The W
Views: 97580511
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.7.14 1813
The W - Current Events & Politics - Wes Clark: Clinton Stooge?
This thread has 9 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.41
Pages: 1 2 Next
(1755 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (33 total)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1176 days
Last activity: 973 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Nice reintroduction of the phrase "Stalking Horse." Of course, all of this makes sense. Bill has always been a public fan of Wes, and using the machine to build up Clark so he can fail makes sense and, let's face it, fits within Bill and Hill's self-serving framework.

* * * * * * *

Wes Clark: the stalking horse
Jay Bryant

September 19, 2003

The term "stalking horse" has pretty much gone out of favor in American politics, although at one time it came up in almost every presidential cycle. Its decline has reflected the decline of the importance of party conventions. Here's the Safire definition of a stalking horse: "a decoy; a candidate put forward to split a vote or deadlock a convention, concealing another candidate's plan."

Wesley Clark is a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton.

That much is clear, but little else is. For example, there is the intriguing question of whether Clark knows he is a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton. It is entirely possible he is being duped into being a decoy. With no political experience, he would make an easy mark for a team of con artists as skilled as Hillary and Bill Clinton.

But he may very well have been in on the plot all along. There are many rewards for a person in his position that would easily justify allowing himself to be used by the Clintons. His war, Bosnia, was after all, a nothing war, and as of a year ago he was idling away in useless retirement, his crowning glory squeezed between the Gulf War and the War on Terrorism, almost forgotten already and fading like mist on a sunny morning in Arkansas.

In a Hillary administration, he, in imitation of the man who has overshadowed and outperformed him his entire military career, Colin Powell, could be Secretary of State. That'd show 'em. So that might well have been the deal up front. But it's also possible the Clintons put on their sincere masks and convinced the gullible Clark that he was the one who could win and the one who would make a great President. They may have filled his head with comparisons to George Washington, Ulysses Grant and Dwight Eisenhower. And he may have bought it.

Whichever is true, this much you can take to the bank: Wesley Clark is running because the Clintons recruited him and promised him campaign resources and some sort of political reward.

Clark is, as you have heard, from Arkansas. But that doesn't explain why he announced his candidacy in Little Rock. He announced his candidacy in Little Rock because that is still where the Clinton machine can do the best job of putting together the volunteers and the crowd to make for a successful event. And who is his most visible backer? Why good old Clinton Stalwart Congressman Charles Rangel of Harlem, where Bill's office is.

If you want to know why an extreme liberal African-American Congressman from New York is all gung-ho over a four-star General who is being touted as the Democrats' new centrist leader, here is the answer:

Bill and Hillary told him to be.

Avid readers of this space know my principle theory regarding the 2004 election is that the Clintons want Bush to win so there will be an open seat for Hillary in 2008.

They do not want a Democrat to win because then there will be no opportunity for Herself until 2012, which is too long to wait; who knows what might happen by then? Now since I made that statement, a couple of things have happened. First, Bush's position has weakened; his defeat, which six months ago seemed impossible, is now, albeit just barely, possible. Second, Howard Dean's candidacy has caught fire among liberal activists, and precisely those activists least amenable to control by the Clintons.

The Clintons didn't much care if Dean got the nomination (Someone had to.) as long as he was a stone loser, but they don't want him to get it and win in November. It's true they can always prevent him from winning, even at the last minute if necessary, but they don't want to take the risk of being blamed for his losing. And even if Dean loses but runs well, there are risks to the Clintons. They don't need his people in charge of the Democratic apparatus come 2005.

There is also the remote chance that Bush may slip so badly that Hillary's running in 2004 becomes something it has never, ever been: an option to keep open.

All that added up to the need for a stalking horse, and General Wesley Clark was the perfect stooge for the job. Therefore, Clark is in the race, and he will stay in the race as long as it suits the Clinton's fancy, perhaps up to and including winning the nomination itself. (He will not, of course, be allowed to win in November.) It is an insult to Machiavelli to call this scheming Machiavellian. One must never, however, underestimate the Clintons' self-centeredness, venality, or ability to make their evil schemes work. Republicans have been doing that for years, and they've paid the price. If you say of the Clintons, "Oh, they wouldn't do that," you are wrong.

Right now they are playing a four-star General for a sap and working day and night to deny their own political party the chance to win the presidency in 2004. Their current tactic is the old stalking horse trick. If that doesn't work, they'll try something else. Howard Dean, beware. You've never met anybody like them in Vermont.




Promote this thread!
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 106 days
Last activity: 106 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.82
So, wait. If Clark actually wins the nom, how can the Clintons 'make him lose'? Wouldn't they have to be able to influence the voting public?

-Jag

Maybe if they secretly control the liberal media...



Cybernetic Robotic Zombie
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1176 days
Last activity: 973 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Nobody said the Clintons can "make him lose." The theory goes that the Clintons are afraid that Dean can win, and the Clark will lose. Therefore, but putting their chips into Clark, Clark gets the nomination, Bush gets re-elected, and the HMS Hillary runs for an open White House in 2008.



redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 386 days
Last activity: 386 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.22
IT wouldn't surprise me if Clark is the Clinton's patsy. For all people have accused them of being, no one has accused the Clinton's of not being smart, especially when it comes to political manuevering. And, listening to some of Clark's comments after his announcement, he has the making of Admiral Stockdale II. Of course, if he breaks out the 'Who Am I, Why Am I Here' Line at a debate, I might have to vote for him out of pity.



Time to do a Red Sox pennant chase supply list: Arsenic: check. Cyanide: check. Booze: check. Fully loaded gun for full chamber Russian Roulette: check. Ok, I'm prepared, let the pennant race commence.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2737 days
Last activity: 2580 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
    Originally posted by Jaguar
    So, wait. If Clark actually wins the nom, how can the Clintons 'make him lose'? Wouldn't they have to be able to influence the voting public?

    -Jag

    Maybe if they secretly control the liberal media...


You don't think the Clintons influence the voting public? No one told Gray Davis, or any of the dozens of other Democratic candidates who have the Clintons campaign for them.

Clark is definitely tight with the Clintons, and they're very publicly supporting him. But why? I can't believe they'd set him up to fail... seems like a waste of resources. If they think Dean can win, then they think Bush is beatable. If they think Bush is beatable, then I think Hillary runs, and Clark steps aside to be her running mate. What polls I've seen all have Hillary trouncing Dean; this is her party, period. Besides which, Clark is so much more viable a mainstream candidate than Dean is. It just doesn't make sense.



Johnny Cash
1932-2003
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 106 days
Last activity: 106 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.82
(deleted by CRZ on 22.9.03 2320)
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 468 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
This guy really need to think before he talks. He should have known every call to the white house is logged.

*********************
Clark Never Called Karl (weeklystandard.com)
Wesley Clark says he would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his phone calls. White House phone logs suggest otherwise.
by Matthew Continetti
09/22/2003 1:45:00 PM


Matthew Continetti, editorial assistant

WHEN WILL Wesley Clark stop telling tall tales? In the current issue of Newsweek, Howard Fineman reports Clark told Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and University of Denver president Mark Holtzman that "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls."

Unfortunately for Clark, the White House has logged every incoming phone call since the beginning of the Bush administration in January 2001. At the request of THE DAILY STANDARD, White House staffers went through the logs to check whether Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove. The general hadn't. What's more, Rove says he doesn't remember ever talking to Clark, either.

This isn't the general's first whopper. Last June, the latest Democratic candidate for president implied that he "got a call" on 9/11 from "people around the White House" asking the general to publicly link Saddam Hussein to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Last August, Clark told a Phoenix radio station that "The White House actually back in February apparently tired to get me knocked off CNN and they wanted to do this because they were afraid that I would raise issues with their conduct of the war."

Like his other two statements, Clark's latest tale bears little resemblance to reality. While it turns out Clark did receive a call "on either Sept. 12 or Sept. 13," the call wasn't from the White House. It was from Israeli-Canadian Middle East expert Thomas Hecht, who told the Toronto Star that he called to invite Clark to give a speech in Canada. As for Clark's accusation that the White House tried to have him fired from CNN--well, the general admits he has no proof. "I've only heard rumors about it," he said.

Skeptics of Clark's candidacy argue that the general's political inexperience makes him an unknown in the primary race. Was Clark's latest slip simply proof of his political naivete? Did he not recognize that his words would be taken seriously? And what does it say about Clark that he would have declared himself a Republican if only he had a chance to chat with Karl Rove? Clark may yet make a serious contender for the Democratic nomination. But if he keeps spinning yarns, he'll end up as the H. Ross Perot of the Democratic party.

Matthew Continetti is an editorial assistant at The Weekly Standard.
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54
So let me get this straight.....the Clinton influence (or stigma, whatever word you want to use) is publicly acknowledged as being the reason that Al Gore lost in 2000, and yet they think that Hillary has a chance in 2008? The hell?



"When this bogus term alternative rock was being thrown at every '70s retro rehash folk group, we were challenging people to new sonic ideas. If some little snotty anarchist with an Apple Mac and an attitude thinks he invented dance music and the big rock group is coming into his territory, [that's] ridiculous." - Bono, 1997
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3813 days
Last activity: 3758 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.98
Of course, all of this makes sense.

...maybe if you're Rush Limbaugh, but really? I mean, come ON? The FUCK? Let me get this straight, the scenario is one of the following:

1.) Wesley Clark becomes exceptionally popular in Dem primaries, and then "steps aside" to be VP to Hillary's Presidential bid. This of course begs the question "wait, he's going to become the frontrunner and then step aside?"

2.) Wesley Clark loses in 2004 but sets up Hillary in 2008. Which of course begs the question "wait, he's going to LOSE to strengthen Hillary's bid in 2008? How exactly does that work, Hillary getting stronger by associating herself with a loser?"

3.) Wesley Clark names Hillary as VP, steps down in 2008 to let her run for the Presidency. Again, "wait, he's going to win the presidency and then step aside?"

4.) Something else that is pretty stupid.

Seriously, all these "Hillary is the mastermind" theories stink to high heaven. They assume that Clark is essentially a robot with no political interest of his own, which is ridiculous. I mean, this is a guy who very cleverly timed his entrance to squash a John Edwards speech - he knows the game, or at least his team does.

They furthermore assume that Hillary Clinton is stupid enough to not realize that she polarizes any political campaign she's in to an absurd degree - she won her New York senate seat against a total unknown like Ric Lazio by a relatively small margin given who Lazio is, IE nobody, and that was in a relatively Hillary-friendly state. And she polls horribly among white males, which is where the Democratic party is weakest and needs to shore up very badly. Hillary Clinton is the next Ted Kennedy - she'll probably stay in government for a long time but she'll never make the big chair.

Oh, and regarding the Fineman column:

WORD WAS THAT Karl Rove, the presidents political mastermind, had blocked the idea. Clark was furious. Last January, at a conference in Switzerland, he happened to chat with two prominent Republicans, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman, now president of the University of Denver. I would have been a Republican, Clark told them, if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.

Does anybody else notice that Howard Fineman was told this by two Republicans? Including the not-horribly-centrist Bill Owens, who's a close friend of Karl Rove? Clark says "I wasn't serious, I was just joking around" and the Republicans say "oh he was very serious indeed he was mmmhmmm", and if you think Clark is the only one with an agenda here then I've got some nice swampland for you cheap.

It's standard operating practice from the conservative right: have one right-winger set up the "he's a liar because I say he said X" and then have number two shoot down X and say "yep, he's a liar all righty" and if Clark even tries to argue that he's not being taken in good faith then he's a fabulist and a liar and he's dithering in semantics.

They did this in 2000 to Al Gore and the machine is starting up again. Wish I could say I was surprised.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.65
    Originally posted by Big Bad
    So let me get this straight.....the Clinton influence (or stigma, whatever word you want to use) is publicly acknowledged as being the reason that Al Gore lost in 2000, and yet they think that Hillary has a chance in 2008? The hell?
I thought the reason Gore lost in 2000 is because he didn't have ENOUGH Clinton in his campaign! 1/2 ;-)



CRZ
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3813 days
Last activity: 3758 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.98
I thought the reason Gore lost in 2000 is because he didn't have ENOUGH Clinton in his campaign! 1/2 ;-)

Depends on what week it is and who's shouting the loudest, really. I don't accuse neocons of being consistent.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2737 days
Last activity: 2580 days
AIM:  
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
What the dickens are you talking about? I'm fairly confident I read more conservative literature than you do, neo and otherwise, and I fail to see this "universally acknowledged" perception that Clinton sank Gore's campaign.

According to Dick Morris, Gore lost in part because he abandoned the environmental issue. So there's the opinion of a long-time Clintonite.

And as for your previous post: calm down, for Pete's sake. You act as if it's ludicrous that a pair of politicians like the Clintons would be scheming to obtain power. Good heavens, who's heard of such a thing! And at the same time, you hardly blanche at the notion that George Bush is simultaneously a drooling invalid and an evil dictator bent on world-domination. Which will be achieved, it should be noted, through some combination of sleight-of-hand, the Patriot Act, and the complicity of Fox News. Never accused neocons of consistency, indeed. Likely because you wouldn't recognize consistency if it bit you in the arse. Consistently.

And your last comment: "The machine is starting up again..." Do you ever look somewhere and NOT see a bogieman?

(edited by PalpatineW on 23.9.03 1338)


Johnny Cash
1932-2003
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 6 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.17
I'm just not sure that I would credit the Clintons with this sort of ability to pull off anything large scale. Other than getting elected, they have basically failed at anything they have ever tried to do. National Health Care went down in flames. Bill got impeached. Gore didn't get elected. The dems lost back control of Congress in 2002. Seriously, talk about seeing a bogieman everywhere, you'd think the Clintons ought to both grow Snidely Whiplash mustaches or something considering how much scheming and plotting they've been accused of.

I would be willing to buy this story up to the Clark as Clinton proxy candidate idea. That makes sense, especially as more Clintonistas begin to orbit around him. But to say that this part of some Hillary for Pres scheme fails to make sense to me, unless you buy the following chain of thoughts:
1) Bush won't lose in 2004, no matter who runs against him.
2) Clark would keep it closest while simultaneously keeping Clinton-like ideology in the public eye.
3) Hilary will retain her Senate seat and still be popular enough in the Dem party to run in 2008 for president.
4) The GOP having been made into Bush's own machinery will be ill-prepared after his term with no credible candidates to pick up his mantle/his 2nd term will be such a failure that anyone can beat him.

That's a whole lot to assume just to make things make sense.



Coming to Chicago Nov. 12...I am SO there! - Brenda Weiler

blogforamerica.com
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.65
    Originally posted by godking
    I thought the reason Gore lost in 2000 is because he didn't have ENOUGH Clinton in his campaign! 1/2 ;-)

    Depends on what week it is and who's shouting the loudest, really. I don't accuse neocons of being consistent.
Well I'm sure they're grateful for that, but actually I thought I was espousing a view posited by "liberal" writers. Here's an example (slate.msn.com):
    Instead of finding a way to embrace the accomplishments record of the Clinton administration, Gore ran away from Clinton as fast as his legs could carry him. In September and October, this became almost comical. Gore would use tortured locutions to avoid having to utter the president's name. Perhaps Gore did need to distance himself from Clinton's personal failings, but in doing so, he managed to distance himself from Clinton's public successes at the same time. Gore didn't claim and thus did not receive much credit for prosperity, the budget surplus, welfare reform, crime reduction, and other social and economic gains in which he played a significant part.
Perhaps I'm mistaken and maybe Jacob Weisberg IS a - what word did you use, ah, "neocon" - and if that is the case then you have my humble apology and my promise to buy one of his books (amazon.com).



CRZ
Matt Tracker
Scrapple








Since: 8.5.03
From: North Carolina

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.27

    WHEN WILL Wesley Clark stop telling tall tales? In the current issue of Newsweek, Howard Fineman reports Clark told Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and University of Denver president Mark Holtzman that "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls."
    Unfortunately for Clark, the White House has logged every incoming phone call since the beginning of the Bush administration in January 2001. At the request of THE DAILY STANDARD, White House staffers went through the logs to check whether Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove. The general hadn't. What's more, Rove says he doesn't remember ever talking to Clark, either.


I'd like to know why there's a presumption Clark and Rove could only have tried to contact each other using a White House line. Rove is all over D.C.




"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3813 days
Last activity: 3758 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.90
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    What the dickens are you talking about? I'm fairly confident I read more conservative literature than you do, neo and otherwise, and I fail to see this "universally acknowledged" perception that Clinton sank Gore's campaign.

    According to Dick Morris, Gore lost in part because he abandoned the environmental issue. So there's the opinion of a long-time Clintonite.


Dick Morris is notorious for his break with the Democratic Party. Bear in mind that Dick "Toesucker" Morris has been a Republican consultant for years now, which kinda makes him not the most unbiased person out there to offer forth opinions on things Democratic - I mean, the guy was saying with a straight face that Joe Lieberman was the best option for a Dem nominee for six months.

And clearly you don't read enough Free Republic, Weekly Standard and American Conservative, all of which celebrated Bush's victory over Gore as a victory of moral character.


    You act as if it's ludicrous that a pair of politicians like the Clintons would be scheming to obtain power. Good heavens, who's heard of such a thing!


They've already *got* power. She's a respected senator and he can command six figures for a speaking gig practically at will anywhere in the world. Hell, they've thrown their political support behind someone who up until three months ago was just another talking head general, and now he's the Democratic frontrunner who's polling better than George Bush. That's a shitload of power right there.

What I find offensive is the desperation to invent conspiracy theories that more or less place Hillary Clinton at the head of some sort of latter-day Illuminati that's gonna take away American freedom in black helicopters. Christ, she's a liberal female politician, not Satan. (You'll note that the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal and the other respectable conservative rags aren't even bothering with the Clark-as-Clinton-patsy meme; this one is the purveyance of the howling fools like William Safire and Matt Drudge.)


    And at the same time, you hardly blanche at the notion that George Bush is simultaneously a drooling invalid and an evil dictator bent on world-domination.


I think the latter is profound hyperbole, although it is worth noting that his foreign policy has been dictated by a convervative cabal of thinkers who published a rather infamous foreign policy paper that kind of suggested that world domination was a pretty clever way to go about things so long as you didn't call it that and didn't go whole hog.

As for "drooling invalid" - heck, the majority of the nation thinks he's not intellectually gifted, and by his own admission:

Bush said he insulates himself from the "opinions" that seep into news coverage by getting his news from his own aides. He said he scans headlines, but rarely reads news stories. (Yahoo news)

Insulating yourself from the real world isn't really the most ideal way to go about governing in most cases. Call me crazy for suggesting that if you like.


    And your last comment: "The machine is starting up again..." Do you ever look somewhere and NOT see a bogieman?


The slander and mistruths surrounding the coverage of Al Gore's campaign in 2000 are legion, and better yet they're all easily documented. Al Franken devotes a lot of page space to it in his latest book, which incidentally even conservative reviewers are forced to admit is impeccably researched (even if they don't like his politics).
OndaGrande
Kolbasz








Since: 1.5.03
From: California, Home of THE LAKERS!

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 8 hours
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.53

    Originally posted by godking

    What I find offensive is the desperation to invent conspiracy theories that more or less place Hillary Clinton at the head of some sort of latter-day Illuminati that's gonna take away American freedom in black helicopters. Christ, she's a liberal female politician, not Satan. (You'll note that the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal and the other respectable conservative rags aren't even bothering with the Clark-as-Clinton-patsy meme; this one is the purveyance of the howling fools like William Safire and Matt Drudge.)

    Well, to ME she is a close definiton of being Satan Herself, but that's MY opinion. And SHE was the one who bantered about the phrase "Vast right wing conspiricy" to blame for the growning anti-liberal climate at the time, which I personally found offensive.



    LEARN IT, KNOW IT, LIVE IT!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1176 days
Last activity: 973 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    Originally posted by godking
    I mean, the guy was saying with a straight face that Joe Lieberman was the best option for a Dem nominee for six months.

Yeah....and he still is. Remember the Cali field poll where Lieberman was the only Dem to beat Bush in Cali?



Billy Blue Hat
Chaurice








Since: 18.9.03

Since last post: 3954 days
Last activity: 3947 days
#19 Posted on
"his defeat, which six months ago seemed impossible, is now, albeit just barely, possible."


He's very vulnerable. His defeat is a 50/50 proposition right now if you ask me, unless another conveniently-timed terrorist attack takes place before the elction.


I don't understand the thrust of your argument, however.....

1) Wesley Clark is infinitely more likely to beat Bush than Dean. If the Clintons' want Bush to win, why not just back Dean in the first place?

2) I still don't understand how the Clintons can influence the outcome of this election in favour of Bush. You didn't elaborate on that point in your argument.
*************************************

"Nobody said the Clintons can "make him lose." The theory goes that the Clintons are afraid that Dean can win, and the Clark will lose. Therefore, but putting their chips into Clark, Clark gets the nomination, Bush gets re-elected, and the HMS Hillary runs for an open White House in 2008."

-blinks-

Allow me to introduce you to my good friend logic.....

:D

(edited by Billy Blue Hat on 23.9.03 1927)


"Eh Kramer, nice rooster....."
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2895 days
Last activity: 2892 days
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.53
The Clintons supporting Clark in hopes of him losing makes no sense at all. It seems to me that they are supporting him to keep Dean from taking control of the DNC.



Weekly Visitor - PSSSSHAW!

Jersey Is Dead - New Old Stuff!!!
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 5.41
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: Darrell Issa says "Keep Gray Davis in office"
Next thread: California Primary Debate
Previous thread: Baghdad's Citizens: 'Ousting Saddam Hussein Worth Personal Hardships' says Gallup Poll
(1755 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
You MIGHT have had a good point in there some where if we were actually going after the people who attacked this country in 2001...
The W - Current Events & Politics - Wes Clark: Clinton Stooge?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.143 seconds.