• I would love for you to dig that up, because as someone who has followed Clark closely for 4+ years, I am absolutely, 100% positive that he never said anything of the sort.

    As for your other claim that he was all over the place on what to do about Iraq, you are wrong. Reporter Adam Nagourney ran a hit piece on Clark that has been debunked time and again. I'm sure you just missed it all the millions of times it was discussed in '03-'04.

    "Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War "- Dissecting Adam Nagourney's '03 NYT article

    small snippet, in case you don't have time to read the whole thing:

    ...

    However, what I noticed this time, maybe due to the shock the article brought with it the last time, was this line found in the 4th paragraph-

       "...General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading."

    So there it is folks, Wes Clark is only acknowledging that he supported the Levin amendment! This was not a secret as Clark as asserted this fact time and time again. He said this before this article was printed, and he has stated it since. That would have been the amendment that required George Bush to go to the UN, get a vote from the Security Council and then come back to Congress for a 2nd vote! I believe that is what Wes Clark has been saying all along!

    ...

  • Thanks for an excellent diary Tom Rinaldo.

    Clark was on Stephanie Miller yesterday, and he still is not saying he won't run. Said he thinks about it every day. Clark is not a game player -- if he had no intention of running he would say so.

    His new book A Time To Lead: For Duty, Honor, and Country will be out Sept. 3, with a Book Tour. Hope he announces then!

    We need Wes, now more than ever.

  • in the WH. Bush Clinton Bush Clinton doesn't sit well with me.

    No denying the radical regressives will come out of the woodwork to vote against her. Not so much with any of the other candidates, and in fact, I'd bet many of them would stay home or vote 3rd party.

    With Hillary on the ticket, we lose not only the WH, but our majority in Congress as well. I'm not alone in thinking this. Not a good calculation on the part of the Clintons, and those supporting them.

  • comment on a post Worries Among Democrats with Clinton on the Ticket over 6 years ago

    Imagine
    Submitted by ms in la on January 7, 2007 - 9:41pm.

    Imagine you are a corporate press mover and shaker, a "decider"-- with an agenda to maintain the corporate status quo in Washington and the world at large and a big budget to help get you there.

    Imagine you are repeatedly reminded who to keep in office, who to newly elect in order to insure that plan was forever viable and intact.

    When the right wing of the bird is broken and flailing... you need to prop it up, make it look better. Best way to do that is to make the left wing look worse.

    Imagine you had all decided (you and your cohorts in the corp press) that the best and perhaps only way to insure that your guys stay in power and survive a left wing coup, is to mightily endorse the candidate for Pres on the other side the least likely to succeed... the most polarizing, and - because you're in Info-Tainment- the one who would also provide the most entertainment value whilst being swifted. Guaranteeing a win for your guy and a good time for viewers while bringing the opposition down.

    Because you not only have the budget-- you know you have the airwaves, most all of them, ergo-- the power to influence.

    The Hillary formula. And the reason the Media have donated more to Hillary over the past 4 years than anyone else.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    A Clinton- Corpress love affair
    Submitted by ms in la on January 7, 2007 - 11:51pm.

    Who's the Number One recipient of media contributions in 2006 cycle?:
    _____________
    Media donations in general
    Hillary Clinton

    Media donations to all Senators
    Hillary Clinton

    Books/ magazines/ newspapers
    Hillary Clinton (receiving 3 times the #2 recipient)

    Cable TV
    Hillary Clinton (receiving over 2 times the #2 recipient)

    TV/ Movies/ Music
    Hillary Clinton

    TV / Radio stations
    Hillary Clinton (the other 4 of the top 5 are all Republicans)

    Communications/ Electronics
    Hillary Clinton

    TV Production
    Hillary Clinton

    And in the year 2000-- she was NUMBER 2 in Media Donations to ALL recipients following:

    #1: Al Gore.

    All data from opensecrets.org
    http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/re cips.asp?Ind=B02&Cycle=2006&reci pdetail=A&Mem=N&sortorder=U

    huge h/t to ms in la!

  • comment on a post Worries Among Democrats with Clinton on the Ticket over 6 years ago

    Will try to go back and read all the comments later, but it is more than obvious that corporate press/radical regressives have been waiting for this opportunity for many years.

