Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Question: Why Should I Like Wesley Clark?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 06:10 PM
Original message
A Question: Why Should I Like Wesley Clark?
I am wondering if people here can help me out. I see a lot of people in here saying nice things about Wesley Clark, and I have to admit that I am skeptical. I know that he is telegenic, smart, and has excellent military experience, all fine qualities, if you're into that sorta thing. I have a few reservations, but might not be as informed as many Clark fans.

In the spirit of enlightened, reasoned discourse, could someone explain to me why I should ignore the following problems I have with him? I heard many of these things, and don't care to research them to make sure, but if any of them can be debunked, please feel free to do so.

I am of the impression that...

...he voted for Reagan and Bush senior.

...his efforts resulted in the "inadvertant" bombing of the Chinese embassy.

...he tried to aggressively engage the Russians at the suggestion of the White House and didn't think for a second it might be a bad idea.

...he said Kerry would implode over that Alexandra Polier thing.


I am very skeptical of General Clark's judgment because of these things. Can someone explain to me again why I should ignore these questionable decisions? I think he's an alright guy, but I am not by any means sold.

I'm not looking to start a flame war, I'm just curious if someone can set me straight here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
brainshrub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. Because he's a General!
And as everyone knows, people with Military experiance are bound to beat Bush in 2004.

Oh wait.

Nevermind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
87. If Kerry hadn't been an anti-war activist, he would have beaten *.
I admire him greatly for what he did after the war but that held back a solid retired military vote.

If Clark had run we would have had an anti-war General who had no baggage and who won a war.

I think Clark should have been the VP candidate. But nooooooo, we had to have two candidates (both of whom I worked for) who supported the f'ing war and never bothered to figure out it was a bad idea from the start.

CORPORATE AMERICA controls the media and we get MANUFACTURED NEWS.
CORPORATE AMERICA now controls the voting machines and we get MANUFACTURED ELECTIONS.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #87
98. Hello, Kerry didn't lose.
We are still the majority of the American electorate, we just have a harder time getting our votes counted.

Don't forget that Kerry ran an honest and positive campaign, and that Dubya's campaign was completely based on lies, innuendo, and nonsensical catch-phrase bullshit.

The media stacks the deck in Dubya's favor. Given a clean choice and solid information, our people will kill at the polls at the national level.

I hate it when people disparage Kerry for his anti-war activism too, because that's the most courageous thing he ever did.

The John Kerry I wanted to vote for would have proudly stood up and defended himself for that. Vietnam was a disaster, and as far as I know, everything he said was true, even if it hurt.

We did horrible things in Vietnam, and if Kerry hurt people's feelings when he got back, then tough shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #98
102. Correction of your 'hate' mail.
Edited on Wed Dec-08-04 11:16 PM by autorank
"I admire him greatly for what he did after the war" This is in my post.

You said: "I hate it when people disparage Kerry for his anti-war activism too" Unless you were referring to all those other "people" whose message you just responded to, this was intended for moi.

"Hate" away sport but read the message text first.

I worked very hard for Kerry, gave him as much as I could, and supported my brat so she could work for him full time for months. HOWEVER, being a citizen and Democrat, I'm free to note that, when asked if he'd vote for the Iraq war resolution knowing what he did now (10/04), he said 'Yes, I would." Edwards said the same. DUMB & DUMBER

Clark took a principled, informed, intellectually honest and ethical position before the war, during the war and after the war: he opposed it, period. He was and is the superior intellect! He has more integrity! He should have been our candidate.

BTW, Welcome to DU! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #102
157. Fair enough.
All I'm saying is, whether or not he lost is under dispute, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for what he did.

Maybe if he apologized to those people for hurting their feelings, he might have done better, but our campaigns don't believe in apologies to anyone ever.

Even so, do we really need the votes of people who are more concerned that Kerry called them war criminals than the fact that they committed war crimes? My guess is no.

And if Kerry had stood on principle and told those people to go fuck themselves if they want to kill Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians with impunity because they were just following orders and not get called on it, he might have gotten more respect. He also might have gone down like McGovern, but what can you do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brainshrub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #87
169. Kerry DID beat Bush.
The election was stolen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. Because he is smart & honest & has integrity & he is ABB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuban_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. *hands you asbestos suit*
Oh, brother, have you opened a poorly-scabbed wound...

:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. ruh-roh.
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. This is ugly flamebait.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. But the guy who implied Sharpton was an embarassment was fine?
I'm trying to be as nice about it as possible. I just want someone to settle my concerns. I am open to Wesley Clark, but need some convincing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. No, I'm totally serious.
I'm a Clinton fan, and despite the fact that I am a heavy Dean backer, I respect Clark a great deal. I am interested in Wesley Clark as a socially liberal, military and media friendly candidate. I just want to know if someone who has gotten over the hang-ups I have about him can explain to me their reasoning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lefta Dissenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
7. I have an idea,
since you, yourself, said that you are not as well-informed as you might be, why don't you go to http://www.clark04.com/issues / and do some reading.

I think you'll learn a lot! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I'm perusing the site.
I'm not finding a whole lot that addresses my concerns though. Funny, these campaign websites tend to ignore potential liabilities. Accentuate the positive, and all.

Strange, it looks like I can still contribute to his '04 campaign. Perhaps it's never too late to back a winner?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sybil Donating Member (203 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #9
89. Clark is a 100% genuine!
Tasteblind`

That contribution link at Clark's campaign website would not have accepted your information. General Clark is not a loser. He may have lost the battle but he hasn't lost the war.

To be honest, I'm skeptical about the doubts you pose, skeptical of your motivations. If you were truly interested, you would do your own leg-work, but I'll give you the benefit this one time.

During the primaries Clark was the first Democratic candidate to make ALL of his records available to the public. He did early, he did it of his own volition, he did it without being challenged by one of the other candidates.

Howard Dean had to be challenged...to my knowledge, I don't think kerry ever made all of his records available and I know damned well somw hasn't to this day.

The General also ran the cleanest campaign of any of them. He is an exemplary human being.

That's my endorsement in a nutshell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #89
160. I appreciate your skepticism.
I remember all that stuff going down during the primaries, and have seen quite a few Clark fans still acting rather enthusiastic considering that he is a converted Republican backer and the other questionable things, supposedly.

Rather than flame someone who said something I thought was ridiculous, I figured I would challenge people to convince me in a new thread.

And it turned out okay I think. Sorry if my reluctance to go out and research it reeks of laziness, but I just wanted to be told by someone who got over that stuff why I should like him.

I assumed that if the good people at DU supported him, then there must be something I am missing. Glad to see I was right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
11. I'll take them backwards....
first, the Alexandra Polier "Thing"....

Please READ These items....Because you are the first one to bring up this manufactured piece of crap in a long time. Almost makes me suspicious.......

Campaign Desk, a Project of the Columbia Journalism Review at Columbia Graduate School of Journalism
The original Story about the "rumor"......"Drudge, Dickens and the Death Rattle (?) of a rumor"
http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000158.asp

In reference to Newsweek's Jonathan Alter's CW - Newsweek Didn't http://www.cjr.org/blog/archives/cat_fact_check.asp#000...

and again to Nedra Pickler "In the Dark on Wesley Clark" http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000543.asp

and to Peter Canellos as an answer to his Boston Globe piece, "the Drudge Report: the Gift that keeps on giving" http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000556.asp

Ryan Lizza, one of the reporters present of the New Republic initially: http://www.tnr.com/blog/campaignjournal?pid=1337
and Again Ryan Lizza, more recently: http://www.tnr.com/blog/campaignjournal?pid=1655

Nick Confessore of prospect offers his view: http://www.prospect.org/weblog /

as does AmySullivan of Political Aims http://gadflyer.com/politicalaims/index.php?Week=200407

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Thanks.
Edited on Wed Dec-08-04 06:46 PM by tasteblind
This looks promising. I will add more when I have done some reading.

Okay. On edit:

This quote is amazing. I'm still trying to figure out what it means:

"What happened was that reporters were dogging Clark with questions about when he was going to drop out of the race. He didn't quite snap, but Clark got a little frustrated and made some terse comments about why he was staying in. Then he told us that what he had just said was off the record. It's a close call as to whether any of us there have a responsibility to treat his comments as such, but I'm not breaking any rules by reporting that Clark did not spread any rumor about Kerry and a young woman. I've previously checked with other reporters who were there, and they have confirmed this. If I'm wrong, the videotape is out there somewhere."

So he was frustrated, said something about why he was still in the race, then said it was off the record, and the reporter says that based on that, the assertion that Clark did not say what he was alleged to have said was reportworthy?

My limited understanding of journalism makes possible the translation: "Since it was possibly off the record, I can accurately report that he didn't say it."

That's the only thing there I question. There seems to be a great deal of evidence debunking this. Damn Drudge.

Thanks again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemSigns Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
13. Because of Gert
She is the best first lady of the bunch. Lots of experience as a generals wife.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
71. Love that Gert
Edited on Wed Dec-08-04 09:16 PM by Clark2008
She is a class act!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
14. The Russian thing is next......
What actually happened.....and why Clark had the backing of the Clinton White house, Initially....

Sending in Russian paratroopers was absolutely unnecessary and extremely provocative. The area was still very volatile and crawling with Serbian paramilitary units. It would have been very easy for the Russians to be mistaken for Serbs by NATO units, especially at night. The airport had no strategic value - Russian officials were making a purely political statement. By the same token, if the airport had no strategic value, why was Clark so concerned? Especially since the Russians were our quasi-allies in this complicated political conflict.

>snip

It makes sense that Clark, being the highest ranking military commander in all of Europe and an expert on central Europe, knew better than any person on the planet what the capabilities and tendencies of the Russian army were - that was his job. Clark knew exactly what he was doing and what the risks were. He knew the Russian high command would never risk a humiliating and historical defeat at the hands of the Americans - which even the Russians admit would have been the outcome. Their military machine was on the verge of total collapse in 1999. One strong piece of evidence for that is how the Pristina issue was finally resolved. The 200 paratroopers could not be resupplied and the Americans eventually sent in food and water - essentially a humanitarian mission. That's how pitiful the Russians were. So all in all, I think the doomsday scenario can be discounted, and some contemporaneous military observers agree that Gen. Jackson's "WWIII" comments were pure hyperbole.

http://www.epivox.com/wesleyclark-knoxvill..._editorial...

by Elizabeth Drew:

"Much has been made of a single sentence in a long argument that Clark had with General Sir Michael Jackson, the British officer in command on the scene at Pristina airport, who said, "I'm not going to start World War III for you." Clark devoted an entire chapter to the airport incident in his first book, and his account has been confirmed by others. He explains that at first he had the support of the Clinton White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the secretary-general of NATO, Javier Solana. But when the British refused to support him, largely in response to Jackson's objections, Washington backed down.lark himself reported Jackson's now-famous hyperbolic line to Shelton as an example of what he saw as an emotional overreaction. Berger says, "To say that Wes was reckless is to misunderstand the context; it's an absurd notion.""
Read the whole article here (It's good!):
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

Gen Jackson criticized by Kosovo report
http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19991018nato3.htm

World: Europe
German to assume K-For command
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/444350.stm

German General Klaus Reinhardt is to replace Britain's General Sir Mike Jackson as commander of Nato's Kosovo peacekeeping force, K-For.

The can-do general for war and peace
(Filed: 26/05/2003)
General Sir Mike Jackson's forehead is scarred, his cheeks are pitted, his nose sunburnt and the pouches under his eyes could carry his entire mess kit. His face could be a road map through the last 40 years of British military adventures: the Cold War, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq.

Today, the new whisky-drinking, cheroot-smoking Chief of the General Staff is surrounded by men in suits and women in short skirts from the MoD press office. Gold braid drips from his mountainous shoulders as he stretches out on a leather sofa in the old War Office.

The peace rallies and the lack of United Nations support never alarmed him (you can't imagine much worrying this general). "No soldier who has seen active service wants to rush into a war, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils," he reflects. "I'm quite satisfied in myself that it was right."

Nor is he concerned that no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found. "I understand that not everyone saw the necessity of bringing Saddam Hussein to account, but it was the right thing to do and I'm proud that this nation swung behind the troops when their lives were on the line."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%... ....

Gen. Mike Jackson's role in 'Bloody Sunday' controversial

Bloody Sunday Inquiry `Consider Recall for General Sir Mike'
By Kieran McDaid, PA News
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=6705183

Britain's most senior soldier may be recalled to give further evidence to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, it has emerged.

The three Saville Inquiry judges are considering whether to ask General Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, to return to the witness box in London to discuss a controversial document alleged to be in his hand writing.

General Jackson, who was an adjutant in the Parachute Regiment on January 30, 1972, said he had no recollection of taking part in the compilation of a list of what soldiers fired at, when he gave his evidence to the inquiry two months' ago.

A contemporaneous handwritten note of the engagements, alleged to be in Gen Jackson's hand writing, was submitted to the inquiry last week by the Ministry of Defence.

Colonel Ted Loden, the major in command of the army unit which fired more than 100 shots on Bloody Sunday, had claimed he made a list of engagements, which was later typed up, after interviewing soldiers in his armoured vehicle.


Gen. Sir Mike's nicknames are "Macho Jacko" or "Prince of Darkness"!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. And...
Clark's problem was that he was a great general but not always a perfect soldier--at least when it came to saluting and saying, "Yes, sir." In fact, when he got orders he didn't like, he said so and pushed to change them.
>snip
More presciently, Clark was right about the Russians. When fewer than 200 lightly armed Russian peacekeepers barnstormed from Bosnia to the Pristina airport in Kosovo to upstage the arrival of NATO peacekeepers, Clark was rightly outraged. Russians did not win the war, and he did not want them to win the peace.

Clark asked NATO helicopters and ground troops to seize the airport before the Russians could arrive. But a British general, absurdly saying he feared World War III (in truth the Russians had no cards to play), appealed to London and Washington to delay the order.

The result was a humiliation for NATO, a tonic for the Russian military and an important lesson for the then-obscure head of the Russian national security council, Vladimir Putin. As later Russian press reports showed, Putin knew far more about the Pristina operation than did the Russian defense or foreign ministers. It was no coincidence that a few weeks afterward, Russian bombers buzzed NATO member Iceland for the first time in a decade. A few weeks after that, with Putin as prime minister, Russian troops invaded Chechnya. Putin learned the value of boldness in the face of Western hesitation. Clark learned that he had no backup in Washington.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=artic...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Awesome.
This was the most troubling of all of them, so I'm glad I can lay it rest now. This is quite convincing that he knew what he was doing and this wasn't as potentially dangerous an incident as it was made out to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. actually, it was dangerous that Clark was NOT listened to....
Edited on Wed Dec-08-04 07:12 PM by FrenchieCat
read my post #19.

We are still dealing with the ramifications of Clark's orders NOT having been followed.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lenidog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
15. The only reason he didn't aggressively engage the Russians
was that the Brit officer he told to prevent the Russians from landing by all means told he that he wasn't about to start WWIII on his orders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Again...read the
Edited on Wed Dec-08-04 07:29 PM by FrenchieCat
unintended consequences...

Clark understood about the Russians, when no one else did.....and we are still watching the Russian MESS from afar.

In fact, the terrorist attacks to the school in Russia may have had an impact on our elections. I have spoken to many here in the U.S. that said that this single incident brought fears home to them like none other since 9/11....it was the straw that broke the back of many who may have voted for Bush....because they were reminded of Terrorism in a vivid way via their television.....

The result was a humiliation for NATO, a tonic for the Russian military and an important lesson for the then-obscure head of the Russian national security council, Vladimir Putin. As later Russian press reports showed, Putin knew far more about the Pristina operation than did the Russian defense or foreign ministers. It was no coincidence that a few weeks afterward, Russian bombers buzzed NATO member Iceland for the first time in a decade. A few weeks after that, with Putin as prime minister, Russian troops invaded Chechnya. Putin learned the value of boldness in the face of Western hesitation. Clark learned that he had no backup in Washington.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=artic...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lenidog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #19
38. So how were we going to stop them from landing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #38
47. I'm sure that the General
had a plan for that. He is not Bush. He does not give commands without having a strategy and a plan....a real one.

You just have to trust me and him on that....since your question requires an hypothetical answer...

However, if you read his first book, Waging Modern Wars, or his second book; Winning Modern Wars, you will probably find your answer right there....the kind of military mind that Clark has is not one you find everyday....in the Pentagon or anywhere...really.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lenidog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #47
56. His subordinate would have probably
liked to have known the plan since as the story goes he was told to stop them and given no idea how. Also a ground war in Yugoslavia is exactly what I would call the best of ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. Do they call you
General Lenidog in the neck of your woods?

You can opine all you want at what could have happened IF....

Personally, I don't think that you know.


as far as "the story goes"....how does it go? Which story? The folklore that Clark distrator like to use...or the official story.

You should do some reading....like Waging Modern Wars by General Wesley Clark. It's always good to have a few facts to back your opinion about the "what ifs".

Thus far, your few words have yielded little fact and much of your opinions based on NOTHING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lenidog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #59
66. So lets see the distractors are wrong
but of course Wesley would never lie in his own book. It doesn't take a military genius to realize that the territory once known as Yugoslavia is not exactly a healthy place for armies. You just have to go over the long list of armies that went there and died there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #66
73. So did this happen?
Again, you are opining about a non event. Plus, as a poster of few words, you are also poster of few facts.

I think that unless you got something to show me....you can have the last word if you must.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lenidog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #73
80. I haven't seen any facts from your side of the road either
Except you seem to be very touchy that anyone could impugn Clark's greatness. For one thing Clark stood down with the Russian because wiser people told him to do so. Secondly, his brilliant strategy of a total ari campaign only works when your oppositions air defense system was built in the 70s. Lastly though it was bloodless for us it was pretty bloody for the Serbs and more so for the civilians. But hey if Wesley Clark floats your boat so be it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #80
88. Lenidog.......I like your use of "Wiser People"....
Edited on Wed Dec-08-04 10:09 PM by FrenchieCat
You write: "Clark stood down with the Russian because wiser people told him to do so.

Now, you've decided that for the sake of your argument it's convenient that it is now the "Wiser People" (your words, not mine) that gave Clark the order.

What I am telling you, and let me phrase this in a way that even you can understand.....
is this:
If you want to think that Shelton or Cohen gave the order....so be it. From my understanding about military command and issues....they gave the 4 star General, Supreme Allied Commander (understand Supreme?)of NATO approval of the order only. They were not on the ground, and therefore would not know about the issues with the Russians unless HE briefed THEM...and HE would have given a list of his recommendations to the "Wiser People"...the only way that the "Wiser People" would allow Clark do order a stand down would be if Clark presented THEM with a plan. In fact there would have been a Plan A, B, C...and who knows how many others...each depending on the circumstances and the reaction to any action taken.

For you to underestimate the Clinton's foreign policy team....to insinuate that the "Wiser People" would approve of anything dealing with the Russian without a plan in hand is bizarre.

Now you want me to provide you with the details of a plan that was never used.

I find that an unreasonable request which lacks any good faith...and by the way, you just keep asking questions and doubting all of the answers...yet offer nothing yourself but skepticism.

Lastly, YES, I am a supporter of the General. Do you have a problem with that? Do I get arrested just about now?

Again, If you re-read my posts on the Russian incident, have amply demonstrated that I do include facts and reliable sources when I respond.

And you?
Didn't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #80
114. Here we go again.
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 12:06 AM by LandOLincoln
It was not Clark's decision to depend on an air war, but Bill Clinton's {& for god's sake, use your brain. Clark is an ARMY general, armored branch. Do you really think he'd cheerfully concede the conduct of the war to the Air Force if he had a choice in the matter??}

IIRC Clinton was reluctant to intervene in Kosovo, but was convinced by Madeleine Albright and by Wes Clark, among others. Once committed to that course of action, Clinton made the colossal mistake of announcing at the outset that he would not use ground troops. Further, he's a big enough man (as opposed to the mental and moral pygmy who currently pollutes the White House) to have admitted later that that decision was the single worst public policy mistake of his presidency.

So, after many weeks of bombing with the concomittent civilian casualties and with no concession from Milosevic, Clark was more convinced than ever of the necessity for ground troops. Denied any support for this plan from the White House or the Pentagon, it's said that Clark began to plan--on his own time and his own dime--for such an eventuality.

It's also said that this refusal to accede to their idiocy was the source of Clark's problems with Cohen and Shelton--neither of whom had a fraction of Clinton's generosity of spirit and/or political skills--and ultimately led to his 3-month early "retirement." Never mind that word of Clark's extracurricular plans for a ground invasion may well have been the proximate cause of Milosevic's sudden and unexpected capitulation in June of 1999.

BTW, Joe Ralston, the morally compromised (he'd had an adulterous affair) Air Force general who "succeeded" Clark as SACEUR, now works for Bill Cohen's consulting firm. Que sorpresa, que no?

Yeah, Wes Clark is "weird" and "creepy." He's a Boy Scout in a world of petty, brutal capos and mindless button men. Better, he's a pre-1960's Democrat in a political world that's all and always about revenge for the sixties at the hands of a bunch of fat, homely creeps who couldn't get laid for love nor money in the most licentious, rebellious period in living sexual history.

Wes, in sheer and utter contrast, is a gorgeous, sexy hunk who's been dotty in love with--and faithful to--the same magnificent woman since his early 20s, despite a constant stream of adoring, compliant females all too eager to separate him from his virtue.

And God, how they hate him for that. In the end it comes down to jealousy. Simple, appalling, and true. Barry McCaffrey knows whereof he speaks.

******

Oh yeah--& Happy Birthday, Jimmy Doug. :loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. Not really.
Because the Brit disobeyed orders Clark stopped the Russians by persuading neighboring countries to deny airspace. The fact that the Russians were able to get the initial force into the airport extended the war for months instead of possibly weeks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
17. "I'm not looking to start a flame war..."
Yah sure, that's why you "don't care to research them to make sure."

But on the slim chance that you're being honest, here are your answers:

1. Yes, and Nixon too. And how do we know this? Because he said so. It was the Cold War, and like most professional military he was voting primarily on national security. Later he was disgusted to discover how "strident" and corrupt the Republican party had become, and he's been voting Dem since 1992 at least (he may also have voted for Carter, but I'm not sure about that).

2. "His" efforts did no such thing. Targets had to be approved by all 19 (at the time) NATO nations. Moreover, the Chinese had only recently moved into that building, and had very stupidly neglected to inform NATO that they were now occupying premises formerly inhabited by an eminently bombable outfit. I don't remember exactly what business the previous occupants had been engaged in, but I remember it was something that would have made them an obvious target. The Chinese were idiots not to inform NATO of their move.

3. The tired old "WWIII" canard <sigh>
Clark wanted the Brits to block the Pristina runway so the Russians couldn't land (they wanted a piece of Kosovo, despite their non-NATO status). Brit General Michael Jackson has since admitted that his refusal was an overreaction. And IIRC the Russians turned out to be a ragtag band of approximately 200 souls, who within two weeks were depending on the Brits for food and other necessities. WWIII indeed...

4. He said no such thing. Here's TNR reporter Ryan Lizza, who was there:

"Just in case anybody was still wondering whether anything in the original Drudge item about John Kerry was accurate, I can confirm that Wesley Clark did not say what Drudge says he said at that off-the-record conversation with reporters in Nashville one week ago.
I was there when Clark spoke, and just to make sure I didn't miss anything, I've also checked with other reporters who were there. Since it was off the record (sort of), I can't get into what Clark actually said (let's just say it was not his finest moment on the campaign trail), but I can report that the quote Drudge attributes to him - "Kerry will implode over an intern issue" - is not accurate. He never said that.

***********

Happy now?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Yes.
Thanks for taking me at my word. I appreciate it.

It amazes me how easy it is for the media to assassinate character...If none of those things are true or substantial (with the exception of the voting thing, which still troubles me), then Clark really doesn't deserve the beating he took in the media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #20
69. I think the beating he took in the media
was because he IS honest and doesn't speak with a forked tongue. He hasn't done anything horribly wrong for them to dig up and play, "Gotcha," so they took the alternative route: they played around with his words, let others besmirch him without proof and listened to Karl Rove's marching orders.

He could have beat Bush in a rout (barring the electronic voting machine fiasco of 2004) because he actually appeals to red-state fence sitters. He speaks and knows of the "values" that appeal to so many of us below the Mason-Dixon Line, but is completely progressive.

Look at it this way:

If Hillary Clinton were to win the nomination for 2008, she would divide the country and bring out the loonies. She isn't as liberal as she's tagged, but people PERCEIVE her as being so.
With Clark, he's MORE progressive than Hillary, but is PERCEIVED, by virtue of his past voting record and history in the military, as being more MODERATE.
Which would you rather have? A moderate perceived as a liberal who won't flip a single red state or a liberal perceived as a moderate who probably could carry Arkansas, Virginia and possibly Tennesse and Ohio?

Me? I like the second of those two odds.

Plus, Clark is driven, kind-hearted, tough, intelligent and actually experienced in both economics (has a masters in the subject and taught it at West Point) and in commanding a military (unlike Saddam Bush).

I hope that you are being honest and will read some of his opinion pieces and books. They take more time than perusing a thread, but they would give you great insight to the person, Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
American Tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. I'll take a progressive, disillusioned Republican who's converted
over some of the 'loyal' Democrats any day. Lieberman of all people had some real nerve questioning whether Clark was an authentic Democrat, as Al Sharpton not-so-subtly pointed out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Yeah, don't get me started on Lieberman.
The only way to start a flame war over him is to say nice things about him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. Wasn't that wonderful?
"It's better to be a new Democrat who's a real Democrat..."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
21. Get to know him like I did. Then you'll know I LOVE WES CLARK!!!
I LOVE WES CLARK!!! :loveya:I LOVE WES CLARK!!! :loveya:I LOVE WES CLARK!!! :loveya:I LOVE WES CLARK!!! :loveya:I LOVE WES CLARK!!! :loveya:I LOVE WES CLARK!!! :loveya:I LOVE WES CLARK!!! :loveya:I LOVE WES CLARK!!! :loveya:I LOVE WES CLARK!!! :loveya:I LOVE WES CLARK!!! :loveya:I LOVE WES CLARK!!! :loveya:I LOVE WES CLARK!!! :loveya:I LOVE WES CLARK!!! :loveya:I LOVE WES CLARK!!! :loveya:I LOVE WES CLARK!!! :loveya:I LOVE WES CLARK!!! :loveya:I LOVE WES CLARK!!! :loveya:I LOVE WES CLARK!!! :loveya:I LOVE WES
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Hmmm...hope you're not an intern.
*ducks*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveinMD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
22. Clark
was the most progressive candidate in the race last time. He understands the importance of economic populism. His tax plan proved that. His leadership of the NATO effort in Kosovo was a huge success. He understands the importance of building coalitions in our foreign policy. He is a wonderfully compassionate man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. I got all that.
Like I said, I'm more concerned with the hang-ups I had. In retrospect, looking at the responses so far, I probably should have been more open to his candidacy.

At the time, I was all fired up over Dean's throwing out of the "red meat," and the thought of someone who had voted for Republicans all his life waltzing into the party as a presidential candidate reeked of a stealth candidacy of some sort, and I was very suspicious of it.

Live and learn.

FYI, I think I'm convinced now that Clark is cool with me. Thanks to those who declined to flame me and gave me some pointers.

We newbies have some catching up to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #22
30. Agreed....
Here's some thoughts of what Clark did for Domestic issues in RE The Democrats:

And just what did you do in the class war, Senator?
here were those who, concerned more with party credentials than the public interest, challenged Clark's right to run as a Democrat. At candidate debates he was asked to justify his recent decision to be a party member. But what defined Clark as a Democrat was not longevity of membership but fidelity of principle. There was a time when tax fairness virtually defined the Democratic Party. It no longer does. The party is so wired into corporate corruption that it is a betrayal of everything for which it once stood. If a Democrat steps out of line long enough to support the poor and middle class, she or he is likely to be attacked by "leaders" like Joe Lieberman, who last year attacked Al Gore for Gore's halfhearted economic populism.

Clark tried to reverse that. Where other candidates tinkered with tax "reform" (every screwing of the public in the last 40 years has been done in the name of tax reform) he proposed a bold stroke to "restore progressivity to the tax system." A family of four with an income of up to $50,000 a year would have been exempted from the income tax altogether. A single parent with one child making up to $28,000 a year would also have been exempted (with a sliding scale to cover other circumstances).

The revenue lost would have been recovered by reversing the trend of cutting taxes paid by the rich. Clark would have increased taxes on the one percent of taxpayers at the top.

This was, indeed, a restoration. When the income tax was created in 1913 under grass roots pressure for a fairer form of taxation, it was assumed the income tax would be progressive - taxing the rich more heavily than the poor. And that's the way it started. In 1913 single people making $3,000 a year and married couples making $4,000 (a figure equivalent to $58,000 in 1994 dollars) a year were exempt from income taxes - they didn't even have to file a return.
>snip
Remember that this fall when we see the imitation Democrats chasing after corporate campaign "contributions" while trying hard to forget Wesley Clark, who made the mistake of reminding them of what a real Democrat represents.

http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/my...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
29. Because he isn't running for President
and I'll continue to like him as long as he isn't running for President. The Oval Office is not the place to learn about politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. You are right...
The White House is about leadership, doing what is best for the nation and being an intelligent bipartisan diplomat....

So like you said, the WH is not a place for politics. That's what we've got now, a politicized executive branch that will do and say anything for the sake of politics and not for the sake of the American people.

Down with politician....LONG LIVE THE STATESMAN....and that's what Wesley Clark is among a great many other things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Sorry, but there will always be politics at the White House
in the real world. Any President has to know how to win politically, not just stand for something. I want a President who can get things done, not just make speeches. We don't need an amateur learning practical politics 101 in the White House when the Republicans are playing tough.

Statesman is another name for a dead politician and I don't have use for those.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. Sorry is the word....
Diplomacy is what it takes to win political battles...that and sheer "will".

Just ask "experienced" John Kerry his bunch of Pink Tu-Tu Democrats who voted for the IWR....what it takes to win. They probably have no idea...and I guess to venture that neither does a lot who continue to advocate that to be in the White House, one must have "Political" Experience.

Yours is a myopic and restrictive point of view that is incorrect, IMO.

If you look at Wes Clark's experience in "politicking" to keep a 19 nation NATO coalition together during a war....now that's politicking in the highest order.

The Amateurs ARE in Washington.....Duh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. Ow on the Iraq War resolution. Totally deserved, though.
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #39
48. My response is this...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Did any of these men accomplish anything? They were mediocre Presidents at best. Clark would make a much better President if he could gather up enough humility to run for a lower office first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #48
53. For you to make a statement ..
that one must have been in office to in order to govern effectively is utter nonsense. It's you talking and politicians....They have been some of the worst Presidents in history.

I'm not buying your script. Sorry.

This current poll is going on as we speak.....and the results show that Einsenhower, who is the closest historically to Wes Clark...as he had never held elected office and was a general is doing very well in this poll of "underated" Republican Presidents....along with Theodore Roosevelt. Read the comments too....as they tell you why those who voted for Einsenhower in the poll did.....Doh....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #53
63. Most posters mentioned his warning against
the military-industrial complex. So, that sounds like a good argument AGAINST a military man who has also worked as a lobbyist for industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. Obviously NOT!!!
Edited on Wed Dec-08-04 09:37 PM by FrenchieCat
Considering our current state..... :eyes:

Double Doh!

The lobbyist name calling is the sign of desperation....I do believe.

"Quitting when you are behind is always the sign of common sense"
FrenchieCat 12/8/04

The "Veterans of True Pissers of Clark thread" Award will be awarded shortly. Please be prepared. You may win SOMETHING tonight! :dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #65
68. I think the person who stops making coherent points
and resorts to calling the other poster names is the loser of any argument. I notice you made no real response to my last post and started calling me desperate. If you can make some kind of logical reponse to my posts besides "doh" go right ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. I made as much sense as you did....
Edited on Wed Dec-08-04 10:13 PM by FrenchieCat
You stating that somehow BECAUSE Einsenhower warned us about the Industrial complex, that Wes Clark should not be President because he is in the military.......and was a lobbyist (your logical Lobbyist conspiracy theory just thrown in for effect).

#1. Please provide me with an example where Wes Clark is or was a lobbyist for a military defense company. Please have your sources of reference....ammo ready. I do not want someone else's opinion....I want some facts.

The General has done a bit of lobbying work since his retirement, but not for any Arms dealer, arms makers, etc. Instead he lobbyed via an UNPAID position for an information company. We can get into that if you want to lob some specific accusations and flame the thread. At least we will all remember who it came from.

#2. Lobbyist name calling is like the RW that call a Liberal a liberal. The word is supposed to connotates all sorts of negativity without any context being attached to it.

So a RW trick really doesn't deserve comment beyond Doh....

Again, if you want to flame the thread....go ahead. There are witnesses here....and I'm ready to go. I'm a Red Dog, and like the General, I don't go for the Okie-Dokie.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cidliz2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #68
85. Nobody is perfect.
If you want status quo, elect a politician, If you want change, progress, integrity and the United States of America back, elect a proven leader (4 star General) and proven statesman (look to the European community to see how they view Wes Clark after they worked WITH him during Kosovo and other issues.

No one candidate is without flaws. No one who has been involved in wars in the military for the last 30 years will have a record that is without question. Get real, war is hell, that is why it should always be the last resort. If you want to judge the man use the same ruler for him that you use for others and he will by far- out measure most all of the "viable" candidates. Just measure fairly and the "best candidate" was Wes Clark.

Kerry is/was the "Washington Insider" - part of the "status quo"
Edwards way way to inexperienced in Foreign Policy, Washington, the Government in general, Lieberman.....well, I never liked him, Dean was torpedoed for the same reason that Clark was, not insiders, Kucinich - unelectable (unfortunately)....

Read about Clark, read what Clark has written. If you just bother to learn about the guy - well you would have to be somewhat dim to not see what a true gift he was to the American People.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #65
156. no, he has been in the past and is againt...... a lobbiest
for war goods and services.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #63
79. The military industrial complex
Is one of my reasons for supporting Clark. As he has said on many occassions: he would look for the "pork" within the budget starting with the budget that he knows best; the Pentagon budget or as he likes to call it, "the make-want" budget.

Clark knows where the "bodies" are buried. He also describes in detail just how messed up the process is in his book. After reading what he had to say, I understood better why both parties and their weapons lobbying cronies would be out to stop Clark; he does not abide their wasting the public treasure.

At one NH rally he was asked by a woman if the military industrial complex is real. Clark answered: it's real and it's getting bigger. If elected I'll do something about it.

Only Nixon could go to China; only someone with authority regarding all things Pentagon can curb that beast. Clinton was powerless against them, and hired a repub, Cohen-the-K-street, to shield him. Junior loves defense department corruption, it feeds the beast.

Only Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #79
92. That's a great point
I'm glad to hear that about Clark, and he probably is a good person to take on the M-I complex in that sense.

In the end I simply don't trust anyone who I can't judge by their record in office. A person can say anything when they run for office. I might have supported Howard Dean had I judged him by how liberal he sounded during the primary, but I was able to see him differently based on what he had done as Governor. I can't do that with Clark so he's too much of a wild card for me to be comfortable with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. Yeah, I remember thinking this at the time actually.
That Clark wanted to reform the Pentagon and was the only person with a snowball's chance in hell of getting a fair shot at it.

I agree about the office thing. My problem with Ralph Nader, Wesley Clark, and several others is the notion that they want to run for President of the United States without running for something else first.

It reminds me of a passage in Jon Krakauer's Into Thin Air, where he talks about Everest being a particularly dangerous mountain, because it attracts climbers who are not in it for the climb so much as they are in it to climb the biggest mountain. These people are in it for the wrong reasons, and the mountain is littered with the frozen bodies of these people whose ambitions were no match for the mountain they challenged.

Running for the Presidency as a first office makes me think people are in it for the wrong reasons in the same way.

Clark's resume is impressive though. If a first-time politician had to run for the Presidency, I can't imagine one more qualified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #94
97. Clark had Head of State Status when he was NATO Commander
That is an official diplomatic term. Clark directly briefed the Heads of State of all the NATO Nations and was accorded that status in return. He is far more experienced at leadership at the highest levels than either Bush Jr., Carter, Reagan, or Clinton.

My problem with celebrities coming out of nowhere to run for High Office is I don't know if I can trust them, on top of their inexperience. Clark proved time and time again that he places the needs of our Nation above his own. He has risked his life on several occasions for our country. And as others have noted on this thread, he is a honest man who tells you what he really believes, who is in no one's pocket. He may not be an ideal candidate, but he comes closer than anyone else I've known in my lifetime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #92
101. But he does have a record:
He has bucked the brass. Although he spent his career rising up the most highly charged political ladder in the world, he threatened to resign when crazy Shelton and Cohen came up with some lame-ass plan to march the troops past Belgrade. He put his credentials on the line when he wrote the amicus brief regarding Affirmative Action; he made education, housing, and benefits a top priority when the military was being rebuilt. And most recently, when all the G-7 big whigs were schmoozing in Georgia, Wes was sitting down with the group that was writing a proposal on behalf of the needs of the third world that was delivered to the gasbags.

His last job was considered a "head of state" position. Wes Clark, the son of a widow left with $400 and an aging car, has risen on merit. True that is not the same thing as cozying up to donors, and getting elected and re-elected, but considering the sad state of most of our current politicians, I'll take merit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #63
115. Lazy, lazy, lazy..or worse. Shame on you.
Clark refuses to take the easy way to money and to lobby for weapons systems, as do so many retired military.

Instead he represents, and lobbies for, alternate energy systems/companies.

Ya wanna tell me a better use of his unique skills and energies in these parlous times?

Didn't think so....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. I call
bullshit--that or you need to define your terms. Wes Clark has forgotten more about politics than most pols will ever learn.

He simply lacked experience in retail politics--but that was then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. No, he lacks experience in holding office
He lacks in experience in how the House and Senate operate, which is very important if you want to get something passed. He lacks experience in writing legislation, in directing federal bureaucracies which are VERY different than military ones, he lacks experience in framing political issues, in winning legislative battles, in gaining support from opposition party members, and in every other aspect of practical real world politics. It matters.

His leadership in other areas is impressive but NOTHING is exactly like working in political office. He simply doesn't have the practical political experience to be President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #41
50. Wes Clark know how the White House operates...
Edited on Wed Dec-08-04 08:11 PM by FrenchieCat
Where did you get the notion that he didn't.

Are you just talking....but not really knowing?

Leadership requires executive experience...that's why Governors are prefered OVER SENATORS. Senatorial experience is to legislate....that's not what a President does.

Doh....

Clark studied at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar from 1966 to 1968, receiving a Masters Degree in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics.

Major Clark worked as a White House Fellow, serving as Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

His stellar work led James T. Lynn in the Office of Management and Budget to state, "Major Clark is the most able White House Fellow I have known during my seven years in Washington. He brought to his work a brilliant mind and rare common sense. He has initiative, style, imagination, moral courage, and integrity each in extraordinary degree. He has a rare sensitivity to others and a remarkable ability to motivate and lead them. He is totally dedicated to public service as a military officer

In 1994, General Clark was named director for strategic plans and policy of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It was there that General Clark insisted that the Pentagon develop an exit strategy for the 1994 invasion of Haiti. It was an innovative approach, which brought together the UN and the US government, non-military elements.

http://clark04.com/records /



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #50
60. Being appointed to a position and reading books
does not equal real world political skills. Where did you get the notion that it does? Keeping coalitions in a military context is still very different than negotiating American domestic politics, since that is the other line I read so often. Clark has a lot of experience to be many things, but being an effective President isn't one of them. He should run for Senate or Governor somewhere unless he's too good for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #60
75. I think
Edited on Wed Dec-08-04 09:43 PM by FrenchieCat
that this opinion that you hold is yours to keep.

I have told you what I think and have backed it up with FACTS..... and obviously Einsenhower and Wes Clark and those who voted for either would differ with you and your opinion (you know what opinions are like...hint, we all have one).

You can also have the last word here....cause I fear that's what you need.

In reference to whomever you supported....please tell who that was. That might give us some insight on your insistence that because you said something....it becomes a fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cidliz2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #60
86. Which candidate had the experience in every aspect of the
office of President of the United States?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cdp Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #60
108. Some people have problems with Clarks "experience"
Personally, I like the idea of having a non-politician President. I do agree with Nader that Dems and Reps can be painfully similar at times. Corporations are taking over the world, and experienced politicians'loyalty to lobbyists and big business isn't helping. Would Clark be different? I don't know, but I find the political outsider thing kind of exciting. I can understand why Clark's lack of experience concerns you, but it doesn't concern me for now. Look at all the experience Bush has had, what difference does it make?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cdp Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #108
109. one more reason to like Clark?
I don't know how much Arkansas loves him but...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #60
117. Once again, I call
bullshit.

Wes Clark doesn't need to run for $%#@ Senator or Governor, and we sure as hell don't have time for him to waste his stupendous talents on such trivia.

He had Head of State staus as SACEUR, 1997 to 2000. Head of State, and of an area that extended from Scandinavia to the south of Africa.

Capiche? Jeez...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #117
192. Once again
you have no basis to do so. Trivia? State government has a huge effect on people's lives. It is not a waste of time. If Clark thinks he is too good to be a Senator or Governor then he isn't good enough to get my vote. The President must be lot more than a diplomat or foreign policy expert.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #60
153. Clark was actually more on the right track on what the issues..
the voters would be voting on than the other seven politicians on the stage. He knew that national security and "values" would be on voter's minds on election day. He was right. The other seven were wrong. So, apparently "political experience" did not save the day. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #153
193. It's easy to be right on the issues of the day
when you don't have a past voting record that people can compare to what you're saying during the campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #193
194. You mean like....
John Kerry?

The superfiality and small mindness astounds!

It's not about the vote...cause that's just a lot of talking in the Senate and the House...where 1/2 of the time, nobody's listening anyway....and where it's all about a majority, and your vote may or may not count.

Just cause Kerry voted yes on the IWR, you think that helped him in the elections?

What matters is if you have walked the walk...not just talked the talk.

Clark has served our country for over 34 years.....and most of that time, he was making a bare $50,000 per year. He and his wife and child moved 31 times. He was wounded with 4 bullet holes in Vietnam....taught at West point.

Bottomline is that Clark has experienced being:
In a family with a single parent (Father died when he was 4 years old)
poor
product of scholarships and equal education opportunity
rank and file soldier
handicapped (those wounds were serious and Clark had to learn to walk again...and to shake hand again)
a husband
a father
a teacher/professor
middle class
rich
southern
internationalist
diplomat
negotiator
auto mechanic
Commander-in-chief
catholic
southern baptist
jewish
methodist
author
sportsman
enterpreneur
enviromentalist
a stateman
an election candidate (with the big boys)
a philotrophist - Heading Arkansas members City Year and other organizations
Presidential Medal award winner
a CNN commentator
and yes....a General

I'm sure that I'm leaving some out....

Point is Clark as done and been a lot of things. Since he's been there, and done that.....he can relate better than those who pontificate about everything...but have not experienced most of what many of us are.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #194
196. Yes, like Kerry
That's one reason I didn't support Kerry in the primary.

Yes, Clark has a very impressive resume which you and others have posted countless times. The fact is he still has no voting record that I can judge him by. No matter how impressive he is I will never know for sure what he will do in the White House. I will never know if this guy who used to support Republicans really means what he says when he takes liberal positions on issues, and I will never know how much he cares about domestic policy after spending a lifetime working in foreign affairs. He's a wild card. You don't have to tell me Clark had a lot of experience, I know that. No amount of experience in the military or business world can tell me what a person will do on a variety of issues once in office. So, why don't you just accept that as one weakness of your guy and move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #196
216. I think that you are searching for
a rainbow, where there is none. Even when one has been a politician...you still don't know what he will do when he gets into the White House.

I believe that you don't understand the concept of walking the walk as opposed to these "votes" that you are speaking of...which to me, only equals talking the talk.

I will choose to disagree that "votes" equals the worth of a man.

I will disagree that one cannot tell what type of man you are dealing with because he wasn't up in some chamber voting about some legislation. That's your world...and you are welcome to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #196
238. I'm tired of politicians
& politics as usual.

I want someone who is intelligent enough & creative enough to think outside the box.

Because with all of your "experienced" politicos, we have been going to hell in a handbasket for a long time.

Wes Clark doesn't have elective experience...great...that's a plus, cause he surely won't do any worse than all of these experts with years of experience.

Years of experience in politics teaches them to either lie, or to "parse" their words. It teaches them to try to be on every side of every issue, so they will be liked. It teaches them to poll & ask advisors what the think about issues.

Not for me, thanks, anyway. I want someone whos stands up & tells the truth, popular or not. Someone who knows what he believes in & doesn't have to poll about it. And someone who isn't tied in to all the old ways of doing things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #193
287. What does values and Iraq have to do with a voting record?
Edited on Sat Dec-11-04 01:15 AM by Kahuna
Try to stay on topic, Grasshopper. Clark does have values. And he testified before congress, and cautioned against invading Iraq. So...what's your point again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #41
99. This is nonsense
Edited on Wed Dec-08-04 11:01 PM by Jai4WKC08
He lacks in experience in how the House and Senate operate, which is very important if you want to get something passed. He lacks experience in writing legislation, in directing federal bureaucracies which are VERY different than military ones, he lacks experience in framing political issues, in winning legislative battles, in gaining support from opposition party members, and in every other aspect of practical real world politics. It matters."

First off, senior military commanders work very closely with Congress, both the principles and the staff offices. They have to--Congress approves their programs and priorities, and appropriates their funds. Especially important when a major command is given a new, out-of-cycle mission (like a war in Kosovo). Clark has testified before Congress many times, both in full session and in committee, and worked closely with the congressional staffers to ensure proposed legislation met the needs of his commands.

Furthermore, Clark had to work the issues on both sides of the aisle, so he sure as hell knows all about framing issues and building bi-partisan support. In a perfect world, both sides should support a military commander in the field. Think again. The Repubs in Congress did NOT support the efforts in Bosnia or Kosovo, tried to sabotage Clinton's endeavors at every turn. Clark had to work with a largely hostile Congress, with very little support out of the Pentagon, and he managed to pull it off just fine. He of course had a lot of help from the Clinton White House, but you will recall they were having their own problems with Congress at the time.

And above and beyond the normal for a general, Clark also did a tour in the Office of Management and Budget before his first star.

I think you would be hard pressed to find any governor of any state, and damn few Congressmen (certainly not any without several terms of office under their belts) who know more about Washington politics than Wes Clark.

As for your other assertions, presidents do not need experience in WRITING legislation. But see above--Clark knows more about how its done than most career politicians likely to run.

Finally, military agencies (as opposed to combat units) are not at all different from other federal bureaucracies. They're even primarily manned and managed by civilians. Exactly the same.

(edited to correct html tags)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #41
113. Look at some of the people who HAVE experience holding office
including the Chimp in Chief. There are some real idiots, nutjobs, incompetents and evildoers who've held office, so it doesn't count for everything. Besides, I think it's a plus to get outside that box and have somebody different -- "politician" isn't a job description held in high esteem by most voters.

The General has plenty of experience in government, diplomacy, leadership, and working with/for both parties. (The Pentagon is PLENTY political.) He's damn smart, and he's good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #29
54. would you support him if he ran for Governor ?
aren't you from Arkansas ? would you support him if he ran for Governor ?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #54
67. Yes. I used to live in Arkansas
and I would be thrilled to see Clark run for Governor there. I think he would benefit from the experience both politically and it would help him learn how to better connect with different voters across class and racial lines. A President needs more than foreign policy experience and a term as Governor would do that for him.

It would also give him grass roots support in a swing state. Right now there are a lot of Arkansas Democratic leaders who like him, but the average person in Arkansas doesn't know who Clark is since he doesn't have strong roots there. It would be nice to have a progressive Governor in a southern state and it would allow everyone to see what kind of agenda he pushes when he's more than a candidate. The state of Arkansas would be better off with a good Democratic Governor instead of the jerk they've got now and it would make me give a lot more consideration to Clark as a Presidential candidate.

That was a smart, productive question to ask me. You're good at that when I get into these arguments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #67
74. I'm 47, and I remember some gorgeous float trips on the
Buffalo River and the White River.

These places are probably clogged with tourists now, but I still dream about the shooting stars over the gravel bars on the rivers in Arkansas, and I remember the crawdaddies too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #74
82. I've been to the Buffalo river twice
It wasn't that crowded for a national park but I'm sure it's busier than you remember. A couple trails are crowded, but large parts of it are rarely traveled. The river was beautiful. I loved it there. The Ozarks were the best part of living in Arkansas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkySue Donating Member (647 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #67
83. No for Gov!
No, General Clark does NOT need to run for Gov! His vast foreign policy skills would be WASTED in Arkansas. He ALREADY connects with people from all spectrums...what do you think the military is composed of??? I live in Arkansas and MANY, MANY people here know him and like him. I know of conservative Repubs that were planning to vote for him...but they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Kerry. He is Arkansas' 2nd Favorite Son! Bill Clinton being the other. Further, the Gov race is not until 2006, a 4 year term. If he were to run for Pres. he would have to start immediately after taking office. Many people here were not happy when Bill didn't complete his term as Gov when he ran for Pres. Running NATO and the European Command gave the General plenty of experience in domestic affairs as he was responsible for the bases' operations, dependents' housing, schools, etc. much like running a small state.
All that being said, he would be a WONDERFUL Governor! Geez, I would be better than the idiot we've got now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkySue Donating Member (647 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #29
76. Politics?
You don't think there's politics in the Pentagon? You bet there is! How about NATO?? Think there's no politics/diplomacy in getting 19 nations to agree on a plan for Kosovo? Oh yes there is plenty! And he's now had a course in retail domestic politics. Trust me, he's a quick study. Definately ready for prime time.

I have had the honor to meet the General several times. He is a warm, sincere, humble person with a quick wit and warm smile. His incredible intelligence and straightforward talk are what this country needs. He is a Truthteller.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #29
170. he's not a novice by any stretch of the imagination
do you think he could have gotten as far as he did in the military without knowing politics

no, he's never been elected to any office but he's spent his adult life serving the people of his country just as much as any elected official has

the reason I like General Clark is because he's truthful

he doesn't engage in that doubletalk so common in Washington, especially with the current resident of the White House

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
33. And let's not forget the Haitian mantitties! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
36. Thanks, I Needed The Trip Down Memory Lane
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaroonVette Donating Member (43 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
37. I see no difference between the bombing of the Chinese embassy
and the unvited guest bombs we have dropped on midnight Iraqi wedding parties. Bad things can happen when you play with high explosives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. You are correct....
And Wes Clark did not want to bomb from up as high and wanted to put in ground troops to keep civilian loss of life at a minimu....but because of the Cohen and Shelton bunch....he had to do the best that he could based on using cowardly techniques that put more in danger...

But NATO governments and diplomats in Washington felt Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic would yield after only a few bombs and cruise missiles, as he had in Bosnia. They were wrong. Clark, who was part of the delegation that negotiated the Dayton accords with Milosevic, knew Kosovo was integral to Serb identity and to Milosevic's rise to power. He would not give it up easily.
>snip
Clark also was right about readying troops for an invasion. The preparations for a ground war helped persuade Milosevic to surrender.
>snip
Kosovo show that Clark's bosses in the Pentagon and White House still don't get it. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Henry Shelton, rebuked Clark in February for using 350 American soldiers to reinforce French troops who were unable to quell violence between Albanians and Serbs. After the American reinforcements were pelted with rocks and bottles, Shelton and the White House, panicky about potential casualties, told Clark not to volunteer U.S. troops again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=artic... Found=true


Details on Chinese Embassy bombing.....
http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm
V.The Attack on the Chinese Embassy on 7/5/99
80. On 7/5/99, at 2350, NATO aircraft fired several missiles which hit the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, killing 3 Chinese citizens, injuring an estimated 15 others, and causing extensive damage to the embassy building and other buildings in the immediate surrounds. At the moment of the attack, fifty people were reported to have been in the embassy buildings. By the admission of US Government sources, the Chinese Embassy compound was mistakenly hit. The bombing occurred because at no stage in the process was it realised that the bombs were aimed at the Chinese Embassy. The Embassy had been wrongly identified as the Yugoslav Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement (Yugoimport FDSP) at 2 Umetnosti Boulevard in New Belgrade. The FDSP was deemed by the CIA to be a legitimate target due to its role in military procurement: it was selected for its role in support of the Yugoslav military effort.

81. Under Secretary of State Thomas Pickering offered the following explanation for what occurred:

"The bombing resulted from three basic failures. First, the technique used to locate the intended target the headquarters of the Yugoslav Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement (FDSP) was severely flawed. Second, none of the military or intelligence databases used to verify target information contained the correct location of the Chinese Embassy. Third, nowhere in the target review process was either of the first two mistakes detected. No one who might have known that the targeted building was not the FDSP headquarters but was in fact the Chinese Embassy was ever consulted."

According to US Government sources, the street address of the intended target, the FDSP headquarters was known as Bulevar Umetnosti 2 in New Belgrade. During a mid-April "work-up" of the target to prepare a mission folder for the B-2 bomber crew, three maps were used in an attempt to physically locate this address within the neighborhood: two local commercial maps from 1989 and 1996, and one US government (National Imagery and Mapping Agency or NIMA) map produced in 1997. None of these maps had any reference to the FDSP building and none accurately identified the current location of the Chinese Embassy.

82. The root of the failures in target location appears to stem from the land navigation techniques employed by an intelligence officer in an effort to pinpoint the location of the FDSP building at Bulevar Umetnosti 2. The officer used techniques known as "intersection" and "resection" which, while appropriate to locate distant or inaccessible points or objects, are inappropriate for use in aerial targeting as they provide only an approximate location. Using this process, the individual mistakenly determined that the building which we now know to be the Chinese Embassy was the FDSP headquarters. This method of identification was not questioned or reviewed and hence this flaw in the address location process went undetected by all the others who evaluated the FDSP headquarters as a military target. It also appears that very late in the process, an intelligence officer serendipitously came to suspect that the target had been wrongly identified and sought to raise the concern that the building had been mislocated. However, throughout a series of missed opportunities, the problem of identification was not brought to the attention of the senior managers who may have been able to intervene in time to prevent the strike.

83. Finally, reviewing elements in, inter alia, the Joint Staff did not uncover either the inaccurate location of the FDSP headquarters or the correct location of the Chinese Embassy. The data base reviews were limited to validating the target data sheet geographic coordinates and the information put into the data base by the NIMA analyst. Such a circular process did not serve to uncover the original error and highlighted the systems susceptibility to a single point of data base failure. The critical linchpin for both the error in identification of the building and the failure of the review mechanisms was thus the inadequacy of the supporting data bases and the mistaken assumption the information they contained would necessarily be accurate.

84. The building hit was clearly a civilian object and not a legitimate military objective. NATO, and subsequently various organs of the US Government, including the CIA, issued a formal apology, accepted full responsibility for the incident and asserted that the intended target, the Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement, would have been a legitimate military objective. The USA has formally apologized to the Chinese Government and agreed to pay $28 million in compensation to the Chinese Government and $4.5 million to the families of those killed or injured. The CIA has also dismissed one intelligence officer and reprimanded six senior managers. The US Government also claims to have taken corrective actions in order to assign individual responsibility and to prevent mistakes such as this from occurring in the future.

85. It is the opinion of the committee that the aircrew involved in the attack should not be assigned any responsibility for the fact they were given the wrong target and that it is inappropriate to attempt to assign criminal responsibility for the incident to senior leaders because they were provided with wrong information by officials of another agency. Based on the information available to it, the committee is of the opinion that the OTP should not undertake an investigation concerning the bombing of the Chinese Embassy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. Yeah. I don't like those either.
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #37
45. I love Cuz Wesley and would support him in any political endevor but ...
a case can be made that the Chinese thing wasn't totally an accident and I think that if it is true, they did exactly the right thing.

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #37
52. And you also prefer Spider man to F911 - it's too easy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
40. He plays pan flute, taps bongos, can dance the Marangue & hunts for squab
Maybe he does...I don't know.

Actually Wes is a very cool guy. Yeah, we can dredge whatever you want and make him seem like the Devil Incarnate (like anyone else)...

I met him during the primary season and he was a decent fellow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. Actually....
he plays the piano....and likes to ride horses, fish, hunt and swim.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. So do I!
Except for the hunting part--I've never been that hungry. And my piano is very rusty.

I like Clark. He has his priorities in the right places.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
51. He's too legit to quit.
Can't wait for oh-eight!

:)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
55. You don't have to, but I do because he is principled, liberal, able
and credible.
Welcome to DU, BTW. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. Thanks.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deminflorida Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
58. O.K. here are some responses to consider......
Edited on Wed Dec-08-04 08:50 PM by deminflorida
Yes he voted for Reagan and Bush senior.... so did lots of other people in the military during the cold war. Guess what, the objective here is to get Republicans to become Democrats, that's how you win elections.

Piss poor intelligence resulted in the "inadvertent" bombing of the Chinese embassy. This is a hell a lot more believable about the Chinese embassy in the Former Yugoslavia, than the fabricated yellow cake intelligence concerning Iraq WMDs. Tell me, concerning Yugoslavia, why the hell would we want to start a beef with China? It was a mistake on the part of bad intelligence.

Clark tried to stop the Russians from sitting their asses in middle of a key airfield so that they could protect a fascist nation guilty of genocide. One word here, good battlefield decision, which equals BALLS, which equals the right guy for national security. NOTE: What would you think of John Kennedy if he had not insisted that the Soviet Union remove their missiles from Cuba?

Please prove to me that Wes Clark said that Kerry would implode over that Alexandra Polier thing? Trust me if you think that the swift boat liars where created to destroy Kerry, then you have to know that this was fabricated to keep Clark off of Kerry's ticket and deny the Democrats victory in 2004.

The GOP controlled media all but blacked out Wes Clark's campaign in 2004.

The GOP to this day shits it's pants at the simple mention of Clark's name.

Every Freeper I know shits his pants when I tell them Clark may run in 2008.

Want to know why?

His political ideology is more progressive than Dean's, he has almost as much grass-roots support, and they know that in a general election he'll kick their asses back to the post Nixon years.

Is that good enough for you?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. Hey, I said I'm convinced now.
The good people who posted a lot of the things you say have shown me the way. My doubts have been addressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deminflorida Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Then sign the petition at
www.draft-clark.com

I wrote it. Let's have DU put this man in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #62
96. To rephrase: I'm convinced he's not the devil. Doesn't mean he's my guy.
Christ, at the rate we're going, there won't be an election in '08.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #61
70. I understand and appreciate .....
that you say that you are satisfied...but this is really a good exercise for Clarkies. I like giving out information without flaming (unless I am flamed).

The media was for sure the problem. Here are some examples of mediawatchdogs doing their work and busting the media on the reporting on Wes Clark. There are many more.....We won't even mention the endless manipulative polls used by the media to influence elections....

If Clark chooses to run in 2008, we will be ready.

http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/NetworksAnointedKerry ...
Networks Anointed Kerry, Edwards Before Iowa Did

http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000032.asp
"Oops -- There ARE More Than Two Candidates"

http://campaigndesk.org /
In a moment of flashback, Mickey Kaus writing on Slate remembers that there's still, technically, a nomination fight going on, and acidly points out what a lot of our readers have been arguing: Wes Clark is getting an increasingly raw deal. :

Media to Voters: We're trying to eliminate General Clark tomorrow, OK? Please cooperate this time. .... 10:50 P.M.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095238 /
Friday, February 6 2004

THE STORY COUNT: If the amount of media devoted to candidates is any indication, then the Dem nomination is already a two man race between Edwards and Kerry.

Take a look at our Election 2004 page this morning. I couldn't find a single story about Wes Clark in any of the major papers except for one - an AP piece in USA Today about Clark's bungling of the abortion issue.

http://factcheck.org/article130.html
RNC's Gillespie Gets It Wrong on Clark and Iraq

http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000022.asp
Drudge: The Ellipse as a Tool of Deception

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly Converge on One Story
http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000024.asp

http://factcheck.org/article97.html
Was Wesley Clark a Republican?
He registered as an independent....

http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000018.asp
Slate's Misleading Shots at Gen. Clark

http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000045.asp
What Did Clark Say?

When you decide to support Wes Clark, you are welcome here to come and participate. The most active New DU Forum to date.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #61
163. You don't understand--
This thread has just begun! ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
64. Many answers above to your questions, but I want to talk about his voting
Edited on Wed Dec-08-04 08:59 PM by Husb2Sparkly
You said you were hung up on the fact he admits to having voted for Reagan.

I voted for Reagan. I've voted in every election since Johnson's and have voted mostly Democrat, but not always. I also voted for Nixon's first term. And I am unapologetic about those votes.

I was then and am now, a liberal in most issues, but more moderate to conservative on fiscal matters. I voted Nixon for reasons I can't even quite remember now, but much of it was, believe it or not, socially liberal. Examine his record and you'll see what I mean. He was more than Watergate, but that's all he'll ever be remembered for during my lifetime, at least.

I voted Reagan (as did, I would remind you, a huge number of Americans, including many Democrats) based in large measure on his message of hope. He *was* a good communicator and he *did* make the US feel good about itself.

But a funny thing happened on the way to a second term .......

There was this ..... uh ..... paradigm shift. In fact, I'd call it a quantum paradigm shift. I was still who I always was, and still held to the same values I always did. More evolved and more leftward, to be sure, but still with the same grounding.

The entire political spectrum moved right. The Republicans moved and the Democrats followed. Look at some of what Clinton accomplished vis a vis someone like Nixon, or even Eisenhower. On balance, not a lot of difference.

I can relate to Clark's voting history. It is a lot like mine.

And if you really think about it, this sort of honest statement of one's voting record (Clark's, not mine) would allow many of our *former* party members who now vote Republican with a high degree of reliability to come back to the fold. The blue collar worker. The middle manager. The military. That sort of mainstream American voter.

Wes Clark can do this and at the same time run on a decidedly liberal to progressive platform.

All else aside, on this one score, he's a dream candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #64
77. Thanks for this.
I'm too young to have the full context, and my main source of information on Nixon's re-election is Hunter Thompson, whose On The Campaign Trail '72 is probably my favorite book on politics ever.

That said, I was raised to believe there are two political parties in America, both of which start with the letter D: The Democrats and the Damned Republicans.

I could never vote for a Republican. Ever.

It may be closed-minded of me, but at the end of the day, they stick together and support whatever nutty idea their party espouses at the time, and I feel it would be foolish to encourage it by voting for one, even if he's decent and our guy isn't that great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #77
91. Actually,
to be factual...which I prefer to be...there are more than two parties in America. I know, cause I am in one of them you didn't bother to list.

It is "closed-minded" to believe that party comes before country...and it is dangerous.

Emanuel Kant, the French Philosopher once said...."do not ask that others practice what you, yourself would not." So you wouldn't want Republicans to vote for Democrats EVER?

I find that this philosophy that you are expounding to be frightening. Just like those Republicans that support Bush no matter what.

I don't believe that the same kind of thinking from the left side of the party is helpful. The extreme left and the radical right are at the end of the circle to close the arc. The two meet there.

Your quote: they stick together and support whatever nutty idea their party espouses at the time is appropriate to be said of both side of the extreme political spectrum.

I am not saying you are "extreme"...but what you just said was.

Lincoln was a Republican.....

And Democrats and Republicans literaly switched parties around the time of FDR. Parties are not the inflexible eternal organization that you are portraying in your statement. But maybe that is not what you meant. If not, sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #91
95. Well, keeping that in mind...
I voted for Nader in 2000 as a show of respect for third parties, and because I was living in Maryland, where Gore was sure to kill.

My main point is that any Democrat is better than a Republican in almost any case, Zell Miller aside.

I'm not that closed-minded about it. I just find the Republican agenda repulsive and don't understand how any sane individual could support it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cdp Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #64
104. Great post! I am a Clark fan, and I like this thread.
We need to discuss our candidates perceived "dirt" before Reps do. We need to be preemptive about potential problems.

When Arnold announced that we was going to run for Governor, he took on the womanizer accusations from the get go. It definitely helped to reduce the negative press he received afterwords. If Kerry took on the Swiftboat Vets before the Democratic convention, and talked shit about them BEFORE they talked shit about him, I think he would have greatly reduced their impact.

As for voting for Reagan, the above post sums it up pretty well.

I have never voted for a Republican president, but I am only old enough to have voted in a few elections. However, I can honestly say I wasn't STRONGLY against the War in Iraq. I certainly wasn't for it, but I made the mistake of believing the information that my government was telling me about WMDs and 9-11 links. I got duped, I admit it. I may have learned the hard way, but at least I learned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
78. But back to the basics
Like Wes Clark because he is an honest brilliant man who has proven his sincerity and integrity through a life time of service to his nation, almost all of it at middle class wages. Like him for his progressive beliefs and straight forward stands on issues. Like him for his independence from the Special Interests and entrenched political class that currently rule this nation. Like him for his ability to appeal to a strong majority of Americans and unite us as a people again. Like him for his courage, like him for his openness, like him for his warmth as a human being. There is a lot to like about Wesley Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brundle_Fly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #78
81. I liked him
when I first saw him stating bombing in the Balkans was dumb, and we needed boots on the ground to avoid civilian casualties. I don't know if he was right, but he believed it, and he made it known.

I liked him when he sat on CNN and said the day after 9/11 PNAC and other think tanks were calling him and telling him to use his CNN position to say that Saddam was the obvious target after 911, he refused and he outed them for trying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkySue Donating Member (647 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. Integrity!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donjo Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #84
90. Duty, Honor, Country!
General Clark was perhaps the most qualified candidate EVER to run for president. However he was not perfect & he made 3 mistakes that cost him the nomination. 1. He spoke out loud the words that insinuated that the media had to be curtailed - in other words the media has to stop it's ever-growing spread and influence by powerful conglomerates. Shortly after this, he disappeared from the radar and especially the TV screens and newspapers. 2. He listened to Tom Harkin & others who advised him NOT to go into Iowa. 3. He listened to political advisors with half his brains rather than relying on his own instincts and strategy.

However, I don't think you'll see him making the same mistakes again.
Clark 08: Now more than ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #90
121. Welcome Donjo!
Nice to have you.....were do I know that Donjo name from???

Have read you before, I am certain of it. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #81
202. Re CNN and the 9/11 phone call, this is what I read about that:
Is this a load of crap, or what?

Clark's Source Revealed

Who says nothing worthwhile comes out of Canada? In an article in last Thursday's Toronto Star, reporter Tim Harper uncovered the identity of the man who supposedly called Wesley Clark on Sept. 11, 2001, urging him to go on CNN and blame Saddam Hussein for the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Clark, you'll remember, told Tim Russert last June that the attempt to link Saddam and 9/11 "came from the White House, it came from people around the White House, it came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You've got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism.'"

Clark eventually admitted that he never received a call from the White House. Instead, he talked to "a man from a--of a Middle East think tank in Canada, the man who's the brother of a very close friend of mine in Belgium." Clark's explanation threw THE SCRAPBOOK for a loop, because we couldn't locate a "Middle East think tank in Canada." But according to Harper, the man who called Clark was Thomas Hecht, who heads the one-man Montreal office for the Israel-based Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies.

So THE SCRAPBOOK was wrong to refer to the caller as Clark's "imaginary friend." Which is not to say Clark doesn't have an overactive imagination. The retired NATO commander melodramatically said he received the call on 9/11. Hecht says the call was "either Sept. 12 or Sept. 13." Clark said the call was evidence of a conspiracy to link Hussein to 9/11. Hecht says he called to invite the general to give a speech, and in the course of the conversation mentioned possible links between Saddam and international terrorist groups. Hecht, for his part, doesn't understand how his phone call became a central part of Clark's sordid tale of intrigue and corruption at the highest levels of government. "I don't know why I would be confused with the White House," Hecht said. "I don't even have white paint on my house."


http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Cla...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #202
203. Give this a spin.
Look who used this to attack Clark. People I don't want on my side in a debate.
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030925.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #202
251. Good Morning, AP. have you heard of one named Richard Clarke?
Edited on Fri Dec-10-04 08:47 AM by robbedvoter
Now Wes Clark, Richard Clarke. tells a very similar story about presure on him right after 911 to tell the same lies. Was attacked savagely by the entire BFEE. Care to join in that too, or you let your friend Shelton do it? (your friend Shelton did attack Paul O'Neil who. surprise, made the very same assertions as Clark and Clarke)
See also this:
Media Silent on Clark's 9/11 Comments

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/062103A.shtml
And the candidate in whose name you hijack this thread went out of his way in the South Carolina debate to correct Kerry about 911 fully justifying the invasion in Iraq!

Debate
"Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.
"It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcrip...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
93. The last time I saw Wes Clark
I took the opportunity to thank him for never lying to us. Not letting him demure, I told him I meant that sincerely.

Michael Moore on Wes Clark: he never learned to lie.

Mario Cuomo on Wes Clark: he doesn't know how to lie.

Richard Clarke: Wes told me to tell the truth.

Sy Hersh: Wes asked me why I hadn't written the story (about Operation Anaconda). He said I should have...he was right.

I'll tell ya, there is only one strategy to win. That's to stand up, tell the truth
and be accounted for.



-Wesley Clark

Personally, that is all I need to know, all I ask. If I know the truth, I can judge for myself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #93
100. Truly love this quote that you mentioned.....
"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn." Mario Cuomo

Who needs an experienced stinking lying always calculating politician anyway?

The good ones are so far and few in between.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #100
103. Two points:
The longer people are in politics, the more people they will have to answer to. We are better off with a clean slate...no chits to pay off.

The other point, and I hesitate to say this, but here it goes: I want to live in the America that Wes Clark envisions; but I honest to God, don't really want him to run. The media is fucked up, the elections are fake, and I just like the man too much. He and Gert and their family have given so much to this country, they deserve better than to put up with shits like Hannity and Rush and Woodruff and Lieberman and Wolfie and O'Reilly......

If America can't clean up her act, then how can we expect the best to run? General Wes said at Johns Hopkins that if America voted for the negative ads and campaign, then we could expect more of it. He is right. It is only going to get worse.

I want my daughter to get out of this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #103
106. OK, you daughter can leave but you stay.
That's exactly why Clark will do it. He's a warrior. He fights for causes he believes in. That is his life.

I'm sure that he'd like nothing more than to let loose after all those years of 'suffering fools' in the chain of command. I also believe that he could bypass the media and speak directly to the people in the internet and through grass roots organizing.

His time is now. Then it's time for your daughter to come home and stop mooching off of her mother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #93
105. Soul Sister Donna Zen, You Speak the TRUTH.
That's the single best post I've seen this month! Simple & to the point.

I voted for Clark in VA over the strenuous objections of my Kerry-oriented wife and daughter. I was duly punished but wouldn't have done things differently.

I very much want Clark to become the titular leader of the Democratic Party. I'm convinced he can do this if he hits the bricks now and articulates our positions. No stopping him.

CORPORATE AMERICA controls the media and we get MANUFACTURED NEWS.
CORPORATE AMERICA now controls the voting machines and we get MANUFACTURED ELECTIONS.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #105
110. I am not a politician; I am a soldier and I give you my word.
~Wes Clark (Florida convention)

Yes_if he senses that the field can't cut it...he will fight. He leaves me breathless at times with his fearlessness. Fortunately, he thinks faster than his opponents and is able to refute them without loss. The Grand Zen Master of Political Smackdown... Wes Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #110
112. Indeed. And he's getting better every time I see him.
I don't think there is anybody in the public forum who can go more than a few rounds with him. Your turn of phrase is so on target. I'm sure you know about the Wes Clark DU forum. See you there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
107. Here's what Powell, Clinton, Cuomo, and yes Richard Perle say about Clark
Edited on Wed Dec-08-04 11:42 PM by Clarkie1
"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."

-Mario Cuomo

"Just when the world is being dragged into the death spiral of an unending cycle of violence by a vision-less, coldblooded collection of think-tank warriors goose-stepping their way into the new millennium with a stunning lack of respect for human rights, the environment, or international law, along comes a man with the proven credentials of intelligence, integrity, and courage singularly equipped by his spirit and experience to lead us out of this mess. Don't listen to what the lying liars say about him; listen to what he says. Wesley Clark is a prayer answered."

Peace,
Kris Kristofferson

" seems to be preoccupied, and I'm quoting now, with building legitimacy, with exhausting all diplomatic remedies... So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."

Richard Perle, war-monger

"To those who say that Wes Clark has never held political office: anyone who can command NATO, and keep all those forces together, and win that war without losing one American life, knows what it means to hold political office."

Tom Harkin

"There are two stars in the Democratic Party -- Hillary and Wes Clark."

Bill Clinton

"Major Clark is one of the most outstanding officers of his grade in the U.S. Army...an officer of impeccable character with a rare blend of personal qualities and professional attributes which uniquely qualify him as a soldier-scholar. While he has the intellectual grasp of world affairs attained only by the top scholars in the field, he projects soldierly qualities of strength, character, leadership, and above all an unyielding sense of personal responsibility. It is this sense of responsibility which clearly sets him apart from his contemporaries. has the intellectual, moral and physical stamina, coupled with an unrelenting quest for excellence, which insures the completion of every task to near perfection. Major Clark's earnestness, sincerity of purpose and absolute dedication convey a moral force in his work which gives him a significant voice in this headquarters..."

-General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., July 19, 1978

"There are a lot of good Democrats in this race, but Wes Clark is the best Democrat." - Sen. George McGovern

"I have decided to cast my vote in the primary for Wesley Clark. That's right, a peacenik is voting for a general. What a country!

I believe that Wesley Clark will end this war. He will make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. He will stand up for the rights of women, African Americans, and the working people of this country.

And he will cream George W. Bush.'"

Michael Moore

"General Wesley Clark carried out the policy of the NATO Alliance to stop massive ethnic cleansing in Kosovo with great skill, integrity, and determination."

Bill Clinton

"Nothing is more American; nothing is more patriotic than speaking out, questioning authority and holding your leaders accountable."

Wes Clark

"Wes Clark has been a superb battalion commander and will be a superb brigade commander. He is an officer of the rarest potential and will clearly rise to senior general officer rank. He will be one of the Army's leaders in the 1990's."

General Colin Powell, May 21, 1982

"I asked a whole lot of my friends who were generals and colonels and majors, who served over General Clark and under General Clark and every last one of them said to me that this is a good man, and if he were leading our nation they would be proud. son of the South capable of making a dangerous world a safer place for everybody. A man we are going to make the next president of the United States."

Andrew Young

"My Enron experience has brought home to me just how important the tone at the top is. integrity, he's not going to mislead the American people and he has a longterm vision. I think Wes Clark is just the person to help rebuild and restore the damage that has been done by the way we bullied our way into the war."

Sherron Watkins, Enron whistle-blower

"You will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the struggle to come. You will choose whether we are known for revenge or compassion. You will choose whether we, too, will kill in the name of God, or whether in His name, we can find a higher civilization and a better means of settling our differences"

Wes Clark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #107
111. That was so inspiring....and don't forget....
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 12:10 AM by FrenchieCat
since we have been talking about war and peace here as well....
Samantha Power's endorsement of General Clark....
Cause he was her hero in her award winning book. The highest ranked American who called on stopping Genocide in Rawanda and then in Kosovo...
Just watch the news conference, Ms. Power is the first one up introducing Wes

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04121703_clark2.rm
(it's a real player link)

Who's Samantha Power, some might ask?

Samantha Power wins Pulitzer Prize
wins for "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide"

Samantha Power, Humanitarian and lecturer in public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, was awarded the 2003 Pulitzer Prize in general nonfiction for her book "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide," which examines U.S. foreign policy toward genocide in the 20th century.

SIDE NOTE:
Tired of Politicians who take my money and give me absolutely nothing for it. "No surrender" my ass! Count every vote...or whatever!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #111
129. Heyh, since we're talking about what they said about him...
can we talk about what he said about them?

"We will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship"--Wes Clark, 5/11/01

/sarcasm machine ON

YAY BUSH!!!

/sarcasm machine OFF

Oh, wait....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #129
137. Can I have a link to the entire speech, Please?
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 02:52 AM by FrenchieCat
thank you in advance.

If you are going to say what somebody said....be ready to back it up with a source or two, or three...not just a sentence and some quotation mark. That's what the whoring Presstitute media does, I have have to hope you are not one of them.

You see the trick was tried during the primaries...when the media released a video....strategically showing only a few seconds of Wes Clark speaking. Now, I have to hope that you are not into that kind of Whore play.

I have that speech and its link and I know exactly what it says...I have posted it here on DU many, many times during the primaries. But first I just want to see what you have, if anything.

Taking people's words out of context and spreading them around is dishonest and just plain wrong.

Since you are obviously so "well versed" on what Clark said, show me where you got it from, so that I can put it all in context for you....

I will be waiting for your response......and I WILL be ready.

Let's see what you've got.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #137
139. Nope, you can't.
However it was widely reported. Google it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 04:27 AM
Response to Reply #139
145. As usual....not links, just mouth.....
Here you are. Don't know if the link is still good, but found this in my arsenal.....it's the speech. Clark gave the same speech at a Democratic fund raiser a week later.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065

here is the full paragraph of contention:
------------------
You see, in the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect our country from communism. Well guess what, it's over. Communism lost. Now we've got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live. We've got to let them be all they can be. They want what we have. We've got some challenges ahead in that kind of strategy. We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be doneAnd I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.
----------------------
notice he says he is glad to have them in office for the challenges ahead in EUROPE. He was after all the Supreme Allied Commander of Nato...so US relations with Europe would be important to him. He is hoping for the best...considering....in a time pre 9/11 and pre Iraq war.

in the next two paragraphs he further defines the European challenges:
-------------------------
We've got a NATO that's drifting right now. I don't know what's happened to it. But the situation in the Balkans where we've still got thousands of American troops, it's in trouble. It's going downhill on us as we're watching it. Our allies haven't quite picked up the load on that. But our allies say they're going to build a European security and defense program with a rival army to NATO. Well, I think it's a political imperative that they do more for defense, but I think we have to understand that that linkage between the United Sates and Europe, that bond on security, that's in our interest.

Look, in politics they told me--I don't know anything about politics now, I want to make that clear. But they told me--I read, do my reading in Time magazine and so forth. And they said in politics you've always got to protect your base. Well, for the United States, our base is Europe. We've got to be there, and we've got to be engaged in Europe. And that means we've got to take care of NATO, we've got to make sure the Europeans stay in it, and we've got to stay with the problem in the Balkans, even though we don't like it. We will get it resolved, and we'll help bring democracy and Westernization to those countries there.


two paragraphs up from the maligned "praise" we find this:
------------------------
But we're also extremely vulnerable. Our economy--we're using three times--we've got three times as much foreign investment as we're investing--capital flow--as we're putting out there. They're investing here because they believe in us. We're using energy like it's going out of style. We're using five to eight times as much energy per capita as people in the rest of the world, twice as much as even the Europeans. We're vulnerable to security threats--everything from terrorism to the developing missiles that are--we know rogue states are developing to aim at us.

(that statement above was made pre 9/11)
Clark continues ......
And so I think we have to have a new strategy, and we have to have a consensus on the strategy, and we have to have a bipartisan consensus, and politics has to stop in America at the water's edge. We've got to reach out, and we've got to find those people in the world and share our values and beliefs--and we've got to reinforce them. We've got to bring them here and let them experience the kind of life that we have. They've got to get an education here. They've got to be able to send their children here. They they've got to go home. And they've got to carry the burdens in their own lands, and to some extent we have to help them.
----------------------------
notice that in the first paragraph clark talks enviromentalism to a republican audience.
also note the warning about terrorism pre-9/11.
notice in the second paragraph he talks about bipartisanship, and reaching out to the world community. two traits that he shares spot on with his positions today.
-------------------------
Here, General Clark in talking to Tim Russert about the Freeper's "Videotape" that came from guess who???? Your friend.....Drudge!

GEN. CLARK: Thats politics, Tim. But, you know, Im not a politician, but I am a fair person. I supported the president in Afghanistan. I think we should have gone in there and stayed in there and gotten Osama bin Laden. And I give the men and women in the armed forces, including our commander in chief, who is at the top of the chain of command, the credit for waging a very effective campaign, as far as it went in Afghanistan. And I think you have to give credit where credits due.

As far as the earlier speech is concerned, you know, I did not vote for George W. Bush. I had reservations about it. But I do know Colin Powell and Paul ONeill and Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. I wished them well. I wish they could have led this country well. I dont want to see America fail. I dont want to see another American soldier killed in Iraq or another American here at home lose a job. And I think its the duty of every American to put country above party
--------------------------------------
If praising Bush makes Clark a Republican then Dean supporters are in for a shock: Gore is a Republican!!

"There are no divisions where our response to the war on terrorism is concerned," said Gore, who ran unsuccessfully for president against Bush in 2000 while winning the vote in Iowa. "George W. Bush is my commander in chief."

http://tinyurl.com/2jcxv
Dean is a Republican too:
From Nov 2001 Rutland Herald--

Gov. Howard Dean on Thursday said he was generally pleased with how the Bush administration had responded to protect the country against future terrorist plots.

The way the administration has handled the situation in Afghanistan has been very, very good,...

http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/38357

He's pleased with Bush.... he's very, very happy with the way he's handled things!

Oh My God! Dean must be a Republican! I don't trust him HE'S NOT A DEMOCRAT! :hurts:

If I looked I could find Ted Kennedy praising Bush and take his comments out of context. Would that make him a Republican who loves Bush? No. This is such a stupid issue. :hurts:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sputnik Donating Member (347 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #107
206. Clarkie, my favorite quote is

"He is brilliant, he is brave, he is good, and he has a sack full of guts." - Bill Clinton on Wes Clark



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chaska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
116. Okay, ya'll ready to do it again for the General?
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 12:35 AM by chaska
Hi Frenchie and Donna Zen, it's been awhile.

Donna your words had me near tears. My god, what a waste. What is wrong with us that we let the opportunity slip away to have this man lead us to victory over that boob Bush?

Frenchie you are fierce. I wish I had half your strength. I'm glad to call you comrade. I'm glad you're on our side.

So is it time to start the draft Clark movement again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #116
118. It has already started ....... Petition Right Here!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #116
119. One for you:
In the words of Paul Wellstone after meeting Wes Clark: I've got my general.

Did you know that Wellstone threw a party in the Iron Range for Wes? An historian told me that when Wellstone's papers are opened up, she expected them to include quite a lot about the good general.

Okay_nuff.

So Chaska...will you hiking this year? The coffee's always on and the trail goes by my door.

Right now...I'm gonna to get some sleep...a on p.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chaska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #119
122. Wow, that's great stuff Donna.
No, I won't be hiking this year. I'm living in Los Angeles now. For how long I don't know. Next stop British Columbia???

Pleasant dreams.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
120. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #120
123. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #120
126. Now now...
Clark didn't actually MURDER those people at Waco....he just provided the equipment used to kill them from his TO&E. Posse Comitatus??? Never heard of it....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #120
127. I would expect this from "Freepers"....
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 01:40 AM by FrenchieCat
But OK...whatever. Since you have a 1000 post, I won't call a Freeper alert.

Here's WACO...just for you

Clark had no role at Waco, ex-commander says
http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-clark29.ht...

Commanding officer says Clark had no direct role in Waco siege
Washington-AP -- Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark is facing a flurry of questions over his role in the deadly 1993 siege in Waco, Texas.

His former commanding officer says the now-retired general had "no direct role" in the government's standoff with Branch Davidians -- and that the military didn't help plan it.
>snip
Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations and "we weren't involved in the planning or execution of the Waco operation in any way, shape, form or fashion," says retired Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady "Pete" Taylor, who ran the Fort Hood military base 60 miles from the site of the Waco siege.

Waco "was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to" and "any decisions about where the support came from were my decisions, not General Clark's," Taylor said this week.

"Clark's totally innocent in this regardless of what anybody thinks about him," says Taylor, Clark's former commander. "He played no direct role in this activity nor did any of us."
http://www.detnews.com/2003/politics/0312/01/politics-3...


Wesley Clark and Waco Rumors are re-surfacing that Ret. General Wesley Clark played a direct or indirect role in the Waco disaster because his army division supplied some military equipment to the siege effort and his deputy attended a high-level meeting five days prior to the fiery end. Response has been swift that the allegations of his playing a role are not true: bq. Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations and "we weren't involved in the planning or execution of the Waco operation in any way, shape, form or fashion," says retired Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady "Pete" Taylor, who ran the Fort Hood military base 60 miles from the site of the Waco siege. Waco "was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to" and "any decisions about where the support came from were my decisions, not General Clark's,"
>snip
Many are calling on Clark now to make a formal statement about the extent of his knowledge of the Government's plan and any authorization he made for equipment being sent from the First Cavalry. We have no problem with that--we'd like to know too. But we're predicting the answers will be a let-down for the far right

http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/004501.html

Glenn Reynolds on Clark and Waco:
Nothing there

Glenn Reynolds isn't impressed with the attempt of some wing-nuts to implicate Wesley Clark in the Waco affair.

I seem to recall having criticized Glenn once or twice in the pastm, and my astrologer predicts I may do so again someday. But even though he and I often don't see things the same way, Glenn always calls 'em as he sees 'em. That's a virtue less common than it ought to be.
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/wesley_clark_/200...

For the past couple of months, I have followed several internet discussions about Wesley Clark's "involvement" in the Branch Davidian Standoff at Waco, but I have not seen it mentioned so prominently in a mainstream website until it appeared today in InstaPundit. I have not responded to the various conspiracy theories about General Clark's role because most seem to be generated by people with little or no contact with reality.
snip<
At the direction of the division's Chief of Staff, I later briefed the division's tank crews before they departed for Waco. My guidance to the crews was they could provide the FBI equipment (10 U.S.C. 372), they could train the FBI on its use (10 U.S.C. 373), and they could maintain the equipment (10 U.S.C. 374). I told the crews, however, that under no circumstances could they operate the equipment in support of the FBI's Waco operation (10 U.S.C. 375).

Incidentally, my office's written legal opinion and the slides used to brief the tank crews were turned over to Congress during its Waco investigations, to the Danforth Commission, and to the United States District Court that heard the Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuits arising out of Waco.

I would be happy to provide additional information, but I believe too much ink has already been spilled over what is truly a "non-issue." Of course, the normal disclaimer applies: nothing in this e-mail should be construed as an endorsement on behalf of or against General Clark.

Richard D. Rosen
Colonel, U.S. Army, Retired
Associate Dean for Administration & External Affairs
Texas Tech University School of Law

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/012794.php

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #120
134. Waco????
Clark had nothing to do with Waco...That was the FBI and the ATF...
windbreeze
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #134
140. Clark...
was at a nearby military base. He apparently seconded some of his assets to the Fibbies. He may be brilliant, but apparently he never heard of Posse Comitatus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 04:47 AM
Response to Reply #140
147. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 01:24 AM
Response to Original message
124. Because he paraphrases Heinrich Himmler on Civil Rights issues???
And no, I'm not kidding.

Any Democratic "candidate" who states that if Karl Rove had returned his phone calls he'd have been a Republican is a wee bit suspect in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #124
131. Damn....I should be getting paid at this point...
late night must bring the extremists out. Thank God, I'm on the pacific coast!

He was JOKING! But like you, the PNACers took it seriously...and busted it all. This is so damn tired, it's not even funny.

Really, really digging, uh?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/old/sept0304.html
Clark told Fineman he had just been kidding around. But Owens and Holtzman assured Fineman that Clark was dead serious.

Now, Owens is a Republican and he's close to Karl Rove and President Bush. So I don't think you've got to use your imagination too creatively to see what agenda Owens might be advancing -- especially since the story doesn't really add up on several other counts as well.

However that may be, this afternoon The Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti chimes in with a quick bit of investigative reporting.
Continetti goes on to say that "this isn't the general's first whopper Clark's latest tale bears little resemblance to reality," trying, to true to form, to nail down the Clark as fabulist meme -- a la Al Gore and every other Democratic presidential candidate.

But wait a second. Do you see the problem here? Right. Clark isn't the one who's saying he put in calls to Karl Rove. Owens and Hotzman are saying it.

So to the extent this means anything -- and that's highly debatable -- it discredits them, not him.

In other words, the canard floated by one group of Rove's pals on day one gets shot down by another group of his friends on day two. Like I said, journalistic friendly fire on the right.

To my friends at the Standard I can only say that the next time you put something like this together on the fly you might want to hash it out with a Venn Diagram or a flow chart or something before you go to press.

Meanwhile, Kevin Drum asks an awfully good question about how the White House suddenly became so forthcoming about phone record searches.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/0...
Clark Never Called Karl
Wesley Clark says he would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his phone calls. White House phone logs suggest otherwise.
by Matthew Continetti
09/22/2003 1:45:00 PM
WHEN WILL Wesley Clark stop telling tall tales? In the current issue of Newsweek, Howard Fineman reports Clark told Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and University of Denver president Mark Holtzman that "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls."

Unfortunately for Clark, the White House has logged every incoming phone call since the beginning of the Bush administration in January 2001. At the request of THE DAILY STANDARD, White House staffers went through the logs to check whether Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove. The general hadn't. What's more, Rove says he doesn't remember ever talking to Clark, either.

This isn't the general's first whopper. Last June, the latest Democratic candidate for president implied that he "got a call" on 9/11 from "people around the White House" asking the general to publicly link Saddam Hussein to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Last August, Clark told a Phoenix radio station that "The White House actually back in February apparently tried to get me knocked off CNN and they wanted to do this because they were afraid that I would raise issues with their conduct of the war."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #131
133. That's up there with Reagan's "We start bombing in 5 minutes" comment...
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 02:23 AM by DoNotRefill
Ha.




Ha.






Funny.

Tell us...how many days BEFORE he declared he was running for President as a Democrat did Clark officially come out and say "Hey, I'm a Democrat"???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 02:41 AM
Response to Reply #133
136. ho, ho, ho.....That's what I'm saying.....
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 03:01 AM by FrenchieCat
I think you should just stick to the party purists...you know, the ones that seem to LOSE and dance the PINK TU-TU whenever the political needs arises.

Or better yet.... Don't like the General, stay out of his threads.

It's not like anybody was looking for you.

Considering I just debunked your shit...guess you had to come up with some other flim-flam.

Go tell it to the wind, Neo-hero person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #136
141. Please debate the message...not the messenger.
Your "debunking" is no such thing. I can't for the life of me understand why you're so vehemently defending somebody who is a political whore of the first order. Remember how long we had to wait for him to even CLAIM that he was a Democrat?

For somebody to come out and say "I'm a Democrat, and in two weeks I'm going to start running for the Democratic Presidential Nomination", a reasonable person would have to ask "WTF"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #141
144. Again,
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 04:34 AM by FrenchieCat
There is nothing to debate. You give me no facts. I am asking you WTF? If your hate for Clark is the strong....just get out of the damn thread. You're the one with your "ha ha ha's" and your old tired mess. If Clark hasn't proven himself to be enough of a "real" Democrat...than I say tough tit to you.

You should go support a REAL Democrat, like I said...or you can even support an ElF for all I care.

Point is debating with the likes of you is no debate at all. You have not facts, just accusations and name calling for someone that I support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #144
181. My....your argument sounds disturbingly familiar....
to "America: Love it or leave it."

You're doing nothing to dispell my belief that Clark and some of his supporters are really just jingoistic fascists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #136
253. I hate to tell you this Frenchi since you have taken on the hero
status as great debunker. You never debunk a thing. You simply excuse or spin it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 01:33 AM
Response to Original message
125. Try this:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Cla...

especially illuminating are the quotes...



Yes, indeedy...that guy to Clark's right, wearing Clark's hat, and whose hat Clark is wearing, is none other than Bosnian Serb Gen. Ratko Mladic, an indicted war criminal. Well isn't that special!!!

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 02:36 AM
Response to Reply #125
135. All I can say is....
Blessed those who spread whatever they can find...cause they know not what they do, OR DO THEY? No context offered, uh?

You are in great company though....got Nofacts Novak and sludge Drudge are right there with you...patting you on your back and whispering in your ear....just so you know, it's all "sweet NOTHINGS".

Just pay close attention to the timeline....and than your photo essay will have context (heard of that word, right?)

As Terry at Nitpicker reveals, Robert Novak and Matt Drudge are stepping up to the plate to smear Wesley Clark on factually untrue grounds. This is really awful.

Heres Novak:Clark was a three-star lieutenant general who directed strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On Aug. 26, 1994, in the northern Bosnian city of Banja Luka, he met and exchanged gifts with the notorious Bosnian Serb commander and indicted war criminal, Gen. Ratko Mladic. The meeting took place against the State Departments wishes, and may have contributed to Clarks failure to be promoted until political pressure intervened. The shocking photo of Mladic and Clark wearing each others military caps was distributed throughout Europe.

Matt Drudge has this photo front and center at his page right now, with the caption GENERAL CLARK WORE BOSNIAN WAR CRIMINALS MILITARY CAP.

How could Wesley Clark smile for a photo and exchange gifts with an indicted war criminal? Well, he didnt.

Heres the chronology:

Aug. 26, 1994: Clark and Mladic meet, and the photo (sorry, the shocking photo) is taken.

July 6- July 21, 1995: Bosnian Serbs under the command of Mladic begin their assault on the safe area of Srebrenica, killing or expelling 15,000 Bosnian Muslims. Many surrender, after being falsely promised prisoner of war status, and are slaughtered in mass graves.

November 14, 1995: For the Srebrenica massacre, Mladic is indicted for genocide and crimes against humanity.

Novak is seriously distorting the facts to make his claim. To say that Clark took this photo and exchanged gifts with an indicted war criminal is just not true.
literally.....

http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/000560.html
-----------------------
Most importantly, Clark freely admitted this mistake.....unlike those who would still vote for the IWR knowing what they know today...and Presidents who think that they make no mistakes.....

In a meeting with Gannett reporters and editors, as well as an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Clark also said he made a mistake in exchanging military hats with a leader of Bosnian Serbs in a 1994 meeting and in accepting gifts from him. The leader, Gen. Ratko Mladic, later was indicted by the United Nations war crimes tribunal on charges of genocide.

Clark said there was "nothing improper" in their meeting, though, and the conversation was needed. "You have to take your lumps and move forward," he said. "I learned from those mistakes."
http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/2277...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #135
142. Yessiree, www.dissidentvoice.org is high on the RW media source list...
While Mladic's troops were committing Genocide, Clark was staging a photo op with him. Yeah, that sure shows good judgement...

Don't believe me? Well, here ya go. You put the date of the photo as August 26, 1994, right?

From the BBC:

"Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic have both been charged and indicted by the United Nations war crimes tribunal at The Hague on 16 counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and violation of the laws of wars in Bosnia-Hercegovina between April 1992 and July 1995."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1766806.stm

Let's see...which came first, April 1992, or August 1994? Looks like Mladic had been committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide for SEVENTEEN MONTHS BEFORE CLARK SHOWED UP FOR THE PHOTO OP.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 04:46 AM
Response to Reply #142
146. Yessiree....looks like you're BUSTED!
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 05:14 AM by FrenchieCat
Do you read the links you hand out???? or do you expect others not to...just like you apparently don't? :spank:

Geez...it's only a 7 short paragraphs article.


Cause this is what I read here....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1766806.stm
The tribunal says Mr Karadzic's and Mr Mladic's squads killed thousands of Muslims at Srebrenica in 1995 "in order to kill, terrorise and demoralise the Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat population". (paragraph 3 of article)
>snip
Mr Karadzic and Mr Mladic are accused of shelling Sarajevo and of using 284 UN peacekeepers as human shields in May and June 1995. )(paragraph 5)

Looks like you go excited :bounce: FOR NOTHING! :boring:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #146
182. Hate to tell you this, cupcake....
but Mladic was NOT just indicted for his actions at Srebrenicia and the human shield thing in 1995. He was indicted for things going back to 1992.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #182
184. Yes...he broke some laws....
But the Mass murders happened in 1995.

Plus, Clark admitted that this was a mistake on his part...that he was working in negotiations so that Mladic would not do what he ended up doing.....and had threatened to do.

It's not like the picture changed a goddamn thing anyways.....

In terms of your name for me....cupcake, I think that you will find that is in the refrigerator next to your empty liter bottle of Malt Liquor. (a joke...hope you can take it).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #184
186. Heh. And the ethnic cleansing started in 1992.
See the UN indictment.

Generally, it's not seen as good form to go around playing grabass with mass murderers. If Clark simply considers doing such things a "mistake", well, I suppose it is good that he can admit that he did something INSANELY STUPID, but it certainly doesn't mitigate his INSANE STUPIDITY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #186
187. This is Freeper talk.....
Calling what Wes Clark did as insane and stupid cause he made a mistake in judgement (only cause it looked bad) in switching hats with someone he was negotiating with and taking a picture is absurd and just makes some of us sound ridiculous....and it ain't me.

You really need to "can" this, cause again, making mountains out of molehills is only for those who can't see the forest for the trees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #146
185. Pssss....hey buddy.....
"# Shortly after BiH was internationally recognised as an independent state on 6 April 1992, hostilities broke out in Sarajevo, marking the beginning of a conflict within the city, which would last until 1995. Even before the conflict began, armed forces occupied strategic positions in and around Sarajevo. The city was subsequently subjected to blockade, bombardment and sniper attacks from these positions. From May 1992, Bosnian Serb Forces under the command and control of General Ratko MLADIC used shelling and sniping to target civilian areas of the city and its civilian population and institutions, killing and wounding civilians, and thereby also inflicting terror upon the civilian population. Much of the bombardment and sniping was from positions in the hills around and overlooking Sarajevo, from which the attackers had a commanding view of the city, its population and institutions.

# On 12 May 1992, at the 16th session of the Bosnian Serb Assembly, Radovan KARADZIC announced the six "strategic objectives" of the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina:

1. Establish State borders separating the Serbian people from the other two ethnic communities.
2. Set up a corridor between Semberija and Krajina.
3. Establish a corridor in the Drina River valley, that is, eliminate the Drina as a border separating Serbian States.
4. Establish a border on the Una and Neretva Rivers.
5. Divide the city of Sarajevo into Serbian and Muslim parts and establish effective state authorities in both parts.
6. Ensure access to the sea for Republika Srpska.

Moreover, on 12 May 1992, the Bosnian Serb Assembly voted to create the VRS, effectively transforming the JNA units remaining in BiH into units of the VRS. At the same time, the Bosnian Serb Assembly appointed Ratko MLADIC as Commander of the VRS Main Staff.

# On or about 20 May 1992, after a partial withdrawal of JNA forces from BiH, the JNA Second Military District was effectively transformed into the nucleus of the Main Staff of the VRS.

# From May 1992, Bosnian Serb Forces under the command and control of General Ratko MLADIC took control of municipalities in the Serbian Republic of BiH, primarily in the northwestern region of BiH known as the Bosnian Krajina and in eastern Bosnia. In these municipalities, the Bosnian Serb Forces participated in a campaign of persecutions to drive the non-Serb populations from these territories. Thousands of non-Serbs were deported or forcibly transferred from these municipalities. Many non-Serbs were killed, and many others were held in detention facilities, where they were physically and psychologically abused and subjected to cruel and inhumane conditions. In addition, non-Serb homes, businesses, and religious sites and property were looted, destroyed and/or appropriated.

# On 19 November 1992, General Ratko MLADIC, in his capacity as Commander of the VRS Main Staff, issued Operational Directive 04, reaffirming the goals set forth in the "strategic objectives" referred to in paragraph 8 above.

# From January to March 1993, in accordance with Operational Directive 04, Bosnian Serb Forces under the command and control of General Ratko MLADIC attacked the Cerska area in eastern BiH. Thousands of Muslims fled to BiH government-controlled territory including Srebrenica and Zepa. On 16 April 1993, the Security Council of the United Nations ("UN"), acting pursuant to Chapter VII of its Charter, adopted Resolution 819, in which it demanded that all parties to the conflict in BiH treat Srebrenica, Zepa, Gorazde, and Sarajevo (and their surroundings) as "safe areas" which were to be free from any armed attack or any other hostile act. Thereafter, Bosnian Serb Forces under the command and control of General Ratko MLADIC began to focus particular attention on capturing the strategically located Srebrenica enclave and expelling the Bosnian Muslim population that had fled there in the wake of the 1992 and 1993 "ethnic cleansing" campaigns in eastern BiH referred to in paragraph 10 above."

All of this was BEFORE before Clark met with him....and Clark still met with him.

Source: http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mla-ai021010e...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #185
189. Yea....
Clark did.....and also conducted the Negotiations at the Dayton Peace Accords....(you and your Clark hatred need to find a room)

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is awarded to people who have made especially meritorious contributions to U.S. national security, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors. The medal may be bestowed on citizens of other nations and may be awarded posthumously.

Wes Clark richly deserves the Medal of Freedom, not just for the outstanding job he did leading NATO in its first and only conflict, but for a lifetime of distinguished service in the United States Army and for the Department of Defense. He brings energy and imagination to foreign and security policy and will continue to serve his country with distinction. All of his new colleagues at CSIS celebrate his well-deserved honor, said CSIS president and CEO John Hamre.

Clark, Supreme Allied Commander Europe from July 10, 1997, until May 3, 2000, joined CSIS August 1 as a distinguished senior adviser. He will work across the full range of the Centers programs, concentrating particularly on international security. Clark was in overall command of NATOs military forces in Europe and led approximately 75,000 troops from 37 NATO and other nations participating in ongoing operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. He also helped to negotiate the Dayton Peace Accords. In 1999, Clark commanded Operation Allied Force, the alliances military response to the Kosovo crisis.
http://tinyurl.com/3sr3h
Text of the citation:

GENERAL WESLEY K. CLARK, USA (Ret.)
Respected for his military expertise, keen intellect, and diplomatic skill, General Wesley Clark has distinguished himself as a soldier, scholar, and statesman. Graduating from West Point at the head of his class, he set a standard of excellence that has been his lifelong benchmark, whether serving in Vietnam; as a key negotiator of the Dayton Peace Accords; or as head of the U.S. European Command. As Supreme Allied Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, he led the 19-member alliance to a historic victory in Kosovo in NATO's longest and most difficult military campaign. For his outstanding leadership and dedicated service, General Clark has earned the respect and admiration of a grateful Nation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #189
190. Heh...
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 04:20 PM by DoNotRefill
"he led the 19-member alliance to a historic victory in Kosovo in NATO's longest and most difficult military campaign."

Ask the people who got slaughtered by Clark's hat-exchanging guy at Srebrenica how much of a "victory" it was....Oh, wait, you can't, they're DEAD and in mass graves....So, I suppose Clark is 1-1-0...

"I love the smell of ethnic cleansing in the morning....it smells like.....Victory....."

Thanks, I'll pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkStalker Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #125
150. don't believe the lying liars


Listen, Clark handled war torn Yugoslavia with amazing skill. You want to pull out this tired story when Clark has already explained the circumstances and his regret over the stupid hat incident?

Clark has the purist most honorable reasons for running for president: DUTY. He never got into the game for anything but that. He just wants to serve our country.

His list of mistakes is so tiny compared to any other possible candidate that I'm just flabbergasted it isn't obvious that he's the only candidate that should even be considered.

There's a reason Novak and all the other lying liars slander him every chance they get....and mostly they ignore him: BECAUSE HE'S THE PERFECT CANDIDATE.

Most of the misgivings about Clark cited here are lies and distortions. Get the facts on Clark and you will do everything in your power to make sure he's the candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #150
180. Sorry....I don't vote for opportunistic Fascists....
"Get the facts on Clark and you will do everything in your power to make sure he's the candidate."

regardless of which party they CLAIM to belong to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #180
195. Didn't know you were runny for anything!!! n/t
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 04:50 PM by FrenchieCat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #195
207. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #207
240. You obviously despise the military


"an organization dedicated to industrialized murder" is what you think of the US Military?

Are you looking for a candidate with similar ideas as yours?

It will be a long search.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #240
241. Despise the military? No. I'm just realistic about it's mission...
which is to break things and kill people.

There's a reason why EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the military learns how to fire guns during basic, even if they're going to be a cook or mechanic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #180
277. Grow up and stop throwing around the new big words you learn so lightly
Edited on Fri Dec-10-04 08:15 PM by Clarkie1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #125
259. Like RNC, Milosevic brought it up as well - Clark in Hague:
Milosevic who makes political statements rather than a defense brings up the hat swapping (just like the young republican in NH ?).

The following is the relevant Clark response on the encounter:
1 A. No. Your Honour, I don't remember making any complimentary 2 remarks about General Mladic. But at the meeting that I had with Mladic, 3 I listened to his views, I did write his views down, I said I would convey 4 these views to Washington. They were angry, they were belligerent, they 5 were not the views of someone who could agree to stop fighting. And in 6 fact, he did not agree at that time, the summer of 1994, that he would 7 advocate Serbs signing the Contact Group peace plan at the time. I did my 8 best to bring Mladic around to a position that was more constructive,
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031215ED.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
128. My number one concern is that he doesn't see a problem with Dep Uranium
Depleted uranium has killed millions of kids. He needs to recognize it as a danger to get my support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #128
130. ok....now for Depleted Uranium.....The Ext Left's new third rail....
Worse than Nuclear.....some would love to believe

The facts about depleted uranium instead of the mythology.

Attached is an editorial written by Helen Caldicott that was sent to a friend who asked for her opinion. The comments fully sourced interspersed throughout her article is from occupational health worker who knows about depleted uranium.

Helen Caldicott, October 6, 2002 (Editorial published in the Baltimore Sun)

NEW YORK -- As the Bush administration prepares to make war on the Iraqi people -- for it is the civilian population of that country and not Saddam Hussein who will bear the brunt of the hostilities -- it is important that we recall the medical sequences of the last Persian Gulf war. It was, in effect, a nuclear war.

(COMMENT: No, in effect, it wasnt despite the best attempts of revisionist historians.)

By the end of that 1991 conflict, the United States left between 300 and 800 tons of depleted uranium 238 in anti-tank shells and other explosives on the battlefields of Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The term "depleted" refers to the removal of the fissionable element uranium 235 through a process that ironically is called "enrichment." What remains, uranium 238, is 1.7 times more dense than lead. When incorporated into an anti-tank shell and fired, it achieves great momentum, cutting through tank armor like a hot knife through butter.

What other properties does uranium 238 possess? First, it is pyrophoric. When it hits a tank at high speed, it bursts into flames, producing aerosolized particles less than 5 microns in diameter, making them easy to inhale into the terminal air passages of the lung.

COMMENT AND SOURCE: ( In 2001 the UN Environment Program examined the effects of nine tones of DU munitions having been used in Kosovo, checking the sites targeted by it. UNEP found no widespread contamination, no sign of contamination in water or the food chain and no correlation with reported ill-health in NATO peacekeepers. Thus DU is clearly dangerous for people in vehicles which are military targets, but for anyone else even in a war zone there is little hazard. Ingestion or inhalation of uranium oxide dust resulting from the impact of DU munitions on their targets is the main possible exposure route. (World Nuclear Association / Information / Uranium and Depleted Uranium, page 7) WWW.world-nuclear.org/info/inf14htm )

Second, it is a potent radioactive carcinogen, emitting a relatively heavy alpha particle composed of two protons and two neutrons. Once inside the body -- either in the lung if it has been inhaled, in a wound if it penetrates flesh, or ingested since it concentrates in the food chain and contaminates water -- it can produce cancer in the lungs, bones, blood or kidneys.

COMMENT AND SOURCE: (A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurement taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts to local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the possibility of significant exposure to the local populations was found to be very low. (World Health Organization Fact Sheets / Depleted Uranium, page 2) WWW.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact257.html )

Third, it has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, meaning the areas in which this ammunition was used in Iraq and Kuwait will remain effectively radioactive for the rest of time.

COMMENT AND SOURCE: (This second phase started in September 2001 and was concluded in March 2002 with the publication of the report Depleted Uranium in Serbia and Montenegro Post Conflict Environmental Assessment in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The report provided additional information and reveals important new discoveries on the environmental behaviour of DU. For example, we learned that still, more than two years after the end of the conflict, particles of DU dust can be detected from soil samples and from sensitive bio-indicators like lichen. However, as the levels were extremely low, it was only through the use of state of the art laboratory analysis that detection could be achieved. Based on our findings, UNEP could confirm that contamination at the targeted sites is widespread, though no significant level of radioactivity can be measured. (Post Conflict Assessment Unit / Bosnia-Herzegovina, page 1) WWW.postconflict.unep.ch/actblhdu.htm )

Children are 10 to 20 times more sensitive to the effects of radiation than adults. My fellow pediatricians in the Iraqi city of Basra, for example, report an
increase of six to 12 times in the incidence of childhood leukemia and cancer.

COMMENT AND SOURCE: (Depleted uranium is not classified as a dangerous substance radiologically, though it is a potential hazard in large quantities, beyond what could conceivably be breathed. Its emissions are very low, since the half-life of U-238 is the same age as the earth (4.5 billion years). There are no reputable reports of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to ingested or inhaled natural or depleted uranium, despite much study. However, uranium does have a chemical toxicity about the same as that of lead, so inhaled fume or ingested oxide is considered a health hazard. Like most radionuclides, it is not known as a carcinogen, or to cause birth defects (from effects in utero) or to cause genetic mutations. (World Nuclear Association / Information / Uranium and Depleted Uranium, page 7) WWW.world-nuclear.org/info/inf14htm )

Yet because of the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United States and the United Nations, they have no access to antibiotics, chemotherapeutic drugs or effective radiation machines to treat their patients.

COMMENT: (This reflects more wishful thinking by Dr. Caldicott. Neither the United States nor the United Nations impose sanctions with medicines, drugs or antibiotics. I could find the relevant UN document to prove this, but I dont have the time and I think youll believe me.)

The incidence of congenital malformations has doubled in the exposed populations in Iraq where these weapons were used. Among them are babies being born with only one eye and with anencephaly -- the absence of a brain.

COMMENT AND SOURCE: (See the above World Nuclear Association citation: Like most radionuclides, it is not known as a carcinogen, or to cause birth defects (from effects in utero) or to cause genetic mutations. Also, No reproductive developmental effects have been reported in humans, but studies are limited. (World Health Organization Fact Sheets / Depleted Uranium page 4) WWW.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact257.html )

However, the medical consequences of the use of uranium 238 almost certainly did not affect only Iraqis. Some American veterans exposed to it are reported, by at least one medical researcher, to be excreting uranium in their urine a decade later. Other reports indicate it is being excreted in their semen.


COMMENT AND SOURCE: (The cohort of individuals, about half of whom have embedded fragments, who are being followed at the Baltimore VA Medical Center as part of the DU Follow-Up Program, represents a group of Gulf War veterans who received the highest levels of exposure to DU during the Gulf War. Although many of these veterans have health problems related to their injuries in the Gulf War and those with embedded fragments have elevated urine uranium levels, researchers to date report neither adverse renal effects attributable to chemical toxicity of DU nor any adverse health effects they relate to DU radiation (McDiarmid, 1998b). They do, however note several biochemical perturbations in neuroendocrine parameters related to urinary uranium concentrations and in some subtle neuropsychological test findings; the clinical significance of these is unclear. (A Review of the Scientific Literature As It Pertains to Gulf War Illnesses, page 5) WWW.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/du/mr1018.7.sum.ht... )

That nearly one-third of the American tanks used in Desert Storm were made of uranium 238 is another story, for their crews were exposed to whole body gamma radiation. What might be the long-term consequences of such exposure has not, apparently, been studied.

COMMENT AND SOURCE: (DU exposes the skin to alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. In the case of short-term radiation from particulates deposited on skin, more than 95 percent of the radiation present is in the form of alpha radiation, which has a very short range and will not penetrate the dead outer layer of the skin and thus poses no documented health risk. Beta and gamma radiation from 238 U decay products can irradiate cells in the deeper skin layers. Sufficient mass of DU to create radiation sufficient to be of concern can occur with intact munitions and armor. However, DU munitions are shielded to limit emitted radiation, and thus people working with intact munitions or armor usually face little risk. The measured exposure to gamma and beta radiation from bare penetrator or armor is well below recommended occupational levels (CHPPM, 1998). As a point of perspective, to reach the occupational radiation dose limit for beta and gamma radiation, a soldier would have to hold an unshielded DU penetrator for more than 250 hours. (A Review of the Scientific Literature As It Pertains to Gulf War Illnesses, page 4) WWW.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/du/mr1018.7sum.htm...

Would these effects have surprised U.S. authorities? No, for incredible as it may seem, the American military's own studies prior to Desert Storm warned that aerosol uranium exposure under battlefield conditions could lead to cancers of the lung and bone, kidney damage, non-malignant lung disease, neurocognitive disorders,chromosomal damage and birth defects. Do President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld understand the medical consequences of the 1991 war and the likely health effects of the next one they are planning? If they don't, their ignorance is breathtaking. Even more incredible, though, and much more likely, is that they do understand but don't care.

COMMENT: (Read that last sentence again! Never let science stand in the way of a blatant political agenda, as this last statement clearly shows. The fact is, there is no science in this entire article. Its just pure propaganda.)
--------------

Depleted Uranium is not much of a RADIOLOGICAL hazard. (The metal, is however a chemical toxin if solubilized; it interferes with kidney and, if my memory serves me well, liver, function.) If we're chasing our Democratic Candidates around based on their agreement with well established science, we're being fools.

General Clark is probably right on this issue when he says:
NPQ | If the effects of depleted uranium have been so well
researched over the years, why the furor now in Europe?

CLARK | First of all, this was a long-term Serb propaganda
campaign started in the mid-1990s after the first NATO bombing
runs against the Serb forces in Bosnia. Since then, it has
ricocheted back and forth in the press. It has now picked up a
patina associated with European political dynamics vis a vis NATO.

To deflate this scare, those who want new testing on the subject
should do it in a comprehensive, scientific way and not on the
political stage.

My personal view is that, based on research already done, it is
highly unlikely that anything new will show up.


Clark also goes on to explain in the article that the bombs using DU do NOT explode forming a cloud or Uranium Oxide.
They work like a shotgun.

The American weapon is a machine-gun bullet. It is not designed
to explode but to penetrate a target. It bores a hole through
armor with so much energy, because it is so heavy, that it spews
inside the tank or armored personnel carrier all kinds of bits and
pieces of that armor in a "spalling" or shotgun effect.
But there is no cloud that extends 300 meters.

Most importantly in terms of the current controversy, no NATO
soldiers were on the ground when any targets were hit with
depleted uranium weapons. They were fired by aircraft thousands
of feet overhead. So the idea that the Italians or anybody else
could have been exposed using or being near these weapons
doesn't hold water. There is no possibility that the Italians or
anyone else could have been exposed to any "cloud."

I suppose what is possible is that, if every day the Serbs went out
and erected a decoy that was then hit with 50 rounds of DU
weapons every day, there could have been, over time, a high
concentration of DU in one spot because the decay rate is very
slow. But all that even depends on how the target was hit, and
how it and the weapon were dispersed. But that seems unlikely.
---------
The fact is that the popular understanding of science is absymal in this country.

The claim is made that Uranium tank shells represent "nuclear war." Nuclear war involves nuclear fission taking place in an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction. There is no nuclear chain reaction in Uranium tank shells. The fact that large number of persons confuse this issue is disturbing. Were it true that tank shells made of depleted Uranium could be used for "nuclear war" I think that nuclear weapons would have been much easier to make than they really are.

There are few to no dispassionate studies on the effects of DU. Do we understand the radioactivity of uranium isotopes (234, 235, 238)? Yes, and we can extraoplate effects based on the radiology of Uranium-238 (depleted uranium). U-238 is 18,000x less radioactive than 234 and 7x times less than 235.

Several reviews seem to indicate that the health effects of depleted Uranium are grossly overstated.

Here is a recent quotation from Chemical Reviews (Chemical Reviews, 2003, Vol. 103, No. 11, page 4269):

"The role of DU in the development of illnesses in
veterans of the Persian Gulf conflict has recently
been discounted, as the soldiers most directly in
contact with dust, namely those in or near explosions
of DU ordinance or armored vehicles or others who
treated or rescued the wounded, do not exhibit any
increase in the symptoms expected in those with
more direct exposure.449,450 Depleted uranium has
40% less specific activity than naturally occurring
uranium, but as a heavy metal, it is still chemically
toxic.450 Thus, it follows that the kidney should be
the first organ directly affected by poisoning with
uranium, and yet these soldiers were not found to
have suffered any impairment of renal function.449"

Reference 449 is from the Institute to Medicine's report, commissioned by Congress on the etiology of Gulf War Syndrome: Pyridostigmine Bromide, Sarin, Vaccines;
Fulco, C. E., Liverman, C. T., Sox, H. C., Eds.; National Academy
Press: Washington, DC, 2000; Vol. 1.

This report seems to conclude that there is no evidence of the (expected) kidney dysfunction expected among Gulf War Veterans (I hope this is good news) and no lung cancer effects. There is not enough data to make a determination about other health effects.

In short, General Clark is merely stating the truth. Depleted Uranium has not yet been established as a major cause of health effects in Veterans. This is not to say that Gulf War Syndrome does not exist, only to say that DU has not been identified as the cause
-----------------
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en /

In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure.

In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #130
154. Alright, you're losing me here.
Depleted uranium causes cancer and kills people. This is undisputed by everyone but the Pentagon and you.

If General Clark doesn't see the problem with it, that's not a positive in my book.

That said, no one running for President seems to give a shit about this important issue that poses nearly as great a threat to our own troops as it does to the people we drop our bombs on.

If anyone could have a change of heart and actually affect our deplorable use of depleted uranium, it would have to be General Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkStalker Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #128
151. it's called depleted uranium for a reason
my husband is an army radiologist and he doesn't see a problem with it either. Hysterical anecdotal evidence doesn't make it a problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #151
175. You ought to have him watch the Hidden Wars of Desert Storm.
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 01:42 PM by genius
I guess he would also say that no one died in Hiroshima either, right? That would be the same sort of denial. Or maybe the Holocaust didn't happen either. It's amazing how many people can deny reality. Maybe, he's afraid to know the truth because his conscience might bother him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #175
176. I am not saying that there harmful effect
just don't exists....

I am saying that somehow, Clark gets all of the blame, when it is not reasonable.....as he only says that it is not conclusive. Thus far, he is right.....literally.

No other Democrat is held responsible for this stuff, as though Clark actually invented and made this stuff himself.

It's a Red Herring and a third rail used against Clark exclusively ....while Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Dean, Biden, Warner, Rendell, Richardson, Obama, Bayh, Vilsack, Feinstein, Pelosi, Boxer, Gore, Clellan, and on and on...and none of the Republicans whatsoever are even ever asked the question....hell, the topic is not even raised with them.

In my mind, congress is the one that can and could have done something about this issue long ago...and didn't. But yet....you want to have a particular problem with Clark, who was not in congress, about this.

Clark has not said there is no affect whatsoever, and just shut the F*ck up about this. In fact, he is one of the few that is even willing to address the issue at all.

Wes Clark is listening, but he has little power to do anything about this now...or while he was running.

Wes wasn't a vanity candidate...like Kucinich, who can say anything cause at the end he got what, 2% of the votes, if that, in most places? Maybe that's part of why Kucinich got absolutely not media coverage...who knows.

Wes Clark was not running for your "signature" issue. Your principal stance is a good one, but reality is that the majority of voters ain't voting based on that....even Democrats. Wes Clark didn't run to remake the Democratic party....or to make a statement based on some inconclusive science...beyond "We need to get Republicans out of the WH", which was his "signature" issue, Clark was and would be a wonderful candidate.

If you are a one "passion" issue voter....than that's fine... that's your choice. But for you to come into Clark threads because he has not yet denounced DU, and act like "well not him, then".....is asinine.

Clark, like all of the others (including Kucinich who has had his controversies with Reproductive Rights and Minority issues) will not be addressing every issue exactly the way you think the issue should be addressed. This expectation is just myopic and unreasonable, really.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #176
177. I am saying that he should take the time to research it
There is tons of evidence about the harmful effects. He needs to know how bad this stuff is if he wants to increase his support base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #177
179. Yes....
All of congress should. So should Edwards and Kerry.

It should be done. I do agree with that.

But Wes Clark ain't Superman ..... So pointing your finger solely in his face, again, is really unfair. Point your fingers everywhere....and keep supporting Kucinich, because I will say that he appears to be a pretty honorable man.

When I see a Kucinich Thread, I don't go in to mention his shortcomings, and he does have some. He may be the perfect candidate for you, but for me part of the deal has to be the chance of winning via mainstream....who really are the ones, the voters who decide these things.

Remember that Kucinich lent his support to Edwards, who has yet to say anything about DU....so why don't you go find an Edwards thread and posts about him and his refusal to address the issue, and how DU causes harm....cause you sure are not going to find much in the way of anything he said about it.

I believe that if Clark did get in....he would probably do more on the issue of DU than any other Democrat that are considered "Viable" candidates (sorry, Kucinich is not considered that).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #151
255. well then your husband is an idiot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #255
276. Your post should be deleted Cheswick2.0
attacking a poster's husband is uncalled for and totally out of the realm of legitimate debate. Hope the moderators are doing their job and get rid of you calling someone an idiot...that you don't even know. Like you would know about their chosen field better than they. How pompous!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 02:20 AM
Response to Original message
132. Why Should I like Wesley Clark
I am a lifelong REGISTERED Democrat, and I voted for Reagan and Bush Sr.....Wesley Clark was an Independent, when he voted for them..he also voted for Clinton/Gore(which I didn't do, either time)...

Faulty information led to that accidental bombing...I don't know about you, but I know, when any war is being waged, accidents happen, and innocent people are killed as a result...what's the number in Iraq right now...about 100,000 or so??? When GW1 was waged in 91, it seems as though I read many stories about how our smart bombs weren't so smart after all, and hit targets they weren't supposed to, so where's the difference, or which is worse? Human error, or mechanical error? Dead is dead.. War is hell, plain and simple, and innocents die, that's not meant as unfeeling, it's the truth...how about in Iraq this time, it seems I read an awful lot about one instance, where a bomb was dropped on a residential neighborhood accidentally, missing it's actual target, and people in houses all around were killed...It doesn't matter what war it is, situations like this occur...just like friendly fire, killing our own troops...or how about our troops accidentally killing Canadians, in Afghanistan...someone made a mistake..in war, mistakes are made...the whole war in Iraq is a mistake...

He did not try to engage the Russians, at the airport...he was attempting to keep the Russians from taking the airport...which he suspected they were planning too do, on the sneak...he was proved to be right...

That business about A. Polier has been debunked about a thousand times now...

I have met this man, and I will tell you, the Democrats made a huge mistake in not recognizing a leader when he was handed to them...Personally, to me, he will always be...MY PRESIDENT...A man of courage, conviction, bravery, intelligence, and compassionate, with an outstanding grasp of the English language, that makes him able to communicate with anyone who cares to listen..what's not to love???
windbreeze
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnOneillsMemory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 02:53 AM
Response to Original message
138. My reservations stem from Southern Command and School of the Americas
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 02:56 AM by JohnOneillsMemory
Heading the US Military's Southern Command means that the human rights and environmental horrors of the US corporate mercenary occupation of Columbia under the guise of the 'war on drugs' to get oil was his baby for a while.

And he has defended the Torture Academy previously known as the School of the Americas as a somewhat flawed but good and useful thing to keep in business.

Sounds like fascism and war crimes to me. The 'Clark thrill' is way gone for me.

Maybe other DU-ers who supported him in the primaries are ready to just say 'No' to torture by now...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #138
143. OK........SOA
I hate that organization as much as anyone else here does.

I do not, however, necessarily believe that the reasons for Clark's position are as nefarious as many here would like to believe.

Clark is certainly not the only Democrat to have defended or supported the school. I will say that every President has supported the SOA.

I expect that his position derives partially from some blind spots that he has as a result of coming out of military culture.

Let's tar Max Cleland with the same brush...

Having said that, in my opinion we should and must continue such efforts as military education for our allies through the Marshall Center in Europe, the School of the Americas, and similar programs. It has always been my belief that those who understand war, including the true costs of war, understand peace and all of its blessings. Today, we train our military in the strategy of war and the art of peace. U.S. military personnel are well schooled as students of (Karl von) Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, (Alfred Thayer) Mahan, and the best known writers of conflict and engagement. At the same time, they also receive thorough and effective training in such fundamental American principles as subordination of the military to civilian control and respect for human rights. While our foreign military education efforts have not always succeeded in instilling such values, I believe that recent reforms will eliminate any such shortcomings in the future.
KEEPING OUR PRIORITIES WHILE KEEPING THE PEACE - Senator Max Cleland
--------------------
Clark's main "support" for the School came in 1996, when he was the CinC of Southern Command for 1 year and at that time the school fell under his leadership.

Second, by the middle of the Clinton Administration, the U.S. had started to clean up its act significantly, with even State Department officials admitting that "they had done a lot of bad stuff in South America" in the '50s-'70s. The School now has a mandatory democratic education and civil rights component. It is a military training center that helps train officers from South American countries: newsflash--by the 1990s, most of the countries in South America had become developing democracies, as opposed to the authoritarian regimes the U.S. had supported in the '50s-'70s. The SoA also went through further reform, with an external independent oversight board. It's supported by countries like Canada--OK, not ALWAYS the paragon of virtue, but hardly an enthusiastic supporter of imperialism in the contemporary era.

Here are the facts on the School (conveniently dating back to around the time Clark was CinC of Southern Command), now renamed the Western Hemispheric Institute for Security Cooperation, from a non-partisan and progressive research institute's project on South America.

People who protest that institution have a right to demand restitution for past injustices, but as far as having real impact, they should turn their attention to the secret detentions and support for anti-terrorism in Asia and so on.The skills that these people were taught at the SOA were not torture, murder and mayhem but strategy and martial expertise. How these folks become twisted is not happening at SOA but in their own countries.

As Clark said, the corporate executives pillaging our economy went to Yale, Harvard, etc. Should we shut down those institutions? Now I agree, it's not the same thing, but, think of a more likely parallel and ask yourself should the institution be closed due to the actions of a small minority of students/attendees? You've listed 18 people out of 63,000 graduates. That's .03%. As General Clark said, a small minority.
----------------------------
There are terrible problems in South and Central America, with the links to the drug trade, human rights abuses by rebel, government, right-wing paramilitary, and plain old criminal groups, corruption, and poverty. Any program that could be used in a positive way, should be. Human rights are certainly not going to served by leaving the worst of these militaries to their own devices.

Link to PBS article with debate-style format on SOA
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec99/sota ...

Posted by Du's Tom Rinaldo a while ago on this subject....

The School of the Americas (now known by the touchy feely name of Western Hemisphere Institute for Cooperation and Security) is a terror training camp run by the Us government, whos graduates go on to organize death squads in Central America, rightwing paramilitary units to overthrow democratic regimes, and commit other terroristic atrocities."

I don't think it would still exist, and it wouldn't have operated openly for at least the last 15 to 20 years after some of those major abuses started coming to light, if that was the sole or even major mission of that institution. Many tens of thousands have received training of all sorts there. In one instance or another, to varying degrees, everything you said though is absolutely true. And I will go further and say that under the likes of Kissenger, and Reagan's Poindexter and Ollie North crowd, covert efforts to do exactly what you said were hatched by some within its confines.

However I am just not enough of a conspiritalist, or a radical I suppose, to buy that that school existed during the Carter and Clinton years with that as it's main intent, and that both of those Democratic Presidents fully supported everything you note went on there and maintained that school for those expressed purpose. I am more likely to accept that Presidents like Nixon, who set up his own "plumbers squad", and Reagan, who gave a green light to Ollie North's covert operations, allowed those shady operatives to use the cover of working inside those institution to further their covert ends, the same way that illegal and immoral operations are conducted through every established Government institution whenever honor and decency is suspended, including the FBI, the IRS, the INS and so forth.

In short I would say that Clark backed that School when he did because he felts that there was still an appropriate mission for it to play. Reforms were already underway when he spoke. A number of people who were trained there have done some terrible things. More didn't. Clark believes that positive lessons and models for multinational military cooperation have been developed in South America for fighting Drug Lords that can be applied to our international struggle against terrorists, operating in places like Pakistan and Yeman.

I would certainly ask of Clark both now, and should he become President, that he ensure that strong curbs be placed on either that institution, or any other that replaces it and attempts to pick up whatever legitimate functions it pursued, to absolutely minimize the potential for human rights violations flowing from training done at that School. It is my limited understanding that much of the reform efforts that were undertaken focused on that problem, which was most acute in the 1980's during Reagan's anti Sandanista days.

I would go further and say that all abuses should be completely eliminated, and guarenteed never to occur again, but I am too realistic to ask for that about anything. The U.S. will never have full control over the actions of agents from other countries that train with our military. Having said that, I acknowledge that elements of our military have been directly involved in terrible actions.
----------
That being said.....I don't believe that Clark actually supports the SOA much more than most other Democratic politician. Period.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #143
155. Yeah, School of the Americas is depressing.
I find it pretty disturbing that this is still a serious facet of our foreign policy. If General Clark sees the use in it, that bothers me. I don't believe it is the U.S.'s place to micro-manage the world and provide friendly dictators to nations we wish to control. I would hope Clark would come to realize that we don't need to resort to mercenary despotism to reach our goals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #138
167. Did you support any congressional Dems?
Because with the exception of Kucinich, they all VOTED to renew the funding for the revamped school. In fact, Patrick Leahy over sees the place, so wrtie to him. Did you attack Kerry or Edwards over this issue? They voted for it.

What is truly sad about the left's continual focus on a program that has not has been reformed under Clinton, and now serves to teach human rights is how this issue taking attention away from the real problem: the training of death squads by Private Military Contractors in the "stans".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 04:56 AM
Response to Original message
148. Thanks for the exercise....
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 05:31 AM by FrenchieCat
In starting this thread, you got me organized and energized.

That's right, Clarkies are ready for what smears (and that's all they are) are out there on the General....who is a great and wonderful man.

All good Clarkies, bookmark this thread....

and all of the defenses posted here and more (just in case) will be put on the new forum that is now available on Demopedia.

And folks...please note that most of this sh*t would not surface during a General election....cause the Repugs don't give a sh*t about issues like the SOA, DU, the fact Clark voted Republican.

These smears were given to the Democratic party by the RNC as a gift so that we could attack each other...and they could get Wes out of the race.

Hope we are wiser next election, in picking our candidates.

I'll tell you one thing; we'll be ready to fight...like right away. Clarkies have a media plan, and it will work. I am calling myself a "Red Dog Democrat"...just like Wes Clark.

Clark won't take any Sh*t, AND...
will kick ass in Red States


presenting to you......

WES CLARK
"RED DOG" DEMOCRAT
IN '08


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RafterMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #148
149. Bookmarking
You're the best, Frenchie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 07:06 AM
Response to Original message
152. You forgot one. He caused Haitian man tits.
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Connie_Corleone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #152
158. How could Tasteblind forget that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #158
159. Only because the Ron Paul fan club didn't get to it yet
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #159
162. Please explain to me what the Haitian Man Tits thing is about.
Remember, I haven't been here very long. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
161. Clark would have won if only he had hired a very large
and highly competent damage control group.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #161
199. You seem to really love him alot ArkDem.
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 06:02 PM by Crunchy Frog
I notice that you always show up in threads about him. Don't worry, it's entirely understandable.

He seems to have this very strong draw over even people who claim to not like him. That would seem to be another strength.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUDUing2 Donating Member (968 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
164. an article from DU sums it up well...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #164
165. That article was written before Clark had really had a
chance to show how he was terrible a mis-statements and staying on message.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUDUing2 Donating Member (968 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #165
166. but that failing can be contained (look at bush)...(M
Clarks biggest plus was to be honest his looks..he looks like a president..

and he is used to fighting down and dirty but somehow making it look like your own hands are clean (which is what rove and bush have been able to do so well)..believe me you don't become a 4 star general w/out knowing how to do this to the max...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #166
171. Believe me, he got virtually no votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #171
173. Yea....right...
Thanks Cheerleader!

Winning Oklahoma wasn't easy in the face of 24/7 media attention being focused on Edwards and Kerry....While Clark virtually was disappeared from sight and from mind due to the presstitutes' collusion. Coming in second in Arizona, New Mexico, and North Dakota...prior to him endorsing Kerry.

Corporate media didn't want a contender that would have beaten Bush despite Voting Machine fixes. Wes Clark, with the right media management team (and a little bit of DNC backing...as they were in on the collusion) would have kicked George Bush's ass overwhelmingly beyond the less than 5% margin required to fix the votes plausibly.

I repeat....Wes Clark was smeared and ignored by the media hoes who set the agenda or let the RNC set it, during both the primary and the general election.....

Here's a few examples of mediawatchdogs doing their work and busting the media on the reporting on Wes Clark. There are many more.....We won't even mention the endless manipulative polls used by the media to influence elections....

Get a clue!

http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/NetworksAnointedKerry ...
Networks Anointed Kerry, Edwards Before Iowa Did

http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000032.asp
"Oops -- There ARE More Than Two Candidates"

http://campaigndesk.org /
In a moment of flashback, Mickey Kaus writing on Slate remembers that there's still, technically, a nomination fight going on, and acidly points out what a lot of our readers have been arguing: Wes Clark is getting an increasingly raw deal. :

Media to Voters: We're trying to eliminate General Clark tomorrow, OK? Please cooperate this time. .... 10:50 P.M.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095238 /
Friday, February 6 2004


THE STORY COUNT: If the amount of media devoted to candidates is any indication, then the Dem nomination is already a two man race between Edwards and Kerry.

Take a look at our Election 2004 page this morning. I couldn't find a single story about Wes Clark in any of the major papers except for one - an AP piece in USA Today about Clark's bungling of the abortion issue.
-------------------------
NBC's Today Show Saturday morning, this is the coverage score for candidates:

Discussing the So Carolina Debate this was how many times Tim Russert mentioned candidates names:

Kerry 7 times
Dean 7 times
Edwards 1 time
Clark 0 times

This even even though one of the topics disc in this segment was national defense and other was the economy.
Pictured:

Kerry 2 times
Dean 2 times
Clark 0 times

This on backdrop of the fact that Dean is on a 'downslide' also so if Clark is dismissed for this reason, so would Dean. Also Dean is not running first or second place in any state in upcoming primaries Tuesday Feb 3rd.

In following segment on 'looking ahead to Tuesday', Tim Russert mentioned these candidates:

Kerry 6 times
Dean 0 times
Edwards 4 times
Sharpton 4 times
Clark 3 times

Sharpton is not running in first or second place anywhere and Clark is running in first place in OK and second place AZ.
------------------------------
ABC coverage report on 2/2/04- ABC's coverage the morning of the race for the primary on their Good Morning America Show. Tomorrow is primary day in 7 states.

The coverage was a two part theme.

Main theme was that Kerry was a Patriot fan and Edwards was from Panther territory, so all the coverage was on them and pictures of them campaigning and also watching the Super Bowl game.

No of Time Candidates Mentioned:
(in order of frequency)
Kerry 4 times
Dean 2 times
Edwards 2 times

Clark 0
Kucinich 0
Liebermann 0
Sharpton 0

No. of Time Candidates Pictured:
Kerry 6 times
Dean 5 times
Edwards 4 times

Clark 0
Kucinich 0
Liebermann 0
Sharpton 0

Second part of coverage was on the 'race in general'. It started out, "Well, that was in So Carolina, but there are other states in the race for Tuesday election: Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arizona (he named them all).
(The report :) "Amazingly there are NO negative ads running in these states against Senator John Kerry, the presumed front runner." (That was the report friends for the primary race friends on ABC.)

Candidates mentioned news segment two:
Kerry 1 time

Candidates pictures in news segment two:
Kerry 1 time

Candidates not mentioned or pictured in entire coverage:
Clark 0
Kucinich 0
Liebermann 0
Sharpton 0

If you were trying to pick a 'winner' for a race against Bush, who would you vote for in Tuesday's primary?
--------------------
ABC coverage report BarbW on 2/4/04- After Clark's Oklahoma win:
The below is a link to ABC New's Home Page. It looks like a Kerry/Edwards ad, not a cover story. Do you think that they are trying to tell us that Kerry and Edwards are winners. I think so. No sign of Wes on his win here. Clark is invisible.

Then even more amazing, check out their coverage of 'results by state'. I thought for sure I would find Clark's win here - NOT. Not even under Oklahoma!!
www.abcnews.com

Okay this is just online. I'm am coming with their television coverage this morning, which is the same. They don't even admit he won Oklahoma. They say he is leading in OK, like the counting is still going on at 7 am this morning. (Kerry won, Edwards won and Clark is leading in OK, tight race...they won't use the 'win' word with him, as in 'winner')
------------------
02/05/2004
The media continue their not so subtle BIAS.

The following page shows the Campaign Schedules for the runners.

* NOTE * - Clark's and Deans schedules do not include the address of where his rallies are while Kerry's and Edwards have detailed addresses.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/17/politics/main...

This is clear discrimination, I used to like CBS News, I will never forget how they have shaped and dictated this nomination.
------------------
CBS coverage report BarbW on 2/6/04- CBS portrays Clark as a loser again.
CBS Evening News last night, Friday, Feb 6th.

transcript used, but transcribed to notes taken by hand so inexact:

"Next Tuesdays primary proves to be a do or die test for John Edwards and Wesley Clark. They are both native sons to the South. If one of these guys manages to pull off both states, the other one is gone.

Edwards says he is the one because he could carry the south (lots more words and picture of Edwards in cheering thongs).

The AR born Clark, *running low on money, cannot sustain his candidacy on just his slim win in OK (showing picture of a tired looking Clark speaking to practically an empty room.)

(Incidentally, the day before ABC showed pictures of Clark supporters silent and sitting in the grass with signs of support laying on the ground as backdrop for their report. Only one supporter was still standing and she was looking down, like she was discouraged. Gist of story there was also, campaign just barely hanging on.)

Coverage goes on to say that if Edwards and Clark split the South Tuesday then race is over and Kerry wins, and then race is between Edwards and Clark for VP spot. (of course looking at the pictures of Edwards cheering crowds, anyone would assume that the winner of VP spot will be Edwards, especially if this coverage continues. Although it IS better than nothing but barely.
----------------------
I could go on and on and on......as we were tracking and documenting what the media did. I'll tell you this, it ain't going to happen again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #173
205. Do you have another link to that first story?
Yours doesn't work and I'd like to read it.

I also think it's worth noting the first paragraph of your second link:

"The cover-your-butt reporting has begun even before the results of the Iowa caucuses are in. As recently as a week ago, when Gov. Howard Dean and Rep. Dick Gephardt looked to most reporters like the clear front-runners in Iowa, much of the campaign press seemed to have forgotten about even covering Sen. John Kerry and Sen. John Edwards."

I think it's important to note that the media really tried to ignore Kerry and Edwards in the lead up to Iowa. NPR didn't mention Edwards's name once on the January 18 ATC, and IIRC, Kerry was mentioned only once, while Gephardt & Dean got a ton of coverage.

Kerry and Edwards did well notwithstanding no national coverage at the critical moment in the campaign, and, as the article in your second link shows, the media probably felt they had to compensate for their blatant (and probably not accidental) divergence between what they were saying and what turned out to be the truth in the previous two weeks.

Also, you must realize that a lot of Edwards supporters were just as upset with the coverage and felt that their candidate had the best chance to beat Bush so the media tried to harness enthusiasm for him and divert it toward a sense that he was running for the VP nomination. For us, the script seemed to be "this guy's not running for president, he's running for Vice President, so don't vote for him in the primary."

Personally, I suspected that the media felt that Edwards was the biggest threat to Bush. I thought that after Iowa, the media realized that nothing they were going to do was going to get Dean or Gephardt the nomination, so they went into damage control and damage control meant making sure that Edwards didn't get on the top of the ticket. But that's how it goes when you like a candidate a lot, I guess.

In any event, Clark got shitty media coverage (except they sure liked to talk about him up to and on the day he announced!). I was one of the first people to complain about (especially NPR's) coverage of Clark here at DU right after he announced. But I think it's also important to realize that Kerry and Edwards got ignored and crapped on at important moments too, but fought through it with great organization and persona (by Kerry) and great retail political skills and a great message (for Edwards).

You can only blame the media up to a point. I also think we've gone through this in other threads. Clark's campaign was probably over not because of the media but because he started late, because Dean didn't win Iowa, because Kerry won IA and NH convincingly, and because Clark didn't kill everyone in the south, and it wasn't that the media stopped him from doing any one of those things -- it was because it was like a series of dominoes which didn't fall for Clark. Each one of those events compounded the previous one. A February 6 article showing happy Edwards crowds and sad Clark crowds is rough. But the fact is probably that on February 6 the arc of the campaigns was pretty clear.

And also, in terms of arguing for Clark as a candidate in 2008 goes, I'm not sure how much weight blaming the media is going to have. The media doesn't just want Clark to win. They don't want any Democrat to win. The only two candidates I saw whom the RW wanted to win were Dean and Gephardt, and even those two would have been enemies of the media had they been nominated (which is why, especially as shown by Dean, you don't want a candidate the media can easily define).

The media is going to be crappy in 2008 too. I'd rather have a candidate who did well despite getting crappy (and or NO) coverage than a candidate who couldn't persevere through crappy media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #205
213. My response is this....
AP....you wrote: "I'd rather have a candidate who did well despite getting crappy (and or NO) coverage than a candidate who couldn't persevere through crappy media.

Although I disagree with many things in your posting...this is the one that I will discuss with you.

Edwards got decent coverage starting the day the De Moines Register endorsed him. From that point on...he was Mr. Media. He got the coverage right when he needed it, and not a moment before...I will conceed.

But to say that Edwards did well "despite" crappy coverage just isn't true...Edwards didn't do so well although he got HEAVY POSITIVE MEDIA coverage.

You see, prior to any vote being cast it didn't matter that Edwards didn't get press coverage...because what was important is that he didn't get NEGATIVE coverage, i.e., he was an unknown quantity. Once he took second place in his FIRST primary, it was all POSITIVE coverage for Edwards....all the way until he was picked for VP.....in fact, the media literally picked him as VP...or at the least, coronated him.

What I did notice about his coverage was they rarely allowed him to speak on camera.....usually reports just showed footage of him, while they spoke about him. It's as though they were selling us a pretty package, but wouldn't allow us to see what was inside. Most ironic was that the CW on Edwards was he was this GREAT CAMPAIGNER WHO COULD TALK OWLS OUT OF TREES...but they never really allowed us to hear him talking on his campaign, so many just had to take the media's words about what a great orator he was....but could never really judge for themselves.....The MSM just showed him in crowds or JUST SHOWED US HIS FACE (unless you tuned in to C-Span).

Edwards coming in 4th in NH was not "doing well". Mini Tuesday was NOT A GOOD SHOWING for EDWARDS, as he came in BEHIND CLARK in OKLAHOMA, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA and DELAWARE. THAT IS NOT A GOOD SHOWING.

What it shows is that EVEN WITH EDWARDS' HEAVY POSITIVE MEDIA EXPOSURE AND FREE PUBLICITY, He WAS UNABLE to BEST WES CLARK....WHO GO NEGATIVE CRAPPY COVERAGE BEFORE IOWA (attacks started the day after he announced) and then got ABSOLUTELY NO MEDIA COVERAGE afer New Hampshire.

Personally, I'd rather go with the guy that was ALMOST able to defeat the media's hard attempts in making him disappear...then to go with the guy that still didn't perform very well DESPITE EXTRA GLOWING MEDIA REPORTS RIGHT WHEN IT COUNTED...WHEN VOTERS WERE VOTING.

That's what I saw.

I will see about that link now.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #213
232. Your own article in the second link says he was ignored and that media
focused on Gephardt and Dean, which is what I remember.

Edwards's campaign was connecting with people despite the media and not because of it.

The editorial was earned, but that's not the same thing as national media and NPR and all the other big media (who we presume had other interests besides reporting accurately about the candidates).

Also, Edwards's strength was a combinationo of his positions on the issues and his ability to relate those positions directly to voters. The media coverage on him, according to mediatenor.org ignored his position on the issues, and as you note, they never let him talk directly to voters. Had they let him communicate directly with voters, he obviously would have really connected. (This is also why he got less than half the time -- and sometimes one third -- that other candidates, including Clark, got to talk in several of the early debates).

The coverage of Edwards was limited to his personality, and although it was positive (what bad things can you say about his personality?) it was tiny compared to other candidates. In fact, I think Clark got more coverage in total than Edwards got, and Dean got more coverage than everyone else combined. Even when Dean got more bad coverage (in Dec, when he was still going up in the poll) Dean's good coverage was still greater than all the other candidates total coverage.

I'll also repeat: the media picking Edwards for VP was sort of like picking him NOT to be the presidential nominee. (If they liked him so much, why didn't they let him fight it out with Kerry for the top of the ticket, which they could have done if they talked more about his positions on the issues and if they stopped asking him if he was really running for VP, like Leno did).

Re NH: Edwards pulled everything out of NH and was ready to skip it and focus on SC before Jan 19 and had to reorganize after Iowa when they did so well. And during that week, while they were trying to allocate resources, the media only talked about the Dean scream, which denied Kerry and Edwards some of the juice they should have gotten from Iowa. NH was not a disappointement for Edwards. In fact, he doubled his poll numbers in the last three days -- and I believe he was the only candidate other than Kerry who went up in the polls that week, which they felt good about.

As for mini-Tuesday, I'll tell you that I had personal knowledge of how this played out. Edwards's campaign pulled out of Oklahoma with a week to go. They did not try to win it. That was one of the things the campaign kicked themselves about. They had conceded it to Clark and were very surprised by the results. In retrospect, they felt that if they had just kept a few more resources there, they could have won it by a respectable margin and it would have changed the mood subsequently. To them, and to the media who had observed their OK strategy, OK was encouraging news for Edwards and bad news for Clark. That's just the fact. That's not spin.

As for those other states, people don't care how you do in a state you don't campaign in, and everyone was fighting for SC. Edwards got 110,000 more votes there than Clark. In Missouri, he got 85,000 more votes than Clark. In SC, that was a lot of votes in a state they all wanted to win, and it was a significant % of the votes that were cast that day. (In ND, 10,000 votes were cast with Clark beating Edwards by 1,231 to 1,025 -- believe me, nobody is going to discount Edwards because of that result -- and didn't Clark even campaign there?).

Edwards was percieved as doing well on that day because he got a LOT of votes in states where all the candidates campaigned -- and again, it wasn't because of the media: Edwards saw the biggest increase in his poll numbers in the last three days of each primary: that's when the candidates get local media coverage, run their ads, and voters get a close look at what the candidates are saying, and not what the media is saying about them. That's what people in the party were seeing that they liked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #232
235. #1....this is NOT
an Edwards thread.

#2. Those Robocalls didn't say that Edwards was no longer campaigning in Oklahoma. He had been campaigning in Oklahoma for quite some time....so if he pulled out in the week that he received non stop media coverage....so what?

#3. Your interpretations don't match with the results of what happened on Mini Tuesday. It's about winning states....and not how many votes total (ask Gore). When it was a match up between Edwards and Clark...Clark beat Edwards in more states (period). You dragging in Edwards' birth state is just not relevant to him somehow doing better with crappy media. SC was a bigger state and yes, he did better than Clark in South Carolina and Missouri (a state that Clark never campaigned in because of Gephardt). IMO, Edwards should have done better than Clark in all of the states considering the non stop coverage of how wonderful he was...while Clark had been smeared through most of the relevant portions of the primaries....than ignored. He was asked in the SC debate why he was still competing. The media assigned Clark 2nd rate candidate status and Edwards, 1st rate. In reality, they should have both been 1st rate.

#4. I would have killed for Clark to have gotten the kind of media coverage that Edwards got following Iowa and thereafter...including when the primaries were over and it was VP advertising time.

The reason they didn't let Edwards talk and only showed his face, but advertised him as a great orator is obvious...it was to sell him to the voting public...as #2 choice in the media's election horserace. They knew that if people actually heard Edwards, he would no longer be as strong as the media wanted voters to think he was.

Listen, I looked at Edwards very carefully prior to Clark getting into the race, and what turned me off about the guy was his mannerism when he orated. The tongue, the squinting, the pursing of the lips, the hands movements and the unpleasant varying southern accent just made me feel like he wasn't presidential material. But prior to me really getting a good listen, I will admit that it was his looks that attract it me and made me look at him further. His domestic policies were good....but he still seem like a pink tu-tu Democrat with very little FP/NS experience.

#5. The media never said the obvious, so I will...Kerry and Edwards won in Iowa because Clark was not there. Clark is actually a positive composite of Kerry, Edwards and Dean combined. He had the Electable National Security and veteran experience of Kerry (without the Protest on the war thing...and actually more experience in FP/NS); he had the southern charisma and progressive domestic policy of Edwards(with more FP/NS experience and no trial lawyer label and senate votes for IWR/PATRIOT ACT/NO ON THE 87 BIL; Clark was an outsider (not a Senator) anti-Iraq war candidate with a challenging Grassroots org and fundraising prowess (but more calm and collected than Dean and with FP/NS experience).

So Kerry and Edwards and Dean came in respectively First, second and third...in a place that Clark was not contesting. The momentum that the top two got from Iowa was sharpened by endless positive free publicity. I can't righteously say that if Clark would have been there, Kerry wouldn't have won...but do have my gut instinct that Clark would have been in the top three......at least at number 2. I know, it hypothetical so don't quote me on it.....but my gut is a pretty decent analyzer.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #235
262. #1: It is a subthread about what happened in the primaries...
...which makes all this a relevant discussion. And I made this point before: if you want to talk about the candidates at DU, you have to go where the conversation is. If I posted this on its own, it would drop. If I post it in here, people will talk about it.

#2: Edwards's campaign took people and lawn signs out and left in some TV and ROBOcalls. They also cut back on trips to OK. Those are just the facts. It's a reflection of the fact that they were conceding it to Clark. I'm not trying to bullshit you here. People in the campaign were ecstatic with that result, but disappointed they took the resources out. It was another state where, in the last three days, Edwards's numbers went up dramatically when everyone else, I suspect even Clark in OK where he won, had numbers that were going down. In fact, I believe Edwards had a greater increase in the last three days in most states than even Kerry who was winning. The thing that causes that is ads, appearances and local media, and not CNN et al (whose media messages were consistent over all days, and not just the last three days). I believe that if you have any influence over which democrat makes it on the ticket, you're going to want the person who is sticky and increasing support and not the person losing support. If you go from 40 to 30 over three days and still win, you're in bigger trouble than the person who went from 10 to 25 and came in second.

#3: After IA and NH, It's NOT about winning states. It's about winning delegates. And there are more delegates in SC and MO than OK, ND and NM. It's also about proving that you can beat the other guy, which is why people are more interested in states where everyone is running -- which is why SC (and TN and VA and WI) was so interesting. (Incidentally, NM was important because all the candidates wanted to prove they could get Latino votes -- so despite the small number of delegates, they all ran there.)

#4: I would have killed for Edwards to get more coverage in the week between Iowa and NH when my perception was that every time I turned on the TV they were STILL talking about Dean (even after he really disappointed in IA). Throughout the primaries I would have killed for more coverage of Edwards actually talking directly to the public. I would have killed for coverage of Edward's position on the issues, which I think happened exactly once: WI, on Feb 17, with these results: Kerry: 327,43839.6%, Edwards, John 283,37634.3%; Dean 150,54818.2%; Kucinich, Dennis J. 27,306 3.3%. Again, Edwards went up from something like 12 or 15% to 34.3% in four or five days -- and it wasn't because of CNN's consistent "nice personality" coverage. It was because in Wisconsin they were actually having a debate about the value of an hour labor when you're outsourcing jobs. CNN doesn't talk about issues, ever, so they are not the reason Edwards did well in WI.

As for your experience with Edwards -- that's interesting, because I had the same feeling. I saw him on TV and read his positions, and loved him. He was talking about all the things I thought were important -- tax code, class, education. I thought this year was going to be a race between hope and fear, and I thought he embodied hope. I thought that the only kind of campaign that would beat the fascists was the same kind of campaign FDR ran in '32 -- and Edwards even mentioned that campaign in a speech.

However, the first time I saw him in person, I stood five feet in front of him. He gave a great speech. I watched a crowd of random passers-by congregate. I saw heads start to nod. When it was over, he turned to the state assemblyman who hosted him and gave him a long politician's smug blink and my heart sank -- even after listening to a great speech, I was ready to give that blink more weight than anything I'd heard. Then a Mexican immigrant from the kitchen of the restaurant (he was wearing an apron and the speech was outside a restaurant) -- a guy to whom Edwards had probably introduced himself about 30 minutes earlier -- came up to him, and, obviously moved by the content of Edwards's speech, got in a long discussion with Edwards about his problems. The veneer of the politician totally disappeared, and the two of them spoke man to man, with Edwards doing most of the listening for a long time while the guy gesticulated and furrowed his brow and looked like he was going to cry. Edwards listened intently the entire time. After the guy finished, Edwards whispered in they guy's ear, the guy nodded and you could see the guy's anxieties slip away. They shook hands. The guy clearly felt much better.

So, I thought to myself, the politicians' manner? Whatever works, I guess. Who am I to second guess what worked to make this guy connect with juries. He's been persuading groups of people to do the right thing with incredible success for most of his life. Should I assume he never blinked in front of the jury? I also don't like the haircut. But I guess it's working for him with large groups of people. The last thing I expect is for most Americans to feel the same way I feel about things as subtle as the appropriate length of blink or a haircut.

But seeing him talk to that fry cook or dishwasher or whatever he was -- well, to me, that was the real John Edwards -- not only in terms of being a human being, but in terms of what a great politician should be able to do. Right there was the whole transaction. That cook didn't know Edwards from Adam when Edwards walked through the kitchen. That cook totally understood the argument Edwards was making about America in the speech. That cook went to Edwards with a problem. Edwards listened. Edwards listened some more. Edwards whispered something in the guy's ear. The guy had hope. What Edwards was doing was working. I mean, it was REALLY working -- including the speech, which was punctuated with one tiny gesture that I found a bit grating. So what's more important? That one tiny gesture? Or that whole transaction? The whole transaction is more important: talking to people about things that matter to them and giving them hope. What happened in that street corner speech was what happened in the campaign.

#5: My opinion is that Kerry was half-way between Clark and Edwards. Clark was all-war all the time. I know, I know: he was an economics professor, he's smart, he had a single-parent mom who raised him. But that was more of the secret life of Wes Clark for the voters. Clark chose to run on the idea that the Commander-in-Chief was a terrible military commander and that we needed one who knew what he was doing. There wasn't so much a connection in the public's mind why a general who cares about progressive taxation, educating America, etc., is better than the one we have. The argument was basically "He's a better General, because he is a general, and guess what? He's a social liberal too, which is like icing on the cake."

Had Clark tried to argue why liberals make better generals -- if that was part of his persona -- he might have connected with Democrats who are looking for a discussion of those core issues, but the whole package wasn't tied together coherently -- and it might be because a lot of the core elements of being a liberal are incompatible with being a good general. How do you say that power (economic, cultural and political) needs to be decentralized while also saying that you believe that your military skills can keep America safe? How do you win as a Democrat while saying concentrated executive and military power in my hands are the key to a safe future? How do you resolve the image of the general with the more libertarian impulses among Democrats who are looking for a government that doesn't tell them what to do? I do believe that Clark wanted to get the government out of the lives of gay Democrats, and I believe that he probably wouldn't be opposed to devolving political power down to local levels so that communities can fight polluters, and things like that. But running as a general who's going to keep America safe might not alleviate the concerns of the environmentalists and gay democrats the way they are alleviated by a senator who has actually legislated to protect the environment.

So, Clark seemed to be one end of the scale: someone who represented in the minds of voters a total focus on national security. Edwards was at the other end of the spectrum: he totally represented a focus on middle-class opportunity. Kerry was a guy with enough war background and enough background as a guy who legislated to protect the working class's jobs & health care and to protect the economy. Kerry covered ALL the bases. He covered Sharpton's race and religion base. He covered Clark's military base. He covered Kucinich's far left base (with his voting record). He covered Edwards's class base (by being a guy who spent some time in a suit working in an office fighting for victims and by raising a family through a little bit of adversity and by being someone the unions liked). I think it's obvious that Kerry was the winner because he looked really well-rounded to most voters: he wasn't' too much of any one thing, and a little of everything -- and having Clark in the race in some ways may have helped Kerry because by adding actual military service into the equation (which was something none of the other candidates had) he moved the average towards Kerry -- if nobody cared about military service, then Kerry's mattered less, but with Clark saying military service matters, lots of voters thought, "well, Kerry has that too."

And another thing about Clark that I believe is that, like Dean, I think people liked the idea of Clark when most of the impression of the candidate came from national media (Clark and Dean were tied for first in national polls in December -- and national polls are based on something other than a first-hand impression of the candidate). As direct contact supplanted national media (as there was less mediation of the candidates, and voters got to see more of the candidate in person, either in the candidate's own ads or in local media, or the debates, or personal appearances) Clark lost ground because he didn't cover enough of the different things that voters care about: he talked too much about the war.

For people who only cared about war, who thought it was the most important thing, he really got a lot of love. But the thing that's important to remember is that most voters -- not even when you include republicans -- thought war and terror were the most important issues. And even a smaller percentage of Democrats felt that war and terror were the most important issues. Most Democrats wanted someone who said something to them about jobs, class and opportunity, and about hope and not fear: and that's where Edwards was doing so well, but that's also where Kerry, who was the average of all the candidates, was also doing well. He did enough to keep the people who cared about war happy, and enough to keep the people who wanted hope about jobs and about the economy happy.

I think the things that people liked most about Kerry are totally symbolized by his commercial where they show that short clip of him walking through the jungle with an M16. In that ad, there's a pictures of him in a suit, and then just a shirt, and in that shot in Vietnam, he's not wearing an officer's uniform. People saw that and saw a well-rounded person, who probably cares about the little guy because he was a little guy, fighting side by side with black men and Latinos and poor white guys -- the same people he legislated to protect as a senator. That covered everything, for a lot of people: 9/11 and their jobs.

I really think that's why Kerry got the nomination and I think that if Clark had run in Iowa, Kerry would have run that commercial in Iowa and would have won with it, and I think Edwards still would have gotten the votes he got from people who were moved by hearing him in person make his persuasive argument about class and opportunity, and I suspect that Clark would have finished lower than his December poll numbers, along with Dean, and Edwards would have finished higher than his December poll numbers. And it would have been interesting to have seen where that went, but I think it would have gone in the same direction that things went anyway...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 04:14 AM
Response to Reply #205
295. AP, here's that story...and another way to link to it - just for you
Edited on Sat Dec-11-04 04:15 AM by FrenchieCat
Press Release--January 23



Networks Anointed Kerry, Edwards Before Iowa Did

Go to http://www.cmpa.com / then select Press Releases on the top blue tab....page down a bit, and there it will be.

Here's the text, since it's short.

Study: Iowa Caucus Victors Received 98 Percent Positive Coverage

WASHINGTON, DCPrior to their surprising Iowa caucus performances, 98 percent of the network evening news coverage of Democratic Presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards was positive, according to research conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). The study also found Howard Dean received more critical coverage over the same time period, at 58 percent positive.

This is CMPAs second ElectionWatch report of Campaign 2004. ElectionWatch will provide regular updates of how the broadcast networks are covering the candidates, the issues and the campaign. This report examines the 91 stories broadcast on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening news from January 1st through January 18th, the night before the Iowa caucus.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #173
252. It's the candidate's fault if he can't get noticed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #252
292. Admit it, you LOVE him.
And you certainly don't seem to have any problem with not noticing him since I see you hanging out on all of his threads.

Why don't you just admit that you have a thing for him. :loveya: He is very attractive after all. :loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #171
174. Not from people peddling Whitewater, I'm sure
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 01:13 PM by robbedvoter
Arkansas Project responding for duty!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #165
172. You mean....
Before that became the "meme" made up by the corporate media and repeated by the leming presstitutes....and was bought by all of the sheeples because it was repeated so much and they knew no better.

I expect those who are not informed about such matters might say just what you just did.

However, for those who are somewhat informed...which I would say, you should be one of, because I have always known you to come into Clark thread....to do just a tinch bit amount of lightstream pissing......

This meme is only bought by those who are predisposed in wanting something....anything to say negative about this particular man, in hopes that the person they support ends up looking just a wee bit better. Sad but human.

Clark's words were always used twisted against him by the media...cause there was not much else to use. However, Clark understands this about the media and so does he supporters.

If you were to analyze the various memes about many politician....you would clearly see that the "legend" that surrounds them is mostly "made-up" sh*t as told and retold by MSM:

McCain's shit never stinks. He is just so special! He can't do no wrong.

Bush is a resolute leader who will keep us safe and who speaks with conviction.

Edwards's oratory prowess talks owls out of trees. The next Clinton!

Dean's scream showed how "Unstable Dean is".

Kucinich is just "weird"

Cheney is a wise man who tells the truth and has a great mind.

Kerry is a flip-flopper who lost because of faith and value issues

Condi is an expert on all things foreign

The media is liberal

When one looks at those made-up reputation.....Seem like you would know these things about media manipulation and conventional wisdom as the presstitutes would like to preach it.

Read this thread for an analysis of what did happen to Clark during the primaries....cause it's much simpler.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
168. Well anybody that hook up with Clinton is not that bad, imo.
Plus he's good looking. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #168
178. A General Clark Story
To all those who can listen and hear at the same time.

"Back in the primaries, I received a notice that General Clark
would be speaking at some remote airplane hanger. So of course I
went. It was very cold. We had to wait more than an hour before he
showed up. But no one left in spite of the cold.

While waiting, I noticed a lot of men in black wool coats. It
seemed out of place - just made a mental note of it.

I was in front of the line, but at the end. Next to me were to
young girls - teenagers - they brought flowers and one was wearing a
scarf with Kosovo on it. General Clark showed up gave his speech and
began to shake hands down the line. He started shaking hands with the
people in front of me, so he missed me and the girls.

As he is going down the line, I walked over the string that
separated us, the young girls followed me. Again we just missed him
going down the line. These poor girls, when General Clark turned
away, they thought they had missed their chance. So desperate to help
them, I tapped Gert on her shoulder, and said, Gert, Gert, she turned
around, I said these girls, came to give General Clark flowers they
are from Kosovo, could you grab the General? She did! He came back
over, stood for a couple of pictures, took the flowers. It was so
thrilling. The girls were in tears, their families couldn't believe
they were with their hero.

We went back over the string, so not to cause trouble, and General
Clark continued working the line, I yelled to him "I love you General
Clark" I couldn't believe it, he turned, looked at me and said "I
love you too." What a guy.

And the guys in the black wool coats, crying seeing their hero,
they were Albanians.

It was such a moving experience. One I will never forget."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #178
183. What a great story.
I think a lot of public figures get their fair share of people that tell them "I love you". I am sure they don't mean it but saying I love you back to them definitely gives them a warm feeling. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #168
198. Just for you....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
188. Because he might actually be an honest, sincere person
I'd always been somewhat leery of General Clark, mostly because he's a General, and I'm suspicious of blurring the line between civilian and military power.

Well, one day, I was watching Democracy Now during the primaries and they had a segment about Wesley Clark. DN has been very hard on Clark, back throughout the military action in former Yugoslavia.

Jeremy Scahill from DN (who I also respect quite a bit) sort of ambushed Clark as he was leaving an appearance, and started asking him some REALLY hard questions: the usual ones, including the 'why did you swap hats with a war criminal in Kosovo' (ie., the photograph), etc... They were precisely the sort of questions that any candidate's 'handler' would have them avoid.

However, Clark stopped, shook off his handlers (who were motioning him to move on), and answered the damned questions. He not only answered them, he answered the HELL out of them. I have honestly NOT seen a politician give such honest and thoughtful answers to 'attack-type' questions in my life.

He stood there for what must have been 20 minutes, taking each very slanted question (Scahill obviously wasn't a Clark supporter, to say the least), and providing a really, really good answer to them. They were honest, forthright, and you could tell from his answers that he had truly thought each decision through. Absolutely no spin. I think by the end of it, even Jeremy Scahill seemed a bit impressed by the sheer QUALITY of the answers he was getting.

After that, I realized that Clark really was an authentic, thoughtful smart guy. Very smart guy. I didn't vote for him in the primaries, since it was clear he was going to drop out at that point, but he was definitely one of my top choices -- which surprised the hell out of me, quite frankly.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #188
191. There are a lot of honest, sincere people out there....
that doesn't mean that they are actually a) Democrats, b) fit to be president, or c) worthy of our support.

From Bush's perspective, I'm sure he beleives he's an honest, sincere person. That doesn't make it so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #191
197. Thank you so much....
After much nail biting and buzz.....we have decided...

By an overwhelming majority

to present you, DoNotRefill (don't intend on it)

with the a top spot...in the
(can I get a drum roll, please?) ta-da!!!! :bounce:

VETERAN OF TRUE PISSERS IN CLARK THREADS award

...yeah!!! :party:
(thunderous clapping and cheers - some boos :thumbsdown:)
:toast:

Now do as Ray Charles famous song says.....Hit the road!
(moderators...delete if you must...but it is quite true!)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #191
200. Congratulations, YOU WON THE PRIZE!!!!!


What an excellent idea Frenchie!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donjo Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #191
201. The Roves are coming! The Roves are coming
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 08:11 PM by donjo
I see the Rovians have been in full throat already. Same old tired b.s. that's been refuted over & over again. Pathetic. If that's the best they can do, 08 will be Clark in a landslide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #191
208. Honest discourse
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 11:50 PM by Donna Zen
must be the hallmark of a healthy small "d" democrat. So what does it mean the a-b-c of the question? Is it a veiled negative_a less than forthright tone_hedging and shifting?

It is difficult to know.

Confession: I was not born with word Democrat emblazoned anywhere on my body. Since I chose to join the Democratic party...does that make me "less" of a Democrat? Maybe I should leave the party since it shuns people like me; people who joined the party.

Fit to be president? "Fit" What are the standards? Being dishonest would certainly make one "unfit" but what exactly makes one "fit"? Taking campaign donations for X number of years...smoozing...playing the insiders game?

And the position of president (I hope we can agree to exclude junior's name from any conversation here...turning over rocks to check the temperature of the slime doesn't become us) what are the qualities that make a person ready for that office. Intellectual brilliance...integrity...love of country...a committment to defend and protect the Constitution...an understanding of the issues. Okay?

Worthy? worthy? Sounds like a value judgement...odious things. We can argue for hours and never come to grips with that quip.

Wes Clark is a Democrat, and although his voter's registration date shows 1992, a length of time insufficient for many on this board, before that time he was an independent. BTW, I thought he was an independent all along, but someone has posted the form at DU recently and it would seem that the process in Arkansas is different than my state.

Gene Lyons, who has interviewed and knows many a Democrat, said that he thinks Wes Clark is the most qualified or one of the most qualified people to be president in the US.

You obviously dislike Wes Clark; I do like him. I don't know who you like but I have nothing to say about them unless it would be a policy disagreement. I think Clark is more in-line with my ideals about Democratic policy than many, many, many of the elected Dems. I think he is smarter and has leadership experience. Wes Clark has said things that I have waited my whole life to hear a politician say. In fact, I have never wanted to vote for any candiate more than I wanted to vote for Clark. He is simply an amazing human being.

Now I grew up with a mother who was an elected Democrat for 30 years. So throwing me out of the party doesn't bother me one damn bit. Go ahead! Because I understand what it truly means to be a small "d" and a big "d" Democrat, I'm not afraid of losing what I know to be true. If being a Democrat means you have to boast your ego or your candidates credentials by smearing excellent people, then I'm in the wrong party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #208
209. OK....
Edited on Fri Dec-10-04 12:01 AM by DoNotRefill
"Confession: I was not born with word Democrat emblazoned anywhere on my body. Since I chose to join the Democratic party...does that make me "less" of a Democrat? Maybe I should leave the party since it shuns people like me; people who joined the party."

Last time I checked, you weren't running for the Presidency. I remember Clark's "I'm a Democrat" announcement, which happened what, a whole two weeks before he tossed his hat into the ring? Before somebody runs for the #1 spot on the ticket, I'd think that they should have at least a LITTLE bit of a track record in our party, pushing our ideals, instead of just coming in, saying "Oh, I'm a Democrat, Elect Me President!!!"

People being put forth by our party for high elected office should have a track record of pushing ideals dear to us. Clark's track record was almost ENTIRELY in an organization dedicated to institutionalized murder.

"Fit to be president? "Fit" What are the standards?"

Good judgement would be one. Doing "buddy-buddy" photo ops with fucking war criminals does NOT show good judgement. Going on and on about how great the Republicans are does not show good judgement. And saying, even in jest (I don't buy that it was a joke, but giving him the benefit of the doubt), that if Karl Rove had returned his calls he'd have been a Republican, does not show good judgement. Neither does paraphrasing Heinrich Himmler on civil rights issues demonstrate good judgement.

"If being a Democrat means you have to boast your ego or your candidates credentials by smearing excellent people,"

Where is my ego or my candidate coming into this thread? I've tried to stay on the issue....Wes Clark...and have been repeatedly attacked in this thread, over and over again. I have NOT been pushing "my candidate." Hell, at this point I don't HAVE a candidate to push, since the person I supported in the primaries "misbehaved" in my opinion. I just know that Clark strikes me as being an opportunist and something of a fascist. That's not something that I'm into.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #209
210. Looks like we have a communist on the board
Edited on Fri Dec-10-04 12:31 AM by Clarkie1
Calling Clark fascist crosses the line.

Grow up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #210
211. But McCarthyite red-baiting is perfectly acceptable discourse?
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #211
212. I am merely demonstrating how ridiculous this discussion has become
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #212
214. No, you are merely calling someone a communist for no apparent reason.
Name-calling is the last resort of the desperate.

Especially when it's something as antithetical to progressive ideals as accusing people of being communists.

Hopefully in the twenty-first century we can finally put an end to this "communist" nonsense.

Wait till Putin revives the Soviet Union. Then talk to me about communists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #214
215. Yes, name calling is the last resort of the desperate
Edited on Fri Dec-10-04 01:03 AM by Clarkie1
I regret you did not have the wit to see the meaning intended in my post, and take a closer look at your own prejudices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #215
217. It's hard to tell what your meaning is when you keep editing your posts.
And if that was witty, you should stick to your day job.

Oh yeah, and telling people to grow up is also a necessary highlight of any issues-based debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #217
222. Calling an outstanding American Patriot "fascist" is not an "issues-
oriented debate."

I stand by my suggestion to you to "grow up."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #222
224. Last I checked, this was America.
That outstanding American Patriot ordered a lot of innocent people killed. Somehow I think questioning him and some of the shady characters he has been associated with is fair game.

You seem more prejudiced than anyone, with your inability to actually come up with a cogent statement other than "grow up," "communist," and "I'm too witty for you."

You can't be serious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #224
230. Actually, it's the Serbs who were commiting genocide
Perhaps you should also study up on Rwanda.

"He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .

http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2003/12/redeeming_wes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #230
231. Dropping bombs kills innocents.
It's just a fact, and the price of doing business in that kind of career. I wouldn't do it for anything. Clark did. That kind of makes me nervous, but then that makes me nervous about anyone who would take the reins of this country, when chances are you are going to have to kill people.

Just because others killed more doesn't make it any less disturbing. I don't want to kill anyone, even if I get to wear a cool suit and get props from Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #222
250. So I suppose those people that were run through the SOA....
were really just "outstanding (insert country of origin here) patriots"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #214
220. Now Tasteblind...you are being disingenious.....
Because Donotrefill called Clark a murderer here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

A Nazi there
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

An opportunistic Facist here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Here, in another post, where Donotrefill said "I just know that Clark strikes me as being an opportunist and something of a fascist. That's not something that I'm into."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

So somehow he can call General Clark all of these things...and in some post, call Clark supporters "Facists"...but we are not allowed to respond in Kind?

I find that pretty biased, Tasteblind. Maybe you don't mind General Clark and his supporters being called names....but I do.

I'm not taking that kind of talk from anybody.....

So your reprimands need research prior to you handing them out.

If you want to address the person out of line in this thread.....I suggest that you read the thread closer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #220
223. I've been following it.
And thanks for playing fairness police. I just don't like it when people throw the communist word around. And I certainly don't like being accused of prejudice just because I take issue with dismissive people with bad attitudes.

Donotrefill has been totally belligerent, but presented arguments to back it up.

Yelling Commie, telling people to "grow up," and insulting my intelligence by implying that his "meaning" was over my head is obnoxious as hell. And crossing the line? What line? Is this not America anymore?

So if I'm biased for that, then so be it. I'm here to get opinions and information. DoNotRefill is one of very few people who has shown up to rebut the Clark-lovers here, and is in the minority.

Saying that a world leader who has ordered the killing of thousands of people is somewhat fascist and accusing someone with a differing viewpoint of being a communist are two different things.

I would argue that the second is worse, because the world leader probably could care less what we think, and isn't here to talk with us about it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #223
225. I just don't like it when people like you throw the FASCIST word around
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #225
226. I didn't do it.
And you still are short an argument. Smarty-pants.

:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #226
227. An arguement for what?
O.K., I thought you were donotrefill...it is late and my eyes are sleepy.

Still, that is not excuse for nonotrefill's throwing around labels like he does. I was merely showing how stupid that kind of behavior is by stating something just as ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #227
228. Fair enough. I can handle that.
I just don't like being condescended to. If you disagree with someone fine, but when I see people being rude without having something to say, it irritates me in a way that DoNotRefill's admittedly extreme position doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #227
244. You see...I was under the impression....
that I was allowed to have an opinion, even if you don't like it. Please excuse me for my ignorance. I hadn't realized that the Clark Kool-aid drinkers had put into place their much dreamed-of Totalitarian State here on DU. Forgive me for criticising your Fuhrer. Heil Clark!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #244
278. You are so childish
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, however wrong-headed.

But when you disrespect someone who I respect highly, you should expect a strong response.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #278
282. Refute the argument...
don't attack the messenger. That's one of the most BASIC DU rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #225
242. I don't throw it around lightly...
but Clark strikes me as having a strong authoritarian streak. It's probably because he spent his life in an organization which was is known for it's discipline in enforcing it's chain of command.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #242
279. You do throw it around lightly - You have proven that already
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #223
233. Ya know....
I understand now more than I did when this thread began. That's when I though that posting polite factual answers with relevant links was what you were asking for.

But since you want to give Donotrefill "credit" for his rebuts, I am having doubts that you were just asking questions. If rebutting to you is accusing a candidate.....mainly badly developed opinion, much name calling, and no linked evidence, then I question that you are actually dealing with the questions that you asked in good faith.

Calling people War criminals and so forth and so on...is not a rebut; it's an accusation.

He also called Clark supporters facists. To me, that worse than calling someone a communist (cause Communists aren't not all bad in my book....facists are).

I don't suffer fools lightly. Please don't try and "play" me.
Capish?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 02:52 AM
Response to Reply #233
236. Did you mean, "Capiche?"
Edited on Fri Dec-10-04 03:07 AM by tasteblind
That was what I was asking for. I'm not endorsing his position. And I'm not trying to "play" anyone.

My point was that Clarkie was just being rude and not really saying anything substantial, and I didn't like it. I was pretty much ignoring DoNotRefill until you guys got so upset. It all seems a little over-defensive to me.

Don't mistake my defending someone against personal attacks and rudeness to be agreement with his position. While I'm skeptical of anyone who could be a part of killing other people, I'm not screaming fascist at anyone, though I fear it's getting to be that time for our current administration.

I must say, the tone of this is all a bit silly. Trying to intimidate me gangster style with poor spelling, just because I defend someone's right to have an opinion, even if it's kinda kooky?

It all seems a bit thin-skinned to me.


On edit, I'm still not able to get a definitive spelling of that word, but dictionary.com has it as capeesh, from the Italian capisce. Perhaps we're both wrong.

At any rate, we can still play nice, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #233
245. I didn't start this thread thinking that Clark supporters were fascists...
I started thinking that Clark HIMSELF was a fascist. The actions by some Clark supporters in this thread have convinced me that it isn't just Clark.

I don't think I called Clark a war criminal. I said he ASSOCIATED with a known war criminal. And the person I was referring to as a war criminal is indeed currently under indictment by the UN for war crimes and crimes against humanity. I even went as far as to post a link to the amended indictment. Therefore, it is an accusation, but one that was made by the UN. And referring to Mladic as an "indicted war criminal" isn't an accusation, it's a statement of FACT. He has been indicted for war crimes. Of course, you don't see the delicious irony of your leaping to Mladic's defense...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #245
270. I will never find common ground with everyone
That is just the way it is. I will not end up respecting everyone's opinion either. Discourse has a purpose to a point, but it is a fixed point, it does not meaningfully go on forever. Sometimes people fundamentally disagree. Sometimes vehemently. Time is limited, one can not say all things to all people.

Since your world view enables you to think that Wesley Clark is a fascist, that sufficiently establishes for me that our world views are extremely different, and a vast chasm separates our definition of political terms. You are free to your opinions. I am free to disregard them. I choose now to do so. I will not spend time in dialog with you, if others do that is their choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #245
273. "Clark is a fascist"
And so are a number of his supporters, you seem to be saying. Nice.

"He ASSOCIATED with a known war criminal." Do you know why he met with Mladic? It's not as if he "associated" with him because he Mladic was such great company. If you want an outside opinion, I'd take Barry McCaffrey's over Bob Novak's.

As I read it, nobody leapt to Mladic's defense; there was apparently a sense that you'd called Clark a war criminal, and the defense was of Clark.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #245
280. "I started thinking that Clark HIMSELF was a fascist."
You should seek professional help,

Seriously, you seem to have some sort of paranoia of people wearing a uniform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #220
249. Heh....
I suggest you reread that first link....where I specifically said Clark did NOT murder the people at Waco, he just provided the equipment used to do so. I then questioned if he had ever heard of Posse Comitatus, a long-standing legal principle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #249
283. Whose equipment and how it works:
The equipment belongs to the American government, and the Army as you know is a top-down civilian led organization.

The only people who could approve the use of the equipment for use on American soil live in Washington DC. Besides, it was the infamous Boykin who went to the meeting in DC not Clark. IIRC Perry was at Defense and Clinton was in the White House. Reno, only recently appointed met with the principals and Boykin.

The equipment was a request from the FBIs and not a decision that Clark made or could ever make. No military personel were involved.

"He" meaning Clark, was well out of the entire event. Even my wacky friends who insist that the Masons are running the entire country have this story right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #283
284. Sorry....
but if Clark had said "No, you can't", what result?

If you send your deputy to a meeting in your place, you bear responsibility for actions taken in your name, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #284
285. Boykin went
Clinton ordered.

Civilian control of the military. I like it and since I don't hate Clark, I'm willing to acknowledge it.

Honestly, I don't care that you hate Clark; I just dislike disinformation.

Don't worry about him, he's very liberal and guess what, the primaries are over.

Sorry you missed him.

Leadership is knowing that you don't have a monopoly on wisdom.

~ Wes Clark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #285
288. I wondered when the Clenis would come into this...
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #288
290. Top down; civilian control
Sorry_if you don't like the way it works. Personally, I'm glad that generals can't loan tanks for domestic action. Anyway, Clinton was the CiC...if you know of another at the time, I'll be glad to edit the post.

This action was not a bright spot in Clinton's presidency, or for Reno, a good beginning. Personally, I'd love to blame it on some "good ol' boyz" from Texas, but accountability doesn't work that way in an grown-ups' government.

So_ again, if Reagan or anyone one of the others was CiC, say the word; I'll do the editing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #290
291. I just find it fascinating...
that you'd attack Clinton to defend Clark. OTOH, I shouldn't be surprised...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #210
243. Thank you...
Comrade.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!


:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #209
218. Just wanted to give you the trophy for the prize you won
mentioned in the previous posts.



CONGRATULATIONS!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #218
221. Maybe
he should get two of those.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #218
268. Shouldn't there be a special ribbon or something
for outstanding merit in repeating virtually every rightwing cliche against Clark in one thread? A "Rush Ribbon" of some sort?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #209
219. Just FYI
I'll repeat a bit about Clark's history with the Democratic party.

Clark was stationed in Texas in 1992 at Fort Hood. That's in Bell County. The County Clerk of Bell county (one Vada Sutton who was then and still is, County Clerk) related to our Clark Bell County Coordinator that in 1992 IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, General Clark requested an absentee ballot in the Democratic primary. She remembers it vividly because she was so surprised that a General would be a Democrat.

In Texas (as in Arkansas) during that time, that's as close as you can come to being a Democrat (since registration for a 'party' was not even possible). In 1996, in Arkansas, the state legislature made it an optional checkbox on their voter registration cards. Today (I'll look up the link if you need it) 96% of the voters in Arkansas have still not 'registered' with a party. It doesn't keep anyone from voting in either primary. Regardless of what your 'party' affiliation is.

In Texas, there is still no option to officially register as a Dem or a Repub.

So if voting in the Democratic primary is good enough for the state that he's a Democrat, (in the 2 states where I know he was registered to vote) then how much more 'officially a Democrat' did he need to be.

It also begs the question.... is 12 years of 'belonging' to the Democratic party long enough?

If not, why not? What amount of time do you think you need to belong before you can call yourself a Democrat....

(You only get to count the number of years you've been eligible to vote).

I'd also like to know why only a Presidential vote determines whether you are a Democrat or not.

How about all those downballot Democratic candidates he's voted for in the past? Don't they count?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #209
229. Hats and phones vs doing good when you should.
Last time I checked, you weren't running for the Presidency. I remember Clark's "I'm a Democrat" announcement, which happened what, a whole two weeks before he tossed his hat into the ring? Before somebody runs for the #1 spot on the ticket, I'd think that they should have at least a LITTLE bit of a track record in our party, pushing our ideals, instead of just coming in, saying "Oh, I'm a Democrat, Elect Me President!!!"

But according to your rules, could I run for president? Democrat at conception? Anyway, what bothers you doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I believe that those in command positions in the military should never openly declare a party 1) because they are under civilian control 2) they represent the US not the republicans 3) because the already slippery slope we are on with the openly republican claim on military allegiance is one of the most dangerous trends in our country.

I do not remember Clark saying "I'm Democrat elect me." Again, in Arkansas it was not necessary to identify a party, in fact, there was no check box until the mid 90s; however, recently a DU posted a copy of Clark's registration and I was surprised that the it showed him as a Democrat in 1992.

Good judgment would be one. Doing "buddy-buddy" photo ops with fucking war criminals does NOT show good judgment. Going on and on about how great the Republicans are does not show good judgment. And saying, even in jest (I don't buy that it was a joke, but giving him the benefit of the doubt), that if Karl Rove had returned his calls he'd have been a Republican, does not show good judgment. Neither does paraphrasing Heinrich Himmler on civil rights issues demonstrate good judgment.

Two issues: The trip that Clark and Holbrooke made was a long sought after dream of Paul Wellstone...who referred to Clark as "his general." On the trip Clark showed not only "good" judgment but incredible courage by rappelling down a mountain under fire to try and rescue his friends. It was a dangerous trip, but considering the mounting death toll in Bosnia, one that many felt, myself included, was well worth it. As for his onerous "hat-exchange" he himself has admitted it was poor judgment, however, it did not change his commitment to investigating behind enemy lines. For that, he had permission. As you know, and I know you know, Radich had not been declared a "war criminal" at that time. The visit was productive in that it gave Clinton etal the report he needed to pursue a course of action that would stop the killing. That "hat exchange" which weighs so heavily in your judgment of Clark, means nothing to me when I compare it to the overwhelming good that resulted from his journey.

The second phone call, is of course a right-wing talking point. They dredged it up and the left keeps letting them push all the buttons. The phone records were checked and of course there was no phone call, but there was a joke. Having met Wes Clark, I can almost hear him saying that and of course laughing. You see the joke is that Rove always knew that Clark disagreed with them. Or maybe the real joke is Rove's having fun at Democrat's expense.

Clark did say that bush had an experienced team. Well, that pales when one considers that every so-called Democrat since birth not only paid glowing tribute to that team, but actually voted to confirm them. This at the same time that Clark was giving money to Democrats and giving speeches for Max Cleland and Bowles. Oh, well....it just isn't enough if own has committed the sins of a phone call joke and a hat exchange.

That just wipes out Clark's amicus brief on behalf of affirmative action, his free consultations to many Dems about pending legislation, his repeated defense of free speech--even while in uniform and during Vietnam--his testimony favoring gays in the military, his continual advocacy for housing, education, and better pay for those in the service...nope--nothing compared to a fake phone call and a hat.

If Wes Clark "strikes" you as an opportunist then that is what you believe. That is not what I believe. A person's belief system while true for that person, is not necessarily the truth. And yet, for me to support a general was not an easy thing. I did everything I could, talked to those who have known Wes Clark for many years, and tried to understand this very complicated man. I feel very good about my support for this amazing man who echoes for me the very thoughts and words of the spirit that founded this once great experiment in self-government. He is not a savior, but his is a brilliant life regardless of hat-fake-phone-calls.

BTW, count me among those who believe that our democracy with all of its promise is now dead. And all of those life-long Democrats stood by and did nothing. At least Wes Clark tried to save it. Now I hope he stays as far away from right-wing toadies that seek to ruin him, and those of the left who would call him a fascist. Disgusting.

We did not elect George Bush to be king or to suspend the constitution of the United States. ~Wes Clark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #229
234. It's too bad that the Republicans
Edited on Fri Dec-10-04 03:06 AM by Crunchy Frog
seem to be more open minded and accepting than the Democrats. They were presented with a former card carrying FDR Democrat who wanted to run for President. Instead of drumming him out of the party for his impurities, they embraced him, elected him to 2 terms, and have practically canonized him.

In the process, they managed to swing the entire country to the right and lay the groundwork for their party's near complete domination of American politics. They knew a good thing (for them) when they saw it, and they went for it.

Our party, on the other hand, seems so obsessed with purity and pedigree that they're willing to sacrifice everything on its altar, and become permanently marginalized in the process.

I will just leave people with the words of George McGovern, a man whom I greatly respect, and who had the capacity to see beyond simplistic labels to the inner core of the person:

There are a lot of good Democrats in this race. But Wes Clark is the
best Democrat. He is a true progressive. He's the Democrat's Democrat.
I've been around the political block - and I can tell you, I know a true
progressive when I see one.

~ Senator George McGovern, 1/18/03

And if he can find it in his heart to forgive Wes Clark for voting for Nixon, I can certainly find it in my heart too. Every bit as much as the Republicans could forgive Reagan for having been an FDR Democrat.

Maybe the Republicans really do deserve to be the ruling party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #234
237. Wow.
Edited on Fri Dec-10-04 03:05 AM by tasteblind
This is probably the most compelling defense of Clark I've read so far. Thanks.

Actually, on edit, they don't seem to be the party that did that anymore, though. Look what they did to McCain. If anything, the lurch back to the left is an attempt to balance out the full rightward tilt of the Republican Party, imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #237
239. My point was, that the Republicans seem willing
to accept anyone who they believe can advance their agenda, without respect to purity or pedigree.

Their treatment of McCain is immaterial to this arguement. He has an impeccable pedigree as a conservative Republican, however, he's not useful to them for advancing an extreme RW agenda. He has too much of an independent streak, therefore they keep him marginalized and will never let him have any real power.

I feel quite certain that they would happily replace Dick Cheney with Zell Miller if they thought it would advance their cause. They don't give a damn that he's a lifelong Democrat. The fact that he's a frothing at the mouth right winger is plenty for them.

Our side seemingly doesn't give a damn that Wes Clark is a progressive Democrat who could potentially swing this country back in a progressive direction. That seemingly pales next to the fact that he used to vote for Republicans more than a dozen years ago.

As long as we continue to place purity ahead of advancing a progressive agenda, our agenda will continue to lose.

I'm not certain what you mean in your last sentence, so I don't know what to say in response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #239
246. Stalin claimed to be a progressive....
"As long as we continue to place purity ahead of advancing a progressive agenda, our agenda will continue to lose."

that didn't make it so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #246
257. Stalin is an important reminder that extremism is equally bad from the
left as it is from the right. Calling everyone fascist is no better than calling everyone communist - it shows the same black and white "with us or against us" view of the world. Who cares if one does it in the name of God or Marx?
The effect on people, democracy is the same. I distrust people using extreme language from both sides . It's no coincidence that FAIR, IAC and the RNC were using the same talking points against Clark (mostly from Serbian sources) - just as I saw websites having quotes Chomski, Nader and Starr during Clinton. Enemies of democracy unite naturaly and are easily recognizeable by their shrillness.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #246
269. You apparently claim to be a progressive
Edited on Fri Dec-10-04 01:36 PM by Crunchy Frog
so that probably means that you're actually a Stalinist. :crazy:



For elevating the discourse of this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #269
275. Hey....you don't see me....
pushing a guy who spent his whole life in "Murder, Inc." as a Progressive...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #275
281. ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 04:35 AM
Response to Reply #281
296. Now THAT....
is pissin' funny! ROFLMAO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #239
247. Arnold and Colin
Absolutely disagree with "them" on many issues, including all of those "moral values" that the republican mean machine brags about, and yet, Arnold and Colin are seen as stars of the right. I have never heard ONE republican carrying on and trying to ruin these people. Now why is that? Ya think they want to win? Ya think they have a bigger umbrella? Ya think they realize to run national elections it takes a national party?

McCain btw agrees with the far right agenda; the noises you hear coming from him never question the over riding dogma. The most disgusting aspect of McCain is his willingness to "sell out" the troops. He knows better than to support this travesty, and yet he lets those troops be used and abused.

Wes Clark otoh agrees with the policies of the left. One could argue, that he supports the positions far more than the current ticket, and certainly more than the life long Democrats currently voting for the Patriot 2. But OMG! he's been in the military so "say no more!" Well, at least that is the attitude of so many who strut and spout the gospel of "broad mindedness" but have never listened to the words.

Note: If the shoe fits....

____________

Some will be tempted to seek our security by raising new walls to take the place of shriveled ocean distance. They will call for restricted travel and trade, for tougher visas, fewer tourists and students, closed courts, diminished rights, and less international traffic and trade. They will want an ocean shield and a missile shield, and a society far less open than it was before.


Others will argue, and in my view correctly, that our security depends more on building windows and bridges to the outside world than in building walls. They will suggest that in the new millennium our best security lies in reinforcing others around the world that share our values, rather than shutting ourselves off from them.

~ Wesley Clark Seton Hall 5/2002





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #247
248. Don't forget, St Raygun - who was - gasp- a converted democrat!
Edited on Fri Dec-10-04 08:06 AM by robbedvoter
yeah, I find it interesting that while it's obviously the GOP who thinks they are entitled to power by birth, it's the Democrats who administer the purity tests.
I mean, think: the "values conscious" GOP has annointed as mesia a boozer&druggie till the age of 40 - the right connections&money trumped all that.
Dems, in time of national security hype get a general war hero, Rhodes scholar who calls himself unabashedly liberal and poo-poo him because he was not democrat since birth - and ohm well, he is army, and we liberals don't like that...
Of course, the decisionmakers in the dem party are aided by many GOP strategists as this thread amply proves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #248
260. Like I said, I don't buy that.
The Republicans do it just as much. Ask Arlen Specter, John McCain, Lincoln Chafee...

Reagan is ancient history to these people, and they are using him to forward an agenda he likely would not have approved of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #260
266. Not really. Specter was pushed around a bit, but look at their convention
Arnold, Rudy, Zell Miller , Ed Koch- everyone they thought (rightfully or not) would put a moderate face on them got teevee time. McCain has been trotted by W to all rallies + convention speech
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #239
254. I'm saying
that the Republicans seem to value purity more these days than they did in the days of Reagan, and that people like Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich are finding more willing audiences because the Republican party has become so extremist as to make centrist Democrats ineffective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #254
256. Oh, if you think Dean is a Liberal, Clark a "centrist" - listen to THEM:
Edited on Fri Dec-10-04 09:14 AM by robbedvoter
From Maher's show, September 5, 2003

Bill Maher: want to read you a quote, because Howard Dean said "...In Vermont, you know, politics is much farther to the left. A Vermont centrist is an American liberal right now." And then his campaign manager came out and said "That's not an admission he's a liberal!" Which, quite frankly pissed me off. Somehow they hijacked that word. And you're a Democrat, you said that last week.

Clark: Absolutely. (audience applause)

Maher: OK. I'm just wondering, of all the people who have the credentials to say "liberal" is not a bad word, I'm wondering if I could get you to say that.

Clark: Well, I'll say it right now.

Maher: Good for you!

Clark: We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this country. It's in our constitution! We should be very clear on this... this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, have reasonable dialogue and discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck by a divine inspiration and know everything, right from wrong. People who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, and dialogue, and civil discourse. We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #256
258. I never called Clark a centrist. My reponse did not mention him.
I was referring to a recent trend in Democratic politics in a thread about Wesley Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #258
261. In this case, you are really supporting Clark then. (or the trend is)
Edited on Fri Dec-10-04 10:51 AM by robbedvoter
And as noone mentioned it here before, here's Paul Wellstone mentioning Clark in support of his anti-war speech in 2002:

But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
www.wellstoneaction.org .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #261
263. Gotta love Wellstone.
Sounds dead on to me, as usual. Clark obviously isn't in with the Bushes, and is too smart to buy their nutty foreign policies, regardless of where he falls on the liberal scale. I get the impression left and right are less relevant with him than right and wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #263
267. Bingo
Edited on Fri Dec-10-04 12:31 PM by Tom Rinaldo
"I get the impression left and right are less relevant with him than right and wrong."

That is a good summary of Wes Clark. And since the Left is more often "right" nowadays than the political Right is, most of Clark's views fit remarkably well with the political Left. Wesley Clark is a practical idealist rather than an ideologue per se. He truly believes in the promise of America, passionately, and he has devoted his entire life to defending and furthering that promise. That is where Clark's idealism shines. Given his abilities Clark was frequently invited to join the ranks of the super wealthy ("courted by private industry") for decades prior to his retirement from the military, but he stayed in the Army. Clark saw defending our nation as both a duty and privilege, and he preferred continued service in that capacity rather than self enrichment as a career goal.

Unlike the vast majority of politicians, Wesley Clark's patriotism is firmly rooted in a deep understanding of the American Revolution and American History. He was a Rhodes Scholar with Masters in Economics, Political Studies, and Philosophy. Clark has a very clear vision of what it means to live in a Liberal Democracy. His military training deepened his ability to realistically appraise off setting strengths and weaknesses, the likely and the improbable, the real costs associated with various courses of action and the cost of inaction. Combat is unforgiving. That is where Clark's pragmatism comes fully into play. He is a leader for the real world rather than one governed by any political orthodoxy.

Clark wants America to fulfill it's Revolutionary promise. That is what he dedicated his life to defending, literally. He was part of the generation that took JFK ("Ask not what your country can do for you...) seriously. Poverty is immoral to ignore. Free speech guarantees our Liberty. A nation should care for it's elderly and its sick. Discrimination is abhorent. The basics. Clark is rock solid on them all.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #267
298. Amen to that.
Clark should have hired you. Words like that cannot be twisted by the MSM...only ignored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #263
274. I wanted to say that I'm sorry your thread
got hijacked by a bunch of flame warriors who like to come onto these threads just to piss on them. You probably would have been better off just to spring for the $5.00 to get a star, and then come on to the Clark forum to ask the question.

Then, after you had gotten an answer there, you could come on here and ask why you shouldn't like Wes Clark. You would have ended up with the same information, but spared some of us from having to deal with the



contingent that always comes out for these threads. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #274
300. That's okay.
I've been trying to ignore it.

Even so, this is a messy world. You take the good with the bad.

I wouldn't have gotten nearly the reaction if I posted in the Clark forum, and was not even aware it existed until now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cdp Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #234
264. If only Clark had voted for and Dukakis
The Ronald Reagan analogy is GREAT, and I agree with your post. I don't know what it is about Democrats that makes them freak out about someone who used to vote for Republicans. My brother voted for Republicans up through Dole, but now admits he will probably never vote for one again. I think that's inspiring. Intelligent people change their minds as they gain experiences and knowledge in life. I think it also takes A LOT OF BALLS to say, "hey, I was wrong, I am changing my mind."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #188
204. That's the thing most common among Clark supporters.
They are impressed with his honesty. A person is not going to love everything about a candidate but honesty is truly impressive. Michael Moore was surprised to be drawn to Clark. When he heard Clark defend his right to dissent even if he didn't necessarily agree with Moore, he recognized integrity. I believe this is a value people throughout the country would appreciate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cdp Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
265. Clark: The 10 Minute Democrat?
I like Clark, but I'll have to wait and see who else comes along for '08. Regardless, I have been on his email list since he dropped out of the race, and it has been pretty active with information about Democrats who need support. It is hilarious that anyone whould think Clark is some opportunist who only became a Democrat because he wanted to be President. Have you people seen which party has been winning elections lately? Regardless, I don't see a "10 minute Democrat" sending out emails like this well after he has pulled out the race, and a month after Presidential election. But hey, that's just me. Y'all can think whatcha want.

I got the following email about a week ago, so it is old news...


A Message from Wes Clark
December 2, 2004


Dear Loyal Supporter,
The holiday season is here, but the election season isn't over yet. So it is with great urgency that I write you today. My friend, Charlie Melancon, won a place on this Saturday's Louisiana run-off ballot for a seat in Congress, and he needs your help in these final few hours before the election.

Charlie Melancon is a native Louisianan who has the experience to get the job done in Washington. As a state legislator and community leader, he's fought to improve schools and provide our families with health care. As former president of the American Sugar Cane League, Charlie has the expertise to create and protect jobs in Louisiana.

Charlie will be a strong advocate for our military and veterans in Congress. He has already received the endorsement of Veterans Vision and other veterans' organizations.


Without a record to run for Congress, his opponent Billy Tauzin, III, is depending on his father's name and the national Republican Party's negative attack machine to win the election. The contrast in experience between Charlie and Billy Tauzin could not be clearer -- if we can just get the message out to the voters.

Now, in the final three days of the campaign, Charlie is combating the vicious smear campaign that targeted so many Democrats on November 2nd. But with your help, we can fight back and take back this Republican House seat on Saturday.

Join me in helping Charlie take his positive message to the voters so that he can serve Louisiana and America in Congress.

The November 2nd elections did not turn out the way we had hoped. That's why we can't stop fighting now. On Saturday, we can send a message to Tom Delay and the right-wing attack machine by electing Charlie Melancon to Congress.


Thank you so much for your continued support and hard work. Let's make our voices heard in Louisiana!

Sincerely,

Wes Clark

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #265
271. And Melancon won an EXTREMELY close race
& Clark helped.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #265
272. Boy, he's really got ya fooled doesn't he.
You've fallen for the oldest trick in the book.

Oh, and all of us Clarkies on here are really Republican operatives. We're part of a grand conspiracy and are all getting paid handsomely for our work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SKKY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
286. I've recently met several people who worked under Gen. Clark...
...when he was NATO Supreme Commander in Naples and not one of them had anything good to say about him as a person or as an officer. And these were "libs" like myself. I would have voted for him over Bush, but suffice it to say I was very happy Kerry won the nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
incapsulated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #286
289. Sure.
I was waiting for someone to come onto this thread and post about how they "met" "some people" who say that Clark is a total asshole and everyone hated him. That's how he got to be a 4-star General and SACEUR, by having so many people despise him and pass around rumors about what a jerk he is, as a "person and an officer". Because that's how you get ahead in the military, and in life in general, by making tons of enemies.

Forget the long list of people that love him, worked for him, commended him, gave him honors both within and outside of the military, endorsed him for president, worked their hearts out for a man they greatly respect and admire. Those people actually have names, they don't count.

How the fuck does anyone believe this crap? What is your motivation?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #286
293. I've seen 1.5 million people who love Wes Clark....lookee here....
these people said that Wes Clark saved their lives. I even have few pics for proof....




he Presidential Medal of Freedom is awarded to people who have made especially meritorious contributions to U.S. national security, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors. The medal may be bestowed on citizens of other nations and may be awarded posthumously.

Wes Clark richly deserves the Medal of Freedom, not just for the outstanding job he did leading NATO in its first and only conflict, but for a lifetime of distinguished service in the United States Army and for the Department of Defense. He brings energy and imagination to foreign and security policy and will continue to serve his country with distinction. All of his new colleagues at CSIS celebrate his well-deserved honor, said CSIS president and CEO John Hamre.

Clark, Supreme Allied Commander Europe from July 10, 1997, until May 3, 2000, joined CSIS August 1 as a distinguished senior adviser. He will work across the full range of the Centers programs, concentrating particularly on international security. Clark was in overall command of NATOs military forces in Europe and led approximately 75,000 troops from 37 NATO and other nations participating in ongoing operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. He also helped to negotiate the Dayton Peace Accords. In 1999, Clark commanded Operation Allied Force, the alliances military response to the Kosovo crisis.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomUser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #286
294. CCN has testimonials from people who served under Gen. Clark
Edited on Sat Dec-11-04 03:52 AM by RandomUser
And unlike you, sir, these come with faces, names, and telephone numbers. So...do I believe you and your vague rumors and innuendos gotten third-hand? Or do I believe those who served with Clark, loved Clark, and go as far as posting their phone numbers for any doubters to contact them?

    I was General Clark's Security Officer. When we transported him, we moved by means of a Hard Car (bullet proof.) I rode right front seat in his motorcades. What hurts me the most, is that General Clark never unminded or insulted his superiors in my presence; or the presence of any of his staff. That was not his nature. General Clark always conducted himself as a soldier and a Gentlemen. He was loyal to those he served. It is mine personal experience that other General Officers were jealous of my former boss, because Wes Clark was always ahead on all issues and a lot smarter, A LOT SMARTER!! Most importantly, I think some of General Clark's fellow officers were jealous because no one could motive and understand soldiers like he could! I challenge any soldier who has anything negative to say about General Clark to step forward and announce yourself (520-423-2673.) You will find yourself outnumbered 4 against an Army of former military staff members and loyal supporters!!!!! General Clark, as big Joe would say, "Sir, we're going hot!" We love you boss!

http://cris.forclark.com/story/2003/11/17/184832/42

And Cris wasn't the only one on CCN, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #286
302. I Love Negative Anecdotes Which Can't Be Disproven
:eyes:

I know dozens of people who worked under General Clark, loved him, donated to him, and worked for him. So does that trump "several"?

:eyes:

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #286
303. And now for the true story:
Ladies and Gentlemen, I am new to this site, so let introduce myself. My name is Cris XXXXXX, recently retired from 22 years of active duty, both as an enlisted and as an officer. I was a Special Agent with the United States Criminal Investigation Command.


I want to use this site to share my wonderful experiences with you. Why, because I am the voice of many in the military who are "muzzled," because of their military obligations. You see, active duty personnel can not openly endorse General Clark because of their military status. Many that served under General Clark are still on active duty. Just this date, I received three overseas telephone calls from soldiers requesting to see General Clark, even just for a brief moment when he arrived to the Hague to testify. They said they want to see the boss! We lovely called General Clark the boss, just like the fans of Bruce Springsteen.


I am not a professional writer, which is obvious! I have a story to tell, I speak from the heart. My story is about a great and a courageous man! In the following weeks, I hope to enlighten you and maybe give you some insight about my boss, General Wesley K. Clark. Oh, I almost forgot, I use the phase, "From the right front seat." As this was my position. In motorcade movements, I would sit in General Clark's vehicle (right, front) and handle security and communications for the boss (a lot of firepower for the boss.) So, consequently I heard everything, which made me respect General Clark even more!




Duty, Honor..Country





The General Clark that I had severed with is not the General Clark that is being depicted by his critics. I cringe when I hear the critics attempt to describe General Clark. I known General Clark as I work and lived with him during my tenure as his security officer.


In my 22 years of active duty, I have never met a soldier with the character, intelligence, and integrity of General Wesley K. Clark. I am qualified to say this because I was by his side during many critical events while he was the Supreme Allied Command Europe. During my assignment with General Clark, I learned so much about the true meaning of Duty, Honor and Country.


Duty


Duty to General Clark was selfless service to his mission and his men and women assigned to his command. He was the hardest working individual that I have served with in my career. To General Clark duty also mean responsibility. Anything that happened in his command was his responsibility. The American public got their monies worth from General Clark.


Honor


When I think of General Clark, Honor is the first though that comes to mind. General Clark is an Honorable man. He never took advantage of his status as the Senior U.S Officer assigned to the European Command. General Clark's opinion of himself was that he was no better than the newest private in his command.


Country


The Country benefited when General Clark was at the helm of NATO. Not only was he a soldier's General, he was a skilled diplomat. A diplomat that built consensus and made every member of NATO and Partnership for Peace nations feel as one. Always being an earshot away from some of General Clark's conversation, I learned that he had the same love for our country that is portrayed by many of our first Presidents.


It troubles me that General Clark has to Jump through all the politic rings to get the democratic nomination. I think if you closely examine General Clark's service to our country, you will see he possess all the qualifications to lead our country. He is a proven leader! My message to the America Public is hear what General Clark has to say. He is not a politician! He is a man of vision! No one knows patriotism like General Wesley K. Clark.


My name is Cris XXXXXXXX, "From the Right Front Seat."

Chief Warrant Officer Retired
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bklyncowgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 06:23 AM
Response to Original message
297. I like Clark.
He strikes me as a stand up guy.

After losing in the primaries he stood up for Kerry and was a good spokesman for the cause. He was particularly good at explaining foreign policy issues and is one of the few Democrats who has real credibilit on Defense. During the swift boat attacks he helped salvage some of the damage by defending Kerry and explaining military procedures.

I hope he continues to speak out on behalf of a progressive foreign and defense policy. I don't know if I'd support him in another run for President. I'd have to see who else is running and also learn more about his career--particularly what are the negatives that could be used against him, but yeah. He's a good guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
299. Who?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-04 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #299
301. by the time 2008 rolls around
I think that will be exactly the quote you hear over and over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 01st 2014, 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC