Everybody, let's get real about Clark...

[wyldwolf]

...he's in but he's not the frontrunner. Deanies have nothing to fear if their man really is the man they think he is.

As for Clark being in the military, which seems to be a bone of contention among the far lefties here, the military is not the sole property of the Republican party.

The US military, under democratic leadership, won WWII.

You INSULT our servicemen, past and present, when you allude that Clark's military service is a liability to the democratic cause.

Shame on you.

[CentristDemocrat]

I agree. It is shameful.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. Thank You wyldwolf!!!

I am a supporter of General Clark because he opposed the war in Iraq, has real experience in defense issues and is a progressive on social policy!

I see NOTHING wrong with him being a former military man!

:kick:

[Girlfriday]

2. I'll second that

Go Clark!

[RobertSeattle]

18. I'll third That

And I'll even forgive him for being a cavalry officer.

(I'm a former Army Engineer Officer)

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Well said

In fact, given the reaction from the righties all over the
place, the harder they attack the more solid a candidate is.

By their logic... Dean \ Clark or Clark \ Dean is the true
nightmare scenario.

Now to the hard lefties who insult our men and women in uniform
Here is a newsflash for many of you.

Many of our fine troops ARE LIBERALS... so pray tell me
where should they go politically? The Right that thinks
their lives are disposable or the left that has all these
funny theories about the military?

Shame... shame, shame...

[wyldwolf]

4. Who are the enemies of the democratic party?

The hard right or the hard left? It appears both!

[Blue_Chill]

31. I agree n/t

...

[CMT]

5. to me it is not his service record which is an issue

it is an honorable record, just as it is for Sen. Kerry. What is at issue for me is his lack of a record on domestic issues. I support Dean, but Dean (like the General) was still able to decide that the war on Iraq was a mistake. Dean, however, has a record on domestic affairs. So when the General speaks about wanting to provide health insurance or balancing budgets or supporting gay unions,ect--Dean can agree 100% with Gen. Clark but also be able to say, "In Vermont, I was able to provide insurance for 99% of our kids, balance budgets every year, and signed a civil unions bill."

I agree that Gen. Clark's service record is something we all should be proud of.

[Woodstock]

81. That's why I think together they'd be a formidable force

Whether Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean - it sounds like a real Bush masher to me.

[Maple]

6. Well...you arrived way late

after the bulk of it was over, and you had lotsa help.

But I suppose it's accurate if you mean you didn't 'lose' WWII.

[wyldwolf]

9. You know, I certainly don't want this thread hijacked...

...but you need a history lesson. Germany was decimating Europe before we entered.

WE won that war for Europe.

[Maple]

13. Sorry, the Russians took out the Germans

long before you showed up.

American history varies a lot from the world history that everyone else knows.

It's this kind of belief in your own invincibilty that gets you into these messes time after time.

[wyldwolf]

23. How wrong you can be!

First of all, you keep saying "you" as though I was there......some stupid little game you play, I guess.

Second, the Russian victory was far from the catalyst in which WE won WWII.

It was actually the British defeat of the Germans and the Italians in late 42, bolstered by the vast production facilities of the United States in full operation.

US forces then turned back Germans in Tunisia in May of '43.

It was the US led V day that ultimately forced the Germans to surrender.

[QERTY]

89. Perhaps You Missed The History Lesson In Which

Berlin was besieged by Soviet troops? Maybe you don't realize that 80% of the Nazis fighting force was on the Eastern front. It's okay to not know history. But to claim untruths with no evidence is shameful. Read.

[wyldwolf]

94. Well, I certainly don't see you quoting sources...

Vincent J. Esposito
Colonel, United States Army
Head, Department of Military Art, United States Military Academy

"The year 1942 saw the turn of the tide for the Allies. In June, Japanese naval airpower was decimated by the United States Navy in the Battle of Midway. Having been repulsed at Moscow, Hitler turned to the Caucasus, but the Germans were severely defeated and turned back at Stalingrad (now Volgograd) by the Russians in the closing months of the year. At the same time the British dealt the Germans and Italians a defeat at El Alamein that sent them reeling in retreat westward along the African Mediterranean coast. In Tunisia they encountered newly landed British and American forces and were expelled from Africa in May 1943.

The Allies now had the initiative and, with the vast production facilities of the United States in full operation, took the offensive on all fronts.

Following a massive buildup of troops, air and naval power, and equipment in the British Isles, American, British, and French troops landed on the Normandy coast of France in June 1944 and pressed the Germans back to the West Wall. There, in December, the Germans launched a final counterattack, which failed."

http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_1.html

Now, what were you saying...?

[QERTY]

99. I'm Saying That The Mere Fact That You Would Cite

Groliers Encyclopedia as a source is bizarre. The fact that you would cite an American General is equally bizarre. Perhaps your studies should go a little deeper than an encyclopedia. Should I cite German troop deployment figures for you? Should I quote Hitler?

[wyldwolf]

111. What a cop out!

That is such a freeper ploy. You don't like the info so you attack the source it came from.

What is really bizarre is you offering to quote Hitler. German troop deployment figures would meaningless here.

And its sad that you STILL haven't cited a source.

[mitchum]

plenty of history lessons to go around...

USSR defeated the Nazis (despite the propaganda of that hack, Ambrose)
According to Churchhill, US $$$ was our best contribution

[jonnyblitz]

7. well, I am a vet AND a far leftie!!!

So there! :hi:

[meegbear]

20. Stick it to the man jonny!!

:hug:

[jonnyblitz]

45. LOL..yeah but I am not anti-Clark either! I am anti-Clark supporters who

yell at me for asking questions about Clark positions I am not clear on!I wanna hear it all both pro and con!! Moderate types can name call me all they want because it isn't anything a Freeper hasnt screeched in my face at the anti-war rallies anyway !

[Clark Can WIN]

106. If I may apologize for anytime you've had your head bitten off

And try to explain why. Being a Clark supporter on here is very much like standing in front of a firehose that is blasting a tasty mixture of phosphoric acid and rock salt. We have grown twitchy from repeatedly being asked questions by those whose intentions are facetious, not born of any actual desire for reasonable dialoge.

[Forkboy]

27. Heh

thanks johnny :D

[greyl]

8. Is it ok to mention that he voted for Reagan?

and wonder why? And then ask if his early support is too heavily due to how high he got on the military ladder compared with gw?

[CentristDemocrat]

11. Kucinich, Dean or GREEN. Right?

:eyes:

[StopTheMorans]

21. you've got to cut that rejoinder

it makes you sound like a real elitist as*hole, and I don't care if this post gets deleted.

[CentristDemocrat]

24. You've got to cut that "run the party off a cliff" mentality.

It's very unbecoming.

[StopTheMorans]

29. hey whoever you think you are

how the hell do you know that Clark is the only way for the party? Have you been watching dean all summer? Have you seen the support (and more importantly to a DLC shill like you, the fundraising) that he has managed to accomplish? You're quite arrogant for someone who posts one-liners and refuses to back them up with anything other than insults. Clark is a new candidate who is completely untested, and while I don't have an opinion of him one way or the other, you're really not helping his cause to ANYONE who is undecided.

[CentristDemocrat]

59. Dean's popularity with who? The leftist activists?

That means NOTHING in a general election. Go study every election since the beginning of this country's founding.

[StopTheMorans]

72. History major here my friend

graduated with honors, thanks:) anyways, I have, and do you really want me to tell you the same points you've chosen to ignore hundreds of times before? My parents both became Dean supporters before I did, and they're independents living in WNY. I hopped on the bandwagon in late-April, and how the hell do you think he appeals only to lefties? If you are looking for a real centrist (doesn't matter to me one way or the other), Dean is your man. Kerry is much to the left of him except for his war vote. I don't know what the hell you keep trying to prove by posting one-line retorts, it only makes you look like you either don't have the knowledge to refute the claims that were made, or you simply refuse to acknowledge anything you can't get your mind around. Either way makes you look bad.

on edit: spelling

[CentristDemocrat]

84. Political Science major here

And you have no idea what you're talking about. Dean has no chance.

[Eloriel]

86. Unfortunately, you're the one showing your ignorance

You are quite obviously repeating things you've heard or read from others -- those pundits, the very ones who have been absolutely wrong about everything else about Dean in the past.

You really need to assess him and his campaign using original source material.

Just a friendly tip.

Eloriel

[wyldwolf]

87. Well, then, Eloriel. show us by previous examples...

...and original source material how Dean is the odds on favorite?

[Eloriel]

91. Just to point out --

"Well, then, Eloriel. show us by previous examples..."
...and original source material how Dean is the odds on favorite?


"Odds on favorite" is not what I claimed. YOUR claim was:

Dean has no chance.

OTOH, he HAS been considered recently the front runner. And, you can go here: http://blog.deanforamerica.com/

and note that he leads in the polls in NH, US as a whole, CA, IA, NM and MD.

You could also note that nearly 407,000 people are signed up for his campaign, and over 110,000 for his MeetUps. You could also read comments to the blog from supporters to find out just what is really going on in his campaign.

As for "previous examples," if by that you mean historical examples, there are none. That actually is one of my major points. What Dean is doing has never been done before. You can TRY to fit him into molds and previous candidates, but it won't work. There are none. No other candidate -- not even Clark -- has this grassroots support, and it's across ALL political spectrums and especially draws in those who have NEVER been involved in politics before, all ages and so forth.

He raised the most funds last quarter and he's likely to break Clinton's third quarter record of $10.3 million by the end of September. The funds have been raised almost exclusively from small, individual donations. When I last looked at his funds on some public interest site, there as I think $1500 from a PAC, and that's all, and it didn't say what PAC, but I'll give you dollars to doughnuts it wasn't a corporate PAC.

Think of what this means: an unbought candidate. A candidate The People own. That alone hasn't been done in a very long while, if ever.

Eloriel

[wyldwolf]

96. FYI - I didn't say any of that... but....

The original poster said that, based on history, candidates like Dean don't win.

You said it was ignorance. I asked you to use your standards of "original source material" to show where candidates like him do win.

[Forkboy]

93. and you do?

do I have to link to your wrong assumptions again?

You poli sci people...I swear :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

98. It would certainly bolster your credibility...

[Forkboy]

102. lmao....my pleasure

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=362244#362528

read the whole exchange to see CD's logic and poli sci brains.

[wyldwolf]

110. But this is not a sourced link...just more discussions...

[Forkboy]

113. You do realize that my post #93

was in response to CentristDemocrat don't you? Hence I linked to CD's wrong assumptions as you asked :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

116. Yes I do but by declaring someone's assumptions "wrong" on a topic...

...one must be able to source it beyond what the same parties said prior.

[Forkboy]

117. Well I'm not sure what you want

CD accused someone of not knowing what they were talking about.I was pointing out that CD was guilty of what she was accusing the other poster of.

Does that mean she was wrong on this topic? No,but it does shed light on A-the hypocrisy,and B-the posters character.

Again,I'm not sure what you were expecting from me here :shrug:

[greyl]

25. Nooo, anyone but bush and let's keep it "real" on the way there.

ok? :)

[Forkboy]

28. repetitive much?

[wyldwolf]

12. So?

Really? So what? One of the most liberal people I know voted for Reagan.

MANY democrats did. They were called Reagan democrats, remember?

Weak weak weak point you made.

[CentristDemocrat]

16. If Clark is the nominee, WELCOME HOME REAGAN DEMS.

[stickdog]

109. If you are representative, then I say

"Stay in your holes, Reagan Dems."

[many a good man]

118. Welcome Home Prodigal Dems

I recently read that Dems have won the majority of the white male demographic only ONCE since FDR (in '64). I would guess that busing, quotas, taxes, and the perception of anti-militarism helped drive them away.

Blue collars are so passionately pro-Troops they sometimes miss the subtle arguments against our "intervention" policies. They don't like it when liberals bash a war's justification when our sons and daughters are in harm's way. They'll wait for the next election after the war's end to express their opinion. Because of this I think that just about ANY dem can win in '04 (as long as he doesn't self-destruct).

Post-911 realities will diminish the importance of these divisive issues and soon blue collar white males will see how the GOP is running this country into a ditch. When that happens there will be a progressive populist resurgence.

I don't think that time is quite here yet. I want to hear more about Clark and I especially want to see a landslide victory next year...

[greyl]

17. They weren't exactly rhetorical questions. edit:

In other words, do you think it's an insult to ask those questions in a progressive Democratic discussion forum?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. We could do a lot worse than Clark

[Pastiche423]

14. IMHO

it is clark's military history that is a liability to the Democratic cause. "Insulting" one military person is not insulting the entire military. (Broad brush and all)

I do not fear clark because of the candidates I support. I fear clark due to his own history, one which I believe is not good for our country now.

P.S. Shaming people is not a good strategy.

[glarius]

15. Besides that...HE WANTS TO GET ALONG WITH other countries & leaders

As a Canadian, that sounds GOOD to me!!!

[cheapbeemr]

19. Hear Clark talking about PNAC in a radio interview

a week or so ago. If we can get all the Dem candidates talking about it, we might get somewhere.

[Larkspur]

22. I never said that his military record was a liability to democracy

I said that his lack of civlian political campaigning and governance was.

I'd be more impressed with Clark running for President if he had been a governor of a state for 2 terms before deciding to run for the Presidency. His military background does not automatically translate into civilian governance experience.

Also, like Dean, Clark will have to EARN his support from me. I'm not a private in the army who is required to obey whatever leader is imposed upon me.

[Kolesar]

26. I agree

Whoever said that his "military background" was somehow counter to the Democratic Party? I have been perusing these threads and have not seen it.

[wyldwolf]

32. Did I mention your name in this post?

There is one of two, or both, factions working here. The Deanies, who think Dean is a diehard liberal when in fact he is a moderate and who only support him because he opposed the Iraq war. Talk about a one issue candidate! He's weak on gun control and weak on capital punishment.

Then you have the far lefties who seem to believe ALL WAR is wrong, that the military institution is evil, and that if only one of THEIRS would get elected the military would be unneeded.

As if Kucinich would not have intervened in Kosovo or led US forces in WWII. C'mon!

You guys are going to be real disappointed.

Go vote Green! PLEASE!

We'll more than make up for it with independents and the so-called Reagan democrats.

[edward]

30. Shame on you.

What does criticizing Clark have to do with servicemen?

[Blue_Chill]

34. That's not what he said and you know it.

He said those that consider being a member of our armed forces a liability for a presidential hopeful should be ashamed.

[edward]

37. That is what I said.

Shorthand. Criticizing Clark for being in the military is to criticize people in the miliary. That is wrong. Shame shame shame.
(as Gomer Pyle would say)

[wyldwolf]

41. You're changing you tune?

The criticism of Clark's military experience is just a personalization of criticizing the military in general. Why else would otherwise rational (I'm beginning to wonder) pull out rightwing sources to back their opinions of Clark?

[edward]

49. Same song. More clarity.

One can criticize Clark as a General without making any reference whatsoever to people who serve in the military.
Clark is running for Democratic nominee for president, not a military position(commander in chief is not a military position).
You seem to be conflating a critique of Clark with a critique of military service per se.

[wyldwolf]

60. No, I'm pointing out that there are those here...

...who bash Clark because they abhore the military.

[edward]

71. Maybe don't debate them in the abstract.

You have used your replies to my posts to debate some "other" people out there; I never said I "abhore" the military.

[Eloriel]

88. NONSENSE!!!

Even IF (and it's a big if 'cause I haven't seen it) people have been criticizing Clark for having BEEN in the military, Clark doesn't in any way represent all service members. Ridiculous, illogical argument!

Eloriel

[edward]

90. Right.

It was a complicated exchange. We were debating the exact phrasing of what I was disagreeing with. My point was that one can criticize the military backround of Clark without criticizing military experience itself. (in some sense, this thread is a series of misread posts)

[wyldwolf]

36. Shame on YOU...

...the Clark snipers keep whining, "He was a general! He used depleted uranium! He was going to start WWIII! Do we really want a military man as president? Military BAD!"

[edward]

40. I said that?

???

[wyldwolf]

42. Did I mention your name?

?

[edward]

46. Your post listed mine as a reply.

Was that a mistake? That is what I was responding to.

[buddhamama]

33. there are veterans here at DU

who are opposed to Clark.

both my parents were military.
my Mom was a democrat and a union rep.

shame on you

[Blue_Chill]

38. Did you miss the point? Yeah you did.

No one is sayng you must support him or risk insulting our armed service men and women. What was said is that if you hold the fact that he served as a liability you should be ashamed of yourself.

[buddhamama]

114. no i don't think i did

figure out where you can stick your condescension,Blue_Chill.

he didn't just serve in the military he was a General, and yeah there is a difference. i am not ashamed of myself because i am uncomfortable with the idea of having a General serve as president.
he has ties to the defense industry in other ways. that tends to happen when you are a General.

[damnraddem]

35. Oh no, it would be an important boost to the ticket ...

so a benefit to the Democratic cause.

The question is whether Clark is the right man for it. I'm more concerned with any linkages to the DLC.

[RichM]

39. Oh, bullsh*t. All the big military fans here can go un-puff their chests.

Nobody is saying that "Clark's military service is a liability to the democratic cause." His SERVICE is not the issue. The issue is that anyone who has been a bigshot in the military (I am NOT talking about ordinary soldiers, now - I'm talking about the brass):

1) is cozy with other military brass, who are an unsavory lot. They are properly characterized as authoritarians who see the world in terms of medals, saluting, rank, hierarchy, blindly following orders, and above all, killing people. For the US military, this unfortunately but usually means: killing INNOCENT people. Plus, they are excessively fond of strutting around on parade grounds, & pushing little toy tanks about on large maps.

I'm sorry, but this kind of personality is not likely to become a wise & properly humanitarian philosopher. Almost all generals are jackasses and prima donnas.

2) It projects a certain message to the population, if a general is running for president. It confirms many aspects of the RW worldview -- such as: Yes, we should all be VERY VERY afraid (why else would a celebrity general have to take power?). Yes, whenever we have trouble, we should naturally look to the military (ie, the institution of BRUTE FORCE in our society) for solutions.

Our society needs LESS stupidity, not more. Sending them a general is encouraging them to be MORE stupid & to rely on the wrong things.

[wyldwolf]

43. You just proved my point..

...by giving ownership of the Military to the GOP and calling the prospect of a general in the whitehouse "stupidity."

Not to mention your (unsourced) generalization of generals.

[Cheswick2.0]

58. Nonsense, Generic Newbie Clark Supporter

Dang there are lot of you here lately!

I have never voted for a presidential candidate who did not serve in the military. I have no problem with the military. What I have a problem with is the idea that we must elect a military guy because he is the only one who can beat that other great bastion of male might, bush.

Clark, with the exception of the military record is indistiquishable from any other apolitical centrist. Tell me why I should support him over, say, John Kerry or Dick Gephardt? They at least have spent some time in the congress working on policy and voting for Democratic party principals.

Let me tell you why else I am less than enthused about Clark, it is his bi-partisan campaign team.

[CentristDemocrat]

62. He has 700 posts. Newbie?

Oh enlightened one.

[wyldwolf]

65. You have it wrong, partner...

I'm certainly not saying that "that we must elect a military guy because he is the only one who can beat that other great bastion of male might, bush."

I am saying that that is ONE reason to vote for him.

"Clark, with the exception of the military record is indistiquishable from any other apolitical centrist. Tell me why I should support him over, say, John Kerry or Dick Gephardt?"

Or Howard Dean, the most centrist of all?

[starscape]

66. having a bad day??

Your post made sense, and I agree somewhat, but it was hard to get past your exceptionally rude subject line.

The person in question has 600+ posts...

If anyone's a "generic newbie" it would be me, even though I was here quite awile back supporting Dean (and mostly lurking).

This is kind of a weird place..

[wyldwolf]

73. What makes it even funnier is...

...I posted here a little over a year ago and had over 2000 posts.

Not so much a newbie, huh?

On edit: And loads of real life political experience, too.

But I'm suuuuuch a newbie!

[hedda_foil]

105. Well, then not-a-newbie ... what exactly did you call yourself

back when you had more than 2,000 posts and why exactly do you have a new name in your new incarnation? Hmmmmmm?

Waiting. Waiting. Waiting.

[wyldwolf]

112. Your wait is over!

Not that 700 posts qualifies as a newbie but I didn't post for a while, lost my password, DU updated software, I re-signed up.

[Clark Can WIN]

107. I thought DU wanted to grow

And you insult people for being new. I did not join DU because of Clark, a friend on an MSN group recommended it to me. {a Deanie BTW} Are all new persons unwelcome here or just the new persons who happen to support Clark? I of course cannot know for certain, but I feel fairly certain if all these "generic newbie supporters" were cheerleading for your guy, your song would sound different.

[Cheswick2.0]

44. this may shock the hell out of you Rich

But I agree with you.

[RichM]

48. *** stammering, stunned ***

:wow:

:pals:

[morstyranni]

54. Boy, you must know a lot about 'military brass'...

From watching reruns of MASH, Apocalypse Now, and Platoon.

[CentristDemocrat]

56. Kucinich, Dean or GREEN. Right?

:eyes:

[StopTheMorans]

63. you just showed Rich

by replying to a long, well-thought out post that at least deserved SOME semblance of a rebuttal from you by posting a one-line talking point Limbaugh would be proud of :eyes:

Are you having problems with your computer? Is it posting the same thing over and over? I hesitate to believe that any intelligent human being on a board with many intelligent individuals would merely resort to posting the same ridiculous non-answer over and over again.

[Forkboy]

64. repetitive much?

[Tinoire]

47. WTF? Shit. As a retired Vet, I give every single lefty at DU permission

As a retired Vet, I give every single lefty at DU permission to carry on!

The only insult to the brave men and women serving in the armed forces to protect this country would be to let any questionnable candidates slip through and dictate the direction we're going to take in the future.

If some don't like the way DU does business, they should use the ignore button- that's what it's there for. We are not here to serve as General Clark's propaganda platform. People who can't stand the heat should try another kitchen!

We've got plenty of veterans here who are pro-military and anti-Clark. Please do not twist things and mis-represent DUers!

I think you should be ASHAMED of using right-wing tactics to silence dissent. The problem with Clark is not his military service. We could care less about that. The problem with Clark is that he has troubling links to Acxiom, Jackson Stephens, Markle Foundation, the DLC and NDN, CSIS and comes pushing an agenda of Homeland Security.

It is those things about Clark that are a liability to the democratic cause.

Carry on lefties!

[wyldwolf]

51. .

[wyldwolf]

52. Oh, listen to you! Have I silenced dissent?

...has anyone here that disagrees with me been silenced? No. There goes your theory.

The problem I see here is that someone's tender little feelings have been hurt because someone DARED stand up to their misguided personalized military/Clark bashing.

It's appalling isn't it!?

Oh they can sure dish it out but how the whine when it gets thrown back at them!

[morstyranni]

61. Seriously, get a grip

Don't even bother, wyld.

Do you have some magic button on your keyboard that's labeled "silence dissent"?

This is the DU not Pravda, people need to stop being so melodramatic.

[wyldwolf]

67. Yep! Got that magic button right here...

...I'm about to press it and then my "rightwing tactics of supressing dissent" will cause all who disagree with me to fall silent.

bwahahahahahahahaha!

[morstyranni]

70. It must be a microsoft keyboard.

[wyldwolf]

79. Well, microsoft clone...Mitsumi

[StopTheMorans]

53. Great post Tinoire!

n/t

[jonnyblitz]

68. I second that...

:hi:

[Pastiche423]

82. I third it!

[QERTY]

95. Fourth?

Another vet in full agreement. I'm pretty disgusted with the ridiculous posturing of the "pro-military" folks in this thread. They don't seem to realize that many vets had direct knowledge of what it takes to be a general. Many of us suffered as a result of their ignorance. There are some disturbing things in Clarke's past which, when questioned, are brushed aside as paranoid anti-military ravings. Maybe if more of the ass licks now kissing up to Clarke in this thread had served, they might not be so eager to jump on his bandwagon. It's playing Sousa fercrissakes!

[hedda_foil]

104. Yes Ma'am. Thank you, Ma'am.

The problem with Clark is not his military service. We could care less about that. The problem with Clark is that he has troubling links to Acxiom, Jackson Stephens, Markle Foundation, the DLC and NDN, CSIS and comes pushing an agenda of Homeland Security.

It is those things about Clark that are a liability to the democratic cause.

A MAJOR LIABILITY!

And I will not be silenced either.

Standing PROUD, Ma'am!

[morstyranni]

50. Thank You.

Good post,

My major contention with 'far lefties' is their complete disgust for the military. I think they fail to realize taht the US military does serve a very useful purpose - to protect those of us who do not serve - whether those in uniform like us or not. They should be commended not condemned.

[wyldwolf]

57. Exactly! But then you have a few here that are insulted that I...

...would dare call them on it. They're such a vocal minority they believe they're in the majority here and screech when you disagree with them. False sense if there ever was one.

[QERTY]

97. Hold on bucko!

You have declared that military service is some sort of holy virtue! It is not. Stop acting as though our military is some pure bastion of radiant goodness and that all who pass through it are unblemished. It is obfuscation and spin. You sound like some kind of Fleischer.

[wyldwolf]

101. Bucko? What are you, Richie Cunningham?

You have declared that military service is some sort of holy virtue!

Where?

Stop acting as though our military is some pure bastion of radiant goodness and that all who pass through it are unblemished. It is obfuscation and spin.

Where have I done that and... if you feel I am doing that, MAKE me stop.

You sound like some kind of Fleischer.

And you sound like some kind of raving frothing Rush Limbaugh who can only incite unreasoned emotion and exaggeration.

[QERTY]

103. Your Words

"I think they fail to realize taht the US military does serve a very useful purpose - to protect those of us who do not serve - whether those in uniform like us or not. They should be commended not condemned."

Then your word "exactly" kind of says it all.
"wyldwolf (709 posts) Thu Sep-18-03 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #50

57. Exactly! But then you have a few here that are insulted that I...
...would dare call them on it. They're such a vocal minority they believe they're in the majority here and screech when you disagree with them. False sense if there ever was one."

I'm insulted by your shrillness, your ignorance of history, and the general tone with which you harangue. I'm a veteran. I am a historian. You are some wild-eyed accuser with an obvious lack of tact. Join up if you're so pro-military. Buh-bye.

[wyldwolf]

115. Not only have you got my words wrong, you STILL won't address the issue...

I didn't say: "I think they fail to realize taht the US military does serve a very useful purpose - to protect those of us who do not serve - whether those in uniform like us or not. They should be commended not condemned."


Let me remind you of what your were supposed to address:

You have declared that military service is some sort of holy virtue!

Where?

Stop acting as though our military is some pure bastion of radiant goodness and that all who pass through it are unblemished. It is obfuscation and spin.

Where have I done that and... if you feel I am doing that, MAKE me stop.

You sound like some kind of Fleischer.

And you sound like some kind of raving frothing Rush Limbaugh who can only incite unreasoned emotion and exaggeration.

Now, can you back up your assertions? And please demonstrate my ignorance of history. To do that, you must:

1. Take my words then show sources that factually dispute what I've said.

2. Stop insulting when you become factually bankrupt.

buh-bye!

[Dob Bole]

55. Also WWI nt

[morstyranni]

69. I'll be flamed for this, but here I go...

THE DEMS WILL NOT WIN WITH DEAN OR KERRY!

They will not connect with the middle part of this country, and as for the military, Kerry's service record is overblown, mostly by himself.

People can identify with Clark. They will like that he was a general.

[StopTheMorans]

75. "people can identify with Dubya, they will like that he is

an average guy". So much for trying to get a candidate who has a variety of things going for him :eyes:

[edward]

76. And we all know how humiliated George Bush was

when it was discovered that he not only avoided serving in Viet Nam, he skipped out on alternative service as well.
This General as hero has no legs.

[kang]

78. I will argue against this, so please no more flame

Ok, I'm a Clark supporter too, but let's not talk trash about Dean, Kerry, or any of the other candidates. It's not productive and it makes it harder to honestly discuss the issues. Kerry's service isn't overblown...he's a multiple purple heart recipient. Let's not do a disservice to Clark's campaign.

[stickdog]

108. Yeah. People hate straight talking doctors who were fine governors.

And just love West Point valedictorians who were Rhode Scholars.

[0rganism]

74. What would you say about how Clark handled the Kosovo intervention?

I'm not picking a fight or disputing your point about the military "in general", pardon the unavoidable pun. I'm genuinely curious how you interpret the NATO operation led by Gen. Clark, and whether you think the RW could use that as a wedge issue. I've certainly seen conflicting viewpoints, and I'd like to read more about yours.

As for military men being president, I seem to recall the overwhelming majority of presidents having military experience of one sort or another. I don't see why anyone would think it makes a candidate unfit, far from it -- it's par for the course.

[Kanola]

77. I agree also n/t

[spanone]

80. I'm pretty far left but Clark is a smart cookie and the next

prez should know some shit about the military.

[wyldwolf]

83. Look! Another example!

A vote for Clark is supporting the Military Industrial Complex!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php#362675

[Eloriel]

85. Nonsense

I for one am NOT anti-military. In fact, it's been my observation that there are only a very small number of resolutely anti-military people here at DU. There are MORE, though, who are anti-militarism. Some of us are concerned that running a general as a candidate buys into and promotes the rather unattractive militarism going on in this country right now. That's a slightly lesser concern that I have, but it is one.

You INSULT our servicemen, past and present, when you allude that Clark's military service is a liability to the democratic cause.


Nope, it's not his service, but his RECORD while in the military that concerns me more.

Eloriel

[amazona]

92. his service in removing a genocidal tyrant is a plus!

Clark is the real thing. Milosevic is on trial now.

Where is Osama?

Where is Saddam?

Human nature being what it is, we need generals and armies. Best not to leave this important job in the hands of the religiously insane, as bartcop likes to describe it.

[DemExpat]

100. I was thinking about Milosovic and Clark lately too....

Nothing wrong with a general with brains, heart and soul.
IMO

DemEx