A blast from the past: Clark tears Perle and Hunter a new one

[returnable]

My man Wes Clark was called to testify before the House Armed Services Committee, and testify he did. Dammit, he really, REALLY should've been president.

First he slapped around neocon war stooge Richard Perle for bungling the operation. Then he turned his sights on one of the committee members.

From the Washington Post:

In retrospect, Clark's forecasts proved more accurate than Perle's, and even Republicans on the committee made little effort yesterday to defend Perle or to undermine Clark.

The exception was Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who pressed Clark to acknowledge that the Iraq invasion should get some credit for signs of democracy in the region.

"We've got to do a lot less crowing about the sunrise," Clark rejoined.

When Hunter's GOP colleagues didn't join his line of questioning, he took another turn grilling Clark. The chairman likened President Bush's Middle East policiesto those of President Ronald Reagan in Eastern Europe.

"Reagan never invaded Eastern Europe," Clark retorted.

In another try, Hunter said Clark was "overstating" the risk in challenging other countries in the Middle East. Clark smiled and showed his trump card -- reminding Hunter of their exchange at the 2002 hearing . "I kept saying time was on our side," Clark said. "I could never quite satisfy you."

As for who proved correct, the general said, "I'll let the record speak for itself."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32440-2005Apr6.html

Wes in 2008. Your guy or gal is just a pretender.

[returnable]

1. Where are the haters now?

huh?

:kick:

[wiley]

5. What's to hate about Wes Clark?

[formercia]

6. He authorized the use of DU munitions in Bosnia.

http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2004/01/wesley_clark_to.html

January 13, 2004
Wesley Clark toes the line on Depleted Uranium

A little while ago I posted concerning a March 2003 DOD briefing on depleted uranium: Depleted reasoning about depleted uranium. In spite of the large and increasing body of evidence that the use of DU has long-term devastating environmental and health effects (in which case its use in weapons violates the Geneva convention) the US is still using DU, and attempting to "explain away" protests as, for example, being motivated by those who stand to suffer from the use of DU munitions:

COL. NAUGHTON: Well, you need to look at the environment of the context where people are asking us questions -- who's asking the question? The Iraqis tell us terrible things happened to our people because you used it last time. Why do they want it to go away? They want it to go away because we kicked the crap out of them -- okay?

Of course, Clark was supreme commander of NATO, and DU was used all over Kosovo and Bosnia. Back in Spring 2001, Clark was interviewed by the New Perspectives Quarterly in re the "furor" that had arisen in Europe over the illness of Italian and other soldiers said to be exposed to the depleted uranium weapons NATO used. So guess where the "conspiracy theory" of DU's negative effects comes from?

[Texas_Kat]

7. Actually Clinton authorized it

and by extension- Al Gore. When you begin telling the whole story, and attribute responsibility where it belongs -- on the politicians who fund and authorize weapons for the military -- your 'argument' is lame.

[formercia]

16. The Balkan campaign was a NATO operation

Gen. Clark was the NATO commander, thus in command of the operation.

Do you have any evidence that Bill Clinton gave the order to use Depleted Uranium munitions in the Balkans?

[Texas_Kat]

45. OK, obviously you don't know

Rules of Engagement is not just a phrase. Before any military operation, the rules that state which weapons are to be used, under what circumstances and 'against' which targets are spelled out -- in writing -- for large scale weapons as well as for 'troop behavior'.

Yes, Clark wore 2 hats during Kosovo, BUT NATO is not allowed to violate its member countries' acceptable 'rules of engagement'.

It is the Commander-in-Chief's job to approve or disapprove these rules of engagement for the US. All evidence indicates that the Clinton administration carried out their responsiblities on this issue.

Here are some various resources concerning rules of engagment in Kosovo:
http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/subject-listing/histcon15.html

Clinton Letter to Congress on U.S. Forces in Kosovo
http://www.usembassy.it/file2000_06/alia/a0061602.htm

Did you really think the President just says "Use whatever you want....just win the war...." ?

Oh, well .... maybe you're using the Bush yardstick to measure the performance of a real President ..... you should know better. ;-)

[formercia]

102. I know a lot more than I would let on here

but then that's for the courts to decide.

[Auntie Bush]

14. By that analysis...you should fire every one in the military

who has ever shot a gun or dropped a bomb because they are all equally responsible. Then see who's left to defend you and me! It isn't the Generals that are responsible for us using DU...It's the DoD and the politicians that fund them decide which weapons to use. Clark would have been dismissed faster than that fly on your steak if he had refused.

Also, we didn't really KNOW in those days that DU was so ...so give the man a break! He was doing his job for the president...and I might remind you he was retired early because he disagreed with B. Cohen as he wanted ground troops rather than all that high altitude bombing. Wasn't his fault! Don't forget he won that war without a single American soldier being killed! Now that is an accomplishment that deserves praise!

[formercia]

15. The DU was not used in high altitude bombing

http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/duworld.htm

BOSNIA

There is a growing awareness of the use of weapons containing DU by U.S. and British NATO forces in Bosnia. There were over 4,000 bombing sorties by NATO forces against Bosnian Serb position in the summer and fall of 1995. Many of the attacks were launched by A-10 aircraft situated onboard US aircraft carriers stationed in the Adriatic Sea. The A-10 Warthog fires 4,200 30 mm rounds a minute. Each 30 mm round contains a 300 - gram DU core.

The armor and the ammunition of U.S./NATO tank units stationed through out Bosnia also contain DU, so do the landmines that have been extensively planted around NATO bases. This will have a devastating impact on the civilian population of all the nationalities in the Balkans for generations to come.


Unless he has changed his position, General Clark still defends the use of Depleted Uranium munitions.

If he felt that the use of DU munitions was improper, he should have stated so in a letter to Clinton.

[Auntie Bush]

110. "he should have stated so in a letter to Clinton". How do you

know he didn't? But he isn't in charge of what kind of ammunition the pentagon buys for our armed forces. That's not his job! His job is to follow orders of the C-i-C etc. I really think you are putting an unfair amount of blame on his shoulders. No?

[formercia]

133. It's his responsibility to refuse an illegal order

The Nuremburg defense won't hold up in court.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense

The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl") and is therefore not responsible for his crimes. The defense was most famously employed during the Nuremberg Trials, after which it is named.

Before the end of World War II, the Allies suspected such a defense might be employed, and issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which specifically stated that this was not a valid defense against charges of war crimes.

The United States military adjusted the Uniform Code of Military Justice after World War II. They included a rule nullifying this defense, essentially stating that American military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders. This defense is still used often, however, reasoning that an unlawful order presents a dilemma from which there is no legal escape. One who refuses an unlawful order will still probably be jailed (and in some countries probably killed), and one who accepts one will probably be jailed.

The defense was employed during the court martial of William Calley following the My Lai Massacre in 1968. The defense has also been used to defend soldiers during the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal.

[dogman]

141. What was the illegal order?

When was DU made illegal?

