Reply #47: Uh, I said "facts."

[Jackhammer Jesus]

Anyway, my point about Osama wasn't that he shouldn't be given a trial - we're agreeing on that point, but you haven't acknowledged that he's admitted to being behind several attacks. He could be tried for the crimes in absentia, but we still have to find him if he's going to be charged.

"Clark wanting to go after Osama as if he is the real enemey is as Bushonian as you can get."

I'm sorry to hear that. Your man Dean supported the war in Afghanistan - you may want to rethink your allegiance if you feel so strongly about this. Here it is in his own words: "I supported the war in Afghanistan; 3,000 of our people were murdered. I thought we had a right to defend the US."

Most of your arguments about Clark are exaggerated, lies, or facts twisted to fit your own purpose. I'm a sucker for wasting time, though, so I'll argue with you.

This is around the thousandth time I've heard #1. Complimenting someone doesn't equate to guilt by association. Furthermore, you're outright lying by saying he praised "the full PNAC crew." He mentioned a few names of people he knew and had worked with in the past - before PNAC even existed.

2-4 are blatant lies. Don't believe everything you read - the part about being responsible for the Venezualan coup is hilarious, though. Good one.

You've twisted around 5. First of all, he had permission from the Secretary-General and the leaders of all the NATO nations to take the airstrip - that's not overstepping authority. The British General who claimed it would start WW3 was overstepping HIS authority. The orders were to take an airstrip, not attack the Russians.

I'd like to see proof of 6 - IF it's true, I certainly don't agree with it, but it doesn't in any way implicate Clark as being PNAC.

In regard to 7, you probably don't understand the difference between pre-emptive war and preventive war. Iraq was a preventive war, and Clark is against that. Pre-emptive war is acceptable only when we are absolutely sure an attack is coming - that's not Rovian, it's common sense.

My response to 8 would depend on how what you consider "continuation" of the war in Iraq. Neither Clark nor Dean would pull out of Iraq immediately. I've read up on both candidates, and I don't recall seeing anything from either of them about the DHS. Has Clark stated he would fully fund it? What has Dean said about it?