Why support Clark?

[Enraged American]

I have noticed quite a few fellow DUers with Draft Clark avatar images. Why? No one knows his political views. He might be a Lieberman-style DINO.

Supporting a man who has no agenda yet and has not even announced is an insult to the 9 other candidates (7 of which are superb ).

[bluestateguy]

1. Here is some reading

www.draftwesleyclark.com

click on "on the issues".

[Fixated]

2. ....

YOU don't know his positions on the issues. I certainly do, and I'm sure all his other supporters do as well.

[RichV]

3. Yes, they do.

He hasn't offered detailed plans yet, but has offered a wide array of his political views. Check the Draft Clark site for issue stances for the time being.

7? Nah.

[Pepperbelly]

4. Gee ...

don't we get to support who we want?

:eyes:

Or is it just you who gets to do that?

[OKNancy]

5. "Enraged American" doesn't know

but quite a few of us have made an effort to watch and read all about Clark. I'm still undecided, but I like what I read and hear.

[IranianDemocrat]

6. You apparently don't know anything about the man.

You just know that he's a General so he's probably a conservative democrat. What you don't know is that he's pro choice, pro aff action, anti bush tax cuts, anti iraq war, pro progressive taxation, pro decrease in military spending, pro ban on assault weapons, and one of the most progressive candidates in the race.

Educate yourself before you make shit up and post it.

[Enraged American]

7. politeness would be nice

[IranianDemocrat]

14. I apologize.

I'm just sick of seeing threads like this..

[Booberdawg]

8. Thanks for getting that off your chest

:eyes:

oh and welcome to DU

[Enraged American]

11. Thank you. Love the Sartre quote.

[Enraged American]

9. Clark: no stance on trade...

what's the matter? Afraid to get his feet wet?

The website http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on_the_issues.htm really doesnt tell me much. It's just primetime generalities.

[Pepperbelly]

10. so you just drop by to cause a fuss for ...

Dennis?

I bet he wouldn't approve although who can say.

[Enraged American]

13. No

I dropped by because I can't understand why anyone would support a vacillating and very generic general when we have great candidates such as Kucinich, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Mosely Braun, Kerry, and Graham.

[Pepperbelly]

15. I suspect that explaining ...

it to you would be an exercise in futility.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Maybe Because Clark Has A Better Chance Of Winning

I will vote for the Democrat I believe has the best chance of beating * whomever he or she is...

[Fixated]

12. ...

You said that no one knew his stances. You were wrong. So you found one not mentioned on the site. Good for you.

[RichV]

25. Trade

He said on NPR he was for fair trade rather than free trade. Haven't heard him comment directly on NAFTA, WTO, etc. at this point. Don't believe I've heard anyone ask in those terms.

[MGKrebs]

16. Clark may turn out to be a great candidate.

I've been to draftwesleyclark.com. The policy positions are very broad and lacking in the kind of detail that the other candidates are having to come up with. The overall gist is great- but I think you could say the same for almost all of the other candidates.

If I was still uncommitted, I would have to consider Clark. But I decided to get involved early this time, to do as much as I could to help a Dem get elected. Clark was not (and still is not) an option for me. One might as well support Al Gore, or Hillary, or Ted Kennedy. If you have the time to wait for a decision, great. My deadline has passed.

[Kahuna]

17. Boy oh boy. That's a heck of an assumption...

Please tell us how you know that we know nothing about General Clark's positions? How could you possibly know what we know or don't know.

[Wendec]

19. Generalizing?

I can speak only for myself, but it's a little insulting to suggest that people support Clark without knowing anything about his positions. I've probably read literally every significant article written by or about Clark, heard or seen his speeches and media appearances, and even seen and heard video of him during the Kosovo crisis.

So it's fine that you don't support him or to criticize him, but to essentially suggest that his supporters are ignorant is going too far.

[Julien Sorel]

20. Because we lack your sagacity.

But we appreciate your attempt to use the Socratic Method to educate us. We regret, however, that we are too dense and deluded to benefit from your attempt at enlightening us, despite the obviously genuine nature of your effort.

[Donna Zen]

21. Trade Policy

In his interview with NPR (one hour) and various bits and pieces from other speeches, I detect many of Benjamin Barber's (Jihad vs Mc World) ideas woven into his over all vision of world trade. Clark does not see us closing our borders, which he correctly assumes would only put us further at odds with the rest of world and highten world tensions. He speaks, as Barber does, of a need for policy that addresses the questions of the environment etc.while at the same time keeping our windows open (Clark's term) At the present time we really have no coherent policy especially a pro-people one.

Actually, again along with Barber, Clark sees this all of one piece--the three strengths of America: the economy, the people, and the military. Of the three he believes the military, while important, plays the less vital role of America's place in the world. He goes so far as saying that for every dollar we spend on the military we should be spending an equal amount developing the schools, the hospitals, the infrastructure and cultural centers of developing countries. With our considerable leverage, building human rights and better conditions in those nations will both increase "fair" trade and promote a more secure world. (shades of Clinton---but that should come as no surprise because Barber and Clinton also share ideas)

Clark states that there are several mechanisms that currently exist which would actually make some change in the status quo immediately, however, they are not being funded and of course if we lose this election they will not be funded. Or we win this election but with such a weak candidate that they will be bullied by the VRW and unable to make progress. Holding the line as we did in many respects during the Clinton years, will not make the world a better place.

Muti-nationals exist; what doesn't exist is the laws and restrictions that favor people and the environment they live in. The US has the leverage to build the necessary world institutions to change our current direction. Two things are lacking: a vision and someone who wants to make that happen. BTW, this is not a one year process...this is a long haul that will take many years. For everyday that we live with the evil in the White House, we have wasted another day and in some respects made it a harder fix because the problem is growing worse. (Clark NPR paraphrase)

So I support Clark because of his vision which includes many strands but must be looked at as the whole cloth that blankets our future. Unfortunately, I am afraid the Democratic Party does not want to win...and I mean win big, because big is what it will take to shut down and shut up the right. Afterall, finding out Clark's views are not as difficult as ousting a regime that will draw no lines when it comes to holding on to power.

[Donna Zen]

24. PS

I wrote with the hope that you will be polite and comment. I am sorry if I seem terse; however, so many who are blinded by the stars have asked this question not out of true interest but as opportunity to bait. Afterall, if someone has not officially entered a presidential race they must not have any views. In each case I have tried to answer the question and I am willing to find out more, only to discover that someone has played the post and run. Or the other version: nothing is enough.

[durutti]

22. Two Reasons

1. He's extremely electable.

2. He opposed the war, but has more military experience in his little finger than Bush's entire Cabinet. He will thus be able to popularize and lend credibility to those opposed to neoconservative visions of empire.

[GOPBasher]

40. Yes and Yes.

Those are exactly the reasons I love this guy. Also, on every issue I've seen his position on, he's pretty liberal.

[Ardee]

23. I have been doing my research

and ,thanks to:
Dear EmailNation Subscriber,

see Katrina vanden Heuvel's Editor's Cut
http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?bid=7

for those who hate to click on links Ill gladly help:
---cut----
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.



As a Guardian article said at the time, "The episode triggers reminscences of the Korean War. Then, General Douglas MacArthur, commander of the UN force, wanted to invade, even nuke, China, until he was brought to heel by President Truman." Of course, the comparison is inexact. The stakes were not as high in the Balkans, but Clark's hip-shooting willingness to engage Russian troops in a risky military showdown at the end of the war is instructive nonetheless.



Indeed, it is believed in military circles that Clark's Pristina incident was the final straw that led the Pentagon to relieve him of his duties (actually retire him earlier). Clark had also angered the Pentagon brass--and Secretary of Defense William Cohen in particular--with his numerous media appearances and repeated public requests for more weapons and for more freedom to wage the Kosovo war the way he wanted (with ground troops). At one point, according to media reports, Defense Secretary Cohen, through Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, told Clark to "get your fucking face off of TV."

-----cut----

Now one article does not make a case against Clark's candidacy, but one should know all the facts before committing dont you agree?

[IranianDemocrat]

26. Clark ordered an airborne assault ROFLMFAO

He ordered the soldiers to block the runway, that's it. He explains it very clearly in his book. If you were really trying to achieve fairness you would have posted both sides of the story.

[Ardee]

46. I see the problem Iranian demo

See, here in this reality we have things called a paper trail, we actually believe that we may learn from history and some of us actually like to know and understand everything we can about a candidate or potential candidate before lining up in glazed eyed lockstep conformity behind that candidate. I guess you live in a different world though, pity that....

Now, Van den Heuvel may have 'colored' her article with some rather liberal terminology, thats the way of an editorial you see, but the essential truths are there to see and I would question a potential candidate for the highest office as to how rashly h/she might act, especially given the extreme rashness of the current resident of that office!

If a potential CinC has demonstrated that h/she might be foolish enough to start a world war over the occupation of an airfield, despite the warnings of his staff officers and his allies in the field ,well then, that is certainly something an educated voter might need to have in mind before pulling any levers or touching any screens.....at least here in this universe anyway......

[DoveTurnedHawk]

47. To Understand This, You Need to Understand War

The Russian force at Pristina number a couple hundred of lightly armed and armored troops. That's barely enough to secure the terminal, much less the entire airport.

The NATO forces available in the area vastly outnumbered, outgunned and outarmored the Russian force. Their orders were to assert a presence in the area, not to attack or anything remotely close.

For the Russian forces to start a provocation would have been suicidal, and both sides would have known it. As deteriorated as the Russian military corps has become over the years, their officers are still professionals, and there is no way they would have started a confrontation.

In contrast, the NATO rules of engagement (I'd love to get my hands on these, somehow) were UNDOUBTEDLY as restrictive as a straitjacket. I'm willing to bet that given the respective sizes, firepower and force protection qualities of the two forces, the ROE probably stated that EVEN IF they came under incidental fire by the Russians, they should not return fire.

This would have been a clever tactical move -- endorsed, by the way, by Javier Solana, the civilian head of NATO and other leaders in the chain-of-command -- had Jackson obeyed orders as he should have. Yes, it's true that Hungary came through for us at the last moment, but as Clark says, "parallel planning" is critically important to any endeavor. You don't put all your eggs in one basket.

I hope this lays some of the criticism and concern here to rest. Jackson's "WW3" comment was not only gross hyperbole, it was also scurrilous in light of his own insubordination and complete failure to follow orders.

DTH

[RichV]

27. This again

Can somebody who has them handy refer this to the hundred other threads to date where this single incident has been discussed and debunked repeatedly? I'm not committed to Clark or anybody, but people harping on this one incident has quickly gotten very, very old. Almost feels like there just needs to be one standard reply that people can cut and paste in response.

[Clark Can WIN]

31. Rich, what this indicates to me

Is how precious little they have to go on, and that extremism on either side of the fence is inconsistent with objective logic.

[Pastiche423]

34. I have asked this before

and never got an answer. Where and who debunked the Pristina airport incident? It is very clear that he was asked to step down two months early due to his performance regarding this incident, so how can it be debunked?

[Skwmom]

51. This reminds me of CNN during the 2000 debacle.

Numerous assertions by the Repubs would be proven false but that wouldn't keep CNN from repeating the false info 15 minutes later.

[Julien Sorel]

29. Holy Toledo!

Now I know 'all the facts,' Thanks!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. I Feel Like That Character In Plato's Allegory Of The Cave Now

NT

[Donna Zen]

33. Pristina Airport

Facts: The Russians were sharing the American sector in Bosnia. Those troops moved out of Bosnia toward the Kosovo border without the three week advanced notice that was required under the NATO agreement.

Moscow asssured Washington that the Russian troops would not cross into Kosovo.

Russian troops did cross over and several transports which would be comprised of some 10,000 troops took to the air.

For three days three small countries including Bulgeria refused Russia over flight permission.

Those countries felt that the pressure they were under could not hold their resolve.

Albright was asssured for three days that there were no transports.

Yeltsin had no control over his Defense Minister who was in bed with Milosevic.

Milosevic and the Russian Defense Minister were plotting to A) thumb NATO in the eye. B) Partition Kosovo thereby undoing all that NATO had been trying to save.

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.

He did not...did not order a full blown assault. He did want to park the Apaches on the run way because he feared that the British would not get to the airport in time to (and this is important) park their tanks on the run ways and stop the transports from landing. At the time there were approx. 200 hundred Russians, the Bosnia contingent, on the outskirts of the airport.