[formercia]

142. copied in full with permission from the author:

Depleted Uranium Situation Requires Action
By President Bush and Prime Minister Blair
Dr. Doug Rokke, Ph.D.
former Director, U.S. Army Depleted Uranium project
January 6, 2006



While U.S. and British military personnel continue using illegal
uranium munitions- America's and England's own "dirty bombs" U.S. Army, U.S. Department
of Energy, and U.S. Department of Defense officials continue to deny that there are any adverse health and environmental effects as a consequence ofthe manufacture, testing, and/or use of uranium munitions to avoid liability for the willful and illegal dispersal of a radioactive toxicmaterial - depleted uranium. They arrogantly refuse to comply with their own regulations, orders, and directives that require United States Department of Defense officials to provide prompt and effective medical care "all"
exposed individuals . They also refuse to clean up dispersed radioactive Contamination as required by Army Regulation- AR 700-48:
"Management of Equipment Contaminated With Depleted Uranium or
Radioactive Commodities" (Headquarters, Department Of The Army, Washington, D.C., September 2002) and U.S. Army Technical Bulletin- TB 9-1300-278:
"Guidelines For Safe Response To Handling, Storage, And Transportation Accidents Involving Army Tank Munitions Or Armor Which Contain Depleted Uranium" (Headquarters, Department Of The Army, Washington, D.C., JULY1996).Specifically section 2-4 of United States Army Regulation-AR 700-48 dated September 16, 2002 requires that:
(1) "Military personnel "identify, segregate, isolate, secure, and label all RCE" (radiologically contaminated equipment).
(2) "Procedures to minimize the spread of radioactivity will be implemented as soon as possible."
(3) "Radioactive material and waste will not be locally disposed of through burial, submersion, incineration, destruction in place, or abandonment" and (4) "All equipment, to include captured or combat RCE, will be surveyed,packaged, retrograded, decontaminated and released IAW Technical Bulletin 9-1300-278, DA PAM 700-48" (Note: Maximum exposure limits are specified inAppendix F).The previous and current use of uranium weapons, the release of radioactive components in destroyed U.S. and foreign military equipment, and releases ofindustrial, medical, research facility radioactive materials have resulted in unacceptable exposures. Therefore, decontamination must be completed as required by U.S. Army Regulation 700-48 and should include releases of allradioactive materials resulting from military operations. The extent of adverse health and environmental effects of uranium weapons contamination is not limited to combat zones but includes facilities andsites where uranium weapons were manufactured or tested including Vieques;Puerto Rico; Colonie, New York; Concord, MA; Jefferson Proving Grounds,Indiana; and Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. Therefore medical care must be provided by the United States Department of Defense officials to all individuals affected by the manufacturing, testing, and/or use of uranium munitions. Thorough environmental remediation also must be completed without
further delay. I am amazed that fourteen years after was asked to clean upthe initial DU mess from Gulf War 1 and over ten years since I finished the depleted uranium project that United States Department of Defense officials and others still attempt to justify uranium munitions use while ignoring mandatory requirements. I am dismayed that Department of Defense and Department of Energy officials and representatives continue personal attacks aimed to silence or discredit those of us who are demanding that medical care be provided to all DU casualties and that environmental remediation is completed in compliance with U.S. Army Regulation 700-48. But beyond the ignored mandatory actions the willful dispersal of tons of solid radioactiveand chemically toxic waste in the form of uranium munitions is illegal
(http://www.traprockpeace.org/karen_parker_du_illegality.pdf) and just does not even pass the common sense test and according to the U.S.Department of Homeland Security, DHS, is a dirty bomb. DHS issued "dirty bomb" responseguidelines, http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html
, on January 3, 2006 for incidents within the United States but ignore DOD use of uranium weapons and existing DOD regulations. These guidelines specifically state that: "Characteristics of RDD and IND Incidents: A radiological incident is defined as an event or series of events, deliberateor accidental, leading to the release, or potential release, into the environment of radioactive material in sufficient quantity to warrant consideration of protective actions. Use of an RDD or IND is an act of terror that produces a radiological incident." Thus the use of uranium munitions is "an act or terror" as defined by DHS. Finally continued compliance with the infamous March 1991 Los Alamos Memorandum that was issued to ensure continued use of uranium munitions can not be justified.
In conclusion: the President of the United States- George W. Bush and The Prime Minister of Great Britain-Tony Blair must acknowledge and accept responsibility for willful use of illegal uranium munitions- their own "dirty bombs"- resulting in adverse health and environmental effects.
President Bush and Prime Minister Blair also should order:
1. medical care for all casualties,
2. thorough environmental remediation,
3. immediate cessation of retaliation against all of us who demand
compliance with medical care and environmental remediationrequirements,
4. and stop the already illegal the use (UN finding) of depleted uranium munitions.



References- these references are copies the actual regulations and
orders
and other pertinent official documents:
http://www.traprockpeace.org/twomemos.html
http://www.traprockpeace.org/rokke_du_3_ques.html
http://www.traprockpeace.org/du_dtic_wakayama_Aug2002.html
http://www.traprockpeace.org/karen_parker_du_illegality.pdf
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html
http://cryptome.org/dhs010306.txt

[dogman]

143. It would seem these people should take their case to court.

Their interpretation may not be the courts interpretation. Irregardless of that, what has this to do with Clark. Your links seem to indicate these manuals and orders post-date Clark's command. Clark is on record while campaigning in '04 as saying he would use DU as long as it was legal.

[formercia]

144. He may regret saying that.

This may be a big issue in the 2008 campaign.

[Jai4WKC08]

115. We still don't know

I shouldn't say this because it contributes to hi-jacking the thread and I am NOT gonna stick around and debate it. But the fact needs to be stated: We still don't know that DU is any worse than any other battlefield munition. There are no conclusive scientific data to prove it so. There are studies that indicate it might be, but there are others that show no association whatsoever.

Kat is right. If someone doesn't like that DU weapons are in the US arsenal, they should write to their congressmen and women to get them removed. Those are the people who approve and fund the programs to field DU munitions.

[Crunchy Frog]

112. He eats babies dontcha know.

Also responsible for Haitian man titties.

[wiley]

131. I did not know that

You sure you're not thinking of that Austin Powers Scotsman?

[blm]

17. As a longtime admirer of Clark's c1993, I disagree that other candidates

are pretenders. Especially those who have made such positive impacts on this nation's real history.

[FrenchieCat]

70. Agreed!

[returnable]

108. Agreed.

I guess I was just being snarky after having read some of the same old Clark smears from the usual suspects. I shouldn't have sunk to that level.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

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

[ShortnFiery]

136. I think you have crossed the line 48percenter ...

Your hero, retired General Clark may be "a genius" and "a class act" but you and many of those like you who have ZERO tolerance for any negative view of Your Good General, ... well, your "vicious Mother" behavior speaks volumes of what exactly you folks are about, i.e., authoritarian consensus.

You say you've met him, but you are disrespecting the true humanitarian that you claim him to be by acting like SPOILED bullies. Everyone MUST agree with you because many of you "have actually met him" and you know best.

I have been polite and explained my reason why I am very hesitant to put a Career General Officer in The White House. You can disagree,

BUT CUT THE SHIT WITH CALLING ME NAMES!

IT'S UNSAT AND BENEATH US ALL ON DU.

Shame on you nasty people, your wesPAC behavior and overall "ga ga" over one human being is HONESTLY "creeping the shit out of me"! :grr:

[Reckon]

2. I hope everyone understands that

this is not just an average time in our Countries history. It calls for something more than a limp spined politician. Great leaders have always risen to the occasion, Wes Clark is that great leader. He knows what's going on and he's answered the "call to duty", a call for liberty, a call for democracy.

Now we need to rally behind him to give his voice a powerful meaning -- "Let True Freedom Reign".

[ShortnFiery]

8. I don't want a MILITARY Hero wannabe ... He's no Ike by a LONG shot.

"Clark was supreme commander of NATO" ===> President of the United States? NO!!!

[IA_Seth]

9. Wannabe?

Lol, you obviously haven't really read up much on Clark's history, have you?

Clark is a military hero in every sense of the word, highly decorated and very experienced in leading military and humanitarian campaigns.

