Gen. Clark, Emily's List head campaign on behalf of Clinton

[BootinUp]

Gen. Wesley Clark, retired four-star general and former NATO supreme Allied commander in Europe, speaks in support of Hillary Clinton at the United Auto Workers Local 838 in Waterloo Wednesday.

WATERLOO | Retired four-star Gen. Wesley Clark said he’d studied the military, national strategies and the U.S. Armed Forces the way Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has studied America.

Though the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe was traveling Iowa in praise of Clinton’s recently laid out plans to address veterans issues on Veteran’s Day, Clark spent much of his time during a Waterloo stop talking about Clinton’s readiness to be commander-in-chief and president of the United States.

“She’s got everything, but it’s her character that I love,” Clark told more than two dozen gathered at the UAW 838 Hall in Waterloo. “She is rock-solid dependable. There is nobody like Hillary Clinton in either party, and we’ve got to get her started from Iowa in the right way.”

snip

"I believe that Hillary Clinton will have the proper balance in terms of support of allies and judicious, proper employment of the United States Armed Forces; in other words, war should be the last, last, last resort … and I’m confident Hillary Clinton understands that,” Clark said.

Full Article WCFCourier.com

[DCBob]

1. I like Clark.. I hope Hillary uses him in her administration.

I suppose the DU left will throw him under the bus with all the other hundreds of good Democrats who has announced their support for her.

[ibegurpard]

2. Clark has always been a tool of the Clintons

Starting with his out of nowhere astroturf 2004 presidential "run".

[riversedge]

4. Why do you have to be so nasty-calling a General who served our courtry well a 'tool' is

shameful.

[ibegurpard]

5. I'm not talking about his military service

I'm talking about his brief and oh so convenient foray into the political arena.

[riversedge]

6. You diss him and disrespect his service by your shameful derogatory name-calling

[ibegurpard]

7. being in the Service

Does not give you a lifetime free-pass from criticism. Whenever he has taken the political stage it has always been to forward the goals of the Clintons. Always. Especially as the figurehead for the great astroturf Internet Clarkbot movement of 2004.

[elleng]

12. absolutely WRONG.

[riversedge]

19. Name calling is uncalled for. Do the right thing and edit your post.

[brooklynite]

57. And what does Clark running in 2004 have to do with the Clintons?

[JaneyVee]

11. On Veterans Day nonetheless.

[ibegurpard]

28. So it's Veterans Day

Should I refrain from calling Oliver North a disgusting criminal?

[JaneyVee]

32. Oliver North is a disgusting criminal. Clark is not.

[ibegurpard]

34. didn't even begin to imply he was

Taking issue with your assertion that military service and Veterans Day makes someone immune from criticism.

[mcar]

46. Shameful indeed

I really don't get these lines of attack against anyone who supports HRC at all.

[Cha]

68. I've noticed that, too.. is because he thinks he's helping BS?

[elleng]

8. Baloney.

Unfortunately they've never USED him, tho they should have.

His 'run' was precipitated when people like me persuaded him to run.

[ibegurpard]

10. Yeah I was here in 2004

A sudden invasion of unhinged out of nowhere cheerleaders for someone no one had never heard of. The most perfect example of an astroturf operation I have ever seen. He disappeared after doing his small part to knock down Dean a peg or two.

[elleng]

15. You may have been here,

Wes Clark was NOT here, at DU.

[mcar]

48. I was here then

I don't remember that at all.

[elleng]

50. Right!

[GP6971]

53. Many of us had heard of him

let alone served under him. I was a volunteer for his campaign which was a legitimate grass roots campaign.

[elleng]

55. Sure was!

[emulatorloo]

54. I was here. No such thing happened.

[ibegurpard]

61. Guess you weren't paying attention then

Or else you were part of it.

[emulatorloo]

64. Yes, I was head of the great conspiracy you fabricated

[NCTraveler]

59. You, sir, are on fire tonight. Feeling the Bern. Nt

[DCBob]

17. So quick to trash a man of good honor.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

[GusBob]

20. You should be ashamed

But you are probably proud

Embarrassing

[ibegurpard]

25. Neither ashamed nor proud

Just telling the events as saw them unfold

[oasis]

51. May I ask, in which branch of military service did you serve? (eom)

[ibegurpard]

60. may I ask what the fuck difference that makes?

[oasis]

66. No need to come unglued. We read you loud and clear.

[Cha]

69. ..

[Historic NY]

52. He was hugely popular here for years........

now he a tool sure sounds like sour grapes.......

[ibegurpard]

67. yeah after his astroturf invasion

[BootinUp]

3. I doubt that Clark would do work

in the Administration. But I know he thinks its important to get Hillary elected. And I know he values the opportunity to talk about Veterans and supporting our Veterans.

[elleng]

9. I'm sure he would do work in such administration,

but I doubt he'll be asked. Clintons and other Dem administrations have not made use of his vast talents.

[dsc]

62. uh that is beyond ridiculous

General Clark was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO under Bill Clinton when we got Serbia to back off of Bosnia. Sweet Lord, one doesn't even need a history book for that.

[elleng]

65. That is true,

I meant that SINCE then, in more recent times and in political contexts, his talents have not been used.

Clinton admin allowed him to be removed from his position for military political reasons, and that event has been cited as a negative, 'there's something wrong with him.' Later, he learned of cheney/rummy group's plan: “We’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran."

'What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.

I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”'

http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166

[elleng]

16. I hope so, too if hrc makes it,

which I do not support. He has, imo, a much better approach to war making than does she.

[DCBob]

30. If she keeps using him as a spokesman and surrogate...

that might be a good clue how she plans use him in her administration and a clue to her approach to war.

[elleng]

31. Maybe/maybe not.

I think we've seen and heard of her approach to war, and she's often taken positions different from his.

[DCBob]

35. Yes, I agree. Her hawkishness is my biggest concern with Hillary.

I am hopeful however that once in the Oval Office and is making life and death decisions about sending us to war her "better angels" will emerge.

[elleng]

37. Your fingers to g-d's eyes, DCBob!

[DCBob]

40. Ha... I hope so!

[BootinUp]

33. Well, I think she would value his opinion on certain international issues

and the conflict in the middle east. He recently wrote an op-ed on Russia's intervention in Syria and our possible responses, he suggests that a no-fly zone over northern Syria would be beneficial and with limited risk, which is essentially Hillary's position. The Op-Ed is here:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/08/russia-syria-islamic-state-assad-iran-wesley-clark-column/73593886/

I just see Clark more as an active citizen at this point, not looking for a job really.

[elleng]

36. She SHOULD value his opinion,

on many international issues. So should ANY POTUS!

[DCBob]

38. Good article.

It sounds like he and Hillary are on the same page on Syria.

[Hiraeth]

13. I count twelve people in that room, including Clark.

[Skidmore]

18. It's called "a ground game."

Iowans recognize what is happening there.

[Hiraeth]

21. doesn't appear to be covering a lot of ::ground::

but, what do I know not being from Iowa and all.

[BootinUp]

22. Clark held 4 events today for the Hillary campaign. nt

[Hiraeth]

23. 4x12=48 ... cool. I like Clark. I wanted a Gore/Clark ticket back in the day. Thanks!

[riversedge]

39. Good to hear this. Thanks.

[Skidmore]

24. Those twelve people that you mock

each likely will talk to that many more and in detail and/or volunteer. They will network and not on the internet. That's how it is done here.

[Hepburn]

47. Yep, and rallies with over 20,000 folks...

...none of them go out and talk to others.

[riversedge]

29. Well, perhaps read up on caucus How-to -do before posting about small numbers.

Just saying.

[riversedge]

26. 2 dozen actually. But it is Iowa--talking to small groups is the name of th

game in the caucus states.


....“She’s got everything, but it’s her character that I love,” Clark told more than two dozen gathered at the UAW 838 Hall in Waterloo. “She is rock-solid dependable. There is nobody like Hillary Clinton in either party, and we’ve got to get her started from Iowa in the right way.”

As the Feb. 1 caucuses draw ever nearer -- 80 days and counting -- candidates and their surrogates are picking up the pace in making the case for their respective presidential campaigns. Clark was the second supporter in two days to visit the Cedar Valley to make the case for Clinton.

[riversedge]

27. ....“She’s got everything, but it’s her character that I love,” Clark told more than two dozen......

[JaneyVee]

14. K AND R!

[INdemo]

41. Of course Emilly's list has to protect their

Investment ($187,000) and their guaranteed return.
So guess they left out that part.

And. That amount was what was reported for 1 (one) quarter only

[Skidmore]

43. The mission statement is to get Democratic Party WOMEN

elected to office. They are fulfilling that mission in providing funds to Hillary and to all women candidates on the Democratic Party ticket. What is so hard to understand about that?

[BootinUp]

45. Sounds like a good thing?

[Skidmore]

49. It sure does.

I heartily agree with Emily's List's mission, which has remained unchanged for decades. Emily's List has my support as does Hillary.

[mcar]

42. Yes to this!

[Hepburn]

44. Wow...11 people including Clark. It's huuuuuuuuuuuge. n/t

[brooklynite]

58. Have you wondered, perhaps, WHY Sanders isn't polling well?

Could it perhaps be that rallies don't generate the desire to vote that one-on-one campaigning does?

[Cha]

70. I'm guessing "no". They'd rather spend their time sharpening their inane cheap

pot shots.

[Fearless]

63. Oh good, now openly campaigning with the MIC.