Wes Clark Thanksgiving Day message...Planning to speak out?

[Gloria]

This message from General Clark was posted on several of the Clark newsgroups by someone who said he was asked to post it on Clark's behalf.
I went to the Wes Pac site to get a link...but the site is very out of date and none of the recent Clark letters have been posted there as far as I can see--site seems to stop around Oct. 29 in terms of updating.

Anyway, I thought I'd post this for those who are interested..


Hello everyone. Happy Thanksgiving.

General Clark asked me to post this on his behalf.

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

--------------------------------------

Happy Thanksgiving!

I wanted to thank all of you for supporting me during the draft and primary campaign, for helping John Kerry and the other Democrats running in state and local races, and for encouraging Gert and me after the election to stick with it and keep our voices out there.
Today, I am in Los Angeles, spending time with my family and, of course, playing with my grandson. Though I must admit, it's not exactly the Thanksgiving we expected. Instead of the hustle and bustle of a Presidential transition process, we're all thinking about "more of the same" and what that means for our country.

But make no mistake, your efforts made a difference. In Colorado most visibly, where Ken Salazar's campaign got a decisive boost in his U.S. Senate race. But also elsewhere, in many other efforts up and down the ballot. For so many, this was your first effort in politics. Cindy Trigg was inspired to make her first run and won a seat on the Douglas County School Board in Nevada. Congratulations, Cindy! And to all of you who pushed and pulled in the great democratic process to help shape our country, congratulations and thanks!

Now we have to move ahead. And we will. Our country is still facing enormous problems in Iraq and the Middle East. The terrorist threat is still looming. China's economic growth will be raising fundamental issues and choices in the years ahead.
And despite the Bush Administration's stated policy of spreading democracy around the world, we must question the administration's true commitment. Are we to accept President Bush's willingness to commit U.S. troops in Iraq to liberate a country that's never had democracy, while his administration stands by timidly while a fraudulent presidential election in the Ukraine threatens the future of democracy in that country? At home, we are still struggling with an economy that is being guided in a direction that will bring hardship to millions of Americans. As the value of the U.S. dollar falls due to our budget deficits and trade imbalances, China's growing economy generates vast inflationary pressures on raw materials. And as we focus excessively on the war in Iraq rather than strengthening economic opportunities at home, we are moving ominously closer to decisive changes in U.S. economic strength and living standards.
Yet we will not give up the fight to help America realize her promise. We have to work to bring this country together -- in values, in understanding, and in determination to strengthen our security and our democratic processes.
We are going to be speaking out, participating in the dialogue, and helping chart a better, wiser course for America and for our party. We're going to be talking about our troops, our security, and our values. We're going to try to reassure red state voters and energize blue state voters.

But for now, I hope you'll have a wonderful Thanksgiving with family and friends and think about how much we can achieve by working together.
All the best,
Wes Clark

[Lefty48197]

1. ...and the world will be a better place because of it.

.

[cyn2]

2. Visit http://chat.forclark.com

This is Wes Clark's blog site from the days of his presidential run. It has been maintained by Wes and has been running robustly ever since.

Wespac is in the middle of a re-design, and at this time is not all that useful.

I would say that if you have questions about Wes Clark, to go to the blog site and see if you can get an answer there.

Wes always remembers to get in touch with his bloggers at important times.

[Gloria]

3. Didn't realize it was still up and running.....

eom

[robbedvoter]

8. Also, the Wes Clark supporter group right here on DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=235
the most active group here

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

4. Wes understands

how important bloggers (a major part of "grass roots") are, and it's nice to be appreciated long after our nominee dropped out.

Too bad the eventual Democratic candidate still doesn't get it.

[RandomUser]

5. Cindy Trigg is fellow DU'er Nashyra!

Another DU'er elected to office! Woohoo!

[robbedvoter]

9. Clarkie DU-er!

[brentspeak]

6. He's looking towards 2008

And DNC should give him all the support it can muster. Time for them to get something right, for once.

[FrenchieCat]

7. But do you realistically think that would happen?

Afterall, when McAwful spoke of a hero vs. a zero during the primaries, he was only referring to John Kerry.

Think they now realize that they forgot to open the gift underneath the Democratic party tree?

[BeFree]

10. If he ever

If Clark ever decides to really make a difference, he will decry the massive, bloated, dangerously huge military of the US. He knows it, you know it: The military is the most wasteful of all government programs, and if he doesn't rail against it, he surely supports it's growth.

There's no one in their right minds who would support even more money being thrown at the military.

[Sparkly]

11. What would you suggest instead?

Not instead of where we spend the money, but instead of the military as a force for national defense or stemming genocide or destruction of the world via nukes, for example?

[BeFree]

12. Are you saying ?

That we don't spend enough?

Hell, if we had a lean military, we would have never been able to invade Iraq. How's them cookies?

Let me be perfectly clear: We need a standing force just large enough to defend our borders.

I imagine 100 bilion a year would suffice.

Of course Clark would disagree, he was fed at the trough of military bloatedness.

[robbedvoter]

13. Nothing like a non-sequitur flame fest attached to a relevant thread

Thanks for keeping this kicked - some of the stuff here is actually worth reading.

[BeFree]

14. It's mostly bullshit

Just more catering to the establishment. Clark is, if nothing else, an establishment person, raised and fed on the same blood money that is now being spent in Iraq.

Frankly, I see nothing here, or have ever seen anywhere on DU, anything that would make me seriously consider Clark as the POTUS.

[robbedvoter]

16. Yup. And we are the agents of the establishment, posing as DU-ers

Drafted him and everything - but nobody fools ya! I mean, unless it finds jebus one day and declared Osama innocent/shootable the next, it;s not to be trusted. Damn , we try, but you are waaay to slick for us, establishment people.

[BeFree]

24. There's bunches

...of DU'ers who are establishment freaks, they think the way we are going is fine and dandy: More military, for more wars, for more deaths.

I don't agree. We don't need any 'more' military. We need peacekeepers, we need respect for others, not a bigger and more bloated bat.

Like I said, yall have shown no good reason to support Clark, I figure it's because you can't. What little that has been seen makes me fear his rise.

[robbedvoter]

27. Did you read # 17 that answers you factually, or are you here

to attack/insult no matter what?
here it is for you:

Donna Zen  (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-26-04 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Bloated MilitaryEdited on Fri Nov-26-04 11:16 PM by Donna Zen
FYI_two candidates suggested cutting the military budget...one was Dennis Kucinich, the other???? of course, Wesley Clark. He said: I like to call (the Pentagon budget) it the "make-want" budget. Now who of those two candidates would have the gravitas to cut that budget? Which of those two candidates know where the "bodies" are buried.
Clark explains how the system works (how the pork multiplies) in "Winning Modern War" but if a better explaination is actually going to be read, I'll take the time to post it.
You may check # 26 as well while you are at it.

Or you can continue your monologue alonside us...

[Jai4WKC08]

31. Anybody who thinks

... a nation can get by with "a standing force just large enough to defend our borders" is clueless about national security and modern weapons systems.

That sort of isolationism reminds me more of the far right than the left. Maybe he believes that "Star Wars" missile defense will solve all our problems too.

[BeFree]

36. Yeh, sure

A standing army is gonna protect us real good from nukes flying through the air?

And, no, star wars defense is a crackpot idea, just meant to further the bloated military budget.

Ya know, I count myself in the same league as Gen. George Washington, the father of the US, who pretty much had the same idea of standing armies. Yeah, it's a new day, and all that... but what the hell did the bloated standing military do on 9/11?

Just try responding to my idea about how, if we had a much smaller military, we would have never been capable of invading Iraq. Just try, dare ya.

[Donna Zen]

40. You must be happy

to find out Clark is against "Star Wars."

[Sparkly]

41. Yes, a standing army IS important to protecting us from nukes

I'm not even talking about star wars. It does take a standing army to back up the diplomatic negotiations or political strategies used around the world in order to prevent nukes from hitting us.

To exert political pressure, it takes economic clout, diplomacy, strategy, intelligence, AND yes, military threat.

That doesn't mean we should throw military force around like toy soldiers, as the Chimp has. It doesn't mean the military can prevent OR solve every problem, as General Clark has said.

And what you're saying doesn't mean we don't need a strong military.

(By the way, are you young?)

[Jai4WKC08]

42. Another typically RW canard

Starve the govt so it can't be used to accomplish anything.

We the people, thru our elected (theoretically) civilian leaders, determine what the military is assigned to do. It is not big enough to do all we ask of it as it is. That's one of the reasons things are as bad in Iraq as they are.

Your cause-and-effect are backwards.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

46. It fits

Your argument is the same one the RW uses to end welfare, for example. "Starve the beast." If we didn't have this big government funding welfare "entitlements," people wouldn't be dependent on welfare and would be better off, they say.

It seems you're saying that if we didn't have this big military, there wouldn't be any security problems, genocide, or other issues we'd need to be concerned with as citizens of the world.

Seems to me it fits.

[BeFree]

53. Hah!

I just read another post saying how Clark is gonna cut the military, and for that I oughtta like him... and here, sparky accuses me of 'starving the beast', like Clark says he's gonna do.

Good lord, people, get yer story straight. Yall are all over the place... Just like a bunch of mad hornets! LOL

[Sparkly]

55. Hah! Let's think like third-graders (or Bush* voters)!!

Let's reduce everything to its simplest elements, pretend it's black and white, and imagine nothing inbetween could exist!!

You can "reduce the military" through effective foreign policy that requires less.

Or you can "reduce the military" by starving it, as if that alone will make foreign policy problems disappear.

Are you young?

[Crunchy Frog]

52. Goodbye to you too.

It seems we've answered all of your questions to your satisfaction. In other words, you've already reached your conclusions and no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway your opinion. Since that's the case, I hope you will not bother us on Clark threads again, but will support whichever candidate you think is closer to your beliefs.

I hope you can find a viable candidate who supports your position on the military. You may find one in the Green party, but I doubt they would be electable.

[robbedvoter]

38. he supports someone who was against our negotiating with NATO

for the Balkan war. "Enough talk, let's go already", his hero wrote to Clinton.
Candidate, supporters - know what they are talking about when it comes to defense. Too bad, your guy forgot the number of troops we had in Iraq when asked on Meet the Press. It was then I started to look for a CREDIBLE anti-war candidate.

[BeFree]

32. Yeh, I read it

And I just have to ask you, rv, are you just wanting to attack me, or do you really want to inform?

As to that other post: Interesting, indeed. The last thing I read FROM Clark, however, was a lengthy piece about war and how it should be fought. Yeah, he's gotta dance with what brung him to the party, and he ain't saving the last dance for peace... he isn't built that way.

Still, the two quotes, if truthful, (no links) do shine a slightly different light on the fella. See, I got informed a wee bit, thanks to the other poster.......

[robbedvoter]

39. Good. then there's hope for dialogue yet.

[BeFree]

49. Sure.

But, really, yall are like a bunch of mad hornets, nested up here in DU. In fact, that's why I hardly ever read many of the Clark posts, because of the awful stinging yall try to inflict upon anyone who gets too close. LOL

But I guess, that's what one should expect from pro-military types. In fact, yall do kinda remind me of the jarheads I've run across in my travels. Good fellas, for the most part, but still, jarheads all the way.

Clark may, (may?), be a good man, but I gotta tell ya, yall don't do a very good job, as a whole, of representing him, at least not what I've seen.

[Sparkly]

50. "Pro-military types"!?!?

Whose mind is closed here? Liberal means being open to truth and reality, not closed up with stereotypes and presumptions.

"Jarheads." "Yall don't do a very good job of representing him." Well you do a pretty good job of representing closed-minded, short-sighted, narrow-minded, reality-avoiding opposition.

Pro-military!! I am as far from "pro-military" as you could ever even imagine.

[BeFree]

51. Open yer eyes, sparky

Look at the pro-military attackers trying their best to sting me. While you may not be pro-M, you never did answer my question about whether we need to spend more on the M. You danced around it.

Hey, anyone can say they are this or that on this board, and attack, as you have done, maliciously, anyone's character ie; "Well you do a pretty good job of representing closed-minded, short-sighted, narrow-minded, reality-avoiding opposition.'. That, your quote, was an attack without merit or reason. But, as I've said, it is to be expected from Clark threads. Kinda typical military style, a style, mind you, I am quite familiar with.

[Sparkly]

54. Open your mind

There are no "pro-military attackers" here. There are no "jarheads" or "mad hornets."

I answered your question, which wasn't about whether we "need to spend more on the military." I explained exactly why we do need a strong military (see remarks re: genocide, political negotiations, diplomacy, etc.).

The very word "military" creates associative ideas in some peoples' minds that do NOT necessarily apply to General Clark or his supporters. Those prejudices do indeed represent a closed-minded, short-sighted, narrow-minded, reality-avoiding opposition to General Clark.

[BeFree]

56. Well, that's better

Now that you've simmered down. Yes, my previous associations with military folks have colored my vision of military types. That's the way it is, every learning experience leads somehwere, eh?

But still, open yer eyes and read some of the expressions here, and you may just realize how apt my "Hornets nest" description applies to my experience amongst yall. A weaker, less hardy soul than myself, would prob have turned yall off at the first sting, never to return, thereby never getting informed about General Clark.

As it is, I've picked a few decent tidbits of info from yall, but truthfully, it wasn't easy. Maybe you don't care?

[Sparkly]

58. "Now that you've simmered down"

Now that's funny!

Yes, my previous associations with military folks have colored my vision of military types.

Thought so. In my view, none of this is about "yall" (us hornets), it's about that.

Prejudices abound, and this is just one more. It's no different from prejudice against women, Asian Americans, African Americans, gays, lesbians, welfare recipients, mentally ill persons, ESL citizens, you name it... There is a bias against "military." I had it, too.

[Sparkly]

37. "What little that has been seen"

Well, that explains a lot.

Why don't you try seeing beyond what you think you know? Being liberal is about being open-minded, not applying stereotypes or prejudiced views, thinking through the facts as they are...

http://www.clark04.com/issues/

[Sparkly]

34. "Raised and fed on blood money"

General Clark could have made millions in the private sector; instead he made a relatively meager living serving the country. How dare you conflate into a rhetorical connection with the "blood money now being spent in Iraq." He had nothing to do with that, and I'm sure you know it.

If you "frankly" don't see his potential as POTUS, say so, and his supporters will argue that point.

[Donna Zen]

17. Bloated Military

FYI_two candidates suggested cutting the military budget...one was Dennis Kucinich, the other???? of course, Wesley Clark. He said: I like to call (the Pentagon budget) it the "make-want" budget. Now who of those two candidates would have the gravitas to cut that budget? Which of those two candidates know where the "bodies" are buried.

Clark explains how the system works (how the pork multiplies) in "Winning Modern War" but if a better explaination is actually going to be read, I'll take the time to post it.

[Sparkly]

28. Am I saying? I'll try again.

What I said was, "What would you suggest instead? Not instead of where we spend the money, but instead of the military as a force for national defense or stemming genocide or destruction of the world via nukes, for example?"

That's what I'm saying.

What you're saying is "We need a standing force just large enough to defend our borders" and "I imagine 100 bilion a year would suffice."

I'm saying you are wrong, because you seem to hold a simplistic view about "our borders." We are citizens of the world. We are affected when genocide occurs; we are affected when our allies are threatened by other countries; we are affected by everything in our world involving labor, money, industry, the environment, nuclear threats, biological threats, disease, hatred, fundamentalism, and war...

To paraphrase General Clark, our military is good at what it does. It takes leadership to make sure that what it does is good.

[Crunchy Frog]

48. So does every single other candidate

who has a snowballs chance in hell of ever getting the nomination. Clark is more open to cutting out wasteful programs than anyone else.

Why aren't you piling on other candidates like Dean or Edwards, who advocated more military spending? Why pick on Clark if he comes closer to your views than the other major candidates did? Is it just blind prejudice against people in the military?

[Lefta Dissenter]

26. Hey, he's way ahead of you! :-)

He did outline enormous cuts that could be made in military spending. He, of all people, knows how things could be done more efficiently, pulling money away from some of the inane concepts that the current administration pushes in order to keep the contractors healthy and fat - and putting it where it would make a real difference, including taking care of our veterans.

It was so interesting during the primaries, to see that people were afraid of what a military man would do to the military budget - until they actually read his policies.

[Sparkly]

30. "money thrown"

The very phrase "throwing money" or "money thrown" is an old technique. You "throw money" at things you don't like (education, the military, whatever) but you "fund" things you do like.

[Crunchy Frog]

45. He's done that.

He was the only candidate besides Kucinich who advocated actually cutting the military budget. He knows where the waste his. He is probably the only concievable Democratic president who would have the knowledge and credibility to be able to get away with making cuts and not be labelled "soft on defense".

If he isn't "railing" right now, it's probably because he realizes it would be useless and counterproductive.

[Julien Sorel]

15. He called Bush "timid."

That's the kind of language Democrats need to adopt and stick to.

[BeFree]

18. "Timid"

What, is Clark going to be more forceful than BXXX?

If timid is the worst Clark can say about BXXX, then Clark really does need to begin to "Speak Out"

Timid. The mofo has been the cause of thousands of innocent's deaths, and all Clark can say is he's timid? Gawd, save us.

[robbedvoter]

22. better than "a nice guy" as your guy called him.

And works wonders on freepers.

[Julien Sorel]

25. Who is the "us" you want God to save?

Something tells me you don't really speak for a whole lot of people.

[robbedvoter]

20. Also, said that if there is a smoking gun re: 911, it's pointed right at

the White House. he accused W of negligence leading to 911. Both Richard Clarke and Sy Hersh credit him with advising them to speak out the whole truth on things....
He called the Iraq war "the biggest blunder since the cold war".
Long before any cadidate uttered a pip about the war, in 2002 he testified to Congress against it and warned them about the perils of giving W a blank check authorisation on it (Oct 2002)
He exposed PNAC, the preemption doctrine and declared himself a liberal.
Establishment 100%!

[Jai4WKC08]

29. Called him "incompetent" too

Got a headline on the front page of the Seattle paper for that one.
Above the fold.

[robbedvoter]

35. Praised him for "beating alcoholism and keeping his family"

that being damning with faint praise - for the sublety challenged
Again, better than calling him a "nice guy"

[buddysmellgood]

19. Hmmm, posted by someone who says Clark asked...WHAT? Are we

really supposed to believe that Clark would take such a ham-handed route to posting a Thanksgiving day message? His letter makes it sound like he has softened his position on the war. I think this letter is bull.

[robbedvoter]

21. Huh?

[Donna Zen]

23. Ham-handed ?

Wes Clark often posts on the blog via his tech people or the ever present Catherine. The person who posted his letter is well-known to those of us who are part of that group. General Clark is against this war, one we didn't have to fight.

He is very internet savvy.

[Jai4WKC08]

33. It's real

Was posted to the Clark blog, and left to us to disseminate to the rest of the rather far-flung on-line Clark community.

[Sparkly]

43. "Softened his position?" Hello???

What do you think his position has been?!?

There's no inconsistency here.

[buddysmellgood]

59. I withdraw my statements and apologize. I reread the message. I read

this after reading a conspiracy thread and had my fat skeptic hat on.
Again, I'm sorry.

[Jai4WKC08]

47. Ya know, it occurs to me

We've let one guy side-track a very wonderful outreach to the community for the holiday.

[calimary]

57. Stephanie Herseth survived in South Dakota, too.

The guy I was really pushing hard for, Richard Morrison, did not, unfortunately. But my other two faves, Barbara Boxer and Henry Waxman, DID. They were both pretty much shoo-ins, but even so...

It was good to see that at least SOME of my campaign donations paid off. And as a Southern Californian, it's nice to still be represented by Mr. Waxman and Ms. Boxer. All was NOT lost.

AND - remember one thing: we DO have bench strength. Wesley Clark is looking better and better for 2008. I think at this point he's my choice. And Howard Dean for DNC chair. We have to fire up the troops again before we can hope to get anywhere, and nobody's better at firing people up than Hollerin' Howard.