I still have this ill-feeling that the Clark campaign has neo-con moles

[bobthedrummer]

in it, and could damage the Democratic Party IMO.

Some of the public statements by Clark regarding people like Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle-how he had worked with them in the past and looked favorably upon any future activity with them--that left me cold.

I just don't trust Wes Clark, yet if he gets the nomination I would vote for him, whoever the Democratic candidate is gets my vote in November.

Does anyone else have these ill feelings about the Clark campaign?

[Mz Pip]

1. No

MzPip

[Ivote]

2. Not me

see his website and then make up your mind. You just may change it.
www.clark04.com

Reminder meetup tonight Feb 02, 2004
find an event near you

http://www.clark04.com/meetup/

[Tim_in_HK]

3. Nope. Sorry . . .

But I support him, so it's not that surprising.

[Greylady]

4. No

eom

[newyawker99]

49. Hi Greylady!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[lcordero]

5. Clark backed himself into a corner

he already promised no draft and that the people will get to decide this a couple of days ago. I'm still feel kind of shaky on this too since he wants to increase the amount of troops in Iraq.

on edit: I donated to him because he backed himself into a corner. I'm going to donate to Kucinich and Sharpton later on this week.

[bowens43]

6. Yes, just look at his history.

There is NO evidence that he supported Democrats or our ideology before he decided to run for president on the Democratic ticket. There is evidnce that says he supported Republicans and their ideology. Clark wants to be president, the party affiliation is unimportant.

If he gets the nomination I will NOT vote for him.

[bobbieinok]

8. hope you are young enuff and rich enuff and healthy enuff

to survive 4 more years.

Purity over compassion.

[bowens43]

36. Don't have to worry about it

Kerry will get the nomination and beat bush. But if it did come down to a choice between Clark and bush I would vote third party. No doubt about it. I'd rather see 4 more years of bush then see our party shoved further to the right.

[krkaufman]

44. Clark is right of Bush?

Clark is to the political right of Bush?

Please.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[mikehiggins]

10. We got that already, Bow. You won't vote for Clark. Okay. Gotcha!

I'm sure there's a nifty third party candidate out there you could vote for. Of course, a vote for someone other than the Dem nominee is a one vote advantage for the Invisible Airman.

Don't let that bother you, though. Don't let Clinton or Dinkins or Rangel or McGovern change your mind, either. You've convinced yourself of your position so, bring it on!

Make your stand! Cast a vote for true democracy!

Hey, its a free country...unless Bush gets back in office.

[Democrats unite]

13. Keep your vote if you want to

Democrats will win without it.

[bowens43]

37. The Democrats will have my vote

it's Clark who won't get it.

[bobthedrummer]

15. Despite grave feelings, I would vote for him if he becomes the nominee.

But I believe that the neo-conservative dominated military think tanks that were so much a part of Wes Clark's military career had an effect and that he may have some of them involved in his campaign.

I don't know if Clark is a supporter of the Revolution in Military Affairs/RMA which is championed by Rumsfeld but it was around when he was wearing his stars. It fits into PNAC IMHO.
http://www.datafilter.com/mc/rmaWarCollege.html

Then there is the USAF Revolution in Political and Military Affairs/RPMA which is about the efficacy of coups. The author is a rabid anti-Clinton militarist, and again this is part of PNAC.
http://www.guerrillacampaign.com/coup.htm

Those are just a couple of examples of the reach of the neo-conservative traitors IMHO, a big reach into the Pentagon indeed which I'm sure Wes Clark is aware of.

[boxster]

26. "rabid anti-Clinton militarist"

Forgive my ignorance, but what does an article written by a "rabid anti-Clinton militarist" have to do with Clark?

It sounds like your whole argument is based on guilt-by-association.

A) Clark was military
B) Some PNAC people were military

Therefore:
C) Clark must be PNAC.

Those are some seriously fuzzy dots you're attempting to connect.

[bobthedrummer]

33. At his level of command and by his own statements

about people like Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith etc. in my mind that he could have been influenced by them and perhaps some of them are involved in his campaign.
I am not a militarist, as my father fought against that in WWII-as well as what we now call neo-conservatism too IMO.
Clark's military career was spent with that power elite that practice realpolitik.
I fear RW contamination over the decades might have had an effect.

[boxster]

38. I disagree, and I believe you are ignoring something rather obvious.

Clark was fighting the leadership nearly every step of the way, as has been documented extensively. In fact, his opponents (and numerous posters on this very board) love to claim that he was fired because he followed a path different than that of his superiors and peers.

Hmm, doesn't sound like he was buying into the general consensus or jumping on the PNAC bandwagon. He didn't get along with Shelton and others, and I think he's smart enough to make up his own mind and follow his own beliefs.

Curious...does your theory apply to everyone who has been in the military (Kerry, for example) or only Clark? If this PNAC/RW influence is so utterly pervasive and influential in the military, then perhaps we should flatly discount anyone with military experience from future political service as a Democrat.

Edit: not to mention that Clark was a highly-paid public speaker when he made the comments to which you are alluding.

[krkaufman]

47. I fear RW contamination

> I fear RW contamination over the decades
> might have had an effect.

Yes, as do we all. But I see this contamination more evident in the unilateral, preemptive war IWR votes of John Kerry and John Edwards, and the free market emphasis of the DLC than I do in General Clark -- who's proposed cuts in defense spending and changing directions back towards progressive income tax.

[krkaufman]

45. "I believe"... "may have some"..."I don't know if... but"...

> But I believe that the neo-conservative dominated
> military think tanks that were so much a part of
> Wes Clark's military career had an effect and that
> he may have some of them involved in his campaign.

"I believe"... "may have some"..."I don't know if... but"...

Please.

Grow a spine and present some *facts* with some conviction, or take your conjecture and smears elsewhere. Have some respect for yourself.

Goodness.

[abburdlen]

40. Wrong

Straight from the FEC website:
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?22020921812

CLARK, WESLEY K
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72227
STEPHENS INVESTMENTS
BOWLES, ERSKINE B
VIA ERSKINE BOWLES FOR US SENATE
11/04/2002 1000.00 22020921812

Erskine Bowles ran an unsuccess senate race here in NC against Libby Dole.

You can see which side Wes supported.

[krkaufman]

43. Then you're voting for Bush

Good for you. There's ample evidence that he supported our "ideology" before he announced his candidacy. He was "drafted" into running for the Presidency because thousands of grassroots volunteers viewed his statements and actions to be in line with what "we" want. Whether that's what you want or not is moot; you get your say in the voting booth. Feel free to vote for Bush, if you want.

And, again, based on your exclusionary principles, the best we can hope for this fall is 41% of the popular vote and another Republican Electoral landslide. Why should we even bother?

Say, there's a thought. You outta see if you can't create and market a PH strip to test one's Democratic bona fides.

[krkaufman]

7. A-O-K with Clark and his campaign. More concerned...

I'm A-O-K with General Clark and his campaign. He's running a very clean, positive campaign that's being systematically ignored by the media -- yet he remains positive. His message and vision is progressive and his national security credentials are solid.

As he's been one of the leading critics of Bush's Iraq from its inception, I'm way comfortable that he's on our side of both this war, how we got into it, and why war must be avoided.

EDIT: Personally, I'm more concerned that we might send up another "business as usual" candidate who will not have the guts or juice to fight for the American people (i.e. those not owning telecommunications stock).

[xultar]

9. No, and I don't think it is appropriate to refer to his campaign and

neo cons in the same post.
It is against the rules.
Clark has been a stand up guy and you should respect him for that.

If you want to alienate certain elements of the Democratic party then
keep going. We'll leave and you will lose and don't let the door hit your butt on the way out.

[bobthedrummer]

22. I can truthfully state that I've devoted more of my political life

working for the goals of the Democratic Party and Democratic Party candidates than Wes Clark.

If my subject line sounds rough it's too late to edit, and I wouldn't know how to truncate my feelings any further.

I'm not alone.

[boxster]

32. On the contrary, it's not too late to edit.

I believe that you have an hour to do so.

Clark has been voting for Democrats for more than a decade, although he was largely apolitical during his time in the military.

His relatively-short political life does not mean he will be any less fervent in working toward Democratic values and goals.

Politics is often like religion. The recently converted can often be the most ardent believers.

[bobthedrummer]

39. I kinda like how it expresses my feeling and the thread hasn't been

locked as I intend to abide by the rules here.
So it can just stand as it is, thank you.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Bombtrack]

11. Sorry that he knows and is aquainted with the who's who of the minds

behind the nations power by virtue of his job, instead of Shamans, Vegans, and UFO researchers like Kucinich

[teevee99]

12. paranoia

you should get ahold of it before it makes you start concocting other illusions.

[DemExpat]

14. Not at all....

I think Clark is being extremely smart by keeping it friendly/polite personally with the enemy, while getting ready to stick it to them on policy if he has the chance in the presidency!

He is attacking the message, not the messenger....:

DemEx

[Nashyra]

16. Wrong

As far as the draft goes I personally talked to his son at a rally in NH telling him I got interested in the General because he was an experienced leader and would not have a draft. He said in no uncertain terms that his dad has said absolutely no draft. He was talking to my Korean War Vet dad and said that it was not neccessary, especially if his dad was elected. He said it was something to worry about if * was re-elected.

[Democrats unite]

17. WOW, talk about a subtle hint.

:)

[slinkerwink]

18. I think Chris Lehane could still be working for Kerry

[Toucano]

20. I thought that as well...

but I also thought maybe Chris had some "dirt" on Kerry that would be thrown at the right time.

It looks like the right time has passed, so maybe you're right.

[slinkerwink]

21. yes, because this is the right time to stop Kerry's momentum

and I haven't heard anything from the Clark camp via press releases, etc., on Kerry's special interests. I think Lehane is sabotaging Clark's campaign by withholding info on Kerry.

[returnable]

28. Actually,they put the "special interest" innuendo out there...

...weeks ago. Lehane was on Matthews' show dropping hints and challenging Kerry to release his financials. It's only now starting to get legs.

Of course, it's the Dean campaign making the most of it.

So Kerry takes a hit, Dean looks antagonistic, and Clark stays "above the fray."

Lehane's a troll, but he does his job well.

[returnable]

24. Chris Lehane serves one man only...

...and that man is Chris Lehane.

[slinkerwink]

25. right now, Kerry, his old boss, is on top----it's just very suspicious

[returnable]

31. Kerry's on top...

...due to two convincing wins and non-stop media pimping.

I don't think Lehane is sabatoging Clark's campaign.

[Toucano]

19. If you've examined all the evidence

rather than just quotes taken out of context, considered the circumstances the speech was delivered under, and compared the statement to positive things the other candidates have said about the pResident and his administration then...

I respect your coming to a conclusion that is different than mine. If you've looked with an open mind, rather than a knee-jerk reaction, you've done all you can do.

[democratreformed]

23. Nope, sure don't

[afraid_of_the_dark]

27. Moles?

I'm not a big Clark fan, personally, but it's not because I think his campaign has moles. :tinfoilhat:

I don't like the way it's worded, but it's funnier if I leave it than if I tried to fix it. :P

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. Clark gets heat for Michael Moore's backing

But at least it should give you some degree of confidence that Clark is who he says he is. Moore did not give Clark his endorsement lightly. Moore spend hours talking directly with General Clark, and as you know, Michael Moore has excellent research abilities and staffing to help him. Moore well vetted Clark before backing him. I've spent hours researching Clark also, and I have met him also, but I would think Moore's word should hold more weight with you than mine would. I strongly am backing Wesley Clark, and I am a life long Progressive activist.

[sistersofmercy]

30. I've heard this trojan horse thing on other message boards but I don't

for a minute believe it has any ring of truth to it. There may or may not be a trojan horse in this campaign, if there is it certainly isn't Clark.

[henslee]

34. I think I know the mole in Clark's campaign.....

<>

Moroocco Mole... of the cartoon newtwork, here seen with his associate Babaloo - known associate of Quick Draw McGraw.

[TexasSissy]

41. What are you rambling on about? Neo-con moles? Get real.

[BootinUp]

42. Here I am!

this is foolish.

[democratreformed]

46. Get thee behind me, Neo-con mole!!!! LOL!

Hey, it sounded like a good response to me at the time!

[RichM]

48. You raise legit concerns, but Clark is far from the worst Dem candidate.

At first, it was fair to worry that Clark was "really" a moderate Republican posing as a Democrat. However, a bit of reflection will show that MOST Democrats are really moderate Republicans posing as Democrats - so there's simply no grounds here to single Clark out for particular opprobrium.

(Bill Clinton, for example, was a moderate Republican posing as a Democrat. Want to talk "moles?" Few have done more than Clinton to hand the country over to the control of the rightwing.)

Anyway, at this point, I'd pick Clark way before Kerry or Lieberman, and roughly as soon as the other "major" candidates (a term neatly excluding the only real truth-tellers in the race).

You worry that Clark could "damage the Democratic Party?" Let me ease your concerns. The Democratic Party is already about as damaged as it could be, & still be counted as having a pulse. It's about to nominate a ticket of pro-war candidates, when most of the rank and file oppose the war, & the war is the defining issue of our time. The party has provided close to zero resistance to 3 years of tyranny, lies, war crimes, & a stolen election. It's pretty hard to do worse than that. How could Clark possibly make it any worse? If he killed the whole party altogether, it would be an act of mercy.

[Moderator]

50. Locking.....

1. If you start a thread in this forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. The moderators have the sole authority to decide whether a thread topic is inflammatory.




DU Moderator