General Clark on KO now

[Sparkly]

with guest host....

[flpoljunkie]

1. Nice to see Wes on MSNBC!

[liberalnurse]

5. Very refreshing indeed!

O8) :bounce:

[muntrv]

2. Rightly says that Iraq war has brought sympathy to Al-Qaeda.

[MadMaddie]

3. I love me some Clark...

[eek]

12. Har! High 5 , Mad M

i was *literally* fixin' to post " i love me some General Clark" ( I had Huey for my av for a long time, too!) when I saw your post!
great minds, etc.

Also, in case anyone missed this from the NY Times Sunday Mag a few weeks ago:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3349781

(and, for those that don't read the Sunday NY Times , the "10 Questions for" is a prominently featured, weekly piece from the Sunday mag. Always toward the front, always with a full-body-on-white-seamless photo. In other words: a sweet piece of publicity)

[MadMaddie]

28. He would be a great President and I know he would clean

house....He would also be an amazing Secretary of State.....

Yes indeedee, Great minds think alike!!:hi:

[Ilsa]

4. "The strength of al queda is probably more than what is being

articulated on Capitol Hill via the NIE." per Gen. Clark, paraphrased, but that is pretty close to his exact words.

"Too many unknowns, but people should be concerned about this, and I hope they will lay the blame right where it belongs: at the feet of the Bush Administration." (Paraphrased, but very close to his exact words.)

humina humina I love me some Gen. Clark. Sorry, Gert.

[madfloridian]

6. He basically agrees with Chertoff....

I guess I need to be more afraid. :shrug:

[Sparkly]

11. Not really.

He said there is of course a threat, but it's a real concern if they don't even have any specific knowledge of what's going on.

[BootinUp]

13. and the ref blows the whistle!

Thats pretty low madf. :eyes:

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. "Al Qaeda is not an existential threat" Wes Clark; NY Times Mag. 7/1/07

"NYT: As a decorated leader yourself who served as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander during the war in Kosovo, how would you assess the threat that Al Qaeda poses to this country?

Clark: Al Qaeda is not an existential threat to the United States the way the Soviet Union was. You have to understand that the Soviet Union was a country of more than 200 million people. Al Qaeda is maybe 50,000 angry and destructive individuals.

NYT: You make Al Qaeda sound as unthreatening as a schoolyard gang.

Clark: Al Qaeda is unpredictable and dangerous and has an unknown number of sympathizers. But the Soviets had thousands of nuclear warheads, nuclear bombs, biological and chemical warheads and specially trained assassination teams aimed at us, and all of it was on a hair-trigger status that could have been set off by accident or miscalculation.

NYT: Neoconservatives generally argue just the opposite, claiming that the fight against terrorism is no less daunting than the cold war and in fact constitutes “World War IV,” to borrow the title of Norman Podhoretz’s forthcoming book.

Clark: Thus far, we don’t have an opposing superpower against us, no matter how much the neoconservatives long for this. Perhaps the neoconservatives believe that we can only be defined by having an enemy."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/magazine/01wwln-Q4-t.html?ex=1184299200&en=4334b02d2ec49c73&ei=5070


MF, Wes Clark has always undercut the Bush Administration's rational for a "War On Terror" and all of the extrordinary measures it attempts to justify because of one. Unlike some other Democrats, Wes Clark NEVER over estimates the threat that Al Qaeda poses America, just like he refuses to over estimate the threat that Iran poses to America either. None the less Clark firmly believes that it is the responsibility of any American President to carefully plan for all recognized threats facing our nation, big, medium, and small, and he accuses the Bush Administration of being all words and no action in regards to the matter of "homeland security", just like they were back in 2001 when they refused to take the warnings of an Al Qaeda attack on America seriously.

When Clark ran in 2004 he accused Bush of falling down on the job and not acting to protect America from a known threat prior to 9/11, the other Democrats didn't want to go there but Clark did. Clark said then that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Clark later called Bush guilty of "command negligence" in failing to do all in his power to thwart the 9/11 attack before it happened.

It's the same thing here MF. Clark will not let the Republicans get away with claiming they are the Party that knows how to keep America safe when it is obvious to anyone who honestly looks that they are no more serious about taking the steps needed to keep our ports safe, for example, than they are in taking the steps needed to keep our food safe, or our atmosphere safe. He is calling them liars.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. Clark is the only one with the testicular fortitude to say that

And no repuke can paint him as "naive" for saying that with his 4 stars. :

==NYT: Neoconservatives generally argue just the opposite, claiming that the fight against terrorism is no less daunting than the cold war and in fact constitutes “World War IV,” to borrow the title of Norman Podhoretz’s forthcoming book.

Clark: Thus far, we don’t have an opposing superpower against us, no matter how much the neoconservatives long for this. Perhaps the neoconservatives believe that we can only be defined by having an enemy."==

:rofl: Clark takes the fight straight to the neocons!

[elleng]

22. General states what he has stated

many times in the past: war with Iraq will/would/has provided al queda another place to grow, to get sympathy from many, and to increase places where al q threatens the world. If that's what chertoff said, then yes, General Clark agrees with chertoff.

It might be stated differently, however: Chertoff (Bush homeland security director) agrees with General Wesley Clark that the war in Iraq has provided fertile ground for terrorists, such as al queda, to grow.

[dogman]

23. No need to be afraid.

Your choice will take a poll and develop a policy accordingly. One year, war, another year, peace. Be happy.

[jenmito]

7. I just saw that. Too bad Keith was off tonight...

that would've made it all the better.

[Dinger]

8. Good, But Too Short

Of course, he's spot on.
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[jenmito]

9. Ain't that ALWAYS the way it is with him?

Never given enough time.

[Dinger]

14. I Think A 59 Minute Minimum Would Be Fine,

Don't you?
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[jenmito]

18. I agree...

All Wes all the time. :D

[Rick Myers]

10. Anyone like Clinton/Clark 08???

[Larry in KC]

15. No thank you, but I'd take Clark/anyone he chooses

[Rick Myers]

16. Same here, I support General Clark, but...

I'm just projecting the leader board when the time comes...

[Totally Committed]

24. Bite your tongue!

Wes is great, but Clinton is a no-go, no matter WHO is on the ticket, should SHE manage to get on the ticket. Thank you.

TC

[Wesin04]

25. Hmm, no thanks.

My ticket has Clark at the top cause he's the one we need.
Clinton shouldn't be annointed cause she's a Clinton.

[Jai4WKC08]

26. I like it better than Clinton/anybody else, but...

No, Clinton/Clark is not my first choice.

I hear you, tho. It's getting harder and harder to believe Clinton won't be the nominee, especially among the current list of Democratic candidates. She leads in almost every polls. She may not be the biggest money-raiser, but she's pulling in more than enough. She seems to rack up more big-name endorsements with every passing day. And lord knows Democratic primary voters have a track record of not being too smart about electability.

Fwiw, I don't think Clinton/Clark has much chance of happening. If Clinton wins the nomination, she will pick a Vilsack or a Warner: some nice, safe, moderate-to-conservative white male politician who won't ever say anything too controversial and who won't make her look insecure about her ability to handle national security and the military.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. Clark showed why he should be on the ticket

There are a few others in our party who are as articulate as him on matters of national security but no Democrat, with the possible exception of James Webb, brings the credibility on security to the table as the 4-star general does. Even Freeper-types are forced to at least listen to what Clark says because of his unique credibility. It will be a crime if he is not on the ticket.

[Cameron27]

20. Thanks dmc. That kind of attitude will pay off for your guy

(at least from me):thumbsup:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. Thanks

As you know, it is rare for me to get thanked for praising a candidate. :rofl: