Thank goodness Rove and the GOP have never done anything like that.

The rank hypocrisy of your statement is nicely illustrated by this comment one of your pals just posted: "I do not recall the Bush campaign attacking … Kerry's war record in 2004."

Obama and Clark are each entitled to have their own opinion on the matter.

Well, the spin you're placing on this is that the campaign had nothing to do with Clark's comments.

As I said elsewhere:

When the Obama supporters all start mouthing exactly the same nonsense… when clearly, Clark, for one, hasn’t the wit to come up with this stuff by himself, what we have here is an organized effort by the Obama camp. Obama’s been doing this all along; Surrogates end up saying the smears and other trash talk the campaign needs to spread, and when things get too hot because of what gets said, Obama simply tosses the speaker under the bus, and claims he’s running a ‘clean campaign’, and he’s shocked…. shocked… that any of his people would come up with such a comment.

OK, thanks for helping us with the proper terminology. Gard is a "shill," but when the Pentagon manipulated pseudo-independent retired officers who had "ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air," the government used the proper terms: "surrogates and message-force multipliers." And they were only making a patriotic effort to help the government achieve what it called "information dominance."

Your words are a perfect way to summarize the behavior of people like Bevelacqua, Allard, McCausland, McInerney, Garrett, Shepperd, Meigs, Nash, Marks, Ralston, McCaffery, Downing, Vallely, Cowan, Sherwood, Eads, Maginnis, Scales, and Grange.

"I know what was said and, more importantly, what was intended"

I'm glad I now have permission to hold people like Bush accountable not just for what they have actually said on various occasions, but also for what I know they "intended."

Amongst the majority of us 30 year vets, this is known as being a whore. Speaking of whores, can't wait to hear what Merrill McPeak has to say about this.

Nope. Spin it as hard as you want, but this was a intended political hit gone badly wrong. Clark, fully expecting a friendly venue from which to air the desired Obama talking points, was put off balance when Schiefer didn't play softball and instead challenged SOMF Wes. Now flustered, Wesley then let slip the foolish quip about flying a jet, getting shot down and how this was not a qualification for the Oval Office.

I've seen the relevant video, I've read the transcript and I know what was said and, more importantly, what was intended. I don't now need to be told, after the fact, what Clark "really" meant.

Here you can find a dozen named vets defending what "cannot be defended."

I have been paying attention.

I did take note of the context in which your comment was made. You did, however, inject Bush and the TANG into this discussion, a discussion about a Obama surrogate thoroughly screwing the pooch while trying to discredit McCain's experience.

As Clark's comments could and cannot be defended, I assumed that you were attempting to change the subject.

I apologize if I misunderstood your intent.

Obama and Clark are each entitled to have their own opinion on the matter. Then again, you're an authoritarian, so you find it hard to grasp the concept of a group of people that doesn't think exactly alike.

It's a disgrace to misrepresent what Clark said. You're pretending he didn't say this:

So why is Obama tossing him under the bus, then? Habit?

It's a disgrace to misrepresent what Clark said. You're pretending he didn't say this:

I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.

In the past he has also said this:

Everybody admires John McCain's service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There's no issue there. He's a great man and an honorable man.

Really? Prove it. The one who is "pulling stuff out of your backside" is you.

"The left loves saying Bush said something he didn’t or pulling it out of context."

You're suggesting I have done that. Really? Prove it.

"The only time that I heard Bush said 'we found the weapons of mass destruction' was when we did find WMDs but he quantifies it by saying it wasn’t a significant amount and was probably leftovers from prior programs."

Wrong. He said those exact words on 5/29/03. At that time, we had found this much WMD: none whatsoever. In his statement that day, this is how many times "he quantifies it by saying it wasn’t a significant amount and was probably leftovers from prior programs:" zero.

Thanks for that nice example of "pulling stuff out of your backside."

"Clinton stated the same intelligence conclusions with more certainty than Bush did."

There you go again, pulling stuff out of your backside. Bush et al repeatedly used terms like "no doubt" and "irrefutable" evidence and "absolute certainty."

Example: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Bush, 3/18/03.

Example: "There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction." Tommy Franks, 3/22/03.

Example: "I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction." Ken Adelman, 3/23/03.

Example: "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Cheney, 8/26/02.

Example: "We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon." Cheney, 9/8/02.

Example: "I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there." Powell, 5/4/03.

Example: "Iraq is now in further material breach of its obligations. I believe this conclusion is irrefutable and undeniable." Powell, 2/5/03.

(Emphasis added.) No one else expressed that level of certainty. Not Clinton, not other countries, and, most importantly, not our own intelligence agencies. Bush pretended to have information he didn't have. There's a word for that: lying.

"There is a thing called transcripts."

Indeed. Show us the transcripts where Clinton "stated the same intelligence conclusions with more certainty than Bush did."

"situation on the ground having not significantly change"

It that's true, you should explain why Powell said this (2/24/01): "[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

On 5/15/01, Powell said that Saddam had not been able to “build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction” for “the last 10 years.” Powell said we had succeeded in keeping Saddam “in a box.”

And Rice said this (7/29/01): “But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”

And even Cheney said essentially the same thing, in a moment of uncharacteristic honesty: "the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point."

So your claim about the "situation on the ground" is another instance of you "pulling stuff out of your backside."

And you have said nothing to address this brazen lie told by Bush: "he wouldn't let them in."

Of course 2004 is different than 2008. Yeah right. The difference is the D and the R behind the name. Hypocrites!

Like I stated before, if they have proof that McCain greatly exaggerated his service, that is fair game but there need to be some solid proof behind the accusations.

“Many on the right still claim Bush said the same thing Clinton did. Once you put those types of blinders on, there is not point of arguing with you.”

Clinton did. There is a thing called transcripts. Clinton stated the same intelligence conclusions with more certainty than Bush did. Whatever actions they took is irrelevant to wither what they said was a lie or not.

The big difference between 1998 and 2002 is your boy Clinton was President in 1998.

Clinton lying doesn’t excuse Bush lying. However both of them saying almost the same thing and situation on the ground having not significantly change, either they both were lying or neither did.

Many on the right still claim Bush said the same thing Clinton did. Once you put those types of blinders on, there is not point of arguing with you.

There are all sorts of fundamental differences between what Clinton and Bush said and did, aside from the important difference you mentioned. Clinton never claimed the kind of perfect knowledge that was claimed by Bush et al, when they repeatedly used terms like "no doubt" and "irrefutable evidence" and "absolute certainty." And 1998 is not the same as 2002. Saddam became weaker during that time. This was reflected in statements by Powell and Rice. For example, Powell said (2/24/01) "[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."

And there are specific examples of Bush making statements about Iraq that were obvious, brazen lies. Like "we found the weapons of mass destruction" and "he wouldn't let them in."

So there are lots of problems with the Bush/Clinton comparison you're making.

And let's reflect on this irony: your defense of Bush, which we've heard so many times, consists basically of saying "Clinton did it too." You should check with belloscm, because he's taking the position that this is a lame defense.