Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clark's Biggest Advantage

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
 
placton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 04:06 PM
Original message
Clark's Biggest Advantage
Simply put, it is his outsider status. If we go back to the 1976 election, each new president (save George I) was a political "outsider."

Sure, you can say Carter, Reagan, Clinton and * were all guvs, but they were perceived as outsiders by the press and electorate. So Clark has that going for him.

And Clark is a REAL outsider. It's an advantage he has no lengthy political "history," because there are far fewer positions he has to explain. The things I have seen are pretty minor.

We owe it to our country to boot out Bush and his junta.

It's starting to look like Clark may be da man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. The real point is...
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 04:10 PM by wyldwolf
The same people who say Ah-nold is good for California because he isn't a politician are whining that Clark has no political experience!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dfong63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. and some of the same people who whine about Ah-nold
... having no experience, are supporting the no-experience candidate Clark!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imhotep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. just like Bush was an outsider?
Perception is not the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. Biggest advantage Clark has is that Americans are intellectually lazy
and won't bother to read the Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International report on the NATO bombing of the former Yugoslavia, and what it says about Clark.

Published on Wednesday, June 7, 2000 in the Independent / UK
Amnesty International:

NATO Deliberately Attacked Civilians In Serbia

by Robert Fisk


Only five days after NATO was "exonerated" by the International War Crimes Tribunal for its killing of civilians in Yugoslavia last year, Amnesty International today publishes a blistering attack on the Alliance, accusing it of committing serious violations of the rules of war, unlawful killings and in the case of the bombing of Serbia's television headquarters a war crime.

The 65-page Amnesty report details a number of mass killings of civilians in NATO raids and states that "civilian deaths could have been significantly reduced if NATO forces had fully adhered to the rules of war".

Legalistic in nature but damning in content the document reminds readers that Amnesty repeatedly condemned Serb atrocities against Kosovo Albanians the report highlights inconsistencies and obfuscation by NATO's official spokesmen. Although NATO told Amnesty that pilots operated under "strict Rules of Engagement", it refused to disclose details of the "rules" or the principles underlying them. The report says: "They did not answer specific questions Amnesty International raised about specific incidents ..."

Amnesty records that NATO aircraft flew 10,484 strike missions over Serbia and that Serbian statistics of civilian deaths in NATO raids range from 400-600 up to 1,500. It specifically condemns NATO for an attack on a bridge at Varvarin on 30 May last year, which killed at least 11 civilians. "NATO forces failed to suspend their attack after it was evident that they had struck civilians," Amnesty says.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/060700-02.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StephNW4Clark Donating Member (547 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Clark submitted to trial by an international tribunal and cleared
Just so you are also aware, General Clark voluntarily allowed himself to be tried for war crimes during the Balkan war and was cleared of all charges by the international tribunal. He did not in any way shift or shirk responsibility.

And incidentally, General Clark was not responsible for the selection of the targets. Each of those targets was compiled by NATO members' separate intelligence agencies, who then submitted the targets to their respective heads of state, who in turn approved the targets. The head of NATO was also required to sign off on all targets. General Clark then received those approved targets and proceeded according to his duty. To suggest that General Clark was in any way personally responsible for the selection of targets is inaccurate.

By the way, he is also in favor of establishing an international court of law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. The IWCT "clearing" of NATO was a sham
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 04:37 PM by IndianaGreen
As the Robert Fisk piece says, Amnesty International scathing report on NATO's bombing: "civilian deaths could have been significantly reduced if NATO forces had fully adhered to the rules of war".

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR700252000

From Human Rights Watch:

One disturbing aspect of the matter of civilian deaths is how starkly the number of incidents and deaths contrasts with official U.S. and Yugoslav statements. U.S. officials, including Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre, and Gen. Wesley Clark, have testified before Congress and stated publicly that there were only twenty to thirty incidents of "collateral damage" in the entire war. The number of incidents Human Rights Watch has been able to authenticate is three to four times this number. The seemingly cavalier U.S. statements regarding the civilian toll suggest a resistance to acknowledging the actual civilian effects and an indifference to evaluating their causes.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200.htm#P39_9...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starscape Donating Member (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. well..
I know little about the tribunal, but let me ask you - why was it "a sham?" Because you say it was? Or because Robert Fisk says it was?

Just wondering is this is evidence or just an opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
waggawagga Donating Member (128 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. Half of These Pro-Clark Posts Read Like They Were Written by Flacks
Stand by my prediction that he's the new Leiberman (the real race is between Dean, Kerry, and Gebhardt).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. I disagree completely.
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 05:48 PM by bowens43
I think the fact that he has NO political experience is a HUGE concern. Far fewer positions he has to explain? How so? Seems to me he has far MORE positions to explain. We know the records of most of the candidates. We know their past, we know how they voted. We no nothing about Clark and how he actually feels about the issues. I think the fact that he had a career in the military is also a huge concern. I've read quite a lot on this guy over the last couple of weeks and for the life of me I can't understand why people are excited about his entering the race. I'm not trying to bash him, I just don't understand the hype. He has said next to nothing about the issues. He wasn't even sure he was democrat until a couple of weeks ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dfong63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
9. clark is not an outsider
he's spent loads of time in washington, just not as an elected official.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
11. seems to me that Dean would be as outside as ->
Carter, Reagan, & Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
12. What is
What is a flack? Just want to know if I am one.
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 Thu Aug 28th 2014, 06:20 AM
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