeful and with different
intentions to satisfy the Ken Lay gang!!!

I believe it is quite refreshing to see that a moderate
can see the truth and attempt to warn all to wake up.

His voice needs to be heard!!!

And we desperately need the conservatives to wake up
and smell the coffee!!!!Especially the military!!!

I have been anti-war the whole way but I feel it is important
for thes neo-con bozos to come out of their trance!!!

I was a proud ten percenter and there were many other ten percenters here at DU as well.

"I tremendously admire, and I think we all should, the great work done by our commander-in-chief, our president, George Bush,"

This is not a sense of "patriotism". It is not praise for the job the troops did in Afghanistan. It is a personal endorsement of the "great work" of George Bush Jr.

Now you need to ask yourselves whether someone can be this much of a fan of Bush in the spring of 2002, and do a complete 180 degree turn around in one year's time.

Seriously, how likely is that??

That's the apparent context of the remark, although we can't say for sure until Time releases the tape.

I don't have much problem with supporting Bush's job in Afghanistan. Neither did 90% of the country.

DTH

Until I see the rest of it, it means nothing to me.

I tremendously admire the Dean campaign's ability to motivate large numbers of people. They have donated their money, their passion, and their time to a man who is a liar and the most right-wing candidate in the Democratic field, yet these things matter not to Dean's followers. In getting these people to abandon their scruples and political beliefs, the Dean campaign has done a masterful job of proving that some of the most outrageous statements made by P.T. Barnum are actually astute insights into the foibles inherent to the human condition. If nothing else, Dean can walk away with that brilliant accomplishment firmly secured underneath his expanding belt.

Americans of all stripes supported that action.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Under the influence of Wesley Koresh Clark!

*rips up all "Clark for President" material, tears down Clark worship and voodoo altar, jumps out window*

:cry: :cry: :cry:

don't forget to flush those locks of hair down the commode :D

<open mouth kisses>


Brian


on edit-some of you folks are unwittingly doing your best to convince us that * is going to be reelected....

Clark is nothing more than a Swartzenegger from the planet Bizarro! Forget about him, he is nothing more than a jingo-mystic from the nation of Stupidtron.

fuck this shit....

Clark is no Swartzenegger.

And he certainly isn't from the nation of Stupidtron, whatever the hell that is. :eyes:

single one. Remember the Taliban? They are the ones who gave asylum to Osama bin Laden?

One quote of praise is all I ask.

Then, if you can find some, we'll compare them side by side. These statements are inexcusable and you must know it.

Oh wait, make that three, I forgot about "I would have been a Republican if Rove returned my calls".

Yeah right, this guy really has the best shot head to head against Bush. Rove will tombstone his candidacy without having to lift a finger, he'll just use his own words against him over and over and over. Clark will be stuck with explaining the timing of his remarks.

I only heard diplomacy at its finest. Clark still got his message across, just cause he didn't start calling names.

Am I missing something? He wished all would go well with the war, but even that was qualified??? At the time, I hoped all would go well....Hell, I didn't want to see thousand of dead soldiers.
I hate Bush, not the United States and Americans!


He said that said he knew them....worked with them.....you don't have to hate somebody because you disagree with their policies...the man is not a child......he ain't the powerless people who are so frustrated with start to hate...cause we know there little else we can do. This man is not a kid.....Should he had said he hated them????? couln't stand their guts?????


yo! some of your the requirements in here in order to be accepted are pretty much on the order of impossible!


I think some of you better actually read the article. I think that might help!

I hate it when people don't read...or only read parts....or skim...or read with their eyes closed!

I printed it out.....hey that might help. Don't want blurry vision making people see what they want to see.

Do you think Rove is going to put the quotes in context for Clark? Most of the voting public isn't going to see this Time article...here's the only part that they'll see over and over and over.

"I tremendously admire, and I think we all should, the great work done by our commander-in-chief, our president, George Bush,"

Rove won't run that stuff during the General Election....or else Clark can use Powell saying what a nifty guy Clark is...

Anyway, that would just bring more independents and dissapointed Repugs to our side.

Plus, who gives a shit about Rove? Except, it seems Democrats who want to deny Clark from running in the General Election....

Like they won't worst things to say about Dean...Who are you kidding...

If this is the best they can do, We in the WH!

I urge those who don't read other than Blogs to read the salon article!!!! Don't let the snow job fool you.

I didn't see this before I posted. I do worry about how these things will be used in the General if Clark won the nom.

I have been unable to get any good feed-back on this concern, but have seen much pooh-pooing of this as a concern. Dismissed as bashing.

I plan to support whoever gets the nomination and we should be prepared for whatever will be thrown at us.

Julie

the funny thing about the Clark supporters that are pooh-pooing these concerns as bashing...they expect us to believe that their guy will be the best in the head to head matchup with Bush.

It's going to be hard to convince folks to make a change to you(CLARK) when you have "tremendous admiration" for Bush and felt that "we needed them there" after 9/11.

of this is, we got video tape from 2002 and quotes from March, 2003, ok. Could it have been just politics? Yes. Will it matter? I dunno.....I just keep picturing commercials where they show the tape of Clark (again and again like good propagandists) praising Bush. Or putting up recent anti-Bush statements from Clark on Bush to be followed by his praise from 3/03. Easy for them to spin that to Jr's favor.

That's what bothers me about this. How it could and would be used for Jr's advantage. High praise from a 4 star. I find it troublesome.

Julie

How will that look next to the commercials comparing Clark to the Bush action figure?

Look, folks, there are some people around here that think it is going to be easy to bring down Dubya. It ain't. Look at the lengths they went to in order to stop McCain, and he was supposedly one of their own.

Even if Iraq is still killing our soldiers and Congress folds on another fifty billion "donation" and the American economy falls through the bottom, beating George Bush is still going to take a massive effort of basic, grass roots politics, and a total dedication from all of the people who see Dubya as a clear and present danger to the survival of the American republic.

Instead people are jerking each other around with this self-destructive game of chicken. We've seen this before, year after year after year. It's time to call an end to it.

All that matters is getting Bush out and replacing him with a more or less harmless centrist. Clark fills the bill.

If Dean wins the primary I will go out and work for him to the best of my ability. He isn't perfect but he is better than another four years of what we have now.

If Clark wins and you cannot work for him, you have no business calling yourself a Democrat.

And all you "10 percenters"? How do you figure on winning over the other 90% if all they see is dissension and open warfare within our ranks. If you don't care for our candidate, that is your right. We do like and support Clark and that is our right. Go tend to your own house.

under someone else's.

I have long wished Dean and Clark to be on the same ticket. I don't do attack posts and the one you just posted under sure wasn't one.

I was hoping someone with not-so-thin skin could address my concern. I never said it would be easy to beat Jr nor any of the other things you put in your post.

I think it is a legitimate concern that we should address. With Clark as our possible candidate it is best to be prepared. Would you prefer we only think happy thoughts till they throw the mud?

I'll put it a little simpler: How will we counter if Team Bush were to use this against Clark in the General? Better?

Julie

and unfortunatly a symptom of why this board is becoming less and less interesting or worth participating in.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=553812

So what does that mean?

nuttin.

Please Get over this. Geez

and tremendously admiring a President are not the same thing.