I am still very wary of Wesley Clark. Can anybody here relate?

[Cascadian]

The more I have read (No. Not from Freeper sites or right-wing talk shows!) and have heard about the General, I am still somewhat unsure that people should be supporting this man. I am still beyond belief that people are falling over themselves to support him.


http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm


The man has been said to been an earlier supporter of George W. Bush and his crowd. This man who fraternized with a Serbian general who is a notorious war-criminal. Also let us not forget that he wanted to confront the Russians at Pristina airport in Kosovo. He maybe starting to talk the talk and walk the walk of a Democratic candidate but I still see some very cryptic and disturbing things about him. I have seen his website and seen some of his policies and unfortunately I still see some vague stuff al a George W. Bush.



If he does get the nomination, I will be inclined, albeit reluctantly to vote for him but I am not sure that he will win against Bush. If Clark does win, I get a strange feeling that this country will be no better than it is now. If my fears are confirmed then what will you guys, those who support Clark are going to say then?


Let's not get blind-sided here.



John

[in_cog_ni_to]

1. Instead of reading "The Dissident Voice" try this site

instead. http://www.americansforclark.com/

[Terwilliger]

58. And, instead of listening to Democrats...

people should just take everything George W. Bush says at face value and support him.

[corporatewhore]

2. Very Scared SOA fsupporter of freetrade

and wanted to continue bombing of Vieques

[Cascadian]

6. He wanted to continue the test bombing at Vieques?

I need to look this one up. Do you have any articles about this? Just please send me a link. Thanks!


John

[corporatewhore]

21. here you go

http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2003/vol7n44/WesStand-en.shtml

[lancdem]

Fraternize with a Serbian war criminal?

That's an old canard that's been debunked. He was photographed with the guy years before he was a war criminal.

[Cascadian]

16. Yes but he was still massacring people in Bosnia.

Right at the same time that photo was taken. People already knew Mladic was up to no good.


John

[KittyWampus]

41. He Was Using DIPLOMACY Before Initiating The Use Of Force

which is what one would want from a General, NO?

Diplomacy

Definition:

\Di*plo"ma*cy\, n. supremacy, retains the accent of its original. See
{Diploma}.]
1. The art and practice of conducting negotiations between
nations (particularly in securing treaties), including the
methods and forms usually employed.

2. Dexterity or skill in securing advantages; tact.

3. The body of ministers or envoys resident at a court; the
diplomatic body. --Burke.

[Tinoire]

105. IYepper- Fraternizing with Serbian War Criminals

Let's see...

1992: Mladic identified by Lawrence Eagleburger as a prime war crimes suspect

1995: UN War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague indicts Karadzic and Mladic for genocide and grave crimes against humanity

1995: Clark defies State Department orders and meets with them, exchanging gifts. ((Did Clark ever get his hat back?))

Show me the years you're talking about

One really wonders how well you know your candidate.


====
Clark's fading credibility

On Aug. 27, 1994, when he was a three-star general working for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Clark paid a visit to Mladic in Bosnia. In so doing, The Washington Post reported, he "ignored State Department warnings not to meet with Serb officials suspected of ordering deaths of civilians." Clark says he wanted to get Mladic's views for a policy paper he was writing and thought he had permission to do so.

Either way, Clark did more than take notes. The two men drank wine and posed for jovial pictures that showed them merrily wearing each other's caps. Mladic plied Clark with other gifts, too -- a bottle of brandy and a pistol inscribed "From General Mladic." It was like "Ike going to Berlin while the Germans were besieging Leningrad," one disgusted commentator wrote, "and having schnapps with Hermann Goering."

Today Clark acknowledges that cavorting with the infamous killer "wasn't the right thing to have done." He says that after Mladic and Karadzic were indicted, "I did try" to apprehend them. But having to work with allies -- the stabilization of Bosnia was a NATO operation -- made it difficult. "Karadzic was in the French sector," Clark explains, and seizing him would have "required a degree of cooperation with other powers that proved difficult . . . There remained rumors of some kind of French connection," he adds darkly, "rumors that have been denied vigorously by Paris."

<snip>
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/12/21/clarks_fading_credibility/


A smiling Wesley Clark (center), then with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, posing with Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladic (second from left), wearing each other's hat.

===
Copyright 1995, Newsday Inc.
Wednesday, November 1, 1995, NASSAU AND SUFFOLK Edition

In late 1992, then-Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger named
Milosevic as a prime war crimes suspect together with Bosnian Serb
political leader Radovan Karadzic, military commander General Ratko Mladic and others and said they had command responsibility and should answer for the crimes. Three months ago, the UN War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague indicted Karadzic and Mladic for genocide and grave crimes against humanity.

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~bosnia/criminal/newsday_2.html
===

In August, 1994, against the State Department's protests, Clark met with Serbian General Ratko Mladic, who had been named as a war crimes suspect by the U.S. The two exchanged hats and had their pictures taken wearing each other's hats. Mladic also gave Clark a bottle of brandy and a pistol inscribed in Cyrillic.

"It's like cavorting with Hermann Goering," one U.S. official said at the time. The meeting provoked anger in the Muslim-led Bosnian government, one of whose own generals was rebuffed when he tried to visit Washington.

The State Department had twice instructed Clark not to visit Mladic, but he went anyway. Clark was then director of strategy, plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

<snip>

The SouthCom nominee's insubordination to civilian policy directives and his buddying up to war criminals has made some observers wonder how he will behave in Panama.
Sources: The Washington Post, 9/1/94; El Panamá América, 4/19/96; La Prensa, 4/21/96.

http://www.forusa.org/Programs/panama/Archives/696clark.htm

[bearfartinthewoods]

122. just like rummy and saddamn?

[lancdem]

3. Fraternize with a Serbian war criminal?

That's an old canard that's been debunked. He was photographed with the guy years before he was a war criminal.

[Mz Pip]

4. Get some new material

to toss around.

Or do your homework. Don't believe everything that's been lifted straight from Drudge and Newsmax. Pooh on dissidentvoice for perpetrating this nonsense.



MzPip
:dem:

[Cascadian]

12. Why oh why is it that if you do not support Clark

you are branded a Freeper or somebody that reads Drudge or Newsmax????

It is getting really really iritating. Once again if you were not listening, I do not get my news from Freeper sites.

John

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. Right, but you DO get it

from "The DissidentVoice?" Glad you clarified that. Thanks.

[Mz Pip]

22. Chill out

I did not call you a Freeper. Those comments have been all over the right wing media sites. If Dissident Voice wants to perpetrate that same BS, shame on them.

You don't like Clark, fine, but don't get all defensive when you post crap that's been discussed ad nauseum and expect us Clark supporters to suddenly jump on your anti-Clark bandwagon or just let it slide.

MzPip
:dem:

[Dookus]

5. "said to have been a registered republican...

and earlier supporter of George Bush"

Both wrong. He was never a republican. He never voted for Bush. He never raised money for Bush.

The facts are out there.

[CivilRightsNow]

155. What?

He never voted for BUSH? He has admitted that he voted for Bush 41 along with Reagan and Nixon...

So, exactly what was he doing speaking at GOP dinners saying stuff like this?

'And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there.'"


Clark praises United States President George Bush with these words:


"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."


"Do you ever ask why it is that these people in these other countries can't solve their own problems without the United States sending its troops over there? And do you ever ask why it is the Europeans, the people that make the Mercedes and the BMW's that got so much money can't put some of that money in their own defense programs and they need us to do their defense for them?



"And I'll tell you what I've learned from Europe is that are a lot of people out in the world who really, really love and admire the United States. Don't you ever believe it when you hear foreign leaders making nasty comments about us. That's them playing to their domestic politics as they misread it. Because when you talk to the people out there, they love us. They love our values. They love what we stand for in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."



What is this "Truth" you speak of?

[hlthe2b]

7. NO

While I remain uncommitted, with a couple of DEM favorites, I have extensively read background material on both Clark and Dean-- including that that supposedly proves both are living in the image of Satan, himself. I have seen nothing that dissuades me from believing that both are dedicated public servants who handled difficult situations (difficult situations especially with Clark) in a manner that was honorable. I don't agree with all the positions or actions of ANY of the candidates, but I am looking at the big picture. I'd be proud to vote for Clark, since that was who your post was targeted at. Further, I think there are several other candidates, that if given the chance, could likewise serve us well.

