quade 4
Recommended Posts
benny 0
I'm beginning to give Clark a serious look, now if only I could get over all that Republican fundraiser stuff he did...
Never go to a DZ strip show.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
quade 4
Quote
. . . was dismissed by Bill Clinton for "character issues"
Please cite one credible source on that point -- please.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
quade 4
I'm almost certain that most people believe it was fear of Reagan that motivated the release of the hostages, but if you really look at the timeline of what happened, you'll see it was really just a slap in the face to Carter.
On inaguration day, Carter was in telephone conferences with the Iranians. He even was had a phone with him -during- the inaugration in a last ditch effort to be able to say he had gotten them released under his watch . As soon as, I think maybe even within 1 hour of Reagan getting sworn in, the hostages were released.
Now, let's be reasonable, there is probably not a lot that Reagan could have possibly done even within the first week of getting sworn in in terms of ramping up heat or staging a rescue mission and certainly nothing Reagan could have done on the first day. Absolutely nothing he could have done in the first hour. The Iranian students knew this and if they wanted to prolong the situation for a week they certainly could have.
Carter lost the election because of the hostage crisis, the students knew it and the hostage release was a final fuck-you present to the out-going Carter pure and simple.
My favorite story from the Iran Hostage Crisis.
Credible Sport
On inaguration day, Carter was in telephone conferences with the Iranians. He even was had a phone with him -during- the inaugration in a last ditch effort to be able to say he had gotten them released under his watch . As soon as, I think maybe even within 1 hour of Reagan getting sworn in, the hostages were released.
Now, let's be reasonable, there is probably not a lot that Reagan could have possibly done even within the first week of getting sworn in in terms of ramping up heat or staging a rescue mission and certainly nothing Reagan could have done on the first day. Absolutely nothing he could have done in the first hour. The Iranian students knew this and if they wanted to prolong the situation for a week they certainly could have.
Carter lost the election because of the hostage crisis, the students knew it and the hostage release was a final fuck-you present to the out-going Carter pure and simple.
My favorite story from the Iran Hostage Crisis.
Credible Sport
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Michele 1
Heya, Quade...you do know Clark was involved with the Waco stuff, right?? Here's an article about Clark here detailing his work at the Branch Davidian complex.
As to his credibility issues, there was that whole Pristina thing - which was, according to some, the "last straw" for his career. A very brief overview of the Pristina issue can be found here. Some cricles call it insubordination, others call it power hungry. Come call it aggression with a country that has nuclear weapons, a very unstable government, and a terrible economy - and I don't mean N. Korea.
A few of Wesley's contradictions in public fora, voiced in the Yale Daily...interesting comparison...here. Can't he remember what he said?
Additionally, there seems to be a significant friendship between Clark and Hashim Thaki, the commander of the KLA. (KLA=Kosovo Liberation Army...KLA’s ties to Osama bin Laden are well-known and reported, link, link, and here,too.. There's more, but....). He is also friends with indicted war criminal Agim Ceku (info here, and here). If you are judging others by the friends they keep, please don't forget to judge all by those standards...
Besides being the buddy of, brian child of, and fully supported by the Clintons, his nicknames are "Supreme Being", "Perfumed Prince", and "Queeg" (dunno what that last one is...) tend to say a lot.
Anyway, I don't like Clark, and don't consider him capable of holding the office of the President of the United States. While I do support Bush, there are things Bush has done which I completely disagree with. If there was a democratic candidate that was in line with my views, I might vote for him. Clark, imho, is not that person.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
As to his credibility issues, there was that whole Pristina thing - which was, according to some, the "last straw" for his career. A very brief overview of the Pristina issue can be found here. Some cricles call it insubordination, others call it power hungry. Come call it aggression with a country that has nuclear weapons, a very unstable government, and a terrible economy - and I don't mean N. Korea.
A few of Wesley's contradictions in public fora, voiced in the Yale Daily...interesting comparison...here. Can't he remember what he said?
Additionally, there seems to be a significant friendship between Clark and Hashim Thaki, the commander of the KLA. (KLA=Kosovo Liberation Army...KLA’s ties to Osama bin Laden are well-known and reported, link, link, and here,too.. There's more, but....). He is also friends with indicted war criminal Agim Ceku (info here, and here). If you are judging others by the friends they keep, please don't forget to judge all by those standards...
Besides being the buddy of, brian child of, and fully supported by the Clintons, his nicknames are "Supreme Being", "Perfumed Prince", and "Queeg" (dunno what that last one is...) tend to say a lot.
Anyway, I don't like Clark, and don't consider him capable of holding the office of the President of the United States. While I do support Bush, there are things Bush has done which I completely disagree with. If there was a democratic candidate that was in line with my views, I might vote for him. Clark, imho, is not that person.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
quade 4
Quote
"Queeg"
Maybe you're not familiar with the movie The Caine Mutiny.
Doesn't -anybody- watch the classics?
Anyway, I think that's a pretty unfair characterization of Wesley Clark. I'm not even certain he -likes- strawberries.
As for the web sites you've referenced . . .
http://www.apfn.org/ Isn't exactly what most reasonable folks would consider to be a credible, reliable or unbiased source of information.
Basically, it's the work of a bunch of consipiracy theorist nut jobs (or at least one really prolific one) You might want to check out some of their other, uh . . . stories
http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org is another interesting "source" in that it takes in "articles" from just about anyone that submits them. It does no real research itself nor fact checking or editing and this leads to some "interesting" articles that may seem as if they have the weight of truth behind them, when in fact, they can be quite slanted, fictional or even outright lies.
submittal guidlines
Quote
You are a Internet-Encyclopedia editor. Internet-Encyclopedia lacks an editor-in-chief or a central, top-down mechanism whereby the day-to-day progress on the encyclopedia is monitored and approved. Instead, active participants monitor recent changes and make copyedits and corrections to the content and format problems they see. So the participants are both writers and editors.
As you can see, this opens up the entire site to shenanigans and brings any article into question -- especially politically oriented articles such as the one you referneced.
As for the Yale article, well, let's be serious, you didn't think you'd see too much positive about Clark in the campus newspaper of the President's alma matter did you?
The FAS article -- I couldn't find a mention of Clark in it. Please show me the connection.
Ditto with the Centre for Research on Globalisation / UBL article.
Ditto with the www.antiwar.com article.
Ditto with the Republican Policy Comittee article.
(GEEZE I's starting to see a pattern forming here!)
Are you offering up any of these as PROOF of you claims or simply as reminders that there are "evil doers" out there, because, I'm not seeing a connection in ANY of them to Clark, yet you seem to imply that these are the proof?
Michele, you're a smart person and you can generate quite a bit of research, but please don't think I'm going to accept as proof anything other than just that -- proof.
None of what you've said about Clark is credibly founded in any of your sources you've listed so far.
Now, please, quit wasting your and my time with wackos and articles that don't actually have any relationship and cite some serious and credible sources to back up any of the advisarial claims.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Michele 1
Nope, never saw the Caine Mutiny (sorry...)
As for the sources, some of them are credible, some not, some questionable according to the politics you (anyone) holds. I was trying to give information on KLA, OBLs connection to them, and Clark's association with the KLA. SOmetimes using "peripheral vision" on puzzles allows one to see things which are not apparent on a straightforward basis (think "latent fingerprints")...
As to the Waco incident, there seems to be some facts therein. No, perhaps that wasn't the best choice of sites, but whatever. There are others to choose from - I'm just lazy tonight. (I'm sick, and I have medicine head too.) (Besides, there are some here who believe in the duplicity of Bush and CIA and all that in 9/11...oh well....)
However, there are plenty of sources which discuss credibly Clark's "early retirement" from the Kosovo theatre. The Pristina situation was pretty scary, when you look at it in whole, and thankfully the British didn't allow Clark to deploy on the Russian troops. That was the final straw, from what I can tell, on a career that was out of control, egomaniacal, and somewhat dangerous. Lou Dobbs alledgedly banned Clark from CNN because Clark was always pushing a political agenda, rather than just analyzing the news. Dunno if that's true, but if so, it's fairly interesting.
As for using a source from Bush's alma mater, does that mean anything critical of anyone should not be assessed for the information contained therein? It was something I stumbled on, read, and thought - "well, I don't have to do all the research - here it is!"...and included it so people could see the disparity between things he said on Monday, and things he said on Tuesday.
Take it for what you will, there is enough credence to the stories about his abrupt retirement, involvement in the tanks aspect of Waco, and his friendship with the KLA that gives me pause for thought...and I stand by my original position that he is not fit to be President.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
As for the sources, some of them are credible, some not, some questionable according to the politics you (anyone) holds. I was trying to give information on KLA, OBLs connection to them, and Clark's association with the KLA. SOmetimes using "peripheral vision" on puzzles allows one to see things which are not apparent on a straightforward basis (think "latent fingerprints")...
As to the Waco incident, there seems to be some facts therein. No, perhaps that wasn't the best choice of sites, but whatever. There are others to choose from - I'm just lazy tonight. (I'm sick, and I have medicine head too.) (Besides, there are some here who believe in the duplicity of Bush and CIA and all that in 9/11...oh well....)
However, there are plenty of sources which discuss credibly Clark's "early retirement" from the Kosovo theatre. The Pristina situation was pretty scary, when you look at it in whole, and thankfully the British didn't allow Clark to deploy on the Russian troops. That was the final straw, from what I can tell, on a career that was out of control, egomaniacal, and somewhat dangerous. Lou Dobbs alledgedly banned Clark from CNN because Clark was always pushing a political agenda, rather than just analyzing the news. Dunno if that's true, but if so, it's fairly interesting.
As for using a source from Bush's alma mater, does that mean anything critical of anyone should not be assessed for the information contained therein? It was something I stumbled on, read, and thought - "well, I don't have to do all the research - here it is!"...and included it so people could see the disparity between things he said on Monday, and things he said on Tuesday.
Take it for what you will, there is enough credence to the stories about his abrupt retirement, involvement in the tanks aspect of Waco, and his friendship with the KLA that gives me pause for thought...and I stand by my original position that he is not fit to be President.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
quade 4
Quote
As for using a source from Bush's alma mater, does that mean anything critical of anyone should not be assessed for the information contained therein? It was something I stumbled on, read, and thought - "well, I don't have to do all the research - here it is!"...and included it so people could see the disparity between things he said on Monday, and things he said on Tuesday.
Actually, the Yale article was perhaps your best find with actual quotes and not simply innuendo or presumptions based upon "peripheral vision" as you called it.
Well, I'm not so certain the time periods in question are as close as Monday to Tuesday and I myself have been known to restate things differently or even, heaven forbid, change my mind once in awhile. Supporting something at one time and then at a later time and after a period of reflection and thought coming out against it.
Hopefully we all do this from time to time!
However, I want to address the issue you hit upon of being critical and credible -- especially in a newspaper.
That IS the purpose of The Fourth Estate.
I don't mean attack programs like O'Reilly wherein no actual investigation or reporting is done. I mean the actual news. The Woodward and Bernsteins of the world.
So, yes, when a newspaper finds actual quotes and uses them to enlighten us, yes, that's their job.
However, when it is from the campus newspaper of the alma mater of both Bush (41) and Bush (43) (also the home of Skull and Bones!), then I have to be at least a bit skeptical (no more or less) that perhaps it is motivated at least slightly by their associations to their powerful alumni.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
I'll tell ya why I don't like Wesley Clark. All that stuff that Michel mentioned aside. It seems to a far greater degree that he is willing to say ANYTHING at any time as long as it fits the moment. I know ALL politicians have to give lip service to the right folks but he seems to be quite the political whore. At least most politicians ATTEMPT to pick a side. ![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]")
OATSF14 0
Excellent posting Michele. I am really starting to like you.
fudd 0
QuoteDude, you don't even live here, what makes you think you know anything about the USA? You must have been brainwashed by the European media.
...
You need to wake up and stop your blind and unfounded hatred of a country that you obviously know very little about.
Maybe I shouldn't butt into US politics since I obviously don't know anything about the US. I just want to point out a coupple of things...
Of course I've been brainwashed by the European media.
Luckily you have watchdogs like John Ashcroft who ensures that the US media don't report something "wrong".
Good thing the US goverment keeps track of what books people read. That's important. Books are more dangerous than guns. That's why it's not important to keep track of who buys guns.
Of course the US is governed by persons looking out for the people. That the Vice president Dick Cheney was the CEO of Haliburton doesn't mean he is in office to look out for Halliburtons interests. It had probably nothing to do with this either
I've never expressed hatred against the US, just that I worry about that it's corrupt. Of course the US is nice to Norway as long as we have oil and follow orders. However, we do have a priest as a prime minister, so I'm a little conserned you might invade us to free us
There are only 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
kallend 2,106
QuoteQuote
"Queeg"
Maybe you're not familiar with the movie The Caine Mutiny.
Doesn't -anybody- watch the classics?
Balls to that!
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuote
. . . was dismissed by Bill Clinton for "character issues"
Sinceyou are probably going to have a problem with many news sources other than one which is run by the left. Why don't you do a Google search with Wesley Clark and Gen. Hugh Shelton as the search words and then take your pick of the many, many references.
Please cite one credible source on that point -- please.
quade 4
You're the one making the claim.
All I'm asking you to do is back it up.
Since you don't think I will approve of any "left wing" media sources. Go ahead and find it on FoxNews.
Show me where Clark "was dismissed by Bill Clinton for "character issues"".
I'm pretty sure you can't, because I'm pretty sure that never happened.
All I'm asking you to do is back it up.
Since you don't think I will approve of any "left wing" media sources. Go ahead and find it on FoxNews.
Show me where Clark "was dismissed by Bill Clinton for "character issues"".
I'm pretty sure you can't, because I'm pretty sure that never happened.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Michele 1
QuoteI'm pretty sure you can't, because I'm pretty sure that never happened.
Quade, don't you know about Pristina?
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
quade 4
Yes, I understand about what some people believe happened in Pristina with their limited knowledge of the situation.
However, I don't believe that addresses the claim of "character issues" and Clark being "dismissed by Bill Clinton".
Maybe you can explain it to me.
BTW, here is some stuff I found on FoxNews. Not that I believe FoxNews (of all places) is an unbiased source, but I'm pretty damn sure no reasonable individual is going to call it a left wing media outlet.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98629,00.html
So again, where's the information about BILL CLINTON dismissing Clark for anything?
To date, I've never seen anyone able to explain the Shelton comments and it is from Shelton, not Clinton that the statement comes.
However, I don't believe that addresses the claim of "character issues" and Clark being "dismissed by Bill Clinton".
Maybe you can explain it to me.
BTW, here is some stuff I found on FoxNews. Not that I believe FoxNews (of all places) is an unbiased source, but I'm pretty damn sure no reasonable individual is going to call it a left wing media outlet.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98629,00.html
So again, where's the information about BILL CLINTON dismissing Clark for anything?
To date, I've never seen anyone able to explain the Shelton comments and it is from Shelton, not Clinton that the statement comes.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
benny 0
QuoteYou're the one making the claim.
All I'm asking you to do is back it up.
Since you don't think I will approve of any "left wing" media sources. Go ahead and find it on FoxNews.
Show me where Clark "was dismissed by Bill Clinton for "character issues"".
I'm pretty sure you can't, because I'm pretty sure that never happened.
Maybe this article will clear this up... (long)
Quote
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
September 19, 2003, Friday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section A; Page 1; Column 1; National Desk
LENGTH: 1388 words
HEADLINE: Candidate Joined Crowd With Push From Clintons
BYLINE: By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Sept. 18
BODY:
Behind Gen. Wesley K. Clark's candidacy for the White House is a former president fanning the flames.
General Clark, in fact, said today that he had had a series of conversations with both the former president, Bill Clinton, and his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, as well as close aides to them and that all of them had encouraged him to run.
The story, though, is not simple.
At first glance, it would seem that Mr. Clinton and General Clark would have a longtime bond. They each lost their fathers early. From the same small patch of 1950's America, they emerged as ambitious, high-achieving golden boys, becoming Rhodes Scholars and attending Oxford University, then soaring to the tops of their respective professions at relatively young ages.
In reality, they hardly knew each other. Instead of paths that crossed, theirs were parallel. And when their lives finally intersected -- while Mr. Clinton was president and General Clark commanded the allied troops in Europe -- it was a complex and tortured time for both.
To General Clark's humiliation, President Clinton's Pentagon relieved him of his command. And President Clinton had signed off on the plan, according to several published accounts, apparently unaware that he was being deceived by Clark detractors.
Now the 58-year-old career Army officer wants to be president. And the 57-year-old former president seems eager to promote his candidacy.
General Clark said in an interview today he had talked with both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton over the last few weeks. Beyond saying that they had been encouraging, he was reluctant to discuss the conversations because he was "afraid I'm going to misquote one of them."
Earlier this summer, Mr. Clinton and Mrs. Clinton were talking up General Clark to their friends.
"During their visits to Martha's Vineyard, there was certainly a lot of buzz about General Clark's potential candidacy," said Alan M. Dershowitz, the author and Harvard Law School professor who hobnobbed on the Vineyard with the Clintons.
"Obviously they didn't make any endorsement, but Bill particularly was clearly talking up his virtues," Mr. Dershowitz added. "You could tell he was Bill's kind of guy."
And just last week, at a dinner at the Clintons' home in Chappaqua, N.Y., the former president told guests the Democratic Party had "two stars," referring to Senator Clinton and General Clark.
Since then, some of Mr. Clinton's former associates have signed on with General Clark's incipient campaign.
One of them is Mickey Kantor, who was Mr. Clinton's campaign chairman in 1992. "I'm doing everything I can to give him personal advice and talk to others about him," Mr. Kantor said.
Both Clintons, Mr. Kantor said, "are really admirers of General Clark and his talents and are greatly impressed with him." He added: "Given their admiration for General Clark, I'd be surprised if they were anything but supportive of anyone who has worked for them for doing anything to help him."
Mr. Kantor said that the Clintons' enthusiasm did not extend to recruiting people for the Clark campaign, and he expected that neither Clinton would endorse any candidate in the Democratic primaries. But their enthusiasm is evident.
"He's a good man, he's a smart man, served our country well," Mr. Clinton said on Saturday in Iowa. "He was fabulous in the Bosnian peace process."
On Tuesday, he hailed General Clark as having "a sack full of guts" for a heroic rescue bid of State Department officials whose vehicle had slid off a Balkan mountainside.
The Clintons' promotion for General Clark's candidacy has set off speculation about their long-term strategy. Conservative commentators have suggested that the Clintons were encouraging weak candidates to enter the race so that they would lose, leaving the Democratic field open for Senator Clinton in 2008.
Asked today about some of that speculation, including whether he might be a stalking horse for Senator Clinton and might wind up as her vice presidential candidate, either next year or in 2008, General Clark said he had heard the talk but dismissed it. He also said he had no interest in being vice president.
"If you're concerned about national security affairs," he said, "then the right place for the person who wants to be commander in chief is to be the commander in chief."
General Clark also said he had not had much of a relationship with the Clintons. "I had, like, seen him twice in my life before he became president," he said.
Even though they both grew up in Arkansas, General Clark wrote in his book, "Waging Modern War" (PublicAffairs, 2001), that he met Mr. Clinton for the first time in 1965 at a student conference at Georgetown University. He met Hillary Clinton in 1983 in France at a conference of French-American Young Leaders. The Clarks and the Clintons had dinner once when Mr. Clinton was governor of Arkansas and, as General Clark told it, "I had talked to him once on the phone as I was passing through the state a few years later, but that was about it."
Still, early in the Clinton administration, Mr. Clark was named a senior aide to the joint chiefs of staff. It was not then clear whether Mr. Clinton had a hand in the promotion, but General Clark wrote in his memoirs that he had heard later from a fellow officer that Mr. Clinton had referred to him as "my friend, Wes Clark."
General Clark did not at that time dispel the impression that the two were friends. The similarities in their histories led people to think that there must have been a relationship. One rumor then circulating had it that Mr. Clark had double-dated with Mr. Clinton and Hillary Clinton.
The stories became so common that after several weeks, General Clark did start setting the record straight. And in reality, Pentagon officials said, General Clark's promotions were approved by President Clinton but not initiated by him.
With the extent of his connection to the president unclear, several accounts said that the impression grew that General Clark circumvented the Pentagon to go to his friends at the White House.
"There was a belief at the Pentagon that this was happening," a senior Clinton administration official said today. "But this was wildly overstated."
Still, this belief fueled resentment toward General Clark among some top Pentagon officials. Military officials described that resentment as based in part on jealousy and partly on the fact that General Clark -- first in his class at West Point, achingly ambitious and with a knack for getting good press -- had not fit in with the military culture.
From that assignment as senior aide to the joint chiefs, General Clark took on a succession of promotions, culminating in his assignment as NATO supreme allied commander. But his end came unceremoniously.
It was July 1999, shortly after General Clark had led the successful war in Kosovo -- though as he wrote in his memoirs, he could not claim victory because the administration had been reluctant to call it a war.
In any case, General Clark was forced to retire early by Pentagon officials who, according to several accounts, tricked President Clinton.
Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the White House that they had to find a spot for Joe Ralston, a popular Air Force general and right-hand man to William S. Cohen, the secretary of defense. General Ralston had been denied the promotion to chairman of the Joint Chiefs after admitting to adultery 10 years earlier while separated from his wife.
These members, according to several accounts, told President Clinton that General Clark's regular tour of duty as NATO supreme allied commander was up and that they wanted General Ralston to succeed him.
"Clinton signed on, apparently not realizing that he had been snookered," David Halberstam wrote in his book, "War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton and the Generals" (Scribner, 2001).
"Clark was devastated by the news, a world-class slap in the face, a public rebuke of almost unparalleled proportions," Mr. Halberstam wrote. He added that Samuel Berger, Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, had told General Clark that the Pentagon had fooled the White House.
General Clark wrote that later, President Clinton had told him privately, "I had nothing to do with it."
http://www.nytimes.com
Never go to a DZ strip show.
billvon 3,072
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Seemed apropos:
Poll: Bush's Approval Sinking
Jan. 17, 2004
(CBS) After rising in public support following the capture of Saddam Hussein, the President gives his State of the Union message next week with a decidedly less positive audience. His approval rating of 50% matches his lowest approval ratings ever, and the largest number ever – 45% - disapprove.
. . . .
Overall, most Americans say things in the country are worse now than they were five years ago. Fifty-seven percent say things are worse, while 21% say they're better.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/17/opinion/polls/main593849.shtml
Poll: Bush's Approval Sinking
Jan. 17, 2004
(CBS) After rising in public support following the capture of Saddam Hussein, the President gives his State of the Union message next week with a decidedly less positive audience. His approval rating of 50% matches his lowest approval ratings ever, and the largest number ever – 45% - disapprove.
. . . .
Overall, most Americans say things in the country are worse now than they were five years ago. Fifty-seven percent say things are worse, while 21% say they're better.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/17/opinion/polls/main593849.shtml
Presidential Approval Ratings, Average for Third Year in Office
President
Average Approval Rating
Dates
Number of Polls
%
Truman
57.5
Jan. 20, 1947-Jan. 19, 1948
8
Eisenhower
72.1
Jan. 20, 1955-Jan. 19, 1956
15
Kennedy
61.8
Jan. 20, 1963-Nov. 22, 1963
12
Johnson
65.4
Jan. 20, 1965-Jan. 19, 1966
18
Nixon
49.6
Jan. 20, 1971-Jan. 19, 1972
13
Ford
48.8
Jan. 20, 1976-Jan. 19, 1977
8
Carter
37.4
Jan. 20, 1979-Jan. 19, 1980
24
Reagan
44.9
Jan. 20, 1983-Jan. 19, 1984
22
George H. W. Bush
69.5
Jan. 20, 1991-Jan. 19, 1992
40
Clinton
47.1
Jan. 20, 1995-Jan. 19, 1996
22
George W. Bush
59.6
Jan. 20, 2003-Jan. 19, 2004
41
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr040116.asp
President
Average Approval Rating
Dates
Number of Polls
%
Truman
57.5
Jan. 20, 1947-Jan. 19, 1948
8
Eisenhower
72.1
Jan. 20, 1955-Jan. 19, 1956
15
Kennedy
61.8
Jan. 20, 1963-Nov. 22, 1963
12
Johnson
65.4
Jan. 20, 1965-Jan. 19, 1966
18
Nixon
49.6
Jan. 20, 1971-Jan. 19, 1972
13
Ford
48.8
Jan. 20, 1976-Jan. 19, 1977
8
Carter
37.4
Jan. 20, 1979-Jan. 19, 1980
24
Reagan
44.9
Jan. 20, 1983-Jan. 19, 1984
22
George H. W. Bush
69.5
Jan. 20, 1991-Jan. 19, 1992
40
Clinton
47.1
Jan. 20, 1995-Jan. 19, 1996
22
George W. Bush
59.6
Jan. 20, 2003-Jan. 19, 2004
41
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr040116.asp
Of course CBS never spins anything!
I'm suggesting that if you look into all the candidates records you'll find one with a proven record of resolving international issues.
If in your research you found Wesley Clark to be the person that fits that description, then . . . maybe I am.
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites