WTF, Clark Was Planning on Running as a Republican ?!!

[Tinoire]

Is this why he was being so..."coy" during the entire time he was being quote/unquote "drafted" by a "grass-roots" movement co-founded by both Republicans and Democrats and backed by the DLC/NDN?

Thursday, September 18, 2003

Speaking on May 11, 2001, as the keynote speaker to the Pulaski County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Clark said that American involvement abroad helps prevent war and spreads the ideals of the United States, according to an AP dispatch the following day.

Two weeks later, a report in U.S. News and World Report said Arkansas Republican politicos were "pondering the future of Wesley Clark:" "Insiders say Clark, who is a consultant for Stephens Group in Little Rock, is preparing a political run as a Republican. Less clear: what office he'd campaign for. At a recent Republican fund-raiser, he heralded Ronald Reagan's Cold War actions and George Bush's foreign policy. He also talked glowingly of current President Bush's national security team. Absent from the praise list -- his former boss, ex-Commander in Chief Bill Clinton."

Clark told CNN's Judy Woodruff earlier this month that he had decided to register as a Democrat. Left unsaid and unknown at this point is exactly when and why he decided to become a Democrat.

http://www.politicsus.com/front%20page%20archive/091803.html

:wtf:
---------------------------------------------------------

I have YET to see any Clark supporter give an acceptable explanation for his quotes praising the same people we've been fighting for three years and are so desperate to get out of office (see Ref 1). Just how many people support Clark because of those quotes? Never once did even a die-hard DLCer like Lieberman say that Rummy and Perle and Wolfie were great guys and yet some people expect us to crucify proven Democrats with a track record we can scrutinize and weigh while we give a blank check to a man with very unsettling past and current associations such as Jackson Stephens, CSIS, the Markle Foundation, and Axciom (recently big time in the news for the Jet Blue scandal where they sold the personal information of all Jet Blue passengers to the government).
------
I'm no longer expecting a good explanation of those quotes anymore because this revelation is the final nail in the coffin. What I'm seeing here is nothing more than a "desperate marriage of convenience" between the DLC and a man who until recently was heaping gushing praise on Bush and his gang but couldn't get the Republicans interested in running him.

The Clark campaign is playing us like Leftist fools simply because Carl Rove didn't return Clark's call. The DLC is playing us like Leftist fools simply because their golden boy doesn't have a chance in hell and they know it. These boys are not going gently into the night- not without a good fight and this is no time for Democrats to shut their eyes and fall for platitudes and good marketing. If the PNAC machine isn't stopped immediately, you can expect endless wars and occupations for which your children will be drafted and many around the world will die.

As Zorra put it here:

What he will probably do is promote some liberal domestic policies, such as a better health care agenda, affirmative action, pro choice policy, a better education policy, and a more reasonable domestic economic policy than the current misadministration.

However, he will continue to expand multi-national corporate military and economic colonialism, and will not do anything about corporate control of the US government. Multi-nationals don't care about the domestic policies or political ideologies of semi-sovereign nations as long as they do not interfere with long term globalist agendas of global market expansion and profit motivated imperialism.

In other words a scarier version of what we have now. A version as a Rhoades scholar. A scarier version with a brain.

I'll check this thread later- I'll be out in the streets for today's protest- protesting Bush, his wars, and everyone that enables them.

Peace to people of good will.

Ref1 ((Words we've been advised to just "skip over"- just like Condeleeza Rice's 16 words))

That's the kind of president Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him and tremendously admired him for his great leadership.

<snip>

Desert Storm was wonderful; we whipped Saddam Hussein and all that sort of thing. But the Cold War was over, the Berlin Wall was down. And President George Bush had the courage and the vision to push our European allies to take the risk to tell the Russians to leave, and to set up the conditions so all of Germany and later many nations of Eastern Europe could become part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, part of the West with us. And we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship.


<snip>

And then I was tapped to go back--as one senator explained it to me, she said: "You don't want to go over there and fight Bill Clinton's war in the Balkans, do you?" And I said, "Well, Senator, the honest truth is that when you're a soldier, you march to the sound of the guns. That's your duty, and that's--they tell me to do it, that's what I'm going to do."

<snip>

You see, in the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect our country from communism. Well guess what, it's over. Communism lost. Now we've got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live. We've got to let them be all they can be. They want what we have. We've got some challenges ahead in that kind of strategy. We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.

<snip>

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065

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

"Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ..." ((what's the understood word there? Administration???))

Clark:

"I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues. ((Awesome! The entire PNAC crowd!))

<snip>
But the views that President Bush espoused recently at the American Enterprise Institute, if his predecessor had espoused that view he'd have been hooted off the stage, laughed at, accused of being incredibly idealistic about the hard-nosed practical politics of the Middle East. So this is an administration that's moving in a certain direction, and now that that's the direction they've picked they've got to make it work. Like everybody else, I hope they'll be successful. It's too important; we can't afford to fail. ((WHO IS EVERYONE HERE??))

<snip>
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark

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

From Wayne Madsen's article Wesley Clark for President?
Another Con Job from the Neo-Cons:

More interestingly is how General Clark's Bosnia strategy ultimately goes full circle. According to Washington K Street sources, the law firm that established the Bosnia Defense Fund was none other than Feith and Zell, the firm of current Pentagon official and leading neo-con Douglas Feith. Feith's operation at Feith and Zell was assisted by his one-time boss and current member of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. Both Feith and Perle advised the Bosnian delegation during the 1995 Dayton Peace talks. The chief U.S. military negotiator in Dayton was Wesley Clark.

http://thomasmc.com/0919b.htm


Ref 2
Last January, at a conference in Switzerland, he happened to chat with two prominent Republicans, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman, now president of the University of Denver. “I would have been a Republican,” Clark told them, “if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.” Soon thereafter, in fact, Clark quit his day job and began seriously planning to enter the presidential race—as a Democrat.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969659.asp?0sl=-10&cp1=1

[DoveTurnedHawk]

1. Yawn, Old, Cut-and-Paste "News" (eom)

DTH

[virtualobserver]

4. if you can yawn at that......

you could yawn at another term for Bush.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

7. Every Single Thing Up There Has Already Been Discussed and IMO Rebutted

Many, many, many times. And it is frankly dishonest to pretend otherwise.

DTH

[virtualobserver]

14. when you say rebutted...

did Clark not actually say those things?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. ...or do those things?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

23. Exactly What Part of "IMO" Didn't You Understand?

All of these so-called concerns have been dealt with to my and many others' satisfaction.

Aren't satisfied? Don't vote for him.

:shrug:

DTH

[SammyWinstonJack]

That should sway some to your POV

"Aren't satisified? Don't vote for him." :shrug:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

35. All the "Usual Suspects" Are on This Thread

There's no convincing any of them, so I'm not going to waste my time, except to point out the tired, repeated and spam-like nature of these so-called "charges."

DTH

[Pepperbelly]

38. the Amen-chorus cannot be reasoned with ... nt

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[Cha]

118. "The Usual Suspects"?....I've never seen Tinoire start a thead

about Clark's history before. And.. This is DU ...Where People are passionate about their politics. Why shouldn't they pop up and give their opinion?


edit~to spell Tinoire's name right.

[Trek234]

119. Actually DTH didn't get the Rove/Clark play book yet

You're not supposed to say "Aren't satisified? Don't vote for him."

It's supposed to be "read his book". <--- Most common Clark supporters statement.

[Cheswick2.0]

137. rebutted how....it didn't happen? He didn't say these things?

Nothing has been rebutted. It has been rationalized, that's all.

[qanda]

6. I have not gotten into the fray of candidate bashing, but...

This is getting OLD. Every other post says the exact same thing about Clark. Perhaps people should concentrate on building up their own candidate instead of bashing the ones they don't like. I think these posts which basically cover the exact same issues should be condensed into one thread.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

10. EXACTLY!! Thank You!

Sums it up perfectly, IMO.

DTH

[imhotep]

15. not everyone

"has a candidate" by being emotionally attached to a scumbag politican like these Clarkies that act as if he is their daddy.

[qanda]

21. Huh?

I am totally confused by what you just said. Could you please clarify?

[IndianaGreen]

34. "Anyone But Bush 2004" does not mean voting for a Bush with a BRAIN

which is what Clark is!

Like Tinoire said:

Never once did even a die-hard DLCer like Lieberman say that Rummy and Perle and Wolfie were great guys and yet some people expect us to crucify proven Democrats with a track record we can scrutinize and weigh while we give a blank check to a man with very unsettling past and current associations such as Jackson Stephens, CSIS, the Markle Foundation, and Axciom.

Even a gnome like Lieberman is more acceptable than Reaganite Clark!

Mark my words, every white male conservative you attract with Clark, will result in an equal loss of liberal support. "Anyone But Bush 2004" does not mean voting for a Bush with a BRAIN, which is what Clark is.

Wait until Clark is your annointed nominee, and then you will see all kinds of naughty E-mails and messages between Clark and the JCS and DOD officials during the Balkan war, messages that will tarnish his golden boy image and permanently cripple his candidacy. Most DUers can only access what is publicly available on the internet, wait until you see what DOD insiders (from all political persuasions) have known all along: Clark is a risk-taker with little regard for the consequences of his actions, or for the opinions of others.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[gully]

84. Sigh....

I think your right.

[Eloriel]

125. Actuallty, IG

I think this sums it up perfectly: A New Face for the Old Establishment.

And let's not forget the Jackson Stevens connection.

Eloriel

[jumptheshadow]

129. Clark will not be anointed

Our nominee will be elected, not anointed. Several candidates still have a fighting chance given the twists of electoral politics.

[Clark Can WIN]

130. Your predictions dont seem to hold up very well though

Do they Indiana? Hmmmm.

"Clark is not running........ his use of the word closure..... etc."

How many times did we see that?

"Clark is only running to *neutratlize?* Kerry, and for that I am grateful"

Seems you were way off on that one too i would say.

The more you seem to strive to make less of him the higher he seems to climb so I say rock on Indiana! And thank you! This liberal minority female thanks you for your support of the Clark campaign!

[IndianaGreen]

133. I am not mesmerized by military uniforms

and Clark's military record is suspect!

[Tinoire]

138. I just noticed the quote "Blow Dried Napolean Advocate" in your sig line

You might be more interested in this than in attacking a DUer of long standing who has an established track record we can have all scrutinized and weighed. You are not endearing yourself or helping your candidate with these attacks- quite the opposite.

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

A long time ago, the French, tired of war, turned to a short general named Napoleon to lead them to peace and prosperity. Instead, Napoleon seized imperial power and ensured the French would have more war. After four years of Bush, the neo-con Fifth Column in the Democratic Party is trying to convince us that Clark is the ''anti-war'' candidate. Tell that to the people of Serbia, Kosovo, and Montenegro. Tell that to the coca farmer in Bolivia or Colombia who is trying to feed his family. Let's not fall for the deception and tricks of the neo-cons again. If you are tired of Bush, Cheney, and the neo-cons and their phony wars, Clark is certainly not the answer. He has been, and remains part of, the great deception of the American people.

----------------------------------------------------------------------Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and columnist. He wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the co-author, with John Stanton, of the forthcoming book, "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II."

http://thomasmc.com/0919b.htm

[Clark Can WIN]

150. I am not interested in endearing myself to you Tinoire

I have found many interesting and challenging companions on DU who support many different candidates. I have enjoyed many lengthy and meaningful exchanges of ideas and learned a great deal from many of them. I have no desire to endear myself to negative and closed minded people who pour their energies into tearing down any of our Democratic candidates, such as yourself and Indiana.

If the fact that Indiana's predictions about Clark do not hold up to the tests of truth or time bothers you so much perhaps that says more about you.

Blow dried Napoleon advocate in my tag is a funny on Tom DeLay's comments attacking Clark for speaking negatively about the operations, the President and his plan on CNN. Some of us have humor.

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

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

[Clark Can WIN]

171. I feel I have come to know DU and thank goodness

You are not it, or I wouldn't be here. I came here at the invitation of a Dean friend. I'm quite certain if I were in favor of your flavor you wouldn't even notice me but you are a person who thrives on conflict.

I did not impune any of Indiana's other predictions, just the ones on Clark, your insinuation that I have give you the appearance of hpersensistivity in my opinion.

How dare you assume that I am not looking at Clark objectively simply because I do not agree with you. I did extensive research before commiting to my candidate and for you to suggest that I did not simply because I reached a different conclusion than you is extraordinarily egocentric, imo.

As for attacking Indiana, you get what you give. I don't go looking for opportunities to attack other candidates like you seem so want to do, but I will defend myself or my candidate against any scurrilous or baseless attacks or distortions.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

173. Agreed. Clark is the 'good cop' foil to the 'bad cops' in the White House.

He's selling 'compassionate fascism.'He is in deep with the machinery that devours. Scary smart and can talk up a storm. Hang our future on a supposed 'recent epiphany?' Hmmm.

[Cheswick2.0]

146. that you are a minority female means something?

This is supposed to give you standing of some sort? Shit, you could be a 35 year old white guy for all I know. You only showed up here to be a political operative for Clark.

[Clark Can WIN]

154. I showed up here because a Dean friend of mine

recommended it. I generally prefer not to disclose my gender or anything else including age or ethnicity BUT Indiana seems to imply that the Clark campaign is backed by tons of white militaristic males. Not me, and not my experience.

[Cheswick2.0]

143. I hadn't even thought of that

Thanks IG, I hadn't even thought of how they will go after him with insider information. Can we believe for a minute that Rove won't bring out the information about Clarks calls to him? Clark is their insurance. They get him the nomination and then they sabotage him. In the off chance that he actually wins, he's one of them anyway. One of them with a less ties to the religious right which is going to abandon Bush to some extent anyway.

[Tinoire]

151. Excellent synopsis. I'm going to quote you later

if you don't mind! You and IG just hit ont the part that's been really bugging me about this whole thing.

Can I change one sentence?

they will go after him with insider information. Can we believe for a minute that Rove won't bring out the information about Clarks calls to him and all the information they have in the meticulously kept dossiers they have on all high-ranking military officers and lobbyists? Clark is their insurance. They get him the Democratic nomination and then they sabotage him. In the off chance that he actually wins, he's one of them anyway. One of them with less ties to the religious right which is going to abandon Bush to some extent anyway.

[Trek234]

153. They are already abandining Bush

I occasionally listen to the religious fundamentalists.

Several months ago they were hailing him as the 2nd coming of christ.

In the past weeks, however, they have done a 180. Some of them because isn't being nice enough to israel, some because he isn't doing enough to infuse religion in to state, some because he slipped up one time (i.e. he wasn't hard enough on abortion when he could have been) and decided to screw him.

Very interesting.

[Tinoire]

156. That is a critical angle to watch!

Ralph Reed has over 50 million fundie votes to deliver to someone.

[Mairead]

106. You don't find it a bad idea to only hear good things?

Good things that might not even be true? That doesn't bother you?

[Cheswick2.0]

139. excuse me but where is the bashing?

People are bringing up ligitimate concerns about the man and NO ONE is going to shove the guy down our throats without a chance to discuss him.

If you don't like it, don't click on the thread!

[0007]

44. You gotta be kidding!

This information is making you "Yawn" and you just pass it off? Goes to show how informed you indeed are Sire.

[Clark Can WIN]

127. All hail lord god google

and the magic scissors. I guess this is what you're left with when Hackworth debunked his own Pristina airport "crisis".

You know when I was a young thing I was courted by many questionable types. I'll admit I even danced with a few of them, but when it came time to walk down the aisle I chose someone who shared my values and my basic life philosophy. That's what Clark has done with the Democratic party.

Al Sharpton was right.

[rman]

182. that's not very convincing

-

[ComerPerro]

2. This is important

Becuase, should he get the nomination, you can bet that these quotes will be aired out.

[virtualobserver]

11. Clark has moved from 2 to 10 on my list

op·por·tun·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-tnst, -ty-)
n.
One who takes advantage of any opportunity to achieve an end, often with no regard for principles or consequences.

[Mz Pip]

20. My feeling about Dean exactly

Dean has dropped from 3 to 10. Dean is all about himself.

His attacks on Clark just lost any hope of crossover votes. Dean just doesn't get it that he can't win the genral election without a broad base of support. He won't get it by attacking people who may have voted Republican at some point in their past.

MzPip
:dem:

[qanda]

29. Important point!

How do you win over people who have voted for Republicans anytime in their past, which would include me, by making it a sin of the worst kind?

[virtualobserver]

41. That isn't the point for me.....

It isn't the 'the voted for Reagan" thing that bothers me.

It is the closeness to the Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Rumsfeld group that disturbs me.

[Pepperbelly]

45. if that is what bothers you, why don't you just c&p them in your next post

and I will deal with them.

Again.

[virtualobserver]

63. if you can link me to the spot where you refuted this....

that would be good enough for me.

[Pepperbelly]

66. tell me the words you object to ...

can you do that?

[Code_Name_D]

82. Questions are contagious. Link please.

Just call me Typhoid Marry. :evilgrin:

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[Code_Name_D]

104. No, I am asking you for a link.

Yep, I am lazy. I am also stupid as I can not do reserch for my self. But you are clearly so much more informed about Clark's position, I asumed that you would know where these refutiations happen to exist. I am only asking becase I want to make an informed desision.

But apparintly, you know less than I do.

Clark's comments have NOT been refuted on the Democratic Underground!

[Tinoire]

71. Deal with them right here and now

for everyone to see because I have YET to see this dealt with. We keep getting told it was but no links. Where are these mysterious rebuttals? Post one here so that it won't get "buried" or "lost" in a thread no one ever heard about.

Before you rebute though, here are a few pointers from the "Clark Strike Force":

Like the grain of sand that causes a pearl to form, we can use criticism to showcase Clark. If they say he has no domestic experience, we can talk about his teaching economics and dealing with base issues, and we can point people toward his relevant policy statements. If they say he's reckless, we can give examples of his coolheadedness, deliberation, and understanding of the issues. Negative things tend to stick better in people's minds than positive things. Here we can stick the positive to the negative so that when people see the negative stuff in the media they'll think of our responses. In essence we can “inoculate” people against these attacks. If they read the criticism and response here first, they won't respond so much when they see it in the media.

