General Clark Coming Up On CNN

[DemocratSinceBirth]

To talk with the Wolf Man...

[goclark]

1. What happened?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Not Yet... Any Minute...

eom

[laruemtt]

2. can't wait to see his face

and hear his voice again to remind me of some goodness in humanity. did i say bah humbug yet today?........

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. Wes Clark 08'

[0007]

5. Piss on CNN!

[eleny]

6. I just turned on the tv

Heard Wolf say Armstrong Williams and Amy Goodman. Will they be on debating each other and then Clark?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. u missed him

eom

[eleny]

9. thanks

i did catch armstong and amy. but i heard that clark said we should stay the course. on this, i disagree with him. not when we've learned how poorly the gov't supports our troops. hope he changes his thinking on this.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Clark was talking about getting the

Iraqi security forces bolstered by our troups. Clark was talking about using "diplomacy" with the bordering Arab States (that's what the conference that he and Clinton attended last week was about).

Clark has enough wisdom to see that a civil war would be the result of us pulling out at this point....which would be far worse than what is going on there now.

To come into a country uninvited, screw it all up and then leave a civil war behind you is just not the answer....unfortunately. Iraq has become a complex issue....not just a question of cutting and running or staying to occupy it for years and years. There are actions that can be taken (that the Bush admin will never do, cause they don't have any common sense whatsoever)to leave at some point....but not leave a madhouse that could make the entire region explode in our faces.

I think, like us, Wes Clark would prefer an easy solution to this Bush War....but it ain't ever as easy as it seems.

[eleny]

14. I was a Clark supporter and disagree with him on staying the course

Our government has failed to give the troops the tools they need. I won't support them staying there.

How many U.S. deaths will it take till you reach your breaking point? Have you asked yourself that question and answered it? I'll ask you. How many?

[janx]

17. There will be civil war in Iraq whether we stay or not.

It's going on now, in fact.

I agree about responsibility, but there comes a point at which we really have to make a major decision and ask ourselves: Is it worth it?

[AP]

22. I think the key is that the US face has to come off this thing.

It can't be a US occupation, but we can't leave an unstable country which will just be a source of fear mongering exploited by future US RW'ers.

The first step is to get a lot of nations involved -- and then to get no nations involved other than Iraq.

[RafterMan]

31. Why do other nations want to get involved?

Much of the international community's half-hearted enthusiasm for taking over the project evaporated as the situation began to go to hell.

I'm unconvinced that anyone else wants in, except to carve themselves a piece of the carcass.

[AP]

32. Because Europe and Asia's future depends on stable ME more than America's.

(The profits of American oil companies depend on chaos in Iraq.)

Other countries don't want to be involved in an Iraq which is controlled by American decision makers and in which chaos is encouraged, and which is largely operated merely to shift wealth to companies like Halliburton.

But if the US backed down -- if it weren't an American operation -- I have no doubt other countries would step in and help move Iraq towards unchaotic autonomy faster and more effectively.

[RafterMan]

33. Convenient

but unconvincing.

[AP]

35. Why wouldn't every net importer of oil in Europe, Asia and Africa NOT

want a stable ME if the US pulled out? Why would any of those countries want to be involved so long as the US is involved?

[RafterMan]

They would want a stable middle east

They just wouldn't act on that. And if they did act they wouldn't sustain it.

Let me reverse the question -- why would the insurgents, having knocked the superpower out of the game, meekly submit to European occupation that has the same aim of securing the oil fields for foreigners? And how would the European populace react to suicide bombers blowing up their guys?

Even if a significant chunk of the Iraqi populace would be willing to give it a shot with different uniforms, there is no reason the hard-core insurgents can't repeat the same process they did with the Americans and drive the same wedge between the parties.

It was a good idea a year or so ago, but now it's mostly wishful thinking.

[AP]

40. Because devolving power so broadly suggests that no single power is trying

to turn Iraq into a colony or protectorate. It would be obvious that the project was to get gout and let Iraq control Iraq.

Look at how post colonialism works today: countries pulled out of colonies, but the left in place mechanisms so they can control from afar. That's what Iraq will think America is doing so long as America is in total control. In fact, that's what the US is trying to do. They're trying to create a country which will make US oil companies rich, and they're trying to create the slightest veneer of democracy so long as the governmennt really operates to deliver wealth to Huston.

