Newt Gingrich gives Wesley Clark "5 STARS" for his book review

[La_Serpiente]

I was over at CalPundit just now, and he found something quite funny. Apparently, Mr. Gingrich seems to buy his books on Amazon and also rates books.

Wesley Clark wrote a book, Waging Modern Wars. If you look at the reviews the customers gave it, one of those reviewers was Newt Gingrich.

You can look for yourself here.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1586481398/ref=cm_rev_next/102-1972702-8705733?v=glance&s=books&vi=customer-reviews&show=-submittime&start-at=11

[Julien Sorel]

1. How interesting.

His reviews of political books are shill jobs, but, assuming this is the real Gingrich, he and I share an interest in mystery fiction, and I tend to agree with his reviews. Kind of funny, because I despise the guy in general.

[RichM]

2. I'm sure lots of rightwingers have very warm feelings for Wes Clark.

They'd have no reason not to.

[wyldwolf]

4. And obviously many leftwingers have warm feelings for Clark...

..isn't a guy with across the board support refreshing... and electable?

[Tinoire]

7. Left-wingers? No, I don't think so

Most people supporting Clark are either Republicans or Conservative Democrats. There are some but very few Left-wingers supporting Clark. Of the old DUers supporting him, all but 2 that I know, were pegged as pro-aggression conservatives and hardly seen as Left-wingers. Of the newer DUers, about 80% seem to be die-hard Centrists. There are still a few sincere Left-wingers warm enough that they're considering him but their enthusiasm seems to be waning.

Why be disingenious and pretend that the Left-wing has warm feelings for him? The Left wing publications are quite anti-Clark and are only geting more vocal about it. I'll be happy to post some recent articles from Left wing sources if you'd like.

Clark may have many fine qualities but trying to paint the DLC's new annointee, with a past distasteful to most Left-wingers, is really pushing it.

[wyldwolf]

11. Yes, I think so...

Left-winger, no matter what definition you personally try to apply to the term, are those left of center.

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/left-winger

You are reffering to the far left fringe.

Why be disingenious and pretend otherwise?

And why try to peg over 30,000 DU'ers? An impossible task.

I'm sure you could post some far left fringe sources.

And since no one has ever posted proof Clark is the DLC's new appointee, why do you continue to lie like that?

[Tinoire]

14. What kind of Clark supporter "pretends" that Clark is not DLC?

Are you even paying attention to your candidate?

You must have "missed" all the posts about the DLC and Clark to put it charitably.

The juvenile Clark supporters amuse me with the accusations that other people of "lying" when they post information that destroys the fragile myths you're trying to create and belie the DLC propaganda about Clark.
---

<snip>

But members of the DLC, meeting in Philadelphia over the weekend and today for the group's annual "conversation," say they're holding their centrist ground. Their "Third Way" or "New Democrat" ideas will reclaim the White House for the Democrats in 2004, they say, as they did for Bill Clinton in his two victories.

<snip>

Despite the political focus, however, the declared Democratic presidential candidates were asked to stay away.

<snip>

The absence of candidates has hardly back-burnered the presidential race. It was still the dominant discussion in the hallways and ballrooms where the group gathered over the weekend. Center-of-the-road names like Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards were bandied about. As was a name that many participants said they were surprised to hear often: that of Gen. Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander. Clark has not declared his candidacy but has said he is considering a run. Supporters say he could go toe-to-toe with Bush on military issues.

<snip>
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/6400042.htm

Another article about this same fabulous meeting in Philly:
Centrist Dems weigh Dean dilemma

“The main theme of the next election is going to be national security,” said Chris Kofinis, a political consultant who attended the DLC gathering and is advising the campaign to draft retired Gen. Wesley Clark as the Democratic candidate.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/945273.asp?cp1=1

More info? You can read Dr. Chris Kofinis' (you know that same DLC consultant mentioned above) http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/images/analysis.pdf"> PDF Analysis of Zogby Poll Commissioned by DraftWesleyClark.com

Pictures? Looks like everyone had a great time at the New Democrats' Annual Meeting http://www.newdem.org/annualmeeting/

If you want to listen the 2 hour speech (followed by DLC Q & A) he gave at the New Democrat Network Annual Meeting in DC: (Lieberman & Graham were also present) http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/kdrive/c04061703_newdemocrat.rm

Excerpt, if you don't have 2 hours to listen, here: http://manatt.net/clark.ram

And just to avoid a bunch of inane posts saying that NDN is not DLC- here goes:

DLC AND NDN
Two acronyms that junkies know and that Democratic candidates hear in their sleep. The Democratic Leadership Council, chaired these days by Sen. Evan Bayh and run for 17 years by its founding director, Al From, is the spawning ground of moderate “Third Way” thinking in the party. Bill Clinton was chairman when he launched his own presidential bid in 1991. The New Democratic Network is the DLC’s overtly political cousin, run by an operative named Simon Rosenberg. It doles out cash to candidates and, increasingly, supports independent spending efforts.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/834591.asp?0bl=-0&cp1=1

More about the NDN:

Centrist Democrats launch new agenda
By Hans Nichols

The centrist New Democratic Network (NDN) unveiled a new six-point agenda yesterday that it says can serve as a blueprint for making the Democratic Party the governing force in American politics for the next generation.

<snip>

Several announced and potential Democratic presidential candidates addressed the gathering at a Capitol Hill hotel, including Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Bob Graham (Fla.), as well as retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark. Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) addressed the convention by phone, and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean sent a video greeting.

<snip>

Rosenberg explained in the interview that the network’s revamped agenda and new strategy are the beginning steps of “a 10- to 45-year” plan to elect centrist Democrats to local, state and federal offices.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/061803/centrist.aspx

----
About the NDN


The New Democrat Network (NDN) is one of the nation’s most influential political organizations.
NDN promotes a new generation of leaders who advocate economic growth and fiscal responsibility, strong American leadership in world affairs and world markets, a smaller, smarter government, and a progressive approach to social issues that respects family, faith, and community.

<snip>

NDN is led by NDN President Simon Rosenberg, with advice from NDN's Advisory Board, a group of leading New Democratic thinkers and strategists. NDN’s Advisory Board includes former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joseph J. Andrew, pollster and Latino electorate expert Sergio Bendixen, former Army Secretary Louis Caldera, former Member of Congress and Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Vic Fazio, former Member of Congress and Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council Dave McCurdy, former White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry, former White House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty, and former Federal Trade Commissioner and White House Cabinet Secretary Christine A. Varney.
------------------------------

Want to know who founded the NDN?

The NDN was founded in 1996 by Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the DLC. "NDN acts as a political venture capital fund," a special type of political action committee among political action committees. NDN raises PAC money from many sectors, which they then distribute to their top federal candidates -- Lucas received $10,000 from them. NDN also provides a mechanism for fat-cats to donate directly to candidates without worrying about all those pesky Election Commission limits. Clinton campaign aide, Simon Rosenberg, is now NDN's President. Joe Lieberman is chairman.

The DLC does the same thing, actually. But, by forming the NDN, the DLC contribute more than twice as much to favored candidates. The favored candidate is Clark.

Wesley Clark: The DLC Focus Group Candidate

<snip>

Still many believe Clark’s late entry will cause him problems in both raising money and establishing a cohesive campaign. If Clark catches fire quickly, the DLC will make sure neither will be a problem. But the fourth and biggest question, his stance on issues, is a bit tougher. But don't worry, the DLC focus groups will tell feed him talking points soon enough.
<snip>

Clark is very unsure on many of his positions, and they can change at any time. There is a clear reason for this. The first wave of the Democratic Leadership Council focus group data is barely in, and needs to be reviewed. Once the data is analyzed, the DLC machine will steer the General towards his newly formed positions.

<snip>

The DLC had nothing going for it until Clark was shoved into the race with zero political experience. Joe Lieberman mirrored their stance on many issues, but lacked charisma. John Kerry looked wimpish and went from frontrunner to bottom feeder in only a few weeks. It was becoming clear that Dick Gephardt stirred no emotions among the primary voters. John Edwards was irrelevant and even joked that no one knew he was running for the Presidency.

<snip>
The only candidate making noise and catching fire for the Democrats on the campaign trail was Howard Dean, who proudly proclaimed that was he was from “the democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” Clearly Dean couldn’t be controlled by the DLC and his successful campaign could set them back years in but one election cycle. And that led the DLC to shove the four-star General into the race. He is the perfect focus group candidate. Smart, looks good, speaks clearly and confidently and he fits the suit. Now the DLC just has to tell him what to say. And that’s where the DLC may run into trouble. Many published reports speak of Clark’s arrogance, and his stubbornness. Many say the General wants things done his way, and only his way. And this may also make Clark difficult to control for the DLC.

<snip>
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_6667.shtml

But hell, why should I do all your research? Just log on to the DLC sites and start reading your own articles. You've probably read them already though... Their talking points, almost word for word, appear at DU regularly and let me clue you in, they're not being repeated by "Left-wingers".

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=252098

Since you are so uninformed, you can keep track of more DLC news right here: http://newstrove.com/cgi-bin/search.pl?search=democratic+dlc&title=Democratic+Leadership+Council&category=politics&alias=dlc



Make sure you listen to his speech to the DLC. It’s an absolute gem! Here are some excerpts to get you all warm and fuzzy:

<snip>

And, the challenges come from the fact that the United States today doesn’t have a real national security strategy. We lost our strategy. We lost our vision of how to deal with the world around us. We had it, we created it, we paid for it in blood during World War II. We came out of that conflict resolved that America would be engaged in the world. We were engaged. We built the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, we formed NATO, we stayed involved. We recognized that what we had to do was head off conflict, we had to contain Soviet expansionism, we had to block the spread of Communism, we had to deter the use of nuclear weapons to intimidate our allies or, God forbid, wage nuclear war.

<snip>

And interesing answer on "legitimizing" our presence in Iraq. Gee same thing Bush is working on! The DLC never lets us down- true to form as always. On June 17, 2003, when speaking at the New Democratic Network’s annual meeting in Washington, Clark was asked about the “Vietnamization” of Iraq. He responded by saying that what he thinks we need to do is "number one: establish legitimacy." Legitimize what? Our pre-emptive, unilateral strike that started the war, our complete disregard of the U.N., or perhaps he thinks we should legitimize our ongoing occupation in Iraq. Clark unfortunately did not convey any clear insight into his idea about establishing legitimacy. He did however continue to address the NDN on the subject, explaining that he would first go to the United Nations and say, "Look, we know you don’t have a security force. We’ll finish the job, we’ll work for security. We want you to come in and we want you to really help us work the reconstruction and the redevelopment of Iraq." So the General’s proposal to deal with the situation in Iraq and bring peace is to first legitimize. Then we should ask the U.N. to come in and help us clean up our legitimate mess. “Help us” clearly indicates a continued U.S. presence. And, correct me if I’m wrong here, but I didn’t hear anything about ceding authority. Do you think this plan will have a better chance if Clark were to present it to the U.N.? I ask because Bush isn’t having much luck with this particular agenda. Maybe new dog, old trick would work. quote from Rustie Woods for the LEFT-WING Dissident Voice.


Wesley Clark: Well, in the first place, I think it’s always dangerous to draw too tight an analogy between one situation and another. And there are many, many differences between the situation in Vietnam and Iraq. Secondly, I want to say that I wasn’t one of those who was anxious to get into Iraq. I always was skeptical of it. I always doubted that there was an imminent danger that required us to do it. Nevertheless, we’re there now and that’s all ancient history. So, what we have to do is I think, number one: establish legitimacy. For some reason, we fought the UN full endorsement of this mission and the full engagement of the United Nations. For the life of me, I don’t know why. The same people who fought the UN were telling me five years ago – all they could talk about was “burden-sharing, burden-sharing, burden-sharing,” “mission creep, mission creep, mission creep,” “exit strategy, exit strategy.” And somehow, all that disappeared and I don’t understand it. So, I’d go first to the United Nations. I’d say, “Look, we know you don’t have a security force. We’ll finish the job, we’ll work for security. We want you to come in and we want you to really help us work the reconstruction and the redevelopment of Iraq.” There’s political redevelopment to be done, there is economic reconstruction to be done. And, there’s a whole new climate in the Middle East to be created. Legitimacy is job number one. The second is the creation of public order over there. As soon as you can turn those responsibilities over to elements that speak Arabic and preferably Iraqis the better you are. The third thing is, stay engaged in the region and work for peace as an effective intermediary between the contending parties in the Middle East so we don’t attract more anger and more hostility in the region. But you know, my fourth point is, we’re there. This is a difficult situation. It’s going on on three levels: the resistance you see today, the ordinary life of the people in Baghdad and down below that something we’re not quite sure of, which is a sort of level three, subterranean forming up of Iranian dissidents coming in and organizations from Syria. We just don’t know where that’s going to go. We can influence it if we’ll work for legitimacy through international institutions, move the problem over to the Arabic-speaking and the Iraqis, and stay engaged as a constructive force in the region.
<snip>
http://www.women4clark.com/transcripts/ndnspeech.htm

[wyldwolf]

15. Where's the proof of anything here?

I didn't ask for proof Clark was affiliated with the DLC.

I see sources that mention the DLC along with several candidates. Show me where, as you said, Clark is the DLC's new appointee?

again, Show me where, as you said, Clark is the DLC's new appointee?

The juvenile Dean supporters amuse me with the accusations that other people of "lying" when they post information that is long winded but never proves their point.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

20. I was looking for specific proof that Clark was the DLC's appointee..

Which is what you claimed. Didn't see it. Wasn't there.

[Tinoire]

22. Dean? I claimed that Dean was the DLC appointee??!

Please...

How you strung that together from my post, despite my clear statement that Clark is the DLC appointee, is beyond me.

Absolutely frightening.

Please show me where I claimed this.

[wyldwolf]

23. Then please, still, show where Clark is the DLC appointee...

..you dodged answering to your lie by pointing out an error of mine.

[Tinoire]

24. A work of art..

Let's let the record stand as is. It's telling.

[wyldwolf]

25. If you prefer to let your lie stand as is, that is your choice..

Until you can prove your statement that Clark is the "the DLC's new annointee" it will remain a lie.

[Tinoire]

26. So you edit your post 20

The subject line which read:
I was looking for specific proof that Clark was the DLC's appointee..

I don't want anyone to be confused by your edit.

You can call it a lie all you want... It's no skin off my nose. Your denial and deplorable manners just make you look silly.

[wyldwolf]

27. I also admitted the error in the next post. You, however, still ...

...are dodging anwering you lie. Which makes you look beyond silly. And sad.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

28. What about me, Tinoire?

For years everyone here was saying I'm a far left-winger (even though I'm actually a moderate swing voter) and I'm liking Clark more. I've waved the flag for Kucinich from day one, unfailingly. But he hasn't gotten over 1% - Sharpton has much more support. If he can't get any delegates, and it looks like he can't, that is pretty much by definition a wasted vote.

Clark is no Kucinich, and not really a leftist. But his platform is pretty much Kerry's which is establishment liberal. He's had nothing but good things to say about the socialist programs in the military. See, the left/right divide doesn't work on the military. Is Cuba left? Don't you think Cuba is pretty pro-military? What about Chavez? Do you think he's in any way a pacifist? It seems to me only Western middle class white people are anti-military, and have the luxury to say so.

Is Clark a war criminal? Of course! Can you name any high ranking military officer or any politician that has been involved in warfare that isn't? War is criminal, always. When they start beating their guns into plows, let me know.

Being a Democrat is already a compromise from my "leftist" beliefs. If I'm going to hold my nose it seems wise to do it strategically. Tiniore, I love your posts and respect your opinions very highly, so tell me why I'm wrong here?

[Tinoire]

33. You are one of the 2

I specifically had you in mind. I have one personal DU friend of whom I think highly who is warm to Clark also (but he's not 1 or 2 on her list) and I do recognize that there are some very good intelligent people who could go for Clark.

The difference with you is that you admit the things that most Clark supporters deny or try to spin away.

It's like my favorite Dean supporter who refreshingly admitted from day 1 that Dean wasn't not anti-war but that she supported him for x, y, and z reason. I can respect that. I can even respect (but barely because of my hate) people who know exactly what Bush is but want him for x,y,or z reason.

My biggest frustration is that so many are misinformed and that others seem to be deliberately trying to snuff out information.

I leave the strategic vote to everyone's conscience and would never dare tell you how to vote. That's one of the reasons I have a huge problem with agressive Clark and Dean supporters who brow-beat people when they disagree with them- especially about ABB.

I can't ever see you losing my respect because you have never been intellectually dishonest or buried your head. You think too much, are consistent and are extremely honest. Plus you've explained your reasoning clearly over many posts.

Yes, you are one of the 2, and people like Rowdyboy are part of the second group.

But you know... one thing. I'm not anti-military. I was in 20 years and have great esteem for many of the people in it. I have a particular distaste for the gusto with which Clark waged the wars he led (Latin America also). At the time Clark was waging those wars, I worked with a known, professed, Democratic General at the Pentagon, in the office of the DCSINT, who was no hawk and in fact has endorsed Kerry and will be helping him. I do not speak for that person re Clark but I assure you there are many military liberals who will never be able to back Clark because we intimately lived that war. On top of that, subsequent information about his post-military activities isn't reassuring for me and the others with whom I've remained in contact.

Now let me ask you, and this is prying so much I know and apologize, how do you reconcile your ideals and convictions with Markle, CSIS, Acxiom, Jackson Stephens etc? Do you ever have a small fear that Clark could be the ultimate Trojan Horse? I am reluctant to open the gates. The soul of our party is at stake and if Clark is a Trojan Horse, I don't think our party will ever recover from this.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

34. Which candidate isn't a Trojan Horse?

I think the symbolic aspects about Clark can change the culture - I don't believe for one minute that any Democratic president can change the structure. That's all I'm hoping for. But I'm not counting out Dean's (almost) grassroots organizing either, perhaps I'll just have to ignore my personal animosity towards him. The primary is about getting delegates, so that's what I'm after in the primary.

I'm pretty sure I was the first to post about Axciom the day the WSJ article came out. Even if Kucinich were to be president, those people would be there, wouldn't they?

I have never been good at sorting out the various corporations and elite factions are backing which candidates, and choosing the lesser of evils. But you tell me - do you think Clark is part of a faction in the military that we should beware of? Is there a faction of the officer corp that you trust? As a civilian I just don't know. You tell me :)

As my uber-pragmatic side is coming out as the primary gets closer, I'm almost thinking Clark/Dean is likely and the best possible outcome. I'm under no illusion that that would solve many problems, except getting Bush's boot off of our necks for a while.

[Tinoire]

35. You are thinking more strategically than I

and I won't fault you for that.

I have always found corporations like Acxiom and Jackson Stephens particularly heinous and am extremely perturbed about them. The same holds for Markle and CSIS. I'm not such a purist that I expect candidates to be free of all corporate associations but accepting one who not only belonged to but lobbied for them to provide the software for Poindexter/DARPA's "Total Information Awareness" sears my soul. My problem with Clark isn't so much that he has so many corporate ties, it's that those ties are with some of the foundations/corporations I despise the most for having ruined so much for Americans with their shady dealings, mergers, acquisitions and outright hostile take-overs.

The very month Clark retired, he joined the Board of Directors of Jackson Stephens as their Managing Director. He stayed on with them through March 2003 after he had decided to run for President.

"Stephens Inc. has been putting its own capital into companies and enterprises since 1933, with investments ranging from small positions in public and private companies to outright acquisitions. Primarily through our parent, Stephens Group Inc., we invest in a wide variety of industries. Many of the companies in which we have invested have become leaders in their industries. Our industry investments include: Oil and gas, Publishing and media, Health care, Financial services, Technology, Agriculture, Manufacturing, Retailing and others, the Internet and e-commerce."

http://www.stephens.com/stephens/group/

I don't know if you remember the Stephens firm- very unsavory. They were the firm behind the BBCI scandal that made huge waves over here and arranging personal loans for Dubya, one of which allowed him to buy a nice chunk of Harken Energy. They're also money launderers for the Medellin Cartel serving both Republican and Democratic politicians though their leanings are mostly Republican. Clinton was the big exception when Jackson Stephens was linked to the WhiteWater saga.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/INL110A.html
http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/harkenenergyandinsidertrading.htm

Jackson Stephens firms are second to the Carlyle Group with whom they have a very close, intricate, relationship to the Carlyle Group www.datadirectnet.com/news/coverage/ 011001_vcbuzzfull.pdf

Then you've got his association with the NED which Bill Berkowitz describes this way:

"The NED functions as a full-service infrastructure building clearinghouse. It provides money, technical support, supplies, training programs, media know-how, public relations assistance and state-of-the-art equipment to select political groups, civic organizations, labor unions, dissident movements, student groups, book publishers, newspapers, and other media. It's aim is to destabilize progressive movements, particularly those with a socialist or democratic socialist bent....throughout the 1980s the NED helped turn Central America into low-intensity killing-fields."

Among Clark’s fellow NEC directors: Frank Carlucci, chairman of the Carlyle Group and former Secretary of Defense and National Security Advisor in the Reagan Administration; Julia Finley, a Republican Party activist working on NATO expansion issues; Francis Fukuyama, political scientist and author of, most notably, "The End of History"; Richard C. Holbrooke, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
http://www.kclabor.org/mostdangerousgvt.htm
=========

I could go on for hours about this and have threads, posts and articles book-marked about it but won't bring it all up here because my point isn't that he's not pure enough- it's that he serves the same evil corporations that have gotten us into this mess.

=======================

I have nothing against the Military and to this day, some of my closest ties are to people who either serve or served. But there is a faction of the Military that I despise- and that's the faction that whores its soul to the Military Industrial Complex. You can't imagine how much tax-payer paid shoddy equipment is pushed on the military by retired officers, mostly Generals, with big connections. For that faction I have absolutely no respect; for the rest, who really honor words like integrity and fight this corrpution, I do- but there aren't enough of them. Something happens to you when you start spending time with too many contractors and they wine and dine you and give you fabulous sinecures where all you have to do is use your military connections to help the very firms destroying our country to advance deals like Northrop Grumman's hostile takeover of TRW.

============

I wish I could be as pragmatic as you and think that Clark/Dean would get Bush's boot off our neck for a while. I have a hard time because I don't see Bush as the real danger. Bush is just some stumbing idiot, inarticulate greedy frat-boy who's blowing everyone's game bare for the entire world to see and judge.

What will getting rid of Bush accomplish if we don't dismantle the entire apparatus behind him? I have too hard a time believing that Clark, who was praising this same apparatus as late as March 2003, is the man to do it. Some people are willing to overlook this and say he had a change of heart within the last 6 months but how can I believe that when he was approaching both parties for a Presidential run as early as January? I would at least expect that he would have seen the evils of the Bush cartel before investigating a run. I just can't buy it. Not even one part of the package...

For most candidates, I can overlook one or two major things but this is too much for me.

Companies like Acxiom would still be around, live and kicking even if Kucinich were President but they wouldn't have an inside track to the White House which is what I fear they would have with Clark. He just recently, last month, resigned from their board and was still using their corporate jet for his campaign. It's the uncut ties that worry me...

Sorry for the jumbled post... I kind of have guests who need a little tending...

Peace

[mmonk]

5. examples?

[Hippo_Tron]

3. One of my logon names is Newt Gingrich...

So I can walk around and talk about how women shouldn't be in combat... I crack so many people up doing it.

[Some Moran]

21. Shit!

I wanted to create that name so I could go around topic that criticise Republicans saying "Clinton's cock *squawk* Clinton's cock *squawk*"

[dobak]

6. yes, but....

The review was written on Sept 19, 2001

Also, Gingrich appears to enjoy the book because Clark takes some shots at Clinton and his Administration.

[lumpy]

12. 2001, eh ? verrrrrrrrrry interesting

hah !

[RetroLounge]

29. Sept 19, 2001?

Isn't this when Clark was still a Republican?

[janekat]

8. Back in September 2001. Before he knew Clark might run for Prez

of course.

[_NorCal_D_]

17. Of course

B-):thumbsup:

[janekat]

9. Guess Clark can use it in a campaign ad after he's attacked by Gingrich &

Co. Might be good ammuntion. Those words might come back to bite old Newt in the ass...

[sendero]

10. I suspect...

... they will claim the review was not written by the "real" Newt Gingrich and I would be inclined to believe them.

What on earth makes anyone think that someone with the Amazon name Newt Gingrich is "the" Newt?

[Donna Zen]

13. Newt liked the first book...

but his recent review of the second book, a book which decontructs and trashes the regime's foreign policy, was a dissing. Ah_Newt, newt, newtie...how his partisanship overwhelmes his intellect.

So what's different between 2001 and 2003?

Must be all that "hands on" time Newt has been spending with Perle at the Defense Policy Board. He wouldn't want to get Massa-ed:

Massa walked over to say hello. But as the former comrades-in-arms greeted each other warmly on the street just outside the event--Massa never went inside, say other attendees--Republican operatives stationed nearby noticed his presence, and reported back to his staff director, Robert Rangel. Soon after, sources tell "Who's Who," Hunter and Rangel repeatedly told Massa that, given his friendship with Clark, he could no longer work at the committee, but when reporters from a few big-name newspapers heard the story and began calling around, Hunter claimed that Massa had never actually been fired. Fed-up, Massa resigned. No one from Hunter's office was available for comment. Contacted by WW, Massa commented, "I don't hold ill will for anybody. This is about issues, and Clark the man, and I'm going to do everything I can to get him elected."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0311.whoswho.html

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

16. it IS the real newt

i've seen articles before about his amazon stuff

[Some Moran]

18. Newt is a strange man..

"Read the novel carefully and note how many innocent people die. Then note that Barrington is upset about the assassin's imminent death but not about the deaths of all the people she has killed. Through this view, you will catch the strange world of modern liberalism and how it rationalizes a selective morality that focuses only on the wrongs it wants to right."

What bullshit. Fuck Newt's stupid.

[retyred]

30. Would that make Clark

a 9 star General? Does newt have the power to give an ex_General more stars? Cool!

/Sarcasm



Retyred In Fla
So I Read This Book

[Bread and Circus]

31. PNAC has also said very good things about Clark....

while raping Cohen and Shelton in their papers.

You know why?

Because Clark is intelligent and a very good leader.
He is also a very good writer with important things
to say. Even Newt can recognize quality when he sees
it. He may be an asshole, but he is not dumb.
______

God forbid we get a well-spoken, good looking,
well meaning, bright minded, electorally endowed
Democratic President! It will be such a shame if
we get a genius Rhodes Scholar who took 4 bullets for
his country who was inspired to enlist by JFK.
I'm moving to Canada if a West Point Valedictorian,
State Champion Swimmer ever gets in the White House.
What is this country coming to if we dare elect a
winner and a hero.

/sarcasm

[Code_Name_D]

32. So not only do the Clark appolitges have no problem...

with Clark giving acolades to PNACers, they have no problem with PNACers giving prase to Clark eather. I find it difcult to belive Clark supporters even want Bush out of office.

[Bread and Circus]

36. I don't have a problem with Clark.

And I don't have a problem that people
respect him.