Your handy-dandy compilation of Bush racist commentsEdited on Fri Apr-30-04 03:21 PM by plastic_turkeys
1) In 2000, George Bush Senior referred to his son George W's nephew, George P. Bush and his siblings, all of whom are half Mexican, as "the little brown ones".
2) WASHINGTON - It was Condoleezza Rice, national security advisor, who helped her boss out of the embarassing situation. During a conversation between the two presidents, George W. Bush, 55, (USA) and Fernando Henrique Cardoso, 71, (Brazil), Bush bewildered his colleague with the question "DO YOU HAVE BLACKS, TOO?" Rice, 47, noticing how astonished the Brazilian was, saved the day by telling Bush "Mr. President, Brazil probably has more blacks than the USA. Some say it's the country with the most blacks outside Africa."
Later, Brazilian president Cardoso said, regarding Latin America, Bush was still in his "learning phase."
3) "SOME people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing or free." - 13 April 2004
4) "You know there's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that, that people whose skin color may not be the same as OURS can be free and self governing. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily, you know, are a different color than white, can self-govern." - 30 April 2004
Alert
Friday, April 30, 2004
PRESIDENT BUSH: My first answer to that is, I want to Canada to do what it feels comfortable doing in Iraq. That's -- and that's what I told the Prime Minister before. Canada is an independent nation. Canada makes -- will make its decisions based upon her own judgment. The Prime Minister shares my deep desire for there to be peace in the world. And to the extent that the country feels comfortable in helping that, we're grateful.
Canada is doing a lot in Afghanistan. Canada is doing a lot in Haiti. Canada is a contributor to reconstruction in Iraq. And I am grateful to be able to talk to a friend who shares the same goal, which is affecting behavior in a way that's based upon our values of human rights, human dignity, and freedom. And we've got no better partner in understanding the power of free societies.
There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily -- are a different color than white can self-govern.
And the Prime Minister -- I don't want to put words in his mouth -- but I think he shares that great sense of optimism and possibility. And it's good to have a friend who shares that with us.
Would you like to have the First Ladies come on up?
PRIME MINISTER MARTIN: I've got to say, though, I really do like sharing a press conference with you. You answer those questions perfectly. (Laughter.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040430-2.html
Canada is doing a lot in Afghanistan. Canada is doing a lot in Haiti. Canada is a contributor to reconstruction in Iraq. And I am grateful to be able to talk to a friend who shares the same goal, which is affecting behavior in a way that's based upon our values of human rights, human dignity, and freedom. And we've got no better partner in understanding the power of free societies.
There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily -- are a different color than white can self-govern.
And the Prime Minister -- I don't want to put words in his mouth -- but I think he shares that great sense of optimism and possibility. And it's good to have a friend who shares that with us.
Would you like to have the First Ladies come on up?
PRIME MINISTER MARTIN: I've got to say, though, I really do like sharing a press conference with you. You answer those questions perfectly. (Laughter.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040430-2.html
Stephanie
TRANSCRIPT of George Bush's racist remarks today
I transcribed this myself from C-Span. It's interesting that in such a brief press conference, these deeply stupid and racist remarks mysteriously do not appear in any of the news articles.
Q: What is Canada doing on Iraq both diplomatically and in terms eventually of getting, possibly putting troops on the ground there?
Bush: My first answer to that is I want Canada to do what it feels comfortable doing in Iraq. And that's what I told the Prime Minister before. Canada is an independent nation. Canada makes its decisions based upon her own judgment. The Prime Minister shares my deep desire for there to be peace in the world. To the extent that the country feels comfortable helping that, we're grateful.
Canada's doing a lot in Afghanistan, Canada's doing a lot in Haiti, Canada is a contributor to reconstruction in Iraq and I am grateful to be able to talk to a friend who shares the same goal, which is affecting behavior in a way that's based upon our values, of human rights, human dignity, and freedom. And we've got no better partner in understanding the power of free societies.
You know there's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that, that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self governing. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily, you know, are a different color than white, can self-govern.
And the Prime Minister, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think he shares that great sense of optimism and possibility. And it's good to have a friend who shares that with us. Would you like to have the first lady come on up?
Martin: I've got to tell you, I like sharing a press conference with you, you answered those questions perfectly.
Bush: Thank you. Record that.
http://www.cspan.org /
LATEST VIDEO >>
Pres. Bush & Canadian P.M. Paul Martin (04/30/2004)
it's at the end, last question
TRANSCRIPT of George Bush's racist remarks today
I transcribed this myself from C-Span. It's interesting that in such a brief press conference, these deeply stupid and racist remarks mysteriously do not appear in any of the news articles.
Q: What is Canada doing on Iraq both diplomatically and in terms eventually of getting, possibly putting troops on the ground there?
Bush: My first answer to that is I want Canada to do what it feels comfortable doing in Iraq. And that's what I told the Prime Minister before. Canada is an independent nation. Canada makes its decisions based upon her own judgment. The Prime Minister shares my deep desire for there to be peace in the world. To the extent that the country feels comfortable helping that, we're grateful.
Canada's doing a lot in Afghanistan, Canada's doing a lot in Haiti, Canada is a contributor to reconstruction in Iraq and I am grateful to be able to talk to a friend who shares the same goal, which is affecting behavior in a way that's based upon our values, of human rights, human dignity, and freedom. And we've got no better partner in understanding the power of free societies.
You know there's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that, that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self governing. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily, you know, are a different color than white, can self-govern.
And the Prime Minister, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think he shares that great sense of optimism and possibility. And it's good to have a friend who shares that with us. Would you like to have the first lady come on up?
Martin: I've got to tell you, I like sharing a press conference with you, you answered those questions perfectly.
Bush: Thank you. Record that.
http://www.cspan.org /
LATEST VIDEO >>
Pres. Bush & Canadian P.M. Paul Martin (04/30/2004)
it's at the end, last question
Thursday, April 29, 2004
The wonders of google:
Search Result 1From: Thornhill (cthornhill@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: OT: Disengage brain . . . Engage expletive undeleted View: Complete Thread (6 articles)
Original FormatNewsgroups: alt.movies.kubrick
Date: 2003-03-24 08:51:04 PST
This posted on http://zoia.blogspot.com:
"Fuck Saddam, We're taking him out"
Time Magazine: "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out." Those were the
words of
President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and
Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with
Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with
America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his
hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his
Iraq policy in that short phrase. The Senators laughed uncomfortably;
Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room.
posted by Leah Faerstein 7:26 AM
I've changed my mind. I like his spunk! By God and Dubya, I'm
standing taller and stronger in our fearsome alliances with Estonia,
Uzbekistan, Eritrea and the Marshall Islands. Saddam will cower in
terror.
And, for all those who are 'agin us,' I'll just parafries bizzy Dub:
"Fuck'em."
Thornhill
PS - Is Monaco still with us, or do they have too few syllables for
support? (that's Monaco, by the way, not Monica. [Can we have an
Austin Powers, "Yay, Marshall Islands!," anyone?]).
Search Result 1From: Thornhill (cthornhill@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: OT: Disengage brain . . . Engage expletive undeleted View: Complete Thread (6 articles)
Original FormatNewsgroups: alt.movies.kubrick
Date: 2003-03-24 08:51:04 PST
This posted on http://zoia.blogspot.com:
"Fuck Saddam, We're taking him out"
Time Magazine: "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out." Those were the
words of
President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and
Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with
Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with
America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his
hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his
Iraq policy in that short phrase. The Senators laughed uncomfortably;
Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room.
posted by Leah Faerstein 7:26 AM
I've changed my mind. I like his spunk! By God and Dubya, I'm
standing taller and stronger in our fearsome alliances with Estonia,
Uzbekistan, Eritrea and the Marshall Islands. Saddam will cower in
terror.
And, for all those who are 'agin us,' I'll just parafries bizzy Dub:
"Fuck'em."
Thornhill
PS - Is Monaco still with us, or do they have too few syllables for
support? (that's Monaco, by the way, not Monica. [Can we have an
Austin Powers, "Yay, Marshall Islands!," anyone?]).
suzijane (1 posts) Thu Apr-29-04 08:54 PM
15. "I enjoyed it."
Well, of course Bush was just conveying what he thought the reporters wanted to know. They were concerned that he might NOT have had a pleasant time, weren't they? Isn't EVERYONE in the world concerned about his happiness and well-being?
Spoiled, immature, narcissitic rich kid. It's always about HIM...
15. "I enjoyed it."
Well, of course Bush was just conveying what he thought the reporters wanted to know. They were concerned that he might NOT have had a pleasant time, weren't they? Isn't EVERYONE in the world concerned about his happiness and well-being?
Spoiled, immature, narcissitic rich kid. It's always about HIM...
(#236) (No rating)
by LJM (ljm4clarkatyahoo.com) on 04/29/2004 01:24:00 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
I really hope the new Clark web page included the CCN. I got an e-mail from Leonard saying he has no way to fix the blog when it goes down anymore than the rest of us could. He did say he talked with people about Wes PAC and he told then they should use the CCN as it has the features they want and the community is here already. Kathryn, I second Leonard's suggestion. This is the best internet vehicle for blogs I have seen in cyberspace. It's a keeper.
by LJM (ljm4clarkatyahoo.com) on 04/29/2004 01:24:00 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
I really hope the new Clark web page included the CCN. I got an e-mail from Leonard saying he has no way to fix the blog when it goes down anymore than the rest of us could. He did say he talked with people about Wes PAC and he told then they should use the CCN as it has the features they want and the community is here already. Kathryn, I second Leonard's suggestion. This is the best internet vehicle for blogs I have seen in cyberspace. It's a keeper.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
"The Checks and Balances system is temporarily out of service."
"Welcome to the United States, and thank you for holding. We're sorry, but the checks and balances system is temporarily out of service. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Please refer to Republican owned media sources for updates on the status of the checks and balances system. Have a nice day!"
"Welcome to the United States, and thank you for holding. We're sorry, but the checks and balances system is temporarily out of service. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Please refer to Republican owned media sources for updates on the status of the checks and balances system. Have a nice day!"
Monday, April 26, 2004
Chucky talk at Air America
I just listened to "Unfiltered" wjere they had 2 clueless women guests - some "media specialist" - Sarah Nelson panting after Woodward and jennifer palmiery - Chucky's Karen. After a long discussion on current events (luckily I was on a treadmill, working my frustration) they asked Palmiery about Chucky:
"Will he be VP?" "I hope so" she answered with a teen sigh. "Do you know anything?" "No" "Come on, we are desperate for a scoop here" After that Liz Winstead initiated a long exchange about Chucky's dufus hair - with palmieri agreeing and taking credit for some inprovement. They concluded that Chucky's hair looks now "Trent Lotty" and they went to pants without pleats in front being a must - Palmieri again was proud that eventualy got Chucky out of pleats and into a banana republic pair. They said good bye promising each other to meet again and fix the hair on a big Chucky doll.
I had fun ;-)
I just listened to "Unfiltered" wjere they had 2 clueless women guests - some "media specialist" - Sarah Nelson panting after Woodward and jennifer palmiery - Chucky's Karen. After a long discussion on current events (luckily I was on a treadmill, working my frustration) they asked Palmiery about Chucky:
"Will he be VP?" "I hope so" she answered with a teen sigh. "Do you know anything?" "No" "Come on, we are desperate for a scoop here" After that Liz Winstead initiated a long exchange about Chucky's dufus hair - with palmieri agreeing and taking credit for some inprovement. They concluded that Chucky's hair looks now "Trent Lotty" and they went to pants without pleats in front being a must - Palmieri again was proud that eventualy got Chucky out of pleats and into a banana republic pair. They said good bye promising each other to meet again and fix the hair on a big Chucky doll.
I had fun ;-)
Saturday, April 24, 2004
Kerry: I can too be Bush
"We share the same goal of total victory," Kerry declared, addressing
an annual convention of the Newspaper Association of America. "And you
can count on this: No matter who wins the presidential election, the
terrorists will lose."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-636907,curpg-1.cms
"We share the same goal of total victory," Kerry declared, addressing
an annual convention of the Newspaper Association of America. "And you
can count on this: No matter who wins the presidential election, the
terrorists will lose."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-636907,curpg-1.cms
Thursday, April 22, 2004
The only funny part from Begala's appearance on Morning Sedition yesterday:
"Aren't you ever tempted to smack Tucker over the head?"
"Nah, he's such a sensitive guy. he cries during the commercials"
For the rest of the interview though, I was tempted to hit Begala over the head.
Tripi was a guest on Unfiltered. At one point he said: "Only you have the power...blah, blah, blah....it's in the Constitution" Before that he lamented the strategy of both parties of being pessimistic - of presenting the other guy as scary. Unlike Raygun and Clinton - with that beautiful Morning in America.
"Aren't you ever tempted to smack Tucker over the head?"
"Nah, he's such a sensitive guy. he cries during the commercials"
For the rest of the interview though, I was tempted to hit Begala over the head.
Tripi was a guest on Unfiltered. At one point he said: "Only you have the power...blah, blah, blah....it's in the Constitution" Before that he lamented the strategy of both parties of being pessimistic - of presenting the other guy as scary. Unlike Raygun and Clinton - with that beautiful Morning in America.
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Press conference reviews
" 'I was depressed,' said conservative strategist William Kristol,
one of the war's most vocal proponents. 'I am obviously a supporter
of the war, so I don't need to be convinced. But among people who
were doubtful or worried, I don't think he made arguments that would
convince them. He didn't explain how we are going to win there.'"
" 'I was depressed,' said conservative strategist William Kristol,
one of the war's most vocal proponents. 'I am obviously a supporter
of the war, so I don't need to be convinced. But among people who
were doubtful or worried, I don't think he made arguments that would
convince them. He didn't explain how we are going to win there.'"
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
CCN on the press conference
[new] (#58) (No rating)
by KayCeSF on 04/13/2004 09:40:59 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
I hope Noel doesn't mind. I'm reposting all his comments from the last thread re Bush speech!
The Generals will get what they need and have the authority to do what is needed against those who oppose freedom. Some disappointment in Iraqi people. If they need equipment and we will give them what they need.
Next question on false premises of flowers on arrival. A: My thinking going into Iraq. It was a gathering threat and oceans do not protect us. Saddam was a threat because he used WMD against his own people, funded suicide bombers, went to UN either you take care of it or we will. He was prepared to go it alone. People needed to come together. The UN passed a resolution to disarm or pass consequences. He refused to disarm (disarm what? He did not have WMD!) We knew they were hiding things and that was part of our calculations. Saddam had the ability to produce biological and chemical weapons. He was a danger and we dealt with him.
Our revenues are better than we thought they would be. Oil revenues are pretty good. Iraqis are really pleased we got rid of Saddam. A horrible individual. They have been shocked into a fear of expressing liberty and now are happy about occupation. We will stand with them until they become a free country.
Next question: Do you feel any sense of responsibility for 9/11. I feel grieved when I meet with family members for the incredible loss of life. There were things I wish we had done. Like a Homeland Security Department. We need more sharing of information. We were not on a war footing yet the enemy was at war with us. It did not take me long to put us on a war footing. We must go on the offense and stay on the offence (by going to war in Iraq?)
Did not admit personal responsibility, put it off to organizational problems. ~~~~~
Anguished, sick over loss of life in 9/11. Do my best to console family members.
What could I have done differently. OSB was responsible (not ME). I would have done anything I could if I had had any inkling. (Same bullshit)
Answer about allies in coalition. Blah, blah, blah. I'd like to get another security council resolution to get UN to help out more. Blah, blah, blah.
We cannot yeild, we must be steadfast and strong. They want us to leave and we are not going to. We are going to do the job and a free Iraq will change the world.
Stumble, mumble, bumble.
He is talking to reporters like they are kindergarten children.
What? Blames N. Korea on WWII?
My last choice is the use of military power. (WTF?)
Claims Libya as example of his peaceful resolution. Takes credit.
I do not plan to lose my job. I have a plan.
Failed as a communicator? Hard question.
Have you failed in any way to make the case?
The voters will decide. Which one can better win the war on terror. I do not fine tune my message to polls.
Maybe I need to communicate better. Hope you understand my convictions.
THIS IS THE WORSE PRESS CONFERENCE I HAVE EVER HEARD.
Off to class.
[new] (#58) (No rating)
by KayCeSF on 04/13/2004 09:40:59 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
I hope Noel doesn't mind. I'm reposting all his comments from the last thread re Bush speech!
The Generals will get what they need and have the authority to do what is needed against those who oppose freedom. Some disappointment in Iraqi people. If they need equipment and we will give them what they need.
Next question on false premises of flowers on arrival. A: My thinking going into Iraq. It was a gathering threat and oceans do not protect us. Saddam was a threat because he used WMD against his own people, funded suicide bombers, went to UN either you take care of it or we will. He was prepared to go it alone. People needed to come together. The UN passed a resolution to disarm or pass consequences. He refused to disarm (disarm what? He did not have WMD!) We knew they were hiding things and that was part of our calculations. Saddam had the ability to produce biological and chemical weapons. He was a danger and we dealt with him.
Our revenues are better than we thought they would be. Oil revenues are pretty good. Iraqis are really pleased we got rid of Saddam. A horrible individual. They have been shocked into a fear of expressing liberty and now are happy about occupation. We will stand with them until they become a free country.
Next question: Do you feel any sense of responsibility for 9/11. I feel grieved when I meet with family members for the incredible loss of life. There were things I wish we had done. Like a Homeland Security Department. We need more sharing of information. We were not on a war footing yet the enemy was at war with us. It did not take me long to put us on a war footing. We must go on the offense and stay on the offence (by going to war in Iraq?)
Did not admit personal responsibility, put it off to organizational problems. ~~~~~
Anguished, sick over loss of life in 9/11. Do my best to console family members.
What could I have done differently. OSB was responsible (not ME). I would have done anything I could if I had had any inkling. (Same bullshit)
Answer about allies in coalition. Blah, blah, blah. I'd like to get another security council resolution to get UN to help out more. Blah, blah, blah.
We cannot yeild, we must be steadfast and strong. They want us to leave and we are not going to. We are going to do the job and a free Iraq will change the world.
Stumble, mumble, bumble.
He is talking to reporters like they are kindergarten children.
What? Blames N. Korea on WWII?
|
People say that those with brown skin cannot be free? What? Stumble, mumble, bumble. No PLAN. It is being worked out. Why meet together with Cheney. No answer, just looking forward to sharing our views.... THIS IS TERRIBLE. Got to go to class and give a mid-term. I am sure I will miss nothing. |
My last choice is the use of military power. (WTF?)
Claims Libya as example of his peaceful resolution. Takes credit.
I do not plan to lose my job. I have a plan.
Failed as a communicator? Hard question.
Have you failed in any way to make the case?
The voters will decide. Which one can better win the war on terror. I do not fine tune my message to polls.
Maybe I need to communicate better. Hope you understand my convictions.
THIS IS THE WORSE PRESS CONFERENCE I HAVE EVER HEARD.
Off to class.
Monday, April 12, 2004
Amen!
[new] (#176) (Rated 5.00/2)
by Anonymous on 04/12/2004 02:29:15 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Hi friends
Quick note...been very busy these days with the li'l one.
Mom had an unplanned C-section...she's in horrible pain and is sick about the scar and things related. She's doing better day by day. The baby's head was tilted and not in the canal and his heart-rate dropped with contractions...my wife wouldn't dialate past 8 centimeters. The baby is healthy and awesome. He weighed 8lbs 5oz
Do you believe in signs?
Our son was born April 4th, 2004
My little Clarkie was born on 04-04-04...not kidding.
I swear I thought about Clark and the Clarkies and the significance of the #4...it was cute and awesome and A little thing I will cherish and mention as he grows up.
Talk about a Little Clark Democrat to be! I can only hope there will be a Dem candidate like Wes in his long Democratic future.
I miss you guys...I'll post a pic soon.
My infant says Kerry/Clark 04-04-04!
Ranier's growing Clark Army
[new] (#176) (Rated 5.00/2)
by Anonymous on 04/12/2004 02:29:15 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Hi friends
Quick note...been very busy these days with the li'l one.
Mom had an unplanned C-section...she's in horrible pain and is sick about the scar and things related. She's doing better day by day. The baby's head was tilted and not in the canal and his heart-rate dropped with contractions...my wife wouldn't dialate past 8 centimeters. The baby is healthy and awesome. He weighed 8lbs 5oz
Do you believe in signs?
Our son was born April 4th, 2004
My little Clarkie was born on 04-04-04...not kidding.
I swear I thought about Clark and the Clarkies and the significance of the #4...it was cute and awesome and A little thing I will cherish and mention as he grows up.
Talk about a Little Clark Democrat to be! I can only hope there will be a Dem candidate like Wes in his long Democratic future.
I miss you guys...I'll post a pic soon.
My infant says Kerry/Clark 04-04-04!
Ranier's growing Clark Army
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4685593 /
SCARBOROUGH: I want to play you something that Secretary of State Colin Powell said today regarding Ted Kennedy.
Actually, I‘ll just quote it for you. He said: “Senator Kennedy should be a little more careful and a little more restrained in his comments because we‘re a nation at war.”
And, of course, he was referencing the Vietnam quote, where he compared Iraq to Vietnam. I wanted to ask you, because there are a lot of Americans out there that are going to saying, gee, this is exactly what happened during Vietnam. You had American troops on the ground. You had politicians back at home saying things that seemed to play into our enemies‘ hands. I know Senator Ted Kennedy. I know his family. I‘m not saying here—saying that he‘s un-American. I‘m not saying that he doesn‘t want America to succeed.
But can‘t you agree with me as somebody that had to hear politicians in America shoot their mouth off while you were fighting the war over there that that was irresponsible for him to say yesterday, and he may have been playing into some of these people‘s hands?
(CROSSTALK)
CLARK: No. No, I don‘t think so, Joe.
I think the men and women in the armed forces, I hope they understand they‘re fighting for our freedom and our rights. And the Iraq war and the president‘s conduct of foreign policy is a legitimate political issue. He‘s running for reelection. He wants the American people to endorse him and his judgment. Well, he took us to a war we didn‘t really have to fight without our allies, without enough troops on the ground, without any plan for what we‘re going to do after we got to Baghdad.
Look at what‘s happening now. Of course, it‘s a legitimate political issue. That‘s no disrespect to the men and women in uniform. They‘ve done a brilliant job. I‘ve know most of the generals over there. I love them. I‘ve served with them. I know a lot of the soldiers. I hear from them periodically. They believe in the mission. And we want them to.
But that‘s the military side. This country and every citizen has a responsibility to participate at least by voting in the political process. And the judgment of the president of the United States is one of the issues in this election, and Ted Kennedy is fully within his rights. He‘s not giving aid and comfort to the enemy. He‘s calling it like he sees it, and he‘s a patriot.
SCARBOROUGH: I want to play you something that Secretary of State Colin Powell said today regarding Ted Kennedy.
Actually, I‘ll just quote it for you. He said: “Senator Kennedy should be a little more careful and a little more restrained in his comments because we‘re a nation at war.”
And, of course, he was referencing the Vietnam quote, where he compared Iraq to Vietnam. I wanted to ask you, because there are a lot of Americans out there that are going to saying, gee, this is exactly what happened during Vietnam. You had American troops on the ground. You had politicians back at home saying things that seemed to play into our enemies‘ hands. I know Senator Ted Kennedy. I know his family. I‘m not saying here—saying that he‘s un-American. I‘m not saying that he doesn‘t want America to succeed.
But can‘t you agree with me as somebody that had to hear politicians in America shoot their mouth off while you were fighting the war over there that that was irresponsible for him to say yesterday, and he may have been playing into some of these people‘s hands?
(CROSSTALK)
CLARK: No. No, I don‘t think so, Joe.
I think the men and women in the armed forces, I hope they understand they‘re fighting for our freedom and our rights. And the Iraq war and the president‘s conduct of foreign policy is a legitimate political issue. He‘s running for reelection. He wants the American people to endorse him and his judgment. Well, he took us to a war we didn‘t really have to fight without our allies, without enough troops on the ground, without any plan for what we‘re going to do after we got to Baghdad.
Look at what‘s happening now. Of course, it‘s a legitimate political issue. That‘s no disrespect to the men and women in uniform. They‘ve done a brilliant job. I‘ve know most of the generals over there. I love them. I‘ve served with them. I know a lot of the soldiers. I hear from them periodically. They believe in the mission. And we want them to.
