I know Clark's position, but not the others. This is Clark's intelligent position:
"I believe that law enforcement should have access to all necessary tools to deal with the problems of terrorism, which is why I'm calling for an immediate $40 billion investment in homeland security. But I don't believe that we can win a war on terror if we give up the essence of who we are as Americans. That's why I think that Congress should fully review the so-called USA PATRIOT Act - and repeal the provisions that go too far.
The USA PATRIOT Act was jammed through Congress in a matter of weeks, when the country was still in shock from the horrific attacks of September 11th. It wasn't carefully drafted and it wasn't fully debated. More troubling is that, in just two years, the Act has grown the tentacles that many feared. Last month, a Justice Department report admitted that the John Ashcroft has actually expanded the substantial reach of the Act, using it to snoop in secrecy for evidence of crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism.
Now Ashcroft is proposing the PROTECT Act. Among other curtailments, the proposed bill all but forbids prosecutors from agreeing to downward departures from the rigid federal sentencing guidelines, increasing the chance that individual punishments won't actually fit individual crimes. It also instructs prosecutors to report judges that order departures from sentencing guidelines - creating the very real possibility that judges will be put on a DOJ blacklist.
I am concerned that the USA PATRIOT Act goes too far in expanding the authority of government investigators, and that it does so without sufficient oversight. We need to make sure that we are taking responsible measures to meet the needs of the time. That's why I'll call on Congress to fully review each provision of the Act, study the ways in which each has been used in practice, and eliminate those provisions that unduly threaten our civil liberties."
"I believe that law enforcement should have access to all necessary tools to deal with the problems of terrorism, which is why I'm calling for an immediate $40 billion investment in homeland security. But I don't believe that we can win a war on terror if we give up the essence of who we are as Americans. That's why I think that Congress should fully review the so-called USA PATRIOT Act - and repeal the provisions that go too far.
The USA PATRIOT Act was jammed through Congress in a matter of weeks, when the country was still in shock from the horrific attacks of September 11th. It wasn't carefully drafted and it wasn't fully debated. More troubling is that, in just two years, the Act has grown the tentacles that many feared. Last month, a Justice Department report admitted that the John Ashcroft has actually expanded the substantial reach of the Act, using it to snoop in secrecy for evidence of crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism.
Now Ashcroft is proposing the PROTECT Act. Among other curtailments, the proposed bill all but forbids prosecutors from agreeing to downward departures from the rigid federal sentencing guidelines, increasing the chance that individual punishments won't actually fit individual crimes. It also instructs prosecutors to report judges that order departures from sentencing guidelines - creating the very real possibility that judges will be put on a DOJ blacklist.
I am concerned that the USA PATRIOT Act goes too far in expanding the authority of government investigators, and that it does so without sufficient oversight. We need to make sure that we are taking responsible measures to meet the needs of the time. That's why I'll call on Congress to fully review each provision of the Act, study the ways in which each has been used in practice, and eliminate those provisions that unduly threaten our civil liberties."
More like Clark's vague position.
"That's why I think that Congress should fully review the so-called USA PATRIOT Act - and repeal the provisions that go too far."
What provisions (in his opinion) go too far? That's what I want to know.
And Bush last night asked Congress to review the Patriot Act so Clark's view on that is nothing new.
"That's why I think that Congress should fully review the so-called USA PATRIOT Act - and repeal the provisions that go too far."
What provisions (in his opinion) go too far? That's what I want to know.
And Bush last night asked Congress to review the Patriot Act so Clark's view on that is nothing new.
There are sunset provisions in USA-PATRIOT; unfortunately they specifically exempt large swaths of the legislation, and many of those measures which are effected by the sunset have been duplicated or emulated in other proposals (such as DSEA and VICTORY.)
Frankly, over and above any candidate who supports USA-PATRIOT being automatically circumspect, I think that the congressmen who voted for it should be officially censured as one of the first acts of a new administration -- not simply because I disagree with USA-PATRIOT, but because I am aghast at the fact that ostensibly intelligent men and women will bas a document that size and scope without first reading it. That is just beyond the stupidity horizon as far as I am concerned. A shame that USA-PATRIOT lacks provisions for suspending the power of Congress via the military -- while it would be no fun living in a military dictatorship for the couple of days it took me to get out, it would be hilarious to think of some clean-scrubbed young Ohio Guardsman zapping Hillary on the ass with a cattle prod when she wouldn't get in her congressperson's house in the pen out at Fort Dietrich.
Phaedrus
Frankly, over and above any candidate who supports USA-PATRIOT being automatically circumspect, I think that the congressmen who voted for it should be officially censured as one of the first acts of a new administration -- not simply because I disagree with USA-PATRIOT, but because I am aghast at the fact that ostensibly intelligent men and women will bas a document that size and scope without first reading it. That is just beyond the stupidity horizon as far as I am concerned. A shame that USA-PATRIOT lacks provisions for suspending the power of Congress via the military -- while it would be no fun living in a military dictatorship for the couple of days it took me to get out, it would be hilarious to think of some clean-scrubbed young Ohio Guardsman zapping Hillary on the ass with a cattle prod when she wouldn't get in her congressperson's house in the pen out at Fort Dietrich.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Floyd Gondolli:
More like Clark's vague position.
"That's why I think that Congress should fully review the so-called USA PATRIOT Act - and repeal the provisions that go too far."
What provisions (in his opinion) go too far? That's what I want to know.
And Bush last night asked Congress to review the Patriot Act so Clark's view on that is nothing new.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
He has specifically mentioned the search and seizure provisions. But, it's not vague. Without investigating, by getting testimony from various sources how the Act has been used, how can we really say what has gone too far. Tge whole problem with it is that it's been so secret. We just don't know how it's been used and abused, what works and what doesn't. Declaring what to do without eliciting the facts is irresponsible. A FULL sunshine review if every provision is exactly what is needed.
As for Bush, he did NOT ask for a REVIEW of the Act, he asked for the Act to be RENEWED. Big difference between those words. Here's the full exerpt:
"Inside the United States, where the war began, we must continue to give our homeland security and law enforcement personnel every tool they need to defend us. And one of those essential tools is the Patriot Act, which allows federal law enforcement to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells, and to seize their assets. For years, we have used similar provisions to catch embezzlers and drug traffickers. If these methods are good for hunting criminals, they are even more important for hunting terrorists. (Applause.)
Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year. (Applause.) The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. (Applause.) Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens. You need to renew the Patriot Act. (Applause.)"
More like Clark's vague position.
"That's why I think that Congress should fully review the so-called USA PATRIOT Act - and repeal the provisions that go too far."
What provisions (in his opinion) go too far? That's what I want to know.
And Bush last night asked Congress to review the Patriot Act so Clark's view on that is nothing new.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
He has specifically mentioned the search and seizure provisions. But, it's not vague. Without investigating, by getting testimony from various sources how the Act has been used, how can we really say what has gone too far. Tge whole problem with it is that it's been so secret. We just don't know how it's been used and abused, what works and what doesn't. Declaring what to do without eliciting the facts is irresponsible. A FULL sunshine review if every provision is exactly what is needed.
As for Bush, he did NOT ask for a REVIEW of the Act, he asked for the Act to be RENEWED. Big difference between those words. Here's the full exerpt:
"Inside the United States, where the war began, we must continue to give our homeland security and law enforcement personnel every tool they need to defend us. And one of those essential tools is the Patriot Act, which allows federal law enforcement to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells, and to seize their assets. For years, we have used similar provisions to catch embezzlers and drug traffickers. If these methods are good for hunting criminals, they are even more important for hunting terrorists. (Applause.)
Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year. (Applause.) The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. (Applause.) Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens. You need to renew the Patriot Act. (Applause.)"
Phaedrus -
Kerry voted YES for the Patriot Act.
Edwards voted YES for the Patriot Act (and co-sponsored it).
Lieberman voted YES for the Patriot Act.
The only one that didn't was Kucinich.
Dean has been consistently against it.
Clark will say he would have voted against it but that would be a lie.
So given the polls, if a Democrat beats Bush in the fall, it will most likely be a member of Congress who voted YES on the Patriot Act. So are you suggesting they officially censure themself?
Kerry voted YES for the Patriot Act.
Edwards voted YES for the Patriot Act (and co-sponsored it).
Lieberman voted YES for the Patriot Act.
The only one that didn't was Kucinich.
Dean has been consistently against it.
Clark will say he would have voted against it but that would be a lie.
So given the polls, if a Democrat beats Bush in the fall, it will most likely be a member of Congress who voted YES on the Patriot Act. So are you suggesting they officially censure themself?
Clark did the same thing on the war resolution. He says whatever is politically expedient at the time. That is why I dislike him (that and the fact that the three greatest US Generals of the past decade - Schwartzkopf, Franks and Shelton - have all questioned Clark's character and integrity).
Do you really believe if Clark was in Congress in 2001 he would have voted against it? Be honest.
Do you really believe if Clark was in Congress in 2001 he would have voted against it? Be honest.
Funny, becaause he is NOT politically expedient is why I like him. How could he have been political in 2002 about the resolution when he didn't hold office, wasn't running and as everyone loves to point out, didn't belong to a political party? Huh? His testimony was nuanced and not aimed at looking good for political soundbites. Your views on him are the popular media misconceptions being perpetuated. Those attempting to put them out there have apparentky had some success It's just not the case though.
As for those Generals, ONLY Shelton has ever served with him or knew him personally at all. Schwarzkopf and Franks were merely reciting what Shelton said. IMO a great General would not comment on someone whom they do not know. Just my opinion. As for Shelton, his beef with Clark was over policy disagreements that Shelton turned personal. He questioned his character and integrity without giving a single shred of evidence, example or substantiation. I dunno, but I'm guessing it wasn't coincedence that his statement was made a week after joining the John Edwards canpaign. Did ya know that? He's since refused to comment on the statement. Impugning character without substantiation is the very definition of a SMEAR. It cannot be refuted because it's not based on anything that can be refuted. One other thing, go back and read Shelton's (and Cohen's) statements about Clark after he left his NATO post. They in fact had nothing but effusive praise for Clark. Was Shelton lying then or is he lying now? Either way he's lying and THAT is what I would call an issue of character and integrity. Period.
As for those Generals, ONLY Shelton has ever served with him or knew him personally at all. Schwarzkopf and Franks were merely reciting what Shelton said. IMO a great General would not comment on someone whom they do not know. Just my opinion. As for Shelton, his beef with Clark was over policy disagreements that Shelton turned personal. He questioned his character and integrity without giving a single shred of evidence, example or substantiation. I dunno, but I'm guessing it wasn't coincedence that his statement was made a week after joining the John Edwards canpaign. Did ya know that? He's since refused to comment on the statement. Impugning character without substantiation is the very definition of a SMEAR. It cannot be refuted because it's not based on anything that can be refuted. One other thing, go back and read Shelton's (and Cohen's) statements about Clark after he left his NATO post. They in fact had nothing but effusive praise for Clark. Was Shelton lying then or is he lying now? Either way he's lying and THAT is what I would call an issue of character and integrity. Period.
One more little issue with Shelton's integrity:
On Sep 24, 1999 Secretary Bill Cohen and Joint Chiefs Chairman Hugh Shelton awarded General Clark the Defense Distinguished Service Medal.
From Defesnse regs...
C3.2.7. No Defense decoration shall be awarded or presented to any Service member whose entire service during or after the time of the distinguished act, achievement, or service has not been honorable.
C3.2.8. Any Defense decoration for a distinguished act, achievement, or service may be revoked if facts, later determined, would have prevented original approval of the decoration.
C3.4.1.3. The DDSM, as the highest Defense decoration, may only be awarded by the Secretary of Defense. Under no circumstances may the awarding authority be delegated.
By granting this award, Shelton declared that Clark's entire service was honorable. In fact, if it wasn't, Shelton is under an ongoing duty to ask for it to br revoked.
Like I said, was he lying then or lying now?'
We've been given no facts about Clark's alleged character and integrity issues, but it's pretty clear that Shelton has such issues...is it not?
On Sep 24, 1999 Secretary Bill Cohen and Joint Chiefs Chairman Hugh Shelton awarded General Clark the Defense Distinguished Service Medal.
From Defesnse regs...
C3.2.7. No Defense decoration shall be awarded or presented to any Service member whose entire service during or after the time of the distinguished act, achievement, or service has not been honorable.
C3.2.8. Any Defense decoration for a distinguished act, achievement, or service may be revoked if facts, later determined, would have prevented original approval of the decoration.
C3.4.1.3. The DDSM, as the highest Defense decoration, may only be awarded by the Secretary of Defense. Under no circumstances may the awarding authority be delegated.
By granting this award, Shelton declared that Clark's entire service was honorable. In fact, if it wasn't, Shelton is under an ongoing duty to ask for it to br revoked.
Like I said, was he lying then or lying now?'
We've been given no facts about Clark's alleged character and integrity issues, but it's pretty clear that Shelton has such issues...is it not?
Look, you can spin what Shelton said until you are blue in the face. He said in plain English that Clark has character issues and Franks and Schwartkopf both said that Shelton would not have said that if he didn't have good reason to.
Shelton was asked his opinion of Clark and he gave it. Live with it.
And to say Clark doesn't say things based on their political expedience is laughable. His answers to questions about the war resolution were inconsistent at best.
First it was I probably would have voted for it, then it was I definitely would have voted against it, them it was I'm not sure if I would have voted for it.
Shelton was asked his opinion of Clark and he gave it. Live with it.
And to say Clark doesn't say things based on their political expedience is laughable. His answers to questions about the war resolution were inconsistent at best.
First it was I probably would have voted for it, then it was I definitely would have voted against it, them it was I'm not sure if I would have voted for it.
Floyd, you criticized Clark in another post for being vague. Talk about vague! It's a smear, no more, no less.
Please answer me this: Doesn't Shelton have some integrity issues here after declaring under oath that Clark's service was honorable and now claiming that it wasn't. You must agree that either he was lying theb or he's lying now. In either case, the one thing we know for sure abou this is that Shelton is a liar. Agree? Not sure how you could disagree. It's pretty simple.
There are also ample quotes that i can dredge up where Shelton said his early retirement was not a reflection on Clark's performance.
Like I said, one thing we know FOR SURE here --Hugh Shelton is a liar.
I also just read the following, though I can;t say whether it's for sure true or not...
""Wes Clark Jr. reiterated the story I first read here on the blog about the judge in the Milosevic trial contacting Shelton to confirm his smear on Clark. Shelton, when faced with defending a dictator, opted to come clean and admit that it was "just politics." Wes Jr. said that the campaign is saving this for the General Election--that it is, "too good". He said he looks forward to seeing headlines with the words, "SHELTON--LIAR" on them.""
...if that's true this might be a good time to consider revealing this. Might hurt Edwards too.
Please answer me this: Doesn't Shelton have some integrity issues here after declaring under oath that Clark's service was honorable and now claiming that it wasn't. You must agree that either he was lying theb or he's lying now. In either case, the one thing we know for sure abou this is that Shelton is a liar. Agree? Not sure how you could disagree. It's pretty simple.
There are also ample quotes that i can dredge up where Shelton said his early retirement was not a reflection on Clark's performance.
Like I said, one thing we know FOR SURE here --Hugh Shelton is a liar.
I also just read the following, though I can;t say whether it's for sure true or not...
""Wes Clark Jr. reiterated the story I first read here on the blog about the judge in the Milosevic trial contacting Shelton to confirm his smear on Clark. Shelton, when faced with defending a dictator, opted to come clean and admit that it was "just politics." Wes Jr. said that the campaign is saving this for the General Election--that it is, "too good". He said he looks forward to seeing headlines with the words, "SHELTON--LIAR" on them.""
...if that's true this might be a good time to consider revealing this. Might hurt Edwards too.
From a press conference in 2000 with Shelton and Cohen:
Q: This is General Clarke's last visit to Kosovo today. Any word on how he has performed his job?
Sec Def.: He has done an extraordinary job. General Clarke is one of our most brilliant officers. He undertook a mission that is perhaps one the most complicated and complex and carried it out successfully. As I mentioned in my remarks, this air campaign was the most successful in the history of warfare. We had over 38,000 sorties that were flown. We had only two planes that were shot down and no pilots lost. That is a record that is unparalleled in the history of warfare. So, General Clarke and his entire staff and subordinates and all who participated deserve great credit.
Q: Why is he leaving office, then?
Sec Def.: He is leaving because we have General Ralston who will become the new SACEUR. We are now replacing many of our CINCs throughout the world.
Q: It is not a reflection on his performance?
Sec Def: No reflection at all. He has done an outstanding job as the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Southern Command, and he did an outstanding job here as EUCOM Commander and also as SACEUR.
Are you going to trust numerous statements and awards guven while serving and immediately after serving, or are you going to trust one vague unsubstantiated statement made one week after Clark began his campaign by someone working for a rival campaign??? Think about it, Floyd. This is not complicated.
Q: This is General Clarke's last visit to Kosovo today. Any word on how he has performed his job?
Sec Def.: He has done an extraordinary job. General Clarke is one of our most brilliant officers. He undertook a mission that is perhaps one the most complicated and complex and carried it out successfully. As I mentioned in my remarks, this air campaign was the most successful in the history of warfare. We had over 38,000 sorties that were flown. We had only two planes that were shot down and no pilots lost. That is a record that is unparalleled in the history of warfare. So, General Clarke and his entire staff and subordinates and all who participated deserve great credit.
Q: Why is he leaving office, then?
Sec Def.: He is leaving because we have General Ralston who will become the new SACEUR. We are now replacing many of our CINCs throughout the world.
Q: It is not a reflection on his performance?
Sec Def: No reflection at all. He has done an outstanding job as the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Southern Command, and he did an outstanding job here as EUCOM Commander and also as SACEUR.
Are you going to trust numerous statements and awards guven while serving and immediately after serving, or are you going to trust one vague unsubstantiated statement made one week after Clark began his campaign by someone working for a rival campaign??? Think about it, Floyd. This is not complicated.
