RFK-Wes Clark Parallels

[xkenx]

I watched the movie "Bobby" last nite for the first time. I could never watch it in the theater because I knew I could not watch it through, that I'd need to take breaks to compose myself. So I Netflixed it. By coincidence it was on the eve of the 39th anniversary of RFK's assassination.
I remember Bobby from the time, but not much detail. As I watched, I was gripped seeing and hearing Bobby talking about war and peace and healing and caring for people, the amazing parallels between then and now. He was a true visionary, ahead of his time, but so many things have not changed because Bobby never got to be President. What struck me is how Wes Clark has articulated the same messages, with the same self-effacing honesty and clarity. Wes Clark is the new RFK. I hope the country gets to see that Wes Clark has reached the point of opportunity to become the president I have been waiting for since Bobby Kennedy--the leader, the healer, the protector, the visionary, that no one else even comes close to being. I hope he gives us the opportunity to work to make that happen. And I hope the country can see that as well. Not since Bobby Kennedy have I been so inspired by a public figure as I have been inspired by Wes Clark.

[Catchawave]

1. For a "career" officer in the late 60's...NOT

Leave RFK out of this PLEASE.

[xkenx]

2. Here we go again--for those who stereotype Wes Clark

This is for any Dems. who may have trouble with a former general as
POTUS.
You woulda thunk that after all the information about Wes Clark, at
least here and @ DKOS, that folks would know that Clark, in his essential
being, is an antiwar progressive. But I keep seeing comments about "warlike
mentality, rigid authoritarian, MIC-lover, doesn't know domestic policy,
inexperienced, etc." So let's see if I, as an antiwar liberal whose hero was
Bobby Kennedy, can shed some important light on this--maybe convince a few
that Wes Clark is a gift to the Democratic Party who can flip red states and
whup any Rethug they can put up.

THE "DUCK PRINCIPLE"
Ducks don't wear signs labeling them ducks. 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 committed the act of political courage by
appearing on the cover of the Advocate (gay rights magazine)during the '04
primaries.

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.

2008 is all about flipping a few red states into our column. Hillary
certainly can't do it. 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. You left out Clark's ongoing efforts to head off war with Iran

and anyone who follows international news damn well better hope that Clark's efforts succeed.

[BikeWriter]

42. hear, hear!

[Captain Hilts]

22. Well, Clark never worked as a hitman for Joe McCarthy. nt

[Bucky]

61. Kennedy's staffwork for McCarthy produced the only good thing Tailgunner Joe did.

Kennedy worked briefly for McCarthy, but quit as a committee staffer not long after Roy Cohn got a promotion that Kennedy wanted for himself (Cohn was younger). RFK's work for McCarthy's committee resulted in the only productive thing McCarthy ever produced in his 12 years in the senate. RFK's research yielded evidence of American businesses selling goods to mainland China during the Korean War, including some goods that could be used by the Chinese Red Army. The American businessmen got shamed by RFK and McCarthy into discontinuing sales to the people who were killing American soldiers.

Bob Kennedy was ruthless, but scrupulous. It's interesting to speculate what would have happened had he beaten out Roy Cohn for committee general counsel back in the 1950s. It may well have changed history, as most of the harm Tailgunner Joe McCarthy did and most of his delusional downspiral happened after Bobby quit working for him. Cohn's influence over the drunken senator--at one point a rising star in the party--was almost entirely negative, nudging the weak willed and paranoid McCarthy deeper into the bottle and into his delusions of Red cells hiding everywhere.

Kennedy's service to McCarthy was entirely honorable, however. You can critique RFK for excess and zealotry in a lot of points in his resume. But the work he did for McCarthy was truly doing the work of the angels.

[illinoisprogressive]

3. huh???

[FrenchieCat]

5. You have admitly stated in the past that you don't know much about

Wes Clark.

Maybe that is why you post "Huh????"

Are you saying you have no clue or what exactly? :shrug:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. RFK didn't morph into a Democrat at age 58 like Clark

To compare one of the greatest Democrats to someone who was spoke at a Republican fundraiser in 2001 is astonishing. I echo your sentiment.

[CarolNYC]

14. Well,

I don't know if RFK ever spoke at any Republican fundraisers but he did work for (and liked) Senator Joe McCarthy.

As for me, I was too young to remember RFK alive. I only "discovered" him after he was gone but I became totally fascinated with him. I think I've read every book about and by him, seen every video, etc. etc. I always felt regret that I would never be able to meet him, never know what it felt like to actively support him in a political campaign.

Then I 'discovered' Wes Clark. There's no way for me to know for sure what it would have been like to be a RFK supporter while he was alive but I felt, supporting Clark, that for the first time I might have some idea. Being a Clark supporter in those early days excited me in the way I believed that supporting Bobby would have. Nothing that's happened since has made me feel any different.

As for the two men, yes, they are each their own man, each very special in their own way. Both are great Democrats, I believe, and I am proud to say I 'support' both of them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Ask Marrio about Wes some time

He likes Wes at least as much as George McGovern does, maybe more, and George endorced Clark in 2004,(after Jimmy Carter called Wes urging him to run for President).

[jenmarie]

20. Cuomo on Clark

Mario Cuomo said, "Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."

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

[Dinger]

24. Damn Jen, You Have It going' On!!

Thanks for your posts!
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[jenmarie]

28. Well thanks, Dinger!

As you well know, Clarkies have responded to the same smears a gazillion times, so I finally arranged my bookmarks for easier access. And I have to say Tom Rinaldo, Frenchie Cat, jai, WesDem, and a host of others have my deepest gratitude for all the work they've done in this regard!

:hi:

[CarolNYC]

23. Aw, McGovern....

Another one of my political "heroes". I literally cried the morning I found out he was endorsing Wes. And the very nice things he said about Wes as a Democrat....George was the first national political figure I ever met. I was just a kid and he was running for President. My mom rode a city bus with four little kids and then we walked the rest of the way out to some farm somewhere so we could see him. Hardly anyone was there and we got to meet him and talk with him up close. Even as a little kid, I could tell he was a very good man.

As for the Mario quote, draft mario knows it. I showed it to him back when he was all complimentary about Clark a couple of months back...but, for others who may not have seen it before, here it is again, one of my favorite quotes about Clark:

"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."

I don't think I ever want him to learn to be the kind of politician Mario's talking about there.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. I like Clark. I hope he runs.

In this thread my objection was to comparing him to one of the greatest progressives ever. As far as my general recent posts on Clark, they are in response to Clarkies constantly claiming Edwards is a fraud in every Edwards thread (namely four of them). I noticed that pattern after spending a few weeks here. I simply apply their logic to the facts of Clark. :)

[CarolNYC]

26. Perhaps you'd find the comparison more appropriate...

...if Clark had worked closely with someone like Joe McCarthy? :shrug:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. RFK was always a Democrat

We can't judge someone's political affiliations based on one issue.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. Agreed

Let's base affiliations instead on their beliefs, their values, the Party that they openly associate with, and the party that they tirelessly work on behalf of.

If you want to point out that a difference between RFK and Wes Clark is that RFK never registered as an independent or (to your knowledge anyway) never voted for a Republican, fine. Everyone in this thread agrees that no two people are identical in their life paths. And of course there are many differences between RFK and Wes Clark, just as there are between RFK and John Edwards, who others on this board have compared to RFK. The differences in each case are not the same, but some people at DU seem to be inspired by Clark and/or Edwards as the case may be,in a way that is similar to how RFK once inspired them. At the time of his death RFK was a progressive, as are Clark and Edwards now. That's what really counts I believe. The two Democratic Presidents who Wes Clark once voted against each encouraged Clark to run as a Democrat for President in 2004. They saw something about Clark then that many other Democrats didn't come to see about Wes Clark either a few months or a few years later, as the case may be.

But Clark now has a stirling record fighting for progressive causes as a Democrat. On a slew of issues Wes Clark is far more progressive than say Jim Webb, who most DU members were thrilled to help get elected to the Senate in 2006. But the real point lies in Clark's character; he has always been a stand up guy willing to make real sacrifices for what he believes in, who has never been afraid to speak the truth about what he believes in, no matter who is is talking about or to.

[CarolNYC]

34. always a Dem

So, being a progressive has nothing to do with what you do or believe, just what letter you put after your name...Ohhh-kay. I guess it works that way for some people.

If the label is what is most important to you and you need someone who’s always labeled themselves a Democrat then, yeah, you’ll have a problem with Clark. For most of his life, he’s not labeled himself anything. He’s just had his core values and beliefs and didn’t worry about the labels.

I wasn’t drawn to him because I thought he was a Democrat. I didn’t know what he was when I was drawn to him, except that he was saying things I wanted to hear about the war when no one else I heard was saying them. Then I researched him thoroughly and found out so many other things that drew me to him. I was drawn to him because I liked his beliefs and values and it didn’t matter to me what label he chose to give them. But that's just 'non-progressive' old me, I guess. I have, though, always had the "D" after my name, since I started voting, so I guess that should score me at least a couple of points, right?

[Bucky]

62. I discuss Kennedy's staff work for McCarthy in post #61.

The short answer was he investigated American businessmen trading with Red China during the Korean War. He did an excellent jog and his staff work almost certainly ended up saving American lives. And while he may have been hired by McCarthy (as a sop to a fellow senator) he worked for the committee McCarthy chaired, when there was a tradition of committees hiring both Republican and Democratic staffers.
.

[jenmarie]

18. Clark has done more

in his years as a Democrat to support and grow the party than anyone I'm aware of.

The List: 2006 -- Compilation of General Wesley Clark's appearances in 2006
The List: 2005 -- Compilation of General Wesley Clark's appearances in 2005
(Specifically for the Democratic Party and on behalf of Democratic candidates around the country.)

~~~~
His 34 years in service was done in the spirit of defending and protecting our constitution, a benefit to all Americans regardless of political party.

Clark gave ONE speech in March 2001 to a Republican dinner. The next week, he gave one to a similar Democratic event. He had just moved back to Little Rock and was meeting people in both groups. He was not involved in politics at the time.

Yes, in Pulaski County two months after Bush took office, Clark he said nice things about Republicans to a Republican audience. There's not a single Democratic leader who has not done so at some point or another as well. But the lion's share of his speech was about the need to work with our allies, especially within NATO--certainly not something the Bush administration has shown much interest in since 2001.

Clark has never been registered as a Republican. During his Army service he registered to vote as an Independent (as do many career military officers) in his home state of Arkansas . Clark says he voted for Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan out of concern for national security during the Vietnam and Cold War years. But he says later he found Republicans to be “shrill” and “isolationist.” And so he says he voted for fellow Arkansas resident Bill Clinton and most recently for Al Gore, both Democrats. Clark changed his voter registration to Democrat only after retiring from the Army in 2000 and declaring himself a candidate for the party’s nomination late in September, 2003.

h/t jai

I think I remembering someone asking Edwards about his past presidential votes, and he said he couldn't remember. Clark could easily have said the same thing, but he is always going to speak truth whether it benefits him or not.

[Auntie Bush]

30. Edwards couldn't remember who he voted for? Sounds like Libby!

I'm sure he voted for Reagan...and won't admit it...just like most everyone did...myself included and I ain't no Republican ever again...just as Clark won't be either. People evolve through the years and depending on how the candidate changes and performs...so does their political affiliation. I hated Raygun long before he was out of office.
I bet there are a lot of Rethugs who will never vote Rethug again and be ashamed to tell their children they ever voted for bush, especially when he goes down as the worst president ever.

[Cameron27]

39. You've saved me a lot of work!

I've been trying to make a compilation myself, thanks for posting!

:thumbsup:

[Captain Hilts]

21. Out with it Draft_Mario_Cuomo, Clark's just a trojan horse for the Clintons. nt

[xkenx]

36. Read my post #2. And Clark, being in the military, was necessarily independent.

When he got out of the military, he knew that his values were those of Democrats, so he registered as a Democrat. BTW, in the 2006 campaign, no one worked harder to help elect Democrats across the country. Even contributions to his PAC were used for that purpose, rather than to bolster his potential presidential run. BTW, Ronald Reagan was ACTUALLY a Democrat in his younger days. I don't hear any Republicans disclaiming him. Why is it that Democrats insist in "devouring their young" like some animals? Read again post #2 and tell me which part you do not understand. If your hidden agenda is that you cannot understand how a former military leader can be a peace-loving progressive, I feel sorry for your closed mind. Read Michael Moore's endorsement of Clark from 2003 here.

I?ll Be Voting For Wesley Clark / Good-Bye Mr. Bush ? by Michael Moore

Many of you have written to me in the past months asking, "Who are you going to vote for this year?"

I have decided to cast my vote in the primary for Wesley Clark. That's right, a peacenik is voting for a general. What a country!

I believe that Wesley Clark will end this war. He will make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. He will stand up for the rights of women, African Americans, and the working people of this country.

And he will cream George W. Bush.

I have met Clark and spoken to him on a number of occasions, feeling him out on the issues but, more importantly, getting a sense of him as a human being. And I have to tell you I have found him to be the real deal, someone whom I'm convinced all of you would like, both as a person and as the individual leading this country. He is an honest, decent, honorable man who would be a breath of fresh air in the White House. He is clearly not a professional politician. He is clearly not from Park Avenue. And he is clearly the absolute best hope we have of defeating George W. Bush.

This is not to say the other candidates won't be able to beat Bush, and I will work enthusiastically for any of the non-Lieberman 8 who might get the nomination. But I must tell you, after completing my recent 43-city tour of this country, I came to the conclusion that Clark has the best chance of beating Bush. He is going to inspire the independents and the undecided to come our way. The hard core (like us) already have their minds made up. It's the fence sitters who will decide this election.

The decision in November is going to come down to 15 states and just a few percentage points. So, I had to ask myself -- and I want you to honestly ask yourselves -- who has the BEST chance of winning Florida, West Virginia, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio? Because THAT is the only thing that is going to matter in the end. You know the answer -- and it ain't you or me or our good internet doctor.

This is not about voting for who is more anti-war or who was anti-war first or who the media has already anointed. It is about backing a candidate that shares our values AND can communicate them to Middle America. I am convinced that the surest slam dunk to remove Bush is with a four-star-general-top-of-his-class- at-West-Point-Rhodes-Scholar-Medal-of-Freedom-winning-gun-owner-from-the-South -- who also, by chance, happens to be pro-choice, pro environment, and anti-war. You don't get handed a gift like this very often. I hope the liberal/left is wise enough to accept it. It's hard, when you're so used to losing, to think that this time you can actually win. It is Clark who stands the best chance -- maybe the only chance -- to win those Southern and Midwestern states that we MUST win in order to accomplish Bush Removal. And if what I have just said is true, then we have no choice but to get behind the one who can make this happen.

There are times to vote to make a statement, there are times to vote for the underdog and there are times to vote to save the country from catastrophe. This time we can and must do all three. I still believe that each one of us must vote his or her heart and conscience. If we fail to do that, we will continue to be stuck with spineless politicians who stand for nothing and no one (except those who write them the biggest checks).

My vote for Clark is one of conscience. I feel so strongly about this that I'm going to devote the next few weeks of my life to do everything I can to help Wesley Clark win. I would love it if you would join me on this mission.

Here are just a few of the reasons why I feel this way about Wes Clark:

1. Clark has committed to ensuring that every family of four who makes under $50,000 a year pays NO federal income tax. None. Zip. This is the most incredible helping hand offered by a major party presidential candidate to the working class and the working poor in my lifetime. He will make up the difference by socking it to the rich with a 5% tax increase on anything they make over a million bucks. He will make sure corporations pay ALL of the taxes they should be paying. Clark has fired a broadside at greed. When the New York Times last week wrote that Wes Clark has been ?positioning himself slightly to Dean?s left," this is what they meant, and it sure sounded good to me.

2. He is 100% opposed to the draft. If you are 18-25 years old and reading this right now, I have news for you -- if Bush wins, he's going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it -- Bush's second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich. Only an ex-general who knows first-hand that a draft is a sure-fire way to wreck an army will be able to avert the inevitable.

3. He is anti-war. Have you heard his latest attacks on Bush over the Iraq War? They are stunning and brilliant. I want to see him on that stage in a debate with Bush -- the General vs. the Deserter! General Clark told me that it's people like him who are truly anti-war because it's people like him who have to die if there is a war. "War must be the absolute last resort," he told me. "Once you've seen young people die, you never want to see that again, and you want to avoid it whenever and wherever possible." I believe him. And my ex-Army relatives believe him, too. It's their votes we need.

4. He walks the walk. On issues like racism, he just doesn't mouth liberal platitudes -- he does something about it. On his own volition, he joined in and filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's case in favor of affirmative action. He spoke about his own insistence on affirmative action in the Army and how giving a hand to those who have traditionally been shut out has made our society a better place. He didn't have to get involved in that struggle. He's a middle-aged white guy -- affirmative action personally does him no good. But that is not the way he thinks. He grew up in Little Rock, one of the birthplaces of the civil rights movement, and he knows that African Americans still occupy the lowest rungs of the ladder in a country where everyone is supposed to have "a chance." That is why he has been endorsed by one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Charlie Rangel, and former Atlanta Mayor and aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., Andrew Young.

5. On the issue of gun control, this hunter and gun owner will close the gun show loophole (which would have helped prevent the massacre at Columbine) and he will sign into law a bill to create a federal ballistics fingerprinting database for every gun in America (the DC sniper could have been identified within the first days of his killing spree). He is not afraid, as many Democrats are, of the NRA. His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"

6. He will gut and overhaul the Patriot Act and restore our constitutional rights to privacy and free speech. He will demand stronger environmental laws. He will insist that trade agreements do not cost Americans their jobs and do not exploit the workers or environment of third world countries. He will expand the Family Leave Act. He will guarantee universal pre-school throughout America. He opposes all discrimination against gays and lesbians (and he opposes the constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage). All of this is why Time magazine this week referred to Clark as "Dean 2.0" -- an improvement over the original (1.0, Dean himself), a better version of a good thing: stronger, faster, and easier for the mainstream to understand and use.

7. He will cut the Pentagon budget, use the money thus saved for education and health care, and he will STILL make us safer than we are now. Only the former commander of NATO could get away with such a statement. Dean says he will not cut a dime out of the Pentagon. Clark knows where the waste and the boondoggles are and he knows that nutty ideas like Star Wars must be put to pasture. His health plan will cover at least 30 million people who now have no coverage at all, including 13 million children. He's a general who will tell those swing voters, "We can take this Pentagon waste and put it to good use to fix that school in your neighborhood." My friends, those words, coming from the mouth of General Clark, are going to turn this country around.

Now, before those of you who are Dean or Kucinich supporters start cloggin' my box with emails tearing Clark down with some of the stuff I've seen floating around the web ("Mike! He voted for Reagan! He bombed Kosovo!"), let me respond by pointing out that Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against the war resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated "unequivocal support" for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained). Or, need I quote Dr. Dean who, the month after Bush "won" the election, said he wasn't too worried about Bush because Bush "in his soul, is a moderate"? What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war, and I am certain Howard no longer believes we have nothing to fear about Bush. They are good people.

Why expend energy on the past when we have such grave danger facing us in the present and in the near future? I don't feel bad nor do I care that Clark -- or anyone -- voted for Reagan over 20 years ago. Let's face it, the vast majority of Americans voted for Reagan -- and I want every single one of them to be WELCOMED into our tent this year. The message to these voters -- and many of them are from the working class -- should not be, "You voted for Reagan? Well, to hell with you!" Every time you attack Clark for that, that is the message you are sending to all the people who at one time liked Reagan. If they have now changed their minds (just as Kucinich has done by going from anti-choice to pro-choice, and Dean has done by wanting to cut Medicare to now not wanting to cut it) ? and if Clark has become a liberal Democrat, is that not something to cheer?

In fact, having made that political journey and metamorphosis, is he not the best candidate to bring millions of other former Reagan supporters to our side -- blue collar people who have now learned the hard way just how bad Reagan and the Republicans were (and are) for them?

We need to take that big DO NOT ENTER sign off our tent and reach out to the vast majority who have been snookered by these right-wingers. And we have a better chance of winning in November with one of their own leading them to the promised land.

There is much more to discuss and, in the days and weeks ahead, I will continue to send you my thoughts. In the coming months, I will also be initiating a number of efforts on my website to make sure we get out the vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

In addition to voting for Wesley Clark, I will also be spending part of my Bush tax cut to help him out. You can join me, if you like, by going to his website to learn more about him, to volunteer, or to donate. To find out about when your state?s presidential primaries are, visit Vote Smart.

I strongly urge you to vote for Wes Clark. Let's join together to ensure that we are putting forth our BEST chance to defeat Bush on the November ballot. It is, at this point, for the sake of the world, a moral imperative.

Yours,

Michael Moore

[alfredo]

79. He was still in the military then. Once he was out he spoke out.

[Donna Zen]

4. You are not alone

Elizabeth Drew has seen them all including Bobby Kennedy. Here is what she had to say:

Still, over those four days Clark improved his stump speech from one that was weak to one that was eloquent. At a huge rally outside Manchester on Saturday afternoon, January 17, he stirred up more emotion than I have seen since Robert F. Kennedy addressed large crowds.

Primary Colors

The entire article is a balanced recap of what 04 was all about. Sometimes the revisionist version prevails, even by those who say they value clear thinking.

[xkenx]

38. I've saved that article too. Elizabeth Drew is one of the few in the media

to truly notice what becoming a Clarkie means.

[stevedeshazer]

6. With all due respect, your post has zero specifics

Please be specific comparing RFK and Wes Clark.

Disclaimer: I like General Clark. However, when I read that Wesley Clark is "the new RFK", my BS meter starts going red.

How, exactly, does General Clark compare to Robert Kennedy?

[FrenchieCat]

9. For me, Wes Clark is Wes Clark, and does very well on his own merits.....

But Maybe Op believes that for him/her, Wes Clark has energized her/him and given her/him hope as to what America's future could be!

Maybe Op believes that Wes Clark tried to make a difference not so much for himself, but for this country in many of his endeavors.

From the OP..."I was gripped seeing and hearing Bobby talking about war and peace and healing and caring for people, the amazing parallels between then and now. He was a true visionary, ahead of his time, but so many things have not changed because Bobby never got to be President.

What struck me is how Wes Clark has articulated the same messages, with the same self-effacing honesty and clarity."

Maybe Op is lamenting that too, Wes Clark may never get to be President....

Anyways, I'll let Op speak for Op's self.

[stevedeshazer]

10. I agree with you

Wes Clark stands on his own.

Robert Kennedy is my political idol, so when someone compares anyone to him without citation or evidence of any kind, I get bent.

General Clark's record and views stand alone, and I support them. I'd be very happy to see him out front of American politics, and I'd even consider him as a Presidential candidate.

Just don't tell me he's the new RFK, as the OP suggests. There will never be another.

:)

[FrenchieCat]

11. Agreed that great people are unique.........

and I consider both RFK and Wes Clark to be just that.

=

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. RFK has always been my political hero also

I actually got to see him speak at our high school in 1967. I understand the emotion that the OP brings to this. For me I will simply say that after RFK was assasinated I tuned out of national electoral politics, though I stayed deeply involved in various national and international causes and struggles. Mainstream politics though was something I never touched again until 2003 when I first saw Wes Clark speak in person (yes I was finally open to revisiting electoral politics again, that's how much I hated Bush.)

I never expected to find Clark as inspirational an individual as I did. If you want to read something I wrote about my own personal journey from skeptisism about Wes Clark, to enthusiastic support for him, you can find it here: http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/2006/12/how_i_first_came_to_support_we.html#more

Each man is unique, but the only person I ever felt as strong a personal bond with in politics prior to Wes Clark was RFK.

[TacticalPeek]

31. I also got to see them both speak, and I agree in spades.

It's like a special patriotism and intelligence that shines through.

[xkenx]

37. Post #2 has a boatload of specifics. But I can rephrase that line to read

"For me after observing the political scene for better than 40 years, no one reminds me so much of Bobby Kennedy as does Wes Clark."

[Dinger]

7. To Da Greatest Page With Ya!

What xkenx said!
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[Cameron27]

8. K&R

[jenmarie]

12. Haven't seen the movie

but I too have been inspired by Clark like no one since RFK. I pretty much stayed out of politics, disgusted by most of it, thinking it was a game set up by the elites to make we the people believe we had a say. Clark is responsible for waking me to to realize that yeah, it's a game, and if we all don't play, THEY automatically win.

We certainly need a strong leader now more than ever, and Clark's it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAtcz4CaMos

[Captain Hilts]

19. He's typical of some military folks when they get out, realize that the outside world isn't fair...

to the Little Guy.

They don't usually have a lot of sympathy for a CEO earning 200 times as much as the lowest- paid employee, and working to cut that employee's benefits and health insurance.

[Kat45]

32. This is an excellent thread--K & R

I understand what you're saying. Wes Clark inspires me as well. I honestly believe he is the person who can rescue our country from what the bush administration has done to it and get us back on the right track. I wish other people, lots of other people, would see the greatness that we see in the man. I believe the posts in this thread are a very good start in letting people know what we see in Wes Clark.

[ellisonz]

33. Umm...no.

[xkenx]

40. Umm...no, with what logic to back that up?

[ellisonz]

41. You post is so illogical it doesn't merit lengthy response.

RFK was from a well-to-do family, entered politics at a young age and had tremendous success, oh, and he never was in the military i.e. a man of peace and not of war.

"cult of personality"

[NCarolinawoman]

43. RFK was CERTAINLY in the military.

He served in the Navy from 1943 to 1946. For a brief time he was assigned (upon his own request) to the Naval Destroyer named after his oldest brother, Robert P. Kennedy, Jr.
'
You probably know that Bobby's older brother, John F. Kennedy, also served in the Navy and was a war hero.

There was a time when Democrats perceived that serving in the military was honorable. It should still be that way. After all, George McGovern, was a decorated fighter pilot, and also represented the peace activists of the Viet Nam war era, when he ran as a Democrat against Richard Nixon.

It really is important to learn our history.

[ellisonz]

51. Ok, so not career military.

I don't think serving in the military is dishonorable, I just don't think it automatically qualifies you to be President of the United States. I'm just more impressed by a dedicated life-long teacher than a general with a chest full of doo-dahs.

[Adelante]

44. "cult of personality"

Look to yourself. RFK was a great inspiration toward the end of his life and continues to be. He deserves tremendous respect for that and his support for civil rights. But do not misrepresent the actual man he was, the cold warrior who supported the Vietnam war policies of two presidents, three if you count Eisenhower, until soon before the end of his life. The liberal left did not adore RFK until he was dead and that's a fact. He was a complicated human being, not a cardboard stick figure.

[ellisonz]

52. I agree.

But the reality is that the comparison is representative of an "anti-politician" desire for a military officer in order to short-cut the hard realities of defeating the GOP on the national security issue. Why did you need to imply that I am liberal left? Methinks someone is dependent on labels.

[xkenx]

45. My parallels are strictly about the values, integrity, caring, and see post #2.

[ellisonz]

53. The same comment can be made about 70% of Democrats.

And 2% of the Republicans.

[CarolNYC]

46. "cult of personality" indeed

As NCwoman has pointed out, for starters, RFK did serve in the Navy, although the Destroyer's name was Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr.

I'm guessing from your post there's a lot of other things you're probably dreadfully unaware of as far as RFK goes. Perhaps you should take out one of the many RFK biographies from the library and learn about him. (Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s 'Robert Kennedy and His Times' is quite long but, I think, a really good one.) I'm guessing you'll still greatly admire him but at least your admiration will be based on some facts and not some mythic figure you've created.

And then you might want to take some time and learn about General Clark too just in case your image of him has as much basis in reality as your image of RFK.

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. RFK was uniquely positioned to help bridge key divides

...that were in the process of pulling our nation apart in several ways in a splintering that continued to gather momentum after RFK's tragic murder. Partially because of his Kennedy charisma as the direct heir of Camelot, partially because of his brilliance, and partially because of the obvious intense passion that he felt regarding tackling and resolving the biggist issues of his time, RFK was able to pull toward him a much more diverse coalition of support than Eugene McCarthy could muster, who also sought the 1968 nomination.

McCarthy was perceived as the true Liberal in that race; the non compromised voice of the anti-war movement to which Bobby was viewed as a somewhat late convert. Bobby also had working ties to establishment Democratic elements across the nation, including the Daly machine in Chicago. In that regard he was able to play the insider game almost as well as Hillary Clinton can today, since major elements of the National Democratic Party felt more loyalty to the foundation of JKK's Administration than to LBJ's Administration which followed JFK's death. The Democratic Party of 1998 had a much stronger "Blue Dog" constituency than it does today, and unlike McCarthy, RFK had lines open into that camp. Some of them would have much more easily followed RFK into major revisions of American foreign policy, that they otherwise would have had trouble swallowing, than they could have followed Eugene McCarthy had Gene become our 1968 nominee. And of course RFK had instant credibility on the world stage. He was the one human being best positioned to restore some popular base to refocused American leadership in the world.

Outside of the Democratic Party RFK had the aura of a tragic American Hero after the assasination of his brother. It helped RFK's message get heard in places where most Democrats, especially Liberal ones, rarely got a fair hearing. RFK could work the Democratic Power brokers while also forging a populist movement that wove together strands from all races, starnds that left to themselves unmingled spun off in very different Right and Left populist directions. Believe it or not, RFK in 1968 was able to appeal to many angry whites who later evolved to become Ditto Heads and FOX news junkies.

So for me the trajedy of RFK's loss began with the loss of that very special individual who had evolved so greatly in very positive ways during his short life time, but it doesn't end there. We also lost the person who, for all the complex reasons that prevailed at the time, would have been accepted as a leader by a large majority of Americans, with a mandate sufficient to bring about the changes so desperately needed in America.

Obviously there are multiple major differences between RFK's and Wes Clark's personal biographies. For me personally, I see similarities in each man's burning passion to do what he feels is just, and to directly speak the truth however he sees it, coupled with the demonstrated personal courage to take on any adversary who stood in the way of what each felt was right for America. They had/have differenct syles, but that part is minor to me. It also is far less a matter of comparing their specific progressive stands on issues for similarities; since RFK died almost 40 years ago direct comparisons between those times and these are hard to do with clarity. Clealy though one can find many similarities, but one could say that about dozens of other contemporary Democrats also.

The biggest similarity in my mind is how both RFK then, and Wes Clark now are positioned to win over people who are not firmly in the Liberal camp to forge a powerful new mandate to lead America in a direction very different than the wrong path we were then and are now on. Obviously Wes Clark can not start out now with the same star power as RFK then could immediately bring to bear as the surviving heir of an aborted Camelot. The reasons why each man in my opinion was/is uniquely able to unify most of America behind his message certainly differ. In Clark's case a lot of it has to do with the patriotic credit he earns in circles beyond our familiar Liberal ones, for proudly, and relative to what he easily could have garnished early in his life, selflessly serving his nation in uniform for 35 years. RFK spoke to an audiance far wider than his natural ideological base, and so does Wes Clark. He does so very literally most every week on FOX, something I can think of very few Democrats who still possess a spine being able to successfully pull off, values intact, other than Wes Clark. But I think America lost a once in a generation opportunity for healthy healing when we lost RFK. I see that potential again now in Wes Clark.

[NCarolinawoman]

48. Well said, Tom, but ever so bitter-sweet.

Your analysis made my heart break a little.....once again.

[xkenx]

49. Thanks, Tom! You covered nicely for my lack of writing capability.

And you exhibit great patience with the crazies and agenda-ridden people who rip Wes Clark here.

[Adelante]

54. Excellent!

Very well done, Tom.

[ellisonz]

56. Clark ain't running.

The RFK comparison is totally spurious and I say that as a history major, and frankly it is an insult to RFK. I imagine that by 1968 RFK was not very impressed by the generals and their war in Vietnam. May I dare say that the reality is that Clark is a johnny-come-lately to politics and that RFK never was such a man. I have to go to work now. I think you need a good book on the culture of the Vietnam War and the Peace Movement.

[xkenx]

58. Based on your comments, I thought you had flunked history. Maybe got a "gentleman's C"

Reread post #2. Wes Clark may have been in the military far longer than RFK, but it was a highly honorable service, with many accomplishments as an executive, as an environmentalist, an educator, an equal rights champion. Bluntly speaking, I think you have a hair across your ass over the military. So much so, you can hardly even acknowledge RFK's military service. However, you have contributed mightily to keeping this very pro-Clark thread going. When people like you appear, with nothing to offer but slander, you actually help OUR positions. Flame away!

[ellisonz]

60. LOL. You must think your a "buff," because that's a minor bit of trivia.

Furthermore, I would note that history is more than "just the facts," history is always judgment, and your judgments of history seem to be based on popular conceptions and bestselling biographies. It's not slander to say that comparing Wes Clark to RFK is almost entirely spurious. You post is pretty much silly, and I'm not the only one of who has posted to that effect, I count 4 other DUers who posted nearly the same post despite the latent Clarkie love fest. I think for you "people like you" means anyone who isn't infatuated by Wes Clark, and actually an even better description that "cult of personality" is "hero-worship," but may I dare say that Bobby Kennedy was a hero and Clark is no hero at all, West Point valedictorian, I'm not impressed. While Bobby Kennedy was railing against the Vietnam War, Clark was dutifully preparing to kill Vietnamese at West Point. I don't think Bobby would deny that we need a military, but I do believe that RFK and Clark's perception both in that time and if he were alive today, are fundamentally different.

:thumbsdown:

[xkenx]

65. Wes Clark was at West Point preparing to defend America.

One of the parallels between Clark and RFK is that Clark, regardless of why he chose to go to West Point in the first place, evolved into being an antiwar progressive. And you can check the history there, both factual and judgements. I find it amusing that you actually counted the number of posts anti-Clark, suggesting that you need some kind of validation. As for "hero-worship" I've found over the past few years that Clark supporters actually tend to be pretty open-eyed about their politics. The support,IMO,is founded on the belief that Clark's experience, leadership, and real-world progressive accomplishments merit backing him. Take a look around these boards; you'll find a lot of candidates' supporters gushing over them in what some of us might think of as hero-worship. Maybe you should go onto General Discussion:Politics and post something positive about YOUR candidate. Then be prepared for what you're pulling here.

[ellisonz]

66. From a poor third world people by bombing them into the stone age? Yeah right.

Try again.

1. I don't think Bobby neccesserily evolved in the same sense that Clark has and that's pretty much fact. You've got to remember that the early-middle Cold War was a radically different time.
2. I'm just pointing out that I'm not alone in my sentiments in regards to the comparison. You actually reveal your own problem, I mean if you didn't need validation why post such drivel?
3. What real world progressive accomplishments? Kosovo. :rofl:
4. I'm waiting for Al because my man Dean is in the bosses chair and I'm sick of the dog and pony show already.

[Tom Rinaldo]

67. So, do you think that all entrants into America's Military Acadamies...

...chose to enter those Academies in order to prepare themselves to fight in a specific war that they want to see furthered? Really, do you believe that? That is what you just stated regarding Clark, and that is completely unsupported by facts. It seems to me that you simply can't fathom why any sane person would choose to serve their nation by joining our Armed Forces, and Bobby Kennedy would certainly disagree with you on that one, as I think all of our Democratic candidates for President would, including Al Gore who voluntarily enlisted in the military during the Viet Nam War and served in the military in Viet Nam.

The only word that rings true is "dutifully", and I have no problem with that, do you? Or would you rather that America's military not be bound to follow the orders of America's elected civilian leadership? Would you rather that the people who had the weapons decided for themselves when and where to use them or not use them? That's been tried in a lot of places in the world. It's called a military dictatorship. Or maybe your solution is to simply abolish the our military, so that no one has guns to use regardless of who gives the order. If that's what you believe in please just come out and say so.

By the way the part I remember most vividly about the time I heard RFK speak in 1967, aside from my overall deeply felt feeling of respect and appreciation for him, was when he urged expansion of the military draft. Yup, he did. First he asked the crowd, by a show of hands, how many supported the War in Viet Nam? Most did not. Then he asked us how many supported the student deferment from military service that was still in place at the time? Most of us did. Then he lectured us about our position of privilege, and came out for eliminating student deferments to the draft.

[ellisonz]

68. Last post on my part.

I'm just saying that there is a serious difference in demeanor...between a Kennedy and a West Point valedictorian.

I do not believe the most honorable thing one can do in the service of their country is to join the military. Candidates with military experience alone (excluding Washington) have generally been poor presidents for example Jackson made a number of poor decisions including the national bank (the Fed works well), Grant was corrupt and incompetent, William McKinley was also corrupt and ineffective (1898 is almost a better comparison to Iraq than Nam), and Eisenhower spent more time playing golf than governing.

I think Clark made a conscious choice to be a lifetime warrior early on and his Vietnam experience did not do much to convince him that intervention is often not an effective policy and moreover as much as Clark understands war he doesn't seem to understand the politics of war, consider:

Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War
by Adam Nagourney

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Sept. 18 — Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, even as he presented himself as one of the sharpest critics of the war effort in the Democratic presidential race.

Also See:
Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate? Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"
FAIR 9/16/2003
What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory
by General Wesley Clark
Times/UK 4/10/2003

General Clark also said in an interview that he would probably oppose President Bush's request for $87 billion to finance the recovery effort in Iraq, though he said he could see circumstances in which he might support sending even more money into the country.

On both the question of the initial authorization and the latest request for financing, General Clark said he was conflicted. He offered the case on both sides of the argument, as he appeared to struggle to stake out positions on issues that have bedeviled four members of Congress who supported the war and are now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

Wesley Clark loves war and that clouds his political judgment, men like Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, JFK, RFK, and Al Gore went to war and came out of it firmly set against war except in the utmost circumstance. RFK's speech reflects his desire to be a peacemaker and not a war maker. Maybe Clark has learned since he made those idiotic statements regarding the Iraq authorization (no blank checks), but I like many other posters on here believe and Al Gore know that the evidence that this war would be a disaster was latent and that the ignorance of the fact that an Iraq War would be a catastrofuck is telling in regards to ones willingness to commit to faith in reason.

----

While media commentary on Clark's prospective candidacy has been almost entirely favorable--even adulatory--it's worth looking back at a forgotten chapter in his military biography that occurred when Clark was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and Commander In Chief for the US European Command. Call it Clark's "High Noon" showdown. It's an incident that deserves scrutiny because Clark's claim to be an experienced leader in national security matters is tied, in significant part, to his record in the Balkans.

On June 12, 1999, in the immediate aftermath of NATO's air war against Yugoslavia, a small contingent of Russian troops dashed to occupy the Pristina airfield in Kosovo. Clark was so anxious to stop the Russians that he ordered an airborne assault to confront these units--an order which could have unleashed the most frightening showdown with Moscow since the end of the Cold War. Hyperbole? You can decide. But British General Michael Jackson, the three-star general and commander of K-FOR, the international force organized and commanded by NATO to enforce an agreement in Kosovo, told Clark: "Sir, I'm not starting world war three for you," when refusing to accept his order to prevent Russian forces from taking over the airport. (Jackson was rightly worried that any precipitous NATO action could risk a confrontation with a nuclear- armed Russia and upset the NATO-led peacekeeping plan just getting underway with the withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo.)

After being rebuffed by Jackson, Clark, according to various media reports at the time, then ordered Admiral James Ellis, the American in charge of NATO's southern command, to use Apache helicopters to occupy the airfield. Ellis didn't comply--replying that British General Jackson would oppose such a move. Had Clark's orders been followed, the subsequent NATO- negotiated compromise with the Russians--a positive element in the roller- coaster relationship between Moscow and Washington, which eventually incorporated Russian troops into peacekeeping operations--might well have been undermined.

In the end, Russian reinforcements were stopped when Washington persuaded Hungary, a new NATO member, to refuse to allow Russian aircraft to fly over its territory. Meanwhile, Jackson was appealing to senior British authorities, who persuaded Clinton Administration officials--some of whom had previously favored occupying the airport--to drop support for Clark's hotheaded plan. As a result, when Clark appealed to Washington, he was rebuffed at the highest levels. His virtually unprecedented showdown with a subordinate subsequently prompted hearings by the Armed Forces Services Committee, which raised sharp questions about NATO's chain of command.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=945

There is more to politics than a chest of metals...Wesley Clark, just another establishment tool. I think Hugh Shelton may have had a point...

political talent > star power



"Waging Modern Warfare"

:evilgrin:

[xkenx]

69. You have raised the whole litany of lies, smears, statements taken out of context about Clark.

I store information about Clark; you seem to store disinformation.

1. Clark was ALWAYS against giving Bush a blank check to invade Iraq. He was credited by Ted Kennedy and Carl Levin as one of the primary reasons why they voted NO to the IWR. Here is Clark's actual testimony to the House Armed Services commitee, at which time neocon Richard Perle accused Clark of being too pacifist, too timid, about attacking Saddam Hussein.

STATEMENT OF GENERAL (RETIRED) WESLEY K. CLARK U.S. ARMY BEFORE THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SEPTEMBER 26, 2002
Mr. Chairman, Representative Skelton, Distinguished Members of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. This is a Committee that has been strongly supportive of the men and women in uniform, and I want to thank you personally for the assistance and support that you gave me, and have given so many others.

In October 1994, Saddam Hussein moved several Republican Guards divisions back into the attack positions just north of the Kuwaiti border, the same attack positions that had been occupied just prior to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. It was a foolish and to our minds unexpected and threatening move. We quickly deployed additional military forces to the region, preparing to enter a full-fledged battle against Iraq to defend Kuwait, and we also went to the United Nations. After a few tense days Saddam backed off, the divisions were removed, and we acted through the United Nations to further tighten the no-fly zone and regulate Iraqi troop movements.

But it was a signal warning about Saddam Hussein: he is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. Were he to acquire such capabilities, we and our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks. Saddam might use such weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his neighbors, he might threaten American forces in the region, he might strike directly against Israel, or Israel, weighing the possibilities of nuclear blackmail or aggression, might feel compelled to strike Iraq first.

Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required. But what makes the situation relatively more dangerous today is that the UN weapons inspectors, who provided some assistance in impeding his development programs, have been absent from Iraq for over four years. And the sanctions regime, designed to restrict his access to weapons materials and the resources needed to procure them, has continuously eroded. At some point, it may become possible for Saddam to acquire the fissionable materials or uranium ore that he needs. And therefore, Iraq is not a problem that can be indefinitely postponed.

In addition, Saddam Hussein’s current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law.

Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President’s clear determination to act if the United Nations can’t provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.

But the problem of Iraq is only an element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished, world-wide war against Al Qaeda, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately be won by persuasion as much as by force, when we turn off the Al Qaeda recruiting machine. Some three thousand deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaeda, and as all acknowledge, Al Qaeda has not yet been defeated. Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam’s regime to the Al Qaeda network. And while such linkages may emerge, winning the war against Al Qaeda may well require different actions than ending the weapons programs in Iraq.

The critical issue facing the Unites States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda or efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security problems. In this regard, I would offer the following considerations:

- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

- The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in crafting UN engagement. In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force. This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam’s weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action. Yes, there is a risk that inspections would fail to provide the evidence of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam.

If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear.

Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This includes requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance, and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution. Ideally, international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations, including the UN, NATO, and other regional and Islamic organizations.

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as “preemptive.”

Once initiated, any military operation should aim for the most rapid accomplishment of its operational aims and prompt turnover to follow-on organizations and agencies.

If we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region, and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism. But there are no guarantees. The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere.

I look forward to answering questions and helping the Committee assess the costs and risks of the alternatives before us.

House Armed Services Committee
2120 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

And a reprise of the same hearing two years later, as reported by the Washington Post

Same Committee, Same Combatants, Different Tune
By Dana Milbank
Thursday, April 7, 2005; Page A10

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. is a conservative Republican from North Carolina who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. So it jarred all the more yesterday when Jones turned his fury on Richard N. Perle, the Pentagon adviser who provided the Bush administration with brainpower for the Iraq war.

Jones, who said he has signed more than 900 condolence letters to kin of fallen soldiers, pronounced himself "incensed" with Perle. "It is just amazing to me how we as a Congress were told we had to remove this man . . . but the reason we were given was not accurate," Jones told Perle at a House Armed Services Committee hearing. Jones said the administration should "apologize for the misinformation that was given. To me there should be somebody who is large enough to say 'We've made a mistake.' I've not heard that yet."



Richard N. Perle did not offer any apologies. (File Photo)
As chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, Perle had gone before the same committee in 2002 and smugly portrayed retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who urged caution in Iraq, as "hopelessly confused" and spouting "fuzzy stuff" and "dumb cliches."

Thirty months and one war later, Perle and Clark returned to the committee yesterday. But this time lawmakers on both sides hectored Perle, while Clark didn't bother to suppress an "I told you so."

Perle wasn't about to provide the apology Jones sought. He disavowed any responsibility for his confident prewar assertions about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, heaping the blame instead on "appalling incompetence" at the CIA. "There is reason to believe that we were sucked into an ill-conceived initial attack aimed at Saddam himself by double agents planted by the regime. And as we now know the estimate of Saddam's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction was substantially wrong."

Jones, nearly in tears as he held up Perle's testimony, glared at the witness. "I went to a Marine's funeral who left a wife and three children, twins he never saw, and I'll tell you, I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but I am just incensed with this statement."

Clark, an unsuccessful 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, could not resist piling on Perle. Intelligence estimates "are never accurate, they are never going to be accurate, and I think policymakers bear responsibility for what use they make of intelligence," the retired general lectured.

Sometimes life imitates art. Yesterday, it imitated an episode of "Crossfire." For more than three hours, Clark and Perle reprised their confrontation before the committee in September 2002. The two men entered in twin gray suits and red ties, and took adjacent chairs at the witness table. Clark scribbled in pencil, Perle with a fountain pen. Only Perle's reading material -- he put on the witness table a copy of "Kitchen Confidential: Adventures in the Culinary Underbelly" -- suggested he was not expecting what was to come.

Perle opened by acknowledging mistakes -- though not his own. "The occupation of Iraq did much to vitiate the goodwill we earned," he said, and, "The grand ambition of the Coalition Provisional Authority was profoundly mistaken."

The two belligerents then went after each other, taking the hearing out of the control of the lawmakers. Perle wondered "why in the world" Clark would talk to Syria. Clark said Perle should learn to "eat the elephant one bite at a time." "What are you talking about?" Perle demanded.

Finally, Rep. Victor F. Snyder (D-Ark.) tried to regain the floor. "It is illegal to fight dogs in Arkansas," he said. "I'm not going to get in the middle."

Democrats lobbed softballs to Clark and fired darts at Perle, who made little effort to ingratiate himself, calling one questioner "careless" and saying another cited "substantially incorrect accounts."

"You need a few more allies," observed Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.).

It was not always thus. At the September 2002 hearing, GOP lawmakers joined in Perle's dismissal of Clark's argument that "time is on our side" in Iraq and that force should be used only as a "last resort."

Perle said Clark was "wildly optimistic" and called it "one of the dumber cliches, frankly, to say that force must always be a last resort." While Clark fiddled, "Saddam Hussein is busy perfecting those weapons of mass destruction that he already has."

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 policies to 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."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.Here's the undistorted story about the incident at Pristina airport. The Russians has been absolutely no help to us during the campaign to halt Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic cleansing holocaust, but when NATO was about to occupy the airport, there was a Russian contingent close by. Clark felt that they were not entitled to do so, that Russia was attempting to get a foothold where they had no right to be. Clark also judged that the Russians were too weak to do anything about it if NATO held the airport. As with ALL military actions in the Balkans, Clark needed both NATO and Washington approval to secure the airport before the Russians arrived, which approval he received. The British General Jackson, since outed as a "crazy" within his own country, was insubordinate, but nevertheless, cautious Washington withdrew approval, so the Russians occupied part of the airport for a time. (A) The subsequent investigation was over Jackson's insubordination, not Clark's actions. (B) Clark was exactly correct in his assessments of the Russians; within a couple of weeks, the pathetic Russians were starving, and CLARK BAILED THEM OUT BY PROVIDING THE RUSSIANS AT THE AIRPORT WITH FOOD AND OTHER SUPPLIES. (C) General Shelton was a consultant for John Edwards' campaign, hence his comments about Clark's character. Clark testified against Milosevic at the latter's war crimes trial at the Hague. Thanks to General Shelton's smear, Milosevic referenced the smear at the trial. The judge called Shelton about the comments, which Shelton retracted, calling them "just politics." Congratulations, ellisonz! You have put yourself up there with Slobodan Milosevic and the discredited Shelton with your smears.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. I won't even bother to reply to your comment about the "demeanor of a West Point valedictorian."

BUT THEN, AGAIN, THANKS FOR KEEPING THIS PRO-CLARK THREAD GOING AND ALLOWING THE TRUTH TO COME OUT FOR DUERS WHO MAY HAVE HEARD CERTAIN MISLEADING SMEARS ABOUT CLARK AND WERE CONFUSED.

[ellisonz]

80. So I took the time to read some of this carefully again and find it even more irrephrensible:

And it actually disproves your own claim that Clark never supported the war i.e. the use of force as an acceptable solution. Moreover, Clark's view is not line with Gen. Anthony Zinni's assesment of the prospects of the war before the war began, consider the difference in tone:


He also took issue with hawks in and around the administration who downplay the importance of Arab sentiment in the region. "I'm not sure which planet they live on," Zinni said, "because it isn't the one that I travel." And he challenged their suggestion that installing a new Iraqi government will not be especially difficult. "God help us," he said, "if we think this transition will occur easily."

-----------

Do you think the war is unavoidable? Do you think that we are rushing into the war with Iraq without studying the consequences?

I'm not convinced we need to do this now. I am convinced that we need to deal with Saddam down the road, but I think that the time is difficult because of the conditions in the region and all the other events that are going on. I believe that he can be deterred and is containable at this moment. As a matter of fact, I think the containment can be ratcheted up in a way that is acceptable to everybody.

I do think eventually Saddam has to be dealt with. That could happen in many ways. It could happen that he just withers on the vine, he passes on to the afterlife, something happens within Iraq that changes things, he becomes less powerful, or the inspectors that go in actually accomplish something and eliminate potential weapons of mass destruction -- but I doubt this -- that might be there.

The question becomes how to sort out your priorities and deal with them in a smart way that you get things done that need to be done first before you move on to things that are second and third. If I were to give you my priority of things that can change for the better in this region, it is first and foremost the Middle East peace process and getting it back on track. Second, it is ensuring that Iran's reformation or moderation continues on track and trying to help and support the people who are trying to make that change in the best way we can. That's going to take a lot of intelligence and careful work.

The third is to make sure those countries to which we have now committed ourselves to change, like Afghanistan and those in Central Asia, we invest what we need to in the way of resources there to make that change happen. Fourth is to patch up these relationships that have become strained, and fifth is to reconnect to the people. We are talking past each other. The dialogue is heated. We have based this in things that are tough to compromise on, like religion and politics, and we need to reconnect in a different way. I would take those priorities before this one.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/10/17/zinni/index.html?pn=1

----------

Clark:

In addition, Saddam Hussein’s current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law.

Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President’s clear determination to act if the United Nations can’t provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.(Umm...)

--------

The critical issue facing the Unites States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda or efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security problems.In this regard, I would offer the following considerations:

- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not.The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

- The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in crafting UN engagement.(i.e. he has faith in GWB)In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force.This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam’s weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action. Yes, there is a risk that inspections would fail to provide the evidence of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam.

----------

My basic problem with Clark is that he thinks intervention in the name of humitarianism inherently produces good results.

----------

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

April 10, 2003, as Baghdad Falls:

After a three-week campaign waged almost exclusively by U.S. and British troops, with no U.N. involvement, an article by Clark appeared in The Times of London calling it “a great victory.”

Clark wrote :

Clark: Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled.

Liberation is at hand. Liberation -the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air.

. . . As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.

-------

Whereas Zinni warns:

I want your opinion of what the Iraqi people want. Are they going to greet our troops as liberators?

I think that, again depending on how this goes, if it's short with minimal destruction, there will be the initial euphoria of change. It's always what comes next that is tough. I went in with the first troops that went into Somalia. We were greeted as heroes on the street. People loved to see us; when the food was handed out, the water was given, the medicines were applied, we were heroes. After we had been there about a month, I had someone come see me who said there was a group of prominent Somalis that wanted to talk to me. I met with them. The first question out of their mouths was that we'd been there a month, hadn't started a jobs program, and when were we going to fix the economy? Well, I didn't know it was my Marine unit's responsibility to do that.

Expectations grow rapidly. The initial euphoria can wear off. People have the idea that Jeffersonian democracy, entrepreneurial economics and all these great things are going to come. If they are not delivered immediately, do not seem to be on the rise, and worse yet, if the situation begins to deteriorate -- if there is tribal revenge, factional splitting, still violent elements in the country making statements that make it more difficult, institutions that are difficult to reestablish, infrastructure damage, I think that initial euphoria could wane away. It's not whether you're greeted in the streets as a hero; it's whether you're still greeted as a hero when you come back a year from now.

-------

Again, UPenn Annenberg is a highly respected institute:

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

Summary
In the October 9 debate on CNN, General Wesley Clark claimed his “position on Iraq has been very, very clear from the outset,” adding, “I fully supported taking the problem to the United Nations and dealing with it through the United Nations. I would never have voted for war."

But that doesn't square very well with what he said on earlier occasions. He said he supported a resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq when Congress was about to vote on it, and he wrote that “President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud” as Saddam Hussein's statue was being toppled by American soldiers in Baghdad.

-------

Just because you say it doesn't make it true...

I couldn't help myself.:evilgrin:

And in regards to your attempt to smear me may I dare say is it not wildly hypocritical to claim that Hugh Shelton is politically motivated while denying Clark's political motivations, furthermore, who the fuck cares what Milosovic said at the Hague because that man is clearly nuts.

Wes Clark doesn't lead with his head or his heart, he leads with his nose.

[xkenx]

83. Aw shucks, you said #68 was your last post, yet here you are distorting Clark again.

[ellisonz]

87. At least I don't put people on pedestals...

[CarolNYC]

105. Sure you do....

Perhaps you meant to say that you don't put Wes Clark on a pedestal. That, at least, would be accurate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. Your editing here scaled the heights of intellectual dishonesty

The peak of course is this gem:


"Clark wrote :

Clark: Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled.

Liberation is at hand. Liberation -the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air.

. . . As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."

Dot Dot Dot, signifying that some tangental text has been edited out for brevity's sake. So how much tangental text did you lop out before resuming your quote with your final sentance. Let's count. Looking at the orginal source document which you never seem to be willing to link to, I count, um, a minimum of twelve full paragraghs. I say a minimum because for some odd reason you quote the first five sentances of the opening paragragh, but then did not consider it important enough to include the final sentance of the first paragragh, which just so happens to say:

"Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph."

Now why is that I suppose? Why quote the first 5 sentances of a paragragh totalling 68 words, and then cut out the last 18 words before leaping another 12 paragraghs to complete your "quote"? Did they disturb the distorted effect you were trying to achieve?

I decontructed this particular smear of Wesley Clark completely in post number 73 on this thread. I urge readers to refer to that AND to the full text of Clark's Op-Ed, which you continually show a supreme reluctance to link to even though I have provided that link to you elsewhere on this thread.

In fact I find it telling that your other attempt to document that Clark is a liar fell into the same trap of pulling the same emotionally laden phrase completely out of context while claiming it represented Clark's desire to invade Iraq. Human beings are fallible, aren't they? Even when they call themselves "fact checkers". Clark has been very clear, as it has been documented many times on this DU thread and others, about what type of resolution he supported regarding Iraq. It wasn't the blank check that Congress gave George Bush, and he testified under oath in front of Congress against the approach Congress and the President set in motion.

I liked what Zinni had to say about Iraq, but you find differences between Clark's and Zinni's positions that flat out don't exist. For example you are full of praise to Zinni for this comment:

"Expectations grow rapidly. The initial euphoria can wear off. People have the idea that Jeffersonian democracy, entrepreneurial economics and all these great things are going to come. If they are not delivered immediately, do not seem to be on the rise, and worse yet, if the situation begins to deteriorate -- if there is tribal revenge, factional splitting, still violent elements in the country making statements that make it more difficult, institutions that are difficult to reestablish, infrastructure damage, I think that initial euphoria could wane away. It's not whether you're greeted in the streets as a hero; it's whether you're still greeted as a hero when you come back a year from now."

Yet you painstakingly edited out Clark making this commet among the 12 paragraghs you left littering your political editing room floor:

"In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people."


You claim to see a distinction between Zinni and Clark about how the U.S. should have managed Iraq. I say you are seeing your own projected ghosts. You quote Zinni saying:

