Suddenly, I'm really, really nervous about Wesley Clark.

[stickdog]

OK, here's a guy who voted for Nixon and Reagan.

He says he only voted for Clinton because of Clinton's personality.

Until this month, he wouldn't even tell anyone what Party he belonged to.

He has an ego the size of Alaska and his supporters idolize him as the one great uniformed hope for getting Bush out of the White House -- the "ubercandidate" if you will.

Is he going to form his own third party if he doesn't get the Democratic nomination?

Has he gone on the record against this possibility?

Can he guarantee us that all of his supporters will vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is?

Has he gone on the record on this?

Because this is a deal breaker for me.

[JohnKleeb]

1. welcome to my iffyness stick

Ive always been iffy on the guy. I wasnt here when Clark declared but I remember some of your fellow Dean supporters wanting him as a VP. I dont know but I have my reasons to be iffy on Clark.

[jonnyblitz]

8. thats right you werent around. You missed it.

Thats when the heavy duty "left" bashing began. You would have sworn you logged into a different discussion board. Never saw so much praise for the DLC in my life (by people with a few hundred posts or less).And to top it off they were sporting these HUGE posters of their man in their signature line, surrounded in red white and blue imagery. Took forever to download the threads!! geesh. Yup things are different here at DU since u were gone. :hi:

[JohnKleeb]

12. hey jon

:hi:
I really have a lot of iffyness on Clark. Praise for the DLC may I join you in a :puke:. lol when if I ever attack people from the right you gotta check my system I could be high lol. It was slow eh. lol the most progressive of the progressive should do lol what my fellow micks did have an unoffical "club". I call youth head :). I am glad to be back though.

[Clark Can WIN]

81. You mean like this one

Kisses.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[renie408]

35. Gee, don't tell me, the sophmoric excuses for humor got to you??

I wouldn't let it bother you. The world is full of idgets, why wouldn't the DU be any different?

[Cappurr]

47. Nah.....I can take sophmoric humor

Its just that there are so many really serious problems in the country....its so bad I don't even feel like it is my country anymore. And people would rather argue over whether Clark is a DNC/RNC/PNAC plant than how we are going to save our grandchilren (and particularly my granddaughter to whom I'm quite partial) from paying for this mess. How are we going to stop the corporate takeover of this country. And believe me, I wish the answer was as simple as elect Dean or elect Clark....but its not. The whole system is corrupt and the Democrats themselves have been a part of it. Trust me, if the people of this country don't act and act soon no-one in this country is going to be safe from disease, pollution, crime, poverty like you've never seen and other horrors I can't even imagine right now. Of course, the rich will be fine. It only the poor and middle class that need to worry.

[Sterling]

58. I think finding out

"whether Clark is
a DNC/RNC/PNAC plant" is a key first step to "how we are going to save our grandchildren".

You are clearly aware of what the Dem/corpo-culture has gotten us. Don't you think we should be vigilant?

[Cappurr]

74. But you're not going to "find out" by posting a lot of right wing junk

I have seen worse slanders on Clark here at DU than I have in the RW media.

And changing the direction of this country is a lot more complicated than who gets elected president (altho when you have someone like Bush you are in BIG trouble). It is changing Congress. It is changing the lobbying practices. It is changing giving access to those who have big bucks and who are too damn greedy to share any of it with the little guy. They want workers as cheap as possible....so they go to other countries. Hell with the American worker. And they still get tax breaks. AND protection from the US (the taxpayer). Who the hell do you think is paying for all that "reconstruction" in Iraq and who is going to benefit from it? Three airports? Well, that should make it nice and convenient for Halliburten and other big corporations to fly in their private jets. And of course they pay the Iraqi's shit.

And while we pay taxes for their war which benefits them we can't even get health insurance in this damn country.

THESE are the problems. And NONE of the candidates are going to solve them. The only thing that is going to change anything is if the people of this country start marching in the millions to demand decency from their government. Right now all this corruption does is make people not vote....which is great for the Repugs.

Aargh. Rant over.

[Sterling]

78. I don't think scrutinizing Clark is a right wing effort

It is our duty to learn where he has been and who he was there with. I think being connected with a BFEE operation is a bad thing but that is just me.

[renie408]

86. About that lobbyist thing...

>>NC: Senator John Edwards (D-NC) Tuesday called for a ban on campaign contributions from federally registered lobbyists to federal candidates.
“Washington's filled with high-priced lobbyists who walk around with drafted legislation in one hand and envelopes filled with campaign contributions in the other,” Edwards said. “These lobbyists run the government, and they own this White House. We ought to say to these lobbyists, you can't give out campaign money. We ought to make that the law of the land.”
Senator Edwards said that too often in Washington - and without fail under President Bush - the interests of high-priced lobbyists have trumped those of the American people.

For instance, Senators Edwards, John McCain, and Edward Kennedy fought on the Senate floor to pass the Patient’s Bill of Rights. The legislation would have taken medical decision making away from HMOs and insurance companies and given it back to doctors. Despite its overwhelming public support, President Bush blocked the Patient’s Bill of Rights at the urging of insurance industry lobbyists.<<


It goes on, but if I go back for the link, I will lose my place again.

[Sterling]

95. I like that but

We need to get radical about changing the money influence and so far everything I have seen from McCain and all the reformers is like a band aid on cancer.

I will support any candidate that ruthlessly pursues ending the bribery in DC.

[Cappurr]

107. Yeah Edwards is good...

But do you really think he could get any of that legislation passed? If you do, youre dreaming. These guys in Congress make their living off these lobbyists. The Patients Bill of Rights is a perfect example. Look how long McCain tried to get Campaign Finance reform passed and its in the courts now. It doesn't go far enough anyway.

We need to end the corporate monopoly on government in this country. That means regulation. That means accountability. That means making corporations pay their fair share of taxes and refusing to give them US status when they take their operations off shore. It means requireing them to pay fair wages to ALL, and provide health care without using tricks like hiring part time workers so they don't have to cover them or give them pension benefits. (We can already see how accountable Enron has been and they stole millions from their employees, not to mention billions from the public). And what happens? Nada. And who cares? Nobody. THATS the problem. You try stealing a loaf of bread and see what happens. American people are getting screwed and they either don't know or they don't care. But one day (probably after I'm gone), they'll care all right when they can't get fuel for their SUV's, or affordable electricity, or affordable water (which is the next resourse to go) or medication for their children,or decent jobs or protection from criminals. In other words....they'll care when they start living like Iraqis. By then it will be too late.

[Section_43]

108. Sing out, brother,

rant appreciated!!

[renie408]

59. I have two kids of my own that I am pretty fond of

Which is why I like Edwards. I happen to live in NC, so I have had lots of chances to hear about him or actually hear him. I like what he says on most issues and particularly that he is really oriented towards building a better America for the future and our children. He says, very sincerely, that he owes everything he is and everything he has to the America he grew up in. An America that was filled with opportunity for anybody that was willing to work hard. He also is very proud of being a product of public schools, start to finish and he wants to return the public school system to something that we can all be proud of. He also has the most detailed and inspired plan to insure that any hardworking, deserving kid gets a chance to go to college. And with the way tuition is rising, that may be the only way my kids get to go.

Anyway, sorry to have turned into an Edwards ad, but you talking about worrying about your grandkid's future made a connection with me, my own worries for my kids, and my reasons for backing Edwards.

[JohnKleeb]

64. Edwards is a good guy, anti corporate, a friend of DK

plus hes a fellow southerner, and all around great and good on the issues guy. Well you know say he doesnt win the primary, I think he would make a fine VP.

[renie408]

88. Thanks, John

[seventhson]

3. I believed the hype and even said I'd support Clark as VP BUT NOW

I discovered this:

When Clark left NATO he went to work for Stephens. Who Is Stephens Group? Just Listen:


http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/07/136245.php:

Excerpt MUST READ


Junior's track record as an oilman is pretty dismal. He began his career in Midland, Texas, in the mid-1970s when he founded Arbusto Energy, Inc. When oil prices dropped in the early 1980s, Arbusto fell upon hard times. Junior was only rescued from business failure when his company was purchased by Spectrum 7 Energy Corporation, a small oil firm owned by William DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds. As part of the September 1984 deal, Bush became Spectrum 7's president and was given a 13.6 percent share in the company's stock. Oil prices stayed low and within two years, Spectrum 7 was in trouble.

In the six months before Spectrum 7 was acquired by Harken in 1986, it had lost $400,000. In the buyout deal, George "Jr." and his partners were given more than $2 million worth of Harken stock for the 180-well operation. Made a director and hired as a "consultant" to Harken, Junior received another $600,000 of Harken stock, and has been paid between $42,000 and $120,000 a year since 1986.

Junior's value to Harken soon became apparent when the company needed an infusion of cash in the spring of 1987. Junior and other Harken officials met with Jackson Stephens, head of Stephens, Inc., a large investment bank in Little Rock, Arkansas (Stephens made a $100,000 contribution to the Reagan-Bush campaign in 1980 and gave another $100,000 to the Bush dinner committee in 1990.)

In 1987, Stephens made arrangements with Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) to provide $25 million to Harken in return for a stock interest in Harken. As part of the Stephens-brokered deal, Sheikh Abdullah Bakhsh, a Saudi real estate tycoon and financier, joined Harken's board as a major investor. *5 Stephens, UBS, and Bakhsh each have ties to the scandal-ridden Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).



BRB with link

[mpsteve]

7. Slight problem with the timing wouldn't you say???

Clark was in the military at that time, right? What is your point?

[seventhson]

17. If Stephens arranged for the Saudis to finance Bush...

and Clark went straight to work after NATO for the bankers (Stephens Group) who set Bush up in Business with money from the people (Saudis) who later financed 9-11 ...then


what?


am I the only one who has a problem with this???

[zeemike]

32. I did not know about this

But I was hoping that someone would search and find want connections Clark had

[Sterling]

34. So Clark is the Tom Kean of the Dem primary?

Why does everybody have to be in bed with the BFEE?

[Pepperbelly]

37. LOL

ARe you serious?

I mean really ... no shit serious?

That you want to hold Clark responsbile for something that occurred 15 years before he went to work at a company that he stayed at for a couple of years?

LOL

Good one, 7thson. You're just having fun with us now.

[Sterling]

39. Do you want a BFEE employee for Prez?

I would prefer to have someone who has never worked with anything Bush or BFEE.

[Pepperbelly]

42. is there any depth of mccarthyism too deep for ...

the Clark bashers?

He went to work briefly for a money company. It is what the company does. You would be hard put to find a single company of size that did not go to Stephens Group for something. And so this group that is involved with virtually every business in America at some point, did business MAYBE with someone you don't like 15 years before Clark went to work for them for a couple of years with his primary gig assisting Wavecrest Labs in developing and marketing alternative energy and you start screaming, "BFEE! BFEE!"

Calm the fuck down, dude.

[Sterling]

63. I just think we can do better.

And I am quite calm thank you. I am sure we can find someone unconnected to BFEE enterprises.
I think, “have you ever been connected to or been involved with the BFEE?” has a nice ring to it actually and certainly more relevance than the McCarthyism you accuse people who don’t want BFEE cohorts running the show of.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[Sterling]

80. Don't know if he is or not.

But I am interested and not letting it go until I know he is not a tool of either the DLC or the BFEE which in my opinion is really the same thing.

[Pepperbelly]

99. So why in the world were ...

you posting as though it were a fact?

He worked for the company for a couple of years mainly concentrating on getting Wavecrest Labs going. That isn't particularly ominous to me. Sorry.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

87. Clark has WAR CRIMES CHARGES FROM NATO BOMBING KOSOVO!!

Do you want to go from war-crimes-magnum to war-crimes-lite? Do the research on what the US policy was for allowing the murderous break-up of Yugoslavia and the ham-fisted civilian-slaughtering belated response of the US led NATO forces under Wesley Clark. Even under Clinton there were horrible PNAC-type petro-nazi crimes committed and Clark was the guy in the saddle for him. BRING BACK A CIVILIAN EXECUTIVE BRANCH. If Clark is nominated, I'll support him as ABB but I want any other Dem candidate to recover from the military coup we are suffering.

[seventhson]

100. Damn! Hear Hear!!! I heartily agree. Almost.

ABB but I reserve the right to vote for somebody other than Clark, Bush or Kerry if it comes right down to it.

That is my right (which I probably WON'T exercise, but anyway...)

[Cappurr]

111. What you fail to mention....

is that Clark Voluntarily submitted to the World Court and was aquitted. And since you failed to mention that I can only assue that you picked that piece of rubbish up from a right wing site (since I'm sure you are not deliberately trying to mislead)

[seventhson]

119. umm.... link ? Source???