[ShortnFiery]

10. Yes, let's FOCUS on the word "hero"

Many who have not served in the Military nor have been around the Military environment, can't see beyond the well tailored Public Relations Training that General Officers are given once they put on that first star. And yes, some very honorable Vets think he's "The Answer." With respect, I do NOT. :(

There are some very brave men in battle, two of them were my Father and Older brother, but even they shudder at the label "HERO."

I'm suggesting that you are inspired by militarism, in general, and Clark's polish, specifically has you agog.

I don't believe in heroes. I believe in honest and honorable men who serve their country and their family. I don't put any one HUMAN on a "classy" pedestal.

Most of all, I want a President of The United States who has NOT been Part of The War Machine / indoctrinated within the Military Industrial Complex.

Take a step back and look closely across the years at *This Mere Man* ... He's no hero, just another SMOOTH and self made man.

You're IMO way way WAY too pulled in by this "fantasy of strong leadership" that is nothing more than intelligence and good Public Relations Training. :(

Let's hesitate to MILITARIZE our highest Civilian Office? IMO he'd make an excellent Secretary of Defense and I hope President Gore selects him for this position. :hi:

[IA_Seth]

11. Wow, is that you Cleo?

I thought you left that psychic friends network BS behind?

I'd respond to your post, but it's pretty obvious that you THINK you know me. You don't know me, and you don't know Clark. Please don't suggest that you know either.

Given that your quick to talk about things of which you know very little (ala ME)...I'll leave you to your world where you are always right.

[ShortnFiery]

13. I take that as in insult ... I am the Real Deal, a Military Veteran

It's scary how many people want to find "A hero." My father and brother were decorated for brave actions in combat. My father received a battlefield commission for his actions which he kept until his retirement as a Major.

I've lived among the military and have served in the Military. My husband is a Retired Marine.

I KNOW MILITARISM and I KNOW people who get "taken in" by the charisma and esprit de corps.

Clark is an honorable man but he is NOT the answer IF ONLY for the fact that he's been indoctrinated within the Military Industrial Machine. No, I don't think he is similar to Ike.

No, I'm a middle aged woman who's convinced that The Highest Office in our Country should NOT be filled by a former General Officer ... it's NOT worth the risk.

Again, I am NOT saying that Clark is NOT basically honorable, only that he should not be in line for The Highest CIVILIAN Office of the land. He's excellent material for dibs on the Secretary of Defense slot though.

I will excuse your slight for I believe nothing that I type will break "the attraction" many of you have toward this HONORABLE MAN ... honorable, like many other men and women, ENLISTED as well as OFFICER alike. ;)

[Jai4WKC08]

117. You don't sound "real" to me

Your story changes a little every time you tell it. And anyone who equates the military with militarism knows absolutely nothing about either.

But I am retired Army, my husband is retired Army, and I have a son in the Air Force. I know Wes Clark and I know he's exactly what we need in this country. He's about as far from being a threat to our democracy as possible; certainly a lot farther than any of the civilians being bantered around for the Oval Office. In fact, Clark is the ONLY one who actually understands the threat to our system of government that exists.

Even Ike said God help the nation if we ever get a president who doesn't understand the military. That's what we've got now, and you can see where it's gotten us.

[ShortnFiery]

120. My story has remained UN-Changed

My Father is retired Army and my husband is retired Marine Corps.

I don't appreciate your implications because they are mean spirited and invalid. I served four years on Active Duty in the US Army.

No, my story doesn't change. And I challenge your ASSUMPTION that "Clark is the ONLY one who actually understands the threat to our system of government that exists."

No, I do not believe that CAREER military men should hold the highest Civilian Position in the USA at THIS point in time ... with the Military Industrial Complex so entrenched.

Now, as an Army Veteran to a Retired Army person, you're welcome to TRASH my OPINION, but no, you are not warranted to disrespect my character.

If you do not agree with my OPINION, that is what makes America Great. Freedom of speech.

[Jai4WKC08]

126. I have every right to disrespect your character

You make judgments about Wes Clark having never met him and knowing very little about him, but rather based on generalizations and stereotypes about career military people and general officers.

You make judgments about those of us who support Wes Clark, saying we have some sort of uniform fetish or need for an authority figure, or other blather, when you know absolutely nothing about any one of us as individuals.

You play fast and loose with the details of your military service, sometimes saying it was one thing, sometimes another.

You say you don't believe in heroes, and blind yourself to the possibility that there really are people who are heroic.

One way or the other, you either have a flawed character or a flawed intellect.

[ShortnFiery]

127. You, if you truly are Retired Army, are so full of perceived

righteousness, that you disrespect who you support.

Ok, let's make it mutual, I also disrespect you. And just because I have stepped aside in these seemingly "adoration" of General Clark threads, it doesn't mean that I will support Your Good General.

BTW, I don't play fast and loose with my background, I tell the truth ... of my life. You don't like it, DON'T LIE that I have contradicted myself. That's just pathetic.

"One way or the other, you either have a flawed character or a flawed intellect."

Back at you! :grr: :thumbsdown:

[Texas_Kat]

41. WKC has never referred to himself as a 'hero"

Do I think he's a hero? Yes, but not because of his military record (though that certainly deserves respect).

As far as I'm concerned, Clark is a hero because he tried to persuade the Congress and the Senate to avoid the war in Iraq (before it was cool) and by doing that, was subject to ridicule by some of the 'militarists' you keep referring to. He put his name and his reputation on the line early and has never backed down. He was right then, and he's right to speak out against the Bushco drumbeat for war in the ME (with Syria and Iran). Something he's been doing for over 4 years now.

You have the mistaken impression that some might mistake a uniform for 'an answer'.

What a shallow view.

I suspect there may be a bit of hubris and utter disrespect for others critical thinking skills at work here.

Clarkies are blind, and you see clearly. Perhaps you should make some effort to do a little less pontificating and a little more research.

You can start with this:

Credible Threat(TNR, 1/7/04)
Clark's experience, beyond grounding his robust foreign policy, will also insulate him from the Pentagon and Republican hostility that has consistently bedeviled Democratic presidents. Whereas President Clinton and his advisers often seemed intimidated by the military--James Carville, a former Marine corporal, likes to say he was the highest-ranking military official in the administration--Clark will have no trouble standing up to the four-stars. (If he was willing to do so when they were his superiors, he surely will be when they're his subordinates.) And the moral authority he will possess as commander-in-chief will make it harder for a GOP Congress to stymie a liberal internationalist agenda that emphasizes diplomacy and treaties as tools of U.S. security andsanctions military deployment for humanitarian purposes.

Clark may also be able to persuade the antiwar left of the merits of a true muscular multilateralism--not least through his proposal for a New American Patriotism, which aims to restore the pride that Democrats, disaffected by the Bush administration's jingoism, feel toward the flag. In part, he plans to do this by encouraging the dissent on security issues that has been discouraged, implicitly and explicitly, by Republican leaders. On the stump, Clark often says, "There's nothing more American--nothing more patriotic--than speaking out, questioning authority, and holding your leaders accountable."

Such declarations could ease the fears of an American public that, once bitten by the deception of the Iraq war, may be twice shy about future uses of military force. If the need arose, Americans would follow Wesley Clark into war. They should follow him to the White House first.

http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040119&s=scoblic011904

And if you want to hear Congressmen and women tell him he was right in 2002, you can hear the whole testimony at the House Armed Services Committee here.

Transcript: Hearing before House Armed Services Committee - 4/6/2005

http://securingamerica.com/hasc1

[NCarolinawoman]

106. Wes Clark has always said, "The real heroes in America are schoolteachers"

By the way, there have been at least eleven Generals who have been President of the United States. Some have been better than others, just as some civilians have obviously been better than others.

Do you ever want to get rid of the Military Industrial Complex? Clark does. Who would be better at doing such a thing? Anybody else would be accused of "weakening" the nation. The last General who held the office of President warned us of the TMIC, It will certainly take another General to finally dismantle it. No civilian dares.

[Dinger]

109. Thanks NCarolinawoman - From A Teacher : )

I really appreciate it.:)

[Schema Thing]

21. lol @ "wannabe". If you can't read Wes' life story as heroic

you have a VERY weird definition of heroic.

[ShortnFiery]

23. Yes, sort of like, I believe in Humankind, not individual HEROES.

Heroes are brave men and woman who do extraordinary things when it makes a difference. Clark is not, by far the ONLY military hero. Further, IMO he's too close to the Military Industrial machine to be President, i.e., Ike being the ONE exception to the rule.

I don't rate my CIVILIAN leaders by perceived "class" or lauded "heroism" because both terms are highly subjective.

As I stated before, I don't believe in Heroes save for the MOVIES.

One of the things my father told me before he died was, through tears, "I did NOT want to kill those men, but if I didn't I would be dead. Those honors and battlefield commission didn't mean anything to me personally. I can still see their faces, one could not have been more than 17 years old."

I don't know how you wish to "hold up" Clark as some sort of ANSWER to our political problems but I fear he is just another General Officer who tells you what you want to hear.

But again, nothing I can type can break "the spell" that I consider many of you are under ... a spell of "A Class Above" and "A hero." :shrug:

When the time comes, I hope that you are ALL let down softly.

[mojowork_n]

25. Clark Supporters -- Think "Shiny Helmet" & "Doug Neidermeyer"

If that last name doesn't ring a bell, go to imdb and look up this truly historic, and heroic film title:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077975/

D.U. isn't exactly "Animal House", but there are similarities. One of the more ironic may be that the R.O.T.C. wing of D.U. has a very organized presence, and they pop up for close order "Clark4ever" circle marching drills, with clockwork regularity.

And when some people, such as yourself, not only fail to salute (or ask how high they're supposed to jump), the same sorts of derisive replies come in shallow bunches.
...This was my experience, when I disagreed with the premise and conclusion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1505641

Having read through this diary, so far, I think I'm completely in agreement with you, that this time, in these historical circumstances, with so many having given their lives in Iraq (for what? to prop up the price of oil?), supporting a party standard-bearer on the basis of his 'heroic' military record (think again) is NOT the way to go.

[ShortnFiery]

26. Too Funny!

True! "Only WE can do that to our pledges!" :rofl:




http://161.58.5.90/animal/pledges.wav

Although I was raised in a highly authoritarian atmosphere, I never really fit in. Does it show? :blush:

On Edit: BTW I love the Military. If it wasn't for my service, I would not have been given the educational benefits that I made full use of ... further I would not have met my beloved husband of almost 25 years. It's just that a CAREER type guy, no matter how honorable is a *risk* holding the office of President, i.e., too entrenched in military mindsets and contacts.

CARRY ON! LOL :P

[Clark2008]

59. You'd be surprised to learn that one of Clark's biggest

supporters is someone from that same movie (And I'm being honest here). Not Nedermyer, though.

:P

You don't know how funny I found your post because of that.

I wear no helmut - tin foil, aluminum or otherwise. I'm well-informed and I question authority.

I also know brilliance when I see it. I don't care if he'd served in the military or not - but I do think that helped shape his worldview, which is spot-on accurate, particularly in the realms of war and diplomacy.

[Schema Thing]

27. again, lol. this time at "just another General officer"

huge lol on this one. Wes Clark sounds NOTHING like other General Officers.

Personally, I don't think you've given him a chance. You certainly seem unfamiliar with his life story.

Examine your logic about Ike, if nothing else. Seriously, you're so down on "heros", and yet you've built Ike into a person so special, so unique, that no one else could possibly ever be his equal, follow his footsteps, or even just come from the military and genuinely hold his (Ike's) same beliefs.

So long as my support for Clark is reality based, I think you a bit whacked for telling me I should consider changing that support based on your "fear" that Wes is something so totally different than he appears and lives his life as. You remind me of Lieberman telling America earnestly that Wes Clark is not a real democrat.

Before telling me to remove my rose colored glasses, methinks you should remove your own blinders.

[ShortnFiery]

29. Tell you what, I will try to keep up with the activities of Clark's

campaign ... If I sense true substance, no lie = I will be the first to admit that my biases are NOT warranted. Best Wishes ... Time will tell. :hi:

[Schema Thing]

32. Cool. I think you should look backwards at his life

though. The story of a person is where you find their character. If Americans did that, they would never have selected Bush over McCain, nor Bush over Kerry, nor even Bush over Gore, for that matter.

I think you've formed a theory on who should or should not be POTUS. I just don't think your theory passes the test when applied to the real life, real actions, real words, of Wes Clark (and quite possibly several other men as well).

And hey, his life is a hell of a great read anyway. It's inspirational by almost any standard.

[ShortnFiery]

34. Thanks for the advice ...

We don't know each other's experiences but I assure you that I have met and/or read about a number of retired General Officers who have laudable career service.

To date, the one career General whom I truly admire, without reservation, is Retired General Anthony Zinni.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Zinni

To each his/her own.

Semper Fi

[Schema Thing]

36. I admire Zinni greatly.

But you certainly have me shaking my head here :shrug:

Zinni refuses politics, but politics sure needs his voice at this time in American History. Though I can't say I blame anyone who just doesn't have the stomach for it; I'm sure I don't either, at least on levels that go much beyond discussion on a political board.

[ShortnFiery]

37. What you don't get is that Zinni is above the politics.

"Clark's American Hero Story"

OMG, it's time to wake up from the fairy tales!

I stopped such idealistic beliefs of any one HUMAN Being in my mid 20s.

Honestly, Clark is now demoted to the rank of 21st Century Politician. As such, I do not "buy into" what he says as readily as some of my fellow DUers.

Nope, Zinni served this country best, IMO, post Military by his liaison efforts within the ME. He is a skilled negotiator. No, he does not wish to modify his behavior to FIT the role of "a politician."

I do NOT fully trust any ONE POLITICIAN. They serve us, not the other way around. It is our responsibility to see though "the talk" to the real person. If you see something "too appealing", then I suggest that is is NOT REAL.

We need Politicians who do their utmost to represent the will of their constituents. WE NEED an intelligent and genuine CIVILIAN PRESIDENT, what we don't need is "A Military Hero." :thumbsdown:

[Schema Thing]

39. You're a weirdo :)

:spank:

lol... but seriously, I don't get you at all. I spend most of my online time on a discussion board that has nothing to do with politics. Lots of people there are "above politics" too. They are exactly the reason America is where we are.


Anyway, we'll just have to disagree. Good luck on Webb (and I really do admire Zinni), I know he's got Wes Clark in his political corner.

[ShortnFiery]

40. Oh yeah, but Your Mom Dresses You Funny! ... LOL

<tease!> ;)

Thank you for allowing us to wrap this up on a civil note.

BTW you're not the first person to note that my perspective can be less than typical given my background.

Best Wishes to you and yours ... and yeah, Go Jim Webb!!!

[Clark2008]

62. That's sad.

You don't believe in heroes.

How unfortunate for you.

[FrenchieCat]

48. Sounds like your "personal" opinions is not yet "law".....

and I'm not quite sure when you determined that your personal opinion equated undisputable facts? And I don't know why you find yourself so arrogant as to think that your opinion is somehow right, but that Clark supporter's opinions are wrong. The fact that you say you served doesn't really make you anymore credible, as I know many who have served with Clark who differ from your "opinion".

The fact that You have an opinion is like the fact that I have an asshole. We all have them, and you have not articulated anything to backup this opinion of yours.....

"Ike being the ONE exception to the rule."
Who are you to decide that there is only one exception? Who died and made you God? This opinion is not "backed up" as to why Ike would be the only exception other than you saying so.

I don't rate my CIVILIAN leaders by perceived "class" or lauded "heroism" because both terms are highly subjective.

As I stated before, I don't believe in Heroes save for the MOVIES.

One of the things my father told me before he died was, through tears, "I did NOT want to kill those men, but if I didn't I would be dead. Those honors and battlefield commission didn't mean anything to me personally. I can still see their faces, one could not have been more than 17 years old."

I don't know how you wish to "hold up" Clark as some sort of ANSWER to our political problems but I fear he is just another General Officer who tells you what you want to hear.

But again, nothing I can type can break "the spell" that I consider many of you are under ... a spell of "A Class Above" and "A hero."

When the time comes, I hope that you are ALL let down softly."

Just more "Opinionated" drivel :eyes: ; that's my opinion....which appears to be worth just as much as yours.

[CarolNYC]

104. You are one bizarre poster...

You expend so much time and energy trying to convince people to ignore the opinions and impressions of a numer of highly respected people who have met and known the General, as well as their own impressions upon studying and meeting him, in favor of your impression which is based on your opinion of people you've met who you THINK are like him? O....Kay...Apparently, it fulfills some gaping need in your life...but it looks a little, um, foolish, you know?

But thanks for keeping the thread kicked....Great article about a great appearance by General Clark.

:hi:

[ShortnFiery]

105. Well Authoritarian Rule is not "a picnic"

And I'm very concerned about the fervor of SOME posters here.

Yes, although Clark may be a Democrat, a retired general is fully entrenched within the Military Industrial Complex. Don't kid yourselves that he will truly work for peace. I don't think so. :shrug:

P.S. I think of you as equally bizarre. ;)

[xkenx]

33. Clark was not your typical military general

2008 is all about flipping a few red states into our column. Wes Clark is a progressive wolf in military uniform sheep's clothing. Many Republicans who didn't care for Bush, still couldn't vote for Kerry. Clark was the only Dem. they could consider. Clark has had more EXECUTIVE leadership roles than any Senator by virtue of his military commands where he had responsibility for the lives of hundreds of thousands of servicepeople and their dependents--the whole range of housing, education, training, healthcare, social services, sometimes in a dangerous spot. When Clark was Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Eisenhower's last military position), he had "Head-of-State" status, meaning that he dealt directly with prime ministers/presidents, not underlings. And Clark was virtually the only voice urging help for Rwanda. And Clark and Madeleine Albright were the ones who convinced Clinton to take action against the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, where Clark carried out the military action w/o the loss of a single American life. In this he stood up to the Pentagon brass who wanted nothing to do with "saving Albanians." And it was Clark who served for more than 30 years AFTER getting shot up and winning hero medals in Vietnam, when he could have gone for the big bucks in private industry. Try Swift Boating this guy--the smackdown will be heard around the world. Clark is all about duty, honor, country. When Clark's American Dream/American Hero story gets out to middle America, watch how many red states flip. And the beauty of Wes Clark is that HE IS A REAL LIVE D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T, with a progressive agenda equal to anyone.

[Clark2008]

56. Who said he was like Ike?

Other than the fact that both were NATO commanders, I don't see anyone but the corporate media attempting to make that leap.

That aside, however, he IS a real hero. No wannabe.

Do you automatically drop military leaders/heroes and/or those who served from your list of potential leaders because of some BIAS you have toward the military? Or is their something specific?

If it's the military, then you're as bad as any right-wing nut who won't support someone just because they have a "D" after his/her name and without looking into their history and stances.

I am also short and fiery - and apparently better informed than you.

[Dinger]

79. Oh, It's You Again

Come to piss all over a Clark thread again? Why don't you take some of that energy and put it into the person YOU want? At least that way, it'd be positive for the Dems. Negative to positive, how could that be bad?

[dogman]

107. Are these the actions of a wannabe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

Snip>Under the overall leadership of Richard Holbrooke, Clark headed the U.S. military team during negotiations that led to the Bosnian Peace Accords, in Dayton, Ohio.

In 1995, during the negotiation process, Clark and Holbrooke's diplomatic convoy was ambushed on a road by landmines and small arms fire, after Milosevic refused them safe passage. One of their jeeps crashed down a ravine and killed its passengers. Risking his life, Clark, then a 50 yr old man and 3-star general, rapelled down the ravine to search for survivors, admist enemy gunfire. He stayed with the burning jeep until help arrived, saving the wedding band of a dead soldier to personally return it to the soldier's widow.<snip

You say you've seen enough senior officers to know all about them. How many three-stars would do this?

[imlost]

132. yawn........n/t

[longship]

3. Wes Clark -- One of the top tier.

Along with Gore and Feingold.
And others as they come.

We've got two years before things get into high gear. Plenty of time to vet the prospective candidates and decide.

[girl gone mad]

4. Also my top three.

I will take any combination of the above, preferably with Clark on the ticket.

[longship]

18. My number one ticket

Gore/Sebelius

Unbeatable.

[mtnsnake]

12. It's hard to believe this guy didn't win the '04 Primary

What the hell were people thinking?

[indygrl]

24. Name recognition

I helped get signatures for him to be on the Indiana ballot. Many had never heard of him. One lady had him confused with Ramsey Clark. Then there's the problem of late primaries. By the time ours came around he had all ready dropped out. I still voted for him. In the fall I held my nose and voted for Kerry.

[mtnsnake]

31. Partly, but Edwards wasn't a household name & he just about won it

Anyway, I agree that lack of name recognition didn't help Clark's cause. Michael Moore's attachment to Wesley Clark didn't seem to do him much good either. Maybe next time around things will fare better for the General.

I'm with you on Kerry. While I think he's a good senator, if Kerry gets the nod, we're sunk before we begin. There's no way he could ever win a presidential campaign, IMO, and hopefully, anyone but him will win the primary. Clark or Obama would look good, unless someone else new pops up to take us all by storm.

[sampsonblk]

19. Clark has No Peer in our Party

In terms of military policy, no other top Dem is in his class.

[Schema Thing]

20. we'll soon have several of his peers in our party

Jim Webb, etc. And not a moment too soon.

[ShortnFiery]

22. I'm with you on Jim Webb for VA Senator (D) ...

I just received my bumper sticker in the mail and will display it proudly. Allen is an embarrassment for Virginia ... I'm getting the impression that our state is turning blue. Let's hope so? ;)

[Schema Thing]

28. he'll make a great senator

but god forbid he ever meets you on a presidential ballot! ;-)

[ShortnFiery]

30. Not TRUE because Jim Webb is NOT a Career Military Officer ...

He served honorably and bravely in combat. He is an inspiration to all incoming MARINES to the Military.

This is what YOU MISS. Webb, unlike Clark did NOT make a career of the Military. Therefore, he's not entrenched within the Military Industrial Network.

Sure, the positions that Webb's held makes him knowledgeable with the Pentagon, but Webb is NOT an insider. He's not a Retired General but a former USMC Lieutenant. That's the difference. Plus, I would be willing to support Clark on holding almost ANY position save for that "in line" for the HIGHEST Civilian Position within the USA.

Hope the above clears up any mis-understandings? :hi:

[xkenx]

35. You don't know Wes Clark, so here's the DUCK PRINCIPLE

Ducks don't wear signs labeling them ducks. No one has any trouble identifying a duck. If it has a ducksbill, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, then you know it's a duck.

Wes Clark is one of the Democratic Party's foremost progressives by virtue of his actions over the years, not by any labels that people want to throw at him simply because he had a career in the military.
It is time to appreciate just how lucky we are to have this national treasure. Just a few items:

--Clark was always butting heads with the stereotypical "macho" military Neanderthals because he saw the horrors of war firsthand in Vietnam and always espoused "diplomacy first."
--Clark was one of the leaders of the all-volunteer Army created after the Vietnam debacle. To keep personnel in you had to do a good job of providing for their family needs, health, education, equal opportunity.
--Clark actually won environmental awards at bases under his command.
--When Clark was working at the Pentagon in the mid-90s, he was virtually the only voice crying out to intervene in Rwanda.
--It was Clark's voice, along with Madeline Albright, who persuaded the Clinton Admin., over the objections of the Pentagon, to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Tell the Kosovar Albanians that Wes Clark isn't a liberal, progressive, humanitarian.
--It was Wes Clark's voice prior to the Iraq invasion who urged that we exhaust all possible diplomatic means before any military action, including in testimony to Congress.
--It was Wes Clark who filed an Amicus Curiae brief in the University
of Michigan affirmative action case.
--It was Wes Clark who appeared on the cover of the Advocate to show his support for gay/lesbian rights.

Since when is it some kind of a black mark for someone to give to his country by serving in the military if he does so in a principled manner? Wes Clark felt that he could make the most impact by providing a progressive voice to that institution.

[ShortnFiery]

38. This is the exact same post you put-up in another thread.

You're hopeless. Enjoy your ClarkOurHero kool-aid. :toast:

[xkenx]

43. Yes it is, because it applies to you.

I don't do hero-worship, but I do enthusiastically support Wes Clark for his leadership, character, integrity, and for his ability to turn the country "blue" in 2008. If there was any Kool Aid downed, it was by you for subscribing to the narrow mentality that all military generals have to be cut from the same cloth. Attacking me doesn't obscure your failure to respond to my post with other than "nyah,nyah." Go take your anti-Clark agenda elsewhere.

[ShortnFiery]

44. I'm only advising that electing a Retired General to the highest

Civilian Position in the USA, may not be such a good idea. :scared: :nuke:

I also posted, numerous times, that Clark could fit into any other position quite nicely. Nope, a Retired Career Military General Officer as Our President of the United States = Not a good idea regardless of what a thoughtful, intelligent and, in general, GRAND guy he may be. Why? Because a retired General Officer is fully entrenched within the Military Industrial Network.

I don't hate Clark, I just don't want him to be either our President or Vice President. ;)

With regard to Clark's lauded "hero" status, is not the following your words?

"Clark is all about duty, honor, country. When Clark's American Dream/American Hero story gets out to middle America, watch how many red states flip. And the beauty of Wes Clark is that HE IS A REAL LIVE D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T, with a progressive agenda equal to anyone."

[Texas_Kat]

46. Oh but that's tame

You should have heard George McGovern, or Mario Cuomo or Jim Webb or Bill Clinton:

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/wmp/clinton-on-clark.wmv

I'd like to say a particular word of thanks to Wes Clark.

I met Wes Clark (I think) in 1965, when most of you weren't alive.

He was at West Point, I was at Georgetown, we had never met in Arkansas, though we both grew up here 50 miles from one another.

In the ensuing 40 years, I can honestly say, I have rarely met any person whom I regarded more highly and whom I thought loved our country more or served it better.

[ShortnFiery]

47. If you take the word of people you respect ... then why bother

to think for yourself? Game Over Man! :P

I used to admire Hillary and Bill Clinton, but I do not think so highly of them today. In essence, we each have to evaluate the candidate on our terms, do our OWN research and judge for OURSELVES whether they are worthy of our vote.

As much as I respect some of the men above, they do not speak for me. The politician, the ELECTED representative serves, YOU and ME. I wish that more people would remember that instead of perceived "honor" and/or "class."

[FrenchieCat]

51. One can listen to others, those they respect and those they don't

and still think for themselves....Or didn't you know?

I mean, Really?

This Wes Clark thread wasn't about you and what you think so much.......and who you supported, or didn't, or do. :boring:

Too bad you never did comment on the actual OP of the thread;


Signed....

Another KoolAid Clarkie Drinker...

[ShortnFiery]

53. I'm absolutely convinced ...

that you have converted scores of average readers to your side.

You are, without a doubt, in a class of your own, i.e. love the graphics. :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

57. I don't do "conversion"......I just make sure I've got "F-A-C-T-S"

to back up my opinions.......when posting about any political figure. "F-A-C-T-S" tend to "convert" "readers".......cause they are smart enough to know that anyone can say anything......without backup, it means "Jack-Shit"!

You should try it sometimes.

[ShortnFiery]

60. Oh, you pulled out the big slam - the "Jack-Shit!"

Whoa! That's not so classy, you know? :(

[FrenchieCat]

69. I have no more "Class" than you have.......

and why should I?

Now, why don't you tell us something about Wes Clark that we don't know about?

Give us something to "chew" on besides your opinions.

"Educate" us.

[ShortnFiery]

75. On that one fact "CLASSLESS" I agree

But I'm sure that all your candidate stands for would be very proud of you and your arguments. Nope, I think it's a draw? :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

77. Repeating......

Now, why don't you tell us something about Wes Clark that we don't know about?

Give us something to "chew" on besides your opinions.

"Educate" us.

[ShortnFiery]

80. I already provided my argument ...

And you know that, don't you Frenchie Cat.

You are angry with me, but that's no reason to trash me.

We disagree 100%. Specifically, a CAREER Military General Officer should not be in line for the highest CIVILIAN Position in the United States of America.

There's nothing to argue about, we flatly disagree. Again, take the time to read all my posts and you will realize that we don't see eye to eye?

[FrenchieCat]

82. I've read your condescending posts...which is why I chose to post

on a thread that I might not have, otherwise.

I don't think that a Career Politician has the insight to become President anymore. That's what I think......and like you, I won't give you anymore information than that.

It takes much more to make me angry. Try not to flatter yourself! :eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

86. As much as I admire the Military, and I do ...

I sure do not want MILITARISTIC RULE. And putting even "an honorable" retired General Officer in the Highest CIVILIAN Position of the USA is IMO, too big of a risk.

And no Frenchie Cat, I wouldn't ever wish to flatter myself because you do it so well (flatter flatter flatter!) for me. :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

90. You ain't saying nothing...really.....

Look at what we've got now! Not a military man in sight.......

ShortnFiery, your generalities and stereotypes only demonstrates a certain mindset and bigotry.

There have been 12 Presidents who were Generals. Generals are not the exception in becoming commanders in chiefs......career ones or otherwise.

You just don't want General Clark to be President. That's OK...cause I don't want John "I was wrong for three years on War and Peace, but it's not my fault cause I was misled" Edwards....and a few others.

[ShortnFiery]

91. But we have NOT EVER had the Military Industrial Complex that we

have running our country now. Look at the Media? No, it's a different world. I'm not naive and just because you don't like the opinion, don't deny that "such concern" is valid. :-)

[FrenchieCat]

103. We had 12 Generals as President.....and the last one was Ike....

Who warned us about the upcoming Military Complex....and since Ike, the military Complex has grown, as you correctly point out...

Which means that the Military Complex grew based on Civilian Leadership....just as the media has consolidated based on the actions of Civilian Leadership.

So your point is not a point at all...that somehow, putting a retired General (the Unique Democratic one, at that) at the head on leadership would somehow make the Military Complex grow more. It is, in fact, Cilivian Leadership (according to historical facts) that would continue to grow the Military Complex....as it has in the past.

So you see, your argument isn't really "logical". :crazy:

[Texas_Kat]

54. Thanks for being so condescending

Perhaps it's that I CAN and DO think for myself rather than falling for the overly hyperbolic name-calling and blind rhetoric you've employed.

Your "I never met him, but I know some other people who might be like him" broad brush statements don't cut it with me.

I prefer to make my own judgements, thank you. But then, it's always been a goal of mine not to jump to conclusions based on false and/or incomplete information.

I've watched and evaluated the evidence over the last few years.

Indisputably, Clark is one of a kind.

[ShortnFiery]

58. Yes, attack the individual when something about

YOUR MAN comes out that is not so nice.

That's not sound advice ... but I was trying to convey an opinion that we should all think for ourselves, not "jump on a bandwagon." I regret if you feel that condescending because it was not meant to be.

[FrenchieCat]

65. You "regret" if others feel that you were condescending?

How Sincere! NOT!

Here are those remarks of yours......doesn't sound like you were trying NOT TO BE condescending, now does it?

"You're IMO way way WAY too pulled in by this "fantasy of strong leadership" that is nothing more than intelligence and good Public Relations Training."
--------
"But again, nothing I can type can break "the spell" that I consider many of you are under ... a spell of "A Class Above" and "A hero."

When the time comes, I hope that you are ALL let down softly."
--------

"OMG, it's time to wake up from the fairy tales!"
------------
"You're hopeless. Enjoy your ClarkOurHero kool-aid."
------------

[ShortnFiery]

73. It is a fairy tale to idolize one HUMAN being ...

And I kid you not, you folks are "Duty, Honor Country - Enthused" over Retired General Clark for the wrong reasons. :shrug:

I am honest, in that, as I read through your posts, I have to pinch myself - Do you really believe "The American Hero" story?

Honestly, It's not time for heroes, it's time for thoughtful men. And in the Highest Office of the Land, I do not want a Retired General Officer again.

[FrenchieCat]

81. But who says that anyone is idolizing anyone?

Have I?

Hero is a relative word, and those who want to use it, can. Those who don't, shouldn't. The point is who in the F* are you to tell others what words they should or should not use? Who are you to determine what others "need"?


In reference to what you want for the highest office in the land.....so be it.
I want something other than what "you" want....cause me, I'm tired of the career politicians and where they have gotten us, and so that's where we each stand.

What I don't need is someone patronizing me as to what I should "want"....cause you don't know me from Adam, and your judgement is yours, not mine. I have enough experience to make my own determination, and your lame arguments thus far, ain't exactly "sound".

[ShortnFiery]

83. "Who the f*uck am I?"

I am a woman who is able to recognize some of the the behavioral manifestations of those who GREATLY ADMIRE authority figures. I'm not pointing fingers, so don't call me "Jack Shit" again, but the constant mention of Clark's HONOR and CLASS, seriously trouble me.

I'm saying this as AN OBSERVER, so don't go off on me again please?

What valid argument I am saying is that, it is NOT WISE to place a former Career Military GENERAL Officer in the Highest Civilian Position of the USA. You're more than welcome to disagree.

With regret, some of this enthusiasm for General Clark, especial when it comes to his Military Record, concerns me that our country may be going toward more of an Authoritarian Rule.

GOSH, I love the Military, but I want a CIVILIAN PRESIDENT!

[FrenchieCat]

92. This is the problem....

"valid argument I am saying is that, it is NOT WISE to place a former Career Military GENERAL Officer in the Highest Civilian Position of the USA."

You make no "argument".....you only state your conclusion.

Why is it not "wise"? Your answer could be an argument....but just stating what you don't prefer is not a valid argument. Understand? :shrug:


PS. I said you have'n't "said" jackShit....but didn't call you that.
You see, it's hard to debate with someone that doesn't understand the difference between calling one a name and calling one out on their actions.

[ShortnFiery]

94. Like I told your buddy ...

I will NOT STAND here and watch you piddle over THIS GREAT GENERAL'S thread with such pissy little jabs and tasteless infighting. It is below us!

<Waving the American flag as marching out single file, lock step past Dean Wormer back to Animal House DU>

[FrenchieCat]

96. Are you supposed to be funny with this?

Cause you ain't! :boring:

[ShortnFiery]

97. Oh This is GOOD! Hilarious even. :-)

Have a good evening ... I disagree with you Frenchie Cat, but I still respect you as a fellow DU member. :hi: :-)

[Texas_Kat]

66. So far as I can tell, you aren't so much attacking Clark

as attacking his potential candidacy in 08.

Truly, someone with as many bonafides and critical thinking skills as you should be able to tell the difference,

You don't know me, but I'm getting to know quite a bit about you.

[ShortnFiery]

74. OH yes, not it's smother the individual with insults.

That really is a shame because up until now our discussions have been, shall I say, "A class Act?" ;)

[Texas_Kat]

64. Well, I'll say it ...since no one else might

They, uh, actually know him.

I'll take the advice of McGovern, Cuomo, Webb and Clinton (sorry, I left out Jimmy Carter in my little list above -- who asked him to run back in '03). Leaders whose credentials surely outweigh yours.

I do expect anyone who wants to be a leader in the Democratic Party understand the word "honor". I can't imagine what sort of person thinks that honor is something to be avoided. I have no idea which person you might deign to 'approve' of, but if they don't believe in 'honor', I don't want anything to do with them.

[FrenchieCat]

49. Like you ain't posting the same ass shit in every Clark thread that you!

encounter! :eyes:

What-E-Ver! Hopeless is in the eye of the beholder!

But Enjoy your "My opinion is a fact cause I'm superior and a Hypocrite" kool-aid! :toast:

[ShortnFiery]

50. I can always count on profanity laced comment from you dear FrenchieCat

Back at ya! :toast:

[FrenchieCat]

52. Profane statements aren't always made up of 3 or 4 letter words.....

as you have managed to unreasonably insult more folks with your arrogant opinionated drivel then I ever could using the word "ass" and "shit".

[ShortnFiery]

55. Oh, DRIVEL, how nice?

You are winning all sorts of friends and compadres today. :-)

[FrenchieCat]

61. It ain't about winning......

It's about making sure that FOlks are able to disert Facts from opinionated-Fiction.

Now are there any specific issues that you want to discuss in reference to Wes Clark and his career? Cause if so, I can go there with ya!

[ShortnFiery]

63. Oh no, you have been most effective ... In fact,

a beautiful example of the CLASS and HONOR General Clark would want conveyed throughout this thread. :sarcasm:

[FrenchieCat]

67. Too bad that when you attempt to critique General Clark

you cite absolutely no FACTS.

PS. But if I were you, I wouldn't concern myself so much with what General Clark "wants", Cause according to you, he's a nothing and a nobody anyways. :eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

68. Go back and read my posts again Frenchie Cat ...

There's a sound basis for my reservations.

You know that, don't you?

[FrenchieCat]

71. What....that you served, and know everything and everyone?

That's a basis....but whether it is sound, I would state NO.

[ShortnFiery]

78. I am humble, in that I FULLY admit that I don't know everything ...

You just don't like MY OPINION. Therefore you get NASTY.

Really, I don't think The Good General would approve of such tactics, do you?

[FrenchieCat]

85. Nasty is as nasty does......

My posts are defensively nasty....

While yours were always meant to be offensive & nasty.

[ShortnFiery]

88. OK, sometime we are going to sit down and do a legit Operations

Plan. Then you will see that neither of us are totally Offensive nor Defensive. It's sort of like a "free for all" :-)

[Texas_Kat]

72. It's okay, Frenchie

when they start pulling out one-liners, you know their ammunition is running low. :sarcasm:

Or trying to get this thread locked. I'm not responding to its emotional hyperbole anymore.

[ShortnFiery]

76. General Clark would be very proud of the tag - team efforts of

you and your bud Frenchie Cat.

Oh how HONORABLE AND CLASSY. :P

[FrenchieCat]

84. At least there is more than one on our "Imagined" "Tag-team".....

As you appear to be a "tag-team" of one!

PS. Don't be so paranoid. Texas Kat and I didn't "consult" in our responses. You give yourself too much importance to think that it would take that kind of effort to illustrate how little you actually know about who and what General Clark is.

[Texas_Kat]

87. There are no rules in a knife fight

When you come into a thread and start accusing posters of being 'kool-aid drinkers and mindless drones, you should expect a response in kind.

Though I've never met FrenchieCat, I do know what in the realm of facts, she has encyclopediac information.

You've stated your opinion (with nary a fact to be seen) several times.... we've heard/read it .... time to move on. That is, unless you are one of those who is obsessed with posting the last word. If that's the case, I'm afraid you may be in for a long night.

At least it will keep this thread kicked and demonstrate to the DU community the difference between good arguments and .....not.

[ShortnFiery]

89. Oh now you say we are in a Knife Fight!

Well, I will not just STAND HERE and let you draw a KNIFE on the thread of this GREAT AND HONORABLE GENERAL!

Why do you hate AMERICA and General Clark to dirty his thread with such senseless infighting? <marching out past Dean Wormer> :rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

93. Do you sometimes make sense?

[ShortnFiery]

95. You need to watch some Anti-Authoritarian movies made in the 70s

Animal House ... I'd also recommend "The Blues Brothers. :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

98. Your attempt at comedy is not much better than your political insight.....

I'm just sayin'.....:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

99. Ok, Guess what I am now?

:rofl:

No, it's time to quit. Dammit! :(

Yes Frenchie Cat, you RULE! :applause:

[sampsonblk]

129. Why is this a big deal?

George Washington. Zachary Taylor. US Grant. Dwight Eisenhower. Why is this an issue? Or did you already explain that?

[sampsonblk]

128. Amen to that! (Webb, etc)

A return to sanity? I sure hope so!

[donkeyotay]

42. Someone should certaily slap Perle for his forcast

Perles of Wisdom

In USA 'Today, May 2, 2003 "Relax, Celebrate Victory"

This was a war worth fighting. It ended quickly with few civilian casualties and with little damage to Iraq's cities, towns or infrastructure. It ended without the Arab world rising up against us, as the war's critics feared, without the quagmire they predicted, without the heavy losses in house-to-house fighting they warned us to expect. It was conducted with immense skill and selfless courage by men and women who will remain until Iraqis are safe, and who will return home as heroes....

Iraqis are freer today and we are safer. Relax and enjoy it.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/801

[Bucky]

101. Excuse me, but "nobody could have possibly forseen that..."

Nobody could have possibly forseen that...

1. Iraqis would fight against people who invaded their country
2. Sending all the deactivated Iraqi military home penniless would provide a recruitment base for insurgents
3. Iraqis would become resentful about an occupying force that killed tens of thousands of "collaterals"
4. Iraqis would become incenced by continuing incidents of torture and murder and rapes of civilians
5. Terrorist groups would exploit even exceptional stories of American atrocities as proof that the West is evil
6. Creating economic chaos and widespread social dislocation would turn Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorism
7. Staying on in Iraq 2 years after Saddam is caught and WMDs disproved would trigger wider anger in the MidEast
8. Turning Iraq into a sectarian shooting gallery would improve Iran's appeal to Shi'ites
9. In the ensuing chaos, anybody who takes a potshot at Israel, however futile, would gain instant street cred

Who but an Einstein, who but a veritable Nostradamus could have ever predicted such unlikely outcomes from our simple desire to save the Iraqi people from a WMD-weidling madman like Saddam Hussein and his known al-Qaeda associates?


(this is so good, I'm gonna post it in its own thread)

[NativeTexan]

100. He's the GUY!!

And BITCH-SLAP 'EM HE DID!!!! DAMN GOOD!!

[Crunchy Frog]

111. Nice post, returnable. And nice to see you back around.

Wes is still my guy for '08, and it's still sad to see how often any positive post about him will generate a nasty flame war here.:hi:

[Texas_Kat]

113. Not a flame war

"... a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Macbeth Quote (Act V, Scene V)."

Or maybe just a lot of smoke and mirrors.

:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

114. Gee Texas_Kat, I viewed your behavior much more meaningful than the above?

I certainly wouldn't call you an idiot. ;) :hi:

[Texas_Kat]

121. Gee, just a little Shakespeare

... to elevate the discourse.

:hi:

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

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

[ShortnFiery]

138. Thank-you mojowork_n

I appreciate your research and did peruse the thread that you referenced. :hi:

Presently, IMO it's important to let the GOOD and POLITE folks enjoy their appreciation of General Clark, without tempting those who are, IMO not so nice, to behave badly.

We are all Democrats here, I am saddened that we can ALL, at times, abuse each other when we agree on 98 % of the issues.

Again, I'm done with participation within Clark threads ... mostly out of true respect for those who treated me in a civil manner. ;) There is HOPE, after all, for SOME people within the "Go Clark" crowd.

[FrenchieCat]

139. Were the 200,000 deaths in Bosnia orchestrated by the same

Molosovic also Grossly exaggerated? Do you mean to say that the US needed an excuse to go into Kosovo.....when they could have easily gone into Bosnia a few years early...which is also located in the Balkans?

Why Didn't Clinton go into Rhwanda a few years earlier....if a military "warm up" was needed?

[Crunchy Frog]

140. Oh good. Another name for my "ignored" list.

I may take this line for my sig though.

"MaoTseTungMemorial_4Clark4Ever_1st_DU_RedBrigade" :rofl:

[Crunchy Frog]

116. Ah well. Another person for my ignore list.

Life's too short.

[returnable]

118. Hey, thanks. Good to see you, too.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh? :)

[Crunchy Frog]

119. Hope we'll be seeing you around on a regular basis.

It's not all nutso hijackings of Clark threads here. :)

[ShortnFiery]

122. No Worries, I promise not to partake in another ...

lauded "Go Clark" Thread.

I have fully had my say. I want to thank those of you who were civil toward my person. For the others, if I came across as mean-spirited, that was not my intent.

Please, no hard feelings ... I step aside for I know when I'm beat.

Enjoy without my opinion spoiling the mix. :applause: :hi:

[returnable]

124. No problem.

I've been hijacked by much worse :toast:

[Sparkly]

125. Thank you. Best post I've ever read from you. nt

[returnable]

123. It's the nutso hijackings that keep me coming back

:7

Anyway, yeah, I'm hoping to check in a bit more often as the midterms approach. And of course, the '08 primary season is just around the corner... :)

[zcflint09]

130. Wes is the man, plain and simple

He is a genius and a war hero of the highest regard, and supports democrats all across the country through campaign apperances and endorsements. He truly cares about the future of this party and not just for his own. Wes is the ONLY choice we have for the next President of the United States.

[imlost]

134. Thanks for a great post. Clark is a true democrat and leader. n/t