Now, if 60 African, European and Asian nations got involved, and power was devolved among all of them, it would be clear that no single power would (or could) be left actually pulling the strings. In that case democratic institutions could be put in place and wealth would recycle WITHIN Iraq, which would create both INCENTIVES against terrorism (why be a terrorist when you can start your own small business, be a lawyer or be a doctor?) and it will create infrastructure which can protect against terrorism (an army, a police force, working courts, etc -- money CAN and DOES buy those things, and it's not happening now because only Huston is getting rich off of Iraq's wealth now).

To summarize: Iraq right now is clearly being set up as an American colony. Take the American face off the operation, get about 60 countries involved (all of whom need a peaceful ME so that their own economies can develop without the sort of friction that only helps concentrate wealth among the wealthy arms dealers and fear mongers and energy companies) and it will be clear that they will all be leaving without a colonial government in place.

[RafterMan]

42. What you say is true about the US's actions,

but this is not a useful model for the insurgency in Iraq. If it were, the violence would be country wide -- instead, it is centered around those who have most to lose under *any* change in government, not just a switch to an American puppet state.

You implicitly admit this with your solution -- if Americanization were the sole cause of the insurgency, then the solution would be to have the Americans leave. Once they were gone, the cause would be removed and there would be no need for foreign troops of any stripe. But there is, you admit, a need for foreign troops. And I say the groups that cause that need would use the same methods against the new occupiers that they did against the Americans, with the same success.

[AP]

46. If the playing field were cleared of US troops now, a couple things could

happen. One is that chaos would mean that whatever slight US infrastructure has been put in place would probably still be enough result in de facto US control -- that's how post colonialism has operated for the last 40 years.

Another is that some Sadam-like tyrant would take control and give the US their hobgoblin so that they can scare Americans into voting for RW'ers for 20 more years.

A third possibility is that Iraq will work it out on their own.

The first two possibilities are probably the best reasons to make sure that the pullout isn't abrupt and doesn't go from US to nobody, because 'nobody' would still mean de facto US post-colonial rule.

The intermediary phase isn't so much just to deal with insurgency as it is to remove the mechanisms which would result in a US-dominated post-colonial situation. And to be clear, I think the biggest cause of the insurgency is the existence and the continued promise of American colonialism and post-colonialism in Iraq.

[RafterMan]

47. Again, it doesn't matter what the "biggest cause" is

All the putschists have to do is bomb your new international force until they tighten security enough to push the people back into the insurgency. Just like they did with the Americans.

If all you're saying is "better them that us", fine, but it doesn't solve anything.

[AP]

49. Even if the do, it's better all the way around if what's left behind isn't

some kind of Amercian post-colonial puppet state. That never works out well and societies that are in that stage today are violently and disruptively transitioning towards something more democratic and autonomous.

For the sake of the whole region and for oil importers in Asia, Africa, and Europe, nobody needs that kind of crap.

Thus, the best solution is to take the US face off of this ASAP, and do something that doesn't leave chaos or de facto US rule.

[RafterMan]

50. I agree that nobody needs that kind of crap

Thus, the US must change its goals. Some say, "but the US will never agree to give up control", but this would moot your plan as well, since turnover to a multinational force implies giving up control.

And nobody needs the crap of having their troops be sitting ducks in Iraq. In Asia, India and Pakistan probably couldn't go in for political reasons, Malaysia and Indonesia are exporters who would benefit from higher oil prices. It would be politically difficult for Japan to expand its role whatever the situation. In Africa, Nigeria is a producer and to the north, Mubarak has articulated reasons similar to mine as reasons the Arabs shouldn't go under any circumstances. Obviously, Iraq's immediate neighbors must be ruled out as well.

So you're left with Europe, China, Russia, possibly Korea, possibly South Africa and maybe some South American countries as those with the incentive and ability to project power into Iraq. Of these, only China and Russia have the political ability to take the kind of blows the US is taking now without losing power at home, and both of these are jihad-magnets just like the US. And all this without even getting to the issue of coordination between units from countries that have never operated together before, as well as having to learn the ways of the locals.

The time for this strategy was in the months following the takeover, ahead of the curve, ahead of the backlash. Now the backlash has come and it is a regressive, not a progressive strategy. We can't reset the clock. We shouldn't try.

What we should do is find out what Iraq's neighbors want to commit themselves to the political process and secure their side of the borders. We should push for political integration of Sunni leaders -- this is frequently commented on, but I'm not sure how seriously it is persued. It worked with al Sadr and many said it wouldn't. Finally, we should negotiate with the post-election government and follow a build-down plan that quickly (*with dates*) replaces our forces with Iraqis as they become available. If the election doesn't go through, we should publish such a plan unilaterally.

The multinational force plan was a good one at one time. Now it adds needless and complicated steps that are unlikely to succeed to a process that has been stalled long enough. What are the chances that the Bush administration will abandon its conquest and finally start living up to its rhetoric? I don't know, but I think larger than the chance they'll abandon their conquest and pray that a global army appears in their place.

[AP]

51. US control is the problem. I'm not trying to predict what will happen.

I'm just trying to argue what the best solution would be.

I don't think securing the borders of a US controlled Iraq is going to solve the problem. The world has enough history of colonialism and post-colonialism to know that it's impossible to suppress resistance to occupation (whether it's overt, or conducted from a distance, in the case of post-colonialism).

Saying that you're going to negotiate with the post-election governmnent is like saying "I don't compromise with myself", or whatever it was that Bush said. The post-election government is going to manifest the will of the US, with or without the charade of "negotiations." As for replacing forces with Iraqis, I don't think that's going to fool insurgents either. A feature of colonization, including the Phillipines, for the US -- one of the things the colonizing power always does -- is to try to use the locals to police the locals so that you create the fiction of autonomy. So long as the locals are enforcing rules that benefit the colonizer, insurgents are not going to be fooled. (And this is the reason the insurgents are killing so many Iraqi police officers -- they've read their colonial histories of the Phillipines.)

The problem with Iraq is that the US is setting that country up to be a spigot for wealth flowing to American oil and oil service and security companies. The thing that will cause insurgency no matter who is governming or what the racial make-up of the police and army is will be the realization that wealth is flowing out of the country.

Now, how can you solve that problem? Well, you could pull out totally, but like I said, American fascists will probably figure out a way to make political hay out of the ensuing chaos, and may already be able to control from afar thanks to what they've done so far.

The other thing you can do is put in a transitional aparatus that makes it impossible for any one country to set up Iraq as a colony. That's what the multinational force could achieve. The devolution of power and authority could mean that no one country or bloc of countries could turn Iraq into a colony.

[RafterMan]

52. You apply every model in history

except the one you are presented with.

Sistani's umbrella party will likely win the elections, and it's not a US puppet. It's not even an Iranian puppet, though it's closer to them than the US. Somebody has to set up Iraqi forces -- whether it's the US or the Chinese or the Russians is insignificant compared to the intent of the US or the Chinese or the Russians in setting up those forces.

You say, "put in a transnational aparatus" but I have shown this is impossible. There is no neutrality from external forces when it comes to Iraq's oil wealth, and there is no neutrality from internal forces when it comes to occupation.

Consider Afghanistan -- the current government is a compromise between the US, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran and the Afghanis. Almost no one claims it is real, home-grown product. So would the product of your multinational force be -- the multinational force is not a structural way of preventing this.

To clarify once again, renouncing imperial ambitions and renouncing security obligations are not the same question. If the US is capable of the first in inviting in a multinational force, it is also capable of the first while not inviting in a multinational force (or, more accurately, while acknowleging no multinational force will come). Your plan adds new troubles without solving old ones.

[AP]

53. Again, not predicting what will happen. Just saying what should

happen, in my opinion.

But I will predict this: no government elected while US is occupying Iraq, and no army or police force trained by America will ever be seen as legitimate, and will therefore do nothing to reduce violent resistance.

I heard a soldier say that the elections they do have elect people whom the US then takes into hiding. The soldier said the elections are frauds. They just do them to say that they are having elections, but the people elected don't do anything -- they don't represent the people.

Also, I read some of the laws under which Iraq currently operates. They're a joke. Basically the law is just grease on the skids on which Iraqi wealth flows straight out of Iraq towards Houston.

As for the multinational force -- there may be no neutrality, but devolving power to a lot of countries which have an interest in a stable ME will help ensure that no one country or bloc can control Iraq during and after their inevitable exit.

So, to address your final paragraph: the US has no intention of renouncing imperial ambitions, but a multinational transitional force could make it structurally impossible to impose imperial will on Iraq (and it is imperial will that people are violently rejecting).

[RafterMan]

54. You're still wrong

The multinational compromise didn't produce a legitimate authority in Afghanistan, and there's no reason to think it would in Iraq. Unless you think the US is some kind of special poison, and that other great powers will not act in their own interests instead of Iraq's. I assume nobody is naive enough to believe that.

To address your final paragraph, the US would have to renounce its imperial ambitions as the first step for a multinational force to go in. Since you think they won't, why do you insist on playing fantasy baseball with this phantom force? And if they did, why do you insist on the preposterous assumption that the big players in the follow-on force would follow suit?

What the people are violently resisting is the brute force of occupation. That brute force can be brought out of any occupier with the same methods by which it was brought out of the US forces. It's too late in the game for college class fantasies. The US must train up the forces and get out. If the Iraqis don't buy the new government, they can overthrow it once we've gone. This is the exact same deal any multinational force can offer, and such a "solution" only prolongs the agony before the moment of decision is reached.

[AP]

56. Afghanistan is not my model. The US got the gov't they want

in Afghanistan, and they have no interest in stabilizing Afghanistan except for a few blocks in downtown Kabul. And the violence in Kabul is a product of the fact that everyone knows that Karzai is Bush's man.

And AGAIN, I'm not predicting what will happen. I'm saying what needs to happen. My operating premise is that this is fantasy baseball.

To be blunt: the cause of the violence is America's imperial ambitions. If you don't advocate a program that removes imperialism, you're not going to eliminate violent resistance.

And therefore, I ask you a similar question: why engage in the fantasy that insurgency will end with a Sistani gov't and a US trained police force and army? You must know it's not going to change a damn thing.

Every post-colonial country in the world is a chaotic mess, puppet governments and "indigenous" armies and police forces notwithstanding -- in fact those things are the cause of the mess. The US is modeling Iraq on failures. This is what they want. They don't care how much friction there is, so long as profits flow to Texas.

And, btw, you haven't convinced me that a lot of EU, African, SA, and Asian countries wouldn't get involved in a multinational transitional force.

[RafterMan]

57. Sure a Sistani party government could make it

The guy's a genius. He's got Chalabi and Moktada al Sadr running on the same slate of candidates. He's used a great combination of carrots and sticks to keep the US hopping. He's mostly maintained peace in his areas by clearly communicating with the Americans what they should and shouldn't be doing in his sphere of influence. There's no reason to expect he won't find common ground with the Kurds, who also have their act together. They might make it, they might not. But they're the same players an international force would have to deal with.

As for your "btw", you haven't presented any counterarguments. Where, for instance, are the African armies coming from? How will the French mollify their population when the Baathists bomb them (and again, this does not require that the Baathists be the majority of the current resistance, only that they are able to strike)? What will China do when the jihadis line up to smack them for what they've done to the Uighurs? Or the Russians for Chechnya? Or the Indians for Kashmir? Or the repressive Arab tyrannies for being repressive Arab tyrannies? They'll either bug out or crack down -- same choice that faces the US.

Afghanistan is not your model, but it's what you'd end up with -- the consensus choice of the interested powers. They are no more capable of disinteresting themselves than the US is -- and if the US disinterested itself enough to end its own occupation and hand it over to others, why compound the difficulties with the handover in the first place? If the US is capable of disinteresting itself enough to hand it over to internationals, why is it not capable of disinteresting itself enough for a more-or-less legitimate political process to emerge? And if that latter is impossible for the occupying Americans to do, it is just as impossible for the occupying Chinese to do. And if you think the competing interests of the Chinese, Russians and French would somehow structurally balance each other out and result in a purer form of government, have another look at Karzai.

It's fine to insist you're not PREDICTING what will happen, but in advocating this flawed model you're predicting what would happen if it were followed. Only it wouldn't.

[AP]

59. I'm just telling you what will end the attacks: an end to US imperialism

And staying in there, running elections, imposing the set of laws we're imposing on that country is NOT an end to US imperialism.

If 60 countries had 2,000 people each fatalities would never reach a level that would force anyone to bug out, and if the argument were made to their citizens that they're there so that the US can't run Iraq as a colony (so that the US can control the fuel of economic growth in Africa, Europe and Asia) then I think the citizens of those countries might be willing to tough it out. (After all, Americans are toughing it out for reasons that are much less compelling.)

[Donna Zen]

34. There's involved and involved:

Clark is not speaking speaking about others becoming "involved" militarily; he is advocating for a diplomatic process that places those nations with interests to be "involved" in securing the region.

The most frightening thing I heard Clark say today was his referencing of the talks he recently had with the more moderate leaders in the region. All of them see that Iraq will eventually become closely aligned with Iran...an Iran that will have the bomb. It is not so much the "having" of the bomb in an of itself, it is the new dynamic that will be created. This would halt or limited any governmental reforms currently underway in those countries because they would be required to assume a new stance.

Note that he also mentions that we don't know "who" is talking for Iran. That is a serious problem. Clark has suggested since the beginning of this national nightmare that Iran and Syria must be "at the table." They are the "contact" nations. We must be "involved" in a dialogue with Iran, or the region will be ripe for more war.

I doubt that bush will listen. As Clark has said about bush: "When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail." At the conference in the UAE, Clark urged the surrounding states to open talks with Iran; I am guessing he is not betting good money on the bushCos doing it.

Without some stability in Iraq, it could devolve into much more than a civil war; more like genocide and then a regional war. (IIRC, Syria and Jordan are Suni.) Would we have to return?

Before Clark entered the primary race, he said on MTP that this was the "worst foreign policy decision that this country had ever made." I knew then he'd get my vote.

[RafterMan]

38. Yes, that sort of involvement is both possible and necessary

I was just saying that the idea of foreign divisions rotating in to replace the Americans is an idea whose time has come -- and gone.

The political portion of the solution must be made as broad as possible to satisfy all parties capable of influencing its outcome.

[lawladyprof]

19. The time for the easy solution was March 2003--Don't go

N/T

[Stinky The Clown]

25. I still can't decide where I stand on this VERY complex issue

Just last night I posted this in another thread:

We were having dinner with our neighbors earlier tonight and just before we sat down, the news was running the story of the 19+ dead in Iraq today. Our neighbors are a mixed couple .... she's a dem and he's a repub (who voted for Kerry this go-round .... his first dem vote in forever).

Anyway, this story was on and he says we should be out of there now. Tonight. Instantly. He and I are both Navy guys who served in the 60's. Interestingly, he was on Kerry's side of the VVAW stuff way back then, and has held to that position ever since. I, on the other hand, was more of the John Oneill stripe back then.

Anyway, we had quite a discussion about the War in Iraq(tm). He wants out and wants out now. I say that even though I have been strongly opposed to it and think it was a grave error to have started it, we have a moral obligation to fix what we broke. (I'm NOT pro-war. I'm conflicted. I guess I just feel guilty for my country's actions and want to make amends but don't know how.)

His final word on the matter ........ "You forgot Vietnam?"

Amazing .... a republican talking a democrat out of staying in Iraq.

But even after posting that, I'm not sure. I agree with Clark that we have to get it right there and we MUST use diplomacy. But how can we when **we** are the problem?

Thanks Georgie, for going there in the first place with NO FUCKING PLAN and NO FUCKING REASON and then fucking this up so bad it is nearly hopeless and has so few options.


No ...... I haven't forgotten Vietnam.

[politicasista]

8. I will vote for him in 08 if Kerry decides not to run

Don't hate on me.

[Jack_Dawson]

26. Say WHAT?

Kerry had his chance.

Go General.

[LittleClarkie]

27. I don't get that philosophy

If Kerry was a good man who would have made a great president in 04, then he will still be a good man who will make a great president in 08.

Why is it "one chance and out." Why reinvent the wheel. Why not pick someone who has run a national campaign already, knows what they did wrong, and can run a better one next time.

Anyway, it's too early. We need to see what Kerry, and Clinton, and Gore, and Clark and anyone else does between then and now.

[Jack_Dawson]

28. U sure ur a Clarkie?

:shrug:

[LittleClarkie]

29. I was -- now I'm a Clarkie for Kerry

At the instructions of the General, I jumped on the Kerry bandwagon.

And I like it here.

[sendero]

36. Why is it "one chance and out"...

... a better question might be "why try a loser twice"?

Exactly what qualities is Kerry going to gain in the next 3 years that qualify him to run again?

If he couldn't beat an incumbent with a horrible record how can he beat a shiny new unknown?

The very idea that he is thinking about 08 makes my blood boil. He had more important things to do, and I think that thinking about 08 is why he didn't do them. And that sucks.

[LittleClarkie]

37. He was not a "loser" in that he doesn't have the qualities to be prez

just a loser as in having a lousy campaign staff.

He need not gain any new qualities. Just a better PR department.

The qualities he already has should bring him to the forefront of the fight against Bush, if we can get the press to pay attention when he is.

Everyone keeps talking about the incumbent with the horrible record. Well, half my freeper friends think Bush is the best thing since sliced bread. 9/11 pushed several people into "super-patriot-whatever-the- commander-in-cheif-says" mode. I swear they're brainwashed.

Then there's the suppression and such. And the exit polls that back up a possible electoral landslide if the fraud talk pans out. He may not have lost at all. He may have won most handily.

He's mentioned 08 as a possibility, but it appears he has SEVERAL things on his mind: Recounts, fraud, BCCI, whatever Pitt the tease is teasing us about, children's health care, Iraq.

Multi-tasking, gotta love it.

I say again "Kerry 08."

[sendero]

39. I could care less...

... if he would make a good president. If he can't run a winning campaign, it is 100% moot.

Even if there was fraud, he has done nearly nothing about it and in fact I claim that if a smoking gun were found tomorrow it would be too late.

I don't dislike Kerry, and I think he would make a fine president - I just don't believe in playing the same losing hand twice.

[LittleClarkie]

41. Well, I'll stay on the Kerry express. You can go and reinvent the wheel

if you want.

I'll take the high road and you take the low road and I'll be in DC before ye.

I'll bet you a cybercookie the old guy pulls it out in the end. Tollhouse.

[sendero]

44. LOL...

.... anything but Kerry is the low road? That's laughable my friend. We had at least 2 better candidates on 04. We'll have more in 08.

[LittleClarkie]

45. Chronological, just fitting it into the song

meant nothing by high and low.

Just saying you go your way, and I'll go mine. And I still think we haven't seen the last of Sen. John F. Kerry.

Better candidates? Debatable.

[Kahuna]

58. Woo boy! Swift Boat Vets. redux... Can't wait...

</sarcasm> :eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

10. He was on for a longer interview than normal....

based on his recent visit to the middle east.

General Clark just came back from traveling there and he is saying, what many have suspected...Many in the region have given up on Iraq and are scared as hell of Iran.

He was more pessimistic than I would have hoped. He's correct that a diplomatic forum with Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, and Jordan (plus perhaps Bahrain, Qatar and the U.A.E.) is crucial to start NOW! Sadly, it may already be too late. This is bad news.

I like the way that while others are pointing the finger at Rumsfeld, Clark is pointing his at Bush. Wolf asked him if Rummy should go. Wes said that he had not called for that. He said that Rummy's made tons of mistakes, serious mistakes and was disrespectful toward the troops. He said he was shocked with the way he responded to the question about the armor. But, "In the end, this is President Bush's policy and Donald Rumsfeld is implementing it."

[HootieMcBoob]

11. Someone who actually knows what he's talking about

If there is anybody in this country that can do what it takes to clean up this horrific mess that these madmen have created Wes Clark is that person.

[politicasista]

13. Oh like Kerry and other candiates didn't know what they were talking about

[Donna Zen]

20. Actually?

Some of them consulted with Clark before he entered the race, although Edwards who favored entering Iraq without UN support consulted with Shelton.

Kerry spoke with many people.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I Have No Amimus Toward Kerry...

He ran a decent race and beat the Simian In Chief like a drum in all three debates....


Some times the better man doesn't always win....

[LittleClarkie]

30. Yeah, the debates were wonderous, weren't they?

Ah, memories. Ol' Blinkey with that look on his face... the way the volunteers came streaming in after that first debate.

SIGH.

Kerry, the "I told you so" candidate for 2008

[Skittles]

15. DAMN he is good-looking

forgive me for being superficial but DAMN

[cyn2]

18. tee hee, Skittles, I hear ya'....n/t

[Skittles]

23. it's sorry, half the time I don't even hear what he is saying

too busy drooling

[Geek_Girl]

43. You ever wonder why Democrats are so good looking

and Republicans are so Damn ugly?

[shrike]

55. I've always been hot for Clark

And I don't mind admitting it. The man's got sex appeal.

[FrenchieCat]

60. Yep...

It's the "Doe" eyes (apart from the chiseled cheeckbones...and the rest of the "package")

No squinty eyes like the dishonest pols that lie to us repeately while smiling in our faces.

[robbedvoter]

16. Rumsfield is only executing W's policies...nice reminder.

[Donna Zen]

21. Yes

Glad Wes puts the buck where it belongs.

[Obviousman]

48. That was a good point

n/t
William Donohue