House Dem praises Clark/ Clark-Pelosi to announce GI bill of rights

[Clark2008]

General Clark Sets Forth Steps to Success

Ranking Member, Ike Skelton (MO) made the following statement regarding General Clark's testimony:

"One of the hidden costs of this war lies in the fact that the people who serve and the equipment with which they perform their duty are being worn out at such incredibly high rates.

"As General Clark so ably explained today, our military's ability to deploy in support of contingencies in other parts of the world has been compromised by the size, intensity and duration of our commitment in Iraq. Our troops and equipment simply cannot sustain another conflict in their present condition.

"Army and Marine Corps recruiting continues to fall short, and I believe we must also follow General Clark's suggestion to continue to improve the benefit structure for our troops, particularly members of the National Guard and Reserve.

"Without giving these brave men and women the support they deserve, we will be unable to avoid the impending crisis in recruitment and retention."

http://wwwd.house.gov/hasc_democrats/Press%20Releases/wes%20clark%204.6.05.pdf

Edited to add:

News From House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
H-204, The Capitol, Washington D.C. 20515

http://democraticleader.house.gov

Monday, April 11, 2005

Pelosi, Gen. Clark, Skelton, Evans to Announce GI Bill of Rights for 21st Century

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Retired Army General Wesley Clark and Congressmen Ike Skelton and Lane Evans and will announce House Democrats' GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century at a forum with veterans' service and military organizations on Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. in HC-5 of the U.S. Capitol.

WHO: House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
Retired Army General Wesley Clark
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee
Rep. Lane Evans (D-IL), Ranking Member, House Veterans' Affairs Committee

WHAT: Forum to Announce House Democrats' GI Bill of Rights for 21st Century

WHEN: Tuesday, April 12, 2005

TIME: 3:00 p.m.

PRE-SET: 2:10 p.m.

WHERE: HC-5, the Capitol

[GOPBasher]

1. Clark rules.

Man, I wish he was our nominee last year. :sigh:

[politicasista]

2. Hindsight is 20-20

They would have smeared him the same way they did Kerry. Plus he would have had a hard time breaking through the GOP-controlled media. I wish people would stop this hindsight mess of who other than Kerry would have won. Dems need a foresight vision period.

[GOPBasher]

3. Well, Clark was my candidate in the primaries, so this is not just

hindsite in my case. But you're right, we should concentrate on the future.

[Totally Committed]

4. Absolutely agree... time to look forward, not back!

CLARK '08 for me!

TC

[Sparkly]

5. Clark '08!!

It's great to see him working with House Democrats!! :bounce:

[Ganja Ninja]

40. Clark/Clinton '08!!

I think he's the right man for the job and Hilliary can be his VP.

[cidliz2004]

36. Big difference is that Clark doesn't have a 20 year voting record to

attack AND he isn't afraid to speak out WITHOUT NUANCE and he as more than one 4 month stint in Vietnam to back him. He would have spoken loudly and clearly against Bush and Cheney - he did so w/o hesitation.....his one crack about Bush "prancing" around in a flight suit was priceless. Kerry would never be so direct - because if nothing else Kerry was always preparing for losing and being able to retain his Senate seat. Kerry would have been a great President, but he had too many strings attached to his keeping his Senate seat and too many strings to the Washington Insiders.

Clark would have been screaming in Ohio and the country would have been notified loud and clear of the goings on in Ohio, he wouldn't have sat back and waited and "plotted" in secret. He would have taken advantage of the moment and the press available at the time and he would have pulled all of the attention to what was going on and he would have had more support.

He has Edward's humble beginnings and southern roots, Kerry's war record - only much better and the credibility on National Security and Dean's ability to speak out in clear and understandable terms. He also has Dean's ability to build a grassroots organization in a remarkably short amount of time and an unsurpassed history of excellence and experience in Government WO having to tow the cross of being a Washington Insider. People voted for Bush because it was "war time" and even Kerry admitted to that. Clark has the most credibility in that area as well.

[politicasista]

66. This wasn't a Clark-bashing post

I was saying we need to have some foresight, not hindsight. I am sorry but NO candidate would have had a chance against the Smirky-Rovian slime machine. I think we need to think about 2006 before 2008, but I see you are just bitter over the primaries.

[cidliz2004]

77. First of all, Kerry didn't really lose

Secondly, Clark would have won and FOUGHT to retain his victory. Bitter over the primaries, weak race, election, lightening fast concession and then the silence immediately following the election. Bitter about a series of events that continued happening for well over a year. You really need to realize that it isn't about JUST the primaries but a series of missteps that Kerry made following the primaries through to this year. Now when all of the apparent dust has settled about the election, he comes out making noise about the election reform. When it was "safe" to do so. It all seems to planned and orchestrated.

[politicasista]

67. This wasn't a Clark-bashing post

Still can't get over the primaries. (LOL!)

[MoonRiver]

64. I'm despressed about that too. I think he might have won by such a

landslide the thugs couldn't have rigged it. I just hope and pray that the signs are pointing toward him running in 2008. He'll have a hell of a clean up job to do if he were to win the presidency, but this man can do it.

[Clark2008]

6. Does anyone know if that GI Bill of Rights announcement will be

televised?
Or is C-SPAN going to miss another big opportunity to show they haven't been Fauxed?

[CarolNYC]

7. I wish...

Nice to see this...Thanks for posting.

[Totally Committed]

8. Is anyone else e-mailing C-SPAN about this?

They show everything else under the sun. Surely, something as important as this will be shown, right?

TC

[FreedomAngel82]

9. I hope they do

I'd love to see that. :)

[ArkySue]

33. What is wrong with CSPAN?!?!

The won't be showing this....they didn't show the HASC hearing either. I guess they don't figure that Iraq and Veterans' programs are important to the American people. :sarcasm:
They did, however, find the time to re-run the coverage of the Pope's funeral...as if you couldn't have caught the coverage of that anywhere else.

[ClarkUSA]

10. I'm so proud of Wes Clark for doing this...

if this doesn't give the GOP a big black eye for trying to cut Veteran spending in Bush's latest anti-Robin Hood budget, I don't know what does. Plus, it'll show alot of veteran's groups that there are Democrats who are both strong on defense and care about the welfare of soldiers -- not the corporate welfare of the Halliburtons and Bechtels who are profiteering.

Marginalized, my Democratic ass! (y'all know which idiot thread I'm referring to)

[Texas_Kat]

11. Here's CSPAN's email address

to request that they cover this:

[email protected]

[tishaLA]

12. This is really important

I'm sorry this hasn't garnered more attention. Kudos to Pelosi and Clark for seizing this issue, which has obvious political dividends (to say nothing of moral imperatives). The chimp's failure on veteran issues, while he sends them off on his idiotic misadventures, shows me better than anything else how callous he is.

[dhinojosa]

13. Clark ought to look into getting those stars tatooed on his head....

he such a bad ass!

[Clark2008]

14. LOL!

Personally, I think he just punches so hard that Republicans SEE a bunch of stars when he gets through.

:7

[cidliz2004]

37. That would be a good campiagn slogan.......

The 4 star general that also punched down the Neocons and all they saw were stars...... something like that would be catchy!

[Adelante]

15. Ain't he though?

:D

[Renew Deal]

24. lol

:patriot:

[Totally Committed]

16. Kick...

TC

[CarolNYC]

17. The GI Bill of Rights announcement

is now posted on the WesPAC site:

http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=node/118

Go Wes! :)

[FrenchieCat]

18. Love the way that non politician Wes Clark

still manages to be into the thick of things. That's quite a feat....having your name on a bill, when you're not even one of the sitting politicians. It means that he has influence and it must have been regarded as more than just helpful to have his name on the bill to get it through.

[Clarkie1]

19. Excellent! I'm glad to see Pelosi and Clark are taking a lead on this.

[Donna Zen]

20. Time out for wisdom:

"It doesn't matter who gets the credit; what matters is getting the job done."

~Wes Clark


A job that needs to be done: our veterans and active duty people are getting shafted, it's time to change that. They too are working men and women."

[LittleClarkie]

21. I will be curious to see how similar or different Clark's bill of rights

are to Kerry's Military Families Bill of Rights, because that's the first thing I thought of right now. The more the better, I suppose.

[Jai4WKC08]

23. Obvious differences

First:
G.I.
Military Families
I'd say the former encompasses the latter, perhaps not with the same emphasis... we'll have to wait and see about that.

Second:
House
Senate
It's not a matter of "the more the better." You gotta hit it from both sides.

Hopefully they're talking. Since Clark met with both Pelosi and Reid last month, and they're putting together a National Security Advisory Council for both House and Senate Dems, I would assume so.

Probably won't matter. You don't really think the Repubs will let something out of committee that might let Democrats look good, no matter how important the substance.

[LittleClarkie]

26. Nah, that would mean actually supporting the troops

Instead of just talking about it.

Can't have that.

[Jai4WKC08]

52. You aren't wrong there! Pelosi's office...

...issued a press release of this bill. Here's what it's suppose to do:

GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century

Makes Health Care Accessible and Affordable for Our Veterans

-- Improves veterans' health care.

-- Improves mental health for returning soldiers.

-- Blocks increases in prescription drug co-payments and enrollment fees for veterans.

Provides the Benefits Our Veterans Have Earned and Deserve

-- Ends the Disabled Veterans' Tax.

-- Reduces waiting times on disability claims and expands outreach to veterans.

Honors the Families of Those Who Made the Ultimate Sacrifice for our Country

-- Ends the Military Families Tax.

-- Increases survivor benefits for families with minor children.

Strengthens Our Support for Our Men and Women in Uniform

-- Provides $1,000 Bonus for those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

-- Ensures an adequate number of troops and adequate equipment for our troops.

-- Improves military pay for senior enlisted personnel and warrant officers.

Honors Our Debt to Our Servicemen and Women

-- Modernizes and enhances the GI Bill Education and Job Training Programs.

-- Provides additional funds to assist homeless veterans with employment.

-- Protects bonuses and special pay for the permanently injured, and continues combat pay or additional compensation for those recovering from combat injuries.

Improves Health and Education Benefits for Our National Guard/Reservists

-- Expands military health care (TRICARE) for National Guard/Reservists.

-- Protects the income of activated National Guard/Reservists.

-- Ensures recruitment incentives and bonuses for National Guard/Reservists and improve educational benefits.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=45729

[Boo Boo]

34. Yes. There needs to be

a House version of the Bill as well.

Dems are playing a much more coordinated game these days. Pelosi deserves a lot credit for that---enforcing party discipline in the House. She and Reid are doing a good job, I think, picking fights they can corner the Repubs on with the midterms to worry about. Although, we must admit that Social Security was kind of a gift. Thanks Karl!

Lately, Dems are looking like leaders, Repubs are looking like kooks.

[Crunchy Frog]

22. Wow! Good thing Clark is being marginalized.

Otherwise we'd really be in trouble.:P

[TwilightZone]

35. Hehe.

Nice reference. ;)

:toast:

[JohnOneillsMemory]

39. Clark works with Repubs: Gingrich, Carlucci, Heritage Fndtn. Amer. Enterpr

You do realize that the 4/6/05 House Armed Services Committee hearing was public theater, right? "Hmm. Experts tell us to give the Pentagon more money, occupy longer, get more troops. Oh, and General Casey did the right thing in Fallujah. General Clark says so. But improve PR."

As a Pentagon lifer, Clark specialized in psy-ops, not just bombing. This has been the Pentagon/CIA's shift in tactical emphasis since WWII here in the US and overseas. He's up to his eyeballs in military-industrial-media PR groups which the neo-cons are making appear benign with a 'bad cop' sneer for the public.

In the 1980s many covert CIA destabilization efforts went above ground in front groups.

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is one of them.
Frank Carlucci (Carlyle Group) and Wesley Clark work together on the board of the NED.

Clark is working with DARPA, CIA, Newt Gingrich, the Stephens Group, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and all the other fascist infrastructure that owns America. Look at his website's biography page. Look up the NED, and CSIS at SourceWatch.org, formerly Disinfopedia.com, a guide to front groups and think tanks.

He is the New Colin Powell, the kinder gentler facade for the secret government of corporations and hired killers reaching out for oil.

You can make the argument that conquering the world by placing more emphasis on destabilizing other countries with the CIA's propaganda, funding of 'US-friendly' opposition, and assassinations is preferable to overtly bombing them "as a last resort."

This is a false distinction to me and amounts to acquiescing to American Imperialist Fascism which is merely improving their PR.


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

Wesley Clark is on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy, a CIA front group for US overt efforts to overthrow governments that used to be done covertly. Venezuela is one of its main targets.

From SourceWatch, formerly Disinfopedia, a guide to front groups and think tanks:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Endowment_for_Democracy

Funding of foreign political parties
The NED regularly provides funding to opposition candidates in elections in countries other than the USA. And according to Allen Weinstein, one of the founders of NED (and CIA front man of the 1960s-jom):

A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA
— W. Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, 2000, p. 180.

"According to left-wing critics, the NED only supports candidates with strong ties to the military and who support the rights of US corporations to invest in those countries."

>snip<

Former CIA agent Phillip Agee on the NED:
"So, basically what the program of subversion these days is what they call the promotion of democracy, which is nothing more than a lie. And all the other euphemisms that they throw into these programs are equally lies, because the real purpose, as it has always been since 1947 and the beginning of the CIA's covert action operations in Italy… The goals have always been the same, but since the CIA people who receive the money, i.e., their beneficiary organizations abroad had so much trouble in covering up this under-the-table money, and it was in the hundreds of millions of dollars over the years, that they decided to fund these openly. One should never forget that the CIA has many millions of dollars that they can add to the money that organizations are getting from the State Dept., the NED, or its four core foundations, or from USAID. So, it is a fairly sophisticated structure, and so far it has been somewhat successful.
Source: Dennis Bernstein, "Philip Agee, Former CIA agent speaks on Venezuela (http://www.flashpoints.net/index.html)", Flashpoints, March 14, 2005.

>snip<

NED Directors of the Board

* Frank Charles Carlucci III of The Carlyle Group
* Wesley Kanne Clark, retired General, presidential candidate, and board member of Stephens Group – a venture capital company
* Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
* Francis Fukuyama, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Clark is also on the board of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Here is the SourceWatch analysis.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Strategic_and_International_Studies
>snip<

During the war against Nicaragua, CSIS produced several documents "proving" a communist plot, etc. For many years, CSIS was also seen as a think tank where right-wing "officials-in-waiting" could wait until their next appointment in government.

... "one of those ephemeral constellations into which the luminaries of the American political establishment frequently arrange themselves in order to encourage policy to navigate by their lights: Madeleine K. Albright, Harold Brown, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank Charles Carlucci III, Warren Christopher, William Sebastian Cohen, Bob Dole, Lawrence Sidney Eagleburger, Stuart Eizenstat, Alexander Haig, Lee H. Hamilton, John Hamre, Sam Nunn, Paul O'Neill, Charles S. Robb, William Roth, and James Rodney Schlesinger. That makes four former Secretaries of State, one former National Security Adviser, two former Secretaries for Defense, a former Secretary of the Treasury, a former Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a former Director of the CIA, and three Senators"; ... signatories to a May 2003 Declaration (http://csis.org/europe/2003_May_14_JointDeclr.pdf) proposing that "the states of the European Union, which are among the richest and most powerful states in the world, should invite US government officials to attend their highest-level legislative and policy-making meetings, in order that these officials can ensure that the Europeans do not pursue policies which are independent of, or disapproved by, the American government."


THE CSIS-HALLIBURTON LINK IS ANNE ARMSTRONG, Trustee and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the CSIS.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anne_Armstrong

>snip<

Her board affiliations include American Express, Boise Cascade, Halliburton, and the Corporate Advisory Council of General Motors. Armstrong holds membership with the Council on Foreign Relations, the Alfala Club, Council of American Ambassadors, and American Academy of Diplomacy
--------------------------------------------------------------


Clark is also on the above CSIS's 'Task Force on the United Nations' working with Newt Gingrich, Boeing (which assists in virtual training for urban combat with DARPA, unmanned planes, satellite surveillance, etc.), The Heritage Foundation, and other FASCIST INFRASTRUCTURE.

This site is the source of the photo so many Clarkie's like to use.
http://www.usip.org/un/members.html

Task Force Members
(photo of Wesley K. Clark captioned
"Task force member Wesley K. Clark participates in a discussion during a task force session in February 2005.")




Newt Gingrich, Former Speaker of the House of Representatives (Co-Chair)
CEO
Gingrich Group

George J. Mitchell, Former Majority Leader of the Senate (Co-Chair)
Chairman
Piper Rudnick LLP

Wesley K. Clark, Gen. U.S. Army (Ret.)
Chairman and CEO
Wesley K. Clark & Associates

Edwin J. Feulner
President
The Heritage Foundation

Roderick M. Hills
Partner
Hills and Stern

Donald McHenry, Ambassador (Ret.)
Distinguished Professor, School of Foreign Service
Georgetown University

Thomas R. Pickering, Ambassador (Ret.)
Senior Vice President, International Relations
The Boeing Company

Danielle Pletka
Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy
American Enterprise Institute

Anne-Marie Slaughter
Dean
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Princeton University

A. Michael Spence
Partner
Oak Hills Capital Partners

Malcolm Wallop, U.S. Senator (Ret.)
Senior Fellow
Asian Studies Center

R. James Woolsey
Vice President, Global Strategic Security
Booz Allen Hamilton

Senior Advisors

Charles G. Boyd, Gen. U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
President and CEO
Business Executives for National Security

J. Robinson West
Chairman, PFC Energy
Chairman of the Board of Directors, U.S. Institute of Peace
---------------------------------------------------------

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. Still ducking our questions but had time for more cut and paste?

I like the way you described what you are up to on the other thread John, "damning by associations", and I also repeat what I said to you there. Whether or not you intend it as such, that is a what McCarthyism was all about.

Every time anyone comes back at you with good arguments and replies specifically to what you are putting out, any time anyone catches you in an obvious misrepresentation of the facts, you disappear for a little while and then pop up fresh some where else. No doubt you have been busy, but aren't we all? That's no excuse for engaging in hit and run character assassination. Why don't you try cleaning up the mess you left at the other thread where many people gave detailed answers to your anti Clark crusade? There are several questions waiting for you there John, start with answering those. As well as specific critiques of your methodology.

Well, I AM busy now, so I will leave it at that for the moment. But even though it may not be immediately, I WILL give you direct and honest answers to your questions rather than saying "that's a tough one, I'll think about it and get back later" or ignoring them entirely.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

43. We're on the same page re: psychology in politics. You suprise me.

I cite Clark's own website biography and SourceWatch.org's analysis of his co-workers, you call it guilt by association.

You explain how guilt by association works as political smear at great length but you won't admit how PR and propaganda works in Clark's Pentagon/CIA career and employers since 'retirement.'

Your right. I haven't finished responding to that other thread. Guilty as charged. I owe responses to that. I get tapped out physically and emotionally assembling responses with evidence and have to eat, think, read, maybe find work so I can pay my rent and get much needed healthcare.

The issues at play are ENORMOUS and COMPLICATED and CRITICAL to our future. I should be taking better care of my own life and activism instead of talking about myself here.

Like anyone else, I make mistakes, assumptions, lose interest, reconsider emphasis, rally with a better way to explain things. This is the rhythm of on-line threads. Some days I'm up all day and night at DU and some days I can hardly bear to argue about mass murder and swipes at my personal integrity.

(But here I am spending time and energy defending my integrity yet again. I'll learn eventually.)

I quit a 20 year touring career due to the police-state and militarism coming into my life. I'm doing writing and activism now. And starving.

Just as Michael Moore told Jay Leno after 11/3/04, I'm working on telling a better story about US history and the psychology of militarism which I see even self-proclaimed liberals like yourself accepting.

Just like FrenchieCat and others, I save my assembled research to substantiate my views and persuade others.

Since when did cut-and-paste evidence become a suspect activity?
WTF?

Hey, Tom. Go rent the DVD of the movie 'The Corporation.' Watch it and think of General Clark's Pentagon as the corporation. Look at the way it shows the psychopatic self-interest that is the moral failing of corporations. And the way PR is used as a tactic. And the way perfectly nice sincere people perpetuate the problem.

I watched it last night even though I thought I knew everything in it already. It struck me as perfectly analgous to the 'national interest' psychopathy that is General Clark's Pentagon career and mandate.

I need food badly. My hands are shaking as I type.
Yes, more later. On my schedule and terms. That's called autonomy, not McCarthyism.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. I was using your words

You said, on the other thread: "Clark may at best be sincere in his motives but I see him damned by his associations and tactics" but then you never mentioned any tactics you can show were used by Clark, you talked about some tactics dating back decades ago which you extracted from some aspect of one or more publications issued by groups who you associate Clark with. Then you just assume that Clark is using them. So that leaves you with "damned by his associations", and that was the bread and butter of McCarthyism. I am simply stating the truth.

Here's that other thread folks, in case you are curious: "The Shared Agenda of the Neocons and the New Democrats". Note that the original poster said nothing about Clark, John injected him along with his promise: "I'm preparing my case that General Wesley Clark is the next calculated step in the military coup against the American people." The whole thread is a good read and in my opinion it shows why some have serious problems with how you go about assembling your cases, John:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1714332&mesg_id=1714332

John, when you go out of your way to portray a leading National Democrat as being "the next calculated step in the military coup against the American people", it is only reasonable to expect to be challenged over it. That is a bit more than calling someone like Lieberman "Republican lite" isn't it? Because you are making very serious and inflammatory charges against someone who has spent a lifetime serving his nation, yes you will need to defend that opinion and yourself regarding it. It goes with the territory. Don't dish it out without expecting some to question you about it. You certainly are "questioning" Clark.

Our local Democratic Club has an ongoing political film series John which I am helping stage. We already had a showing of "The Corporation", and yes it is a great film. Nothing about it led me to any of the "insights" you took from it regarding Wesley Clark. Kind of how we seem to have a differing interpretation of the Congressional testimony Clark gave opposing Richard Perle. I saw the film, I heard the testimony. I do not share your opinions of either, though yes both were great.

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. By the way one reason why I am out of time now

Is because we are having a showing of "Taliban Country" tonight complete with a live appearance by the woman who made it, a journalist who was embedded with the marines but then broke off on her own to see the larger picture. A PR officer from her prior Marine unit already contacted our Club with a specific rebuttal. Go figure. We're just a small Democratic Party Club.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. A quick last P.S

I'm not a "liberal" John, I'm a Radical. But I am a radical who sees no point in playing at Presidential politics without playing to win. Mostly throughout my life I have worked outside the electoral system. I am not defined by my activities within the Democratic Party. It is one front I am working on, and one which I am taking seriously right now given the consolidation of power by the right wing currently taking place in America. Just because I am radical does not mean I can not find ample common cause with good people of many political persuasions. I still have no idea what it is you actually believe in and how you think we can work effectively to advance that agenda. I know a little about what you feel the need to oppose, and opposition is part of the picture. Just like there is a Defensive unit on Football teams. But there is an offensive unit also. How do you propose to move the ball forward? Please refer back to the earlier questions also when you have time to answer this one. I explained the context in which I am asking you these questions on the other thread, as well as my specific reasons for asking you.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

71. "consolidation of power by the right-wing" is exactly why I cite Clark's

1) career in the Pentagon
2) Pentagon's history
3) Pentagon's tactics of psy-ops as 'a first resort'
4) Clark's post-'retirement' business deals, DARPA, Stephens Group
5) Clark's words about Fallujah and the War Department budget
6) Clark's potential role, intended OR NOT in militarizing our culture
7) Clark's role in Waco, the Balkans
8) Clark's role in the CIA
8) the US continuity of war in the Balkans, oil, al-Queda,
9) the Geneva Conventions and the Balkans, war crimes charges

These all scream right-wing bloody murder, militarism, and lies to me.

You see Clark as the last chance.
...His campaigning and criticism of the PNAC plan gives you this conclusion.

I see Clark as the final nail.
...#'s 1-9 give me this conclusion.

In that thread about Neo-cons and Neo-Dems, Clark is a totally on-topic subject for that discussion.

I understand your frustration at not getting responses to all your posts and I apologize for that. You spent time writing from the heart.

You get to some real issues and they warrant deliberate answers, not glib or angry ones which are very easy to write. I've spent time on some of those and tossed them in fits of good judgement!

Too many Clarkies have shit on me with vehemence and I don't feel obliged to respond to them anymore. Now they crowd around my posts to warn people away from actually reading the links I put out-"nothing to see here, folks, just a raving lunatic who'll be locked up soon. Move along, now!" What is it they are so threatened by? I think some are guarding a final hope for a Just Father figure, not something that will come out of the Pentagon General who calls the US war crimes of Fallujah "the right thing" for the US occupation of Iraq.

Getting beseiged with insulting Clarkies is taxing and I spend way too much time dealing with them. I've only just started to alert on insults after taking it for a long time. No more.

I am both a perfectionist and eager to share what I have found along with what I conclude. Therefore, I include too much. I realize this confounds readers and obscures my points. This is my inclination to revelation and documentation of information many don't know or want to know.

I always urge readers to open the links and see for themselves. Clarkies have taken to pre-empive scorning of my links and even accusing me of hoping no one will open them. Now that's an interesting tactic worthy of noting for both its audacity and desperation to avert.

When I put up links and excerpts, I have done hours of reading and carefully crafted the excerpt I include with the link. I'm saving posts I submit as evidence for my positions so I don't have to reconstruct them for the next three years. I recommend others do the same. There's a long way to go and thousands of Clark threads a-comin'.

Jai4WKC08 wants to know my problem with the military and why Clark is my focus for criticism. I owe a response.

Another Clarkie wants to know if I'm a pacifist or what my 'terms of engagement' would be militarily. I owe a response.

These are HUGE questions because they go to the heart of how to revive the Democratic Party and pick a candidate to survive the 100 year-old rightwing/militarist/fascist onslaught against the world.

This isn't the same as sloganeering like "will kick ass" which FrenchieCat offers for those with short attention spans, which I realize are many.

Even the ever-insulting FrenchieCat has made an effort to address criticisms of Clark and has saved posts to cut and paste for the future. I admire the effort although I vehemently disagree. And the nastiness is why many stay off of DU and just lurk. I'm not intimidated and I read what FrenchieCat and others write. Almost always.

Sometimes the opinion offered is rife with so many errors of history, semantics, and mis-statements about my own posts that I hardly know where to begin and don't touch them. I'm sure this is something many Clarkies feel about my posts, too.

But I'm up to the challenge, doing the research, and will make the effort to answer these pressing issues...eventually.

Everything Dennis Kucinich represents is what I want for America, not General Clark's employers or co-workers.

We really are on the same side. I don't want Dems to make any more fatal mistakes. We can't afford anymore. We've been played for fools in a very sophisticated scam and here we are, getting a clue. Well, I think I am, anyway.

[FrenchieCat]

73. Your post is disingenious and full of innuendos and

based on your enumerated attacks, I guess is supposed to conjure up some kind of evil conclusion about Wes Clark.

Your goal and quest? To turn off others from him not because of anything he did....but on the simple fact that if you can generate enough controversy about him, you can actually scare folks into NOT wanting to support this "controversial" (as you have made him) individual. To that, I say, kudos in the effective tactic to be used on the gullible. Psy-ops indeed! I understand that you may not prefer Wes Clark, but I find your tactics extreme, ridiculous, and bordering on libel. I didn't know that DU was the place to come and hate all things military. No wonder so many Americans don't believe that Democrats support the troups! You make it positively true!

1. Yes, Wes Clark had a career in the military

2. Pentagon's history? What about our Government's history? What about our Nation's history? What does this mean, exactly? Does it mean that Wes Clark is guilty by associating with the pentagon because the pentagon has done some nasty things? Are you to be avoided because as an American, you are linked to our Nation's history. Should I blame you for slavery? Where's my fucking reparations, if that's so? If not, why not? Isn't Kucinich guilty of being a bad guy because he is in government....and you know, Government's history? This is some rather silly shit!

3. Pentagon's tactics of psy-ops as "first resort"? Again, What are we to conclude from this bulletin number? You don't even bother to imply anything on this one. Just the use of psy-ops is supposed to have us running towards the hills? Do you always use "hot button" rethoric to make points that aren't points? Are you referring to the Tin Foil thread that you started and requested from others that it be nominated....in where it was pointed out to you (something you ignore) that over 1/2 of the links didn't work, and the ones that did didn't really add up to the title of your thread?....as was pointed out by a poster here?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1708564&mesg_id=1710977

4. Clark's post retirement business deals, DARPA & Stephens Group.
Please provide some links about Stephens Group and DARPA and how Clark working for them is to be considered as evil.

5. Please provide Clark's words on Fallujah and the War Department Budget, the context and your interpretation.

6. Clark's Potential role in militarizing our culture? Potential? Militarizing our culture? Why, because he wants an all volunteer army? Because he wants better benefits for veterans and enlisted personnel? Because he proposed a voluntary program where those who wanted to get 2 years of experience should be able to do so in non combat civilian type positions and shouldn't have to learn how to use a weapon? ...something like Clinton's Americorp? Potential indeed. I'm scared (more of you)!

7. Clarks role in the Balkans and Waco? You're painting with a broad stroke, doncha know? I provided you with evidence that Clark had nothing to do with WACO, and although you say you read my posts and links, it's obvious that you don't. As far as the Balkans are concerned, what about it? We will be hashing that one again? The Pope called it a "Just" war....and although I didn't agree with everything the Pope believed, he sure was a pacifist who's word I will rather believe than your Serbian friends.

8. Clark's role in the CIA? What role was that? Please expand on this accusation which is "un"-accompanied by any evidence of what that is even supposed to mean.

Your second #8. The US continuity of war in the Balkans, Oil and Al-Queda. Great! What is this supposed to mean as it relates to Clark? Is this just more of number #7 with the "hot button" words like Oil and Al-Queda attached for effect?

9. What about the Geneva Convention and the Balkans, War Crime charges? I have already provided you with the facts that Wes Clark was not a War criminal. Neither was Bill Clinton. This report cleared them all, and I'm sick and tired of you calling them that. These are good Democrats that you are calling War Criminals. It shows the extremism of your beliefs that are backed by lightweight nothings.
http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm

So you can go ahead and "conclude" based on your attack by numbers....I just hope that DUers have more sense than you give them credit for.

Funny how long it takes for you to answer anyone's queries about what you are about, but you are extremely quick in spamming every Clark thread with your unnuendoed propaganda.

In reference to your put downs of Clarkies, I'm sick and tired of that song. It is actually you, who appear to be attacking Clarkies now, yet you are trying to give the impression that you are the one being "ganged up" on. How convenient. Poor JOM! He's being given such a hard time by those evil Clarkies, and has to keep defending himself. Interesting tactic there JOM! You attack Clark and now Clarkies at every opportunity, calling him everything in the book....yet you are the victim! That should work. Can we say Psy-Ops? Cause that's all it is.

You are not a perfectionist, as you do not provide information that really is information. Thanks for giving yourself that compliment. Don't get a big head now!

Next time you want to add links to your endless accusations of Clark...make sure that they are links in which is name is mentioned...instead of outdated, old ass stories that somehow points a finger at something or someone in the pentagon or the government or in the nation or in the world. Please, Mr. Perfectionist....try to stay on target, instead of machine gunning the entire place in order to come up with some absurd linkage...which is only a linkage cause you make it be so.

We are obviously not on the same side. You attack and attempt to assasinate the character of a good man...something that I don't do. You link via 6 or 7 degrees of separation; something I don't do. You use ennuendos and your own round-about conclusions to a irreversable fact (in your own mind); something I don't do. You hate all things military; something that I won't do. You appear to hate all that is American; something that I can't do, as I am but an immigrant. You use the same tactics against a good Democrat that are used by the other side; something I refuse to do. You endlessly spam your curious "research" and conclusions in every Clark thread; something I don't have the time to do as I have to work to earn a living.

If I have insulted you, so be it (as you have called me ever-insulting anyway....so might as well live up to the reputation you have blessed me with, because you sure in the hell are insulting to so many.

[dogman]

54. Propaganda is as propaganda does.

I know propaganda when I see it. I must admit, you understand it well.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[JohnOneillsMemory]

44. Clark and Carlyle Group's Frank Carlucci on board of CIA front group?

What do you think of that 'bipartisanship?' Address this, not me.

You don't get that 'bipartisan' has been code for co-conspirator in imperialism, do you?


I work hard to show DU-ers that and you just repond with personal attacks.

That's right from Clark's own website. Maybe you can't handle it emotionally or grasp it intellectually so quit transfeering your frustration that life is more complicated than your sloganeering and avatar.

"Kick ass." Yikes...

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. Why not call it Senator Paul Wellstone's Group?

He was on the board too John. Oh I forgot, that just shows it was bipartisan which is code for "co-conspirator in imperialism."

And the questions that YOU were asked to answer which you still avoid were very reasonable ones.

[Clark2008]

50. I also don't know why it's a big deal that the former NATO

commander who dealt, daily, with the UN and is specifically trained in foreign diplomacy would be suspect on a UN Task Force. :crazy:

[FrenchieCat]

49. Those who read links can judge

for themselves. Those who buy what you sell don't read.

[Sparkly]

80. Carlucci is not on the board, nor is it a "CIA front group"

http://www.ned.org/about/who.html

Seems you believe what you want to believe, period. Seems the only really reputable sources in your view are any whose assertions fit your theory. (And I use the word "theory" loosely.)

[Jai4WKC08]

51. Once again JOM plays fast and loose with facts

You wrote: Clark is also on the above CSIS's 'Task Force on the United Nations' working with Newt Gingrich, Boeing (which assists in virtual training for urban combat with DARPA, unmanned planes, satellite surveillance, etc.), The Heritage Foundation, and other FASCIST INFRASTRUCTURE.

This site is the source of the photo so many Clarkie's like to use.
http://www.usip.org/un/members.html

Note the url. USIP stands for the "United States Institute of Peace." It is NOT a part of CSIS. It is a governmental agency, created by a Democratic-controlled Congress, first as "the Commission on Proposals for the National Academy of Peace and Conflict Resolution" in 1979, and with its current name and more prominent role in 1984. Its mission is to provide a bi-partisan venue "to support the development, transmission, and use of knowledge to promote peace and curb violent international conflict."
http://www.usip.org/aboutus/history.html
http://www.usip.org/aboutus/mission.html

The USIP task force upon which Clark is serving is CO-chaired by Newt Gingrich AND George Mitchell. Remember Mitchell? He was the Democratic Speaker of the House until we lost control of the House in 1994. Funny how you conveniently leave out his membership on the task force, or any of the other participating Democrats. Guess it serves your purpose better to make it sound like Clark has sold out to "the fascist infrastructure."

Furthermore, each working group of the Task Force is headed by one Democrat and one Republican. The working group to which Clark is assigned as the Democratic leader is the first and in my estimation the most important: Preventing and Ending Conflicts and Building Stable Societies. He is paired with Republican and former Senator Malcolm Wallop of WY, a real piece of work and lapdog of Big Oil and transnational corporatism. I hardly think Clark would have been assigned by the DEMOCRATS on the USIP board if they didn't think he was Wallop's match and then some.

[Texas_Kat]

59. Please stop wasting my bandwidth

Buy a web site and post all this crap there, then you can set up a single link and stop causing electron congestion.

I pity anyone with dial-up access that is a victim of your drive-by cut-and-paste war

[Crunchy Frog]

60. John, you were going to answer some questions that I asked

on the other thread. Remember? I was really looking forward to your answers as I expected that they would be well thought out and interesting.

Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1714332&mesg_id=1716102

Here's the link to your response:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1714332&mesg_id=1716848&page=

I genuinely would like to hear your thoughts on these issues.:)

[Jai4WKC08]

61. I had the exact same experience

Questions I asked at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1704730#1706380

And a promise to answer at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1704730#1706759

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. I did get one short phrase non answer for a few questions.

Those questions I believe were actually an expansion on your original one, taking into account John's comment about not supporting "mere Democrats". Here is my restatement of my questions post which I am still hoping to get a reply to: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1714332&mesg_id=1715087&page=

[x_y_no]

76. Edit: self-delete

[Sparkly]

62. Another heap of nonsense

Your distortions of Clark's HASC testimony is beyond meriting a response. I'd just suggest other people listen to it first-hand.

Similarly, your characterizations of his work and "groups," and the notion that neocons only criticize to lend support by making them appear "benign," are absurd.

But the characterizations of the National Endowment for Democracy are truly over the top.

How about visiting ned.org?
NED continues to focus many of its resources on the remaining communist and authoritarian countries such as China, North Korea, Cuba, Serbia, Sudan, and Burma. NED maintains a long-term, flexible approach that takes advantage of any realistic opportunity to advance democratic ideals, defend human rights, and encourage the development of civil society. Depending on the circumstances of each country, NED works both with democrats in the country and in exile.
(snip)
In new and developing democracies, NED focuses its support on two objectives: strengthening the institutions and procedures of electoral democracy to ensure free and fair elections; and encouraging the gradual consolidation of liberal democracy by measures that strengthen the rule of law, protect individual liberties, and foster social pluralism. To move beyond successful elections toward mature and resilient democracies, NED takes a long-term approach, supporting groups who will work to establish a functioning market economy, independent trade unions, and a free press as well as institutions that promote political accountability, economic transparency, responsible corporate governance, and civilian control over the military.
More:
http://www.ned.org/about/how.html

Also, I don't see Carlucci's name here:
http://www.ned.org/about/who.html

That's all I have time for right now.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

65. Right. You cite NED's self description! Hysterical. Clark's own words?

Sparkly, you know very well that the White House's website portrays Bush** as defender of human rights and justice. Why would you base your opinion on the NED's self-promotional lies? Now THAT is over the top.

Why would you do that? Your smarter than this and this shows your demonization of me getting in your own way. Hey! I have an idea! Let's ask Donald Rumsfeld if he's a war criminal! I'm sure he knows! Darn, he says 'no.' Gee. Guess we were wrong. sarcasm.

Destabilizing other countries to get US corporate-friendly governments is a crime. Do you agree?

Two career CIA insiders below say that NED is the usual destabilizing crimes of aggression. Look up Phillip Agee and Allen Weinstein. They have long record of working in the CIA.

If Wellstone was on the NED board, I condemn that, too. I loathe the CIA, Pentagon, and their henchmen, owners, and enablers. They have a history of the worst crimes against humanity.

Do you agree?
I've provided tons of links to validate my position.
I get sick of the same 6 people chewing on me and promoting someone who I abhor.

Don't like it? Tough.

try providing some information that shows the Pentagon and CIA aren't killing innocent people and stealing hope for any chance of justice or democracy.

Go ahead, Sparkly. Provide the information. I'm very interested.



What is your problem with my citing Clark's own words about Fallujah and defense spending? Here they are again:

House Armed Services Committee 4/6/05 at this link:http://hasc3.house.gov/04-06-05FullComm.asf

1:29:28 In response to Taylor's question "where do we go from here?" Clark responds: "I think the military actions have been effective. General Casey did the right thing, in my view, in shutting down Najaf and Fallujah, and, um, all that action that occurred in the fall. We did a good job of protecting the election." He goes on to characterize Iraq as a military job on the ground that should be winnable with the US in an "advisory capacity."


2) 1:59:40 Clark justifies a hugely expensive list of weapons for achieving and maintaining 'Full Spectrum Dominance.'

Once more. SourceWatch, formerly Disinfopedia analysis of front groups and think tanks. This is a valuable site that doesn't have all its memberships updated. Some are from 2003 or 2004. That explains that.

That's why it has so much info on the cross-connections of members.

From SourceWatch, formerly Disinfopedia, a guide to front groups and think tanks:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Endowment_for_Democracy

Funding of foreign political parties
The NED regularly provides funding to opposition candidates in elections in countries other than the USA. And according to Allen Weinstein, one of the founders of NED (and CIA front man of the 1960s-jom):

A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA
— W. Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, 2000, p. 180.

"According to left-wing critics, the NED only supports candidates with strong ties to the military and who support the rights of US corporations to invest in those countries."

>snip<

Former CIA agent Phillip Agee on the NED:
"So, basically what the program of subversion these days is what they call the promotion of democracy, which is nothing more than a lie. And all the other euphemisms that they throw into these programs are equally lies, because the real purpose, as it has always been since 1947 and the beginning of the CIA's covert action operations in Italy… The goals have always been the same, but since the CIA people who receive the money, i.e., their beneficiary organizations abroad had so much trouble in covering up this under-the-table money, and it was in the hundreds of millions of dollars over the years, that they decided to fund these openly. One should never forget that the CIA has many millions of dollars that they can add to the money that organizations are getting from the State Dept., the NED, or its four core foundations, or from USAID. So, it is a fairly sophisticated structure, and so far it has been somewhat successful.
Source: Dennis Bernstein, "Philip Agee, Former CIA agent speaks on Venezuela (http://www.flashpoints.net/index.html)", Flashpoints, March 14, 2005.

>snip<

NED Directors of the Board

* Frank Charles Carlucci III of The Carlyle Group
* Wesley Kanne Clark, retired General, presidential candidate, and board member of Stephens Group – a venture capital company
* Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
* Francis Fukuyama, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Clark is also on the board of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Here is the SourceWatch analysis.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Strategic_and_International_Studies
>snip<

During the war against Nicaragua, CSIS produced several documents "proving" a communist plot, etc. For many years, CSIS was also seen as a think tank where right-wing "officials-in-waiting" could wait until their next appointment in government.

... "one of those ephemeral constellations into which the luminaries of the American political establishment frequently arrange themselves in order to encourage policy to navigate by their lights: Madeleine K. Albright, Harold Brown, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank Charles Carlucci III, Warren Christopher, William Sebastian Cohen, Bob Dole, Lawrence Sidney Eagleburger, Stuart Eizenstat, Alexander Haig, Lee H. Hamilton, John Hamre, Sam Nunn, Paul O'Neill, Charles S. Robb, William Roth, and James Rodney Schlesinger. That makes four former Secretaries of State, one former National Security Adviser, two former Secretaries for Defense, a former Secretary of the Treasury, a former Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a former Director of the CIA, and three Senators"; ... signatories to a May 2003 Declaration (http://csis.org/europe/2003_May_14_JointDeclr.pdf) proposing that "the states of the European Union, which are among the richest and most powerful states in the world, should invite US government officials to attend their highest-level legislative and policy-making meetings, in order that these officials can ensure that the Europeans do not pursue policies which are independent of, or disapproved by, the American government."
--------------------------------------------------------------


Clark is also on the above CSIS's 'Task Force on the United Nations' working with Newt Gingrich, Boeing (which assists in virtual training for urban combat with DARPA, unmanned planes, satellite surveillance, etc.), The Heritage Foundation, and other FASCIST INFRASTRUCTURE.

This site is the source of the photo so many Clarkie's like to use.
http://www.usip.org/un/members.html

Task Force Members
(photo of Wesley K. Clark captioned
"Task force member Wesley K. Clark participates in a discussion during a task force session in February 2005.")




Newt Gingrich, Former Speaker of the House of Representatives (Co-Chair)
CEO
Gingrich Group

George J. Mitchell, Former Majority Leader of the Senate (Co-Chair)
Chairman
Piper Rudnick LLP

Wesley K. Clark, Gen. U.S. Army (Ret.)
Chairman and CEO
Wesley K. Clark & Associates

Edwin J. Feulner
President
The Heritage Foundation

Roderick M. Hills
Partner
Hills and Stern

Donald McHenry, Ambassador (Ret.)
Distinguished Professor, School of Foreign Service
Georgetown University

Thomas R. Pickering, Ambassador (Ret.)
Senior Vice President, International Relations
The Boeing Company

Danielle Pletka
Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy
American Enterprise Institute

Anne-Marie Slaughter
Dean
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Princeton University

A. Michael Spence
Partner
Oak Hills Capital Partners

Malcolm Wallop, U.S. Senator (Ret.)
Senior Fellow
Asian Studies Center

R. James Woolsey
Vice President, Global Strategic Security
Booz Allen Hamilton

Senior Advisors

Charles G. Boyd, Gen. U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
President and CEO
Business Executives for National Security

J. Robinson West
Chairman, PFC Energy
Chairman of the Board of Directors, U.S. Institute of Peace
---------------------------------------------------------

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[JohnOneillsMemory]

72. Did I miss your 'proof'? Something other than SourceWatch/Disinfopedia?

As you know, that was my source.

What was your source? Sorry if I missed it. I'm very interested.

[Jai4WKC08]

79. #51 this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1717375#1720511

Check the replies to your own posts.

[Sparkly]

69. Same reason I believe National Endowment for the ARTS

rather than its rightwing critics. Both are non-profit organizations that provide grants, and open to public scrutiny.

Click on "GRANTS" at the top on NED's webpage and you can see exactly where the money goes. They are promoting democracy; they are hardly funding militias to overthrow or "destabilize" governments.

"try providing some information that shows the Pentagon and CIA aren't killing innocent people and stealing hope for any chance of justice or democracy."

You have a great tendency to quote anybody as an unbiased, factual source when you like what they say; a great tendency to challenge people to prove negatives ("prove this is NOT so"); and a great tendency to shift the focus like an elaborate shell game. This is not a discussion of the Pentagon and the CIA. You want it to be. That's the point. The NED is not the Pentagon and the CIA; Wesley Clark is not the Pentagon and the CIA.

There's no problem with quoting Clark's own words, which you distorted in your earlier paraphrase. And I responded more specifically in other threads where you've posted the same nonsense.

[jen4clark]

78. Excuse me

please JohnOneillsMemory but as a long time lurker, very occasional poster, I notice how much time, energy and passion you put into your posts attacking General Clark.

I don't visit all the threads here so I don't know if you are as active in other areas but what occurred to me is if you put even a portion of your time, energy and considerable talent at googling and information gathering into election fraud issues, you'd have an amazing impact on what is going to be the real deciding factor on who our elected officials are.

Like I said I'm not sure what your position is on anything except your hated of General Clark - for all I know you don't even think there's problems with our elections so it's just a thought.

Thanks for listening!

[Tom Rinaldo]

112. Congressional support for the N.E.D.

This is the most recent information I could find on Congressional funding for the National Endowment for Democracy:

Identical Senate and House resolutions (S. Con Res 66; H. Con Res 274) commending the National Endowment for Democracy “for its major contributions to the strengthening of democracy around the world on the occasion of the 20th anniversary” of its establishment, and endeavoring “to continue to support vital work” were passed in October, 2003. The Senate resolution was passed by unanimous voice vote; the House resolution sailed through on a roll call vote of 391-1.

I wonder who the one dissenting vote came from? Currently N.E.D. seems about as controversial as the FBI, CIA, and Pentagon. And yes all three are controversial, in leftist circles usually, but there is a point to be made there. Seems to me you have two choices. You can write off the entire Democratic Party (or nearly all of it) as being hopelessly co-opted, or you can work with the Democratic Party to stop the far right.

N.E.D. is a very mixed bag, much like those other three institutions in my opinion. Look at any one of them closely and you will find plenty of dirt, but also a strong reason why most Americans would want them to exist, and if exist they do, I would rather they existed with good people and not only bad people inside them.

Here is the N.E.D link to current Fellows. Information on past Fellows is available there also. Will you research all of them or will you only "cherry pick" the ones that look bad? I say that because in my experience that is what you usually do. You will take a bipartisan institution, for example, but only specifically mention the Republicans (with the exception of Clark of course) who look the worse: http://www.ned.org/forum/current.html

So I am not guilty of cherry picking myself, I am copying only the very first biography found on that page. I know absolutely nothing about her, maybe you do:
Dr. Fatimakhon Ahmedova is a lecturer at Khujand State University in Tajikistan and a leading specialist at the Center for Democratic Transformations, a nongovernmental organization working to prevent conflict and curb human rights violations in Central Asia. She holds a Ph.D. in sociology and linguistics from St. Petersburg State University in Russia and an M.A. in international human rights law from the University of Essex, in England. She has worked as a country coordinator and specialist on conflict management for the FAST Early Warning Project of the Swiss Peace Foundation in Khujand, and also for the United Nations Office for Project Services in Khujand. For her fellowship project, Dr. Ahmedova will conduct a sweeping review of Central Asian politics, nationalism, national identity, and religion. Her review will examine how conflicts can be resolved so that democratic institutions may move forward.

John, I know that there are some very unsavory projects supported by N.E.D., but also some relatively good ones. Same for the C.I.A. which I am sure provides "technical support" for some of the unsavory as well as some of the more enlightened projects getting N.E.D. funding. There are congressional oversight committees for the C.I.A. you know. Do you think that only Republicans should sit on those? Do you think that any Democrat who sits on one and doesn't call press conferences to denounce each and every murky shadowy and potentially despicable act that the C.I.A. is likely involved with is therefor in bed with the coming right wing coup in America?

[kevsand]

70. Kucinich, Kerry, Edwards, Boxer, Feingold, Wellstone, Simon

all served in Congress with Gingrich, DeLay, Frist, Miller, and all the other neo-con slime. The same Congress that has done more damage than any other board or body in the history of the planet. Millions of deaths by genocide and terrorism and starvation. Look at the membership list of this legislative assembly of evil. Why did they participate in something as obviously corrupt and venal as Congress? And then admit it in their own bios! How proud they must be of their infamy! They are all collaborators. Thank god Dean and Clark never served in that unholy institution. Only they are clean... :sarcasm:

[Boo Boo]

74. Doo-doo-doodoo, doo-doo-doodoo...

:tinfoilhat:

[Clark2008]

75. Bahahahahaha!

:rofl:

I actually sat here and sounded out your "doo-doo-doodoo's" until I figured out it was the "Twilight Zone" theme. Thanks for making me smile. That was cute.

[Boo Boo]

115. Heh.

I tried spelling it about five different ways! Glad at least one person got it! :-)

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[democrank]

25. This is good news....

for our veterans and our party. Wes Clark is a brilliant man and I`m willing to bet the Beltway Republicans will be listening, whether they admit it or not.

[Leilani]

27. Thank goodness Pelosi, Skelton, etc

have more sense than some DUers.

They know who will help the Dems try & regain credibility on the military.

Go Wes!

[Melodybe]

28. Kick for Clark! I love that handsome devil!

[dogman]

29. Important work by good Dems.

Somebody has to support our troops in a meaningful way.

[Totally Committed]

30. The Bill thing is happening today...

Has anyone heard if C-SPAN is covering it yet?

TC

[Clark2008]

31. I'm looking now, but can't find a schedule

I hate crowded website pages.

[Totally Committed]

32. Looks like a shut-out again...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1718701

TC

[RandomUser]

38. Looks like CSPAN screwed up twice in a row

First the HASC hearing and now the new G.I. Bill.

[Totally Committed]

55. They didn't cover...

Kerry's end of it in the Senate either. This is why Red America thinks the Democrats are what the Regressive Nutcase Committee tell them we are, and the military votes 7 times out of ten for the Republicans.

Both of those parts of this GI Bill of Rights should have been covered... if for no other reason than to ket the troops and the Veterans know who their REAL friends are!

TC

[ArkySue]

53. Love it!

:kick:

[Jai4WKC08]

56. Story picked up by the Military Times news

Here's the Army version, but Air Force, Navy and Marine versions are all the same:

Democrats unveil package of benefits for troops, vets
By Rick Maze
Times staff writer

House Democrats unveiled a $100 billion package of military and veterans' benefits Tuesday that they call the "GI Bill for the 21st Century."

(...)

Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic Leader, said Democrats tried not to be overly partisan in drawing up the bill.
"This isn’t everything we could think of," she said. "These are just the things we think are a priority that we can afford."

(...)

Skelton will try to attach an amendment to the 2006 defense authorization bill making that change, along with Democrat-sponsored amendments to increase the number of troops on active duty, provide full access to Tricare for National Guard and reserve families and increase recruiting and retention bonuses.

Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, who tried but failed to get the Democratic presidential nomination last year but remains active in Democratic politics, appeared along with House Democratic leaders as the official unveiling of the bill. Clark said Congress should do something dramatic to help active and reserve service members and their families.

"We really need this," he said. "What happens is a matter of priorities, and service members and their families are now watching."


Complete article at:
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-782276.php

[Totally Committed]

57. That's AWESOME!

Thanks for this news, Jai!

TC

[Leilani]

58. That;s terrific Jai!

Send the news to the troops...that's where the message needs to be.

[MollyStark]

81. More Proof that Clark doesn't "get it".

Paying the military personnel is a nice idea, but it is not going to solve the problem of recruitment or retention. Those will be solved when we stop sending young people around the globe to risk their lives in the pursuit of American Imperialism and making rich men richer.
Clark is part of the problem not part of the solution. He approves of American Imperialism and the never ending war on terror that is nothing more than a cover for CIA adventurism.
IF you want to support the troops, find another hero. There are some peace groups springing up who are worthy of support. They are working against the recruitment of new cannon fodder.


http://carolinapeace.org/index.php/c/89/a/528

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0224-26.htm

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/022505N.shtml

In 2008 I will work for the candidate who supports non military solutions to our international problems.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[MollyStark]

83. Obviously I disagree with your assesment of Clark

Sorry that is so upsetting to you.

[Sparkly]

85. You're welcome to your own "assessment," not your own facts

Sorry that is such an obscure concept to you.

[MollyStark]

88. I posted my opinion

It differs from yours.

[Sparkly]

94. Your facts are incorrect

General Clark does NOT advocate "sending young people around the globe to risk their lives in the pursuit of American Imperialism and making rich men richer." In fact, he's stated opposition to imperialism.

Clark is NOT "part of the problem," as he spoke against the Iraq invasion from the start.

Clark does NOT "approve of American Imperialism and the never ending war on terror that is nothing more than a cover for CIA adventurism." He has stated that he believes in isolating the problem of terrorism, rather than expanding it by invading other countries.

He's also said force should be used "only, only, only" as a last resort, and that the kinds of conflicts we face cannot be solved by the military alone.

If I had an opinion that the moon was edible because it's made of blue cheese, I'd have a right to that opinion, but the fact remains that the moon is not made of blue cheese. And the "facts" upon which you base your opinion of General Clark are incorrect, as well. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

[Crunchy Frog]

100. Yes, and then there's the "fact"

that Wes attends a particular sect of the Presbyterian Church in Little Rock, even though there are no churches of that sect in the entire state of Arkansas.

Hey, in order to do that, Wes must be in possetion of extraordinary mystical powers wouldn't you say?

[x_y_no]

84. Oh Come On!!

If you haven't heard Clark talking about that aspect of things, you really haven't been paying attention.

Unless you mean you want a pacifist candidate. In that case, I can respect your opinion, but I think you'd find yourself at odds with the great majority of Democrats in that case (myself included).

[MollyStark]

89. I am not a pacifist

[sharonking21]

86. Yes, just who does live up to your

standards among our potential Democratic candidates? And why do you think so?

[MollyStark]

91. I don't have a candidate for 2008

When one meets my standards I will decide on her and let you know why.

[Crunchy Frog]

87. And Nancy Pelosi doesn't get it either.

And those nasssty, nasssty House Dems. And, and, and...that neocon demon, Howard Dean! They just don't get it!:cry:



Oh, lovely to see you on this thread Molly. Glad you could join us.:hi:

[MollyStark]

92. Maybe they don't get it either.

:shrug:

[Crunchy Frog]

101. Yeah, it's sad isn't it.

And I had had such high hopes for Howard Dean. I'm just crushed right now.:-(

[Sparkly]

102. I wonder where CMB stands on this issue?

Has she come out AGAINST improving the structure and benefits for Guard and Reserves? Does she see no need to curtail over-deployment and meet recruitment goals? At least one of her supporters sees that as "getting it," since advocating improvements means "not getting it," so I'm just curious as to where CMB stands.

(Senate Democrats like Kerry must not "get it" either, btw.)

[MollyStark]

106. LOL

And what does Carol have to do with this either? As far as I know she will not be a candidate in 2008.

[Sparkly]

111. It's about honesty and consistency.

As far as I know, NObody has said they'll be a candidate in 2008.

I'm wondering which Democrats have said they do NOT feel we should improve benefits and structure for Guard, Reserve, active duty and veterans? Who are the ones who DO "get it," supposedly, and disagree with Clark and these wacky House members like Pelosi? :shrug:

[Crunchy Frog]

117. You're right Sparkly.

From now on, I'm only going to support candidates who are against the troops and want to make things as difficult as possible for them, and see them get totally screwed over.

Oh wait, then I'd have to start supporting Republicans. Well, after all, maybe it is the Republicans who really do "get it".:shrug:

[Crunchy Frog]

108. You know, you're absolutely right about that.

I think she's a neocon too. I distinctly recall during the campaign that she was emphatically against the immediate withdrawl of our troop from Iraq. I think she was using some recycled Nixon terminology about "peace with honor" or some such thing.:tinfoilhat:

They're everywhere! :scared:

[MollyStark]

104. What does Howard Dean have to do with anything?

He is not signed on to this bill somehow is he? Did he get elected to the congress while I wasn't looking?

[Crunchy Frog]

110. It's guilt by association, and it's the strongest argument

that's been advanced against Wes Clark. I'm finding the arguments persuasive. Now Howard Dean is hobnobbing with neocons. And remember, as head of the DNC, Dean has his hand in everywhere now, so it's very relevant who he's associating with. I'm just crushed and devestated by this new development.


:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[Sparkly]

113. Are you saying Dean is AGAINST this bill?

Boy, that Nancy Pelosi must be some rebel!!

[Jai4WKC08]

90. Clark's last book

Full title, "Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire."

And the last chapter, "Beyond Empire: A New America"

And from the next to last paragraph of that chapter:

"We don't need the New American Empire. Indeed, the very idea of classic empire is obsolete. An interdependent world will no longer accept discriminatory dominance by one nation over others."

Tell me, Molly. Who's the last Democrat of national standing who has even shown the guts to confront the issue of American imperialism, to call it by its name, much less condemn the Bush administration and other neocons for attempting to recreate it?

[MollyStark]

I don't think he believes his own words

His actions speak louder than his words. I do admit he is dazzlingly good at dodge and weave, speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

[Clark2008]

96. Gee... where'd you get that contraption?

You know, the one you can use to implant in other peoples' brains that lets you know what they believe and/or think.

[Sparkly]

97. Why not?

What actions? Testifying against the Iraq invasion before it took place, or after it took place? Writing a book about BushCo's lies and stupidity? Working with organizations that promote democracy through non-military, supportive grants? What actions, specifically?

[Crunchy Frog]

105. Yes, those are terrible, terrible, terrible, things.

We need to get back to the good old fashioned type of Democrat like Tome Daschle. He knew not to rock the boat like that. I just don't know what the Democratic party is coming to anymore.;(

[Jai4WKC08]

99. Another accusation with nothing whatsoever to back it up

When does "opinion" move into the realm of slander?

[Donna Zen]

116. Excellent post!

And if one were to extend that thinking, then anything written here by anyone could be the work of someone not believing in their own words. A dazzling dodge and weave by a poster not revealing their true agenda.

I think your progressing toward some truth, the sort known by psychologists as "projection."

Risking his life and career to save a million and a half Muslims, how do Wes' words compared to a DU poster's for credibility on a scale of 1 to 10. One being a tireless phantom agenda driven spewer of false information vs someone who has walked the walked.

Better throw in the "amicus brief" on behalf of Affirmative Action written by Clark while your pondering your choice.

[Clark2008]

93. Ha!

In 2008 I will work for the candidate who supports non military solutions to our international problems.

Well, then... I guess you support this guy:

"I would have voted for a resolution which gave the president leverage to seek a diplomatic, non-military solution to the problem in Iraq.

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/22302195.html

****

You can't win it militarily, but you could lose it. "There is no magic military strategy to keep people off the streets. You have to take the steam out of it by dealing with it politically."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0407/p04s01-usmi.html

****

I know what a real coalition is... We had it in the first Gulf War. This is not a real international effort. But to hear the President, you'd think that all was well in Iraq. That the transition to an Iraqi government is going smoothly. That's not leadership. That's playing politics with national security.

http://64.177.207.201/pages/8_485.html

****

Bilateralism costs much more in time, money, and lives than multilateralism; terrorism’s "root cause" has been unaddressed; intelligence has been recklessly warped for political purposes; the military is stretched perilously thin. "U.S. foreign policy had become dangerously dependent on its military,"

http://www.reason.com/0405/cr.mw.temporary.shtml

[MollyStark]

95. Ha.... no because I don't believe him

Nor do I find your selective representation of his positions making much headway against my opinion of the man.

[Sparkly]

98. Why not?

And which "representations" would you select? Got any?

Again, you're entitled to your selected opinion. But you don't seem to have any facts to back it up, and posting misleading statements about any Democrat is undermining our party and its causes, imho.

[Clark2008]

103. Then shut up about him

Why do you persist on going into every thread in which he's mentioned and lay down your edicts?
You provide no proof of your statements and your opinion is known - widely - so you don't have to state it anymore.

[Crunchy Frog]

107. C'mon Molly. Deep inside, you know you want him.

I mean, it's obvious that you are unable to resist the intense magnetism of his that keeps drawing you into these threads about him.

I mean, look at this.



That simply must stir something in you.

[Clark Bayh 2008]

109. Constructive, cohesive, credible

Clark has military gravitas, faith credentials, is pro choice, pro Israel, pro gay rights, & pro family. Plus he's a southerner.

The party should be rallying around his candidacy for the 2008 ticket. Period. Clinton Clark or Clark Bayh.

If only we were as shrewd as the RNC, this would already be a done deal. Clark has broad appeal & is the ONLY active dem that can bring together the moderates on both sides of the aisle. HC can't do it. Neither can Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Boxer, etc.