Have most DUers jumped of the Clark wagon?

[usregimechange]

Has there been a poll to indicate where DUers stand recently? I like Clark but his recent Republican activities give me pause.

[roguevalley]

1. haven't heard

this 'repug activities' thing is so sad. apparently in america
you aren't allowed to change your mind, grow or become a good
citizen. you are held to the same standard forever. if that is
so, then Dean has a medicare problem that will never, ever go
away.

[usregimechange]

2. humm

The fear is that he hasn't changed his mind. That he is puting forth a liberalized for the campaign image. Dean was talking about how medicare was operating not the program itself.

[Dr Fate]

3. Clark is Clinton's friend...

...that's good enough for me. I suppose next you will tell me Clinton was engaged in "republican activities"


I like Clark too (except I'm serious- I really do like Clark)- but I am unaware of his "republican activities"

[usregimechange]

6. ???

I don't think clinton voted for Reagan and recently spoke at a Republican fund raiser.

[Closer]

7. Don't forget

Bush I and Nixon, too. Not just Reagan.

[Dr Fate]

14. And then he worked for Clinton and voted for Gore...

Why dont you be productive and Bash Republicans or Bush- you have done litle except bash Clark since you have been posting here...

[usregimechange]

29. well

If you were talking to me I first supported Kerry than Dean than clark and now back to Dean, although somewhat undecided the whole time. Leaning is perhaps a better word than support.

[Dr Fate]

31. Oh I believe you!!!

I really do- what was it you said- you like Clark but now you have misgivings about him...

Yeah- kerry to Dean to Clark back to Dean- well- how convinient for you- since you are all over the map, I guess you wont have to answer any specific questions about where you stand on DEM issues..

[usregimechange]

32. sure

I will answer and issue related question anyone asks. I know where I stand on the issues. I am not sure who is best to take out the shrub.

[Dr Fate]

36. Okay- how do you feel about Clark's stance on gun control?

?

[usregimechange]

44. I like it

we don't need more federal laws at this point. Research is mixed on this issue AND the public benefit of more gun laws. I support a more moderate position on guns. That being said, I am not sure if he has listed specifics, just my impression of what he has said.

[Dr Fate]

13. I did not say Clinton did- he is Clark's friend.

And it looks like he is speaking at Democratic fundraisers to me.

I'd like to know where he stands on the issues NOW- Clark does not need to justify his vote to me- I know lots of good folks who voted for Reagan

You are just DEM bashing and trying to stir up shit- you dont fool me for one minute.

[Kahuna]

26. "Recent" is relative. It was May of 2001 before the..

bushistas had blaringly revealed their fascist agenda.

[Dr Fate]

34. That is why the poster refused to give us a link...

...he was trying to fool people. Not me and you though.

I wish DU enforced a strict "Link Rule"- this flame would not even be occurring if the poster had given us the facts in the 1st place.

[Tinoire]

37. Then what you're saying is that this Rhoad's scholar isn't as bright as DU

because this place was already buzzing in May 2001 with people who were quite aware of the damage Bush had already done.

His degree is in economics isn't it? Yet you'd like us to believe that a brilliant Rhoads scholar economist was still admiring Bush after the economy had plunged and crashed and the war drums were already beating?

Hmmm, guess I'll have to go through the DU archives and see all the stuff DUers knew about the blatant revelations of Bush's fascist agenda back then... Maybe propose one of those for the Democratic nomination? After all, we were able to see it. Maybe Clark was too busy working with Homeland Security to notice.

[Dr Fate]

42. No links for any of this?

I implore everyone, incuding you to go to

www.mediawhoresonline.com

Search the past 6 issues or so- you will find that much of this "Clark is a republican" crap has been disputed. Some of the allegations were even repeated on Rush and Drudge (friends of DEMS?- or trying to smear DEMS?)

Yet- it gets repeated here at DU as if it were gospel.

Please do me a huge favor and read these counter stories before you post links with half-quotes- can you do that- just this once-for DEM unity?

[Tinoire]

53. I've read the counter stories and I've also done my own research

I had already concluded a lot of the things being bandied about right now waay before they started coming out- it's really not that difficult to piece together if you search.

I've posted a ton of sourced stuff about why I reached this conclusion and it will be very difficult to sway me after years working in the Defense Industry and the things I've found in Clark's history. Which links would you like? I will be happy to provide them to you. I am a Progressive Democrat and I have no time to play with the DLC. There is plenty of work in the DU archives about the DLC
s links to AEI (American Enterprise Instititute) which has been pushing PNAC. You've been here a while- did you not read those stories? I can't start from scratch tonight.

Interestingly enough, I have never said that Clark was a Republican- the DLC is not that stupid but I posted plenty of evidence that he was not a Democrat over the last few weeks- this to the FURY of die hard Clark supporters but the evidence was there in plain site- down to his announcement earlier this month that he had finally decided to register as a Democrat- but that, Clark supporters said, was a lie. Turns out it wasn't. Here's my thread about Clark having considered running on the Republican ticket, sourced and linked, to include the lavish praise he made about the neo-cons between 2001 and up until 2003 in that famous Salon article.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=423043#top

I have no intention of getting into pissing contests with people right now. This is simply too important to me. Our country is on the verge of fascism and the PNAC crowd is not going to go away lightly.

After a lot of research and discussion with fellow DUers who did extensive research into the neo-cons, PNAC, AEI and have been following world developments closely, a possible conclusion is this:

they will go after him with insider information. Can we believe for a minute that Rove won't bring out the information about Clark's calls to him and all the information they have in the meticulously kept dossiers they have on all high-ranking military officers and lobbyists? Clark is their insurance. They get him the Democratic nomination and then they sabotage him. In the off chance that he actually wins, he's one of them anyway. One of them with less ties to the religious right which is going to abandon Bush to some extent anyway.

It may make people angry but I would rather they be angry now and at least look at the information openly and make up their own minds instead of listening to Talking Point Memo news. Lots of good decent people fell for and voted for Bush because they refused to listen and refused to look- partisan pride... We too can be guilty of the same thing.

Here is a little but you should do your own research and form your own conclusions.

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 of the according to their home page.

Notice Markle's pride in their work on Homeland Security Page and all their fascinating reports re HOMELAND SECURITY, NATIONAL ID CARDS/DOCUMENT FRAUD/WIRETAPS/PRIVACY and ANALYSES OF NEW LEGISLATION, THE PATRIOT ACT, NEW FBI GUIDELINES, etc...

I don't get the warm tinglies about them. Nor do I get warm tinglies about
Zoe Baird, Markle's President being 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.

Some of Markle's fine work has really impressive titles such as Task force: Homeland Security Dept., not FBI, should shape info priorities There are a ton more.

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.

For me this warrants more scrutiny and open discussion.

** The Brookings Institute describes itself in the following terms:

"A private, independent, nonprofit research organization, Brookings
seeks to improve the performance of American institutions, the effectiveness of government ..."

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

A little look at their Board of Trustees (for those who care) reveals a mass of CEOs and other impressive business figures, sprinkled with reps from academia, and also including 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 andThe 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

-----------

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
----

Then you've got Acxiom and there's been a ton of talk about them at DU lately because of the Jet Blue scandal. Clark is still on the board of Directors to this very day and I believe it's in this thread that I posted his 2003 Lobbyist papers where he was lobbying for some rather interesting things- just look at the documents. If you use the link at the end of that post, you can do a search for the previous years' papers to see what he was lobbying for. Anything else you want to look at let me know. I'm not out to crucify Clark but I am out to make sure people who support him do so with open eyes and that those on the fence have the right information to make their choice. I will honestly tell you that after everything I've found that I would vote for Lieberman before voting for Clark. I have a ton more but I am extremely tired. If you want more, PM me with the link to this thread and I'll come post it.

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.
http://www.directmag.com/ar/marketing_wesley_clark_keeps/
--
THE CORPORATE LIBRARY
RELATED PARTY ARCHIVES

From the 2003 Acxiom Corporation Proxy:

<snip>

During the past fiscal year we had an agreement with an affiliate of Stephens Group, Inc. ("Stephens"), whereby we retained the consulting services of a former Stephens employee who is also one of our board members, General Wesley K. Clark, in connection with our pursuit of contracts with various government agencies. Under the agreement, commissions were payable to the Stephens affiliate on revenue from government contracts attributable to Clark's efforts, which commissions were to be offset against an annual consulting fee of $300,000. As of March 1, 2003, General Wesley K. Clark resigned from Stephens and founded Wesley K. Clark & Associates, a business services and development firm. As of that date we replaced the agreement with the Stephens affiliate with an agreement with Wesley K. Clark & Associates for the consulting services of General Clark. Under the terms of the new agreement, Acxiom will pay Clark an annual retainer of $150,000 plus commissions for new business obtained through Clark's efforts, which commissions will be offset against the retainer.

<snip>

http://public.thecorporatelibrary.net/Transactions/rel_ACXM_2003.html

Sep 18 2003

While Clark is maintaining his position on Acxiom’s board of directors, he did terminate his consulting agreement with the company upon announcing his candidacy. That contract was valued at $150,000 per year, said Ingram.

<snip>
http://www.directmag.com/ar/marketing_wesley_clark_keeps/

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

72. You ask for links and you get links.

Remind me to never fuck with you.





:smoke:

[IndianaGreen]

68. What is not in dispute is Clark's endorsement of Bush and his team

on March 2001. It is remarkable that in those remarks at a GOP fundraiser, which are now preserved for posterity on videotape, Clark failed to express any concerns about Bush vs. Gore or about the Florida recount. Does this mean that Clark thought that Bush won the election fair and square? That's another question we should be asking the General.

[dkf]

75. More praise for Rumsfeld in 2000

http://www.theunionleader.com/granite_show.html?article=27079

PoliticsNH.com reported last weekend that at a house party in New Castle, when Clark was asked what he would do in Iraq if elected, he said, “First of all I would change the secretary of defense. . .”

But in December 2000 Clark, on NBC’s “Today” show, had called Rumsfeld “an inspired choice. He’s got great experience, he’s got great international stature, he knows the issues. He’s coming into familiar terrain. And he’s certainly going to be a member of a very strong team with General (Colin) Powell and Dick Cheney there.”

[DoveTurnedHawk]

77. Umm...So What?

We already knew Clark said nice things about the then-mostly untested Cabinet as late as March 2001. December 2000 was even before that, and most of the nation was in a "heal the divide, stop the partisanship" mood after Florida by then.

DTH

[Kahuna]

49. What I'm saying is has a busy and important life and doesn't

spend his life on DU, Bartcop or Buzzflash. Got it now?

[Tinoire]

59. Gotcha! And too busy to register as a Dem too right?

At least Clinton could multi-task ;)


You're too funny. People who never even log onto the internet knew Bush had already ruined this country by May 2001. The stock had already tanked and the term "Bush Recession" had already been coined for a few months even though the recession itself had begun in 2000.

My 65 year old father who didn't even know how to turn on a computer had already figured out the entire gameplan with enough accuracy to warn me where to move my stocks in 2000 and he was a hell of busy man.

Economists with lesser degrees saw it coming. Peace Activists saw it coming. 16 year olds saw it coming! 50 year old widows were putthing their money in Euros because they saw it coming.

But hell, Wesley was too busy to see it coming. You really have to wonder about this guy who still in March 2003 was heaping roses on Bush. What's the rationalization for everything he missed between May 2001 and March 2003 when he still hadn't seen the light?

[Forkboy]

69. I get one thing

you're a very insulting and arrogant person.

[seventhson]

8. Oh come on

Clark was a republican

Clinton himself has the Mena issue which has never really been fully investigated and exposed

Clark was an Arkansan in bed with the Stephens group which arranged Saudi financing for Bush's Harken and later backed Clinton

It is messy

and not easy to dismiss at all

[Dr Fate]

17. Seventhson- I've always known where you stand. LINK??????

You may think that you fool Admin and the mods- but not me. Go ahead- alert me- just know that I know that you know that I know...blah blah blah...

It is noted that you refused to link your Clinton/Clark scandal allegation as well. A tactic you often deploy.

Have you proved the Bush/Kerry nazi connections yet no link for that either huh?- Oh that's right- you mostly bash Clark now that he is the frontrunner rather than Kerry.

So tell us MORE about this Clinton/Clark scandal that you suggest- and give us the sources.

[Kahuna]

28. He's a registered independent. Stop repeating Howard's LIES...

You think Howard would have check Clark's registration before going all over the media and calling Clark a repub. Hasn't Dean once again exposed himself as a liar who will say anything to get elected.

Plus, on Sunday he said Clark was a repub until 25 days ago...On Monday he said Clark was a repub until 25 days ago.. Today, he said Clark was a repub until 25 days ago... Can Howard count? Two weeks from now he will be saying, Clark was a repub until 25 days ago...

[Wonk]

65. Wes Clark, in his own words,

200k

Everytime I see a Clarkie bashing one of the other Dem candidates I'm going to post this again O8)

[bicentennial_baby]

4. No way baby!

This Clark supporter is holding it down for the General over here at DU, along with several others. :bounce:

[KittyWampus]

5. Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been,

A member of the Republican party?

Some DU'ers would have us segregate ourselves... with Democrats living, working and breeding only with "pure" Democrats.

Some DU'ers would have only extremists and agitators to represent our view in government... forgetting that moderate voices are often more effective and lasting then harsh.

I would highly encourage DU'ers to read the Talking Point Memo that features Clark. It helps paint a picture of a highly intelligent man who is definately NOT feigning to be a Democrat and who is capable of exposing and dismantling the PNAC agenda.

[bicentennial_baby]

10. Best Interview!

Oh, I loved it! I've almost got my American Foreign Policy prof. sold on Clark, and I think a copy of the TPM interview will push him fully into Clark's corner.

[usregimechange]

11. If

he becomes President and sends a Scalia to the High Court, I would begin to question your value nuetral stance.

[KittyWampus]

15. Everything I've Read Of Clark's

Leads me to state categorically that he would NOT nominate a partisan idealouge like Scalia.

By the way, he is pro-abortion...

[usregimechange]

19. he does

say he is pro-abortion and also said he liked Breyer on the High Court, which I liked. I love Justice Breyer!

[Dr Fate]

22. What makes you think he would do that- anything to back that up?

Where are you getting this information? It sounds like you are justly grabbing for straws, just to bash Clark and stir up trouble.

Where in the hell did you hear he would appoint Conservative judges?

[usregimechange]

25. it was

a hypothetical because you were saying we should not be concerned about his political views.

[Dr Fate]

35. His views are Democratic- pro-gay, pro-choice, anti-Bush tax plan

...he is for sensible gun control, and he openly stuck up for anti-war activists when it was unpopular to do so-unlike MANY REGISTERED DEMS mind you. He is for the UN, not anti-UN like Bush.

If we are to judge him by this, one would think he would appoint Liberal judges.

I hate to break the rules, but I dont believe you- It's just DEM bashing, and I'm calling you on it.

[usregimechange]

41. ok,

Look. If Clark were conservative and is simply saying he is not out of political convenience he would appoint conservative judges. In the absense of a voting record all you have is past activities. His past activities (i.e. behavioral evidence) suggests that he is more comfortable with at least Kennedy over Breyer. The concern may not turn out to be valid but it is not mere Dem bashing. I have been on the verge of climbing on board with the general.

[Dr Fate]

43. His past activities suggest he is "comfortable" with Bill Clinton

...rahter than conservative judges.

[usregimechange]

45. His support for Clinton

does seem to indicate that he is a centrist and not at all right wing.

[MercutioATC]

9. I have no problem with Clark, but I'm still a staunch Dean supporter.

It'd take quite a lot to get me to switch my loyalities. Dr. Dean has the message that I (and millions of others) respond to.

[usregimechange]

12. Yes

I am a Deany but his tax policy scares me. They will hit him hard on it as is.

[MercutioATC]

55. Actually, his tax policy sits really well with me.

I believe he's the only candidate that has the guts to tell it like it is as far as the tax cuts go. I also feel he can do SO much more by repealing them all and starting from scratch.

[JanMichael]

16. No! Why would you think that?

There's been an attack (on) "BY" Clarkites but they're just funny now.

I'd say we're about 25% Dean, 15-20% Clark, 15% Kucinich and the rest spread evenly. I could be wrong though.

[JohnKleeb]

20. good measurements JM

Yes there is attacks but studying recent polls even with the Clark stuff, Clark still has a considerable base. Me I still support Kucinich.

[Flying_Pig]

18. No. I am still on the fence. Until I have a complete and full...

understanding of Clark's positions on the I/P conflict, PNAC, and their allies, AIPAC/JINSA, and the JDL. Though Dean's call for "even-handedness" in the Middle East caused a near terminal furor for him, I feel, given that Israel has elected the fascist Likud government of Arial Sharon, that this is exactly the position that is needed by the U.S.

Backing Likud, means backing PNAC, and the Sharon/Bush regime's plans for world domination, and wars all over the Middle East, in a fight for real estate and oil. So, I really want to know what Clark has to say on these issues before *I* jump on his bandwagon.

[Tinoire]

52. Here's what I have so far on I/P

"But the problem is," Clark continued, "when you have hard intelligence that you´re about to be struck, it´s the responsibility of a government to take action against that intelligence and prevent the loss of lives. It´s what any society would expect of its leadership. So there´s a limit to how much restraint can be shown."

Speaking to the New Democrat Network this year, Clark said that dismantling Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat´s Ramallah headquarters was "a legitimate military objective from their perspective.

"For the Israelis, this is a struggle really for the existence of Israel," Clark said in remarks quoted on a support group´s Web site.

<snip>

The former NATO leader also opposes any active international role in policing the West Bank until the political situation is settled, a view that Israelis — nervous at relinquishing control to foreign troops on their borders — would appreciate.

http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=13221&intcategoryid=3

------------------------
An article by General Wesley Clark, appearing in Time magazine, discussed the situation on the ground in Israel and the Palestinian territories praising “Israel for the way it fought the intifada inside Israel.” Describing the West Bank and Gaza as “inside Israel,” it praised “Israeli use of assassination, Apache helicopters, and armed vehicles, and all sorts of ways and means which Israel used to kill political leaders.”

Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), said Bishara, wrote an analysis of the region which said the future for the Israelis and the Palestinians was “either war or peace with violence,” with peace “not an option. Apparently in our region, we don’t deserve it.” Arafat is advised “to oppress Palestinians,” because “democracy is out of the door, all these American values that we always speak of, as usual, they stop at the gates of the Middle East.” Cordesman’s reasoning is seen by Bishara to be that if Arafat wants to make peace with Israel he needs to “use violence against the Palestinians.”

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/pubs/20011114ftr.html

Wesley Clark, btw is a distinguished senior adviser at CSIS but I haven't taken the time to read all of their papers.

[phegger]

61. I hope the rest of your sources are better than this--

An article by General Wesley Clark, appearing in Time magazine, discussed the situation on the ground in Israel and the Palestinian territories praising “Israel for the way it fought the intifada inside Israel.” Describing the West Bank and Gaza as “inside Israel,” it praised “Israeli use of assassination, Apache helicopters, and armed vehicles, and all sorts of ways and means which Israel used to kill political leaders.”

This is printed verbatim from a newsletter that does not provide a link to the original article. I've searched the Time archive and can't find any such article. If you know of it, please provide the info. Otherwise, I hope you'll forgive me for not placing much credence in a secondhand cut-and-paste job.


-ph :smoke:

[Tinoire]

64. Someone is really going to have to show you how to research

;) I'm beginning to wonder if what some of us are ascribing to pig-headedness isn't merely attributable to poor research skills. This would explain why so many Clark supporters aren't quite as informed as they could be.

The article, which took me 45 seconds to google, is:

1. (From the elusive Times Archives)

Oct. 23, 2000
How to Fight an Asymmetric War
Tactics and technologies, even when mismatched, evolve in a deadly lockstep
By GENERAL WESLEY K. CLARK (RET.)

In the darkest moments of our post-Vietnam experience, U.S. Army General Bill DePuy visited Israel. It was right after the 1973 October War, when Israeli forces defeated a series of massed Syrian armor attacks on the Golan Heights. This was a climactic battle, and the victory was close and costly. Syrians got their equipment and tactics from the Soviet Union. The U.S. Army worked closely with Israel. Together, we saw the need for more powerful tank guns; longer-range, all-weather optics; thicker armor; and better coordination among units. Defensive tactics were refined, complementing Israel's already... Click here to purchase the full article

The complete article is 757 words long.

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/from_redirect/0,10987,1101001023-57777,00.html

2. You can also find the full article here: http://www.greatertalent.com/clark.shtml

Here is a snippet

Then the Palestinians inside Israel learned how to resist using nonlethal force, like rocks and clubs. It was a tactic aimed at exploiting world sensitivities, forcing Israeli security forces to overreact. Occasionally the tactics were supplemented by armed men concealed among the rock throwers or by the use of terror bombings. This was the intifadeh.

Now you have to admit that that's just plain silly. Even the most die-hard pro-Israeli supporters on this board wouldn't openly say that the rock throwing Intifada had taken place inside of Israel. That there is settler talk.

<snip>

So Israel developed new equipment, new forces and new tactics. To secure its borders, Israel deployed more heavily armored tanks and troop-carrying vehicles. Apache helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles and very long-range optics were procured. To protect itself internally, Israel issued its infantrymen plastic bullets and other riot-control gear. Special security forces were organized to help relieve the conventional Israel units of responsibility for keeping order inside Israel. When confrontation with hostile crowds was unavoidable, Israel used restrictive rules of engagement – and snipers to respond to armed opponents – in an effort to minimize losses and avoid dramatic scenes that could inflame world opinion.

<snip>

But this latest response is unlikely to be decisive. The continuing struggle will be fought without high-technology ordnance. It will be an effort to prevent the assembling of large volatile crowds, minimize provocative incidents and gain the intelligence required by sniper teams and elite special forces. The key weapons will be intelligence assets and movement controls. Then it will be up to the police and security forces – and a few expert marksmen. The heavy weaponry will be there, but it will be in backup, a reminder of Israel’s determination to defend its people.

http://www.greatertalent.com/clark.shtml

[phegger]

70. Thanks for the information I asked for--

I bow to your superior googling skills. I'm neither pig-headed nor uninformed, thanks very much--but I appreciate the thought. ;)

As to the article, I'll take it under advisement. I've only heard Clark speak on the Palestinian/Israeli issue briefly, and it struck me that he seemed to address Israel's security concerns but nothing else. Hence my interest.


-ph :smoke:

[cally]

21. One more time

Newsweek is reporting that the Clark is a Republican story comes from the White House. It's there way of getting rid of this challenger.

I am concerned, but when I read this I refuse to be swayed from my consideration of Clarks ideas.

[usregimechange]

23. yes,

if true, good point.

[dkf]

76. Actually I think that the Clark is a Republican story is coming

from everyone:

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/7063.htm

Clark's opponents were having a field day yesterday with the retired general's gaffes.

"The only question is whether he is a Democratic lobbyist or a Republican lobbyist," scoffed Erik Smith, spokesman for Rep. Richard Gephardt (Mo.).

"I cannot believe that this party is even considering nominating someone who's not only not a Democrat, but is a registered Washington lobbyist," said Jano Cabrera, spokesman for Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.).

Fabiani said that formal papers terminating Clark's lobbyist license were sent off yesterday.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

78. You Quote the NY Post as an Example of NON-Right-Wing?

Come on.

Regardless, this non-issue will blow over in the next day or two, and to the extent it doesn't, the Clintons and members of the CBC will put this stupid horse out of its misery once and for all. It won't even require an endorsement to vouch for Clark's Democrat-ness.

DTH

[WillyBrandt]

24. Not this one

Despite GOP attempts to split the Democratic party by smearing Clark as a right-winger (what irony there), I know he's by far the most superior candidate, and would crush Bush in an election.

You realize that Clark's support at this point isn't fake or a fleeting fancy. His first two days or so were a bit weak, but he's caught his step, and there's no stopping us now. Clark's lead over the other Dems will continue to rise as he attracts BOTH Establishment as more grassroots support.

Clark can unite the party, and the nation.

(disclosure: I support Clark. if you hadn't guessed.)

[union_maid]

27. I don't think so

There's a vocal minority that really seem to believe the RW smears about him and some who want to wait and see, which is understandable, but if anything it seems to me a few more are leaning toward Clark each time he does an interview or appears in the media. Every time he speaks he gains converts, here and "out there" as well. Of course, I wouldn't think that people who are solidly committed to and/or working for a candidate would jump on over, but I don't think that Clark has lost as many as he's gained in his couple of weeks of campaigning.

[usregimechange]

30. well

one thing is for sure. I will support clark if he is the nominee 10000000000000000000000%

[Kanola]

33. As a Dean supporter I want to win..

and if Clark is the nominee I will support him. That is because I want the Bushco slimbucket out of office 2004.

[bicentennial_baby]

38. That's the spirit!

Send the Chimp back to Crawford!

[zeemike]

39. Yes you are right

A few more posts explaining away Clarks past and we will all take a loyalty oath to the party and the general for witch it stands.
And then we will be surprised as hell when Bush wins in a close election and Clark concedes for the sake of the country. We wouldn’t want another Florida would we?
We will be here in 05 talking about how he could have won if only Bush hadn’t found those WMD and killed Osama and Saddam just before the election. That is what made him jump in the polls. That is what did it you know, the people would have gone for the military man.

[catforclark2004]

56. At least Clark led with demands for Rush's firing...Dean jumped in after..

Now that's leadership!

[Mz Pip]

40. Still here

not changing my mind. He's doing very well despite the smears and attacks. No sign of that nasty arrogant thin skinned Republican some so like to talk about.

MzPip
:dem:

[usregimechange]

46. I think

he is an independent. Someone said he is registered that way. Is that true?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

47. He's an unindicted war criminal.

Whether or not DUers have abandoned Clark I am not sure of. Whether they SHOULD abandon Clark I am totally sure of.

He is NOT a Democrat, he is a centrist who has NO partisan ties to the Dems. He is ONLY running as a Dem because he sees that as his best chance of getting into the White House next year, I mean nobody really expects the Republicans to stab Bush in the back do they?

He is an unidicted war criminal who ordered the murders of civillian reporters in Serbia and other crimes that the ICTY refused to even INVESTIGATE.

He is a supporter of the PNAC agenda (though not necessarily the order or way that agenda is being carried out) and he was NOT against the Iraq war as a concept. He was, once again, against the way it was carried out, not the fact that it WAS carried out.

The rest of his policies have not even been fully enunciated, and when asked about where he stands on many issues Clark supporters can ONLY point to various quotes from the media, some contradictory, that SEEM to suggest he might think the way we do. On some important issues, they can't even point to that!

Don't be fooled. Clark is NOT a Dem, and I doubt he should be considered a Republican either. However, I do believe he is a crypto-rightist. He may even be more right wing that the Republicans. Here in NZ, such crypto-rightists took control of the Labour party and took us down the pro-corporate pro-internationalisation path that nearly destroyed the Labour party here.

Blair and his cohort are now doing the same thing to the Labour party in the UK. Do you want Clark to do the same to the Dems? Do you want to take that risk?

[usregimechange]

48. Source?

"He is an unidicted war criminal who ordered the murders of civillian reporters in Serbia and other crimes that the ICTY refused to even INVESTIGATE."

Please provide evidence or citations for this.

[The Magistrate]

51. The Court Quashed A Frivolous Attempt In That Direction, Sir

That much of it is true.

These things are a staple of certain hard left and Serb nationalist fanatics.

The lack of attention they receive rather inflames them.

"They believed only what they could prove, and could prove everything they believed."

[Devils Advocate NZ]

63. The "Court" did no such thing - The Prosecutor refused to even INVESTIGATE

The same Prosecutor that is NATO funded and NATO controlled. The SAME Prosecutor that "consulted" with NATO before filing charges against Milosevic.

This Prosecutor took the accused's word for it in every case except one, and in that case had to invent a NEW CRITERIA that totally invalidated ANY war crimes trial, because it says that a war crime is not a war crime if it is carried out as part of an otherwise legal strategy.

Remember, THEY NEVER EVEN INVESTIGATED THE CHARGES! All they did was assume NATO explanations were the truth and never did anything even close to what would be considered an investigation, such as interviewing witnesses or visiting the crime scene. In fact they never even left their office!

Yep, the charges were "quashed" all right, but not because they were baseless, as ANYONE reading the report with an unbiased eye can see.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

62. How about the ICTY report?

I posted this on another thread just before it dies, and it did not receive any responses, so I will repost it here in case most people missed it.

Clark directed the attack on Serbian TV that killed anywhere up to 20 civillian reporters and technicians. The following quote comes from the Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia prepared for the ICTY:

78. Assuming the RTS building to be a legitimate military target, it appeared that NATO realised that attacking the RTS building would only interrupt broadcasting for a brief period. Indeed, broadcasting allegedly recommenced within hours of the strike, thus raising the issue of the importance of the military advantage gained by the attack vis-à-vis the civilian casualties incurred. The FRY command and control network was alleged by NATO to comprise a complex web and that could thus not be disabled in one strike. As noted by General Wesley Clark, NATO "knew when we struck that there would be alternate means of getting the Serb Television. There’s no single switch to turn off everything but we thought it was a good move to strike it and the political leadership agreed with us" (ibid, citing "Moral combat, NATO at War," broadcast on BBC2 on 12 March 2000). At a press conference on 27 April 1999, another NATO spokesperson similarly described the dual-use Yugoslav command and control network as "incapable of being dealt with in "a single knock-out blow (ibid)." The proportionality or otherwise of an attack should not necessarily focus exclusively on a specific incident. (See in this regard para. 52, above, referring to the need for an overall assessment of the totality of civilian victims as against the goals of the military campaign). With regard to these goals, the strategic target of these attacks was the Yugoslav command and control network. The attack on the RTS building must therefore be seen as forming part of an integrated attack against numerous objects, including transmission towers and control buildings of the Yugoslav radio relay network which were "essential to Milosevic’s ability to direct and control the repressive activities of his army and special police forces in Kosovo" (NATO press release, 1 May 1999) and which comprised "a key element in theYugoslav air-defence network" (ibid, 1 May1999). Attacks were also aimed at electricity grids that fed the command and control structures of the Yugoslav Army (ibid, 3 May 1999). Other strategic targets included additional command and control assets such as the radio and TV relay sites at Novi Pazar, Kosovaka and Krusevac (ibid) and command posts (ibid, 30 April). Of the electrical power transformer stations targeted, one transformer station supplied power to the air-defence coordination network while the other supplied power to the northern sector operations centre. Both these facilities were key control elements in the FRY integrated air-defence system (ibid, 23 April 1999). The radio relay and TV transmitting station near Novi Sad was also an important link in the air defence command and control communications network. Not only were these targets central to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s governing apparatus, but formed, from a military point of view, an integral part of the strategic communications network which enabled both the military and national command authorities to direct the repression and atrocities taking place in Kosovo (ibid, 21 April 1999).

79. On the basis of the above analysis and on the information currently available to it, the committee recommends that the OTP not commence an investigation related to the bombing of the Serbian TV and Radio Station.
http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm#Vrecommendations

Now let me explain this a little better. This report was prepared by the ICTY Presecutor's Office in response to allegations of NATO war crimes brought before it. This is NOT an investigation of the charges, but a report as to whether investigations should be carried out.

There were no investigators sent to the scene of the alledged crimes, there was no interviewing of witnesses. The only thing this committee did was to review relevent PRESS RELEASES and decide whether there is any indication that any of these allegations needed to be investigated.

Remember, we are talking about a NATO funded, NATO controlled, organisation determining whether NATO actions should be investigated.

Now read that quote again and see that the committee always ASSUMES that NATO doesn't lie about its actions. Yes, that's right, the committee takes the alledged perpetrator at its word. It NEVER took Milosevic or any other accused war criminal at his word, but apparently NATO funding of the ICTY confers it a level of trust that no one else is allowed.

But in the case of this incident, EVEN assuming that NATO isn't lying doesn't suffice because NATO admitted in press releases that this particular incident actually constitutes a war crime. For an attack to be justified, it must be against a military target, that target must contribute DIRECTLY to the war, and civillian casualties must be proportionate to the desired outcome. None of the above is true in regards to the attack on the RTS.

So how does the NATO funded, NATO controlled ICTY committee overcome this little obstacle? Well, even though there is already prima facia evidence of a war crime, and thus an investigation is called for, this committee adds a NEW requirment to the criteria of what constitues a war crime, that any action be a stand alone action rather than part of an otherwise legal strategy.

In this case, because NATO was targetting LEGITIMATE TARGETS in the form of Serbian military communications centres, the fact they targetted an ILLEGITIMATE TARGET in the form of a civillian TV and Radio station does NOT constitute a war crime.

So, the entire case against ANY war criminal MUST be thrown out. Why? Because all that criminal has to say is "we were targetting legitimate military targets AS WELL"! Therefore, if there was ONE terrorist in a town, it was not a war crime to flatten the entire town and kill everyone in it in order to kill the terrorist.

Remember though, this report is NOT an investigation nor a trial, it is a report that relies solely on media and NATO accounts to try and find reasons NOT to INVESTIGATE allegations of NATO war crimes.

This is what shoots down those Clark supporters who say he was cleared of these allegations. It is NOT TRUE. He not only WASN'T CLEARED of the allegations, they were NOT even INVESTIGATED!

Read the rest of the report. You will see that they all amount to the same thing:

"The accuser says this happened, NATO says this happened, we decided to agree with NATO and thus no investigation is required."

Is THAT what Clark supporters call cleared? If that is the kind of investigation of war crimes Clark supporters think is valid, then I suggest Bush will come out of this CIA leak issue untouched, and all you Clark supporters will have to say "He was cleared!" because what happened with this report is the same as the DOJ saying:

"Wilson said that someone in the White House leaked the name of an undercover CIA operative. The White House says they didn't do it. We believe the White House and thus no investigation is necessary."

[Tinoire]

57. Where the hell have you been?!!

I watched that unfold in NZ and in the UK and have been warning people that that is exactly where we're headed!

By the way, do you know we're famous in the Guardian? Some thread we worked on 2 years ago dealing with PNAC & AEI showed up there for serious discussion- I dropped in and said hi :)

Yeah Yugoslavia- you can harldy mention that among Democrats- because it was Clinton's war and so cleverly spun by the media, it was A-ok! Thank God we have Kucinich on record as raging against it the same way for for the SAME reasons he raged against Iraq. Anyway, here's my favorite photo from that time - I remember being so ASHAMED and angry as a member of the US Armed Forces in Europe when this photo flashed all over the television sets and newspapers... Yeah, really proud. Especially over the exchange of gifts- silver pistols and brandy if I recall correctly. I shudder to think of the stuff Rove is going to bring out of the vaults.



In 1994, as the Pentagon's director of operations, Clark traveled to Bosnia. He decided to pass an ultimatum to the Serbs and traveled to the Serb HQ at Banja Laika to see Ratko Mladic in person- against the express instructions of the State Department. Accounts of the meeting are unanimous that Clark was completely out of his depth. He was badgered witless by Mladic. At the end of the meeting Clark - and this is the serious bit - SWAPPED HATS WITH MLADIC and was photographed standing in a chummy pose with said Serbian war criminal, with said Serbian war criminal's hat perched on his head,
and an inane grin on his face. A contemporary commentator described it as "like cavorting with Herman Goering." It almost cost Clark his job and destroyed much of the respect for him in the Balkans.

There's an article about it here. It's from a semi-conservative source but oddly enough when it comes to the truth about Yugoslavia you can only get the truth from either right wing or left wing sites. The center totally spun this one.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34725

[Devils Advocate NZ]

66. Damn, I missed it!

I watched that unfold in NZ and in the UK and have been warning people that that is exactly where we're headed!

Totally. Some people seem to think I say these things as an example of what COULD happen, when I am saying it as a WARNING of what WILL happen. This is NO COINCIDENCE, it is a strategy pushed by the international organisations such as the IMF, World Bank and WTO. This is NOT just aimed at the third world nations, it is an attempt to take corporate control of ALL governments by subterfuge.

Two of the leading proponents of this scheme in NZ played major roles in those organisations (and a few middle level players were involved as well). For example one, Mike Moore, became the head of the WTO not long after this was all played out in NZ.

It's not a joke, and it is not an example of what might happen. It is a warning of what WILL happen, and people like you and I are not the only ones to see it.

By the way, we know what the merger of corporate and state power is called - facism.

By the way, do you know we're famous in the Guardian? Some thread we worked on 2 years ago dealing with PNAC & AEI showed up there for serious discussion- I dropped in and said hi :)

Damn, I missed it. Wouldn't happen to have a link, would you? Everybody needs their ego stroked once in a while! :-)

Yeah Yugoslavia- you can harldy mention that among Democrats- because it was Clinton's war and so cleverly spun by the media, it was A-ok! Thank God we have Kucinich on record as raging against it the same way for for the SAME reasons he raged against Iraq.

Absolutely! War crimes abounded in the FRY, however, many if not most of them came as a result of outside manipulations, mostly American. Yugoslavia was a rather powerful leftist state, and once again right wing religious extremists were stirred up by the CIA to try and topple the legitimate Governments (Afghanistan in the '80s being the most obvious example). Of course, the government response to these crimes went WAY overboard, but the US is no angel in this area as the recent treatment of Muslims in the US shows. How would the US government react if Al Qaeda terrorists were taking over whole towns and cities? I'm pretty sure we all know.

I did not know much about Kucinich before the campaigns really got started on DU, but he is now #1 on my list, with Lieberman, Clark, Dean and Kerry at the bottom of the list.

Kerry and Dean are somewhat more palatable than Lieberman and Clark, but in Dean's case he makes me nervous about his anti-corporate stance (or lack there-of) and Kerry seemed to put his own election chances before doing what was RIGHT. However Clark has the smell of crypto-rightist on him, and no matter how hard his supporters try to scrub, they can't seem to get it off. At first I supported Clark, because I know that many military men are nearly as anti-war as the most concerted hippie. But in Clark's case this just isn't true.

He never spoke out against the war as a concept, he merely spoke out at how it was being carried out - not good in my opinion, nor is his advocating similar attacks on Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan. And yes, you may notice that this is the PNAC concept, only more direct.

Rather than taking Iraq and using that to put pressure on these other nations, Clark advocates going straight for the main target. Not surprising considering what has been said about his "bull in a china shop" approach to strategy.

[kiahzero]

71. ...

You do realize that those pictures were taken before the war crimes, right?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

74. Wrong...

Those pictures were taken AFTER many War Crimes were committed in Bosnia.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

50. I've been on the Clark wagon...

..since the first week I found out he might be running.
And I'm not about to jump off, because Clark is the man. All the attacks on him have been speculation, conspiracies, overreaction, and downright lies.

I think a lot of people will be jumping ON before they start jumping off..

[Rowdyboy]

54. Some of us have actually spent months waiting for General Clark...

to announce. I like Dean, Graham, Edwards, and Kerry very much, but not enough to commit to. I waited, hoping, until Wes Clark announced. No one asked me to, it wasn't coordinated-I just waited. If he hadn't announced, I would have supported Graham until he dropped out and then switched to Dean. But the moment Clark announced, my decision was made. Obviously, this was not a reaction unique to me. Many Democrats felt the same way and, if there are enough of us, Clark will be the nominee. If not, oh well...

In my life I've lived through some wonderful victories and some heartbreaking defeats. This is probably going to be one or the other...

[Jim Sagle]

58. His wagon ain't nuthin' but a Segway.

[Pastiche423]

60. Hasn't the segway been recalled?

[JCMach1]

67. NO, I am still undecided and currently

very suspicious of Clark's motivations...

[revcarol]

73. I was never w/Clark.

Working as a lobbyist and board member for a company that wishes to reduce our civil liberties for 4 $ is not my idea of a viable Presidential candidate.

But that's just MHO>