Drudge Exposes Clark as Liar

[Inmate Trump]

Something tells me that, judging by their last president, the Democrats don't care that Clark is a liar.

[mossy]

Is his participation mostly introducing Drudge Report offerings?

[Gustaf]

Is his participation mostly introducing Drudge Report offerings?

No, he takes active part in moral discussions. You can check out the VERY, VERY, VERY LONG "gay marriage" thread on this board if you wish. I think he stated somewhere that he will not make predictions at this early stage, but I'm not sure about that.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't see a 2004 prediction for you?

Why so much interest in my predictions?

[© tweed]

I don't see a 2004 prediction for you?

Why so much interest in my predictions?

Why haven't you made one?

[Gustaf]

I don't see a 2004 prediction for you?

Why so much interest in my predictions?

Why haven't you made one?

He stated somewhere that he thought it was too early. But I will let him answer in person...

[Huckleberry Finn]

I obviously chose the wrong topic when I went "Interesting reading Wesley Clark". I got angry with GWBFan's misleading post where NATO's operation in Balkans was questioned.

Well. If that information is true, Clark is idiot. But I don't believe that it is. Nobody in his position couldn't be so stupid. Or I like to believe so...

I
 

[Inmate Trump]

I obviously chose the wrong topic when I went "Interesting reading Wesley Clark". I got angry with GWBFan's misleading post where NATO's operation in Balkans was questioned.

Well. If that information is true, Clark is idiot. But I don't believe that it is. Nobody in his position couldn't be so stupid. Or I like to believe so...

I
 

If that information is untrue, it would be very easy for Clark to come out with proof showing that.  He's had years to disprove this information and has yet to do so.  Until he does, no one cannot at least consider the possibility that the information is factual.

[mossy]

I don't see a 2004 prediction for you?

Why so much interest in my predictions?

Do you always respond to a question with a question?

[Nym90]

In jmfcst's defense, the question he responded to wasn't really a question, it was actually a statement with an erroroneous question mark at the end instead of a period.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

In jmfcst's defense, the question he responded to wasn't really a question, it was actually a statement with an erroroneous question mark at the end instead of a period.

Don't confuse mossy's pseudo-grammar issue with the facts.

[YRABNNRM]

In jmfcst's defense, the question he responded to wasn't really a question, it was actually a statement with an erroroneous question mark at the end instead of a period.

Don't confuse mossy's pseudo-grammar with the facts.

jmfcst, You should register in the Fantasy Elections at the bottom of the forum. Republicans need your vote!

[mossy]

In jmfcst's defense, the question he responded to wasn't really a question, it was actually a statement with an erroroneous question mark at the end instead of a period.

Don't confuse mossy's pseudo-grammar issue with the facts.

What is Pseudo-grammar?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What is Pseudo-grammar?

It's exactly like your Pseudo-punctuation...but different.

[mossy]

Not lying.    This is a bogus issue, and one cannot blame the GOP stooping to making stuff up on Clark---his credentials are impecciable, and so are his relations with foreign heads of state.  He understands the art of working together with nations rather than isolation..........

Here is the actual response to this issue of changing:  With no links to the various "quotes" in the Drudge article, and the more I read it the more it looked like Lifted phrases--remember Clark is schooled in diplomacy and diplomatic language,  But you can see from the site below just how Clark felt from Feb 2003, up to the present.

Clark see the Bush administration as only "giving ultimatums" as a foreign policy---Clark said he'd "no sooner give up an ally than give up the 101st Airborn"


(url) http://clark04.com/faq/iraq.html

[sgpine]

jmfcst:

You should have looked at the actual speech before taking Drudge at his word. See those ellipses on the transcript? They skip thosands of words from Clark's speech.

Here are some more quotes from Clark, from the SAME SPEECH, wich paint quite a different picture.

"The president and his national security team have got to deploy imagination, leverage and patience in working through the United Nations. In the near term, time is on our side and we should endeavor to use the United Nations if at all possible..."

"We have to work this problem in a way to gain worldwide legitimacy and understanding for the concerns that we rightly feel and for our leadership. This is what U.S. leadership in the world must be. We must bring others to share our views, not be too quick to rush to try to impose them even if we have the power to do so. I agree that there's a risk that the inspections would fail to provide evidence of the weapons program. They might fail, but I think we can deal with this problem as we move along, and I think the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by the opportunities to gain allies, support and legitimacy in the campaign against Saddam Hussein."

"If the efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, then we need to form the broadest possible coalition including our NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if we're going to have to bring forces to bear. We should not be using force until the personnel, the organizations, the plans that will be required for post conflict Iraq, are prepared and ready."

"So, all that having been said, the option to use force must remain on the table. It should be used as the last resort after all diplomatic means have been exhausted unless there's information that indicates that a further delay would represent an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations."

[Source: http://www.mediawhoresonline.net/ar011904.htm]

Shorter Clark: "We might have to use force against Saddam, but it should be a last resort, after all dimplomatic means have failed, after we've gotten a coalition with NATO and established legitamacy, and only after we have got a plan for post-conflict Iraq. We're not at that point."

Not exactly gung-ho for war like Drudge paints him.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't see a 2004 prediction for you?

Why so much interest in my predictions?

Do you always respond to a question with a question?

Had your statement actually been a question, I still would have answered it with the same question I gave in response.   There is nothing wrong with responding to a question with a question in order to promote logical thinking ("think before you ask") or to expose motive ("why are you asking").

John 18:33-34 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" 34"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?"

[© tweed]

In jmfcst's defense, the question he responded to wasn't really a question, it was actually a statement with an erroroneous question mark at the end instead of a period.

Don't confuse mossy's pseudo-grammar with the facts.

jmfcst, You should register in the Fantasy Elections at the bottom of the forum. Republicans need your vote!

I told you he would pay no mind to the fantasy elections.

[mossy]

Clark's Testimony Exposes Drudge as Liar!


"January 16, 2004 -- 08:52 PM EDT // link // print)
A little more unfinished business on the Drudge/Clark smear.

"As I've already told you several times yesterday and today, Drudge got hold of some quotes from Clark's September 26th, 2002 congressional testimony and DISTORTED THEM OUT OF RECOGNITION BY HIGHLY SELECTIVE QUOTATION.  [Cherry-picking"]

In a subsequent post last night I quoted a passage from a piece which ran on the KnightRidder newswire. Here's the passage ...

"Clark's congressional testimony was further distorted Thursday by cyber-gossip columnist Matt Drudge, who quoted selected portions of Clark's testimony and *ADDED SENTENCES*!!!! that don't appear in the transcript on his Web site Thursday. Drudge didn't respond to an e-mail request for comment. "


(much more, can be read at:)
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_01_11.html#002415

So, jmfcst, you're going to use this forum to troll with garbage???

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So, jmfcst, you're going to use this forum to troll with garbage???

Well, I must say:  that is the first time I've been called a troll on this forum, though I have referred to others using that term.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So now you know how it feels. You can share the pain of those you abused now.
No, just joking. But that Drudge report is garbage.

I think you've got the wrong car McFly.  I only called foreigners "trolls".  And...no, not joking.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What for? I haven't been around long enough I guess, so please explain. Not joking now.

I find it more than a little strange that a person would desire to go on a foreign web site to discuss another country's internal politics.  But this new version of the forum has sections for international politics, so things are better now.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I think it's got something to do with just how much American politics affects the rest of the world. I get your point as far as really interior matters are concerned (abortion, say)

Bingo.  I do NOT consider foreigners discussing US foreign policy as trolls, but anything else seems strange to me.  

[Beet]

Well I can see how a foreigner would want to discuss the general morality of abortion policy, because it's an issue for all human beings, though admittedly it's most controversial in this country.

[Gustaf]

So now you know how it feels. You can share the pain of those you abused now.
No, just joking. But that Drudge report is garbage.

I think you've got the wrong car McFly.  I only called foreigners "trolls".  And...no, not joking.  

You're quoting "Back to the Future" instead of the bible? I am shocked!