Not Your Sweetie

What about this Edwards guy?

By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Tue Jan 20th, 2004 at 02:36:11 PM EST


Date: November 11, 2003
Clark Communications Director questions John Edwards retaining Hugh Shelton.
http://clark04.com/press/release/071/
Honorable John Edwards
Edwards for President
PO Box 300034
Raleigh, NC 27622

Dear Senator Edwards:

I'm simply astounded that you have retained General Hugh Shelton as an adviser to your presidential campaign. This choice undermines the spirit of civility that you have urged your fellow candidates to uphold. Just this September, you said: "We need to be really careful that our anger is not directed at each other." Maybe you should share that advice with your own campaign team.

General Shelton has engaged in precisely the type of politics as usual mud-slinging that you profess to abhor: he initiated what has become a smear campaign that the Republicans have gleefully taken up. And his character assassination was the worst type: General Shelton leveled charges about "integrity" and "character," and then refused to back up his charge with an ounce of evidence or a shred of substantiation. Attacks like these have no place in campaigns, or in any public discourse. You should insist that General Shelton either repudiate his attacks or come forward and provide proof for what he said.

Your association with General Shelton is also curious given your position of support for the war in Kosovo. As you know, by waging war against Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo, we saved 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing, all without losing a single American life. Have you changed your mind about this operation? Do you now think we should have refused to stop the genocide and given Milosevic free reign in the region, as your adviser apparently believes?

By associating with General Shelton on this campaign, you seem to have given in to the negative politics that you say you have risen above. I hope that throughout the campaign you will maintain the high level of dialogue that you have insisted on for others and that you will address this matter promptly.

Sincerely,

Matt Bennett
Communications Director
Clark for President

 
What about this Edwards guy? | 30 comments | Group threads together | Post A Comment | Edit Story
(#30) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 02/10/2004 02:37:27 PM EST

Reply

http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/04/sp_politics_clark021004.htm
Silver Spring, Md.: Hi, Wesley. I am a big fan of your father and Sen. Edwards. I believe it will be difficult of Kerry to win the election in November. I do not believe that a lot of southern voters will warm up to Kerry by November. If we have learned anything the last 30 years, Democrats need to win some southern states to win. It seems the south is divided between your father and Edwards. This morning, Donna Brazile described your father and Edwards as southerners "drinking from the same straw" and implied that one should drop out in the next day or two. Do you believe this assessment is correct?
Wesley Clark Jr.: No. There two very different men. Edwards is a lawyer with four years experience in the Senate whereas dad has spent a lifetime devoted to public service, has administered social programs in the Army for 34 years, has negotiated a peace treaty, has won a war, has been a businessman, has a masters degree in economics and has personal relationships with most of the heads of state in Europe and Latin America. The only similarity is that they both have a southern drawl.


(#29) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 02/07/2004 06:50:45 AM EST

Parent | Reply

It was a Wellstone amendment Edwards voted down - with the GOP!
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&sessio n=1&vote=00314#position
 
YEAs
Abraham (R-MI)
Allard (R-CO)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee, J. (R-RI)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Domenici (R-NM)
Edwards (D-NC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gorton (R-WA)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nickles (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)


(#28) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 02/06/2004 07:54:07 PM EST

Reply

Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
On October 6, 1999, John Edwards Was the Only Democrat to Vote Against Closing Corporate Loopholes to Prevent VA Cuts. Here's what some other Democrats had to say about the 1999 vote:
The sponsor of the amendment, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), said the amendment was necessary to prevent "a meat ax approach to governing," and underlying legislation that "cut indiscriminately." He also said: "We all know the military is having a problem recruiting new members and getting new recruits to join branches. Would we want to discourage that effort even though we are having a problem filling those important positions that we must have to protect ourselves? I think not."
Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) said the amendment was necessary to "provide for the basics of this country - the national defense, to make sure the men and women in uniform are treated humanely and they have not only good assignments but are adequately compensated for the service they give to our country.... I sincerely hope this idea of an across-the-board cut is rejected."
And here is a supporting link:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&sessio n=1&vote=00314#position


(#27) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 02/06/2004 02:54:43 PM EST

Reply

Found at vote-smart.org and independent organization that monitors how politicians vote...
Edwards support the President in the following percentages in these years. Although in 2001 Edwards did not support the President more than 67%. On average Edwards supported the President 80.5% of the time.

