Okay, Clarkies -- here's what I want to know about Clark

[Eloriel]

I want to know:

* exactly what he's been doing other than his TV gig since he retired -- he's mentioned a business he owns, he's mentioned investment banking or something similar, etc. I want to know ALL the details.

* whether or not he has any contacts or connections with Jackson Stephens (Stevens)?

Thanks,

Eloriel

[BurtWorm]

1. Jackson Stevens

Good question, Eloriel!

[ArkDem]

2. Stephens

www.stephens.com

I used to work for him.

http://www.stephens.com/stephens/leadership/growth.asp

[BurtWorm]

10. Did you used to work with him?

Do you have any dirt to spill?

A couple of months ago I was listening to a show on WBAI (Pacifica radio in NYC) all about Jackson Stephens' centrality to the web of power, going back at least to Carter (maybe before--I missed the beginning). This show made him sound like a little bit more than a kingmaker.

[ArkDem]

13. Many years ago I delivered his stock confirmations

to his office each morning. I was as low as you can get on the totem pole. He was nice to me. So was Witt.

[BurtWorm]

16. That's all the dirt you got?

:yawn:

Just kidding.

[ArkDem]

21. Those guys have pored a ton of money into canidates

in Arkansas over the years. Kingmakers for sure.

[BurtWorm]

23. But they also play nationally, right?

What's their game? How did they get to be so central to the power structure.

[ArkDem]

25. The will and HUGE wealth

..

[BurtWorm]

26. But what are they after specifically

Obviously power--though why they need it when they have economic power in spades beats me. But are they trying to influence banking laws? Or do they have something else in mind? This Pacifica show implied that there was something essentially thuggish and clannish about them, that they belonged to this class of men, who are both Republicans and Democrats, with ties to the CIA, etc., etc., etc. Do they have an offshore bank based in the Cayman Islands, by any chance?

[ArkDem]

27. I can't speak to Jack's psychology and Witt has been

dead for years. I can't even guess. Ask Bill Clinton, I guess.

[Pepperbelly]

73. Old Witt's nephew still ...

sits on the Arkansas Supreme Court and when he was in Congress, he was one of the good guys, one of the instrumental players in the push to impeach Nixon.

People paint with too broad a brush in here.

[ArkDem]

163. I can't say anything nice about Warren but

Witt was a GREAT guy. He treated everyone the same and I don't know anyone who would speak ill of him personally.

[AP]

56. They had a monopoly on issuing bonds for the state.

Because they had the monopoly, they made tons of money.

In the Hunting of the President, they pin the starting point for Clinton hatred on the fact that, as governor, Clinton started a state bureau which also issued bonds and with which Stephens, Inc. had to compete. This cost Stephens millions in easy profit (which they earned from doing nothing more than being cronies with a corrupt state government which wasn't interested in protecting taxpayer money and making sound investments).

Ironically, some Clinton enemies also had bad blood with Stephens, (and invented stories connecting Clinton and Stephens in criminal behavior). As a result, Stephens eneded up withdrawing support for some of the people who ran against Clinton over the years, thus helping Clinton (even though they hated him).

This is all from memory. However, if you're really interested, it's all in the first couple of chapters of The Hunting of the President (by Conason and Lyons).

[CentristDemocrat]

20. Arkansas men are class acts.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. "Clarkies"!?! Off topic but..... are we Kerry fans called

"Kerryers" :)

[Sophree]

166. I like it!

Kerryers. Very good. :D

[sangh0]

4. He's been masturbating

Since his retirement, he spends all of his free time masturbating. Sometimes, Jackson Stephens holds the tissue paper.

(Note: You said you wanted ALL the details)

[stickdog]

112. Well, at least his tubes will be cancer free. (NT)

[Clark Can WIN]

122. Who's your candidate?

I wanna be just like you. :eyes:

[charlie]

135. Sarcasm, CCW

Laugh, it's funny.

[JI7]

147. HAHHAHA

too funny

[buddhamama]

5. i am not a Clarkie

you might want to read this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=361395

and the link i left in seventhson's thread.

[fizzana]

6. Read the Esquire article on Clark

It gives you a good idea of what he's been up to.

http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark_1.html

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[CentristDemocrat]

8. Yep

It's Kucinich, Dean or GREEN for these people. They are truly obssessed with running the party off a cliff.

[clar]

34. "These people"

I am a Dean supporter. I don't bash other candidates. In fact, I go out of my way to find good things to say. OTOH, I do critisize and ask questions. The vast majority of Dean supporters don't engage in bashing other candidates. In addition, please note that there are more Dean flame fests then those that slam other candidates. Surely someone's supporters are doing the bashing. Tarring the supporters of a candidate because of the actions of a few, is, well, in poor form.
What's more, I,like almost all Dean supporters, will vote ABB.

[stickdog]

116. Tell us, O WISE ONE, once more how being against the war in Iraq

will doom Dean's candidacy.

[janx]

153. No, it's just Dean--a moderate with a lot of passion.

.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. It Is Sad

Howard Dean couldn't say enough nice things about Clark before he entered the race but now his supporters are pissing* all over Wes Clark....

More politics as usual....


Don't be a playa hata....


Don't hate the playa, hate the game....


on edit-pissing is too weak a word... try "shitting."

[returnable]

17. Yep

I remember the Deanies creaming themselves over Clark being on "their" ticket.

My, how the tone has changed.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

19. And as I said recently- Dean followers are using Dean to bash Bush

while atthe same time Dean is using them to get to the top. I guess it's called co-dependence.

[clar]

35. What this looks like to me

is a way to slam Dean by proxy. And it's troublesome. I see the demonization of Dean supporters all over this board. To be sure there are a number of obnoxious and vocal Deanies, but it's clearly a minority.

[returnable]

40. I hear ya

And I apologize for painting with too broad a brush.

[clar]

68. Thanks

that all, just thanks.

[Brian Sweat]

45. This is just your perception.

I have no problem with Dean or his supporters who are not constantly attacking other candidates, but my perception is that most of the vitriolic attacks on this board are coming from a handful of Dean supporters. I try not to let this cloud my perception of Dean himself, but it is difficult.

[stickdog]

118. Your perception couldn't be clouded by your pro-establishment

anybody-but-Dean outlook, now could it?

[Brian Sweat]

168. I don't have an anybody but Dean outlook.

I like Dean. It's some of his supporters that I have a problem with.

[indigo32]

89. Actually

I've seen any number of Clark Bashing threads started by non-Dean supporting posters. It ain't all Deanies. Seriously I feel for the Clark supporters at the moment. It's been NUTS

[kstewart33]

15. I agree - give Clark a chance

And stop looking for things to slam him for. Clark is the best thing that has happened to this party since Clinton's candidacy. He can beat Bush. For me, that's all that matters.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[shanti]

24. that was a nasty comment

:grr: there ARE some of us dean supporters who also like clark. alienating possible clark supporters isn't helpful at all!

[bicentennial_baby]

28. ....

While I agree that the comment was pretty rude and unnecessary, I think some Clark supporters are a bit frazzled from the last 24-48 hours. I think people forget that the attacks on other candidates, like Dean, came on over a period of time,weeks and months even, while in the first 24 hours since Clark's announced it's been a non-stop slam fest on Clark, both here and to some extent in the media. Maybe they're disappointed that they could'nt have a day to just be happy about the announcement... maybe they thought there would be less vitriol over Clark here at DU... :shrug:

[Booberdawg]

43. No he's always like that

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Eloriel]

57. *I* am the person who started this thread

Who is this person to demand anything?

It's a request for information. If you're afraid of questions about your guy -- his background -- by all means don't play.

This person has been actively slamming Clark for days now,

This person has made precious few comments over the last number of days about Clark because this person has been busy elsewhere and not even on DU. I have and WILL, however, make whatever comments I like. As a matter of fact, I've actually held BACK in my comments about Clark.

lying when necessary to do it,

LYING? Nope. Please point out even ONE lie. You can't. I don't lie about candidates, and in fact I absolutely, positively DO speak up when I find others lying about ANY candidate, even those I personally despise. In fact I've defended Kerry and Kucinich both against either distortions about them which others were foisting off.

and then starts a thread arrogantly demanding information as if people owe her anything? It's ridiculous. The purpose of starting the thread was to simply get yet another Clark roast going -- that's it.

Nope. I honestly want to know what's in his background. Don't you? If not, why not? You don't this line of questioning is fair? If not, why not? Is there something in there to hide?? That's what your fearful response makes me think.

One can't be rude enough to people out to start, yet again, another flaming thread for any of the candidates.

Well, that's interesting. You assign motives to me that aren't there -(delusional), and then assert your "right" to be rude based on your delusions. Very interesting indeed.

I also can't quite figure out how you got "arrogant" out of questions which are punctuated with a "thanks" at the end.

Go figure.

Eloriel

[Forkboy]

60. Dont feel bad Eloriel

he criticized my thinking by making assumptions about a post he couldn't even read :crazy:

[Julien Sorel]

62. LOL

Criticized your thinking? Aren't you being a little presumptuous there?

[Forkboy]

67. Aren't you trying to weasel out of what you said?

"The person whose post you are indirectly backing is on ignore, so I can't see what it is, but it's probably one of the endless conspiracy theories. I suppose that's the kind of 'thinking' you prefer."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=351492#351645

Your own words Bub...don't blame me.

[Eloriel]

72. ROTFLMAO

That is hilarious. Thanks for sharing it. I haven't laughed this hard in weeks.

Criticized "a post he couldn't even read." I LOVE it.


slapping hand on desk, laughing uncontrollably

Eloriel

[Forkboy]

74. Glad to help

Just wanted you to know the mentality you're dealing with here :)

[sangha]

148. Poisoning the well?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=364023#364614

[Julien Sorel]

82. The post was described by someone else:

It is every bit as good and factual as the original post


It just lacks the wasted effort of incredibly oversized type and reposted meaningless links to right wing democrat hating garbage.


I didn't need to read it myself to know what it said, son.

[Forkboy]

83. Spin spin spin

you're funny,son.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

88. read what...your banner?

:crazy:

[Clark Can WIN]

138. Hey Billy! That was my post.

Thanks for remembering my words. I'm all verklempt. :pals:

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[Eloriel]

75. Here's a clue for you, Bunter Bombast

"I already pointed out where you lied -- and slammed Clark --"
Posted by BillyBunter
in another thread. You disappeared from that thread instead of defending yourself.


I don't always get BACK to every thread I've ever posted to.

I maintain I have never LIED about Clark. You can't back up your claim to the contrary. Mine stands.

And no, I was WORRIED that he had connections with Jackson Stephens. Turns out I was right. I'm VERY glad I posted my "demanding, arrogant" questions.

And thanks to all those who have replied, btw.

Eloriel

[Forkboy]

77. ahem

You disappeared from that thread instead of defending yourself.

why does that seem familiar :shrug:

[sangha]

149. It seems familiar because

it's not the 1st time she has attacked and then ran away

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=360372&mesg_id=360923&page=

[DoveTurnedHawk]

79. No, I'm Afraid You're Wrong Again

I maintain I have never LIED about Clark. You can't back up your claim to the contrary. Mine stands.

BB already backed his claim up, it's right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=361391#362733

You, however, are still desperately dodging. It's really quite amusing.

DTH

[Julien Sorel]

87. And I believe I've seen you adopt the same defence

of 'I don't always get back to every thread I've posted to' before when someone else called you on your BS.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

65. Read 'Em and Weep

LYING? Nope. Please point out even ONE lie. You can't.

Actually, he can and he did:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=360939#361062

DTH

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[DoveTurnedHawk]

84. You Claimed You Hadn't Read It Yet, When You Clearly Had the Day Before

That speaks for itself, despite your weak spin attempt.

DTH

[Eloriel]

90. Nope, you're confusing two different articles

You really ought to check them out. You're either terribly confused or you are purposely trying to fabricate something against me, but it won't work -- at least not for those paying attention.

One is a FAIR Media Advisory. The other which I hadn't read (hadn't even read yet as I was posting thanks for the link), was the Truthout article.

Both of you are trying to twist the facts, but you're quite wrong. And quite ugly.

I do not lie. Period. I won't lie about Clark or any candidate, I OBJECT and defend candidates about lies and distortions I see, and in fact, I won't lie about anything.

Eloriel

[DoveTurnedHawk]

91. HELLO! ELORIEL! They're the SAME Article!

The "two articles" are the SAME article. See for yourself:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/091803A.shtml

See that FAIR byline?

:crazy:

Also, there is a clear difference between "I hadn't read it yet" (which clearly indicates you have at the time of posting) and "I haven't read it yet" (which is the interpretation you are trying to spin now, after-the-fact).

DTH

[Eloriel]

102. You're right, they are.

I see that now, after spending the last however long sorting through. It was I who was confusing the two different Truthout reprints (one of the FAIR Media Advisory and the other Clark's own op-ed piece about Iraq). When I posted "thanks for the link" to Seventhson, I hadn't read his article and couldn't have therefore recognized that they were the same.

So no, I didn't lie. I don't lie. Period.

And btw, the claim was that I lied in order to slam Clark. But all I said is thank you for the link-- how is that a slam on Clark? It isn't.


Eloriel

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

120. That wouldn't be a cowardly one-liner would it?

[Julien Sorel]

123. Nope.

That particular comment falls under the rubric rubbing it in.

Cowardly one-liners consist of making remarks supporting garbage, and the people who spew it, that you yourself lack the guts to say.
You know, like 'Good one, Tinoire!' It's the message board equivalent of hiding behind your mother's skirts.

[Forkboy]

126. or maybe

denying you said something about someone's thinking,then spinning your ass off when shown your own words?

[Julien Sorel]

134. LOL

I think the thread speaks for itself. Anyone who read the original thread who couldn't see what that post was about would have to be suffering from mongolism.

You sure do have a hard time letting go of this. I'm sorry if the wound runs so deep. Really, I am. ;-)

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

142. You seem to be having a hard time letting go of this

I'm sorry my response to Tinoire has wounded you so deeply that you've mentioned it three times now.