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.

However, Clark said: "I'm not asking you to." Jackson later describes this incident as a disagreement over whether or not to put tanks on the runway...notice that no one was attacking anyone. There were not enough Russian troops to start any war.

eventually incorporated Russian troops into peacekeeping operations--might well have been undermined.

Since this was Clark's idea from the on set as was the case in Bosnia, why would he have ever undermind it? Russia's Defense Minister did want his own sector because he wanted to help Milosevic.

Indeed, it is believed in military circles that Clark's Pristina incident was the final straw that led the Pentagon to relieve him of his duties (actually retire him earlier). Clark had also angered the Pentagon brass--and Secretary of Defense William Cohen

Sidney Blumenthal and others have commented on the early retirement of General Clark. Cohen, not Clark, wanted to take ground troops through the north of Kosovo which would have meant entering Serbia and coming close to Belgrade. That would have started a war. Clark told Clinton he would resign before he participated in the action. Clinton sided with Clark and Cohen struck back. Cohen is hardly the innocent in this as he worked both sides of the fence for his hard right Clinton hating bother Senators who did not believe in Nation building but would rather sit by an tut tut over genocide.

At one point, according to media reports, Defense Secretary Cohen, through Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, told Clark to "get your fucking face off of TV."

I never seen this story with the "F" bomb used for effect; however, see above. There was plenty of tension during this period because of the rightwings opposition to all things Clinton and that meant his General. Albright said: They got me and they'll go after you. Several members of congress expressed the same sentiments. Clark said he never asked who "they" were it made him too sad.

Apparently, you have joined their campaign. I hope you enjoy another four years of Bush. Although I'm not impressed with the quality of your research.

[Donna Zen]

35. From Clark's son posted at kos

"He didn't order Jackson to start WWIII by attacking the Russians at Pristina airfield - he ordered Jackson to have our choppers land on the air strip before the Russians arrived and therefore deny them the ability to land the thousands of troops they were attempting to airlift in. Luckily, Bulgaria came through at the last instant and closed their airspace to the Russians."

To explain futher - from Clark's book "Waging Modern War"

The danger was that if the Russians got in first, they would claim their sector, and then we would have lost NATO control over the mission. I had closely observed the double standard the Russians had applied while working for us in the Bosnia mission. They took care of the Serbs, passing them information, tipping them off to any of our operations, and generally doing their best to look after their "fellow Slavs" while keeping up the pretense of full cooperation with us. And in Bosnia we hadn't given them their own sector. If they had their own sector in Kosovo, they would run it as a serperate mission, and Kosovo would be effectively partitioned. page 377

[Donna Zen]

36. post and run?

n/t

[Clark Can WIN]

39. Thanks Donna, I will be bookmarking your post to

throw at this crap the next time it surfaces again. At the rate it's been showing up, could be any minute now. Thanks again.

:pals: :yourock: :hug:

[Donna Zen]

41. Not begging for compliments but

your welcome...

It's just that people ask questions...then boo! gone. They never wanted answers at all, they wanted, as Pepperbelly said, a fuss.

Anyway, it's the attitude more than than the questions that are the pisser.

Hey_post and run_Six months ago I didn't know shit about any of the candidates_nada. So guess what I did? Rather than spam flaming emails or query forums, I found answers. Why? Because I'm serious about wanting to defeat the fuck in the White House.

[Ardee]

48. Oh a Harvard Grad ,huh?

majoring in Sarcastic Response Ill bet,huh?

While enthusiastic support for a candidate is a good thing, and you apparently arent blind in your support, you demonstrate a rather blind spot in how to respond to those with questions about your avowed choice....that darn major huh?

Take you sqarcasm and put it where the sun dont shine dearie...I am not a hit and run poster Im a hard working family man with more to do than remain at DU endlessly...as you can see I do return to check and respond whenever possible......how very un Zenlike of you......

I saw the Van den Heuvel article and I posted a link to it with the obvious questions, and in response you pull out the bitterness and sarcastic weaponry...shame upon you, lucky for you I do not judge the candidate on the type of people h/she attracts, isnt it?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

50. Absolutely Lucky

lucky for you I do not judge the candidate on the type of people h/she attracts

If that was a valid criterion, I'd hate just about ALL of the candidates running.

DTH

[Clark Can WIN]

28. Enraged American , Will Pitt's post on Clark plus another

resource for you, so that you can hear about his views on trade since you expressed an interest on that topic. The first link is Wills post, who addresses some of your concerns in a way far more succinctly than I could tonight (watching a Huskers game) and the second link is an interview that W.K.Clark gave to NPR, in which he expresses views on the war, national security, our nations damaged credibility, the environment and the regressive steps that have been taken (environment is a bigtime issue of Clarks) and trade as well.

Will Pitts thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=321720

The NPR interview
http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2003/09/20030908_b_main.asp

I hope you will take some time to consider these. We do not support the man blindly, he is a gentleman we believe in because we agree with his vision for the country and we think he is the guy who can get us into the White House.

[xray s]

32. The issue statements on the draft Clark sites are vague...

But you have to keep in mind these sites are not authored or run by Wesley Clark, but a group of citizens trying to convince him to run, and trying to generate support from Democrats.

If Wesley Clark decides to run, I would expect he would then provide detailed solutions to all the major issues facing America today. I would imagine he would also directly answer the charges about the Pristina airport. Then we can all make up our minds.

But, on the face of it, I am pretty excited about the possiblity of a Clark candidacy. I think Wesley Clark would clean Bush's clock.

[Donna Zen]

37. You know

I took a bit of time out of my evening to answer the questions? The post and run syndrom is running high here. Notice not even a thank you.

[xray s]

38. Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are KEWL!

:hi::hug::pals::yourock:

[Donna Zen]

43. Welcome

I'm still waiting for the poster who asked about trade policy. Maybe Enraged ran out to buy Barber's book. Who knows? He/she could come back at any moment understanding the issues.

[Starpass]

42. well, I's a bit illiterate I guess but I done runned into somethin' that

just tickeled me funnybone and dat's why I is votin' for da' general guy: Clark Was Getting Shot in Nam While Bush Was Bombed in Texas!!

In a word, the masses don't think, ponder, dissect positions, stances, and pronouncements. They vote for slogans (It's the Economy Stupid!--remember that one?); they vote/don't vote because of ideas planted in their mind that are simple and easy (Al Lied). And I think snappy little phrases like that above that are going to be soooo easy to throw in the face of the dazed chimp, combined with 4 bright shining stars, is about our best hope of removing the rodents and fumagating the Oval Office. Let the military chose: the liar COC who put them in harms way for no reason whatsoever and preens around in a flight suit borrowed from "wardrobe"; or a General who can put on his real, very own uniform. I am interested in getting Bush OUT or us debating all those lovely issues is simply so much spitting into the wind!!!!

[tedzbear]

44. Michael Moore endorses him!

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0913-06.htm

What a surprise! I am a Dean man but after reading this I feel like Clark is even better! Wow.

:kick:

[MoonRiver]

45. Pukes are terrified of Clark, and for good reason.

When I read messages like this I wonder why he/she doth protest too much. :smoke:

[amazona]

49. He is no DINO or Lieberman

His views may not be as widely disseminated yet as they should be, but if you investigate, I think you are going to like what you learn.

It is not too late to announce. Bill Clinton announced late IIRC. It is not disrespectful to the others to investigate all the possibilities. The main thing we want to do is WIN and get the thieves out of the office before the entire Treasury and Social Security is looted.

I personally think Clark is a potential winner. Whereas I can't see Dean, as nice a man as he seems to be, winning the south with a wife who won't support him and won't campaign. If your own family won't support you, it ain't gonna happen. It is no different than with Elizabeth Dole's hopes on the GOP side -- when her husband stabbed her in the back by becoming the spokesman for Erectile Dysfunction, he guaranteed that she would never be president. You have to have a supportive spouse. Maybe in decades gone by, you didn't, but today you do. Of course if Dean is the candidate, I will support him, but frankly I would prefer someone else, and Clark looks like a good one to me. I would also prefer not to lose any senators, so I am somewhat prejudiced against the senators who are running, although several of them are otherwise decent or very good candidates.