Clinton: Clark is a Star.

[Renew Deal]

"During cocktails in the back yard, one group heard former President Bill Clinton say that the national Democratic Party had "two stars": his wife, the junior senator from New York, and a retired general, Wesley K. Clark, who is said to be considering a run for the presidential nomination."

(snip)

About Hillary:
"She said she intended to work hard for a Democratic presidential candidate."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/09/politics/campaigns/09CLIN.html?pagewanted=1&hp

[wndycty]

1. It seems like Clinton has a candidate he likes. . .

hmmmmm

[Democat]

2. Another thread on this subject

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=303081

[Renew Deal]

3. Sorry, Didn't see it.

[RichM]

4. Is that the same Bill Clinton who rode to the rescue of GW Bush last

month on the Larry King call-in, to assure the public that Bushler's Niger-Uranium SOTU lies were no big deal?

Is that the same Bill Clinton who gave the rightwing control of the airwaves via the Telecom Act of '96; who gave them NAFTA & "Welfare Reform;" who announced that "the era of big government is over" in a speech that could have been given by Bob Dole? The same Clinton who, even when framed & impeached by a rightwing conspiracy, made no effort to expose that conspiracy? The president who said nothing publicly when Bush stole the election of 2000? The Clinton who doubtless advised his own wife to vote FOR the Iraq war?

Clinton presided over a process in which the country's entire political machinery was handed over to the right wing without even a struggle. He's a real champion -- of those who want the entire political spectrum to lurch still further to the right.

[terryg11]

5. that be the one

he's a real democrat. And people wonder why some say the two parties are quite similaar

[JPace]

6. Same Bill Clinton.....

is this the same Bill Clinton that resided
over eight years of unparalled peace and
prosperity this nation has ever experienced?

Is this the same Bill Clinton that has a
near genius I.Q. and a gift for understanding
the complexities of this world beyond the
capabilities of the other 98% of politicians?

Is this the same Bill Clinton that was a work
horse in the WH under the most insidious and
lethal attacks from the republican party that
has ever been witnessed in American history?

Is this the same Bill Clinton that made a
mess with his personal weaknesses that gave
the republicans the dirty amunition they
craved to destroy him? Yes....and he not
only failed us this way but made some political
errors as well. (All politicians do, even
the most noble of them) But.........

I'd take him back in a heart beat and still
miss the America we knew under him, fumblings,
mistakes, warts and all.

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. Great post!

I agree with everything you said. I LOVE the guy!:bounce:

[Dover]

26. Hmmm...perhaps Clinton would like to see BOTH stars win the WH in '04

Clark/Hillary ticket?

[shrike]

7. Yup, everything is clinton's fault

So glad we all agree on that.

[chaumont58]

9. I saw a documentary on the Black Plague recently...

and I fully expected a comment for the narrator blaming all of it on Bill Clinton. I didn't hear it, but then again, I got up and went to the bathroom once, so maybe I just missed it.

It is funny to hear the far left weighin with all Clinton's shortcomings. I wonder how many of them would take those shortcomings today, if they were given a choice. Then again, its the FAR LEFT, so we should know they would rather starve than accept anything short of perfect.

[Tinoire]

8. Yepper- The same DLC Clinton

This is the same Clinton who we know is no saint, the same one who bombed the smithereens out of Iraqi people on a daily basis for 8 years, forced those obscene sanctions on the UN so much that the UN was on the verge of a revolt, and had his own nasty little war where innocents were killed as the mighty US military pulverized hospitals and schools littering Yugoslavia with Depleted Uranium...

The same Clinton who recently told us to just get over it...

The same one we admired until we found out how much he let us down & down

The same one who send Sendy Berger and Madeleine Albright out to OSU to see how much support he would get for a war against Iraq.

GATT, NAFTA, WTO...

Yeah... our master Bilderberger salesman. Clinton's endorsement means very little... More confirmation of DLC involvement. Sandy Berger and Madeleine Albright have also endorsed Clark.

[Trajan]

11. NO Democrat ....

is a perfect Democrat ....

I dont suspect that ANY particular Democrat can nor will please EVERY person in this forum ....

So: I suppose those who need to vent their anger about specific Democrats NOT meeting their particular specifications of perfection should be allowed to display their negative feelings, ... as a catharsis .....

So have at it Rick and Tin: .... this forum is yours too: ... fire away, and keep at it: .. OVER and OVER again, tell us why we are all a bunch of dumbshit loser Democrats who dont realize how wrong we are .....

And DONT forget to do so in a mean and condescending tone ..... that ALWAYS helps .....

Im sure your insults will educate us to think more like you .....

[terryg11]

12. and yet those are valid points

especially now when WE, as a nation are preparing to choose the next person to lead us. THis person (the president) will shape the international image of Americans whether we agree with wht they do or not. The next president will have much power and say over issues here in the United STates and worldwide. She/he could actually bring peace and prosperity to millions if they really wanted to.

So, yes, Bill Clinton is a much better choice than Bush overall but on many issues, especially those dealing with corporations having too much power and influence he isn't a whole lot different. We can applaud what he did and tried to do but pointing out his weaknesses and bad points isn't mean spirited or repetitious, it's the truth

[Tinoire]

13. I'm sorry Trajan if I refuse to close my eyes and plug my ears

The beauty of the 2 Party system is that it pits the supporters of both sides against the other while nobody is pitching for truth and issues.

Your defensiveness anytime a Democrat is criticized is exactly why we can't progress. It's exactly why we're in the mess we're in...

Supporters of Republicans and Democrats both blaming the other Party while Democratic and Republican Reps work hand in hand to advance wars and imperialism. The Pentagon and war machine budgets didn't get as fat as they are by themselves or with just the Republicans.

There have been enough articles posted and discussed here for you to see that or do you only read the articles that glorify us and attack them?

There will be no change in this country until people like you start dealing with the truth and start accepting responsability for our own failures. Only at that point will you understand why our country is so messed up. Just because the Republicans hated Clinton is no reason to make him a saint.

On edit: And this just in today... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=304359 I haven't had time to read it but the article title is right in line with what my thoughts have been this past year. Stop being so defensive- burying the truth does not make it go away- it just makes us look as stupid as less brain-washed people say we are- they were too many witnesses.

[barbaraann]

14. That's one of the best posts I have ever seen on DU.

Thank you.

[Pastiche423]

20. I agree wholeheartedly

Until we realize that a "win" at all/any costs is an empty win, then we will continue to get more of the same.

Sometimes I feel there are people here that have forgotten what Democrats and Liberals stand for.

As Joe Conason says in his book, Big Lies:

"The most basic Liberal values are political equality and economic opportunity. Liberals uphold democracy as the only form of government that derives legitimacy from the consent of the governed, and they regard the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights as essential to the expression of popular consent. their commitment to an expanding democracy is what drives liberal advocacy on behalf of women, minorites, gays, immigrants and other traditionally disenfranchised groups.

Liberals value the dynamism and creativity of democratic capitalim, but they also believe in strong, active government to protect the interests of society. They understand that markets function best when properly regulated, and they also that unchecked concentrations of private power encourage environmental pollution, financial fraud, and labor exploitation. Liberals see a broad social interest in ensuring real opportunities and decent standards of living for everyone, while requiring basic responsibility from everyone."


Just being a "star" doesn't cut it.

Peace

V

[roughsatori]

43. I agree, the idea of being a "star" reeks of celebrifacation (sic)

I guess in his time Hitler was a "star." That is as nebulous a statement as saying: "He is electable." This celebrity obsessed culture is repulsive.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

53. Are You Comparing Clark to Hitler?

I await your response with breathed anticipation.

:crazy:

DTH

[roughsatori]

57. You may think Clark is like Hitler, I don't

And there is nothing in my post that could be interpreted that way. I was talking about the use of the word "star" and its meaninglessness.

But there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise if you think he is like Hitler. I don't, but you can feel free to make that comparison and I will have to show you you are wrong.

[Dr Fate]

44. Handed it over to RWingers?

And you try to say that he did not fight those fuckers?

I disagree with Clinton on several issues, but to say Clinton never stood up to the RWingers is way off the mark- he is one of the few Democrats in recent memory who could beat them at their on game- he came out on top despite the "scandals" attributed to him- he fought them and held them back-all the while with the country enjoying peace and a good economy and job market.

[TheDonkey]

15. what an ass...

the democratic party has only 2 stars huh, his wife and Clark??

Please. Clinton does little to help the democratic party or it's image.

[Woodstock]

29. I have to say he's been putting his foot in his mouth

since he left office. I'm not really seeing how he has helped us since then. Maybe I'm missing something.

I understand him championing his wife, and his former colleague, but if he said "the only" stars, that's not only rude, but a backhand bash to the party.

Let's look on the bright side - at least Lieberman didn't make the list.

[madfloridian]

16. Uh.....how long has Clark declared he is a Democrat?

A week or so? A little early to be declared a "star" by anyone.

[Julien Sorel]

17. He's a Democrat. He's clealry a star,

on all the media, has a national campaign dedicated to getting him to run for the Presidency -- I think it's a little foolish to pretend that Clinton was doing anything but acknowledging reality. Sure, he was out to boost Clark, but that doesn't make what he said any less true.

[denverbill]

18. Who the hell died and made Hillary queen?

You know, I voted for Clinton half-heartedly in 1992. I woulda voted for Perot if he hadn't pulled his stupid "I'm outta the race" thing when it started to look like he actually might win.

In 1996, I voted for Clinton purely out of hatred of the vitriolic attacks Pukies made at Clinton during his entire Presidency to date.

Clinton was OK. He presided over a strong economy. He butted heads with pukies on the budget several times and came out ahead. I think welfare reform was a good thing. He cut capital gains taxes on home sales, which gave me a HUGE tax savings.

However, he failed at National Health Care and never made any effort to move on it again. He supported NAFTA which has been an unmitigated disaster. His ethical lapses have done more damage to the Democratic party than Nixon did to Republicans. His plethora of pardons was unseemly if not unethical.

Clinton was brilliant, hard-working, and charismatic. Bush is stupid, lazy, and arrogant. Even in his dreams, Bush isn't half the President Clinton was.

And through all this, what was Hillary? She chaired the failed National Health care initiative, then mostly just stood by her man for 6 years. She is 2 years into her first term as a Senator. I don't see how that gives her any claim to party leadership.

Hillary is damned near my least favorite Presidential option for 2004.

[Donna Zen]

19. For all of his warts

Clinton is one of the most skillful politicans of our lifetime. Prehaps the leaked statement has more to do with sharing his personal advice with us on who he thinks gives us our best chance of winning, than merely an ego rush. I do think Clinton wants to kick bush out of the WH. I also believe that you don't make progress unless you are progressing....right now that it not happening.

[MadHound]

21. So Clinton likes Clark eh?

Just another strike against Clark. Just another reason to go to Greener pastures next fall

[Renew Deal]

22. Is that a Joke?

Clinton is one of the most influential people in the party. He is also one of the most successful politicians ever. Hillary gets 40% of the dem vote if she runs for the Dem nomination out of the gate. You think a Bubba endorsement is a bad thing? I am guessing that is because he may not endorse your candidate.

Go to greener pastures. Vote for Nader and help * win again.

[MadHound]

24. No joke friend, just looking at the reality of the situation

Look, people praise Clinton around here like he was the second coming of Christ, yet in many ways he damaged this nation worse than his two predecessors. Let's look at Clinton's accomplishments:

1. NAFTA, WTO, FTAA, and whole raft of other alphabet trade agreements. Wonder why your job is heading south? These are the reasons. You and I now have to compete for wages globally. And you know what? Americans lose everytime because we simply can't live on sweatshop wages.

2. '96 Telecom Act. Wonder what happened to that wonderful liberal media? Well this is your answer. This little doozy allowed the already contracting media to be shrunk to the size where now only six corporations control ninety percent of the media. So much for diverse points of view.