[stickdog]

124. Let me guess. That's you fourth from the left on your signature image.

Right?

You know, I really hate people who argue like sophist Republicans.

[Julien Sorel]

85. Sorry, I didn't say you lied about Clark -- although I have no doubt you

would. I said you lied to slam Clark. Learn to read, sweety. But a liar is a liar. The misnamed 'Truthout' article is simply the Reader's Digest version of the FAIR article.

[stickdog]

121. BB, you're completely mistaken.

And that's the best thing I can say about your post.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. I Don't Want To Be A Drone

but I have racked up 1,000 + posts without trashing any candidate...

This thread and many of the other anti-Clark threads were started by folks with known candidate sympathies...

I'll support the candidate who has the best chance to beat *. The country is at the precipace... Evertyhing else is commentary...

My dad who had a ninth grade education said "if you don't have anything good to say don't say anything at all."

As a political science grad I'll try to handicap races...

[charlie]

36. 1000+ posts

except for cracking wise about looking like Dennis Kucinich being a good reason for not adopting veganism. We'll just say you're 99.94% pure :)

[Brian Sweat]

47. I said Leiberman wasn't the anti-christ.

Does that count?

[charlie]

52. Count for what?

A Heresy Prize? I once said Joe wasn't a conservative, maybe I'll get a runnerup medal.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

131. I'm Busted....

It was a shallow comment....

I think it's called lookism...


I just wanted to get in a one liner.....

[Eloriel]

59. Yeah, I DO have known candidate sympathies

And what I'm afraid of NOW is whether Dean's "friendship" with Clark is going to end up tarnishing Dean, if you want to know the truth. I also want to know if Clark would be a good pick for Veep or not (IF Dean gets the nomination). I also want to know if there are any skeletons lurking that we don't already know about Clark -- because whether you Clarkies know it or not, you DO want them out in the open now rather than after Clark is on someone's ticket or at the top of the ticket.

I'll support the candidate who has the best chance to beat *.

The whole POINT in fact, put another way, is whether Clark does indeed have the "best chance to beat Bush" -- or any chance to beat Bush. I rather doubt that he does, frankly, and I'll make no bones about it. But EVERYONE needs to know one way or the other, and they need to know it before he's on the ticket.

As a political science grad, I'm a little surprised you don't understand that.

Eloriel

[clar]

30. Crudely as that's put

I'm sorry to say I too see this as a bash, flame bait, whatever. And I'm a Dean supporter.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

53. a little too crudely apparently

FYI: The deleted poster accused the thread poster of feigning interest in Clark so as to in fact bash him. But he used language which was a little too...well....crude!

[tjdee]

9. Why don't you visit his site?

That's usually what you suggest for Dean questions.

Here's what his site says:
"General Clark is also licensed as an investment banker. He joined Stephens Inc. as a consultant in July of 2000 and was named Managing Director – Merchant Banking of Stephens Group, Inc. from March 2001 through February 2003. He is currently the chairman of Wesley K. Clark & Associates, a strategic advisory and consulting firm. "

http://www.americansforclark.com/about.php

[Pastiche423]

12. That is not his site

It is a site put up by supporters for clark.

[returnable]

14. Wrong

That is the official Clark site. It was launched yesterday.

[bicentennial_baby]

18. Yep

You are correct

[SlutBunwalla]

32. WRONG--and "oops" to you

Guess you'll have to stop throwing that line around ad nauseum. I've been wondering for days now how that oh-so-oft-repeated statement of yours in any way rebuts any of the Clark bio material on the draft sites...so do you have any substantive response now that the SAME info is up on the official site?

[VolcanoJen]

42. Pastiche, that is indeed the official Wesley Clark site.

It was put up Wednesday, the morning he announced.

The site does list the numerous Clark supporter websites too, but AmericansforClark.com is the official site that accepts donations and volunteer requests.

I realize you're not a Clark fan, but the misinformation is really getting out of hand.

[Eloriel]

66. It's what I have on 2 occasions suggested for Dean questions

I rather doubt there's much there about his business involvements. But if there is, why don't you post a link?

Eloriel

[tjdee]

76. And the "You don't know shit about Dean unless you go to his site"....

wasn't that you, who posted that thread?

If not, I apologize.

[Eloriel]

106. Yes, and that's quite different from telling people to

go to his site INSTEAD of answering questions about Dean, which I have done ONLY on at least 2 occasions when I was fed up with their baiting questions.

Mine are NOT baiting questions. I'm genuinely interested in the answers -- no, not because I'm likely to support Clark over Dean, but for the reasons I've already posted on this thread in another post.

Eloriel

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[LizW]

33. Clark went to work for Jackson Stephens

He was in Washington for a while, then moved back to Arkansas in January of this year.

http://www.arktimes.com/030124coverstoryb.html

There is a lot of information about Stephens at From the Wilderness. (FTW is, in my humble opinion, a little bit tin foil, but I don't think they make stuff up. Your mileage may vary about that.)

I am firmly convinced that Stephens is a dubious character. He is a Presidential kingmaker going back at least to Carter. He backs both Democrats and Republicans, and he has connections to almost every major scandal you could name. I was sad to learn of Clark's connection with him, BUT--it could be nothing. We'll see.

[T Roosevelt]

37. WTF?

Since when is asking a question on a candidate's background considered "bashing"? If that's true, then just about every post about every candidate has been a bash.

The civility of DU has declined since the start of primary season (and we still have months to go), and I can only hope things improve. WillPitt had a great post on group dynamics, and I would advise everybody to read it before jumping on somebody just for asking a question.

Falling In Love vs. Falling In Line | Monkeys in a Barrell

[sangh0]

38. Since when?

Since Eloriel fell in love with Dean and started bashing every other candidate.

[T Roosevelt]

39. Don't avoid the point

Since when is asking a question bashing? It's a legitimate concern what Clark (or any candidate for that manner) has been doing in public and private life. We all know every other candidate has gone through (or is still going through) this critical phase - who are they, what do they bring to the table, and why should we support them?

So exactly what HAS he been doing other than his TV gig since he retired?

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Brian Sweat]

48. The poster has a history of doing little other than bashing

candidate other than Dean. The question seems legitimate, but people are just reacting to the poster.

[Eloriel]

70. I guess you don't read the BBV threads

Or, while I haven't been that active for weeks, The Meeting Room asrrology and other threads.

I guess you didn't see threads of mine on DU1 about PNAC, "Reality 501," the DLC, etc.

I guess you don't bleepin' know much about me at all, do you?

Eloriel

[stickdog]

129. He likes BBV, El.

He considers your contributions there as "bashing" his establishment candidates.

[stickdog]

127. Thank God you'd never bash a flea. (NT)

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

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

[Tinoire]

41. Here you go. Please share whatever you find

On edit: Almost forgot... Not sure you've been watching the interactions with the DLC's sister organization the NDN, founded by Lieberman in 1996 but also very interesting

http://www.newdem.org/annualmeeting/
http://www.newdem.org/annualmeeting/new.wclark.phtml
-----

Clark's activities since retiring:

Markle Foundation www.markletaskforce.org/

Messer-Griesheim

Board of Directors of Acxiom Corp.

Board of Directors of Sirva Inc. of Westmont, Ill (Global Relocations)

chairman and CEO of Wesley K. Clark & Associates, a strategic advisory and consulting firm

Board of Directors of Messer-Griesheim

Entrust Inc. of Dallas

privately held Time Domain Inc. of Huntsville, Ala.

trustee of International Crisis Group

board member of the National Endowment for Democracy

district senior advisor to the Center for Strategic International Studies in Washington D.C. (CSIS)

----------------------------------
Jackson Stephens (July 2000 - March 2003)

Posted on Saturday, March 1, 2003

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark, who is considering a bid for the White House in 2004, is stepping down as managing director of merchant banking for the Stephens Group Inc.

Clark said he gave his resignation, effective Friday, so he could prepare for possible war in Iraq. A military analyst for CNN, Clark said he expects the network will dispatch him to Kuwait. "When the war starts, I’ll probably be sent out there," Clark said Friday. "It’s just very busy right now and I felt like the time was right."

<snip>

Frank Thomas, a spokesman for Stephens, described Clark’s departure as amicable. "He had been active in the aerospace and defense sectors for us," Thomas said. "We wish him well and we hope to work with him again in the future."

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/story_arkansas.php?storyid=22890

____* ____* ____* ____* ____* ____* ____* ____* ____* ____* ____* ____*

A good starting point is the
Markle Foundation The Task Force on National Security in the Information Age of which Clark is still a member according to their home page.

Markle's Homeland Security Page will take you to very interesting reports re HOMELAND SECURITY, NATIONAL ID CARDS/DOCUMENT FRAUD/WIRETAPS/PRIVACY and ANALYSES OF NEW LEGISLATION, THE PATRIOT ACT, NEW FBI GUIDELINES, etc...

---
Zoe Baird, Markle's President is a current member of the Technology and Privacy Advisory Committee, which advises Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld regarding the Department of Defense's use of information technology to fight terrorism. and who has been an advisor to the Department of Defense defense transformation effort in the Bush Administration.

Another example of Markle's work: Task force: Homeland Security Dept., not FBI, should shape info priorities

task force on national security Oct. 7 called for the new Department of Homeland Security to take the lead in shaping domestic information and intelligence priorities to inform policy-makers, rather than the FBI.

The recommendation was made in a report issued by the Markle Foundation's Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. The report, "Protecting America's Freedom in the Information Age," calls for a networked information technology system that shares information among local, state, regional and federal agencies.

People outside Washington, such as police officers, airport officials, FBI agents and emergency room doctors, do most information gathering; therefore, the government needs to use information technology to harness the power of this widely distributed information to protect Americans against terrorist threats, said Zoe Baird, president of the Markle Foundation and co-chairperson of the task force. Baird served the Carter administration as associate counsel to the president.

"Much of the information we need is local. Rather than creating a Washington-centric model, we need to create a networked, decentralized system," Baird said at a press conference unveiling the report at the National Press Club in Washington. Task force members were set to brief the president's homeland security director, Tom Ridge, later in the day.

-----

The Brookings Institute and Markle work very closely together. If you need more info about that let me know and I'll find my refs but it's their on their homepages...

You can find out more about the Brookings Institue and its associations on the PNAC page here: http://www.thefourreasons.org/pnac.htm

A look at their Board of Trustees reveals a mass of CEOs and other business figures, sprinkled with reps from academia, and also includes former and current heads of the World Bank.
------------

New Task Force Aims to Protect Nation with Better Information and Technology

The Markle Foundation in alliance with CSIS and The Brookings Institute launches information and technology working group to improve national security

New York, NY and Washington, DC, March 6, 2002 – An independent, multi-sector task force to determine how information and technology can enhance national security was announced today by the Markle Foundation in alliance with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Brookings Institution.

The task force will make recommendations regarding:
· Technologies that enable the more effective collection and sharing of information in response to new security threats
· Aligning governmental structures and rules with the more information-intensive approach needed to counteract new security threats
· Balancing the expansion of information’s role in national security with safeguards for civil liberties – particularly in the privacy realm
· Strategies for deploying information more effectively for law enforcement, intelligence and homeland defense
· The role of the private sector in designing and implementing an information-based national security response, and the level of collaboration between private and public sectors

http://www.markle.org/news/_news_pressrelease_030602.stm

-----------

I'll also note before going to work, that the Brookings Institution is not that Left and this has been discussed at DU in the past.

There is little question about the source of PNAC's influence. When it was founded in 1997 by two prominent neoconservatives, William Kristol and Robert Kagan, its charter, which called for a U.S. strategy of global pre-eminence based on military power, was signed by men who would become the most influential hawks in the Bush administration, including Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, and Cheney's influential national security adviser, I. Lewis Libby.

"Thus, among the signers who have never before been associated with PNAC, are Robert Asmus, a former deputy secretary of state for Europe; Ivo Daalder, a prominent member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Robert Gelbard, a former U.S. ambassador to Chile and Indonesia; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Dennis Ross, his chief adviser on Palestinian-Israeli negotiations; Walter Slocombe, Clinton's top policy official at the Pentagon; and, most important, James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser who now heads foreign policy studies at the influential Brookings Institution."
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0303pnacletter_body.html


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=270701

-------

On edit:

New Task Force Aims to Protect Nation with Better Information and Technology

The Markle Foundation in alliance with CSIS and The Brookings Institution launches information and technology working group to improve national security

New York, NY and Washington, DC, March 6, 2002 – An independent, multi-sector task force to determine how information and technology can enhance national security was announced today by the Markle Foundation in alliance with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Brookings Institution.

The task force will make recommendations regarding:
• Technologies that enable the more effective collection and sharing of information in response to new security threats
• Aligning governmental structures and rules with the more information-intensive approach needed to counteract new security threats
• Balancing the expansion of information’s role in national security with safeguards for civil liberties – particularly in the privacy realm
• Strategies for deploying information more effectively for law enforcement, intelligence and homeland defense
• The role of the private sector in designing and implementing an information-based national security response, and the level of collaboration between private and public sectors

http://www.markle.org/news/_news_pressrelease_030602.stm

[mike_c]

49. this is not a very reassuring profile...

...IMO.

[Woodstock]

51. Agreed

I like Clark but want to know more about him. I wish he had entered the race earlier so we'd know all that is necessary by now.

My thought is, he seems like a good guy and could well beat Bush. I'm a Dean supporter but I like Clark, too, as well as some of the other candidates. I don't see why we can't reasonably discuss concerns, but come together as Dems and support the field.

I have also yet to start a negative thread about a candidate (either of the overtly bashing variety or the passive agressive bashing variety - gotta love those ones, where the person thinks they are pulling something over on everyone with the sweet & innocent routine.)

I've seen supporters of all candidates act like asses, and supporters of all candidates behave reasonably. I don't think it's fair to blame one group or paint one group with a broad brush.

[hedda_foil]

50. Holy crap, Tinoire!

You've hit the motherlode! Now it's time to drill down deeper. This is NOT good at all imho.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

55. It's the Six Degrees of Wesley Clark!

I hear that Clark served in the U.S. military with someone who fought in WWII who exchanged fire with a German whose uncle was an industrialist who served on a board with Himmler who AS WE ALL KNOW was a key deputy to HITLER!!!1!11!!!1!!!

See! Clark is the devil himself!

DTH

[stickdog]

132. You sound like a Bushista telling us not to worry about 9/11.

Please constructively advise us why we should not be concerned about Clark's extremely close Stephens and Markle connections.

[KoKo]

63. Great Links, Tinoire! Will give us here in "Hurricane Country" good read!

Thanks! An Informed Public is what we hope to have here on DU! ;-)

[KoKo]

64. Great Links, Tinoire! Will give us here in "Hurricane Country" good read!

Thanks! An Informed Public is what we hope to have here on DU! ;-)

[Eloriel]

119. Excellent, Tinoire,

thanks VERY much.

Eloriel

[sangha]

150. Interesting

Even though you claim to be asking an honest question with no intention to bash, you offer no thanks to those who posted info on Clarks retirement, but when Tiniore posts what looks like damaging info, you're grateful.

No, you obviously didn't want to bash Clark. I don't know where anyone got that idea.

[Eloriel]

162. Yes, I'm very grateful and here's why

I suspected that there was a conection with Jackson Stephens. It's mentioned on his website, which someone pointed me too, but not in any depth. What Tinoire posted is a gold mine.

Why is it you think posting this information constitutes "bashing"? That's a little odd, isn't it?

And I haven't bashed Clark on this thread at all (by which YOU actually mean criticized) I don't think. Even if I wanted to criticize him, there's no need to -- the facts speak for themselves. Just as with his anti-war position (or lack thereof, as the case may be -- is saying that bashing too?).

Eloriel

[sangh0]

164. Very disingenous

and so, very unsurprising.

I suspected that there was a conection with Jackson Stephens. It's mentioned on his website

So, you didn't "suspect" there was a connection; You KNEW there was because you read it ("it's mentioned on his website"). I suspect that you suspected that there was something fishy about that connection, but didn't have any details.

Tinoire was not the first to comfirm any connection to Stephens. One of the earliest posts in this thread was from someone who used to work for Stephens. For some unknown reasons, which your explanation fails to explain, that person went unthanked.

Why is it you think posting this information constitutes "bashing"? That's a little odd, isn't it?

It would be odd IF I HAD SAID THAT. I didn't. Leave it to you to transform what I said ("info that seems demaging") into an accusation of bashing.

And I haven't bashed Clark on this thread at all

And again, you repeat the disingenous implication that I accused you of bashing. I said you intended to bash (at some time in the future), not that you were bashing in this thread.

Even if I wanted to criticize him, there's no need to -- the facts speak for themselves.

And here's where you reveal your intent to bash. According to you, someone who supposedly doesn't know the facts --which would explain your need to ask questions-- already does know the facts well enough to know that "they speak for themselves"

So which is it? Do you know the facts, or do you NOT know the facts?

[Eloriel]

161. Time Domain, Time Domain

Now where did ThAT crop up in connection with BFEE??? Does that firm have something to do with PROMIS too? I could be way off. But there's something nagging at my brain here. I'll have to spend some quality google time tomorrow.

Eloriel

[kodi]

54. why don't you write him a letter and ask him yourself?

or are you just a tad too lazy?

[tjdee]

58. Here's the addy even:

}(

[e-mail]

[BelgianMadCow]

69. you are calling Tinoire lazy ??

I personally would have a hard time calling the poster of post #41 lazy...

There's an awful lot of opinion posts (and I confess) and very little content posts on DU. Post #41 seems to me to be a welcome exception.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

71. The Poster of #41 Cuts-and-Pastes That Same or Similar Thing

At every opportunity she gets. It's a simple guilt-by-association smear, thinly disguised as content.

DTH

[BelgianMadCow]

78. okay, I may have missed

the previous times. I only spend 1-2 hours on DU per day, and tend to stay away from the candidate threads, because of the general black/white arguments and namecalling.

Seriously though, I don't think Clark being mentioned on the first page of the Markle site qualifies as "six degrees". It doesn't qualify him as instant-bad either :-).

Do you consider this link to be no problem, or would you have preferred Clark to not have been in this project ?

The cursory glance I gave the reports on the Markle site do show a paragraph "checks and balances to ensure protection of civil liberties", which is what I would hope to see in such a Big Brother project.

Then the report speaks of encription, passwords and audit logs to ensure the system can't be abused. I'm not sure whether that soothes my fears. And you ?

Edit : Clak doesn't sound good

[DoveTurnedHawk]

80. I'm Not Worried About Markle, or Zoe Baird

So Markle is supposedly bad because it has some loose affiliation with Brookings, which in itself is considered to be at least marginally left-of-center? I see no big deal. It's the opposite of a big deal.

Markle is run by Zoe Baird. Again, so what? Zoe Baird was a loyal Democrat, and nominated for a cabinet position under Clinton. I trust the Big Dog's judgment and vetting (despite the fact that they missed the issue with the housekeeper, which shouldn't have been disqualifying in any event) ONE HELL OF A LOT MORE than I trust Tinoire and her guilt-by-association Googling.

DTH

[BelgianMadCow]

92. I hear you

and see your points. I'm no fan of guilt-by-association. However, I am a fan of people doing there own research, even if it means simple googling. That's why I "defended" Tinoire earlier. Sometimes we find gems in the mud, right ?

On a broad side note : I can see how Clark can be perceived as an "establisment" candidate, with all the high-profile connections he has. And I can also see how that ticks off grassroots people. The question then becomes, with the electoral system in the US, can anyone not "established" become president ?


I know, I know, one fool can ask more questions than seven wise men can answer.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

93. You're Not a Fool, and I've Got No Problems With Your Questions

I just have a problem with people who have a clear anti-Clark agenda posting unfair smears of him.

To answer your question, I think it's clear that Clark has BOTH establishment support and grassroots support. Clark was drafted by tens of thousands of ordinary folks.

Clark appeals to leftists (like Michael Moore), the grassroots (through the Draft movement), the establishment (he has quite a few Congressional and superdelegate endorsements already, and they are ever-increasing), the DLC (who love his electability and ability to smack Shrub on BOTH foreign and domestic policy), the Clintons (who appear to be supporting him behind-the-scenes, and the Big Dog also said Clark and his wife were the two real "stars" of the Democratic Party), and even independents and some Thugs (especially "Joe Sixpack" and the South and former military folks).

And that broad-based appeal is EXACTLY the sort of thing we want in a candidate, IMO.

DTH

[VolcanoJen]

94. Look out, DTH.... I sense an incoming "Clark wasn't drafted" post.

Heads up!!!

:-)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

97. LOL!

I was thinking the EXACT same thing! Maybe your pre-emption will shame them into silence. ;-)

DTH

[BelgianMadCow]

98. From me, Jen ?

I have no idea why you say that :wtf:

Care to explain ?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

99. I Am Almost Positive She Was NOT Referring To You, BMC

I definitely wasn't.

:toast:

DTH

[BelgianMadCow]

100. Good, 'cause I wasn't going to

make claims I can't back up. I've seen people eaten for less :-)

[VolcanoJen]

101. Nooo, nooooo, noooooo, not you, Belgian!!!

I'm sorry... it's sort of an "in-joke."

DTH and I have a long history of "in-jokes." I should really refrain in the future.

:-)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, BelgianMadCow!!!!

[BelgianMadCow]

104. thanks for clearing that up

And I see the in-joke...After a while you must be able to predict the same answers by the same people. Must be hard to keep your good mood if it's for the umpteenth time...

Seriously, I was about to get worked up over this. I need to chill...

so a :toast: to good candidates, and to fair questions about them.

[VolcanoJen]

105. We all could stand to chill, Belgian...

... and I hope I'm not one of the Clarkies you dislike, either.

Going by personal donations to the cause, I'm a Clarkie, a Deanie, a Kerry-er, and and Edwardsian. ;-)

:toast:
To the Discourse!!!!

[BelgianMadCow]

117. now here's a strange thing :

you're not one of the Clarkies I dislike :-) Actually, I don't have any -ies I dislike. I try not to waste time with dislike. And I have a bad memory for names.

The strange thing is, lurking around DU, I've come to appreciate a number of the frequent posters, and then find them being enemies...

a pity really...

civilised disagreement is such a pleasure

[DemExpat]

95. You said it, DTH!

And I believe you are right.
I'm excited to see how Clark rises to this enormous challenge!

:kick:
DemEx

[DoveTurnedHawk]

96. Thanks!

:hi: DemEx_pat!!!

DTH

[Rowdyboy]

103. You sum it up perfectly...

As you so often do :toast:

His appeal goes all over the board. He can break the lock on Nascar dads, he can pick the lock of security moms. He's solid as a rock on security and foreign affairs, his domestic positions are center-left, and he's personalbe. I really have high hopes.

[Terwilliger]

107. have you refuted anything Tinoire posted about Clark?

or are you just steadfast in your support?

[KoKo]

111. They NEVER REFUTE, Terwilliger! They are "Man of La Mancha!" LOL's

:-)'s

[DoveTurnedHawk]

115. What's To Refute?

Clark was a member of Markle. I've acknowledged that.

I just happen to think it's the opposite of a big deal. I also don't believe in guilt-by-association.

DTH

[BelgianMadCow]

125. refute ? no - clarify ? yes

I wonder what Clark's involvement was in this project. The whole idea of the project sounds a little too close to Big Brother for me.

I do think it's about time something seriously gets done to avert future 9/11's (like ABB 04 :-)) I strongly doubt this project is it though.

[BelgianMadCow]

108. on and on I go about establishment

you have nicely summed up the support for Clark. The draft movement was and is impressive.

I still wonder whether it wouldn't be a good thing, at this junction in US and world history, to have a candidate who is in no way part of the establishment, and who can bring about a clean break between corporations and politics.

So you guys tell me, who's my guy with the dem candidates now ? :-)

[VolcanoJen]

110. Clark says he's going to run an Historic Campaign...

... in Historic Times.

I believe he will, and it's going to be fascinating watching, no matter whom one supports.

:-)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

113. My Two Faves Are Clark and Dean

I think Dean and Clark are very similar on the issues, they are both good speakers, they are both holding Shrub's feet to the fire.

I am a Clark supporter, however, for two reasons. First, it's because he has some intangible quality that just excites me. (Many Dean supporters have said the exact same thing about their candidate.)

Second, it's clear to me that Clark is more electable, by virtue of his status as a Southerner (contrasted with Dean's Northeastern liberal demographic, which regrettably hasn't won the Democrats a Presidency since JFK), and his peerless resume (Dean's resume is damn good, but it's just not quite as good as Clark's, which is IMO the best in the field), and his utter teflon on military/foreign policy issues (which is going to be an issue, and a big one, in this election whether we like it or not...the key to winning elections, IMO, is not to tackle the world like we wish it would be, but to tackle the world like it actually is).

DTH

[stickdog]

133. How many people contributed to "Draft Clark"?

What was the average contribution?

How many people are signed up as Clark supporters?

[Tinoire]

128. Just how long does/did it take for a Hawk to turn into a Dove?

because I'm fascinated by miraculous transformations...

I don't see any difference between the posts you make here and the ones you made at Free Republic when you and your awfully chummy Freeper friends were supporting Paul Simon -R over Gray Davis -D and discussing all other sorts of "progressive" issues.

Guess you'd probably dismiss that as guilt by association too :shrug:

If you would like me to post the google link to the complete index of posts for more "guilt-by-association Googling", I'd be happy to do so. :)



I hope you're not one of those people who signed that recall petition... Naw... No true Dem would ever do such a thing.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

130. I Had Lots of Fun DISRUPTING at FR Shortly Before the 2002 Midterms

This is something that Skinner was aware of BEFORE I did this. See, I let him know ahead of time precisely because I didn't want a DUer who should KNOW better to think that I was anything but a loyal Democrat.

Shame on you, Tinoire. For all of our disagreements, I thought better of you than that.

You should feel free to ask Skinner or try to get me banned, if you feel so inclined; I'm not sweating it, certainly.

DTH

[Tinoire]

137. No I am not better than that. I am facts and nothing but facts

I am certainly not ashamed of reporting any facts or any verifiable information available and always provide the links so people can do their own research and judge for themselves.

Without your constant bullying and sneering attitude towards other posters who are more to the left than you, such a fact would never have made it onto DU and no one would have even thought to verify that rumor.

Whatever explanation you've given to Skinner is between you and him, but I am tired of watching you bully other posters and cheering on some of the Clark supporters who accuse them of not wanting Bush out of the White House badly enough simply because they dare ask questions about a candidate we know almost nothing about.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

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

[Tinoire]

141. Ouch... I'm "stung"

You can challenge all you want- your challenges are about as attractive as your bullying posts. Those challenges sound like more righteous indignation and I'm really not interested in hollow rhetoric or pathetic challenges.

I prefer to stick to verifiable FACTS.

Challenges, hollow rhetoric, righteous indignation... I prefer to leave those to people who are try to prevent discussion of facts because they have nothing else to try and refute them with.

My opinion of you hasn't changed one bit. Go figure :shrug:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

143. So Much for the Warm Snuggles You Posted to Me Several Weeks Ago

Does this mean we won't be getting married?

DTH

[Tinoire]

144. I'm afraid not

We would need an air-tight pre-nuptial with an air-tight escape clause for both.

Seriously- my opinion hasn't changed. I am simply appalled at the bullying.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

145. Sigh. Look Tinoire.

You call it bullying. I call it strong advocacy.

You call what you're doing spreading the truth. I call it...well, in the interests of trying to increase the peace, I won't say what I call it, but I certainly don't call it anything nice!

Your premise appears to be founded on the notion that I am somehow capable of cowing people into silence, just on the strength of my words. I'm arrogant, and I'm good, but I'm not THAT good. People give and they get here, and everyone has to fend for themselves, ultimately. That's life on an Internet forum. It's like that here, and it has been like that for over a decade on USENET.

I think even people who you know and trust, like Forkboy, will hopefully be able to vouch for me in that I'm pretty fair with people who appear to be asking honest questions without a preconceived agenda. I try to answer their questions without malice, and I try to point them to relevant information.

The thing I have a problem with is when people who are CLEARLY ANTI-CLARK post a whole bunch of -- well, let's just call it "stuff" since I'm trying to increase the peace here -- in the efforts to further their anti-Clark agenda. It especially bothers me when the "stuff" they post is a hack job, or untrue, or misleading, or just plain weak.

I guess that, naively, I am genuinely puzzled sometimes as to why people feel like they have to tear down other people's candidates instead of just boosting their own. You don't see me slamming ANY other candidates. That's because all of the candidates -- even Joe Lieberman -- are Democrats and all of them are better than Bush.

I'm just NOT INTERESTED in slamming other candidates, because in the event MY candidate doesn't win, I'm going to have to live with one of those other candidates. I'd much rather have a nominee who DOESN'T have to heal a whole bunch of intra-party wounds before going off to face the largest goddamn blood money warchest in the history of this country.

So yes, it bugs me when people slam my candidate. It honestly bugs me when people slam ANY candidate (although while we're being completely honest, certain slams bother me a lot less than other slams). I just think, "Gosh, they don't see ME slamming THEIR candidate, why do they have to slam mine? Don't they know we have a general election to win, after we choose our own candidate?"

So that makes me mad, and I get frustrated, and I take my frustration out on those people who I believe possess an anti-Clark agenda and are ACTING on it by slamming him with, in my view, unfair material.

I've put twelve of the most irredeemable and least effective anti-Clarkers on my Ignore list, mostly for my own sanity since I'd go nuts responding to all of their attacks. I've really, really, really wanted to avoid putting you on Ignore as well, but maybe it's better for both of us if I do, at least until the primaries are over. I don't know. It just saddens me that we've gotten to this place, because it's really NOT what we need.

I get that you have REAL fears about Clark. I get that, I really do. Being as strong of a peace activist as you are, I can definitely understand why you have those fears. It's just that we have such DIFFERENT perspectives on this issue, and we apparently have such DIFFERENT levels of proof that satisfy us on what constitutes a real concern, and what doesn't, that it's hard to find any middle ground.

So that's my perspective, Tinoire, written honestly and openly. I hope you find it useful.

DTH

[Forkboy]

146. I will say Tinoire

that all my experiences with DTH,both here in GD and down in I/P (when he was both a mod and a regular poster) have been nothing but extremely fair and friendly.I think his post here reflects that well.

I'm not trying to take sides here.I have tremendous respect for both of you.Hell,I like you so much Tinoire that it drives another poster crazy,apparently.But DTH is also an upstanding member of DU.I would rather you two come to some sort of amicable solution about your disagreements because you're both good people who just see things differently.

Peace to,and for,both of you.

[sangha]

151. Tinoire, you are not coming off well here

You've been quite hostile, and you've even engaged in a straw man argument (ie. something like "when did Clark turn into a dove?" when NO ONE is claiming the GENERAL is a dove) and all because DTH had the temerity to suggest that:

1) Zoe Baird is OK
2) Brookings is slightly left of center
3) Your arguments are'nt much more than guilt by association

[Tinoire]

155. I think

you missed the dove thing but it's better that way because that was not a kind thing for me to do.

You also missed what I was really upset about but I think DTH understood and, with all due respect, that's all that matters to me.

On edit: Guilt by association can only explain so many things. If you are for Clark, then you should feel honored to research and explain them.

I know if someone told me, for example, that they saw my cadidate meeting with Richard Perle & Adnan Khashoggi in the middle of the night somewhere in Paris (and no I'm not implying Clark did that- there would be a damn link if I were), then I would want to KNOW.

I have no loyalty towards any candidate out there. I like Kucinich and have thought the world of him for over 5 years but let me find out he's got some questionnable associations and you betcha I'd drop him so fast his head would spin.

[sangh0]

165. Thank you Tinoire

I appreciate the response. I wasn't trying to attack you and it wasn't that you had no argument to make. I just felt that you were over-reacting.

Circumstantial evidence can be persuasive, and should not be dismissed out of hand. My referencing "guilt by association" wasn't meant to dismiss your arguments out of hand. I just wanted to point out that that sort of circumstantial information is subject to debate, and so I felt DTH was within the bounds of decency in questioning it.

PS - I am not for Clark. I'm not against him, but I have some serious concerns. I appreciate the information you've posted, and the work that goes into it.

[Tinoire]

167. Thank you Sangh0

Well if anything... I was going to ask the mods to delete my original post since it was totally uncalled for but after discussion with DTH have decided to leave it there for reference in case this ever comes up again and also (this should be to many people's delight ;)) as a prime example of the dangers of "guilt by association".

And thanks for your post. There was no need for it because I didn't take offense or think you were attacking me... And it is true I have been rather tense lately because these primaries are getting to us all. We all have our idea, our convinction of the perfect candidate and are flabber-gasted that others can't see it that way... So we have the Clark Storm Troopers, the Dean Deaniacs, and the Kucinich Peaceniks... Haven't heard the names for the others' supporters... but this really is intense. Much more intense than the Hillary fights we had a year and a half ago (Urgh, remember those?!)

Peace to you and really, may the best man win!

Thank you for pointing this out:
Circumstantial evidence can be persuasive, and should not be dismissed out of hand

that's my take on it... I try to absorb it all, filter things out, put things together... I do not mean to influence anyone's way of thinking or beliefs... I'm just an information junkie...

Trustful of none and suspicious of all ;)

Yes, DTH was well within the bounds of decency in questioning it... I just took one comment waaaay too personally and he ended up paying for all the juvenile and sneering posts made by some of our recent Clark supporters. To be fair, DTH's behavior has mostly been impeccable and I admit, I WAS WRONG to do that to him because his reputation here was long established and his contributions very valuable and I did over-react. I was wrong to take my frustration, caused almost entirely by a newer breed of posters, out on him.

Hear that everyone? I was wrong to do that to a fellow DUer and will try much harder to find a place in my little Leftist heart for Clark but for Pete's sake, we all know he's a Rhoads scholar by now. Can we finally get to the issues?

Ok... shit... God have mercy on me once I hit post! ;)

[Tinoire]

154. Wow--- nice post..

Just saw it after posting my reply to DTH. I've rarely had a problem with DTH. You are right that we see things differently.. DTH said the same thing and it's something I have to think about... I've known for years that we see things differently, what I've only understood tonight is that we're fighting two separate battles...


Dove is fighting for ABB and idealists like me are fighting for the progressive soul of the Democratic Party.

I think I owe DTH a personal apology.

Thank you.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

157. Accepted of Course, But Only If You Accept Mine

:-)

I'm sorry, and I'm glad we're able to talk things out.

I will get to your longer, more detailed post later tonight.

DTH

[Tinoire]

159. That was quick and kind!

I was going to write you a real apology because that wasn't a kind thing to do.

I'm sorry for being such a cat and lashing out at you. That was really unkind of me and you're right, I'm usually a better person.

Thank you especially for having been one of the few who's had the insight to understand the sincerity and passion behind why I'm concerned.

Thank you Dove...

On edit: And of course I accept yours, it goes without saying!

[Tinoire]

152. Wow

I found it very useful and the sincerity comes across very strongly. You and I have sparred since I/P but I've never had anything against you personally and was always able to follow and respect your opinions- even if I didn't agree with them.

Believe it or not, most people would say I'm a very nice person and it's never been my intent to hurt anyone or any candidate but this is practically war now between the Progressives and the Conservatives for the future of our country. Among us, we have an additional war for the soul of the Democratic Party. I have nothing personal against Moderates in our party but I am, as progressive, angered over the DLC takeover and the heavy tactics they've used to remain in power.

I don't think these Clark threads would have gotten so heated and acrimonious if Clark supporters would have taken the time to research a little more and answer some obvious concerns as politely as you used to do in the calm human tone you're using now.

I can understand your puzzlement but I will try to explain not need, but the necessity. It's not a matter of tearing down someone else's candidate Dove, it's a matter of passing them all under a microscope so that people can see what they're getting, what we'll be up against if that candidate wins and what may really be under that slick packaging because this is America and OMG do we ever package!

Too many times, money and power have bought elections in this country. This is really the first time the people have a real chance to change things and the person we prefer in there. A populist like Kucinich is having his message drowned out by our corporate media while the DLC & NDN (which have the interest of corporations at heart and not of the people) pump an obscene amount of money into slick advertising campaigns for their preferred candidates. That's not what elections should be about. They should be about issues because there's nothing mre painful than the disappointment you get once the packaging is gone and you realize what you really bought. We need to see what we're buying now. Israel/Palestine is about to explode, the PNAC plans have been put into motion, and Ashcroft is sniffing into all our computers as more and more people are losing their livelyhoods... yet globalization marches on... the Pentagon's budget gets fatter... more wars are planned... and the corporations squeeze their grip on the American people. If Clark is part of that system, people need to know because this can't go on.

My fight is for democracy, it's against that entire rotten system that constantly sells whatever lies it takes to get our votes so that a privileged few can remain in power. It's not about tearing down any particular candidate.

I am uneasy and very worried about Clark for the very issues I keep bringing up. While I understand your weariness at seeing these points constantly popping up, honestly, I ask you- is the reaction really a surprise? What did the official Clark campaign expect from Progressives? Did no one stop to think that the same people who marched in the streets against the war in Yugoslavia would accept this gracefully? Did no one think that Leftist Democrats like me would feel our intelligence was being ridiculed as we were bomblasted with posts of "he's anti-war", "he's a real Liberal", "he was against the war in Iraq", "he's being drafted" when we knew differently? It was taken as an insult to our intelligence- at least to mine. The heavy tactics of many of the Clark supporters here were also a definite turn-off, fuelling this internal war for the soul of our party.

You accuse me and people like me of posting hack job, or untrue, or misleading, or just plain weak information. Is that fair? Why reduce relevant quotes to hack jobs? I, we, post relevant quotes, always sourced, so that people can determine their validity, do their own research and make up their own minds.

You believe Lieberman is better than Bush- I don't, I can't. The only difference I see is that Lieberman would throw a few more crumbs to the people but our corporations and empire would march on and people would still be dying in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It doesn't matter to me that Clark or Lieberman, or even Clinton, in Bush's place, would probably have had our allies on board for Iraq 2. Had Bush not been so clumsy as to rush in with badly manufactured evidence and so greedy as to want to cut everyone out of the post-war plunder, he would have gotten them on board too but I still would have been against the war and against those leaders. I don't see Lieberman as any better than Bush. I barely see most Dems as much better than Bush. We've got the entire world against us now. We've always been resented for the way we've lorded it over and exploited other nations. Bush gave us a coup de grace we didn't need- we can't even continue the way we were before. I don't even believe that Clinton, masterful salesman & politician that he is, could get our standing back to where it was. Anyway, I've drifted and I'm sorry for that.

I will sincerely try, again, to be more sensitive when I post information about Clark because I fully understand your frustration and am sorry that I would have contributed to it.

You did an astounding job of understanding me and my concerns in your last paragraphs that I barely know how to respond. Please don't take this wrong... I haven't been able to understand why you endorsed Clark so fully and so eagerly from the start, when we barely knew anything about him or where he stood on issues. Can you please explain that to me? Even when you do, I fear we will remain diametrically opposed but it will go a long way towards helping us understand the passion he's arousing in someone who cares as much as you do. You're one of the few Clark supporters at DU that anyone really knows and I think you're the best known so a thoughtful, well written post from you could repair some of the harm that was done.

Honestly, I have no desire to offend especially you. The only other person I was concerned about offending was Tamezsu because short-timer that he was, he was a great poster and was able to explain his support simply, without linking to election web-sites (indication of independent thought there), and never resorted to the gushing, childish explanations (Rhoads scholar for example).

Anyway, I found your post very useful. So useful that I'm 2 hours late getting home!

I'm really am sorry that I'm at the point (so disgusted with where our coountry has gone) that I can't shut up or stop looking or stop telling people what I find. I will try to be a bit more sensitive about how I parse together my posts but that really is hard because I'm usually rushing and, like Don Quixote, out to save the world in so little time.

You're not on my ignore list. I think you were on on once for all of 2 hours the day I baptized it and put about 40 Clark supporters on it. You were the last to go one and the first to come off. There's no one on it now and rarely ever is. I have no intention of putting you on it and I mean that in the nicest way.

I hope you can get something out of this jumbled post which isn't very focused and wasn't very easy to write because I hate the point to which we've come too. On my way home, I will be thinking about this. Thinking about what this fight is really about... I think it's really a fight over the soul of the Democratic Party or ABB.

Thank you for your post. It was more than useful. I hope mine was useful too. I am sorry, it wasn't better written but I really must get home and feed my dogs...

[DoveTurnedHawk]

156. My Post Was Properly Removed

It contained an unfair attack against Tinoire, and I apologize to her for it.

That said, the post also contained some other information which is important to me to reiterate.

As I said, I was a disruptor at FR. It's pretty clear, IMO, if you look at the posts with an eye toward that goal of disruption. I had about 50 posts there, during less than a three-week period right around the 2002 midterms, and not a single post thereafter. I had fun screwing with them.

In contrast, I have over 5,000 posts here, and have served several terms as a Moderator, donating hundreds of hours of my time to helping this board run smoothly.

I hope it's clear where my true loyalties lie. Thanks for listening.

DTH

[CWebster]

160. Wow...

It is amazing how the type is ALWAYS so obvious.

[KoKo]

109. Lazy? You don't know the meaning of lazy.......LOL's, you are too much

fun.....with your post! :D