But that‘s the military side. This country and every citizen has a responsibility to participate at least by voting in the political process. And the judgment of the president of the United States is one of the issues in this election, and Ted Kennedy is fully within his rights. He‘s not giving aid and comfort to the enemy. He‘s calling it like he sees it, and he‘s a patriot.
[new] (#267) (No rating)
by cate (cate at forclark dot com) on 04/07/2004 01:59:20 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
T
Completely agree on your post. To tell you the truth, as a long-time political junkie I find I am much more interested in the latest slew of books and TV appearances by Clarke, Clark and John Dean, not mention great C-Span coverage of 9/11 commision and other sundry committee hearings. No where in my current viewings and reading do I hear John Kerry's voice or plan. No where!!
I do not think there is a media blackout on Kerry. I just don't think the man is responding to news of the day.
Where IS his plan to deal with Iraq? In light of the obvious flaws in Bush competency to deal with homeland security and islamic extremists, what will John Kerry do differently? I think Kerry is missing a great opportunity to show some vision and change minds.
by cate (cate at forclark dot com) on 04/07/2004 01:59:20 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
T
Completely agree on your post. To tell you the truth, as a long-time political junkie I find I am much more interested in the latest slew of books and TV appearances by Clarke, Clark and John Dean, not mention great C-Span coverage of 9/11 commision and other sundry committee hearings. No where in my current viewings and reading do I hear John Kerry's voice or plan. No where!!
I do not think there is a media blackout on Kerry. I just don't think the man is responding to news of the day.
Where IS his plan to deal with Iraq? In light of the obvious flaws in Bush competency to deal with homeland security and islamic extremists, what will John Kerry do differently? I think Kerry is missing a great opportunity to show some vision and change minds.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
upcoming website
wesleykclark.com
Registrant:
Wesley K Clark & Associates (HGYWFCTUAD)
1120 North Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
US
Domain Name: WESLEYKCLARK.COM
Administrative Contact:
Wesley K Clark & Associates (XUBPNXANQO) marknichols@mindspring.com
1120 North Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
US
501-975-7777
Technical Contact:
Network Solutions, LLC. (HOST-ORG) customerservice@networksolutions.com
13200 Woodland Park Drive
Herndon, VA 20171-3025
US
1-888-642-9675 fax: 571-434-4620
Record expires on 23-Feb-2006.
Record created on 23-Feb-2003.
Database last updated on 6-Apr-2004 09:12:06 EDT.
wesleykclark.com
Registrant:
Wesley K Clark & Associates (HGYWFCTUAD)
1120 North Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
US
Domain Name: WESLEYKCLARK.COM
Administrative Contact:
Wesley K Clark & Associates (XUBPNXANQO) marknichols@mindspring.com
1120 North Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
US
501-975-7777
Technical Contact:
Network Solutions, LLC. (HOST-ORG) customerservice@networksolutions.com
13200 Woodland Park Drive
Herndon, VA 20171-3025
US
1-888-642-9675 fax: 571-434-4620
Record expires on 23-Feb-2006.
Record created on 23-Feb-2003.
Database last updated on 6-Apr-2004 09:12:06 EDT.
Monday, April 05, 2004
From: "Larry" Add to Address Book
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 17:46:15 -0000
Subject: [clarkactionteam] Need quotes for Wes Clark's new website
Hi everyone,
We are helping to pull together a new website featuring Wes Clark's
new plans. One section has a few quotes from Clark supporters. I
wanted to ask members of CAT to submit some short quotes for the new
site.
The quote can be about why you support Wes Clark, a reaction to a TV
appearance, your experience when you met him at an event, etc.
Submit as many as you like. The quotes on the site will rotate over
time, and we'd love to feature as many supporters, as possible.
Just email them to me at larry@clark04.com . Please also include in
your email with the quotes explicit permission for the new Wesley
Clark website to use the quote online.
Feel free to write me if you have any additional questions, as well.
Thanks for your help,
Larry
Signs of life.
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 17:46:15 -0000
Subject: [clarkactionteam] Need quotes for Wes Clark's new website
Hi everyone,
We are helping to pull together a new website featuring Wes Clark's
new plans. One section has a few quotes from Clark supporters. I
wanted to ask members of CAT to submit some short quotes for the new
site.
The quote can be about why you support Wes Clark, a reaction to a TV
appearance, your experience when you met him at an event, etc.
Submit as many as you like. The quotes on the site will rotate over
time, and we'd love to feature as many supporters, as possible.
Just email them to me at larry@clark04.com . Please also include in
your email with the quotes explicit permission for the new Wesley
Clark website to use the quote online.
Feel free to write me if you have any additional questions, as well.
Thanks for your help,
Larry
Signs of life.
Sunday, April 04, 2004
americanstranger (1000+ posts) Sun Apr-04-04 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. The Short version:
Daily Kos posted about mercenaries killed in Fallujah last week. He ended his post with the phrase 'Screw 'em.'
Wingers took offense. a couple of rightard blogs started a targeted email campaign to get ads pulled off of Kos' site.
Kerry relented and pulled ads and de-linked the site - despite Kos being one of the heaviest hitters on the web in terms of raising campaign cash for Kerry.
Which I think is about the stupidest thing they could have done. They've set a precedent that if the Right whines loudly enough, they'll cut whoever they're whining about loose.
Hope this explains some of it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1342343&mesg_id=1343320&page=
Response to Reply #39
40. The Short version:
Daily Kos posted about mercenaries killed in Fallujah last week. He ended his post with the phrase 'Screw 'em.'
Wingers took offense. a couple of rightard blogs started a targeted email campaign to get ads pulled off of Kos' site.
Kerry relented and pulled ads and de-linked the site - despite Kos being one of the heaviest hitters on the web in terms of raising campaign cash for Kerry.
Which I think is about the stupidest thing they could have done. They've set a precedent that if the Right whines loudly enough, they'll cut whoever they're whining about loose.
Hope this explains some of it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1342343&mesg_id=1343320&page=
(#140) (No rating)
by Donna Z on 04/04/2004 08:20:50 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
I was at Kent State on May 4,1970.
I live in the woods 60 miles from the Canadian border. Actually many Kent Staters live near me, and we've remained a close knit group.
Some observations: they have all the guns that count, and the Army will shot at its citizens. Here's a strange story: On May Fourth my live-with boy friend, wearing a yellow shirt, was developing pictures in the photo lab which overlooked the field where the demonstrations took place. When he left the lab to watch, his camera was freshly loaded, and he shot off the roll capturing the disputed "order to fire" into the crowd. (there was always a question about this during the trial)
He hid the negatives in his mother's freezer, but nearly everyday our neighborhood was visited by strange guys unwilling to indentify themselves. Everyday. "Did anyone know someone with a yellow shirt?"
They never found my guy's negatives, although my friends who had taken their film from the day for commercial processing, never got them back. Instead, unknown two year old's birthday party pix were in the envelope.
I know that Wesley Clark chose to make the Army career. One astonishing quality of Wesley Clark is that he understands that all of us who lived through that period are united by a common thread: belief in our country and a devotion to its Constitution. And so I campaigned for a General who spoke for me.
by Donna Z on 04/04/2004 08:20:50 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
I was at Kent State on May 4,1970.
I live in the woods 60 miles from the Canadian border. Actually many Kent Staters live near me, and we've remained a close knit group.
Some observations: they have all the guns that count, and the Army will shot at its citizens. Here's a strange story: On May Fourth my live-with boy friend, wearing a yellow shirt, was developing pictures in the photo lab which overlooked the field where the demonstrations took place. When he left the lab to watch, his camera was freshly loaded, and he shot off the roll capturing the disputed "order to fire" into the crowd. (there was always a question about this during the trial)
He hid the negatives in his mother's freezer, but nearly everyday our neighborhood was visited by strange guys unwilling to indentify themselves. Everyday. "Did anyone know someone with a yellow shirt?"
They never found my guy's negatives, although my friends who had taken their film from the day for commercial processing, never got them back. Instead, unknown two year old's birthday party pix were in the envelope.
I know that Wesley Clark chose to make the Army career. One astonishing quality of Wesley Clark is that he understands that all of us who lived through that period are united by a common thread: belief in our country and a devotion to its Constitution. And so I campaigned for a General who spoke for me.
in Kirkuk.
Many more wounded. Upwards of 40 perhaps, though the reports are mixed. And, as we know "wounded" mostly means missing limbs or head injury. I think it's an appropriate time to honor a true American patriot, Cher, by remembering her phone call to Cspan.
Atrios on kerry de-linking
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_04_04_atrios_archive.html#108110402749163310
Some Changes
Recent events have made me rethink the way we do things around here. I think it's time for a few policy changes.
I've been doing this blog for almost two years. I've never, as far as I can remember, deleted a post, except for maybe a couple that I pulled down after being up less than a couple of minutes when I realized I'd gotten something totally wrong. Archived here and always searchable through Google are a lot of things I've written. I make frequent use of four letter words. At various times I've been accused of being homophobic, racist, anti-religion, anti-Semitic. I've regularly been lambasted for failing to be Patriotically Correct for not expressing the legislated degree of sympathy and/or outrage over whatever it is I'm supposed to be upset or outraged about that day. I've written some stupid things. I've expressed plenty of things in a too-sloppy fashion. And, hey, I'm sure sometimes I've just been dead wrong. I also have a mostly unmoderated comments section which is, uh, rather "lively." The point is there's plenty of ammunition out there.
I thought we were all grownups now. Years later, I thought we'd all figured out sort of how this magic new gizmo called the internet worked. I thought we all understood that a linking to website does not hold you responsible for all of the content there. I thought we understood that an ad placed on a media outlet - including blogs and other websites - was not an implicit endorsement of all of the content found on those sites. That isn't to say that there's no association between linker and linkee, or between advertiser and the content on a media outlet, but it's a fairly loose one. Meaning that it's reasonable to associate an advertiser with the overall tone and content of their chosen outlet, without making them responsible for every single word uttered.
I'm an activist. Right now I want the Democrats to take back at least one branch of government. For awhile it seemed that some complementarity between the independent "netroots" and campaigns and other organizations would serve everybody well. But, if these people are unable to find a way to not let themselves be tarred-by-association by anything I write, then these relationships just aren't helpful. And, from my perspective I don't want to worry about what I write for fear it's going to get a candidate in trouble simply because they posted up an ad on my website.
People can advertise with or not, and link to or not, any blog they want. But, if we haven't grown up enough to realize that one stupid retracted comment posted by a blogger in the comments section of someone else's diary post on that blog deserves absolutely no official written response by a campaign - no matter how offensive it is - then I don't think we're grown up enough yet to have blog/campaign complementarity. The Kerry campaign is now operating on the standard that they are responsible for the comments made by any blogger they link to, and in fact will allow themselves to be forced into commenting on any transgressions. They're trying to get their guy elected, and they're going to do what they think is necessary (I'll let others judge the wisdom), but it shows they're not ready to really have a blog and interact with the rest of the blog world. They should just pull down all their links.
So, here are the changes. First, I'm going to pull all my "special fundraising relationships." By that I mean dedicated donation pages or links which track donations from this site. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying to help candidates raise money, or make suggestions about where your money might be well-spent, but I will stop "taking credit" in any official way. Second, I'm going to stop taking any new ads from individual candidates. I'll still take ads from organizations, as they're probably "diffuse" enough to avoid this kind of controversy. Third, I'm going to request the Kerry campaign take down my link. I don't want to be a part of the next "Kerry controversy of the week."
Obviously, this is going to make doing this much less fun and possibly much less lucrative, but right now I think it's the appropriate thing to do. Dick Cheney goes on the Rush Limbaugh show, all politicians regularly chat with Don Imus and Mike Barnicle, and no one's demanding that they distance themselves from every single utterance they make or, for the most part, demanding they stop appearing with them. Brit Hume and others on the right regularly trivialize the deaths of soldiers in Iraq by (incorrectly) comparing their deaths with domestic crime rates, traffic accidents, etc... But, for some reason there are still different standards for this crazy thing called the internet - and once again we've proven that the Right can create a controversy out of nothing, and sadly much of the Left piles on with them. And, once again we've demonstrated there are different standards for Left and Right - a certain prominent blogger has mocked the deaths of UN workers in Iraq, called for collective punishment for Palestinians, and nudge-nudge wink-wink endorsed terrorism against Europeans. No advertisers yet pulled as far as I can tell.
Anyway, I may change my mind about all of this at some future date. But, we'll be playing this game once per week until November unless people wise up. I'd hope that eventually our team will realize that once they cave into the Right's fake outrage-of-the-week, they'll just keep coming back, but until they do....
Matt Stoller has more.
...Talk Left has more, though I don't think Jeralyn should fall for Instapundit's plausible deniability schtick...
...one more thing - I don't think people should be angry at John Kerry about this. I truly hope that Kerry has better things to do than make decisions like this, and I doubt he's even heard of this little brouhaha.
-Atrios 2:40 PM
Many more wounded. Upwards of 40 perhaps, though the reports are mixed. And, as we know "wounded" mostly means missing limbs or head injury. I think it's an appropriate time to honor a true American patriot, Cher, by remembering her phone call to Cspan.
Atrios on kerry de-linking
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_04_04_atrios_archive.html#108110402749163310
Some Changes
Recent events have made me rethink the way we do things around here. I think it's time for a few policy changes.
I've been doing this blog for almost two years. I've never, as far as I can remember, deleted a post, except for maybe a couple that I pulled down after being up less than a couple of minutes when I realized I'd gotten something totally wrong. Archived here and always searchable through Google are a lot of things I've written. I make frequent use of four letter words. At various times I've been accused of being homophobic, racist, anti-religion, anti-Semitic. I've regularly been lambasted for failing to be Patriotically Correct for not expressing the legislated degree of sympathy and/or outrage over whatever it is I'm supposed to be upset or outraged about that day. I've written some stupid things. I've expressed plenty of things in a too-sloppy fashion. And, hey, I'm sure sometimes I've just been dead wrong. I also have a mostly unmoderated comments section which is, uh, rather "lively." The point is there's plenty of ammunition out there.
I thought we were all grownups now. Years later, I thought we'd all figured out sort of how this magic new gizmo called the internet worked. I thought we all understood that a linking to website does not hold you responsible for all of the content there. I thought we understood that an ad placed on a media outlet - including blogs and other websites - was not an implicit endorsement of all of the content found on those sites. That isn't to say that there's no association between linker and linkee, or between advertiser and the content on a media outlet, but it's a fairly loose one. Meaning that it's reasonable to associate an advertiser with the overall tone and content of their chosen outlet, without making them responsible for every single word uttered.
I'm an activist. Right now I want the Democrats to take back at least one branch of government. For awhile it seemed that some complementarity between the independent "netroots" and campaigns and other organizations would serve everybody well. But, if these people are unable to find a way to not let themselves be tarred-by-association by anything I write, then these relationships just aren't helpful. And, from my perspective I don't want to worry about what I write for fear it's going to get a candidate in trouble simply because they posted up an ad on my website.
People can advertise with or not, and link to or not, any blog they want. But, if we haven't grown up enough to realize that one stupid retracted comment posted by a blogger in the comments section of someone else's diary post on that blog deserves absolutely no official written response by a campaign - no matter how offensive it is - then I don't think we're grown up enough yet to have blog/campaign complementarity. The Kerry campaign is now operating on the standard that they are responsible for the comments made by any blogger they link to, and in fact will allow themselves to be forced into commenting on any transgressions. They're trying to get their guy elected, and they're going to do what they think is necessary (I'll let others judge the wisdom), but it shows they're not ready to really have a blog and interact with the rest of the blog world. They should just pull down all their links.
So, here are the changes. First, I'm going to pull all my "special fundraising relationships." By that I mean dedicated donation pages or links which track donations from this site. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying to help candidates raise money, or make suggestions about where your money might be well-spent, but I will stop "taking credit" in any official way. Second, I'm going to stop taking any new ads from individual candidates. I'll still take ads from organizations, as they're probably "diffuse" enough to avoid this kind of controversy. Third, I'm going to request the Kerry campaign take down my link. I don't want to be a part of the next "Kerry controversy of the week."
Obviously, this is going to make doing this much less fun and possibly much less lucrative, but right now I think it's the appropriate thing to do. Dick Cheney goes on the Rush Limbaugh show, all politicians regularly chat with Don Imus and Mike Barnicle, and no one's demanding that they distance themselves from every single utterance they make or, for the most part, demanding they stop appearing with them. Brit Hume and others on the right regularly trivialize the deaths of soldiers in Iraq by (incorrectly) comparing their deaths with domestic crime rates, traffic accidents, etc... But, for some reason there are still different standards for this crazy thing called the internet - and once again we've proven that the Right can create a controversy out of nothing, and sadly much of the Left piles on with them. And, once again we've demonstrated there are different standards for Left and Right - a certain prominent blogger has mocked the deaths of UN workers in Iraq, called for collective punishment for Palestinians, and nudge-nudge wink-wink endorsed terrorism against Europeans. No advertisers yet pulled as far as I can tell.
Anyway, I may change my mind about all of this at some future date. But, we'll be playing this game once per week until November unless people wise up. I'd hope that eventually our team will realize that once they cave into the Right's fake outrage-of-the-week, they'll just keep coming back, but until they do....
Matt Stoller has more.
...Talk Left has more, though I don't think Jeralyn should fall for Instapundit's plausible deniability schtick...
...one more thing - I don't think people should be angry at John Kerry about this. I truly hope that Kerry has better things to do than make decisions like this, and I doubt he's even heard of this little brouhaha.
-Atrios 2:40 PM
[new] (#292) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Lara (Lara at forclark dot com) on 04/04/2004 04:45:13 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
Yep, Arky,
Two Deans: Howard and John.
Two Clark(e)s: Wes and Richard.
Two Kerr(e)y's: John and Bob
Thank God there aren't two Edwards', one is enough - but, as if to torture us, there are four Bush's: George H.W., Shrub, Jeb and Neil. :o(
by Lara (Lara at forclark dot com) on 04/04/2004 04:45:13 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
Yep, Arky,
Two Deans: Howard and John.
Two Clark(e)s: Wes and Richard.
Two Kerr(e)y's: John and Bob
Thank God there aren't two Edwards', one is enough - but, as if to torture us, there are four Bush's: George H.W., Shrub, Jeb and Neil. :o(
(#186) (No rating)
The kos controversy
Kerry blog de-links Kos because the controversial comments on the mercenaries killed in Faluja
http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/001494.html#001494
Included in the thread - Kos's comment is linked
I know Kos has been bad to us, but this is a bad move.
My contribution on the DU thread:
Sun Apr-04-04 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
65. Kos has been bad to the Clark movement for all the wrong reasons
(got tired to wait). So, I have no great love for the thing - nor do I agree with the over the top part of his statement.
That being said, Kos still represents the voices of a lot of democrats - who are not all going to lockstep. By cutting this off, kerry shows that he's rather silence his base than confront his attackers. Last guy who did that was Al Gore. And while he did win, he wasn't supported during the coup by the people he ignored. I suggest mr kerry use his repeated times off to reflect whose side he is on.
I don't remember Wes Clark denouncing Michael More when the AWOL issue was thrown at him (No one defended Clark on the Jenings/RNc attacks - but somehow, kerry cane out of it smelling like a rose). I am seing a repeat of this with Kos.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=133 9820&mesg_id=1341700
The kos controversy
Kerry blog de-links Kos because the controversial comments on the mercenaries killed in Faluja
http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/001494.html#001494
Included in the thread - Kos's comment is linked
I know Kos has been bad to us, but this is a bad move.
My contribution on the DU thread:
Sun Apr-04-04 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
65. Kos has been bad to the Clark movement for all the wrong reasons
(got tired to wait). So, I have no great love for the thing - nor do I agree with the over the top part of his statement.
That being said, Kos still represents the voices of a lot of democrats - who are not all going to lockstep. By cutting this off, kerry shows that he's rather silence his base than confront his attackers. Last guy who did that was Al Gore. And while he did win, he wasn't supported during the coup by the people he ignored. I suggest mr kerry use his repeated times off to reflect whose side he is on.
I don't remember Wes Clark denouncing Michael More when the AWOL issue was thrown at him (No one defended Clark on the Jenings/RNc attacks - but somehow, kerry cane out of it smelling like a rose). I am seing a repeat of this with Kos.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=133 9820&mesg_id=1341700
On Karen Hughes
She puts the "Awww" in Rove's murder plans - makes them look fuzzy
and warm - she is the blossom in the turd blossom - hard to decide which of the two is more despicable. Karl kills, Karen one chops the boddy in little pieces, puts toothpicks in them and seves them as hors d'oeuvres. With a smile.
She puts the "Awww" in Rove's murder plans - makes them look fuzzy
and warm - she is the blossom in the turd blossom - hard to decide which of the two is more despicable. Karl kills, Karen one chops the boddy in little pieces, puts toothpicks in them and seves them as hors d'oeuvres. With a smile.
http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage2.asp
`If you want to see our firepower, put Edwards on the ticket.'--Laura Ross, a fund-raiser for Senator John Edwards
Edwards Donors Begging Kerry: Hire John-Boy
by Lizzy Ratner
snip
"I don't think the Clark fund-raisers are doing this," said Mark Benoit, who ran Wesley Clark's New York State campaign. "I mean, they're all working for Kerry."
`If you want to see our firepower, put Edwards on the ticket.'--Laura Ross, a fund-raiser for Senator John Edwards
Edwards Donors Begging Kerry: Hire John-Boy
by Lizzy Ratner
snip
"I don't think the Clark fund-raisers are doing this," said Mark Benoit, who ran Wesley Clark's New York State campaign. "I mean, they're all working for Kerry."
EMAN51
Joined: 09 Nov 2003
Posts: 18
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2004 12:53 am Post subject: Thanks for Peace and Serenity on the 405 Commute
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I drove to work without a strong desire to rearend the car ahead of me after another Bill O'Lielly hypocritical comment. I was calm and serene as I exited the freeway, unlike after an hour and a half of Limbaughisms. There were no new finger marks in the steering wheel after another republican talking point uttered by Hannity. My blood pressure was normal when I arrived home with no strong urge to kick the dog as I didn't have to hear Larry Elder act as a shill for the Bushies, or Michael Scavenger as a raving lunatic. Thank God for Air America, restoring a sense of reason on the talk radio airways. I will, however, occasionally tune in to the other stations simply to percolate the adrenaline on those days in which it is needed and I can't find a Starbucks. Keep up the good work.Back to top
Joined: 09 Nov 2003
Posts: 18
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2004 12:53 am Post subject: Thanks for Peace and Serenity on the 405 Commute
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I drove to work without a strong desire to rearend the car ahead of me after another Bill O'Lielly hypocritical comment. I was calm and serene as I exited the freeway, unlike after an hour and a half of Limbaughisms. There were no new finger marks in the steering wheel after another republican talking point uttered by Hannity. My blood pressure was normal when I arrived home with no strong urge to kick the dog as I didn't have to hear Larry Elder act as a shill for the Bushies, or Michael Scavenger as a raving lunatic. Thank God for Air America, restoring a sense of reason on the talk radio airways. I will, however, occasionally tune in to the other stations simply to percolate the adrenaline on those days in which it is needed and I can't find a Starbucks. Keep up the good work.Back to top
Saturday, April 03, 2004
ON POWELL ADMITTING HE WAS UNSURE ABOUT THE TRAIERS OF MASS DESTRUCTION:
Question is: why now? he knew it was a lie all along - why speak now?
Rat jumping a sinking ship? The Clarke effect? What's the point of this?
there was an AP story last year - long piece DOCUMENTING all Powell's lies at the UN (not just the trailers). We know he said in 2001 "Saddam has nothing" and before UN "I can't go with this crap".
SO WHY SPEAK UP NOW?
Question is: why now? he knew it was a lie all along - why speak now?
Rat jumping a sinking ship? The Clarke effect? What's the point of this?
there was an AP story last year - long piece DOCUMENTING all Powell's lies at the UN (not just the trailers). We know he said in 2001 "Saddam has nothing" and before UN "I can't go with this crap".
SO WHY SPEAK UP NOW?
FlaGranny (1000+ posts) Sat Apr-03-04 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
29. khephra, I agreed with your criticismEdited on Sat Apr-03-04 10:36 PM by FlaGranny
yesterday(?). I feel the same way about RR, but absolutely love her anyway. The criticism is justified, I guess, but she acts no different for a national audience than she did in WPB, where she did just fine with ratings. She changed nothing, she is just she, as you know because you've been listening for a while. Whatever she has, it works.