When the negative campaign starts really bashing Clark, we can impress people with calm, insightful discussion. We can also raise the tone of the race by being noble and reasonable and highlighting the contrast between a positive campaign on one side and a negative one on the other. Negative campaigning is so destructive, but it's used because it works, and candidates look like they're swatting at flies if they respond. We, however, are not candidates. We can swat flies without looking foolish, and we can neutralize those flies' annoyance.

http://pub73.ezboard.com/fwesleyclark200463811frm12.showMessage?topicID=2.topic

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[Tinoire]

105. No Pepperbelly. This is no scatter-gunned approach

This is exactly the sort of compilation that people need so that things don't get spun a little here and spun a little there so that we later hear "I rebutted that in another thread". This is your chance for this aspect. Carpe Diem- because more stuff on Acxiom, The Markle Foundation Terrorism Task Force, Homeland Security and Jackson Stephens will be forthcoming soon- in the same kind of non-scatter-gun approach.

Address the point. Address the point that, were Bush willing to share the ticket, Clark would be running as a Republican right now surrounded by all those dear colleagues and friends he heaped roses on in March 2003.

Carpe Diem and get a little practice on this amateur board because

in the unlikely event that Clark the Chameleon ever does become the Democrats’ nominee, he’s left such a paper trail that the Bushies would cut up this ex-Republican and eat him for lunch.

This is NOTHING. Wait until they start unloading all the information in the meticulous files they keep on people at Clark's level.

Start getting some practice now at addressing the issue instead of wanting everything chopped up in little pieces where you can resort to the tired tactics of

a. attacking the source
b. attacking the messenger
c. marginalizing the information

[Cheswick2.0]

149. don't be obtuse

no one is making it a sin to have voted republican. Many people here have voted republican. Most of them have stated that they woke up during the impeachment or the stolen election of 2000.
But Clark didn't simply vote republican, he was republican. He likes the current administration, he wanted to work with them and for them until a few short months ago..... that is a little different.

[Kahuna]

49. Dean's ego is a turn off to me too.

His waffling and attacks against his opponents don't help either.

[Clark Can WIN]

141. I have to say I have really liked Dean until his comments

attacking Clark. He was my number 2, he's now moved to #4 and if he does it agian he'll make my number 10.

How is it that 3 weeks ago he was good enough to be your VP Dean? I guess you were right to be scared but that doesn't mean you should stoop to Liebermans level, you still have a big bag of money and plenty to offer so don't look desperate so soon or soon you will be desperate. It'll be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I was willing to volunteer for Dean if he got the nod before this but now I would need alot more convincing, probably an apology as well.

I'll still vote for the Dem with the nod. But I now favor Kerry over Dean for second choice.

[gully]

3. Wow!

Good info thanks! :toast:

[janx]

5. This is bizarre...and I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

! :scared:

[ComerPerro]

9. I don't think it has anything to do with conspiracies

I don't think its the right wing's effort to keep control. I think its just something that the Clark campaign damn well better start countering if they want to be taken seriously.

[janx]

26. No, it isn't something drummed up by the wingnuts...

but somebody drummed it up all right.

[roughsatori]

8. I just did a Search at US News for the original of the referenced

article; but only paid subscribers can access the story. I am not a paid subscriber there.

Thank you for taking the time to link your sources and compile this information. Off to read all the links now.

[wyldwolf]

12. Are the same old same olds being reposted about Clark...

..because that is all y'all have? LOL!

[virtualobserver]

16. Those quotes horrify me!

I'll take Lieberman over Clark if they are true.

[Pepperbelly]

48. I will alredy take Lieberman over Dean ...

now after the FTN shots.

[0007]

54. Any fucking day!

and that day will never come.

[seventhson]

77. I too would support Lieberman over Clark

at least he has a pretty liberal voting record to assess him by.

[gully]

110. Agreed.

:)

[Tinoire]

120. I never thought this day would come

and I am eating crow but... me too. I'll take Lieberman over Clark any day. I know where Lieberman has been for the last 30 years.

[Cheswick2.0]

152. yes, amazing isn't it?

Joe gets my vote before Clark. He has a liberal voting record and he is probably a little less of a Hawk.

[Tinoire]

158. I knew this election would be interesting and intense

but I was not expecting that it would get me to ever see Lieberman in a palatable light!

What will the next few months bring? Whoaa... This is going to be a frantic, adrenaline rushed election!

We'll make it through. I know it. They will NOT steal this election because we're prepared this time!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. All?

All you have on a potential Democrat is that he might be a Republican.

What could be worse? What could possibly be worse? Am I in Democratic Underground?

[bowens43]

46. I am sure they will keep coming up

because they haven't been adequately addressed. Did he say those? Did he do those things? If the answer to either of these is yes then Clark has a HUGE credibility problem. All they have, if true, it's more then enough.

I'm glad you find it humorous.

[Cheswick2.0]

148. excuse me but can you dispute any of this?

no, you can only tell us it doesn't matter.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

13. The Republicans run the military

Do we want it back? Can Clark deliver it?

[seventhson]

18. THIS SHIT ABOUT CLARK IS TRULY FRIGHTENING

The folks who "yawn" remind me of the killer in the haunted house movies, where strangers have been assembled by an unseen host to get bumped off one by one.

"Ohhhh, you people are so NAIVE there's NOTHING to be afraid of HERE" (Foley noises in background of knife being sharpened)

THANK YOU THANK YOU Tinoire for doing the valuable research and work to assemble all of this into a coherent whole.

I hope the Dean people are watching this because if Howard is NOT up on this he runs a VERY serious risk.

I think Howard now knows that Clark is basically more of the same BUSHIT.

NOW all of DU knows it too.

But how to handle it is critical.

If I were Howard Dean I would have one staffer just assembling info collected here at DU for HIS intelligence reports and briefings.


Dean is STILL the numero uno candidate here at DU and ALL OF US WHO SUPPORT DEAN, need to be sure that as many people as possible know about Clark's history as a REPUBLICAN COPRPORATE MILITARY INSIDER WHO IS FRIENDS AND BUDDIES WITH THE WHOLE BUSH CABAL!!!

[noiretextatique]

19. does someone have intormation on the rebuttals?

to this same olf tired information that keeps getting repeated? i know about the "phone call" comment, and i have heard about the "praise of bush, inc" stuff...but i haven't seen rebuttals to the rest. any information on this would be greatly appreciated. thanks.

[Tinoire]

175. There are 3 DUers keeping track of the new ones

and combing the archives. If they find anything noteworthy, they'll post it since the Clark supporters keep talking about them but can point anyone to them :shrug:

A praiseworthy endeavour!

[kang]

22. My explanation doesn't matter

people will have to decide on their own. It's a gut thing and they'll have to judge Clark on his positions and what he proposes to do.

Could he have been a Republican? Perhaps, but look at how popular John McCain and Colin Powell are in the GOP. Not very. Clark's alluded to this by saying he could've been a lonely, lonely Republican or a happy Democrat. What's wrong with being moderate? Don't get me wrong, I'm NEVER NEVER EVER going to be a Republican, but this doesn't make Clark's critique of the current administration nor his positions any less legitimate.

He praised Pres. Bush and his team? Well perhaps that's because in May 2001 Bush's foreign policy hadn't gone terribly wrong just yet. He also had worked w/the NeoCon group before and was on good terms (I'd hope everybody is on friendly terms with some who don't agree with them on everything). But that was prior to them messing up this country's foreign policy in a major way. It's also before Clark realized he was mistaken to trust the Bush administration with our foreign policy (if he's guilty of this, much of America is too).

He's spoken about the Rove comment and it was my impression it was a joke. He's rumoured have had an impressive mocking mimic of O'Reilly and Bush...indication that he isn't this closet conservative that some suspect. Recently it was accidently leaked by one Clark supporter that in a meeting he responded to Q about Limabaugh by saying Limbaugh was "full of s*&$%." Again, not the sound of a Republican.

So could we lay this whole thing to rest people? Gephardt undercut the Lugar-Biden alternative to the Iraq war resolution, Dean once sided w/Gingrich's position on Medicare (for very diff. reasons I understand), and Leiberman has no business accusing anybody of being a conservative...he buddies around w/Bill Bennett and pushes for more defense spending like the best of them (and hails from CT strangely enough). Let's look at their positions, how people respond to them, and go with that. Please?

[Tinoire]

58. No Kang- You are minimizing the importance of this

He praised Pres. Bush and his team? Well perhaps that's because in May 2001 Bush's foreign policy hadn't gone terribly wrong just yet.

Everything Bush touched had already gone horribly wrong by then! Democartic Underground was founded and buzzing with concerned Americans because it was already horrible. That explanation doesn't stand! The economy was already fast swooshing down the toilet. You don't mean to tell me that a brilliant Rhoades scholar with a degree in Economics didn't see that. The only people who refused to see that were die-hard Bush supporters.

This is NO JOKE! This is a man who in March 2003 said he would love to work with that PNAC crowd again! When? Under his administration? You cannot spin this away. Jake Tapper from Salon interviewed him in March 2003.

This is more than a man who has a few friends who are Republicans! This is a man who wanted to RUN AS A REPUBLICAN.

This is a man who, had the Republicans accepted him, we would be vilifying beyond belief for his positions on the issues we hold dear to our hearts. Just slapping a D after your name and registering as a Democrat the same month your pollsters and analysts tell you that you'd have a better chance on the Democratic ticket because Bush won't share is not enough.

[IndianaGreen]

61. How many DUers were praising Bush in March 2001?

Clark is as much a neocon as Wolfowitz and Company!

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

89. A rebuttal has been asked for ,

but all I keep seeing are Clarkies saying they don't want to offer one, and we should decide on our own. Ok, since the only evidence I see is from the original post, I'll decide on that. Thanks, I had an open mind about Clark up until now, but since no one can offer ANY evidence that he is what he claims to be (a democrat), then I will take the numerous links on him kissing PNAC's butt as the only truth.

I don't know why Clarkies are so closed off to having discussions about what Clark has said. Denial in dealing with Clark's past just makes those supposed statements that much stronger. If Clark can't defend himself, he's already sunk.

[Trek234]

131. "and it was my impression it was a joke."

"joke" or not - to even say this the thought MUST have been going through his head.

And the fact that there is SO much else (in his OWN words) to this effect which is clearly NOT a joke lends even more weight to the "joke" that had Rove called he would be a repub.

[JVS]

24. Jesus is this some bad stuff. "Yawn" is not an adequate rebuttal!

[Pepperbelly]

28. it has been refuted ...

and these folk keep trotting out the sos as though there has never been coverage of this before.

More clutter and more horseshit.

[VolcanoJen]

31. And, ya know, God help Jim Jeffords...

... if he ever decides to run for president as a Democrat or Independent. He'd make for a great chewtoy around here.

How does Dean feel about Jeffords, by the way? That's something I'd really be interested in learning, given that they must know each other.

:eyes:

[Trek234]

135. Different story

Jeffords has obviously converted. He made the choice to do so and the repubs made him pay dearly for it. He hurt the repubs BADLY. They lost the hold on the senate slowing Bush and the repub agenda down royally until after the 02 elections. Someone who didn't truly convert would not dare do such a thing. He made so many enemies it is not even funny.

Anyway - He has an established history now that supports his conversion. What does Clark have? Not a damn thing.

[Rose Siding]

32. Refuted how?

Accepted by some but not refuted.

[Pepperbelly]

37. so I should ...

once again trot out the links and the statements when these very same people will ignore them only to post the same tired shit tomorrow?

Give me a break.

I have never seen quite as much intellecutal dishonesty as I have seen displayed on this board by the Clark bashers.

Never.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[Code_Name_D]

59. This implies you have actually said something. Link Please!

I will ask you again, where on the DU have Clarks own words been refuted?

[Pepperbelly]

62. Which ones do you want refuted?

And btw, do not EVER attempt to stifle my speech by telling me to shut up. I assure you, that is not a tact that works.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[virtualobserver]

94. here is a repost of the starting post of this thread- refute away

Is this why he was being so..."coy" during the entire time he was being quote/unquote "drafted" by a "grass-roots" movement co-founded by both Republicans and Democrats and backed by the DLC/NDN?

Thursday, September 18, 2003

Speaking on May 11, 2001, as the keynote speaker to the Pulaski County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Clark said that American involvement abroad helps prevent war and spreads the ideals of the United States, according to an AP dispatch the following day.

Two weeks later, a report in U.S. News and World Report said Arkansas Republican politicos were "pondering the future of Wesley Clark:" "Insiders say Clark, who is a consultant for Stephens Group in Little Rock, is preparing a political run as a Republican. Less clear: what office he'd campaign for. At a recent Republican fund-raiser, he heralded Ronald Reagan's Cold War actions and George Bush's foreign policy. He also talked glowingly of current President Bush's national security team. Absent from the praise list -- his former boss, ex-Commander in Chief Bill Clinton."

Clark told CNN's Judy Woodruff earlier this month that he had decided to register as a Democrat. Left unsaid and unknown at this point is exactly when and why he decided to become a Democrat.

http://www.politicsus.com/front%20page%20archive/091803.html


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

I have YET to see any Clark supporter give an acceptable explanation for his quotes praising the same people we've been fighting for three years and are so desperate to get out of office (see Ref 1). Just how many people support Clark because of those quotes? Never once did even a die-hard DLCer like Lieberman say that Rummy and Perle and Wolfie were great guys and yet some people expect us to crucify proven Democrats with a track record we can scrutinize and weigh while we give a blank check to a man with very unsettling past and current associations such as Jackson Stephens, CSIS, the Markle Foundation, and Axciom (recently big time in the news for the Jet Blue scandal where they sold the personal information of all Jet Blue passengers to the government).
------
I'm no longer expecting a good explanation of those quotes anymore because this revelation is the final nail in the coffin. What I'm seeing here is nothing more than a "desperate marriage of convenience" between the DLC and a man who until recently was heaping gushing praise on Bush and his gang but couldn't get the Republicans interested in running him.

The Clark campaign is playing us like Leftist fools simply because Carl Rove didn't return Clark's call. The DLC is playing us like Leftist fools simply because their golden boy doesn't have a chance in hell and they know it. These boys are not going gently into the night- not without a good fight and this is no time for Democrats to shut their eyes and fall for platitudes and good marketing. If the PNAC machine isn't stopped immediately, you can expect endless wars and occupations for which your children will be drafted and many around the world will die.

As Zorra put it here:

What he will probably do is promote some liberal domestic policies, such as a better health care agenda, affirmative action, pro choice policy, a better education policy, and a more reasonable domestic economic policy than the current misadministration.

However, he will continue to expand multi-national corporate military and economic colonialism, and will not do anything about corporate control of the US government. Multi-nationals don't care about the domestic policies or political ideologies of semi-sovereign nations as long as they do not interfere with long term globalist agendas of global market expansion and profit motivated imperialism.

In other words a scarier version of what we have now. A version as a Rhoades scholar. A scarier version with a brain.

I'll check this thread later- I'll be out in the streets for today's protest- protesting Bush, his wars, and everyone that enables them.

Peace to people of good will.

Ref1 ((Words we've been advised to just "skip over"- just like Condeleeza Rice's 16 words))

That's the kind of president Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him and tremendously admired him for his great leadership.

<snip>

Desert Storm was wonderful; we whipped Saddam Hussein and all that sort of thing. But the Cold War was over, the Berlin Wall was down. And President George Bush had the courage and the vision to push our European allies to take the risk to tell the Russians to leave, and to set up the conditions so all of Germany and later many nations of Eastern Europe could become part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, part of the West with us. And we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship.


<snip>

And then I was tapped to go back--as one senator explained it to me, she said: "You don't want to go over there and fight Bill Clinton's war in the Balkans, do you?" And I said, "Well, Senator, the honest truth is that when you're a soldier, you march to the sound of the guns. That's your duty, and that's--they tell me to do it, that's what I'm going to do."

<snip>

You see, in the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect our country from communism. Well guess what, it's over. Communism lost. Now we've got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live. We've got to let them be all they can be. They want what we have. We've got some challenges ahead in that kind of strategy. We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.

<snip>

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065

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

"Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ..." ((what's the understood word there? Administration???))

Clark:

"I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues. ((Awesome! The entire PNAC crowd!))

<snip>
But the views that President Bush espoused recently at the American Enterprise Institute, if his predecessor had espoused that view he'd have been hooted off the stage, laughed at, accused of being incredibly idealistic about the hard-nosed practical politics of the Middle East. So this is an administration that's moving in a certain direction, and now that that's the direction they've picked they've got to make it work. Like everybody else, I hope they'll be successful. It's too important; we can't afford to fail. ((WHO IS EVERYONE HERE??))

<snip>
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark

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

From Wayne Madsen's article Wesley Clark for President?
Another Con Job from the Neo-Cons:

More interestingly is how General Clark's Bosnia strategy ultimately goes full circle. According to Washington K Street sources, the law firm that established the Bosnia Defense Fund was none other than Feith and Zell, the firm of current Pentagon official and leading neo-con Douglas Feith. Feith's operation at Feith and Zell was assisted by his one-time boss and current member of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. Both Feith and Perle advised the Bosnian delegation during the 1995 Dayton Peace talks. The chief U.S. military negotiator in Dayton was Wesley Clark.

http://thomasmc.com/0919b.htm


Ref 2
Last January, at a conference in Switzerland, he happened to chat with two prominent Republicans, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman, now president of the University of Denver. “I would have been a Republican,” Clark told them, “if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.” Soon thereafter, in fact, Clark quit his day job and began seriously planning to enter the presidential race—as a Democrat.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969659.asp?0sl=-10&cp1=1

[Pepperbelly]

98. this ...

is getting too long for my machine ... I will start a thread about the first one and then we can discuss it.

Is that ok with you?

[virtualobserver]

102. fine with me....

see you there

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

103. As long as it has a link, I think it would be great idea.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[JVS]

51. Yes you should always have the links that refute them

post them all in one thread and then link to that thread whenever you hear someone saying something that's not true.

[Pepperbelly]

55. they just ignore ...

them and come up with the same tired shit the next day.

Never seen so much dishonesty in my life.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

100. But "they" never ignore....a link.

Is it really that hard? Save the links that you think are the most valuable at refuting the "smears" that you think are occuring and cut and paste them into your post. It only takes a second. The time and energy that you've exhausted refusing to supply a link would have been better served by taking 3 seconds out of your day and supplying it. It happens every day here. People will generally be fair as to whether the link is credible and/or resonable.

[Code_Name_D]

36. And where are these refuteations?

Links please.

[Pepperbelly]

43. you again ...

And why would we point them out YET AGAIN only to have you guys duck out and then trot this out again in a few days?

It won't wash this time.

[Code_Name_D]

47. Link please.

It is my growing oppinnion that these Clark comments have NOT been refuted.

You are at liberity to prove me wrong of course.

[Pepperbelly]

52. you cannot be proven wrong because ...

you just ignore what is posted.

[Code_Name_D]

57. You have posted nothing to ignore. Link Please!

I can keep this up for a good long while.

[Pepperbelly]

60. I have posted things for you before and ...

when you cannot handle the facts, you become intentionally obtuse. I have no desire to raise my blood pressure. However, if you guys want to argue, try posting a single issue rather than using the House Manager tactic of shotgunning material so you will have fall back when beaten on one.

Go for it.

Pick a thread. This one is getting too long for my computer.

[Code_Name_D]

64. I have a short memory. LInk please!

Oh please. Stop making me make you look stupid. I can't bare your humilation any more. - Robbion Willam as Mork from Ork.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[Pepperbelly]

95. you are ... i must conclude ...

being deliberately obtuse. Pick a slur.

[roughsatori]

27. KICK KICK KICK NT

[madfloridian]

30. Good research, Tinoire. Many concerns.

I don't care as much about whether Clark could be Democrat or Republican as I care about his connection to the companies who are so connected to the Patriot Act. I care more about his fondness for those who are known as the neo-cons, and his praise of them.

If I were to find out this type of stuff about Dean, I would be hesitant to support him as well. It is scary. Our country is at the turning point in this so called "war" stuff. We have got to be alert.

This by Madsen concerns me the most.
http://thomasmc.com/0919b.htm

BTW Tinoire is not a Dean person at all. She is always quite fair in her research. She is one I will differ with on candidates, but I always read her posts. There is a lot of depth to them.

[noiretextatique]

33. just to let you know, clark supporter claim that was been refuted also

the madsen article. it was posted yesterday in a thread, and it seems madsen did some work for bob barr, and Counterpunch is a far, far, far leftist wacko rag that frequently prints in inaccurate information. it is apparently the equivalent of RW talk radio...to some :eyes: oh...one more thing...someone objected to the article's insinuation that clintion adopted neo-con strategies, or should i say co-opted neo-con issues (triangulation?). that is all.

[seventhson]

109. Nothing that I know of refuted Madsen- but READ the article

then make up your minds for yourselves

I hate it when folks here say an article has been refuted but do not discuss the details or encourage folks to READ the article so that it can be intelligently discussed.

[noiretextatique]

111. i know...

this is what others said about the article...they probably didn't read it.

[Renew Deal]

96. Tinoire is admittidly a Kucinich supporter.

But it looks like there is nothing to support, so she is working on Clark.

[IndianaGreen]

107. At least Kucinich is a Democrat!

Can you say the same about the Generalissimo?

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[Renew Deal]

115. Name calling. Another deanie baby

needs their diaper changed.

[Cha]

116. It is you who is reverting to juvenile name calling ...with no

intelligent discussion..only something that would be said on a playground.

[Tinoire]

121. Actually- Tinoire was ABB but now is ABBOC

but for the Democratic Primaries, I am ABC.

Preferring Kucinich- accepting many others.

-----
ABC,

Easy as 1,2,3

Simple as Do Re Mi,

ABC

1,2,3

Baby you and me!

(Jackson 5)

[Renew Deal]

122. So if Clark wins, you are staying home?

[Tinoire]

126. Hmmm - Do you have some sort of a DLC assurance that Clark will win?

After what their brilliant "gonna get the Centrist vote" this time strategies in the last two elections, I don't think it's seomthing we even need to worry about right now. :)

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

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

[Tinoire]

134. You'll have to camp out in front of my house to find out

won't you? ;)

As a private citizen, since I'm not running for office, and it is now supposedly acceptable to confuse the two parties so much these days, I don't even see why you would pry.

This is a discussion board, not a voting booth. For now, my vote in the Presidentials is a private matter.

Another thing, is what's this BS about getting blind allegiance to the party now as if to brow-beat people with the mantra "anyone but Bush".

This is the time for discussion- not for fealty

fealty \FEE-uhl-tee\, noun:

1. Fidelity to one's lord; the feudal obligation by which the tenant or vassal was bound to be faithful to his lord.
2. The oath by which this obligation was assumed.
3. Fidelity; allegiance; faithfulness.

Examples:

He was re-elected Governor in 1855, and his administration of the State affairs, both in that and the preceding term of office, was marked by a regard for the public interest rather than party fealty.
--"Andrew Johnson Dead," New York Times, August 1, 1875

Barbour believed Christian conservatives represented a critical constituency, and he looked for opportunities to display his fealty to them.
--Dan Balz and Ronald Brownstein, Storming the Gates

The aristocratic O'Sullivans were enriched in return for their promise of fealty to the mighty Democratic party and its rising new leader.
--Edward L. Widmer, Young America

Whether exploited by traditional religions or political religions, psychological totalism -- the unquestioning fealty to one God, one truth, and one right, embodied in one faith, one cause, one party -- has everywhere provided the tinder of persecution.
--Jack Beatty, "The Tyranny of Belief," The Atlantic, September 13, 2000

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

Fealty comes from Old French fealté, from Latin fidelitas, "fidelity," from fidelis, "faithful," from fides, "faith," from fidere, "to trust."

[noiretextatique]

145. what no loyaty oath?

:scared: are you now, or have you ever been a member of the ____________ party? :scared: it's deja vu...all over again :hi:

[Tinoire]

160. I'm telling you- it's creepy ... Fool me once

Are these the tactics of the "New Dem" Party we've been fighting for 3 years? :scared:

The DLC really is taking the voting public for fools again.

How did Bush put it again?



Source: Mo Paul

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

Link to the Bush Fool Me Once video for some badly needed humor and relief!

And where the hell is Mo Paul btw?

[Tinoire]

188. That's just plain silly Bleacher

There are several rather involved and long threads I've done on the candidate I support. Several of them are used as reference on this and other boards and web-sites because they're packed chockful of information, substance, and links.

I do however look forward to resepctfully and silently reading substantive pro-Clark threads that really address the issues- there have been unfortunately too few.

This one (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=421341 ) was a great start and it's unfortunate it didn't get more support.

A little less cheer-leading and a more condensed compilations of issues by informed Clark supporters would be a welcome relief for many.

[Tinoire]

123. Thanks

I appreciate that very much. I read Madsen's piece and it was alarming. I was going to post it yesterday but 2 other DUers beat me to it! Peace

[Tinoire]

39. More info: The Chameleon Candidate

It’s only been a month since Clark declared that he was a Democrat, although he went out of his way to tell CNN when he did that both parties have good ideas. However, he’s never explained those appetizing GOP ideas. Nor has he ever said in public what made him become a Democrat after a lifelong history of Republican affinities, which makes his conversion sound more like opportunism than principle.

This week’s Newsweek, however, has the explanation: Clark was pissed that the Bush team rejected his overtures in the wake of 9/11. At a conference last January in Switzerland, the magazine reported, Clark told two prominent GOPers that “I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.” One of the two who heard Clark say this, University of Denver president Marc Holtzman, said Clark “went into detail about his grievances. Clark wasn’t joking. We were really shocked.”

Opportunism, in fact, seems to be Clark’s middle name. As one retired four-star general recently told the Washington Post, “There are an awful lot of people who believe Wes will tell anybody what they want to hear and tell somebody the exact opposite five minutes later.” That diagnosis was reinforced just last week when Clark, on Thursday, told reporters that “I would probably have voted for” the blank-check Congressional resolution giving Bush unlimited power to invade Iraq, according to The New York Times. Now, Clark’s supposed opposition to the war was the motoring force behind the Draft Clark for President movement. This was no gaffe — Clark repeated his statement twice.

<snip>

Sorry, General, but your record on the war has been anything but consistent. Last October, the Associated Press reported you’d said you’d vote for the Bush war resolution. Next, in a Time magazine essay on November 12, 2002, entitled “Let’s Wait To Attack,” you criticized the Bush war strategy merely for not allowing enough troops to do the job and having a flawed battle plan. But after the fall of Baghdad, you wrote in the London Times on April 10 effusively praising “a lean plan,” adding that “if the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.”

<snip>

And in the unlikely event that Clark the Chameleon ever does become the Democrats’ nominee, he’s left such a paper trail that the Bushies would cut up this ex-Republican and eat him for lunch.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/45/news-ireland.php

[shanti]

81. thanks for the clark info

i'm a dean supporter, and previously did not have anything negative to say about clark....but this is too iffy for me not to take seriously. if it walks like a duck...

before, i was 'anybody but bush', but as we've seen, the pukes have a habit of stealing and misrepresentation. is clark one of them? time will tell.

[Tinoire]

140. Thanks- that's what it's going to boil down to

I don't want to walk blindly into the night if that's what this is.

[cosmicdot]

124. "... will tell anybody what they want to hear ...

and tell somebody the exact opposite ..."

I worked with someone like that ... someone labelled him a schmoozer ... he was an operative ... he would pit the likes of me against my supervisor ... divide people for his own benefit ... dangerous individual ... wrecked moral and the work environment for his own stinking gain ... nice looking fellow ... looks can be deceiving ...

[newsguyatl]

53. phenomenal post

tinoire, as usual...


this info will be shared and passed along, be sure of it.

thanks for your research, and for the others who are doing it, too...

[Shanty Oilish]

56. For those who say, give this issue a rest...

It's candidate bashing?
Hmm. Maybe by the letter of the law, but by the spirit of it, would we be wrong if Clark is a Republican plant? Because that's what I suspect he is, and I'm almost 100% resistant to tin.
I don't hear Clark explaining any of this. I don't hear the media chewing on it. You know, that so-called liberal media that is owned by conservatives. You'd think they WANT Clark.
Stalking horse? I say the man's a Trojan horse, and should not be trusted. Unless expressly forbidden I'll go on encouraging DUers to doubt this man's authenticity.
Better now than later.

[Pepperbelly]

65. I expect that the problem is that you ...

refuse to read responses to this.

I have posted it no fewer than 3 times today and yet here you are, pretending that it hasn't been addressed.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

74. Link?

[many a good man]

97. Do us a service...

...and put all your refutations together in one link. Update it when necessary and post the link each time you see fit. Not all of us here read every forum...

Like many others I'm attracted to Clark for his winnability and charisma but am leery of his actions in Bosnia and his admiration of Reagan/Bush's despicable foreign policies. Boot-licking and opportunism define all politicians to some extent. Where does he stand now and is he truthful about it???

To me the big advantages of a Clark nomination are the possibility of finally ridding our party of the 'soft on defense' label, and winning back independents and Reagan Dems who never should have left. And of course, ending this neo-con nightmare and Norquistian 'starve-the-beast' domestic policy. There's little doubt he would stomp * in 2004.

Clark has eloquently put forth arguments for a return to multi-lateral internationalism, which is the opposite of neo-con preventive warfare (which is a crime against humanity!). That's one step in the right direction. Rethinking free trade and fighting for a progressive domestic policy would be the next step, but I'm afraid we'll have to take what we can get when we can get it.

Keep up the good fight!

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

180. You have at least 14 posts in this thread

in which you claim that all of this has already been refuted many times and is not even worth discussing anymore. Wouldn't it have been much easier to simply post some links to where these have been refuted. A simple cut and paste of something you claim that you have posted many times in the past (yet haven't done so here) should be trivial.

[nolabels]

186. This my first post on this thread and hopefully the last

And I hate to jump in at the bottom of one but let me just say there is some classic stuff in this thread even with all the deleted posts. I just had a few thought about it I wish to share. I have this link and this little write up by Oracle, if someone has a more complete link on the retired war general please post.

What You Need To Know About Wesley Clark
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=226326

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/83715_comment.php#85116

(snip, near middle of the bottom)
25 Rules of Disinformation: How to Fight Back
by Oracle Wednesday September 24, 2003 11:04 PM

25 Rules of Disinformation: How to Fight Back

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive.

People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.
(snip)

[kang]

69. Ok we can agree to disagree, but...

are you serious? I thought the issue here was that Clark was too moderate and that he's betrayed some liberal commandment of once being sympathetic/supportive of Republicans. Now, I'm hearing an entirely diff. story of some X-Files conspiracy with Clark either (a) being a GOP plant; (b) being a Clinton/DLC plant; or (c) being an alien who's going to secretly weaken our defenses in preparation for a Martian invasion. Ok, I made up the last one, but I'm sure it's on the way.

So please let me what I'm trying to research to disprove...'cuz I can work to find out what the deal was about the AR affair, but there's no way I can prove to you that Clark isn't a robot or alien. I shook his hand and he felt human enough. Plus, dogs seem to like him ok and isn't that a sign according to the Terminator movies?

[andym]

117. He'a a witch

These posts of ad hominum attacks against the candiodates are at the absolute lowest level of discourse.

Reminds me of the "She's a witch" Monty Pyton skit.

Andy

[seventhson]

72. Clark's own LOBBYIST filings show phone calls/contacts with WH/CIA

These were posted on another thread but they clearly show that there was communication between Clarkie and the Bushies because Clark REPORTED them.

He can say it was a joke, But if Clark was called to serve by Bush/Rummie/Wolfowitz and the rest of them you can bet he would have.

[Rose Siding]

83. Here's a link

To the thread about the CAPPS II lobbying with some more of Tinoire's thorough research included.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=134968&mesg_id=134968


Here's what I think. The party bigs- and whatever big money, status quo types that may include, saw their own candidates not rocketing and scooped up someone that *would* work with them. Better than Bush? YES. Some of the priorities of Dems will be honored. The best we have? NO. We have a chance to direct the juice in a whole new way. This is most likely the last time we'll get the chance.

[seventhson]

108. Ummm...the LINK???? Party???

where's the link???

[Rose Siding]

113. Added

I hate it when I do that! :spank:

[blkgrl]

79. Folks, remember Zell Miller??

We really don't need any more "democrats" standing side by side with the Republicans on almost every issue.

[tinnypriv]

90. Kick

Thanks for taking the time to do this Tinoire. :hi:

[cosmicdot]

93. Rove probably didn't want a record of a phone call ...

... he'd much rather use liaisons ... he learned through past mistakes; afterall, he was part of Watergate and its learning curve ... the phone call comment could have been a curve ball ... to throw the scent off ...

~ valuable information, Tinoire; and, as always, outstanding research efforts put forward ~

... information which requires some repetition ... why?

- I did a DU search this a.m. "Clark" was the search term ... I went out as far as 6 months ... there were so many threads that no GD came up at all ... not because there weren't any (see below) ... only LBN and Editorials ... there are so many ... very very few indicated that I had opened the thread ... so much going on, it's easy to miss vital information

- I, also, did a DU search with only GD ... searched out 6 months ... only 10 pages came up ... over 200 threads ... except that, that was only as far back as 2 days ago!!! Again, most of them I hadn't seen nor opened.

If someone is this controversial amongst the rank-and-file ... that, at least, at a minimum, should throw a little flag for concern ... and, with the level of corruption surfacing in this country within institutions of all kinds ... our country deserves our vigilance ...

The claim that Clark can bring 'in' votes is countered by the number which a controversial person can lose.

Rove is loving the stake he's driving ~imho~ into our heart. Some have suggested that Karl is loving it ... that we're doing his work ... well, I think he set the work up ... he's the operative ... set things in motion to let the dynamics take care of themselves ...

caveat emptor

DU has an opposite camp, whether the issue is Al Gore won or lost/get over it; LIHOP/MIHOP; DLC; Cynthia McKinney, etc.; and, that camp, is, again, at opposites here ... its troublesome when I can't find common ground with a fellow Democrat on any issue ... other than being here at DU ...

[Eloriel]

144. It isn't Rove

Clark's candidacy is a Stop Dean effort by the DNC/DLC and the Clintons are part of it. Clark may even be being used, for all I know.

I knew this a couple of weeks ago when several things happened: (1) I heard Clark suddenly spouting DLC talking points and (2) I heard just a day or so later that Clinton was giving him "encouragement" and there were a bunch of ex-Clinton aides who were joining Clark's campaign. I knew it right then and there. Why? Because the DLC (Clinton's baby) had a history of bashing Dean and it only made Dean stronger. And Dean was suddenly the unambiguous front-runner, and he was threatening to take away their power and influence by heading up a truly grassroots, pro-democracy, pro-people movement that would change this country dramatically, hopefully forever. They saw that he was bringing in new voters who by golly wanted their country back.

It must have been terrifying for them to suddenly have no control over the process, a process which would neuter them and their infleunce.

By this time I'd already heard Mrs. Clinton's "I'm not endorsing him, BUT" statement, but that didn't register with me at the time. It took those DLC talking points and Clinton's "encouragement."

Then there was that remark from Clinton recently (wasn't it even before Clark decided to run, for sure?), that there were 2 stars in the Democratic Party -- Hillary and Clark. :puke:

There's nothing I've seen since then about Clark has done ANYthing but confirm my assessment, and in fact I actualy heard it validated this morning on one of the talk shows. But there was also that column a couple of weeks ago by Howard Fineman about the "Stop Dean" movement within the party.

And folks, it's NOT that Dean can't win. It's precisely when they realized that he CAN win that they simultaneously realized they MUST stop him -- or become irrelevent.

Too, who knows what secrets lurk and are in need of exposure? If you've got someone who is beholden ONLY to the people because that's where all his campaign money came from and they believe in him, there's no assurance those secrets won't come out. I don't have anything here but a gut feeling on this one. But let's face it, Clinton wasn't perfect either.

And it breaks my heart to see long-time DUers falling for all this, falling in line, supporting a broken system with its broken old hacks that never did do as much as it seemed for us to start with because they owed such allegience to and had to dance with them that brung 'em.

Great research, Tinoire. Thanks.

Eloriel

[The Magistrate]

163. If President And Senator Clinton Are Behind The General's Candidacy, Ma'am

What is the problem with that?

They are effective and well-loved stalwarts of the Democratic Party. They are extraordinarily skillful political strategists.

The support of these two persons for a political figure is damned near decisive for me.

[seventhson]

112. "Fortunate Son" author Jim Hatfield, was set up by Rove w/false details

One Rovian technique is to plant a TRUE story about someone (in this fortunate son case the Cocaine arrest of Bush) and then feed the reporter FALSE details that could easily be refuted if the writer did not check his facts carefully enough (in the Bush case it was the alleged party affiliation of the judge who sentenced Dubya to community service).

It is entirely reasonbable that Rove would use this same technique to plant disinformation along with accurate information to discredit the author so that ALL the information looks false.

Fortunate Son was poulled by the publisher and Hatfield was "suicided" after publishing an article in July 2001 sayng that intelligence sources had reported that Osama was going to use Jets laden with explosives to attack American targets.

Rove was Hatfield's source for the Bush Cocaine story, but it contained false info which was then used to discredit the entire book.

There may be disinformation planted about Clark to make him look bad which may be entirely false, thereby allowing folks to CLAIM that the entiure article or the author is thereby discredited.

You have to study the evidence carefully in order not to be deceived.


Especially when it comes to Clark who was in so deep with the rethuglipukes propaganda machine politically and militarily.

Peace Y'all!!!

[cosmicdot]

136. how typical is being a paid Board of Director for a company ...

... and, at the same time, receive 'commissions' from the same company, without being classified as an 'employee'???


"STARTING just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Clark sought out dozens of government and industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp., a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses and a wide array of personal details about nearly every adult in the United States and their households, according to interviews and documents.

"Clark, a Democrat who declared himself a presidential candidate 10 days ago, joined Acxiom’s board of directors in December 2001. He earned $300,000 from Acxiom last year and was set to receive $150,000, plus potential commissions, this year, according to financial disclosure records. He owns several thousand shares of Acxiom stock worth more than $67,000.

"Clark’s consulting role at Acxiom puts him near the center of a national debate over expanded government authority to use personal data and surveillance technology to fight the war on terrorism and protect homeland security."


http://www.msnbc.com/news/972597.asp?0si

I wonder if Acxiom receives financial support/investments from any known private equity investment companies???

So much stuff goes on unregulated.

[Tinoire]

170. I don't know but

linking this to the Acxiom thread in LBN so that the information can more easily be retrieved later, if need be.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=134968

[Pastiche423]

142. After reading

this thread, along w/many others, one thing is glaringly obvious. clark is not who he and/or his supporters claim him to be.

The links contained here and in other thread pertaining to clark are quotes coming from the man's very own mouth and articles that produce facts of his life.

When the rebutting commences, an explanation of why, after over two years of knowing he was going to run, din't he prepare his stances on the important issues we face is most pertinent. The answer can no longer be, well, he only decided to enter the race less than a month, because we know that is not true.

I urge all Democrats to read the links supplied here. We need as much information as we can possibly find on each candidate, in order to support the best candidate that can help us take our country back.

Thank you immensely for your hard work and research, Tinoire!

[Tinoire]

161. It is my pleasure

We can not let them steal another election. What good is it to win an election if we have to turn our party into theirs to do it?

Cheswick summed it up perfectly (above):

they will go after him with insider information. Can we believe for a minute that Rove won't bring out the information about Clarks calls to him and all the information they have in the meticulously kept dossiers they have on all high-ranking military officers and lobbyists? Clark is their insurance. They get him the Democratic nomination and then they sabotage him. In the off chance that he actually wins, he's one of them anyway. One of them with less ties to the religious right which is going to abandon Bush to some extent anyway.

[MrPrax]

147. Beauty...sums it up

I wish yellow dogs would dye their fur...
or simply say they don't care WHO gets the nod...
Personalities seem to be the order--they avoid issues like a plague so as not to be tied down...and label everyone Leftist or 'Divisive' if they rationally debate Clark's lack of record,integrity or candor.

A few nights ago they sank to an all-time low scaring everyone with the Rush 'lurker' garbage...

[Cheswick2.0]

159. I consider myself a Yellowdog Democrat, however..........

That doesn't mean I won't fight like hell to make sure the wrong candidate doesn't get the nomination.

[Zorra]

155. Clark explains this here.....

This is from a right wing news site, but I believe it is probably reliable.

Wednesday, July 2, 2003 10:23 a.m. EDT
Gen. Clark Won't Rule Out Running as Republican

HANNITY: Yes, and you would not run as a Republican under any circumstances you can think of?

CLARK: I haven't said that.

HANNITY: Would you?

CLARK: I just haven't said that. I just haven't crossed that bridge. So I'm not going to cross it.

HANNITY: Have you ever voted for a Republican in your life?

CLARK: Absolutely.

HANNITY: Are there Republicans now that you admire that you would tell us about?

CLARK: Well, I served in the Ford administration. I was a White House fellow. I worked for Paul O'Neill and Jim Lann in the Office of Management and Budget.

HANNITY: You seem to be leaning pretty heavily Democrat. I read up on you a lot. But you don't want to go there. Why the mystery? Why can't you say if I run I'm going to be a Democrat? If I run, I'm going to be a Republican? What's so mysterious about that?

CLARK: I served 34 years in uniform. I was 38 years, counting my West Point time. I had "U.S." on both collars. I'm essentially non-partisan, but I do have some views about what the country should be doing.

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/2/102033

If Clark is going to be our next President, I would like to hear these clearly stated promises from him:
1) I absolutely will not nominate any moderate or conservative justices for a postion on the Supreme Court of the US, and will not nominate any moderate or conservative justices for a position on any federal court.
2) I will never appoint a republican to any post whatsoever in my administration.
3) I will attempt to do everything in my power to break up corporate monopolies, beginning with the media, and end corporate financial influence and control of all government policy. I will serve no special interest other than the interest of the people of the United States.
4) I will insure that all voting systems and vote counting procedures are completely owned and operated by the people of the United States and subject to open, independent public and bipartisan federal analysis at any time before or after any and every election, insure that these voting systems are tamper-proof and accurate, and that these systems will provide every voter and every precinct with tangible physical evidence of individual and collective votes, respectively. All precincts will be subject to random unannounced mandatory recounts of tangible vote evidence, and ten percent of all precincts will be subject to these recounts after every federal and state election.
5) I will never involve the US in a pre-emptive war. The US will not enter into any uni-lateral, pre-emptive, non-UN sanctioned military engagement unless there is absolute, undeniable proof that there is a tangible, imminent military threat and a clear and present danger of physical harm to the people or boundaries of the US.

Because of Clark's very recent stated allegiance to the Democratic Party, and because of his past republican involvement, I have to be more demanding of Clark in order to support him as a candidate when compared to some lifetime Democrats that have earned my trust. I have spent my life fighting the republicans and have repeatedly been thwarted by their dishonest, unethical, and devious Machiavellian practices of subverting my party and my democracy. My skepticism and concern is fully warranted. If Clark promises to honor the aforementioned stipulations and pledges that he will to step down from office if he does not make every attempt humanly possible to honor these stipulations, I will be reasonably assured that I can put some trust in him, and will actively support him if he is nominated for President by the Democratic Party.

Is that too much to ask?:dem:

[Cheswick2.0]

162. That is not too much to ask at all

I feel the same.

[Tinoire]

165. Awww Damn- You are nailing the coffin even more shut

You are nailing the coffin even more shut for me. I hadn't seen that interview nor read it before.

What I'm getting here is that while Clark was being coy with us, his campaign was, at the exact same time, sending the same coy message to the Republicans, just in case?

NewsMax? Hannity? Talk about brilliant media manipulation by the DLC!

HANNITY: Yes, and you would not run as a Republican under any circumstances you can think of?

CLARK: I haven't said that.

HANNITY: Would you?

CLARK: I just haven't said that. I just haven't crossed that bridge. So I'm not going to cross it.

HANNITY: Have you ever voted for a Republican in your life?

CLARK:Absolutely. ((I think a quite yes would have been sufficient))

HANNITY: Are there Republicans now that you admire that you would tell us about?

CLARK: Well, I served in the Ford administration. I was a White House fellow. I worked for Paul O'Neill and Jim Lann in the Office of Management and Budget.

HANNITY: You seem to be leaning pretty heavily Democrat. I read up on you a lot. But you don't want to go there. Why the mystery? Why can't you say if I run I'm going to be a Democrat? If I run, I'm going to be a Republican? What's so mysterious about that?

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/2/102033

This is not the election for mysteries!

Your 5 points are excellent and no, they are not too much to ask! They shouldn't even need to be asked! It is ludicrous that we mysteriously and suddenly have a 'front-runner' who hasn't even assured the people on those answers yet.

Maybe your answers are on his issues page which just seems more vague everytime I look at it.

Thanks a million for posting this article! This is exactly why Clark supporters don't want all the information in one post or thread. Because it's adding up very badly.

[Zorra]

172. No one should have an issue with Democratic discussion because

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789.

You're very welcome. And thank you for your efforts to inform the people. Information is power, whether you like the information or not. Clark needs to be discussed and thoroughly analyzed by Democrats. We cannot afford to make a mistake at this critical point in history. I also believe that Clark's issues page is vague, but I expect that he will produce a more detailed platform soon. Nevertheless, I am skeptical of his comprehension of and heartfelt belief in Jeffersonian principles because of his background and very recent declaration of allegiance to the Democratic Party. It takes a lot more than words to be a Democrat.

It is no mystery that Clark was a frontrunner 2 days after he announced his candidacy. He has been well marketed by the media for many months. Whoever was behind his marketing did a great job, they were obviously very successful.

:dem:
<"I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.>

[rman]

184. 7) i'll never start pre-emptive war and then later call it non-pre-emptive

8) i will not use PNAC-ers as my advisors in any way shape or form.

[Darranar]

164. Thanks!

So he's got ties to the Bush Administration, the military-industrial complex, the corporate world, and PNAC... and he's running as a Democratic candidate. I still support Clark over Lieberman, and I'll go for ABB, but this is causing me serious doubts.

[Tinoire]

166. lol - Thanks

I respect you for the open mind you've shown since the day you got to DU. Thank you for your objectivity with the information. The only way we can win this thing, IMO, is by making informed votes based on substance and not packaging or marketing.

[Tinoire]

167. PART 1 of the Clark Defense to this information can be found here:

Posting the link here so that yet another rebuttal doesn't get "lost". Since some Clark supporters are going out of their way to painstakingly address individual points (as opposed to refuting the entire devastating picture), it's only fair to keep track of these rebuttals here.

Cut and Paste below:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1: Clark was going to run as a Republican...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=424186

A DU poster put this out for all to see, relying on this story:

"Thursday, September 18, 2003

Speaking on May 11, 2001, as the keynote speaker to the Pulaski County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Clark said that American involvement abroad helps prevent war and spreads the ideals of the United States, according to an AP dispatch the following day."

Of course, America's involvement does help prevent war. What is the problem here?

Then:

"Two weeks later, a report in U.S. News and World Report said Arkansas Republican politicos were "pondering the future of Wesley Clark:"

Good for them. Looks like Wesley didn't want anything to do with them. Maybe because, as he noted, they were more concerned with placing what was good for the party over what was good for America.

Then:

"Insiders say Clark, who is a consultant for Stephens Group in Little Rock, is preparing a political run as a Republican. Less clear: what office he'd campaign for."

Which 'insiders' might these be? Clark insiders or gop insiders? The article doesn't say nor does the linked material.

"At a recent Republican fund-raiser, he heralded Ronald Reagan's Cold War actions and George Bush's foreign policy. He also talked glowingly of current President Bush's national security team. Absent from the praise list -- his former boss, ex-Commander in Chief Bill Clinton."

Oh my GOD! He praised gops when speaking to the gops! He didn't call Ronnie a self-fouling old dodderer! Nor did he call them names! How DARE he?!?!?

"Clark told CNN's Judy Woodruff earlier this month that he had decided to register as a Democrat. Left unsaid and unknown at this point is exactly when and why he decided to become a Democrat."

So? Could it be for the reasons he enumerated? We won't know from this hogwash, will we?

[roughsatori]

169. ABBOC NT

[Zorra]

185. Um, since I'm kinda new here

and haven't read all the information that's been posted about Clark, I was wondering if anyone knew that one of the main founders of one of the draft Clark sites used to work for the American Enterprise Institute? I never thought too much about it before, but in light of all the recent information about Clark, I thought it might be relevant.

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/who_we_are.htm

[seventhson]

168. YIKES!!! More Links: A COMPENDIUM of CLARK INFO

and maybe even some blackops disinfo.

ut worth reading EVERY WORD

The Hait story needs more information. Clark was involved with Haiti as head of the Southern command and commanded troops who went to Guantanamo, but the rest of THAT story is sketchy.

The Clark war criminal stories ring true to me but I do not know enough to say I endorse them as truth -- but you need to read the stories and decide for yourself.

Do NOT let the CLARK Propaganda machine here at DU inform you.

educate yourself and decide whether this Pentagon insider who worked for the people who arranged Saudi-financing for Bush II's oil company (Harken) and who LOBBIED the CIA for citizen-spying information technology can be OUR president.

[SweetZombieJesus]

174. Hmmm...how do I put this?

Oh yeah!

[TLM]

176. I just read this whole thread... and nowhere did any Cark supporter

refute these points, or even answer the f-ig questions. All they can do is attack Dean and attack the folks who dare to ask why the dems should vote for a guy who says he likes the PNAC crew and wants to work with them again?

[Bertrand]

177. Sure

http://www.politicsus.com/front%20page%20archive/091803.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065

Clark was a non-partisan who was recruited to join the republican party. He Spoke at a Republican fundraiser (he did a democratic one a week later) and said nice things about republicans.

http://thomasmc.com/0919b.htm

Ive already refuted this article. It's a hatchet job based on speculation and unnamed sources to the point that it's embarrassing to those that keep referencing it. It's really a horrid article, even by Counterpunch standards.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969659.asp?0sl=-10&cp1=1

The whitehouse phone records absolve clark from the charge, so this is bunk - he said/she said.

[Code_Name_D]

179. A rebutel.

Clark was a non-partisan who was recruited to join the republican party. He Spoke at a Republican fundraiser (he did a democratic one a week later) and said nice things about republicans.

But this is the problem many have with him.

First off, the Republicans are NOT, non-partisan. They do not give the stage to some one who is not in lock step with there party line. And the "nice things" he said during that speech was in full agreement of the party line.

And as the Clark apologist regularly state, "Clark said nice things about Republicans, at a republican dinner." So he was being diplomatic and non-partisan.

But this is no longer the case. Clark is currently running as a candidate for the Democratic party. In an election that shall only see one winner, the debate is absolutely partisan. His current behavior is at odds with his past behavior. It is this contradiction many are calling into question. Begging the question, where do Clark's loyalties lie?

Clark supporters are finding that they can not dismiss Clark's own words, so they are attempting to dismiss their importance as "Wesley speak," which is either an attempt to dismiss the relevance of Clarks own words and nothing more than diplomatic language. Or as an attempt to paint Clarks words as "damnation by faint praise."

If it the former, than exactly what is Clark's fighting spirit against the Republicans founded upon?

Ive already refuted this article. It's a hatchet job based on speculation and unnamed sources to the point that it's embarrassing to those that keep referencing it. It's really a horrid article, even by Counterpunch standards.

I would agree. This particular article is flawed. But I do note that this author makes no attempt to point out these flaws, or to provide a link to his own writings where these points are raised. Even as obverses as these flaws are. Secondly is that this article is not pronominally figured in the criticism against Clark. This article is a straw man.

The whitehouse phone records absolve clark from the charge, so this is bunk - he said/she said.

Hardly conclusive. From the article you posted.

WORD WAS THAT Karl Rove, the president’s political mastermind, had blocked the idea. Clark was furious. Last January, at a conference in Switzerland, he happened to chat with two prominent Republicans, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman, now president of the University of Denver. “I would have been a Republican,” Clark told them, “if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.” Soon thereafter, in fact, Clark quit his day job and began seriously planning to enter the presidential race—as a Democrat. Messaging NEWSWEEK by BlackBerry, Clark late last week insisted the remark was a “humorous tweak.” The two others said it was anything but. “He went into detail about his grievances,” Holtzman said. “Clark wasn’t joking. We were really shocked.”

Am I to believe that white house phone records are logged regarding person to person conversations in Switzerland? Or am I to believe that the white house switch board record all calls NOT made by Karl Rove?

[Tinoire]

190. Could you please go into a little more depth?

Could you please explain to me how you easily dismiss speaking so gushingly of the same people we've been fighting for years in the Democratic Party. As I pointed out, never did one of rou Democratic candidates say such nice things- and the quotes I posted are more than nice things- they're praise and total admiration. The ones from the salon interview are from March 2003 while the Draft Clark sites were still trying to convince everyone what a Liberal and Bush-hater he was. How can you so easily dismiss that or expect people not to be alarmed?

Please provide come links to your assertion that he was recruited to join the Republican Party because my information is quite the reverse- that he wanted to run on the Republican ticket. And the other thing, if the man was such a die hard liberal that all the brass and Republicans hated him- why would they have tried to recruit him? That doesn't make much sense- not even for the Republicans. How many die-hard Liberals, hated by the Republicans, are invited, or even willing, to fund-raise for them? Please provide a few names and dates. You can't have it both ways- either Clark was such a Progressive which is why they hated him in the Military (because that keeps popping up as a defense in some threads) or they liked him enough to want to recruit him (an assertion, I have yet to see sourced properly).

2. Would you please provide a link to your refutal of the Wayne Madsen article? I would finally like to read a refutal that's a little more than "that's bunk".

3. Would you please provide a link to the article about the White House saying this is false and the information you're using to contradict this and Clark's own words of gushing praise at a pretty suspect time?

Thanks

[rman]

183. one yawned though,

didn't that convince you to trust Clark?

[GeronimoSkull]

178. I might have more respect for Clark

if he ran as a Republican.

[rman]

181. Is this a surprise?

-

[eileen_d]

187. aj;fds kljaf;sldfkjas;dlfkasjdf;alkdjsfa;sldk

kl; asjfda;sldjfkas;ldjfka;sdl fkasdlj fkas;dljfkq[;owegtiha:?oiuvghra;dsok fjhadskljghalkjfhf;sdlfkjo;//iu zsghr;kdjfhasdkljfhasdjghl,vcnmz.l,cxfnja;sl/jzvh.,cvnja/lskgh/El i zfhjlvnzx,vncmz.x,cjvha;sdlkjgihz.lfkvh.x,mvn.,xvncmzx.,vncmz.x,m vcna;woeituoi jk.zvh;.jdkgha;s/dlgjha/lekgjz.,xncvmz/l ksdufg['o3wea4izgh.k,jsdhfa;woeiltghvzs.dkjfha;oweitghs.,zdkafh;oweitygah,j.zdghf;awoeiltksjxdn;alsditua'eo;ijklgad.n,cxzv vkdcvmnzxc,vmnz.x,fkjah.sl,jmvncz.kjsvgha;skdjhzf,dm vnzjmvh ;zsjgha;/loigh vzk.cjmznlck fgyae;4oigv zhd.vkmncd.,ads vcglkjae'poigvzhj.kcdvhzxfjaklsd; fjasdkl;ajfevmnzxckjghawoeid sgrhvzd.kvjmnzsxcjk.vhgz;x.jvklhz

[roguevalley]

189. tell ya what. next time I see him, I'll ask for you.

that okay?

[catforclark2004]

191. and the Clintons are just FOOLS!