Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wes Clark in WSJ today - "Forget about the neocons. This era is over"...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 08:47 AM
Original message
Wes Clark in WSJ today - "Forget about the neocons. This era is over"...
Wes Clark has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today regarding Tuesdays CT primary and what it means. The online version is subscriber onlyI copied these passages from my bosss hard copy of todays editionI imagine the full text will be on securingamerica.com eventually

But if I were a Republican, Id recognize this as the beginning of the end. Forget about the neocons. This era is over.

For the Democrats, the election is a snapshot of a revolt in the making, but not yet done. The truth is that Democrats are as patriotic as Republicans, want a strong and secure America, and like every other American, want to trust the president and his team on national security issues. And perhaps, being in Washington, associating with the administration and lawmakers of the other party, its been more difficult for elected Democrats to sense the mounting rage in much of the electorate over the failures of President Bushs policies, and especially the seemingly never-ending war in Iraq, and his blatant partisanship.

Its been easy for some of the media to talk disparagingly about bloggers, but its also misleading. For the anti-Lieberman vote in Connecticut wasnt just bloggers. The public doesnt have to live with the reminders of old sentiments, jingoistic pronouncements, or votes in the House or Senate. Instead, the public is free to observe, listen and judge. And that judgment has been passed, especially on Iraq: The war was a mistake. Flawed intelligence, overly optimistic planning (or in some cases, none at all) and grandiose geostrategic designs, hyperinflated rhetoric about democracy, and perhaps raw political advantage. Whatever. The public hasnt quite sorted it out but they know a failure when they see one. And Iraq, as well as the larger Middle East policy, is such a failure.

The Connecticut race and Republican spinmeisters will be troublesome for Democrats. But the growing public awareness provides Democrats the opportunity to reshape our party to help America meet the challenges ahead. For Republicans, it signals the end of using patriotism to cover up for persistent failures to deal effectively with pressing national security issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cosmocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
1. Wes is flat out the man ...
nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. He's got my vote...
:patriot: :kick:

eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
33. Oh yeah
In a sane world he'd be President already. He's got it all.

Then again in a sane world Prez Gore would have been allowed to serve.

As long as I'm dreamin', VP Conyers or Kucinich is sure sounding good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
2. There still very much in control. What's he talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. Their driving ideology is discredited, that's what Clark is saying
A powerful Idea can guide a nation like a compass, but the NeoCon compass is now exposed as defective. It proved fatally flawed in reality. Whether or not one ever bought into their vision of a triumphant America militarily imposing it's will on the world for the world's own good, once the NeoCons got control of the rudder they promptly steered the Ship of State onto the reefs.

They still have control and they still don't admit their failure, but the facts are clear, and it up to Democrats now to point out the facts of the NeoCon failure to the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sopianae Donating Member (197 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. I agree. They are going down.
And not just the neocons, the whole conservative movement. It might take a couple of more years, but the tide IS turning. They are in panic mode. They are kicking and screaming and they might inflict some more damage on the way down. As I said, it might take some time, but when all is done, we will have a new progressive era for a couple of decades, at least. Conservative ideology is a complete failure. They won't be back for a while. Eventually, people will forget and want change so the pendulum might swing back to them in the distant future and then the cycle will repeat. Two steps forward, one step back. The last 6 years was one step back. Now it is time for two steps forward. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mconvente Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
62. Like any movement, it'll have its bases
Doubt Kansas or Nebraska is gonna be the next Massachusetts anytime soon, just as how San Fran stayed very liberal during the "conservative uprising", but point taken!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #62
67. I live in Kansas (see my avatar).
Edited on Thu Aug-10-06 10:32 PM by tblue37
In this state, we have a popular Democratic governor, elected with many crossover votes from moderate Republicans, we have just guaranteed that the school board will return to control of those who accept evolution, and certain high-profile Republicans are switching parties. In fact, one new Dem will be our Democratic governor's running mate in the next election. We are a 3-party state. The Republican party is actually two mutually antagonistic parties. The extreme rightwing has taken over power in the Republican party in Kansas, and now mdoerate Republcians are beginning to pull away from their party, which is why soem are switchign tot he Democratic party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. Yep, beautiful things are happening in KS n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. and when Kansas goes.....so does the nation!
I hope!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
36. He is talking about their lack of ability to energize their base. Even
with the pundits, opinion makers, spinners et. al. they are having trouble getting traction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusEarl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
3. I heard last night on KO, that Condi was having trouble convincing
Bu$h that he needed to work toward a cease fire in the Israeli Hezbollah conflict. If Condi is having a problem convincing Bu$h to do this, it must be because the Neocons don't want a cease fire.

This was implied in the report on Countdown, so it sounds like the Neocons still have some weight with Bu$h. Me thinks Israel wants a cease fire, and would like Bu$h to get involved to demand the cease fire so Israel can save face.

But to claim that the days of the Neocons are over is a bit premature imho, they're responsible for starting the fires in the ME and i believe would like to watch them burn for awhile longer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ce qui la baise1 Donating Member (66 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. I think the OP meant in terms of winning votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. i don't believe for a minute that
there is a hair's breadth of difference between condi and bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cosmocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
26. Yeah ...
He is not saying they don't have control at the moment ... He saying that there is undeniable evidence that the policies they have pushed for, driven and implimented have been a MASSIVE disaster, and people need to start pushing against them, to push them out ...

This is one of those things that the leaders on the left have been far too passive about ... WE recognize these freaks, and want them lined up and shot ... But, far too many Ds are afraid to even acknowledge their existance, much less call them out, and call on people to wake the F up and drive them from power ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusEarl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. Correct, but it's hard to push against these rats.
I can't explain why the democrats are so mute in this area, if i were a candidate i'd be screaming from the tops of building and pointing fingers at these rat bastards.

Dem's like all politicians want to get re-elected, but if Dem's don't start standing up to Neocon and all repugs period they're going to lose just like Joey.

One would think the election of Ned and Joey loosing a senate seat that he has held for 18 years would be an eye opener, but we can't tell how most Dem's took the lose of Joey because the terra news has wiped out all discussion of the Conn. election.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ce qui la baise1 Donating Member (66 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
5. To bad so many people don't listen to the words or read them.
They seem to pick politicians like they do actors or movies. Clark
always was articulate & sensible. How anyone could vote for a
blithering idiot is beyond me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
7.  Only a man or woman of his stature could turn this country around.
"Its been easy for the media to talk disparagingly about bloggers..."

Wes is the man. He gets it 100%. He is brave, honest, wise, charismatic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
9. Wes GETS IT. K&R for a man with insight !
The Connecticut race and Republican spinmeisters will be troublesome for Democrats. But the growing public awareness provides Democrats the opportunity to reshape our party to help America meet the challenges ahead. For Republicans, it signals the end of using patriotism to cover up for persistent failures to deal effectively with pressing national security issues.

Holy shit... a politician with an actual head on his shoulders... somebody who actually recognizes the true significance of current events and ramifications for the future. I could definitely get behind a candidate like Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larry in KC Donating Member (465 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. I definitely AM behind this candidate!
K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
11. Wes Could Turn This Whole Mess Around. Yes, He IS Flat-Out, THE Man!
Thank you General Clark for all you have done for the Democratic Party, for America, and the world.
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Schema Thing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
12. k'd and effin R'd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
13. As usual......
Wes said a mouthful in a clear manner!

"The public hasnt quite sorted it out but they know a failure when they see one. And Iraq, as well as the larger Middle East policy, is such a failure.

so true.....so true!

Hell, that's why the terrarist alert has been raised! Cause everything else this administration has done is nothing more than a miserable failure! Hey, Look over there.....(is what the Admin is in the process of doing with the "We Foiled that plot routine"!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
14. Wes is challenging the: "Dems sold out the military" bullshit
....that the warmongers and the gop get so much mileage out of. Good for General Clark!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
16. Hello? K and R People!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
17. 20 more K and R to FOUR STAR IT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
18. Kick this to the top.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
19. My TV tells me they are totally in control.
Terror terror. Clark must not have seen the latest stuff that is being pumped at us today.

They have hijacked our country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Writer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. They're trying to change to subject. That is all.
And remind us why we need them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. And they have the total platform to do it. They control us by the media.
They are in control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. They control the media...
That is why it's a beautiful thing to have this on the WSJ Op-Ed page in the middle of all of the conservative shit editorials, talking about how the CT primary just shows how dangerous the Democrats are for this country and the world....

You can fight or you can throw up your hands in defeat and give up. Lucky for all of us, neither Chairman Dean nor General Clark are the giving up type....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NCarolinawoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #19
52. My Republican brother in South Carolina is finally on to the NeoCons.
I don't think it has anything to do with what I have said, as much as his listening to people like Pat Buchanen on the Imus show and the Mcglaughlin report. He thinks that Bush has really screwed up Iraq and now he knows how the Neocons have played with Bush and had their way.

People are catching on. Finally!!!! The Neocons have been unmasked. Bush is still under the Neocon spell, and a lot of harm may still be done; but the NeoCons have been unmasked as being clueless and inept. This makes people angry because there is this kind of sports mentality among many in this country that, "people want a winner". Also, there is the even bigger fact that people no longer feel safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #19
55. No, no, I imagine he hadn't seen....
Considering this piece was in this morning's paper, I imagine it was written yesterday and before all of this....

But that didn't stop him from predicting it. Here's another short excerpt...."The Republicans will suggest that Democrats arent up to it. Theyll play the terrorist-threat card, hope for a few more messages of bin Laden, and ask whether an antiwar party can be trusted to keep America safe. But this is just the spin."

You really should read the whole thing, which can be found here:
http://securingamerica.com/node/1329

I couldn't type the whole thing up this morning...and I think that would have been against the rules even if I could have...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwolf68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
23. Damn that was impressive

Clark is sharp as hell. We need to get him out there speaking to the insane babble coming from the freakshow right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
24. wes clark is not clueless
what a great guy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
25. Wes Clark is the best person for the job in `08.
He`s brilliant, articulate, well-versed in foreign affairs, speaks several languages, has a stunning biography and, unlike AWOL Junior, actually has some combat medals. Clark is a rags to riches story that really warms my heart. Run Wes, run!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bretttido Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
27. Great message, I like him more each time I hear from him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emmadoggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
29. Good stuff!
Not sure I buy that the neocon era is over though, since they are still so much in control, but otherwise excellent statements.

I don't think people are waking up nearly fast enough. We are 5 1/2 years into this plague on our country. What has taken so long and why are there still so many sleeping or hypnotized??

I hope that if/when the Dems can get back in control, that there will be such a stark contrast to how our country can operate "post 9/11" that people will look back and truly see what a dark time this been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #29
57. I share your frustration, emmadoggy
Understand, too, what Wes is doing here...countering some of the Republican spin....

You should have seen the other two editorials on that page about the CT primary....And the crazy picture of Lamont they published! I wonder how many pictures they had to go through to find that one...

Wes knows what's coming from the Republicans and he's striking back at it now, right away, even before some of it happens. We need Dems who are willing and able to respond like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSlayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
30. This is the man we should be rallying around.
Clark should be our candidate in 2008. He just gets it in every way. He would make a phenomenal President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
31. There is NO one living today that could replace this gem of a man or
candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
34. Full transcript is up on securingamerica.com now
Actually, its hard to grasp the full import, the true beauty and importance of this piece, without seeing the print edition of the Op-Ed page.There, at the top of the page, two large editorials about how the Democrats are the cut and run party and how scary this Lamont victory makes the Democrats, complete with a picture of Ned that makes him look like a crazed lunatic.and theres Wes and his sanity in the midst of the insanity.

Whether or not folks want him as President in 08 or ever, I do hope people realize just how important it is to have Wes voice out there speaking for us and how lucky we are that hes willing to keep doing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jen4clark Donating Member (812 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. What a guy...
I am thankful every day that General Clark is willing to stay out there, speaking truth to power and waking people up!!

Thanks for the post CarolNYC!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nealmhughes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
35. Indeed, the rats are abandoning the ship.
It was never seaworthy in the first place. Now those that were smart scurried out and took their chances in the water, the others are in a death grip to scramble to the top of the air pocket.

Neo-conservatism has been an utter failure, domestically, foreign, militarily and culturally.

They are the Trotskyites of conservatism, believeing that a permanent revolution is needed to achieve the end result: an Ayn Rand-inspired megacorp ruling the world.

I also place some blame on the more conservative elements of the Democratic Party, for going along with the "free trade" agreements, not blocking judges we are stuck with for life, and enabling war for war's sake and oil.

Wes Clark has the intellect, clout, and moral standing to put his words to pen and get them read.

Be warned, Democratic Party, the working man has a long memory, and NAFTA and CAFTA are still hot topics on everyone's lips, regardless if it considered a fait accompli at Washington cocktail parties...and the revelations coming almost daily on the Bushco's failures and pathetic attempts at spin are not helping. In short, the neo-cons and their enablers are nailing their own political coffins shut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
37. I like Wes and I want to believe he is not tied to
the military industrial complex but that still worries me.

Also, generals in general running or taking office historically through the ages
especially in Roman and Greek history, are reasons for me to be at least a little apprehensive
maybe unnecessarily, but the historical record has spoken statistically.
He could be one that does not represent the dominate trend statistically.


but
I still like him, like what he says and nominate the thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. YOu mean the Military Industrial Complex that the last General who
Edited on Thu Aug-10-06 04:42 PM by FrenchieCat
was President warned us about? That one? The one that civilian leader keep growing because they have to prove they are not weak on defense....in particular those who have no military background and must prove to the Republicans that they are tough enough and do so by NOT addressing the pentagon spending and the MIC issues at all?

Here's what Clark has said about the MIC, and he does agree with you about many Generals and their links to the MIC:

http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339
"I think General Eisenhower was exactly right. I think we should be concerned about the military industrial complex. I think if you look at where the country is today, you've consolidated all these defense firms into a few large firms, like Halliburton, with contacts and contracts at the highest level of government. You've got most of the retired Generals, are one way or another, associated with the defense firms. That's the reason that you'll find very few of them speaking out in any public way. I'm not. When I got out I determined I wasn't going to sell arms, I was going to do as little as possible with the Defense Department, because I just figured it was time to make a new start.

But I think that the military industrial complex does wield a lot of influence. I'd like to see us create a different complex, and I'm going to be talking about foreign policy in a major speech tomorrow, but we need to create an agency that is not about waging war, but about creating the conditions for Peace around the world. We need some people who will be advocates for Peace, advocates for economic development not just advocates for better weapons systems. So we need to create countervailing power to the military industrial complex."--Wes Clark

Clark: Don't spare Pentagon
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/25/elec04.prez.d... /
"We're faced with a very serious deficit problem. We need to keep the--we need to go back to the top 2 percent and repeal those tax cuts. We need to put all the government spending programs on the table, including the military programs. And then we need a simpler, fairer, more progressive tax code. "
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. sounds great
like I said,

I like him and would support him in almost any ticket combination

but none the less I still have reservations about military generals in politics historically.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #46
51. Understand...but If I may ask,
Edited on Thu Aug-10-06 06:15 PM by FrenchieCat
Which of the 11 Generals who became President during our political history did you object to?
All 11 or just some of the 11?

In contrast, there were a total of 12 Presidents who never served...counting FDR (who tried to enlist but contracted measles although served as assistant Sec. to the Navy during Woodrow Wilson's presidency), and BushJR (who was AWOL far as I am concerned)and Bill Clinton (and his lack of service was one reason he appointed a GOP Sec. of Defense, and didn't go into Rhwanda after the Somalia Debacle).

Cause I'll tell you.....when you substract the 11 Generals, and the 12 who never served, you are left with 20 who may not have been Generals....but who certainly did serve, many with officer ranking, such as Thomas Jefferson (Colonel), Abraham Lincoln (captain), Teddy Roosevelt (Colonel), Truman (Major), Lyndon Johnson (Commander), John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter (Lieutenants) to name a few good men).

So whatever problem you have historically; I hope that you did some research prior to making that statement and can share with us your reasoned reservations backed up with a few facts as to why there should be a concern.

thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #51
56. Read my post: American History is not the only history in the world
I know we have been lucky in the history of this country.
The only generals have been

Washington
Jackson
Grant
Eisenhower

Three out of 4 is not bad and even Grant wasn't as bad as compared to what has happened throughout world history
but I was looking at the the history of the world which the ratio is reversed from the Greeks to the Romans and even to modern times.
Not to say that Clark would buck our own history and I didn't.

Who would have thought or even predicted in our history we would be seeing what this administration or junta
is doing to this country or the world?
That we as a country would have our military accused and I think justly so of murder, rape, torture and war crimes.
I certainly didn't and neither does my father who worked for the Joint Chiefs.


I am still very cautious with our government, military and military leaders as we all should be.

Gen. Clark is definitely no Gen. Curtis Lemay,
remember him? LOL

I said Clark gets my support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. Ok....but I still think that looking toward ancient history for
guidance is too easy to justify anything anytime.

Here is a list of Generals who became President (they were not all 4 stars, but they were all Generals, nevertheless!)

They were not all Excellent, but they are many worse not listed...cause they weren't Generals.
George Washington
Dwight Eisenhower
Ulysses S. Grant
Andrew Jackson
William Harrison
Zachary Taylor
James A. Garfield
Rutherford B. Hayes
Benjamin Harrison
Franklin Pierce
Chester A. Arthur
Andrew Johnson

And I'm sure that Wes Clark is grateful for whatever support you might ever be to him or to those he himself support! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #37
44. Clark isn't tied to the MIC, but he IS tied to grassroots politics!
".... the mounting rage....

... And that judgment has been passed, especially on Iraq: The war was a mistake. Flawed intelligence, overly optimistic planning (or in some cases, none at all) and grandiose geostrategic designs, hyperinflated rhetoric about democracy, and perhaps raw political advantage. Whatever. The public hasnt quite sorted it outbut they know a failure when they see one. And Iraq, as well as the larger Middle East policy, is such a failure.

Iraq isnt Vietnam. America cant just walk away without horrendous consequences. But stay the course isnt a strategy. And the longer the bleeding goes on there, the harder the electorate will dig for answersand the tougher theyll be on those who got us in, and aided, abetted and apologized for them.

Perhaps politicians in office will listen a little more attentively now to the outside-the-beltway voices; theyll challenge more, stand up earlier, fight a little tougher against the administrations leadership. And perhaps theyll sweat a little to gain some stand-off from their earlier positions. Longstanding relationships at home, a comfortable bank account, and the continuing blandishments of the lobbying crowd will no longer be sufficientJoe Liebermans defeat shows that the public is now engaged in politics....."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #37
58. Thanks IChing
Edited on Thu Aug-10-06 08:14 PM by CarolNYC
I do understand your trepidation.

It took me some time to "get over" the fact that he was a general and lifelong military man. Even after I threw my support behind him, I still had wavering moments, one in particular that I remember when I almost jumped ship. It wasn't anything Wes had done or said, just the fact that I (who would have been a Kucinich backer if Wes hadn't jumped in the race...and I still adore Dennis) was supporting this, this General...How could I support a General for President?!?!

Just keep listening and watching....I did and he hasn't let me down yet.

Again, thanks for the recommend...Whether you want him to run or not, you gotta love what he's out there doing now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abburdlen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
38. Gen. Wesley "Nostradamus" Clark
The Republicans will suggest that Democrats arent up to it. Theyll play the terrorist-threat card, hope for a few more messages of bin Laden, and ask whether an antiwar party can be trusted to keep America safe. But this is just the spin.


We all knew they'd play that card but damn...
I imagine a number of folks were reading this Op Ed while waiting at the airports this morning.

He did say one of the reasons appears on Fox is to get to see their talking points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. Agreed that Wes is very prescient!
Here is some of what he said would happen if we invaded Iraq......

Note, that Wes said these things back in August, September and October of 2002, before the IWR vote!

"regarding a possible invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, I think -- but I think that underneath, what you're going to have is you're going to have more boiling in the street. You're going to have deeper anger and you're going to feed the recruitment efforts of Al Qaeda. And this is the key point, I think, that we're at here. The question is what's the greater threat? Three thousand dead in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon underscore the fact that the threat we're facing primarily is Al Qaeda. We have to work the Iraq problem around dealing with Al Qaeda. And the key thing about dealing with Al Qaeda is, we can't win that war alone." CNN, 8/29/02

"Going after Iraq right now is at best a diversion, and at worst it risks the possibility of strengthening Al Qaeda and undercutting our coalition at a critical time. So at the strategic level, I think we have to keep our eye on the ball and focus on the number one strategic priority. There are a lot of other concerns as well, but that's the main one."
CNN, 8/30/02

"It seems that this would supercharge the opinion, not necessarily of the elites in the Arab world, who may bow to the inevitability of the United States and its power, but the radical groups in the Middle East, who are looking for reasons and gaining more recruits every time the United States makes a unilateral move by force. They will gain strength from something like this.

We can well end up in Iraq with thousands of military forces tied down, and a worse problem in coping with a war on terror here in the United States or Europe, or elsewhere around the world."
CNN, 8/30/02

"When you're talking about American men and women going and facing the risk we've been talking about this afternoon... you want to be sure that you're using force and expending American blood and lives in treasure as the ultimate last resort. Not because of a sense of impatience with the arcane ways of international institutions."
Senate Committee on Armed Forces 9/23/02
http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpres...

regarding debate on Congressional authorization for war against Iraq, Clark said
"The way the debate has emerged, it's appeared as though to the American people, at least to many that talk to me, as though the administration jumped to the conclusion that it wanted war first and then the diplomacy has followed." CNN 10/5/02

CNN quotes located at http://www.clark04.com/faq/iraq.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #42
53. Thanks for providing the Wes quotes - good stuff, smart man.
I'm really beginning to believe that Clark could be our candidate for '08.

1) Clark understands the complexities of combatting terrorism; defeating Al Queda is not accomplished through unilateral, preemptive military actions.
2) He's got the military credentials (in particular, the general's rank) that, from a historical perspective, make for viable presidential candidates
3) Clark is a good extemporaneous speaker, with charisma, and a handsome man. Of course, this doesn't necessarily makes him a better leader, but all are helpful characteristics in a candidate for public office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #38
61. Hmmm....
yes, I do wonder how many were reading while waiting at the airports this morning...I hadn't thought of that....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NCarolinawoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #38
64. I hadn't thought about people reading this at airports!
The circulation is fairly large. Over 2 million subscribers. Then there are always the people who leave their paper in their seats and other people finding these papers and reading thems as well; particularly during a long wait. This often happens in doctor's offices and as you mentioned, would certainly happen in airports.

I subscribe to the WSJ. While the editorials are draconian, the articles can be excellent. In today's paper, there was the typical neo-con editorial at the top left of the page showing a picture of Joe Leiberman, praising him, and referring to Bush as "The Commander in Chief". The article was entitled "The Lamont Democrats". On the very same page was General Clark's OpEd. I will be curious to read the letters to the editor. Although I will wonder what letters they choose NOT to print.

I also subscribe to The News and Observer here in NC.... I enjoyed your website. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gristy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
41. The neocons must never be forgotten
If they are down, if they are discredited, a hard boot must be used to hold their neck to the sidewalk. They must be actively and aggressively suppressed for however long our country is to survive. They are a chronic condition. We can never be "cured" of the neocons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. In reference to the NeoCons, I agree that we should never forget
although I think that Wes' reference to the NeoCon being "over" it meant figuratively, as in "fugit bout them, they are soooo over"......in terms of the NeoCon movement having the same kind of serious juice given to them in the past.

Due to their demonstrated incompetence, lack of honesty, and a "strategy" to nowhere but Rapture, the NeoCons can no longer feel confident that they can sell the notion that they hold the Key to some "doable" "master plan" to keep American supreme, which was their "rap" was as far back as 1996! Sooner than later they will be KOed to a pulp by all who are no longer buying into their delussional vision of Power for the United States and its corporate partners. They have proven that they don't know what the F* they are talking about.....and those who might have bought into their vision once upon a time, will no longer.

But yes, we should never forget the kind of harm those espousing empire building using our military and bullying rethoric can do to a democracy as well as the rest of the world ...literally! We can't ever again let some dumbass Back-assward Think Tank ideology control American Foreign policy.

Next time some "Global Strategic" tank sends our future Democratic President a letter outlining their approach for world domination, he/she should certainly tell them to crawl back into the whole they hence came.....and that he/she's got an appointed Democratic cabinet to do the "strategery" portion of planning our place in the global world.

Clinton really should have told them to kiss his ass loud and clear when he had the chance. I guess that he was always trying to prove that he could be a Good Commander in Chief to those who included in their plans to doubt him purposefully and publicly.
As far as Bush, well...... he was bought by them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. Keep in mind what an amazing strategic thinker Clark is
Back during the 04 primary season, he often made the point that Bush was trying to change the way US Foreign policy works permanently to a policy of 'preventative war".

That is, Country A just has to look sideways at the US and it gives the US a reason to attack".

One of the reasons he felt compelled to run in 04 was this change in paradigm that could well change the way US foreign policy works for the next 50 years. His op-ed is really about the idea that the neocon's philosophy of "conquer to democratize" is a failed strategy and even the 'typical' voter is waking up to that fact
("The public hasnt quite sorted it outbut they know a failure when they see one.")


A good deal of the rest of it is a call to the 'inside the beltway' elected and punditry crowd to understand that they need to wake up to the fact that much of the US population ain't buying it anymore

("Joe Liebermans defeat shows that the public is now engaged in politics."
and
"the longer the bleeding goes on there, the harder the electorate will dig for answersand the tougher theyll be on those who got us in, and aided, abetted and apologized for them."
and
"difficult for elected Democrats to sense the mounting rage in much of the electorate over the failures of President Bushs policies, and especially the seemingly never-ending war in Iraq, and his blatant partisanship."


In essence, out here where people vote, the jig is up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
43. The beginning of the end for the neocons was 3/30/03 - the day CIA
Director George Tenet referred the outing of Valerie Plame to the Justice Department. That was followed by the Pentagon leak in April 2004 of the Abu Ghraib photos. In May 2005, the FBI arrested Larry Franklin and two AIPAC lobbyists in the OSP-AIPAC espionage case.

This is all part of the same counter-offensive by career intel and military officers against the neocons and their insidious hold over the White House and DoD that led to the disasters in counter-terrorism, Iraq, and the growing crisis in the Middle East.

This game is being played for keeps, and is rarely reported for what it is, but it isn't new.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gloria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
45. Randi just read Sidney Blumenthals latest essay on the
Neocons latest war....

Doesn't sound over to me...We got 2 more years of this bunch....and probably a Congress that won't put up much of a fight, no matter what happens in Nov. I have very little faith in the Democrats. How are they going to defuse Lieberman as he undercuts them this fall? (and Salazar and how many others?) Will they even try? Heck, are they hoping their old buddy Joe wins?

PS. I'm still wondering about Clark's dive right into the "support Israel no questions asked" on FOX early in the invasion---sounding like someone from the Bush Administration. As an "analyst" he failed to give an assessment that was in the "honest broker" mold. No mention of proportionality or ramifications for the reason. etc etc. Then he goes back to how we should talk to Syria and Iran, but in the meantime, he just accepted the Israeli action, even though it smacks of being the first step toward the confrontation with Iran/Syria that he is so cautious about wanting.

Major unresolved disconnect for me. It may be "forgotten" and glossed over, but I really want to know the WHY? of it. Just the Dem party line (although they seem to have shut up)?
Caught the enthusiasm from FOX? What??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. I have seen Clark's appearance, and yes, to a great extent
he does feel and has said that Israel does a the right to defend itself, although I don't think the "no questions asked" is something that he has ever said.

I don't know of one politician except for a few liberal Representatives who have ever said that Israel didn't have the right to defend itself....and a few more who say Israel has the right as long as it is "proportional" (whatever that means....as violence begets more violence generally, and somehow determining what is proportional is pretty much subjective to a great extent.)

Wes' words smack the typical standard American stance in the Middle East for quite sometime (as does Kerry, Edwards, Feingold, Gore, Warner, Bayh, Clinton, etc., etc. (except perhaps Kucinich)).

To be honest with you, I don't recall the United States ever being true "Honest Broker" in the Middle East (when Israel is concerned)....although in the past, there have been instances, were we gave a better appearance of being not so much to the side of Israel.....while funding their military hardware at the same time (I don't know which is worse; the pretense to be what we truly are not, or being honest about what we truly are?)

However, in this fox interview, I think that Wes Clark does provide insight on his position.....In which his conclusion points to the fact that violence and retaliation will not be the answer for either factions currently fighting, but will only feed into thinking that violence is a means to an end.

Juliet Huddy: Okay, but today, as U.S. President, would you meet with Hizbullah and talk to them?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, I wouldn't be meeting with Hizbullah. Not at all. But what I would've done is, as soon as this started, I would've gone to the government of Lebanon and given my support to the government of Lebanon and made sure that we got humanitarian assistance and humanitarian arrangements worked out right away. Israel had a right to defend itself, and Hizbullah is an organization that had no business being armed or attacking into Israel. That was absolutely wrong, but the people of Lebanon, the civilians, the other 60% who aren't Shia and the 90% who aren't affiliated with Hizbullah, They shouldn't be punished for this. And this is a matter, now, that's got to be settled through diplomacy. It's not going to be settled by force, and the fighting that we're seeing right now is the jockeying to set the terms of the settlement on the battlefield, and then the, the, the settlement that comes afterwards, the cease-fire, whatever will, it will basically validate what's been achieved by force of arms.
http://securingamerica.com/node/1281
-----------

Gloria, if I can ask you a question?

Do you think that Iran and/or Syria are involved with aspects of Hizbullah or not? and If not, what tells you so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gloria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #48
60. FrenchieCat....I am not that knowledgeable about Syria at this point
Edited on Thu Aug-10-06 08:22 PM by Gloria
I have read that Iran has supported Hezbollah, but there is no firm agreement on their role in this fight now and in fact, I read today that Nasrullah might not even be listening to Iran at all at this point.

As for Clark: Yes, I saw that interview you quote....HOWEVER, that does not erase his earliest appearances which I commented on extensively over at CCN under "Ruths Blog" on those early dates (7/18 blog in particular).

My big gripe was the lack of objective analysis and the tone of his comments as an "analyst" and the knawing feeling that he wasn't/isn't allowing any thoughts of how this would play out in terms of the PNAC plans for the Middle East. I woke up the first night thinking about the connections, for Pete's sake...I still see this being studiously ignored by Clark. To the point now that he says the neocons are over? What happened to P. 130 of Winning Modern Wars? There is a gap here --from pre-conflict to jumping back to straight military assessment, etc. by about the 3rd or 4th FOX appearance that week. It's that gap which is bothering me. Leadership would be filling that gap for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. Well, Clark has had much to say on this topic.........and I don't
Edited on Thu Aug-10-06 09:32 PM by FrenchieCat
find it as disconnected as you do. I have not taken sides in this ME saga, because I think that everyone comes out a loser. Violence begets violence, after all, and so I have no zeal to "Defend" Wes on his statements that Israel has the right to defend itself....because for me it's neither here nor there. However, I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time, and yet I can understand his stance, as it is the stance of this nation since 1948.

However, Clark is still advocating "talking" to both Syria and Iran....who are widely suspected of running the pre-show in reference to Hizbollah's unexpected strength. This to me means that although Clark understands that both of these countries may be who has funded and trained Hizbollah (and I don't believe that Wes Clark would be saying this if he felt that it was questionnable)(and whether Nasrullah is calling the shots now or not, the influence of Iran and Syria has made the present circumstances possible which makes them accountable and involved)(even if the GOP is also stating that Iran and Syria are involved, doesn't make it incorrect--as we all know that even a broken clock is right twice a day), he is NOT now saying that there can be no negotiations; in other words, he is saying that since this happen, we should want to talk to these countries even more. I would be more concerned if Wes had now said that there can be no talking to Iran and Syria based on what has happened in lebanon. Now that would alarm me!

Regardless of the fact that the PNAC plan may have contributed in taking us where we are (and I believe that it has), the facts on the ground are unfortunately now the facts on the ground, and they must be looked at for what they are.

Clark has said that both Israel and the Bush Administration should not have ignored Hizbollah prior to this conflict, which is partially the reason that what is happening is happening. So he is also laying blame where much of the blame lies.

However, Hizbollah is not our friend, and they are NOT solely a political party (although I understand why they are in existence...still doesn't make their tactics anymore justified...cause again, violence begets violence, IMO), as they are also an army within a country, but not the army of the country. They have a goal, and their methods in attaining that goal are not near close to honorable, as you see they are not willing to step back in the name of stopping the death of innocent Civilians (which makes them just as wrong as the Israelies, in my eye), and they never have.

So Wes has spoken on the mistakes made by both Bush and Israel in not helping Lebanon out more, in particular, once they got Syria out of the country. He also believes that Hizbollah should not be in Lebanon operating as an army (an army that was the only one who ever fought and won a war against Israel), and that this organization is at fault for agressing against Israel as it has done in the past, knowing that Israel would most likely react forcefully, like it has in the past when Hizbollah has been involved. And although some have said that Israel has dealt with the Government of Lebanon in a much more restrained manner in the past, and that Hizbollah was rather suprised to the extent of Israel's response--they shouldn't be...because Lebanon, the country was not the agressor in this, and therefore, dealing with Lebanon's government at this point wouldn't necessarily stop Hizbollah....cause if Nasrullah isn't listening to Iran, then you can bet that he ain't listening to the Lebanese government either! the sad part is that Lebanon's payback for attempting to cooperate with demands to get Syria out is to be caught in the crossfire of two factions, one which resides within their territory and one who has an historical track record for attacking those territories. This is what is more than unfortunate, unfair and the reason why there is blame enough to go round.

But yeah...I'd rather see Clark take the stance of advocating for an unconditional CeaseFire.....although I don't know if that was done, whether we wouldn't simply experience a replay of this later on down the road--the way we see it replaying itself now, once again.

Are there easy answers on this one? I don't necessarily think so....although some might. :shrug:

Read this post of mine to if you want to know how I feel about Wes' statement that we can forget about the NeoCons:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
49. Wes is my candidate, but we've had our hopes dashed too
many time--eg Boxer rebellion & Fitzmas. I celebrate the Lamont victory, but it's too early to tell if this is the beginning of the end, or an isolated success.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
54. What a statement. Outstanding.
Edited on Thu Aug-10-06 07:05 PM by BullGooseLoony
I'd love for him to be our V.P. candidate, and would wholeheartedly support him if nominated for the top position, as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
65. I love it when a Dem talks likes that. No wonder Clark is such a favorite.
If only this guy could win the Democratic Primary, he'd kick anyone's ass in the Presidential election, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
66. Excellent as always!! k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
70. Another fine statement by Wes Clark on the sorry state of our nation
and we got 2 more years of Bush's FUBAR policies to endure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4nic8em Donating Member (382 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-10-06 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
71. This thread...
is a wonderful example of my intrigue with DU. Thanks to you all for such a cordial expression of ideas and sentiment. I too, have followed and supported Wes Clark, and consider him a fine example of the direction our party and nation should be going.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-11-06 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
72. From Wes's lips to the Goddess's ears. Clark-Edwards 2008
Clark-Edwards or Edwards-Clark or Gore-Clark -- we have some primo candidates moving up. I really want to support Wes Clark this time around.

Thanks so much for posting this Op-Ed and the link to the whole thing. After the events of the past 24 hours, this makes fine reading. :-)

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-11-06 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
73. Clark is the only one who can puncture the "But what of 911?" BS from
BFEE & Lieberman.
For some reason. ALL other democrats when faced with the mighty "911" words recoil like a vampire from the cross. Go figure,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Oct 20th 2014, 05:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC