Supreme Allied Commander, now thats impressive

[Democrats unite]

Here is just a little of what a Supreme Allied Commander does. He deals with Military, Social & economic issues.

Any one who doesn't think Clark should tout this in the election is crazy.

"The primary task of SACEUR is to contribute to preserving the peace, security and territorial integrity of Alliance member states. Should aggression occur, or be considered imminent, SACEUR, as Supreme Commander, is responsible for executing all military measures within his capability and authority, to demonstrate Alliance solidarity and preparedness to maintain the integrity of Alliance territory, safeguard freedom of the seas and economic lifelines, and to preserve or restore the security of his Area of Responsibility (AOR)."

http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/hb120701.htm

[Jack_Dawson]

1. Clark is the Smartest Candidate,

that's for sure...

[bearfartinthewoods]

2. here is something else he does...paints a target on the USA

anyone remember when he threw down the gauntlet to al quada?
"If I'm president of the United States, I'm going to take care of the American people,. We are not going to have one of these incidents."


bush says... 'bring 'em on".
clark says.... "We are not going to have one of these incidents."

show me the difference?

[Democrats unite]

3. So whats your point?

We are to cower to fucking terrorists? I don't think so?

on edit: I have no problems whatsoever ptting America's security in the hands of Wesley Clark, over Bush.

[bearfartinthewoods]

7. that's exactly what the freeps said in defense of bush

there is a difference between juvenile machismo and not cowering.


bush says... 'bring 'em on".
clark says.... "We are not going to have one of these incidents."

again i say, show me the difference?

[1monster]

11. 9/11 Should not have happened and could have been prevented.

Under Clinton, there were many terrorist plots that were foiled before they could happen. 9/11 Should have been stopped. The Bush Administration and Intelligence agencies had plenty of information before the event that should have been acted on.

If Clarks says they are not going to happen, then I believe that he is not egging on the terrorists, he is stating that this country will act on information to prevent such happenings as was done before *.

"Bring 'em on" was a (fake) macho taunting of an invaded people who were angry. Two different things entirely.

[Buffler]

13. No responsible candidate

can say that if elected no terrorist attacks will take place on America. It is a promise that can not and should not be made.

[in_cog_ni_to]

22. That's not what he meant.

The whole thing is taken out of context. See previous post.

[Buffler]

24. What he said

is that if elected there would be no terrorist attacks on the US. Period.

Context this, spin that. He said it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. That is EXACTLY what he was saying.

He was saying that Bush had been briefed by the Clinton administration, had ALL of the Bin Ladin warnings and he and his administration shelved it for 9 months! They poo pooed it because it was information coming from that "oh, so inept, Clinton administration."

He was NOT goading the terrorists.

[BootinUp]

16. You must be kidding

"bring em on" is a a direct challenge, and a slang phrase to boot.

The other is a statement of Clark's belief. That statement is not directed to the enemy. It sounded to me like an uplifting statement one would make when faced with a difficult challenge. While I agree that one could argue with his belief, that doesn't mean he doesn't recognize the challenge for what it is. He does have a plan that goes along with the statement.

Bush's bring 'em on statement was intended to be broadcast to the terrorists, I don't have the whole quote but he basically said: Go tell them evildoers to bring 'em on.

[economic justice]

5. Good point

I am a Clark guy, but the "won't happen" incident is one of several lately that have me looking again at my (I thought) decision. As an Army vet, I think Clark's bravado with that statement was extremely dangerous. But, for Clark, it was an attitude that worries me. It's the attitude of the military officer that can do no wrong. The General who gets what he commands - the presidency doesn't work that way. For him to say that was a huge mistake.

[knight_of_the_star]

8. Simple

Bush is sticking his tongue out while hiding behind our soldiers saying, "Na na na na boo boo!"

Clark is drawing a line in the sand and saying, "Thou shalt not cross."

[rbrussell]

15. The Difference as Such

Even though we've attacked him for it- what George Bush said has had zero effect on attacks in Iraq. The resistance there is launching attacks as fast as they can. It was merely a political statement.

Clark's statement is the equivilant of George HW Bush's "read my lips" statement. What happens if there is a terror attack?

George W. Bush would probably not be blamed (nor would another Democrat) for another terror attack, because he's repeatedly warned that there could well be another. People, at least the ones I know, understand and accept this. We cannot secure ourselves against all possible attacks without becoming a true police state, in the Nazi or Soviet sense of the word.

But, by promising that there will be no attacks if he's elected, General Clark is opening himself up to the destruction of his Presidency.

And I, for one, do not believe for a second that 9-11 was preventable with the information on hand and the measures available at the time. Neither do most fair-minded Americans, attacking George W. Bush for failing to prevent 9-11 (when the vast majority of Americans do not hold him responsible) is bad politics for us, folks. It makes us sound as though we're blinded by partisan hatred, as though we hate George Bush more than we hate al-Qaeda, and that we're being unreasonable. 9-11 was planned (and the initial stages executed) when Clinton was the President. Had he been President, it would have happened in exactly the same way. Exactly.

The Clinton folks insistance that they had a plan for dealing with terror might be true in the general sense, but not in specifics. No proposed plan which might plausibly have been adopted would have stopped what happened.

There are things that could have stopped it- but none of them would ever have been adopted pre 9-11 and, in fact, most of them will have yet to be adopted.

[knight_of_the_star]

25. Just to mention it

The attacks on 9/11 were preventable. During the Clinton administration a huge number of attacks directed at American soil were prevented easily, it was something that Al Franken put extra attention to in his most recent book if you want to check. If you look around for specifics, I can't name any off the top of my head at the moment, he was able to prevent dozens of attacks that could have been a 9/11 type of attack simply by the use of actually reading what other countries told us and aggresively hunting down terrorists on US soil. Clark can do the same things that we used then, he can actually fund Homeland Security, not ignore it like Bush, he can keep us safe from attacks. Bush, on the other hand, ignored warnings and failed to act in any way prior to 9/11. Had he not done so, it probably wouldn't have happened. I doubt that this statement will do the same as HW's little tax statement, since it is one that Clark will do everything in his power to fulfill.

[bearfartinthewoods]

18. oh...so he thinks he's 'gandalf"

this is getting better by the minute.

gee....does he bring his magic staff to the oval office?

[knight_of_the_star]

26. That was juvenille

When you have a real response, let me now, as long as it is sometime this year.

[Bonobo]

9. What's the difference?!

Between

Shrub: "Bring 'em on" and

Clark: "We are not going to have one of these incidents."

You asked, so here:
1. one of them is gramatically correct, the other isn't.
2. One is the ignorant, boisterous challenge of an idiot and the other is the measured statement of a statesman who wants to reassure the people, not frighten them.

There's your answer.

[rbrussell]

12. And What Happens...

If, God forbid, he's elected and we have "one of these incidents"? It was a crazy remark to make, at least as 'crazy' as any that Dean ever made. If he breaks out of New Hampshire, the GOP will make him pay for it.

As for his being SACEUR- what we'll be reminded of during the campaign is how he was fired (or, to be technical, forced to retire) for the position for what General Shelton (a Democrat, I understand) called "serious character issues" or something along those lines.

[Democrats unite]

14. I like the play on words

fired = forced to be retired. It helps to stay on topic. Or something along those lines. Thats a laugh. If you don't have the correct quote, you shouldn't use it.

Comparing Dean to Clark is pure crazyness.

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. If you say Clark was "fired"

I would like to see a link to a "direct" quote from Cohen and Shelton, please. I know I won't get a link because one doesn't exist, but if you can find one, would you post it to back up your statement, please?

[StClone]

10. So who said what to make us a target now?

I'd rather hear earnest commitments rather than Bush promises.

[JohnLocke]

21. Yo bearfart.

Lay off Clark. It makes Edwards look bad.

[sandnsea]

4. Defender of the People

First, last and always. No matter who they are or what they do. That's a title worthy of respect and the one John Kerry earned over and over in his lifetime.

[Red_Storm]

6. So why did he vote for the Patriot Act..........

Dennis Kucinich didn't......Defender Of The People, DK for sure......

[sandnsea]

19. Support Kucinich

Whatever. Paul Wellstone voted for the Patriot Act. If it makes you feel good to destroy Democratic candidates, go for it. Take it to the streets. Campaign against them. Make damn sure we get 4 more years of Bush.

150% fed up with this shit.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. Meaning no disrespect but

before I opened this thread I thought the title was sarcastic, and it was an anti-Clark thread.