[wyldwolf]

8. You like Dissident Voice? Here is another article from the same site

"The joke among a lot of Vermont Republicans was that they didn't need to run anyone for governor because they basically had one in office already," said Harlan Sylvester, a conservative Democratic stockbroker and longtime adviser to Dean.

(St. Petersburg Times, July 6, 2003)

* * * * * *

In Vermont, said John McClaughry, Dean was such a centrist that some in his own party considered him "a Republican in drag." McClaughry, a Republican who heads the Ethan Allen Institute, a public policy think tank in Kirby, Vt., said: "A lot of people in Vermont look at Howard Dean today and they don't see the Howard Dean who was governor. He has reshaped himself to appeal to a faction of the Democratic constituency." (Los Angeles Times, June 1, 2003)

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/DVNS_Howard-Dean.htm

[Paragon]

9. Not much of that concerns me...

...but running a General plays right into the Right's campaign of fear and turns the entire election into a one-issue debate. And Clark has nowhere to stand on the other issues.

I'll support Clark should he get the nomination, but it'll probably always smell wrong to me.

[windansea]

19. exact opposite of your conclusion

running Clark defuses the defense/fear of terror campaign rove wants to run and opens up the debate to more democratic themes like jobs, deficit, healthcare

[kerry-is-my-prez]

55. Actually running a Liberal General "trumps" the Pubs campaign of fear

It beats them at their own game.

[Rich Hunt]

67. no, it legitimates it

It's called a 'testimonial' - it's a classic propaganda tactic. It's cynical pandering toward people who are swayed by image and not reasoning. Those who use it are also overconfident about it. He could even more easily be painted as a traitor - they higher they climb and all ...

Where's the substance? All of the other candidates have more of it.

[The Magistrate]

85. Not So, Ma'am

The enemy's campaign on this line needs no more "legitimization" than the existance of a state of war in fact: that such a state exists will be denied by no appreciable proportion of the people of our country. It will prove impossible for any to shift the focus of the election from this topic entirely. Therefore the candidate chosen must be capable of fighting it out on this field. You are, as are all others here, familiar enough with the assets Gen. Clark enjoys in this connection for there to be any need of rehearsing them here. If the precise same words of criticism in the matter were spoken by Gov. Dean and Gen. Clark, from the mouth of the first they would be derided as naivite and anti-patriotism; from the mouth of the second, they would be nodded over as sage and sober realism. To complain of this is to complain of the sun's rising in the east, and to insist on acting contrary to it is to demand a room with western exposure so you can view the sunrise each morning. The fact is, the great mass of people are "swayed by image and not reason," Therefore, if you wish to sway them, that is the tool you use. You do not pound nails with a screw-driver, nor twist in screws with hammer: that would be like a man setting forth from home with his shoes on his head and his hat on his feet.

"An election differs from a civil war only as the bloodless surrender of a force outnumbered in the field differs from Waterloo."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Rich Hunt]

86. personally, I think it's cynical

Again, where's the substance?

This is a president we're electing, we're not selling soap.

Of course, the first casualty of war is the truth.

[The Magistrate]

98. To Quote That Fine Old Fellow, Mr. G. B. Shaw, Ma'am

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

Politics is, at bottom, a quarrel over divying up the swag; there could not be a field more appropriate for exercise of informed cynicism. The business of winning elections is indeed a question of marketing. It always has been, and it always will be. One must take the ground as it lays, and adapt ones strategems and tactics to it: it cannot be adapted to suit one's preferences.

[Rich Hunt]

135. not convinced

I'm not convinced that the 'observation' in this case IS accurate.

Besides, this isn't logical. I called it 'cynicism', you called it 'accurate observation' (which I apparently don't have) and then you called it 'cynicism' again. So we're in agreement.

I agree it's about marketing. But it's a lazy strategy. Now that Clark has the image, I suppose he isn't supposed to adapt. It's foolish to bank everything on the fact that he's a four-star general.

In any case, self-assured rhetoric and testimonials from G.B. Shaw are not what convince me.

[The Magistrate]

144. No One Comes Here To Be Convinced, Ma'am

The target is never the person addressed, but the many more who read the exchanges.

You seem under the impression cynicism is a bad thing, and also under the impression all uses of the word attempt to convey the same meaning. Neither proposition is true. The most general usage nowadays is the discernment of self-interested motives for acts of persons who present themselves as acting from disinterested motives, and as persons very rarely do act from other than self-interested motives, it is part of the essential equipment for observation of us clever monkeys to be able to do this. It is part of the armor of both self-delusion and deception people employ concerning their actions to disparage the riddling out by others of why they actually do things as something small and petty and rooted in a crabbed disposition, and hence those who habitually affect a high-mindedness are accustomed to use the word in an attempt to discredit those they cannot readily fool.

Objection to "lazy strategy" is unclear to me. Strategy aims, most broadly, to secure the greatest effect possible for the least possible effort. You have acknowledged yourself that people in the mass are not moved by reason, but by image, and that the key to success is marketing. Marketing is not a question of convincing people your product is good, or best, or any such thing: it is the art of getting people to identify with your product, to make it the focus of a group identity, that they want to join and be part of. The key to it is therefore finding what people want, really want, and pandering shamelessly to that. The thing is not pretty, though when well executed, has the same beauty any display of competence does....

"Go into the street, and give the first man you meet a lecture on moral improvement, and the second a shilling, and find which calls himself your friend."

[Rich Hunt]

147. you misunderstand

Strategy aims, most broadly, to secure the greatest effect possible for the least possible effort.

You don't answer me with specifics - you give me philosophy and act as if these things are self-apparent. Good strategy is not limited to one tactic. Read the Art of War or something and get back to me. You're not doing the Clark camp any favors AT ALL, and if this is the plan, I'm sure they don't want it getting out. You know why? Because the people being 'pandered' to by those who think they're smarter don't quite like finding out that they've been manipulated.

You have acknowledged yourself that people in the mass are not moved by reason, but by image,

No, I never said that. You're mighty impressed with your own prose, but it's clear that you haven't bothered to understand someone else's argument.

and that the key to success is marketing.

Nope, never said that.

Marketing is not a question of convincing people your product is good, or best, or any such thing: it is the art of getting people to identify with your product, to make it the focus of a group identity, that they want to join and be part of. The key to it is therefore finding what people want, really want, and pandering shamelessly to that.

Sure, it takes work to actually get to know people.

Your idealism and faith in 'marketing' is touching. As if money, power and dealmaking have nothing to do with it. These notions of 'the people' are arrogant, elitist, self-justifying and self-perpetuating.

Thanks for your honest admission.

And your final quote is irrelevant.

No one comes here to be convinced? Please stop making assertions that you can't support. Reason is the lingua franca for people who go looking for information on the internet. What you're essentially arguing is that my viewpoints are not representative of people's concerns, but yours are somehow inherently convincing.

[The Magistrate]

149. You Mis-Underestimate Me, Ma'am

Strategy is not, of course, limited to one tactic: strategy and tactics are seperate spheres, the latter being the tools by which the design of the former is carried out. Strategy does have a single aim, which is the contrivance of a situation so favorable that the result of tactical execution is a foregone conclusion; that the enemy will not be able, whatever he does, to make a successful resistance. Strategy, too, has really but one single method, which is the concentration of strength against weakness, but it does indeed require a good deal of explication to convey this without a great possibility of being mis-understood, for it is not a simple question of cramming all together where there is little in opposition: effective concentration requires calculated dispersal. It is a subject that well rewards deep study, to which the old masters of the Han made extraordinary contributions that, with a little allowance for changes in condition, make them indeed more relevant than some more recently influential Western thinkers. A great deal of Taoist thought is permeated with military thinking, and represents an excellent example of the wide application in life of strategic thought.

You make me giddy as a school-girl by calling me an idealist, Ma'am. Though someone called me naive the other day, it has been decades since anyone attributed ideals to me. They are rather foreign to my outlook, which is wholly material, save for the occassional omen gleaned from the passing of life in little things around me.

You stated yourself in No. 135 above "I agree it's about marketing..." and your comments in No. 67 "It's cynical pandering toward people who are swayed by image and not reason" is not unduly twisted if taken as indicating awareness the latter are the smallest class. You will surely find no serious student of human affairs who thinks otherwise: even the poor economists are coming round lately to the understanding rational calculation plays very little role in human decisions, and of course no student of politics, theoretical or practical, has thought so for millenia.

[Rich Hunt]

66. you're quite right

If you're looking for assessments of the candidates, it's best to look at sources that are likely disinterested.

That the Dissident Voice criticized Dean is of no concern to me.

I'll go with the campaign of no illusions versus the campaign that hasn't done much to dispel people's concerns.

The DLC is all over Clark. The Illinois progressives are lining up with Dean. It's the credibility factor.

[TrueAmerican]

10. Looks to be a crackpot website

Looks what the same website says about Howard Dean

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/DVNS_Howard-Dean.htm


We don't need crackpots like dissidentvoice.org in the Democratic Party. With friends like them, who needs enemies?

[Cascadian]

25. Actually that article was taken from the LA Weekly

Hardly what you would call a crackpot publication.How do you feel about Indymedia.org?


John

[TrueAmerican]

90. Why didn't you also mention the DrudgeReport, The Weekly Standard,

and Washington Post. Looks like a bunch of cherry pick articles from rightwing sources. Posting smear attacks at DU using right wing articles is beneath DUers.

[Cascadian]

132. Oh yes I am "VERY" right wing!

In fact I am a proud member of Free Republic. I listen to Rush Limbaugh religiously. I think we should all ship the poor to Iraq. Oh please!

I guess either you support Clark or be a right-winger!!! Give me a break!


John

(A proud left of centrist Green!)

[CivilRightsNow]

156. Oh lordy...

Why dont you guys come up with the approved publications we are supposed to be able to submit articles from.

This is friggin ridiculous.

[Cuban_Liberal]

11. Yes, I am EXTREMELY wary, and with good reason.

I supported him, at one time, but when he started becoming all things to all people, I lost my reasons for supporting him; not only has he become 'just another politician', he's not even 'just another politician' with a history of Democratic credentials.

[creativelcro]

13. I have to agree with you, actually.

I'm ready to bet on it, if somebody else is willing to bet on the opposite statement that Clark will be radically different from the current Prez.

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. I forgot.

James Rubin spoke to a Russian reporter the other day who asked about the "Pristina" incident and it didn't go down the way it's been reported. In fact, the British officer who made the remark about WWIII...exaggerated and Rubin said, "If you would pick the phone up and call him, he would tell you he overstated the Pristina incident." C-SPAN has the video. Go here to listen to what James Rubin has to say about it. It's the first link on the page for James Rubin.

http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=James+Rubin

[wyldwolf]

15. I also believe this violates rule #8

If you make a factual assertion about a candidate that is not generally accepted to be true, you must provide a link to a reputable source to back up your claim. Allegedly "innocent" questions which are actually an underhanded effort to spread rumors are not allowed.

[Cascadian]

18. Here is my fact.

I never said he was a registered Republican. What are you talking about?


John

[wyldwolf]

23. John, seriously, you didn't start this thread out of legitimate curiosity.

...unless you just haven't been paying attention to DU for several months.

[Cuban_Liberal]

27. Seems straight-forward enough to me.

Maybe I'm not 'hip' to the DU nuances.

[Cascadian]

30. Thank you.

It is becoming harder and harder to be somebody who opposes Clark in these forums. It is getting too hostile.


John

[Cuban_Liberal]

44. No problem, John.

As a former Clark supporter, I'm familiar with all the 'battle strategies' the campaign has.

[Crunchy Frog]

88. Are you familiar with

all the "battle strategies" the campaign has? If you are, I would like to know what they are. I am a supporter and I confess to being somewhat unfamiliar with them. I would appreciate the information.:)

[formernaderite]

71. It's getting weird

My fav candidate is Dean..but I'd vote for Kucinich, Kerry, Gephardt or Edwards if they got the nomination. This site has been tilting towards Clark just in the short time I've been posting. The weird thing is outside of cyber space, amongst the progressives I know... no one is supporting Clark. Maybe they all live in New Hampshire.

[wyldwolf]

80. Perhaps you missed the stories, then...

That Clark and Dean are running neck and neck in New Mexico and California?

Unless you want to make a distinction between "progressives" and democrats.

If you do, I'd rather have the democrats than the "progressives."

[Cascadian]

87. What is wrong with being a progressive?

Don't you believe in health care for all? Don't you believe in worker's rights? What is so wrong with having compassion in your fellow man and incorporating it in politics? That is what I call Progressive.


John

[Crunchy Frog]

104. I guess you don't consider

George McGovern to be a progressive?:shrug:

Why don't you check out this article: http://clark04.com/press/release/193/

[The Magistrate]

108. Sen. McGovern, Ma'am, Clearly

Has just now at last dropped the mask to reveal his true character as a Republican mole, operating within the Democratic Party all these years in preparation for just this moment....

[Crunchy Frog]

125. What a diabolical conspiracy!

I think your right about that Sir. Why didn't I see it all along? I'm grateful to have this board available to open my eyes about such things. A very observant post Sir.

[The Magistrate]

128. Happy To Oblige, Ma'am!

It is dangerous to under-rate these people: their reach is long as that of Dr. Fu Manchu, and not a feather falls from a sparrow's wing but that they have plotted it decades before the doing....

"Compared to indifferent chaos, even sleepless malice is a comforting idea."

[wyldwolf]

151. Nothing.. and I am one... but if you want to divide the camp...

... over what your distinction is between a progressive and democrat (the same thing) then I'll choose being a democrat.

[CivilRightsNow]

158. ;)--weird isnt it?

Im regularly in touch with a pretty substancial amount of progressives in California and nobody is voting for Clark. Everyone I talk to thinks the same thing. Californians become jaded and Arnold is just fermenting their distaste for the right winged liberals.

What I do find really interesting is that I also talk to a great number of people in the Dallas Metroplex and Austin and they arent voting for Clark either. They wouldnt prod the guy with a ten foot poll. I have only ran into 2 Clark supporters in my real life (outside of one of his campaign stops), out of hundreds of people.. so it always amazes me how many of em are here on DU.

It seems like a targetted advertising campaign, IMO.

[Crunchy Frog]

102. Why don't you try

being someone who opposes Dean in these forums and see where that gets you. Do you really expect people to not defend their candidate against poorly disguised attacks? Really, I suggest starting a similar type of thread on Dean, and seeing what sort of responses you get.

[Tinoire]

110. Hang in there John and don't let certain spprtrs shut up the discussion

This is a calculated tactic to shut up the people who have concerns about Clark.

Keep asking your questions. Thousands of Lurkers thank you. People who want fluff will go to the campaign web-site. We're not about fluff here.

[Cascadian]

133. Thanks!

We who do not support Clark and question his true motives and character must stick together and defend each other. It's getting scary here!

:scared:

John

[CivilRightsNow]

157. "General" Discussion, John...

No negativities will be tolerated ;)

But seriously, this place should be named CU. Ive been around DU for a long time now, snooping and then posting. And it is absolutely amazing to me that this is what it has come down to...

The ship might sink soon. But those of us who care thank you so much for trying.

[Cascadian]

35. I have been paying attention

To the contrary.


John

[bicentennial_baby]

24. I'm going to go with George McGovern on this one...

"Finally, let me say this: There are a lot of good Democrats in this race. But Wes Clark is the best Democrat. He is a true progressive. He's the Democrat's Democrat. I've been around the political block - and I can tell you, I know a true progressive when I see one. And that's why he has my vote.

Wes Clark will bring a higher standard of leadership back to Washington. He'll fight for America's interests, not the special interests. He'll bring honesty, openness, and accountability to the White House. He is a born leader.

That is why I am standing here today: because there's one man in this race with a success strategy in Iraq... there's one man who can really stand up for working American families ... there's one man who can beat George W. Bush - and take back the White House in 2004.

And that man is my friend, our leader, a true progressive, and the next Democratic president of the United States, Wes Clark"

http://clark04.com/press/release/193/

[Maddy McCall]

31. Yep...

Thanks for posting that. We will be seeing "I am skeptical of Clark" or "Is Clark really entitled to be the bearer of Democratic principles" or "There's something fake about Clark but I can't put my finger on it" threads until the primaries are over and Skinner enforces the rule that it won't be permitted.

But in the meantime, I find these posts quite humorous. :)

McGovern's endorsement speaks volumes. A true liberal father of the party has endorsed Clark, but that's not enough and honestly no proof, endorsement, or affirmation will ever be enough to convince some people that he is authentic.

Oh well.

[democracyindanger]

34. Nice use of the editing function

Originally, the second graf in your original post read, "The man has been said to been a registered Republican and an earlier supporter of George W. Bush..."--and then you edited it out.

And why did you remove the link to "Here is my fact"?

Best laugh of the day.

[Cascadian]

42. I would say something but I am not going to.

eom


John

[democracyindanger]

47. Go ahead and say it

If you say something you don't like, you can always edit it out again. :shrug:

[MariaS]

37. You edited your original post

and took out the sentence about voting republican and then you edited your second post to take out the link to http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=97. Shameless.

[Cascadian]

52. Ever made a mistake?

Appartently not.


John

[wyldwolf]

50. bwahahahahaha! Not only did you edit your post, but you responded...

...to the WRONG person.

I never claimed you said "he was a registered Republican."

WOW! You're really stepping in it!

I don't believe "Dissident voice" is a reputable source, and I believe this post qualifies as an allegedly "innocent" question which is actually an underhanded effort to spread rumors.

I won't believe a 1000+ poster (you) has never seen this issue addressed or has never seen this 4 month old source used for the charges.

It is also my opinion that the questions raised are done so in an inflammatory way - which is a further rule infraction.

[mzmolly]

68. Saying your *wary* is not a factual assertion... the assertions that

were made contain a link.

[WI_DEM]

17. yes, I can relate

I think the Keene (NH) Sentinel put my feelings well in its words about why they are wary of Wes Clark:

http://www.keenesentinel.com/localnews/editorial.htm

[in_cog_ni_to]

28. This is a lie.

Our main reservation about Clark is that he is a lifelong Republican voter,


I stopped reading as soon as I read that BLATANT lie. He voted for Clinton TWICE and for Gore in 2000. That alone makes the statement in that article a flat out lie. Therefore, I believe NOTHING written in that article.

[Cascadian]

32. I never said he was a lifelong Republican.

Man. Anybody who opposes or questions Clark is branded a right-wing or a fringer.

John

[bicentennial_baby]

38. No, you edited

the original post...

[Cascadian]

46. I made an error.

Excuse me for not walking on water or being perfect. Obvioiusly you haven't made mistakes before.


John

[bicentennial_baby]

48. I never said that

Just pointing out a fact...

[Renew Deal]

26. I don't think you are being blind sided. I just think you need to look at

it differently.

1st. He was never a registered republican. You should know better if you hang at DU.

He was never a supporter of Bush Jr. He said he did a nice job with Afghanistan (early on). You know who else said that? Dean

Also, he knew a lot of the PNAC crowd from his military days. But even Perle said Clark was anti-war.

He never "fraternized" with any Serbians. He negotiated and defeated them soundly within the limitations that were set.

He never wanted to confront the Russians. He wanted to keep the Russians from ever landing at Pristina. BTW, their landing extended and complicated the conflict. He was given 2 medals after it was over.

What specifically on his website is vague? He has more policies up their than Dean. The last time I counted it was about 34-9.

Clark has a great shot against Bush*. Even the pukes like to call him a puke. He can take their votes. The only people that will have trouble with him are the anti-choice crowd and the fringes that aren't voting Dem anyway. That's what makes him so scary to the pukes.

Clark is the only one that I believe that will be able to achieve real change. He has always been a top achiever that has made things happen. He changed the way soldiers were trained in the military. He changed how families were treated.

What will I say if your fears come true? What's the worst that will happen. We will have a guy that will get us out of Iraq. Change the tax code and give health insurance to all our kids. I am not that afraid of that. But I will talk to you about it if I must.

BTW, I have many of these fears and more about Dean. I think he has little to no shot at beating Bush*. If my fears about Dean are confirmed then what will you guys, those who support Dean are going to say then?

BTW, McGovern called Clark a true progressive. I trust his judgement over most peoples. And you know what? Clark is the ONLY one he said was a TRUE progressive.

[KittyWampus]

29. What Do You REALLY KNOW About Pristina Airport in Kosovo?

because what actually happened is that a small group of Russian renegade soldiers were going to try and move from Bosnia into into Kosove against the Russian Government's directive.

Clark merely had troops around the Airport in case they landed in direct reponse to orders from the United STates.

The renegade soldiers ended up needing to beg and borrow gas and other supplies from the Allies.

The British General was hyperventilating with his comment about WW3 and Far Right sources like to parrot that line.

[Cascadian]

61. For the last time....

This....is not from a right wing source! The Pristina airport incident was reported by The Guardian first broke out that story. Is the Guardian right wing? No. Have you ever read The Guardian? Probably not!




John

[KittyWampus]

76. Did You Read The Info I Just Posted? Or The Links Many Others Have?

I am familiar with the Guardian. They apparently weren't able to supply their readership with complete or accurate information regarding the incident.

Now you have access to the full story.

[The Magistrate]

94. The Guardian, Sir

Printed a good deal of drivel over Kossovo. Portions of the academic and radical left disgraced themselves badly over that matter. The comments you have been provided above by others are quite correct: the matter of the Pristina airport was ludicrously over-blown. Gen. Jackson was insubordinate, and hysterical.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Meritaten1]

33. You should check these site as well

See http://www.clarkmyths.com (debunking a number of lies and distortions).

Also see an article by Dan Christman and Chuck Larson entitled "Guest Opinion: Gen. Clark's stand vs. Milosevic praiseworthy" (January 8, 2004)online at http://www.tucsoncitizen.com

And check http://www.texansforclark.com/clarkprofile.htm

[Alex146]

36. I agree but...

I will suport him over Bush if he should get the nomination.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

39. No - he is the one who can defeat bush

We all need to get behind the General.

[EXE619K]

40. The nature of political affiliation is not the issue.

As I've stated in the past, the question regarding Gen. Clark with his past "endorsements" of the GOP is not really an issue.

I'm willing to give the good General the benefit of the doubt that he truly is a centrist and so should everyone else(IMO).

It comes down to this(IMO):

If ya think National Security is the only issue of importance for our nation.....go with Clark.

However, if you believe that sound economic and domestic policies have far more importance for our nation and the proven record as an executive to make the right choices.....go with (you know who I support!).

Regarding the National Security issue, remember that a former Governor of Arkansas(with ZERO foreign policy experience) did wonders for our National Security and Foreign policy in the past!

[MariaS]

62. National Security

and the war in Iraq touch every aspect of our society including the economic and domestic issues. If you think that taking money from us and using it to occupy Iraq doesn't effect our economy I think your wrong. Denise Kucinich said pretty much the same thing at one of the debates. We have to make Iraq a priority or we will never get any of the other stuff fixed. IMO

[EXE619K]

82. I beg to differ.

The conflict in Iraq was a war of choice(whether it be for oil, military dominance or Re-election of the current administration). The pending fiscal crisis stems from irresponsible tax cuts of the current White House.
The tax cuts enacted by this current administration is taking a huge toll on our economy and that includes funding for Iraq and HLS. It's bad fiscal management that brings upon the funding crisis for Iraq.

No matter who we choose as our next president, if we choose a democratic candidate to head the White House in 2004, our International relations will be bettered by it because ALL candidates in our camp are in favor of International cooperation.

a candidate with ZERO experience in balacing budgets and the experience of setting sound domestic policy is a disaster(IMO).
Due to the HUGE budget deficits and the plummeting dollar caused by irresponsible fiscal management is currently threatening global economics and stability of the welfare for other nations. Remedying this pending crisis(for us and the world) should be our #1 priority.
We should not be so short sighted and see that our economic future is much less important(to us and the rest of the world) than the situation in Iraq.

But, that's just my opinion.

on edit: bad schpelling

[buckeye1]

43. If you don't like him,

vote for another. How hard is that?

[brainshrub]

45. Yes, I can relate.

But my attitude torward him has softened since he first came on the scene. I still don't trust him 100%, however.

I don't want another Clinton. I want WTO & NAFTA reformed, I wan't healthcare available to more Americans and I want an end to the doctine of pre-emptive war.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

49. Clark has the most detailed plans on how to deal with Iraq, taxes,

is for the Kyoto Treaty, Affirmative Action. He seems to be a truly compassionate man with a lot of integrity.

He's an extremely intelligent man with a master in economics so he's not only knowledgeable (also sounds very credible) about the economy, taxes AND foreign policy.

It doesn't sound like you are too open to Clark no matter what he might stand for. If you're one of those "black and white" people where there's no gray it will be tough to have an open mind about Clark.....

[TLM]

51. I agree with you completly... the truth about Clark is scary...

and I wish I could go into why, but apparently that's now considered inflammatory and would get my post deleted.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

54. A wholesale broad brushing of DU'ers as "rightwingers."

Very nasty.

[Dookus]

56. nevermind

the post I responded to was deleted.

[Dookus]

59. lol...

I like this new concerted effort to portray DU as a site that unfairly punishes anybody opposed to Clark. There's been a whole lot of posts the last two days intimating that Dean supporters are being targeted.

Anybody who taks an honest look at the site knows it's a ridiculous assertion. It shows how far some people will go to blame their candidate's problems on ANYTHING other than the candidate himself.

[Meritaten1]

63. I'm supporting Clark without reservations

He'd be an excellent President. (Of course, any Democratic candidate would be a great improvement over the present officeholder IMHO.)

Please check out the material cited in my previous post on this thread before believing everything you read from sources like the one cited in the initial post above.

[Egnever]

141. The problem is theres nothing to indicate he stands for anything

[The Magistrate]

106. If It Were True, Mr. TLM, And Expressed Civilly

How it could get you in any trouble is beyond me....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Tatiana]

57. Your fears are quite natural.

I was initially very suspicious of him as well. However, I must say the fact that I had no negative preconceived notions about his military background (I come from a long line of servicemen and grew up on various military bases) helped me come around to Clark a lot easier.

I must say, the more I have studied Clark, the more I realize that the man defies any labels we traditionally like to saddle our politicians with. First of all, he's not a politician, though he's doing better politically than some career Democratic politicians at this point. Second, he is very much a creative and independent thinker. His stance on progressive taxation could hurt him among voters in the higher income bracket, but he doesn't care. The fact that he won't repeal all of the tax cuts (keeping the ones for the middle class) might hurt him politically with party hard-liners, but he isn't concerned about that. His tax policy was crafted using logic and reason, which seems to be the way he approaches most issues. I think we need the application of logic and reason more than anything in these times. Partisan politics aren't getting us anywhere.

I like Clark's intelligence and I like the fact that he can advocate liberal issues and causes without being raked over the coals. Clark says increase taxes on the rich and hardly anyone (but the RNC) bats an eyelash. In fact, they say it's probably a good plan. Imagine if Dean had advocated the same tax plan. He'd be destroyed. It's unfair, but it's the reality we are facing.

True, some people think he's a stealth Republican. But I get the sense, from listening to him in person, that he's more of a stealth liberal. In order to believe that he's a Republican, you've got to believe everything he's ever said, every policy he advocates is a lie.

Is anyone willing to stand face to face with Clark and call him a liar? I doubt it. Because what strikes me about Clark more than anything is his honesty. Cohen said Clark was being relieved of command of NATO forces was no big deal. Clark himself is the one who said he was fired. He's a man who can admit his mistakes and work quickly to rectify them.

More than anything I get the sense that Clark is a good man, and intelligence man, and a caring man (see his feelings on Rwanda). He's a man who's advocated progressively for such varied issues as affirmative action in higher education and domestic violence in the military. I feel the biggest problem some Democrats have with Clark is that he isn't easily categorized. We can't put him in this neat little Democratic box. He's a Presidential candidate unlike any we've ever seen before - he's not just campaigning for the Democrats... he's campaigning for America, and he just happens to have beliefs that fall under traditional Democratic platform.

We are the party of inclusion and I think there has to be a place for such a person as Clark. The fact that he commands the support of someone like McGovern also supports the fact that Clark is the real deal. I'm ready for a new America, a better America, a caring America and I believe Clark is the one who will give us that America.

It all boils down to trust. I trust him. With this nation going the way it is, I can't afford not to trust him. If I'm wrong and he is indeed Bush-lite (which I simply do not believe), I will work my ass off to get him out of office.

[latebloomer]

60. Yes, I can definitely relate

He seems electable, and these days that means you have to be corrupt to the bone.

[jonnyblitz]

64. oh I am more than wary.

But....ABB. :shrug:

[reprehensor]

65. Fear...

I fear that he could be the most able operative that the Military Industrial Congressional Complex has ever had. He is very well connected.

But Bush must go. What a situation.

The positive note? When Bush goes, he takes all of his Neocon bedmates with him.

I believe that there is room for concern, but it can't stand in the way of the immediate objective...sending Bush back to Crawford.

[tokenlib]

93. Or Clark may be the biggest threat to the military industrial complex....

Kucinich has been forceful about the need to rescind the blank check for the Pentagon. Clark may be the answer to this concern. He has pointed out that republicans care more about weapons systems than people. Clark might be immune to the usual GOP ploy of "if you don't throw millions to the defense contractors--you are weak on defense."

In this respect Clark gives me hope for the future that our budget priorities might become more responsible.

[mzmolly]

69. Yes, I am wary. I would rather vote for a Democrat than a recent

convert who has a questionable past.

[KoKo]

70. Read this current discussion on DU re Clark, and maybe that will

give you some understanding. Both, Pro and Con, Clark. Including my post about the Military Industrial Complex and "Influence Peddling" by former Military, former Govt. employees...etc.etc.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=131752

[LuminousX]

72. When I was doing my 'research the candidates' thing

I came away from studying Clark with a very bad taste in my mouth. At first I was amazed by how liberal and progressive he was, until I started taking a closer look at his policies. I realized, that unlike someone who had to actually work through these concepts with others in a legislative/policy crafting sort of way, his positions were somewhat naive.

Take abortion:

Undecided on partial-birth abortion
Q: Would you sign the partial-birth abortion bill, which is about to be passed by Congress?

CLARK: I don't know whether I'd sign that bill or not. I'm not into that detail on partial-birth abortion. In general, I'm pro-life--excuse me, I'm pro-abortion rights.
Source: CNN, Crossfire Aug 1, 2003

And on January 8th...

Clark was asked if would appoint or reject a prospective judicial nominee who passed all of Clark’s criteria but happened to be known as pro-life.

“I don’t know,” he said. “It would depend. I don’t have litmus tests. I want a guy who will do judicial precedent.”

But following the interview, Clark telephoned a reporter to clarify.

“I’m not going to be appointing judges who are pro-life,” he said. Union Leader

There are subtle discrepancies, that taken one at a time, really don't mean much. But for those of us who want something more than a biography that has no legislative or administrative history attached to it, these things begin to become worrisome. He suddenly seems manufactured. Did he leave the interview in the second citation and tell his people what he said, and did they say that if he didn't clearly say he would never appoint a pro-life judge that it weakens his position?

Everything about his positions, in my opinion, seem a bit manufactured. And since we can't verify them against history, we are left with blind trust. I don't trust anyone blindly. So I don't trust Clark.

[dd123]

81. This thing about having no record finally really hit home w/me.

You're right. How do I know where he stands on anything? How do I know just not being fed the policy positions that fit with the Democratic base and that will possibly get him elected.

[LuminousX]

89. You simply have to trust. Are you a trusting sort of person?

[sandnsea]

73. I am wary

For alot of reasons. He needs to go through the same kind of media scrutiny every other candidate has had to go through. I don't want an unknown commodity as our nominee. There's too much at stake. And I sure don't want an unknown commodity as President. That seems a little silly to me.

[Toot]

74. I very much relate.

I kind of liked Clark, until I saw the video where he spoke at a Bush fund raiser and then his "joke" that if Rove had called him back he would have been a Republican, just really did it for me.

I know he has talked at Democratic events, but you have to really support a person to talk at a fundraiser, IMO.

[Dookus]

77. The Pulaski County Republican event

was the exact same kind of event as the statewide Arkansas Democratic Dinner he spoke at. He was making his living as a speaker. He appeared as a non-partisan speaker at both events.

[Cascadian]

99. But why at a Republican fundraiser????

I have no trouble for him to speak at non-partisan events. That's fine but at GOP gathering? Doesn't that make you question a little bit???


John

[Dookus]

136. No, it doesn't....

It was 2001. He was recently retired from the military. He was making his living as a speaker. They invited him to speak, he spoke. The Democrats invited him to speak, he spoke.

At the GOP county event, he actually criticized Bush's foreign policy IMMEDIATELY following the "praise" everybody refers to.

Al Franken speaks at Republican events, too. I don't think he's secretly a republican.

[Eurobabe]

75. you're a day late and a dollar short

try this site, all the things you have been brought up were debunked a long time ago.

http://www.clarkmyths.com/

[dd123]

78. I am wary of Clark. I'm not sure he's very good on civil liberties.

Just the fact that he was on the board of Acxiom, which collects personal data on every freaking person in the United States is icky.

Add to that the fact that he WANTED the government to get their hands on this data in order to screen us as to if we could fly or not.

My dad asked me the other day, are you a red, yellow or green? I said huh? He asked me again... I told him red (random guess of course cuz I didn't know what the heck he was talking about). He said no, you're green - meaning that I probably wouldn't get stopped if I tried to fly.

But then I thought about it...I've gone to an anti-war rally. I post stuff against the war. Sometimes I wonder...am I in the Govt database as a green?

Wes Clark helped supply the means to possibly prevent people like you and I from getting on a plane.

On top of that, the guy wants a constitutional ban against burning the flag. To me, that says anti-free speech.

I have real problems with Wes Clark.

[jpgpenn]

79. no

[bowens43]

83. I'm with you.

There is NOTHING about Clark that qualifies for the presidency or a leadership role in the Democratic party. The more I read, the more certain I am that Clark is less suited for the job then any of the other candidates, maybe even less suited then bush. I will not vote for Clark under any circumstances. I voted a straight Democratic ticket in every election since 1976 but id Clark's on the ballot, that streak ends.

[Cascadian]

92. Somehow I will vote for Clark shouldhe get the nomination but....

I will not be happy about it. I only want Bush to get out of the White House and prefferably to the Hague on war crimes though it will not happen unfortunately.

I just cannot see things improving under a Clark administration. He does not show me anything that will tell me that America will improve. I just a strange feeling about it all. I hope I am wrong. I may stay in this country and give him a chance but if things really go belly up, I am gone!

[Walt Starr]

107. When considering the lesser of two huge "evils"

one thing that must come under consideration is how much time each of the evils could continue harming the nation.

Bush only has the possibility of harming the nation an additional four years. Another "evil" elected this year has the opportunity to cause great harm for eight years.

This is why incumbancy in the presidency is hard to overcome when elections are viewed asvoting for the "lesser of two evils".

[andym]

84. No

For one reason:
He demonstrated he was a man of integrity in his first profession.

He has no history of duplicity in his first career in the military.
There are two unsubstantiated charges of lack of integrity. One from General Shelton without evidence, and one from General Cisneros who claimed Clark told him that Cisneros was going to be promoted to lead the Southern command, but instead received the promotion himself. Clark claimed he did not expect the promotion.

Given the lack of such charges in such a long career, I presume he is actually a man of integrity and therefore take him at his word. And in words, his vision and plans sound very good.

[mandyky]

91. Very wary here, still

When we run a General, with no long term record as a Democrat, just to play ball on the Bush warmongering level I get very wary. I like Clark, but my gut says don't trust him.

My biggest fear is that he is a GOP plant who'll change parties if he gets to the WH. It is a total gut feeling thing, and it makes me crazy.

[Cascadian]

96. You're not alone.

I am afraid he will do a 180 and not make any changes to the Patriot Act and who knows? What if he wants to bring back the draft? We maybe involved further in Iraq and the military's resources are dwindling. Anybody ever ask that question? I don't I could stick around in this country if this happens. The political system in this country and the worldwide reputation would be so damaged that I could not stay in this country. I would definately leave.


John

[mandyky]

111. Unless we change our foreign policy drastically

we'll almost have to reinstate the draft. We cannot continually deploy the Nat'l Guard and Reserves for 1 year tours.

I think before reinstating the draft, we could revisit the GI Bill and other recruiting enticements and take better care of veterans.

[Crunchy Frog]

95. I would highly reccomend

that you continue to enthusiastically support whoever you support. I won't condemn you for it in any way. I do wish that you would not tell the rest of us who we should or should not be supporting.

Most of your "charges" have been debunked here numerous times. I am not "falling all over myself" to support this man. My support is based on a long process of educating myself, looking into all the charges, the man's history and positions, evaluating the current political situation and alot of soul searching.

I find your insinuations about my motives to be quite offensive. Oh and by the way, it looks like George McGovern has been duped as well.

Anyway, I'm glad that you plan on voting for the Democratic nominee, and if Clark is elected and does turn out to be a Republican plant, I will apologize profusely for supporting him.

I hope you're satisfied with that response.

[Walt Starr]

97. Wesley Clark would really inspire me if he were nominated

to join a third party, donate to the third party candidate, campaign for the third party candidate, and do everythin possible to insure Wesley Clark is not elected.

[Cascadian]

100. I will vote for the Democratic candidate regardless.

Preferrably it must be Dean. He is the only one who can beat Bush IMHO.


John

[Walt Starr]

103. I might vote for just about any ticket, including Liebrman/Miller

If Clark is on the ticket in any capacity, the only way I won't go third party will be if Dean is also on the ticket.

If Dean is not on the ticket, I might remember there's an election and show up, or not.

[LuminousX]

146. I'm too lazy for all that

I'll pull the Democratic lever, but would I do for Clark what I've been doing for Dean? Questionable.

[Hoppin_Mad]

101. Yes - And the more I read the more wary I become -nt-

[ecstatic]

109. Repubs will paint Clark as "the guy who nearly started World War 3"

Theres no amount of explaining in the world that will make the public disassociate him with that phrase. Republicans are better than we are at making attacks stick.

[candy331]

113. And remember too that Clark's military records

are over at the Pentagon aren't they? I bet the Repubs have combed every inch of them and are ready to aim and shoot. They are not afraid of Clark why do you not hear them attacking w/o force? It is Dean they are afraid of and the corporate media is doing the dirty work for them to down Dean. With Dean out of the way Clark will like swatting a bug.


DEAN 04

[hellhathnofury]

112. Why I don't trust Wes Clark with my party.

Actions speak louder than words and Clark's prior actions haven't been very Democratic. I think he might turn out to be a good Democrat but he needs to be dog catcher before president.

He just feels to contrived for me, New American Patriotism c'mon, enough with the flag hugging. To much medal emphasis too.

[Walt Starr]

114. I'm with you

If Clark was nominated I would have to do some hard thinking about what I would have to do. The one thing I could never do is support Clark.

[hellhathnofury]

116. He might get my vote but probably not time or money.

[Walt Starr]

119. Oh he would NEVER get my vote

My problem would be figuring out the best way to make sure he doesn't get elected!

Clark TERRIFIES me. I do NOT want to see that man in the White House!

[hellhathnofury]

120. I'm still going to have to do it. I hate and fear * more than I mistrust

Clark.

[The Magistrate]

123. Good For You, Sir!

Many a good vote has been cast with nostrils pinched firmly shut, and hands washed urgently afterwards....

Nobody ever said this was a pretty business; just a necessary one.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Walt Starr]

124. There's my problem

I fear Clark would do more damage than *.

[The Magistrate]

126. If You Will Forgive Me, My Friend

That is not possible. The criminals of the '00 Coup have done tremendous harm already, and will do vastly more if continued in power. They are, in my view, an existential threat to the very continuance of free elections in our country, and you know that is not a statement I make lightly....

[Tinoire]

115. I am waaay past wary. The Democratic Party can expect a

huge debacle if Clark is the nominee.

I'd vote for Lieberman, the original DLC poster boy, before I would ever consider voting for Clark.

[LuminousX]

117. Ditto

[hellhathnofury]

118. Joe is a rather good Democrat. His only big deviance is the war and the

same can be said of say Breaux, Landrieu or Feinstein.

Look at some of the ADA ratings, they're quit interesting.

[The Magistrate]

121. Some Things It is Good To Have Out In The Open

Whoever the Democratic Party nominates for President will have my vote, and energetic support, in the general election. To do any thing else would be, in effect, to assist the consolidation of power by the criminals of the '00 Coup, by tending to assist their grip on usurped office. To do such a thing would seem to me a damned odd way to demonstrate commitment to left principles....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Tinoire]

129. I already told you what I thought about Clark. I will not ignore

It's a Leftist character flaw.

I will not, can not ignore his alarming associations with some of the most right-wing groups out there. This man is too tight with the very organizations I have spent over a decade fighting. Voting for him would be a mockery of everything I believe in. There is no sense in protesting the World Economic Forum in Davos if you're going to vote for a man who went there, as the managing Director of Jackson Stephens, to help Powell campaign for the war and told our European allies that they had best get on board because the President had made his decision. Some lines I will not cross.

Trustee of the International Crisis Group http://www.intl-crisis-group.org/home/index.cfm Clark sat on the board of some of the world's most dangerous NGOs and corporations while he was making his stunningly short journey from Republican fund-raising Bush admirer to his recent September 2003 metamorphosis into a Democrat.

• Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age http://www.markletaskforce.org/bios.html (This group has intimate ties to the Saban Center & Daniel Pipes)
  
  
• Senior Advisor for the Center for Strategic International Studies
  http://www.csis.org/ a Right-Wing think tank which has been very close to Bush on matters dealing with Iraq & Afghanistan. They're like a who's who of the whatever neo-cons aren't in government and has a Board of trustees who's members proudly sit on boards of Halliburton, Hunt Oil, National Petroleum Council, American Petroleum Council, General Electric, special counsellors to Reagan, and what the hell is Sam Nunn up to with the Nunn-Wolfowitz-Task Forces for Hughes Electronics? I should have guessed. DLC. Media Transparency has quite a run-down on this organization
  http://www.mediatransparency.org/all_in_one_results.php?Message=CSIS
  
  
• National Endowment for Democracy (currently implicated in the Venezuelan Coup Scandal for having financed the oppostition to Hugo Chavez) which Ronald Reagan started in the early 1980s to promote American values abroad. Also on the board Frank Carlucci, Carlyle fame, Morton Abramowitz, Vin Weber, Evan Bayh http://www.ned.org/about/who.html
  
  Ronald Reagan started the NED in the early 1980s to "promote American values abroad" by destabilizing progressive movements/governments, especially those with a socialist or democratic socialist bent. Also on the board Frank Carlucci (Carlyle fame), Morton Abramowitz, Vin Weber (original PNAC signatory), Evan Bayh http://www.ned.org/about/who.html
  
  Here are the CSIS & National Endowment for Democracy's major/majority donors:
  Sara Scaife Foundatation financed in turn by Mellon Industrial, at one time its largest single holding was stock in the Gulf Oil Corporation. Richard Scaife is the 38th richest man in America. Scaife has been a leading financier of New Right causes. The Sarah Scaife Foundation is considered to be one of the top 4 conservative foundations. He's known as the Right's Founding Father.
  
  www.mediatransparency.org/funders/scaife_foundations.htm
  
  The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation one of the country's largest and most influential right-wing foundations. Its targets range from affirmative action to social security, it has seen its greatest successes in areas of welfare "reform" and attempts to privatize public education through the promotion of school vouchers.
  
  The overall objective of the Bradley Foundation is ... laissez-faire capitalism: capitalism with the gloves off. (...) supports right-wing groups such as the Heritage Foundation, source of policy papers on budget cuts, supply-side economics and the Star Wars military plan for the Reagan administration; the Madison Center for Educational Affairs, which provides funding for right-wing research and a network of conservative student newspapers; and the American Enterprise Institute, literary home of such racist authors as Charles Murray (The Bell Curve) and Dinesh D'Souza (The End of Racism), former conservative officeholders Jeanne kirkpatrick, Jack Kemp and William Bennet, and arch conservative jurists Robert Bjork and Antonin Scalia. <snip / this just goes on and on sending CHILLS up my spine>
  
  http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/bradley_foundation.htm
  
  http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/john_m_olin_foundation.htm
  
  The Smith Richardson Foundation: active in supporting conservative causes... one of the countries richest families. Funded the early "supply-side" books of Jude Wanninski and George Gilder. Board of Directors include Ben Wattenberg (right wing, radical Free Market, Senior Fellow at American Enterprise Institute, maker of the right-wing PBS show "Think Tank", Senior Editor of The American Enterprise Magazine[br />
  More: http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/smith_richardson_foundation.htm
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
  Now when we have original PNACers like Morton Abramowitz are telling us what a great guy Clark will be for us because the rest of our candidates are “woefully deficient”, I worry. Woefully deficient for PNAC? THAT is the entire idea! That's exactly the kind of candidate I'm looking for- not one that PNAC will find efficient.
  

[The Magistrate]

130. President Clinton Always Seemed To Like Him, Ma'am

That bulks pretty high with me.

Your support in the primaries, after all, is not being asked, but come the general election, whoever the nominee of the Democratic Party is will be the only vehicle available for striking a blow against the barefaced reactionary thieves of the current administration, and in that moment, any hand that does not strike against them strikes for them....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Walt Starr]

131. Clark is one Democratic candidate I could never ever support in the GE

I would have to join a third party, donate money to the third party candidate, and work hard campaigning for that third party candidate because I am terrified of what will happen to this nation if that man becomes president.

[The Magistrate]

145. Then Your Only Reward, My Friend

Will be the great glee of the reactionary thieves of the '00 Coup at their re-inauguration gala. They will not even thank you, though they are hoping many will act just as you have said you will....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[CivilRightsNow]

161. Me too, my friend.

Clark terrifies me in ways I dont even know how to put into words.

I sat down a few months ago to make a list of links on Wesley Clark and the people and organizations he is involved with. To this day, Im still not done. There is so much to organize, so much to read, so much to link together. I cant go out and just stick up all the links, because you have to read a good portion, if not all of them to get a clear picture. So, I work on putting them together... day in and day out.. uncovering crap that is even to scary for boogey men to play with..

And I pray that the trainwreck I see coming is not true. I pray that Im wrong. I look back over the links and stories and I look for other possible scenarios. I cant find them.

One day I want to sit down with Tinore and write a book... or atleast sit down face to face with someone that has read it all so that I feel a little less crazy, a little less doomed...

If this man wins the nomination, I will not vote.

[The Magistrate]

163. An Odd Way To Vindicate Left Principles, That

To refuse to vote against the criminals of the '00 Coup in the general election is to give them material support. It does not matter whether this is done from left purism; it is in fact support of the worst elements of reaction. The reactionaries count on this sort of left purist splintering; it is one of their chief tools in maintaining their power. There is no excuse for going along with their designs....

[CivilRightsNow]

167. There is no excuse to let this party move further right, either.

I will not follow the pack. I dont really care how reactionary you think that is.

I will be able to sleep at night.

However, if I helped to put that man in power with all the information I have read... I would never forgive myself.

And at the end of the day, I have to live with my conscience and I will make the right decision, not the popular one.

[Tinoire]

148. Each to his own conscience come election time

It all depends on with whom I'll be expected to join forces because I am no more enamoured of the DLC than I am of Republicans. They currently have one candidate I could probably vote for. If the Democratic Party establishment wants to cater swing voters and more conservative Democrats, they shouldn't cash my vote pre-maturely.

any hand that does not strike against them strikes for them

There is some logic in what you say but it's too machiavellic for me. As much as people hate Bush, you would think the Democratic Party would have no problem coming up with a candidate palatable enough to enough people. It's all so sick. I may just turn my back in disgust and say "A pox on both your houses".

We saw Clinton, Gore, and Jackson Sr come out here to stump for Newsom because Democrats were flocking in droves to the Progressive Green ex-Democrat candidate.

The mettalic taste is still bitter in my area and in my mouth.

We were not impressed with the lengths Clinton and the rest of the DLC went to to ensure that the choice of Bechtel & other Bay Area Corporations won- squeaking past by about 7000 votes (irregularities now being discovered). This is the extent the DLC & the Democratic Establishment went to to prevent us from having our voice. Everytime I write my painful $2300 rent check, I think of the zeal with which they fought the people's choice, in a mayoral election of all things, and of the homeless in a city where you can't rent anything on a low-paying job.

No politician has disappointed me as much as Clinton. I went from die-hard supporter of his to crest-fallen and totally disappointed and am ashamed of many aspects of his legacy: NAFTA, GATT, WTO, Welfare Reform, Plan Columbia, Iraq, Yugoslavia, etc...

7 years ago, Clinton's opinion may have meant something to me. No longer- once bitten, twice shy- it doesn't mean anything to me anymore.

Each to his own conscience come election time. We can't all be expected to be excited or angry at the same time. I was angry long ago. 5 years ago I was warning people about Bush. I'm tired now, not angry. The Democratic Party & the Establishment will have to forgive me if I am too disillusioned to re-act to their cries of "Bogey-man" around the corner.

[The Magistrate]

150. The Pox Cannot Be Put On Both Their Houses, Ma'am

Attempting that can only put the pox upon the people and our country, and lock away the medicines.

One must still choose, and even fight for, the better of what is on offer, even if the degree of difference be the merest shade.

[Crunchy Frog]

127. I've finally been convinced

by all the arguments I've seen here. General Clark truly is scary.

[Cascadian]

134. Like I said if Clark gets the nomination I will vote for him.

I won't actively campaign, contribute money, or anything like that for him. The vote I cast will be one of reluctance and in spite. I just want Bush gone but I will say this. If Clark wins and we are all in the same b.s. we are in now or things get worse a year after the election then I will leave the country. The Democratic Party will be as good as dead and the American politcal system will be nothing more than a mockery.


John

[arewethereyet]

137. the only reason I would vote for him is lack of choice

and thats a bad reason

[Egnever]

138. You bet I can relate

This guy strickes me as pure bullshit. I think he is being spoonfed everything he says by his handlers. Of everyone in this race clark is my absolute last choice.

I am no fan of Kerry's at all in fact i pretty much despise him but I would take him in a new york second over clark.

My feeling is clark was made for our consumption by clinton in an attempt to maintain control of the party. It boggles my mind that people are taking what this guy says as gospel and arent the least bit concerned that there is no way to verify anything he is saying.

No thanks we have 8 perfectly good longtime DEMOCRATS runing Ill take a pass on clark till he proves his mettle

[shivaji]

142. Hear Here! I could'nt have said it better myself!!

Great post.

[mikehiggins]

139. Here's a secret way to assauge your fears about Wes Clark

Don't vote for him. Then, if he does get the nomination, don't vote for him then either.

That way your conscience will be clear.

Ciao for niao.

[Egnever]

140. no secret there thats exactly my plan!

[lurk_no_more]

143. As long as you'll vote for him if nominated

:toast:



And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[TexasSissy]

152. We Clark supporters know him and fear nothing about him.

You alone are responsible for your supposed fears. You have no fears. This is a post to try to dissuade others from voting for Clark by giving misinformation.

He did not "fraternize" with a war criminal. He did not try to start a war with Russia. Come on. That's ridiculous.

Instead of cashing in on his Rhodes Scholarship and making millions in the business world, he instead chose to devote himself to serving his country. We don't need a link to support the fact that Clark did not make millions in the service of his country. How many citizens would have done that? Do I really need to point out that the other candidates did not choose service over money? Not that there's anything wrong with making money. We live in a capitalist society, after all, and all of us posting here no doubt want to make money.

Then he became a lobbyist (that's not a dirty word; environmentalists, of which I am one, and other groups all have lobbyists; this is necessary---did you see the movie "The American President"?). There's no evidence that he did anything illegal or immoral as a lobbyist. It's the congress people who allow themselves to be bought that is the problem there.

I am voting for Clark, a man of character and integrity. He is pro-choice, pro-environment, the use of war only as a last resort, pro-middle America, pro-universal health care, pro-gay civil unions, pro-ally friendly. He has foreign policy experience and is the only candidate that is known abroad (and he's well respected abroad). He has proven that he is brave and courageous. He is positive about the future of America. I love 'im. He's got my vote. There are no valid fears with this guy. He's the real deal.

[depakid]

153. I know a lot of people in the NorthWest who feel the same way

Maybe Texans feel differently, but I can tell you that here in Western Oregon and Washington, the fact that he's a four star general in and of itself raises eyebrows among progressives, and when people hear complimentary remarks about the School of the Americas, it does nothing to assuage their concerns. People also raise concerns about his ties to Acxiom and his past support for Republicans, none of which I have satisfactory answers for- and believe me, I'm asked.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

154. Northwesterner agrees with you.

I'm still undecided if I would vote for Clark in the GE if he should win the nomination. For all of the reasons you stated, especially regarding the support for the SOA. The only reason that I'm even considering voting for him is his opposition to the Iraq fiasco even tho' that's somewhat lukewarm.

With the departure of CMB the candidates that I will certainly support in the GE have been cut to 3 with Clark being a maybe.

[TexasSissy]

159. What's wrong with generals?

Eisenhower, Grant, Schwartzkopf, Franks. The least likely people to take us to war, since they've seen their buddies and troops blown up in front of them. When Clark says war is useful only as a last resort, he really means it. He knows what it means. Part of the problem with Bush and Cheney is that war, to them, is an abstract thing. A terrible thing to them, maybe, but not something they've ever had to deal with on a personal level. When they see someone on TV whose arms and legs have been blown off, they don't really empathize in the same way that someone who's been there can.

I think it's commendable to give up $$$ for a military career. Few people would do it.

Being a general doesn't mean automatically that someone would make a great President. But when other attributes are there, the military aspect helps, esp. when we're in a war and a foreign policy mess. Clark is on a first name basis with many foreign leaders because of his NATO experience.

Difference in philosophy and outlook, I guess. BTW, I live in Texas now but am from deep south Louisiana. (And I have never even seen a pickup truck with a confederate flag on it--except on TV once.)

[CivilRightsNow]

162. Are you blind?

Seriously.

I was raised in the south and on any given day I can spot a confederate flagged pickemuptruck.

Even in the "Metro"plex of Dallas.

[depakid]

166. This part of the NorthWest is the anti-war capital of the country

people are suspicious of the military- it comes with the territory. Back in the 60's, our Senators were the first to come out against the Vietnam War. When the US goes off on ill advised (or even half advised) adventures, people riot around here-

[CivilRightsNow]

160. Heh...

I've yet to meet a Texan that was supporting the General out of my Democratic circles.

But then again, I run with educated, intelligent and beautiful people who deplore smoke and mirrors acts.

[Snivi Yllom]

164. ditto

im least confortable with him out of all the candidates.

[CabalBuster]

165. Generals / Military people are not democratic this is contrary to their

training, group mentality. We have the example of Colin Power, by all accounts a decent guy prior to joining the Bush admin and now a yes man. Clark does give me the creeps for this reason alone, how strong could he be if he cannot go against those who are above him? Generals are used to either obeying or laying down orders. The army is a top down system in which Clark has spent most of his life. Can he go against his own training and system of beliefs? We also have the example of military dictatorships all over the world, name one "democratic" general in power if you don't agree with this assessment. Just the term "democratic general" sounds like an oxymoron.