I don't think so, but then I could be wrong. Regardless, I respect your moral courage in calling me on it.
What's gone wrong with you? You have turned ugly and shameless. What you said is plainly prejudiced and repugnant. It took no moral courage to state the obvious.
If anyone wants an outsiders perspective on this issue I will try to give one in the hopes that it might not help and can keep good solid debate from dragging down. Rimrocker, it seems like your comments equate the conservatives on this board with those on the national stage. Some mayb be as equally disingenuous as many conservative leaders, but lumping them all into that category might upset those that don't behave the same way. Giddyup, I understand that if you are a conservative who is genuinely appreciative of civil rights and the things that MLK day is supposed to represent that you would be upset by the initial remark. But at the same time we've recently had a Republican president pretend to be interested in civil rights and participate in ceremonies meant to honor that battle and MLK and then circumvent congress and appoint a judge who lied under oath about being involved in an anti-civil rights group. The same judge has a long detailed record of opposing issues that fight discrimination and aid in the cause of civil rights. Trent Lott, another conservative, with his own inconsistencies on civil right's issues applauded the move by Bush. Conservative Ronald Reagan actually vetoed sanctions against South Africa. Luckily congress still was able to override that veto. With such examples of conservatives pretending to give support to civil rights and then by their actions demonstrate an opposition to civil rights, I don't think it's too hard to understand where rimrocker's statement comes from. Maybe I've totally misinterpreted the whole thing. If so I apologize in advance.
The point is Clark's stance on this and many issues is rife w/ contradictions. The other democratic candidates are beginning to call him on it, and the republicans will crucify him for it if he gets the nomination. I've said it many times, but anger, petulence, and defensiveness are not substitues for ideas and policy. Perle may read Clark's testimony one way, but to me it reads that he's clearly in favor of removing Saddam, which, I'm sure you know, was official U.S. policy since a nearly unanimous congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, signed by Clinton. this is the act that made "regime change" in Iraq official U.S. policy. Not sure I've ever quoted Perle, and the above certainly describes my feelings about ollie north. You'd think that a new parent would understand the value of spending time w/ his kids. this is beneath you and is just Obnoxious, and... ...Obnoxious-er. giddy's right.
Maybe he was just being a straight shooter like your main man, the "intelligent and insightful" as you put it, Ted Nugent.
The point is, its not. Many people, in the previous two pages, have pointed this out; you have yet to address it, once. You have yet to identify the inconsistency in any meaningful way. Even more important, people have identified this Matt Drudge "**WORLD EXCLUSIVE**" that you dutifully reported to us as nothing more than a selectively edited hatchet job, taken completely out of context, twisted into an attack, and launched in suspicious conjuction (more likely in collaboration) with an RNC smear campaign against Clark. Either you were a dupe and you just don't want to admit it, or you think this selective editing was defensible, I'd like to hear your response either way. No, I guess you didn't, but, in presenting this selectively edited hatchet job, you made it appear as if Clark and Perle were of a similar mind on Iraq in order to denounce him as "inconsistent"..which is not the case, in Perle's own words. My goodness, think of the children!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!
basso- I don't think you're the type to avoid or ignore a point, so right now I'm thinking there's something you're not getting. Clark was for regime change. This does not conflict with the fact that he wanted to "build legitimacy, exhaust all diplomatic options, and use force as a last resort." Let me repeat: Clark was for regime change, but was not in favor of rushing in. There are no conflicts here. It seems to me you surmise that if someone is pro-regime change then they must have been pro war, or war as our administration waged it. That is not the case. Look, the Clinton administration was for regime change. The whole damn world outside of Saddam's regime was for regime change. Does that mean they also were for for utterly ignoring the UN, world opinion, the will of the people of the USA, invading without a strong coalition or a solid plan for a post-Baathist Iraq? Setting a precedent for pre-emptive war? God, what if they at least had waited long enough to get Turkey on our side, get permission to use their airfields and airspace, and done a good and proper two-front invasion from the north and the Gulf? How much shorter would the war have been? But no, it had to be now now now. I digress. For the third time, I state that there are no conflicts in Clark's stance on the war.
I still figure Ted Nugent's friends and professional associates know more about him than you do. I know that's hard for you to believe.
Thanks for your input; I don't consider it an outsider's perspective at all. You pretty well hit the nail on the head. I don't appreciate being labeled a racist by rimrocker because I am conservative but then I re-read what he wrote and I realize that he specified "far right-wingers," so I am not included in his insult. Some of you may be and, perhaps, he owes you an apology. At any rate, I thought him to be above such shenanigans.
How does one define when all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted? The case can be made that you can always try one more time. How about when the decade is over or when a new millenium turns?
How about when we have the approval of the UN (you know, the body that was SUPPOSED to be in charge of disarming Iraq), when we have built a broad coalition (that we didn't have to pay off for support), or when the weapons inspectors had finished their jobs (which they were only months from doing)? Bush decided from day one that he was going to find ANY reason to invade Iraq and when it looked like the weapons inspectors were going to clear Iraq of the charges against them, Bush (and his crew) trumpeted false evidence and "intelligence" to convince the American public to support war. Clark would have waited to start a war until he KNEW it was justified and supported by more than six countries. That seems to be the key point that basso is missing. Clark wanted Saddam out (as did every other rational world leader), but he wouldn't have falsified evidence and touted debunked intelligence to do it.
I love how Republicans think they will skewer Clark if he gets the nomination. I see how they could skewer Dean, but not Clark. If Clark is the Dem nominee, Bush is in trouble. The entire national security/war on terror issue will become moot when Bush starts debating it with a General. Nothing like making a commander-in-chief look like a rich kid draft dodger while standing next to the former commander of NATO.
This is a good question, and a tough scenario was playing out in Iraq pre-war. The only way to get Saddam to budge a single inch, or to get the UN out of constant deadlock was to threaten the use of immenent force. Fact is, if we played the diplomatic game, and waited for the inspectors to find something significant, it's clear now that they wouldn't have. It's true that if we waited for UN approval for use of force, we never would have gotten it, unless Saddam really screwed up or annoyed people enough with the cat-and-mouse game, which was possible. I'll tell you what though- I may not know how much diplomacy would have been too much, but I know what was too little. GWB went in too soon, and it's pretty obvious now. How hard could it have been to at least get Turkey in with us for a double-front war, or a few more allies to share the financial burden? How about waiting long enough to get more ground intelligence to discover a plot for guerilla warfare post-Saddam? Diplomacy vs. force can be looked at as a matter of degrees, but no matter how you slice it, the Bush administration f***ed this up good. I'm not even talking about reasons for going in or deception or any of that crap. Our administration totally blundered it's way into this and doesn't have a clear way out.
What's hard for me to believe is your mock sense of outrage and horror here...how very chivalrous of you. I do think its hilarious given your page long lectures about how various other insults are acceptable and your willingness to defend asinine behavior in the past at the risk of looking like an ass yourself. Why don't you challenge andymoon to a duel so that you can properly defend basso's honor?
You are blinded by your hostility towards me. It seems silly to say "Grow up" but I don't know what else to do... My objection is to rimrocker's broad-stroke painting of all right-wing conservatives as racist. I'm not involved with President Bush or Poster basso-- only rimrocker. Show me one of my page long lectures about "acceptable" insults. That has "done slipped my mind." What joy do you get out of calling people asses? Grow up.
YEah, some of your best friends are black, I know... It's funny how you think racial humor is cool, and will defend others who do: "Maybe "wetback" means something different in Michigan, I dont't know" But then when you think that somebody on a BBS is calling you a racist, you get more riled up than a 12 year old girl not invited to a birthday party, and pretend like your feelings have been hurt. And by funny, I mean "funny ha ha". Seriously, you make me laugh. [Yes, I know, you think I'm rude; save it, and I won't tell you what I think of you.]
Grow up. how you think you know more about Nugent because you know his stage persona as opposed to people who really know him is evidence of your growing egomania. Pretended that my feelings got hurt? I am offended. That is all. Excuse me while I go cry...