2002.     76%
2001.     67%
2000.     92%
1999.     87%


(#26) (No rating)

by TOTALLY COMMITTED on 02/05/2004 07:31:47 PM EST

Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply

As usual... OUTSTANDING! So much great stuff here!
I have an Edwards Blog, too! (and just posted the link to this Blog on it.)
Together, we may have every piece of "dirt" on this guy!
Please visit, and take a look:
http://totally-committed.forclark.com/story/2004/2/5/85919/89235#12
We cannot allow this man to be Kerry's opponent for the nomination -- it would be a true disaster!


(#25) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 02/05/2004 07:07:14 PM EST

Parent | Reply

Link for press release:
http://clark04.com/press/release/225/


(#24) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 02/05/2004 07:06:17 PM EST

Reply

For Immediate Release
Date: February 5, 2004
Clark Campaign Response To The Edwards Excuses
Little Rock - Clark Campaign Communications Director Matt Bennett released the following in response to the Edwards Campaign's statement today:
"Apparently it wasn't enough for John Edwards to distort the outcome of the Oklahoma primary. Senator Edwards is of the view that his loss by 1,219 votes is 'a tie.' Is this the kind of rigorous mathematical standard that John Edwards sought for our children when he voted for the No Child Left Behind Act?
"Now, the Edwards staff is engaging in precisely the kind of 'political, petty sniping' they profess to abhor. But let's get a few facts straight:
    During 2003-2004, Senator Edwards missed almost 40% of Senate votes.
*    During the last Congress, Senator Edwards Voted to Support President Bush 71.5% of the time - 76% of the time in 2002 alone.
*    Senator Edwards has said that No Child Left Behind "builds upon the practice and promise of North Carolina's example and provides increased federal resources to maintain the state's commitment to high achievement for all students."
*    Senator Edwards *voted against making No Child Left Behind testing requirements contingent on adequate funding.
    Senator Edwards *voted against allowing states flexibility in designing student assessments under No Child Left Behind.
"Senators can vote for bills and complain about them later, but Presidents must be accountable - that's what leadership is. Wes Clark understands that; apparently John Edwards does not."


(#23) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 02/05/2004 05:09:32 PM EST

Reply

Patriot act - more bragging - pres release
http://edwards.senate.gov/press/2001/oct26-pr.html
October 26, 2001
WASHINGTON-The Senate on Thursday passed a sweeping antiterrorism bill that expanded the wiretapping and electronic surveillance authority of the FBI and imposed stronger penalties for harboring or bankrolling terrorists.
"This will strengthen our nation's ability to prevent future terrorist attacks," said Senator John Edwards, who worked on the legislation as a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence.


(#22) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 02/01/2004 06:30:50 AM EST

Reply

On the take - faster than any other senator
"A study from the same group(Center for responsive Politics) showed Sen. John Edwards, who made his fortune as a trial attorney, has received much more in contributions from lawyers than any other senator, though he has been in the Senate only one term."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/31/elec04.prez.main/index.html


(#21) (Rated 5.00/1)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/31/2004 07:27:35 AM EST

Reply

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/12/politics/campaigns/12EDWA.html?ex=1075698000&en=fceef912d481cf 95&ei=5070
He represented many sympathetic plaintiffs, among them some horribly crippled children. He became rich doing it, racking up more than $175 million for his clients from 1985 to 1997 and amassing a personal fortune of at least $38 million, according to North Carolina Lawyers Weekly.
At the same time, he did little or no pro bono work. Nor did he pursue public-interest lawsuits. While he speaks passionately about civil rights and the bravery of civil rights leaders, for instance, he has never used his legal skills to fight against discrimination through the courts.


(#20) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/30/2004 08:27:39 PM EST

Reply

9.11 justifies war in Iraq - WMD lies
Debate
"Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.
"It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/debatetranscript29.html
comments MI:
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i2scdebate.htm
That was completely absurd and a huge moment in this debate.  Edwards, whose weakest point already is his lack of gravitas and foreign policy credentials, now said flat out that he is incapable of understanding that, despite the fact that 9/11 occurred, the President could still have lied and exaggerated.
What does one have to do with the other?  The answer is nothing.
To stand there and assert that you can't say, "there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives," is to buy into the most basic lies of the Bush administration.  It is the sort of thing the amoral puppets at FOX News assert.
9/11 occurring did not make Saddam have WMDs, and if the President exaggerated, as the Carnegie Report detailed him and his administration doing, then he exaggerated, regardless of what else happened.  There is no connection, and no useful presidential candidate would ever assert that allowing the slaughter of American people somehow means that it is impossible for lying to exist.  What is the connection?
Absolutely this was an horrific answer.


(#19) (Rated 5.00/1)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/30/2004 08:14:39 PM EST

Reply

Son of a millworker?
http://www.dissidentvoice.orgJan04Ireland0129.htm
"The Edwardses were solidly middle class" when Johnny was growing up, according to a four-part profile of the North Carolina senator in his home state's most prestigious daily, the Raleigh News and Observer. It's true that for a few years as a young man Edwards' father worked on the floor of a Roger Milliken textile mill. But Edwards p232;re (a lifelong Republican, like his reactionary boss) quickly climbed upward, becoming a monitor of worker productivity as a "time-study" man -- which any labor organizer in the South will tell you is a polite term for a stoolie who spies on the proletarian mill hands to get them to speed up production for the same low wages. Daddy Edwards' grassing got him promoted to supervisor, then to plant manager -- and he finally resigned to start his own business as a consultant to the textile industry. As a Boston Globe profile of Edwards put it last year, the senator never "notes that his father was part of management . . . `John was more middle class than most of us,'" says Bill Garner, a high school friend and college roommate.


(#18) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/30/2004 06:33:34 AM EST

Reply

 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Ireland0129.htm
And while Edwards, when campaigning, bashes John Ashcroft for assaults on civil liberties, his pamphlet boasts that he'd "create thousands of neighborhood watch groups by 2007," which sounds suspiciously akin to Ashcroft's infamous TIPS program of setting citizen to spy on citizen. Edwards, of course, voted for both the blank check to Dubya for war in Iraq, and for the civil liberties-shredding Patriot Act. He's in no position to take on Dubya over his lies about Iraq's WMD -- for Edwards himself proclaimed, as late as October 10, 2002, "We know that Hussein has chemical and biological weapons"; and hailed the invasion of Iraq, which "still might prove a victory for people everywhere . . . who seek to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction."


(#17) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/29/2004 04:27:28 PM EST

Reply

Patriot Act is being abused by the Attorney General
Q: The PATRIOT Act is two years old. There has been criticism of John Ashcroft for enforcement of legislation you authored. Shouldn't those who wrote the legislation take responsibility?
EDWARDS: There are provisions, which get no attention, which did good things. The reason we need changes is because it gave too much discretion to an attorney general who does not deserve it. The attorney general told us that he would not abuse his discretion. He has abused his discretion. We know that now.
Source: Democratic Presidential 2004 Primary Debate in Detroit Oct 27, 2003
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Edwards_Civil_Rights.htm


(#16) (Rated 5.00/2)

by ourwinter (ourwinter at forclark dot com) on 01/28/2004 10:47:30 AM EST

Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply

"If Mr. Kerry himself unswervingly took the high road, his spokeswoman, Stephanie Cutter, did not hesitate to rebut the criticisms by Dr. Dean and Mr. Edwards in the sharpest tones. Of Mr. Edwards, Ms. Cutter said: "If his intent is to remove special interests from Washington, why has he, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, taken more than $11 million from lawyers and law firms?""
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/27/politics/campaign/27DEMS.html?pagewanted=2
NO ONE is playing this comment... we have to get it out there.


(#15) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/26/2004 10:22:51 PM EST

Reply

http://northcarolina.forclark.com/story/2004/1/26/202837/587


(#14) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/25/2004 05:55:26 PM EST

Parent | Reply

http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/news_section/2003-04/04182003edwards.asp


(#13) (Rated 5.00/1)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/25/2004 05:51:26 PM EST

Reply

Donations to Sen. Edwards questioned
By Sam Dealey
http://www.hillnews.com/news/050703/edwards.aspx
Sen. John Edwards' presidential campaign finance documents show a pattern of giving by low-level employees at law firms, a number of whom appear to have limited financial resources and no prior record of political donations.
Records submitted to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) show these individuals have often given $2,000 to the North Carolina Democrat, the maximum permitted by law.
In many instances, all the checks from a given firm arrived on the same day -- from partners, attorneys, and other support staff.
     
Some of these support staff have not voted in the past, and those who have voted include registered Republicans, according to public records on file with various county registrars of voting.
Edwards' campaign records also reveal that many of these individuals' spouses and relatives contributed the maximum on the same day. The Hill found many of them to be first-time givers. Some have no previous demonstrable interest in politics, while others appear to be active Republicans.


