WesClarkJr begs *elected* Democrats to stand up, slams Bush--SHIT!

[Gloria]

He sounds like me--and I trust this reflect the mood of his father!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/4/05557/82239


Attention, Democrats
by WesClarkJr
Sat Sep 3rd, 2005 at 21:55:57 PDT

I've seen a few comments in the MSM and various blogs that the administration's disastrous performance in New Orleans will somehow chasten the Bush administration and cause it to back off from its more extreme positions.

Fat chance.

George W. Bush believes that he was chosen by God to lead this nation in its darkest hour. Every disaster reconfirms Bush's worldview. God is simply laying bigger and bigger challenges for him to confront and overcome.

* WesClarkJr's diary :: ::
*

Yes, we clearly see that the big problems facing our nation can be traced back to the narcissist in the White House - but Bush cannot. And he never will.

This man, and the corrupt, incompetent, shameless fools he has surrounded himself with can't be reasoned or bargained with. They must be stopped. Enough is enough.

I beseech the elected Democrats who read this blog - stand up and lead.

It is not enough to wait until 2006, you must do something now. How many times will you allow him to lie to your face? How many times will you let him betray our people? How much of the nation's blood and treasure will you let him squander?

Act, and we will follow you. March, and we'll be at your side. Fight, and we've got your back. But for God's sake, do something.

[Blue_In_AK]

1. And may I say, AMEN ...

[roguevalley]

2. The fuckers. Listen to this man. He's telling the truth. I cannot

BELIEVE THE FUCKERS IN OUR PARTY! Tell it Wes. Tell it long and loud. What do we have to do? Hold their families at GUN POINT!?!

[mojavekid]

3. Bush is killing Americans in America,

and the silence from our Dem leaders is deafening.

[Imagevision]

54. The Senator from Louisanna will stand up, maybe Kerry???

[xultar]

4. KICK FOR MY PEOPLE IN NOLA!

[texpatriot2004]

5. Thank you Mr. Clark. I second your plea to the Democrats who

have been elected to stand up against this incompetent madman who is destroying us and our country.

[KT2000]

6. spot on!

change comes from below so we have to call them out like Wes just did.

[FrenchieCat]

7. That Man's got a mouth on him! Wonder where he got it from?

Let's kick some rethuglican Bootey NOW....GODDAMMIT!

There'll be be time next year in 2006.....but what about NOW?

[Vinca]

68. Is that junior??????

Even from the side he's got that "hunkalicious" factor most politicians would kill for. Dad done good.:toast:

[Clarkie1]

8. I saw him speak at a rally outside the California Democratic Convention 04

He always says what's on his mind, he doesn't hold back anything. He's a very good speaker.
Now I'm reminicing about the rally, people in San Jose, CA saying "Who is Clark?"

I dislike the idea of father/son presidencies like the current one, but I have to admit I'd be open to making an exception for Clark/Clark Jr.

[farmboxer]

9. Clark has earned my respect!

Thank you Gen. Clark!!!

[Clark2008]

26. This is Wes Clark JUNIOR - not the General

But, Wes 2.0 got it from somewhere. :7

[Tinoire]

10. First effing time ever

I am recommending a Clark thread.

Don't get too excited guys but Clark has an effing spine- something Democrats are sorely lacking these days. And yes I know it's the son, but I damn well know he's reflecting "the mood of the father".

George Bush- rot in hell.

[Stinky The Clown]

52. Tinoire ... the fruit never falls far from the tree

Look at la famiglia Bush .......

Then consider this fine young man.

[ClayZ]

11. Get it DONE!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!


There better be a DEMOCRATIC SHIT STORM

IN WASHINGTON ON TUESDAY IF NOT SOONER!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:


:kick:

[DELUSIONAL]

12. Good for him

Nice to see another military brat speaking up.

[Califooyah Operative]

13. is that really posted by wes clark jr.

or someone with that as their handle?

anyone know?>

[FrenchieCat]

15. Of course It's him....and he posts there pretty regularily.....

and he also posts here too! Do a search!

Of course it's Wes Clark Jr. The man is hooked into the Internet too much for someone to go around inpersonating him by posting Diaries at KOS. KOS ain't no fool who would just allow that.

Plus I have met Wes Jr., and that's how he talks.

The General reads blogs and blogs too, and was at TMP all of this week posting....and responding. The first poster at table one to actually respond to questions within the thread......according to Josh Marshall.

[Robeson]

14. I'm starting to actually consider Clark....

...there were no nuanced words in those statements.

[spuddonna]

16. I agree. The dems need to SCREAM about this shameful

incompetence! It's disgusting...

[jfern]

17. Who's got the spine?

Dennis Kuninch
John Conyers

Who else?

[Lindsay]

25. The rest of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Well, most of 'em, anyway.

[Totally Committed]

46. Wes Clark, Barbara Boxer, Al Gore...

a hell of a lot of the Cngressional Black Congress, sometimes, Ted Kennedy...

TC

[NoFederales]

18. The words are comforting as is the message to do something. Given

the incompetence of * , there is vast extremist control. A question to consider is who are you willing to follow against the corporatists and are you willing to sacrifice, to perhaps take up arms, and recapture your country? Like someone said, * is killing Americans in America. . . .

NoFederales

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. Bush: Leading us INTO darkness.

[Totally Committed]

20. God Bless him for every word, every syllable....

I could not agree more.

Excerpt from NOW news release this morning:

"We've watched the Senate repeatedly 'go along to get along' with President Bush, and the results have been calamitous - from a costly war that was based on lies, to breaking the federal budget so that the rich could have their tax cuts.

"And in my home state of Louisiana right now, we see the fatal consequences of both of those disastrous decisions - the Army Corps of Engineers levee project budget was slashed, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was stripped of its planning functions, the National Guard was shipped to Iraq, the divide expanded between rich and poor, and the people of Louisiana and Mississippi are paying price for this administration's absurd decisions and Congress' acquiescence.

"Have our senators learned anything yet? They've seen the damage that George Bush's policy of government-stripping has wrought in the executive branch (like putting an inexperienced crony in charge of FEMA and starting to privatize the agency) and now he has an unprecedented opportunity to mold the judicial branch for generations with a new Chief Justice and two new justices. Will they let him turn our highest court into another disaster for the American people? It's up to the legislative branch to find its backbone and 'just say no' to nominees who will further harm our country.

"With two lifetime appointments, George W. Bush could not only upset the delicate balance on this Supreme Court, but also extend his right-wing ideology and disregard for individual rights to the third branch of government - the judiciary - thus guaranteeing second-class status for girls and women in the U.S. for decades. Senators must demand full disclosure of all of the writings and opinions of every nominee, and must commit to filibuster any nominee who does not clearly support our rights."

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=52619


This posting could not be more timely or welcome. Will our *elected* Democrats desert us now, and leave US to "fend for ourselcves"? If so, they need to GO!


TC

[nookiemonster]

21. I agree Wes.

Any Dem that stands by the sidelines is complicit. Period.

[thinkingwoman]

22. kick!

They (national elected Democrats)have to lead, or get out of the way. Following is not an option!

We must let them know this with phone calls, faxes, etc. No more enablers get our votes!

[windbreeze]

73. We should not have to tell

those Democratic leaders of ours, what to do...They should already know, and be doing it...and anyone who isn't...isn't a leader..and needs replaced!!! This is one of the reasons we are in this mess right now...
windbreeze

[Joe Chi Minh]

23. It certainly looks like the time

for aggressive attacks on the DOP (Disgraced Old Party) on all of the many fronts that merit it.

[Clark2008]

24. I love the mouth on that man.

He curses, but he uses it effectively.

A lot of people just sound like they lack for words when they do that, but he uses it as more of a "one, two punch."

You go, Wes 2 point Oh!

[Adelante]

27. He's a pottymouth

Just like all good Clarkies :)

[Clark2008]

29. LOL... I am, too, but only when I drive.

Then I cuss like a motherf*cker. :D

[Totally Committed]

28. And the courage to speak up is genetic, as well...

In Wes, Jr., the apple has not fallen far from the tree.

TC

[rhett o rick]

30. Isn't "Elected Demo's standing up" an oxymoron? nt

[DeepModem Mom]

31. IMAGINE if a Dem President had failed like this -- they ALWAYS attack...

attack, attack, and it works. What the hell do we have left to lose by demanding that these people be held accountable? We are, after all, the political opposition in what is supposed to be a democracy.

[lateo]

32. Wes Clark is my new hero.

We need people like him leading us.

