seximofo2k

It's a shame that things like this occur on either side. I am wrong in saying things like this never happen but what i do have a problem with is the villainization of every Israeli soldier as doing nothing but killing women and children as you would like them to be painted. I am not justifying nor saying that one side is more right than the other but what i do have a problem with is the attempt by people to compare Israeli soldiers to groups like Hamas. And dont use the tv as an excuse for your lack of concern against terrorist attacks on Israel.

Israeli soldiers, despite what your liberal thinktank wants to believe, they do not target women and children. their is no benefit that comes to them from killing civilians its a PR disaster and a causes total outrage from the Palestinians and the rest of the world. I ask you this do you show the same anger and interest when a Palestinian runs into a market and intentionally blows up 23 civilians? How about posting up one of those articles................

The problem is that so far i see noone worth voting Bush out for

Draft-Clark enthusiasts grow hopeful By Deborah McGregor reports FT.com site; Jul 21, 2003 Wesley Clark is not running for president of the US - at least not yet. But in a cramped one-room office one block from the White House, a determined group of Clark enthusiasts are hard at work, hoping to draft the retired four-star general into the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. They claim that in three months they have signed up 30,000 members, collected thousands of letters from individuals urging the former Nato commander to run and raised nearly $250,000. "He is the president we were promised as kids," says John Hlinko, a 36-year-old draft-Clark campaigner. "There's just something he evokes in people's hearts." Mr Clark has not said he will run. He has not said he will not run. But as Iraq, growing budget deficits, faulty intelligence and other perceived woes take their toll on President George W. Bush's popularity, the draft-Clark forces grow more hopeful. Simultaneously, the failure of any one of the nine Democratic contenders to emerge as a strong frontrunner is a reminder that it is still anybody's race. Although Mr Clark, 58, has not declared a party affiliation and is not sponsoring any of the attempts to draft him, he has allowed speculation to build and promises to make his intentions known within the next month or so. Some political experts are sceptical about Mr Clark's prospects, questioning his fundraising ability and lack of name recognition. The first crucial votes in the early battleground states of Iowa and New Hampshire, after all, are just six months away. But others note that at this stage of the presidential cycle a dozen years ago, Bill Clinton was barely on the nation's political radar screen. And Dwight Eisenhower's presidency in the 1950s provides the historical precedent for a military man in the White House. Chris Kofinis, a Democratic political consultant, suggests Mr Clark's entry would electrify the presidential race. "Democrats want someone who can win," he says, and that may mean the party's liberal wing may have to contemplate someone whose name begins with "General". Mr Clark's background and idealism are central to his appeal. Raised in Little Rock, Arkansas, he graduated top in his high school class and then first in his class at the prestigious West Point military academy. After a Rhodes scholarship at Oxford University, he volunteered for active duty in 1968. A combat veteran who served in the US army for 34 years, he retired in 2000. As Supreme Allied Commander of Nato, he led a force from 19 nations in the Kosovo conflict. His Nato tenure was controversial. Mr Clark was viewed as too much of a micromanager with a reputation for being difficult. While he commanded the operation that eventually forced Serbian forces out of Kosovo, he was criticised by military experts for not assembling enough aircraft at the start of the campaign and for ruling out a ground invasion that may have speeded up a successful conclusion. Mr Clark's defenders note that he was juggling the opinions of dozens of governments in complex political negotiations while prosecuting a difficult war. Nonetheless, his abrupt departure from the top Nato job raised questions that Republicans will find tempting to revive should he enter the political arena. Mr Clark is probably best known in the US for his regular television appearances as a military analyst on CNN, where he dispenses a polite indictment of the Bush policy in Iraq. He voiced strong doubts from the start. His domestic policy views are less well known. But on tax cuts, for example, he has said simply: "The American people on the one hand don't like taxes. None of us do. But, on the other hand, we expect the government to do certain things for us." Josh Margulies, a member of the draft-Clark group and a former Republican, admires Mr Clark for being "militarily unflinching but socially moderate". The "buzz" surrounding Mr Clark's possible candidacy has grown considerably in recent weeks, following an impressive performance on the influential Meet the Press NBC Sunday morning programme last month. As he considers his chances, not just television viewers are staying tuned. So is the entire political establishment. Josh Margulies on July 21, 2003 04:57 PM | Comments (0)

That shit was hillarious when he came on

Another conspiracy story.....

He's just as bad. I guess 2 wrongs make a right then

the usual extreme right conservative article bashing democrats. Sean Hannity asks the same questions to people on his show and when they go to answer the question he starts bashing them and never lets them finish.

I wish more people would speak out on what they believe in rather than just backing their party (democrat or republican). The liberals and conservatives got to go moderates need to dictate policy

Anyone a supporter of the idea?

You take two arguments against me friend, CHOOSE one. Was the information true and was Iraq obtaining nuclear capability from Niger or was the information false? Don't say it was a "mistake" to add the statement in the SOTU which states plain and simplely the intelligence was false but then comment after that Britain stands by the intelligence whereby you are infering that the niger-Iraq connection was in fact true. By the way no need for cursing this is a political debate thats not nice. You know mental retardation causes semantical defaults where as the retard is unable to decifer the proper instances where vulgarity is appropriate.

by the way i am quite handsome

Buddy it's one thing to be against a war (which i was) and another thing to just go against everything the Government and Bush does. Uday and Qusay were murderers plain and simple noone disputes that and frankly they got what they deserved. Would i sell my own blood to save myself u ask? Well if someone in my family commited half the shit that these guys did then I'd say fry the fuckers. It really amazes me that you would defend these 2. People like you are the reason that the legitimate war argument gets battered.

Hmm u say i'm evasive but you quote the white house as saying it was a "mistake" to add it. If the information was not false then why was it a mistake to say it? If it was true then their would be no reason to deem it a mistake to be said. I really can care less to argue this any more myself I really dont see it going anywhere

It would have been nice if they got them alive they probably know where saddam or if he's dead

Very good i see you did your Sean Hannity homework. Lets get something straight the original statement out of the White House on the matter was that the information was FALSE and " probably shouldn't have been said" Donald Rumsfeld. Why shouldnt have it been said? Hmm because its not true. So now who's responsible? Who was the idiot that put that in the speech if it was a mistake? If this is the only false statement (I wont say lie cause as of right now their is no proof he knew it was false) then i really dont see this as serious as democrats do but what bothers me is that if this is false what other reasons for the need for a regime change in Iraq due to the IMMINENT THREAT that country which we conquered in weeks was. Hmm what comes to mind how about that 9/11 saddam connection I bet that had alot of clout. By the way because i am critical of the war with Iraq does not constitute that I am a democrat, liberal or whatever you want to say i long for a serious 3rd political party.

Funny how Republicans forget how much drama they stirred up over president Clintons sex life and yet they downplay something in the state of the union address as "insignificant".

and that white stuff that goes up your nose at the factory :eek

never had a bad time at discoteque

The democrats need to get someone worth voting for....... I'd like to see general Wesley Clark run for the democrat seat that guy knows his shit

Could i be?

well considering that after the us dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima the Japanese still remained in the war until nearly a week later after a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki where they realized the cause was hopeless so as to say that dropping the bomb on a non-civilian target would have been enough there i disagree with you. Truman made the statement that they have a weapon "of great magnitude" in which they threatened to use on Japan before the dropping of the bomb if they did not surrender and the Japanese still refused. My question to you know is what was the alternative to not dropping the atomic bomb an amphibious invasion on Japan? Discipline and loyalty to the monarchy and emperor where key elements in the Japanese culture which has been ruled by a monarchy for 2000 years. The Japanese where arming 8 year old children and were prepared to fight till the last person if a land invasion was to come. The only reason why the people surrendered was that emperor Hirohito made a public statement to the people saying that the war was over. I understand that it is difficult to believe that the dropping of a weapon like an atomic bomb could have saved lives but that is the truth ask any historian or just put it into consideration to the amount of soldiers who died in the single taking of berlin (250,000 russian not sure what the exact number was german it was somewhere in the hundreds of thousands though) imagine taking a whole island nation which breeds people who would Kamikazi to their deaths for their emperor.

To the original creator of the post I'm not going to bash or disrespect you in any way but rather ask you a question: Would you rather see your stance on war be right and see thousands of US soldiers, solely doing there duty, die or be wrong and have their be less death? I was against the war but now it's done so there's nothing i can do about it but i will say i'm happy at the lack of us casualties during the war, to not be happy about that solely because you are mad you were wrong about the war is just disgusting

I love how people try to compare Saddam with Hitler its pretty funny. And as per the statement that anti war folk are hipocrites because they did not criticize truman and rosevelt for the A-bomb the A-bomb, despite popular thought actually saved not only American lives but Japanese lives as well. There were about 125,000 that died from the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the bombs did not deter Japan out of the war the casualty estimates for the planned invasion of Japan where about 300,000 to 500,000 allied deaths and between a million and a million and a half Japanese deaths.