"I'm not convinced we need to do this now. I am convinced that we need to deal with Saddam down the road, but I think that the time is difficult because of the conditions in the region and all the other events that are going on. I believe that he can be deterred and is containable at this moment. As a matter of fact, I think the containment can be ratcheted up in a way that is acceptable to everybody.

I do think eventually Saddam has to be dealt with. That could happen in many ways. It could happen that he just withers on the vine, he passes on to the afterlife, something happens within Iraq that changes things, he becomes less powerful, or the inspectors that go in actually accomplish something and eliminate potential weapons of mass destruction -- but I doubt this -- that might be there.

The question becomes how to sort out your priorities and deal with them in a smart way that you get things done that need to be done first before you move on to things that are second and third."

Aha, so Zinni was convinced that we needed to deal with Saddam "down the road", it was only a matter of timing and doing it the smart way, doing the things that needed to be done first before you move on to second and third priorities. Now you may claim a distinction about Zinni's and Clark's views about dealing with the possibility of Iraq's WMD. Part of the smoke screen of confusion that the Bush Administration pushed regarding Iraq was equating WMD's with a nuclear weapons program. Often the two terms were used synomously.

Clark was on public record saying that he did not believe that Iraq had a credible nuclear weapons program, and that only an advanced nuclear weapons program complete with a reliable delivery system could pose a threat to the U.S. sufficient to warrent direct U.S. military action against Iraq. Clark thought it likely that Hussein had some chemical and biological weapons, as do dozens of other nations in the world, many of them unfriendly to the U.S., none of which were then being argued were suitable targets of U.S. aggression because of that. For all I know Zinni may have been talking about nukes only in that quote, actually I think that is the likely case, but even if he wasn't, he still granted the possiblility that Iraq had WMD and thought getting UN inspectors to deal with it might be a smart way to move forward. So did Clark.

You quote Clark saying:

"The critical issue facing the Unites States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda or efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security problems"

Again, your Zinni quote:

"I'm not convinced we need to do this now. I am convinced that we need to deal with Saddam down the road, but I think that the time is difficult because of the conditions in the region and all the other events that are going on....

...The question becomes how to sort out your priorities and deal with them in a smart way that you get things done that need to be done first before you move on to things that are second and third." (OK I used three dots but I only skipped one paragragh and the full quote is available above).

These comments by Clark and Zinni are completely consistent. If you got to other parts of the transcript of Clark's Congressional testimony you will find other comments by Clark that are phrased in a manner even more similar to the one that you quote from Zinni here. Even using your own cut and paste editied comparisons, I find no conflict in their positions.

And you once again jump off your anti-Clark cliff with your editorial insert comment to what Clark says here:

"The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in crafting UN engagement."(i.e. he has faith in GWB).

That is a flat out whacko reading. It could more easily be read as a demand that the President change his then current mind set. It even uses the word "must" while saying that the President's entire team needs to show patience. The fact that Clark went out of his way to include the phrase "his national security team" shows me that Clark didn't trust Bush's ability to do the right thing. Colin Powell was Secretary of State when that comment was made, and he had not yet disgraced himself in front of the U.N. Powell was widely regarded at the time as advocating for a much softer approach to Iraq than the one Bush adopted.

The problem with comparing the selected quotes you chose to rely on to artificially distinguish Zinni from Clark on Iraq is that you chose a Zinni quote where he was able to remain vague about what he thought might be needed "down the road" to deal with Hussein. He did not give crisp advice. One could almost say that he ducked that question. Hell, it was easy for anyone to simply hope that the fucker would die on his own and solve that problem for us, which was one of the vague scenarios that Zinni ticked off. Zinni was only clear about what should NOT be done, and so was Wes Clark in his Congressional testimony.

Clark's views regarding Iraq before an IWR vote was held in Congress were identical with those of Howard Dean, Al Gore, and Ted Kennedy among many other progressive Democrats. They advocated attempting to resolve any uncertainty about Iraq's WMD program by seeking to have the UN conduct a vigerous weapons inspection program. They understood the difference between providing leverage with a congressional resolution and providing a blank check. AND LEVERAGE WORKED.

The UN did resume it's inspection program. It did have sufficient leverage to allow U.N. inspectors to make unnannounced visits anywhere in the country, and not only was Iraq "contained" but we were well on our way toward determining that Iraq posed no real threat to the world. Under the proosed version of an IWR that Clark and the more enlightened Democrats supported, Bush would have had to return to Congress claiming that the U.N. was unable to ascertain whether Iraq posed a threat to the U.S. AND he would have had to prove the case that continued American inaction put American security at grave peril prior to any American use of force against Iraq. Without his prior blank check IWR Bush would not have been able to make that case in Congress, U.N. inspections would have continued and they would have exposed the truth for all to see. Your insistance that Clark and Zinni differ keeps returning to the single point that you call Clark a liar when he clearly states, supported by volumes of public statements, that he never supported giving Bush a blank check IWR to attack Iraq when he saw fit without further Congressional authorization.

[ellisonz]

88. OK...so he didn't oppose giving Bush a blank check? Is that it?

Methinks the NH comment was a Freudian slip...

See Post #86.

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. Wes Clark does not "love war". He hates it actually

Actually so do most men and women who have fought in one, though most of them fully believe that we must remain prepared to fight in war again, because our world has not evolved to the point yet where naked aggression against the weak does not still tempt the strong. And that should surprise no one, nor should anyone hesitate to acknowledge it. Leftists often claim to U.S. has been so tempted on more than one occaision. It's true of course, but there is no reason to suggest that only the United States is effected by that darker part of human nature, nor has the U.S. propagated one of the most brutal of empires, viewed on the relative scale of histroy. Why do the strong use violence against the weak? Why do muggers steal the belongings of 80 year old seniors through physical assaults? Why do many of the world's wealthiest corporations still squeeze pennies out of the benefits given to many of the world's most vulnerable workers?

Sweden is not an aggressive nation yet they still have a military robust for it's size. The Saab auto maker grew out of the company that made Swedish Fighter planes. I am not a pacifist, perhaps you are. I am, however, someone who has devoted much of my life to working for peace. I considered it consistent with that goal at the time when I strongly advocated on behalf of American military intervention in Rwanda when genocide reared it's ugly head there. I feel the same about Darfur today, and yes I felt the same about countering Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic's brutal military efforts to pursue nationalist expansion over the dead bodies of those who stood in his way. In that regard I have much in common with socialists of the old school who formed the Lincoln Brigade to fight against Franco in Spain when the U.S. would not lift a finger to help the Spanish Republic, except of course I have remained here in America throughout all of it, relatively safe and sound.

My heart breaks for the citizens of nations where their own military use their guns to directly control and oppress the citizens. Here my heart is more likely to break for those in our military who lives are wasted by civilian leaders who callously send them off to die for reasons that are in no way justified. But I always thank god that so far at least, it is our military that follows the orders given them by civilians, not the other way around.

But it angers me to see you write that Wes Clark loves war, and more than anything else you have written on this thread, that shows me that at least in some key respects, you literally don't know what you are talking about. Can an individual soldier "love war"? Obviously yes. Can an individual police officer love arresting and imprisoning people? Obviously yes. Does that prove that all soldiers love war and that all police officers love arrensting and imprisoning people? To me at least, obviously not. Might they gain a measure of satisfaction if their personal efforts stopped viscious assailants from preying upon the weak and otherwise defenceless? That I would agree to.

You covered a lot of territory in your post, so there is much to respond to. I will not try to do all of that in one post because doing so would make this one ridiculously long. The anti-Clark articles that you cite in your post have been decisively refuted, that is the making on another responding post or two right there. Wes Clark repeatedly makes a clear simple statement. Have you heard and understood it? He says that the United States should never enter into elective wars, and he defines both Viet Nam and Iraq as elective wars. Elective wars are wars that did not need to be fought, but rather were fought because those who entered into them thought some advantage, either legitimate or ill conceived, would be gained by fighting them. Wes Clark strongly argues against elective wars. The ends do not justify those means. It's not just me who says that Wes Clark hates war, he has been quoted literally saying exactly that. Of course you can choose to call Wes Clark a liar and thereby dispence with all of the inconvenient to your position things that Wes Clark has said over time that undercut your image of him.

I will close this particular post with my personal written account of hearing Wes Clark talk about war in front of a group of war veterans. But first let me comment on your shallow take on Generals who became President. Jackson has a checkered legacy certainly. Why should that surprise anyone? He was afterall President of the United States at a time when our own Consitution defined African Americans as 3/5ths human for the sake of apportioning congressional representation. But most historians consider Jackson to be one of our better Presidents (I am fairly confident that not a single Native American would agree with that assessment though). Jackson had a very strong populist streak, and that aspect of his legacy would be affirmed with pride by many here on DU.

Grant was personally an honest man fighting to preserve Lincoln's vision of national reconcilliation at a time when many in his own party were out to wring blood out of the defeated south. He fought many battles with those forces, winning some and losing some. Had he not fought those battles to rebuild the South in a non vindictive manner, it is uncertain if we would live in a relatively unified nation today. At Grant's funeral he specified that half of his pall bearers should be Confederate veterans, and so it was done.

You say Ike spent most of his time playing golf. Have you ever stopped for a moment to credit his efforts to keep America out of War? Before the Soviet Union got the H Bomb there were strong voices, not restricted to Republicans, urging Ike to use America's overwhelming military superiority to rid the world of the Soviet threat through a preemptive strike. Ike firmly opposed that. When France and England combined to attack Egypt and sieze the Suez Canal, they called on the United States to join them. Instead Ike furiously condemned their aggression and called in the strongest terms possible for France and England to immediately withdraw their forces. When the Hungarian revolt was crushed by Soviet tanks in 1956 there was a huge chorus of voices inside America urging the U.S. to militarily intervene on the side of the Hungarian revolutionaries. Finally we had our opening to use U.S. military might to roll back the Iron curtain in Europe. Ike refused, knowing full well that such an act by the U.S. then would have opened up the pandora's box of sustained war with the Soviet Union with devestating consequences all the way around.

Here is an entry I posted to my own blog on December 20th:


The Pain That Chicken Hawks Don't Feel

I have met a few progressives who, though they may acknowledge that Wes Clark has progressive views, still have trouble accepting his life time of service in the military. During the 2004 Primaries one supporter of Howard Dean put it to me this bluntly: Doctors heal people, soldiers kill them. Well it is also true some Doctors have killed people, but more important, soldiers have saved lives also, while fighting for things that most of us still believe in. The American Army liberated the Jews from Nazi death camps after all. And I still remember the honor I felt, in the early 1980’s, when I met and spoke with an American citizen who, in the 1930’s, had fought Franco’s fascism during the Spanish Civil War, by volunteering in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.

What frightens me are the civilian leaders in our nation who cling to power by brandishing a rhetorical sword, who deploy our armed forces like toy soldiers in a sand lot, with little or no gut understanding of what an act of war really looks like, and what the human repercussions of that act will likely be. This country has chosen leaders like that before. We know them too well.

During the 2006 Congressional elections I was present one afternoon when General Wesley Clark spoke to a predominantly Veterans audience gathered at a VFW Post in New Jersey. He was talking about post traumatic stress, and the treatment many of our veterans who return from war need, but don’t receive. General Clark spoke of the mental stress he experienced himself for years in the aftermath of the combat wounds he suffered in Viet Nam, while acknowledging that his own case was a mild one. That struck home for me, but I found myself overwhelmingly moved when General Clark recalled an experience he had as N.A.T.O. Supreme Commander during the air war in Kosovo.

As I listened I remembered that I had heard this outline before, but this time, standing in front of a crowd of mostly Veterans, there was a little more detail, and a feeling of intimacy that had me riveted. General Clark started by saying this about when he commanded the air campaign against Serbia; “I believe every human life is precious, and I knew when I was doing the bombing in Serbia – I went to bed praying we wouldn’t kill innocent people.”

Clark recalled a specific accident of War, a mechanical malfunction that affected one bombing mission. He described it in detail, he has it all etched into his memory, exactly how the bomb didn’t operate as designed, how targeting failed, the means by which the bomb “broke”, all the where and whys, and exactly what happened as a result. A cluster bomb designed to explode at 200 feet above a military target instead exploded more than a thousand feet above a school yard, and innocent children died. Wes Clark told this crowd I sat in that somehow, by some means that he can’t explain to this day, a Serbian grandfather of one of the children killed managed to get a personal letter delivered to him. “I got a letter from a Serbian grandfather. He said ‘You killed my granddaughter and I will never forget you, and I will kill you for it.’ And I don’t know how I got that letter during a War, but I’ve thought about that a lot, and prayed for forgiveness a lot.”

A man who has had that experience of war will do all in his power to prevent another, if it is at all possible. A man who avoided serving in a war that he supported, may still be itching to fight one; using someone else’s children.

[ellisonz]

81. Dude, Clark himself contradicts the notion that he doesn't have a certain fondness for force.

What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory
by General Wesley Clark

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people.

Still, the immediate tasks at hand in Iraq cannot obscure the significance of the moment. The regime seems to have collapsed — the primary military objective — and with that accomplished, the defense ministers and generals, soldiers and airmen should take pride. American and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.

-------

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

-------

Time has proven Clark to be both tragically misguided and tragically correct. The man is a walking contradiction. Clark is not the savior of the Democratic Party much less of America. At least Clark has had the sense to change his song but once was enough for this Democrat. The RFK comparison remains totally spurious, and he's actually to some extent the anti-Clark to turn the "feeling" on its head.

I would suggest checking out Anthony Zinni:think:

[Tom Rinaldo]

84. Zinni is a Republican by the way, in case you haven't done your research

I'm not knocking him but I think you might find you have some important differences with him. Or have you not looked closely enough at Zinni to figure that out yet, just like you jumped to a wrong assumption that RFK never served in the military because that obviously fit your pre-conceived notion of him?

There is no fondness for force expressed in Clark's words, your bias continues to show through clearly. Pick your historical metaphor; be it the winning of the American Revolution, the people of Nicaragua ridding themselves of the tyrant Somoza, or the Liberation of Paris during World War II. Did those who expressed an appreciation of those results do so out of a "fondness for force"? Did those who celebrated the dismantling of Hitler's concentration camps do so out of a "fondness for force"? That is sheer nonsense. Clark wrote about emotional reactions to liberation, not to the joy of armed combat. Yes Clark expresses pride in the training and ability of the men and women who were sent to fight in Iraq, and an appreciation for the sacrifices they were willing to and actually made. So do their parents, and so do over 90% of the American Public. If you don't I hope you are not representative of many Democrats, because we would not win many national elections with that attitude, which would leave Republicans free to pursue additional wars unchecked.

And in your blind distaste for Clark you ran right past the real point that Wes Clark was making. Clark was commenting on the current public perceptions, than rampant and virtually unchallenged, that the U.S. had "won the war" with Iraq. Look at the dateline of that Op-Ed. Clark wrote those words about three weeks before George Bush pranced in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner on that aircraft carrier.

It always seems to be the case that Clark's critics love to quote the opening sentence of his Op-Ed that you just cited, completely missing the irony implicit in it, while failing to understand that Clark used that to immediately engage and establish trust with readers who at that fixed moment held overwhelmingly positive opinions of the Iraq invasion. Immediately after so doing Clark proceeded to walk them through all of the evidence that dispelled their ungrounded euphoria. Clark did so at a time when virtually all American politicians, Democratic or Republican, were afraid to express any doubts or concerns about the Iraq invasion, given that public support for it was then running so high. Who else of high public profile this side of Noam Chomsky was saying things like this while America was riding an emotional high over Saddam Hussein being deposed so quickly? These paragraphs are also from the same piece:

"As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome."

AND

"The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West.

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.

And there will be more jostling over the substance and timing of new peace initiatives for Israel and the Palestinians. Whatever the brief prewar announcement about the “road map”, this issue is far from settled in Washington, and is unlikely to achieve any real momentum until the threats to Israel’s northern borders are resolved. And that is an added pressure to lean on Bashir Assad and the ayatollahs in Iran."

In case it is too subtle for you, in these last paragraphs Clark isn't advocating military actions against others in the region, he is putting the public on notice about the literal intentions of the Bush Administration, which no more sought peace in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion than they did in the months that preceded it. Clark was of course completely correct, and Clark was the only 2004 Presidential candidate who called out PNAC by name, blowing the whistle on the military road they planned to travel to Tehran and other Middle East capitals.

The way you selectively edited Clark's Op-Ed implies that it ends with a positive acknowledgment of Bush and Blair's resolve. Ah but it doesn't does it? Or have you in fact never read the full piece? Perhaps you think it proper to quote edited paragraphs of someone's work without including a link to the full piece for readers to read themselves? Personally I think that is shoddy, so I will correct your omission for you and will leave the link below. Here however are the final paragraphs to Clark's April 10, 2003 Op-Ed:

"Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats."

Clark was always highly critical of the failure of the Bush Administration, after making the tragic mistake of invading Iraq in the first place, to not commit the troops needed to stabilize Iraq in it's wake. He pointed out the huge discrepancy between the number of Allied troops that were sent into Bosnia as Peacekeepers after major conflict ended there, given how much smaller and less populous that nation was, to the relative scattering of troops deployed to Iraq. It was a disaster waiting to happen. Clark saw it and he said so. Clark also was on public record prior to the Iraq invasion saying it would super charge Al Quada recruitment in the Middle East. No surprise then that General Clark did not believe "Mission Accomplished".

I'm going to post this reply now, and if I have time I'll write another to one of your other new posts (welcome back to the thread by the way). You throw out distortions with such impunity that to deal with each effectively takes time.

OK, here's the source link you left out:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1128726.ece

[ellisonz]

86. Hey man, I'd be a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone call...

Or did he not say that either?

Clark and Zinni's positions are distinct. You can deny the significance of what he has written, but clearly Clark was not unequivocal in his "opposition" to the Iraq War. Call them smears but I will continue to question the man's real world judgment. Where's the parrhesia? I still find Zinni's remarks to be much more intellectually honest than Clarks. Zinni has also said that Iraq was 6 or 7 on the priorities list with 5 as the goalworthy line. Clark clearly believed it was 2 or 3 based on his insistence for presidential action.

"Clark was emphatic in the Oct. 9 debate:

Clark: The answer is very clear. The answer is, I would have voted for a resolution that took the problem to the United Nations. I would not have voted for a resolution that would have taken us to war. It's that simple."

Smarter than Clark:

Voted against

133 voted against the resolution, 126 of the votes cast were from Democrats, 6 from Republicans, and 1 from the sole independent.

* Neil Abercrombie (D-HI 1st)
* Tom Allen (D-ME 11st)
* Joe Baca (D-CA 42nd)
* Brian Baird (D-WA 3th)
* John Baldacci (D-ME 2nd)
* Tammy Baldwin (D-WI 2nd)
* Xavier Becerra (D-CA 30th)
* Earl Blumenauer (D-OR 3rd)
* David Bonoir (D-MI 10th)
* Robert Brady (D-PA 1st)
* Corrine Brown (D-FL 3rd)
* Sherrod Brown (D-OH 13th)
* Lois Capps (D-CA 22nd)
* Michael E. Capuano (D-MA 8th)
* Ben Cardin (D-MD 3rd)
* Julia Carson (D-IN 10th)
* William Lacy Clay, Jr. (D-MO 1st)
* Eva Clayton (D-NC 1st)
* James Clyburn (D-SC 6st)
* Gary Condit (D-CA 18th)
* John Conyers (D-MI 14st)
* Jerry Costello (D-IL 12th)
* William Coyne (D-PA 14th)
* Elijah Cummings (D-MD 7st)
* Susan Davis (D-CA 49th)
* Danny K. Davis (D-IL 7th)
* Peter DeFazio (D-OR 4th)
* Diana DeGette (D-CO 1st)
* William Delahunt (D-MA 10th)
* Rosa DeLauro (D-CT 3rd)
* John Dingell (D-MI) 15th
* Lloyd Doggett (D-TX 25th)
* Mike Doyle (D-PA 18th)
* John James Duncan, Jr. (R-TN 2nd)
* Anna Eshoo (D-CA 14th)
* Lane Evans (D-IL 17th)
* Sam Farr (D-CA 17th)
* Chaka Fattah (D-PA 2nd)
* Bob Filner (D-CA 50th)
* Barney Frank (D-MA 4th)
* Charlie Gonzalez (D-TX 20th)
* Luis Gutierrez (D-IL 4th)
* Alcee Hastings (D-FL 23rd)
* Earl F. Hilliard (D-AL 7th)



* Maurice Hinchey (D-NY 22nd)
* Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX 15th)
* Rush Holt (D-NJ 12th)
* Mike Honda (D-CA 15th)
* Darlene Hooley (D-OR 5th)
* John Hostettler (R-IN 8th)
* Amo Houghton (R-NY 29th)
* Jay Inslee (D-WA 1st)
* Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL 2nd)
* Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX 18th)
* Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX 30th)
* Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH 11th)
* Marcy Kaptur (D-OH 9th)
* Dale E. Kildee (D-MI 5th)
* Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI 13th)
* Jerry Kleczka (D-WI 4th)
* Dennis Kucinich (D-OH 10th)
* John LaFalce (D-NY 29th)
* James R. Langevin (D-RI 2nd)
* Rick Larsen (D - WA 2nd)
* John Larson (D-CT 1st)
* Jim Leach (R-IA 1st)
* Barbara Lee (D-CA 9th)
* Sander Levin (D - MI 12th)
* John Lewis (D-GA 5th)
* William Lipinski (D-IL 3rd)
* Zoe Lofgren (D-CA 16th)
* James H. Maloney (D-CT 5th)
* Robert Matsui (D-CA 5th)
* Karen McCarthy (D-MO 3rd)
* Betty McCollum (D-MN 4th)
* Jim McDermott (D-WA 7th)
* James McGovern (D-MA 3rd)
* Cynthia McKinney (D-GA 4th)
* Carrie P. Meek (D-FL 17th)
* Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY 6th)
* Bob Menendez (D-NJ 6th)
* Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA 37th)
* George Miller (D-CA 7th)
* Alan Mollohan (D - WV 1st)
* Jim Moran (D-VA 8th)
* Connie Morella (R-MD 8th)
* Jerrold Nadler (D-NY 8th)
* Grace Napolitano (D-CA 34th)
* Richard E. Neal (D-MA 2nd)



* James Oberstar (D-MN 8th)
* David Obey (D-WI7th)
* John Olver (D-MA 1st)
* Major Owens (D-NY 11th)
* Frank Pallone (D-NJ 6th)
* Ed Pastor (D-AZ 2nd)
* Ron Paul (R-TX 14th)
* Donald Payne (D-NJ 10th)
* Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 8th)
* David Price (D-NC 4th)
* Nick Rahall (D-WV 3rd)
* Charles Rangel (D-NY 15th)
* Silvestre Reyes (D-TX 16th)
* Lynn Nancy Rivers (D-MI 13th)
* Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX 23rd)
* Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA 33rd)
* Bobby Rush (D-IL 1st)
* Martin Olav Sabo (D-MN 5th)
* Loretta Sanchez (D-CA 46th)
* Bernie Sanders (I-VT At Large)
* Thomas C. Sawyer (D-OH 13th)
* Janice D. Schakowsky (D-IL 9th)
* Robert C. Scott (D-VA 3rd)
* José E. Serrano (D-NY 16th
* Louise Slaughter (D-NY 28th)
* Vic Snyder (D-AR 2nd)
* Hilda Solis (D-CA 31st)
* Pete Stark (D-CA 13th)
* Ted Strickland (D-OH 6th)
* Bart Stupak (D-MI 1st)
* Mike Thompson (D-CA 1st)
* Bennie Thompson (D-MS 2nd)
* John Tierney (D-MA 6th)
* Edolphus Towns (D-NY 10th)
* Mark Udall (D-CO 2nd)
* Tom Udall (D-NM 3rd)
* Nydia Velazquez (D-NY 12th)
* Peter Visclosky (D-IN 1st)
* Maxine Waters (D-CA 35th)
* Diane Watson (D-CA 32nd)
* Mel Watt (D-NC 12th)
* Lynn Woolsey (D-CA 6th)
* David Wu (D-OR 1st)
23 Senators voted against the resolution: 21 Democrats, 1 Republican, and 1 Independent.

* Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
* Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
* Robert Byrd (D-WV)
* Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)

* Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
* Kent Conrad (D-ND)
* Mark Dayton (D-MN)
* Dick Durbin (D-IL)
* Russ Feingold (D-WI)
* Bob Graham (D-FL)
* Daniel Inouye (D-HI)

* Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
* Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
* Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
* Carl Levin (D-MI)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
* Patty Murray (D-WA)
* Jack Reed (D-RI)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
* Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
* Ron Wyden (D-OR)

"Historically speaking, the most obvious and most decisive distinction between the American and the French Revolutions was that the historical inheritance of the American Revolution was “limited monarchy” and that of the French Revolution an absolutism which apparently reached far back into the first centuries of our era and the last centuries of the Roman Empire. Nothing, indeed, seems more natural than that a revolution should be predetermined by the type of government it overthrows; nothing, therefore, appears more plausible than to explain the new absolute, the absolute revolution, by the absolute monarchy which preceded it, and to conclude that the more absolute the ruler, the more absolute the revolution will be which replaces him."

“Foundation 1: Constitutio Libertatis,” On Revolution, Macmillan (1963).

"The fearsome, word-and-thought-defying banality of evil."

Eichmann in Jerusalem, ch. 15 (1963).

Keep trying to blow smoke up DU's ass.

Both Kerry and Clark should have known much better...I mean get a fucking grip on reality, it was quite obvious both before, during, and after 9/11 that this administration didn't have a fucking clue. The above vote reflects that reality.

[Tom Rinaldo]

89. You're mixing apples and telephone polls here

There were Congressional resolutions offered regarding Iraq that would have fit with Clark's words: "I would have voted for a resolution that took the problem to the United Nations. I would not have voted for a resolution that would have taken us to war. It's that simple."

Those amendments were voted down in the days and hours leading up to the final IWR vote. The version of the IWR that ultimately passed the Senate stripped away any requirement that Congress pass judgement again prior to launching war against Iraq. So of course you here produce the roll call for the vote on the blank check resolution and imply say that those who voted against it were "smarter than Clark". Are you really always this sloppy in your debating skills or are you intentionally going out of your way to be deceptive?

And why have you memorized all of the Republican talking points against Wes Clark? Do you do the same with the Swiftboaters attacks against Kerry? That was a JOKE, a good one actually, unlike the muffed Bush joke line that Republicans crucified Kerry with last year. Clark uses self deprecating humor all of the time. I loved his response early in the 2004 campaign as to whether or not he was a Republican Wolf in Sheeps clothing. He immediately shot back; "I never think of Democrats as sheep." The only people who claim that Clark's comment about Rove was meant to be serious were a couple of die hard Rupublican backers of Bush. Go ahead, trust them too over Clark. It seems to be a pattern of yours.

And now I want to try to step back and attempt to cool this thing off between us just a little. Look, it's OK with me if Wes Clark isn't your favorite Democrat, and it's OK with me if you think any mention of him in the same sentance as RFK is ridiculous. I'll discuss the matter because this is a public discussion board, but you have every right to that opinion. But I actually know Wes Clark some by now, and I know well some people who know him well. The last thing Wes Clark would be is a liar.

If you don't value his military service as much as I do, that's fine too. But don't imply that he went into West Point so he could prepare to murder innocent victims in Viet Nam with one breath, and then tell me how much you like Al Gore with the next, knowing full well all the while that Al Gore voluntarily enlisted to go fight in Viet Nam himself well after Clark entered West Point.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[CarolNYC]

98. Perhaps ellisonz is unaware...

...of the various resolutions and amendments that were floated before the final version was put up to a vote. He seems to be unaware of a lot of things.

[ellisonz]

100. Clark made the statement after the resolution was concrete and passed.

It's very simple: he thought Iraq was a top priority when it clearly was not. I support the Dem's who voted against the resolution,period. And nix the ad hominem or I'll point out again that he did vote for Nixon and Reagan so don't tell me that Clark is on the side of the opposition to America's imperial wars. I hope your boy runs just so he can have his political ass handed to him again.

[jenmarie]

102. I don't understand you.

If you insist on repeating the same things over and over that have been shown to be false, I wish you would be up front with us and tell us why you're doing this. If you just plain hate military people, and General's in particular, fine -- say that. Or whatever it is. But how can you keep repeating things that have been debunked time and again?

It almost seems pointless by now to try to reason with you, but I will post one more time and maybe you'll actually read it?

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/what_wes_clark_said_prior_to_t.html

[ellisonz]

104. I think Clark is part of the problem, not the solution.

I read your link and I still don't think he should be President and I also still think the RFK comparison is totally vapid. I wouldn't have supported Douglas MacArthur for President (now there's a better comparison) and I won't support Clark. Fuck the military-industrial-educational complex! Trillions for death and destruction and billions for schools and poverty, what inequity! America needs to get over the notion that it needs "military protectors" to lead it. The Democratic Party can do much better than General Clark; sacred cows are meant to be slaughtered, duty my ass, decision:sarcasm: not.

[Tom Rinaldo]

107. Clark on the Military Industrial Complex

Radio Interview with Laura Knoy:
http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339

"I think General Eisenhower was exactly right. I think we should be concerned about the military industrial complex. I think if you look at where the country is today, you've consolidated all these defense firms into a few large firms, like Halliburton, with contacts and contracts at the highest level of government. You've got most of the retired Generals, are one way or another, associated with the defense firms. That's the reason that you'll find very few of them speaking out in any public way. I'm not. When I got out I determined I wasn't going to sell arms, I was going to do as little as possible with the Defense Department, because I just figured it was time to make a new start.

But I think that the military industrial complex does wield a lot of influence. I'd like to see us create a different complex, and I'm going to be talking about foreign policy in a major speech tomorrow, but we need to create an agency that is not about waging war, but about creating the conditions for Peace around the world. We need some people who will be advocates for Peace, advocates for economic development not just advocates for better weapons systems. So we need to create countervailing power to the military industrial complex."


Clark: Don't spare Pentagon
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/25/elec04.prez.debate/

"We're faced with a very serious deficit problem. We need to keep the--we need to go back to the top 2 percent and repeal those tax cuts. We need to put all the government spending programs on the table, including the military programs. We need to then have no new programs unless you can pay as you go. And then we need a simpler, fairer, more progressive tax code. "

[ellisonz]

108. It's kinda ironic that you have a link titled "war is not the answer" in your sig.

But you still have no problem backing warriors...but I guess Iran is different right? I still don't trust the man, he talks a good game, but when put in a tight spot he'd take the easy solution i.e. war. He's paying lip service.

"When I got out I determined I wasn't going to sell arms, I was going to do as little as possible with the Defense Department, because I just figured it was time to make a new start."

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200005--.htm
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/kosovo53.htm

[Tom Rinaldo]

103. So who did Nixon and Reagan defeat by the way?

Correct. George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. So who called up Wes Clark and personally urged him to run for the Democratic nomination for President in 2003? Jimmy Carter. And who did George McGovern endorse for the Democratic nomination for President in 2004? Wes Clark.

I haven't met Jimmy Carter personally but I did meet George McGovern. I admire both of those men, and I trust their judgement in Democrats a little bit more than I trust yours.

And you are flying fast and dirty with the facts again. Clark did not think Iraq was "a top priority", rather he felt the opposite, which is not the same as saying that Clark thought that we should have just ignored Iraq for several years completely until it potentially became a crisis. Any good leader has plans in place for multiple issues. Darfur right now is not a "top priority". Our National Security is not at immediate risk because of what is now happening there. That doesn't mean that a good leader should therefor ignore what is happening in Darfur until it becomes "a top priority". Nor would they ignore the question of independence for Kosovo, or a host of other world issues that do not immediately rise to the level of being of the utmost importance to America's security.

Actually your quarrel here now is with virtually the whole damn Democratic Party, except you won't admit it. Democrats essentially were in full agreement that something needed to be done about Iraq back in 2002. The division was between those Democrats who argued that Iraq presented an immediate threat to America and those who argued that it did not, and Wes Clark was in the latter group. It was between those who fell in with the Bush Administration rhetoric about smoking guns in the shape of mushroom clouds, and those who instead wanted to update and fine tune the policy of Iraq's containment, and Wes Clark was in the latter group.

Now if you actually read the posts that are being written to you, you would know that you are willfully refusing to accept Clark's word about what was said and what was meant, just as you willfully refuse to accept any of the tens of documented instances of Clark speaking before the IWR vote, as evidence of how Clark believed Iraq should have been handled, rather than giving George Bush the blank check resolution that Congress finally passed. Clark conceded that his comments in that interview you so love to quote were poorly spoken, but of course you refuse to accept that as an explanation, don't you?

For the sake of those who find value in wading through that botched interview line for line, I leave you this link to Frenchie Cat's blog where she does just that for you. But Geeeze, talk about now seeing the forest for the trees. Forget all of Clark's Congressional testimony that Kennedy and Wellstone and others all pointed to in support of their postions on the alternate potential IWRs, why don't we obsess over the notes of one unfriendly NY Times Reporter instead?

"Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War "- Dissecting Adam Nagourney's '03 NYT article
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/dissecting_nagourneys_nyt_arti.html

[ellisonz]

99. Clearly it was not that simple...

Your last sentence makes no sense and again confirms that you're comparison of Clark's military service and Gores/RFK's really is apples and oranges. Gore has stated explicitly that he went so someone else wouldn't have to go in his place. RFK's military service was of a similar character. The comparison remains totally spurious in my view and probably much more of DU thank you think. Enjoy the echo chamber. Clark went to West Point knowing full well that war is not so much dutiful as it is bloody and ugly. He did vote for Nixon and Reagan twice, and that's a fact.:7

"Republican Governor Bill Owens of Colorado and University of Denver president Marc Holtzman have claimed Clark once said "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls." Clark later claimed he was simply joking, but both Owens and Holtzman said the remark was delivered "very directly" and "wasn't a joke." Katharine Q. Seelye wrote that many believed Clark had only chosen to be a Democrat in 2004 because it was "the only party that did not have a nominee."<90> On May 11, 2001, Clark also delivered a speech to the Pulaski County Republican Party in Arkansas saying he was "very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill — people I know very well — our president George W. Bush."<102> U.S. News and World Report ran a story two weeks later claiming Clark might be considered some form of political run as a Republican.<103>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#2004_presidential_campaign

And don't give me that shit about how wikipedia isn't an appropriate summarizing source on DU.

[Tom Rinaldo]

106. Fine, so google search or Wiki search Marc FHoltzman sometime why don't you?

And of course Republican Governor Bill Owens while you are at it too. Those are the sources for this charge against Clark made AFTER he entered the race AGAINST Republican George W. Bush running as a Democrat. Think these two men were merely nominal Republicans who were really only good public servants out in pursuit of the truth at all times? Please, look into them a little. I already have. Only the purest of motives behind their comments, right?

Many people believe many damning things about many Democrats, or haven't you noticed? Many people said that Al Gore claimed to invent the internet also. Most of them would not admit to having any political bias, dispite how that ridiculous claim was used to undercut Al Gore's run for the Presidency.

I am going to act as if you might really care to reflect on this, but did it ever occur to you that George Bush always planned to run for President in 2004 as a war time President and Commander in Chief against a Democratic Party that was weak on National Security? Do you think Karl Rove and company ever intended to sit back quietly and let a four star General take George Bush to the wood shed for being an absolutely horrible and incompetent War time President, who took us into a war that we never should have fought in the first place? I don't. I think they pulled out every stop to try to discredit Wes Clark as completely as they knew how. Now stay with me for a moment here; General Clark could not take on George Bush for President unless he won the Democratic nomination first.

Do you figure you are the only Democrat around, especially back in 2003 before the emergence of the "Fighting Dems" movement and the embrace of it by Democratic activists, who harbored some suspicion about career military officers? I know that ain't true because I was a Democrat harboring those suspicions myself back then. So if Republicans and their media Right Wing Noise Machine lackies wanted to undermine a then relatively unknown Wes Clark among Democratic Activists who were going to be disproportionately active in Democratic primaries, do you think they would do so by trying to paint him as some type of far out leftist? Not a chance. The most damage they could do to Wes Clark was spread disinformation attempting to link him to the Republican Party. And that is exactly what they did

But before I pursue this matter a little further I am going to stop for one second and say this. I don't think I need to say a single word about your tortured effort to make Al Gore into a hero for his reasons for enlisting voluntarily in the military to fight in Viet Nam, while simultaneously holding that Wes Clark was a villian for chosing to attend West Point years earlier. I honor what both men chose to do, and I am perfectly content to let you have the last word on that subject. With your words, I gladly rest my case.

Now I shouldn't make assumptions but I am begining to believe that you know a lot of things that you would rather conveniently not have to admit. So I assume you know that Wes Clark spoke once and only once at a Republican Fund raiser held in his home town shortly after he left the service. I also assume you know that the next week Clark spoke at a Democratic fundraiser held in his home town also. Plus I assume you realize that those supposedly damning comments Clark made full of such glowing praise for the Bush Administration were part of friendly prelude to the lecture he delivered, which in fact was advice that the Bush Administration pursue a foreign policy completely at odds with the one that they in fact chose to pursue. Clark's critics never like to talk about any of that stuff.

So I assume you also know who said this:

"President-elect Bush inherits a nation whose citizens will be ready to assist him in the conduct of his large responsibilities.

I personally will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans -- I particularly urge all who stood with us to unite behind our next president. This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done."

It was the same person who later said this:

"George W. Bush is my commander in chief".

Or you could also peruse the Congressional Record for comments made by all of our Democratic Senators during the confirmation hearings for the men and women (mostly men) who George Bush appointed to his Administration. Were those comments overwhelmingly positive or overwhelmingly negative? If you guessed the former you win. The only Republican appointment who received any real criticism was Attorney General Ashcroft. All of the rest were treated like long lost family friends by almost all of the Democrats in Congress. You see the Democratic Party was attempting to follow Vice President Al Gore's lead by projecting a generous air of bi-partisanship toward those who made up George Bush's brand new Administration. Clark's warm up comments were made less than 90 days after Bush took office, in the exact same time frame as all those warm glowing words said by virtually all leading Democrats trying to establish a positive tone in relations with the new President after one of the most bitterly contested elections in American history.

And you can stuff all of that crap about Clark seeking a chance to run as a Republican coming from such esteemed trust worthy Democratic friendly news sources like U.S. News and World Report. What have I been trying to tell you about all that?

Here, try these quotes, links and sources:

New York Times
National Briefing | South: Arkansas:

A General For Governor?
Published: October 3, 2001

Secretary of State Sharon Priest will not run for governor next year, adding to speculation that the former NATO commander Gen. Wesley K. Clark, left, might. Ms. Priest's decision, announced on Monday, leaves Democrats without a challenger to Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican who plans to seek re-election in 2002. The state Democratic chairman, Ron Oliver, said General Clark, who retired from the Army last year, met with him two weeks to discuss the race, but he declined to elaborate.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE1DB113DF930A35753C1A9679C8B63&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fH%2fHuckabee%2c%20Mike



The Nashville News
Thinking ahead to 2006
November 9, 2004 - No reporter cited

"When Army Gen. Wesley Clark retired to his Arkansas home in 2001, Democrats recruited him to run for governor and a private citizen started a movement to draft him to run for the U.S. Senate. At the time, Clark said that he had a better feel for national issues and that the executive branch might be a better fit for his take-charge mentality. He skipped both state races and instead mounted an ill-fated presidential bid two years later..."

http://www.nashvillenews.org/index.php/comments/885/


The American Prospect 3/1/03

He votes Democratic. In Arkansas most voters enroll with no party affiliation; you show up on primary day and select the ballot of whichever party you want to support. Clark told me he voted in the Democratic primary in last year's state elections. He seriously considered seeking the Democratic nomination for governor of Arkansas in 2002, challenging Republican incumbent Mike Huckabee.

-snip

Clark had several chats last year with Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman Ron Oliver about the possibility of taking on Huckabee for the governorship. "It was 2001 when his name started popping up," says Michael Cook, the party's executive director in Arkansas. "He and Ron had a series of discussions." Clark took a pass, obviously; but equally obviously, he had caught the bug.
http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/3/tomasky-m.html


Washington Whispers 10/3/01

Pressing Clinton into action

Desperate to find someone to run against Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, state Democrats are pushing President Clinton to urge CNN commentator and retired Gen. Wesley Clark to seek the state's highest elected office. It's part of a bid by beleaguered state Dems to rebuild the party slapped down by Republicans ever since Clinton left the governor's mansion in Little Rock for the Oval Office in 1993. The plan is this: Democrats hope to button-hole Clinton this Friday when he comes here to review the latest plans for his presidential library and museum. Sources tell our Suzi Parker that he'll be asked to push Clark, a fellow Arkansan who worked for Clinton in Bosnia, to run against the incumbent Republican next year. It may be a "Hail Mary" pass, however, because Clark has turned his focus to TV and CNN. But some say that's simply a way for him to raise his profile in advance of a political bid.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/archive/october2001.htm

[jenmarie]

110. A brilliant effort Tom Rinaldo

but a lost cause I'm afraid. I have realized from ellisonz's responses to numerous posts that are documented facts, that his/her beliefs are too ingrained to see anything beyond the fact that Clark was career military.

I know many Clarkies, you and I included, were anti-military but were able to get past that when we got to know Clark. But there are some people who are so attached to their beliefs that anything contrary to them is false and bad. The more you try to convince them otherwise, the more adamant they become. So be it. I'm not sure it's worth anymore effort to try to reach this person, although it's a wonderful thread of information for those more open-minded to learn about Clark. Thank you, Tom.
:toast:

[xkenx]

111. As I have said before, ellisonz and his ilk actually help us by

prolonging these pro-Clark threads, and giving many DUers the opportunity to read the truth about Clark. We are nearly a week into this.

[Tom Rinaldo]

73. For the full story about the Russians and the Air Strip

I refer you to this collected body of work:

Smear Debunked - "Clark would have started WWIII"
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/10/smear_debunked_clark_would_hav.html#more

The first entry you will find there is by Elizabeth Drew (a real journalist who writes for The New York Book Review), but there are 8 links gathered in total. Good reading if you want to know the truth.

And of course you saw fit to quote Adam Nagourney again I see. Most astute DU members by now have seen through the game Adam Nagourney played with virtually all of our 2004 Democratic candidates. If you open up the link to Wes Clark's interview with Dan Rather on 60 Minutes, Part II which I left elsewhere on this thread, you can see Clark address this so called "controversy" himslelf. DU's archives are littered with long entries documenting Wes Clark's consistent position regarding preventing a rush to war with Iraq, discussing the several alternate versions of Iraq War Resolutions that later were drafted of which only one of course was finally adapted. Even if you go back to that source interview with Nagourney you will find clear evidence in the full text of the limited type of resolution (no blank checks) that Clark supported. Clark always opposed giving Bush a free hand to attack Iraq without Congress agreeing that Iraq posed an iminent threat to the United States that could not be dealt with any other way.

Any other interpretation of Clark's actual position, based on a muffed comment, flies in the face of mounds of documantation of Clark's published Op-Eds at the time, sworn congressional testimony, and records of consultation with key Democratic Senators who were drafting alternate vastly superior versions of an Iraq War Resolution. Clearer than all of that though they rest on accusing Wes Clark of flat out lying about it, since he unambiguously clarified those confusing comments later. Choose to call Clark a liar if you must, but I believe him at his final word on the matter, which just so happens to be consistent with his entire long record on the Iraq issue.

Now I also find you making note of FAIR's September 2003 article about Clark. Because I generally support FAIR, I took the time to deconstruct that article line by line and posted it previously to DU. I will now repost my reply below. And the finish I will leave a direct link to the full London Times Op-Ed that all of this concerns:


"First let me preface this by saying that I am generally very positive about FAIR. I have a personal friend who does work for them. FAIR founder Jeff Cohen comes up to my part of the woods with some regularity, I've been at several meetings with him and a I have a personally autographed copy from him of "Cable News Confidential", which is a great book. Having said that, no one gets it completely right all of the time, and they didn't with Clark this time.

The surest sign of an attempt to smear General Wesley Clark "from the left" is the painstakingly cut up and reassembled way in which some of his critics attempt to present the comments Wes Clark made in the London Times on April 10th 2003. The fact that every comment that Clark made in that Op-Ed that points out the problems with Bush's Iraq policy are surgically removed, often to the ludicrous extent of joining together phrases seperated by 13 paragraphs of text through the magic of three dots (such as... this) should be all the evidence needed to make anyone suspicious that the material being quoted from is being manipulated to fit someone's covert agenda. FAIR wasn't the source for the Frankenstein's monster version of Clark's Op-Ed, but they obviously ran with it here.

This comment is simply a flat out wrong assertion of an opinion:

"After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate"

And my above assertion is easily backed up simply by reading from the full source material that allegedly shows that Clark lost all qualms about the wisdom of the war. It is the absolutely most simple fact check one should always do if one is seeking Fairness and Accuracy In the Media, but F.A.I.R. didn't even bother to do that simplest of steps here.

First they extracted and commented on this from Clark:

"Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

Let me point out for starters that Clark's qualms never included any doubt that the U.S. military could invade and depose Hussein, that was never in question for Clark. What was in question for him was the wisdom of doing so, not our ability to do so. That is a classic bait and switch against Clark, implying his praise of a military strategy somehow shows he wavored on his opinion of going to war in the first place. Whether or not Clark had earlier expressed doubt about a certain military tactic is not the point to FAIR's piece and they know it. The point of the artical was to question whether Clark opposed invading Iraq when we did, not to go over Clark's expressed opinions on how such an invasion would best be managed if launched.

But that is the least of FAIR's inaccuracy here. What follows is a horrible job of cut and paste editing to create a wildly distorted image. Let's look at what FAIR chose not to quote, shall we? Like the sentance immediately following "Already the scent of victory is in the air" which just so happens to be "Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph." What's that? Do I detect an unreported qualm? In fact FAIR chose to look right past the next two paragraphs (numbers two and three of Clark's Op-Ed, which go on to detail with amazing foresight the problems that lay ahead for Bush's occupation of Iraq:

"In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people."

How does FAIR square those concerns from Clark with the subjective bias of their reporting? How do those statements support their assertion that "After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate"? They simply don't, that's how. They obvioulsy assume that the reader doesn't have access to the full original piece. Maybe they never looked at the full original piece themselves, which really would be unforgivable from an organization like FAIR that prides itself on accuracy and fairness.

FAIR fast forwards through Clark's Op-Ed piece to next cite this quote from it:

"Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights."

OK, lets rewind their tape a bit. What did they skip right over that directly preceded that comment by Clark? Here it is in it's full original context:

"As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.

Now the bills must be paid, amid the hostile image created in many areas by the allied action. Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come — effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns. Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights."

How can anyone defend such clearly biased selective editing as "fair"? Remember all of these quotes from F.A.I.R were stitched together to support their bold assertion that Clark lost all qualms about the Iraq invasion. So of course they had to ignore the part of Clark's Op-Ed where he said the folowing, becauase they disprove the contention that they were making:

"The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West.

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns."

Clark's Op-Ed was full of dire warnings about what could easily go wrong, and Clark was saying this at at time when other leading Democrats inside the United States, like John Edwards, were still saying that the United States was right to invade Iraq, and were still viewing it as a total victory; Mission Accomplished.

And nothing could be more blatently intentionally misleading than F.A.I.R. making this claim:

"Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."

It nicely helped F.A.I.R. make its intended point to say Clark closed his piece that way, the only problem though is that it isn't true. Here is how Clark actually closed his Op-Ed:

"Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats."

Clark closed his piece by saying "Mission Not Accomplished" after presenting a two page shopping list of qualms about the Bush invasion of Iraq. FAIR's piece was nothing more than a subjective opinion piece using the tools of progaganda. They should be embarassed by it.

Clark is right about U.S. military power in a straight out simple war where the objective is to defeat an enemy in battle. But Clark was never warning about a U.S. lack of military superiority. He was warning about the lack of a sane U.S. foreign policy, and the dangers that presents America with in the world, where the objective can't simply be deposing a foreign head of state and calling that a mission accomplished."

Here is the link to the original source Op-Ed:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1128726.ece

[CarolNYC]

75. " a chest of metals"?

Do you mean a chest of medals? Funny that you should focus on that, something that has been an obstacle rather than a draw for so many of us Clarkies. That was the hardest thing for me to get over, the fact that he was a lifelong militaryman. But I researched him and found out that, in spite of that and his chest of medals...decidely NOT because of it....I could wholeheartedly support him. But acknowledging something like that wouldn't fit into the narrative you're trying to create now, would it?

I still think that there is a lot you don't seem to know about both RFK and General Wes Clark. You'd do yourself a favor to learn more about both but I understand you may have reasons for not wanting to know...Again, some of the things you might learn could upset that narrative.

Thanks, though, to you and the dissenting voices in this thread. You gave other Clarkies the opportunity to voice some of their thoughts on the topic. Tom's posts, especially, were wonderful, him having seen Bobby speak and all.

[IA_Seth]

50. LOL

Never in the military eh?

Hmmm.

Ever research before you post?

[ellisonz]

55. My intent was to establish that he was not career military.

Trivia. Either way, the desire of Clarkies to hijack a dead man's legacy is repugnant.

[Tom Rinaldo]

57. A bit over the top here, care to rethink that comment?

Start with your generalization. The OP is someone who has posted on DU often, and this is not the first time that RFK has been referenced by that poster. You know why? Because the poster was personally profoundly effected by RFK decades ago, and more recently effected in a similar way by Wes Clark. Now you may not share those feelings, but to lable those feelings as an "attempt to hijack a dead man's legacy" is, to be honest, repugant to me. Once a topic thread is started on DU with a Democrat's name in the subject line, it is entirely predictable that other supporters of that Democrat will click open that thread and contribute to that thread in a manner that reflects their own thoughts on that subject.

I have seen mainstream media commentary describe Obama as someone who is running as the new JFK, while Edwards is running as the new RFK. I have seen threads here on DU that compared John Edwards with RFK, starting with the fact that both are/were relatively young, and both cared/care about poverty in America. When I see that here I don't immediately jump to a conclusion that it is repugnant of Edwards supporters to hijack a dead man's legacy. How often have you seen FDR invoked in comparison with John Edwards every time Edwards gets attacked by someone for living in a big mansion and being rich?

This is a political discussion board. If you think someone's posted observations are off base obviosly you are free to say so, which you certainly have done on this thread. But don't morph that into an attack on a group of DU members.

I assume you have read my posts on this thread? Do you think I have written in a repugnant manner attempting to hijack a dead man's legacy. I am a Clarkie who participated on this thread, so I have to assume that your comment is directed as much at me as at anyone else.

[ellisonz]

59. Not really.

I still think its sad that both the media and DUers need to hype their candidate by referencing dead Kennedy's. Moreover, this is an open discussion board and I have a right to my opinion within the rules. I normally have been trying to stay out of the latest horse race garbage that counts as "political discussion" on DU, but frankly this post struck me as incredibly misguided. There are posters here with more than a dozen times as many posts as the OP that are just as silly. I find MSM tactics repugnant in general so that's that. I'm still not seeing it even after having read the OP's OP post and his defense of it, and I would note that other DUers immediately challenged the premise.

;(

[xkenx]

63. The OP premise was FEELING, which I'm entitled to.

But thanks again for keeping this going.

[Tom Rinaldo]

64. I haven't seen anyone challenge my premise

...which I spelled out in most detail in post #47, but also in posts number 17,35, and 45. I didn't start this thread, and I acknowledged that a number of current Democrats can claim similarities with RFK, including RFK Jr as I pointed out. I also acknowledged that there are significant differences between RFK and Clark.

But you will also have noted, I hope, that I am someone who followed RFK's career closely at the time. I heard RFK speak in person as well as observed him closely through the media. RFK was my Senator in New York. I was deeply involved in Anti-Viet Nam War protests while RFK was running for President, so I was very aware of Gene McCarthy's challenge to LBJ and RFK's late entry into the race, and the divisions between those who chose to back "Clean Gene" and those who switched to supporting RFK, and the arguments used in support of both of those men.

The arguments used to support Bobby Kennedy over Eugene McCarthy still resonate for me today while choosing to support Wes Clark (who I have heard speak in person many times) over John Edwards, for example. At their core they have nothing to do with being anti-anyone other than the Republicans. I had no significant problems with Eugene McCarthy's platform, nor do I now with that of John Edwards or Barack Obama. It has to do with being able to provide the leadership that America needs now, leadership that a sufficiently high percentage of Americans will be open to embracing in order to provide the political capital, the mandate needed, to take America in a radically new direction.

For reasons I explained in other posts, I think Wes Clark now, like RFK then, can provide that leadership for America at a time when it is sorely needed, at a time when, for many sundry reasons, there is no one else who I believe can do so effectively (with a partial exception given for Al Gore).

[1932]

71. The leadership abilities you saw in RFK, what were their origins?

I can see why people see Clark as a leader -- he has lead troops and every time he criticizes Bush or talks about other Democrats, he uses the term 'leadership.'

As for RFK, he built towards his presidential campaign by criticizing apartheid and touring impoverished rural America. In the eyes of Americans, he was the wounded younger brother of a good president who wanted to take the lessons of his suffering to help other Americans suffer less. I would want to be lead by a person driven by those desires. However, I find that very different from kind of leadership I think Clark represents.

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. In his character mostly, which manifest in actions and stances he took

RFK remained open to learning and new experiences throughout his life, or to put it another way, he was capable of continually transcending his own past and growing as a person, and RFK had real empathy for the plight of others, even when his own standing in life insolated him from the pain that others felt.

And as you might expect, I disagree with your assessment of Wes Clark, as I see those same qualities in him. Did you by chance see Dan Rather's 60 Minutes interview with Wes Clark when he talked about the suffering of Kosovo's Albanian civilians under the Serb para-military offensive?

Here is a snippet:

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: In the summer of 1998, while I was in command, another round of ethnic cleansing started. And I was warning the Pentagon about it and trying to mobilize U.S. opinion and U.S. leadership to take action to prevent it.

Well, we did take some action. We tried to undertake diplomacy. There was a lot of discussion. And meanwhile the Serbs were moving some 300 to 400,000 Kosovar Albanians -- were driven from their homes. They fled to the mountains because they had to get away from the Serb military.

And in the mountains, this is what you saw. This is a five-week-old baby who's died of exposure. And the family's preparing him for burial. When you can stop something like this, you should.

DAN RATHER: ...Hearing you speak of this is the first time I've seen you speak with real emotion.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Yeah.

DAN RATHER: Deep-seated emotion. Tell me why that is?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Why? Because you're dealing with people's lives when you're dealing with things like this, Dan. This is about life and death. It's about the difference between academic theories and discussions of deterrence and prevention and preemption, and what the real impact is on the ground of U.S. actions...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/60II/main584555.shtml

I am the source of the following quote, because I taped Clark live making the statement. Speaking about Peace, Wes Clark said this, while campaigning for Democrats in New Hampshire in October of 2006:


"We're being set up again, just like we were with Iraq, and what I've found in my life is, generally that if you want a war, you can have one.

Most people are about equally brave, most people will fight. Most people love their families, they love their homes, they believe that whatever they believe in is the single one way to truth, reconciliation and the after life, and most people will fight for it. Most people are not philosophical about it, and whether you're walking into a bar in New York City after the Red Sox have played the Yankees, or whether you're dealing with the Bosnians and the Serbs, or whether you're talking about Christians and Iranians.

People will fight for what they believe in. So if we want a war with a billion Muslims, we can probably have one. I don't think we want one, we certainly don't need one, and we should do everything we can to prevent it. "


And leadership means being willing to fight for what you believe in, at great risk to your personal fortunes and sometimes even at risk of your life. RFK possessed that, and Wes Clark passes that test easily for me also. It is widely known that Clark showed bravery providing leadership while in combat in Viet Nam, but less known that he personally risked his life trying to save the lives of American diplomats during the Bosnian war, at I believe age 49, when he was already a three star general. I can search for that account if anyone is interested. Meanwhile Clark openly risked his career in the military for his beliefs, beliefs that most of us here at DU would support, and it did end up costing him. Here is a snippet from Part II of Dan Rather's interview with Wes Clark:


"...But when he (Hugh Shelton) became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and I was the supreme allied commander in Europe, we had a significant difference on policy. He was pursuing a strategy with the secretary of defense that would have the United States prepare actively for war in Korea or the Persian Gulf.

I was charged with making the Dayton Peace Accords for Bosnia work, and obviously part of that was to prevent another war from breaking out in the region. So that was my priority, and as we worked through this period, it just turned out that we had differing views about the importance of preventing another round of genocide and how to do it. I warned them in the Pentagon early in 1998 that we were getting ready to see another war in the Balkans, and I was told, "Thanks, but you know, don't bother us back here. We got enough on our plates."

But, Dan, I had been in the Pentagon during the summer of 1994, when 800,000 people were hacked to death by machetes in Rwanda. I was the officer responsible for doing plans and contingencies for the United Nations, and I did a number of those with my staff, and we presented them and we talked about 'em and you know, we stroked our chins and we worried about things and we thought, you know, "Is this gonna be acceptable?"

But we didn't do anything. We stood by without inserting ourselves, without asserting ourselves, and 800,000 people died. And at the time we didn't know that. All we knew is there was trouble. We didn't -- I didn't have the full feel of the scope of it.

I then went to Bosnia on the Dayton negotiations and talked to people and looked at the devastation there. And I thought, you know, when you're a senior officer, you have an obligation not just to answer the mail when somebody sends you a letter and say, "Here's the answer." But to speak up and to speak out until you're told not to any longer, until you're told, "We're just not gonna do it." And so I did--"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/60II/main584554.shtml


You mention that Wes Clark led troops, but in reality he led major theaters of military commands, which meant that he was accountable not only for the well being of his troops and their ability to fulfill their missions, but also for the health, housing and education of all of their families. Still I think a measure of leadership is how your leadership effects those who one leads, and if you look at Wes Clark's entire record of military commands, you will find that the ability to achieve high standards for every unit he commanded increased significantly during the period during which he held those positions of command. That is never a given, troops, like everyone else, usually do not respond well to poor leadership.

Another aspect of leadership that I see in common between Wes Clark and RFK was their capacity to clearly get out in front on major issues while most of their peers held back. Clark was an early environmentalist even while he was inside the military. He received an award from the Sierra Club for efforts he made to preserve the environment around a base he commanded at the time. And for all the talk a year or two back about the "Revolt of the Generals" against Don Rumsfeld, it is too easily forgotten, probably because Clark was so far in front of the pack, that it was General Wes Clark who called for Don Rumsfeld not only to resign, but to be fired all the way back in 2003. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Clark has worked tirelessly, openly, and skillfully to turn the loyalty of those who have an expressed concern for America's National Security, against George Bush and today's Republican Party. Wes Clark was the prime force behind the formation and growth of VoteVets.org, an organization that has been devestatingly effective in countering the Republican myth that they stand for the men and women in our Armed Forces while protecting America's civilians from foes real or imagined.

And lest we forget, Wes Clark was one of the first national political voices raised arguing that it is our moral responsibility to prevent anther Genocide in Darfur, dating back to the Spring of 2005, in a ongoing series of strong statements, Op-Eds, and media interviews
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/59

But if nothing else, I need only to point to Clark's lonely constant cruscade, that dates back even ealier than his efforts regarding Darfur, to prevent America from engaging in military combat against Iran, taking positions and making statements often at odds with leaders of the Democratic Party and important funders of Democratic campaigns who are used to Democratic politicians dancing to their tune when they demand militantly tough rhetoric and action against Isreal's perceived threats. Did you sign the StopIranWar.com petition?

[1932]

74. A friend of mine, a politician from upstate NY, his father knew both RFK and JFK

and he hated RFK before about '65 or '66. He loved JFK, bu he thought RFK was a whining, ego-centric, who was politically short-sighted and had a chip on his shoulder. He said that RFK didn't change until a couple years after his brother died. He said that was the first time RFK began to think about people other than himself.

I believe that that is true because I've heard that same characterization of RFK from other sources, including the PBS documentary about RFK that came out in '04 and in a book about RFK that came out in '03 by someone who also knew both brothers.

[Tom Rinaldo]

76. I've heard things like that also

His brother's assassination supposedly shook RFK to his core, and it took him some time to come out of that and into his new sense of calling in life. I think it brought about deep changes in Bobby. I have to assume that the qualities that your friend and others saw blossom in RFK during the last years of his life were rooted somewhere in his character all along, but it had been his role in the Kennedy family to be his brother's attack dog. I think Bobby's public vision was much more narrow prior to JFK's death, prior to that his loyalty was to Jack and it was Jack's job to care about the nation. Whatever it was, the change that came over Bobby was profound.

[Auntie Bush]

96. What you smokin?

Oh never mind.

No wonder you can't think straight!

[ellisonz]

101. Think peaceful?

And don't give me that shit. Every credible scientific study has shown that marijuana does not I repeat does not significantly alter the thought process in the way that say meth or heroin does. No wonder your SN is Auntie Bush...I bet you voted for Nixon, Amnesty, Acid, and Abortion right?

:eyes:

[xkenx]

112. Even medical disinformation! No argument about no impairment AFTER the high wears off, but

as anyone who has smoked marijuana knows, WHILE you are smoking, you are impaired. That's why, if you're indulging, just as with alcohol, you would be insane to drive a car or operate machinery. Auntie Bush was suggesting an impairment on your part when posting about Wes Clark.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. We have had many fine Progressives since RFK

The list is actually a long one. Paul Wellstone obviously is on it, one could add Russ Feingold and Bernie Saunders and some other sitting Congressional Democrats also. And no one should forget RFK Jr. while we are at it. For me any comparison between RFK and Wes Clark does not primarilly hinge on who else since RFK has also been a strong Progressive. I already left a link above to my own prior writing about what it is about Wes Clark that won my personal loyalty to him, but it is the personal character of the man coupled with his positions on contemporary issues that is evocative.

But really the key point of comparison for me is the ability of each man to cross over ideological lines and unite Americans of different backgrounds in a common cause. We remember now that RFK had very strong support among minorities, but he also had very strong support among poor and working class whites, during a time when race was a starker dividing line than it is today. RFK had the support of many white voters who later become Wallace Right Wing Populist Democrats after RFK was assasinated.

RFK appealed to the better part of patriotism in a broad cross section of Americans. He projected a love of country that was not narrow and jingoistic, but which was just as strong as the nationalistic fever that passes as true patriotism today. It is in this way that I feel Wes Clark offers Americaa a unique opportunity now to unite around our better self as a nation. America and the world would be very different places today had Bobby lived to lead it. He could not be easily typecast, he was the right man at the right time to pull us together. That is the special quality that I find in Wes Clark.

[jenmarie]

77. Tom Rinaldo

I'd like to thank you, once again, for the time and energy you've put into this thread. I know for a fact that you've debunked the same Clark smears/lies over and over again, and I hope that those you are attempting to inform will take the time to read you. You are a treasure, a gentleman, and a brilliant writer. Thank you for all you do. (I often quote and link to you when necessary.) :hug:

[Totally Committed]

91. Absolutely agree... Tom is amazing.

A great writer, wonderfully informed, and such a gentleman.

Such a talent.

TC

[Tom Rinaldo]

94. Hey TC!

I've been meaning to PM you after seeing you posting more here lately, but heck, this is a good way to deflect attention off of me, lol. It's great to have you active on DU again TC, I hope things are going well for you.

[Czolgosz]

78. Let's count the similarities: the were both lifelong Democrats who never voted for Repubs, they were

both leaders of the civil rights movement, they both ran presidential campaigns focused on non-aggression in America's foreign policy, they both worked in the government fighting against corruption, and neither was elected president.

Well, one out of five isn't bad. The truth is that Clark and RFK are both great Americans but Obama, Edwards, and Kucinich have more in common with RFK than Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

82. both sincere, honest, passionate, and were reluctant to

run for President.

Both real leaders who chose country, duty and honor over politics and personal enrichment throughout their entire lives.

Both served their country in the military.

Neither pandered.

Seems like quite a bit where it counts to me.

[Enrique]

90. didn't RFK have a secretary named Clark?

:tinfoilhat:

[DavidDvorkin]

92. One man is a general. The other was Attorney General.

It's uncanny!

[Tom Rinaldo]

93. Case proved! LOL. Thanks for the comic relief n/t

[lyonn]

97. Clark needs to give the Dems a chance to vote for him!

This guy has lots of moxy, experience, street smarts,.....

[ConsAreLiars]

109. I agree. Just in case you haven't found this link to RFK's

speeches, check out http://www.angelfire.com/pa4/kennedy/speech.html
Anyone who hasn't heard him speak should spend a few hours listening, and then think about how they compare to our current candidates. And then bang your heads into a wall until you forget the comparison.

At that time I was had already begun to understand Vietnam as an unjust war, for many reasons, and McCarthy as the best, but not very good, chance to end it, so far as voting once every few years mattered . Massing in the streets, underground papers, working at alternative bookstores and revolutionary printshops were my priorities. Eugene's head was in the right place, more or less, but he didn't come across as as a fighter who could win. When RFK entered the race, at first it just seemed like one more politician in the fray, but at some point, probably his improv speech on the murder of MLK, who had by then become a clear and powerful anti-imperialist voice, I knew he was speaking from his heart as well as his head. And that much/most of America would hear/feel what he was saying. And I can't even type this without tears, since his assassination, for me, marked the end of my innocence regarding how things work in this world.

Wes Clark is no Bobby Kennedy, of course. But he also speaks to the basic decency of most people, the desire to do good, the desire for a better world, in a way that anyone who is willing to listen can hear. Not a hack politician, just an honest voice. When he speaks, it is not spin, it is about understanding the truth of what is happening and doing what is right and what. He has his limitations, like RFK, but he is that very rare candidate who speaks with intelligence, candor, a deep sense of right and wrong, and an ability to inspire us to do better for each other and the rest of the planet.

(edit punctuation, probably misseed other stuff)

[xkenx]

113. Thank you--you understand the parallels. I, too, lost my innocence with the loss of RFK,

or, as the song goes..."Abraham, Martin, John, and Bobby."

Has anybody here
Seen my old friend Abraham?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
He freed a lotta people
But it seems the good, they die young
You know, I just looked around
And he's gone.

Has anybody here
Seen my old friend John?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
He freed a lotta people
But it seems the good, they die young
You know, I just looked around
And he's gone.

Has anybody here
Seen my old friend Martin?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
He freed a lotta people
But it seems the good, they die young
You know, I just looked around
And he's gone.

Didn't you love the things
That they stood for?
Didn't they try to find some good
For you and me?
And we'll be free
Someday soon
And it's a-gonna be
One day...

Has anybody here
Seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up
Over the hill
With Abraham, Martin, and John.