[welshTerrier2]

33. by what logic ??

by what logic are the words of the son ascribed to the father? how often do we see great differences within families on views, values and strategies?

we hear what we want to hear; we believe what we want to believe ...

without hearing Clark say these words himself, we are left with little more than speculation ...

i asked the General, just this past week, to speak of the corruption of this administration and its "profits before people" driven policies ... General Clark's answer fell far short of the mark ...

perhaps it is true that the son is mirroring the true feelings of his father, but until General Clark joins the real battle, all that provides us with is the hope that someday he may rise to the challenge ... perhaps the son's words are really directed to his father for that very reason ...

[Clark2008]

36. Dear God... you're never satisfied, are you?

I used to think you'd think through things, but I notice that you just nit-pick, now.

No one - NO ONE - in the political arena has spoken out on this issue harder than Wes Clark Sr. Granted, these words by the son are a little more harsh, but he's not necessarily promoting unity among the Dems like his father is. There SHOULD be two factions: those who don't want to bad-mouth Dems in the spirit of working together to come up with plans and make progress and those who need to question.

[welshTerrier2]

37. Clark's response to me was totally inadequate

if you want to address that reality by criticizing me, enjoy yourself ...

and giving Clark Sr. any credit for what his son said, as some in this thread have done, is absurd ...

and btw, other than my comment about corruption in the bush WH, i made no comment whatsoever about Clark Sr.'s statements on NO ...

[Texas_Kat]

64. WKC, Jr and Wes Clark Sr both speak their minds

WKC, Sr has always been an advocate of speaking freely.... including encouraging his son to have his own opinions.

BUT! I will reiterate what others have said on this thread. If you think that there is the slightest difference in the palpable anger that both WKC Sr and Wes Jr have expressed by the utter incompetence of the Bush admin, you haven't been paying attention.

In addition, I'm sure both feel the same about the lack of effective response by leading Democrats (note an exception in WKC, Jr.'s dKos diary praise for Gore).

IF THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE, leading Democrats need to defend state and local officials (who are being swiftboated by the BUSH administration). They need to point out out the failure of Homeland Security, FEMA and the B* admin to fund, prepare for and implement disaster planning and emergency response.

Who is asking "Where did all the money go, if it didn't go for emergency response plans?"
Who is asking "Why did FEMA divert and prevent private resources from reaching NO?"

Why aren't leading Democrats saying "Don't you DARE blame local governments for the failure of the national government to respond to a disaster they were created to respond to......"

Is it because the 'leading Dems' went along with gutting FEMA? Is it because they're afraid?

Before I vote for another national (or statewide) candidate for office, New Orleans will be the benchmark. Anyone not capable of dealing with an event of this magnitude doesn't deserve being elected.

NO more .... Never again..... I've had enough.

[Clark2008]

72. And *I* was the one who pointed out upthread that it was junior

not senior who said it.

But, given I know both of them, I also know their thinking is similar. WKC Jr. just uses a stronger tone than his father. That's the way they are.

My criticism of you is how you are never satisfied with what ANYONE is doing. I don't enjoy it. I'm just tired of it.

[Totally Committed]

38. Clark2008, I think what we need to remember is this:

Not everyone has had the honor of getting to "know" Wes (or, both of them, actually) through campaigning for/with them. Not everyone has the context of knowing their character, and how alike they are in many ways. They don't know the closeness of the relatonship the way those of us who campaigned for Wes, Sr., in 2004 do.

This is a plain-talking, extremely honest family. A lot of people have been made so cynical by "politicians" that they can't believe that with this family, what you get from them is closely indicative of what they are thinking.

As more people get to know the Clarks (Gert's a corker, too!), they will come to trust the sincerity, and the honesty expressed, and the compassion and intelligence shown by them.

TC

[Clark2008]

74. I understand that, TC. I know most people don't know him.

I also know many here don't know the Clark's as intimately as we do and don't know what we know about them.

But, the lack of knowledge is not Welsh's problem. He/she SHOULD know him by now. We've tried and tried and tried to provide him/her with the links he/she needs and, yet, despite the fact, in this particular case, that Clark has made the strongest statements against Bush's handling of the NOLA disaster, by far - it's not enough in Welsh's mind.

Either Welsh is going to support Clark or he's not, but we've given him/her ample information.

[FrenchieCat]

53. WT2, I believe that you are being unreasonable

in your righteous condemnation of General Clark.

First of all you didn't submit a question, you submitted a small essay, but be that it may.....

Second, has anyone else answered your essay in the manner that you desire.....answered your question at all (some of the leading Dems) in a public forum or in an email? What about John Edwards, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Mark Warner, and others? I would suggest that you email them each that question (if you haven't already), and then let us know how they answered. I realize that this doesn't take the General off of your hook, but it would provide some degree or comparison as to what others are willing to do for you.

Third, at the time you weren't quite as distainful although you did point out fact that he didn't answer each portions of your long ass question. But then you appeared to be more understanding to the extent that although not to your satisfaction there was some merits to what he did say although it was less than you expected.

But now, things seem to have "changed".

If what you had in mind was to ask a question of this nature and then use the fact that the question was not answered as fully as you obviously "wanted", then I'm gonna call you on your "gotcha"....because now, you are going around on the Internet and in effect dissing the General. Makes one wonder had he just ignored your dissertation (like most politician would have) whether he would have end up being in better shape for it. If so, that's a sad commentary and does lend one to ask your current intent, based on the reaction that you are now displaying.

Why don't you write to him, refresh his memory of the question, his answer, and tell him why it didn't satisfy you. Why don't you do some follow up on this.....instead of using it against him in such a negative way.

What I came away from Clark's answer to you was this.....yes, oil is one of the geopolitical reasons that we went in, and no, we shouldn't be fighting for it, we should be buying it. Yes, Oil is a commodity that gives the Middle East its strategic value, and until we develop alternate sources of energy, which is what we should be doing, it will remain that way, especially considering the current leadership. However, regardless of the reasons that we went in, the issue of what do we do now, is the most pressingt. I don't recommend that we just leave Iraq in an unstable state (even if our reasons for going in were nefarious) and don't look back at whatever carnarge ensues as we walk away....I think we need to do what we can to shore things up over there, and then we can walk away. Considering what we've done up to this point, it's the least that we can do.

Here's your question essay that you asked the General to answer....

WELSHTERRIER2'S ORIGINAL QUESTION:
Hello General Clark. I can't thank you enough for participating in this forum. This is exactly the way democracy should work. Those on the national stage have become far too distant from the American people.

In an earlier response, you stated: "I believe that we should be out of Iraq as soon as possible, but to come out, we need to do the work that will promote our interests in the region to the best of our ability. This means setting up an Iraqi state and working with Iraq's neighbors to defuse further conflicts and strife in the region."

The question I have is "What exactly are "our" interests and exactly whose interests are really being served by continued occupation?"

Those who call for a stabilized Iraq presumably do so for several key
reasons:

1. it's the right thing to do for the Iraqi people
2. it will promote regional stability
3. it may reduce the risk of terrorism in the US.

All of these are noble objectives. But I don't believe any of these is the genuine objective of Bush and the neo-cons.

The signs have been very clear. First, we saw a veritable parade of
justifications for the invasion of Iraq. A leaked memo reported by CBS news the afternoon of 9/11 showed that, after being presented with extensive information about Al Qaeda, Rumsfeld asked whether there was sufficient justification to go after Saddam regardless of whether doing so was "related or not". The Downing Street Minutes also show a propensity to go to war on false premises and "fix the facts around the policy".

So, the question becomes, if we, the American people, support further
efforts in Iraq, as you have called for, what assurances are there that the mission is not furthering "inappropriate objectives"?

To be more direct, I want to discuss American imperialism and the foreign policy abuses of America's oil cartel. The oil industry has been realizing record profits since the war in Iraq began. The close ties of the oil industry to the Bush administration are undeniable. Perhaps those on the right might even argue that the acquisition of oil, even through the use of warfare, is in "our interest". But if that is the real reason this war is being prosecuted by this administration, and I believe it is, such issues should be put before the American people for their consent. I, for one, do
not approve of such conduct especially where the benefits seem to accrue to commercial interests and not the interests of the American people.

Furthermore, we see disturbing signs of long-term occupation. First, we see the construction of permanent military bases. I don't accept the idea that such structures are needed for the protection of our troops. What evidence is there that our troops need these more permanent installations? Most of those killed or wounded seem to incur their injuries while in transit. The troops should clearly be provided with whatever security is needed but permanent military bases send the wrong signal.

I believe, given the corruption of the Bush administration and their
imperialist goals for "big oil", that calling for more occupation does nothing but further their objectives. While the goals you believe in for Iraq could, in the right circumstances, benefit the American people, I don't think they are achievable given the amount of damage already done by this administration to America's image nor are they achievable with an administration that is not committed to "our interest" in the first place.

I would be very interested to hear your comments about American imperialism, big oil, windfall profits taxes, the corrupting of our government by powerful corporate lobbyists, and the whole discussion about who really is being served by our policy in Iraq.

Again, I can't thank you enough for participating with "the little people". I'm confident that these exchanges will result in a more educated populace and more educated leaders for our country.

GENERAL CLARK'S ANSWER
Hi welshTerrier2--

Without question, oil is one of many interests that the United States has in the Middle East. Oil is what gives the region much of its significance. But oil is important to America. Until we develop energy independence, we're going to be dependent on imported oil and, increasingly, natural gas.

America's economic strategy with respect to oil is that it is a commodity, and the people that have it want to sell it because they need the money. So our primary approach until developing energy independence should be, if we need it, to buy it - rather than having to fight for it.

Were we to pull out precipitously from Iraq, and destabilize the emerging political efforts there, the consequences would likely be a steep jump in the price of oil and hardship for millions of Americans as a consequence. But the consequences and thus our interests go beyond oil. As I said in my comment to Jai, potential for a civil war in Iraq would be high if we leave before there's an agreement and the militias disarm. But it might not just be civil war, because the Kurds will likely declare independence, which would bring in the Turks and Iranians as well.

So though I was absolutely against going into Iraq, now that we're there it's critically important that we get out in the right way. That means helping Iraq put a new democratic government in place, develop the security forces it needs to defend itself, and ensure that the needs and interests of America and all nations in the Middle East are respected in the process, to minimize future regional conflicts. It's up to the Bush Administration to ensure that happens, and up to the rest of us to hold their feet to the fire
until they act.

Wes

your commentaries on his answers here....
WELSCHTERRIER2'S REACTION....
"buy it - rather than having to fight for it" i have no time right now to respond to General Clark's post in greater detail ...

An honest answer to my question that alleges US imperialism
as the root cause for the Iraq invasion would likely have been political suicide ... of course, it would also have been the truth that the American people need to hear ... now there's a paradox for our leaders ... they can't win if they say the truth and they can't help solve the greatest issue facing this country if they do ...

i wonder whether General Clark's statement about oil and energy
independence that we should "buy it - rather than having to fight for it" was as close as he dared get to hinting at the truth ... it would truly have been momentous if he had acknowledged that this was indeed the motivation for this insane war ...
----------
So why don't follow up by emailing the General. It can't hurt, and if fact, it may get you an answer that might satisfy you more.....

If find that just dissing the General without any details is kinda cheap myself. :hi:

[welshTerrier2]

76. let's take a tip toe back thru what i wrote ...

i'm beyond fed up with those who make personal remarks about my "never being satisfied" ... and so i'll just let them go their way and i'll go mine ... i could just as easily call them things like "Clark suck ups" who seem to display no independent reasoning and just always go along with whatever Clark says ... but i won't waste my time with such drivel ...

to you FrenchieCat, let's go back and look at my post ... i think your response was far more respectful (mostly), or at least analytical, but also was not responsive ...

here was the post you responded to ... you've badly misinterpreted what i wrote:

by what logic are the words of the son ascribed to the father? how often do we see great differences within families on views, values and strategies?

we hear what we want to hear; we believe what we want to believe ...

without hearing Clark say these words himself, we are left with little more than speculation ...

i asked the General, just this past week, to speak of the corruption of this administration and its "profits before people" driven policies ... General Clark's answer fell far short of the mark ...

perhaps it is true that the son is mirroring the true feelings of his father, but until General Clark joins the real battle, all that provides us with is the hope that someday he may rise to the challenge ... perhaps the son's words are really directed to his father for that very reason ...

let's go through this point-by-point ... i'll try to clarify my intent; you let me know if you agree or disagree ...

1. it seemed to me many were applauding General Clark for statements that his son made ... clearly the son's tone, and his words too, went beyond anyplace I've heard Clark Sr. go ... is this reasonable to you? now whether you either know or believe that Clark Sr. feels exactly as his son does or not, I have no way of know that ... is this acceptable to you that I see a significant difference in both tone and content between Jr. and Sr. ... you may know Sr. much better than I do; but I see a substantial difference in tone ...

why do I say that? because I've never heard Sr. say anything even close to this: "This man, and the corrupt, incompetent, shameless fools he has surrounded himself with can't be reasoned or bargained with. They must be stopped." should I know better? has he ever spoken out in terms or tone like that? educate me ... so that was the first point i made and why i made it ...

2. ok, point 2 ... i wrote: "without hearing Clark say these words himself, we are left with little more than speculation ..."

is there anything wrong with making the observation that i had no basis to assume that Clark felt the same way as his son?

3. i talked about my exchange with General Clark, specifically about the issue of corruption and "profits before people" ... the issue of corruption was raised by Clark Jr. and my comment focussed directly on the fact that Clark Jr. explicitly used this phrase and that the General did not respond at all to my raising this very point with him in my TPM exchange ... is there something inaccurate about pointing out the fact that the General did NOT respond to the issue of corruption or American imperialism? do you think that he was responsive to this specific point? if you think General Clark was responsive, educate me ... Clark never gave any indication, at least none I could find, that he acknowledged the corruption in the bush administration and the infestation of corporations into our foreign policy ...

4. i wrote: "perhaps it is true that the son is mirroring the true feelings of his father, but until General Clark joins the real battle, all that provides us with is the hope that someday he may rise to the challenge ..." (note my closing paragraph - this is why i participate on DU) ... what did I mean by saying that Clark had not joined the real battle? I've written about what i consider to be the real battle many times ... the real battle is about fighting to restore our democracy ... the real battle is ousting the corporatists from our government so that our government serves the interests of the American people rather than solely catering to vested corporate interests ... Clark absolutely did not provide a single word that proved he accepts the premise that corporations are controlling our government and that it is solely their interests being catered to by American foreign policy ...

i believe that encompasses everything i wrote in my post and that's as clearly as i can explain my post point-by-point ...

now, you used certain phrases in your post characterizing what i wrote ... i did not appreciate the following nor have i responded in this post in kind:

1. "righteous condemnation" - show me righteous in what i wrote ...
2. "you didn't submit a question" - yes, i did ... in fact, i submitted three ... here is the first phrased as a question: "The question I have is "What exactly are "our" interests and exactly whose interests are really being served by continued occupation" ... and another: "So, the question becomes, if we, the American people, support further efforts in Iraq, as you have called for, what assurances are there that the mission is not furthering "inappropriate objectives"?" ... and finally a third, phrased as a request for his opinion: "I would be very interested to hear your comments about American imperialism, big oil, windfall profits taxes, the corrupting of our government by powerful corporate lobbyists, and the whole discussion about who really is being served by our policy in Iraq." ... for you to suggest that i just wrote a "small essay" and didn't ask a question is just not right ...
3. "long ass question" - sorry ... i didn't know you had such strong feelings about what the length of a question should be ... i'll ask the question any way i want to ... the forum had a moderator who could have rejected my post if he felt it was either too long or inappropriate for some other reason ... i viewed the forum as an "exchange"; not a one way street ...
4. You wrote: "But now, things seem to have "changed"". ... first, the more i've looked at General Clark's response over time, the more I realized that he really didn't respond at all to the essence of my post ... so, yes, things have changed ... i will tell you that i had extensive private correspondence on my post and that many Clarkies and many non-Clarkies were very disappointed with the General's response ... what i wrote publically was not fully indicative of the (negative) feelings i had at the time ... even at the outset, i was very disappointed ...
5. you wrote: "because now, you are going around on the Internet and in effect dissing the General." ... i am ??? really? all around the Internet?? have i posted anything publically anywhere but on DU? the truth is, i might ... but the truth is, i haven't yet ...
6. you wrote: "If (sic) find that just dissing the General without any details is kinda cheap myself." ... dissing? without any details? you consider being critical of General Clark on the very specific point that he has not called bush corrupt, as his son did, and not acknowledging that our foreign policy is being driven for the benefit of the oil industry, as i did, as dissing without any details? first, i don't consider that dissing at all ... i consider it telling the truth ... and second, how can you possibly allege that my criticism was not based on "details" ... two words: corruption and imperialism ... two criticisms: Clark, at least to my knowledge, has not used either of them ... dissing? no ... criticizing ... no details? did he use these terms to express his views? if he has, educate me ...

two last points ... you provide a list of other candidates and asked me to compare their responsiveness to Clark's ... i couldn't agree with this point more ... as i said in my post on TPM (and i meant it very sincerely), doing what Clark did taking questions from the public is exactly the way democracy should work ... i have frequently criticized all elected leaders, except Feingold (who frequently holds public forums in his state), for failing to "exchange views" in readily accessible public forums ... so i commend the General for participating on TPM and i am critical of those who don't ...

and finally, with regard to the "fucking reaction" my post here received from several people, i thought the reaction was highly inappropriate ... i've been more than respectful to many of you Clarkies and expect nothing less in return ... if our discourse is to stray from the issues and focus on loaded terms and phrases like "righteous", "you're never satisfied, are you", "going around the Internet dissing", and "big ass", then so be it ... one thing's for sure, i'll be responding to posts like those in kind in the future ...

in closing, i'll tell you that i believe you misconstrued my post ... my "real goal" is to get Democrats, even one Democrat, to stand up and explicitly tell the American people that our government has been infested with corporate interests ... what i hope to do is convince the Democratic Party that if we don't tell the American people the truth, whatever victory we might win, while appreciated, will not change the status quo ... my goal is NOT to diss Wes Clark but i will remain critical, NOT of him as a person, but of his failure to address what i believe is the most important issue ... that is my objective ... just so you understand, from my perspective, to accuse me of dissing General Clark because i am critical of him, and virtually every other elected Democrat on this issue, is absurd ... it is NOT my purpose and those who level such allegations do NOT understand my motives ...

that's as clear as i can be ... let there be peace ... or war ... whichever you and the other Clarkies prefer ... my objectives are my objectives; if you think me inappropriate then we will battle ... if you understand my motives, perhaps we will be allies ... that would be my preference but it is not my choice to make ...

[Catfight]

34. This should be little w's last photo op...he's drowned in hubris. nt

[1932]

35. Calls for leadership must be coupled with clear argument about ideology

that we believe our elected representatives should express.

This may be a fine point, but I want my elected officials to march to our tune.

The problem isn't so much a weakness of leadership in America as it is the ideology of the current leadership.

Americans believe in lending a helping hand, and I'm thinking that we should start thinking about the extreme polarizations of wealth being a product of an ideology of greed in which we don't believe.

We deserve a government that reflects our values and not the values of a small group of very rich people who are running this country today.

[Mr Rabble]

39. kick. nt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

40. .......

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[senseandsensibility]

41. When I post stuff like this on DU

the play nice "chess" crowd gives me grief. Go, Wes, Jr.! I love Wes Clark (and now his son) because of their courage and their ability to call these freaks who "run" our country on their lies! May they keep doing it, may the othe Dems learn from them, and may some DUers realize that this kind of talking is long overdue.

[madmax]

42. A chip off the old block. I love them both. n/t

[mcscajun]

43. Amen, brother!

And I'm an atheist.

Please let something actually Happen this time. The country cannot survive too much more of the BFEE: lying gutless wonders masquerading as leaders.

If Democratic officials don't stand up now, we are truly lost.

[fooj]

44. The Revolution has begun...

Peace.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

45. These are the words we want our leaders to speak

Clark and Conyers, Al Gore, Pres Carter, Barbara Boxer,
THE Entire Black Caucas. These are the folks who
fight for Democracy! Take a cue DLC'ers

[Lena inRI]

47. Add Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. . .

WesJr reminds us to keep on punching back.

And EVEN if the Bush Crime Family fixes 2006 and 2008, we start now to push back so that by the elections we're organized to overwhelm them.

As Frank Rich said today (NYT), our swelling numbers will become "as UNCONTROLLABLE as the surging of Lake Pontchartrain."

:grouphug:

[Totally Committed]

48. Clark/Clark '08????

*just kidding*

But, it would be nice to have a team with two working mouths, spines, and hearts on the same ticket, wouldn't it?

TC

[Lena inRI]

50. Hiya, TC, you're still plugging away I see. . .

though I only come up for air sporadically, too. . .still fuming about 2004 politics.

How about WesJr as President Wesley Clark's press secretary. . .now there you have a doable scenario!

Oooooooooh pleeeeeeeeeeeze God, make it be Clark/? in 2008 presented by Press Secretary Wesley Clark, Jr.!

:kick:

[Totally Committed]

51. I try. As much as I can for as long as I can...

and when I can't anymore, I won't!

Nice to see you, Lena. And nice to see RobbedVoter here, too. I miss the old days when I "saw" you both all the time!

:hi: Lena!


:hi: RobbedVoter!


TC

[Lena inRI]

55. Likewise, TC. . .

:hug:

Stay strong.

[robbedvoter]

49. Go Wes Jr! Always to the point.

[StellaBlue]

56. Is Wes Clark Jr married?

Because I'll have his children!

[Totally Committed]

58. Yes, and he and his wife just had their second baby! n/t

TC

[StellaBlue]

60. Dammit!

Well, it gives us hope, anyway.

:9

[JNelson6563]

57. "I beseech the elected Democrats who read this blog"

You must be joking. Ugh.

[Totally Committed]

59. Not everyone's style, but I like it! n/t

TC

[JNelson6563]

62. Not style I'm talkin' about

it was the vanity. Does Jr really think elected officals are reading his blog? Methinks someone's being paged to the reflecting pool...."Return, we beseech thee!" heh

Julie

[Totally Committed]

66. They (or rather, their staffers) read Kos, DU, MyDD, TPM Cafe, and

a lot of other blogs to get a handle on what's going on. When they see something they think they should share, they pass it on.

I know that because I had blog posts I wrote during the campaign quoted, nearly verbatim, by a couple of candidates. A friend of mine owns an online Group where the membership is blocked so the people who post there won't know that about 25%+ of the registered users are Democrtatic Party operatives, staffers, or the candidates, themselves.

They read what we're saying, they just don't act on it often.

Wes campaigned hard with and for his father. A lot of journalists and politicos know him personally because of that. I trust him to be the savvy one about what he writes, and knowing if there is an audience for it.

TC

[Texas_Kat]

67. Maybe politicians aren't reading..... but journalists damn sure are.

Doesn't it say worlds about those 'elected officials'?

Wes Clark Sr. DOES read dKos when he can.... bet on it.

My question about the other 'leading democrats".... "Why don't they?" even occasionally. Don't tell me they're too busy... spend 24 hours with Wes Clark and they'd understand 'busy".

Oh yeah.... Traditional democrats definition of grassroots ...... "ATM".

Pitiful!

[NCarolinawoman]

78. My Congressman has posted at Kos.

It wasn't a diary. He just made a couple of comments like most
of the other posters. I stumbled across his name, and was
happily surprised.

[Zhade]

61. "I beseech the elected Democrats who read this blog - stand up and lead."

Regardless of my qualms about Clark, this is a damn good point.

[brentspeak]

63. Now that's the way to say it. Thank you, Wes

[graywarrior]

65. Give 'em hell, Wesley!

[FrenchieCat]

69. Kick!

:kick:

[genius]

70. I like him better than his father. Is he considering running for office?

[FrenchieCat]

71. Nice thing to say........

I hope he appreciates that!

By the way Genius, did you ever read Clark 9/14/01 Op-ed that appeared in the WAPO detailing what should have been done in reference to terrorist right after 9/11?

In not, you should.

It might help you see that Wes Clark is one of the good guys, and always has been.

It's right here. :hi:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x122187

[Totally Committed]

75. Said this before..... Clark/Clark '08 ????

This is a family that is a Three-fer!

:rofl:

TC

[ChiciB1]

77. I'm Beginning To Wonder If There ARE Any Democrats!

But WE must fight on and keep at it! Time to MARCH and show who WE are. The REAL America!!

Of course, I know there are a few Dems, but pretty scarce... maybe that's why the Repukes are so sure they can PR they're way out of this.

We're just gonna have to show them something else! Jesus was a LIBERAL!

[Auntie Bush]

79. I agree! But I still think we should wait at least until the dead are

buried before we stand up and start fight the bastards. The media will change the subject from how horrible bush* and the Rethugs are to how horrible those Dems are for making this tragedy political. I'm all for shouting loudly after the rescue operation is complete and the dead are buried. Then we should ALL join hands and hold their feet to the fire till they're burned to a crisp up to their eyeballs!

[robbedvoter]

82. The dead are still not buried because of the BFEE racism.

That's the point!

[Gregorian]

80. Like father, like son. But in a good way.

Wes Clark, you've done well. Both of you.

I know good people when I hear them. Thank you for speaking out. (He must be reading DU.)

[Independent_Liberal]

81. Kick!