As a Democrat I have some serious concerns about Wesley Clark...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

To rise in rank to the highest levels within the U. S. Army, one needs to have a sponsor. A sponsor is a senior level officer that essentially acts as a mentor, advising the more junior officer in terms of decision-making and things that he or she can do to enhance their profile.

Wesley Clark's primary sponsor in the Army was John Shalikashvili. We all know that General John Shalikashvili was apppointed as the thirteenth Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense, by President Bill Clinton in 1993, to succeed General Colin L. Powell. He was highly recommended for the job by Colin Powell who Clinton trusted at that time. His excellent service in the Balkans also helped his candidacy.

What is generally not known is Shalikashvili's backgound. How did it come to pass that John M. Shalikashvili was the only foreign born officer to ever serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Why is Shalikashvili's backgound important to Wesley Clark's development as a senior officer? As will be seen below, Shalikashvili has a rather interesting view of the world, and because of his unique position as a mentor, that view was undoubtedly imprinted on Wesley Clark's thinking.

Some in this forum have become convinced through Wesley Clark's public statements that Wesley Clark is a liberal, and that Wesley Clark allegedly opposes the policies of the Bush administration. Clark has even stated that he was removed as the military advisor on one prominent television network because of the actions of those that support Bush.

I beg to differ with the public image being carefully crafted by Wesley Clark and those that advise him. Hopefully, the following information will cause others to question the motives and agenda of Wesley Clark.

A brief biographical sketch of John M. Shalikashvili follows:

John M. Shalikashvili was born on 27 June 1936, in Warsaw, Poland. He is the grandson of a tsarist general whose family fled Georgia after it was conquered in 1921 by the Soviet Union. The old tsarists were known as White Russians (as opposed to the Red or Communist Russians) during the Russian Civil War, and when they lost, they quickly scattered throughout Europe. Most Georgians fleeing Soviet rule landed in Constantinople where they very quickly realized that they were not that welcome. Three primary places became the new homes for the Georgians: Poland, France, and Germany.

So, in November 1922, the Shalikashvili family left Constantinople and arrived in Poland some time later. The tsarist general's son, Dimitri Shalikashvili, the father of John M. Shalikashvili, already an officer in the Georgian Army, became a Polish army officer. He met and married Missy Rudiger-Bielajew, the daughter of former tsarist General and Count Rudiger-Bielajew, the former Adjutant to both Grand Duke Vladimir (who died), and Grand Duke Andrew, brothers of Emperor Alexander III. We now know that Dmitri's father and father-in-law were both generals in the tsarist army.

Dimitri was also a strong supporter of the rightwing political concept that the government knows what is best for its people, and he later participated with his Polish Army unit in a coup that established the dictatorial rule of Jozef Pilsudski (1867-1935) in 1926.

It is safe to say that based on the background of both grandfather and father, John M. Shalikashvili grew up in a household that was rightwing, strongly anti-communist, and hated the Russians with a real passion. It should therefore come as no surprise that Dmitris' writings from 1920-1960 are archived in the library of the Hoover Institution, an extremist rightwing think tank.

While it is not clear from the available records where Dmitri lived after 1944, it is known that John M. Shalikashvili and his mother fled Poland in 1944 as the Soviet Army approached from the east, and settled in Germany. In 1952, young Shalikashvili immigrated to the U.S. with his mother at age sixteen and settled in Peoria, Ill.

John M. Shalikashvili was a good student, earning a Bachelor's in Mechanical Engineering from Bradley University and a Master's in International Affairs from George Washington University.

In 1958, John M. Shalikashvili, age 22, was drafted into the army as a private and was accepted to Officer Candidate School. He graduated from Officer Candidate School in 1959, and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Artillery. From 1958 until the collapse of the old Soviet Union, Shalikashvili was without a doubt a dedicated Cold Warrior. His political thinking is in tune with people like Paul Wolfowitz, Perl, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the individuals that surround the Bushies today. His career includes service in 1969 in Vietnam as a senior district advisor, Advisory Team 19, United States Military Assistance Command. He has also served in Italy, Korea, and Germany. His military education later included the completion of the Naval Command and Staff College and the United States Army War College.

This is the man that sponsored Wesley Clark and mentored him through the senior ranks in the Army. Draw your own conclusions.

To anyone who may be thinking that this post is merely a knee-jerk post from an ultra-liberal, let me say that I've served as an enlisted man and an officer in the U. S. Navy where I spent most of my time as a Naval Gunfire Liaison Officer with the Marines at Camp Pendleton. I will admit to being a registered Democrat, but my political tendencies are pretty moderate.

[jono]

1. Would you please support this point?

His political thinking is in tune with people like Paul Wolfowitz, Perl, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the individuals that surround the Bushies today.

You were doing a great job with the biographical sketch until this point, but then you just made a blanket statement without providing any supporting evidence or documentation. Then you ask me to "draw (my) own conclusions" based on this half-picture. Would you please provide some evidence that Shalikashvili's "political thinking is in tune" with PNACers?

on edit: Shalikashvili, not Clark

[wndycty]

3. If Clark thinks like Wolfowitz, Pearl, Rummy, et al. . .

. . .then why the hell did he oppose the war and call it "elective?"

[Julien Sorel]

4. It's part of Clark's/Rove's grand plot to fool everyone into

thinking he's not 'one of them,' so we'll nominate him. Then the Repubs can't lose the election! This guy made that exact claim yesterday.

[wndycty]

5. Where do these people come from. . .

. . .if they don't like Clark, fine! But to make up shit like Clark thinks like Wolfowitz, Pearl and Rummy is just stupid and it screws their credibility. Its laughable.

[Julien Sorel]

8. He didn't even say that yesterday.

He kept trying to imply that Clark was a Republican. I kid you not -- I'd look up the thread, but people like this are simply making me sick, and the less of their tripe I have to deal with, the better.

I wish they would start a forum here for conspiracy theorists. It would give some people an outlet for their ... creative ... thinking patterns.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

12. I implied nothing of the kind. Find another approach.

[Julien Sorel]

25. I'm still waiting on a reply.

Here is a direct quotation from your post yesterday:

Here is my worry. He says all of the right things and he appears to be doing all of the right things, but what is he really thinking? I have the gut feeling that Clark has one or more hidden agendas.

What if Clark is working with the GOP to help splinter the Democratic Party? And if this were true, and he should by some chance win the Democratic nomination, wouldn't that give the GOP two chances to win the White House?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=265618#265962

Still denying you said it? Going to look for some other way to smear? Or was it a slip of the keyboard, and you accidentally typed that out? Or, since you are a fan of conspiracy theories, did someone else post that paranoid rant in your name? Come on, I'm waiting.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

28. It's already on the board. I'm replying to more than one of you at the...

...moment, so chill out and take a number.

[jono]

31. You and me both! See post #1. (n/t)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

46. Okay, here goes...

You politely (unlike some of the other folks here) requested additional information with the following question:

"You were doing a great job with the biographical sketch until this point, but then you just made a blanket statement without providing any supporting evidence or documentation. Then you ask me to "draw (my) own conclusions" based on this half-picture. Would you please provide some evidence that Shalikashvili's "political thinking is in tune" with PNACers?"

Okay...let me see if I can explain this in a way that will satisfy everyone in this thread. Here goes:

I wrote the following opening in my original post:

"To rise in rank to the highest levels within the U. S. Army, one needs to have a sponsor. A sponsor is a senior level officer that essentially acts as a mentor, advising the more junior officer in terms of decision-making and things that he or she can do to enhance their profile.

Wesley Clark's primary sponsor in the Army was John Shalikashvili. We all know that General John Shalikashvili was apppointed as the thirteenth Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense, by President Bill Clinton in 1993, to succeed General Colin L. Powell. He was highly recommended for the job by Colin Powell who Clinton trusted at that time. His excellent service in the Balkans also helped his candidacy."

Following that opening I tried to describe the upbringing of John M. Shalikashvili, and how that upbringing shaped his political thinking. His grandfather and father were both military men, grandad in old tsarist Russia and dad in Georgia and Poland. Both men were also rightwing in their political thinking. Dmitri, John M.'s father, even has his writings from 1920-1960 stored in the library of the Hoover Institution, a rightwing think-tank.

Is it beyond reason to suspect strongly that John M. Shalikashvili's political thinking was shaped by the thinking of both his grandfather and his father?

Now, let's take a look at what I said about Shalikashvili's military duty. I stated the following:

"In 1958, John M. Shalikashvili, age 22, was drafted into the army as a private and was accepted to Officer Candidate School. He graduated from Officer Candidate School in 1959, and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Artillery. From 1958 until the collapse of the old Soviet Union, Shalikashvili was without a doubt a dedicated Cold Warrior. His political thinking is in tune with people like Paul Wolfowitz, Perl, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the individuals that surround the Bushies today. His career includes service in 1969 in Vietnam as a senior district advisor, Advisory Team 19, United States Military Assistance Command."

Please remember that the period of time from 1958 until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 is considered to be the Cold War. In order to advance into the senior levels of the military you had to pass a litmus test that guaranteed that you were willing to fight the Communists anytime, anyplace. Wolfowitz, Perl, and Rumsfeld are products of that environment. So is Shalikashvili. They just shifted to a new target...the Middle East. To gain a real understanding of the mindset of the Joint Chiefs back in the early days of the Cold War, read the information on this website:

Operation Northwoods
"Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba"
<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/>

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Wolfowitz, Perl, and Rumsfeld were forced to look in other directions to justify their existence in the civilian branches of the Pentagon. The Middle East was the only viable option left open, and that was an option also supported by the military and Big Oil. I can tell you from personal experience that plans to attack one or more countries in the Middle east have been on standby since the late 1970s following the Gas Shortage of the mid 1970s. The Iranian Hostage Rescue Crisis took place in 1980-1981, and that also fanned the flames.

What most people did not know at the time is that the Soviets were massed along the Iranian northern border, waiting for the U. S. to make a large-scale military attack on Iran. That large-scale military attack was called off by Carter when it became clear from the U. S. military's wargames that the only way to even win a draw was to use tactical nukes.

So, into this crazed environment stepped the next couple of classes of senior military officers, officers that had to pass the litmus test described above to be promoted into those levels. Clark was one of those senior officers, and Shalikashvili was his sponsor.

IMHO, based on the information above, I don't think it's a real stretch to believe that Clark has a different political mindset than the one he has been presenting in public.

[jono]

114. OK

Thanks, I appreciate the additional information. I still respectfully disagree. Your post makes two very big assumptions: 1) that Shalikashvili's political leanings were shaped by those of his father and grandfather - which I'll buy (but not because this always happens - my politics are very different than those of my father or grandfather). 2) That Clark's political leanings must be close to Shalikashvili's since he's the one who promoted Clark - that's too big a leap for me to take. Someone else further down the thread pointed out that there are lots of situations where we do things to please a person because we think it will help us get ahead (work was the example given), but that doesn't automatically mean we buy into that person's political beliefs.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

11. Oh, please...

If you can't handle criticism of the man who is apparently your favorite candidate, that's your problem, not mine.

If Clark does NOT think like Wolfowitz, Perl and Rumsfeld, I would be greatly surprised. The only evidence that you have that Clark does not think that way are his public comments. What else do you know about him? Anything?

Here's the point that seems to have escaped a number of people:

To rise through the senior ranks of the U. S. Army, you are pretty much limited to thinking in a certain way. You either go along with the program or you go do your own thing somewhere else. Contrary to what some of you obviously believe, the military is NOT a democracy. Those that think outside the box find themselves "outside" the military as well.

[Julien Sorel]

15. Your integrity is on a par with your sanity.

Here is a direct quotation from your post yesterday:

Here is my worry. He says all of the right things and he appears to be doing all of the right things, but what is he really thinking? I have the gut feeling that Clark has one or more hidden agendas.

What if Clark is working with the GOP to help splinter the Democratic Party? And if this were true, and he should by some chance win the Democratic nomination, wouldn't that give the GOP two chances to win the White House?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=265618#265962


There's the thread. I'd tell you to go away now, but why waste my breath. You'll keep this up until some other obsession catches your fancy.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

27. You lost me on how that somehow challenges my integrity...

1) Nothing I posted yesterday implies that Clark is a Republican or a secret member of the GOP.

2) What I did post was that I have some concerns, concerns that are growing by the minute if you good folks are typical examples of Clark supporters, that Clark could be working behind the scenes with top GOP leadership to derail the Democratic attempt to get Bush out of the White House. And yes, if true, it WOULD indeed give the GOP two chances to control the White House.

3) Knowing the kinds of political stunts engineered by Rove in the past, why is thought to be beyond the scope of credibility to believe that he would also work on a plan like the one I've described?

And finally, why don't you respond with why you believe Clark is "The Man" instead of firing shots at a fellow Democrat and inviting him to leave?

[Julien Sorel]

30. You did it again:

1) Nothing I posted yesterday implies that Clark is a Republican or a secret member of the GOP.

But yesterday you said,

What if Clark is working with the GOP to help splinter the Democratic Party? And if this were true, and he should by some chance win the Democratic nomination, wouldn't that give the GOP two chances to win the White House?

As I already stated, I don't care what you think of Clark. You come up with whacked out conspiracy theories. You make posts, then deny it. You are obviously not someone who is interested in knowing why Clark is 'The Man,' to use your foolish phrase, because you've already established you think he's the 'boogeyman.'

[Media_Lies_Daily]

35. And you're attacking me again without providing anything of value...

...in terms of why you believe that Clark is your candidate of choice.

I stand by my comments yesterday and my explanation of them today.

I really don't see why you've gotten all worked up about this. I've posted my concerns and asked you to post yours. Instead, you continue to personally attack me with the kind of insulting comments one would most likely find on a grade school playground.

Prove to me and anyone else reading this thread why Clark is not, to use your term, the "boogeyman". If you won't do it, or you can't do it, that will prove to me that you really don't know your candidate very well at all.

Ball's in your court.

[Julien Sorel]

37. I want you to read this very carefully:

I do not care what you think about Clark.

You are a demonstrated liar.

You advance insane conspiracy theories that have the most absurd support.

You are a waste of my time.

Just to say this again, for about the 10th time:

I do not care what you think of Clark.


I will point out your lies, and the insane nature of your conspiracy theories, but as for changing your opinion, it would be a waste of my time to try it.

In case you didn't get the real message here:

I do not care what you think of Clark.


Get it now?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

49. Well, here are my thoughts on your responses...

...and I'll try to put them in a sequence that is easily understood by almost anyone.

1) I must have struck a nerve because you have become very, very defensive. Why is that exactly?

2) If you can't present your beliefs about Clark to a fellow Democrat how are you going to convince anyone outside the party that Clark is a viable candidate?

3) When backed into a corner you have nothing of any substance to discuss, unless you consider personal insults to be substantial in any way. Is that what you really believe?

[Julien Sorel]

53. LOL

1) The nerve is still aching, too, from the damage you did! Wow! Who wouldn't get defensive after a sever onslaught like the one you unleash! You're the Mike Tyson of message boards. Just don't bite my ear.

2)Nobody is fooled about your being a Democrat.

3)Backed into a corner? Another paranoid delusion.

Incidentally, calling you a liar is acknowledging a fact, not making a personal insult.

Decribing you as someone who advances paranoid conspiracy theories is acknowledging a fact, not making a personal insult.

Do you do anything besides make insane accusations, call people freepers, and try to bait people into arguments that would be a waste of time, by the way?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

58. If all of that was my purpose, looks like you've fallen for it...

...I'll have to get on the phone right away and report this great development to Karl.

[RobinA]

103. Assuming Your Scenario

for a moment, and I don't buy it. Why Clark? Wouldn't there be a better choice? After all, he does have to get nominated. And hasn't Clark been a bit loose cannon-like back in the Kosovo days? Then he seemed to have a certain willingness to contradict the man in charge. Isn't this a movie? Stooge suddenly develops a mind of his own?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

43. Nothing Like a Preconceived Notion

If Clark does NOT think like Wolfowitz, Perl and Rumsfeld, I would be greatly surprised.

To dictate your conclusions.

:eyes:

DTH

[Media_Lies_Daily]

17. Quite a few people fell for Bush's public statements and never bothered...

...to check out what he really believed until the man had occupied the White House.

Are you going to fall for Clark's public statements, or are you going to do some real homework to satisfy yourself and others that he really is what he claims to be?

I have some serious reservations, and I'll keep raising questions as long as necessary. The last time I looked the Democrats are still in favor of Freddom of Speech.

Don't respond by attacking me...killing the messenger is a RePug/Freeper tactic. Tell me, or anyone else reading this thread, why you believe Clark is "The Man".

[Julien Sorel]

20. I've done my research already.

Quite honestly, I think you are either insane, or have some crazy ax to grind against Clark. In either case, trying to convince you of anything would be a complete waste of my time.

Move along now.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

29. Okay, where is your research?

[RobinA]

101. Now That Would

be freakin' brilliant. Run a candidate for BOTH parties. Fail-safe. I will say that if Bush/Rove can pull that off they deserve what they get. I will throw up may hands, quit the ACLU, and bow to their genius. Also I will move to an island that isn't downwind of any landmass.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

6. You guys aren't getting it...

...Clark will say anything in public to make himself appear to be a candidate that we as Democrats can trust.

I would like to know a lot more about Clark's thinking when the cameras aren't rolling and quite a bit more about the people with whom he normally associates.

Remember, Bush said a lot of things in public when the cameras were rolling and a lot of people believed that stuff. The Democratic Party simply cannot allow itself to get pulled in by what MAY be a rather simplistic scheme to ensure that the NeoCons win no matter who wins between Clark (if he's the Democratic candidate) and Bush.

The only smart thing Reagan ever said was "Trust, but verify".

[jono]

13. "Trust, but verify."

I'm trying to verify your claims, but thus far you haven't provided any supporting documentation as requested.

[demnan]

2. Thanks for the informative post

However I still don't think because Shalikashvili was raised an ardent-anticommunist, that means Clark necessarily has the same views as Shalikashvili. You can respect, learn and work well with people with whom you disagree, (I suppose that's true even in the military).

Also nothing Shalikashvili did leads me to embrace any of your conclusions about him.

[Dookus]

7. Just another...

blanket "Clark is military, therefore dangerous" thread. I guess we should disavow the following for having served in the military:

Dick Gephardt
Tom Daschle
George McGovern
Jimmy Carter
John F. Kennedy
Ted Kennedy
Robert F. Kennedy
Tom Harkin
Charlie Rangel
Max Cleland
Lyndon Johnson
etc. etc. etc.

[Pastiche423]

24. Of those that you listed

how many were lifers? How many were military mindsetters?

Big, big difference in having mostly civilian political experience.

[Dookus]

26. well...

aside from the fact that Clark served a long time in the military, what evidence do you have that he's "militaristic"?

Do you think he's MORE militaristic than the civilian leaders running things today? If so, why?

What has he said or done that would support that notion?

[Pastiche423]

32. Yes

His whole career has been the military, which equals an adult military mindset.

Kosovo
Pristina Airport
Waco
His connections w/defense spending corps

[Media_Lies_Daily]

34. None of those individuals ever rose to senior levels in the military...

...and as I stated in my original post, I also served in the military, so your comment is pretty much off-target.

The senior levels of the military are very much different from the levels below them. These are career military officers that are selected for promotion by the senior officers that served before them. As I've said before, there is not a lot of room for thinking along lines that are not acceptable to these executive level officers. As a group, they are very creative when it comes to developing new weapons and better ways of doing things within the broad structure of the military, but their political thinking tends to be rightwing in nature.

Ever hear of the 1962 Operation Northwoods as proposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff? That was only forty-one years ago. Take a look at this link, and remember that these were the senior officers that sponsored and selected the next group of senior officers, that selected the next group, etc.:

<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/>

[HereSince1628]

9. I'm more concerned about Clark's experience satisfying voters

something I'll make myself knowledgabele about if he comes into the primary race...

I don't hold that people are acorns that must fall near the tree.

[otohara]

10. I Hear Ya

The whole military thing bothers me. Let him be VP, maybe

[DealsGapRider]

56. What bothers you about it?

[Brian Sweat]

14. I love it when new posters come to DU and

immediately start trashing Democratic candidates.

[Pastiche423]

16. As of September 3, 2003

Clark is not a candidate.

[Trajan]

19. Ya got that right ...

Know ANY rabid ANTI Clark posters who have been recently banned ? ...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

23. Just raising some personal concerns that I have about Clark...

...do you have any responses worth discussing?

By the way, I haven't decided which Democrat to support, but I'll vote for whoever the Democratic Convention selects. I've been reading this board for as long as it's been around, and I've been a registered Democrat since 1969. How's that sound? Okay by you?

I love it when new posters come to DU and immediately get trashed by Democrats who claim they're different from Republicans.

[tomp]

66. actually, he isn't a candidate.

he just today announced he's a democrat. took him a good while to figure it out too. that doesn't recommend him too highly.

if he wants to be in the race AND beat bush he has to be a democrat. any progressive person has to be anti-republican. what's to figure out?

i think it's more likely that the pro-clark guys are the rovists than the anti-clark guys (not that mentioning historical facts should be thought of a as anti-clark). i for one am quite interested to hear about clark's mentor. it helps to know where people come from.

[Coffee Coyote]

118. Clark isn't a candidate

And this oldster loves to trash the general.

[VolcanoJen]

128. No kidding, Brian Sweat!

However, I've noticed that many, many new members sign on and bash "xyz" candidate. I don't think it's a specific Clark Phenomenon.

In fact, we should err in favor of the new poster when it comes to these volatile issues... because we're nice, eyes-wide-open, kinda folk here at DU! Right?? ;-)

:-)
Jennifer

[John_H]

18. Unbelievable.

So John M. 's folks may have hated russians. Therefore Wes Clark is dangerous. LOL.

Unbelievable. Shalikashvili's grandpappy excludes Clark from your list of candidates.

On one hand, I'm amazed and disgusted that a democrat could try to disparage out a candidate because of someone else's polish grandfather. But as a potential Clark supporter, I'm happy that the sort of straw-pulling idiocy posted by the knee jerkers areound here may be the best the far left wing can do to attack him.

I'm curious. Are one-percenters really so self-absorbed that these wacky conspiracy theories will only convince the huge minority if Dems who will automatically eliminate a general from consideration and that to everyone else they make you look desperate and, well..."out of ammo?"

[Trajan]

22. Out of ammo ? ...

Men are born with an infinite supply of stupid insults ...

They NEVER run out ....

[Media_Lies_Daily]

36. Well, you did absorb something about John S.'s grandad, but you...

...must have missed the part about John S.'s dad. I would supply more information but it doesn't look you got past the first few paragraphs of my original post.

But that's okay, you just go ahead and be as insulting as possible because that really helps me, and anyone else reading this thread, understand why you think Clark is a viable candidate.

Have a nice day.

[John_H]

87. Didn't mean to insult you

I just pointed out that your post was idiotic. I mean, nobody can be stupid enough to belive what you wrote, right? You're just fucking with Calrk and his supporters, aren't you.

You're right, I did sign up for early checkout right after it was clear you wer making the point that another guy's grandaddy...sigh...or daddy can make you a bad guy.

My boss's daddy is a republican state senator, yet his son keeps promoting me. That's it. I'm unqualified to work for Democratic ideals. I can't possibly believe what I believe because I've been promoted by someone who's dad is a rethuglican.

Again, please accept my apologies if you actually believe your post. I understand that genetics can't be changed.

[VolcanoJen]

130. Both my parents, are, in fact, REPUBLICAN

As are all four of my grandparents. SINFUL, I tell you!!

I guess I should reclude myself from the Democratic Primaries, using such logic as witnessed in this thread?

:-)

By the way, didn't Wes Clark insist today, rather eloquently and adamantly, that he's a Democrat??

Thanks for the great point, John_H!

Undecided, open-eyed, and ruling no one out,
- Jennifer

[sandnsea]

21. My two concerns

And it isn't your Shalikashvili guy. One, you tend not to get high up in the military without there being some doo underneath you. Two, whatever happened in Kosovo does not play well with alot of people. People who think that is a plus may find it to be his biggest negative. And if his military record is what makes him a great candidate, and it may be his undoing, then I don't see what the big draw is.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

33. I think Republicans are terrified that Clark will enter the race

That's what I think.

[LoneStarLiberal]

38. Good Biography, But No Obvious Link For Bad Things

I think it is probably more accurate to surmise two things from this information:

First, General Shalikashvili would seem to have more motive to dislike communists than say someone with roots in Missouri. Just as a reminder of how varied the Revolution was in Russia, the Red Army and White Army both boasted Russian, Ukrainian, Baltic, and Caucasian commanders and soldiers. The Red Army that invaded occupied Poland while headed west to Berlin in 1944 was under the ultimate command on one of Shalikashvili's own countrymen, a fellow Georgian, Joseph Stalin. I think your information points toward Shalikashvili having plenty of motive to dislike communists, but nothing that indicates he has a pathological hatred of Russians.

Second, not all international relations or political science graduate schools in the 1950's were hotbeds of Straussian political theory like the University of Chicago was at the time. I've never heard nor read anything from General Shalikashvili or General Clark that would indicate to me that they harbor any of the vile Straussian views cherished and enacted in policy by the likes of Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Ledeen, or any of the other PNAC crew currently in residence in the Pentagon and State Department.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

57. Please allow me to clarify...

1) You apparently missed the part about John S. and his mother fleeing Poland in 1944. here it as again:

"While it is not clear from the available records where Dmitri lived after 1944, it is known that John M. Shalikashvili and his mother fled Poland in 1944 as the Soviet Army approached from the east, and settled in Germany."

If they didn't fear and/or hate the Russians, why did they run away from Poland in 1944, and why did they run to Germany of all places unless they had friends willing to help them? I'll also bet that they settled before the end of the war in what became West Germany.

2) I included the educational details as part of the biographical sketch, nothing more than that. I will say that it's not necessary for Shalikashvili or Clark to have been educated in Straussian political theory to have developed the same mindset as Wolfowitz and the rest of the PNAC group. Their mindset was developed within the senior leadership of the Army as it's been handed down through the generations of senior officers since the late 1940s. Take a look at this website and see if you don't find some pretty disturbing material in regards to the thinking that was current among the JCS in 1962 and the thinking that exists today:

OPERATION NORTHWOODS:
“Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba”
<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/>

[DoveTurnedHawk]

80. You Have GOT To Be Kidding

If they didn't fear and/or hate the Russians, why did they run away from Poland in 1944, and why did they run to Germany of all places unless they had friends willing to help them? I'll also bet that they settled before the end of the war in what became West Germany.

The Russian army's reputation preceded it. Many, many people fled the advance of the Russian army. That is war.

I cannot believe you are actually forwarding this position. Your tinfoil hat must be stapled on.

As for the rest, you have made the bare-assed assertions that Clark is a liar, that Clark is a PNAC devotee, that Clark is secretly a Thug. As "evidence" for your ridiculous, bare-assed assertions, you cite some absurd guilt-by-association theory that McCarthy would be proud of.

It is impossible to prove a negative. We cannot prove that Clark is NOT a liar, we cannot prove that Clark is NOT a PNAC devotee, we cannot prove that Clark is NOT a Thug in secret.

But happily, the burden is not upon us to prove those negatives. The burden is on you to prove your own assertions.

To say you've failed to carry that burden is an understatement along the lines of Bush is a bad pResident.

DTH

[Catherine Vincent]

39. Hmm, interesting that you have to point out you're a Democrat.

n/t

[Julien Sorel]

40. And the repeated accusations

this guy makes that people who call him on his BS are using 'freeper' tactics. He accused Pepperbelly of it yesterday, who only has about 7,000 posts.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

64. You are a fine representative of "repeated accusations"...

...not to mention the repeated personal insults.

And yes, those are freeper tactics. As long as you continue the barrage of personal attacks, I'll continue to say the same thing.

Whenever you're ready to discuss why you like Clark, then we can actually hold a discussion. Why is it that I get the sense that you're not interested in having a real discussion?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

59. No, it's actually rather sad to be honest.

[Forkboy]

117. well to be fair

it's interesting that Clark had to as well.

[Democat]

41. "as a democrat"...

Sure.

[Donna Zen]

42. Clark admits that it matters who is rising above you

if you are to advance in the military; however, Clark was not Shalikashvili's first choice for J-5. Of course there was another rising star who did promote Clark. But then I guess the man in the White House at that time is a GOP plant too. And Richard Holbrooke...and Sec. Perry...and Javier Solonas...Sandy Berger...and

I will grant you that getting along to get a head is a way to move up the ladder; however, that truth is surprisingly not confined to the military. My boss is a repub, I happen to like him very much and he returns the compliment. Am I a repub? In your guilt-by-association book, I am. Too bad, you're wrong.

It is rather an insult to think that I am blinded by the medals and therefore, not doing my homework. I was fortunate to have a wonderful friend growing up...smart and funny. She is now president of a prestigious university and a close friend of Bill and Hillary. Oh_she counts someone else among her closest friends, you guessed it, General Clark. So is she also a PNAC sympathizer? Bwaaaaa Has she been taken in by this GOP plant out to destroy the Dems? The last time I looked she still has the highest accume every achieved at one of the Ivy League universities, a Yale Law degree and hard core Dem credentials.

Oh_did I say I wrote to her as part of checking out Clark? Sometimes you need to have more than just access to Google.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

44. This Post Ain't Nuthin' But Shit (eom)

DTH

[Starpass]

45. pssst, I heard Wesly's kindergarten teacher was a satanic vampire

and practicing witch........and I also heard that his childhood dog was derranged. Pleeeeeeeeeeeease, we have a three star general in our family and the mythological crap I keep hearing about the brass in the military is hilarious. There are a lot of guys in the Pentagon who hate Bush's guts (that's were the leaks came from) and it would surprise you which one of them also thinks he's wacko.

[DealsGapRider]

47. I've seen some stupid posts on DU, but this one takes the cake.

First, you're making assumptions about Clark based on his relationship with Shali, which you don't know the first thing about. Next, you ascribe a worldview to Shali based on his family background (which he has no control over) and the fact that he served in the Army during the Cold War.

"Shalikashvili was without a doubt a dedicated Cold Warrior." So what? So were JFK, Scoop Jackson, Sam Nunn, Ike Skelton, etc. -- all good Democrats. What would you have preferred? Capitulation to the Soviet Union?

"His political thinking is in tune with people like Paul Wolfowitz, Perl, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the individuals that surround the Bushies today." How the fuck do you know that? Everything I've ever read suggests that Shali is, in fact, a loyal Democrat, one of the few at the highest levels of the US Army.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

48. Bravo

But if you think this thread is stupid, you should've seen the one where someone who shall remain nameless was trying to say that Clark's son's GUESS about if/when Clark would enter the race by Labor Day, posted on a blog, somehow meant that Clark was a liar.

:eyes:

DTH

[DealsGapRider]

50. I personally don't have strong feelings about Clark one way or the other..

...but Shalikashvili is a great American (and, by all accounts, a Democrat) and the suggestion that a close association with him is somehow something that should make us distrustful of Clark is profoundly offensive.

This is America. Here what matters is what YOU do, not who your daddy was. (Or at least that's how it should be...too bad to see that some DUers don't think that way.)

[Dookus]

51. Does this sound like PNAC?

All taken from http://www.meetclark.com/faq/


“What I learned during my time in Europe was that the strongest force in the world is an idea whose time has come. In Europe, and in much of the rest of the world, freedom, human rights, international law, and the opportunity to ‘be all that you can be’ are those ideas today. For the most part, these are our own American values. And they are ideas whose formulation and dissemination owe much to American example and leadership in the past.

Because we live and extol these values, the United States enjoys a solid ethical basis for its power, a supportive community of like-minded nations and international institutions, and a moral force that extends our influence. Preserving these ideas and projecting our values should therefore be ranked among the most important of American interests.

To do so will require humility, generosity and courage. We must still recognize and respect the strong convictions of others, especially when they disagree with us. No doubt our ideas will appear challenging or even dangerous to some. We have to balance our pride in our heritage with humility in our rhetoric. Living up to our values will cost resources that could always be used elsewhere. We can’t do everything. But doing what we can will likely mean that we occasionally send our men and women abroad, into ambiguous, dangerous situations.

But these burdens we must carry, if we expect to maintain the benefits we currently enjoy. They provide hope for others, and a purpose beyond our own prosperity. ‘Shared risks, shared burdens, shared benefits’ -- it's not only a good motto for NATO, it's also a good prescription for America's role in the world.”


or...

"One of the things about the war on terror that I am disturbed about is that we've essentially suspended habeas corpus. Which is something that's only been done once in American history and then only for a very brief period.

When I go back and think about the atmosphere in which the PATRIOT Act was passed, it begs for a reconsideration and review. And it should be done. Law enforcement agencies will always chafe at any restriction whatsoever when they're in the business of trying to get their job done. But in practice we've always balanced the need for law enforcement with our own protection of our constitutional rights and that's a balance that will need to be reviewed.”


or...

“The Bush administration's mistake in Iraq, says Clark, is one of priorities. They picked war over law. They picked a unilateralist approach over a multilateral approach. They picked conventional forces over special-operations forces. And they picked Saddam Hussein as a target over Osama bin Laden.”


or....

“The solution to terrorism is not going to be found in bullets…It’s not going to be found in precision ordnance or targeted strikes. It’s really going to be found in changing the conditions. It’s going to be found in establishing a global safety net that starts with security and goes to economic development and political development and the kinds of modernization which let others enjoy the fruits of modernization that we as Americans enjoy… Our best protection is not going to build a wall around America. It’s not going to be to create a missile-defense impenetrable shield. It’s going to be, instead, to create a community of common values and shared responsibilities and shared interests in which nations and people get along. That really is ultimately the only protection.”


Doesn't sound like Wolfowitz, Perle or Rumsfeld to me.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

52. Ahh, But You FORGET!!!

Obviously, Clark has been lying for all these years, and manufacturing positions he doesn't truly believe in, since he's obviously a long-term mole planted by Rove and the BFEE to DESTROY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FROM WITHIN!!1!11!!!!1

DTH

[Dookus]

55. geez...

what a wascally wabbit he is!

I'm astounded at how many people refuse to look past the stripes on his shoulders and actually LEARN what he stands for.

All Democrats, in fact all Americans, would be very lucky indeed to have such a man as our President.

[Donna Zen]

60. A brief observation

....Our NBF (new best friend) seems to have left the thread. Probably off somewhere producing a new video of Clark--growing a beard, and morphing into Frank Gaffney.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

62. He's just telling you what you want to hear...

...what else do you know about him? What homework have you done to verify that he actually believes what he's writing or saying in public?

Bush said a lot in public, too. And quite a few people fell for it.

[Dookus]

63. well then..

you've got it all wrapped up, don't you?

We can't use his own quotes to clarify his position, because he could be lying. Even though he's been consistent over a period of time.

So how do we know what YOU believe? How do we know YOU'RE not lying?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

67. Let me ask you this...

...when I state that Bush is lying every single time he opens his mouth, am I lying then?

I've merely presented some information to the board on my concerns about Clark and why I have those concerns.

I'm also asking you and your fellow Clark supporters to do a little digging and present something other than what Clark has personally written or said in public.

All I've gotten in return is a "kill the messenger" attack theme.

If that is so upsetting to most of you that you can't respond without a lot of anger, then you really do need to find out more about Clark so that you don't lose your collective minds when someone else presents a different viewpoint or asks you some questions.

[Dookus]

70. well

I don't understand what possible evidence we can provide to satisfy you? If you reject his public statements on issues, then what else is there?

Seriously, do you see the untenable position you're putting us in? The only thing we can provide when asked about his positions are his published statements on those positions. But you reject those as being unreliable (although you've presented no evidence that he's a liar).

We could so easily turn this same tactic against any other candidate. Why should we be believe Dean is opposed to the war in Iraq? He didn't vote on it - he could be lying!

I don't believe that, of course, but do you understand why, using your criteria, that argument could be put forward and thereby stifle any meaningful response?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

79. No, I'm not putting you or anyone else on this board in an untenable...

...position. My questions are not meant to be stifling at all...but they are meant to stimulate real research on what the candidates really believe as opposed to what they tell you that they believe.

The Internet is chock full of resources that can be used to gather details on the career of a guy like Clark without presenting what he has personally written or said in public.

I would wager a guess that quite a bit is already floating around the Net in terms of solid research done by others about Clark.

In fact, thanks to the post of another person in this thread, I now have a number of other suggested leads to follow up on and present to the board when I'm done.

[Wendec]

116. Okay

I really think this is one of the sillier threads ever, but, I'll jump in for a minute. If your premise is that we cannot know what Wesley Clark really thinks, he can say one thing, but think another, then how do I know that ANY candidate means what he or she says?

It requires a lot of deal making behind closed doors to succeed in politics, so why should I vote for anyone who has spent a substantial amount of his or her career in the political arena? Aren't their motives and actions immediately suspect?

I mean this could go on and on. If you don't like or trust Clark, that's fine, but this entire argument is truly bizarre.

[RobinA]

107. Look, I Don't Agree

with the original post, but it comes nowhere near the stupidity of a lot of nonsense I've seen here. Read the long one about how the WTC was rigged with bombs. Or the mysterious forms attached to the belly of the jet that hit the WTC. Or the "no plane hit the Pentagon" nonsense. As conspiracies go, this one is actually kind of fun to contemplate.

[Pepperbelly]

54. I am very disappointed that any DUer would take this seriously because ...

in a single phrase, it relies on absoluetly nothing more than the McCarthy tactic of guilt by association. It is despicable that it was posted and even more despicable that fellow DUers would give any credence whatsoever to this sort of smear.

If you did give this credence, I suggest that you should take a long hard look in the mirror and see where your sentiments and loyalties actually lie and decide if you would want to be condemned as guilty because of an associate's grandfather or father.

Absolutely despicable.

[Tinoire]

61. Welcome to DU Media_Lies_Daily

Never mind the Clark Brigade. It just hangs around "at ease" all day waiting to come out of nowhere and pummel anyone not bowing in deference to General Clark's political aspirations.

Don't take anything personally; it'll help you stay calmer.

You're not alone in having serious concerns about Clark. Go ahead and express them. This is a political discussion board- not a cheer-leading board.

We'll consider this your baptism of fire! You have been pummelled and pounded by the Clark Brigade but you're still standing! :party:

-----

Your post was well-written and educational but I think its impossible to appreciate its significance if you have no idea what the mentoring system is all about.

I was stationed in Europe and at an MI Bn at Fort Hood while Clark was in command and had many friends in Kosovo who will not be jumping on Clark's bandwagon due to serious concerns they also have(Yugoslavia, Acxiom, Jackson Stephens, AEI/PNAC, Brookings Institute, Homeland Security). Did you attend the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey? If so please PM me. It's always good to see more military people on this board to refute some of the absolute rubbish that gets posted- especially now.

So welcome and remember- you're not alone with your concerns. As you know it's not because we're mean or anti-military (hah!) but because these times are too scary to just take someone at their word... no matter how handsome and well-spoken he is.

Here is a productive stay at DU! :toast:

Oh and I'm a registered Democrat but my political tendencies, I'm told, are pretty leftist ;) Peace

[Dookus]

65. Tinoire...

Sorry you think we "hang around all day waiting to come out of nowhere and pummel anyone not bowing in deference to General Clark's political aspirations."

I think we defend Clark against ridiculous attacks such as the ones posted here. I've seen people defend Dean, Kerry, Edwards and Kucinich against ridiculous assertions, too.

You don't have to like Clark. Nobody's forcing you. But making ridiculous allegations about ANY candidate will bring a response, and it would be better to discuss the actual arguments being advanced rather than attacking the people making them.

[Pastiche423]

68. As of September 3, 2003

Clark is not a candidate. So, no one is making ridiculous allegations about Clark, a candidate.

[Dookus]

69. Pastiche...

that is an award-winning example of hair-splitting.

Is it your assertion that ridiculous assertions (read "lies") are OK up until the moment somebody announces his/her candidacy?

[Pastiche423]

71. Nope

My assertion was that Clark in not a candidate. Therefore, any comments regarding Clark cannot use the noun, candidate. Because, it IS a lie that Clark is a candidate.

Clear?

[Dookus]

75. Yes, very clear...

you just had your hair-splitter sharpened.

We're all discussing Wesley Clark because of the likelihood that he will be a candidate.

If you want to call us liars for discussing him in the context of the presidential campaign, go right ahead, but I think it's unwarranted.

You're making a distinction without a difference, and being rather offensive about it. Was Kerry NOT a candidate before yesterday? Were people who referred to him as a candidate liars?

Why not cut out the insults and hair-splitting and simply discuss the issues without personalizing them?

[Pastiche423]

81. "Was Kerry NOT a candidate before yesterday? "

Who is splitting hairs now?

Has Kerry not been attending the Democratic candidate forums? Hasn't it been known for years that he is a Democrat?

Until or if Clark declares he is running, I will continue to call it on anyone that states he is a candidate.

What issues? Clark has no legitimate site where he discusses issues. It has been said to me, over and over again, that the draft Clark sites are not affliated or condoned by Clark.

[Dookus]

88. Definition of Candidate

Main Entry: can·di·date
Pronunciation: 'kan-d&-"dAt, 'ka-n&-, -d&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin candidatus, from candidatus clothed in white, from candidus white; from the white toga worn by candidates for office in ancient Rome
Date: 1600
1 a : one that aspires to or is nominated or qualified for an office, membership, or award b : one likely or suited to undergo or be chosen for something specified <a candidate for surgery>



I don't see how this definition backs up the assertion that people are liars who call Clark a candidate.

As to the hairsplitting, I was using YOUR constraints to argue that Kerry was not a candidate before yesterday. I agree that it was clear to all that he was, in fact, a candidate. But he didn't announce until yesterday. You claim that Clark cannot be a candidate until he announces, and further, that you will "call people on it." Go right head... but it seems a silly point to take such a strong stand on. We'll all know soon enough whether he actually runs. Why not discuss the actual merits of his (potential - is that ok?) candidacy instead of attacking people over semantics.

[Pastiche423]

109. I called no one a liar

I will continue to take a strong stand about Clark not being a candidate. It is not semantics. You're either in the running, or you're not. Everyone knew Kerry was running as a Democratic candidate for president long before yesterday. Today, no one knows if Clark will be a candidate.

What no one has answered, is what makes Clark rise above the nine candidates. W/o mentioning his military career, why can't anyone answer that question?

Isn't anyone else sick of the secrecy in our government? Why can't Clark be open?

[Dookus]

122. Pastiche...

you wrote... "Therefore, any comments regarding Clark cannot use the noun, candidate. Because, it IS a lie that Clark is a candidate."


By any reasonable standard of english usage, one who lies is a liar.

Also, you say no one has answered what makes Clark rise above the nine candidates. That means you've been asking the question, but sticking your fingers in your ears and humming "LALALALLALA" when the answer is provided.

But here again, briefly: First in his class at West Point, Rhodes Scholar at Oxford with Masters in Politics, Philosophy and Economics. Decoreated Vietnam War veteran, rising to Supreme Allied Commander, Europe for NATO. An avowed internationalist, pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-gay rights, anti-tax cut progressive who is eloquent, sharp, smooth and bright as day. He would be the ONLY candidate in my life time that both my parents and I would vote for. He would have broad appeal across both parties and especially among independents. He is the ONE candidate that can rid the Democratic party of the smear that we're soft on national security. Standing next to Bush, he would make Bush appear to be the snivelly little coward that he really is.

[Pastiche423]

125. You really like to twist words

don't you? But no matter how hard you try to twist mine, I did not call anyone a lair, nor did I imply it.

Furthermore, you still have not told me why Clark rises above the nine candidates, AND, while explicitly requesting that his military career not be mentioned, you mentioned it THREE times.

Moreover, everything else you mentioned is covered by more than half of the nine candidates. That leaves me no other assumption than it is his military career that has Clarkites so hot.

It disappoints me and makes me sad that some people have so little faith in the Democratic party, that they believe they must play by repug rules to win.

[Dookus]

127. c'mon...

what did I twist? You said people who refer to Clark as a candidate lie. Is it a twist to say such people are liars?

I don't know who your preferred candidate is, but it's like me asking you to name why YOUR candidate is above the others without referring to his political career.

I mentioned a lot of things about Clark... some of which have to do with his career. It would be sorta silly for me IGNORE his career.

But I also mentioned a lot of other reasons, not having anything to do with his military career. His progressivism, his appeal to independents, his eloquence and intelligence, etc.

And to say I'm playing by repug rules is just wrong. I firmly believe that it is entirely possible to be a loyal Democrat, and NOT hate the military. My dad served. All my uncles served. My favorite cousin served. My grandfathers served. My great-great-great grandfather fought in the civil war. I have cousins in the service today.

The democrats will NEVER win an election higher than dog-catcher if we automatically consider military service a negative attribute. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: military does NOT equal militaristic. In fact, we have the most militaristic administration in quite a long time right now, and almost none of them served. Civilians are quite capable of fucking things up... perhaps even moreso than those who've served and seen what war really is.

[Pastiche423]

131. Why do you keep saying

that I called people liars when I din't and it is there for all to see?

Of course it is impossible to ignore Clark's military career, because that's all he has! That was my point, duh!

The repugs have set the stage and made the rules. Endless war. They want the Democrats to focus on war. They must make the Democrats focus on war because they suck at everything else!

To beat the repugs, we must concentrate on what needs to be done to heal our country, to balance the budget, to create jobs for the millions that are unemployed, to create healthcare for all, to protect our environment, to heal our relationship w/the world community and to make education in the U.S a top priority.

These are the things that will make the U.S strong again. These are also the very things that the repugs are weakest at.

Haven't you ever heard that to defeat the enemy, you must hit them at their weakest points?

No, Clark is not what our country needs now. Our country needs a leader that will strengthen her, not a general w/pretty, shiny medals.

But then, following the repug rules really helped us out in the mid-terms, din't it?

[Dookus]

135. thank you...

now you've given something to discuss.

As for the "liar" claim, i quoted you saying that it's a "lie" to call Clark a candidate. Not a misstatement, not an overstatement, not a mistake. A lie. One who lies is a liar. That's my point. But it's minor, and I'll drop it.

As for what it takes to beat the repugs: well, I feel it takes all those things you mentioned, AS WELL AS an ability to allay the fears of many centrists that the Dems are weak on national security. From what I've read of Clark's positions, he's extremely progressive. A retired General can overturn don't-ask-don't-tell much more easily than a Democrat who never served. A military leader can cut Pentagon spending more easily than a pacifist leftist.

And why do you presume Clark will be bad on domestic/economic issues? He's been more outspoken against the Bush tax cuts than some of the other candidates. He's spoken out repeatedly as a strong environmentalist. He also has Masters degrees from Oxford in politics, economics and philosophy.

AS I said, I don't know who your candidate is, but I'm sure I could make up a lot of vague charges against him/her if I wanted to. The big question is WHY do you want to disparage Clark with vague accusations and unfounded innuendo? Is he a threat to your candidate?

As to your final point, no, following repug rules did NOT help us out in the midterms. Which is why Clark, who's been an outspoken critic of the current administration's policies, would be a winner.

[Pastiche423]

139. SWOOSH!

My point just swooshed right over you head. Or, you are purposely ignoring it.

You support Clark because he is a big strong general. The uniform he wears is a sign that he will prove to the repugs that Dems are not soft on defense.

That is exactly what the repugs want everyone to believe. Hell, you've fallen for it! The way to disprove a myth, is to stop falling for it.

[Dookus]

141. then perhaps...

I missed your point.

I did NOT say I support Clark becaue he's a big strong general. I said I support him because he's a progressive, eloquent, intelligent candidate who can dispel the myth that Dems are weak on defense.

And isn't it possible for you to debate me without considering me a Rove stooge? I believe Clark is Rove's worst nightmare, not his wet-dream.

[Pastiche423]

143. Rove stooge?

Where the hell did that come from?

You don't want to discuss anything, you want to fight.

Any Dem can dispel the Dems are soft on defense on myth. Why, you might ask? Because it is a myth. A uniform is not needed.

[Dookus]

144. no...

I really don't want to fight. I want to debate.

The "Rove stooge" thing comes from the insinutation that I'm falling for repug tactics.

Seriously, pastiche, I have no desire to fight. It's not really in my nature. But I do love a good, honest, fair debate.

As for the myth that dems are soft on defense, I agree that it is a myth. Nevertheless, the perception is real. And I believe we need to counteract it. And I don't think a pacifist agenda will do that.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[John_H]

89. One-percenter--Always ready to come to the aid of a Republican.

yeee haaa.

[Tinoire]

99. C'Mon Dookus- Look at this thread

You're right... that was a little exagerated. I know you're not hanging around on guard duty waiting for unsuspecting posters but the effect is the same.

I think people can tell the poster they don't agree or that it's not relevant the tone being used by some people is down-right hostile and over-protective.

ALL the candidates have been scrutinized and put through the wringer on this board- every single one! You know how much abuse Kerry, Gephardt and Lieberman have taken for at least a year. Dean got QUITE a bit when he announced his candidacy and is still getting it to this day. Why should Clark be any different?

And notice it's always the same people doing the pummeling each time someone criticizes Clark. Frankly it makes people wonder what's going on. I have about 40 e-mails in my in-box from old-time DUers pointing this out and pointing out how down-right nasty it's getting when you can't discuss the kind of things we've always discussed here.

The time to get behind the candidate is AFTER the primaries. Until then, we better be having ALL of these discussions because 1. these things are not going to go away and 2. how else will we know we got the best guy?

It would be a lot more convincing if people could say they don't see the relevance, intelligently refute it and leave it at that instead of jumping on the poster, telling him he's either a liar or a Clark-hater, in the apparent hopes of shutting him up.

I welcome it when people defend, really defend Clark. It was the dedicated DUers on the Dean & Kerry Defense Brigades who quietly explained every criticism who made it possible for me to look at both Dean and Kerry in a different light. It wasn't until they took over for the ones who were rude and just down-right nasty that Dean made much progress here or that people were able to thaw towards Kerry.

Clark is coming with baggage. Until someone can explain it or explain why people shouldn't be concerned, then I welcome posts like Media_Lies_Daily. They'll either make or break Clark and that's what we need with ALL the candidates. You and I both know these coming elections aren't going to be a garden party- it's best ALL the dirt and ALL the candidates come out now... Peace

On edit: There are a few thoughtful posts responding to the original post and those are the only ones that are going to stick with me or. I'd venture to say, with most DUers. The tactics being used here are similar to the ones used in I/P to shut people up and stifle the discussion- not a tactic I'd advocate to sell a candidate.

[Dookus]

100. well..

I have no control over anything other people post. *MY* posts have been polite and civil.

I think, and have expressed here, that damning Clark because John Shalishkashvili's parents or grandparents is a stretch. That's all. Simple.

Telling him to "never mind the Clark brigade" is also a bit dismissive. It implies that we're blind followers who will attack anybody who disagrees with us. That's unfair. I WILL defend ANY candidate against unfair attacks. I have never spoken a bad word against ANY other candidate running for the nomination here. I have, however, expressed why I feel Sharpton won't win, and I've expressed my concern about Kucinich's dedication to reproductive rights. But I never attacked ANY candidate with the type of smear that started this thread.

I think it's possible for us all to support our candidates without resorting to dishonest debate tactics.

[Tinoire]

110. Yes they have

And to be honest, the tone is getting a lot better.

Clark Brigade, Dean Brigade, anytime there's a majority pumeling one poor guy, I think the term is appropriate... I'm sorry if it offends but it shouldn't. Dean even has the "Dean Defense Forces", if you think Brigade is bad!

"Damning Clark because of John Shalishkashvili's parents or grandparents is a stretch". Yes, it may seem like a stretch but in high Military and Congressional circles it was often said that Clark waged the war against the Serbs as if he had a personal vendetta against Milosevic and against the Serbs. That news is already out there. It would be a damn good idea for DUers to examine this because this issue was discussed BOTH at DU and FR and it's i nboth archives. Shutting it up here instead of asking the poster, a former Naval officer, why he feels its so important, won't make it go away. If Clark wins the nomination, I guarantee you that peace groups will spring from the 4 corners of the earth attacking him- it won't be pretty. Best to get ducks in order right now and not be blinded by partisanship. Right now, I support Kucinich but if anyone has any damning information on him, I'd welcome them bringing it forth now.

This is the most critical election of our lifetimes. We can't afford to blow it. That's how I look at it and I said the same thing to Dean and Kerry supporters when I dragged out all the mud I could find on their guys. I wish we'd stop thinking that concerns are personal.

I meant no offense when I used the term "Clark Brigade".

[DoveTurnedHawk]

104. I'm on This Board Quite a Bit. So Are You.

Unlike you, however, I do not trash other candidates.

But when someone trashes my candidate, especially with ludicrous conspiracy theory BS, you're damn right, I'm going to defend him, and I'm going to defend him hard.

If you have a problem with that...that's just too bad.

DTH

[Tinoire]

119. Unfortunately you are coming across very strongly

as having a problem with "that". I welcome the opportunities to clarify things about my candidate even if it means hours of research.

Defend him all you want- that's your duty as a supporter, but there is no reason to try to stifle the debate. It makes people wonder if Clark's postition is so indefensible that people have to be either mocked with cries of derison, insulted or hushed up lest a damaging conclusion be reached.

They all agree to be open books once they run for office. What interest have you or anyone else in closing that book or glossing over certain chapters?

You can bet that General Clark knew he'd be scrutinized for the very points you don't want addressed; they're not new points- the only difference is that now they matter to the future of this country which we all, I hope, care about.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

120. Please Read More Carefully, Tinoire

Unfortunately you are coming across very strongly as having a problem with "that".

I never said I DIDN'T have a problem with lame people offering lame conspiracy theories about Clark. I absolutely DO have a problem with that, because it's so silly and counter-productive.

What I DID say was that if YOU have a problem with me forcefully defending Clark, that's just too damn bad. I'm still going to do it.

I have zero problem with people raising LEGITIMATE concerns about Clark. Hell, I've even agreed with some of those concerns. But the tinfoil hat stuff is just absurd.

Clark is not a war criminal.
Clark is not a warmonger.
Clark is not a tool of the military-industrial complex.
Clark is not a Rove plant.
Clark was not responsible for Waco.

Next!

DTH

[Tinoire]

123. Ah, I see, Markle, AEI, PNAC, nothing to see here so move on huh?

DTH has spoken and everyone must move on :eyes:
Ain't gonna happen.

It's the nature of the discussion, what can I say? :shrug:

And what's all this sudden hand-wringing about "tinfoil hat stuff"? This is DU- not FR.

Maybe you can help me with this... Can you tell me what Wesley Clark's links to the Brookings Institution** are? You know, that institute running discourse production in conjunction with the AEI/PNAC. He's still a member of the Markle Foundation The Task Force on National Security in the Information Age according to their home page. You might be interested in reading all the literature on their Homeland Security Page or all those fascinating reports re HOMELAND SECURITY, NATIONAL ID CARDS/DOCUMENT FRAUD/WIRETAPS/PRIVACY and ANALYSES OF NEW LEGISLATION, THE PATRIOT ACT, NEW FBI GUIDELINES, etc...

Sadly, I don't get the warm tinglies about them. Nor do I get warm tinglies about
Zoe Baird, Markle's President being a current member of the Technology and Privacy Advisory Committee, which advises Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld regarding the Department of Defense's use of information technology to fight terrorism. and who has been an advisor to the Department of Defense defense transformation effort in the Bush Administration.

Some of Markle's fine work has really impressive titles such as Task force: Homeland Security Dept., not FBI, should shape info priorities

task force on national security Oct. 7 called for the new Department of Homeland Security to take the lead in shaping domestic information and intelligence priorities to inform policy-makers, rather than the FBI.

The recommendation was made in a report issued by the Markle Foundation's Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. The report, "Protecting America's Freedom in the Information Age," calls for a networked information technology system that shares information among local, state, regional and federal agencies.

People outside Washington, such as police officers, airport officials, FBI agents and emergency room doctors, do most information gathering; therefore, the government needs to use information technology to harness the power of this widely distributed information to protect Americans against terrorist threats, said Zoe Baird, president of the Markle Foundation and co-chairperson of the task force. Baird served the Carter administration as associate counsel to the president.

"Much of the information we need is local. Rather than creating a Washington-centric model, we need to create a networked, decentralized system," Baird said at a press conference unveiling the report at the National Press Club in Washington. Task force members were set to brief the president's homeland security director, Tom Ridge, later in the day.

You'll really have to forgive me for feeling this warrants more scrutiny and open discussion.

** The Brookings Institute describes itself in the following terms:

"A private, independent, nonprofit research organization, Brookings
seeks to improve the performance of American institutions, the effectiveness of government ..."

You can find out more about the Brookings Institue and its associations on the PNAC page here: http://www.thefourreasons.org/pnac.htm

A little look at their Board of Trustees (for those who care) reveals a mass of CEOs and other impressive business figures, sprinkled with reps from academia, and also including former and current heads of the World Bank.
------------

:shrug: circles with cirles and wheels within wheels

[Dookus]

124. Tinoire...

instead of making vague accusations, just come out and SAY what the problem is. Clark serves on a task force affiliated with the Brookings Institute? That's it?

Clark has VERY clearly, on numerous occasions, criticized the Patriot Act.

You also know that Nixon hated the Brookings Institute because he thought it was too liberal, right?

As with the original post, this "guilt by association" tactic is unworthy of you.

[Tinoire]

129. No- I am digging. Still in the process of digging

Brookings is directly associated with AEI and PNAC.

Criticizing the Patriot Act isn't enough. I know how Nixon felt about them but things change. I am merely digging and throwing things out for people to look at, think about and discuss. This is how we've done things since I've been here. This isn't guilt by association- this is serious digging because I'm too aware of the PNAC plans to trust them to just drop everything because their boy Bush messed up. I have nothing personal against General Clark and to be honest with you, I would be VERY HAPPY if he comes up squeeky clean but with the blue-prints on the table, I'm not just going to roll over on a "nothing to see here folks".

I'm much more concerned about the direction this country is going than I am about partisan politics. We have people in the Democratic Party who enabled the predicament we're currently in and I won't take anyone at their word or because of an impressive military resume. I really hope you can understand where I'm coming from.

There is little question about the source of PNAC's influence. When it was founded in 1997 by two prominent neoconservatives, William Kristol and Robert Kagan, its charter, which called for a U.S. strategy of global pre-eminence based on military power, was signed by men who would become the most influential hawks in the Bush administration, including Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, and Cheney's influential national security adviser, I. Lewis Libby.

"Thus, among the signers who have never before been associated with PNAC, are Robert Asmus, a former deputy secretary of state for Europe; Ivo Daalder, a prominent member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Robert Gelbard, a former U.S. ambassador to Chile and Indonesia; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Dennis Ross, his chief adviser on Palestinian-Israeli negotiations; Walter Slocombe, Clinton's top policy official at the Pentagon; and, most important, James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser who now heads foreign policy studies at the influential Brookings Institution."
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0303pnacletter_body.html

[DoveTurnedHawk]

126. ZOE BAIRD

DTH has spoken and everyone must move on :eyes:
Ain't gonna happen.

Knock yourself out, Tinoire. I didn't say you had to move on. I did say I'm ready to deal with whatever your next baseless slam on Clark was, however.

And what's all this sudden hand-wringing about "tinfoil hat stuff"? This is DU- not FR.

"Sudden?" What's "sudden?" I have always been opposed to the tinfoil hat brigade members of the "hysterical left" who see enemies behind every curtain and organization.

As for the Markle Foundation, that's ZOE BAIRD'S organization. You know, the same Zoe Baird who BILL CLINTON nominated for Attorney General, before the RW scuttled her nomination??

OMG, Clark is associated with an organization whose leader was thought of so highly by the Big Dog that she was nominated to be the chief law enforcement officer of this country!

SCANDAL!!1!1!!!!1!

As for Brookings and PNAC, since Clark is a member of neither organization, I see zero relevance. Unless of course you're buying into the bizarre, McCarthy-esque "guilt-by-association" theories advanced here by some, to much condemnation and ridicule.

DTH

[Tinoire]

132. Markle - Brookings, two peas in a pod, LOTS of co-op there

New Task Force Aims to Protect Nation with Better Information and Technology

The Markle Foundation in alliance with CSIS and The Brookings Institution launches information and technology working group to improve national security

New York, NY and Washington, DC, March 6, 2002 – An independent, multi-sector task force to determine how information and technology can enhance national security was announced today by the Markle Foundation in alliance with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Brookings Institution.

The task force will make recommendations regarding:
· Technologies that enable the more effective collection and sharing of information in response to new security threats
· Aligning governmental structures and rules with the more information-intensive approach needed to counteract new security threats
· Balancing the expansion of information’s role in national security with safeguards for civil liberties – particularly in the privacy realm
· Strategies for deploying information more effectively for law enforcement, intelligence and homeland defense
· The role of the private sector in designing and implementing an information-based national security response, and the level of collaboration between private and public sectors

http://www.markle.org/news/_news_pressrelease_030602.stm

That was just the first thing this poster from the "hysterical Left" found :shrug:

Yeah, Baird, the same one working with Rumsfeld and advising Bush right now on "Defense Transformation". This is getting real interesting.

Glad you're motivating me to keep digging :) No telling where all of this will lead... Good-night. Sweet dreams :)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

136. I Trust the Big Dog Just a WEE Bit More Than You

Both in terms of his (non-sexual) judgment and his research resources. Baird was put through the wringer, and although no one found out about her housekeeper situation (hardly a disqualifying event in any case, IMO), I'm sure her ideological leanings were very well vetted.

As for your continuing research, have at it. Your desperate efforts to discredit Clark using once, twice and thrice removed guilt-by-association tactics, among groups that are multi-faceted and comprised of many members of various leanings, are always good for a laugh.

Zoe Baird. Ooh, scary.

DTH

[Media_Lies_Daily]

73. Thanks for the support!...

...Sorry it took me so long to get to your post...I've been playing dodgeball with ALL of my new best friends!

Geez...some of these guys wouldn't know actual research if it fell on their collective heads.

Nope, never got to Monterey...lasted for five years as an enlisted man and an officer and then bailed. Made full lieutenant (O-4) before I left just to tweak them on the way out.

Your advice is well-taken...I'll do some additional research on the details of senior officer mentoring and post that next.

You've also given me additional food for thought in the list you presented...Yugoslavia, Acxiom, Jackson Stephens, AEI/PNAC, Brookings Institute, Homeland Security...I'll have to check them out in depth and present what I find.

Nice to meet you! See you back on the boards!

[Dookus]

77. well...

as far as research:

we've presented various quotes and links to explain Clark's positions, but you reject them due the possibility that he may be an inveterate liar.

Can you show US the evidence that he's a liar? Can you show US the evidence that he's a subversive PNAC'er in a Dem's clothing?

Why do you have to insult people who disagree with your conclusion that Clark's relationship with Shalishhkashvili somehow makes him unfit to be President? You posted what many people here believe is a real stretch, and we're debating you about your conclusion. It's what we do here at DU.

And I'd be happy to be one of your new friends. You don't have to agree with me to be my friend. But it helps to be respectful.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

82. "Respectful"?? When have I been disrespectful to anyone on this board...

...unless I've been personally attacked first? Did you even bother to read some of the personally insulting stuff directed my way before you submitted your latest post? If you're referring to my statement that some of the posters here are using freeper tactics, why do you think I made that comment? Did it just come out of thin air?

Yes, I know full well what is done here on DU. I've been reading this board since it first appeared and very little of the posting involves any more than the routine flaming of other posters, unless you call that "discussion".

Once again, you and the rest of the Clark supporters need to do more than just present what Clark has written or said in public. You need to do REAL research which calls on you to use the Net as a real information resource. Find out what others are saying about him, find out what others think of his military service, find out what he really thinks about the REAL issues in the upcoming election, etc.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

84. Buddy, WE Don't Need to Do Anything

Once again, you and the rest of the Clark supporters need to do more than just present what Clark has written or said in public.

Clark's long-held positions are good enough for me. You're the one who needs to prove that Clark's lying.

Next!

DTH

[Pastiche423]

85. Long held?

How long is "long held"?

Is two years "long held"?

[Pepperbelly]

90. since forever ...

Yep.

Wesley has never been anything other than what he presents himself to be and what he presents himself to be is what he has always been. He is a very decent man from a line of pretty populist people.

[Dookus]

86. Actually....

YOU are the one making assertions that need to be backed up.

I've done plenty of research on Clark. People here have posted lots of links and info to his positions on issues.

YOU are under the logical obligation to prove that he's a liar, that he's a PNAC'er, that he's something other than what he says he is.

Just telling us to go research something isn't strengthening your argument. In fact, I've found even MORE reason to support Clark after reading a few sites today.

I'm open to evidence to the contrary, but you'll have to provide it.

Also, I have not personally insulted you, nor do I defend those who do. But I *DO* think you're being less than fair in conditions you're putting on us to disprove your positions.

[Pepperbelly]

91. I wish you would explain how ....

your post is anything other than guilt-by-association, a standard tactic of Old Joe McCarthy.

[jono]

113. .

edit: never mind, I'm being a :dunce:.

[BelgianMadCow]

106. I second that, tinoire

but my reason is the following :
Sometimes the level of a new or infrequent poster is not up to par, and the poster gets a pummeling from the experts. I believe this style keeps out differing opnions, which isn't a good thing.

It may have been the case that the poster, in order to make a good impression on the board, drew some far-streatched conclusions in his original post. He did try to crawl back.

only my impression of course

On edit : maybe this thread could move to a "Theories" forum, that's a good idea.

[Tinoire]

121. Cool :) Better to discuss and either move on

or agree further discussion is needed... That's what we've done for years with this type of information so beautifully preserved in the archives. You know, I rarely look at other people's conclusions and I prefer people not look at mine- it's the information that's fascinating and sorely needed.

A theories forum would be an excellent idea!

Peace & nice to finally say hello :hi:

[gulliver]

74. Sell it somewhere else.

This is rank Bush-sh*t.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

83. Thanks so much for the intelligent response...

...do you also sit on a sunny window ledge and wait to be watered every day?

[gulliver]

98. Let's see.

Should I trust a guy (or gal, or whatever you are) who bops in out of the blue and throws out a bunch of innuendo about a leading Democratic figure on a Democratic site?

Normal standards of discourse apply, you know. You have no footnotes or links and you claim to think the burden of proof is not on you. So much for your intellectual standards (or ethics, depending).

[RobertFrancisK]

76. I really doubt that's important

First, you haven't said anything specific this guy said. Second, he's not running, Clark is (well, hopefully). Bobby Kennedy worked under McCarthy. Bob Byrd was raised in a Klan-infested environment. They both turned into liberal icons. My point being, who this guy is, if he is in fact a bad guy as you claim, does not in any way reflect on Clark's character.

[grasswire]

78. Rove....

....must have hired a new crew to work the message boards.

I wonder if it's possible to infiltrate Rove's posse.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. There Are Some Non Sequitars In The Seminal Post

I don't know how we can infer that Wes Clark is a cryptoPNACER because General Shalikashvili was raised in a fiercely anti-communist household....

Let me see if I can figure this out. General Shalikashvili's pop hated reds so General Shalikashvili's hated reds and he taught his protege, Wes Clark to hate reds.

That' a big leap and even if it's true what's wrong with hating reds.


By the way is it a bad thing on this board to be raised in a fiercely anti-communist household?


on edit-I don't hate "reds". I loved Charley Hustle....

[Pepperbelly]

93. not a non sequitar so much as ...

good, old-fashioned guilt by association. Old Joe McCarthy must be beaming up from hell at this turn of event.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

97. General S--------

seemed like a competent enough General but I hate spelling his name...


I also read in the current Newsweek that Wes Clark earned the emnity of some of his colleagues because he was too close to Clinton... So much for the right wing plant theory. It also said his colleagues weren't as gung ho about Kosovo as Wes....



on edit-maybe Wes Clark was fulfilling his role as a provacateur and sabotagueing Clinton.

[Julien Sorel]

94. I was always a Joe Morgan guy myself.

[VolcanoJen]

138. What about THE DOGGIE???

Not to hijack a thread or anything... but I continue to worship at the altar of Tony Perez. :-)

[Darranar]

95. Thanks, Media_Lies_Daily!

Very interesting.

I must say that I have strong reservations about Clark myself, though I never knew this about his sponsor.

[Pepperbelly]

96. why would you thank someone for ...

smear via McCarty tactics, specifically guilt-by-association?

I don't understand how long time DUers can just blow off accepted standards of proof or even for correlation.

[Julien Sorel]

102. They hate Clark

for his military ties, so anything negative at all will do to attack him with. Some others hate him because he's a centrist, and so, again, any smear is fine, logical or not. And then there are the Greens (most of Clark's more unbalanced attackers are Greens), who are afraid Clark's crossover appeal will make them even more irrelevant.

Add it up, and it's a powerful set of incentives for some people to grasp at the skinniest of straws in order to attack the guy.

*On edit, this is actually guilt by association twice removed, and the original 'guilt' itself isn't even established. This is the nuttiest bunch of crap I've seen in a long time; that some people take, or pretend to take, it seriously is a source of concern.

[Pepperbelly]

105. I might have to leave you to fight the good fight on this ...

my 'puter locks up when threads get to about 100 posts so if you stick around this thread, try to hold the author's feet to the fire regarding why his smear isn't a McCarthisitic guilt-by-association. He/she hasn't yet responded to me. Lunch break, maybe? :D

[Julien Sorel]

108. I have to go to work myself.

I've left my employees alone all day; if I don't check in regularly they feel neglected.

[Tinoire]

111. If we didn't ask questions and dig

We'd be right up there with the Freepers and would have swallowed that garbage about Sadaam being reponsable for 9-11.

Dig and discuss- I don't see how else you can get close to the truth.

[Pepperbelly]

112. Au contraire ...

smearing with guilt-by-association and paranoid fantasy is not "asking questions" and debating. It is smearing with the same tactics that Joe McCarthy used and personally, I despise such tactics and in fact, find it disappointing and regretable how quickly so many DUers sink to that level.

[GemMom]

115. Rhodes scholar program?

I've looked at information explaining the "world domination" origins of the Rhodes Scholar program and Cecil Rhodes' legacy. How much influence is brought to bear in the thinking of people like Bill Clinton and Wesley Clark because of their participation in the Rhodes Scholar program?

[Tinoire]

133. You tell us... :)

Welcome to DU btw :toast:

[DoNotRefill]

134. My serious concern is....

that he had to go on CNN to announce his party affiliation. If we know so little about him, why on earth should we support him?

He's got NO real track record on political issues. And ANYBODY can claim to be a Democrat if they think it'll help them get elected.

[Dookus]

137. well....

as a lifetime career military officer, his personal politics were pushed aside. That's normal.

He made a ringing endorsement today of his belief in the basic principles of the Democratic party (although there was never really any doubt).

And no, he doesn't have a track record of VOTING on political issues, but ya know what? Neither did George Bush or Ronald Reagan or many other politicians. Governors don't vote. But we all knew where they stood because of their stated positions, and we can know where Clark stands because of his stated positions.

And if Clark REALLY wanted to get elected the easiest way, he'd probably run as a republican.

There's >120 posts here, and thousands if we count other threads, and so far NOBODY has come up with a single bit of evidence to question Clark's integrity.

I believe he is an honest man. I believe he means what he says, and he says it eloquently. If you have proof he's a liar, then present it. But these attacks-by-innuendo are tiresome.

[Tinoire]

140. Dookus

The Republicans can't stand him... Go to FR and do a search... If you think this is bad at DU, trust me you haven't seen anything. They couldn't stand him back then. You can google it... I saw their reaction to Republicans for Clark (way before today's announcement) and it wasn't pretty.

[Dookus]

142. of course they hate him...

he's their worst nightmare!

Tinoire... do you really believe that FR is representative of mainstream republicans or independents? Do you think ANYBODY at FR would vote for Kucinich?

[Tinoire]

145. What does that have to do with it, lol?

The ONLY reason I mentioned FR was because you stated that if Clark wanted to win the easy way, he would have run Republican.

I pointed out how ludicrous that thought was because they hate him.

If you go through their archives from years ago, you'll realize that their hate has little to do with him being their biggest nightmare... It has to do with the way he ran the war (risks he took, Pristina, etc...) because they commented at that time.

But now that you ask, yes, having hung around Republicans most of my life, I do think FR is representative. Hell, I can't tell the difference between the Republicans I work with and the ones at FR- not when it comes to their viewpoints. :shrug:

And surprisingly, I think there are a few there who would vote for Kucinich. There was some openly considering Lieberman but you have a point. I just did a quick search and you're right- nobody's going to break rank that badly over there... Yet he has picked up Republican votes in the past so you win.

There, happy?? You win!! :) I mean really- good point and you win. Book-mark this post Dookus- I may not type these words agai ;) Now let's go to sleep :) I have Republicans to talk to in the morning. Believe it or not, the ones around me are receptive to Kucinich and come back asking me questions about him. It's a most surprising and interesting phenomenon... Some things about him goes straight to their heart though I'm not counting on too many votes there.

Peace and good-night...

[Dookus]

146. Tinoire...

This isn't about winning or losing. C'mon... I'd hope you think better of me than that.

It's about honest debate. And I think smearing Clark because of Shalikashvili's grandparents' views is dishonest debate.

[DoNotRefill]

147. How long has he been in the political arena?

Bush and Reagan had both held public office before being elected president. We had something concrete to go on as to their positions, as they'd been in public life for quite a while. With Clark, as of yesterday he was a Democrat. The day before, parts of booth parties claimed him. IMHO, there hasn't been enough time to tell what kind of person Clark is, and where his true political feelings lay. That's not an attack by innuendo, that's not calling him a liar, it's just a basic statement of fact.