Trying to "out war hard-on" the right with Clark for VP is cracked

[dpbrown]

Besides, Edwards could help carry a southern state or two.

Kerry doesn't even have to do too well in too many states in the south to make a difference. I think that the best strategy, given that people who participated in the primary think Kerry is the (yawn) most "electable" is simply to put the person that people determined is the second-most "electable" person with him.

I think that Clark is the "two-by-four-upside-the-head-damn-it-Democrats-are-more-breathlessly-warmongering-than-Republicans" choice and I think that too many things are going to change between now and November to make a double-Democrat-war-hard-on ticket very attractive.

Choosing a "general" as the VP choice will be the final nail in the coffin for the third-party folks and the shrill "they're the same" people, who are already looking for a reason to vote third-party or sit out the election. If Democrats think the numbers of these folks are more than offset by the numbers of the mind-bogglingly antagonistic take back the aggression plank! switch hitters who might defect from Bush, go for it.

I think it's a loser strategy.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

2004 Democratic National Convention Delegate for Dennis Kucinich

[BootinUp]

1. So it doesn't matter what a General says or does

Just that he's a General? How sad if true.

[ibegurpard]

22. Look, nothing against Clark particularly, but that's the VERY reason

that so many are PUSHING him.

[BootinUp]

23. I really think that is inaccurate

I don't know any Clark supporters that have ever expressed the thought that another General would have had their support in place of Clark. Clark garnered support from a broad spectrum of democrats, many Kucinich supporters liked him I have noticed. Clark is not your average General, he is truly one in a million IMNSHO. :)

[KC21304]

2. If you truly think that Gen Clark is a warmonger

you know NOTHING about Gen Clark.

[Larkspur]

51. Clark said that the Vietnam war was a war worth fighting

So yeah, he is a warmonger at heart.

[lanparty]

3. Democrats cannot afford to be the "piece at any price" party.

War mongering is certainly a terrible thing. But lets not forget the statemenship of Neville Chamberlin while Hitler was building up his war machine.

Yes, I know that Dumbaya used this as a justification for war. But he missed the essential parts of the analogy. The US actually carried through with the treaty terms. We had reduced Saddam's military to a shattered shell and made frequent airstrikes when he was violating treaty terms.

Honestly, had Saddam had the weapons, I DO think the war would have been justified. But he didn't have him. And the REAL intelligence said that Saddam did NOT have them.

In this, I agree with Kerry 100%. Many countries have WMD. But Saddam displayed an eagerness to use them. Had the intelligence not been trumped up, I believe the invasion would have been justified (provided they actually LISTENED to planners regarding postwar reconstruction).

There is nothing wrong with proactive defense planning. There IS something wrong with going overboard. This is a nuance and something that Democrats HAVE to emphasize so that Republicans cannot distort their positions.

I heard a great editorial on NPR once. It talked about halks and doves. But their essentially was no lingo for the inbetween. The guy proposed the term OWLS. Someone who scans the horizon and remains vigilant. The OWL is willing and able to use force, but only when NECESSARY!!!! The OWL prefers diplomacy before war. But he also know when a strategic strike is in order to make a point.

Clinton was essentially an OWL. They were VERY vigilant about terror and threats to the US. They preferred diplomatic, multi-lateral solutions that leveraged the strength of allies before going headlong into battle.

This administration lied like dogs. And the media made little or no effort to explore the veracity of what was offered in terms of intelligence. Indeed, some of Colin Powell's lies were so poorly constructed that they could have been debunked by military analysts.

But the media LOVES a good war. It's not necessarily because of their conservative bias. It's because of their PRIMARY bias ... PROFIT!!!! Wars sell newspapers. It gets people watching news channels and establishing viewing habits. THAT is the reason the media was and has ALWAYS been so eager for war!!!!

[BeyondGeography]

4. Clark is more liberal than Edwards

The fact that he's a General is an obvious distraction for you. You're letting the media spin about why Clark is being considered cloud your judgment.

Not that I would accuse the "third-party folks" of thinking things through, of course, but there's an element that is congenitally unable to associate a military man with anything progressive. You wouldn't happen to have the same problem, would you?

On tax policy, human and civil rights, the right to privacy, the Patriot Act and Iraq, Clark was the most liberal candidate in the field except DK and Sharpton.

[AP]

6. I don't know how you can say that.

Edwards has a solid progressive, liberal set of polices. His tax code is very progressive, especially in that it wants to add a second tier for cap gains tax based on income (which gets to the core of the problem with the tax code -- it taxes that which American should be rewarding (work) much more heavily that it taxes wealth from wealth (capital)).

He also has the right message about the relationship between the corporation and society (which Clark doesn't really have much to say about, as far as I can tell).

http://nationaljournal.com/members/news/2004/02/0227nj1.htm

[BootinUp]

9. Is economics the only issue that makes a liberal a liberal?

Of course we have discussed Edwards v Clarks economic policies before. I might grant you a draw on that regard. Even though I believe most Americans would reject Edwards plan to increase taxes on capital gains. As you know Clarks plan would have meant a family of 4 making 50,000 or less income would pay zero federal income tax and would have increased taxes on the top 0.1% making over 1 million dollars.

But back to my point, there are other issues, no? Clark was clearly pushing a more liberal overall platform between the two.

Clarks position on corporations and regulation etc was modeled after Clintons legacy BTW.

[AP]

11. Tax code and the role of corporations in society are probably the

two most important progressive issues today.

Edwards's message criticizing the tax code shifting the burden from wealth created from wealth to wealth created by work is super progressive, as are his policies for shifiting it back.

His message about the proper roll of corporations in society is also super progressive.

I'm not sure that saying that Clark's attitude towards corporations is modeled after Clinton's is very satisfying.

Coprorations increased their power during the Clinton years (although I'll grant, Clinton isn't so much to blame as is Gore and the Treasury Department).

Furthermore, that statement doesn't tell me what Clark's message is precisely.

It's not enough to say, "I'll do what Clinton did."

[BootinUp]

14. In other words

Clark favors working with corporations to create jobs. He distanced himself from the kind of rhetoric Dean was using during the primaries about re-regulating corporations.

Clark's economic plan included 300 billion by closing corporate loopholes and incentives for offshoring, and subsidies that were wasteful.

Here's a snippet from his plan summary:
Ending corporate welfare and closing corporate loopholes. My plan also provides for an independent commission to make the hard choices America needs, holding Congress responsible for egregious pieces of corporate pork in up-or-down votes.

I think Clark tiptoed the issue no doubt because one of the repugs favorite games is calling dems anti-business. Clinton taught us how to beat that, its a lesson that should be followed.

Cheers

[BeyondGeography]

12. They're even on economics, Clark is more socially liberal

Clark's tax cut was rated by many as the most progressive on the table. He raises taxes on everyone making more than $200k/yr. to eliminate federal tax for families making under $50K. I have no problem with Edwards, on any level, really, but he does protect income at much higher tlevels than Clark, so I don't see how one plan is decidedly more liberal than the other.

On social policy, Edwards has made some conservative-leaning pronouncements over the years out of necessity. He has had to run for office in North Carolina. So he's on the record with decidely wishy-washy positions on gay rights in particular. Do I think Edwards is personally not as liberal as Clark as a person? Not really. He's just had to make a few concessions to political reality that Clark hasn't had to confront in his life.

Ironically, it's on national security issues where Clark is to the left compared with Edwards and many other Democrats, a point that is surely lost on the original poster. Because no one can question his commitment to defense, Clark is able to go on the record about his desire to eliminate waste at the Pentagon and reduce spending on defense, be much more critical about the decision to go to war in Iraq and the operational disasters that followed, lambaste the Bush Administration for its lack of attention to terrorism pre-9/11.

Does all that mean Clark is by definition more liberal? Probably not. But he has taken many liberal positions in the campaign, and his sincerity shouldn't be doubted (not that I think you do).

[AP]

15. Edwards does NOT protect higher levels of wealth. The opposite is true.

Edwards wanted the roll-back on 200K plus income AND wanted a two-tier cap gains stax on income over 300K.

Not only would Edwards have asked people who got income from sources other than work to pay more, his tax plan actually would have taxed Clark's income in 2003 at a higer rate than Clark's plan would have taxed Clark. (Because Clark made a million bucks selling stock in a no-risk deal thanks to a loan Goldman Sachs gave him -- and those are the people Edwards wanted to bear a bigger burden: people who made a TON of money from sources other than work).

Social issues? What measure? Edwards position on gay marriage was genius if you ask me. Also, years before he even though about being a pol, he was giving benefits to the same-sex partners of his employees.

Pick your issue, and I think Edwards was arguing for things that were definitely long-term progressive.

[BootinUp]

19. Just to clarify

Clark wanted the rollback on 200k plus income, plus an increase on the rate for income over 1M. Maybe we should look at how much revenue the two plans would generate, or maybe we should let it lie.

[dogman]

25. No matter who the VP choice

we are going to get Kerry's tax plan. The VP wont have a lot to say in that matter. Obviously Clark dropped out and backed Kerry because he said Kerry was his first choice to begin with. Edwards stayed in and fought Kerry because he thought he had better ideas. I personally think this will influence Kerry's choice since it is his choice.

[PurityOfEssence]

27. He's a CORPORATIST! Aren't you paying attention?

Edwards is much more liberal and especially populist than this man, and his actions prove it. There are very few actions by which we can judge Clark; mostly we only have his promises and proposals. Sorry, but his word is not sacred: we already know that he lied repeatedly about Kerry's and Edwards' votes on the Bush tax cuts, even long after Dean had been caught in the same lies. When confronted by these facts, he not only didn't respond, he brought forth new distortions about voting records. We have very little to go on with Clark but his word, whereas we have over five years of votes from Edwards, and they're pretty impressive.

[BootinUp]

28. when were these facts brought forth?

I must have missed that.

[PurityOfEssence]

30. Acxiom; Entrust; Stephens, Inc.;

Bear in mind: I don't hate the man, far from it. I am beyond annoyed with the scorched earth tactics of his more fervent supporters, though, and I do find him a bit questionable. In Kosovo, he publicly questioned his superiors' judgement and at the end of his campaign he flatly lied over and over again. Dammit, a VP needs finesse, self-control and social skills.

A person's character is not best judged when things are going well, but when under duress. Lest we forget, too: likeability is a major factor in modern American politics; Clinton and Reagan are classic examples of this. Judging from the number of enemies Clark's garnered in the military, he's a bit green on this trait.

Google these companies and his activities.

People snipe at Edwards for being from a scurrilous profession, but Clark was a VERY highly paid lobbyist peddling passenger profiling. Yikes.

Yes. Corporatist.

[BootinUp]

31. But you just spread more bs

And didn't address the the question from the previous post. I have links to lots of threads about Axciom and Stephens. After 911, the Government was interested in software systems for tracking terrorists. I have no problem with Clark being in the loop and looking out for our privacy concerns in those efforts.

The Stephens "controversy" is nothing more than guilt by association. He took a job he was qualified for in Little Rock. Big deal.

How do you define highly paid lobbyist? He made a fraction of his money lobbying. Most of his money was from book deals and speaking engagments as I recall.

[PurityOfEssence]

32. Acxiom paid him more than $830,000 for lobbying

From January '02 until he quit. I'd say that this fits into the "highly paid lobbyist" category.

Here's a clip from the Center for Public Integrity:

He also made a pitch for the kind of tracking that the company's wares can perform while acting as a commentator on CNN. On January 6, 2002, four days after filing as a lobbyist for Acxiom, Clark told an interviewer, in response to worries that private planes could be used for terrorist attacks, "We've been worried about general aviation security for some time. The aircraft need to be secured, the airfields need to be secured, and obviously we're going to also have to go through and do a better job of screening who could fly aircraft, who the private pilots are, who owns these aircraft. So it's going to be another major effort."

Naturally, he did not reveal to CNN's viewers that the company he lobbied for had a substantial stake in this issue.

[BootinUp]

34. Incorrect

He was on the board of directors as well.

Clarks fees for lobbying were less than 200K if I recall. It may have been less than 100k. These are public records and easy to look up.

[PurityOfEssence]

36. More from the Center for Public Integrity:

"Clark has been lobbying for the firm since January 2, 2002; Acxiom has paid more than $830,000 for Clark to advance its agenda and meet with government officials. Clark also serves on the company's board of directors."

Why do you think they kept him around? Maybe his judgement was of great importance, he's definitely a sharp guy. It's naivete in the extreme to think that this isn't an example of the "revolving door" snuggly government to corporate dynamic that plagues our system.

[BootinUp]

37. How many other people in the world

Have Clarks experience and education? He was paid a pittance for 34 years and then you want to call him names, when he retires and takes a job he was clearly qualified for. Snuggly revolving door, that sounds like where someone IN GOVERNMENT does favors for a company to get a job after retiring. Please elaborate where you see this in Clarks record.

[PurityOfEssence]

40. So you're admitting that you were incredibly wrong, huh?

Clark was a government employee, as such, he has much influence within the system. Yes, he was very qualified with his connections to get government contracts for private corporations, and although this isn't "abuse of trust", it's certainly some form of personal profiting from OUR monies. How do you feel about not divulging personal financial involvement with policies he's advocating on CNN as a consultant? That's a tad shady, wouldn't you say?

Suddenly my wicked distortions you've dismissed out of hand are no longer the topic of the moment and you move on to other issues.

That's a lot of money in less than two years.

To answer your point, though, a four-star general with the commands he's had certainly qualify as IN GOVERNMENT. Lest we forget, it's about profiling, too; that always makes me a bit queasy, since it automatically snuffles about privacy and civil liberties in the process.

I'm on a deadline, so I'll have to check in later this evening.

[BootinUp]

42. Ridiculous

He was not paid 800k for lobbying. He had other responsibilities as a member of the board. You have yet to acknowledge that your claim was false.

I asked you to explain what leverage Clark used as a government employee to get the job at Axciom. You cannot because he did not. The most you can complain about is that he had the right qualifications (call them what you will) for the job and he was no longer a government employee. Hence you believe that former government employees should be outlawed from being lobbyists?

Something a lot of people need to get a grip on is that lobbyists do provide a necessary function. Are there corrupt lobbyists? Sure. Does that mean you get rid of all of them. No. You make specific reforms to address specific problems. I still don't see your problem with Clark working for Axciom.

As for Clark's comments on CNN, I would have to review it, I never heard that complaint during the primaries and based on your other claims I tend to discredit its accuracy and relevancy.

[PurityOfEssence]

45. Please respond to this quote

"Acxiom has paid more than $830,000 for Clark to advance its agenda and meet with government officials."

Personally, I trust the Center For Public Integrity on this. Based on their reporting, it sounds like he was influence peddling. Sure, this is perfectly legal, and good business sense on their terms, but IT HAPPENED. As a high-ranking member of the military with political experience in NATO and in our government, he has many connections. I never claimed that he did this when he was a government employee, so bold-faced argument of yours is a straw man. The definition of "revolving door" relationships is that one leaves one before the other; although overlap and interested motives do occur.

You're wrong, and you're flailing around looking for a technicality to discredit the accusation I've made, and CAN'T EVEN DO THAT. This article says that he was paid this amount to "advance its agenda and meet with government officials"; that's lobbying. If part of this was compensation for sitting on the board, the article certainly doesn't say so, it says that this ENTIRE AMOUNT was for the purposes of influencing officials. They're pretty credible, and I'm claiming them as my source. YOU are the one without stated sources, so instead of quibbling about semantics, why don't you dig up some proof? Sounds like this guy was cashing in here, and with the CNN statement, it sounds like he was misrepresenting his views for personal monetary gain from the public purse.

[AP]

46. The reason he was on the board was because

of his ability to network.

[BootinUp]

48. This is a good start anyways

A New York Times article on Clarks personal finances:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg109145.html

I will find you the lobbying disclosure forms Clark was required to fill out.

Bottom line is I do not have a problem with former government employees making a living after they leave government service. You seem to think they should be severely restricted in what they can do. The biggest problem with the revolving door issue, is how current government officials perform their duties to curry favor with business. Not the other way around.

[BootinUp]

52. Links for you

You can look at his lobbying disclosures at the links below. His actual lobbying income was less than 100k over 2 years.


http://sopr.senate.gov/

http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/opr_viewer.exe?20034CLARK,$WESLEY$K.LOB~0

http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/opr_viewer.exe?20024CLARK,$WESLEY$K.LOB~0

[dogman]

29. Edwards agrees with Cheney on the Iraq War.

Clark does not, who has the war hard-on? This is the post. Edwards had two phases of voting, before running he was supportive of Bush, after running he voted more liberal when he voted. Clark pointed out Kerry and Edwards voting records. That's a common practice in politics. The people made their judgement and were not persuaded by it. I recognize Clark's integrity in his analyses of the Iraq War on CNN and trust him. I witnessed Edwards lies about his background and don't trust him. I guess these are personal judgements we all must make.

[Guaranteed]

38. They both suck in their own ways, so let's just go with Dean...?

Whatever. It's just the stupid VP.

[Justice]

5. I think your statements are just silly

Now let's be a little more intelligent in our thinking.

Perhaps Clark is the second most electable person -- did you every consider that?

[lanparty]

7. My notion AGAINST Clark

Clark only managed to pick up Oklahoma. But if they let Clinton off his leash, he could easily deliver Oklahoma AND Arkansas for the Democrats.

Honestly, the best guy out there is probably Bob Graham of Florida. The reason is simple. He can deliver Florida and perhaps give Kerry a prayer in Georgia.

One thing is CERTAIN. Kerry NEEDS a Southerner to balance the ticket and deliver one or two Southern states.

Evan Bayh of Indiana has been making the circuit lately. And I'm 100% CERTAIN that he WANTS to be the VP nomination. He's even dropped a lot of his robotic ways. But I don't think that Bayh could deliver Indiana even though I personally believe that Indiana is in play (because of jobs!!!).

I would say it's going to be: Clark, Graham, or Edwards. I'm with Randi Rhodes that Clark is the BEST choice out there right now. Edwards would be my second choice. Clark was my FAVORITE choice for president, but I don't think that VP is the best role for him. I think he'll make a GREAT Secretary of State!!!!

[Darkamber]

13. Yes...Clark for Sec. of State...

I agree with you that we need a Southern VP. And I don't think Clark in the VP position is the best use of his talents. In fact, I think it would be a waste of his expertise and talents.

If you put Edwards in the VP position, he can handle and work on Domestic issues and do the fund raising things and let Kerry and Clark deal with the Foreign policy and war issues.

[robbedvoter]

8. Oh, yeah! Let's win them third partiers! Let's get the war profiteer over

the guy who opposed the war! Sounds like a good plan! From the realistic wing of the dem party. It was BS like this you guys pulled in Iowa too.

[wyldwolf]

10. I wouldn't expect anything less from a Kucinich delegate

[Crunchy Frog]

17. I was actually a Kucinich delegate

at the local and state level in Colorado, and got to know a number of Kucinich supporters here. Almost all of them expressed very positive feelings about Clark, often even saying they wished he had gotten the nomination.

I was very open with them about my being a Clark supporter, and based on my own prejudices, I kind of expected them to be shocked and horrified. I was quite surprised by their openmindedness and acceptance.

For the most part they are all prepared to vote for Kerry, even though they may not be happy about it. They understand what the stakes are. I doubt very much that adding Clark to the ticket would change the votes of anyone I talked to.

I guess Colorado Kucinich supporters must be different from ones in other states.:shrug:

I did have the impression that most of them had bothered to actually learn something about the candidates.

[Crunchy Frog]

16. I would rather have a VP

who opposed the invasion of Iraq than one who supported it, still thinks it was the right thing to do, and would have done it himself had he been president.

If you really want to go non-militarist, vote for Bush/Cheney. Neither of them served in the military after all, (I don't count going AWOL from the TANG as military service). Obviously people who havn't served in the military are more peace oriented than those who have.:eyes:

[RafterMan]

18. How many times do we have to say it?

I would choose Clark over Edwards because he opposed the war, while Edwards supported it.

Once more: Clark opposed the war, while Edwards supported it.

Who is the breathless warmonger?

[no name no slogan]

20. Opposing going to war is one thing, opposing the occupation is another

Clark may have opposed going to war, true, but he (like Edwards) has said NOTHING about opposing the ongoing occupation. If going to war was so wrong, how could it possibly be right to support an unpopular ongoing occupation?

A recent poll of Iraqis shows that most of them would feel safer without the US occupation. It's clear that we're not wanted in their country, and yet the leading Democrats in this party somehow think we need to stay in Iraq indefinately-- or until we have "stability", whatever that really means.

I thought Clark was a decent presidential candidate. I would certainly feel good about voting for him if he was the nominee. However, past experience shows that generals are average presidents, at best. Grant and Eisenhower come to mind as examples.

Additionally, putting a "military man" in one of the top slots on the ticket plays into the fearmongering of Bush and Ashcroft. Just like choosing McCain for the VP slot, it basically acknowledges that the Republicans are right on the so-called "war on terror" and we Democrats don't have a leg to stand on.

[robbedvoter]

21. Clark said the sovereignty should have been transferred "yesterday"

and an international body should handle the transfer. he formulated this plan last year. Exit strategy, not occupation.
I still don't understand why thr little war profiteer is promoted in this thread. 9or anywhere)

[no name no slogan]

33. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying

I may not favor Clark for VP, but that certainly does NOT mean that I support Edwards for VP, either.

As a matter of fact, I think it's a bad idea to pick an also-ran as VP. I would prefer somebody from the midwest or the west who has some pull with the voters in these areas. Better yet, somebody who's an economic populist and has a strong record of standing up for working people and who can appeal to the disenfranchised voters of the working class.

IOW, not Clark, not Edwards, not Dean, not Gephardt, not Kucinich, not Liebermann, not Sharpton, not Mosely-Braun and not LaRouche for that matter, either.

Just because I'm against Clark for VP does not mean I'm for Edwards.

[edkohler]

35. A General as a VP?

I can't see a general playing the role of VP. That could be a bigger train wreck than having a CEO of an oil company as VP. Um, okay, not THAT bad, but still, it's not even likely that a general would be interested in playing the role. Edwards is a better fit for pulling the South and might have some sway in Florida.

[in_cog_ni_to]

44. YES! A General as VP! BUT...

Not just ANY General! This is General Wesley Kanne Clark. The one presidential candidate who warned us about the Military-Indistrial Complex. Wes Clark is no warmonger....he's been there, done that. He will NEVER, ever, ever take this country to war without a very good reason to do so. Here, read this. Wes Clark wrote it when he was a candidate.

WES CLARK'S TEN PLEDGES



I pledge to all Americans that I will bring our soldiers home, with success in Iraq assured and America standing strong.
My strategy in Iraq will be guided by the following principles:

End the American monopoly. From the beginning, the Bush Administration has insisted on exclusive control of the Iraqi reconstruction and occupation. This has cost us the financial and military support of other nations and made America a bigger target for terrorists. Ending the American monopoly will change the way this enterprise is viewed -- in Iraq and throughout the world.

Change the force mix. The Bush Administration has failed to formulate an effective tactical plan. No such plan will be viable without substantial contributions from military leaders on the ground. Still, I would approach the problem as follows: consider adding troops; adapt to guerrilla war; better use intelligence resources, train Iraqi security forces, free up U.S. troops; engage neighbours for better border security; and secure ammunition.

Give the Iraqis a rising stake in our success. Iraqis will be more likely to meet the security challenge if we give them a greater stake in our success. That means establishing a sovereign government in Iraq right away. Because Americans chose the current governing council, many Iraqis see it as illegitimate. I believe we cannot transfer full authority to Iraqis before they have the capacity to succeed, but we should help the Iraqis quickly establish their own government to replace the existing council.


I will never ask our troops to risk the ultimate sacrifice or ask their families to pay the ultimate price of patriotism except as an absolute last resort.
As President, I will rebuild our relationships abroad and the alliances which maintain them. And I will strengthen them, so that we can solve problems together, so that the use of military force is our last resort not our first, and if America must act with force we can call on the military, financial, and moral resources of others.

Restoring our alliance with Europe is the first essential part of my broader strategy for American national security. President Bush has created a go-it-alone approach and declared the use of preemptive military force as the defining characteristic of his national security strategy. A Clark Administration would place our work with Europe and a reinvigorated NATO as a centerpiece of U.S. policy -- and then seek not to rely on preemptive force, but instead to use diplomatic, political, economic power and international law in support of preventive engagement. We would reserve the use of force for an absolutely last resort and then act together if possible and alone only if we must.


I will never send American soldiers into combat without a realistic plan to win and the forces necessary for victory.
The Administration failed to plan realistically for post-war Iraq. Instead of listening to the experts at the State Department and throughout the government, who predicted the danger of chaos and looting, the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his aides ignored their advice. Instead they relied on hope, hope that the Iraqi exiles would be accepted as legitimate, hope that the Iraqi police and military would provide security, hope that Iraqi oil revenues would finance reconstruction, and hope that we would be treated as liberators. How wrong they were -- you can't build a plan on hope.

Meanwhile, the President rejected the advice of the uniformed military that we deploy enough troops not only to defeat Saddam's military but also to secure Iraq after Saddam's defeat.

As a result, we saw chaos, we lost the trust of the Iraqi people -- and the enemy was emboldened.


The statements and actions of a Clark Administration will restore America's moral authority.
The Bush Administration has squandered in two years the moral authority America spent generations building. It started when President Bush said to the world, "you're either with us or against us." As a result, even some of those who were with us are now against us. And those, like Tony Blair, who are still with us pay a political price for it. America is hurt as well. We are less secure when our friends suffer for standing by our side. With fewer partners, we are left to meet dangers alone.

Even in Eastern Europe, there is dismay. These were some of the first countries in the world to support the Bush administration in Iraq. And what does this Administration do to its friends? In July, it suspends all U.S. military assistance to Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, and Bulgaria because they have not yet promised Americans blanket immunity from the International Criminal Court.

One after another, American presidents have laid a foundation of moral authority for the United States. That foundation was built through our leadership in containing Communism, in promoting human rights, in helping the poor and the sick, and in promoting international law. That foundation has been splintered in a few short years.

Also, a key part of my strategy of preventive engagement is to lead the global fight against rising tide of AIDS. Although AIDS is a preventable and treatable disease, in 2003, 5 million people worldwide were newly infected with HIV and a record 3 million people died of AIDS -- more than all the deaths from wars and terrorism in the world combined.

I have a four-part Global AIDS Security Strategy:


Keep the U.S. commitment to combat AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria worldwide - doubling funding to $30 billion by 2008.

Dedicate a large majority of U.S. funding to multilateral approaches like the Global Fund to Fight AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria, while demanding results and additional commitments from our allies.

Base prevention and research efforts on the best available science, including overturning the global gag rule.
My Global AIDS Security Strategy will:


Prevent 14 million new HIV infections

Provide care and support for 20 million HIV-infected individuals and AIDS orphans

Provide treatment for 5 million people living with HIV/AIDS, including supporting the WHO goal of putting 3 million people on treatment by 2005

Accelerate the development of vaccines and cost-effective treatments to stop HIV, TB, malaria, and other infectious diseases

The guiding principle of our foreign policy will be to lead, not to bully.
This Administration has been all bully and no pulpit.

Simply put, this Administration is wrecking NATO -- and thereby doing incalculable damage to our security and well being. They have alienated our friends, dismissed their concerns, rejected their advice, and left America an isolated nation. I served in NATO twice, last as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. I know its value, see its promise, and if elected, I won't let it be destroyed.

General Eisenhower once said leadership is "persuading the other fellow to want to do what you want him to do." When America led the world for the last half century, others followed -- not because we compelled them, but because we convinced them. America needs a President who can lead.

As President, that's what I will do. I will rebuild our relationships abroad and the alliances which maintain them. And I will strengthen them, so that we can solve problems together, so that the use of military force is our last resort not our first, and if America must act with force we can call on the military, financial, and moral resources of others.


I will never challenge the patriotism of Americans who question my policies or express their disagreement.
In a recent ad, the Republican National Committee claimed: "Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists."

The Republicans have tried to monopolize patriotism; I will not permit the Republican Party to steal patriotism.

I am not critical of President Bush because he is attacking terrorists; I'm critical of the President because he is NOT attacking terrorists.


In a Clark Administration, America will always have the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped military in the world.
During my 34 years of service in the United States Army, I held numerous staff and command positions - including Commander in Chief of the United States Southern Command and Director for Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff - rising to the rank of four-star general and NATO Supreme Allied Commander.

As SACEUR, I led Operation Allied Force, NATO's first major combat action, which saved 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and did not result in the loss of a single American soldier.

I know the utility of a well-prepared U.S. military, and I know what it takes to make sure that the U.S. has the best military in the world.

As Commander in Chief of the United States, I will carefully examine our defense budget to ensure that we are providing our military the money and support it needs to adapt to the new challenges America faces and to have the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped military in the world.


America's military will be a complement, not substitute, for diplomacy, law, and leadership in the conduct of our international affairs.
We must reorganize our government so that we can bring to bear the economic, diplomatic and political tools in our arsenal. When we use the power of international law and diplomacy, we can achieve decisive results, even without decisive force.

A Clark Administration would place our work with Europe and a reinvigorated NATO as a centerpiece of U.S. policy -- and then seek not to rely on preemptive force, but instead to use diplomatic, political, economic power and international law in support of preventive engagement. We would reserve the use of force for an absolutely last resort and then act together if possible and alone only if we must.

The United States needs a cabinet-level or subcabinet-level agency that is charged with developing plans, programs, and personnel structures to assist in the areas of political and economic development abroad. Call it the Department of International Development. Focusing our humanitarian and developmental efforts through a single, responsible department will help us bring the same kind of sustained attention to alleviating deprivation, misery, ethnic conflict, and poverty that we have brought to the problem of warfare. These efforts will reduce the anger and alienation that gives rise to terrorism, and win us more friends and partners around the world. It will be far easier to gain international support for our concerns when other countries see us helping them on theirs.


I pledge to use all of my experience and determination to fight the terrorists who have attacked our country, to defeat them and to work to prevent them from rising again.
I will go after terrorists wherever they are - in Afghanistan or any other country. As a result of the Bush Administration's inadequate and misguided efforts, Osama bin Laden and many of the leaders of al Qaeda are still at large and continue to pose a great threat to the United States, our friends and allies, and various other states. I propose the following three-pronged strategy to refocus our energies on hunting down bin Laden and destroying the al Qaeda network.

Press Saudi Arabia to join U.S. forces in creating a U.S.-Saudi commando force to work the Afghan-Pakistani border where bin Laden is thought to be hiding. It's time for Saudi Arabia to take real action to destroy al Qaeda from the top down. It's not enough for them to pursue terrorism within their own borders. They need to join us in the battle worldwide.

Fully utilize the assets we already have on hand to hunt down bin Laden and destroy the al Qaeda network. Too many of our intelligence specialists, linguists, and special operations personnel are investing too much time and energy in Iraq in a fruitless search for weapons of mass destruction -- a task that could better be handled by international weapons inspectors. These inspectors are ready, willing, and able to perform this mission. This is a clear case where getting help from the international community to share the burden in Iraq will free up crucial resources to allow us to better fight the most significant threat to our homeland.

Repair our relationships with our allies and friends, and rely on international and regional institutions, like the United Nations and NATO. These institutions can provide vital support to American diplomacy, bringing in others to share the burdens and risks that we would otherwise carry alone.


And finally, by these pledges and with your support, as President I will make America more secure than it is today.
As President, I will ensure that we succeed in Iraq, that we focus our intelligence, diplomatic, financial, law enforcement and military resources on defeating al Qaeda, that we restore respect and support for America, and that we re-orient our foreign policy to meet the challenges of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, international crime, and environment threats. Taken together, all of these steps will make America more secure.

[cosmokramer]

24. Bullshit.

And your charges aren't worth more than that.

[dogman]

26. Edwards supports the war, Clark does not.

Your post therefore makes no sense.

[incapsulated]

39. Very few will..

During the next few weeks. :silly:

We all know if you are a General, you are automatically a warmonger.

We all know if you are a trial lawyer, you are automatically an ambulance chaser.

We all know if you are Dean, you are a loon.

We all know if you are anyone else, you are a bore or a DINO.

McCain's not playing anymore. ;)


God let this be over soon so everyone can bash the offical choice! At least it will only be one guy! :)

[dogman]

41. You mean we might have to research Vilsack?

At least it would make new teams.

[incapsulated]

43. Yes...

I can't think of one bad thing to say about Vilsack.

It's outrageous!

[Lefty Pragmatist]

47. As you wish...

http://www.dmregister.com/opinion/stories/c5917686/21759162.html

[incapsulated]

50. A hothead prone to political blunders!

Thanks, I'll put that in my file in case he get's the nod! :hi:

[Pepperbelly]

49. your stereotyping ... inaccurate i might add ...

is genuinely repulsive to me. It is smarmy and takes into account ZERO facts.

[MessiahRp]

53. Locking

The title of the thread flamebaits Clark supporters. Please find a more productive way to make your points.

Rp