What Can Gen. Clark Do to Win Skeptics Over? (And More)

[Composed Thinker]

What can Gen. Clark do to win his skeptics over and convince them of his intentions to lead the Democrats to victory and the country on the right course?

And is anyone so wary of his past that they would never vote for him?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. Win some elections. That'll convince a lot of skeptics.

[dfong63]

29. you beat me to it

[Clark Can WIN]

99. He'll win an election for you

don't worry :bounce:

[Renew Deal]

2. "Limbaugh’s full of shit."

"Limbaugh’s full of shit."

--Gen. Wesley K. Clark 9/22/03

[Composed Thinker]

3. LOL

[fob]

14. Okay, now I am intrigued. Is there a fuller discussion of that

quote? I searched and came up empty.

[Renew Deal]

18. From lasts night's visit to NY.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=390059&mesg_id=390059

[_NorCal_D_]

80. Oh yeah!

B-)

[bearfartinthewoods]

4. figure out where he stands on the issues and put them up on his website.

and i'm talking about more than pro gay, pro environment and such simplistic terms as i've been fed here lately

[goobergunch]

10. I concur. (n/t)

[Tinoire]

12. Are words enough to convince us?

How many times have we seen politicians string a bunch of words together and make promises they didn't keep?

I really demand a record. Words and promises are too easy and these times are too dangerous to trust like this.

It would be a start, s small start... but really not enough...

[bearfartinthewoods]

22. yeah...i was just about to edit my response

a record would be nice. at this point he could 'say' anything and how would we know if it's his genuine heart felt principles or whatever it take to get attention/support.

[janekat]

19. here's a link to website "Wesley Clark and the Issues"

Seems to be pretty complete to me: http://www.issues2000.org/Wesley_Clark.htm

[goobergunch]

43. DING DING DING!! That wins the vague award! (n/t)

[janekat]

96. So does Dean's....

http://www.issues2000.org/Howard_Dean.htm

[rucky]

5. Ask me again on Friday...

...the Debate should be good.

[Composed Thinker]

6. I'm so angry that I don't get CNBC

Is it possible PBS will carry it?

[Tinoire]

7. Well he could establish a Democratic track record that we can examine

Until then there's not much he can do to convince me. All other candidates are being judged by their track record. I refuse to give Clark a free ride especially when I have serious reservations about him already.

I will not, under any circumstances, vote for Clark until he's served in political office so we can see just how trustworthy he is as a politician.

The shiny General BS is doing nothing- zilch-nada for this old Non-Com.

[chaumont58]

23. I agree with you

I'm a Dean fan and contributor(modest or even small), but not a Clark basher. I, for one, think he should try for an elective office somewhat lower the top of the ladder his first time out. I think the idea that national security is the most pressing issue is a red herring. The economy, jobs, civil rights for ALL Americans(black, white, yellow, gay, straight) are the hot button issues for this old EM.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

26. So in Other Words, You Aren't Going to Vote for Clark

Since it's impossible for him to serve in office prior to the 2004 run, if he wins our party's nomination, you won't vote for him.

That is very disappointing to me.

DTH

[Tinoire]

88. I can't

I can't Dove. It's the combination of not having a record AND those associations. If it were one or the other, I think I could do it but the combination of the two is too frightening to me at the present time. Maybe this will change- I honestly don't know but I'm not expecting it to.

I will, as always, be searching my conscience in the voting booth. These last 4 years have been too horrible for us all so I would never, out of spite or just because I had a bad impression, not vote for any Dem candidate. My great fear is that Bush and co are not going to relinquish power easily and I really fear a trojan horse.

Clark supporters have a few months to allay the fears of people like me and it is going to take thoughtful, researched posts to do that. Right now, the majority of the posts are coming across to me as fanatical praise and fanatical defenses. You've made your share of researched posts and so has/did Tamezsu. It will take more of those and less of the others. It will also take Clark giving some serious details on the issues.

I hate Bush, but Bush is just one head of the Hydra. My aim isn't just to get rid of Bush, it's to get rid of the entire PNAC, OIL, imperialist war-mongering Hydra. I can't vote in any candidate I currently fear could be part of that machinery.

As things currently stand, if Clark becomes the nominee, I will, per DU rules be awfully quiet and it will break my heart.

Please do not be disappointed with my personal choice in exercising my personal right to vote; my vote will be based on an examination of conscience. There are still a few months ahead and things could change- I hope they do.

[seventhson]

91. I admire your respectable and sincere and moving response. I can't either

Clark is IMHO one of THEM.

He does not seem like a democrat.

You all know how I feel about Kerry and skull.

But Clark has these crazy associations with the MPRC that are REALLY bizarre.

I have asked Madsen to come to DU and defend his writings on this.

I hope he does.

[uptohere]

8. He could start by getting his act together

quit fliping like a fog on speed. Take a few minutes to jot down where he stands on anything and get someone to publish them on his site. And start acting like he has some leadership ability.

[Composed Thinker]

11. He doesn't flip flop

[uptohere]

34. OK, thanks for the observation General

but I heard it myself.

[wryter2000]

9. I'm not really a skeptic

But I haven't heard enough about all his proposed policies -- domestic as well as foreign -- to come over to his camp yet. So, I guess, he has to have good answers on lowering unemployment, etc. However, if Charlie Rangle loves him, I like him already.

[Capn Sunshine]

13. Win a primary

not implode.
tell his aggro supporters in DU to relax a little.
Demonstrate how he's not going to be pigeonholed as a DLC grasp at the Dean Machine.

Oh and explain to us laymen, as someone who was THERE and IN CHARGE (and as such should be able to articulate ans answer to this?):
where the HELL are the lost trillions of dollars the Pentagon has so cagily swiped from us?

Nothing much.
Just the basics

[DoveTurnedHawk]

27. Please Stop Parroting This Canard

Clark was not in charge of the Pentagon, he was not responsible for their budget.

Continuing to insist that he was does not change the basic facts.

:eyes:

If you've got proof of your ridiculous claims, pleast post it.

DTH

[TLM]

46. Speaking of hiding behind canards...

is anybody saying that CLark was in charge of the whole pentagon budget?

All I see is people saying that while Clark was a top guy at the pentagon, some 3 trillion bucks went missing.

The budget only sets how much money the pentagon gets... not how it is processed by the pentagon. The argument you are making is like a car saleman who sells you a lemon saying it isn't his fault because he didn't design it or manufacture it.

The budget is not the problem, it is what happened to the money after it was given to the pentagon.

Does CLark have NO CLUE what was going on under him in the pentagon?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

52. That Was the Clear Implication

is anybody saying that CLark was in charge of the whole pentagon budget?

Sunshine sure as hell looks like he's trying to pin the budget disasters at the Pentagon on Clark. He tried it in the other thread BB started on cutting military spending, too.

The budget is not the problem, it is what happened to the money after it was given to the pentagon.

Does CLark have NO CLUE what was going on under him in the pentagon?

Budgeting, and management of the cash spend, is a task for civilians and administrators (like the people under SecDef Cohen at the time, who is of course a Republican), there is no evidence Clark was responsible for any of it, despite your best efforts to link them somehow.

DTH

[Pepperbelly]

66. since when is NATO in the pentagon?

That was his last command.

[Capn Sunshine]

81. I'm assuming a Career military officer

a FOUR STAR GENERAL

might be clued in enough to shed some light on this
We're talking trillions.Trillions. More than the projected National Debt.by three times so far.

Or is he completely out of the loop and marginalized?
What kind of leaderhsip would this be?

I just want some answers, and it would seem Clark is one of the guys who would have them.

Or are you going to tell me that this sort of questioning about his job "isn't fair"?

He's the one proffering his resume as the answer to our problems. I am taking him at his word he was a leader of the armed services and as such knows a little something about command and structure, and procedure, and all those other channels that would help us FIND THE FRIKKING MONEY?
Sorry, I don't thik this is too much to ask of a four star general.

[KittyWampus]

111. BETTER THEN FINDING THE MONEY CLARK WOULD CUT IT

To fund health care... at least he's on record as saying such.

and the people who should be held accountable for the 3.3 trillion aren't the freaking generals.

Funny how you don't bother wondering why RUMSFELD was held to account for the money...

[KittyWampus]

33. Clark Suggested Cutting Pentagon Spending

To fund Health Care.

Dean on the other hand, wouldn't cut Pentagon spending because he thinks the Pentagon and our armed forces are intergral in combating terrorism. How PNAC of Dean! We gotta go "Over There" and kick terrorist butt rather than adequately fund and prepare our first responders here in the Homeland.

[TLM]

48. Did you miss my last response to this...

Dean wants to use defense funds to fund first responders... read his own words instead of repeating talking points.



“I think it would be foolish to reduce spending on defense at a time when we’re under threat. I disagree with the President about what those threats are, but here’s what we need money for: we need money to buy the uranium and plutonium stockpiles of Russia, which this president is not doing. We need money to change our oil policy. We need to inspect the 98% of cargo containers that come into this country uninspected. We need money to give to the states to help them in homeland security. So I think cutting our defense and homeland security budgets is a mistake. I would reallocate it in a different way than the president does because I don’t think the president has defended this country as much as he’s talked about.”

[Pepperbelly]

69. I disagree with Dean's position ...

There are ASSLOADS of programs that could and should be cut from the Pentagon, I don't care if the Outlanders are at the gates. There are some DUMB and CRAZED programs that ought to be cut. How about for starters the MDI? How important is it to go to the F-22? Is there anyone about to pass un in air power?

No, there is not.

Wesley has it about right: a culture of Want. I want this. I want that.

Fuck that.

What we need is someone who isn't afraid to say, "That is a DUMB idea and it would be a sin to spend a dime on it that our Grandkids have to pay off."

[KittyWampus]

85. I HEARD DEAN SAY IT WITH HIS OWN MOUTH

During the second to last debate Dennis K. said he would cut Pentagon budget and Dean got all snotty and said he wouldn't . That pentagon spending is necessary to fight terrorism.

SO DEAN DID SAY HE WOULD NOT CUT PENTAGON SPENDING- DESPITE THE FACT THE PENTAGON LOST OVER 3.3 TRILLION DOLLARS.

[janekat]

98. The outrageous military budget....

All that monay but we still can't afford raises for soldiers or to provide them with decent health care....

http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/spendersFY03.html
http://www.cdi.org/issues/budget/FY03Highlights-pr.cfm

The administration of President George W. Bush is requesting $396.1 billion for the military in fiscal year 2003..... This is $45.5 billion above current levels, an increase of 13 percent. It is also 15 percent above the Cold War average, to fund a force structure that is one-third smaller than it was a decade ago.

In all, the administration plans to spend $2.1 TRILLION on the military over the next five years. The budget plans, if approved by Congress, would lead the nation back into deficit spending in FY'03 -for the first time in four years.

[Larkspur]

15. Drop out of the Prez race, run for another elected office, like governor,

run the state well and for the benefit of the people, win re-election at least once, and then announce your intention to run for Prez and what vision you have for this country.

Only after Clark proves that he can make the transition from general to elected politician and manage affairs of state well, will he convince me to even look at him for President.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

28. I Hope He Wins the Primary

And then thumps Bush in the general, just to prove how irrelevant and inconsequential fair-weather voters like you are.

DTH

[Larkspur]

36. I'm not a fair weather voter. I vote in all elections

And I'd hold my nose and vote for clark over bush, but I'll be as critical of clark as I would bush and the lemming dems.

I don't trust generals, like clark, becoming president without showing me first how'd they behave in a lower civilian political office.

Clark has given me no reason to trust him or support him.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

55. Thank You

And I'd hold my nose and vote for clark over bush, but I'll be as critical of clark as I would bush and the lemming dems.

My impression from your earlier post was that you wouldn't even consider Clark for President if he got the Democratic nod. I'm glad I was mistaken.

DTH

[Capn Sunshine]

83. Don't cop an attitude

This snottiness is what I'm talking about with Clark supporteres. Nowhere have I for one ever stated that i wouldn't actively support fund work for and VOTE for Clark if he gets the nomination.

This is still all about ABB , and I hope you Clark supporters remember that when Dean captures the nomination.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

84. You're Criticizing ME for Attitude?

Please compare your last post with mine, side-by-side. I was genuinely happy to be mistaken. If that's attitude, so be it.

DTH

[TLM]

49. How irrelevant and inconsequential are voters who want a candidate

with a demonstrated record of democratic policy and some actual experience with civilian leadership?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

53. I Have No Problem With People Who Support Another Candidate

In the primaries. My strong objection comes when people claim or imply they would not vote for Clark in the general election based on this claim. That is what the "fair-weather" voter comment refers to.

DTH

[Larkspur]

75. I never claimed that I wouldn't vote for Clark in the general election

I'd hold my nose and vote for clark over bush, but my enthusiasm does not transfer automatically to the general. I'm not impressed with his 4 stars as his meal ticket to the Presidency.

Just as Howard Dean has, clark has to earn my support and so far the general is making a b-line in the opposite direction.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

76. Fair Enough

Different candidates for different people.

DTH

[Eloriel]

107. And you forget one thing: governing

There's more to this, you know, than JUST winning. I actually want someone who can do a good job governing too. Whoever takes over in 2005 is going to have one hell of a mess to contend with -- the worst in our history, bar none, with the possible exception of the Civil War. But it occurs to me this is going to be like the Civil War, Great Depression and every other thing we've endured all rolled into one.

Bombing anything, including civilians, and ordering troops around just doesn't cut it for me. Sorry.

Plus there's still that Jackson Stephens connection....

Eloriel

[xray s]

16. Explain why he is now a Democrat

What is it about the Democratic party that makes him want to be its candidate for president? If he previously considered himself a Republican, why did he change? What does he see wrong with the Republican party? (The answer to these questions could destroy Bush and the Republican congress in the next election)


Also...

Who would he consider for his cabinet? Who would he choose to be his close advisors?

[TLM]

17. Well I tell ya the first thing he has to do is address his tactics

in Yugoslavia. The use of DU weapons, the targeting of civilian centers, ordering attacks on Russian forces etc. I would like to see him directly address his actions and not only explain why he did it (and he better have a real damn good reason) but if he thinks those tactics are OK and should remain a part of US military policy.

Second, I want to see some clear policy statements from Clark. I do not like this whole draft Clark movement doing it for him and basically crafting Clark in their ideal image. I fear at some point Clark might get confronted about contradicting his policy and simply say, Oh that’s not my official site, I have no affiliation with that site etc. So I want to see some specific policy statements and plans from Clark on Clark’s site.

Frankly I won’t vote for him in the nominations because he has no record of being a democrat to back him up. All the rest of the field have records of being outspoken democrats. So Clark has no democratic resume that I can see. As such, the best he can do with me at this point is VP. Let him be a democratic VP for 8 years, and then we can talk about the presidency.

However even that is in question. I want to know about this group he works for with Henry Kissinger and James Woolsey. WTF?!?!? Kissinger?

So far the only thing it seems we have to even show Clark is a democrat is that he said a few of the right buzzwords in some interviews. And now it comes out that he was a republican until just a few years ago… this just doesn’t feel right to me.

I’ve got to see more from this guy than just words.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

30. Christ, Not This Again! I Thought You Knew Better.

ordering attacks on Russian forces etc.

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person. Why are you continuing to propagate this disproven, RW lie?

DTH

[TLM]

44. Yeah because we all know what a right wing rag the Guardian is...

So tell me exactly how the right wingers took over the guardian in 1999? You've shown you can insult people who have questions about Clark's history, now can you link to the proof this is not true??


From The Guardian, Tuesday August 3, 1999:

No sooner are we told by Britain's top generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the west's war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if Nato's supreme commander, the American General Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers would have stormed Pristina airport threatening to unleash the most frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the cold war.

"I'm not going to start the third world war for you," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international K-For peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

45. There Was No Order to "Storm" the Airport, and No Order to Attack

Not even Jackson claims that.

All credible sources indicate that the order -- from the civilian leadership of NATO, no less -- was to assert a presence at the airport, and that's it.

The Guardian was engaging in a little hyperbole, and that's all. I urge you to read the reports of the incident in greater detail. Here is a more balanced view, sans hyperbole, from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/671495.stm

DTH

[TLM]

57. Have you read that piece... it says the same thing....

"There Was No Order to "Storm" the Airport, and No Order to Attack"

Only because they refused the order... your own source backs this up.

"General Wesley Clark, Nato's supreme commander, immediately ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport."

...

But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander.

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''

[DoveTurnedHawk]

60. That Is Not an Attack

That is moving into position. Please read the article more carefully. There is no support for the contention that the order was to attack. It was to block runways and establish a presence.

Again, NOT EVEN JACKSON claims it was to be an attack. Everything else is just parsing second-hand information and diction.

I will also note that a couple of days later, NATO asserted an armored presence on the ground, and all they did was eyeball the Russians balefully. Just like they would have done there.

DTH

[TLM]

64. Ordering troops to take ground and hold it against another force

is an attack.

Call it an order to occupy or an order to sieze, it is still an attack.

If the troops were "moved into position" and "established a presence" in your home, would you consider that an attack? Or is it only an attack if they shoot you with DU weapons?

"Again, NOT EVEN JACKSON claims it was to be an attack."

Yeah, that must be why he flat out refused the order because it would start WWIII, and the brits agreed with him.


"Everything else is just parsing second-hand information and diction."

You said it didn't happen, and now it seems your only defense of this is to parse the meaning of the term attack... and sorry but dropping paratroops in to take ground is an attack.

attack

\At*tack"\, n. 1. The act of attacking, or falling on with force or violence; an onset; an assault; -- opposed to defense.

As for your 2nd hand information... 2 different sources, mine and yours, have confirmed that this did happen.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

70. Jackson Thought It Too Risky

Reasonable people can disagree on that subject. Any time you get opposing troops in close proximity with each other, it gets dicey (even though that very thing happened a couple of days later, without incident). But he has never said he was ordered to attack. I'm sure the rules of engagement were incredibly limited.

DTH

[RobertFrancisK]

50. That's not very smart

"Frankly I won’t vote for him in the nominations because he has no record of being a democrat to back him up. All the rest of the field have records of being outspoken democrats. So Clark has no democratic resume that I can see. As such, the best he can do with me at this point is VP. Let him be a democratic VP for 8 years, and then we can talk about the presidency."
Just because he hasn't been in politics he does't deserve to president? George Washington wasn't in politics before he became president. I can see why some people are skeptical because he hasn't clearly articulated his views, but ruling out voting for him even if he comes up with the best plan to create new jobs and beef up national security, just because you didn't hear him say it five years ago seems a little ridiculus to me.
If he is the party's nominee, will you vote for him or vote Green?

[TLM]

61. He has no record of democratic leadership...

"Just because he hasn't been in politics he does't deserve to president? George Washington wasn't in politics before he became president. I can see why some people are skeptical because he hasn't clearly articulated his views, but ruling out voting for him even if he comes up with the best plan to create new jobs and beef up national security, just because you didn't hear him say it five years ago seems a little ridiculus to me."


What is rediculous to me is a 4 star general thinking he can simply walk off the battlefield and into the whitehouse with no experience and questionable policial leanings.


"If he is the party's nominee, will you vote for him or vote Green?"

I'd vote for him... but I'm really starting to hope that's not a choice I have to make.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

62. Thank You

I'd vote for him... but I'm really starting to hope that's not a choice I have to make.

I'm glad to hear that. We have one enemy over all, and that is Bush.

DTH

[TLM]

65. I'd vote for lieberman....

but that's only because I think he'd be better than Bush.

[RetroLounge]

20. He needs to be able to make a decision.

Q) Are you a Democrat?
A) I'll get back to you on that.

Q) Are you running for President?
A) I'll get back to you on that.

Q) What are you positions on the issues?
A) I'll get back to you on that.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

32. Yes, Yes, and They're Out There If You Bother to Look

Next?

DTH

[TLM]

67. Really one shouldn't have to search the net for Clark's positions...

this isn't a research project on a dead language... this is a guy running for president. He should be bringing the infomation to the people, not the other way around.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

68. And He Will

He just announced, most candidates don't release position papers for months after they announce, but Clark has said he'd have some ready in a couple of weeks.

DTH

[Pastiche423]

21. What has he done for the Democrats LATELY?

Or for that matter, ever?

[KittyWampus]

35. He Critiqued Junior's Handling Of Iraq On Television

And his opinion carried weight since he has commanded armies.

[Pastiche423]

38. Uh...

Did you see the word Democrats in my post???

:eyes:

[KittyWampus]

40. Yes, I Did

And Clark's critiquing Junior helped Democrats get on the offensive.
His critique carried alot more weight for alot more Americans than, say Dean.

But gee, I guess you only meant what did Clark do AS a Democrat FOR Democrat's...
But then, he was a General doing military analysis and needed some semblance of impartiality.

Oh, but WAIT.... he's been voting Dem since Clinton so he WAS a Democrat critiquing Junior on Televisison.
He just didn't do it as a Democrat who made an ISSUE of BEING a Democrat....

[Pastiche423]

47. Can't answer my question, eh?

The only people clarked did anything for by his "military analysis" were the testosterone crowd getting their jollies off, listening to war games. Oh yeah, I sure he got a pretty penny for it too.

Here is a man, that only a little over two weeks ago, FINALLY said he was a Democrat. And now he wants Democrats to elect him to the highest office in the land WITHOUT doing jack shit for the Democratic Party.

Can you see where I have a little problem w/it?

[RobertFrancisK]

58. He's not running for head of the DNC

He's running for president of the United States, as are the other 9. This election, and every election, is about who will be the best leader for our country, not who is the biggest democratic donor.

[seventhson]

24. I am not sure I could vote for him now. This is what scares me.

As head of the Southern Command, Clark had rersponsibility for civilian and military contractors like Dyncorp and MPRI. These are essentially mercenary corporate forces.

In 1996-7 he and Richard Holbrooke (chief negotator) cut the contracts with MPRI for these civilian mercenary operations.

I assume that posting a link and an excerpt from a left wing source is still okay at DU as long as my rhetoric is not inflammatory.

(For more info google MPRI and Plan Columbia et al)





http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/272048.shtml

excerpt:


Before becoming NATO Commander, Clark was the Director for Strategic Plans and Policy within the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From this vantage point, Clark was well aware of and likely supported the arming of the Bosnian government by accepting contributions from various deep-pocketed Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, Brunei, Jordan, and Egypt. Via something called the Bosnia Defense Fund, these countries deposited millions of dollars into U.S. coffers to buy weapons for the Bosnians and train them in their use through the use of private military contractors like Military Professional Resources, Inc. (MPRI). And when some of the weapons and cash for the Bosnians became "unaccounted for," where did some of the guns and cash wind up? In the hands of Al Qaeda and Iranian Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard) units in Bosnia.

More interestingly is how General Clark's Bosnia strategy ultimately goes full circle. According to Washington K Street sources, the law firm that established the Bosnia Defense Fund was none other than Feith and Zell, the firm of current Pentagon official and leading neo-con Douglas Feith. Feith's operation at Feith and Zell was assisted by his one-time boss and current member of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. Both Feith and Perle advised the Bosnian delegation during the 1995 Dayton Peace talks. The chief U.S. military negotiator in Dayton was Wesley Clark.

A long time ago, the French, tired of war, turned to a short general named Napoleon to lead them to peace and prosperity. Instead, Napoleon seized imperial power and ensured the French would have more war. After four years of Bush, the neo-con Fifth Column in the Democratic Party is trying to convince us that Clark is the "anti-war" candidate. Tell that to the people of Serbia, Kosovo, and Montenegro. Tell that to the coca farmer in Bolivia or Colombia who is trying to feed his family. Let's not fall for the deception and tricks of the neo-cons again. If you are tired of Bush, Cheney, and the neo-cons and their phony wars, Clark is certainly not the answer. He has been, and remains part of, the great deception of the American people.

[zeemike]

25. Sense he voted republican in the past

Tell us what he now thinks of trickle down economics? Did he like it then? Does he like it now?
Tell us what he thinks of the union busting of the Ragan administration? Did he like it then? Does he like it now?
Does he think that Nixon got a raw deal or what he deserved? Did he approve of the covert bombing of Cambodia?
That is good for a start but I would have many more to ask if I could.

[bitchkitty]

31. He can start by finishing

the issues section of his web page. The fact that it's unfinished leaves a bad impression, IMO.

Then he can say whether or not he made the remark that is my sig line.

[RichV]

63. At best

that sig line should say

"Gov. Bill Owens (R-CO) and Michael Holtzman (R-CO): Clark would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his calls" and it still seem to be an inaccurate representation of what Clark claims was sarcasm. But clearly you trust a far-right Republican governor and one of Reagan's old hatchet men who works for him more than you do one of the Democratic candidates.

[bitchkitty]

71. Not true -

you don't know me, and if you did you would know that your comment is laughable.

I'm waiting for Clark himself to tell me if he said it, and if so, why.

[RichV]

72. You gonna ask him?

I'm impressed with your connections. You gonna ask the GOPers who claim it was a serious comment for their confirmation too?

[bitchkitty]

90. No, I would expect

that Clark himself is aware of the controversy and will answer it himself. I want confirmation that he did or did not make that remark, and I shouldn't have to ask. Neither should you.

But maybe I'm being hasty. Maybe he'll address this soon - maybe when he finishes his website? Or is his explanation, like his positions, still under construction?

[NashVegas]

37. Distance Himself from Bill and Hilary

Not because I think they are political poison or anything of the sort. Because I feel they are more about winning than leading. Because the Democratic Party, in the 8 years they were in office, turned into a bunch of spineless, big-business-loving wimps.

Beyond that, Clark needs to show me he's not a Wall Street General.

[Julien Sorel]

39. When Clinton left, the Dems were in good shape.

You're blaming the Clintons for the craziness of 2000, and the fallout from 9/11. That's hardly fair or reasonable.

[Larkspur]

41. No, the Democratic Party was bleeding members

and that accelerated after the 2002 election debacle, when the candidates who lost tried to follow Clinton's political habits and lost.

[Julien Sorel]

42. You have a couple of things to prove.

I'm not up on national registration data -- that would be the first thing. Gore got the most votes of any candidate in history in 2000, iirc. I'd like to see some data -- fairly complete data -- before accepting the notion that party membership was declining. I have it in the back of my head that it was, but a quick search couldn't confirm it, and I have to get my brakes done :-)

But second, and more important and difficult, proving that Clinton was at fault is impossible. You can put an argument together, and I'd like to see one, but such an argument is going to be problematic. Trends in political attitudes are affected by many, many things, one of the key ones being demographics -- it's only natural, for example, that as the country got older it became more 'conservative,' as there is a link between age and political attitudes. Laying the blame on Clinton is oversimplifying a complex phenomenon.

Finally, the 2002 elections are even more problematic. 9/11 put the
Dems in an extremely difficult position; moreover, it is absolutely impossible to prove that had the Dems behaved differently, they would have fared better in the elections that year -- at best, you can speculate. Sometimes in life there is no 'right' answer, there is only making the best of a situation.

[Larkspur]

59. I'm talking about people registered as Democrats

not who voted in 2000.

In Connecticut the Democratic Party is bleeding members. Independents, at least in my town in Northeast CT, are the majority. It used to be Democrats.

Connecticut was a Democratic state, but it's becoming more and more Independent. People don't want to join the Democratic party because the party is seen negatively, as being in bed with the Repukes and corporate plutocrats. The party needs members to generate funds and candidates for office, so it's important to court members into the party.

As far as Clinton, people were not coming out months before the primaries to see him. I know because I was a regiestered Democratic voter in Illinois in 1992, and he never interested me or my mom. We voted for him in 1992, but only after he won the nomination.

Howard Dean, unlike Clinton of 1992, is attracting hundreds and thousands to see him on the campaign trail long before the first caucus and primary are run. Democratic leaders, like my state senator, who I thought was a Lieberman supporter but later found out was uncommitted, are beginning to realize that Dean is doing a tremendous service to the Democratic Party be getting people excited about politics and if people are excited about politics and Dean then maybe the Democratic Party will start growing members again.

Bill Clinton, for all his personal charisma, could not do what Howard Dean is doing today. As JFK would say, the torch is being passed to a new generation, us.

[RichM]

51. He should start major criticism of the MI complex, & say he thinks that

Cheney, Wolfie, Rummy, & Perle (& all the others he says he "likes") are dishonorable & dangerous gangsters. He should favor immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, and say that seizing Iraq was based all on lies, & motivated by oil, geostrategic advantage, & the lure of fat no-bid reconstruction contracts for Republican political cronies. He should say Bush deserves to be indicted for taking the nation to war on the basis of deliberate lies.

That would be a start. He could throw in that he thinks Vietnam was a US war crime.

[gully]

54. I am wary of his past, but I would vote for him...

I would never give Bush a chance at another 4.

[WilliamPitt]

56. Only one thing.

Rear back and kick Bush his crew squarely in the rhetorical balls. Wait...he's been doing that.

Oh, and there's this:



And this:



Value beyond measure. Dig those. Dig them hard.

[_NorCal_D_]

82. Rhetorical balls indeed!

These are great!

[Sterling]

73. For me he can....

Cut the military budget by at least 25% a claim I saw3 posted by a Clark supporter. Call for an independent investigator ala Ken Star to look into 9-11 as well as all other Bush crimes.

I honestly like much of what I see but at this point want to see more before I feel I can trust him. I still like Dean but Clark is second.

The main thing that worries me about about Clark is his military cheerleading during the invasion and the fact so many ultra right wing Dems like him.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

74. And Which "Ultra Right Wing" Dems Would Those Be?

I called you on this BS before, and I'm still waiting to hear you back up your libelous claim directed towards me that I have somehow expressed "right-wing" opinions on DU. I can't think of one position I hold that isn't either liberal or, at its most "right-wing," mainstream.

Please, put up or shut up. Because I know you can't put up.

DTH

[RandomUser]

77. What's an "Ultra Right Wing" Dem?

If you're going to toss terms like this around, can you at least explain them? And is an "Ultra Right Wing" dem left or right of a "Ultra Left Wing" republican? Sounds like Sterling is just throwing out terms with heavy connotations to slanderously influence the views of others without explaining those terms and coming clean with your logic in the light of day.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

78. That's My Take, Certainly

Sounds like Sterling is just throwing out terms with heavy connotations to slanderously influence the views of others without explaining those terms and coming clean with your logic in the light of day.

Thanks for your viewpoint. :-)

:toast:

DTH

[poskonig]

79. Given his two Reagan votes, issues, and more importantly, DETAILS

The more detailed Clark's proposals are, the less shit he is going to get from candidate bashers. Saying he is against the Bush tax cuts but wants to keep the middle class sections by itself sounds waffly, but in a context of a robust economic plan, it wouldn't be.

Given his supposed knowledge in economics, this shouldn't be a problem, though given most economists have a libertarian deregulatory bent, there may be a reason *for* being vague on where he stands, from a purely strategic perspective.

[seventhson]

86. And WHAT about this??? Can ANYONE who supports Clark respond to this???

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/272048.shtml

excerpt:


Before becoming NATO Commander, Clark was the Director for Strategic Plans and Policy within the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From this vantage point, Clark was well aware of and likely supported the arming of the Bosnian government by accepting contributions from various deep-pocketed Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, Brunei, Jordan, and Egypt. Via something called the Bosnia Defense Fund, these countries deposited millions of dollars into U.S. coffers to buy weapons for the Bosnians and train them in their use through the use of private military contractors like Military Professional Resources, Inc. (MPRI). And when some of the weapons and cash for the Bosnians became "unaccounted for," where did some of the guns and cash wind up? In the hands of Al Qaeda and Iranian Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard) units in Bosnia.

More interestingly is how General Clark's Bosnia strategy ultimately goes full circle. According to Washington K Street sources, the law firm that established the Bosnia Defense Fund was none other than Feith and Zell, the firm of current Pentagon official and leading neo-con Douglas Feith. Feith's operation at Feith and Zell was assisted by his one-time boss and current member of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. Both Feith and Perle advised the Bosnian delegation during the 1995 Dayton Peace talks. The chief U.S. military negotiator in Dayton was Wesley Clark.

[seventhson]

89. I guess no one can refute this

Madsen is well credntialled and a former military man.

So is he working for Rove or US???

[Bertrand]

109. Wrong. You need to prove it

the arguments made by a counterpunch editorialist need to be validated with hard information rather than an appeal to authority by you, seventhson. This is basic informal logic. It's amazing that some people here dont recognize that

[zeemike]

87. I am still waiting

To here where Clark stands on trickle down economics. Is he for it or against it? He should have some opinion if he has a degree in economics.
And was he glad or sad when Regan busted the unions

[seventhson]

92. Clark and hs supporters need to REFUTE this!!!

Clark was well aware of and likely supported the arming of the Bosnian government by accepting contributions from various deep-pocketed Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, Brunei, Jordan, and Egypt. Via something called the Bosnia Defense Fund, these countries deposited millions of dollars into U.S. coffers to buy weapons for the Bosnians and train them in their use through the use of private military contractors like Military Professional Resources, Inc. (MPRI). And when some of the weapons and cash for the Bosnians became "unaccounted for," where did some of the guns and cash wind up? In the hands of Al Qaeda

Wayne Madsen (link above)

I emailed Madsen and asked him to defend this statement here NOW.

I invite the Clark supporters to refute it.

If Clark can put this into "context" for me, I would appreciate it.

It scares the bejesus outta me seein' how Dyncorp and the MPRC run covert mercenary operations globally for wall street. Just like Halliburton IMHO.

[Bertrand]

108. Wrong. You need to prove it

the arguments made by a counterpunch editorialist need to be validated with hard information rather than an appeal to authority by you, seventhson. This is basic informal logic. It's amazing that some people here dont recognize that

[seventhson]

112. Oh, I've done the research

Clark was head of the Southern Command when the MPRI contracts were operative.

These agreements put military operatons into the hands of private, for profir, mercenary-type operations.

The Free Bosnia fund - financed by Saudi Arabia allegedly - I am still researching.

But Madsen's credentials are pretty damn good. He is a former military fellow himself and now an investigative journalist.

I think his credentials lend credibility to the heart of the story: that Clark has ties to the scariest of corporate fascists in the military industrial complex who, in turn, have ties to the terrorists.

But if there is evidence that I m wrong or Madsen is wrong I am inviting Clark supporters to PLEASE post FACTS so that I can stop claiming things that you all can PROVE are not true.

I don't think you can. I think Clark is deep in bed with these crypto-fascist types who run private mercenary groups. But I suppose I could be wrong if there is evidence to the contrary. I just have not seen it yet.

[Eloriel]

93. Nothing / Yes / and

I don't want Bill Clinton picking our nominees. It's not his place to insert himself in the primary race, and I'm pissed as hell he's doing it. I never thought I'd say this about him, but he's afraid of losing power and influence and and all his DLC cronies are going to do everything they can to prevent Dean from winning the nomination.

That is simply wrong.

Eloriel

[JNelson6563]

94. I agree

I have the impression that the candidate most favored by Clinton/DLC just couldn't pick up the momentum and so this was their answer.

I am uncomfortable that Clark has never run for any office ever. I am also uncomfortable that he has just announced he is a Dem, not only didn't he post his stance on issues at his site but has now taken that section down.

It seems really contrived. I wasn't struck with feeling there was some mighty fire in his belly when he announced he was running. It seemed like forced enthusiasm to me.

Thursday should give us all more insight into Wesley the Candidate. I have a feeling he's enjoying a honeymoon period now in the polls etc.

Just my $.0125

Julie

[leesa]

95. How about if you give this shit a rest.

The man works for the military industrial complex...the very people we are warring with here.

[seventhson]

97. Wow , three females who see through Clark in a row

I was wondering if there was anybody here with balls, but now I know the OVARIES have IT!!!

Thanks for pointing out the obvious about Clark et al.

I will never trust him

[Lydia Leftcoast]

101. Before I think of him as anything but an astroturf candidate

I want to see specific proposals for the economy and the environment. Anyone can say that he's for creating jobs and protecting the environment. I'm sure every Republican politician alive has uttered that phrase at one point or another. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is in the details.

As I wrote on another thread a few days ago, even though you need an overriding vision, when it gets down to actual governing, it's ALL details.

The other candidates have clearly articulated positions on these topics, and we can either accept or reject them. I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon for someone who has been dillydallying about running for months and hasn't gotten around to laying out specific proposals for undoing all the damage inflicted on us by Reagan and the Bush Dynasty.

[Bread and Circus]

100. I am not warring with MIC

I am warring w/ the death of democracy.

Don't make your fight all of our fights.
Also don't make a quixotic fight the calling card
of the democratic party if you want them to regain
any power.

[RichM]

102. Don't you see that the MIC is exactly = "the death of democracy?"

This network of connections & corruption is PRECISELY at the center of the social forces responsible for the death of democracy. How could you not realize this?

[Bread and Circus]

105. Sure, in part, crony capatalism, MIC, etc.....

However, I think if you really read Clark and
what he is saying, he actually points this out.
He talks about our institution of democracy/constitution
as being paramount. He talks of the military as being
a want machine. He talks of cutting the Air Force budget,
saying they are bloated...

This is the equation people are going on:

Military = MIC
Clark = military
therefore Clark = MIC

It's basically inferring guilt by association.

For crissakes, Clark has had the nuts to blow the
cover on PNAC's agenda. I haven't seen the other
candidates do that.

Clark isn't perfect, and I will accept a fair critique
(like lack of elected political experience, lack of domestic
policy experience). But I can't accept that because he
was in the army he is the root of evil.

Frankly, politics are corrupted for the most part.
Does that make all politicians bad? Of course not.

Here is a company Clark worked with,

http://www.wavecrestlabs.com

Does that look like an oil-sucking, PNAC endeavor to you?

[seventhson]

103. Clark IS MIC

That is our point

[Bread and Circus]

106. You are MIC !

everyone is MIC! Are we the victim or the
crime?

Look, what you are doing is using short-circuited
thinking and marginalizing yourselves. Good luck.

None of the candidates, upon fair review would satisfy
you except for Kucinich I assume. Either that or Ghandi.

There is a political spectrum and a division in this
country almost right down the middle when it comes to
electing our Presidents. Don't forget that.

Also, I will ask you to respectfully get off the internet
so you may remain ideologically pure because the internet
was invented by the MIC. It began as the Arpanet, a military
project. Also, don't ever eat canned or dehydrated food,
because all that became widespread with the military. And
don't use teflon pans, because Teflon was invented by NASA
and they are part of the MIC. And don't fly in an airplane.
And don't use electricity. Everying is connected to the MIC
unless you live in the woods in a hut and forage for food.

You are not at war with the MIC. You just think you are
and you are fooling yourself. You are really at war with
something quite different and I challenge you to define
what it is or go live in the woods in order to relieve yourself
of your hypocracy.

[zeemike]

110. Perhaps that is the problem

That power is vested in a party instead of in the people like the founding fathers intended.

[LoZoccolo]

104. He can...

..serve as vice-president for eight years.