If Clark gets the nomination I'm voting 3rd party

[ProudToBeLiberal]

That is one of the most prevalent statement I hear this week. Especially people who are green and independent. They were willing to make a compromise and vote for Dean and support him. They Know kucinich doesn't have a chance.

[Dookus]

1. huh?

Not sure what you're saying. Are you saying YOU won't vote Dem if Clark's the nominee, or are you spoofing OTHERS who say that?

Either way, anybody who thinks Clark would be worse than Bush could probably find better websites on which to share their views.

[Girlfriday]

2. I'll second that!

[ProudToBeLiberal]

3. Woah are you a republican?

I said that is one the most prevalent question I hear this week. Stop trying to restrict my freedom of speech please.

[Dookus]

7. I repeat: huh?

how did I try to restrict your freedom of speech? I asked a question.

[bowens43]

4. I don't like Clark but I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination

I haven't heard ANYONE say they would vote third party if he gets the nomination.

[Equinox]

56. I'm a DK supporter...

But I've hear a lot of good and bad about Clark. Can you tell me your reasons for not liking Clark?

I'm like you, I'll vote for him if he gets the bid. Anyone (well almost anyone) is better than bush.

I just want to hear more views on Clark. Like I said, I've heard both good and bad.

I'm like a kid at an ice cream shop and can't decide between cookies and cream or pralines and cream...

Again, anyone care to share their views?

Thanks in advance.

[Padraig18]

5. The Greens...

...never intended to support the Democratic nominee, in any event, just like they didn't in 2000. As for Independents, I've quite literally talked to 1000 (at least), and not a single one has indicated they intend to vote for a 3rd party.

[RBitt]

6. "Stop trying to restrict my freedom of speech please."

You are free to speak and to vote as you wish, choose who ever, but to vote for an un-electable 3rd. party is to give the Republicans one less vote to overcome. Make your statement,we need more not less discourse. I too am baffled by the fickle ways of the mob mentality, but that does not mean we can ignore it. DK is more in tune with so many of us, but the reality is not so sweet. we need to stick together in the end, hell I’d take bugs bunny over bush.
“Watching Kucinich at rallies, being overwhelmed by his dynamism, connecting with people and real solutions for the people,and displaying an uncorruptible character”

your right, but most of the USA ain’t ready for him, and won't bf this time around. sorry

[Rowdyboy]

8. If voting for Dean is a "compromise"

These people aren't going to vote for us regardless, so why should we care what they think?

[Kahuna]

9. Oh boy here we go. Blackmail.

I hope Nader runs so that you'll have someone to vote for.

We're DEMOCRATS. Get it?

[renie408]

10. Did Clark really say this stuff??

>>Clark Never Called Karl
Wesley Clark says he would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his phone calls. White House phone logs suggest otherwise.
by Matthew Continetti
09/22/2003 1:45:00 PM


Matthew Continetti, editorial assistant



WHEN WILL Wesley Clark stop telling tall tales? In the current issue of Newsweek, Howard Fineman reports Clark told Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and University of Denver president Mark Holtzman that "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls."

Unfortunately for Clark, the White House has logged every incoming phone call since the beginning of the Bush administration in January 2001. At the request of THE DAILY STANDARD, White House staffers went through the logs to check whether Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove. The general hadn't. What's more, Rove says he doesn't remember ever talking to Clark, either. <<

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/152tuawi.asp

Cause I am telling you, this guy is sounding creepier and creepier by the minute. I found a reference to Clark's Kalr Rove comment and just put 'Rove, Clark, call' into Google and came up with this. On top of the 'Karl didn't return my calls' comment, did he really say all that neurotic stuff about the White House trying to get him fired and then that stuff about the WH trying to get him to link Hussein and Iraq?? Doesn't anybody else think this is a PROBLEM?

[Kahuna]

11. Doesn't the piece say the call never took place?

Duh.

[renie408]

12. Yes, that would BE THE PROBLEM

Clark ADMITS that he made the comment to the two congressman, but now it looks like he was lying. On top of making this comment that he is trying to blow off as a 'tweak', he is lying about calling Rove. And the two people he spoke to say that he was in earnest and had several grievances with Rove. According to a Newsweek article, Clark was whacked out of shape because the White House didn't come running to him after 9/11. Ick. Ewww.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969659.asp?0cv=KA01

Just what this primary season needs. Yeah, boy, Clark is really turning out to be a White Knight.

[papau]

24. Clark plays with 2 neo-cons - and press says neo-cons tell truth

Why am I not upset with this same old- same old story of GOP control of the media?

[renie408]

13. I am starting to agree with you

Right now, Clark looks about as bad as Bush to me.

[Edmundo]

15. You don't know enough about him...

to say that.

[renie408]

18. True

All I know right now is that he is a Republican wannabe that seems to be jonesing for power. That could be better than Bush, right??

[Edmundo]

19. All I know is that...

you are being unfair. I'm not sold on Clark yet but I know it's unfair to compare him to Bush.

[renie408]

21. You are right

Bush IS the anti-christ, right??

Of course Clark couldn't be a power hungry person seeking the White House for his own agenda, which has less to do with really helping out the country and more to do with satisfying his own ego which was bruised when he was summarily removed as the comander of NATO forces? And how does that sound better than Bush, who wanted the White House to prove himself and as a platform for increasing the wealth of himself and his friends? Clark defenders will say that my characterization of him is wrong. But how many Bush supporters think that he is in it for the money?

Look, maybe I am wrong, it happens frequently. But when I add up the things I have read about his attitude with his staff and his reaction to being fired from NATO and about his working Republican fundraisers and voting Republican and saying things like, "I would be a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my calls." and "The White House was trying to get me kicked off of CNN." and "The White House tried to get me to connect Saddam to 9/11" (which he said after the fact and for which he has NO back up)....I get the picture of a man who is maybe not quite as important as he thinks he deserves to be and who is using the current situation in the Democratic party to springboard himself into being the most important guy in the world. Which, hey, a Rhodes scholar who was first in his class at West Point DESERVES to be, right? Right???

And what I see is that he is drawing a lot of attention away from candidates who have been working to prove themselves for months. And I am not just talking about Edwards; I am talking about Dean and Kerry and Kucinich, too. Maybe I should just be patient and allow the system to work. Maybe a more complete picture of the truth will develop and I will either be wrong, which I will admit and then sincerely apologize for or he will fall by the wayside. But until then, many people just seems to dismiss anything he says or does, which really worries me.

[Edmundo]

22. I also see the hype as a threat...

but to confort you, in the next few weeks we will see the true face of Clark. If after the debate and in the few weeks to come we still have a vague perception of Clark I will join you in the anti-Clark campaign.

For now I would like to keep an open mind and give him a chance. If Clark doesn't show some substance in his campaign he will not be able to get the nomination. Don't worry!

For now I don't think we have enough to say if he is all good or all bad.

We don't know Clark well enough now but we will and then we can form fair opinion about him. Right now we can't.

I'm not supporting any candidate now 100% and I find it amazing that so many have their minds pretty much made up. All I know is no matter what we need to get rid of Bush.

[renie408]

26. On a calmer and more settled note

I wish that I could clarify EXACTLY why Clark gives me the willies. I don't think it is just a knee jerk reaction because I support Edwards. But when I read the total package, I piece together an unattractive picture.

[returnable]

25. Buying the right wing spin

"The White House tried to get me to connect Saddam to 9/11"

He NEVER, repeat NEVER, said that.

Read the actual "Meet the Press" transcripts! If you're gonna make an issue of this, at least do the proper research.

He said the pressure was coming from "all over" before referencing a call he received. He NEVER said the call came from the White House.

This has been tackled over and over again, but I guess some Clark bashers just choose to overlook the facts.

"I would be a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my calls."

He claimed that was a joke. The White House call log backs his claim. Yet because two neocon stooges' claim he wasn't kidding, you believe them?

If you have issues with the General, fine. But at least base them on fact, not some distorted reality fueled by right wing liars.

[renie408]

27. Is this enough fact checking for you??

Here is the transcript. Sorry I paraphrased, but I was not inaccurate about the intent of Clark's comments. Makes you feel kind of sad, doesn't it??

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

[returnable]

30. And the fact is...

...Clark never said the White House called him. And I don't buy the inference.

Like I said, and the transcript proves, he said the pressure came from "all over." Then he references a phone call he received.

How you get "Clark said the White House called him" from that quote is beyond me.

Clark DID receive a phone call - from a think tank. That's what he was referring to.

"Makes you feel kind of sad, doesn't it??"

The only thing that makes me sad is when people continue to believe distortions when the facts are right in front of them.

[renie408]

31. Are you FOR REAL??

You are kidding, right? How is the view from where your head is stuck in the sand??(this, btw, is better than where I originally surmised your head was stuck) God, READ WHAT THE MAN SAID. This is a lot more sad that I initially thought. Are you really trying to say that Clark did not strongnly imply that the White House was trying to urge him to say that 9/11 was state sponsored terrorism? And how do you get that when his answer to being directly asked where that came from was, THE WHITE HOUSE?? He connected, in the same paragraph, getting a call at his home asking him to say that 9/11 was state sponsored terrorism and the White House. Who do you THINK he was trying to implicate??? BARNEY??

[returnable]

38. Yep, I'm for real. Thanks for asking.

And perhaps your head is the one buried somewhere it shouldn't be. Or maybe your reading skills are just a bit lax. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

It's obvious you want to buy the Limbaugh spin that Clark claimed he received a call from the White House, even though he never made such a claim. Nothing, apparently even the facts, will dissuade you.

It's all right there in print. But obviously you need some help with this. OK.

"It came from ALL OVER. I received a call..."

Let's just look at that - "It came from ALL OVER". At that point in the discussion, Clark moved beyond the White House. And let's not forget this was a dialogue. There were no connections made in the "same paragraph," as people don't converse in paragraphs.

But for the sake of argument, maybe it would help you to read the transcript like this:

"Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House.

It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.'

I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

Easier to comprehend now?

Or maybe you are suggesting the White House WASN'T pushing a Saddam connection immediately after 9/11, regardless of who made a call to Clark on 9/11. In which case, your head is truly buried somewhere it shouldn't be.

If you have a problem with Clark because of where he stands on the issues (or, more to the point, where he doesn't stand right now), I can see that. Hell, I'm anxious to see some policy positions, too :)

But to fall for this kind of distortion is just sad. And continuing to offer it up as fact is even sadder.

By the way, I like your man Edwards too. I wish he could get some traction.

[renie408]

43. We just have to agree to disagree on this one

I have read it your way and my way, I tried to hear it in my head the way it may have been on the actual show, but I still come up with Clark saying that he was pressured, directly or indirectly, by the White House to spin 9/11 their way.

No, I do not dispute that that was the way they wanted it to go. I get that part. Even I have noticed how many times they have managed to work "9/11, Saddam Hussein and Iraq" into the same sentence or group of sentences. But that is exactly what Clark did, isn't it? He managed to put it all together without actually putting it all together.

I have a problem with Clark because I am not sure that I can trust any stand he may have on the issues based on all the weird shit he has said and done so far. Also, for somebody that was ready to run, he hasn't been exactly forthcoming on his stands on the issues. I have the feeling he is working out exactly what he thinks everybody wants to hear first. Now, I wouldn't have that feeling if he had not apparently done that already on issues like the war.

As for sad, I guess everybody has to decide for themselves what they think is sad. I know where I stand, and now I know where you stand. If only we knew where Clark stood.

[returnable]

45. Fair enough. And where I stand...

...above all else, is ABB.

Cheers :toast:

[zekeson]

59. NPR just ran those statments

moments before i read your thread. I had seen and heard them before, but I did hear enought pause to suggest that he wasn't speaking of a call from the White House trying to piece the two together. He got a lot of calls that day. One was from the White House. One of the calls he got asked him to piece Iraq and S-11 together. He didn't say that call came from the WH.

My two cents...

[Egnever]

28. you are not alone renie

I was looking forward to clark running after all the buzz about him being a great VP for dean i had a very favorable opinion of him. I hadnt really taken a look at him but I figured if he was good enough for Dean, who I trust after listening to countless interviews of him, I just went with what apears to be thier judgement of him.

Admitedly a few things bothered me about him right away. The fact that he wouldnt say that he was running for so long just bugged the hell out of me, add to that his unwillingness to declare if he was a Dem or not and my nose started twitching.

Then he declares and the first thing i hear is that he doesnt know how many of the debates he will make.

:wtf:

now I am concerned. This guy has been playing games with this for months now and his schedule isnt cleared to make debates? Not a great start for me.

Then comes the aparent lack of any kind of policy knowledge whatsoever. Going so far as the story on the plane after the anouncement when he called on his policy advisor for help on his position. At this pont he is starting to look like a manufactured candidate.

Now today come to find out hes not on record anywhere with any kind of policy including the draftclark site being taken down and his own sites link to the issues being "under construction"

I dont know for a guy who was suposedly thinking about running for all this time he sure doesnt seem to have been thinking about it.

Now pile on all of the coments that you mention and a few you dont and Something about this guy is definately starting to creep me out.

Its early and he will be polished some over the next week. But as it stands now If he is what he curently smells like to me, He wont get the nod I dont think we need to worry about that. If he isnt what he smells like right now then it will be ok cause the goal is to oust bush. I would take any of the 9 but leiberman before as it stands right this minute I will take any of the 10 but lieberman and clark.

I must say I am hoping he turns out to be the guy all the curent suporters think he is. It would be crushing to me to think Dean thinks highly of him if hes not.

[renie408]

32. Its the polishing that scares me

Right now, while everybody is searching up things that he has said and they haven't managed to spin it their way, right now is the REAL Clark. The longer he runs, the more they manufacture him and turn him into something with mass appeal.

[Rowdyboy]

14. Anyone who equates Wes Clark with George Bush

deserves 4 more years. Enjoy...

[renie408]

16. And anyone who follows someone

because of media hype deserves four more years of Bush, too. And that is exactly what they'll get.

[Edmundo]

20. I'm not going to deny...

That there is a media hype for Clark right now. But comparing him with Bush is ridiculous.

[Edmundo]

17. That's a pretty sad statement.

Well, greens are going to get what they deserve: 4 more years of Bush!

Too bad people are not willing to give Clark a chance and too bad they never will. No matter what happens in the debates these people are never going to like him.

That's too bad and got us where we are today with Bush in the white house...

[burr]

23. Why don't we learn more about Clark's agenda??? Just a suggestion...

It seems a little early to be ruling Clark in or out..considering we know nothing about the specifics of his domestic agenda. He could be a political coup d'etat against our party, and a stroke of death if nominated. Or if he does have a worthy policy agenda, he might be the neo-cons greatest nightmare in 2004.

But to make these kind of early judgements before Clark has released any plans on healthcare reform or deficit reduction is a mistake.

[renie408]

29. He makes me nervous because I can't get a grip on him.

It looks to me like he probably falls much closer to what we have been considering a Republican than he does a Democrat. It sounds to me like he would rather BE a Republican than a Democrat. Does anybody know if he has worked any Democratic fundraisers before the last year? Maybe that would even things out for me, if I had more evidence supporting his claim that he is a Democrat. It doesn't help that he cracks 'jokes' about wanting to be on the other team. Does that really strike anybody else as funny? It strikes me as someone who was once on the inside and wants to be there again.

I dunno, maybe he will turn out to be all that and a bag of chips, but right now he looks pretty iffy to me.

[CMT]

33. I hate to say it, but I've heard this too

Look my Green friends are not big Dean supporters, they dig DK, but they appreciate Dean's stand on the war and willingness to go up against Bush-hard. But there is no way any of them, and i've talked to five Green or Green leaners and not one of them said they could vote for Clark. I said, "what about his anti-war stance" and they said they don't trust it and they don't trust a man who has been a Reagan supporter.

I think with Clark we may gain some conservative votes but lose liberal votes.

[Padraig18]

34. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh

I have frankly not counted on any Green votes in ridding the country of the B.F.E.E. in '04. Pardon the pun, but they showed their true colors in '00, and saddled this country WITH Bush. :grr:

[CMT]

36. unfortunately a lot of Greens

see the Dem party as almost as bad as the GOP and don't equate voting for the Dem nominee as the "lesser evil" they see both parties as "evil".

I agree I don't see how we can possibly nominate anyone worse than what Bush has done in three years.

[renie408]

37. I don't think that is technically true.

I used to think that, too, but then somebody went through a state-by-state thing and showed me where the Green votes didn't really effect the electoral vote. In the states Gore lost, he would have lost with or without the Green vote.

[returnable]

39. I thought the Florida Nader votes...

...would've probably swung the actual count towards Gore. I don't have the link, but I seem to remember reading that.

Regardless, had Gore carried his home state, the discussion would be moot.

At any rate, I think either Dean or Clark (should one or the other actually win the nomination) will be able to pull enough independents/moderate Repugs to offset any defection by hard lefters.

But it is all just guesswork right now.

[peaceandjustice]

40. maybe

Nader's tallys in both Florida and New Hampshire were larger than the margin Bush defeated Gore by. However...
In Florida, the Workers World Party's candidate, James Harris, had a large enough tally that if he hadn't run and all those votes had gone to Gore Gore would've won. But no one blames the Bush presidency on him.
All of the Nader-blaming assumes the Greens wouldn't have found another candidate. the truth is Michael Moore contemplated running and stayed out when Nader announced his intentions. Nader had to contend with three opponents for the Green nomination as it was, and while Jello Biafra or Joel Koval may not have been able to pull the 2.5% Nader did I believe they could've pulled one percent nationally, and considering Harris probably more than the difference in Gore's tally versus Bush's tally in Florida.

[renie408]

35. I have a couple of Green friends

and I'll ask them about Clark. I tend to agree with whoever said that the Greens aren't going to vote Dem anyway, though. The two people I am thinking of almost take pride in NOT voting for either of the established parties. But they are pretty freaked out by Bush, so maybe they will put pride on the side this time around.

[iambe]

41. Take a survey on election day

and see what they really do. So many things could change between now and then. Since Clark is still new in the game, there is some unnecessary freaking-out going on IMO. Then again, some voters are so comfortable with the feeling of righteous anger that they never bother to get over it... :eyes:

[renie408]

44. Yeah

It is unreasonable to get worried about a candidate who has managed to contradict himself in nearly everything he has said, worked a fundraiser for the Repukes two years ago, voted for Reagan, praised the Bush national security team, started out for the war..no wait, against it...no, for it...no...., makes bizarre, tasteless 'jokes' about wanting to be a Republican and who has to call his campaign manager to explain to him his stand on some item of policy.

Especially when he is such a good Democrat. Or has been for at least the last month.

What I can't figure out is why more people AREN'T righteously indignant.

[seamarq]

48. Since when did good Dems start buying the right wing spin???

Do you get your spin from Fox News?

[renie408]

55. I got it from here.

Every single negative thing I know about Clark, I got from here. Or at least, this is where I started backtracking it from. I haven't noticed most of the stuff I cited on the news. I didn't realize that the DU had a right wing spin.

[Equinox]

57. The worst thing "we" could do...

is elect someone more fucked up than Bush just out of reaction.

We need to pick our candidate wisely.

On edit: I'm not talking about Clark specifically. I'm talking about anyone.

[DJcairo]

42. Cool, then why not vote for Bush

[renie408]

46. Are we just going to SKIP the primaries altogether now?

Why has it all of a sudden gotten down to Clark or Bush for some of you? What about that field of nine qualified people that we were all so proud of two weeks ago? THEY DON'T LIKE CLARK. That does not mean that they don't like ANY of the Democrats. It means that unlike some people who will vote party no matter what, the people who have decided to label themselves as 'Green' who are acquaintances of the original poster are uninterested in having Clark as President. The inference being that they may vote for Dean or Kucinich if we nominate them, otherwise they are looking outside of the two party system.

I know that is not nearly as dramatic as flinging "just vote for Bush" out there, but it is more accurate.

[carpetbagger]

47. Pandering to Greens will get us nowhere.

The swing voters who will actually vote for a democratic candidate are the ones who hold views in the middle between the democratic and republican positions. For a lot of these folks, image means a great deal. A liberal who looks like a centrist is a real bargain for us. At most 3% sits to our left, but 20% sits to our right.

Multiple polls show Dean running a few points behind other candidates in head-to-head matchups against Bush. It's been averaging 3% shift from Dean and to Bush. That shift would have lost us the elections in 1960, 1976, and 1992.

[union_maid]

50. I never trusted Green or Dean and still don't

Sure, if Kucinich was the candidate the Greens would vote Democrat, but that's not a very realisitic scenario. Fact is, Dean is way to the right of the Greens and as the campaign for the general election progresses he's almost bound to dissatisfy them in some way or other. And that's if he gets it. If any other top tier candidate gets it, forget about it. Committed Greens are not on our side. They have their own agenda and none of the people who might possibly get the nomination will further it. You can't figure them into the equation because the only way to get their solid support is to put up a candidate who couldn't win if hell did freeze over.

[George_Bonanza]

49. Michael Moore supports Wesley Clark

So either Clark is a real liberal or Michael Moore's an idiot.

[whirlygigspin]

51. Greens & Progressives

may hold their nose and vote for Dean,
but they'd have to be swayed, intensely courted,
--forget the swing vote of 3%--,
there's 50% out there on the left that don't even bother
to vote, and they need to be added into the mix in order
to shift the balance and displace the far right.

Personally, I'd love to see this country lurch far left,
it would certainly be more balanced and enjoyable.

If that happened, we might even get to talk about North
American Union again.

Or even better, a re-instatement of the fairness doctrine.

'till then, keep enjoying the father Coughlins.

*this message was brought to you by Halliburton,
securing democracy for no one since 1956.

[Mairead]

58. No, he doesn't. He supports him being a candidate

He likes the positions Clark nominally takes. What will happen when/if Clark moves away from them, or it's revealed that they were only nominal?

[sungkathak]

52. From Waco to Yugoslavia

Quote, "From Waco to Yugoslavia:
The US military was at Waco

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

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

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/clark.htm

[diamondsoul]

53. I'm sorry to tell you this, but it's NOT true.

I don't know about the events in Yugoslavia, but I do know about Waco, and General Clark was NEVER in charge of aything in that operation, including his own donated equipment and manpower. That's not speculation, that's FACT from someone who was there. You show me some actual military documentation that proves me wrong, and I'll gladly own it, but while that entire operation was happening, General Clark was a highly visible man on post. He was making statements and running other operations on the base while his equipment and personnel were on loan to the Federal Authorities, end of story.

[Padraig18]

54. You are correct

:)

[sungkathak]

60. Absurd defence

<You show me some actual military documentation that proves me wrong, and I'll gladly own it, but while that entire operation was happening, General Clark was a highly visible man on post. He was making statements and running other operations on the base while his equipment and personnel were on loan to the Federal Authorities, end of story.>

May I say same thing "You show me some actual military documentation that proves me wrong?" What I know he was "Commander 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas (August 1992-April 1994)." According to you "his equipment and personnel were on loan to the Feds." So he didn't related to Waco slaughter? It's as absurd as Tony Blair saying that he didn't involve in Iraq war. "The British army in Iraq are only equipments and personnel loaned to US."

[sungkathak]

61. relates to the Jews and the

Quote, "BEHIND THE HEADLINES Latest contender for president
comes from long line of rabbis By Ron Kampeas

WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 (JTA) — Raised a Southern
Baptist who later converted to Roman Catholicism, Gen.
Wesley Clark knew just what to say when he strode into a
Brooklyn yeshiva in 1999, ostensibly to discuss his
leadership of NATO´s victory in Yugoslavia.

"I feel a tremendous amount in common with you," the
uniformed four-star general told the stunned roomful of
students.

"I am the oldest son, of the oldest son, of the oldest son —
at least five generations, and they were all rabbis."

The incident could be a signal of how Clark, who became
the 10th contender in the Democratic run for the
presidency on Wednesday, relates to the Jews and the
issues dear to them.

Apparently Clark, 58, revels in his Jewish roots.

He told The Jewish Week in New York, which first
reported the yeshiva comment in 1999, that his ancestors
were not just Jews, but members of the priestly caste of
Kohens.

Clark´s Jewish father, Benjamin Kanne, died when he was
4, but he has kept in touch with his father´s family since his
20s, when he rediscovered his Jewish roots. He is close to
a first cousin, Barry Kanne, who heads a pager company in
Georgia.

Clark shares more than sentimental memories with Jews.

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