(#12) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/25/2004 03:57:13 PM EST

Reply

This week Edwards hauled out former Joint Chief of Staff chair Hugh Shelton to attack Clark. As everyone knows the military vote in the South is a big deal, and Shelton, along with a lot of other military people, don't like Clark. The way Edwards sees it, if he can just hang in there with a third or fourth in Iowa and New Hampshire, then he's got a decent chance of winning South Carolina.
In September Shelton said that Clark was relieved of his assignment as NATO commander because of "integrity and character issues." He never said what these were.
Then last week Matt Bennett, Clark's communications man, said he was "simply astonished" at Edwards's use of Shelton and "politics-as-usual mudslinging." "General Shelton . . . initiated what has become a smear campaign that the Republicans have gleefully taken up," said Bennett.
Edwards kept the tiff going with a snooty reply directly to Clark: "Whatever your personal views on General Shelton, I'm sure you agree that he is a respected military leader who served our country with distinction." Concluded Edwards: "I will continue to seek his advice," adding, "When I talk to the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it's about the safety and security of our men and women in uniform, not about politics."
http://www.villagevoice.com/print/issues/0347/mondo5.php


(#11) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 12:51:30 PM EST

Reply

A BIG PIECE of North Carolina Sen. John Edwards's campaign message is about how he would work to "clean up" Washington if elected president. He accuses President Bush of putting "the interests of lobbyists and campaign contributors above the interests of regular people." But Mr. Edwards -- alone among the serious candidates for president -- declines to provide a list of his major campaign financiers: the men and women who have not only the capability to write $2,000 checks themselves but the networks that allow them to harvest bigger bundles for their favored candidates. President Bush posts on his Web site the names of his $100,000 Pioneers and $200,000 Rangers. Mr. Edwards's Democratic rivals -- Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), former Vermont governor Howard Dean and retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark -- have, at our request, provided similar lists of major underwriters.
more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40385-2004Jan22.html


(#10) (Rated 5.00/1)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/23/2004 07:56:09 PM EST

Reply

Thanks for the overtime!
(#252) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Sybil on 01/23/2004 07:35:19 PM EST
Checked c-span's congressional records. The ominous "Omnibus" Appropriations Bill was passed on Weds, Jan 21, 2003 by a vote of 48 - 45
Senators not voting:
Joseph Lieberman (D)
Selby Chambliss (R)
Daniel Inouye (D)
John Kerry (D)
Mark Dayton (D)
Max Baucus (D)
John Edwards(D)


(#9) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/23/2004 12:21:06 PM EST

Reply

Spin Buster
Is CNN Giving Edwards a Free Pass?
The same media that sets the bar high for some candidates sets the bar low for others. While Gov. Howard Dean and Sen. Joe Lieberman are facing high press expectations, Sen. John Edwards is getting off relatively easy.
On last night's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on CNN, the eponymous host asked National Correspondent Bob Franken, "how does [Edwards] look right now in New Hampshire?" Franken replied, "The polls don't show him looking that he's very strong. But, of course, he would say that was the case in Iowa. But, really, all he has to do here, as Woody Allen said, is show up."
Franken continued by qualifying his assertion a bit: "As long as he does fairly well here, that would be enough for him to go to what is going to be his home stomping grounds in the Carolinas and the primaries that come up after that."
http://www.campaigndesk.org/
Campaign Desk is left wondering if Franken could set the bar any lower without digging a trench.
--B.K.


(#8) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/22/2004 11:11:17 PM EST

Reply

during a game, derided the "I have a scream" speech, and identified himself as an Edwards supporter.
particularly ugly, since CBS refused the Moveon ad during Superbawl - the "sports and politics do not mix "rule


(#7) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/22/2004 03:19:10 PM EST

Reply

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/rovers.html


(#6) (Rated 5.00/2)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/21/2004 09:23:42 PM EST

Reply

Mr. Positive?
Presidential Hopeful Edwards Prides Himself On Not Going Negative -- But Document Is Hardly Positive
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/US/edwards_positive_040121.html
By Jake Tapper
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/US/edwards_positive_040121.html
Jan. 21-- On Monday night, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina attributed his second place finish in the Iowa Democratic Caucuses to his positive message and his refusal to engage in negative attacks against his opponents.
"The people of Iowa tonight confirmed that they believe in a positive, uplifting vision to change America," Edwards said to cheers.
But ABCNEWS has obtained an official "John Edwards for President" precinct captain packet that includes myriad personal attacks for Edwards caucus-goers to make against his Democratic opponents, perhaps belying this claim.
The document -- marked "CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEDGED" (sic) and "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION" and signed by the senator -- encourages Edwards supporters to tell undecided caucus-attendees that former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is a "Park Avenue elitist from New York City" and say Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts has "the stale record of a Washington insider" and "has been a part of the failed Washington politics for too long."
The Edwards document also slams Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who opted not to participate in the Iowa caucus, for trying to take "shortcuts to the nomination." The document adds: "Strong, national candidates do not skip states."
Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri is called "a good man" who led Congressional Democrats to lose control of the House of Representatives. "We can't afford another losing national campaign," the document says.
Other information in the packet slams Dean for balancing Vermont budgets "on the backs of the poor and sick," cites "another Kerry exaggeration," and goes after Clark for praising President Bush's "neo-conservative foreign policy team."
"Senator Edwards was not aware of this document," Edwards' Communication Director David Ginsberg told ABCNEWS, adding. "Once he found out about it, he takes full responsibility for it. He thinks it was wrong and has instructed the staff not to do anything like that again."
Ginsberg also stressed that the part of the document that attacked his rivals "was a small piece of a 50-page caucus training memo including instructions on how caucuses work and the senator's policy proposals." Ginsberg denied any hypocrisy.
"This was a book prepared by the field staff to help them get through the caucus process," he said. "This was prepared for field staffers who had to defend themselves while the campaign was under a barrage of attacks, phone calls, and negative mail."
`Same Dirty Tricks'?
But Dean spokesman Jay Carson noted: "It's unfortunate that they say that they're running a positive campaign and yet it appears that they're working from the same dirty tricks playbook as the other Washington candidates."
Campaign snipes are nothing new or remarkable, but such information coming from Edwards seems to deviate from his claim to a mantle of cleanliness.
Asked how he pulled off his Iowa silver medal after lagging behind in so many polls for so long, Edwards told CNN on Tuesday morning that it wasn't until the last week of the campaign that Iowa caucus-goers finally heard his "positive optimistic vision of hope."
Said Edwards: "It takes a while for that to get through ... when there's a lot of negative sniping going on. But it finally got through." 


(#5) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/20/2004 06:37:58 PM EST

Reply

http://www.house.gov/etheridge/Press-SheltonGoldPrintable.htm


(#4) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/20/2004 06:33:46 PM EST

Reply

http://www.forclark.com/story/2004/1/12/85347/4513


(#3) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/20/2004 06:25:41 PM EST

Reply

http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031216ED.htm
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

15. Q. All right. All right. Tell me, please, General, this is The New
16. Yorker, the issue of the 17th of November. It carried an interview with
17. you as well, and it says here in the interview: [In English] "Shelton,
18. the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was Clark's boss in 1999
19. when Clark was unceremoniously told that he was being removed from his
20. position as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe."
21. [Interpretation] Then Shelton is quoted: [In English] "'I've known
22. Wes for a long time,' Shelton said. 'I will tell you the reason he came
23. out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues ... Wes
24. won't get my vote.'"
25. [Interpretation] So your former superior talks about your
Page 30532
1 character. Isn't that right, General Clark?
snip

9. Q. So, General Clark, since you say that what Shelton said here is
10. not correct, that it's totally wrong, then why were you removed from your
11. post in Europe prematurely?"


(#2) (Rated 5.00/1)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/20/2004 02:42:44 PM EST

Reply

http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/12/17/10347/370


(#1) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/20/2004 02:38:20 PM EST

Reply

:
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030131/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_4
>
> Two senior Democratic senators, Robert Byrd
> of West Virginia and Ted Kennedy of
> Massachusetts, this week proposed separate
> bills on the matter. Byrd's would require President
> Bush (news - web sites) to seek a fresh vote
> in the U.N. Security Council before attacking Iraq;
> Kennedy's would require new votes in
> Congress before doing so.
>
> But the chance of approval for either
> measure is slim, given GOP control of the Senate and a
> lack of enthusiasm from Democratic
> congressional leaders.
>
> The bills aren't supported by any of the
> four Democratic members of Congress running for
> president: Sens. John Kerry of
> Massachusetts, Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) of
> Connecticut and John Edwards of North
> Carolina, and Rep. Richard Gephardt (news, bio,
> voting record) of Missouri. more here
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2004/1/13/104013/080