Ah-nold: A couple things

Hosted Forums RomsHand Forums
61

Technically, he IS a CNN analyst. He was formerly a NATO general, but he was apparently so bad at it that he was fired after the Kosovo operation… which was barely even a military event.

Also, I’d like to point out that, despite commanding the Kosovo operation, he likes to rail against the Bush administration because Iraq was not an “imminent threat.” Umm… we’ll just add him to the list of people who think they should be president despite being totally absurd.

George Bush: “We will not engage in nation-building.”

John Kerry et al: “I oppose the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq.” (despite having voted in favor of both)

Howard Dean: “I am a fiscal conservative.”

Al Sharpton: “Hi, my name is Al Sharpton.”

Zach Tolstyka: “The shark ate me in one hit.”

In fact, now that I think about it, Joe Lieberman might be the only person running for president who hasn’t done any outright lying to the American people in at least five minutes. Way to go, Jewy Joe.

and a loyal soldier to the United States.

How many soldiers aren’t loyal to the United States? Well, United States soldiers, that is. It occurs to me that this isn’t really a qualification for the presidency. Nor is being a bad general who was fired due to incompetence and the inability to subdue the havoc-wreaking hordes of Milosevic. Nor is whatever Kucinich does. Seriously, before this election, who even knew who this fool was?

62

Joe Lieberman calls himself a democrat. But you’re right, he probably hasn’t done it in the last five minutes.

63

Perhaps, but that just means that people hate him for telling the truth. Or maybe its just me that hates him…

64

Nigga please. The man wasn’t terrible at his job. Let’s not heckle the general for winning a war.

1st in his class at West Point. Went to Oxford, got a masters in Economics. Instead of coming back to the US and starting a business or joining a firm to make money, he served in Vietnam, then continued to serve in the military until after the Kosovo operation, which was a success.

You’re nitpicking.

65

I don’t think any of his actions actually led to victory in Kosovo. I was under the impression that the only reason Kosovo turned out properly was because of Mike Short’s rather devastating bombing of Belgrade… you know, all the decapitated children and such?

Also, why should I care if he served in the military instead of opening a business? Loyalty to the United States (assuming that’s something that can only be realized in the military) is, as I’ve noted before, not a necessary prerequisite. What governing experience does he have?

The answer is NATO, from which he was fired for gross incompetence. Since then, he’s been a rather standard liberal whiner about the war in Iraq, a war whose particulars are more or less like the Kosovo one.

66

Umm… let’s take a quick rundown of his positions:

Pro-censorship: This is a tricky one because liberals are anti-censorship on matters of non-speech - like pornography, “art,” flag burning, and music, whereas the minute anyone actually says a word, it has to be censored immediately for fear that it might offend. So I guess that makes Lieberman a conservative, but it’s barely an important difference.

Unwillingness to change his mind about his votes: This might just be the most damning evidence that Lieberman is not a Democrat. Crazily enough, he voted in favor of war in Iraq and still stands by that vote. Golly! A man who votes his conscience. Clearly NOT a Democrat.

Interest group ratings: Has a 100 percent approval rating from Planned Parenthood, 0 percent from National Right to Life. Huh. 80 from the National Farmers Union, 86 from the Humane Society, 100 from the Human Rights Campaign, 30 from the John Birch Society, 8 from the Eagle Forum, 100 from the NEA, 88 from the League of Conservation Voters, 91 from the Children’s Defense Fund, an F from Gun Owners of America, a 90 from the Brady Campaign, a 75 from the UAW, an 85 from Americans for Democratic Action, a 0 from the League of Private Property Voters, a 5 from Americans for Tax Reform, and a 36 from CATO’s Center for Trade Policy Studies. According to the National Journal, his composite liberal score is a 78 (obviously contrasted with a 22 for composite conservative). Granted, his ACLU rating is a 40, but that’s probably attributable to his stance on censorship.

How in the world is he not a Democrat? He’s almost a freaking mercantilist!

67

Um…he was a general in the United States army for years, which I think puts him strongly in the: GOOD FOR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF position (as opposed to going AWOL for a few months, then driving an oil company into the ground, then buying the Texas Rangers, who suck). Also, gross incompetence? He won a presidential citation for his actions there (netting 0 American casualties), and had he gotten what he wanted (a moving ground force) I’m sure the war would have turned out in his favor a lot quicker.

And a liberal whiner? When Americans are dying and there doesn’t seem to be any solid strategy for what we’re doing there (besides hold on for dear life, and continue to pump money into the country)…I wouldn’t call that whining. I’d call that necessary questioning of authority.

68

Oh, and we were never told that Serbia had nuke-yoo-lur bombs and were about to attack us AT ANY SECOND!!!

It was humanitarian the whole way down.

Which is why I think so many conservatives were opposed to it (not that I was necessarily for it).

69

Except that those aren’t his reasons for whining. His foremost reason is that Iraq was not an “imminent threat,” as if Kosovo was. Look, there are solid liberal critiques to be made of the situation in Iraq, but almost no one is making them. Everyone who is in a position to make them (i.e., liberals) is too busy complaining about money and quagmire to be postulating any sort of alternative.

The simple fact that’s being ignored here is that the Bush administration is responsible for more freedom than the EU and the UN combined, which, considering all the talk of the “conservative” Bush administration, is pretty sad. And people like Wesley Clark and Howard Dean and their associates can complain all they want, but the only ones actually talking - and by talking I mean presenting real solutions - are the Bushies.

Which, and now I’m ranting, is generally the problem with the liberal establishment, and it’s not a problem I see being fixed any time soon. Even the great Howard Dean is only interested in telling us why Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Ashcroft are evil. He has no solutions. I quote from the Dean for America flier on the floor of my living room:

“My plan for post-war Iraq reconstruction stems from a larger philosophy of foreign policy that recognizes that as a nation, we must engage and not isolate… Their burden is ours, and anything less than total commitment will be dangerous for our long-term future…”

“I would argue that we as a nation should decide our priorities, spend that dollar [tax money] once, and leave the federal budget balanced.”

“As president, I would bring my commitment to our environment to the White House.”

Is no one else bothered by the fact that none of this is policy? You may not like Bush’s policies, but he’s got the military training police and setting up a government in Iraq and he’s got definite policies on taxation and spending (bad bad bad ones, but they’re policies). Nothing Howard Dean, or any of the other Democrats I can see, advocates is policy, except that they all favor universal (meaning socialized) health care, which is such an enormously bad idea that I can’t imagine why THAT’s what they’ve got a definite stance on.

So, now that I’m bringing this rant to a close for the night, here’s my challenge: Wesley Clark, if he can put policy to position and tell me what he wants to do with Iraq (not just “bring back the UN” as if the UN is some kind of magic panacea - it’s not, compare postwar Japan and Germany) and domestic policy (not just “balance the budget” - I want to know how), he may just get my vote. I don’t really care all that much about his competence as a military commander because some of the greatest/my favorite presidents (see Lincoln and Reagan) were not military commanders at all. I just want… something, anything. Even a Democrat.

70

From everything I’ve read, Clark doesn’t want the UN to simply take over in Iraq, nor does he disagree in the $87 billion (I think only Kucinich is against that, because he’s a jackhat), but he does want international troops on the ground with an increased US military presence.

I can’t disagree with him here. Nor can I disagree with the 87 billion smacker-oos. As much as I didn’t like the war, I can’t just say: well walk away now. Because we can’t. We have to spend money and troops and lives to keep Iraq from turning into Iran 2: the Islamic Boogaloo.

I know Clark understands this, and I know Clark would do the right thing. This is where I want someone who is willing to say: “the situation isn’t great, we need more help” rather than someone who spends all his time saying: “EVERYTHING IS FINE! STOP COMPLAINING! EVERYTHING IS FINE! DON’T ASK QUESTIONS! FUCK INTERNATIONAL TROOPS! WE’LL JUST HAVE OUR TROOPS STAY IN COUNTRY FOR AN EXTRA FOUR TOURS OF DUTY!”

That’s all…

And Clark’s domestic policy is the same as Bush’s: repeal the Tax Cuts. Because, you realize, for Bush’s last term in office, he no longer has money, and there won’t be any more tax cuts. So…there goes that whole idea.

71

From today on CNN: CNN.com - Clark enters presidential race - Sep. 17, 2003

“This is what my expertise, my leadership experience, my whole career has pointed and prepared me for,” Clark said in an interview with CNN’s “American Morning” on Wednesday.

“I’ve had a lot of diplomatic experience. I’ve done a lot of work with security policy. I think I’m the best person to look at the future of this country and keep us safe.”

Clark, 58, becomes the 10th Democrat seeking to unseat President Bush in 2004. He is a West Point graduate, Rhodes scholar and former CNN military analyst who led U.S. and allied forces in NATO’s 1999 air war in Kosovo.

Clark, asked about the fact that he never held an elective office, said his move is ambitious, but it is also an “extraordinary” era.

Questioned about how he can market himself and his campaign without a record on domestic issues, Clark said on Wednesday that he has “the same experience that everybody else does” when it comes to grappling with the issues as a citizen.

He said he worries about health care, education, unemployment and other life issues as other voters do. He said when he was in the military, he dealt with quality-of-life and personnel issues such as housing, education and health care “for our people.”

“I’m very much aware of those issues and how they affect people,” said Clark, who also noted his experience working in the Office of Management and Budget and teaching economics at West Point. “I’ve got some background in this, you’d be surprised.”

Clark/Dean 2004.

72

I have to start by saying that I want the national news media to stop playing this Rhodes scholar, first in class card. If I have to hear one more time about how smart all Democrats are (see Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Bradley - of whom maybe one is notably intelligent - and also a criminal), I’m going to shoot someone. Ditto for how stupid Republicans are. We all know none of this is true and it’s really obnoxious to hear it all the time.

Now, I’m also all for the $87 million dollars and gasp repeal of the tax cuts. But I do worry about international troops. One of the major reasons is that, of the two serious nation-buildings the US has been part of, the one without international troops (Japan) is the one that went well (contrast Germany). Also, the UN is infamously neutral when it comes time to stop talking about human rights and actually secure some… so I’m wary. As I always have been of the UN.

And finally, I feel I need to talk about the crazy liberal nonsensical nonsense of the day: Today, in the Michigan Daily (112 years of idiotic foolishness), Ari Paul decided to make two interesting - and bizarre - points:

  1. The Bush administration has fought tooth and nail to privatize everything from education to health care. It’s funny that he picked those two things, in that the Bush administration, thanks to the No Child Left Behind Act and the Medicare expansion, has done the opposite of privatizing those. FYI, I abhor the No Child Left Behind Act and am not very ecstatic about Medicare expansion.

  2. The Bush administration is hypocritical because it treats the military as a socialist institution. Ignoring the fact that “compassionate conservatives” are not anti-state Reaganites, I also would like to point out that there are innumerable good philosophical/political/commonsensical sources that see an obvious distinction between the military and income redistribution. And he says the fact that no one wants military forces provided by private institutions is a “flaw of capitalism.” My response: ???!!

73

I’m going to have to ask what you mean by that.

74

A gross failure on the part of the “Allies” to come up with anything approximating a coherent plan for the reconstruction of Germany. Instead, what we got was enough France vs. USSR infighting to leave Germany split in half for 40+ years - notably with the East part in relatively abject poverty. Japan, on the other hand, made a spectacular recovery and to this day remains a pretty happy democracy on par with the Western ones

75

But the tentacle rape porn!

My God, the rape porn…

And the USSR deserved a little slice of Germany. 10,000 Soviets were dying per day at stages of the war…so cut them a little slack.

Cut France 0 slack, however. They were cowards and capitulators, and should be heckled throughout history for their ineptitude and suckiness in WWII.

76

I’d heckle them more for their ineptitude and suckiness between the wars, but maybe that’s just me. “Well, that was a fun war! Now instead of trying to prevent another one, let’s just put it off a few years with harsh economic and political penalties!”

77

The reparations weren’t that bad, and Germany was more than able to pay them off. They just chose not to, and France did nothing about it.

78

What the USSR deserved was Stalin’s head on a freaking stick. As if FDR’s entire presidency weren’t a black enough mark on this nation’s history, cooperation with the Soviet Union? Please. Our troops should have been crossing French soil in 1933 to blast holes in the German countryside, all the while spitting on anyone who dared to call us “unilateralists.” (Of course the world actually respected their betters then, so they probably wouldn’t have called us that.) Then we could have shown the USSR exactly how much we needed them to beat Hitler. As an added bonus, their troops could have gone on living in abject poverty and oppression. Long live Lenin.

Also, it has just been pointed out to me that electing a president means electing a judiciary… so I will have to vote for Dubya and hope that there might possibly be a Bork or Estrada who can get through the ridiculousness that is the Senate. After all, Scalia did it.

79

Yeah, I’m going to ignore this, because there’s no way I’m going to convince you, and other conservatives might join in and make everybody squirm.

Our troops should have been crossing French soil in 1933 to blast holes in the German countryside, all the while spitting on anyone who dared to call us “unilateralists.”
What kind of lesson would Americans learn from this? Never go near foreign countries, ever, that’s what I’m guessing. You may think I’m just some European who happens to have been born and raised in America and has never been to Europe or any foreign country but Canada, but I’m at least American enough to think that America has business being in other countries. It’s true that going to Europe would have been useful in that case, but it could have killed any future American efforts anywhere to do anything (this is also my major problem with the Iraqi war). How would Mr. President and his helpers have made the war out to be a good thing to get involved in?

80

You do realize their ineptitude is mostly due to maybe 4 incompetent generals and the fact that germany had planted troops in France even before the war started, so that they were Gestapoed to Hell before the smoke cleared.