What most people here don't know is that there would probably have been no AA without RR. She's the one who went to Washington, talked to the right people, and convinced them that a liberal network would work. She convinced them people would listen and she proved it to them with her own success in this WPB market.
Edit: Her friendship with Bob Graham, Bob Wexler, and others, I am certain helped.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1339874#
39. Yes, she made multiple trips to
Washington talking this idea up. She doesn't get much credit because she's relatively unknown (compared to Frankin, etc.). Clear Channel, because of the threats of Limbaugh, has not allowed her syndication. It is telling that Clear Channel still broadcasts her locally in WPB - she earns them MONEY!
Response to Original message
29. khephra, I agreed with your criticismEdited on Sat Apr-03-04 10:36 PM by FlaGranny
yesterday(?). I feel the same way about RR, but absolutely love her anyway. The criticism is justified, I guess, but she acts no different for a national audience than she did in WPB, where she did just fine with ratings. She changed nothing, she is just she, as you know because you've been listening for a while. Whatever she has, it works.
What most people here don't know is that there would probably have been no AA without RR. She's the one who went to Washington, talked to the right people, and convinced them that a liberal network would work. She convinced them people would listen and she proved it to them with her own success in this WPB market.
Edit: Her friendship with Bob Graham, Bob Wexler, and others, I am certain helped.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1339874#
39. Yes, she made multiple trips to
Washington talking this idea up. She doesn't get much credit because she's relatively unknown (compared to Frankin, etc.). Clear Channel, because of the threats of Limbaugh, has not allowed her syndication. It is telling that Clear Channel still broadcasts her locally in WPB - she earns them MONEY!
(#124) (No rating)
by The bug on 04/03/2004 07:30:40 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
This may not be the definitive source on Holbrooke saying he has right of first refusal on Sec. of State but it says, "Secretary of State: Holbrooke says Holbrooke is the leading candidate."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0%2C14259%2C1165744%2C00.html
No mention of Wes, of course.
by The bug on 04/03/2004 07:30:40 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
This may not be the definitive source on Holbrooke saying he has right of first refusal on Sec. of State but it says, "Secretary of State: Holbrooke says Holbrooke is the leading candidate."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0%2C14259%2C1165744%2C00.html
No mention of Wes, of course.
(#71) (Rated 5.00/2)
by The bug on 04/03/2004 06:19:01 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
Yeah. I feel terrible asking him too.
But if Wes is the VP candidate, he better have both Clintons, Gore, Kennedy, Terry McAuliffe, and all of the other democratic heavy-hitters out there daily defending him like their lives depended on it! This time they better come through. This time it better be different!
by The bug on 04/03/2004 06:19:01 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
Yeah. I feel terrible asking him too.
But if Wes is the VP candidate, he better have both Clintons, Gore, Kennedy, Terry McAuliffe, and all of the other democratic heavy-hitters out there daily defending him like their lives depended on it! This time they better come through. This time it better be different!
(#98) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Lara (Lara at forclark dot com) on 04/03/2004 06:42:44 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
Becky,
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/113.html
There is a Secretary of Defense, who is the head of the Department of Defense, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within 10 years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.
by Lara (Lara at forclark dot com) on 04/03/2004 06:42:44 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
Becky,
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/113.html
There is a Secretary of Defense, who is the head of the Department of Defense, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within 10 years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.
Friday, April 02, 2004
Democrats.com:
__Rev. Moon: 'Homo Marriage' is Driving Me Out of the Country Until 2012
John Gorenfeld writes, "The last time Moon said he was giving up on America, taking his ball, and going home was 1992. That was when the defeat of Bush Sr. soured his feelings for a country he henceforth denounced as 'Satan's harvest.' This weekend, he's announced he's jetting -- while rolling back the date of completion for his Taliban-esque 'Fatherland' to a Blade Runner-ish 2012. Is he envisioning a two-term John Kerry presidency as a long time out for Moonie access to the White House? From a Mar. 24 appearance of conservative media mogul Sun Myung Moon, the following disjointed ideas: 'True Father spent 34 years here in America to guide this country in the right way. Yesterday was the turning point. Now I'm going back to Korea.<...> Thirty years ago, Christianity agreed with Father how to save the world. Now it's right I received the crown...<...> The reality is, if America doesn't follow heavenly ideals, it will perish. Homo marriage abuses blood lineage.'"
http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog//2004_03_01_barchive.html#108058582479563548
Thursday, April 01, 2004
It's Brian from I Stand For, we're doing the AAR website.
We're so sorry things have been buggy, nobody could have anticipated the response we have received.
We've broken records people... We are Real Audio's #1 stream. We were at 50,000 streams during Al's show around 2:00 EST. We got 350,000 unique visitors from 8:00 last night to 2 this afternoon. That puts us on pace to be a top 50 site...on the entire web. We're talking Bank of America, Dell Computers numbers.
You guys are awesome, this is amazing and we're so proud to be a part of it.
I assure you were working round the clock to bring you the best community website possible. Were getting new servers set up to handle the incredible response. Next week we'll be rolling out new functionality: membership, blogs, newsletters, and in a little bit, audio archives for all the shows.
So keep keeping on! We can do it. It's time to show everyone that we love America as much as anybody, and were not gonna sit by and watch George Bush poop in our porridge anymore.
LIBERALS RULE!
-b
Posted by brian at April 1, 2004 09:36 PM
http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/
We're so sorry things have been buggy, nobody could have anticipated the response we have received.
We've broken records people... We are Real Audio's #1 stream. We were at 50,000 streams during Al's show around 2:00 EST. We got 350,000 unique visitors from 8:00 last night to 2 this afternoon. That puts us on pace to be a top 50 site...on the entire web. We're talking Bank of America, Dell Computers numbers.
You guys are awesome, this is amazing and we're so proud to be a part of it.
I assure you were working round the clock to bring you the best community website possible. Were getting new servers set up to handle the incredible response. Next week we'll be rolling out new functionality: membership, blogs, newsletters, and in a little bit, audio archives for all the shows.
So keep keeping on! We can do it. It's time to show everyone that we love America as much as anybody, and were not gonna sit by and watch George Bush poop in our porridge anymore.
LIBERALS RULE!
-b
Posted by brian at April 1, 2004 09:36 PM
http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/
Liars
Anyone actually believe this BS from CNN?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40808-2004Mar31.html
Two comedy bits later, Letterman read one of his trademark cards that he's always fiddling with, and started to laugh: "God almighty, my life just gets more and more complicated. You know, just a minute ago . . . I was ranting and raving about the White House. According to this, CNN has just phoned and, according to this information, the anchorwoman misspoke, they never got a comment from the White House. It was a CNN mistake.
"What good does that do me? . . . I've already now called them liars. I think from now on we're going to have to start looking into things," Letterman said.
"Why start now?" his bandleader Paul Shaffer said.
"Because everything was fine, except now I've called the White House liars, and you know what that means -- they're going to start looking into my taxes!"
A CNN spokeswoman told The TV Column yesterday that the network notified Letterman's show at 5 p.m. that CNN had been incorrect in attributing the suggestion of video-doctoring to the White House. Letterman's show is taped at 5:30 p.m.
"It was their choice to continue to air it," the spokeswoman said, adding that the problem had arisen due to "a misunderstanding among staff," but would not elaborate.
Anyone actually believe this BS from CNN?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40808-2004Mar31.html
Two comedy bits later, Letterman read one of his trademark cards that he's always fiddling with, and started to laugh: "God almighty, my life just gets more and more complicated. You know, just a minute ago . . . I was ranting and raving about the White House. According to this, CNN has just phoned and, according to this information, the anchorwoman misspoke, they never got a comment from the White House. It was a CNN mistake.
"What good does that do me? . . . I've already now called them liars. I think from now on we're going to have to start looking into things," Letterman said.
"Why start now?" his bandleader Paul Shaffer said.
"Because everything was fine, except now I've called the White House liars, and you know what that means -- they're going to start looking into my taxes!"
A CNN spokeswoman told The TV Column yesterday that the network notified Letterman's show at 5 p.m. that CNN had been incorrect in attributing the suggestion of video-doctoring to the White House. Letterman's show is taped at 5:30 p.m.
"It was their choice to continue to air it," the spokeswoman said, adding that the problem had arisen due to "a misunderstanding among staff," but would not elaborate.
Ranier's April's fools post - waiting news on his baby
(#281) (Rated 5.00/2)
by RANIER ARMY (tracer9400@msn.com) on 04/01/2004 02:43:45 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
DO NOT SCROLL PAST MY WORDS
Stop
I thought you could just stop here and hang out with me
stay...hold on, whatchya doin?
don't you dare...
HEY!
Stop scrolling
I see you
KNOCK IT OFF
Stop stop stop
Hey
stop right here for a sec...hang out, chill out, overdoer
WOAH CAMEL!
I know you get dizzy sometimes with the words going by so fast
PULL OVER SPEEDER
the
words
go
by
so
fast
just take a breather and cool it...
HEY!
...no, I don't have anything to say
that doesn't mean you have to blow me off!
STOP
don't go
no baby yet...the bologna pony doesn't even work...
Stop
too...fast
stopscrolling
can't breath..
almost gone...
thanks a lot scroller
how rude of you
no respect
see how you are
ouch, I get it, show your true colors then
HEY! why do you have to speed up?
what did i do
not cool
these words are lost forever
do you know how much I put into this?
bloweroffer
you should be ashamed
but im your friend
fine buttface, im not interesting enough right now
there you go again, hiding, not even caring
OH, LIKE YOURRR POSTS ARE ALWAYS PERFECT...
absolute bs, you went too fast
not funny
choking, need air
last words
cant breath
bye light of day
reaching out to get a handle
that's a nice shirt you have on today
off to eternal darkness
good bye oh lovely blog light
air
look behind you
your shoes are untied
made you look
fight against the dying of the light
no no no dont please dont allow me to pass
STOP! NOW!
is not wasted blog space
eeeeeeek
gaspingdeaththrow
buckfush/chuckfeney 04
(#281) (Rated 5.00/2)
by RANIER ARMY (tracer9400@msn.com) on 04/01/2004 02:43:45 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
DO NOT SCROLL PAST MY WORDS
Stop
I thought you could just stop here and hang out with me
stay...hold on, whatchya doin?
don't you dare...
HEY!
Stop scrolling
I see you
KNOCK IT OFF
Stop stop stop
Hey
stop right here for a sec...hang out, chill out, overdoer
WOAH CAMEL!
I know you get dizzy sometimes with the words going by so fast
PULL OVER SPEEDER
the
words
go
by
so
fast
just take a breather and cool it...
HEY!
...no, I don't have anything to say
that doesn't mean you have to blow me off!
STOP
don't go
no baby yet...the bologna pony doesn't even work...
Stop
too...fast
stopscrolling
can't breath..
almost gone...
thanks a lot scroller
how rude of you
no respect
see how you are
ouch, I get it, show your true colors then
HEY! why do you have to speed up?
what did i do
not cool
these words are lost forever
do you know how much I put into this?
bloweroffer
you should be ashamed
but im your friend
fine buttface, im not interesting enough right now
there you go again, hiding, not even caring
OH, LIKE YOURRR POSTS ARE ALWAYS PERFECT...
absolute bs, you went too fast
not funny
choking, need air
last words
cant breath
bye light of day
reaching out to get a handle
that's a nice shirt you have on today
off to eternal darkness
good bye oh lovely blog light
air
look behind you
your shoes are untied
made you look
fight against the dying of the light
no no no dont please dont allow me to pass
STOP! NOW!
is not wasted blog space
eeeeeeek
gaspingdeaththrow
buckfush/chuckfeney 04
loony left attacks Clarke:
The Village Voice has a guy on the cover - sleazy looking Smith guy - complaining he was "drudged". he was minding his business attacking Clarke for his own reasons and now the RW is using his article! I was with him up to this point, but he is now insulting democrats writing him hateful letters and...has a page size photo of his ugly mug ....holding a yellow rose.
and on DU there's this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=13 24447#
u Apr-01-04 09:37 AM
Original message
Why I don't trust Richard Clarke
After roaming around the internet this morning, googling terms like Richard Clarke, Steven Emerson and Mossad, lot's of interesting stuff pops up and some of it causes me to have some grave concerns about what is going on here with this whole Clarke thing.
Last week Clarke was my hero, however, I am not sure what Clarke's real agenda is or what is motivating him to come out at this point in time? For those of us on the left, I had thought we had our John Dean, a WH insider who was willing to come out and tell the truth. Now a week later, I am not so sure.
For me, Clarke's biggest problem is that he believes that we haven't done enough to fight the war on terror. Clarke main motivation is to expand the war on terror, not bringing down the Bush WH or outing neocons or anything like that. For Clarke, we will never commit enough, money, people and resources to win the fight against al Qaeda. However, what Clarke and so many others in the Intel business don't realize is that you will never win the war on terror by fighting it. By spending more and committing more resources and invading countries like Afghanistan, you will only create more terrorism, not less. Just look at the last 3 years, since we have started to focus enormous resources on this war. Are we safer, have we put all the terrorists in jail, have we stopped their sources of funding, have we reduced the number of terrorist attacks on civilian targets? No!
The only way to win the war is to spend more on peace. That is a fundamental concept that guys like Clarke usually don't understand. As a matter of fact, if the CIA, FBI, M15 and Mossad were to be shut down and all that money spent on helping make society better, we wouldn't have to worry very much about terrorism. Of course, you will still have your wackos who like to blow things up and kill people but can anyone prevent a determined killer from carrying out a pre-planned murder? But I can assure you, those kind of attack would be rare and not the norm.
So on one hand, I am very glad that someone like Clarke has come in from the cold, while on the other hand, we need to be careful about unknowingly support the agenda that many of us have worked so hard to stop.
So even though it seems like Clarke is on our side, we just need to understand where he is really coming from and then us that knowledge to our advantage.
The Village Voice has a guy on the cover - sleazy looking Smith guy - complaining he was "drudged". he was minding his business attacking Clarke for his own reasons and now the RW is using his article! I was with him up to this point, but he is now insulting democrats writing him hateful letters and...has a page size photo of his ugly mug ....holding a yellow rose.
and on DU there's this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=13 24447#
u Apr-01-04 09:37 AM
Original message
Why I don't trust Richard Clarke
After roaming around the internet this morning, googling terms like Richard Clarke, Steven Emerson and Mossad, lot's of interesting stuff pops up and some of it causes me to have some grave concerns about what is going on here with this whole Clarke thing.
Last week Clarke was my hero, however, I am not sure what Clarke's real agenda is or what is motivating him to come out at this point in time? For those of us on the left, I had thought we had our John Dean, a WH insider who was willing to come out and tell the truth. Now a week later, I am not so sure.
For me, Clarke's biggest problem is that he believes that we haven't done enough to fight the war on terror. Clarke main motivation is to expand the war on terror, not bringing down the Bush WH or outing neocons or anything like that. For Clarke, we will never commit enough, money, people and resources to win the fight against al Qaeda. However, what Clarke and so many others in the Intel business don't realize is that you will never win the war on terror by fighting it. By spending more and committing more resources and invading countries like Afghanistan, you will only create more terrorism, not less. Just look at the last 3 years, since we have started to focus enormous resources on this war. Are we safer, have we put all the terrorists in jail, have we stopped their sources of funding, have we reduced the number of terrorist attacks on civilian targets? No!
The only way to win the war is to spend more on peace. That is a fundamental concept that guys like Clarke usually don't understand. As a matter of fact, if the CIA, FBI, M15 and Mossad were to be shut down and all that money spent on helping make society better, we wouldn't have to worry very much about terrorism. Of course, you will still have your wackos who like to blow things up and kill people but can anyone prevent a determined killer from carrying out a pre-planned murder? But I can assure you, those kind of attack would be rare and not the norm.
So on one hand, I am very glad that someone like Clarke has come in from the cold, while on the other hand, we need to be careful about unknowingly support the agenda that many of us have worked so hard to stop.
So even though it seems like Clarke is on our side, we just need to understand where he is really coming from and then us that knowledge to our advantage.
There's a turf war going on with the faux left. WBAI - where the word "vote" is verbotten, Clark is maligned and Conason grilled is railing against Air America for taking over a black station in NYC - protest organized. Reminds me of the exctremists of right and left uniting against Clinton. When he picked an office in Harlem, they screamed that he deprived a city agency of children services. Black Panthers had a big sign "Go back to Little Rock" during the "Welcome to harlem" rally. Rangel asked them to send his regards to Tom delay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)