Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

From a Die Hard CLARKIE: Why What WES CLARK says about OBAMA doesn't make any sense!

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
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:28 PM
Original message
From a Die Hard CLARKIE: Why What WES CLARK says about OBAMA doesn't make any sense!
Edited on Fri Mar-07-08 11:40 PM by FrenchieCat
As a steadfast and devout Clarkie, I am deeply disappointed in Wes Clark for speaking out against Obama's CIC qualifications in the way that he has. Considering that Obama really may be the Nominee, Wes Clark is literally jumping into the frey in assisting to bring down the party that he has always said he would work hard to lift up; the Democratic party.

This is not as though there has been no voting already. This is not as though Hillary is ahead and simply attempting to put Obama away. No, this situation is not like the time a month prior to Iowa in 2003, when Gen. Clark said that he wouldn't be Howard Dean's Dick Cheney (and anyways, Hillary needs a Dick Cheney Veep or a Former President Husband too).

Since the summer of 2003 until Wes Clark announced his support for Hillary Clinton in October of last year, I had donated to his campaign, to his PAC, to candidates running that he wanted me to support. I have called states, written letters to the media, to Governmental Representatives, and responded at various websites. I was one of his staunchest defenders at DU in particular. I bought his books, went to his speeches when he came to my neck of the woods, and even flew to New York from California to his "Securing America" PAC opening, etc...

In other words, I have done everything in my power humanly possible to support Wes Clark in each and everyone of his endeavors.

Here's the website that I have maintained for the past couple of years with the expressed purpose of defending the General: http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com /

Unfortunately for me, today, Wes Clark has broken my political heart. Whether I will be able to get over it, I don't know.

I had to work in S.F. today, and so I was unaware of his newly stated public opinion about Barack Obama until I got back this evening.

I have read and listened to his words as he raises doubts as to the abilities of the most effectively inspiring candidate that has come along in a great while, and one who is very definitely in line to becoming the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States of America.

The more I thought about it, the more I questioned why Wes Clark would say something like what he has stated about Barack Obama, when this is nothing he has ever said about Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton, now nor then....and we all know that Bill Clinton had no more Foreign Policy experience then did Barack Obama during his first run (actually, based on the committees that Barack sits on and the legislation that Barack has been able to pass, Barack has more Foreign Policy experience than did Bill Clinton). And we know that sleeping with the President is not a credential for becoming CIC, especially if you don't attend National Security Meetings or have National Security Clearance at the time that you find yourself in the White House.

Well, Let me explain further.....

In 1993, the Clinton Administration allowed 800,000 Rwandans to be slaughtered with Machetes in Rwanda, while the world stood by. General Clark was one of the few who offered a military plan to the Clinton administration to send troops there to stop the violence. He was ignored and his plan went nowhere. Why? Because the Clinton Administration didn't want to chance the political fallout and lowered poll approvals after the Somalia disaster.

Did Wes Clark publicly criticize Bill Clinton for this unforgivable occurrence ever; before or after he was retired from the army? NO.

In 1994, Wes Clark was made Director of Strategic planning for the Joint Chief of Staff under Clinton. He has talked about this, during speeches many times; the fact that there was no global strategic plan put in place by the Clinton Administration. It was his job to get it done, and so he tried....but he has maintained that we still don't have a real effective strategic plan, to this day.

In 1999, Wes Clark had been begging the Clinton administration to intervene in Kosovo for quite sometime, according to one Samantha Power (2003 Pulitzer winning Author of "Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide "). And although eventually Bill Clinton allowed it, Wes Clark, than Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, wasn't allowed to fight that war the way that he felt it should be fought. In fact, Bill Clinton allowed Wes to fight the war with one hand tied behind his back.

There was a big showdown in reference to the use of Apache Helicopters during that Kosovo war, and Wes Clark was rebuffed at every turn in reference to being allowed to use them (For low altitude bombing). The war ended up lasting longer than it should have, and possibly more civilian lives were lost due to this decision.

Shortly after the war was won, and General Wes Clark had been totally dogged by Pentagon Knives, he was summarily retired early. This is not something he wanted or had asked for; this was his prize for having won Clinton's Kosovo war while Bill Clinton was busy defending the Blue Dress via impeachment, and God knows where Hillary was.

Did Bill Clinton stand by Wes Clark and defend him on this stab in the back from Clinton's Defense Secretary and his pentagon minions? NO.


Did Bill Clinton have to courage to attempt to reverse an obvious wrong on Clark's behalf and make it right? NO.

And so, Gen. Wes Clark left the army that he has said time and time again he loved more than anything, after his family.

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

Wes Clark has always maintained that he was against the Iraq War and would have "probably" voted No, if he had a choice. This was one of the strength that he offered up during his Presidential candidacy. He had maintained that the Levin Amendment was the way to go on that vote. Of course, Hillary Clinton did quite the opposite. She Voted for the IWR and voted against the Levin Amendment. Did Wes Clark denounce her as not fit to be CIC based on this terrible vote at that time, or anytime since? NO.

Do I think the felt that her choices were the right ones? NO.

Hillary Clinton didn't bother to read the NIE prior to her Vote on the IWR, and so she hadn't done her "homework". Did Wes Clark criticize her for this lack of due diligence? NO.

In fact, oftentimes, during his talk of support for Hillary Clinton, he states that she does her "homework", which really wasn't the case, when it came to voting for the "Biggest Strategic Blunder in American Foreign Policy History", as Wes Clark likes to refer to the debacle that we are currently engaged in.

What is odd, is that the very Senators who listened to Gen. Wes Clark and quoted him in their floor speeches against going into war, and voted NAY on the IWR, have mostly endorsed Sen. Barack Obama. There's Sen. Kennedy, Sen. Durbin, and Sen. Feingold, Sen. Chaffee(R) among others.

Hillary Clinton said she believed that Saddam had WMDs when she made her IWR speech. Wes Clark had testified the exact opposite during his testimony to Congress in September of 2002. Has Wes Clark criticized her for it, then or since? NO.


More recently, Wes Clark had been devoting himself to a website called stopwariniran.com . He felt that the Bush administration were saber rattling and basically instigating war. He was one of the first voices to call for "Talking" to Iran, and was lauded for it.

Meanwhile, Hillary was giving speeches to AIPAC doing her own Saber Rattling. Then right around the time that Wes Clark was gathering signatures in reference to this "Stop War in Iran" action, Hillary Clinton voted for the Iran Resolution.

Did he criticize her at the time for clearly taking such action? NO.

------------
And so to conclude this long drawn out reason why I believe that Gen. Wes Clark is simply not making sense when making the statements that he has made against Sen. Barack Obama's experience or lack thereof, is that it is Senator Obama who was against this war from the start, and stated so in much clearer language than Gen. Wes Clark ever did; not Hillary Clinton.

It is Sen. Barack Obama who states that we should talk to Iran instead of saber rattling; not Hillary Clinton.

It is Sen. Barack Obama who worked and got something accomplished in terms of passing some Nuclear Non-Proliferation legislation; not Hillary Clinton.

It is Sen. Barack Obama who voted for the Ban on Cluster Bombs in civilian areas (and Wes Clark knows the dangers of the exact dangers of Cluster Bombs) and it was Wes Clark who said that we need to limit where we use them; not Hillary Clinton.

And so after all that I have said, my only point is that Gen. Wes Clark simply isn't making any sense with this opinion when comparing Sen. Obama to Sen. Clinton. I don't know why he doesn't see the disconnect, but it is definitely there, clear as day.

I will always respect and admire Gen. Wes Clark for his own accomplishments and his own leadership on military matters; but I have to say, what Gen. Wes Clark showed me today, is that although he himself possesses the qualities required for a Commander-in-Chief, he is very wrong when he states that Sen. Obama doesn't have them, and Hillary does.

And so, here is my message to General Clark:

"General Clark, I respectfully disagree in total with your opinion on this issue. It takes wise judgment and strong leadership in doing what's right and not anything else to lead this nation, and unfortunately, the candidate that you are supporting has shown time and time again that she is the one not fit for that duty."

Yours Truly sorry about this,

FrenchieCat



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. Excellent post - you said it all, fairly and honorably.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
15. I want to be fair and honorable.......and honest.....
and all that I can see is the great wide disconnect in his lack of actual back up evidence that has allowed him to form the opinion that he voices in reference to both of our Senators running.


Sadly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HootieMcBoob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #15
137. I share your disappointment
I was a huge Wes Clark supporter for ages. I understand his support for Hillary but I don't understand his talking crap about Obama. Not good form at all. Does this destroy my hope for an Obama/Clark ticket? It looks as if it does. I thought Clark was bigger than this. Really sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. This is all so strange.
And wasn't Samantha Power one of Clark's advisers, or at least an endorser, during his 2004 campaign? Strange doings. I'm confused and disappointed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
20. She endorsed him very strongly.
And it is sad that in having to choose, I'm with Samantha on all of this, not Wes Clark.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #3
32. I have defended Wes Clark on this
dumbshit as well. Many of us have. You are very late on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elixir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #32
146. Agreed, this issue is settled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
4. I share your disappointment. I also supported him in 2004.

Possibly Hugh Shelton was right "integrity and character issues".

Maybe he "owes" Bill Clinton for 2 stars.

I am surprised that he would support someone who did not bother to read the NIE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
23. Hugh Shelton has also endorsed Hillary Clinton......
and so, Wes Clark should know that what he is saying should have better remained unsaid (and the timing sucks, maybe before Iowa, but now?)....considering how Shelton weighted in on his opinion of Clark, when Clark was running for President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. Yes, I knew that - and was surprised at the mix.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
45. tabatha,
shelton wanted to slam Wes for shelton's own reasons. Edwards?

I'm shocked that you would suggest that Wes OWES bill clinton anything, especially after his many accomplishments and kudos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. Since Wes Clark
is a Rhodes Scholar, a brilliant military strategist, well versed in foreign affairs and policy, smarter than I am, and may know something I don't know, I will refrain from judging.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
31. No one is infallible......not Obama, and
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 12:15 AM by FrenchieCat
certaintly not Wes Clark....no matter how much I respect and admire the two of them.

Wes Clark was also counseled not to contest Iowa in 2004, and he listened.....which is why he is not President today.

In this case, I am calling Obama fit for duty. However Wes Clark wants to disagree with me, I would love to have that debate. And unfortunately for him, I believe that he would lose....because his reasoning doesn't add up as to why he is supporting Hillary Clinton beyond the fact that he prefers to see her as President. Everything else he is saying is political, and I, for one don't appreciate it or believe his words to be correct on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #31
115. That's right..no one is
infallible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. it makes sense cause he is friends with both clintons... n.t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #6
82. Wes is friends with a lot of people....
and at one time was friends with Samantha Power.....

Didn't seem to much matter in the case of the latter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lewis_in_fw Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
7. Experience does not matter! Anyone CAN and SHOULD be able to become president *NT*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Blood for Hubris Donating Member (171 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
152. You're right! Look at the great job the feckless, reckless, inexperienced Bush
has done.

A mere 600K dead. A country bankrupt, morally and fiscally.

Yes, let's put another lightweight in the White House! And hope for the best! No, let's hope for change!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kid a Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
8. Message to Frenchie Cat: I agree totally with this post!
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I too was wondering about his support.

=)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:38 PM
Original message
Reminiscent of the complex celestial mechanics used to "prove" that the earth was flat.
Bummer. The guy's an opportunist; face it.

That said, he's still got his good points, and there's plenty of taint to go around, too, but this is very consistent with his forthright inconsistencies of the past.

You, on the other hand, have remarkable consistency in your choice of leaders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
34. Why weigh in.......
as you are implying negatives about Clark, Obama and me.

So sad that you have nothing "real" to say, only dissing another DUer as part of your day. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
returnable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
9. As another former Clark supporter...
...I share your sentiments, which you have expressed so eloquently.

:kick:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Blood for Hubris Donating Member (171 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
155. I think you're all hypnotized.
McCain will demolish Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GMFORD Donating Member (202 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #155
168. Obama has already begun
demolishing McCain. McCain has started talking about 'change' and even used Obama's slogan 'fired up, ready to go'. Already started playing on Obama's field and the GE campaign hasn't even started. Don't worry about our man Obama, he's subtle but he's good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
10. I voted for Clark in the primaries 2004
And I think he's much like Colin Powell, in that he's been the "good soldier" for so much of his life that he honestly believes that if a current or former President (Bill) wants him to support something (Iraq in Powell's case) or in someone (Hillary for Clark) that he will obiediently salute and move on to fulfill his marching orders.

It doesnt excuse the way Clark is now blindly following the Clintons and despairaging Obama, but he's just following orders and doesnt understand that Bill is no longer his CinC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
11. You yourself said the same thing. How quickly you forget.

Submitted by FrenchieCat on November 30, 2006 - 3:56am

Basically, without someone like Wes Clark in the mix, Hillary and Obama will stay away from the National security issues during that election; meaning Democrats will appear as weak as they tend to do.
His analysis is fascinating! --

AT THE PREMISE -
http://thepremise.com/archives/11/29/2006/736

Several weeks before that I wrote that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama can win the White House, because 2008 will primarily be about national security. I still think thats true, too.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9904

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

So, le chat, now that Wesley is "in the mix" and on Hillary's side, it would appear by your logic that you should be supporting Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #11
25. Wesley Clark
the latest recipient of
honorary tire tracks on
his back. He is officially
under the Obama bus now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #25
48. Is that what you got out of my post?
That's is officially sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
12. Excellent post. I have been deeply saddened and puzzled by
Edited on Fri Mar-07-08 11:57 PM by Skwmom
Clark's support of Clinton (which seems to contradict so much that he stood for). I wish an interviewer would ask Clark the above questions.

Another major puzzlement - Clark is a smart man and anyone with an ounce of sense can tell that the Clintons are willing to destroy this party (and country) for their own benefit. Why try to hurt Obama's chances? Why is he traveling down this path? He obviously is blinded by something. I have a guess but I wouldn't post it.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
108. It's a mistake to overlook the underlying assumptions of even the sharpest minds,
because they can be bigger idiots than the rest of us on that most fundamental of levels.

Clark's continual trimming and backtracking show him to be shifty and opportunistic. That is not smart, whatever his IQ and academic accreditations. The grounds given by his superiors for his early retirement related to 'character', and seemingly, not without reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
13. Has he stated anywhere why Hillary would be better than Obama or McCain?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. nope. that's the telling thing about this new 'outrage'
That was the conclusion of the author of the article. I think his actual comments fall well short of that conclusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #17
44. Good thing, since I can't see how hers would be much better
Have to wonder why he is making those kind of pronouncements
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Blood for Hubris Donating Member (171 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
156. Yes, of course he has. You are apparently living in a Rovian fact-free universe,
or you don't deign to Google.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
14. Google search result: Samantha Power endorses Clark in 2004
Edited on Fri Mar-07-08 11:47 PM by andym
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Oh yes, I know........
It was through reading her book, that I came to support Wes Clark....which makes it that much more ironic and why I believe his opinion on this to be flat out wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
18. WOW, what a post!!!
Well said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Purveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
19. Wesley Clark's 'High Noon' Moment
--snip--

While media commentary on Clark's prospective candidacy has been almost entirely favorable--even adulatory--it's worth looking back at a forgotten chapter in his military biography that occurred when Clark was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and Commander In Chief for the US European Command. Call it Clark's "High Noon" showdown. It's an incident that deserves scrutiny because Clark's claim to be an experienced leader in national security matters is tied, in significant part, to his record in the Balkans.

On June 12, 1999, in the immediate aftermath of NATO's air war against Yugoslavia, a small contingent of Russian troops dashed to occupy the Pristina airfield in Kosovo. Clark was so anxious to stop the Russians that he ordered an airborne assault to confront these units--an order which could have unleashed the most frightening showdown with Moscow since the end of the Cold War. Hyperbole? You can decide. But British General Michael Jackson, the three-star general and commander of K-FOR, the international force organized and commanded by NATO to enforce an agreement in Kosovo, told Clark: "Sir, I'm not starting world war three for you," when refusing to accept his order to prevent Russian forces from taking over the airport. (Jackson was rightly worried that any precipitous NATO action could risk a confrontation with a nuclear- armed Russia and upset the NATO-led peacekeeping plan just getting underway with the withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo.)

After being rebuffed by Jackson, Clark, according to various media reports at the time, then ordered Admiral James Ellis, the American in charge of NATO's southern command, to use Apache helicopters to occupy the airfield. Ellis didn't comply--replying that British General Jackson would oppose such a move. Had Clark's orders been followed, the subsequent NATO- negotiated compromise with the Russians--a positive element in the roller- coaster relationship between Moscow and Washington, which eventually incorporated Russian troops into peacekeeping operations--might well have been undermined.

In the end, Russian reinforcements were stopped when Washington persuaded Hungary, a new NATO member, to refuse to allow Russian aircraft to fly over its territory. Meanwhile, Jackson was appealing to senior British authorities, who persuaded Clinton Administration officials--some of whom had previously favored occupying the airport--to drop support for Clark's hotheaded plan. As a result, when Clark appealed to Washington, he was rebuffed at the highest levels. His virtually unprecedented showdown with a subordinate subsequently prompted hearings by the Armed Forces Services Committee, which raised sharp questions about NATO's chain of command.

As a Guardian article said at the time, "The episode triggers reminscences of the Korean War. Then, General Douglas MacArthur, commander of the UN force, wanted to invade, even nuke, China, until he was brought to heel by President Truman." Of course, the comparison is inexact. The stakes were not as high in the Balkans, but Clark's hip-shooting willingness to engage Russian troops in a risky military showdown at the end of the war is instructive nonetheless.

Indeed, it is believed in military circles that Clark's Pristina incident was the final straw that led the Pentagon to relieve him of his duties (actually retire him earlier). Clark had also angered the Pentagon brass--and Secretary of Defense William Cohen in particular--with his numerous media appearances and repeated public requests for more weapons and for more freedom to wage the Kosovo war the way he wanted (with ground troops). At one point, according to media reports, Defense Secretary Cohen, through Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, told Clark to "get your fucking face off of TV."

---eoe---

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=945

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. I have defended Wes Clark on this incident.....many times
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 12:24 AM by FrenchieCat
and I still do.
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/10/smear_de...

I believe that he is a very capable and brilliant leader.......and I also believe that it is Barack Obama who has the qualities (just not military style) present to lead this country, not Hillary Clinton.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #19
36. deleted-- answered wrong post
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 12:11 AM by andym
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
22. Isn't the disconnect that Hillary supports the war in Iraq and Obama doesn't . . . ????
Clarke is military --- !!!
And Hillary has been sucking up to him for a long time!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. There are many disconnects.....and certainly, her IWR vote
is one of them.

But even the way that Clark has described what should be done with Iraq, are some of the same steps that Barack Obama has clearly stated. Being as careful getting out as we were getting in, and all of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #26
50. They've both been funding the war --- Disgusting !! . . .
But, I was backing it up further . . .
Clinton has pursued Clark, has she not?
Isn't Clinton quite cosy with Clark?

IMO, Obama would like to distance himself from her pro-miliary positions --- ???

And, what about the contributions Clinton has taken from military/weapons manufacturer---???

As far as I'm concerned, someone who isn't talking about the "illegality/immoraity" of this attack
on Iraq ain't talkin' at all ----!!!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #50
129. Senator Kennedy funds the war that he was 100% against - it is not equivilent, even if HRC says so
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. you mean by voting for each and every funding bill until beginning the 2007 run for the presidency?
. . . like Obama did? That disconnect?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #27
38. Hillary did as well, so there is no difference there for Wes Clark to use as reason....
except for this......

IRAQ: Obama Has Consistently Opposed A Blank Check for Iraq.

Since Obama came to Washington in January of 2005, every single Senate Democrat has voted for every single Iraq funding bill that has come to the Senate floor until President Bush vetoed a timetable for withdrawal.

After that, Obama voted against funding for the war, stating that This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new oneWe should not give the President a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path. With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough. We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly.

IRAQ: Clinton Continues to Unfairly Truncate Obamas Quote on Iraq. Below is the full excerpt from the New York Times:

He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

But, Im not privy to Senate intelligence reports, Mr. Obama said. What would I have done? I dont know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.

But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. What I dont think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this, he said.
http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-clintons-mtp... /


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


also:
McCain voted for IRAN resolution. Hillary Voted for IRAN Resolution. Barack Obama didn't vote for IRAN Resolution.

Two are the same, and one is not.

In addition:

JANUARY 2005

Obama Criticized Condoleezza Rice For Not Offering A Timetable, Reiterated That Job Of Senator Is To Confirm That Administration Is Making Decisions Based On Facts. During Condoleezza Rices confirmation hearing, Obama said, And I recognize that you are hesitant in your current position to provide a timetable. On the other hand, constituents and families in small towns all across Illinois need some more satisfactory answer than that. And it strikes me that this whole issue of training troops, turning over security functions to the Iraqi government is critical to thatI guess the comment that I'd like to make is that in the activist proactive strategies that you pursue, it seems to me that this administration often asks that we simply go along and have faith that you're making the right decisions. But I think that from the perspective of my constituents in Illinois, at least, a number of people did vote for George Bush and do trust him. But my job as a senator is to make sure that we're basing these decisions on facts and that I probe and not simply take it on faith that good decisions are being made.


FEBRUARY 2005

Obama Criticized Iraq War At Town Hall Meeting. The Pantagraph reported that during a town hall meeting, "Asked about the Iraq war, Obama said poor planning by the Bush administration has left Iraq woefully incapable of handling its own security. He expressed hope that more intensive training will be provided for Iraqi forces, saying such measures could allow most American troops to return home next year. While Obama said the recent Iraqi election is an encouraging sign for democracy, he questioned Bush's rationale for the Iraq invasion. 'I didn't see the weapons of mass destruction at the time, I didn't think there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein,' Obama said."

Clinton Said Setting A Deadline For Withdrawal Would Strengthen the Insurgents. Clinton said a deadline for withdrawal would strengthen the hand of the insurgents. "I don't think it's useful to set a deadline because I think it sends a signal to the terrorists and the insurgents that they just have to wait us out," said Clinton.

Despite Declining Security, Clinton Claimed That Many Parts Of Iraq Were "Functioning Quite Well." On Clinton's second trip to Iraq in February 2005, security was so bad she was unable to drive through Baghdad's streets, even in armored cars. "It's regrettable that the security needs have increased so much. On the other hand, I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well," Clinton said.

Clinton Said That A Rash Of Suicide Attacks Meant That The Iraq Insurgency Was Failing. After 55 people died in Iraq on the holiest day on the Shiite Muslim religious calendar, Clinton maintained that the rash of suicide attacks was a sign that the insurgency was failing. "The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure. Not one polling place was shut down or overrun," Clinton said. "The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure."


MAY 2005

Obama Said Security In Iraq Was 'Horrible.' At a town hall meeting, "Obama described the security in Iraq as 'horrible.' He said U.S. troops should come home if the Iraqi government is functioning properly and the Iraqi troops are trained correctly. 'Our young men and women have been incredibly brave and effective in very difficult situations.'"

Clinton: I'm Not Comfortable Setting Exit Strategies. In an interview with Judy Woodruff on CNN, Clinton said about Iraq "I am not one who feels comfortable setting exit strategies. We don't know what we're exiting from. We don't know what the situation is moving toward."


OCTOBER 2005

Obama Said US Needed To Get Out Of Iraq "As Soon As We Can." In 2005, Obama said, "We should start phasing out our military presence in Iraq. We have to have a very credible, specific plan to stabilize the country as soon as we can and get out as soon as we can."

Clinton Opposed Setting A Deadline For Withdrawal From Iraq. According to the Associated Press, at a speech in Atlanta, Clinton "said she doesn't support a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq nor does she support leaving our troops there for an open-ended period. Instead, she said the U.S. should encourage the Iraqi people to take more control of their security and let them know American troops won't be there forever."


NOVEMBER 2005

Obama Called for A Phased WIthdrawal From Iraq, A Commitment To Having No U.S. Bases In Iraq Within a Decade. In a speech in the Senate, "First and foremost, after the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw.' This course of action will help to focus our efforts on a more effective counter-insurgency strategy and take steam out of the insurgency...Second, we need not a time-table, in the sense of a precise date for U.S. troop pull-outs, but a time-frame for such a phased withdrawal. More specifically, we need to be very clear about key issues, such as bases and the level of troops in Iraq. We need to say that there will be no bases in Iraq a decade from now and the United States armed forces cannot stand-up and support an Iraqi government in perpetuity - pushing the Iraqis to take ownership over the situation and placing pressure on various factions to reach the broad based political settlement that is so essential to defeating the insurgency."

DECEMBER 2005

Obama Said He Supported A Phased Withdrawal To Avoid Security Vacuum; Said War In Iraq To Blame For Terrorist Problems. Obama favors starting 'a phased withdrawal process' of troops next year. The process would be based on what happens with the elections, he said. 'What we're engaged in is a difficult balancing act hereHaving gone in, how do we step back but ensure that there's not such a vacuum that either chaos occurs or jihadists take over critical areas that can make huge problems elsewhere? The irony, of course, is that there really wasn't a terrorist problem before we went in. There is now.'"

Clinton: America Still Has A "Big Job" To Do In Iraq. In a letter to her constituents, Clinton said, "I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately." She added, "America has a big job to do now. We must set reasonable goals to finish what we started and successfully turn over Iraqi security to Iraqis."


JANUARY 2006

Obama Said It Was Important To Start Phasing Down Troops. The Sun-Times wrote, "Obama said 'if we don't see significant political progress' over the next six months or so, 'we can pour money and troops in here until the cows come home but we are not going to be successful.' It is important, Obama said, 'to start phasing down the troops' and 'to give the Iraqis more ownership.'"

Clinton: Withdrawal From Iraq Could "Make a Bad Situation Worse." At a fundraiser in Portland, Clinton said, a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops "could make a bad situation worse." Instead, Clinton said, the administration needs to do a better job of leveling with Congress and working out timetables for extracting Americans from Iraq. "We need to begin to bring our troops home as they begin to provide for security in Iraq for themselves," she said. "I believe that is the responsible position. I know there is disagreement about it."


MARCH 2006

Obama Said If Iraqis Aren't United, US "Can't Hold That Country Together." The Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote, "'We've reached a point where there are no military solutions to the problems of Iraq. They're all political.'Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders of the fractured country need to get together and 'decide if they're for a united IraqIf they're not, we can't hold that country together. We need to move forward toward the beginning of a phased withdrawal.' If Iraqi leaders want to hold a united country, in Obama's opinion, they will have to shoulder the burden 'with technical assistance and some military help' coming from the United States."

Clinton: The U.S. Can't Commit To A Specific Withdrawal Date. In an address to the Long Island Board of Realtors, Clinton said she did not believe that the U.S. can commit to a specific withdrawal date, adding "The Iraqi people cannot expect us to be there for them indefinitely."


APRIL 2006

Obama Said By the End Of The Year "Our Job As The Police And Army Of Iraq Should Be Complete." At a town hall meeting, Obama said, "'If I continue to see what seems to be the case right now--an inability and unwillingness on the part of the various factions to want to live together--we can't be in a position where we're in the middle of a civil war...If we're not seeing a government that is actually committed to working together, then I don't see how our presence there can be helpful,' Obama said. Even if a new government is formed, Obama said, by the end of the year 'our job as the police and army of Iraq should be complete. We will have done our task and we should start phasing down our troops.'"

Clinton Said Setting A Deadline For The Establishment Of An Independent Iraqi Government And The Removal Of U.S. Troops Was Dangerous. Clinton told the Syracuse Post-Standard editorial board, "If you postpone a deadline that you set, you look weak. If you don't meet a deadline that you set, you look weak. You really give a lot of power to the people you don't want to empower."


MAY 2006

Obama Said Bush Rhetoric Cannot Hide "2,400 Flag-Draped Coffins." At an EMILY's List lunch, Obama said, "This ideathat somehow if you say the words 'plan for victory' and 'stay the course' over and over and over and over again, and you put these subliminal messages behind you that say 'victory' and 'victory' and 'victory,' that somehow people are not going to notice the 2,400 flag-draped coffins that have arrived at the Dover Air Force Base."

Clinton Opposed A Timetable For Iraq Withdrawal. Clinton opposed both a timetable for withdrawing troops and an open-ended commitment in Iraq. In a Washington Post interview, Clinton defended herself. "I've said many times I regret how the president has used his authority," she said. "But I think I have a responsibility to look at this as carefully as I can and say what I believe, and what I believe is we're in a very dangerous situation and it doesn't lend itself to sound bites, and therefore I have resisted going along with either my colleagues who feel passionately they need to call for a date certain or colleagues who are 100 percent behind the policy and with the president and Prime Minister Blair."


JUNE 2006

Obama Called For an "Expeditious Yet Responsible Exit from Iraq." In 2006, Obama said, "What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq."

Clinton Said It Was Not "Smart Strategy" To Set A Certain Date For Troop Withdrawal. Clinton said of the war, "we have to work our way out of it" rather than abandoning the effort. Clinton said that she did not "think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interests...of our country." She said "our job is to do everything we can to help this government succeed. It will be difficult and dangerous."


SEPTEMBER 2006

Obama Said US Must Leave Iraq Responsibly. In West Virginia, Obama said, "We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America...We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way."

Obama Said US Must Leave Iraq Responsibly. In West Virginia, Obama said, "We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America...We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way."


OCTOBER 2006

Obama Said US Is Not Going To Baby-Sit Iraq For The Next 50 Years. In 2006, Obama said, "I try not to micromanage military decision-making. But there are a lot of officers on the ground who believe that if we start reducing our footprint in Iraq that we could potentially have some better outcomes." The Rockford Register Star wrote, "Obama, who called President Bush's Iraq policy 'poorly conceived from the start,' said a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops would 'send a signal not just to Iraqis, but to those surrounding the region, that they have a stake in stabilization. This is not something that America is going to baby-sit for the next 50 years.'"

Clinton Distanced Herself From Calls to Begin Withdrawal of Troops. Clinton distanced herself from calls to begin the withdrawal of troops from Iraq by the end of 2006. "You can have a small, phased redeployment to send a message" as long as that's part of a broader plan, she said.


JANUARY 2007

1/30/07: Obamas De-Escalation Plan Would Pressure Iraqis To Political Accommodations, Bring The War To A Responsible End. Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war," Obama said. "That's why I have introduced a plan to not only stop the escalation of this war, but begin a phased redeployment that can pressure the Iraqis to finally reach a political settlement and reduce the violenceThe American people have been asked to be patient too many times, too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent," Obama said. "It's time for a policy that can bring a responsible end to this war and bring our troops home.

Senate Democratic Leadership Used Obamas Iraq Bill As The Blueprint For Iraq Redeployment Plan. An Obama press release said, On Thursday, the Senate Democratic Leadership announced an Iraq redeployment plan that sets a goal for redeploying American combat brigades by March 31, 2008, the same date proposed by Senator Barack Obama in the Iraq De-escalation Act introduced in January. The leadership plan further mirrors the Obama legislation, ensuring that the training of Iraqi forces continues, our troops remain protected during their redeployment, and that counter-terrorism activities proceed. The Obama Plan and the Leadership Plan Share Key Provisions: Obama Legislation The redeployment of the Armed Forces under this section shall be substantial, shall occur in a gradual manner, and shall be executed at a pace to achieve the goal of the complete redeployment of all United States combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group, if all the matters set forth in subsection (b)(1)(B) are not met by such date, subject to the exceptions for retention of forces for force protection, counter-terrorism operations, training of Iraqi forces, and other purposes as contemplated by subsection (g). (S. 433, introduced January 30, 2007) Leadership Legislation - The President shall commence the phased redeployment of the United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the enactment of this joint resolution, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number that are essential for the following purposes: protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.

Feingold: Obama Probably Made The Proposal That Was Most Helpful In Moving The Caucus In The Direction I Would Like To See It Go. Feingold said, I've been pleased that his opposition has intensified over time. I was not that happy with his initial opposition to a timelineI regard him as clearly stronger than Sen. Clinton, indeed than Sen. EdwardsOf all the people I've worked with that are running for president, I think Sen. Obama probably made the proposal that was most helpful in moving the Caucus in the direction I would like to see it go.


OCTOBER 2007

Obama Said That Sanctions On The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Must Not Be Linked To Keeping Troops In Iraq Or Taking Military Action Against Iran. Obama said in a release, It is important to have tough sanctions on Iran, particularly on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which supports terrorism. But these sanctions must not be linked to any attempt to keep our troops in Iraq, or to take military action against Iran. Unfortunately, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment made the case for President Bush that we need to use our military presence in Iraq to counter Iran - a case that has nothing to do with sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard.

Kyl-Lieberman Stated That The U.S. Military Presence In Iraq Will Have Long Term Consequences For The Future Of The Middle East And In Particular Iran And That U.S. Military Instruments In Iraq Should Be Used To Support A Policy Of Rolling Back Irans Influence. (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate-- (1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy; (3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies; (4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.



REALITY: EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT HAS VOTED TO FUND THE WAR IN IRAQ
2005-2007: Since Obama Came To Washington, Every Single Senate Democrat Has Voted For Every Bill Funding Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan Until President Bush Vetoed A Timetable For Withdrawal Including Both Emergency Supplemental Bills And Defense Appropriations Bills. Since Obama came to Washington in January of 2005, every single Senate Democrat has voted for every bill funding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan until President Bush vetoed a timetable for withdrawal including both emergency supplemental bills and defense appropriations bills that included bridge funding with the expressed purpose of continuing operations in Iraq as well as Afghanistan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck2/2008/01 /

See Senator Kennedy's voting record here: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=533...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #38
113. FC, I just love how you blow away the opposition with
FACTS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1776Forever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #38
166. Your information is so factual and thorough! I thank you so much for it as I am sure Obama does!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
24. One guess I'll make public - he's blinded by the promise of VP.
There's a quote which I can't recall at the moment but it's something along the lines of having the infinite capacity to reason/rationalize your decisions.

In the past, I've seen really good honest people rationalize what I'd loosely term as "less than honorable" decisions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkeye-X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
29. Frenchie - I remember our fights back in '04
Woo - the Dean/Clark fights were something else, weren't they? :D

Glad we're on the same team this time!

Hawkeye-X
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #29
51. Ooooh you were a Deaniac?
So GLAD we are all Obamaniacs this time around! :grouphug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #51
119. Well, not all of us..
I've seen a few who are for his opponent but now we're talkin' about more disconnects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #29
56. Yeah....we were pretty good at it, weren't we......?
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 12:32 AM by FrenchieCat
but the difference was that it wasn't about dividing the party in the same hateful sense. In 2004, Kerry kinda of took it like a whirldwind right off the top, and left us all in the dust....while the current primary contest is splitting the party, and harming the November potential for success--

I find what is happening now to be more harmful to all of us. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #29
118. Me too..Frenchie's a good
one to have in your corner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
30. I've heard some stories about Wesley Clark
I recall that some European allies were shocked at his bellicosity during the Kosovo conflict and thought of him as a loose cannon. Either way it doesn't matter now. I firmly believe that he probably wanted the position of secretary of defense and now he probably can't have it because of Obama. I guess he wants to poison the well for Obama so he and the Clintons can go at it again in 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #30
39. Cali,
Wes in ineligible for SecDef.


Bellicosity? Quotes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #39
46. Why do you say that...he should be eligible for any political appointee position
There may well be a restriction in the law and I don't know about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #46
70. There is a legal restriction;
must be out of military 10 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #70
91. Thanks, I was unaware of that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #46
71. There is a restriction for Sec of Defense......
10 years out of uniform minimum.

Clark will not be that till 2010.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #30
53. Sounds right to me ......
Meanwhile, I think that Clinton also has long seen advantages for herself in this relationship....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #30
60. Go to my website......to see that all of what you are talking about
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 12:38 AM by FrenchieCat
has been debunked. And of course, all good leaders will develop enemies, jealous souls, etc...

I just find him maybe loyal to a fault. and maybe that's the soldier in him. Or maybe he likes the Clintons, as they go back a long ways. But whatever it is, Hillary certainly didn't go out of her way for Wes when he ran.

And no, I don't believe that he's thinking about running for anything in 2012. He is way past that.

Could he be the Veep that Hillary wants? Possibly, although I don't trust her on that, but
this is why I find the Obama Veep talk from the Clinton camp curiously disingenuous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #60
116. "Hillary certainly didn't go out of her way for Wes when he ran"
because she wanted GWB to win again, so she could rise up in 2008. If a Dem had won on 2004, she'd likely have had to wait until 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #30
186. I just have to ask this....
Does everyone at all times, agree with the other person? or their manner of dealing with a situation...does everyone always agree that this or that means the same thing?? does everyone always get the same message as everyone else?? NO!! Especially on a world stage with other countries and cultures involved!!!

Have you ever met the man, or are you making YOUR assumptions about him, based upon the words of others? I hate to tell you this, but in the real world, there are those who just look for ways to malign others...there are those who look on the wrong side of everything, or work to make a mountain out of a molehill...because it suits their own purposes...Clark is one of those people who does things because he perceives that it's the best thing to do in a given situation...not in order to benefit personally..

You said..."I firmly believe that he probably wanted the position of secretary of defense and now he can't have it because of Obama"...give me a break...would you?? In reply I say...I firmly believe nothing of the sort, and it's obvious YOU don't know what YOU are talking about...HE KNOWS he can't be Sec of Def...so why would he waste his time lusting after a position he knows full well, he can't fill for at least 2 more years???geeze...a person gets tired of the sos all the time, but then I guess if someone tells a lie often enough, eventually it does become the truth...wb
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
33. It is NOT bringing down the country to question whether Obama is qualified for the job he seeks.
In fact, it is patriotic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. No, it is bringing down the PARTY!
Hello.

Hillary Clinton is not fit to lead, and if she is, why don't you illuminate us on that point, instead of telling me what what is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. It is not bringing Anything down to seek of an applicant his or her qualifications, at any point.
Obama has no golden ticket. Questions about his qualifications are not only justified, they should be mandatory.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:12 AM
Original message
Do you want to give us Hillary's qualifications as you see them.
I'd appreciate that very much.

I have questions about her qualifications, and I agree that they should be mandatory.

In addition, I believe that I stated the reason quite clearly in my lengthy OP. You can find them if you read what I wrote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #35
55. I agree with that --- however.... poor candidates, whether Obama or anyone else
will hurt you later ---

deal with it sooner ---


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #55
63. Now that's a matter of opinion, isn't it.....
meaning that I disagree with you on this.

And being vetted in the manner that Obama is being vetted is unfair and unwise. This is a primary, and so, this is not the time to use scorched earth politics against someone who, according to the math, you cannot beat except if you beat him down to a pulp.....someone that is bringing tons of Democrats willing to work into the party. That's just not wise.

Read here:




....there are a few flaws in Clinton's trial-by-smear method. The first is that her attacks on Obama are not a fair proxy for what he'd endure in the general election, because attacks are harder to refute when they come from within one's own party.
Indeed, Clinton is saying almost exactly the same things about Obama that McCain is: He's inexperienced, lacking in substance, unequipped to handle foreign policy. As The Washington Monthly's Christina Larson has pointed out, in recent weeks the nightly newscasts have consisted of Clinton attacking Obama, McCain attacking Obama, and then Obama trying to defend himself and still get out his own message. If Obama's the nominee, he won't have a high-profile Democrat validating McCain's message every day.

Second, Obama can't "test" Clinton the way she can test him. While she likes to claim that she beat the Republican attack machine, it's more accurate to say that she survived with heavy damage. Clinton is a wildly polarizing figure, with disapproval ratings at or near 50 percent. But, because she earned the intense loyalty of core Democratic partisans, Obama has to tread gingerly around her vulnerabilities. There is a big bundle of ethical issues from the 1990s that Obama has not raised because he can't associate himself with what partisan Democrats (but not Republicans or swing voters) regard as a pure GOP witch hunt.


What's more, Clinton has benefited from a favorable gender dynamic that won't exist in the fall. (In the Democratic primary, female voters have outnumbered males by nearly three to two.)

Clinton's claim to being a tough, tested potential commander-in-chief has gone almost unchallenged. Obama could reply that being First Lady doesn't qualify you to serve as commander-in-chief, but he won't quite say that, because feminists are an important chunk of the Democratic electorate. John McCain wouldn't be so reluctant.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ba30ff16-a5af...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #33
117. as if Shrillary is qualified or experienced... PATHETIC!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
40. There is only one explanation for Clark's statement
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 12:24 AM by andym
Given the very interesting points you make, and the fact that Clark knows that the commander in chief is a position that requires common sense and good judgment above all others, I think there is only one explanation. Clark is very close to Hillary Clinton, knows her fairly well and believes she will make a great President. He has committed himself to her campaign. He likely knows Obama far less well. Although Clark is a fair man, he is also human and his loyalty to his friend probably prevents a completely unbiased assessment on the commander in chief issue. In the heat of battle, sometimes even the best people make errors of judgment. Nobody is perfect.

Perhaps someday Clark will be proved wrong in his assessment by the "facts on the ground", although I suspect he will have realized his mistake before then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #40
74. Certainly your post says a lot.....
but doesn't answer the fact that it is Hillary that Wes has most differed with in his own views than it is Obama.

And again, in many ways both Clark and Obama have these leadership qualities (in different styles) that makes them more alike than makes them different.

I have read both of their books; Clark's 3 and Obama's 2.

If Clark is saying that Hillary is best suited because Bill will be there, that is not of any great comfort to me....because Obama could have someone there too.....

Hillary does her homework, he says. That's just one of the problem with Clark's reasoning.

But yes, he has stated that everyone has that relative who really believe what they believe, and even though they are wrong as hell about that one thing, may be just fine with other subjects.

Wes Clark recounted a story about his folks not being tolerant of African-Americans back in the days of Little Rock civil rights unrest, and him feeling in his gut that they were 100% wrong about it without knowing much else....but that this didn't stop him from loving them, or feeling that they were right about a lot of other things.

That's how I feel about Wes Clark right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #74
80. I think you feel the same as I do
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 01:38 AM by andym
I admire Clark and think he would have made a great President. Like the passage you quote about the relative who is wrong about one thing, even the best people have blind spots.

I think he just personally likes and admires Hillary Clinton a lot and that probably takes precedence over specific political differences on the issues. Hillary is also only 3 years younger than Wes, so there is a possible generational connection too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #80
85. Possibly......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
41. (((Frenchie)))
;-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. Hey There!
Glad to see you!

Am I making sense and is Wes not?

I want your opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
43. I've never understood the tremendous devotion that Clark was able
to get 4 years ago. Seemed like a good guy but kind of ambiguous. These last four years he has been ready to the call whenever Fox needed a liberal they could set up and then tear down after he left. I have a lot of Clarkie friends who still pine for him. I think that he actually has out done Richardson in the "pick me for something" race this year. Richardson atleast has gained some of his dignity back by espousing some independence.

Maybe he is just a very loyal guy.


I don't think he can be considered a top tier guy anymore. Maybe he thinks that if he can't be in Clinton's cabinet he has a better chance of being the token democrat in McCain's. He is just kind of a mystery to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #43
47. I believe that he could have kicked Bush ass among other things....
not by playing dirty, and lying and cheating and by making shit up about Bush, but by leading and showing wisdom on the issue of war.

However, considering the grassroots movement that he worked with during his own candidacy, his support for Hillary Clinton and her lack of interest in a bottom up organization makes me that much more baffle about his support for her. It would seem that he would have understood better than most (apart from Dean) that Obama is the one with the organizational and leadership qualities that are more valuable than any "establishment" attitude that one may have.

He is about the only good thing that I believe Hillary possesses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #47
68. well she sure does seem to own him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #68
72. That's the part that kills me.....
this eager devotion very similar to his support for John Kerry...but of course, that was during the GE when he should have spoken out harshly.

The thing about Samantha Power was truly heartless though...considering their own relationship, hers and Wes'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #72
78. well nothing serves you so well in Washington as being able to show that
you can take one for the team. I expect it will help her book sales and in January she will have a substantive job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:28 AM
Original message
Maye it is Sec of Defense and Clark strongly believes that he
is the one who can rebuild the military (b/c it is devastated). I don't believe he's in it for just the power. A lot of people can be blinded by purely good intentions. It might be a combination of things. I'm sure he's convinced that he's doing the right thing, I just strongly disagree with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
49. Clark lost me when he endorsed Hillary, she is the antipathy
of just about everything he stands for.

I have unsubbed from WesPAC and sent him a message telling him I am deeply disappointed in his shilling for a war monger, while dissing Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #49
122. Thanks for letting him
know why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Blood for Hubris Donating Member (171 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #49
157. You mean "antithesis." Antipathy is what you have, toward Hillary. I'd call it blind
prejudice plus mob mentality.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
52. A very sad day Frenchie on many levels
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 12:40 AM by Donna Zen
First on a purely personal one: Samantha Powers stood by Wes Clark and was there when he needed her in NH. That Wes would so blithely stab her in the back on a day that could not have been pleasant for her is truly a great disappointment for me. I really believed that the General could be trusted to stand by his friends.

On policy, his attack makes no sense at all. What both camps have said is that they will put together an exit strategy when they know where we are come 09. Wes has said many times that the occupation on the ground is a fluid situation. He knows very well that Samantha Powers was saying exactly that. Everything he said today was nothing more than spin which was meant to deceive. Ah...for the days of the truth teller who made it easy to support him. Gone. And for what? He continued the attack on Obama's credentials as part of TeamHillary, and weakened a Democrat.

Finally, Lee Feinstein was also on that conference call. That is the same Lee Feinstein that said that the only problem with bush's preemptive war policy is that it doesn't go far enough. That is who General Clark now considers his friend while Powers doesn't get a chance to answer the charges being leveled at her.

Bill Clinton ended Clark's career and protected a republican.

To remain whole about this, I refuse to regret giving my time and money to Wes, but I would never do it again.

For good measure read Gary Hart's Breaking The Final Rule

As a veteran of red telephone ads and "where's the beef" cleverness, I am keenly aware that sharp elbows get thrown by those trailing in the fourth quarter (and sometimes even earlier). "Politics ain't beanbag," is the old slogan. But that does not mean that it must also be rule-or-ruin, me-first-and-only-me, my way or the highway. That is not politics. That is raw, unrestrained ambition for power that cannot accept the will of the voters.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #52
57. There is no doubt in my mind that hillary has promised something to Clark if she is elected /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #57
59. Heh?
Even if it is so, which I wouldn't bet the farm on, that does justify General Clark's lack of personal integrity regarding a loyal friend, Samantha Powers, and his lack of candor when discussing Iraq. Leadership is standing up when no one else is standing up. Ooops! That's what Powers said about Clark. I guess she can now retract those words.

Truth is very important to me even when considering politicians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #59
61. I didn't say it would justify what he is doing, I just said it is a possible reason
power corrupts

Clark made some controversial moves in Kosovo against the Russians, that concerned the British enough that they intervened



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #61
75. As to Clark - Kosovo-Russians-Brits,
check Frenchie's post, above; she has discussed that matter thoroughly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #52
58. I kind of wish I hadn't read this post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #52
66. I do have to agree with you.......
although I didn't want to....because it makes it doubly sad.

It is a very hard day for me.

Very hard indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #52
67. ((DZ))
Too sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
54. Did Wes Clark bring in mccain's name when discussing his thoughts on Obama?
and yes your points are excellent

I have no doubt the hillary has promised something to Clark if she is elected. The truth is bill clinton had LESS experience than Obama

As far as hillary clinton's assertion that she and mccain have more experience, and thus implying that they are both more qualified than Obama to be president, consider this:

Is it better to have more experience, or better judgement?

I also reject her premise that she has more experience than obama for the reasons stated in your excellent rebuttal to General Clark




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnnydrama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
62. great post
Myself and Bill Clinton circa 1992 agree with you 100%

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/29821-bill-clinton-1992-b...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beregond2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
64. Clark
I was also stunned and baffled by General Clark's words. He has contradicted everything he ever stood for. I can only think that Hillary promised to make him Secretary of Defense, but he had a very good shot at that with Obama too. He certainly won't have a role in his administration now. What good did he hope to accomplish? What could he have possibly been thinking? It is tragic to see one of the best military minds we have make himself useless and irrelevant in this way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonconformist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
65. If he's someone you respected and admired, why don't you consider the fact that he's right?
Clark has considerable experience with foreign policy and national security, and I trust his judgment on this. I know he wants what is best for this country, bottom line, and would never point us in the wrong direction. I think Clark must have some serious misgivings about Obama to say something so damning, and that alone gives me pause. I trust General Clark.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #65
69. You can Trust as you like, but please know that I am a thinking person, meaning .......
I come to my own conclusion, and do so with due diligence.

I thought about this, and I believe that I have clearly chartered in my OP exactly what I think, and why, and have provided ample evidence over time of my strong support for each of these men, and so I am not biased in my opinion whatsoever....because I respect both of them immensely.

So please know, that I have researched very closely both of these individuals, on both Wes Clark (for years)and on Barack Obama (for months), and they are more alike than many might suspect.

I am no fool.


Respect that please.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonconformist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #69
73. I'm not talking about blind faith
I know that Wes is phenomenally intelligent and an expert in these sorts of things, though. I also have complete trust that he would never lead us astray. But in doing research on things, one has to consider the opinion of experts on the matter. Just like I thought Joe Wilson had expertise that warranted listening to, I think Clark does too. I also think that Clark knows things we don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #73
76. I mentioned this upthread, because it struck me.......
In some of his speeches, and in his last book, Wes Clark recounts a story about his folks not being very tolerant of African-Americans back in the days of Little Rock school integration and civil rights unrest, and him feeling in his gut that his parents were pretty much 100% wrong about these beliefs that they had.....he felt, he said, without knowing much else on the issue....

but, he stated, this disconnect that they had on the issue, didn't stop him from loving them, or from feeling that they were right about a lot of other things.

That's how I feel about Wes Clark right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonconformist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #76
83. That maybe be how you feel, but it's a bad analogy
How someone feels about race is a poor comparison to an expert giving his opinion in the area of his expertise. One is an opinion based entirely on emotion, while another deals in facts.

Of course people who love each other can "agree to disagree" about emotional opinions... but this isn't Clark saying he prefers Hillary's personality to Obamas or something like that. He's saying that in his esteemed opinion, Obama isn't ready to be CIC. I really don't think he'd say something so direct just for political reasons. I think he has some serious reasons to think that is true, and likely a lot of things that he is privy to that we aren't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #83
86. The analogy was perfect,
and race was simply the example....not the point. It was a good analogy because it belongs to Wes Clark.

And no, I don't believe that Clark is basing his support for Hillary and what he says about her on facts. I outlined that in my op.....which you have yet to challenge; the point by point reasons that Wes doesn't really agree with Hillary on a whole host of things regarding foreign policy and, in particular her actions as well as Bill's in many cases.

And so again, I disagree with your opinion that Clark made a case based on facts. Indeed he has not, because there is no evidence that he presents that backs up why he so believes about Hillary according to his words.

Believe me, if I found any reason to support his contention that Hillary is suited "better" to be CIC, I'd be slightly better off. The only thing that I can think of is that she's married to Bill Clinton who was once, not long ago, President. If that's his case as to why Hillary is "better" suited, than that is a sorry case he's made.

As to being "privy"....I believe myself to be quite well informed, thank you.

Kind of like while I was marching against this war, and Wes was testifying that we should give no Blank check, and Hillary was voting for the Blank check. I wasn't "privy", but I was right.

That's the case I'm making.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonconformist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #86
95. And I was right too
I was against the war from the get-go, too. I also consider myself to be pretty well-informed. But that's not what I'm talking about. Obviously Wes had and has access to information that isn't in the public realm, and I think you knew what I meant.

Here is some of the transcript of the phone interview

Some transcript if you haven't listened to it yet. See downthread... or up...
_______________________________________________

WES(on the Samantha Power Iraq quote):
I found the comments quite disturbing - because to get out of Iraq is gonna be very difficult, and if you don't go into it with some fixed ideas in mind --and I think Senator Clinton's plan has it exactly right, You've got to do it with a responsible withdrawal- You've got to know when you're gonna begin, and you've gotta work it through -- if you simply show up and say "OK now what's this all about?" You're gonna own the war. (bad cell reception here)

Iraq ---there will be concerns of chaos and pandemonium, there'll be concerns about renewed civil war, neighbors in the region will be concerned--- It's gonna take a REAL STRENGTH OF CHARACTER to execute a pullback from Iraq and to preserve America's interests in the region at the same time. And that means KNOWING where you're headed before you start down the path. So, I think what you've got from senator Clinton is a real plan that indicates the strength of character necessary to lead the nation and be a Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

I'm quite concerned about what we've heard from the Obama camp today, because I'm not sure exactly where it leaves us, but I'm quite concerned that it will leave us... still at war.

Thank you General Clark - Next Jamie Rubin

JAMIE:
Yes, I think General Clark has spoken to the substantive importance of this and the words frankly speak to it directly and don't need much interpretation.

I think the point here is that on Monday this week Samantha Powers, described as probably the most influential of his advisers, with unlimitied access to the candidate, and given a very unique description as a unique Svengali guru-- wahtever you want to call it.... and frankly I feel very sorry for her. I know he... she's done great research on the subject of genocide... She's a very scholarly and intense person.

The problem here is at the TOP -- Senator Obama has created in his Foreign Policy team, an unworkable structure-- to have someone like this operating out on the side with unlimited access, and talking openly. And that's his fault- not her fault. She's a professor, she's a very enthusiastic person. I think her remarks were... awful about Senator clinton and about this, but I feel sorry for her that she's been put in a position where he can't seem to run a foreign policy team the way it's supposed to run.

Now Senator Obama has said in several of the debates that the way he's running his campaign is a good indicator of his ability to manage the incredibly challenging job of President. He said that in at least one debate. And on foreigh affairs, in particular....words matter. And frankly much of foreign affairs is making sure that the rest of the world understands what you say, what you mean, and that you mean what you say.

And to have two in a row...to have a private difference of view expressed on NAFTA by a top economic advisor, and then the next week to have- on the fundamental issue of this campaign - again the impression that one thing is said for political purposes perhaps, and another thing is what's actually gonna happen... um, is amateur hour on making foreign policy. I'm sorry to say that but that's what I think it is, having been involved a litte bit in the organization required and the discipline required to communicate in this area. The reason words matter in this case is because in many respects this election is going to be a referendum on Iraq.

WES REPLIES TO DAVID CORN of MOTHER JONES (a semi-hostile question like 'Aren't you all making much ado about nothing?')

WES:
--And Jamie, if I could just follow up on what you're saying ... The environment in which this is going to become operative -- were the Democrats to win, and were the Obama team to go in there -- Consider this: Both the General in charge, Dave Petraeus, and the Ambassador Brian Crocker, are scheduled to leave... So the strong leadership, the experienced hands on the ground... won't be there.

So the new team comes in-- there'll be all manner of predictions of catastrophe and calamity. That's the way these things are when you're trying to pull forces back. And if you don't have some strong principals to guide you - you'll end up owning the problem.

And what concerns me about the statement that Samantha made- and I know Samantha very well, she's a fine person-- But if this represents the position of the candidate....it suggests that what's going to happen is that there isn't strong guidance at the outset.. That, "Folks we're leaving. Now, let's get it going and then we'll talk about the details."

And we've got to have the strength of character to commence withdrawal and pull out of there. This is about strong leadership. Strong leadership is about operating from principals that can be looked at, and examined, and worked over, and defended. And that didn't come through. Maybe they're there, but we didn't see that. What we saw was basically, you know... everything's up for grabs.

ANDREA MITCHELL chimes in and tells them that they are not being FAIR to Obama -- and asks if they think this is a "fair attack"? (cough)... Then she tops it off with another question about Clinton having talked to Canada about NAFTA saying it's the same as Goolsbee did on behalf of Obama. She asks them again. They deny it again. She expresses doubt ... geez Andrea. Give it a rest...

WES (on Iraq pull out again)
I don't think you can say - as some of the Democratic candidates tried to say - long in advance of the circumstances -- Well this is it, they're all going to be gone, everything's going to be out of there, the last American soldier will have left - You can't say that. Because to say that is to say something that is probably not going to be _____ (done? inaudible word, cell going out)

I always thought, as an average American voter, that what people said in campaigns is what they intended to do.

And so I was very concerned when I heard candidates promising a hard end date... like... 16 months. That's it. They're outta there. I'm thinking, how can they possibly mean that? What does that say about their judgment? I think what you have to have is a hard beginning date. And that's what Hillary has. You have to have----

(and then, Wes's phone goes out-- and then he comes back!)

I'm on a highway in Oklahoma. It didn't come through, sorry.
What I was attempting to convey was the importance of a realistic position as a campaign pledge-- and what Hillary has is a realistic position. What we've heard from the others.... is not.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14953#comment-28937 ...



Obviously, one of the huge problems that Clark has is that Powers is directly contradicting what Obama has been saying on the campaign trail. I think this makes him question Obama's sincerity and drive about the entire situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbmk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #95
132. Clinton talking points
Clarke severely misrepresents Obamas take on the issue in that interview. And pumps up Hillarys. With no basis for either. None that I can find at least.

None of the nominees can make a fixed plan before they sit in the seat and have access to the full intelligence. And Obama has said so before and that was what Samantha Powers said too. Infering that Obamas plan is limited to going to work on the first day and go "So, whats up?" is disengineous at best.

Claiming that a hard beginning date is a significant difference is definately funny. If the matter wasn't so serious.

His entire comment and argument is based on that still elusive idea of Hillary being more prepared. Without delivering _any_ facts as to why that should be the case. Read it over again. Not a single thing to back up the argument.

"And we've got to have the strength of character to commence withdrawal and pull out of there. This is about strong leadership. Strong leadership is about operating from principals that can be looked at, and examined, and worked over, and defended. And that didn't come through. Maybe they're there, but we didn't see that. What we saw was basically, you know... everything's up for grabs."

I know where I _don't_ see those things (assuming we are talking about principles).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #65
159. you mean - don't believe what you see and feel - and that is wrong
That is what Bill Clinton has been pushing - "don't listen to your feelings"

I listen to my feelings, they are right at least 99% of the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonconformist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #159
172. I believe that going with your feelings despite what experts have to say
is called "faith".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 04:40 AM
Response to Reply #172
178. No it isn't.....
it's called knowing who you are and what you believe. When one reaches a certain age, one becomes too old to be a mere political groupie. Faith is totally different from that, as it involves trust without thought. That's not anything that I'm practicing when it comes to my politics. I would be of no use to myself, and therefore I would only be of use to others if that were the case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
incapsulated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:17 AM
Response to Original message
77. There was no need for this
You *know* he is supporting Hillary.

We are in the middle of a tight race.

He was going to criticize the opposition, that is politics.

Thanks for using him to prop up Obama and bash Hillary.

If you were really upset about this you wouldn't be posting this shit on DU for partisan bullshit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #77
79. Actually, incapsulated.......
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 01:26 AM by FrenchieCat
yes there was a need; my need to say what I felt, as this contest is very important to my future, and to the future of my children.

And Clark said it best, that dissent is patriotic. He has said this time and time again.

I am not being disagreeable, but I can well disagree.

And if you haven't noticed, I have not disrespected Wes in my op.

He chose to make his statements public, and that was his choice.

And I made mine.

he has a forum to speak to many more than will ever have.

But, I do have a forum to speak.

I think that I am allowed, because I don't think that even you can question my work on behalf of Wes Clark throughout the years.

I'm sorry that I have offended you, but I have and will always remain true to myself prior to remaining true to anyone else.

Again, I am sorry if you feel hurt about this one thread here at DU.

But realize that I don't have television cameras around me, so you can rest assure that my opinion, unlike Wes', will not be heard around the world.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:42 AM
Response to Original message
81. K&R.
Well said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:57 AM
Response to Original message
84. Recommended
I'm sorry for your pain
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:20 AM
Response to Reply #84
87. Thank you!
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 02:21 AM by FrenchieCat
I'm somewhat relieved that you noted that, because yes....this has been painful. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #87
89. I sent you a PM
Did you get it? Or do I have to be a donor? As soon as I can, I'll donate but not for a few weeks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:36 AM
Response to Reply #87
90. You're welcome
Your integrity is very impressive. That makes me feel even worse for what you're going through :hug:

I was feeling a little blue earlier and a friend sent me this. I hope it makes you laugh as much as it made me. Hang in there, it will get better. YES WE CAN!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:27 AM
Response to Original message
88. His sin is that he's loyal to the Clintons.
What's sad is how his loyalty has been abused.

Awesome post, BTW.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lena inRI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
92. Excellent supported OP, Frenchie. . .
. . .I have been suffering disenchantment over General Clark's 180s on IWR/Kiel-Lieberman bill as well. But your thorough account shows even more Clark anomalies. . thanks for your clarity.

Have you read my earlier posts before yours here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

What I would like to add is that, IMHO, General Clark is being used by the Clinton campaign to shore up Hillary's weak C-I-C image AND this exploitation started when Clark suddenly dropped out in 2004 even though he earned strong results in several primaries, not just Oklahoma. That's when candidate Clark morphed into Clark the Hillary hack. I'll give him that much. . .course, my cynical view is that the Clark role for Hillary could have started as far back as Sept 2003 when he was supposedly "drafted" as a '04 candidate.

I hope you reply to my post here as some former Clarkies have, but I noticed you have never done so to my past posts. . .like I'm persona non grata.

I'd appreciate any comment as I, too, cope with my Clark let-down.

Obama's truly the new direction we must follow. . .GOBAMA!

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #92
96. I cannot put Wes and hack in the same sentence.......
because I don't see him as a hack.....

I just believe that he signed up with the Hillary camp when Hillary was a sure thing, and she needed his cover when the whole General betray Us vs. Move On.org controversy went down (Clark endorsed her a few days after). I don't believe that Wes Clark, apart from a whole lot of people in top spots of our Democratic party, thought that Barack Obama and his message would reasonate as it has.

I believe also that his Arkansas roots, his work in the Clinton administration, the generational divide, and the fact that Wes believes that there is a big mess to clean up is why he is supporting Hillary Clinton. I think in my hearts of heart, he supports Hillary because he knows that Bill Clinton would be right there in the White House. In other words, I think he supports Hillary not for her own qualifications, but because National Security is important to him, and he considers Bill Clinton has having done that, been there. What he fails to understand is that Hillary Clinton really isn't any more prepared to argue National Security in her own right and that she, herself, is not all that in National Security. That's the blind spot that he doesn't see; that Hillary on NS simply isn't all of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lena inRI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #96
105. I see. . .you believe Clark is not hacking for Hillary . . .
. .when he puts Obama down as an unprepared CinC, all the while blindly believing Hillary is prepared.

Have you seen this most current self-effacing, gracious interview of Samantha Power?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/06/samantha-power...

When I compare Samantha's allegiance to Obama and even Hillary if need be, and then hear Clark's unequivocal put-down of Obama, AND his and the Hillary campaign's utter silence on Samantha's apology. . . I'm sorry to disagree, Frenchie. Clark is no longer the incorruptible gentleman to me. . .he's hacking away at Obama. . .for Hillary. . .and he doesn't FEEL the pain of conscience. . .only his "loving loyalty" to the Clintons. Some blind spot that is!

So I agree with you but to a greater degree of disillusionment.

How unfair it could be that Clark will be doing all the "national security-foreign policy HOMEWORK" while Hillary gets all the credit. . . his belittlement for being blindly loyal.

Thanks for your thoughts. . .peace. . . GOBAMA ALL THE WAY!

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #96
109. Frenchie,
trying to address your earlier question, but you've said here something I've thought:

"I just believe that he signed up with the Hillary camp when Hillary was a sure thing, and she needed his cover when the whole General betray Us vs. Move On.org controversy went down (Clark endorsed her a few days after). I don't believe that Wes Clark, apart from a whole lot of people in top spots of our Democratic party, thought that Barack Obama and his message would reasonate as it has.

I believe also that his Arkansas roots, his work in the Clinton administration, the generational divide, and the fact that Wes believes that there is a big mess to clean up is why he is supporting Hillary Clinton.'

And it was around the time he knew he'd have to tell us all that he would not run; I think he was discovering that he couldn't get necessary $ BECAUSE OF their big sweeps of funds. He can't possibly bow out, even tho I suspect he's seen some things he's not happy about; wouldn't be decent/proper/ethical for him to do so. He's stuck, and he'll not do politics again.

Will be back; trying to move from apt. to townhouse, so 'unrelated' stress here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #109
144. Thanks......yes, you've summarized my thoughts well.......
Take care! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
93. Poor Frenchie; poor me
You have so much courage. I know how this hurts you to do. :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tokenlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
94. So many Clarkies failed to follow into the Hillary camp...interesting...
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 10:34 AM by tokenlib
Monitoring DU and so many other blogs..it is so amazing that so many of the die hard Clark supporters who waited and hoped for another run failed to take that last step with him.. When he went to the Clinton camp, it seems that so many of them--perhaps even a majority went to Obama. I wish a study or poll had been done on it. If it could be proven, I wonder what Wes would think about that.

Honestly, when Wes decided not to run I was really floored. And although I can understand his loyalty to his former Commander in Chief--some of his comments about Obama have really shaken my image of him--and not for the better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonconformist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #94
97. I was really hoping that Clark would run
When he didn't, I didn't support anyone at first. I really REALLY wanted Clark. After awhile, I started supporting Edwards passionately, though.

After he dropped, and I found myself forced to choose between two candidates who were not my top choices, I had a lot of research to do. There are many reasons why I decided on Hillary over Obama... I prefer her positions on policy, particularly health care. She's a policy wonk, and it really can't be denied. She knows her shit. We have already seen how ideology-driven administrations end up - Reagan, Bush I and II. Obama even praised Reagan's ideology-driven presidency and contrasted it with Bill's policy-driven presidency (which he criticized). That's a huge, fundamental difference I have with Obama that can't be overlooked. One of the main problems Democrats had with Bill's administration was shitty policy that ended up passed in compromise with the right-wing. Ironically, that seems to be the main thing Obama wants to do. But overall, the Clinton presidency was a time for unprecedented peace and prosperity in the U.S. and it was clearly a better time for America than it was under these ideology-driven presidencies. Obama seems to be light on substance and high on style, and frankly, I've had enough of that crap.

I also don't trust Obama to follow through on what he is saying in speeches, because he has a bad track record in that regard. So I have a lot of reservations about all of his lofty rhetoric entrancing people so he can get into office. Also, for someone who is supposed to be a "uniter", he seems pretty damn divisive. Kind of like the last one.

Anyway, these are just a few of the reasons I chose Hillary over Obama. But remember, I really REALLY wanted Clark. It's quite obvious that Clark will have a significant role in Hillary's administration, and I think he'll be her running mate. She needs someone on the ticket like Clark, someone with a ton of national security and foreign policy experience that can go toe-to-toe with McCain. Clark has a broad appeal that will easily peel away some of McCain's support in the GE. I think a Clinton/Clark ticket is a WINNER, but more importantly, I think that they would do a fantastic job. Because it is about more than just getting into office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #94
106. Do you know why?
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 02:15 PM by sparosnare
Those of us who were die hard Clarkies liked the fact that he wasn't a Washington insider; wasn't part of the establishment. He spoke what he felt (I remember when he declared he was a liberal and proud of it) and I thought he was an honest man with the best interest of the people of this country at heart. He had a positive message.

AND - he spoke out against Iraq before we went in and warned it would be a catastrophe.

It's very, very disappointing he has decided to support Hillary at all costs and degrade Obama - a candidate who is very much like himself. I would have hoped he'd support him.

I'll never feel the same way about Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
98. An excellent post FrenchieCat.
I suggest to you that what Wes Clark did should not come as a surprise to those of us that see the corrupting influence the Clintons exert on anything or anyone around them. I would like to hear Clark explain the reasons he chose to speak the words he spoke. We might have to wait until after Denver to hear his side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dansolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
99. This lends credence to the Clark as the anti-Dean in 2004
I remember during the 2004 primaries it was suggested that Clark entered the race as a Clinton "stalking horse" in order to derail Dean. At the time, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as to his genuine neutrality. With these statements, I'm not so sure anymore. It sure seems like his loyalty to the Clintons outweighs everything else. I wonder if she has promised him a position in her administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
100. I warned you about Clark, Frenchie, and you thought I hated America!
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 01:06 PM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
(Well, I don't think you said that.)