    I have posted several times a piece a friend posted back in January that shows since 2000, Corporate Press have donated more heavily to HRC than any other Democrat by a wide margin -- with the exception that in 2000, the top donee was Al Gore.

    This should make it very clear exactly who they want the Dem nominee to be, and it should also be clear to us by now whose side Corporate Press is on.

    Having Hillary on the ticket will be the equivalent of having a gay marriage ban on the ticket. The wingnuts will be pouring out of the woodwork to vote, when many of them otherwise may stay home.

  • Right. But do you think he wouldn't run due to outside pressure (from the inside)?

    If that's the case and he doesn't run because of pressure from our own side, then I'm afraid the party insiders have this whole thing wrapped up and we'll be looking at a Hillary defeat.

  • You're right, Tom Rinaldo. I honestly was expecting it to be China!

    That was a wonderful interview! You just don't hear the current candidates speak like this just off the cuff. I, at least, don't get the sense that any of them understand the depth of what they'd be getting themselves in to if they actually won.

    As far as the preconditions that haven't worked out yet for him to run, I think if he doesn't believe he will win, he won't enter. His strategic, analytical mind may be too many steps ahead of himself on this though, because really how would he know if he doesn't just do it?

    Unless there are definite signals he's getting from the media-declared "front-runner" or party insiders (same thing?) I don't think anything is certain. And if they are giving him definite signals that are essentially roadblocks for him to run, I wonder if we'll ever know?

  • on a comment on Conservatives Heart Hillary? over 6 years ago

    Look, I'm not trying to discourage anyone who loves Hillary from supporting her. I'm just trying point out what should be obvious. Does anyone here doubt the Republics will do whatever it takes to hang on to the WH, and get back to their 30 year dream of a permanent Republic majority?

    Hillary as the Dem candidate would ensure a turnout of wingnuts like we've not seen, yet. At the same time, it would keep many liberals home. We would lose not only the WH but downticket races as well.

    You are aware that she is the most polarizing of all the Dem candidates, aren't you? Now why would corporate press and Republics who demonized her for years, be backing her and singing her praises?

    Do you all trust corporate press as much as you trust these Republics trotting out this crap?

    This was written by ms in la back in January. I saved it in a word file so sorry for the length:

    Imagine
    Submitted by ms in la on January 7, 2007 - 9:41pm.

    Imagine you are a corporate press mover and shaker, a "decider"-- with an agenda to maintain the corporate status quo in Washington and the world at large and a big budget to help get you there.

    Imagine you are repeatedly reminded who to keep in office, who to newly elect in order to insure that plan was forever viable and intact.
    When the right wing of the bird is broken and flailing... you need to prop it up, make it look better. Best way to do that is to make the left wing look worse.

    Imagine you had all decided (you and your cohorts in the corp press) that the best and perhaps only way to insure that your guys stay in power and survive a left wing coup, is to mightily endorse the candidate for Pres on the other side the least likely to succeed... the most polarizing, and - because you're in Info-Tainment- the one who would also provide the most entertainment value whilst being swifted. Guaranteeing a win for your guy and a good time for viewers while bringing the opposition down.

    Because you not only have the budget-- you know you have the airwaves, most all of them, ergo-- the power to influence.

    The Hillary formula. And the reason the Media have donated more to Hillary over the past 4 years than anyone else.

    A Clinton- Corpress love affair

    Who's the Number One recipient of media contributions in 2006 cycle?:
    ____________
    Media donations in general
    Hillary Clinton

    Media donations to all Senators
    Hillary Clinton

    Books/ magazines/ newspapers
    Hillary Clinton (receiving 3 times the #2 recipient)

    Cable TV
    Hillary Clinton (receiving over 2 times the #2 recipient)

    TV/ Movies/ Music
    Hillary Clinton

    TV / Radio stations
    Hillary Clinton (the other 4 of the top 5 are all Republicans)

    Communications/ Electronics
    Hillary Clinton

    TV Production
    Hillary Clinton

    And in the year 2000-- she was NUMBER 2 in Media Donations to ALL recipients following
    #1: Al Gore.

    All data from opensecrets.org
    http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/re cips.asp?Ind=B02&Cycle=2006&reci pdetail=A&Mem=N&sortorder=U

  • comment on a post Conservatives Heart Hillary? over 6 years ago

    Wake the hell up Democrats. If you can't see this for the set up it is, we deserve to lose.

  • on a comment on Conservatives Heart Hillary? over 6 years ago

    Thank you, Dallas Dem!! I'm reading this thread with my jaw on the ground in disbelief that so  many are falling for this!!

  • on a comment on Conservatives Heart Hillary? over 6 years ago

    Exactly right! I am utterly shocked at the innocence of people who can't see this for the set up it is!

    These are Republics we're dealing with here! Do you guys actually think for one second that their aim is anything other than winning???

    Wake Up!!!

  • on a comment on Conservatives Heart Hillary? over 6 years ago

    I've been scanning this thread to see if anyone gets it and your is the first post that even considers it.

    I can not friggin' believe all you guys don't see this as the set up it is!!! Cripes. Do you not understand these thugs will do anything, anything to ensure that the candidate we put up will be slaughtened?

    I'm about to give up on the Democratic party. If we can't see that these guys do not play nice, do not play fair, and will never give up on their dream of an eternal Republic majority, we just don't even deserve to be in the damn game.

  • comment on a post An Army mom's letter to her GOP Senator over 6 years ago

    Voinovich is a strange bird. One minute he's crying and acting as if he's finally seen the light and will do right by "we the people" then the next he's right back in line with the Republic playbook.

    I've got an equally pig-headed Senator here that I will continue to call and write.

    Jon Stolz of VoteVets is asking us to take action once again in this email from today:

    A couple of days ago, you took to the phones in support of an amendment in the Senate that would have given our troops proper rest between deployments, sponsored by Senators Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel. The good news is that a majority of the Senate voted for that bill, including a good number of Republicans, who are clearly as fed up with the President's failed strategy in Iraq as you are. The bad news is that the minority in the Senate held a filibuster, meaning this simple amendment needed 60 votes to pass, and far too many in the minority voted to hold the bill hostage. However, in the media and on Capitol Hill, the message was clear - on all these matters regarding the war, we are getting closer and closer to having a filibuster-proof majority.

    Today, I am writing to urge you to take to the phones again, in support of a bill that has a very good chance of passing. In the House today, Rep. Ike Skelton will be introducing legislation that mandates we begin a responsible redeployment of troops in 120 days, and complete it by April of next year.

    CALL YOUR CONGRESSPERSON AT 202-224-3121 NOW, AND URGE THEM TO SUPPORT THE SKELTON BILL ON IRAQ

    The Skelton bill, and a companion bill being voted on in the Senate next week, is binding. It would, at long last, start the process of bringing troops home, so we can begin to rebuild our military and national defense, and refocus our energies on fighting terrorism.

    You may have seen the reports today. While the so-called 'surge' in Iraq has failed to bring the Iraqis closer to meeting any key benchmarks that the White House laid out months ago, our intelligence is telling us that al Qaeda is once again at its pre-9/11 strength. If that isn't a reason to send the message to Iraqis that we're not going to hold their hand forever, while telling al Qaeda that we're going to get serious about fighting them, I don't know what is.

    CALL YOUR CONGRESSPERSON AT 202-224-3121 NOW, AND URGE THEM TO SUPPORT THE SKELTON BILL ON IRAQ

    I know this has been a long, hard fight for all of us, but as you can see in the papers, the political walls around the President are cracking. Many in his own party are no longer willing to put politics ahead of security, or your will. We must keep the pressure on, for the troops and for our nation. Please do your part, and call your Congressperson today, and tell them to support the Ike Skelton Bill on Iraq.

    Thank you for all of your support!

    Sincerely,

    Jon Soltz
    Iraq War Veteran
    Chairman and Co-Founder, VoteVets.org

  • No one is saying to let the crimes go by. But impeachment or not, investigations must go forward. It's obvious impeachment is not going to happen before Jr's term is up. That doesn't mean focus should be taken off investigations.

  • comment on a post Impeachment v. Ending The Iraq Debacle over 6 years ago

    I was for impeachment before I was against it.

    BTD to a point, then what digby said pushed me off the fence:

    Impeachment
    by digby

Diaries

Advertise Blogads