3. CFR. HAH! What a joke. With a little bit of smoke, mirrors and illegality, Clinton and his cronies brought the public soft money donations, the corporate cash cow. Thus the influence of corporations on our government is multiplied many-fold. Yippee, the government is now truly up for sale.

4. Welfare "reform". A bad idea even when the economy was doing well, the fruits of this piece of excrement are now showing up in the increasing numbers of homeless and destitute. And here we thought the Dems were the party of the people, that's a laugh.

5. Wealth inequity. Do you realize that the standard of living for the average American actually went down 3.1%? Meanwhile the inequity between rich and poor rose to record high levels. We are now in an age that is worse than the days of the robber barons.

Look, Clinton was a charasmatic man, he could talk a good game, but rarely followed through(Universal Health Care? Gays in the Military?). He was basically a corporate yes man who followed the orders of those who bought him. I know that sounds harsh, but what other conclusion can you reach if you honestly look at his record. And if he is endorsing Clark, then that gives me grave reservations regarding Clark.

What we need is a president who is not a bought and paid for stooge of the corporations. The only party I see offering up one(other that possibly Kucinich) are the Greens. They take no corporate money. Can Clark(or any of the others) say the same?

[Pepperbelly]

25. everything that you posted, if all rolled up in a ball ...

would STILL not equal one year of peace and proisperity under Clinton. Like most people who put much stock in CRAP like you posted, your grip on what matters to working poor people, poor people and even middle class is tenuous at best.

Right now, I am living on less than half what I had before Bush drove up. I have lost my house that I was less than five years away from paying off. My country is at war. Unemployment is up. Wages are stagnant despite the so-called productivity gains.

And you bitch about THOSE things.

Give me a fucking break. I do not know if you are faced with feeding a family. I am and find your cavilier dismissal of the peace and prosperity under Clinton utterly disgusting, immature, and the exact same sort of CRAP that sent me away from the 60s leftist movement. Those people then were very good at sacrificing good at the alter for perfect. They think they are idealistic. I think they are assholes.

[cosmicdot]

34. it's not all "crap" - I guess I'm an asshole - thanks a lot

[paulk]

27. I wish I could afford your sense of morality

I'll take Clinton over Bush any day of the week.

Voting Green is a great way to abdicate responsibility - and afterward you can always sit back and smugly say ,"I told you so...", by pointing out that the Democratic candidate is also flawed.

Yes, they're two sides of the same coin; one side maybe is Republican
lite, but the other side is FASCISM. It's not a hard choice.

Hey - like GW tried to say "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me". That the Greens seem to be prepared to run Nader again only shows how irrelevent they have become. And how politically bankrupt.



ed for grammer

[DoveTurnedHawk]

28. Exactly Right, and It's Why the "Hysterical Left" Is Terrified of Clark

They realize that a Clark run -- with all of its immense crossover appeal to Independents and even some Thugs -- would effectively render them completely irrelevant.

DTH

[IranianDemocrat]

32. Do you even know where Clark stands on the issues?

I bet not..

[cosmicdot]

33. actually, I'd like to have an outline of his healthcare program

... if you have it ... thanks

[Mz Pip]

23. Those Greener Pastures

will probably end up being parking lots if * gets re selected.

Clark has said the legacy we leave future generations is the environment and Constitutional legitimacy.
Sound pretty "Green" to me.

MzPip
:dem:

[roughsatori]

45. Clark supporters don't care about your vote

They seem to care about courting moderate Republican voters--you are expendable to them.

Do you ever wonder why the most conservative members of DU keep saying how "progressive" Clark is? And in the next breath will tell you to go to hell and vote Green.

[Julien Sorel]

47. Nawww, Clark supporters aren't

interested in people who are irrational or extremists. Clark supporters are interested in attracting moderates and true progressives of all stripes, not just Republicans. The extremists, though, aren't really interested in being attracted; they want to be catered to. Ain't going to happen, except by cranks like Nadir and people of his ilk.

Nadir isn't 'progressive' in the sense that most Americans use the term; he's socialist. The Greens aren't 'progressive,' they're socialist. Look at their platform some time. Anyone who tried to cater to cranks like that would be in Kucinich's position. The thought of getting your ass beat in another election and going off in a corner whining and bitching, while snickering to yourself about the superiority of your morality and ideas might please you immensely, but you are, believe me, in a distinct minority, and I hope you stay that way.

[Pepperbelly]

55. that particular sniping was aimed at Clinton ...

and yes, if someone doesn't recognize the night-day differences between him and what we have now, I suppose they are past any persuasion.

[IndianaGreen]

30. Is that why Clinton canned Clark??????

Before you all become enamored of Clinton's remarks, he canned Clark because Clark would not shut up about the rules of engagement the White House was placing on the troops during the war in the former Yugoslavia.

US Gen. Wesley Clark canned

The early dismissal of Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley Clark has raised a few eyebrows despite Washington's claims that the decision did not reflect displeasure with Clark's performance during the war in Kosovo. THE IRISH TIMES details how Clark and Lieut. Gen. Michael Jackson, the British commander of KFOR, have waged "a battle of wills" since the war's conclusion. According to the Times, when Russian troops occupied the Slatina airfield in Kosovo on June 11th, Clark ordered in troops and helicopters. However, Jackson refused the request, reportedly saying "I'm not going to start the third World War for you."

Meanwhile, Stratfor offers up their own commentary: Clark screwed up big time, and now he's history. "General Clark was one of four top Clinton advisors most responsible for pushing the U.S. and NATO into a military confrontation over Kosovo...Clark<'s> is not the first head to roll. His is just the most public."

http://www.motherjones.com/total_coverage/kosovo/altnews080299.html

[DoveTurnedHawk]

31. STRATFOR??

That mag is about as credible as Debka. Anyway, the WW3 bit has been debunked numerous times.

DTH

[Pastiche423]

35. Debunked?

Then why did Clark quote it in his own book?

"As revealed in Clark’s new book Waging Modern War, a heated exchange developed between the two NATO leaders. Meeting in Jackson’s headquarters, located in an abandoned shoe factory in Macedonia, Jackson flatly refused to obey Clark’s orders. His mission was twofold, said Jackson: peacekeeping and resettlement of Kosovarian refugees, not waging war against Russian troops.

According to General Clark, General Jackson was "angry and upset", and the meeting was a "rapid-fire exchange and became too personal."

More quotes:

Jackson: "Sir, I’m not taking any more orders from Washington,"

Clark: "Mike, these aren’t Washington’s orders, they’re coming from me."

Jackson: "By whose authority?"

Clark: "By my authority as Supreme Allied Commander Europe."

Jackson: "You don’t have that authority."

Clark: "I do have that authority. I have the Secretary-General behind me on this."

Jackson: "Sir, I’m not starting World War Three for you."

Clark: "Mike, I’m not asking you to start World War Three. I’m asking you to block the runways so that we don’t have to face an issue that could produce a crisis."

Jackson: "Sir, I’m a three-star general, you can’t give me orders like this."

Clark: "Mike, I’m a four-star general, and I can tell you these things."

Stung by Jackson’s mutiny, General Clark telephoned General Sir Charles Guthrie, Britain’s Chief of Defense, who seconded his subordinates refusal to risk war with the Russian bear. Up the diplomatic ladder it went, eventually "resolved" by what was essentially a slap to Clark’s already embarrassed face; British and French troops were put on so-called "high alert." No Apache helicopters or Allied troops were deployed for a possibly disastrous confrontation with the Russians and Moscow now had a seat at the high stakes Serbian poker game.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/elkins/elkins17.html

[democracyindanger]

36. Poor, poor Slobo

I mean, that's what it all comes down to: Poor Slobodan Milosevic and Serbia. After all, as Elkins writes, "The criminal NATO bombing campaign had finally ceased..." which was, of course, directed by "the corrupt Clinton regime."

Perhaps, in the future, you should provide the larger context of that incident. The role of Russia in Kosovo, which was clearly pro-Serbian, had not been defined at that point. Their occupation of the Pristina airport was sudden and unexpected, and there was concern by NATO that Russia was going to try and carve out its own sector a la post-WWII Germany.

Furthermore, you might try posting an unedited version from Clark's book, or at least indicate where edits have been made. Using an ellipsis is standard journalistic procedure.



Once inside, it was a frank discussion. Amidst the serious issues Jackson seemed angry and upset. There was a lot of emotion. I had expected to discuss the issues. I hadn't expected the emotional tenor, but I probably should have.

We exchanged views on the role of Washington versus the role of Brussels, the authority of the Strategic Commander versus the responsibilities of the commander on the ground, the nature of the crisis itself, and the implications. It was a rapid-fire exchange and became too personal, which I regretted but couldn't seem to prevent...

"Sir, I'm not starting World War Three for you...."

This was getting out of hand, and I tried to turn down the temperature. "Mike, I'm not asking you to start World War III," I said. "I'm asking you to block the runways so that we don't have to face an issue that could produce a crisis....It doesn't have to be a confrontation....You will have the position....They will have to challenge you." I tried to walk through some details as I had thought about the possibilities.

"Sir, I'm a three-star general; you can't give me orders like this....I have my judgment."

"Mike, I'm a four-star general, and I can tell you these things."

It was a clash of perspectives and command styles, experience and intent, and, I sensed, a clash born of fatigue and frustration.

Jackson was an operational commander. He was focused on the task at hand, and, as he explained it, the peacekeeping mission was on track... In his view the airfield had no value. There was no point in confronting the Russians there. They could always be dealt with later...

I saw the problem in strategic terms. This could be a defining moment for the future of NATO. Would we or would we not be able to conduct our own peacekeeping missions? Would Russia be co-equal with NATO in this operation? Would Russia get its way by deception and bluff or by negotiation and compromise?

From Clark's Waging Modern War, pp.394-5.



You might try reading the original source material (Available at amazon.com for $18.00 plus shipping and applicable taxes). Then you might learn that Clark, while "stunned," was not "stung" by Jackson's refusal ("stung" suggesting that he took it personally. Nice try.), but saw it as a difference in command structure and tradition between US and British forces; and that far from being a "slap to Clark's already embarassed face", he and Jackson worked together to delay Russian reinforcements--until diplomacy defined Russia's role in Kosovo.

But all those facts are too messy, I suppose. Better to lament for poor, poor Slobo and his unrealized dreams of a Greater Serbia.

[Pastiche423]

37. WTF?

I was responding to a poster that stated the War III remark had been debunked. It has not been debunked, as Clark wrote about it in his book.

That was the point. The only point.

:eyes:

[democracyindanger]

38. That's a quick response

Wow, you must be a speed reader. You asked, "Then why did Clark quote it in his own book?"

My response answered your question. He put it in there to not only to relate the story of a specific incident, but (if you had the actual book and read it) to talk about NATO's changing role and how a military that's always been answerable to a democratic civilian government operates.

Kinda hurts your 'Clark is Strangelove' meme, doesn't it? AAAH! DU IS BEING MEMED TO DEATH!

:eyes:

[Tinoire]

42. Your post didn't address a thing

You only reinforced Pastiche's point by reposting Clark's watered down version and looked silly to boot by not having anything a little less partisan as a source.

Your point that he only related that incident in his book for x or y reason does not answer the only question Pastiche asked and that is: 'If the story is so debunked, what is it doing in Clark's book?' (Literally, "Debunked? Then why did Clark quote it in his own book?")

More food for thought for lurking readers.

Mark Tran
Monday August 2, 1999

Nato supreme commander General Wesley Clark is not being allowed to fade away quietly. Days after the Clinton administration relieved him of his command two months early, Newsweek is reporting that the victor of Kosovo was blocked from sending paratroopers to Pristina airport to pre-empt an unexpected Russian advance.
Lieutenant-general Sir Michael Jackson overruled General Clark because the British commander did not want to spark a clash with the Russians.

"I'm not going to start Third World War for you," General Jackson told the US commander, according to Newsweek. In the hours that followed General Clark's order, both men sought political backing for their position, but only General Jackson received it.

News of the clash between the British and US commanders comes just days after the US snubbed General Clark by ordering him to step down next year, two months early, to make way for Air Force General Joseph Ralston, vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.

<snip>

General Clark then asked fellow American commander Admiral James Ellis, in charge of Nato's Southern Command, to land helicopters on the runways to prevent giant Russian Ilyushin transport coming in. However, Admiral Ellis also refused, saying General Jackson would not like it.

The Russian planes were only prevented from landing after US officials persuaded Hungary to deny them permission to overfly the country. Both generals turned to their political masters for support, but while the British government backed General Jackson's judgment, General Clark received no support, effectively meaning his orders were overruled.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208120,00.html

[TeeYiYi]

46. "More food for thought for lurking readers." . . .

*lol* Caught me. :hi: Hi Tinoire. Great posts BTW. Your insight in this matter shows wisdom and logic. Clinton is dangerous. Yes, we all enjoyed the halcyon days of the 1990's when the stock market soared and money flourished. Life was good. But the idea that Clinton could, or even would bring that kind of prosperity to this country again through his own nomination or the nomination of his hand-picked candidate is deluded thinking. There is a dark underbelly in the world right now that blurs party lines, as you know. If Clinton endorses Clark I have to wonder if he isn't a ringer for PNAC.

TYY

[DoveTurnedHawk]

52. "Clinton is dangerous."

If Clinton endorses Clark I have to wonder if he isn't a ringer for PNAC.

Congratulations, you're the latest addition to my Ignore list!

:crazy:

:eyes:

DTH

[Pepperbelly]

56. i think the writer was being sarcastic ... nt

[Tinoire]

61. Hi TeeYiYi!!

:hi: Missed seeing you around lately!

the idea that Clinton could, or even would bring that kind of prosperity to this country again through his own nomination or the nomination of his hand-picked candidate is deluded thinking.

I wholeheartedly agree. The set of circumstances is totally different right now. America will never see that type of prosperity again. It is unfortunate that we didn't seize that opportunity, more attributable to an independent technology revolution than to any one person or any one administration, to fix the horrible problems afflicting this country when we had the money. The poor were crying out in desperation but everyone was so caught up in their stock portfolios that they didn't even notice. It's sad that it's only now, now that the middle class is being affected, that people are realizing there's a problem. There's always been a problem; most of us were just too blind to see!

And look at where it's at middle America
Now it's a tragedy
Now it's so sad to see
An upper class city having this happening

Eminem - The Way I Am
---

Clinton's welfare reform has increased child poverty
By Larry Roberts
2 June 1999

Recent studies reveal that despite a drastic reduction in the welfare rolls and a drop in the official unemployment rate families have not been able to raise themselves out of poverty. In fact many families, particularly those with young children, face conditions that are worse now than at any time during the last 30 years.

<snip>
Despite its wealth America's social policy has never been generous to the poor. No other advanced country in the world has the level of concentrated poverty that you find in the US. In countries such as Germany and France, traditionally welfare has been a universal program available to all regardless of income. In America those who receive welfare are stigmatized.

<snip>

Millions of low income people, including an estimated 4 million children, are not enrolled in the Medicaid healthcare program due directly to the cuts in welfare, even though their low-wage jobs make them eligible. According to the US Census 43.4 million Americans do not have health insurance. One-third of all poor people—31.6 percent—were uninsured in 1997. Medicaid rolls are down as more people move from welfare to work. At the same time most employers in the service sector are unwilling to provide healthcare to low wage workers. In Wisconsin, for example, of the families terminated from welfare, 100 percent received Medicaid before losing their cash aid; afterward the number dropped to 53 percent.

<sn>

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jun1999/welf-j02.shtml

PS. I loved that UK article you posted: "This war on terrorism is bogus" Thanks for that! More people need to read about PNAC and the blueprint for a global Pax Americana!

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html


Peace :)

[Pastiche423]

48. Aha

"News of the clash between the British and US commanders comes just days after the US snubbed General Clark by ordering him to step down next year, two months early, to make way for Air Force General Joseph Ralston, vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff."

I heard Clark say he did not know why he was asked to step down two months early. I also heard him say he did not even ask why.

That leads me to believe that either Clark lied about not knowing why, or that he is in complete denial.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention, T.

Peace

P.S. You think The Guardian is a good enough source? ;-)

[Bertrand]

49. "...a little less partisan as a source"

Since none of us were there, all of the information we know on this is subjective, so instead of calling others silly you should pay a little more attention to reality. Also, under your definition of what is considered valid info or not, everyone should ignore you considering you are not only openly Anti-Clark, you alter your sources to emphasize your POV.

[Pastiche423]

50. "Since none of us were there..."

True, none of us were there, but Clark was and he wrote about it in his book.

Are you saying Clark was not truthful about what was said in his book?

[Bertrand]

51. No

although it is possible that Clark lied, just as it's possible that he told the truth as he saw it, told the truth in actuality, or that he misinterpreted the reality of the situation. Clark doesnt deny the "WW3" words by Jackson, but he did elaborate on their context. Whether you believe him or not is up to you.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

54. Oh Nooooooo! It's the "Clark Almost Started WW3" Meme! Flee, Flee!!!

:eyes:

Here is a more even-handed story regarding Jackson's self-serving comment:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/671495.stm

And see my post #40 for a better account of the "Clinton administration" firing (which had absolutely nothing to do with Clinton, a Clark supporter, and everything to do with a petulant, jealous SecDef Cohen...kinda like many of the petulant, jealous anti-Clarkers here).

DTH

[democracyindanger]

58. CAUTION: TINOIRE MEME-ING US TO DEATH!

The article Pastiche posted was an edited version of the original Clark version. So if Clark's version is faulty, then what does that make Pastiche's version? Hmm...You might want to get a fresh layer of tinfoil to think about that.

"Watered down." That's a hoot. It's only 'watered down' when compared to Elkin's article that also defends 'tiny Serbia' and shakes its fists at the "corrupt Clinton regime."

I know it's still early, but have you decided whether you're going to vote for Nader or LaRouche yet?

[Tinoire]

59. For whomever I damn well please :)

Oh barf :puke: 227 post Clark newbie hurling insults without knowing a damn thing about people. Typical...

The Attack of the Storm Troopers.

[Pastiche423]

60. Oh dear

They seem to be getting a little desperate. Edited version? I supplied a link to an article that quoted what Clark quoted in his very own book.

Could it be that Clark is waiting to see how much real dirt people can find on him before he declares he's running?

Nah, he's just being coy, right? :eyes:

[Tinoire]

62. When Newbies start hurling childish epitephs like

"Nader supporter" "Larouche supporter" on a political board, you know they're getting desperate.

It would be laughable if it weren't so downright pathetic...

[Julien Sorel]

39. LOL

I'm a crappy typist, or I'd have posted that a long time ago. There are also several pages in the book that explain all the hurdles Clark had to jump before giving the order -- approval from Joe Ralston (technically his equal or inferior at the time, but Ralston spoke for the White House); and Javier Solana, the civilian head of NATO. But to hear the extremists tell it, Clark, blood dripping from his fangs, recklessly ordered an operation with the intent of starting WWIII. And there are some people here who will believe anything as long as it reinforces their own world view, no matter the source.

[TacticalPeek]

41. Thanks a googol for posting that. I love the smell of original source

'round 'bout midnight.

The day the rooskies at the airport was reported, I thought, "Damn! Hardly any slip-ups beyond accidents so far, and now what a clusterf**k". Later finding out it was a Brit general, I will admit to a sterotypical reaction, picturing Monty in the movie 'Patton', which is about the extent of my knowledge of British officers. And Monty Python . . . and 'The Hill' with Sean Connery, etc.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

40. Since This Thread Is Still Going

I thought I'd point you to a SLIGHTLY more credible account of what happened (thanks to Kainah)!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=308380#308498

DTH