Reply #75: Re: [View All]

[drummo]

I wonder how many here at DU share your definition of "primary wars". Expressing a preference for one Democrat over another is not my idea of a "primary war".

There is a reason why someone does that. Even if he/she doesn't elaborate about that reason in one particular post.

You however intentionally dug back into the past for a hot button issue to push.

Yes since the issue was why Clark should be the Dem nominee instead of Gore. That was obvious from the poster's comment.

I don't think that serves the interests of the person that you are supporting though you obviously differ.

But it serves the truth about Clark. Which one would think matters when we decide who should be the nominee, no?

Alright. Check back later, I will have more to say to you. A quick scan of your post reveals many points which, let's be gentle for the moment, are subject to very different conclusions, and/or are based on disputed information.

It's not enough if it's disputed by someone. It has to be based on facts. Not just opinions.

Which is to say in other words that you think Clark believes National Security Policy should be the subject of political games.

Which is to say that Clark already did that. It's part of his record. And it's inexusable.

It is that type of blatant negative and distorted perception of Wesley Clark that underlies your entire "read" on what happened between 2002 and 2004 and colors what you accept as reality.

Prove that Clark didn't flip-flop and that would resolve this issue.
Actions have consequences. If Clark now pretends to be someone he is not (a person who opposed the IWR all along) then that simultanously shows lack of judgement on serious policy matters like the IWR and political expediency. And if that's the case he deserves the negative perception and it is not based on distortion of reality.
Clark said many many things between 2002 and 2004. But just because he said something at one point of time which alone suggests he wouldn't have voted for the resolution that in no way invalidates my argument that he flip-flopped since at other point of time he said he probably would have voted for the resolution.

Do you actually understand what the phrase "flip-flop" means?