Heck the man did his durndest to start WWIII, and getting rid of the military-industrial complex and its beneficence, only to replace it with sticks and stones, could well be the only solution I'd be ambivalent about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #100
102. You can throw the kitchen sink at him, as you always have......
but unfortunately for you, that is not what my post is about.

but, you knew that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. Now, now, Frenchie. No need to be huffy! It's not such a misfortune to me.
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 02:08 PM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
I admire people who can change their minds when pushed beyond a certain limit. But it's still fun to pull your leg.

I always took Clarkies for imperialists and, while I'm not sure Obama wants to go down that road, we know Hillary has no qualms about it. So, colour me agreeably surprised at your stance now.

Was it the uniform? No. Sorry. Couldn't resist it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
101. Great post, FrenchieCat. I also supported Clark in '04 ...
... and am perplexed by his support for Hillary now. (Though I know it's due to his support for the Clintons, rather than consistency between his past positions and Hillary's.)

I feel like reviewing whatever video footage is available from Wes' 2004 run, 'cause we're sure to find statements where he implies he's the more qualified candidate -- over Kerry and Edwards -- owing to his own outspoken opposition to the Iraq war, in contrast to Kerry's and Edwards' having voted for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
104. Thank you, Frenchie
I'm not quite as incensed as you, but I am in a holding pattern, waiting to see if Wesley comes around and stands by his values. Country first, party second, ambitions third.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
107. Now you can understand why it's hard to now dismiss the claims Wes was ALWAYS a stalking horse for
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 02:17 PM by blm
Hillary. a Number of DC insiders said so in 2003, but many of us, including me, didn't want to believe them.

Now, I am more inclined to believe that his work for Kerry was only to get the experience he needed on the campaign trail and to duplicate whatever associations Kerry developed during the course of that run and attaching himself to those groups so he could bring them to Hillary when the time came for her to announce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #107
110. There is no evidence to the claim, which is why it doesn't mean anything to me.....
since there is not evidence, I don't believe in the "stalking horse" theory, but thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #110
111. It's an overall picture. It DID work out however, exactly as the pundits described,
whether you see the evidence of it or not. The result is exactly what they claimed it would be back then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
112. K&R!
I, too, am a former Clarkie from the draft Clark movement until his efforts supporting HRC's POTUS bid. Thank you for the information in this post, I am bookmarking it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
114. Wow, FrenchieCat...thanks!
You've written so much and so well and it breaks my heart too that General Clark would say these really disingenous things at this point in time or anytime considering the wrongheadedness of the candidate he does support.

Thanks for your intensity on this.

I don't know if Michael Moore has endorsed anyone but I know he endorsed Clark in 2004 because Clark stood up for him after the Academy Awards Show..but somehow I don't think Michael is rootin' for hilary. My thought is that each year brings such changes for some in who we're now behind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
120. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
meow mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
121. yup, i remember Frenchie in 2004 was a Die Hard CLARK supporter.
as was i.

I Approve of this Message!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snort Donating Member (132 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
123. can you say 'cabinet position'?
only thing that figures
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donjoofWeThePeople Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
124. Too bad
that before you launched your diatribe, you didn't bother to read General Clark's comments. He did not "diss" the Great One and to be honest, Obama doesn't have the experience necessary to be our Commander in Chief. And, frankly, I don't want this country have to find out the hard way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bushwick Bill Donating Member (605 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
125. Clarkie and Joe Wilson behind Hillary...
I can write off a lot of people as bought-and-paid-for shills, lackeys, and sellouts, but not these two. It has made me question my faith in Barack. Tell me where Wes and Joe have it wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Blood for Hubris Donating Member (171 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #125
154. They have it right. Hillary's ready for prime time, Obama is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
126. If still perplexed by Clark's support of Hillary, consider this quote from 2004
Candidate Wesley Clark, Feb. 4, 2004:
    "I don't understand how John Kerry and John Edwards can criticize the war in Iraq, when they voted to give George W. Bush a blank check to go to war." (link)
Apparently, Wes has gotten over the hypocrisy of candidates criticizing a war for which they wrote a "blank check."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #126
127. At a time he was on the ropes
down to his last primary, I'm guessing he was urged on to attack with that kind of language. As I stated in the other thread it was not modus operande for most of his campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #127
130. So you're saying that Clark will say anything for the sake of politics.
Gotcha. So we need to understand that Clark's current statements in support of Sen. Clinton need to be taken with a grain of salt, since Sen. Clinton is on the ropes and Wes will say whatever is politically convenient in such a case.

p.s. You have not backed-up the statement that the above was contradictory to his overall campaign platform. You have provided only one quote reference, from November 2003. If you want to make the case for his campaign having a different message, especially after Dean had exited the race, you would need to provide more data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #130
131. I am not ignorant of how politics works, that only
leads to big letdowns when your heroes act like politicians. There is no question that Clark remained and remains anti-invasion of Iraq, but there is clear evidence as far back as Sep 03 that he understood the difficult position Democrats were in with regard to the IWR vote that was for the Democrats an effort to restart UN inspections with no resistance from Sadaam Hussein.

I think he should bear some criticism for his statements late in the race as there was some conflict with earlier statements. So he questioned their committment to stopping the invasion, and ending the war, its probably fair criticism in Edwards case, but I didn't think it was on target in Kerry's case.

If you really want to pursue this, lets talk about Obamas statement in 2004 "I don't know how I would have voted ".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #131
134. How was it "fair criticism in Edwards' case" ... but not Kerry's?
And why wouldn't it be fair criticism of Clinton? NONE of them read the full, 92-page Iraq NIE, yet all voted for the AUMF.

You see, I consistently criticize them all for their failure in due diligence and failure to make the right vote, and I continue to desire a candidate that provides a stark contrast to the Republican preemptive force approach, rather than a Republican-lite candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #134
135. Unfortunately there is no candidate for you then. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #135
141. Really? Have you heard about this Obama guy?
He rawks..!!! :headbang:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #141
143. Yea the guy who said on MTP "I don't know how I would have voted..."
You are just another loser looking for someone that claims he would have voted no on a vote you don't even understand. lol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #143
167. Ah, and now we have come full circle again. You have been shown to be in error, repeatedly...
... and so you come back around to insults. Kudos..!

I have not said I'm supporting Obama for how he *might* have, hypothetically, voted were he actually in the Senate at the time of the AUMF/Iraq vote. How could we know how he would have voted, as that would be an entirely different reality? Perhaps it might have been a reality where a few more Senators, say Clinton and Kerry, bothered to read the full, 92-page Iraq NIE, which contradicted the NIE summary's claims of there being no dissension on the analysis.

I support Obama, now, in part, for the same reason I supported Wes Clark in 2004... because, with 70% of the population against them, they had the guts to publicly speak-out against the war, the only tool at each of their disposal at the time, just like Gore, and Howard Dean.

Your opinion differs. Ok. But denying reality and resorting to insults just makes you look silly. But then it *is* that season, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
128. I also respect Wes, but you know that we all make mistakes, and he has made one. I believe what we
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 07:31 PM by IsItJustMe
have here is misplaced loyalty toward the Clintons. I could be wrong, but that at least makes sense to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #128
136. Well, "loyalty" I can agree with. I'm not sure how to judge "misplaced." n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jillian Donating Member (577 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
133. Isn't there a DU rule about how many paragraphs you can post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #133
140. This is her own writing
The rule of 4-5 paragraphs is for writing copyrighted by others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #133
142. Not if it is your own writing.
Why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mojowork_n Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
138. In view of what Clark said of Samantha Power, recently,
she may also be re-appraising her estimation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donjoofWeThePeople Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
139. Transcript of the conversation is not
what FC has made it out to be. There's no disrespect here; disagreement, of course, that's what people do, but disrepect, NO.

Some transcript if you haven't listened to it yet. See downthread... or up...
_______________________________________________

WES(on the Samantha Power Iraq quote):
I found the comments quite disturbing - because to get out of Iraq is gonna be very difficult, and if you don't go into it with some fixed ideas in mind --and I think Senator Clinton's plan has it exactly right, You've got to do it with a responsible withdrawal- You've got to know when you're gonna begin, and you've gotta work it through -- if you simply show up and say "OK now what's this all about?" You're gonna own the war. (bad cell reception here)

Iraq ---there will be concerns of chaos and pandemonium, there'll be concerns about renewed civil war, neighbors in the region will be concerned--- It's gonna take a REAL STRENGTH OF CHARACTER to execute a pullback from Iraq and to preserve America's interests in the region at the same time. And that means KNOWING where you're headed before you start down the path. So, I think what you've got from senator Clinton is a real plan that indicates the strength of character necessary to lead the nation and be a Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

I'm quite concerned about what we've heard from the Obama camp today, because I'm not sure exactly where it leaves us, but I'm quite concerned that it will leave us... still at war.

Thank you General Clark - Next Jamie Rubin

JAMIE:
Yes, I think General Clark has spoken to the substantive importance of this and the words frankly speak to it directly and don't need much interpretation.

I think the point here is that on Monday this week Samantha Powers, described as probably the most influential of his advisers, with unlimitied access to the candidate, and given a very unique description as a unique Svengali guru-- wahtever you want to call it.... and frankly I feel very sorry for her. I know he... she's done great research on the subject of genocide... She's a very scholarly and intense person.

The problem here is at the TOP -- Senator Obama has created in his Foreign Policy team, an unworkable structure-- to have someone like this operating out on the side with unlimited access, and talking openly. And that's his fault- not her fault. She's a professor, she's a very enthusiastic person. I think her remarks were... awful about Senator clinton and about this, but I feel sorry for her that she's been put in a position where he can't seem to run a foreign policy team the way it's supposed to run.

Now Senator Obama has said in several of the debates that the way he's running his campaign is a good indicator of his ability to manage the incredibly challenging job of President. He said that in at least one debate. And on foreigh affairs, in particular....words matter. And frankly much of foreign affairs is making sure that the rest of the world understands what you say, what you mean, and that you mean what you say.

And to have two in a row...to have a private difference of view expressed on NAFTA by a top economic advisor, and then the next week to have- on the fundamental issue of this campaign - again the impression that one thing is said for political purposes perhaps, and another thing is what's actually gonna happen... um, is amateur hour on making foreign policy. I'm sorry to say that but that's what I think it is, having been involved a litte bit in the organization required and the discipline required to communicate in this area. The reason words matter in this case is because in many respects this election is going to be a referendum on Iraq.

WES REPLIES TO DAVID CORN of MOTHER JONES (a semi-hostile question like 'Aren't you all making much ado about nothing?')

WES:
--And Jamie, if I could just follow up on what you're saying ... The environment in which this is going to become operative -- were the Democrats to win, and were the Obama team to go in there -- Consider this: Both the General in charge, Dave Petraeus, and the Ambassador Brian Crocker, are scheduled to leave... So the strong leadership, the experienced hands on the ground... won't be there.

So the new team comes in-- there'll be all manner of predictions of catastrophe and calamity. That's the way these things are when you're trying to pull forces back. And if you don't have some strong principals to guide you - you'll end up owning the problem.

And what concerns me about the statement that Samantha made- and I know Samantha very well, she's a fine person-- But if this represents the position of the candidate....it suggests that what's going to happen is that there isn't strong guidance at the outset.. That, "Folks we're leaving. Now, let's get it going and then we'll talk about the details."

And we've got to have the strength of character to commence withdrawal and pull out of there. This is about strong leadership. Strong leadership is about operating from principals that can be looked at, and examined, and worked over, and defended. And that didn't come through. Maybe they're there, but we didn't see that. What we saw was basically, you know... everything's up for grabs.

ANDREA MITCHELL chimes in and tells them that they are not being FAIR to Obama -- and asks if they think this is a "fair attack"? (cough)... Then she tops it off with another question about Clinton having talked to Canada about NAFTA saying it's the same as Goolsbee did on behalf of Obama. She asks them again. They deny it again. She expresses doubt ... geez Andrea. Give it a rest...

WES (on Iraq pull out again)

I don't think you can say - as some of the Democratic candidates tried to say - long in advance of the circumstances -- Well this is it, they're all going to be gone, everything's going to be out of there, the last American soldier will have left - You can't say that. Because to say that is to say something that is probably not going to be _____ (done? inaudible word, cell going out)

I always thought, as an average American voter, that what people said in campaigns is what they intended to do.

And so I was very concerned when I heard candidates promising a hard end date... like... 16 months. That's it. They're outta there. I'm thinking, how can they possibly mean that? What does that say about their judgment? I think what you have to have is a hard beginning date. And that's what Hillary has. You have to have----

(and then, Wes's phone goes out-- and then he comes back!)

I'm on a highway in Oklahoma. It didn't come through, sorry.
What I was attempting to convey was the importance of a realistic position as a campaign pledge-- and what Hillary has is a realistic position. What we've heard from the others.... is not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #139
145. It's apparent who he works for.
He's always been on Team Clinton, this should come as no surprise. It's not even really an attack, it's just a concern that Obama hasn't thought through his Iraq policy substantially enough, which is a fair criticism at this point.

Of course, Hillary didn't think through her IWR vote or the electoral primary map, so the question of judgment between the two Democratic contenders remaining isn't really at issue anymore. Obama clearly wins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #139
148. donjoof,
I agree; no discernable disrespect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #139
182. Can you post this in its own thread please? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cloud75 Donating Member (737 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
147. I'll take Wes' opnion over yours. no disrespect but national security and
military affairs are very complicated some of your assumptions about these issues have no facts to back up what you said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
149. I see your point
I too was prepared to vote for Clark in 2004, had he not dropped out of the race. This is disappointing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Blood for Hubris Donating Member (171 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
150. It's not about your broken heart. It's about competence, and it's about winning the election.
Your guy is not ready for prime time. Grow up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 04:50 AM
Response to Reply #150
179. Insulting me will only let you feel better about yourself for a very short while.....
Who may think what you like, but I believe that Barack Obama is who we need to lead this nation at this time. He embodies change to the entire world in a manner that few could imagine, and he, along with us, the good people of the United States, can make it happen. It is our voices that will get this done; our voices, our hopes, and our hard work.

If it's about competence, please let me know how Hillary is ready for the prime time that you speak of. What has she done exactly that makes her ready; married somebody?

I hope that you will provide details when answering my query as to what Hillary Clinton has truly done that deserves your apparent "faith".


Here is what I see in reference to the NS/FP accomplishements of our 2 candidates:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
151. thanks for posting this
as someone else who has supported General Clark, I find his actions troubling at best

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Medusa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
153. It makes perfect sense.
Clark wants to be her VP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
158. you bring up many good points, which does make one wonder
why would he support Hillary, based on all that she has done, that is completely
counter to what he would recommend.

And what Obama would recommend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirrera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
160. Wow, you put it perfectly! Clark has had me very confused about what he is thinking. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
161. Has Obama or his campaign commented on what Power said?
Because it didn't sound all that different to me from what Clinton has said -- that the plan would come from the Joint Chiefs, SOD, foreign policy adviser after she was in office. And she's said that she hoped to get the troops home in a certain time frame (16 months or something?) but wouldn't guarantee it. So I don't get the criticism of Obama unless I missed something that was said.

I'd also say in Clark's defense that he qualified his statements -- IF what Power said reflects the candidate's thinking, something like that. And he did not say Obama wasn't fit to be Commander in Chief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
162. So Obamatrons are trashing Wesley Clark now?
Shame on you people that call yourselves Democrats! I have never seen such venom towards other democrats in my entire life. Shame on you! Try to remember how much good the Clintons did for the people of this great nation, when they were in office. All the Obamatrons do is dish out shit and then tell others how much shit Mrs. Clinton is dishing out. You People are disgraceful!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judasdisney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #162
164. "Trashing" hardly. Frenchie's tone is utterly respectful. You know it.
"Jesuswasn'tafascist" as your screen name implies that you aspire to be as respectful as Jesus.

"Obamatrons" isn't exactly respectful or thoughtful.

On the other hand, Frenchie's disagreement with Clark, who Frenchie has been extraordinarily supportive of, is very thoughtful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #164
165. Thank you for pointing out my dicrepantcy. I apologize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1776Forever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
163. Magnifique! I salute you!
I am so impressed with your history of the Clinton years!

Wes Clark may have been offered the VP slot and he is getting in line with the low-rent crap coming out of the HRC Camp. I am so disappointed in the way HRC is running her campaign. I feel it is going to break a lot of us from the Party for good if the people are not listened to!

:grouphug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmarie Donating Member (258 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #163
174. In case you're not aware
Many of us who don't support Obama feel the same way. A lot of us will be breaking from the party if he's the nominee.

As far as people being listened to: If you look at the popular vote count so far, if you include FL and MI -- because, yes, there are Democrats, real people there who would like their voices heard -- you will find that there are more people who have voted for Clinton than Obama. But we'll just stick to delegate count and ignore that fact, right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 04:57 AM
Response to Reply #174
180. That doesn't even make sense to include a state where one
of the candidates was on the ballot, and the other one was not.

Intellectually it would be dishonest to tout that stat as honest.

And then to bring in another state where no campaigning was allowed, but one of the candidate has 100% name recognition due to have been first lady and press for years and years....while the other candidate is someone you've heard a lot about, but don't know enough about.

Fact are a funny thing. When they are manipulated to see things as we want, they become dangerous.

The popular vote counts in the states where they both contested in a "fair" manner.
Obama, thus far, has won that popular vote.

Those are the facts, and better yet, they don't need to be massaged in a prejudicial or biased way simply because it would help make ones point.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1776Forever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #174
181. Since you asked me....
I feel that the way the campaign has been conducted with Hillary not pulling her name off the MI ballot and only her and DK leaving their names on and then (since I live in FL) we were told that our vote would not count (and I was going to be a delegate here in FL) a lot of people did not vote in FL and then when it was all over HRC says to let the vote count. I think it stinks!

I think the voters should also know that there is a court case that will be coming up in Oct. '08 that will have Bill & Hillary involved in a 2 million dollar court case from a man who says that he gave them the money but they didn't report it on their filings.

Paul v. Clinton - video (on the bottom of the page)and info at:

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-detai ... /

If this changes and you don't find the video just put in Paul v. Clinton in the search engine box at the top of the page. The article is entitled Could the Paul v Clinton Fraud Suit Upset the Clinton Democratic Party? This in no way says that Clinton is guilty BUT the trial is going to be coming up in Oct, 08!

Soooooo for that and all the other BS that has happened, no I think that we should support the person that will be ahead in delegates at the convention - and give half of the delegates from FL and MI to each. If it turns out to be HRC then so be it, but I do not think that after all this that I will ever be able to be involved with the Party ever again if that happens! There are so many things out there if you just want to look for them on a man named Gupta, and Chinese influence and money from the Saudis and Dubai that has gone into the Clinton's pocket also. I wish it wasn't like that but that is the reality! I am sure all this will come out if HRC goes against McCain. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
169. Excellent post, great research. I too have had to cut my ties with Wes Clark.
I've not done as much as you, but I finally had to even unsubscribe from his e-mails, which was my last remaining "contact" with his PAC. He used his e-mail list to drum up donations for Clinton, which I thought was highly inappropriate - and I told them so when I unsubscribed. I feel let down and disappointed by both Clinton and Clark. I guess that's politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue State Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
170. I was a WesBlogger for a while.
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 11:17 PM by ingin
Worked on Fighting Dem campaigns. Murphy, Webb, Sestak. I was hoping that he'd run. I have to hear what he said, but I will still accept his endorsement of BO when this thing is wrapped up.

It does hurt a bit though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmarie Donating Member (258 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
171. I'm truly sorry
that you think that General Clark no longer believes in Country over Party. I'm sorry you believe his lifelong dedication to duty, honor, country has suddenly changed after all these years and everything he's seen and been through.

You must think that he changed so much in such a short time that he is putting -- what? That's where I'm stumped. What is he putting ahead of everything he loves and believes in?

Can you honestly not see that he is doing everything he can to prevent someone from becoming president who he knows is not up to the task at hand? Well, that's a rhetorical question, because I can tell by how you've poured your heart in to this piece that you don't see that -- don't believe that. But please, don't believe that General Clark has thrown away his entire lifetime for politics. I will never believe that and in my heart I know that's not true.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
olkaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
173. I just think his son is terrible on the radio
You ever hear that guy try to carry a show by himself?

"So, caller, got anything else you want to talk about? No? Oookay!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #173
175. My op was not meant to "trash" the General, although some
might interpret it that way.....and if they do, so be it.

And if because I dare not be so loyal that I won't dare speak my mind....and lose on line friends in the process, so be that.

Fortunately for me, my interest in politics and why I am interested trumps any loyalties that I have for any one public figure.

I didn't support Wes Clark in order to idolize him and follow him where ever he was going to go unquestionably, just like I don't now support Obama in order to be part of a cult.

Please know that this op certainly wasn't written in order to have posters trash Wes Clark Jr.....so if I were you, I would take back that extra silly season juvenile statement in reference to Wes Jr.

In fact, it's not like I've seen Wes JR. on the Hillary campaign trail....and in fact, I have my suspicions that Wes Jr. may not be on the Hillary wagon (he has publicly stated before his father endorsed Hillary that he was afraid of Hillary in '08)....as I have not heard from him in quite sometime. I interpret that as laying low, and not wanting to make things difficult for his father. He may be in the a similar pain as I am.....or maybe not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #175
176. You didn't trash the General, you criticized him severely. Clark would understand.
It's not like General Clark hasn't had people criticize him before.
Geezus, your piece was really well written, and I'm sure Clark knows he is letting some of his former supporters down by giving support to Hillary.

Nevertheless, Clark will support Obama after Obama wraps this up, and he will make just as strong of arguments for Obama then as he has made arguments for Hillary now.

Clark is a brilliant man and one hell of an orator himself, as you already know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 04:22 AM
Response to Reply #176
177. True dat!
True dat! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
183. Just add Clark to the growing list of know-nothings! Listen to Oprah!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truth4All Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
184. N/T
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 11:46 AM by Truth4All
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truth4All Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
185. Clark's Words
"I had to work in S.F. today, and so I was unaware of his newly stated public opinion about Barack Obama until I got back this evening"



Just curious Frenchie...are you talking about Clark's statement that Obama is 'unfit' to be CIC that was spread across the Internet and some press reports? Only problem is that he never said that (the quoted part).

For anyone interested, here is a transcript of the actual conference call (or at least the parts where Wes partipated). If interested, there is also an mp3 link of the entire call that can be listened too if you question the transcript (which I also see above):

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14964#comment-28953 ...

I won't be able to respond to any comments since DU doesn't like Hillary supporters on this site and has a habit on banning accounts for being 'disruptors' to their unstated mission goal of seeing Obama elected President, but thought you might be interested in some slim glimmer of truth before the curtains are closed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 23rd 2014, 12:12 PM
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