Clark is the US's most highly decorated officer since Eisenhower

[boxster]

The Eisenhower statement is from an interesting web site: http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/. I've been looking for independent confirmation of that statement and will post it in this thread as soon as (or if) I locate it.

I find this web site interesting for a couple of reasons: 1) it was created by an individual in Russia obviously years before Clark was a presidential candidate in anyone's eyes, including his. 2) it provides an international viewpoint (admittedly a pro-Clark one) of the past several years re: 9/11, Kosovo, Bosnia, and obviously, Clark himself, among other people and events.

There's really no independent commentary - it's almost exclusively links to news articles from around the world.

I thought that it was time for a little different perspective, since we keep rehashing the same articles over and over! :D

Not to mention that "there's no information on Clark" and "we don't know anything about him" were both getting a little old. :eyes:

Disclaimer: for the Clark-haters, be warned. Each article on this site somehow involves Clark. I think that it's interesting because of that and not despite it. For the Clark supporters, undecideds, and just plain curious, check it out, as it provides an interesting retrospective of the past few years and how Clark's been involved.

By the way, here's the list of Clark's commendations from the site:

Among his military decorations are the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (five awards); Distinguished Service Medal (two awards); Silver Star, Legion of Merit (four awards); Bronze Star Medal (two awards); Purple Heart; Meritorious Service Medal (two awards); Army Commendation Medal (two awards); NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to Kosovo, NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to the Former Republic of Yugoslavia, Legacy of Leadership and Lady Liberty(TM) Award.

His Foreign awards include the Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (United Kingdom); Commander of the Legion of Honor (France); Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany; Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, with Swords (Netherlands); Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy; Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit (Portugal); The Commander's Cross with Star of the Order of Merit of Republic of Poland; Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg; Grand Medal of Military Merit (White Band) (Spain); The Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold (Belgium); Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class (Czech Republic); Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic; Commander's Cross, The Silver Order of Freedom of the Republic of Slovenia; Madarski Konnik Medal (Bulgaria); Commemorative Medal of the Minister of Defense of the Slovak Republic First Class (Slovakia); First Class Order of Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas (Lithuania); Order of the Cross of the Eagle (Estonia); The Skandeberg Medal (Albania); Order of Merit of Morocco; Order of Merit of Argentina; The Grade of Prince Butmir w/Ribbon and Star (Croatia) and the Military Service Cross of Canada.

I think it's safe to say he has a little international appeal and a little foreign policy experience! :D A nice counterpoint to the idiot in the White House who has managed to isolate us from the rest of the world.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

1. Over/Under Is 5.5 Posts

Before shit is slung at the General.

DTH

[boxster]

6. Yep. Counting down - 5...4...3...2...1...

A couple of things I thought were interesting:

Clark's "I've been asked by both parties...it's an honor to be asked." statement wasn't made recently. It was made prior to 2/19/02 when he was asked about running for Senate in Arkansas. Maybe that's been pointed out repeatedly already, but I missed it. http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/after4.htm (at the bottom)

I had forgotten that Clark was on the air on 9/12/01 already talking about what Bush would need to do to deal with 9/11. A few days later, he was talking about a NATO response. http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/usa_attack1.htm (towards the middle)

Little did he know that Shrub would shun NATO and go it alone.

[bloom]

2. that's nice

:)

[loudsue]

3. I don't want a Christmas tree full of "decorations" for pres.

I want someone who has a solid past of being a Democrat, with a solid past of supporting the traditions of the Democratic Party.

I do NOT want someone who has spent a great deal of his life supporting repukes, and saying Rumsfeld, Bush, Wolfowitz, and Kissinger are "great guys", and speaking at repuke fundraisers.


:shrug: Duh! :shrug:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

5. Ding Ding Ding! Who's Got the Under!

I need to set the bar lower, it looks like!

DTH

[TacticalPeek]

9. Sad but true.

It'll wind up lower than a snake in a wagon track.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

10. That's Pretty Much How I Feel About the Most Rabid Anti-Clarkers

They're more on Bush's side than ours, IMO.

DTH

[TLM]

159. Still notice that bash the one who asks the questions

is the clarkies only answer.


Still waiting to hear the defense for the fact Clark was working as a lobbyist for Henry Kissinger...

[dfong63]

16. wrong. that's not "shit" being slung, it's the truth

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[SWPAdem]

90. Are they cutting and pasting

this stuff? Like dealing with clones....

[elperromagico]

72. Just one question.

For the Clark-haters:

If Clark is the DNC nominee, will you let your hatred of him help Bush achieve a second term?

For the Dean-haters:

If Dean is the DNC nominee, will you let your hatred of him help Bush achieve a second term?

Please, let's not allow Bush to sneak in through the back door a second time!

[SWPAdem]

91. I don't hate Dean

and I have yet to see a single Clark supporter say that they would not vote for Dean. We are way too mature for that childish behavior.

[elperromagico]

148. Glad to read that

I like them both, and I think it would be wonderful to get them on the same ticket, though I fear their egos may prevent it.

[SWPAdem]

104. "A Christmas Tree Full Of Decorations"

You need to apologize for that statement. As a veteran, and the daughter of a man that landed on Omaha Beach, I am extremely offended.

[maha]

132. Party hacks are bad presidents.

As a flaming American history buff, I could give you a long list of less-than-stellar Presidents who got their jobs because of party loyalty rather than actual qualifications. Let me know if you're interested, and I'll put it together. Chester Arthur springs to mind first, but there were others.

What's important is not whether the next President is a good Democrat; what's important is that she/he's a person who upholds the liberal values of America.

That being said, you seem to have taken one incident (of which I am aware) and multiplied it; the man has NOT spent a "great deal of his life" speaking at a number of "Repubican fundraisers." That's a LIE.

I went on a long rant a couple of days ago about what slimers did to John Glenn because of the Keating incident and compared it to what slimers are doing to Wesley Clark now. Are you saying that sliming good people is one of the traditions of the Democratic Party? I sure hope not.

If you are ignorant of the facts of the "Keating Five" claim and what was done to John Glenn -- for some reason my permalinks often don't work on DU (they do everywhere else), but for what it's worth here's the permalink

http://www.mahablog.com/2003.09.28_arch.html#1065222919770

The rant is still on the front page of my blog, under Friday, October 3.

[knowledgeispower]

141. Great post, IMO

The Christmas tree line sums it up perfectly.

But does it really matter if Clark is truly a democrat or not? Just the democrats having the White House would help out the cause, even if the White House occupant isn't ideologically driven.

[w4rma]

4. General Clark will make a fantastic Vice President of the United States

And from there we can groom him for the Presidency. 16 years of Democratic Presidents. :D

[Pastiche423]

7. I disagree

I would not like him in a position to become president w/o earning the office.

[WillyBrandt]

11. Don't worry

I promise you that Clark will not be VP in 2005.

[SadEagle]

8. The problem is...

We have too many good candidates for all of them to serve 8 years (and don't forget Hillary, just for the shear horror that'd strike into the far-right ;-) ), unless of course that many years of Democratic leadership will do wonders for life expectancy ;-)

[gully]

147. here here....

VP or Governor sounds fine by me.

[TacticalPeek]

12. Interesting site, thanks, but I'd go easy on the 'mo medals' angle.

It could be true, since the audit on awards and decorations of Col. David Hackworth (Army, Ret.) was in '99, who was the previous apparent 'record holder'.

Doesn't matter a jot to me, since I strongly support Clark for the man he is. But I'd hate to see nitpicking threads, let alone news articles, about what medals should really count, foreign vs US, etc.

It's a little OT, but awards and decorations just ain't what they were in Ike's day. With the usual and standard exception of the US Marine Corps, thank God.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target%20Homepage.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=33&rnd=595.809278462915

[IndianaGreen]

14. and you will see the issue of whether some of the medals were properly

received, as it happened in the sad matter of Admiral Boorda (coincidentally, Hackworth was found to have a medal that he was not entitled to).

[Dr Fate]

150. I am sure republicans and greens will happily do this...

...do you have any right-wing, green, or "other" sources that prove this, or are these baseless accusations?

Is this a trial ballon? What are you saying?

[boxster]

20. It wasn't really my intention to focus on the medals thing,

and I thought about making my subject line something less "military", as I know that some people will not vote for him for the single reason that he was in the military.

But, I reconsidered as I was interested in the reaction. I probably should have focused more on the other stuff on that site, as it's interesting to see what someone outside of the US considers "important" in relation to Clark and the past few years.

[Larkspur]

13. At least, Eisenhower defeated Hitler and Mussolini, 2 of the most evil

people to have ever lived in one of the greatestc and most complex wars every fought -- World War II. Who did Clark defeat?

Granted Clark is a smart guy, but he's not one I'd want being the standard bearer of the Democratic Party, since he has never shown any loyalty to the Party. And no, saying he voted for so-and-so Democrat does not count because he can not produce proof other than his worthless word. And mouthing Democratic slogans in speeches does not count either. No record = no credibility to support his rhetoric.

If Clark wants to earn respect as a Democratic politician, he should withdraw his bid as President, run for governor of Arkansas or something else as a Democrat, manage the affairs of that office well and with the Democratic platform, win re-election at least once, and then try for President. Only when he does this, will I give Clark a fair evaluation.

[Pepperbelly]

23. considering your candidate and ...

his service, denigrating Clark's wartime credentials is not the brightest thing you can do.

[TLM]

160. You mean his service working in hospitals....

while clark was bombing them?

The fact Dean was saving lives while Clark was taking them... you mean that record of service?

[SWPAdem]

92. I'm shocked

The first time you ran for office, all anyone had was your "worthless" word.

[Larkspur]

145. I never ran for political office, but

If you are referring to Howard Dean, well he worked his way up the ladder. He started with working as a volunteer in Vermont on Jimmy Carter's campaign in 1980. Esther Sorrell, the Democratic patroness of Vermont, saw that Dean was a good peacemaker. He could get the Kennedy and Carter Dems to talk to each other, so she asked him to be his town's Democratic Committee chair. From that position he launched his bid to the Vermont State Legislature. From there, he ran and won the Lt Gov office, which is largely cermonial until the Gov dies in office, and on August 14, 1991 after Gov Richard Snelling suffered a fatal heart attack, Lt. Gov Howard Dean became Governor of Vermont.

Upon entering the Governor's office, Dean was greeted by a $60 million deficit, the worse bond rating in New England, and a recession that was as bad as one suffered during the Great Depression. By the end of his last term, Vermont enjoyed a general fund surplus, a quarter of the state's debt had been paid off, Vermont had the highest rating in New England, most children had healthcare, child abuse had decreased in half, gays and lesbians had civil union rights, etc.. Oh, and Howard Dean was re-elected 5 times as Governor, and was Vermont's longest serving governor in the state's history.

What I like about Howard Dean is that he has a knack for taking a bad situation and making it better, and we are going to need that knack cleaning up Bush's mess. Dean's a fighter when he needs to be. He showed a lot of courage taking a stand against the Iraq War when 70% of the American populace supported it. Many of Dean's crticis said he was committing political suicide when he publicly opposed Bush's War. Didn't hear Gen. Clark's view of the Iraq war then, so can't judge him on that? And Dean is a straight talker. He reminds me a lot of Harry Truman. Dean treats voters like adults, not sheep to be sheared. He informs you what your choices are -- tax cut or healthercare, tax cut or public education, tax cut or infrastructure services, etc.. And as a woman and feminist, there is not a single drop of machismo in Howard Dean. I've met him twice and it's obvious that his wife is his partner in life, not his servant. Dean is also an excellant organizer and relentless campaigner. Clark should take lessons from him.

There is no doubt that Dean is a Democrat. He is not a "tax and spend" liberal Democrat, but he has a record running, winning, and holding office as a Democrat. Clark does not.

[SWPAdem]

154. No, I was not referring to Dean.

You keep pointing out that as a member of your town's Dem committee, it is your duty to protect the party from Clark. I simply assumed that it was an elective office. Nevertheless, whenever someone runs for elective office for the first time, we have only their word to go on.

[TLM]

161. And that's why the FIRST run isn't for president.

rather for some lower office to demonstrate you can do the job.



It is like hiring someone for a job who only has himself as a reference.

[robbedvoter]

97. What? Milosevic not bad enough for you? You his fan too?

I know tht only BFEE targets get compared to Hitler these days, but the international Criminal court in Hague might argue with his view.

[rasputin1952]

103. Eisenhower never beat Hitler or Mussolini...

it was the Allies on the ground, in the air and on the sea that beat them. Eisenhower never saw combat in WW II.

Awards and Decorations are good for morale, and resume's, not much else, unless they were truly earned, Kerrey's MOH for instance. Look what the repugs tried to do to him. Now he quietly sits as the president of a college back in NY.

As for Foreign Awards and Decorations, it shows that he has access to diplomatic channels.

All in all, Clark has had a good career; and I don't think he'd do poorly as president.

Regardless...IMHO, WHOMEVER, is the Dem candidate, that is where my vote is going, and I hope everyone elses is as well.

:kick:

[RichM]

15. So what? Douglas MacArthur was plenty decorated, too.

So was Leonid Brezhnev, DeGaulle, & a long list of other people I wouldn't want to see as president.

PS - Re your phrase: Disclaimer: for the Clark-haters, be warned...
- There appears to be a structural limitation in the brains of Clark supporters, causing them to constantly refer to opponents as "Clark haters." Opposition to Clark has NOTHING to do with "hating." It has to do with opposing what he represents. Depicting your opponents as "haters" is behavior typical of the rightwing mind. -- it's just like labelling antiwar people as "America-haters."

[dfong63]

17. bingo - did clark have more medals than franco or pinochet?

[Pepperbelly]

25. again ...

considering the military accomplishments of your guy, I do not think that denigrating Clark's prowess is in your guy's best interest.

[dfong63]

87. the point is that medals don't prove someone will be a good pres

[SWPAdem]

93. And running a small state doesn't either

n/t

[TLM]

163. Yeah, because we know none of our presidents started in small

new england state governments.

[IndianaGreen]

68. Franco... now that's a name I haven't heard in a long, long time

[dfong63]

89. need i mention, castro, musharraf, suharto, rios montt, sharon, ...

having a chestful of medals doesn't necessarily make someone a good president.

[Brian Sweat]

111. I "Democrats" like you who denegrade people for their military service

that lend credence to the claims that Democrats hate military personnel.

[TLM]

164. Notice the meme spin... this is the new one popping up...

That attacking Clark's military record, or even simply not showing appropriate awe and reverence for the shiny stars, means you are attacking the military and adding to the perceptions the democrats hate the military... so it is really you who is hurting the party and you should stop questioning the great and wise general Clark.

[TLM]

162. Well he could ask Henry Kissinger....

since Clark was working as a lobbyist for Kissinger until the day he declared.

[Pepperbelly]

24. RichM ...

I do not believe that you know why you oppose him. Just my opinion of course.

[noiretextatique]

27. i don't think you can be objective about clark

just my opinion, of course.

[Pepperbelly]

30. oddly enough ...

after reading your posts, I have come to an identical conclusion about you. Small world, eh?

[noiretextatique]

37. i'm not related to him

hence my question about your objectivity. seems fair to me :shrug:

[boxster]

31. Hehe. That's too funny.

Sorry, but that's hilarious. One person who supports Clark can't possibly be objective, yet anyone who opposes him or makes unsubstantiated claims, etc., IS objective, regardless?

Is that what you're saying here?

[Pepperbelly]

32. she's saying that because he's ...

my cousin.

OTOH, I suggested it about her because of her track record of posts. Strange world, eh? I get rocks cast at me because of familial relationships and am somehow less qualified to note facts.

[boxster]

36. Ah, a little intrafamily warfare. Hehe.

I'll have to remember that as it'll put other posts in a little better perspective.

I have such a small family that we only have a couple of particularly rabid political junkies, myself so obviously included. Can't imagine having to counter them in public! }(

[Pepperbelly]

38. no, no, no ...

because Wesley is my cousin.

[boxster]

47. Damn, oops.

Nothing like a little misinterpretation to start my weekend!

No wonder you're a little biased. }( Just kidding.

I really haven't been on here long enough to have figured out the personal relationships, etc. It seems like many of you are almost family, so I assumed that in this case, you really were!

I knew that if I signed up for DU, I'd be on here all the damn time, so I fought it for months. Then, I gave up.

Hehe.

[noiretextatique]

40. um, yes...don't you think your relationship to clark

is a factor in your objectivity? seriously?! i don't mean this as a slam...just a statement of FACT. :shrug: no need to don your tin foil hats.

[Pepperbelly]

43. I have noted that ...

when I post threads refuting the lamebrained slams against Wesley, that the worst offenders steer clear of them. I can only conclude that it is because the facts presented are beyond their ability to refute. So who is it that has a lack of objectivity?

Me, who openly admits the relationship and also posts debunking of slurs replete with facts, links, etc or those who avoid the debunking and repost the SOS even knowing it to be untrue?

So who is it that has a lack of objectivity?

[noiretextatique]

49. LOL...you've GOT to be kidding!

given your familial relationship...how can you be objective? and even if you are, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

[Pepperbelly]

53. frankly ...

I don't care if you take me seriously or not. And whether you believe or not, your anti-Clark buddies demonstrate a distinct lack of objectivity daily when dishonestly posting things they know to be bogus.

[SWPAdem]

94. Here's a clue on objectivity

Over the last week, I have seen the same crew of Clark haters, and yes that is the APPROPRIATE word, post the same old crap over and over. I would not trust a single word out of any of your mouths. Actually, the more you all slam the General, the more convinced I become that I have made the right choice.

[noiretextatique]

109. the voice of objectivity has spoken!!!!

:eyes: "Actually, the more you all slam the General, the more convinced I become that I have made the right choice."

first of all...where did i "SLAM THE GENERAL?" i questioned the objectivity of his relative who posts here in support of him. i STILL believe that is a reasonable position.

i must say, your argument is very self-fulfilling. you support clark already, so anyone who doesn't is a "hater", and any criticism of him from said "haters" reinforces your support. :eyes:

why don't you just admit that your mind is closed to ANY criticism of clark, no matter how reasonable or objective?
so...you're a die-hard supporter... SO WHAT! why BLAME your support for clark on other people who don't support clark?
is not supporting clark "allowed" from your perspective...for ANY reason besides "hating?" :wtf: is THAT "objective?"

for the record: i don't think clark is the BEST choice for president, or the best choice for the democratic nominee, but i don't "hate" or "slam" him or his supporters. i do however, question the objectivity of some of his supporters here.

[SWPAdem]

115. I made my choice months ago

and my mind is not closed to criticism of him, except that which comes from certain members of DU. They are INDEED Clark haters that ignore any amount of hard evidence against their ridiculous assertions.

Oddly enough, I often see you joining in the tag team Clark bashing or Clark-supporter bashing. As a matter of fact, I had you on ignore for a day or two. Therefore, I have serious doubts about your objectivity.

BTW, I do not BLAME anyone for supporting Clark. I am quite proud of my choice and my candidate. A lot of thought and research went into my choice. It is a pity that so many Democrats, and I use that term loosely, are so close minded to him.

[noiretextatique]

119. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

YOU FOUND ME OUT: I HATE CLARK!!!! a man i do not know and never met!
all my criticism of him, like the criticism of everyone else at DU...and in the world at large, is based on nothing more than PATHOLOGICAL HATRED!!!!!!!!!! .

never mind that i don't think he's a the best choice for president, and certainly not the BEST democratic candidate : IT'S ALL ABOUT HATE!!!!!!!!!!!!

PLEASE...PUT ME BACK ON IGNORE...now that you know i am a part of the EVIL PLOT to HATE GEN. CLARK!

yeah...you are *really* objective...and this "hate" tactic is very transparent and tired :hurts:

[TLM]

167. Please point out the hard evidence against...

the fact Clark was working as a lobbyist for Henry Kissinger, Clark supported bombing journalists in Kosovo, Clark spoke at a republican fund raiser heaping praise on the leadership of Bush and Reagan, Clark admited to changing his story on supporting the war resolution, and Clark ordered british forces to attack russian forces as was reported in the Guardian.

[Larkspur]

146. I don't base my support of a candidate on the candidate's supporters

The candidate has to be able to convince me to support him or her on their own merits. It took Dean 4 months after Al Gore bowed out to finally convince me to support him, and Dean has only given me reasons to increase my support and loyalty to him. I'm very impressed with him and his innovative campaign.

Dean is the only one who knows that this campaign is not just about getting rid of Bush, but about We the People reclaiming our democracy from the corporate interests that infect both the Republican and Democratic Parties. Read his formal announcement speech -- The Great American Restoration. That is what a formal announcement speech should be, Gen. Clark. His campaign theme is a political version of the Great American Awakening, the 19th century religious movement begun in New England. What Dean's goal with his campaign is to awaken the American people politically and help us fight the corruption within our government and our Party. See also Dean's Boston speech -- Democracy, Freedom, and Action.

Clark thinks that we only want to get rid of Bush, but Bush is just the tip of the iceberg of the corruption plaguing our nation. The leaders of both Parties are cancerous to our democracy, and they need to be expelled as well.

[SWPAdem]

155. Did I say that I based my choice on the opposition to Clark?

What makes you think that I did not spend months researching Clark before I decided to support him? You seem to assume that no one could ever support Clark unless they were somehow lacking in intelligence or loyalty to the Democratic party. Get over yourself.

[juajen]

116. I've known of his relationship to Clark, and

have always found his posts to be objective. Sometimes when there is a connection, you are even more careful how you assess the situation. I think this is true of PB. What should he do? Recuse himself?

[TLM]

166. I notice you avoid answering questions almost as well as your cousin

Can you please explain why Clark was working as a lobbyist for Henry Kissinger?

[TLM]

165. Cousin... that explains a lot.

[noiretextatique]

46. i'm saying: pepperbelly is related to clark

i'm implying that because of that fact, pepperbelly may not be in a position to question anyone else's objectivity.

[Pepperbelly]

48. so according to you ...

I should not make comments?

[noiretextatique]

52. in your case, i think abstaining is prudent nt

[Pepperbelly]

54. so when ...

I defended everyone's freedom of speech, I did not defend my own as well.

What a piece of work you are!

Actually, after all the years I have been here, you have earned the first ignore from me. The fucking audacity of you! If you disagree with speech, try to shut them up. Disgraceful.

[noiretextatique]

57. if i was related to sharpton, would you question

my objectvity about sharpton? i would HOPE that you would! i don't question your RIGHT to freedom of speech, but i DO question your objectivity about clark, because you are related to him. there is nothing DISGRACEFUL about THAT. it is not a slam or a slur...it is simple a statement of FACT.

[Pepperbelly]

58. then do it on the content if you can ....

but since you do not, then it is all you have and therefore very weak. If you were related to Sharpton, I would be pleased for you.

[noiretextatique]

63. you questioned RichM's objectivity in this quote

"I do not believe that you know why you oppose him. Just my opinion of course."

why isn't it reasonable and fair to question your objectivity in knowing WHY you support clark, given your familial relationship to clark, and given your questions regarding the "knowledge," or lack thereof, of those who don't support your cousin, like RichM?

i am indifferent to the fact that you are related to clark...except to the extent that it colors your perspective here. i do think that relationship to the man makes you less objective about him, and i don't think this is an unreasonable conclusion.

[thebigidea]

75. "The fucking audacity of you!" - methinks you protest a tad too much

Look, she's got a point. You're related, you're hardly objective. You can't even admit that, or see her point?

[TLM]

168. Of course not...

"You can't even admit that, or see her point?"

No, that would take....say it with me now.... objectivity.

[boxster]

51. Yeah, now I understand.

As I told him in another thread, I haven't been on DU long enough to figure out the personal relationships, so I was a tad confused.

A lot of the long-time posters seem like family. Or siblings that don't get along! :D

[RichM]

69. Well then, let me refresh your memory, Mr. Pepperbelly.

You don't believe I know why I oppose him? That's funny. Look at what I posted here on Sept 1. Your name was all over that thread (though most of your responses were deleted for violating DU rules of civility. However, response #2 remains.)

Take a look. It will refresh your memory. Then tell me if you still think I "don't know why I oppose him."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=260095

[boxster]

29. Ah, questioning my intelligence. How mature and open-minded of you.

Trust me, there are plenty of Clark-haters on this forum, and if you don't believe that, you haven't been paying attention or you're in denial.

Or maybe your obvious dislike for Clark and his supporters (nicely illustrated by your crack on my intelligence, thank you very much) has you believing that any criticism of Clark is justified and therefore should be termed "opposition", no matter how unsubstantiated, vile, or ludicrous.

There is opposition and there is hate. Both are in CLEAR abundance on DU. Those rules weren't put in place for nothing.

[Pepperbelly]

33. RichM certainly

seems to buy in to ANY slandre against Clark, no matter how silly or egregiously right wing.

[RichM]

70. You'll note that my "questioning your intelligence" occurred only AFTER

you slandered everyone who opposes Clark. Thus (and typically, for someone who thinks like a rightwinger without realizing it), your position essentially is: you are permitted to slander your opponents, but if they point out your slander, you're outraged by their "lack of maturity." :eyes:

[boxster]

79. Slander? Do you even have a clue what slander is?

Obviously not. Slander is verbal, pal. Libel is what you were looking for, and that doesn't apply here, either. Show me where I libeled anyone. Yep, keep looking. It's not there.

Perhaps you should actually look around at DU instead of knee-jerk posting to every Clark post you can click on. Trust me - many, many, MANY posters hate Clark nearly as much as they hate Bush. All you have to do is look around.

But, that would, of course, be too much work. It's much easier to just say that you're right, and we're supposed to believe you at face value.

Sorry, but I find it difficult to accept you at face value if you don't even understand what you're accusing me of.

[SWPAdem]

95. Ah, the irony

Talking about "thinking like a rightwinger without realizing it". All of the Clark bashers have been using talking points distributed by the fricking RNC. Thanks for doing their work without realizing it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. Small Point- Rich

I think most of Brezhnev's medals were bogus and he was resented by the Soviet military for it....

[RichM]

77. Yeah, maybe that wasn't such a great example. MacArthur is much

more the type of figure I had in mind... Maybe I should have said Curtis LeMay, or Patton.

[chaumont58]

18. I'm an old enlisted man

and the only officer decoration I trust is the Purple Heart. Its the only one they can't fake. There is a different standard for combat medals for officers and enlisted men. An officer can get a medal just for showing up. An enlisted man has to put his ass ON THE LINE. It's just the way it is. MacArthur got seven Silver Stars in France in World War One. And he deserved every one of them. Want to buy a bridge?
I have nothing against Clark, but this medal shit should be put to bed forever. Clark has a CIB, but even that can be gotten without even hearing too many shots fired in anger.

[TacticalPeek]

19. Re: CIB

You should research Clark's Viet Nam service. He's the real deal.

[Kahuna]

22. "Faked," huh? Does this look faked to you?

That's a young, bespeckled Wesley Clark in the photo.

[chaumont58]

39. Do you understand what a Purple Heart medal is for?

Reread what I wrote.

[boxster]

42. Clark has a Purple Heart, as well.

http://www.nato.int/cv/saceur/clark.htm

It was listed in the original article, as well:

General Wesley K. Clark USA (ret.) is the nation's most highly decorated officer since Dwight Eisenhower. Among his military decorations are the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (five awards); Distinguished Service Medal (two awards); Silver Star, Legion of Merit (four awards); Bronze Star Medal (two awards); Purple Heart; Meritorious Service Medal (two awards); Army Commendation Medal (two awards); NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to Kosovo, NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to the Former Republic of Yugoslavia, Legacy of Leadership and Lady Liberty(TM) Award.

[TacticalPeek]

55. OK, I'll research it for you:

snip
Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and didn’t get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West Point class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts in any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division rifle company and was badly wounded.

Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army’s most distinguished war heroes, says: “Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn’t stop fighting. He stayed on the field till his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned ‘em.”

It took months for Clark to get back in shape. He had the perfect excuse, but he didn’t quit the Army to scale the corporate peaks as so many of our best and brightest did back then. Instead, he took a demoralized company of short-timers at Fort Knox who were suffering from a Vietnam hangover and made them the best on post – a major challenge in 1970 when our Army was teetering on the edge of anarchy. Then he stuck around to become one of the young Turks who forged the Green Machine into the magnificent sword that Norman Schwarzkopf swung so skillfully during Round One of the Gulf War.
snip

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=35&rnd=249.2852089406174

:)

[Kahuna]

73. Yes. I understand. Apparently you do not.

<sic> :eyes:

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[Pepperbelly]

26. the combat wounds ...

are faked?

[chaumont58]

106. My post began with......

"the only officer decoration I trust is the Purple Heart. Its the only one they can't fake"

Clark has the Purple Heart, for wounds received in combat. Nothing I wrote implied his award of the purple heart was a fake. Just the opposite. I got replies pointing out Clark's wounds. Did any of those who replied really bother to read my post?
ps: will this be deleted?

[TLM]

169. Get used to it is...Clark's Corps are on auto meme at this point..

Criticizing Clark is attacking the military...


Asking questions about Clark hurts the party...


All the criticisms of Clark are from the RNC...

[boxster]

35. My subject line is misleading, I'll admit that.

It really wasn't my intention to glorify Clark's medals. You might want to look further into his military career as he was indeed injured in combat.

I understand that having a bunch of medals is not necessarily indicative of the person receiving them, and I knew that a lot of people were objecting to Clark solely based on his military background.

I was curious to see the reaction to the statement, but my main objective was to bring attention to the web site. I thought it was worth a look as it shows what someone outside of the US thinks is important in relation to recent events and Clark.

[rasputin1952]

108. I can relate...

The PH, and the Good Conduct Medal, are least seen on officers. PH for obvious reasons, but you can't get the GCM without being enlisted at the time of its award.

Most people don't realize that you can get a Bronze Star while not in hostile situations. That is why The 'V' Device was created, for Valor.
You can get a Bronze Star in a non-combat situation, such as a life saving rescue that was equally as dangerous for you.

Another thing about the PH; Reagan really took it done a few pegs when he authorized Awards for the Purple Heart for those guys in the German bar that got bombed. The only legitamate way to earn that award is to be injured, or killed in combat, or other injuries while in a hostile situation. A fine play with semantics for the repugs to make it look like these guys, partying and trying to get laid, were actually in a situation where they were in a combat zone.

BTW, you can't get the PH if you get ghonorrhea from an enemy combatant, but you may get "The Silver Bullet".

:kick:

[bearfartinthewoods]

28. i'm trying to get a handle on the personality of a person for whom

this would matter. what kind of person would put this on their 'top ten list' of what would make a good president.

[Pastiche423]

34. Someone w/ too much testosterone

and not enough common sense?

[union_maid]

45. It's going to matter in the general election

And I doubt that there's anyone running who's more qualified to sort out our international mess. If you think you can do it just by saying that we don't care for the military, not only are you wrong, objectively wrong, but you're asking for Bush back. I don't mean that a candidate can't win without military experience, but the Democrats cannot win this thing without a convincing and authoritative plan for national security and a strategic plan that includes internationalizing the occupation of Iraq and also fulfilling the obligations that we now have, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Without that, it's a win for Bush. If Buscho interpreted a loss in the popular vote to be a mandate, can you imagine if he's really elected?

[Pastiche423]

59. A plan?

clark has not formulated any plans or stances on issues. Thus, he is unprepared.

Hey, if you want to keep playing by the repug rules, go ahead. But I will not!

The Democrats will win w/their grassroots campaign. This election (bar BBV) it will be a win, by the People and For the People.

[Pepperbelly]

60. and it will be Wesley Clark who will win ....

by the people.

[boxster]

64. Do you bother to read anything or do you just knee-jerk react to Clark?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=470739

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

Perhaps you should do a little reading. Clark has plenty of stances on plenty of issues.

Of course, it's a lot easier to be continue posting unsubstantiated BS like "Clark has...no stances on issues" than to bother with actual facts.

[TLM]

170. Depends on what you mean by sort out....

" sort out our international mess."

Sort out for whom... for us, the people? Or for the same people pulling W's strings?

Clark has been working as a lobbyist for basically the same type of corporate war profiteers as the Carlyle Group... in fact Clark is co directors of the NED with Frank Carlucci. Clark has been a lobbyist for Henry Kissinger... and you seriously want to have this man in charge of any foreign policy?

[boxster]

41. I don't think I ever said it was important.

Frankly, it doesn't matter to me at all, and I don't think I said it did anywhere in the posting. Some people object to Clark simply because he was in the military, so I was curious to see the reaction to the statement.

But my main objective was to bring attention to the web site. I thought it was worth a look as it shows what someone outside of the US thinks is important in relation to recent events and Clark. After Bush's utter failure in foreign policy, I think we have to keep in mind that the next President is going to have some fences to mend, and not just in Texas.

[Donna Zen]

44. Great Link!

I liked that the articles were prior to all the political buzz and contemporary to the NATO experience. You're right, the shift in perspective allows for a greater depth in reading the new information because of the subtle contrasts of the reporting.

This bit:

Some in the military liken Clark's predicament to the one generals faced during Vietnam. In his recent book Dereliction of Duty--which has achieved a cult following among many junior officers--fast-rising officer H.R. McMaster portrays the Vietnam-era generals as a cowardly lot who chose to execute incompetent civilian orders rather than resign in protest. Indeed, the only thing that might endear Clark to his critics at this point would be his resignation.

Fortunately, Clark is not about to throw his stars on the table in a fit of pique. That would amount to ratifying a steady and dangerous trend in civilian-military relations over the past decade--namely, the loss of civilian control. It is true that Clark is taking orders from a civilian leadership--both in the United States and in Europe--that remains maddeningly equivocal. But it is just as relevant that Clark is contending with an increasingly independent military brass whose obsession with avoiding another Vietnam has helped trap the Clinton administration into avoiding ground troops, thereby rendering defeat more likely. Clark's impressive record suggests that, given the right tools, he is one of the few military leaders--or perhaps the only one--who could make a go of it in the Balkans. And yet, for all the talk of Clark being Clinton's pet, the irony is that Clinton's own inept strategy may end up delivering Clark into the hands of his Pentagon enemies.

Crystal ball working overtime.

[boxster]

61. The international, contemporary aspect is what I was shooting for.

I'm regretting my subject line a little, though to be honest, I admit that I was curious to see what reaction it would elicit.

Howard Dean's camp has long claimed that Dean was the first presidential candidate to openly bash Bush on the issues and on the war. Reading some of these articles (and remembering Clark's appearances on CNN), Clark was obviously questioning the administration almost immediately after 9/11 and certainly in the build-up to the invasion.

That made him a target of the Bush Administration even then. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that Clark chose to run as a Democrat.

I think Rumsfeld called him an "armchair general" or something similarly dismissive. Funny, Rumsfeld apparently expected us to think that a 30+ year veteran knew less about military operations and strategy than someone with no military experience.

[Eloriel]

50. Ah, yet another reason not to vote for him n/t

[DoveTurnedHawk]

56. Did Your Knee Just Jerk Itself Out of Socket?

The anti-military bigotry you display here is sad. Predictable, but sad.

DTH

[WillyBrandt]

62. Disgusting

A lot of good and honorable people have served and are serving in the US military. To conflate them--or whatever the hell it is you're doing--with the coward chickenhawks using them as pawns is horrible.

So the guy is decorated by this country and by many allied nations? And that's bad? I mean, you can say it doesn't matter, but that that's a reason NOT to vote for him?

There are a lot of unhappy patriots serving their country in the military. And you've just slapped them all in the face.

[boxster]

65. To some people, the only issue that matters with Clark is that

he served in the military - that automatically disqualifies him.

I've seen plenty of postings on DU and elsewhere where people have said they will not vote for him based on that one reason only.

[Rowdyboy]

66. Didn't you get the memo?

It's perfectly politically correct to hate the military. And liberals in the military are no better than conservatives. They're all evil people because thats what the military is-evil. Feel free to despise those fools for serving their country and hold them personally accountable for what the politicians tell them to do.

The only thing worse than soldiers are officers and generals are the worst of all. Everybody knows that, right...

[boxster]

80. And it makes so much sense!

Generals often serve under many Presidents, and obviously the current one isn't always going to be of the same party.

But, you still have to do your job. It doesn't surprise me that Clark and other generals have been apolitical while in the military - it would almost seem to be a necessary job requirement.

[SWPAdem]

98. And insulted every veteran that protested this war,

myself included. No one hates war more than someone that has been in one. Wes Clark heard the damn bullets whipping past him and saw friends fall. He would never commit our troops to war without a damn good reason.

[JohnKleeb]

71. Eloriel I am far from being anywhere near a Clark supporter

I share people's feelings, I dont have a problem that hes highly decorated. I do IIRC and my apologies Pastiche if I am wrong about this but I think me and you share the same concerns on him. I dont have a problem with being a vet, none what so ever.

[Pastiche423]

82. Yes, John

We do share that one concern. Please give your friend my warmest thoughts.

[JohnKleeb]

110. I will

Shes a great gal, I pity her.

[Kahuna]

74. I hear Nader is running again. You can vote for him again.

[retyred]

121. Ah! That explains it

I hear Nader is running again. You can vote for him again.

When I first joined DU right after the 2000 selection, we had a lot of Dem vs Green wars because of Naders help in getting flightsuit elected. I had nothing against the Greens as a party but took real offence by Naders arrogance and remark that somehow the world needed bush to see just how bad things could get. Not voting if their guy doesn't win is so like...."Nader"

I thought it odd that a real Democrat would admit to not voting if their candidate lost the nomination, but now it's clear, these few "No Vote Dean Supporters" really aren't Dems at all, their lurking Greens posing as Dems.

The Dean or Green comment should have raised a flag but I missed it!

Boy that is a relief.....



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
So I Built This Web Site

[noiretextatique]

129. this "tactic" of yours is BULLSHIT...i am calling you on this AGAIN

the only reason i'm not insisting that the moderators delete your "accusation" is so it will stand as a testament to how utterly HYPOCRITICAL you, and OTHERS WHO DO THIS SAME THING are.

Eloriel supports a DEMOCRAT, just like you...DEAN.

i am a registered green who voted for GORE in 2000. i will re-register as a DEMOCRAT to vote in the primary for a DEMOCRAT...again. i will go so in the general election as well.

SUPPORTING CLARK IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO BE A DEMOCRAT...NOT SUPPORTING CLARK DOES NOT EQUAL SUPPORTING NADER, OR THE GREEN PARTY

and i will be alerting on this BULLSHIT in the future...IT'S DISHONEST, DIVISIVE, AND IT'S CHILDISH...little more than name-calling.

:wtf: i wish some other clark supporters would call you on this, vs. joining in on THIS IDIOCY with you.

[retyred]

131. Sorry I forgot.....IMHO!

CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
So I Built This Web Site

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

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

[retyred]

140. Wow dude!

You've been alerted.....did it hurt?



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
So I Built This Web Site
So I Read This Book

[SWPAdem]

134. Ah, but we have only your word that you voted for Gore

That is the argument that many Dean supporters are using as proof that Clark is not a Democrat.

Supporting Dean is NOT the only way to be a Democrat and choosing Clark over Dean does not mean that we are not voting our consciences. I am sick of the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou attitudes of a few of the Dean people. And, I wish that more of the Dean supporters would sit down and read what crap some of their supporters are posting and call THEM on it. There are some Dean supporters that are just as guilty of divisive behavior as anyone on this side of the aisle....I guess that we are not permitted to expose the lies or reply to offensive posts.

And, I do remember the post 2000 election Green vs. Democrat flame wars, also.

[noiretextatique]

138. what "proof" does anyone have about your "democratic credentials?"

would it be fair for me to calll you a republican because you support clark, who voted for republicans most of his life? i don't think so. and i alerted on you too...this "tactic" is disgusting, imho.

[SWPAdem]

156. I was simply pointing out an argument that is used

to attack Clark. BTW, you just used the same tactic that so offends you and makes you reach for the alert button.

[noiretextatique]

157. full of

:hurts: i used an example to illustrate the foolishness of YOUR tactics...but i'm not surprised you don't comprehend that. if it offends you, try using the alert button.

[retyred]

135. Point counter Point

Sorry bunky....I calls em as I sees em! (IMHO)

I am a registered green

Thank You....you just verified my suspicion


CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
So I Built This Web Site
So I Read This Book

[noiretextatique]

136. what "suspicion"...THAT I VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!

:wtf: well...some you you clark people are *real* sharp. yeah....even some DEMOCRATS don't like your candidate.

[retyred]

139. According to you

you voted Democrat.....but you remained a Green? My point was some Greens are here posing to be Democrats in order to incite. I'm not saying that you are one of those but you admit being a green while claiming to support a Dem....One has to wonder.



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
So I Built This Web Site
So I Read This Book

[noiretextatique]

142. incite what, in my case: VOTING FOR DEMOCRATS?

:wtf: is wrong with you people? again per my posts...just because i don't support your candidate, doesn't mean i haven't, don't and won't vote for other democrats. like gore, clinton, and carter. i actually used to be a democrat. tell me...do you have this same litmus test for independent voters? geez...

[SWPAdem]

96. Someone twisting your arm?

n/a

[Aidoneus]

67. what would be said if none of this impressed me personally?

be honest as I am, be cruel if necessary, and hold nothing back..

To be fair, to those who are impressed by the sort this is an interesting and very diverse collection of honours from the state elites of Europe, whom I wouldn't personally run with.

[RetroLounge]

78. ark is the US's most highly decorated officer since Eisenhower

Big woop..

[ozone_man]

83. Nice, but army medals don't impress me.

Surely he is well qualified as a military expert, but not as a presidential candidate. Secretary of Defense maybe.

Don't want a general as a president. We already have a military government. So we go from PNAC control to DLC control, what's the difference?

[SWPAdem]

99. Got bad news for you

WHOEVER gets the nomination is going to have to suck up to the DNC as they still have major league power in the party. Suggest you go Green now.

[incapsulated]

84. Actually, I couldn't care less if people on DU "aren't impressed"

The national electorate will be very fucking impressed.

What is more, they will take criticism of Bush on Iraq about ten times more seriously coming from him than any candidate who didn't serve. I know that is not going to sit well with a lot of people here, especially those that hate the military (a minority of americans in the extreme). But that's a fact. This country loves their soldiers and they like generals with lots of medals, too. Deal.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[incapsulated]

86. I'm not impressed

:boring:

[Pastiche423]

88. How often

do you speak w/the national electorate? Do they actually say they are very fucking impressed?

Do you think national political activists are very fucking impressed too?

I am a political activist in my state, and in my travels, I have not found many "electorates" that are very fucking impressed w/clark.

Could it be my state is that different? I do know that two days before the slaughter in Iraq, thirty thousand people in Portland protested WAR, me included.

I wonder if there is any connection...

[SWPAdem]

101. Gee, I was talking Clark up at church tonight

And almost everyone there had heard of him and had a very favorable impression, especially after I got done talking to them. My daughter is spreading the word in West Virginia, my son in Georgia, my father in Pennsylvania. We are all getting great responses. Just the other day, I was sitting at a stoplight and the guy behind me started blowing his horn and giving me the thumbs up....for the Clark bumperstickers. He is already signed up to work for him.

I personally don't care who the hell all of you anti military people vote for. Suit yourselves but stop using the bloodthirsty, testosterone driven bullshit. It is offensive as all hell to those of us that have served and we recognize it for what it is. I protested the war in Vietnam but then went and did my duty as a nurse, when that war was over. EVERY single one of those soldiers, enlisted or officer is a living human being, with people that love them. They are trained to do a job in wartime but they are just like everyone else in times of peace. HOW DARE ANY OF YOU INSULT THEM?

[Pastiche423]

102. clark does not equal soldiers

Get it?

[SWPAdem]

105. Yes, he most certainly does.

You are painting EVERY officer with a right wing paintbrush. I am sick of it. It is your anti-military prejudice speaking as well as childish envy that someone just might steal your candidate's thunder. That's what I get from you.

[Pastiche423]

112. I see you din't get it

clark is NOT every soldier. He is a retired general that has only his own history to account for. And he will have to account for his own history to every American citizen.

One man. One history.

[SWPAdem]

117. No, you don't get it

The rest of the country is not as rabidly anti-military as you are. They will listen to him with open ears and hearts.

[Pastiche423]

123. There is no other way to say it

Wesley K. Clark will have to answer to his very own history.

[SWPAdem]

124. And I'm sure that his history will be well accepted.

n/t

[TLM]

171. That's one of the current shut up the critics memes

that any attack on Clark or any lack os excitement over his military shiny bits is hate for the armed forces.

It is a quick spit shine on the Bush turd, why do you hate america.

Bush doesn't = america any more than Clark = the military.

Odd though, how similar the sales tactics are for this new democrat.

[robbedvoter]

100. People on DU ARE IMPRESSED - don't judge by a few with a chip on their

shoulder. People in the world are impressed - Clark's announcement was broadcasted in just about every country in the world - live.

Here's a post from Switzerland:

> I've just watched on CNN here in Amsterdam Anthony Grayling of UK's
> Prospect Magazine being asked his views on what Clark can contribute
> in terms of Europe-US relations. Basically he said that Gen. Clark
> is a very well known and respected man in European political circles,
> as we know. He added that, more than any other canditates (including
> Bush), Clark knows how to work with Europeans and they really
> appreciated here his leadership during the Kosovo crisis. Even
> without previous political experience, Europeans for the most part
> think he's better qualified to lead the US out of this isolationist
> corner the Bush people have painted themselves in...
> Well, over here in Europe, the General is our man.

[RandomUser]

126. Good point about Europe

Europe loves him :)

[DemExpat]

128. Very favorable, although cautious, on Dutch media

and BBC as well....

Hopefully the American people too will be impressed with him - everyone here I talk to, even some Repubs, seem to be very open to his candidacy!

:kick:

DemEx

[FDRrocks]

107. No he isn't!

I am General of the Armies! Swear to god. Washington, Pershing, and I.

Don't try to deny it!

[rasputin1952]

113. Wow...HOT THREAD!...

Let's all cool down on this wonderful Sat. Night for just a few.

As a vet, (some of you know this, so I'll spare you the details), I naturally move to protect those that have served this country, in either times of peace, or times of war.

I hate war. Everybody who has been on the front lines, hates war. Those that are in the VFW and Am Legion hooting and hollering for blood, don't have to go to this one, and they were most likely cooks or mechanics, supply sgt's etc., (that is not meant to slur thos MOS's).

War sucks, and people with little concepts of war and its horrors are usually the first to cry for it. Generals do not go into battle. Politicians do not go into battle. The lower Officer ranks and enlisted men are called upon to feel the cold steel. Nurses, Doctors, Medics, Cooks, Mechanics, Engineers, are generally pretty safe, but are still subject to air or artillery attack, flanking movements and breakthroughs. But it is the guy with the rifle, on the top of the hill he has just taken, that will come to despise war and all that goes with it.

Feel free not to serve, if that is what you really believe in, but please, and I am sincere in this request; do not denigrate those who have served in the past, or those that serve now.

My family has had someone in every conflict since the War of 1812, until Desert Storm, and I was recalled for that, but it was over to quickly; (doubt I could have passed the physical anyway). These men and women have a legacy of preserving our freedoms and liberties. They never took this burden lightly, they knew what they were doing, and although many of them would rather have been someplace else, they stayed and did what they were called upon to do.

I have heard Taps far too many times to allow those that have gone on before me, their lives torn away, their hopes and dreams gone up in a split second of detonation, to allow them to be disparaged without a word. They were heroes all, and they deserve better than being treated like GOP doormats.

Thank you for letting me go off like this. I felt I had to post this.

:kick: for those that paid the price to keep Liberty alive.

[RandomUser]

127. Informative and well said

And thank you for serving. Many who served have made the ultimate sacrafice and don't deserve to be treated like GOP doormats by democrats.

[rasputin1952]

130. Thank you for taking the time to read my post...

many people never understand what servicemen and women have to go through. There is a lot more than glorious victories, and often, it ain't pretty.

[stickdog]

114. He is indeed the ultimate mercenary --

quite willing to personally effect any crime, no matter how heinous, to prove himself "a good soldier."

[SWPAdem]

118. How about some hard evidence stickdog

Or would that be too much to ask? None of your previously posted shit either....being on the BOD of NED is not a "crime", nor is voting for a Repug.

[stickdog]

120. Let's see. He lobbied to sell USA taxpayers a terrorist-helping

Big Brother snooping indefensible piece of shit "no fly" list (which is really just Poindexter's Total Information Awareness in disguise) called CAPPS II.

He recently spoke at the graduation of the notorious Latin America CIA-style terrorism exporting School for the Americas.

He dropped hundreds of tons of depleted uranium on Kosovo.

He was added to the board of the Orwellianly named "National Endowment of Democracy" with Carlyle's own Frank Carlucci -- just in time to get involved with the NED's support of the abortive coup of Venezuela's democratically elected Chavez.

Hmmm, besides Axciom, the NED and the CFR, I wonder what other boards Clark has joined since he was forced out of the service for almost starting WWIII ...

Do you really want me to challenge me to find out, SWPAdem?

Because, if that's what it takes to shout down you transparent Demopublican bullies, I'm certainly up for the task.

[SWPAdem]

125. I said hard evidence,

not your wet dreams.

[knowledgeispower]

144. Show me hard evidence Clark is a good guy

You can't do it, just like Stickdog cannot definitively prove Clark is a mercenary. The difference is that some of us are not so eager to accept one personification of Clark over the other.

[Dr Fate]

151. The burden of proof is on the accuser...

...your post asks DEM supporters to "Prove Clark does not beat his wife"...

I'm not falling for that Rush/Drudge style tactic. it is laugable that in the face of asking for proof, we are countered with- "well- you prove that it is NOT true..ha ha" That is basically the tactic you are using.

FIRST the accuser must prove HIS accusation.

[TLM]

173. WHat part of his post is untrue... and be specific

I know the meme rules are clearly against specific answers, so please do your best to specifically address exactly what is false... no long winded personal attacks or excuses, no subject changing deflections.

Simply point out exactly what is false in his statement.

[knowledgeispower]

143. Stickdog is simply expressing a common fear of Clark

And one I share personally. Calling Clark "the ultimate mercenary" really sums it up for me. How do we know this guy isn't running for some agenda of his own, or worse, for the agenda of a group of very bad people.

[Dr Fate]

152. "Common fear" needs to be backed with "hard evidence"

Fear is only justified when that fear can be proven.

[maha]

153. How do we know that of anybody?

By doing a lot of reading. The more I learn about Clark, the more impressed I am. Several of the other candidates are also very impressive. But a good propagandist could make any of them look like slime.

[TLM]

174. Tell me what impresses you about CLark being a lobbyist for Kissinger?

Just curious.

[TLM]

172. Here ya go...right here. CLark supporting killing journalists/civilians

Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.

[fla nocount]

122. Yeah, yeah , yeah. That and two dollars............

will get you a cup of coffee in a NICE place.

[gully]

149. Then he'd make a good Secretary of State...

:P

[whirlygigspin]

158. *this thread was brought to you by

The millitary/Industrial complex.