UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (3) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: Rod42 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 27  
Subject: Hi Hack Date: 9/24/2003 5:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
It is nice to have a new face and someone intelligent running for president who also has military experience and is a Democrat. How much do you know about him?

Rod
Print the post Back To Top
Author: hackshark Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4 of 27
Subject: Re: Hi Hack Date: 9/24/2003 5:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/

here is a lot more info on him. I am very interested. he is out in front when it comes to the war issue... this is Bush's achille's heel (in addition to the deficit, tax cuts, medicare reform, energy policy, oil industry bed-sharing, etc...). I don't know how Clark feels about all of these issues, but i intend to find out, and unless i hear something i don't like, this is the guy i think i could most easily support.

-hack


Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrJHawk Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9 of 27
Subject: Re: Hi Hack Date: 9/25/2003 8:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I am very interested. he is out in front when it comes to the war issue

Now that's an interesting observation. It was Dr. Dean that jumped on W. at the start. Sure, Clark was critical when he was a talking head for CNN, but it's easy to be an "armchair general". Last week, when the media started sqeezing him on whether he'd have voted for the war resolution he was all over the map. I understand his position. He thought the resolution should have strengthened W.'s hand when he went to the U.N., but he wanted W. to come back to Congress for authorization to go to war. Two things wrong with this argument: 1) Iraq didn't have WMD's, ties to Osama bin Laden, or had imported yellowcake from Niger as W. and his henchmen claimed, so supporting W. shouldn't have been an issue; and 2) How can you trust W? He lies like a cheap rug. Even if a "two part" authorization was expected, once the Pretender had his shred of legitimacy, he was sending in the Marines.

Dr. Dean has opposed the war from the beginning. Even when it was a political liability to oppose W. He said Sadam wasn't linked to terrorist, or a threat to the U.S. I want someone that makes a clear distinction between his position and the neocons that have highjacked our country. Just my $0.02.

Rock Chalk, y'all,

Dr. J. Hawk

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (3) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement