Clark's True Colors - is he the one Eisenhower warned us about?

[Woodstock]

After MONTHS of reading threads started by people expressing their doubts about Dean (I recall "Dean scares me" was a favorite theme), I'm going to post my first thread expressing my doubts about a candidate - Wesley Clark. He's been my number two choice behind Dean - I really have overall liked what I've seen of Clark. But it's as though this article confirmed my doubts - my opinion of him went down after reading this. Clarkies, tell me why this article is wrong. Dean is looking better than ever to me now.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031215&s=taibbi

...I went the extra mile to cover Clark, even parting with a significant amount of my valuable time on this earth to volunteer, under an assumed name, for his campaign. Desperate measures were required, because solving the Clark puzzle is a desperate problem. It is not easy to explain how a man who voted for Reagan and Nixon, was a speechwriter for Al Haig, worked in the Ford White House alongside Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and was a passionate supporter of the Vietnam War could become a darling of the liberal antiwar crowd. Thirty-five years ago, hundreds of thousands of people took angrily to the streets, universities were taken over and a sitting President was hounded from the White House because of people like Wesley Clark.

Now Clark is presenting himself as a White Knight to the modern version of that same demographic, and he is being welcomed with open arms. He appeals to roughly the same class of people as Howard Dean, with a subtle difference. The Dean crowd self-consciously sees itself as a political force. When Dean tells supporters, "You have the power!" they holler like banshees, creating a Mike-Dukakis-teach-in-meets-Who-Let-the-Dogs-Out? kind of effect. But the chief crowd ritual in the Clark campaign is that of a group of hushed, groveling supplicants staring dewy-eyed at their savior Caesar. The vibe is all about ceding power, not empowerment...

Clark's new book, Winning Modern Wars, is 200 pages long, all about the Iraq war. Yet there is only one instance in the entire book in which he gives a physical description of the death of a human being, that being a mention of some Marines in Nasiriyah who were found with bullet holes in their heads. Everywhere else, human beings are described as "targets" or "objectives" or even "high-value targets," and their deaths are rendered with sports/ football metaphors ("going 'downtown' with air power," "Red Zone" attacks, "the Big Win," etc.) and bloodless euphemisms for words like "kill" or "assassination" ("destroy," "decapitating strike"). Moreover, he never mentions civilian casualties without qualifying his statements--the "alleged mistakes of the bombing campaign," the "hapless women and children reported to be victims of the bombing."

If this kind of talk sounds familiar, that's because it is. Clark doesn't hide it. "I'm a product of that military-industrial complex General Eisenhower warned you about," he said with a smile a few weeks ago, during a speech at the UNH campus in Manchester. The general assumed--correctly--that the term no longer inspired revulsion in young audiences...

[sleipnir]

1. Hold ON!! Here come the Flames!!

Go Clarkies, GO!

[Kahuna]

No flames. We didn't flame on the other three threads with..

the same article. And, I think you know that already.

[sleipnir]

36. Yes, that was a sarcastic response

Also, the flames come from both directions. I just await a large war on these threads between Clarkies and Deanites...

[kysrsoze]

63. Why the war? I'm OK with Clark/Dean or Dean/Clark if it beats the Chimp

Come on. There's a real war going on.

[sleipnir]

79. You know, I'm giving up on sarcasm...

Too many people aren't reading between the lines...

I DON"T WANT FLAME WARS!!

But I was pointing out that these threads always lead to massive wars between Clark and Dean supporters..

Either my sarcasm needs to be much more obvious or people on DU just believe what they read. Nothing personal at anyone, this is a theme for me tonight. People get angry at my sarcastic posts pointing out the stupidity and childish behavior of several posters on DU.

[Forkboy]

83. Sarcasm doesn't go over well here

believe me,I know.

[Cronus Protagonist]

169. DU doesn't like sarcasm as a whole

Some, like myself, like sarcasm, but there are lots of people on DU who have no sense of humor. Even putting a smiley face and a </sarcams> tag doesn't always work. I know, I've tried many times. :)

FUCK BUSH Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[neuvocat]

2. Yet another hit-piece.

This is so lame.


It isn't any different than this kind of tripe:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=811705

[Woodstock]

What do you think about the article?

I really would like to know. As I said, I have been expressing support for Clark here and elsewhere (although campaigning for Dean.)

OK, I saw your edit just now and the link. You're saying it's a hatchet job? And none of the issues raised concern you. They concerned me. I went in reading it overall liking him, came out not liking him so much.

[Kahuna]

7. What issue concerns you?

nt

[FrenchieCat]

41. Public Nuisance, that what

Matt Taibbi's True Colors

For years now, I've turned to The Nation mostly for its terrific cryptic crosswords. But they also print articles, and, from following a Clark list, I learned that the current issue of the mag features a remarkably pointless pile of drivel allegedly concerning Wesley Clark, and written by one Matt Taibbi. Although the best part of the magazine, the puzzles, regrettably, don't seem to be available online. Even more regrettable, the drivel is.

The article suggests that Taibbi's wholly negative view of Clark and his supporters comes from his observation of the campaign; in fact, it goes back several years. Through the late 90s, Taibbi lived in Moscow where he co-edited and helped write an English language magazine called The eXile. The eXile was, to put it mildly, opposed to the war in Kosovo. In his writing Taibbi was an open apologist for some of the most notorious crimes of Slobodan Milosevic and his associates. Taibbi wrote a long article implying that the January 15, 1999 massacre of Albanian civilians at Racak never happened. The evidence of a massacre at Racak is extensive; according to Human Rights Watch, which took extensive testimony from survivors:


Precisely how the twenty-three men were killed by the police on the hill outside of Racak remains somewhat unclear. But witness testimony, as provided here, and the physical evidence found at the site by journalists and KVM monitors, makes it clear that most of these men were fired upon from close range as they offered no resistance. Some of them were apparently shot while trying to run away.

Journalists at the scene early on January 16 told Human Rights Watch that many of these twenty-three men also had signs of torture, such as missing finger nails. Their clothes were bloody, with slashes and holes at the same spots as their bullet entry and exits wounds, which argues against government claims that the victims were KLA soldiers who were dressed in civilian clothes after they had been killed. All of them were wearing rubber boots typical of Kosovo farmers rather than military footwear. It is possible that some of these men were defending their village in the morning and then went to the Osmani house once they saw the police entering the village. However, they clearly did not resist the police at the time of their capture or execution.


The massacre at Racak plays a prominent role in the indictment of Milosevic and his cronies for crimes against humanity. But Taibbi claims it was all a con job. To support this fantastic charge he offers no study of the evidence, but simply an examination of the resume of one witness, an American diplomat named William Walker who, as an official of the Kosovo Verification Mission of the OSCE, was among the first foreigners to enter Racak after the atrocities. Mr Walker, it seems, was previously stationed in Central America during the Contra War and related conflicts of the 1980s. Therefore, he is obviously CIA, proving clearly that the Racak massacre must have been a CIA trick. If Mr Walker were the only witness, that would be an ad hominem argument, but at least an argument. But since Walker 's statements were backed by many statements of survivors and other international observers, his own background is simply irrelevant.


The first armed NATO intervention in Yugoslavia took place at the end of August, 1995. The primary cause was the Srebrenica massacre which took place the preceding month, but the immediate spark was an artillery attack on the Sarajevo market that caused over 100 civilian casualties. Another Taibbi article suggests that this attack was staged by the Bosnians, as a plan to obtain NATO support by murdering their own people and then framing the innocent Serbs.


Despite its moral posturing about Serb ethnic cleansing, NATO itself has provided air cover for the same kinds of atrocities it now accuses the Serbs of committing. In 1995, NATO planes, responding to what many now suspect was a Bosnian-government-staged massacre of Muslim civilians, attacked and crippled the Bosnian Serb army with punishing air assaults.


It is true that this claim has been made by such as Radovan Karadzic, not the most credible of sources, but good enough for the Nation. But it was categorically rejected by the UN (see paragraphs 438 - 441 of link) for good reasons, as discussed by Richard Holbrooke ("To End A War", ch 6). It is known that five shells were fired. Four failed to detonate, so analysis of their impact permitted a clear identification of the point of origin, which was in Serb-controlled territory. For the Bosnians to have fired the fifth and fatal round, it would have been necessary for the Bosnians to have known ahead of time exactly where and when the attack would come, in order to disguise their own shell as part of it.


Taibbi's further complaints against NATO ranged from the openly racist ("The Serbs are one of the tallest, most beautiful European tribes. Somalis, too, are tall and elegant, as are the Tutsi, who actually call themselves `The Tall People.` Why are the most beautiful tribes being wiped out by the squat and ugly?") to the highly personal ("Until a few weeks ago, Western men in Moscow could always count on being given special attention by that most precious of God's creatures, the Russian dyevushka.... Not now. Thanks to the NATO airstrikes, the White God has become the White Devil. All bets are off.... The days of E-Z sex and multiple partners in a consequence-free environment are over, thanks to America's sexually-demented president. Now, dyevs don't swallow. They just spit. All because your stupid country had to go 'n' bomb the Serbs.")

The general practice, rather conspicuous above, of going the extra mile to be as offensive as possible was a habit of Taibbi and The eXile. One Taibbi essy, under the title "God Can Suck MY Dick", says:


After 9/11, I'm certain: every last person who believes in God should be swept off the streets, captured with big nets, thrown into maximum-security institutions, and forced to knit oven mitts and play Lite-Brite with each other until their deaths.

Despite what you may think, God people are not just incredibly stupid. They're dangerous. They make possible every kind of human idiocy. Why? Not just because they tend to be zealots who try to force their point of view on other people (indeed, most religions consider non-believers lost or damned); not just because they do things like level the World Trade Center or strap dynamite to themselves and walk into abortion clinics to kill teenage girls they don't even know. No, the big problem with God people is that they make patent absurdities a central fact in the lives of entire populations, so that if anyone by chance wants to live a reasonable life, he has to do so in private, apologetically, like a man walking half bent-over through a crowded subway car because he has an erection in his pants.


Some of The eXile's outrages, such as the above piece, at least make a point. Others are adolescent transgressions of the worst kind, offensive for the sake of being offensive, without actually saying anything interesting, or making any noticable satiric point, or even being tastelessly funny. Certainly after a taste of The eXile, it is unsurprising that Taibbi adopted the persona of a porn director for his 'research' into the Clark movement.


As for the article itself, there's little to say. There are few facts to debate; Taibbi deals mainly in pointless anecdotes and personal opinions. He begins by looking deep into the eyes of various candidates. In the eyes of Kucinich, he finds limpid pools of sincerity consistent with Kucinich's standing as the writer's chosen favorite. In Lieberman, he finds humor - perhaps the gentleman from Connecticut also finds it clever to pick out random strangers and talk to them about having sex with their mother's corpse. In Clark he sees nothing, although the nothing seems to resemble a turtle, and there's a picnic basket in there somewhere. See, it's a metaphor, and if you're too clueless to understand, just do what Matt would do: read the article over again, changing every noun to 'penis'.


Matt then goes undercover to attend meetups with Clark supporters, who make valiant attempts to be polite to him although he is telling bizarre lies that they probably see through. As a result of this daring investigation, he is in a position to report that Clarkies want to defeat Bush and consider that more important than memorizing every detail of Clark's platform. Not many reporters could dig up this discovery in a month or so of research - most would take more like 5 minutes.


Taibbi is at pains to challenge Clark's bona fides as an anti-war candidate. "It is not easy to explain how a man who voted for Reagan and Nixon, was a speechwriter for Al Haig, worked in the Ford White House alongside Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and was a passionate supporter of the Vietnam War could become a darling of the liberal antiwar crowd. Thirty-five years ago, hundreds of thousands of people took angrily to the streets, universities were taken over and a sitting President was hounded from the White House because of people like Wesley Clark.... o person who found the Iraq war morally repugnant could have gone on television and talked sunnily about how this or that weapon was ravaging Iraqi defenses. I remember watching Clark on CNN, and at one point he was actually playing with a model of an A-10 tank-killer airplane, whooshing it back and forth over a map of Iraq, like a child playing with a new toy on Christmas morning. A person who was genuinely opposed to the war as wrongful killing would be sick even thinking about such a thing." True, Clark is opposed to fighting the wrong war for the wrong reason in the wrong way, but that isn't good enough for Matt. Any true anti-war man would be opposed to all wars - except for those fought by tall and beautiful tribes to eliminate the unpleasantly short and ugly.


Taibbi also drops broad hints that Clark's 'true colors' involve some sort of military-electoral coup. Clark is compared variously to Caesar, Cincinattus, and Nixon. And what does the would-be dictator like to eat? Napoleons - hint, hint.

[oasis]

48. Good post, thanks.

[Woodstock]

51. That puts a lot of perspective on things

Thanks!

[CWebster]

93. smear piece on the messenger, not the article

The nation is most likely aware if it is a credible report, although I do admit that it seemed at times, pretty yellow.

BTW--got a link?

[hlthe2b]

58. All I know is that if we spent half as much time deconstructing

Bush, as we do all the leading Dem candidates, we'd not have much to worry about in November, 2004. Honest to God, Democrats really are OUR own worse enemies...

[Woodstock]

62. Overall I agree but

This thread was basically just an invitatation to debunk an article.

The better we get at this sort of thing now, the easier it will be when it's our guy vs. Bush. They fight dirty.

I'm totally with you on the slinging mud part of the picture here. Why not just rationally discuss the issues we are uncertain about. All the candidates are good men (and one woman) and they are all miles and acres and mountains better than the shrub.

[Nashyra]

75. Agreed

[neuvocat]

71. This is the same author

who put out another hit-piece on Clark not too long ago.

Those "issues" raised by him are under severe doubt because this guy's creditability (not Clark's) has been shot by now.

"The guy that Eisenhower warned us about." Please!

[ShaneGR]

3. snores.... since I've read the book

I'll laugh that you left out the whole 50 pages devoted to why we should have never gone.

[Richardo]

4. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

:boring: This article was discussed in depth yesterday.

[chimpymustgo]

5. This thread is a dupe of a dupe of a dupe. Should it be locked?

Good grief.

[Closer]

6. Oh come now Woodstock

Don't tell me you expect a rational rebuttal or argument to your question from CLARKETTES?!?!

Oh no, you'll get "yawn's" "this is so stupid's" "how DARE you DEANIE start a flame thread's" and lots of others that are similar.


You'll be lucky if you get ONE rational response, from a person who's read it and offers you a rebuttal. Actually, even one would be rare.

on edit: HAHA, low and behold, by the time I posted this, my point was proven. They're just geniuses at this board I tell ya, geniuses!

[Kahuna]

65. WRONGO! As you well know by now Closer..

I made a video of the speech at UNH and have proof that Taibbi is a commie liar. How conveniently for your selective memory that I have to remind you every time you engage in one of these posts.

[CWebster]

94. A "commie liar", huh

Hmmmmmmm.

Twould've been better if you has simply gone to sleep as usual.

Zzzzz.

[Cronus Protagonist]

107. Now who else uses "commie liar" as an attack on a reporter?

I think you're either in bed with the wrong people, or you are in bed with the RIGHT people, if you catch my drift....

LICK BUSH Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Kahuna]

131. "A reporter?????" Taibbi IS NOT a reporter.

He is a commie liar like I said. The fact that you stick up for him speaks more about you than it does about me.

[Cronus Protagonist]

168. I didn't speak up for the reporter

I spoke up against your attack on him. And he reported what happened, so he is certainly a reporter. As for your characterization of him as a "commie liar", that, in my opinion, says a lot more about you than he.

FUCK BUSH Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Nashyra]

77. Name calling is usually a good indication of fear

Clark supporters are just what they are supporters of a particular candidate and your name calling does your candidate a diservice. Grow up and maybe someone might consider having a rational conversation or rebuttal with you.

[Jerseycoa]

8. The several times

This toilet tissue was touted at DU, even Dean supporters knew it for what it was.

Gloria Steinem would be ashamed to know you. :freak:

[Woodstock]

10. Gloria likes a good discussion

I think I'm cool with her. Thanks for your concern (and your stimulating response to the issues raised.)

[Pastiche423]

19. What did the Dean supporters know it was?

[rumguy]

9. I've said it before and I'll say it again

this article is nothing but hipster trash...

Look at me everyone I'm so ironic as I make fun of everyone and everything....he slams the Dean campaign as well if you noticed...

[Woodstock]

15. I didn't post it to slam Clark or Dean or anyone

And I didn't post it to say I agreed with the author. I said the article raised some issues that concerned me - snipped out the ones that did most - and hoped one of his supporters would want to point out some good things to offset the impression the article left me with. I'm inches away from feeling like he can handle a campaign against Bush again & that my initial good impression of him was valid, and hoped somebody would nudge me in that direction. Instead, just blanket dismissals. The ironic thing is - that's what the author of the article said happened to him when he raised issues, too.

[Kahuna]

24. Why didn't you do a google to check out the author?

Are we supposed to do that for you? Or should you do it for yourself? The author is a lying,slimey, asshole. A quick google search of some of his previous droppings would have shown you that.

[xultar]

11. OLD SHIT...Can't you guys come up with something new for God Sake

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=23136


Another post from a DUer a week ago!

Author and New Yorker political journalist Elizabeth Drew has a piece on Wesley Clark in the current New York Review of Books. Read Matt Taibbi's article in the The Nation (highlighted in an earlier thread) and follow it up with the Drew piece. You'll probably be left in some doubt as to whether they're writing about the same man. Drew's piece is considerably less imaginative—no mention of any resemblance between Clark and reptiles, no empty eyes of a sociopath— but considerably more informative. I'll leave it to the readers to decide which writer has the stronger credentials when it comes to profiling candidates and whether Taibbi's work is a hallucinatory hatchet job on a major Democratic candidate, but you oughtn't to read Taibbi's article without the counterweight of Drew's.

[OKNancy]

16. and this one too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=92700

----
If Rush Limbaugh wrote a piece of trash about any one of our Democratic candidates, you would think, "consider the source"
ALthough in the Nation, the author is pro-Milosvich, and denies the genocide in Kosovo. Google some of his other stuff. An eye opener.

[Texas_Dem]

12. what else ya got

that dog aint hunting..........

[Democrats unite]

13. Actually it's quite simple...

The more Deannies get worried, the more of this tripe we will see.

[Kahuna]

20. The last four DU polls showing Clark ahead of Dean has sent

them scurrying for any trash they can find to attack Clark with. They're even going to the recycler and bring back the same old trash. Predictable.

[Woodstock]

22. This is eerie

I'm being blanket dismissed and called "you guys" like I'm the enemy - and I even sent money to Clark's campaign and talked him up amongst undecided voters as a great choice. All I wanted was some positive things to draw me back into the fold, and I got blanket dismissals. Interesting.

[FrenchieCat]

43. No eerie...Irrate....is what

we're getting. But it's ok, look at my post up above. It gives you the rebuttal. Also, I find the article where the Bosnians were celebrating Flag Day in honor of Clark and his role in what Mr. Author guy thought was an objectionable war that was really made up.

[BeHereNow]

68. Kind of like a cult, huh?

Blind devotion to the great leader-
all who question must be sacrificed...
Pack of rabid zombies comes to my mind
each time I engage with a Clark-ist.
Yes it is interesting.
Sort of a DU Twilight Zone where you can
no longer tell the freepers from the DUers...
They look the same, they sound the same,
they hurl insults the same...oh my God,
It IS a DU Twilight Zone- We are trapped
in a DU Twilight Zone Episode!
HELP!
BHN

[CWebster]

95. LOL!

been there too.

[neuvocat]

73. I'm beginning to agree.

Clark woulnd't be getting this kind of attention if he weren't such a threat or if he weren't so likely to get the nomination.

[Kahuna]

14. Linked is a previous thread. See post #42.. where I offer..

the exact quote Clark made about the MIC, because I attended the event and taped it with my trusty camcorder.

You should really check out the author's credentials before you vouch for an article and post it. Did it ever occur to you that he is a columnist with an agenda..... like most columnists. Do a google search and you will quickly be able to determine what that agenda is.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Here' is Clark's actual quote takne off your trusty camcorder

I thought I would make it easy for people and just post it directly here. Quoting Kahuna:

"I attended that speech with my camcorder. Lordy, how reporters continue to lie with abandon. Knowing that everyday citizens are attending these events with camcorders in hand! It would be nice if reporters followed this practice so that they could be accurate in their reporting.

I just listened to the video. This is General Clark's exact quote:

"I wore a uniform for a long time,. I was part of that military industrial complex that General Eisenhower warned about. So, I know all about it and how it works. I'm going to tell you something. I'm going to support every dime we need to keep America strong. But I'm not going to tolerate billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency because someone stamps a label "secret" on it."

It's apparent that Mr. Taibbi intended to portray General Clark as a hypocrite and impugn his integrity. I am circulating this quote and a clip of the video on the internet so that everybody will know what the Nation’s and Mr. Taibba's agenda is. That being, "Smear Clark."

[Woodstock]

42. Thanks, that was quite a different take

That sounds more like the Clark I admire.

[Hep]

17. I'm an avid Dean supporter

and the language of your exerpt seems very loaded to me. I mean, maybe it is as extreme as reported, but it just looks fishy.

[Woodstock]

25. Did you read the whole article?

Hep, you're one of my favorite ones here, so maybe you want to talk about it. I knew the author was disillusioned, and thus the tone of the piece. I admit I'm a huge fan of The Nation (& longtime subscriber.) This is the cover story of the issue I got yesterday. So I guess there was some added credibility that they chose it as a cover story. I really really want to like Clark, but the article seemed to touch on all of the doubts I was trying to ignore.

[Hep]

27. I admit I only read the exerpt.

And I got that issue of The Nation today.

But the part you shared reminds me of that nation article that came out several months ago, "Dean is no Wellstone". My Nation now comes with a big grain of salt.

I'll try to get to the article tonight and share my thoughts.

[Woodstock]

40. I remember that one - lots of the ones recently are pro-Dean

I almost thought they were going to come out and endorse him, it's been that many.

Katha Pollit has written several pro-Dean pieces, one just last week, and then here's another recent article by William Greider:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031215&s=greider

[Kahuna]

32. This is the letter I wrote to the Nation exposing a LIE, the

author included in his hit piece. They have yet to respond to me.

"Clark's True Colors" by Matt Taibbi, contains a blaring mistruth. I would appreciate an immediate correction or retraction. Mr. Taibbi claims that during a speech at UNH campus in Manchester, General Clark said (notice the use of quotation marks)

"I'm a product of that military-industrial complex General Eisenhower warned you about," he said with a smile a few weeks ago, during a speech at the UNH campus in Manchester. The general assumed--correctly--that the term no longer inspired revulsion in young audiences.

I attended that speech with my camcorder. Lordy, how reporters continue to lie with abandon, knowing that everyday citizens are attending these events with camcorders in hand! It would be nice if reporters followed this practice so that they could be accurate in their reporting.

I just listened to the video. This is General Clark's exact quote:

"I wore a uniform for a long time,. I was part of that military industrial complex that General Eisenhower warned about. So, I know all about it and how it works. I'm going to tell you something. I'm going to support every dime we need to keep America strong. But I'm not going to tolerate billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency because someone stamps a label "secret" on it."

It's apparent that Mr. Taibbi intended to portray General Clark as a hypocrite and impugn his integrity. I am circulating this quote and a clip of the video on the internet so that everybody will know what the Nation’s, Commondreams and Mr. Taibbi's agenda is. That being, "Smear Clark."

[Hep]

37. You're 95% right

5% = The Nation has published slam pieces on more than just Clark.

[Closer]

18. Woodstock,

May I point out, too, the huge differences you see in the majority of DU Clark supporters versus DU Dean supporters. That should both tell you something about the supporters and the candidate.

If you feel like you're being attacked by a bunch of militaristic schoolyard bullies, you're not alone. This is common from a majority of Clarkettes.

I'm glad you're questioning him more and more. And just know, this piece doesn't even TOUCH on some of the real nastiness in his record.

[Justice]

33. Honesty

Is not your strength. I've seen your anti-Clark post and defending Dean posts. You are in there with the best of the bullies.

[Julien Sorel]

50. As one of the bullies, I genuinely resent that. We have

standards, and they ain't that low.

[KittyWampus]

21. No He's The One The Old Testament Prophet Isaiah Warned Us About

or is that the New Testament with Revelations.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. How about something from the same author on Dean?

This from another artical of his in "The Nation"

"The footprints of some schlock Democratic Party Svengali--probably Trippi--were visible at every turn in the Dean voyage. There was the Grassroots Express itself, of course. This was one of the details that I found hardest to reconcile with the widespread belief that Dean is "different" and "not a typical politician." When you name your campaign vehicle the Grassroots Express, while one of your opponents (John Edwards) has a bus named the Real Solutions Express and a candidate from a rival party (John McCain) four years ago had one called the Straight Talk Express...well, you haven't worked very hard to be different.

Then there was the Imageering 101 political staging, a subject of much snickering in the press pool. At most every stop Dean had a statistically accurate multicultural microcosm await his arrival on stage, usually against a background of a giant American flag. Milwaukee, the second stop on the tour, was the most painful: seventeen supporters of various races (in proper proportions: three blacks, two Hispanics, etc.), frozen and seemingly afraid to move or make a face against the backdrop of a mammoth Old Glory. Watching them wait for Dean gave me shivers; they looked like sausages nailed to a giant red, white and blue crucifix.

There were other details: the plastic grass, the strange fact (compelling to several reporters) that Dean rolled up his sleeves in public but rolled them down and buttoned them when relaxing on the plane, the odd fuzziness and vacuity of certain parts of Dean's stump speech... It was not lost on some of us, for instance, that his wooden campaign slogan, "Take America Back," was also used by two other former Trippi candidates: Gephardt in 1988 and Jerry Brown in 1992. Much of Dean's public presentation, in fact, is a rehash of other Democratic campaigns. He makes a joke about Bush being "all hat and no cattle," which was a laugh line in Gephardt's campaign speech earlier this year. And his closer line, "You have the power! You have the power! You have the power!" (delivered in the style of Jesse Jackson's "Keep Hope Alive!" bit) was a Gore line in 2000. "

[Woodstock]

35. Excellent - would you respond to my article in kind?

This is just the sort of discussion I wanted to engage in. I can easily address the excerpt, because I know a lot about Dean & have thought about these things. Hopefully you will do the same for me. (also, can you post a link & I'll take a look at the whole article?)

Here's my take:

Definitely valid critisim about the Dean campaign. I actually personally got an email from someone who was offended because someone in the Dean campaign pulled African Americans up close to the stage at a rally.

There is definitely also contrived things - like the shirtsleeves - that I noticed. I'd like for these to be more spontaneous and less staged.

And yes, the lines get old.

But - I've always seen through this stuff - it's like it's a play put on by people who expect this sort of thing. Not directed by Martin Scorsese, but by a B picture kind of director, for sure. I've listened to Dean's speeches though, lots of them, and observed him in many settings - and convinced underneat the trappings, the man is genuine.

Can you please address my concerns the same way? Thanks.

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. Here is that direct link

The Dean artical: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031006&c=1&s=taibbi

Please see also the above actual Clark quote that was ripped out of context and spun into something ominous by the author. Things like that don't happen by accident. I am not trying to be lazy here, I have a 5 day business trip to prepare for leaving tommorrow AM and shouldn't have taken even this much time responding now. I regret I can not take more time on this now. But please understand that it is just as easy to paint an inaccurate portrait by distorting several lines as it is to produce an extremely unflattering photograph by selectively editing a video.

[Bombtrack]

26. The nation has really turned into a hackneyed rag

why don't they just endorse Dean instead of having 5 different puff pieces of him and/or slams at his opponents on there front page.

[Kahuna]

28. It really has. Katrina seems so sweet and reasonable on TV..

But as the editor of The Nation, she is responsible for it's content. She also did a hit piece on Clark based upon rumors and innuendo. Articles based upon rumors and innuendos would certainly qualify for a rag sheet. That's The Nation. Shameful.

[Bombtrack]

34. she's a horrible debator

she uses bumper sticker slogans to converse, and doesn't even come off as a human being. She's like a left-bot

[SahaleArm]

141. LOL, left-bot!

She does come off a little contrived on TV.

[roguevalley]

29. The Nation. Yeah, they tell the truth. <Yawn> Get better reading material.

For both Clark and Dean. The Nation? :-P~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Ksec]

30. actually Clark was against the war so that stomps yer post. Sorry ! nt

[roughsatori]

31. Some of the DUers who posted MANY Dupes on Clark on Faux News

are complaining about you posting this since it was posted before.

There was the link to the video of the Faux/Clark argument posted a few times; a link to the transcript of the same--as well as various posts on how Great Clark did during the SAME interview. After those there were the clever ones that asked: "Can any one post links to Clark's argument with the guy on FOX."

I never have mentioned a dupe ever at DU. But it is hilarious that a few of the posters in this very thread complaining about your dupe participated in the Clarkapolooza duping.

His supporters are great at yawning and promoting censorship of dupes that are not laudatory of the "General."

And though I will vote for anyone but Bush* or Clark, that article does seem biased against Clark in a way that makes it difficult to take seriously.

Edited to add: I see that now Clark supporters attack The Nation as radical left. Before that it was CommonDreams, before that it was Indymedia, before that it was CounterPunch, etc.

[Julien Sorel]

53. Are you denying that CommonDreams, Indymedia et al are far left???

[Zuni]

165. Counterpunch, some stuff on Commondreams, and some stuff

from the nation are far left. Counterpunch is a rag, as biased and unreliable as anything from murdoch. Sometimes Commondreams has good stuff, other times in is full of neo-communist, watermelon or hippie nonsense.
The nation has some good stuff and some poor stuff. David Corn is awesome.

[SPAZtazticman]

39. i dunno

that article sounds kinda fishy, if only because its so biased. it makes it sound as if clark is some kind of supernatural being.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[ibegurpard]

52. and yet you expect nice rational responses to the hit-pieces you

constantly post about Dean and this is the response you give when someone is sincerely questioning something they read about the candidate you support?! Nice!

[AmericanDem]

56. my opinion

if you don't like it, this is something you need to work on.


p.s. What is wrong, can't take when I adapt the Deanie way of addressing a thread?

[kentuck]

45. Do you actually believe he would be worse than Bush ?

I cannot believe that.

[Cronus Protagonist]

176. I don't think anyone's saying he would be worse than Bush

What's at question is whether or not he is the BFEE's safety player, or even the chosen next president for phase II of PNAC. IMHO, I like what Clark says, he looks good on TV, but we just don't know enough about him as to whether we can trust him with the presidency.

Bush ran center left and rules like a fucking dictator. What's to stop Clark doing the same? I'm not saying he will, particularly because I do like what he's saying on national TV at the moment, but the question is an honest one, how do we know? Why should we trust him? Can we afford to trust him, given that there's Dean, Kucinich, Gephardt and Edwards available for us to choose from, all of whom have records that we can pretty much count on.

In short, why choose Clark?

FUCK BUSH Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Mattforclark]

46. Your token rational rebuttal

"Don't tell me you expect a rational rebuttal or argument to your question from CLARKETTES?!?!"

I will only respond to the parts that you posted, because I need to make dinner so as to provide myself with calories.

"...I went the extra mile to cover Clark, even parting with a significant amount of my valuable time on this earth to volunteer, under an assumed name, for his campaign. Desperate measures were required, because solving the Clark puzzle is a desperate problem. It is not easy to explain how a man who voted for Reagan and Nixon,"

I can understand voting for Reagan, especially if one was in the military. If I was the one that was going to be driving around in the tanks possibly fighting off waves of T-72's, I would be extremely tempted to vote myself an M-1 rather than an M-60. People like Mondale, Carter, and Dukakis were perceived by a vast majority of people, rightly or wrongly, to be 'soft on defence.'

"was a speechwriter for Al Haig,"

Officers do not choose jobs, they are assigned them.

"worked in the Ford White House alongside Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld"

Yes, he worked in the OMB. That is certainly a job that I would have liked to have, and I would think it provided him with valuable experience. I don't see why it is relevant that he worked under a Republican administration, given that the only administration around was Republican and that he was a military officer and not any kind of appointed or elected official.

"and was a passionate supporter of the Vietnam War could become a darling of the liberal antiwar crowd. Thirty-five years ago, hundreds of thousands of people took angrily to the streets, universities were taken over and a sitting President was hounded from the White House because of people like Wesley Clark."

It is true that 30 years ago Clark supported the Vietnam war. I would think, however, that over a period of 30 years people can change.

"Now Clark is presenting himself as a White Knight to the modern version of that same demographic, and he is being welcomed with open arms. He appeals to roughly the same class of people as Howard Dean, with a subtle difference. The Dean crowd self-consciously sees itself as a political force. When Dean tells supporters, "You have the power!" they holler like banshees, creating a Mike-Dukakis-teach-in-meets-Who-Let-the-Dogs-Out? kind of effect. But the chief crowd ritual in the Clark campaign is that of a group of hushed, groveling supplicants staring dewy-eyed at their savior Caesar. The vibe is all about ceding power, not empowerment..."

I would like to see empirical evidence supporting this wide ranging generalization before I believe it is true.

"Clark's new book, Winning Modern Wars, is 200 pages long, all about the Iraq war. Yet there is only one instance in the entire book in which he gives a physical description of the death of a human being, that being a mention of some Marines in Nasiriyah who were found with bullet holes in their heads. Everywhere else, human beings are described as "targets" or "objectives" or even "high-value targets," and their deaths are rendered with sports/ football metaphors ("going 'downtown' with air power," "Red Zone" attacks, "the Big Win," etc.) and bloodless euphemisms for words like "kill" or "assassination" ("destroy," "decapitating strike"). Moreover, he never mentions civilian casualties without qualifying his statements--the "alleged mistakes of the bombing campaign," the "hapless women and children reported to be victims of the bombing.""

I don't see why this means that Clark does not understand the brutality of war, which I think it is meant to imply. I personally get the impression that he understands war very well. And if you do not know whether something is true, I think it makes sense to say 'alleged' and 'reported.'

"If this kind of talk sounds familiar, that's because it is. Clark doesn't hide it. "I'm a product of that military-industrial complex General Eisenhower warned you about," he said with a smile a few weeks ago, during a speech at the UNH campus in Manchester. The general assumed--correctly--that the term no longer inspired revulsion in young audiences..."

Obviously he is from the military. I do not understand, however, why that is an a-priori evil thing.

[Woodstock]

54. Thanks!

Excellent points.

[Cronus Protagonist]

110. And thank you from me too

I read dozens of posts before getting to this one, the first I've read that addresses the points brought up in the article, rather than attack the source.

Any time I see people attack the source without addressing the issues, I'm reminded of Republican tactics. It's OK to point out flaws in the source, IMHO, but one should ALSO address the issues brought up or one is engaging in flawed communication.

LICK BUSH Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[thebgrkng]

49. Woodstock here is a reply.

Taken from: (go here to get the reference links)
http://nuisance.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_nuisance_archive.html#107007468661202923

--START------------------------------------------
Matt Taibbi's True Colors

For years now, I've turned to The Nation mostly for its terrific cryptic crosswords. But they also print articles, and, from following a Clark list, I learned that the current issue of the mag features a remarkably pointless pile of drivel allegedly concerning Wesley Clark, and written by one Matt Taibbi. Although the best part of the magazine, the puzzles, regrettably, don't seem to be available online. Even more regrettable, the drivel is.

The article suggests that Taibbi's wholly negative view of Clark and his supporters comes from his observation of the campaign; in fact, it goes back several years. Through the late 90s, Taibbi lived in Moscow where he co-edited and helped write an English language magazine called The eXile. The eXile was, to put it mildly, opposed to the war in Kosovo. In his writing Taibbi was an open apologist for some of the most notorious crimes of Slobodan Milosevic and his associates. Taibbi wrote a long article implying that the January 15, 1999 massacre of Albanian civilians at Racak never happened. The evidence of a massacre at Racak is extensive; according to Human Rights Watch, which took extensive testimony from survivors:


Precisely how the twenty-three men were killed by the police on the hill outside of Racak remains somewhat unclear. But witness testimony, as provided here, and the physical evidence found at the site by journalists and KVM monitors, makes it clear that most of these men were fired upon from close range as they offered no resistance. Some of them were apparently shot while trying to run away.

Journalists at the scene early on January 16 told Human Rights Watch that many of these twenty-three men also had signs of torture, such as missing finger nails. Their clothes were bloody, with slashes and holes at the same spots as their bullet entry and exits wounds, which argues against government claims that the victims were KLA soldiers who were dressed in civilian clothes after they had been killed. All of them were wearing rubber boots typical of Kosovo farmers rather than military footwear. It is possible that some of these men were defending their village in the morning and then went to the Osmani house once they saw the police entering the village. However, they clearly did not resist the police at the time of their capture or execution.


The massacre at Racak plays a prominent role in the indictment of Milosevic and his cronies for crimes against humanity. But Taibbi claims it was all a con job. To support this fantastic charge he offers no study of the evidence, but simply an examination of the resume of one witness, an American diplomat named William Walker who, as an official of the Kosovo Verification Mission of the OSCE, was among the first foreigners to enter Racak after the atrocities. Mr Walker, it seems, was previously stationed in Central America during the Contra War and related conflicts of the 1980s. Therefore, he is obviously CIA, proving clearly that the Racak massacre must have been a CIA trick. If Mr Walker were the only witness, that would be an ad hominem argument, but at least an argument. But since Walker 's statements were backed by many statements of survivors and other international observers, his own background is simply irrelevant.


The first armed NATO intervention in Yugoslavia took place at the end of August, 1995. The primary cause was the Srebrenica massacre which took place the preceding month, but the immediate spark was an artillery attack on the Sarajevo market that caused over 100 civilian casualties. Another Taibbi article suggests that this attack was staged by the Bosnians, as a plan to obtain NATO support by murdering their own people and then framing the innocent Serbs.


Despite its moral posturing about Serb ethnic cleansing, NATO itself has provided air cover for the same kinds of atrocities it now accuses the Serbs of committing. In 1995, NATO planes, responding to what many now suspect was a Bosnian-government-staged massacre of Muslim civilians, attacked and crippled the Bosnian Serb army with punishing air assaults.


It is true that this claim has been made by such as Radovan Karadzic, not the most credible of sources, but good enough for the Nation. But it was categorically rejected by the UN (see paragraphs 438 - 441 of link) for good reasons, as discussed by Richard Holbrooke ("To End A War", ch 6). It is known that five shells were fired. Four failed to detonate, so analysis of their impact permitted a clear identification of the point of origin, which was in Serb-controlled territory. For the Bosnians to have fired the fifth and fatal round, it would have been necessary for the Bosnians to have known ahead of time exactly where and when the attack would come, in order to disguise their own shell as part of it.


Taibbi's further complaints against NATO ranged from the openly racist ("The Serbs are one of the tallest, most beautiful European tribes. Somalis, too, are tall and elegant, as are the Tutsi, who actually call themselves `The Tall People.` Why are the most beautiful tribes being wiped out by the squat and ugly?") to the highly personal ("Until a few weeks ago, Western men in Moscow could always count on being given special attention by that most precious of God's creatures, the Russian dyevushka.... Not now. Thanks to the NATO airstrikes, the White God has become the White Devil. All bets are off.... The days of E-Z sex and multiple partners in a consequence-free environment are over, thanks to America's sexually-demented president. Now, dyevs don't swallow. They just spit. All because your stupid country had to go 'n' bomb the Serbs.")

The general practice, rather conspicuous above, of going the extra mile to be as offensive as possible was a habit of Taibbi and The eXile. One Taibbi essy, under the title "God Can Suck MY Dick", says:


After 9/11, I'm certain: every last person who believes in God should be swept off the streets, captured with big nets, thrown into maximum-security institutions, and forced to knit oven mitts and play Lite-Brite with each other until their deaths.

Despite what you may think, God people are not just incredibly stupid. They're dangerous. They make possible every kind of human idiocy. Why? Not just because they tend to be zealots who try to force their point of view on other people (indeed, most religions consider non-believers lost or damned); not just because they do things like level the World Trade Center or strap dynamite to themselves and walk into abortion clinics to kill teenage girls they don't even know. No, the big problem with God people is that they make patent absurdities a central fact in the lives of entire populations, so that if anyone by chance wants to live a reasonable life, he has to do so in private, apologetically, like a man walking half bent-over through a crowded subway car because he has an erection in his pants.


Some of The eXile's outrages, such as the above piece, at least make a point. Others are adolescent transgressions of the worst kind, offensive for the sake of being offensive, without actually saying anything interesting, or making any noticable satiric point, or even being tastelessly funny. Certainly after a taste of The eXile, it is unsurprising that Taibbi adopted the persona of a porn director for his 'research' into the Clark movement.


As for the article itself, there's little to say. There are few facts to debate; Taibbi deals mainly in pointless anecdotes and personal opinions. He begins by looking deep into the eyes of various candidates. In the eyes of Kucinich, he finds limpid pools of sincerity consistent with Kucinich's standing as the writer's chosen favorite. In Lieberman, he finds humor - perhaps the gentleman from Connecticut also finds it clever to pick out random strangers and talk to them about having sex with their mother's corpse. In Clark he sees nothing, although the nothing seems to resemble a turtle, and there's a picnic basket in there somewhere. See, it's a metaphor, and if you're too clueless to understand, just do what Matt would do: read the article over again, changing every noun to 'penis'.


Matt then goes undercover to attend meetups with Clark supporters, who make valiant attempts to be polite to him although he is telling bizarre lies that they probably see through. As a result of this daring investigation, he is in a position to report that Clarkies want to defeat Bush and consider that more important than memorizing every detail of Clark's platform. Not many reporters could dig up this discovery in a month or so of research - most would take more like 5 minutes.


Taibbi is at pains to challenge Clark's bona fides as an anti-war candidate. "It is not easy to explain how a man who voted for Reagan and Nixon, was a speechwriter for Al Haig, worked in the Ford White House alongside Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and was a passionate supporter of the Vietnam War could become a darling of the liberal antiwar crowd. Thirty-five years ago, hundreds of thousands of people took angrily to the streets, universities were taken over and a sitting President was hounded from the White House because of people like Wesley Clark.... o person who found the Iraq war morally repugnant could have gone on television and talked sunnily about how this or that weapon was ravaging Iraqi defenses. I remember watching Clark on CNN, and at one point he was actually playing with a model of an A-10 tank-killer airplane, whooshing it back and forth over a map of Iraq, like a child playing with a new toy on Christmas morning. A person who was genuinely opposed to the war as wrongful killing would be sick even thinking about such a thing." True, Clark is opposed to fighting the wrong war for the wrong reason in the wrong way, but that isn't good enough for Matt. Any true anti-war man would be opposed to all wars - except for those fought by tall and beautiful tribes to eliminate the unpleasantly short and ugly.


Taibbi also drops broad hints that Clark's 'true colors' involve some sort of military-electoral coup. Clark is compared variously to Caesar, Cincinattus, and Nixon. And what does the would-be dictator like to eat? Napoleons - hint, hint.
--END------------------------------------------

Hope this sheds some light on the objectivity of the author.
TheBgrKng

[Mattforclark]

55. Oh wow

So the article was written by someone from the eXile? In that case, one should take it for whatever comedic value it provides and then move on. But I would be hesitant, to say the least, to take much of anything those people write too seriously.

Check 'em out.

http://exile.ru

[Woodstock]

57. Definitely, thanks

He also put Clark's remark about Eisenhower out of context, as was shown in one of the posts above.

[Code_Name_D]

59. A CIA plot to fraim Clark?

It takes my breath away every time I see that. It's almost as amusing as the "its Clintion's fault" line.

[FDRrocks]

60. This Orwellian - Rand - on - Steroids world...

that we currently live in is what Ike warned us about. The M/I complex ain't new.

[Zorra]

61. So, what IS Clark's stance on the MIC? Can someone

post a link refuting that Clark is not a product of the MIC?

What really are Clark's belief about the power and control of the MIC?
We really need to know this before we get much closer to nomination time. This is not a flame. Controlling corporate power is extremely important, and the very wise people listed below thought this also.

Here are some thoughts on corporate power, from some famous leftists --Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, FDR, Eisenhower, etc

Jefferson Was Right

Most Americans don’t know it but Thomas Jefferson, along with James Madison worked assiduously to have an 11th Amendment included into our nation’s original Bill of Rights. This proposed Amendment would have prohibited “monopolies in commerce.” The amendment would have made it illegal for corporations to own other corporations, or to give money to politicians, or to otherwise try to influence elections. Corporations would be chartered by the states for the primary purpose of “serving the public good.” Corporations would possess the legal status not of natural persons but rather of “artificial persons.” This means that they would have only those legal attributes which the state saw fit to grant to them. They would NOT; and indeed could NOT possess the same bundle of rights which actual flesh and blood persons enjoy. Under this proposed amendment neither the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, nor any provision of that document would protect the artificial entities known of as corporations.

Jefferson and Madison were so insistent upon this amendment because the American Revolution was in substantial degree a revolt against the domination of colonial economic and political life by the greatest multinational corporation of its age: the British East India Company. After all who do you think owned the tea which Sam Adams and friends dumped overboard in Boston Harbor? Who was responsible for the taxes on commodities and restrictions on trade by the American colonists? It was the British East India Company, of course. In the end the amendment was not adopted because a majority in the first Congress believed that already existing state laws governing corporations were adequate for constraining corporate power. Jefferson worried about the growing influence of corporate power until his dying day in 1826. Even the more conservative founder John Adams came to harbor deep misgivings about unchecked corporate power.

http://www.liberalslant.com/mpb052403.htm

Past Presidents on corporations:

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Thomas Jefferson

"There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by... corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses. It's one of the reasons why the word "corporation" doesn't exist in the constitution - they were to be chartered only by states, so local people could keep a close eye on them." James Madison, Father of the Constitution

"In this point of the case the question is distinctly presented whether the people of the United States are to govern through representatives chosen by their unbiased suffrages or whether the money and power of a great corporation are to be secretly exerted to influence their judgment and control their decisions." Andrew Jackson

"I am more than ever convinced of the dangers to which the free and unbiased exercise of political opinion - the only sure foundation and safeguard of republican government - would be exposed by any further increase of the already overgrown influence of corporate authorities." Martin van Buren

"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless." Abraham Lincoln

"As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters." Grover Cleveland

"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." Theodore Roosevelt

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, IS Fascism.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” Dwight David Eisenhower

[Kahuna]

66. Yes, I know. No blank checks. He also does not approve of...

those nuke-bunker-busters that Rummy and Cheney are so enamored with.

[Kahuna]

64. Another thing! If you don't now by know that Rummy, Cheney..

and Bush is the crowd Ike warned about, you have been asleep for the past three years. What a POS title. And then you squawk when called on it. Your post was intended as flamebait. Period. Too bad, you boy Taibbi got wrong, and me and my trusty camcorder was there to get it right. Somehow I'm gonna get a MPEG of that tape done and post it here on DU for everyone to see. It was a wonderful speech.

[Pastiche423]

67. And that crowd

is the very crowd that clark praised less than a year ago.

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. At least get your dates right . n/t

[Kahuna]

70. May 2001 was two and a half years ago. M'kay.

Nice try though.

[JNelson6563]

72. I have some concerns too

I have mostly kept them to myself so as not to be accused of flaming or attacking. I have PMed a Clarkie I respect about it but have not yet heard back.

It is not easy to explain how a man who voted for Reagan and Nixon, was a speechwriter for Al Haig, worked in the Ford White House alongside Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and was a passionate supporter of the Vietnam War could become a darling of the liberal antiwar crowd.

I recently saw an interview with the General where, it was either a quote or a clip, he had said something about Rummy being the right guy for the job. He was asked in this interview why he's changed his mind about Rummy now not being right for the job and Clark insisted he never thought Rummy right for the job. But there it was, clear as day, at one point he DID think so, or at least he said so.

I've long had a nagging feeling about the praising Bush business but have thus far been able to mostly write it off as post 9/11 let's-all-work-together-ness type stuff. I don't care that Clark didn't officially join the Dem party till whenever he did, I've got the same story and have been a strong Dem for years so, no thing there for me.

This Rummy stuff though is disturbing to me, most of all, because he worked with Rummy and Cheney and had to know they were "the crazies" and yet, he praised the guy.

I find this troubling. I've never shared this here, nor any concerns about Clark because, for the most part I like him. It's just that these little nagging things are starting to stack up.

It all seems to form a picture that is somewhat distressing.

Julie

[Kahuna]

74. Dean's flip-flopping bother you not though. You've used some..

really original euphemisms to describe Dean's flip flops. I'll give you that though.

[JNelson6563]

86. care to back that up?

Quotes please. And thanks for the comprehensive answer to my issues with Clark. Oy!

Julie

[JNelson6563]

89. kickin' this so Kahuna can back up statements

lookin' for a little evidence for your absurd assertion.

Julie

[Tom Rinaldo]

76. You are thinking of the Meet The Press Interview

About two or three weeks ago. It was talked about here at the time while it was being broadscast and shortly after. Let's see if I can be short, I really DO have to leave on a trip in the morning.

Clark was asked to reconcile two seemingly conflicting statements. One was one of the oldies everyone tends to get worked up over, you know, "experienced team" type stuff. Clark said Rumsfeld was an excellent choice at the time of his appoointment. Rumsfeld sailed through his Senate confirmation at that time also by the way. I'm not sure, I think maybe there were two votes against. Clark knew Rumsfeld of course from the Ford Administration whne Clark was assigned to Washington, those being classic Cold War days when Rumsfeld got to scheme about containing possible Soviet aggression, which is pretty much what all military people schemed about back then.

Clark was then confronted with a statement where he said he would never have appointed Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defence. Oh, oh, looked like trouble. Clark said there wasn't any contradiction. When he made the statement calling it a good appointment, he was basing it on the skills Rumsfeld showed in his prior service under Ford. He had not had any recent substantative talks with Rumsfeld. Subsequently after actually taking office, Rumsfeld said in an interview that the lesson he learned from the military conflicts in the Balkans in the 1990's was that the United States could not afford to have it's hands tied by cumbersome coalitions (or something to that effect, this is on memory I'm writing from here).

Clark observed that he knew right then that Rumsfeld had drawn very different conclusions about the pre conditions for the use of U.S. force during this post cold war period than those drawn by Clark himself. Clark is a multi-nationalist, Rumsfeld became much more of a unilateralist. Clark pointed out that his earlier positive opinion of Rumsfeld was based on seeing Rumsfeld perform in a different historical context. He strongly disagreed with Rumsfeld's world view in the current global context. Clark pointed out that had he actually been President after the 2000 election, he would have had extensive interviews with any potential candidate for Secretary of Defence. Clark's time spent working with NATO formed a fundemental basis for Clark's appreciation for the importance of working through International institutions. The strong divergence between the two men in that regard would immediatley have been apparent, and Clark would never have appointed Rumsfeld. Clark then went on to express that subsequent events have shown his own understanding to be correct, and Rumsfeld's wrong.

[JNelson6563]

88. Thank you!

I appreciate you taking the time to give me a good answer.

You represent your candidate well. Others could learn a lot from you (and not just Clarkies!)

Julie

[jumptheshadow]

78. What you left out about that statement of Clark's

He also said that he never would have hired Rumsfeld if he had ever interviewed him.

[Marines for Clark]

80. Dean the 2004 George McGovern

Howard Dean is hot, and that's why enemies in his own party are coming after him. Dean's fans say he's a fighter, but his foes say he's a loser.

The critics, who were laughing at his presidential candidacy only a few months ago, now contend that, as a Democratic nominee with a reputation for fiery liberal rhetoric, he'd be slaughtered by President Bush.

Which really means that, 11 months before a nominee is even chosen, his critics are taking him very seriously.

Of the nine Democratic candidates, the former Vermont governor is drawing the biggest crowds, and in the second quarter of 2003, he was the sole Democrat to raise money in all 50 states. In the words of Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh, who is neutral in the presidential race: "He has cleared every obstacle to legitimacy. He's the real deal."

It's tough to pinpoint when Dean caught fire as a presidential candidate, but it may have been the February day in Washington when he served up red meat to a ballroom of Democrats who were sick of defeat and hungry for inspiration.

Wearing the smirk of a kid with a firecracker, he began by bellowing: "What I want to know is why so many Democrats in Washington aren't standing up against Bush's unilateral war against Iraq. ... I'm Howard Dean, and I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party!"

The place exploded, like the Vet after a Jim Thome homer. Here was a candidate willing to frontally attack not only the President, but timid souls in his own party. The cheering, foot-stomping activists also knew perfectly well that "the Democratic wing" was a code phrase for liberalism.

And that's why so many Dean detractors are spooked.

Among Democratic moderates (as well as gleeful Republicans), there is talk that Dean has the makings of another George McGovern - the antiwar liberal who lost 49 states while trying to oust Richard Nixon in 1972.

Bruce Reed, who served as President Bill Clinton's chief domestic adviser and now directs the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, said the other day: "A campaign based on telling the left everything it wants to hear would be a disaster in the general election. ... Dean has thrown his lot in with a neo-McGovern crowd, and what that crowd likes about him is what the rest of America won't like."

There are concerns that Dean's visceral anger at Bush would alienate the moderate and independent voters who tend to decide national elections, because those voters don't appear to dislike the President. And there are concerns that Dean, a New Englander who opposed the Iraq war and signed a bill legalizing gay civil unions, would be wiped out in the South - which means that, to beat Bush, he would need to win 70 percent of the electoral votes everywhere else.

Dean campaign aides have a two-pronged response: They defend the decision to crank up the disaffected party diehards, but they say that the real Dean, as demonstrated by his 11-year stint as governor, is no liberal peacenik in the stereotypical McGovern mold.

Dean consultant Steve McMahon said: "Howard Dean is about speaking truth to power. Democrats are tired of seeing the party cut and run, vote with the Republicans, and nibble (at Bush) around the edges. ... This guy defies labeling. He is a fiscal conservative and a social progressive, and that's where most Americans are."

It is now widely assumed that Dean will compete strongly for the activists who vote in the early caucuses and primaries. But some observers believe that his push for nomination ultimately would hinge on whether he can erase the party establishment's doubts about his electability.

Anita Dunn, another Democratic strategist with no favorite in the race, said: "He has a special burden, right now, to reach a broader audience. The burden is on him to make sure that `civil unions' and `antiwar' aren't the only things people hear. Can he do that, and not become a captive of the tactics that he used to get into the game?"

Some activists are asking the same questions. Joe Bolkcom, a state senator in Iowa, where Democrats will cast the first votes in January, said, "I want to win. Dean's electability will be a significant part of my decision" on supporting him.

Dean is the insurgent outsider in this race. The Democrats usually have one: Gary Hart in 1984, Paul Tsongas in 1992, Bill Bradley in 2000. They generally attract the party's white, well-educated, professional voters - but as Dunn, a former Bradley aide, warned, "They often can't attract the blue-collar workers and less-educated voters. Hart couldn't. Neither could Tsongas or Bradley. Can Dean reach them?"

Garrison Nelson, a Vermont political analyst, thinks Dean can move toward the middle - because that's his instinct. Nelson said: "I've known him 20 years. Howard became a liberal six months ago. Up here, he never got any kind of visceral response from liberals. I couldn't count more than 10 people who would've walked through fire for the guy.

"He was always a man of the middle, what we used to call a `Rockefeller Republican.' His father and grandfather were stockbrokers. He comes from old money. So has he really changed? Or is the Democratic party desperate to be in love with somebody? I think they're desperate to be in love."

McMahon, the Dean consultant, is happy to talk about Vermont. He said, "Dean balanced 11 state budgets - and it's not required there." He is pro-gun rights and pro-death penalty. He usually favored big business in environmental disputes. And he once said of welfare recipients that if they "had any self-esteem, they'd be working."

But, in the months ahead, skeptical Democrats will argue that if Dean wins the nomination, Bush's ad team would reduce him to a liberal cartoon - especially in the South, where gay rights and antiwar sentiments are not prized. Exhibit A would be Dean's remark that "we won't always have the strongest military." Exhibit B would be his grudging praise for the ouster of Saddam Hussein ("I suppose that's a good thing").

Merle Black, a nonpartisan Atlanta-based analyst, said: "If Dean is nominated, the Bush people would rightly feel that they'd get the South on the cheap. They wouldn't even have to pump many assets down here. Dean would be seen as a `Northern liberal,' and civil unions would be a real killer. Local Democratic candidates wouldn't even want to appear with him." (He invoked 1972, when top Georgia Democrats were seen on the streets ripping down McGovern posters.)

Dean has fitfully addressed the Southern question. He thinks he can woo Southern whites by promising health-care reform. He said Tuesday that the gay issue won't hurt him in the pro-military South because he recently met a gay D-Day veteran, "and that's a guy who deserves exactly the same benefits as everybody else."

And asked whether the GOP could exploit Dean's remark that the U.S. military may not always be the strongest, McMahon said only, "That statement was taken out of context, and we'll deal with it then."

Some Democrats say privately that Dean is being urged by some elected leaders to put a more patriotic spin on his rhetoric - to suggest, for example, that his Bush attacks stem from a genuine concern about U.S. prestige in the world. They have decided, in other words, that Bush's downtick in the polls should be treated as an aberration.

Marsh, the party strategist, said: "The Republicans will have enough money to paint Santa Claus as a lifelong criminal. So will Dean be agile enough to appeal more broadly and lower his thermostat? Look at his (moderate) record. He could be difficult to box in."

Perhaps. But nervous Democrats cite an incident reported recently in the Washington Post. As Bush strategist Karl Rove watched a Fourth of July parade, a dozen Dean boosters marched by. Whereupon Rove said to a companion, "Heh, heh, heh. Yeah, that's the one we want."

[Woodstock]

82. A couple of things

Interesting response, thanks.

My comments - the whole "Rove is God" thing is annoying me - and he said that in earshot of the Post reporter, so what we make of that? Maybe he's yanking the DLC's chains and thus eliminating his stiffest competitor.

And the bit about Dean always taking the side of big business in environmental battles. I was under the impression he took the middle ground in such battles, and managed to tuck away an awful lot of land for preservation.

[Forkboy]

85. Your talking points are months old

visit your Clark blog for the proper Dean attack methods.

[JNelson6563]

87. You might note I was a bit unclear

as to the details of the appearance I was citing. All I clearly remembered was being unsatisfied with the response. I was really rooting for an answer that would assure me because I may have to vote for the guy in the future....

I was hoping my tone made it clear I wasn't trying to bash or misrepresent Clark, simply voice my concerns.

You're right, I missed the "if he had ever interviewed him" part. That does help. Some.

Julie

[1songbird]

81. As a Clark supporter I must say that there are some things

in the article that makes me wince. I believe wholeheartedly in addressing issues head on and being honest. There are some niggling doubts at the back of my mind after reading the entire article. The question he addressed in the NH debate about labor unions is disturbing to me because I am extremely pro-labor. I think he spoke honestly about not supporting the strike because he has a business background. I was however still surprised by his statements. The correction he made only made the matter worse. I consider myself an informed voter and not one that can be made a fool of. I will have to seriously deconstruct the article and weigh the information bit by bit. The article is a bitter pill to swallow, but thank you for posting it anyway.

[Woodstock]

84. Let me know when you work it out

I know he's a good guy with his heart in the right place, but I sure wish we had more of a record of governing to go by. We DO have his military career, though, and that's a good indication of his character. I read a review of Clark's book in the same publication, and I liked what he had to say:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031208&s=fitzgerald

Clark goes on to provide some answers to what has become a major question in recent months: Why was the planning for the post-Saddam period in Iraq so inadequate? In the first place, he points, as some journalists have, to the bureaucratic struggles within the Administration and to the rosy scenarios that went unchallenged among the top Pentagon civilians who eventually took charge of the enterprise. But he also points to more profound tendencies within the US government and Washington as a whole. The Army, he writes, has long resisted investing or engaging in peace operations, even though every recent conflict, from Panama to Kosovo, has required such operations to attain the desired objectives. One reason for this failure, he suggests, is that the Army's mandate and historic task has been to fight high-intensity wars. Another is that the military-industrial complex makes its money off high-tech weaponry and not off such things as language training or the development of skills to deal with policing and legal systems. Furthermore, the Republican-controlled Congresses of the 1990s could be counted upon to vote against anything that smacked of "nation-building." In the mid-1990s the Clinton Administration tried to create an interagency capability for dealing with failed states, such as Haiti and Somalia, but the effort never got very far, and the Bush Administration brushed it aside. Thus before the invasion there was no structure or organization within the US government with the expertise to plan for the future of Iraq--much less one with the resources to implement such a plan. Then, too, Clark writes, by going to war without international support and by refusing to cede any power over the political process afterward, Bush forfeited the help he might have received from other governments and from international organizations that had expertise and resources to contribute. The Army and the Iraqi people are now paying the price for these failures.

[bowens43]

90. We don't need a general in the presidency.

To me, his military background is even more troubling then his flip flop on the war and his support of Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes. The LAST thing we need is a product of the military industrial complex running our nation. I don't know if I could vote for a ticket that includes Clark in either position. He has no history as liberal , a progressive or even a Democrat.

[Richardo]

91. Yeah, that Washington guy was a complete bust.

Ike, too. :eyes:

[webkev]

92. This iis Stupid

Dean and Clark are both winners..
but recent polls show that Bush is getting more and more support..

Most Americans feel that when they vote Bush they do it in the interest of America..
When a four star general says the war was unjust it completely deflates all the republican's arguments

Americans want somebody they can trust to deal with the bad guys..
and it seems the majority would vote Bush over Dean..

Stop moaning about Clark.. as one poster here said - he is nearly too good to be president of America.. he is with you on all the issues..
get real.. we have to win this for the sake of the whole planet

[ozone_man]

102. You've summed it up pretty well.

He mentions that he is a product of the MIC that Eisenhauer warned about, as if it were a good thing. There's so much that is unknown about this guy that scares me, and I find it hard to accept that he is running as a Democrat after voting Republican all these years (except Clinton forward).

[Tom Rinaldo]

103. What bothers you about it?

What about the actual quote...

"I wore a uniform for a long time. I was part of that military industrial complex that General Eisenhower warned about. So, I know all about it and how it works. I'm going to tell you something. I'm going to support every dime we need to keep America strong. But I'm not going to tolerate billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency because someone stamps a label "secret" on it."

...don't you like, other than the obvious fact that Clark says he has had a military career? My read is that, like Eisenhower, Clark is another General who understands how the "National Security" pork barrel works, and he won't put up with it.

[Cronus Protagonist]

112. Clark is a plastic hippie

I just thought of that. Seems to fit for me :)

LICK BUSH Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[CWebster]

96. Attacks on the author, the Nation, the Nation's editor,

Commondreams,Indymedia and maybe 2 rebuttals, one a dupe.

Smells like freeperland spirit to me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

97. Let the readers decide

Hey! You calling me a freeper?!?

[CWebster]

98. never you Tom

but something tells me you are more than just a foot soldier. ;-)

[Tom Rinaldo]

99. Thank you CW

Wanna give me a promotion? lol. Truth is right about now I am feeling a lot like a campaign groupie. I want desperately for someone to tell me; "Hey, quit your job. Let's just pay you to back your candidate, how much do you need to cover your bills?" I really will be off this site for 5 days or so casue I do leave later today on business (I'm driving this time, decided I can afford a late start) and I can't afford a notebook computer. Bah.

I've been to two events where Clark spoke, will go to another in a week or so. It helps to live in upstate NY, I can make it down to the city or over to NH. If it wasn't for this stupid need to make a living I would be volunteering in NH. I did that for one day so far. I'm just passionate about this, so I am taking it seriously. Much like many in the Dean campaign. I really do like Dean, and the depth of support he has won from those backing him.

[Cronus Protagonist]

113. I don't know if it smells of freeperland

But it sure smells of something...

LICK BUSH Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Zuni]

166. no, just independendt thinkers

not left wing robots that remind us of people who used to work for the comintern.

[mmonk]

100. That's it

can't support Dean if Clark ever leaves the race.

[seventhson]

105. Typical Clark supporter:

I'll vote BUSH!!!

[Renew Deal]

106. Will you vote for Clark if he is the nominee?

Judging by your typical paranoia I have to wonder.

[seventhson]

115. I might actually stay home

Clark is no different than Bush in my opinion. They are, to me, joined at the hip. He is actually WORSE than Kerry, imho.

Paranoid? No. Politically educated.

[mmonk]

143. better pick

that brain up before anyone notices its missing ;-)

[Zuni]

167. That is absurd

go back to your Communist party meeting, comrade.

[returnable]

101. My take

This article has been dissected here a few times already, so that's probably why you're getting some rather petulent responses.

As has been pointed out, Taibbi is a Milosovic apologist, so once you understand that, you can understand his agenda.

I think the whole article can be summed up by this line towards the end of the piece:

"It had always troubled me that people opposed to the war could have seen something in Wesley Clark."

In other words, the guy doesn't like Clark, has never liked Clark, and he composed his piece around that premises.

He attacks Clark for "playing" with a toy plane while working as analyst for CNN, but conveniently ignores all the criticisms Clark voiced over the Iraq build up while working in the same capacity. He overlooks the fact that in September of last year, Clark testified
before both the Senate and the House Armed Services Committe that Iraq was not an imminent threat and that the US should not act unilaterally.

Clark never supported the invasion, and to take his role as a military analyst - where he was EXPECTED to comment on the accomplishments of the actual military action and not the rationale behind it - out of context is just weak journalism. You'll notice that Taibbi takes
great pains to not quote Clark on this matter. Because at no point did Clark ever endorse the invasion.

Further, if you actually look at what he wrote, he offers no legitimate critique of Clark's policies. He ridicules Clark for wanting to "win" in Iraq, for example, but offers no explanation as to why he thinks Clark's strategy is flawed.

Taibbi apparently believes the US can just say, "Ooops, our bad. Time for the UN to take over."

It doesn't work like that. The UN wants NOTHING to do with this, whether the US is involved or not. Clark is one of the few who seems to recognize this.

In fact, David Corn wrote in The Nation a couple of weeks ago that "Clark has offered the most specific road map for Iraq."

But instead of critiquing the actual merits of Clark's plan, Taibbi just takes pot shots. That's weak. If you think Clark's plan is flawed, hey, let's hear why. "We should just pull out" doesn't cut it.

Taibbi also spends a good chunk of the article condescending to Clark supporters because they didn't take the bait on his "porn director in a brace" ruse, as if that has anything to do with the campaign itself.

Look, if you wanna cover politics, cover politics. If you wanna pull juvenile pranks, go write for "Jackass," jackass.

Taibbi writes crap like "No candidate on the campaign trail is better at saying two opposing things at once, and no candidate's true intentions are harder to discern."

Those aren't facts - those are opinions. That's how he may feel, but others may feel that Dean, or Kerry, or Edwards, are more duplicitous. That's why they are called opinions.

But he passes them off as facts, and that's extremely disconcerting.

As for the passage you quoted, it does tie into a pet peeve of mine:
Clark (and his campaign) does tend to rely on military jargon a bit much. I mean, shoot, even our local e-list is called the "Warroom". That kinda rubs me wrong, but I understand it's just another way to
differentiate Clark from the other candidates. Plus, after 34 years in the military, I'm sure some of the phrasing is ingrained.

But there's a method to that, too: there have been studies where Clark's poll numbers go up when he's referred to as "General" - people don't know his name, but they know a 4-star General is running. Sad, but true. So keeping the army-speak in play has its benefits.

However, Taibbi's superficial analysis of Clark's book was off the mark - it was a TECHNICAL analysis of a modern war. Of course, that's the language he's gonna use. In fact, the Nation's book reviewer gave Clark's book a rave review just last week.

All in all, it was a pretty crappy bit of reporting. But given that it was written by a Milosovic apologist with an axe to grind and really offered no real substantive political analysis, it'll be forgotten soon enough. In fact, I was pleasently surprised with how quick a death it received here at DU. Most folks recognized it for what it was - an op-ed piece given front-page treatment.

And as a Dean supporter, you should look up the hatchet job he did on Dean for The Nation back in October. It'll give you some idea where Taibbi is coming from, and should encourage you to re-read the Clark piece with an extra grain of salt.

[seventhson]

111. Taibi's a bad writer it seems and a poor reporter IF

Kahuna's recording is correct.

I read transcripts all the time which are chock full of such simple and easy to make - errorsand the "difference" between saying "I was a part of" and "I am a product of" phonetically is pretty minute - especially while jotting dowen notes in journalist shothand (which I have been the quote victim of more times than I care to mention.) One hears and writes what one believes was said. If he was a little off it's not a huge deal nor a fabrication. But so what on Kahuna's point of reference? The actual factual distinction is minute as well.

If he was a PART of the MIC then he is also, at least arguably, a "product" of it. Clark's following "explanation" is too muddled to explain anything in that bit. It is full of platitudes that indicate to me Clark is mouthing truisms to appeal to what he believes is a target audience who will oooh and ahh at his brilliance. But it looks like a sham to me and apparently to Taibbi too. Baffling with bullshit since he can't dazzle them with brilliance.

MY problem with with Taibbi's article (and with Clark) is that Clark has a history of close alliances with extreme right wing corporate and political enterprises profiteering off of 9-11 and wall street's wars abroad. The Jet Blue/Axciom/Stephens Group ties of Clark are disgusting and vile. He was directly plugged into the right wing machine just a few years ago.

CNN is part of that machine.

Clark is a candidate for that machine and anybody who falls for his bullshit is just a tool of the BFEE IMHO.

I am warninbg folks that this candidacy, if I am correct, is as dangerous as four more years of Bush. The only difference is that Cl;ark would have to throw a few "liberal" bones to the country to keep up the facade while Bush does not have to pretend to give a rat's ass about anything but himself and his putrid cronies.

AXCIOM, STEPHENS GROUP, JET BLUE, DARPA -- THESE ARE CLARK'S RESUME HIGHLIGHTS.

[Cronus Protagonist]

114. Seventhson, I respect your opinion more than most other people here

Thank you for weighing in on this. Your input on this weighs more for me than the author of the piece or any of the Clarke supporters opinions here.

Bush ran left, governed hard right in Texas. Bush ran left, governed hard right in the presidency. Clark is running left.... I see the picture a lot clearer now.

No one can win in the US running on a hard right platform, so the hard right people have to run in sheeps' clothing. There's no doubt in my mind that Clark is a wolf. And a BFEE wolf at that. He's the failsafe insurance policy of the BFEE. You can't lose when you own both the candidates, and when there's billions of dollars at stake, you don't let the other side have even half a chance. Clark smells like a prime cut of BFEE bullshit.

LICK BUSH Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[seventhson]

123. Lick Bush LOLROFLMAO --- yuck

Not THAT Bush.

I am sincere in my beliefs that this guy from the Stephens group is exceptionally dangerous. See my post on Jet Blue below.

This story got SOME Play in the media and was revolting as it was.

I only recently learned that Clark was part of tht whole deal as well as Poindexter's DARPA strategy.

I guess the BFEE is running out of options. They need someone who will keep the coverup going to prevent war crimes tribunals (who better than an accused war criminal like Clark) and they need massive disinformation to confuse and mislead people.

It is just so sad to see it happening to ANYONE at DU. And frankly, I am not sure there really is a whole lot of genuine lefties who support Clark here. I see little green men (maybe they are.... Retired Marines trying to supplement their meager pensions?)

Anyway, thanks Cronus. So many people have called me paranoid and off my meds today I was thinking of calling in sick. You affirmation means a lot. These guys are plenty nasty sometimes.

[seventhson]

104. And Taibbi did not even MENTION, Stephens, Axciom, Jet Blue or

that organization whose grant recipients assisted in the coup attempt in Venezuela that Clark was working for.

My GOD people.

Clark is as deep in the right weing pocket as they come.

Just do a simple GOOGLE on the Stephens Group, Axciom, Jet Blue, DARPA and Clark.

Clark is in the MIDDLE of the BFEE empire taking our freedoms away and selling surevbeillance systems to John Poindexter. Hired By the Stephens Group just as they are giving $100,000 to GWBush in 2001.

Lobbying the Pentagon and CIA to by civilian surveillance programs from Axciom.

If her doesn't hail from BFEEfreeperville it must be the twilight zone twisting right into left in a trick mirror.

Clark is the enemy of freedom and his alliances have and will be with the Bushes and Cheneys.

That is his history and his M.O.. Corporate Fascist participant and enabler.

I don't even want to TALK about the Depleted Uranium.

A vote for Clark as either Prez or VP or even candidate is a vote for the continued growth of global fascism.

YOU support that Pentagonian Jackson Groupie who lobbied to surveille US.

And study the damn record. Clark has been one of them his WHOLE career.

[mmonk]

108. So, he is the opposite

of what he says he is and his positions, or, his positions are really his positions.

[Renew Deal]

109. Don't try to argue

These types of posts are frequently locked or deleted. Sometimes you aren't dealing with reasonable people.

[seventhson]

117. Politics 101: Machiavelli's "The Prince"

In Politics the object of the game is power. If you are corrupt or owned by the corrupt then you say whatever it takes tyo get elected (like Bush et al).

If you are decent and honest (like Gore, Dean, Kucinich) you say what you mean.

Clark falls into the first category in my opinion.

We do NOT need a pentagon and corporate military pimp in the white house.

I think we need a doctor whose job and life's work is to HEAL people, not kill them for profit.

[Tom Rinaldo]

116. Here we go agiain

In a field full of dots one can always find enough to connect so as to draw any picture one wants. It's easy. Virtually anyyone who has held any major elective office is in very big trouble with that routine. Just go through any list of campaign contributers and start drawing targeted conclusions. Or take most any employment history. Once anyone is assiciated with any large company for any reason, threads start flying in every direction. Isn't there some theory about that, concerning how many generations removed everything is from everything else? This type of witch hunt has been debunked an DU before.

Regarding Axciom and Jet Blue and all that, here's a question for you. Are you opposed to any and all screening of airline passangers to reduce the risk of terrorism? Do you fly much? Did you right after 9/11? Do you believe the threat of terrorism is over now, and that no one else is out there who is angry enough at Americans to want to blow up or crash our planes?

Even if you think there is no threat, do you think jobs in the travel, tourist, and restaurant busineses are important to our economy? Is unemployment an important social issue to you? What do you think happens when people become afraid to travel?

Speaking for myself, I want there to be some screening of airline passengers, I have to fly a lot. I think any candidate who blanket condems it will lose a whole lot of votes, rightly so in my opinion. So do I support all forms of screening? Of course not. Should people be singled out for having an Arab surname for example? No, definately not. Is it appropriate to screen for people who are in this country on expired Visa'a who are nationals of countries that hard intelligence indicates have been prime recruiting areas for terrorist cells? I think so. Should everyone who gets screened for whatever reasonable reason be automatically stopped from flying? No again.

I'm sorry, but anyone who will not look at the complexity of issues like this is living in a different world than I am.

[seventhson]

119. Perfect - Reagan's most famous line other than "I forgot"/JET BLUE/AXCIOM

Here's a link on what Clark's company did. I find it truly revolting and it speaks volumes about what we will get with a Clark Presidency:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg00251.html

excerpt:

As you may have heard, Jet Blue has recently fessed up to handing over
all of their travel records to a small DOD contractor for data mining.
That contractor bought credit records from Axciom on all the Jet Blue
customers, and presented the results of their research at a
conference.

This was broken by Bill Scannell of dontspyon.us,
http://www.dontspyon.us/jetbluescandal.html and further covered in
Wired this morning,
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,60489,00.html

[CWebster]

121. It is a little too close for comfort, though

And yes, I have great trepidation about the "no fly" list, since I was almost denied boarding on a Jet blue flight. See who they consider terrorists:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/27/02/feature3.shtml

Us.

[seventhson]

130. The fact that Wesley Clark's Company GAVE OR SOLD the data

for the purposes of profiling US based, among other things, on whether we have bad debts or are late on our cresdit card payments or have an apartment instead of a HOUSE is justr creepy.

The creepier thing I keep finding isd that Clark apparently at one time worked for Computer Sciences Corporation which just bought out the hughest most bloodthirsty military pimps on the globe: DYNCORP

But it is HARD to get any data on this in a search:

HMMM.... could COMPUTER SCIENCES or DYNCORP have the technology to BLOCK SEARCH ENGINES so we can't get the TRUTH on Clark?

Any help on this would be appreciated.

DID Clark work for Computer Sciences Corporation? I have two unverfiable sources which say he did. But the proximity of Clark to the Axciom/Jet Blue deal puts him in the same company in close proximity to Dyncorp and CSC.

DYNCORP (now CSC) is one of the scartiest of the military pimps.

[Zuni]

170. bla bla bla

more paranoid rantings.

[Aries]

118. War Crimes?

Just to throw another article into the mix, does anyone have an explanation for this Clark-related issue, assuming it is factual:

Grand Illusions About Wesley Clark
By WILLIAM BLUM

http://www.counterpunch.org/blum09242003.html

...Clark was among 68 leaders charged with war crimes by a group of international-law professionals from Canada, the United Kingdom, Greece, and the American Association of Jurists. The group filed its well-documented complaints with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, Netherlands, charging leaders of NATO countries and officials of NATO itself with crimes similar to those for which the Tribunal had issued indictments shortly before against Serbian leaders. Amongst the charges filed were: "grave violations of international humanitarian law", including "wilful killing, wilfully causing great suffering and serious injury to body and health, employment of poisonous weapons and other weapons to cause unnecessary suffering, wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, unlawful attacks on civilian objects, devastation not necessitated by military objectives, attacks on undefended buildings and dwellings, destruction and wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences."

At one point in the bombing campaign it was reported that " would rise out of his seat and slap the table. 'I've got to get the maximum violence out of this campaign -- now!'" (Washington Post, 21 September 1999)....

[seventhson]

120. Here we go again, again

YES war crimes.

Depleted uranium on civilians. Massive destruction and "collateral damage"

[Zuni]

172. What are you talking about? Bold faced lies

The Kosovo campaign was one of the cleanest air campaigns ever fought. Only a tiny amount of DU was used,(30,000 rounds) not nearly enough to even equal the amount of uranium that naturally occurs in a square mile of topsoil, which is also more radioactive than DU.
Not nearly enough to cause any kind of damage

Learn your facts. I have not heard of one civilian in yugoslavia that has been hit with DU.

[Tom Rinaldo]

122. Just a quick note to say

I am officially signing off rumor control for the week now. Ihave to leave for my work trip. I try to take time composing posts answering questions like this and I don't have any more time to do it for awhile. Don't take my silence as acquisition lol. I will say that Clark and the others were cleared of all charges, while Milosevic, who NATO was opposing, is now on trial as a war criminal. Anyone can make a charge, it's like anyone can file a lawsuit. By the way if anyone really wants to know how Clark is regarded in the Balkans today, not only should you check in with the people of Kosovo, look into how Clark was and is regarded by members of the U.N. Non Governmental Organizations (NGO's) who were on the ground trying to deal with the humanitarian crisis at the time. He is held in very high regard in those circles also. Bye.

[Aries]

127. Not to necessarily agree with Blum

but it would be Serbs the war crimes were allegedly committed against, and who I would want to ask about Clark's reputation.

And since war crimes trials are run by the winners, one would expect the loser (Milosevic) to be the one ending up in the dock, not Clark, even if Clark was guilty. I recall a NATO spokesman saying he didn't expect war crimes charges against NATO officials to go anywhere, because "we are paying for the tribunal".

[Zuni]

171. This was a Ramsey clark/IAC/ANSWER Tribunal

It had the verdict before the war started. The people involved, especially ramsey Clark, slobodan Milosevic's atty, are a bunch of pyschos.

[Aries]

181. No--it was the "official" Tribunal

This is what Blum says, unless you can prove otherwise:

"The group filed its well-documented complaints with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, Netherlands"

[CivilRightsNow]

124. Yes, he is.. regardless of the article.. NED

He that lays down with Dogs gets fleas.

Links about NED:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/Reagan_CIA.html
http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/em461.cfm
http://www.saag.org/papers2/paper115.html
http://www.jpf.go.jp/j/region_j/cgp_j/intel/abe/original/report_04.html

http://www.publiceye.org/research/Group_Watch/Entries-71.htm
http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingMachineCompanies.htm

Wes Clark
"Former general, possible Democratic presidential candidate, and Segway rider Wesley Clark on why the military usually gets the money it needs while foreign aid, for example, usually loses out: "In the Defense Department, we've got the machinery. When we want something done we just make sure the B-2 Bomber is built in 49 states."

http://www.kabissa.org/lists/newsletter-submissions-l/0612.html

He joined Ned in 2001

Some more on Wesley and NED
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/88388.php

Clark praised Reagan for improving the military:

“We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan.” Clark continued: “That’s the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership.” (Ibid.)

Clark on President George H.W. Bush:

“President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship.” (Ibid.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=782666 --See response 27 for more information the Dogs he lies down with.

[seventhson]

134. National endowment for Demcracy helped in the Venezuelan Coup

and Clark was on their board,m according to these articles.

Thanks for posting these articles and links which pretty much wrap up most of my case against Clark.

A very dangerous actor.

[CivilRightsNow]

142. They also helped steal the last election through IFES....

I wonder what they have up their sleeve this time.

"The passage of landmark electoral reform legislation in the United States in 2002 opens the door for IFES to apply its extensive international experience in efforts to improve elections at home. IFES has already taken steps in this direction. We joined the Center for Democracy to conduct assessment and observation missions in Miami-Dade County for the November 2002 general elections, and we delivered long-term recommendations for improving elections in the county. We conducted a similar mission to the City of St. Louis prior to the November 2002 election. We are eager to continue contributing our expertise to make the U.S. electoral system a model of which we can be proud." page 8 http://www.ifes.org//biennial_low_PRINT.pdf

"After being focused almost entirely overseas from the time of our founding, IFES is now rendering a real service in the United States. Following the passage of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, we are eager to help jurisdictions across America with the challenges of adopting new technologies, meeting federal standards, and educating voters and poll workers.
Another new focus for IFES is the Arab world, a region of tremendous human potential that will benefit greatly from releasing the power of its citizenry through more open political systems. IFES has a track record as a trusted advisor in this region." page 12


More: http://www.ifes.org/new_initiatives/US_elections.htm

Paul DeGregorio -
http://www.dailyillini.com/dec00/dec05/news/campus02.shtml
He helps recount the FL votes for Bush.

Guess who else Paul DeGregorio is? Vice President of IFES
Then, guess who gets nominated to to the Election Assistance Commission buy Baby Bush?
http://www.ifes.org/pressroom/Press%20Releases/06_12_03_DeGregorio_EAC.pdf

[Zuni]

177. who cares?

How can you prove that Clark was involved? I personally could care less about Chavez, and I think he is going to try to become a dictator himself, but where is your proof?
Show me some evidence connecting him to this and I will give you a cookie.
Until then it is more specualtion.

[CivilRightsNow]

180. Have you read Ned.org's board of directors page?

I mean, really... is it that hard to connect some dots?

[CWebster]

125. Speaking of here we go again...

Some advice for Clark supporters. You should expect and anticipate having to debunk everything over and over and over. Another thread was just posted about Dean's sealed records--and you complain that Clark doesn't get the same exposure? The more exposure Clark gets the more the heat will be turned up.

Clark does have intelligence and some political skill, for example, he will probably do well on "Hardball" next week - but there are lingering questions about his past political allegiances, corporate ties and mindset that may be at odds with future Democratic party objectives to weaken the DLC lock on power. So expect some resistance from the base who is interested in ousting the current crop business-as-usual Dems as well as Bush.They will be looking for those DLC marching orders.

[LoneStarLiberal]

126. It's Opinion, That's What's Wrong With It

"Tell me why this article is wrong."

OK. No problem. It's wrong for me because it's an opinion piece. This author is writing about his limited experiences with a handful of Clark people. He's writing about one way of looking at the Clark campaign, not the overall campaign.

It's not like this drivel is gospel. I can dredge up a fair number of articles just as scathing on Howard Dean.

Just because you don't like Wes Clark, Howard Dean, professional sports, gardening, or whomever or whatever you want to refer to doesn't suddenly make shared opinion fact or gospel. It's still just opinion.

I don't like Howard Dean and the number of reasons to dislike his supporters and his parochial campaign grows by the day IN MY OPINION. I get a good laugh out of reading similiar opinion pieces to the one you posted here except about Howard Dean that paint him as an arrogant, tempermental child of priviledge who is worshipped by a cult of angry, Anglo high-bandwidth connected Stabucks lovers.

But I don't ever think for a second that such opinion pieces are gospel. THEY AREN'T. They are just one person's opinion...they are fluff pieces. They ignore the many good aspects of the Dean campaign and of Dean's message the same way this piece ignores the many good aspects of the Clark campaign and Clark's campaign message.

Moving on...

[CWebster]

128. The piece can easily be ripped apart on tone and set-up

alone.

What is significant- what is damaging is the cover shot from the Nation and the Nation is not without influence. It does reflect the fundamental lack of comfort and trust the progressive Left views Clark with.

[Tom Rinaldo]

132. CW

Am eating a sandwhich about to run out the door, and of course reading posts while I do. Just wanted to say that I completely agree with your last two posts. Yes, with attention comes heat, and yes, Clark has a difficult job ahead of him winning the trust of large parts of the Left. Leaving issues aside for just a brief moment, Clark could be the reincarnation of Thomas Paine, but coming out of the military, many would naturally distruct his committment to civil liberties for example. Such is the way it is. All the candidates have a hard time with one constituency or another, for reasons fair and unfair alike. Be well, fight hard, fight fair.

[returnable]

135. I agree with ya on that

"...what is damaging is the cover shot from the Nation and the Nation is not without influence."

As a Nation subscriber, I was kinda taken aback by the cover. A friend of mine even called me on the phone when he got his copy, just cuz he was floored by the image. He hadn't even read the article yet.

It was all the more surprising to me cuz the Nation had, for the most part, been neutral-to-cautiously supportive of the Clark campaign to that point. David Corn has written positive things, the review of "Winning Modern Wars" was positive, even John Nichols has been pragmatic.

But that cover was a doozy.

[LoneStarLiberal]

136. Truth

There is truth in what you say. That discomfort is not something that will be easily dispelled, and unfortunately probably will never be dispelled because of Wes Clark's extensive military background.

I don't dig on dogmatism. It seems to me to be highly foolish to post a narrow opinion piece about any candidate and then proceed to hold it up as inerrant fact. Not only highly foolish in general but detrimental to communicating a message of inclusiveness for your candidate as well.

[HoosierClarkie]

129. Here is my take on the article and the obvious frustration..

I like many am a Clark grassrooter. I have seen this man evolve into a person that some in the beginning said he could never be-a politician. I have been with the campaign from July. I have seen him address the press from the beginning until now. I am specifically talking about speeches and a great opportunity I had to drive him to Face the Nation. I heard him talk on the phone to press. I saw him meet with Mellankamp here in Indiana. He has changed in the sense that he has adopted some key phrases "I am not here to bash * Just replace him" and "he pulled the biggest bait and switch in the history of retail". However, he is still the humble man who was drafted by 50,000 people. When we pulled up to the Simon's(billionaires and owner of the Pacers) house to the fundraiser to meet Mellankamp he took a look at all of their help-50 people lined up to tend to him. This is what he said,"What is this? I didn't get this type of treatment at my chateau. What are they going to do? Carry me in. This is rediculous." Yes that night I was a grunt worker and happy to be it. This man is the real deal. Pardon the cliche'.
He went on to give a speech that night that I heard over and over. his passion is still there.
"his star has dimmed a little lately. He has bowed out of Iowa."
Was he ever in Iowa?
"No candidate is better at saying opposing things at once"
three words: Masters in Philosophy!
My last thought is that the author of this article said Joe Lieberman has an elaborate sense of humor! I was laughing the whole time when he was on faux. How about you?
Here is the deal folks. Wes Clark is a thinker. He carefully weighs everything. Sometimes he thinks out loud. So what? At least you know he's thinking.I am glad to be giving my money and time to a person who is not a politician, but is playing the necessary game.

[maha]

133. Monitors? How Many Times

Will some Clark-hater start a thread with this amateurish hatchet job, and how many times will DUers have to rebut it with facts? This is getting tiresome.

[seventhson]

137. Here are some facts on an organization Clark was a member of...

http://www.williambowles.info/guests/ned-venezuela.html

read it and weep.

I try to post facts. I try to remember them all.

This link provides ample ecidence that the NED was involved in the financing off the coup in Venezueal when Clark was on its board.

I think if we stick to debating the facts we will be better off.

Maybe the article was poorly written, but it is fair game -- especially if The Nation is the source.

We ARE after all, the Democratic Underground.

[maha]

138. I am so very tired

of this same old, same old. The NED connection was brought up and debunked weeks ago, and I don't have to energy to go through it again.

[seventhson]

139. If anyone bothers to read the analysis, well, it IS tiring...

It is tiresome too that people do not seem to care about the facts.

MANY DUers know littler or nothing about the NED issues.

I have posted a strong analysis and budget breakdown that provides EVIDENCE of the NED's involvement in the coup by its financing of Chaves/ opponents.

Maybe Clark was not in on the planning. Maybe he WAS. But as a Director of the organization FINANCING CHAVEZ'Z OPPOSITION, he is responsible and should be held accountable.

[CivilRightsNow]

151. Accountability?

That is only something that is screamed when talking about Republicans or corporations OBVIOUSLY funding the BFEE.

Accountability of our own? Wha? Disclosure, wha?

la la la -- I cant hear you.

[CivilRightsNow]

144. The NED Connections has NEVER been debunked

You guys have spouted some crap about how NED is great, look at the 10 good things it has done over 20 years..


Id love to see the thread where NED is debunked.

[CivilRightsNow]

147. Was? How bout still is?

http://www.ned.org/about/board_bios/clark.html

[RummyTheDummy]

140. Couldn't care less about your opinions.

Another anti-Clark thread...sigh...next!

[PROGRESSIVE1]

145. Oh look, another HIT PIECE on Clark, My CANDIDATE of.....

CHOICE!

:puke:



Clark 04' :kick:

[seventhson]

146. Why in HELL don't Clark supporters....?

do something besides whining that this is ANOTHER bah Clark thread and RESPOND to some of the factual allegations and links posted in this thread.

I would LOVE to hear someone trying to justify Clark's links to Axciom, the Stephens Group and the National Endowment for Democracy.

The best defense I've heard is "it was already debunked" (not true) or "It was only a job" (though he got something like 3 to 4 HUNDRED THOUSAND while lobbying for Stephens and Axciom at the White House, Pentagon and CIA - he must be WORTH something to those right wingers who employed him).

Where is the defense to these solid factual charges of complicity with the Military corporate financial complex of Bush's allies?

Until you have some actual response and evidence to say it was all cool what NED did in Venezuela or Jet Blue did under Clark's watch -- then these complaintsa about the negative threads is pretty useless.

SUPPORT AXCIOM! SUPPORT THE NED'S SUPPORT OF THE COUP! SUPPORT STEPHENS DONATION OF $100,000 TO BUSH IN 2001!

Clark did.

I know you can do it.

[mmonk]

148. You're right of course

:boring: Wake me up for the next bash Clark thread, this one's getting long. I think we need about 10 bash Clark threads a day to keep us on our toes. Look, don't vote for Clark. Call him a miltary industrialist. Call him a republican. Post all flame threads from those that support Milosovic. Do you really, honestly think we're going to change our minds or think he's the anti-Christ because you do? We do defend and debunk. It just gets tiring after awhile.

[CivilRightsNow]

149. Then keep the links

To all these supposed debunkings..

And all you'll have to do is post them. It'll take you less time then what you just wrote.

I seriously would like to see any debunking on NED as this is a project that is consuming me enough to start a book about it. It has consumed, weeks.. nay.. months of my time at this point with all it's spinoffs. Id like to see real debunking of the other issues presented.. especially Axiom and Stephens.. because I dont think they've really been debunked, just whined about.. I could care less about Milosevic, et al. That is to be expected from a military man.

And Id like to know just why this man came up out of nowhere, drafted by a couple of college students.. while he presides on a board of directors to a company that has designed whole propaganda parties, elections... literature and people to further their shady causes.

Id like to be proven wrong.

Do you think I enjoy this concept? Do you think I enjoy the fact that even if I could change your and everyone else on this board's minds, Im firmly convinced that this election is coming down to Bush or Clark?

I do not. I, like Senator Byrd, cry for my country.

I want answers.

If you need help in how to use the bookmark thread feature, let me know. That goes for any of the... OH ANOTHER BASHING THREAD people, that take time to post that in said "bashing" thread.

[mmonk]

150. If you can prove a point

that if we was on a board, he directed all its operations, I'll see what I can do. If you can prove he really does support using our military to conquer and control the world, I'll see what I can do. If you can prove he supports the causes of the PNAC and like organizations and their world view, I'll see what I can do.

[CivilRightsNow]

152. If you can get a point, Ill see what I can do.

Oh, I guess he is a director at NED and he isnt involved in it whatsoever.

Just like Vin and Fukyama, and Frist.. and Garmet.. They are all upstanding citizens just spreading some democracy.

So, yer saying your candidate allows himself to just be whored to an organization for name recognition? He has nothing to do with the actual policies of said organization. He's just one of their poster children?

Fantastic!

A Military man isnt supportive of the military in ways that the average peace loving folk isnt? Well, Ill be damned. All those jarheads I grew up around were a rare breed. Oh, and the sailors.. and shit, the chairforce, and even the army men. Im glad that Mr. **** General has no interested in using excessive military force. No no, no siree.

No, NED wasnt started by Ronald Reagan to spread Democracy through the world. Ronald the Religious Jealot...

"It is the American sound. It is hopeful, big-hearted, idealistic, daring, decent, and fair. That's our heritage; that is our song. We sing it still. For all our problems, our differences, we are together as of old, as we raise our voices to the God who is the Author of this most tender music. And may He continue to hold us close as we fill the world with our sound--sound in unity, affection, and love--one people under God, dedicated to the dream of freedom that He has placed in the human heart, called upon now to pass that dream on to a waiting and hopeful world.

God bless you and may God bless America. "

No no no, move along, nothing to see here folks.

[mmonk]

153. The only thing I get from your posts

is you definitely have a distaste for generals or "miltary men". All the blood, lives and commitment given up for you so you can trash them and their sacrifice.

[CivilRightsNow]

154. And the only thing I get from you is stereotype and whining..

My ex was a military man and I proudly stood by and supported him while he did it. So dont tell me, I dont appreciate their sacrifice. I sacrificed years of my life to follow him around the world because I thought what he was doing was brave and honorable.

I appreciate honorable people and abhor lying theiving posers, I dont give a shit what your rank or rate is. It does not entitle you to respect. Your actions and the dignity with which you carry yourself and do your job does.

Keep it up.

[mmonk]

156. So you really think

"lying thieving posers" applies to Clark. All I can say is you're entitled to your opinion but don't expect respect from me for that vitroil.

[CivilRightsNow]

161. Yes, I do.

I can give you a heck of alot of links to explain why I think that.

But what I dont understand is how you could look at those links and see anything different. You've made up your mind and you've closed your ears. And that's fine. Many people exist that way in this world.

Im just offering you some knowledge. If you are prepared to accept it... It will rock your socks off. If you truly follow those links into the maze, it goes so deep that it's hard to find your way out... to figure out what is reality and what is fiction.

NED does great PR.

[Aries]

155. Didn't know this--Clark lobbied for Capps II?

As an ACLU member, this does start to concern me.

http://prorev.com/clark.htm

"...Wes started making phone calls to people in the upper reaches of government," said Jerry Jones, Acxiom's legal counsel, "and then they started calling us." Many of the resulting contracts are classified. One that is not is Capps II, an airline passenger screening system that some privacy advocates have criticized. . .

The general did such a good job that he became a registered Acxiom lobbyist. In June 2002, to keep an arm's length between Stephens and his Acxiom lobbying, he and Stephens set up S.C.L., a limited liability corporation in which General Clark received a consulting fee of $300,000 to get government contracts for Acxiom...."

and here's a Kosovo War-era background piece from Counterpunch, admittedly a source with its own biases--however, it is consistent with the Nation article/rant.

Meet the Real General Clark

"...All observers agree that Clark has always displayed an obsessive concern with the perquisites and appurtenances of rank. Ever since he acceded to the Nato command post, the entourage with which he travels has accordingly grown to gargantuan proportions to the point where even civilians are beginning to comment. A Senate aide recalls his appearances to testify, prior to which aides scurry about the room adjusting lights, polishing his chair, testing the microphone etc prior to the precisely timed and choreographed moment when the Supreme Allied Commander Europe makes his entrance.

"We are state of the art pomposity and arrogance up here," remarks the aide. "So when a witness displays those traits so egregiously that even the senators notice, you know we're in trouble." His NATO subordinates call him, not with affection, "the Supreme Being".

[mmonk]

157. Then don't vote for him (like you would).

[Aries]

159. I actually would vote for him against Bush, and against Lieberman

but not against Kucinich, Dean, Edwards, Mosely-Braun, or Sharpton.
(as of today;-) )

[CWebster]

158. YES!! He is exactly what Eisenhower warned us about.

He sits on the board of this:

How many Americans could identify the National Endowment for Democracy? An organization which often does exactly the opposite of what its name implies. The NED was set up in the early 1980s under President Reagan in the wake of all the negative revelations about the CIA in the second half of the 1970s. The latter was a remarkable period. Spurred by Watergate-the Church Committee of the Senate, the Pike Committee of the House and the Rockefeller Commission, created by the president, were all busy investigating the CIA. Seemingly every other day there was a new headline about the discovery of some awful thing, even criminal conduct, the CIA had been mixed up in for years. The Agency was getting an exceedingly bad name, and it was causing the powers-that-be much embarrassment.
Something had to be done. What was done was not to stop doing these awful things. Of course not. What was done was to shift many of these awful things to a new organization, with a nice sounding name-the National Endowment for Democracy. The idea was that the NED would do somewhat overtly what the CIA had been doing covertly for decades, and thus, hopefully, eliminate the stigma associated with CIA covert activities.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/TrojanHorse_RS.html

Which I have posted repeatedly and gotten nary a response.

Exceptional work, civilrightsnow and a belated welcome to DU.

[CivilRightsNow]

160. Shhh... be very very qwiet

Im hunting wrabbits.

Im glad you've journeyed down the rabbit hole with me.

Nobody wants to touch it. That's when you know, it's really really bad. Even worse then PNAC. It's been amazing to me, I cant even find anyone that will put up a real fight about it with me. The only ones that make an attempt are ones that have names like Vapid4Clark.

Thank you for the belated welcome. ;)

[RobinA]

162. I Read This Article

last week when I got my copy of The Nation. I think it's crap, and I am surprised that Nation would print something, the cover story no less, that is so lacking in substance. The writer is a reporter who covered Clark, and he tells a couple anecdotes about being on the road following the candidate. Where's the beef?

I starting reading this thinking I was going to get some solid info on what's bad about Clark. Is this all he could come up with? Nothing that means a thing. The worst you can get out of it was that Clark was unprepared for a couple questions asked by reporters. Big deal. I'm sure all candidates are at some time or other.

This article is an insubstantial hit piece.

[BeHereNow]

163. For Seventhson-Clark/Comp Sciences/Dyncorp

Hey Sev,
Sorry I couldn't find your post on this thread about trying to find
a Clark/Comp Sciences connection-
Well, here you go: (Last paragraph)
(Remember the Entrust/Acxiom/ Nortel pieces I sent you?)
http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2001/0115/web-isac-01-17-01.asp
Take another look at the Entrust insider owners, trading and headlines.
(Specifically the Homeland Security/Tom Ridge vomitous one.)
Forget the personal attacks on Clark-
I want answers on these CORPORATE MILITARY connections.
BHN
(Clark supporters, please do not respond-
So far, you have not exhibited research skills or
objectivity adequate to even
TRY to understand the implications here. No offense please-
It is NOT personal.
Why do Americans take everything so personal?
"It's all about ME?"
Thanks

[mmonk]

164. We know

so why don't you ask Clark why a retired general would be connected to defense and security firms (as if being on these boards or lobbying wouldn't be fit for a retired general)? And oh yeah, duh so sorry about our research skills.

[BeHereNow]

178. No problem.

Although I am sorry too-
Clark is a wolf in sheep's clothing and he
is why Bush will win again.
He is a military man- he takes orders-
The powers that be have ordered him to split
the democratic party, and they have succeeded.
The republicans will ALL vote for the shrub, while the dems
will split over Dean, Clark, Kerry and the Greens will
vote Nader.
Entrust stock will rise due to government contract as
a reward to Clark for being a good Soldier.
Book mark this post and get back to me then.
I don't have a crystal ball.
I don't wear tinfoil hats.
But I do now how to research.
BHN

[BeHereNow]

173. DoD letter-Signees? Guess Who?

ENTRUST and COMPUTER SCIENCES CORP...
but of course...
What's wrong with this picture when
Clark is a major stock holder in the
Comp Sci funded Entrust?
According to Clark supporters-
absolutely nothing.
Oh really?
Please elaborate.
BHN
Isn't it interesting that this is dated the day before
Bush stole the election?
Oh the irony.

"December 11, 2000
Mr. Paul Brubaker
Deputy CIO, Department of Defense
Pentagon, Washington, D.C.

Enclosed you will find the final report of the Department of Defense (DOD) Industry Working Group on Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Policy.

It was our honor and pleasure to serve the DOD in reviewing its existent PKI policy and assessing the impact of that policy on the evolving e-Business environment between the DOD, other Federal Departments and Agencies, and Industry. We think that our findings and recommendations can be useful to you and others in the DOD as you to continue to evolve your PKI technical solutions, Global Information Grid (GIG) architecture and your various functional e-Business processes.

As you know, we strongly endorse the DOD’s quick adoption and operational use of the Federal PKI Bridge solution, the continued use of "commercial off the shelf "(COTS) solutions and the development of functional domain transaction sets at various PKI levels. We do not endorse a "one size fits all" technical solution or policy. Finally we recommend continued review of the evolving legal issues.

The FECC and its members stand ready to continue our working group efforts as the DOD’s policy and functional e-Business processes, legal and technical issues evolve. More specifically, we would welcome the opportunity to work with your functional domain counterparts, to help define the PKI impact on e-Business policies, processes and transactions, and identify legal issues as they relate to their Industry domain partners.

Again we thank you for the opportunity to work with you and your staff and compliment them on their openness and willingness to receive our input. We hope to be able to contribute, once again, in the near future.


(signed)
__________________________
Michael J. Mestrovich, Ph.D
Chairman, FECC


MEMBERS OF THE DOD
INDUSTRY PKI WORGING GROUP



(signed) (signed)
_____________________________ __________________________
Keren W. Cummins Katherine M. Hollis
Vice President, Government Services Director, Information Assurance
Digital Signature Trust Solution, EDS



(signed) (signed)
_____________________________ __________________________
Mary Ellen Condon Edward Lopez
Director Information Assurance Consulting Systems Engineer
S.R.A. International, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.


(signed) (signed)
_____________________________ __________________________
Robert Daniels, J.D. Rachel Shea
Senior PKI Consultant Senior System Engineer
EDS Baltimore Technologies


(signed) (signed)
_____________________________ ___________________________
Chris Dobbs Kenneth A. Mendelson
Technical Engineer Director, Global Accounts & Policy
SPYRUS, Inc. TRISTRATA, Inc.


(signed) (signed)
_____________________________ ___________________________
Gene Hilborn, Ph.D. Michael J. Mestrovich, Ph.D.
Computer Sciences Corporation President and CEO
Unlimited New Dimension, LLC



(signed) (signed)
_____________________________ _________________________
Gary Moore John R. Wall
Federal Technical Director Director
ENTRUST Technologies, Inc. Computer Sciences Corp.


(signed) (signed)
_____________________________ __________________________
Michael A. Saunders John Weiler
Director, Defense Infrastructure Systems Executive Director
Litton-PRC, Inc. Interoperability Clearinghouse


(signed) (signed)
_____________________________ _________________________
Richard J. Vacura, Esq. Christopher R. Yukins, Esq.
Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe, LLP Holland & Knight, LLP



OTHER MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP

Patty Edfors Jack Lautenschlager David Papas
Baltimore Technologies Litton-PRC, Inc. Secure Computing

Hayes McCormick Patrick Arnold Joshua Icore
The OBJECTIVE Microsoft Corp. Secure Computing
Technology Group

Terry Morgan Andrew Nash William Bell
Cisco Systems, Inc. RSA SRA

Charlie Booth Bob Thomson George Liu
Cisco Systems, Inc RSA TRISTRATA

Guy Copeland
Computer Sciences Corp.

[BeHereNow]

174. DoD letter-Signees? Guess Who?

ENTRUST and COMPUTER SCIENCES CORP...
but of course...
What's wrong with this picture when
Clark is a major stock holder in the
Comp Sci funded Entrust?
According to Clark supporters-
absolutely nothing.
Oh really?
Please elaborate.
BHN
Isn't it interesting that this is dated the day before
Bush stole the election?
Oh the irony.

"December 11, 2000
Mr. Paul Brubaker
Deputy CIO, Department of Defense
Pentagon, Washington, D.C.

Enclosed you will find the final report of the Department of Defense (DOD) Industry Working Group on Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Policy.

It was our honor and pleasure to serve the DOD in reviewing its existent PKI policy and assessing the impact of that policy on the evolving e-Business environment between the DOD, other Federal Departments and Agencies, and Industry. We think that our findings and recommendations can be useful to you and others in the DOD as you to continue to evolve your PKI technical solutions, Global Information Grid (GIG) architecture and your various functional e-Business processes.

As you know, we strongly endorse the DOD’s quick adoption and operational use of the Federal PKI Bridge solution, the continued use of "commercial off the shelf "(COTS) solutions and the development of functional domain transaction sets at various PKI levels. We do not endorse a "one size fits all" technical solution or policy. Finally we recommend continued review of the evolving legal issues.

The FECC and its members stand ready to continue our working group efforts as the DOD’s policy and functional e-Business processes, legal and technical issues evolve. More specifically, we would welcome the opportunity to work with your functional domain counterparts, to help define the PKI impact on e-Business policies, processes and transactions, and identify legal issues as they relate to their Industry domain partners.

Again we thank you for the opportunity to work with you and your staff and compliment them on their openness and willingness to receive our input. We hope to be able to contribute, once again, in the near future.


(signed)
__________________________
Michael J. Mestrovich, Ph.D
Chairman, FECC


MEMBERS OF THE DOD
INDUSTRY PKI WORGING GROUP



(signed) (signed)
_____________________________ __________________________
Keren W. Cummins Katherine M. Hollis
Vice President, Government Services Director, Information Assurance
Digital Signature Trust Solution, EDS



(signed) (signed)
_____________________________ __________________________
Mary Ellen Condon Edward Lopez
Director Information Assurance Consulting Systems Engineer
S.R.A. International, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.


(signed) (signed)
_____________________________ __________________________
Robert Daniels, J.D. Rachel Shea
Senior PKI Consultant Senior System Engineer
EDS Baltimore Technologies


(signed) (signed)
_____________________________ ___________________________
Chris Dobbs Kenneth A. Mendelson
Technical Engineer Director, Global Accounts & Policy
SPYRUS, Inc. TRISTRATA, Inc.


(signed) (signed)
_____________________________ ___________________________
Gene Hilborn, Ph.D. Michael J. Mestrovich, Ph.D.
Computer Sciences Corporation President and CEO
Unlimited New Dimension, LLC



(signed) (signed)
_____________________________ _________________________
Gary Moore John R. Wall
Federal Technical Director Director
ENTRUST Technologies, Inc. Computer Sciences Corp.


(signed) (signed)
_____________________________ __________________________
Michael A. Saunders John Weiler
Director, Defense Infrastructure Systems Executive Director
Litton-PRC, Inc. Interoperability Clearinghouse


(signed) (signed)
_____________________________ _________________________
Richard J. Vacura, Esq. Christopher R. Yukins, Esq.
Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe, LLP Holland & Knight, LLP



OTHER MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP

Patty Edfors Jack Lautenschlager David Papas
Baltimore Technologies Litton-PRC, Inc. Secure Computing

Hayes McCormick Patrick Arnold Joshua Icore
The OBJECTIVE Microsoft Corp. Secure Computing
Technology Group

Terry Morgan Andrew Nash William Bell
Cisco Systems, Inc. RSA SRA

Charlie Booth Bob Thomson George Liu
Cisco Systems, Inc RSA TRISTRATA

Guy Copeland
Computer Sciences Corp.

[mmonk]

175. and Clark is for reducing the military budget

ooops sorry.

[BeHereNow]

179. Do you believe everything you hear?

Can you not consider for a moment the possibility
that Clark has been instructed by HIS puppet masters
to spew what will appeal to the dems?
His truth for me lies in what he DOES-
Not what he SAYS.
And as of today...he stands to profit handsomely
with his stocks in Entrust when this is over.
We shall see of course, but I for one, am not willing to
overlook his connection to Computer Sciences Corp
and Dyncorp.
As he said, he is a product of the MIC...
Now it is to his benefit to assert that that means
he will cut military spending- but will that statement
apply to his stock holdong when push comes to shove?
Maybe he is a saint, but the facts tell me it
is not likely.
BHN