I think this may be a little skewed

[Donna Zen]

115. Whoa! A Milo-lover

Charges brought in Belgrade by who....Milosovec....against....Clinton and Clark

Oh damn! damn! and they were cleared because I murderous thug brought the charges. Hey_let me tell you, Stevens ain't got nothing on Milo.

Or how about this: arrest everyone in Little Rock who has ever worked or knows someone who someone who worked for Stevens. Happy now?

I worked for a fortune 500 company once...VP. I knew what went on in my dept. But under these new catch-all guide lines, I should be held responsible for everything that company ever did. Right?

Thoreau said it best when asked what he was doing in jail for refusing to pay taxes during the Mex-Am war..."What are you doing out there?"

You pay your taxes? No...okay then you are pure. If the answer is "yes" then it is time to tar yourself with your ever widening brush and declare a love of your new BFEE label. These leaps of logic would indicate any ability to be rational in a discussion. Hell, I driven through Texas several times, it might be time to make the old James Bath connection spew.

You have reached the point when any two disconnected pieces of information can suddenly and magically be related even if all other facts discount your theory. Now some people might call that fraud, but I would prefer to think of it as a concrete mindset who proper application could earn the big-bucks in some fundy ministery.

[KC21304]

44. That is nothing. He holds Kerry responsible for something he claims

his ancestors did over a hundred years ago.

[seventhson]

52. Stephens Financed Bush. Stephens hired Clark. Stephens used Saudi $$$

to finance Bush.

Clark went to work for the people who were BEHIND Bush's financial rise to prominence.

Any questions???


Damn I love the internet.

THANK you Albert Gore Jr!!!

Clark is toast

mark my words

[seventhson]

54. PS If Howard Dean were to tap Clark as his VP he is too stupid to...

BE Commander in Chief.

Hell, If he knows anything about history he will recognize a Trojan Horse

[Pastiche423]

60. That is the only thing

that would make be lose my support for Dean. It would mean he is not the man I think he is.

[seventhson]

68. It would also be suicidal...

the BFEE would take him out in a heartbeat if Clark were VP IMHO.

[Pastiche423]

71. Stop reading my thoughts

[stickdog]

73. Yeah, I used to love the idea of a Dean/Clark ticket.

But that was when I thought Clark was an independent minded individual, not a political free agent.

[seventhson]

101. Do You Mean Mercenary?

when you say free agent???

[OKNancy]

84. Stephens is a player

He gave money to Democrats too. Lots to Clinton.

[Sterling]

92. So?

and that means?

[seventhson]

106. On Stephens: Bad Guys ALWAYS play both ends against the Middle

That means that Stephens bought Bush AND Clinton AND Clark.

Is THAT a GOOD thing???

No.

It is classic Machiavellian political maneuvering.

The fact that Stephens financed Dubya, financed Clinton AND financed Clark when he hired Clark ...

ought to give everyone who wants regime change and the EXPULSION of the PNAC/DLC crowd


a major PAUSE....


before they get behind the smelly behind of the opportunist General Clark who ran the wars in Columbia AND Kosovo for the Military Industrial Complex

Drugs, Guns, Oil and.....


WAR PROFFFFFIIIITTTSSSSS!!!!!


YIPPPEEEEE!!!!

General Claaaaaaarrrrkkkkk!!!!!


Nooooooooootttttt!!!!!!!!

Just Say No To Herr General Clark in 2004!!!!

[OKNancy]

109. You like Gore don't you

and you like hit pieces by Counterpunch.....go read this


http://www.counterpunch.org/wti2.html

( I adore Al Gore so I'm just posting this to prove a point that not everything you read on the internet is true)

[seventhson]

112. I never said Gore was PERFECT

It is NOT the same as working for the people who financed Bush's career as Clark did.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. good one

Clever play on the anti-Dean threads alledging his followers will go third party if he doesn't win. Clark vs. Dean is fun. In that matchup, I guess I prefer Clark simply for the electability reasons. Aside from that I don't see much difference.

[seventhson]

5. except the "it" factor

Bush "it" that is

[FloridaPat]

6. It's almost a year until the election. It looks like Clark is

going to say loudly and clearly what he knows about Bush. Maybe, just maybe, the news media will quote him. He's in the best position for that. A lot can happen between now in next August.

[seventhson]

10. If Clark starts spilling the beans about Stephens, MPRI, and the Saudis

then I will start listening to him.

[Sterling]

31. Me too

I reserve the right to change my mind on Clark but it is up to him.

[sally343434]

9. I don't think Clark can win

Whether or not the man has his heart in the right place or is a stealth candidate, or whatever else you may say positive or negative about him, he would be undesirable as a presidential candidate.

For one thing, he has no legislative experience. Nobody in recent history without legislative experience has ever been elected president. Sure, it is possible that he could be elected anyway. But that’s like saying it is possible that I’ll win the lottery, or that it is possible the sun will rise in the west tomorrow.

Another thing is that his positions on issues seem to wander too much. He's a weather vane devoid of convictions. This is an admirable quality in the military, where he is expected to take orders. However, we don't need or want that in a president.

Third, his running for president would make 2004 the year of the "khaki election." That may be fine in banana republics where their leaders wear epaulets. But not here.

There are a lot of other reasons why Clark is either unelectable, undesirable as a candidate, or both. But I want to conclude this by saying that, if by some bizarre combination of impossible coincidences he ends up being nominated, I would support him. I am in the "anyone but bush" camp. As bad as Clark may or may not be, he is, by default, far better than Bush.

[seventhson]

14. I wish I could be sure that you are right on this

ABB?

Probably. But I am not yet convinced that Clark is not WORSE than Bush.

[Sterling]

16. I am still unconvinced he was against the war.

Even the DLC knows now a pro war Dem will not be nominated. If that happens a lot of the momentum from that group will be lost.

[TeeYiYi]

90. ABB unless . . .

. . . unless Clark is a ringer for PNAC who are sharp enough
to cover all bases in light of shrub's propensity for self destruction
and in preparation for the advent that * is fast becoming unelectable,
in which case we (democrats and true liberals) are screwed.

TYY

[mike_c]

11. Clark will have to convince me...

...and I think he has a greater likelihood of splintering the Democratic party than any other candidate. At this point, I'm less likely to vote for a career militarist than any other potential candidate. Clark (along with about half the other dem candidates) will absolutely drive me to the greens if they run a candidate. At this point. Things could change, but I fundamentally distrust a career miliatist as much as I distrust DINO's and repigs.

[Pepperbelly]

21. so if you don't get the candidate nominated that you want ...

you bolt to the Greens?

And you question Clark's committment to the Democratic Party?

That is RICH.

[mike_c]

24. yep, if the dems don't nominate a candidate that's...

...liberal and progressive enough for me, and the Greens do, then they get my vote. I've voted the straight dem ticket for thirty years, but today's democratic party is a shadow of the liberal opposition I once believed in. And nominating a GENERAL because he's perceived as better able to prosecute the "war" on terrorism, drugs, poverty, or whatever the war du jour is will not cut it with me anymore. Sorry.

[JohnKleeb]

25. I assume you support Kucinich?

Pardon me if I am wrong I share your views on what the party needs to be.

[mike_c]

36. as a matter of fact....

...I'd vote for Kucinich in a skinny minute. Dennis Kucinich getting the democratic party nomination is my absolute wet dream. It would restore my faith in the democratic party for another 30 yrs.....

[JohnKleeb]

45. sweetness good for you

Its my dream too. I am a dem but technically I should be a green or even socialist like.

[seventhson]

72. Be grateful you are getting an incredible political education here, John

I wish I had had such "mentors"

Things move fast in this world,

but the old ways are crumbling and the new ways are very very special, even if painful.

I happen to be a believer in the philosophy that the TRUTH is the only comfort there is and that the good and the just will prevail -ultimately.

[Sterling]

77. Yes I feel lucky

It is a great coincidence that so many progressive thinkers found this place and have stayed long enough for us to learn from each other’s experiences.

[seventhson]

121. It's Synchronicity

Read Jung and then check out Andre Breton

on edit: that's Carl Jung

Breton is the father of surrealist poetry and he worked with the underground in Europe during Hitler with friends of my father (1940-1)

[Pepperbelly]

33. your vote is your vote but I ...

think your idea of why people support Clark is both arrogant and shallow at the same time. Your assumption is that you, of course, know more than us poor slobs and that what's more, you know why we support our candidate even though I have heard none of his supporters even mouth those words that you wrote. Shallow because you clearly are not well grounded in what the man has said nor do you seem particularly interested in finding out.

Well, I hope my guy wins and if ceding the nomination to someone else is what will keep you in the party, then don't let teh door hit you on the ass. :D

[mike_c]

38. like I said...

...most likely to splinter the democratic party. Dude, that door doesn't worry me anymore.

[Pepperbelly]

43. whatever ...

if I have to sacrifice what I want to keep you, then hasta la vista, baby. Compromise is certainly not a one-way street and I is quite odd that you apparently believe that to keep you on hand, the Party has to nominate who you want exactly.

Whatever.

Enjoy yourself.

[Sterling]

50. I think it is fair for him to vote for who he feels represents

his beliefs. I thought that was what living in a democracy was all about no?

Unlike some people I don't feel my candidate is entitled to anyone's vote. They have to earn his just like they do mine.

[Pepperbelly]

67. his vote like i said ...

and at the same time, if he expects me to negotiate away MY top choice because he wants to pick up his toys and go elsewhere, tough shit. I'm for my guy. I hope I win. If I do and Clark gets the nomination and he wants to leave, it is his right.

Of course, I wouldn't do that. I would enthusiastically support my Party's nominee through the general election. But that's just me.

[Kahuna]

13. So he wasn't a political person. He's said that..

time after time. Nothing new here.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[JohnKleeb]

22. I remember when a discussion about Kucinich

brought you two in agreement :) interesting.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[JVS]

103. LOL. A whole string of deleted posts and only you are left over.

things are really going nuts here

[JohnKleeb]

123. got me man

One of those was mine honestly. I dont know what I said that poed people I just said that Will has a right to his concerns as does seventh. Damn abriration sucks.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[stickdog]

40. Sorry, SIR. Falling in line now, SIR.

;-)

[Closer]

57. LOL

There are some scary :scared: people here! MY GOD!

[carpetbagger]

23. He's on the record re: no 3rd party run.

As to transferability of his supporters to the nominee, neither he nor Howard Dean (who's said he can't) nor any other candidate can guarantee that. I hope most of them will. I think Clark will work towards that. If he loses, he will have spent several months preaching what the eventual nominee will probably be running on. Clark's people aren't going to go Green, and I doubt many of the active supporters will go to Bush.

[renie408]

41. Is this the same way he is on the record for his stand on the IWR??

[carpetbagger]

96. Half the people running have that position.

If the press would actually listen to more than three words of what a candidate has to say, and maybe if democratic activists would actually listen to candidates instead of looking for dirt, their position would look pretty clear.

They supported giving the president a viable threat of force. They expected the president to use that wisely, in the spirit in which it was passed, to force inspections, and to leverage for UN support should good faith inspections fail. They opposed the president's use of force in the time and manner it was applied, and believe that those issues are the ones that have driven us into the current difficulties.

These people are running for president. They're not running for a place in the Senate under a second Bush term. I could really care less about what war powers and in what circumstances Wes Clark would grant Bush. I could care less that John Edwards voted to give Bush the green light. I BLAME GEORGE BUSH, AND ONLY GEORGE BUSH, FOR GETTING US INTO A UNILATERAL, POSSIBLY UNNECCESARY WAR, ON FALSE PREMISES. I blame him for not thinking ahead. I blame him for breaking several of the Ten Commandments he gives such lip service to.

[Pastiche423]

26. I must admit

I was always nervous about clark. My 1st impression of him was not good and it has only gotten worse.

Those that play by the repug rules, will always lose. If not the election, then everything the Democratic Party stands for.

[JohnKleeb]

27. You know my reasons

[Closer]

28. Be afraid of Clark

Be very, very afraid of him. And that's not a compliment either. This man is trouble.

[Sterling]

30. I feel a sham in the making

I knew the DLCers would not die that easy.

[Closer]

53. You nailed it.

Clark is a DLC candidate, tried and true. Those in charge don't want a candidate powered by the People. That would be too much like a true democracy.


"They" want to stop Dean. It's that simple. And this is the man they pick. But it will blow up in their faces. I feel assured of that.

[Sterling]

82. I think it will too. The DLC underestimated the anti war people

before the war and now I believe they are taking for granted we will not look behind the curtain to check into Clarks agenda and background. They are wrong again as usual.

[KoKo]

104. yeah, Sterling, but we really didn't know which one it was...the Sham.....

had to go through them all.....dark.........

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. Wow

that message is downright Delphic....


hmmmmmmmmm...........

[Sterling]

48. Kind of like the warnings about Iraq?

The right wing Dems should have listened then and should be listening now. I think it's time the DLCers let someone else do the driving.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. And Who Pray Tell Would That Be

Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton- the only folks in this race with true progressive creds....

[stickdog]

61. So it's either the DLC establishment or the impossible dream, eh?

And you just can't understand why Dean's the frontrunner ...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. It's The Narcissism Of Small Differences

DK, AS, and CMB are the only candidates that offer a fundamentally different path....

[Sterling]

89. I don't see that

I think Dean offers a new direction for the left. In the way we fight the right. He may not be progressive but compared to all the right wing DLC war types he is certainly progress.

[Sterling]

85. I think Dean stands for fundamental change in the way the right wing

is opposed. By playing to the people and not corporate cash. While Dean is not a socialist I believe his approach to dealing with the right wing is progress if not progressive.

The point is the right wing dems had their chance and the blew it. They like Bush have been proven wrong on Iraq like almost everything else and it is time for them to step aside.

[Khephra]

65. In the past week

I've gone from being a pro-Clark Deanie to a guarded-Pro-Clark Deanie.

[Closer]

120. Keep reading about him and his history

and you'll soon become an ANTI-Clark Deanie.

[Terwilliger]

76. OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[stickdog]

110. Losing your sense of humor, Terwilliger? (nt)

[Terwilliger]

113. it's not funny...its asinine

[stickdog]

117. It's funny

because it's asinine.

Me & Will are just two wiild and craazy guys!

[althecat]

79. And then there is the Waco connection....

+ the fact that he commanded in Kosovo is far from all good. Yes it is better than Iraq. But here was a war in which the US bombed the bejesus out of Yugoslavia from 15,000 meters... in which huge numbers of civilians died... in which the US decided to bomb the Chinese Embassy and then claim it was an accident... and in which Depleted Uranium was used without any thought of the consequences.

[Sterling]

91. He seems to have been a lot of places I would prefer

to have our next Prez not have been. His military record is a little shady as well. I think that airport bit was a little gung ho and foolish.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

93. Absu-fucking-lutely. I've had it with 'massive collateral damage.'

We must de-militarize the executive branch. No more professional fascists or killers. IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

[WillyBrandt]

94. SMEAR ALERT - SMEAR ALERT - SMEART ALERT

Just two lies you manage to compress above:

- The Waco connection. Thanks for deceit by innuendo, bub. Got anymore quotes from National Review or Sean Hannity to throw our way? What exactly are you saying, and where exactly is the proof?

- The US, and you seem to presume Clark in particular, intentionally bombed the Chinese embassy in Serbia. What evidence do you have of this at all? Or is innendo your MO?

Bush couldn't step foot in Iraq today without boos and bullets. Here's Clinton in Kosovo a few days ago:

[Sterling]

97. He was involved in WACO, nothing to be proud of there I am afraid

Honestly we don't need anybody associated with WACO in the WH. It was a terrible tragedy.

Kosovo is a little odd too. I don't like his airport order and I can't figure out why we were backing OBL's guys over there. It's just not a feather in his cap I am afraid. Maybe it won't hurt him but I don't think it helps.

[Donna Zen]

118. Two investigations

Reno...yes

Clinton...yes

Clark...no

But you know everything! And do you know why? Because all you do is make it up. Getting a little hungry?


Limbaugh is full of shit.

[althecat]

122. Since You Asked.... Not My Smear... the evidence is on the record...

And yes... Limbaugh sucks... but that doesn't explain why so many folks seem so keen on getting a declared Nixon supporter on the ticket as the Democrat candidate...

And yes Clinton and Reno were up to their necks in Waco. And doesn't that just make you the teensiest bit interested in how come Bubba thinks the sun shines where Clark steps foot...

There are plenty of rational people out there BTW who reckon that the fact that Clinton backs Clark is evidence enough alone to be worried about him....

http://www.rense.com/general42/clark.htm

PARTIAL EXTRACT FOLLOWS...

Gen Wesley Clark - From Waco to Yugoslavia
From Ron Harold 9-23-3

The US military was at Waco

General Wesley Clark was involved in the siege and final assault near Waco, Texas that killed, by a combination of toxic gas and fire, at least 82 people including some three dozen women, children and infants. As outlandish as this claim may seem, it's a reasonable conclusion that can be drawn by any fair minded person who takes the time to examine the evidence. Further, there is substantial circumstantial evidence that, Clark, in addition to acting as a tactical consultant, may, in fact, have been the prime architect and commander of the entire operation.

If this is true, why is it important? First, it represents a clear violation of US law. The military is banned from involvement in the enforcement of US civil law except under certain carefully defined circumstances. The incident at Waco did not come even close to legally qualifying. Second, it casts light on some of the more outrageous tactics used in the war against Yugoslavia, in particular the bombing attacks on Yugoslavian news media, essential life support services, and on civilians, the latter which were sometimes, but not always, described as "accidents." Third, President Clinton began the year with the statement that he is considering a Pentagon proposal to create a new US military command, commander-in-chief for the defense of the continental U.S., a first in peace time and an alarming move for reasons described in "Bombing 'suspended' - and now, the future"

http://www.brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/directory/61099a.html
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/clark.htm
http://www.corvusworld.com/clark.htm

Plus before you start being insulting it may pay to do a bit of research at Sam Smith's

http://www.prorev.com/

[althecat]

124. And as for the Chinese embassy...

Do you really beleive that was an accident. If so you must be a great deal more foolish than you sound...

http://www.fair.org/activism/embassy-bombing.html

A detailed investigative article in the October 17 London Observer reported that NATO deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade last May, after discovering that the embassy was relaying Yugoslav military radio signals.

The report contradicted the public assurances of NATO leaders that the missile attack had been an accident. The Observer's sources included "a flight controller operating in Naples, an intelligence officer monitoring Yugoslav radio traffic from Macedonia and a senior headquarters officer in Brussels."

So far, the reaction in the mainstream U.S. media has been a deafening silence. To date, none of America's three major network evening news programs has mentioned the Observer's findings. Neither has the New York Times or USA Today, even though the story was covered by AP, Reuters and other major wires. The Washington Post relegated the story to a 90-word news brief in its "World Briefing" (10/18/99), under the headline "NATO Denies Story on Embassy Bombing."

[KoKo]

102. ROFL, Stickdog....but get what you say...........

Yes......that's the worry.......:-(

[boxster]

105. Damn, who lit this thread on fire?

Never seen so many deleted posts....

[stickdog]

114. It was just some random Will Pitt bashing.

Nothing too bad, but against the rules.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

116. You're not the only one...

...For any unknown candidate with no prior political history to go from a standing start to being one of the leaders of the pack makes me a little nervous. IMHO, there are just too many conflicting reports, and too many connections to people that I find morally reprehensible.

Clark is either:

1) what he professes to be in public;

or...

2) being handled by those that want to hedge their bets against the very real possibility Bush may lose in 2004;

or...

3) somewhere along that spectrum.

The real catch here is trying to determine just where he is along that spectrum.

I want to know more about this guy. If that makes me a target for the Clarkies, so be it. But they better come up with more substance than telling me I should basically shut up like I've been told before.

[Donna Zen]

125. Wanting to know more

is a good.

Becoming a vessel for unsubstaniated hatred will fill you to the brim with the ravings of those who take refuge in their ability to couple unrelated information and call it gospel. Let no fact get in the way.

There are many people who operate with this flawed logic and can be found preaching in the fundamentalist pulpits. They are so adept at intellectual dishonesty, that people believe them who should know better.

The mindset of derision is not confined to wingnut forums.

I suggest you begin your journey with the writing of those who actually know Clark, Richard Holbrooke gives one a good third person look. Or take a peak at what Joe Conason has to say about the man: "America's Best and Brightest." Or try Christopher Hedges: an honorable man. Conason mused on how we would treat this man...he could have never imagined how badly.

http://www2.observer.com/observer/pages/conason.asp

[althecat]

126. This thread is needed to balance Will Pitts.... :)

Kick....

And who's going to answer the questions on Waco?