Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Yo, I heard wesley clark's response today. I say that he is definitely vp

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 (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
okieinpain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 12:11 AM
Original message
Yo, I heard wesley clark's response today. I say that he is definitely vp
material. kerry needs somebody to put some shine on his dull finish. edwards, would be a good choice, but I don't feel that kerry would look at him as a equal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 12:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. what response? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Iraq Mission Undercut by Abuse - Democrat Clark
Edited on Sun May-09-04 12:28 AM by bahrbearian
Iraq Mission Undercut by Abuse - Democrat Clark

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops has led to a loss of credibility that undermines an already troubled U.S. military mission, retired Gen. Wesley Clark (news - web sites) said in the Democratic weekly radio address on Saturday.

"Apologies are not enough," the former Democratic presidential candidate said. "These criminal acts of abuse must be investigated fully and those responsible held accountable under law."

Clark, a former NATO (news - web sites) commander who directed the 1999 bombing campaign in Kosovo, was an early critic of the war in Iraq (news - web sites). A senior member of the U.S. team that helped broker the 1995 Dayton peace accords on Bosnia, Clark testified at the war crimes trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic (news - web sites).

~snip~

"The truth is President Bush made mistake after mistake as commander in chief, taking us into a war we didn't have to wage, alone and under false pretenses and is now managing it poorly," Clark said.

Yahoo/Reuters 5/8/04http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&ncid=2043&e=3&u=/nm/20040508/pl_nm/iraq_abuse_democrats_dc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
revcarol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
2. Pablum.
Now Charlie Rangel, on the other hand, would have had something to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. You mean, without a draft proposal it doesn't work for you?
Rangel not only endorsed Clark, he was part of the draft movement. oops! I forget - we didn't exist!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andino Donating Member (668 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
3. Sec of state or other cabinet position
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VolcanoJen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
5. Download/Listen to Wes' Democratic Response HERE
http://www.wespac2004.com

Left-hand side, under "BREAKING NEWS."

:loveya: Wes! :loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Kewl. Thanks for the link. (and Wes is on Meet the Potato tomorrow)
I always have trouble finding quick access to the Dems' radio response. Eventually it shows up at c-span, and sometimes elsewhere. But the DNC or somebody ought to consistently post the audio and transcript as soon as it is broadcast. Modern information age and all, you know.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kaitykaity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. That web site will not open for me.
All I get is a blank screen. And I really want to hear it, too.
Maybe somebody will mirror it somewhere.

:hurts:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gold Metal Flake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #7
42. No pix. It's in MP3 format, so make sure you have an mp3 player.
Download the free version of Realplayer. If using Windows, go here:'

http://www.real.com/realplayer.html?pp=home&type=dl_rp10_2&src=033104realhome_1_3_1_1_1_1

and click the link to the free player on the right. Real Player works great for MP3s and for Air America streaming audio.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VolcanoJen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 02:03 AM
Response to Original message
8. You know, the angle they've taken with the radio responses has been...
... impressive lately.

Using soldiers to make our case is very, very effective. 1st Lt. Paul Rieckhoff made an eloquent address a few weeks ago, and now Ret. Gen Wesley Clark.

Good work, DNC. I'm impressed. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowFLAKE Donating Member (247 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 07:43 AM
Response to Original message
9. Have you seen the description of Clark using Rove-type smear
tactics to finish off Howard Dean's candidacy? (It's in the most recent issue of the Atlantic - the one with the "tragic" Tony Blair on the cover).

I say Democrats should stay as far away as possible from this (most-likely-a-war-criminal-himself) creep, rather than talking about "rewarding" him!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Yes, Conason warned me you'd say that! God forbit we'd have
2 war heroes against 2 chickenhawks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. The sun can't come out soon enough to melt the snow away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. "most-likely-a-war-criminal-himself"? Get a grip
The war criminal is squatting in the White House. I can't wait to see the debates between General Clark and Chickenhawk (6 deferments) Cheney. Now that would be fun.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enraged_Ape Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. A Clark-Cheney debate would be a dream come true
It would be like watching "Celebrity Boxing" between Evander Holifield and that guy that plays Ross on "Friends". Of course Cheney, like the "Friends" dude, would be completely outclassed, but it would be satisfying to see him get the shit beat out of him for a few minutes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #14
29. ROTFLMAO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
48. hee hee
But are we surprised that these types of posts start up again? not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #9
18. Welcome to DU, snowFLAKE!!!!


(most-likely-a-war-criminal-himself) MY ASS!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowFLAKE Donating Member (247 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Thank you for the Welcome (I think?)
Edited on Sun May-09-04 09:10 AM by snowFLAKE
Although I may be in the wrong place - considering that I was strongly opposed to the Iraq Attack from Day 1. And, during the run-up to the war, I was not at all amused at Mr. Clark appearing on the cable news channels cheerleading for the war; sorry, no links for that, but I saw it myself - yeah, I know that's just hearsay, and besides he had no real policy-making power then - But let's consider what else he did:

1. Campaigned fro/praised Mr. Bush

http://www.drudgereport.com/clark.htm

Yeah, I know it's Drudge, but the same information is widely available.


2. Was (is?) a strong supporter of the notorious "School of the America's" - are you also going to claim there's no war crimes associated with that place?"


CONCORD, N.H. -- Retired General Wesley K. Clark sometimes downplays his Army background, and criticizes the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays. But there is one military institution he vigorously defends: the controversial academy once known as the US Army School of the Americas.

Opposition to the school, which trains military officers from Latin American countries, has long been a cause celebre among some Democrats and liberal activists, who say the academy has trained some of the most notorious criminals of the region and teaches skills that Latin American armies sometimes use against their own citizenry.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-01.htm

3. Mismanagement of "detainees"

Gen. Wesley Clark was in charge of refugee camps in the 1980s and 1990s where Haitian refugees who were fleeing first Baby Doc Duvalier (and later the new regime installed by the US following the overthrowal of the elected Aristide government in the early 1990s), were packed, under appalling conditions condemned by the Center for Constitutional Rights, among many others. In the 1980s, many Haitian male refugees incarcerated at Krome (in Miami), and Fort Allen (in Puerto Rico) reported a strange condition called gyneacomastia, a situation in which they developed full female breasts.

Ira Kurzban, attorney for the Haitian Refugee Center, managed to pry free government documents via a lawsuit on behalf of the refugees. These contained the startling information that prison officials had ordered the refugees sprayed repeatedly with highly toxic chemicals never designed for such generic use.

The officer in charge of the refugee camp? None other than Gen. Wesley Clark, chief of operations at the US Navy internment camp at Guantanamo, and later head of NATO forces bombing Yugoslavia. The documents go on to say that lengthy exposure to the particular chemicals can cause hormonal changes that induce development of female breasts.

Medical studies of female Haitian refugees in New York revealed that they had a much higher rate of cervical cancer than the rest of the female population.

It would appear that the Democratic Party now has awfully low standards if they basically say, as a poster implies above, "Gee, he's not as bad of a war criminal as Mr. Bush - let's sign him up!"

(Or, is this just a ploy to appeal to the bood-thirstier elements of this country? If so, are really really any better than the win-at-any-cost Repubs?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Ah yes! good ole' Drudge and the SOA.
and let us not forget about the Haitians. <sigh> ALL of that has been dicussed on DU 5,987,576,902 times.

Wes Clark voted for Bill Clinton TWICE and Al Gore in 2000. He was in the military and was never a member of a political party. He lives in Arkansas where you don't have to declare a party to vote. :eyes:

How does General Wesley Clark compare to legendary West Point Generals? See for yourself.

1. General Robert E. Lee - Class of 1829 #2 in class of 46
(Civil War)
2. General Ulysses S. Grant - Class of 1843 #21 in class of 39
(Civil War)
3. General John J. Pershing - Class of 1886 #30 in class of 76
(World War I)
4. General Douglas MacArthur - Class of 1903 #1 in class of 94
(World War II + Korea)
5. General George S. Patton -Class of 1909 #46 in class of 153
(World War II)
6. General Dwight Eisenhower - Class of 1915 #61 in class of 164
(World War II)
7. General William Westmoreland - Class of 1936 #112 in class of 276
(Vietnam)
8. General Norman Schwarzkopf - Class of 1956 #43 in class of 480
(Dessert Storm)
9. General Wesley Clark - Class of 1966 #1 in class of 579
(NATO/Kosovo)

Definitely one of the smartest generals in U.S. history.


Below is a post from a DUer...can't remember who.

If Wes Clark's opponents want to call him a republican because he once praised the defense team Bush had assembled and praised Bush for his handling of the war in Afghanistan, then we have a lot of republicans masquerading as democrats:

Tom Daschle: Shortly after the swearing in Senator Lott and I called the 107th Congress to order so that we could confirm the first seven of President Bush's cabinet choices. This was easy work as President Bush has done an excellent job with his cabinet selections. On Saturday, we confirmed Secretaries Colin Powell (Secretary of State), Paul O'Neill (Treasury), Ann Veneman (Agriculture), Don Evans (Commerce), Rod Paige (Education), Spence Abraham (Energy), and Don Rumsfeld (Defense). I met with almost all of these nominees in the previous weeks and I am enthusiastic about the chance to work closely with them."


Biden said this about Powell, during the confirmation hearing: "Without question, General Powell's experience at the highest levels of government and the conduct of foreign and defense policy and his experience in managing large organizations makes him well qualified to be secretary of state."

Biden, after Powell gave presentation to the Foreign Relations Committee: "I am proud to be associated with you. I think you did better than anyone could have because of your standing, your reputation and your integrity as it is understood by our European friends as well as others around the world."

Rumsfeld and Powell were confirmed handily, with little debate. While Rice did not require confirmation, she was an informal advisor to Democrat Gary Hart during his presidential bid and her appointment received praise from both democrats and republicans.

Gephardt, From a June 2002 VOA article: "In a wide-ranging speech in which he sounded very much like a presidential candidate, Mr. Gephardt praised President Bush's handling of the war in Afghanistan.

The Democratic rebuttal from House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt virtually echoed Bush's address. In a show of support, Gephardt did not argue a single one of Bush's points and even
praised the tax cut.

Gephardt: "I want to commend the president for his strong and patriotic message tonight."

Rep. Rick Larsen, D: "The president deserved a gold medal and a victory lap for the war on terrorism."

Howard Dean:  "George Bush is, I believe, in his soul a moderate." and added about those thinking that Mr. Bush's presidency would be a one-term one, "that is going to be a mistake."

Dean, September 2002, regarding Bush on Hussein's WMD:Dean, who now argues that he saw through Bush's charade from the beginning, said at the time, "I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it."

Joseph Lieberman: ...But he praised Bush's creation of a new multilateral, value-based foreign policy in response to the attacks. He cited Bush's Sept. 20 congressional address as an example of the President asserting his leadership.

"The people and the president face extraordinary challenges," he said. "Both have risen superbly."

...Lieberman praised Bush for being unyielding in his challenges to other nations and unflinching in his demand that they assist the fight against terrorism.


The two also appear divided on the Bush team's recent foray into the Israeli-Palestinian issue. On Sunday, Daschle said he did not have "any problem with what the president is doing in the Middle East now that he is engaged."


Pelosi also praised President Bush's "leadership" in supporting Sharon, whom the president declared to be "a man of peace."

Joseph Kennedy (former Mass. senator), praising Bush at the Justice Department ceremony: "Your strength since Sept. 11 has been a profile in leadership. You deserve the thanks of all who are committed to freedom from fear, and for all of us as Americans, we stand behind you and with you at this time," he said.

Sen. Edward Kennedy on Bush nominee Rod Paige: "Rod Paige comes to us highly recommended."

Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat, on Paige: "I wish to tell you that he is a man committed to excellence, an educator who believes every child can learn and every child can succeed. Dr. Paige knows diversity in our community. Our children enjoy coming to school, they enjoy the classrooms... We feel safe when we send our children to school."

Andrew Cuomo, a democrat who ran for governor of NY: Bush "exemplified leadership at a time when America was desperate for a leader. He deserves credit, as do congressional Republicans, for recognizing the challenge of 9/11 and rising to it. Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, there was chaos. We handled 9/11 like it was a debate over a highway bill instead of a matter of people's lives."

Former U.S. House Speaker Jim Wright, Democrat:  ...praised President Bush on Wednesday for pulling the nation together after last week's terrorist attacks, but warned "the hard part is coming."

Wright, a Democrat, had kind words for Bush's speeches to the nation after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He said the Republican president's speech at a Washington prayer service Friday was "the best I've seen him give."

Tom Harkin, 2001: The administration's farm policy language was similar to proposals by Senate Agriculture Committee chairman Tom Harkin for up to $50,000 a year in conservation payments to farmers. The Iowa Democrat said he was pleased the administration "is focused on promoting conservation."

Daschle: On ABC's This Week, Tom Daschle called Condi Rice's thin answers to his questions "very helpful" and said they contributed to "constructive dialogue." Then, he said he was ready to work with the White House to draft a Senate resolution, ostensibly one that would authorize use of force, and may hold a vote on it before adjournment next month.

Biden: Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, said he would work with Helms to move the nomination quickly. "At the present time, I foresee no problems," Biden said, calling Powell "a man of great integrity."

Carl Levin, D-Mich., ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee called Rumsfeld "a strong choice."

Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, the new chairman of the DLC, on Bush's budget speech: "I think we have a real opportunity to make bipartisan progress." He praised Bush's support for education and a patients' bill of rights, and added, "I wholeheartedly endorse the President's call for major tax relief to get the economy moving again.

****************************

As you can see, there are many well-known leading democrats who had praise for President Bush or his nominees prior to September 2002. I did not include statements by Zell Miller, who truly is a republican in democratic clothing.

Democrats are foolish to bash other democrats who praised Bush, because it puts the "failure" on the democrats instead of where it truly belongs--on Bush. Democrats who praised Bush and his defense team early on weren't republicans in disguise; they weren't foolish--they were simply being fair and honest, which is what we democrats do. Cheney and Powell were both well-regarded for their work during the first Gulf War. Rice had excellent qualifications and was very respected. It is a mistake to think democrats and republicans are like cats and dogs and that their natural reaction toward one another should be one of enmity.

The focus should not be on whether democrats once, in the spirit of fairness, praised President Bush, who did indeed receive tremendous admiration from the populace for how he responded to September 11. The focus should be on how President Bush misled people. He pretended to be compassionate; he claimed he was "a uniter, not a divider." He claimed that he did not believe in nation building and that our military would be used in self-defense. He claimed that the Iraq War resolution was to be used to secure the peace, not considered a green light to go to war.

Bush is at fault and so is his defense team who have supported a neocon agenda and work hard to prop up his weak case on Iraq and who choose to aide Bush in his work deceiving the people.

In 2001/2002, there are many many people who were open-minded, willing to take Bush at his word (I confess, I was not one of them). Given his still high approval ratings, it's clear that many Americans do not see Bush as the threat many of us now see him to our country and to the world.

By the way, does anyone think Bush is actually a democrat because he praised Ted Kennedy in 20

Reasons Wes Clark is a great choice as VP
This was written when he was a candidate for prez, but still works. This is from a poster on DU...can't remember who.

rhodes scholar

first in class at academy, a very tough vehicle to graduate from.

thirty-five years of all kinds of hands-on experience in leading, diplomacy, running a huge corporate base here and there, teaching,
combat and war, negotiating peace.

Is going to help by his testimony to put a genocidal dictator in the can. Forever, I hope.

speaks four languages. Besides English.

economics and philosophy major from Oxford (or Cambridge, I forget
which one) Shoot me. ;0)

married and a father of son(s)

good to people under his command when they needed his help, something they aren't afraid to reciprocate to this day.

demanding high standards of people in his command because it was expected, because it was needed, because he expects it of himself

personally filled with courage <rappelling down the hillside in Kosovo in midst of live fire to help people hurt> and humble enough that the world had to find out about the truth of it in another man's book.

learned about how hard it is to make a living, yet stayed in the military and didn't take the easy way out: a man with his qualifications could have been a gazillionaire like the rest of the clack running the country into the ground but 'kept the faith' and remained in the military

earned the loyalty of enlisted and officers alike

not afraid to go over the heads of the hidebound dummies in charge of the Kosovo war to save 1.5 million people's lives. <Of course, this is worthless compared to the 72.9 million people he's personally responsible for killing with his own bare hands> <joke>

was drafted out of a happy retirement because he cares about the country and its plight and wants his grandson to have a good life some day.

patiently is laying out his vision, which is there to read unless you don't want to. remember, knowledge is power. read it.

took four rounds during Nam and still stayed in the army.

knows enough about war first hand to hate it and prevent it in a way that a tinhorn dipshit like most of the republican party can never know.

faithfully and happily married to a nice, smart woman.

loves and supports his children's aspirations, even if they give him the heebie jeebies for long term employment possibilities (his son
is a screenwriter)

got every kind of civilian and military award around, from this government and dozens of others.

Has friends all over the world, high and low and commands the respect of others which he has earned by his efforts, grace and smarts.

Chose to enter the inferno of political office because he believed the country needed him. again.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowFLAKE Donating Member (247 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. The Point I was trying to (very poorly) make
Edited on Sun May-09-04 10:25 AM by snowFLAKE
Was based on the following sub-points:

Sub-point #1: It is undeniable that Mr. Clark has had a long-term career in the UNITED STATES MILITARY. (or is that debatable too?)

Sub-point #2: The purpose of the UNITED STATES MILITARY is not for defense of the "homeland" - rather it is for enforcing the the GLOBAL AMERICAN EMPIRE. This can be seen from two perspectives

This PDF (http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32209.pdf) shows that US military spending is way out of whack with EVERYBODY else's (suggesting that it is possible to DEFEND one's nation for a fraction of what the USA spends).

Rather, as stated, the US MILITARY is used to enforce the global imperialistic aspirations of US PRESIDENTS (both democratic and republican), as can be seen at the following link:

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm

Sub-point #3: Given that Mr. Clark is the most brilliantly intelligent General ever (as documented in your post) - clearly he must have been aware of the points raised in "sub-point #2" - therefore doesn't it show BAD JUDGEMENT to get involved in such a (far-too-often-criminal) enterprise as the US MILITARY?

Sub-point #4: Not withstanding Mr. Clark's motivation for military service - and let's assume that he upheld the highest moral standards possible during his service - the very nature of enforcing America's GLOBAL EMPIRE entails doing a lot of nasty things to a lot of innocent people - whether it's killing civilians in Kosovo or Vietnam, or mistreating refugees in Haiti.

MAIN POINT I'M SICK AND TIRED OF AMERICA'S PERPETUAL WAR-MONGERING AND WANT A CHANGE. Mr. Clark - even if he has served honorably through-out his career and doesn't deserve the "war criminal" label legally speaking, is not the person to bring about such a change.

Perhaps we can go to the BIBLE for an example (from experience, most pro-war persons hold the BIBLE in high regard for some reason) and compare Mr. Clark to King David. I think everyone agrees that King David was a real HERO - much like you regard Mr. Clark - largely because of all the ENEMIES he vanquished in war. However, near the end of his life when he wished to pay tribute to JEHOVAH and build him a TEMPLE, God said no - you have too much blood on your hands, that should not be a task for you (and hence King Solomon, his successor built the Temple). Similarly, Mr. Clark has too much blood on his hands (nobly or criminally, doesn't really matter) for my taste - what this nation, and the world needs, is AN END to America's perpetual war. Consequently, pandering to the nation's bloodlust for political ends just doesn't cut it for me and I find the suggestion that Mr. Clark be considered for VP to be abhorrent (and hopefully abherrant).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. Someone....
Please go stand in the sun!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #30
34. hehe.
Ditto.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #26
38. When Wes Clark was a candidate,
he was the one and ONLY candidate to WARN us about "the military industrial complex" and would be the LAST person to lead us into an unprovoked, unilateral preemptive war. He KNOWS the perils of war. He would NEVER do it. Period.

Read this. He wrote this during his campaign.

WES CLARK'S TEN PLEDGES



I pledge to all Americans that I will bring our soldiers home, with success in Iraq assured and America standing strong.
My strategy in Iraq will be guided by the following principles:

End the American monopoly. From the beginning, the Bush Administration has insisted on exclusive control of the Iraqi reconstruction and occupation. This has cost us the financial and military support of other nations and made America a bigger target for terrorists. Ending the American monopoly will change the way this enterprise is viewed -- in Iraq and throughout the world.

Change the force mix. The Bush Administration has failed to formulate an effective tactical plan. No such plan will be viable without substantial contributions from military leaders on the ground. Still, I would approach the problem as follows: consider adding troops; adapt to guerrilla war; better use intelligence resources, train Iraqi security forces, free up U.S. troops; engage neighbours for better border security; and secure ammunition.

Give the Iraqis a rising stake in our success. Iraqis will be more likely to meet the security challenge if we give them a greater stake in our success. That means establishing a sovereign government in Iraq right away. Because Americans chose the current governing council, many Iraqis see it as illegitimate. I believe we cannot transfer full authority to Iraqis before they have the capacity to succeed, but we should help the Iraqis quickly establish their own government to replace the existing council.


I will never ask our troops to risk the ultimate sacrifice or ask their families to pay the ultimate price of patriotism except as an absolute last resort.
As President, I will rebuild our relationships abroad and the alliances which maintain them. And I will strengthen them, so that we can solve problems together, so that the use of military force is our last resort not our first, and if America must act with force we can call on the military, financial, and moral resources of others.

Restoring our alliance with Europe is the first essential part of my broader strategy for American national security. President Bush has created a go-it-alone approach and declared the use of preemptive military force as the defining characteristic of his national security strategy. A Clark Administration would place our work with Europe and a reinvigorated NATO as a centerpiece of U.S. policy -- and then seek not to rely on preemptive force, but instead to use diplomatic, political, economic power and international law in support of preventive engagement. We would reserve the use of force for an absolutely last resort and then act together if possible and alone only if we must.


I will never send American soldiers into combat without a realistic plan to win and the forces necessary for victory.
The Administration failed to plan realistically for post-war Iraq. Instead of listening to the experts at the State Department and throughout the government, who predicted the danger of chaos and looting, the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his aides ignored their advice. Instead they relied on hope, hope that the Iraqi exiles would be accepted as legitimate, hope that the Iraqi police and military would provide security, hope that Iraqi oil revenues would finance reconstruction, and hope that we would be treated as liberators. How wrong they were -- you can't build a plan on hope.

Meanwhile, the President rejected the advice of the uniformed military that we deploy enough troops not only to defeat Saddam's military but also to secure Iraq after Saddam's defeat.

As a result, we saw chaos, we lost the trust of the Iraqi people -- and the enemy was emboldened.


The statements and actions of a Clark Administration will restore America's moral authority.
The Bush Administration has squandered in two years the moral authority America spent generations building. It started when President Bush said to the world, "you're either with us or against us." As a result, even some of those who were with us are now against us. And those, like Tony Blair, who are still with us pay a political price for it. America is hurt as well. We are less secure when our friends suffer for standing by our side. With fewer partners, we are left to meet dangers alone.

Even in Eastern Europe, there is dismay. These were some of the first countries in the world to support the Bush administration in Iraq. And what does this Administration do to its friends? In July, it suspends all U.S. military assistance to Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, and Bulgaria because they have not yet promised Americans blanket immunity from the International Criminal Court.

One after another, American presidents have laid a foundation of moral authority for the United States. That foundation was built through our leadership in containing Communism, in promoting human rights, in helping the poor and the sick, and in promoting international law. That foundation has been splintered in a few short years.

Also, a key part of my strategy of preventive engagement is to lead the global fight against rising tide of AIDS. Although AIDS is a preventable and treatable disease, in 2003, 5 million people worldwide were newly infected with HIV and a record 3 million people died of AIDS -- more than all the deaths from wars and terrorism in the world combined.

I have a four-part Global AIDS Security Strategy:


Keep the U.S. commitment to combat AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria worldwide - doubling funding to $30 billion by 2008.

Dedicate a large majority of U.S. funding to multilateral approaches like the Global Fund to Fight AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria, while demanding results and additional commitments from our allies.

Base prevention and research efforts on the best available science, including overturning the global gag rule.
My Global AIDS Security Strategy will:


Prevent 14 million new HIV infections

Provide care and support for 20 million HIV-infected individuals and AIDS orphans

Provide treatment for 5 million people living with HIV/AIDS, including supporting the WHO goal of putting 3 million people on treatment by 2005

Accelerate the development of vaccines and cost-effective treatments to stop HIV, TB, malaria, and other infectious diseases

The guiding principle of our foreign policy will be to lead, not to bully.
This Administration has been all bully and no pulpit.

Simply put, this Administration is wrecking NATO -- and thereby doing incalculable damage to our security and well being. They have alienated our friends, dismissed their concerns, rejected their advice, and left America an isolated nation. I served in NATO twice, last as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. I know its value, see its promise, and if elected, I won't let it be destroyed.

General Eisenhower once said leadership is "persuading the other fellow to want to do what you want him to do." When America led the world for the last half century, others followed -- not because we compelled them, but because we convinced them. America needs a President who can lead.

As President, that's what I will do. I will rebuild our relationships abroad and the alliances which maintain them. And I will strengthen them, so that we can solve problems together, so that the use of military force is our last resort not our first, and if America must act with force we can call on the military, financial, and moral resources of others.


I will never challenge the patriotism of Americans who question my policies or express their disagreement.
In a recent ad, the Republican National Committee claimed: "Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists."

The Republicans have tried to monopolize patriotism; I will not permit the Republican Party to steal patriotism.

I am not critical of President Bush because he is attacking terrorists; I'm critical of the President because he is NOT attacking terrorists.


In a Clark Administration, America will always have the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped military in the world.
During my 34 years of service in the United States Army, I held numerous staff and command positions - including Commander in Chief of the United States Southern Command and Director for Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff - rising to the rank of four-star general and NATO Supreme Allied Commander.

As SACEUR, I led Operation Allied Force, NATO's first major combat action, which saved 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and did not result in the loss of a single American soldier.

I know the utility of a well-prepared U.S. military, and I know what it takes to make sure that the U.S. has the best military in the world.

As Commander in Chief of the United States, I will carefully examine our defense budget to ensure that we are providing our military the money and support it needs to adapt to the new challenges America faces and to have the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped military in the world.


America's military will be a complement, not substitute, for diplomacy, law, and leadership in the conduct of our international affairs.
We must reorganize our government so that we can bring to bear the economic, diplomatic and political tools in our arsenal. When we use the power of international law and diplomacy, we can achieve decisive results, even without decisive force.

A Clark Administration would place our work with Europe and a reinvigorated NATO as a centerpiece of U.S. policy -- and then seek not to rely on preemptive force, but instead to use diplomatic, political, economic power and international law in support of preventive engagement. We would reserve the use of force for an absolutely last resort and then act together if possible and alone only if we must.

The United States needs a cabinet-level or subcabinet-level agency that is charged with developing plans, programs, and personnel structures to assist in the areas of political and economic development abroad. Call it the Department of International Development. Focusing our humanitarian and developmental efforts through a single, responsible department will help us bring the same kind of sustained attention to alleviating deprivation, misery, ethnic conflict, and poverty that we have brought to the problem of warfare. These efforts will reduce the anger and alienation that gives rise to terrorism, and win us more friends and partners around the world. It will be far easier to gain international support for our concerns when other countries see us helping them on theirs.


I pledge to use all of my experience and determination to fight the terrorists who have attacked our country, to defeat them and to work to prevent them from rising again.
I will go after terrorists wherever they are - in Afghanistan or any other country. As a result of the Bush Administration's inadequate and misguided efforts, Osama bin Laden and many of the leaders of al Qaeda are still at large and continue to pose a great threat to the United States, our friends and allies, and various other states. I propose the following three-pronged strategy to refocus our energies on hunting down bin Laden and destroying the al Qaeda network.

Press Saudi Arabia to join U.S. forces in creating a U.S.-Saudi commando force to work the Afghan-Pakistani border where bin Laden is thought to be hiding. It's time for Saudi Arabia to take real action to destroy al Qaeda from the top down. It's not enough for them to pursue terrorism within their own borders. They need to join us in the battle worldwide.

Fully utilize the assets we already have on hand to hunt down bin Laden and destroy the al Qaeda network. Too many of our intelligence specialists, linguists, and special operations personnel are investing too much time and energy in Iraq in a fruitless search for weapons of mass destruction -- a task that could better be handled by international weapons inspectors. These inspectors are ready, willing, and able to perform this mission. This is a clear case where getting help from the international community to share the burden in Iraq will free up crucial resources to allow us to better fight the most significant threat to our homeland.

Repair our relationships with our allies and friends, and rely on international and regional institutions, like the United Nations and NATO. These institutions can provide vital support to American diplomacy, bringing in others to share the burdens and risks that we would otherwise carry alone.


And finally, by these pledges and with your support, as President I will make America more secure than it is today.
As President, I will ensure that we succeed in Iraq, that we focus our intelligence, diplomatic, financial, law enforcement and military resources on defeating al Qaeda, that we restore respect and support for America, and that we re-orient our foreign policy to meet the challenges of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, international crime, and environment threats. Taken together, all of these steps will make America more secure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #26
47. Learn how to make a logical argument
You have an unsubstantiated assertion - that the "<US military> is for enforcing the GLOBAL AMERICAN EMPIRE."

Therefore, your argument is crap.

Consequently, pandering to the nation's bloodlust for political ends just doesn't cut it for me and I find the suggestion that Mr. Clark be considered for VP to be abhorrent (and hopefully abherrant).

I'm sure the 1.5 million Albanians who AREN'T DEAD because of our intervention in Kosovo are worried about the "GLOBAL AMERICAN EMPIRE."

I'm willing to bet that there are a number of people in Rwanda who wish we put more effort into our "GLOBAL AMERICAN EMPIRE," too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #9
24. This sounds like a rove type smear.
I have been paying attention to Clark for 10 months and I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you have a link? It doesn't sound like him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowFLAKE Donating Member (247 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #24
28. Mr. Clark hired the Democratic Equivalent of Mr. Rove's smear team
Specifically to bring down Mr. Howard Dean. That's what I'm talking about. And the article, which isn't online yet - go buy the magazine if you're interested - does make a note of the irony that Mr. Clark also brought himself down in the process thus nicely illustrating that Smear-mongering is best left to the expert (i.e., Mr. Rove). It's a tricky business!!

Btw, the article states their's a BBC documentary about Mr. Rove's Smear Team, never aired in this country - once again this is in old-fashioned print so I apologize for no link (but maybe a DU'er more resorceful than myself can find it?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. You seem to be very resourceful at smearing without evidence...
yet unable to provide links to the smears. Very "Rovean" imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowFLAKE Donating Member (247 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. OK, whatever
I suppose it was a mistake trying to have a discussion ON-LINE, where apparently PRINT sources are not regarded as credible (or are people just too cheap/lazy to go out and spend $4.95?).

bye bye
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. Here's a hint...
If you make accusations, have SOMETHING, other than Matt Drudge, to back it up. I don't think my husband would ever accuse me of being "cheap" :7....Usually, if something is in real old fashioned print, it's in print online somewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #36
49. bye bye,
I hope you really mean it, and please don't let the door hit you on the way out.:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #9
37. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
snowFLAKE Donating Member (247 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. Will do
After all, why post at Free Republic-lite, when I could be posting at the real thing?

Anyhow, it's been instructive how denizens of the forum, which I thought was progressive when I stumbled over here, are so gung-ho pro-military-ish and so embracing of Rove-type smear tactics.

Oh well, I guess it shows that Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman really are not out of place after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKNancy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. Here is the problem
You come to a forum that has been in existence for three years. Do you not think that these smears have been brought up before?
As time has progressed on DU, even some hard hearted anti-Clark people have changed their minds. All your points have been debunk so many times that it's boring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #39
44. Thanks for proving once again the suspicion that's been
building in me since the late 60s at least: That the differences between the far left and the far right are minor.

Both extremes are sanctimonious, self-righteous, judgmental, intolerant, fascist, and full of hate. The only real difference is, the left glorifies the "common" man and hates anyone it suspects of cultural "elitism." (Remember the wholesale slaughter of "intellectuals"--which essentially came down to anyone who wore glasses--in Pol Pot's Cambodia?)

The right, OTOH, glorifies and panders to the very rich--who are obviously God's chosen, never mind that pesky Biblical mention of rich men, camels and needles' eyes.

Both sides make me wish sometimes that I were a Christian who could therefore believe in a hell I could then consign both sides to, and good riddance!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #39
45. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #39
46. Hey snowflake
You just picked the wrong thread--don't go--anyone who is down on Miller and Lieberman is a true progressive in my book!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #39
50. Posting on the real thing.
Yes, that probably would be for the best. They hate Clark over there about as much as you do, so I expect you probably would be more comfortable, and fit in better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SayitAintSo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
15. He sure looks good in that Red, White and Blue ....
sorry couldn't help myself....:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doni_georgia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
16. Clark's definitely getting lots of air time
He's a good solid choice for VP. Certainly a BIG change from the current Chickenhawk Veep.

Let's send Rush packing:
http://www.geocities.com/sendhimpacking/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
19. I agree.
Wes Clark is the man needed by Kerry. I just hope Kerry knows it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
20. I've been saying
that while Edwards has some strengths (he's a great campaigner), Clark really does the best job in hammering away as to why Iraq is such a disaster -- not only strategically, but also the reasoning of going in the first place, and he does a great job clearing this misconception that Saddam/Iraq = 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Failure Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
23. Can you imagine them trying to deal with 2 war heroes? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
25. I heard Donna Brazille (C-SPAN) put Clark on her short list of VP choices.
Someone else prominent mentioned him the other day also. It's the way for Kerry to go if he wants to beat the * on security, and a solution to Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. That's a bad sign. Now I am depressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knight_of_the_star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #27
33. Not necessarily
Brazille got props from Carville in his book as being a good, solid campaigner who has a good amount of say inside the party establishment. She just got stuck with Gore being too much of a wimp, voter fraud in Florida, and the Supreme Court shutting Al down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. Now I am even more depressed. Carville lost it (them) - not in Matalin
drawers but in CNN's contranct.. ALWAYS WRONG!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #27
43. I think she was just relaying the most likely choices.
She made it clear that her favorite was Gep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knight_of_the_star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
31. Clark is the man
He is the one who can really carry the fight to Cheney and Bush in a way that they cannot touch.
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 Apr 19th 2024, 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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