Dean for DNC Chair, Clark for Prez in 2008, Boxer as VP.

[David Zephyr]

Can America handle it?

Can Democrats handle it?

Yes!

[Downtown Hound]

That's what I'd call a Dream Team!

:toast:

[rucky]

1. Boxer/Clark is more viable.

but that ticket's got my vote!

[FrenchieCat]

21. Female Jewish Senator from a Blue state

atop of the ticket ain't gonna quite get it.

Southern General with no votes to glean over who has already experienced being CIC and is a National Security Expert on top of the ticket in this (will be eternal)War on Terra climate (and whatever else the Repugs have in store for the world)is certainly more viable....

But I agree that Boxer as VP is doable. The beauty about Clark is that the bottom of the ticket can be man or woman, black or white, jewish or otherwise....just needs to have domestic experience. Anything else is gravy!

[HootieMcBoob]

26. exactly

Clark fits both the "strict father" and the "nurturing parent" frame. Having him at the top of the ticket is our best chance of getting a woman elected as vice president. After Clark's eight years of success it'll be easy to elect Barbara Boxer as America's first female President with Barak Obama as her vice president who can easily then take over as America's first African American President.

Having Dean as chairman of the DNC is the necessary first step to getting us there!

[AuntiBush]

371. You Know... I Rather Like the Idea!

Here's the gist in Maryland:

1) We're pretty much fed-up! All races, creeds, religions, ages, you name it. Some repuks are here, but for the most part - we're done!

2) Everyone I've spoken w/absolutely loves Boxer and Obama, and Clark.

3) After the last 4 years, and (oh I hate saying much less thinking about this) the next 4 (lord, why us)... I seriously believe as a country we'll be ready for a MAJOR CHANGE in LEADERSHIP!

2008 CLARK and BOXER
2012 BOXER and OBAMA

Doctors from a very famous hospital "here" agree and did not agree w/that MD agenda recently. They detest the Chimp! And they're very respectable in the field.

[Clarkie1]

71. I agree with Clark at head of ticket many VP choices become viable

A real chance to change the political landscape.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

150. Wesley Clark with many options.

Black, Latino, Asian, Jewish, Woman.....
you name it!

Wes Clark for President!!!

[janx]

166. I'm sorry, Frenchie--

but this kind of reasoning is not good. It's the reasoning of division that we've been fed by the far right for too long.

[FrenchieCat]

219. Sorry Janx....

it's the reality...I don't think it's going to end anytime soon, no matter what. I'm a Black person, and I know how long it takes for things to change. You're right....but that is not going to stop the voters' perceptions.

[janx]

375. What the hell? I can appreciate your perspective, but

how on earth would anyone identify Boxer as a Jew, and what difference would it make?

It's really ridiculous.

Barbara Boxer is a Jew? I didn't know. Who knows? Who cares? I never thought of her in any way but that of a representative of the people who elected her--and a very good one.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

356. Bingo!

[JerseygirlCT]

28. I agree. She just received the third highest number of votes in the

past election -- right behind Kerry and Bush.

And I'm sure liking her these days! She's got guts.

[Clarkie1]

70. Viable? Seriously? Only in California and perhaps a few others I think

Glad she's my senator, though!

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[autorank]

2. I can handle it!

or as Mae West said "I can handle it, and I can also kick it around."
I'm sure she was a Democrat and this is Democrat heaven!

[roguevalley]

3. nice :-D

[Pam-Moby]

4. Dean/Boxer would be a great team. n/t

[NoPasaran]

5. I'd prefer Boxer for Majority Leader

Hate to see her wasted as Veep.

[Dr.Phool]

6. Well, if Dean gets the Chair ( Not that one)

He's not eligible to run in '08. So go Boxer-Clark or Clark -Boxer. They're both winners.

[David Zephyr]

8. Yep.

Wes Clark and Barbara Boxer as the ticket with Howard Dean as Party Chair.

Wouldn't that be something to work for?

[Larkspur]

47. But he could be VP

Primary candidates don't run for VP, they run for Prez.

[AntiCoup2K4]

7. I'd vote for a ticket with any two of those three

But I think Dean has the best chance out of the three of them. Clark should run for governor of Arkansas and establish his executive branch credentials. And as I've said in other threads, senators don't win, so as much as Boxer is far more deserving than anyone else in the Senate at the moment, she is still a senator. Make a great VP though. And then in 8 years, there ya go.

[Sleepless In NY]

10. Wasn't JFK a senator? Either way, all 3 of them r the best

I'd be proud to support anyone of them.

[Sleepless In NY]

11. "JFK" as in President John Kennedy...thats who I meant

he was also a catholic. Dean, Clark, Boxer...bring it on!

[AntiCoup2K4]

14. Yes, JFK was a senator.

And that was 45 years ago, and there hasn't been another since. Though Bobby probably would have made it :(

[FrenchieCat]

34. Yeah......Great idea about Clark learning how to be a politician....

NOT!

Clark does not need to be governor of doo-doo squat. That's what is attractive about him....being a non-pol. He's done "executive".....

Why else do you think the Repugs are so deathly afraid of him? Experience without the vote baggage and with National Security expertise....conservative exterior, yet a liberal progressive at heart on most issues....

[Rowdyboy]

57. Plus, Clark already has "executive experience"

What do you think commanding an army involves? He administered the army-he ran things as an executive officer.

I don't want to see Clark tied down fighting over bs with the Arkansas legislature. Better he should spend his time in the limelight, speaking out, touring, writing and meeting the American people, and making money.

[JDPriestly]

376. Eisenhower was not a politician.

[Quixote1818]

43. Clark was over tens of thousands of people including schools etc.

I never could understand why people kept saying Clark needed more experience managing government????? Thats a huge part of what Generals do! He was over schools infrastructure, families, health care programs etc. etc. He was like a Governor of a small state for Christ sake. Why don't people get that?

[Crunchy Frog]

61. People don't get that

simply because they don't want to get it, as nearly as I can tell. It's the arguement that people like to use against Clark when they know that there really are no valid arguements. They likely are aware that his executive experience is equivilent to that of the Governer of a small state, but are hoping that some of their readers won't be aware of that fact.

It's mostly just used as a cheap tactic. So is the argument that he should run for Governer of Arkansas. They know that it would put him safely out of the running for '08, and he would likely be too old to run for president before it became feasible for him. It's a disningenous suggestion.

[Cheswick2.0]

292. Thousands of people who had to obey orders

it's a whole different world.

[Crunchy Frog]

300. Only the soldiers have to obey orders,

not the associated family members that live on the military bases and need to be provided with housing, schools, healthcare, and basic services.

Also, the NATO member states didn't have to obey his orders. During the Kosovo intervention he had to make decisions by building consensus among the 19 member states. Not many potential presidential candidates have that level of experience in consensus building. I would think it would be a particularly important asset.

[Jai4WKC08]

48. "Executive branch credentials"? LOL!!!

Guess what. The military is in the executive branch.

Oh, and the Supreme Allied Command of NATO has head of state status (and in case you didn't know, "head of state" does NOT refer to one of the united 50).

Sheesh.

[Clark2008]

102. No he shouldn't

He HAS executive branch credentials. He ran NATO for years and that was as big as a small state. If the media would have stopped boxing him into that "national security" hole all the damn time, more people would know and understand this. Under his command he wrangled money for schools, roads, social services and educational needs. He knows how to do it - and, besides, he has a masters in economics.

He just turned 60. If he waits until 2012 or 2016, he'll be too old.

[Crunchy Frog]

301. "If he waits until 2012 or 2016, he'll be too old."

I suspect that's the whole point of those arguing that he should run for governer first.

[umtalal]

9. Hillary will be jealous if Barbara runs for President.

[Crunchy Frog]

62. And we know this...how?

Maybe Hillary really isn't the person that Rush Limbaugh portrays her as. I really don't know.

[IndianaGreen]

12. David, when are you going to "get over" Bush election?

As our great warrior Joe Biden told the Europeans...

The people you are advocating are all wrong for the Democrats. Let me explain why...

Wes Clark is totally wrong! Clark is not a player! If Clark were the nominee he would get everyone upset by his refusal to concede a stolen election, and his endless demands that every vote be counted. Gawd forbid! Clark might even get on TV on a daily basis demanding an investigation of election officials such as that noble Ohio Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell.

Barbara Boxer as VP? No way! Did you see how she embarrassed everyone when she challenged the Ohio Bush electors? Horrible! How can you have that short Jewish woman dare to defy our Jesus-anointed candidate? And what was it that Boxer said about Rice? That Rice lied about Iraq? No! We went into Iraq in order to save America from evil Baathist crossing the ocean in their terrorist canoes!

Dean for DNC Chair? Do you really want as DNC Chair someone that sounds like a broken record with such gems as "you don't win elections by being Bush-lite." I mean, what's wrong with being Bush Lite?

Here David, drink some Kool-Aid....

:evilgrin:

[Dr Fate]

15. Jesus Fucking Christ....

...I'm AGREEING with everything IG says in like 98% of his posts...

Your sarcasm points out the exact excuse making BS that DEMS are giving us- everyones making excuses instead of fixing the problems...

Some DUers are now red-assing me for pointing it out too. ME, IG- DEMS are accusing ME of being a disruptor type!!!

...Either I'm nuts or the DEMS REALLY are fucking up like I percieve them to be.

I better "Alert" MYSELF before I get too outta hand!

:)

[Cheswick2.0]

60. welcome to the other side of the looking glass

[AntiCoup2K4]

16. Terrorist Canoes???

Oh my God, it's Al-KAYAK!!!! :scared:

[Clark2008]

118. ROFLMAO!!!

[David Zephyr]

18. LOL!

This is why I love you so dearly, IG.

We'll be made to walk the plank off someday. Hope it's together.

:loveya:

[IndianaGreen]

361. Howdy! I hope you participated in a Counter-inaugural today

I did and I froze my ass off. Our keynote speaker was a Marine that served in Iraq with the First Marine Expeditionary Force, and was among the first to get to Baghdad. He feels betrayed and upset about the lies and the deaths. He said the worse enemy is the apathy of the America people. People support the troops by putting up flags and putting magnetic ribbons on their cars, but that only serves to make Americans feel better about themselves, and does nothing for the troops in Iraq. If you want to support the troops, he said, we must bring them home now.

My love to you and to C.

:loveya:

[madfloridian]

13. If Dean does not get chair, he will be around for sure.

No Clark in 08 for me. I am not found of a military person as president. Ike did pretty good, but it is a risky thing IMHO.

[Leilani]

17. That's outright discrimination against an entire group of people

based on nothing more than your own prejudices.

Do you know any military people? Or do you just reject them in general? There are DUers who are military people, military families.
Don't you think your sweeping rejection of military people fit to serve as Prez is insulting & patronizing?

Plenty of military people have become President, & as far as I know, they were among the least risky people to be elected, starting with George Washington.

[madfloridian]

19. No, that is not what I meant.

I was not saying that at all. There are so many men and women qualified that we should not have to do that. I was not insulting, I just feel that way.

I remember a lot of people had reservations about Ike, my parents did. We discussed it in our classes at school.

He actually was pretty good over all, but I still hesitate to go there again with anyone.

[FrenchieCat]

20. So which "qualified" men or women risked their

career for what was right? Name me just a couple.

This is about what General Clark stood up about (and which earned himself an early "retirement"), while the rest of the "elected officials" kept sitting on their "phat" asses.....

Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Clark displeased the defense secretary, Bill Cohen, and General Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by arguing strenuously that—contrary to Clinton's decision— the option of using ground troops in Kosovo should remain open. But the problem seems to have gone further back. Some top military leaders objected to the idea of the US military fighting a war for humanitarian reasons. Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.

http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html
Clark was almost alone in pushing for a humanitarian intervention in Rwanda.

Pulitzer award winning Samantha Power for her book "A Problem from Hell" : America and the Age of Genocide
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006054164...
endorsed Wes Clark http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2003/12/redeeming_wes...
The following excerpts from Power's book give the details. The narrative surrounding the quotes was written by another person commenting on the book. Note especially Power's last comment below on Clark's pariah status in Washington:

General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi.

She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .

He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).

According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.

She details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, "The man who probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic's battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance."

"Yet in Washington Clark was a pariah. In July 1999 he was curtly informed that he would be replaced as supreme allied commander for Europe. This forced his retirement and ended thirty-four years of distinguished service. Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move."


Samantha Power's comments on Wesley Clark at the December 17, 2003, press conference in Concord, New Hampshire after the General's testimony at the Hague .

"Good afternoon. It's a real honor for me to be here with General Clark, and with Edita Tahiri. My name is Samantha Power. I spent about seven years looking into American responses to genocide in the twentieth century, and discovered something that may not surprise you but that did surprise me, which was that until 1999 the United States had actually never intervened to prevent genocide in our nation's history. Successive American presidents had done an absolutely terrific job pledging never again, and remembering the holocaust, but ultimately when genocide confronted them, they weighed the costs and the benefits of intervention, and they decided that the risks of getting involved were actually far greater than the other non-costs from the standpoint of the American public, of staying uninvolved or being bystanders. That changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military.

The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing. And it was Pentagon reluctance to intervene in Rwanda, and in Bosnia, that actually made it much, much easier for political leaders to turn away. When the estimates started coming out of the Pentagon that were much more constructive, and proactive, and creative, one of the many deterrents to intervention melted away. And so I think, again, in discussing briefly the General's testimony, it's important to remember why he was able to testify at the Hague, and he testified because he decided to own something that was politically very, very unfashionable at the time."
http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/the_subtle_ar...

[Northern Perspective]

27. Samantha Power made me cry

She is the only political commentator I've ever watched (it was an interview on PBS before the election) who actually brought me to tears. And it was because she was so incredibly clear about and committed to the exercise of ethics that should drive social democracies. A remarkable young woman!

[FrenchieCat]

31. You are right.....

She has more passion for the causes that she cares about than most others that I have ever seen. Maybe that's why she has been so succesful at "shaming" those who should be ashamed and has not yet been personally destroyed. She is an "equal opportunity" finger pointer....doesn't give a f*ck where her finger pokes....as long as it lands in that eye. If it wasn't for her book, Rwanda would not be a topic of discussion to this day, and Clinton would not have apologized about his inactions.....

[Adelante]

56. Power said in New Hampshire, remember?

Talking about the US historically ignoring genocide, that the official viewpoint "changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military"

OOps: I just saw you have this in your post above.

[Donna Zen]

32. Samantha Powers is a great American

I saw her at a Clark rally. She is very beautiful inside and out.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. I don't think you were trying to be insulting

However we disagree strongly about some basic assumptions. Quite a few Generals have become Presidents by the way, only former Governors and Senators have produced more Presidents, and the categories actually are reasonably close.

Most military personal are no more equipped to be President than most lawyers, or most politicians are. We have had less than 50 Presidents in America's history and many of those have been failures. Personally I do not start out rating potential Presidential candidates by ranking them in desirable or non desirable career categories so long as their careers brought them sufficient experience in matters important to being a successful President. On a pragmatic basis, I also note whether or not a person had a high enough profile career to win sufficient public support to actually win the Election. In Wesley Clark's case, it is affirmative on both counts.

This brings up the question as to whether or not you believe there is something intrinsically undesirable about a former military man becoming President. Your phrase "we should not have to do that" (pick a retired General to run for President) strongly implies just that. More than one personality type gravitates toward the military. I would not want a George Armstrong Custer or George Patton type as a President, But a George Washington or George Marshall type is a very different story. A few in the military are drawn toward war as epic heroic adventure, but most are far more reluctant to launch war than civilian political officials who have never experienced war's horror.

Europeans are far more united than most Americans in fearing the effects of America's unchecked military at loose in the world. Yet Europeans, who by and large were far more familiar with Wesley Clark than most Americans, because he led NATO's one and only war which was fought in Europe, were very favorably disposed to the idea of a Clark Presidency. I really don't understand where your reservations are coming from.

[madfloridian]

29. Tom, I could explain further, but it would do no good.

.

[Sparkly]

23. Exactly right

Well-said, Leilani.

[Leilani]

36. Thanks, Sparkly

"Military People" are our fathers, sons, husbands, wives & sisters.

They're people, just like all of us, & it's hurtful to many of us, who thought that "service to country" was a noble & patriotic thing to do.

Wes Clark heard the call of John Kennedy's speech: "Ask not what your country can do for you....."

And as far as being "risky," it was the Uniformed People who warned against the abomination in Iraq. Those who have been to war are much more likely to exhaust all measures possible before going to war again.

Far more risky, are the pencil pushers, the idealogues, who move people like chess players on a board; those are the risky ones.

[Cheswick2.0]

38. That's not discrimination, that's an opinion

I have a brother in the military. I wouldn't want him as president either.

[FrenchieCat]

39. We are not talking about your brother....

Who I doubt I would vote for as well.

But Cheswick2.0, it is discrimination......what else? Ruling out a group of people based on the fact that they have served their country. Civilian leaders are the ones that start wars......Those who have served normally try to end wars. Please review your history.

[Cheswick2.0]

63. If you type the words discrimination and definition into google

You will see that you are wrong. If we made a rule or law that military people could not be candidates for President that would be duscrimination. Simply prefering not to vote for a military person is personal preference.

My wish not to have a president who has spent his whole life in the military is not based on who starts wars. That was a bad assumption on your part and my history is just fine thank you.

Actually you probably would vote for my brother. He looks great in a speedo.

[Sparkly]

66. "Simply preferring not to vote for a (fill in the blank) is...."

"...a personal preference." But not discrimination...

How else could you fill in that blank and make the same statement?

Simply preferring not to vote for:
a woman...
a northerner...
a Jew...
an African American...
a doctor...
a lawyer...
a teacher...
a rich person...
a poor person...
Simply preferring not to vote for someone based on assumptions about a whole group of people sure seems like discrimination to me. I can't see it any other way. It seems all too easy to make huge assumptions about what a "military person" is.

[ClarkUSA]

112. Or a Northeast liberal

[Cheswick2.0]

287. so anytime you don't vote for someone it is discrimination?

that is nonsense. It may be prejudice, it may even be bigotry or sexism or racism or classism. But not voting for someone no matter what your reason, is not discrimination.

[Crunchy Frog]

69. I'm virtually certain that I wouldn't vote for your brother.

I don't support a candidate based on how he looks in a speedo and no other Clark supporter that I know of does either, although that was a nice little bit of hit and run snark on your part.

[Cheswick2.0]

290. Okay, well he looks dreamy in his dress whites

how's that?

[Crunchy Frog]

304. I'm sorry, I don't know what it's like

to look at my own brother in that sort of way. However, whether or not you find your own brother "dreamy" either in a speedo or in dress whites has no bearing whatsoever on how I would evaluate him as a potential candidate.

I suppose you're free to think about your brother in any way you like. Just avoid doing anything illegal.:)

[Leilani]

41. No, it's discrimination

because she wasn't giving an opinion on your brother, or on a person.

She was rejecting an entire group of diverse people, held together only by their occupation.

It's the same as rejecting an entire group of people, who you don't know as individuals, based on their religion, or skin color, or national origin.

Face it, it's because of their job, & those at DU who continually demean the military as an entire group are prejudiced against them.

[Cheswick2.0]

65. no she wasn't doing that

she was rejecting a particular person as a candidate for president based on the fact that he is military. It might be prejudice, but it is not discrimination. There is a subtle difference.

[Tom Rinaldo]

67. It can be prejudice then. But take out the "personal" part

A "personal prejudice" is not liking a certain color in sweaters, or always wanting red rather than white wine. A statement against a whole class of people who have full equal rights regarding pursuing a certain aspect of citizenship, in this case running for President, without considering an individual's specific qualifications would be called a prejudice against that group. This is a social issue, not a matter of personal taste.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

97. Leilani, why are you doing this?

You know I am not prejudiced.

I don't want generals or anyone from the military in the white house when we are going to be at war all the time.

[Leilani]

120. MF, if you read my earlier post

I think we'd be less likely to be at war if it was up to the military.

The Uniformed people were against the Iraq War...it was the politicians who sent them there. It was the Neocon chickehawks who got us involved in this abomination, because they had no clue as to what would happen, or the perils that were ahead. Some of the strongest anti-war voices were military, or ex-military.

People who have seen the horrors of war, are less likely than others to want to repeat the experience.

[Cheswick2.0]

291. so? Did I say I wouldn't vote for him because he would take us to war?

I won't vote for him because he has no record with the party and because I don't think people who have spent their whole life in the military would necessarily make good presidents.
If he runs for office and earns some creds as a democrat and as a civilian interested in something besides military policy, I would consider voting for him depending on who else was running.

[Sparkly]

125. "when we are going to be at war all the time."

:wtf:

[madfloridian]

149. That is the plan, isn't it?

What do you mean by saying wtf to me? Richard Perle has said it, Condi just named off 7 countries yesterday, we have special ops in Iran now....

Yes, we are remapping the middle east, and not too kindly either.

[TLM]

341. I agree with you....

The whole mentality of military leadership is exactly what I don't want in the white house.

Seems most of the Clark folks are missing the whole idea behind a civilian holding that post... not a career military officer.


I do not want a military person in the white House either... and calling that discrimination is as stupid as calling it discrimination to not want career oil men in the white house. Oil men are a group of people too, right? SO I guess some here feel that not wanting oil men in the white house is the same as not wanting black men in the white house.

But guess that's the go-to response for some... accuse you of being a bigot or a racist/discriminator to try and shut you up since they can't address the point of the argument.

Frankly that mentality reflects exactly why it is a bad idea to have a leader who's only real leadership experience is with people who have to follow his orders and their families who have no power to vote him out.

[madfloridian]

358. Thank you. I thought it was a valid point.

It sure started a firestorm.

[madfloridian]

73. No, I was saying I don't want a military presence in the white house.

We now have the situation we were warned about in 61, I believe. The white house and the corporations and the military are way too tied together. I think if you spend time here a lot, which you do, you should know that. We have the military industrial complex, and we have wars for profit.

I am prejudiced now? Because I don't want a particular type of person? But isn't that my right.

You wanted specifics? I am concerned that Clark has such close ties to companies that are so closely tied with Homeland Security. I could go on, but I think I have a right to feel the way I do. I don't think I should be said to be discriminating against anyone.

I don't appreciate that I am not entitled to an opinion. I have looked at the close ties between several companies he has been with and the CAPPS II and private info, and the Homeland Security. That is my right.

I have avoided saying much about my feelings on this. However right now is a pretty odd time here at DU. I do not appreciate the people who keep after Kerry at a rough time, and I don't do it.

Also, right now, Wesley Clark is not running for anything, and Howard Dean is. We don't even need the VWRC because we have our own little bashing machine here.

I am not attacking Clark, but I see what happens here if we try to support Dean's run for chair. Running for chair is not running for president, and as we all know if he gets it he will be out of everyone's hair in 2008.....

I have a right to like or not like anyone I please. I am proud of military people and their families, I just don't want them in the white house right now....not when our Democrats have given permission to the GOP to take over the damn world.

[Tom Rinaldo]

82. Of course you have a right to not like someone. In fact...

For what it is worth you have a right to be prejudiced also. So do I. Everyone has that right. I think Cheswick's point is that we don't have a right to legally discriminate, but prejudices are not illegal in and of themselves. I can be prejudiced against rich people for example, and present specific reasons for feeling that way. I might think that rich people are not as warm and sincere as most people I like tend to be. I might think that rich people are out of touch with the reality of most people's lives. I might think that rich people tend to be snobbish. That could make up the basis of my prejudice against rich people. Many people are out front about their prejudices and why they have them, and think that their reasons are sound.

You shifted back and forth in your posts between mentioning specific problems you might have with Clark, and mentioning general concerns you have with electing any career military officer as President in current day America. The latter doesn't have to do with not liking someone.

There would be a significant difference between someone saying it "could send the wrong message" to elect a retired military Officer now, for example, and someone saying electing a former military Officer President now would consolidate the power of the military industrial complex. That would be a pretty sweeping opinion regarding a whole class of people. I know that you did not make that statement, but your concerns obviously drift in that direction. Electing the wrong ex-Officer, in my opinion, might further that. But electing the wrong civilian politicians is exactly how we got into the mess that we are currently in regarding the entire military industrial complex. I am not convinced that electing an honest retired General, who put service ahead of profit for virtually his entire adult career, is a worse bet to make than elevating yet another person from the professional political class to the Presidency.

It took a Teddy Roosevelt to tackle the worst excesses of Capitalism of his time (I like that analogy, and think it is a better fit, than "it took a Nixon to pursue an opening with China").

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

93. You know me better than to characterize me that way.

Now you are sounding as though you are prejudiced against me because I don't want people from the military assuming the position of president right now.

If you choose to think I am prejudiced, that is your choice.

Yes, the OP mentioned Dean I believe.

[Leilani]

113. Dean was in the opening post

but this discussion had nothing to do with him.

Since the end of the primaries, I've tried to reach out to ALL DUers who feel a change is needed in our system. I've supported Dean for DNC chair because I thought he would be good for rebuilding the party, & I've tried to remain positive.

But, I'm tired of Clark bashing, not from you MF, but others here, & I'm also tired of military bashing which is a popular habit here at DU.

I think it's unfair, but more than that, I think it's tactically silly. Since 1968-1972, when the Dems became associated with being anti-military, & the party of concentration on domestic affairs only, they've been outside the mainstream, & have continued on the road to minority party.

The Dems are now at their weakest point in my memory, with Republicans controlling all government. And unless they have a message on foreign policy, defense, terrorism, etc. they will continue to lose, because the American people will be afraid to put their trust in Dems.

I wish DUers would think about their preconceived notions on certain issues, & reconsider them.

[madfloridian]

117. Not bashing the military at all, Leilani. I am not.

I just happen to feel strongly about that. When Ike ran, even my Democratic parents respected and liked him.

However there really was concern about putting a general in the white house. It is a fair position.

I don't like any bashing, but I feel I should have a right to say things if I feel like it.

I agree with you about the bashing here. It is too intense. It should not be going on here against any of our Democrats.

[Tom Rinaldo]

145. The words used are very charged,

If there were no real point to this discussion it would be best not to be having it at all. You have been making a political point based on your beliefs. In this case your political beliefs involve concerns about the overall role of the military in our society. Based on that, you have deep reservations about a former military officer becoming President. That reservation singles out a whole group of people as a class. You have your reasons for that, but it still is what it is. Technically you are "prejudiced against" members of that class of people aspiring for the Presidency right now. That does not make you a bigot and bigotry is usually the issue at play when people use words like prejudice and discrimination. That is why a discussion like this can become so charged.

One reason why this discussion is meaningful however is the perception held by many who have either served in the military, or who still do so now, that many in the Democratic Party do not trust or respect them. That perception holds serious political implications for the Democratic Party.

Beyond that many of us who support General Clark see him as an exceptional individual who is very unlike most of his military peers in very significant and relevant ways, who offers a vision of leadership that would strongly benefit our country. It is natural that we would have difficulty with a mind set, however sincere it might be, that opposes his potential candidacy for the Presidency based on how he served the nation, assuming that you believe military service can be honorable, rather than on who he is and what he believes. To the extent that you have specific issues with Weslely Clark individually, that is another story.

[madfloridian]

158. I fully respect the military.

I do not want a retired general in the white house because I think it should not be that way. That is my personal opinion. But then, I can not speak for the party.

Those of us who support Howard Dean feel just the same way. He may not be a military hero, but he is a good and honest man who gets bashed the hell out of here all the time.....a Democratic forum.

It all works both ways.

[Tom Rinaldo]

168. Of course Dean gets bashed here

Dean Kerry and Clark are the three candidates from the last go around who still get regularly bashed at DU (well I guess I should throw in Lieberman also). And Edwards gets dismissed by some for being a non factor.

I understand that Dean is the only one of the bunch who is in a serious race for a significant position to be decided in the near future. I said that somewhere on this thread in fact. That is one reason why I have made a special effort to defend Dean at times on this board. I attacked that stupid "why did Dean Lose?" thread you might remember for exactly that reason. But that thread wasn't started by a Clark supporter. A lot of people supported each of the major candidates, so I can not say that no Clark backer has "bashed" Dean lately. However I can say that a whole lot of Clark supporters have been saying quite positive things about Dean running for DNC Chair and the contribution Dean has and can make to the party.

I suspect the strongest support for Dean for DNC Chair on DU, other than from Deanies themselves, has been coming from Clark supporters. And half the time when we do speak up for Dean someone accuses us of only doing it to get Dean "out of the way". That's really insulting when it happens by the way. Essentially it is calling every one of us who express specific positive feelings about Dean for DNC Chair cynical liars.

Like I said there is a lot of Dean bashing still going on at DU but a hell of a lot of praise for him also, and I see very little direct negativity about Dean on this thread for example. Why on Earth is anyone bringing up Clark's role in Dean not winning the nomination here anyway? What does that have to do with the topic of this thread? How does that help prevent Dean bashing if that is the concern of Dean supporters?

[Cheswick2.0]

293. I don't think her words were charged at all

I think you all called out the troops and are making mountains out of mole hills. Maybe some Clarkbars are just too sensitive and taking insult where non is intended. MF's words are never highly charged.

[Tinoire]

42. Nothing more than her own prejudices? I'm a 20 yr retired vet

who worked in some pretty high circles in the military. I'm not about to be blinded by all that shiny brass on his shoulders. And neither are people like Madfloridian who's joined me in the same progressive battles for the last few years.

Most people who reject Clark don't do so just because he was in the military; many of us reject him because of his beliefs, what he did when he was in the military, and what he did once he got out of the military.

There are serveral General Officers who would get my support if they chose to run for President. Clark isn't one of them.

He's smart. He's good looking. He's speaks well. And I don't doubt he'd do a better job than Bush. BUT he has too many associations with too many organizations & too many people that are anathema to me and to many progressives. Clark has a huge problem with the Progressive Left and Michael Moore's 'thank you' because Clark didn't pile on him when the rest of CNN did, isn't enough to make people get over things like the School of the Americas, the war against Yugoslavia, the NED or Jackson Stephens.

[Leilani]

44. But your argument is completely different

You don't want Clark, & you stated your reasons. And although I disagree, I won't argue with your logic. And you said there are several General Officers you would support.

The other discussion was completely different; it was based entirely on the premise that military people are too risky to be President.

I respect your service, & thank you for it. And I've been around the military enough that like you, I'm not blinded by shiny brass either.
My support for Wes Clark is based on the person, not his uniform.

[Tinoire]

46. Yes... I can understand

and upon re-reading the post I can see why you stated "own prejudices". I'm at work now and not skimming very well lol. I also didn't mean to imply that you were dazzled by the brass. There are several Clark supporters who have explained their reasons for supporting him and I can respect those reasons. Thanks Leilani

[Leilani]

49. Thanks Tinoire

for rereading, & your post.

Aloha, Leilani

[FrenchieCat]

51. Tinoire....

What did Clark do that you dislike at Jackson Stephens? What about the War in Yugoslavia aka Kosovo? What about NED?

Please know that I have researched Clark intensely, including all of his associations and I have yet to find anything that Clark did that was wrong.......

The "pile-on" that you list are no more than guilt by association triggers...without many readers knowing what any of it means beyond hearing some "I don't like that" in my gut. No better than what the RW would do......

Kinda of like saying Dean was with the DLC.....

and by the way, who is your "Perfect" candidate as of present...and how to you see them winning a general election?

In addition, you don't give Michael Moore enough credit for why he supported Wes Clark. Too bad, cause I think that Michael Moore deserves better than that from the progressive left!

In the letter to his supporters, Mr. Moore lays out in detail why he has chosen to support Wes Clark, noting that General Clark "is clearly the absolute best hope we have of defeating George W. Bush."

"I have met Clark and spoken to him on a number of occasions," Moore states, "... and I have to tell you I have found him to be the real deal, someone whom I'm convinced all of you would like, both as a person and as the individual leading this country. He is an honest, decent, honorable man who would be a breath of fresh air in the White House.

Moore goes on to describe a number of General Clark's positions that he agrees with, including, among other things, Clark's income tax reform that would provide significant tax relief for working families, his opposition to the war in Iraq, and his deep commitment to affirmative action, education, and health care.

Wes Clark responded to the Moore endorsement, saying: "Michael Moore is an enormous talent and an inspirational figure for millions of Americans. I am delighted to have his support, and I am honored by the eloquence and passion of his endorsement letter."

This is not about voting for who is more anti-war or who was anti-war first or who the media has already anointed. It is about backing a candidate that shares our values AND can communicate them to Middle America. I am convinced that the surest slam dunk to remove Bush is with a four-star-general-top-of-his-class- at-West-Point-Rhodes-Scholar-Medal-of-Freedom-winning-gun-owner-from-the-South -- who also, by chance, happens to be pro-choice, pro environment, and anti-war. You don't get handed a gift like this very often. I hope the liberal/left is wise enough to accept it. It's hard, when you're so used to losing, to think that this time you can actually win. It is Clark who stands the best chance -- maybe the only chance -- to win those Southern and Midwestern states that we MUST win in order to accomplish Bush Removal. And if what I have just said is true, then we have no choice but to get behind the one who can make this happen.

There are times to vote to make a statement, there are times to vote for the underdog and there are times to vote to save the country from catastrophe. This time we can and must do all three.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-01-14

[eridani]

222. Butting in for Tinoire here--

--coupla things I'd like to ask General Clark

1. How did you manage so successfully to bomb the worker-owned or state owned-factories in Serbia and leave the foreign-owned ones alone?

2. What's so great about supporting the Al Qaeda-linked drug runners of KLA in their successful campaign to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of its Serbian, Rom, and Jewish minorities?

3. Why did you back the successful ethnic cleansing of the majority Serb population from the Krajina by the Nazi Tudjman with the assistance of DynCorp and other American mercenaries?

[FrenchieCat]

228. Read it all here......

Biased innendos are just not going to quite get it.....but read here about that....

http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm

Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Table of Contents

I Background and Mandate
II Review Criteria
III Work Program
IV Assessment

General Issues
Damage to the Environment
Use of Depleted Uranium Projectiles
Use of Cluster Bombs
Legal Issues Related to Target Selection
Overview of Applicable Law
Linkage Between Law Concerning Recourse to Force and Law Concerning How Force May Be Used
The Military Objective
The Principle of Proportionality
Casualty Figures
General Assessment of the Bombing Campaign
Specific Incidents
The Attack on a Civilian Passenger Train at the Grdelica Gorge on 12/4/99
The Attack on the Djakovica Convoy on 14/4/99
The Attack on the RTS (Serbian Radio and TV Station) in Belgrade on 23/4/99
The Attack on the Chinese Embassyon 7/5/99
The Attack on Korisa Village on 13/5/99
Recommendations

[TLM]

344. I'd like to ask Clark what kind of leadership he thinks we need?

Oh wait he already told us that when he was whoring for the repukes currently in office...


"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."


"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."



If that's his idea of great leadership.... I don't even want this guy mowing the white house lawn.

War profiteers and oil men will never get my vote... ever.

[FrenchieCat]

362. Old, old, old.....

and tired too....

Howard Dean lies....is that your idea of great leadership?

[janx]

366. I have to admit that the quotes you cited would be a Big Problem

should Clark decide to run for president again in the future. I don't see him as a war profiteer, but the quotes would be the first thing out of the right-wing chute.

[Sparkly]

22. "a military person"

If that's not a narrow-minded bias based on a stereotyped generalization, I don't know what is.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Well you know how

"politicians are so much MORE trustworthy than....???" Who knows?

Give me a Democratic intellectual General who has stood for "Duty, Honor, and Country" for the majority of his lifetime and is not afraid to make a difference (no matter what the personal cost might be)....and I will give you the right leader for America in these times.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

278. I know! I was a strong Clark supporter from day one!

I would like to see one of the following in 2008:

Clark/Dean
Clark/Warner
Clark/Bredesen
Clark/Rendell
Clark/Boxer
Clark/Feingold

[HootieMcBoob]

30. I've said this a million times but...

the fact that Clark is a military person who is also a liberal is the biggest reason to support him. He knows the pentagon inside and out. He's said as much. His quote was something like "the pentagon is a want machine". Remember it was Ike who warned us of the military industrial complex. He's the only one who would be able to bring some sanity to the military spending (waste/corporate welfare) that we have now. He's the perfect package for us and he would win in a landslide. We blew it last time but we might get the opportunity again. Let's not screw it up twice. Clark is a gift from god fur us!

Read his stuff - don't just write him off. He's a lot more than a military person. Rhodes scholar - masters in economics and philosophy!

[Donna Zen]

33. Only Nixon could go to China

Only Clark can get the pork out of the Pentagon. And he will.

[HootieMcBoob]

35. yup n/t

[truebrit71]

37. Sounds like a great idea!!!!

I'm all for it!!!

[Stephanie]

40. I like it. I could also see Gore/Boxer or even Kerry/Boxer

Don't flame me!

:scared:

[melnjones]

45. Sounds good to me. nt

[JD Lau]

50. 2008 is a LONG damn time away from now. There may well

be a million different speculations between now and then. This is the last one of these threads I'm going to participate in. WASTED ENERGY!!!

I like both Clark and Boxer, but WHO KNOWS where we will all be in 4 years.

[FrenchieCat]

52. It never hurts to be prepared.....

Whatever happens within the next four years....I doubt that "Peace on Earth" will be one of them. I am certain that Rethuglicans will not be letting go of the "We are strong on National Security" political card that they hold anytime soon.

Quick, look....over there -------------> Dirty bomb story in Boston...announced today by the MSM....to keep any discussion about Rice from bubbling to the top.

[Joanne98]

53. Elliot Spitzer for Prez.

[FrenchieCat]

58. Elliot Spitzer for NY Governor....

is more likely what his buttons will say.

[Pepperbelly]

115. Doesn't he belong to the DLC?

That will piss some of our DU brethern off a bit.

[caligirl]

54. Need an answer to this, the next DNC candidate forum is in Sacremento

this Saturday and I wanted to take my family and attend. They said its open to the press, is it open to all others? Do you have to belong to the Dem Club or be a delegate?

[FrenchieCat]

81. I don't know....

I belong to the Alameda Democratic Club.......

Maybe you could on-line and ask at maybe DCCC...or write inquiring to your Rep?

Sorry.....that I couldn't answer any better.

[caligirl]

121. Got an invite email tonight for a breakfast at 9am at the Radisson

[FrenchieCat]

220. You should check it out....

Why not? It's most likely a constructive endeavor!

[MinnesotaMike31]

55. Clark for Prez... yes!!!

[Crunchy Frog]

59. Sounds perfect to me!

Dean for DNC Chair!

Clark/Boxer '08!

:toast:

[Jacobin]

64. Works for me

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

72. Gee thanks for the news....

But I ain't buying your headline....sorry.

Kerry in 2008 is folly and suicide....

and I understand that Suicide is beating Kerry in '08 in the latest Democratic polls 2 to 1....while folly is also 10 pts ahead of Kerry.

When asked, Kerry replied...."Looking at the upside, it could be a lot worse!"....

(satire)

[Clarkie1]

75. LOL! n/t

[politicasista]

86. Wow Frenchie, you sure are hard on Kerry

:cry:

[FrenchieCat]

88. That was a joke....

My point is when someone "Forcefully" tells me who the ticket will be for 2008....and starts some nonsensical song about raising taxes....I go into satire mode.

[politicasista]

129. It's ok.

I agree it's too early to think about 2008.:pals:

[Sparkly]

74. Cute.

Who's gonna be taxed and how? What did Kerry propose regarding "taxes are too low?" (Yes, this a test.)

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Sparkly]

77. If you propose raising taxes on everybody making above $30k a year

you'd never win an election again.

You could probably raise the rate on the top 2% by .05% and do better than doubling the taxes for everybody making $30k to $100k. No need to hurt the middle class any further.

[newsguyatl]

79. no thanks

i don't DISLIKE wes, but i don't especially like him -- and i'm really not comfortable with the idea of having to have a military guy in command...

like i said, i don't dislike wes, but he's never appeared genuine to me -- seems more like a political opportunist.

i'm actually still hoping dean will make a go of it again in 08 -- after all, that's the reason he's getting most of his support from clarkies, because they want him out of the way for their man.

[FrenchieCat]

83. Them's is fighting words.....

"seems more like a political opportunist."

Do you read anything ever....or do you just write? At least read the Bolded text(damn!)

Let me re-iterate....then let me know how Clark is an opportunist, K?

I'll be waiting.....

Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Clark displeased the defense secretary, Bill Cohen, and General Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by arguing strenuously that—contrary to Clinton's decision— the option of using ground troops in Kosovo should remain open. But the problem seems to have gone further back. Some top military leaders objected to the idea of the US military fighting a war for humanitarian reasons. Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.

http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html
Clark was almost alone in pushing for a humanitarian intervention in Rwanda.

Pulitzer award winning Samantha Power for her book "A Problem from Hell" : America and the Age of Genocide
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006054164...
endorsed Wes Clark http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2003/12/redeeming_wes...
The following excerpts from Power's book give the details. The narrative surrounding the quotes was written by another person commenting on the book. Note especially Power's last comment below on Clark's pariah status in Washington:

General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi.

She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .

He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).

According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.

She details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, "The man who probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic's battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance."

"Yet in Washington Clark was a pariah. In July 1999 he was curtly informed that he would be replaced as supreme allied commander for Europe. This forced his retirement and ended thirty-four years of distinguished service. Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move."


Samantha Power's comments on Wesley Clark at the December 17, 2003, press conference in Concord, New Hampshire after the General's testimony at the Hague .

"Good afternoon. It's a real honor for me to be here with General Clark, and with Edita Tahiri. My name is Samantha Power. I spent about seven years looking into American responses to genocide in the twentieth century, and discovered something that may not surprise you but that did surprise me, which was that until 1999 the United States had actually never intervened to prevent genocide in our nation's history. Successive American presidents had done an absolutely terrific job pledging never again, and remembering the holocaust, but ultimately when genocide confronted them, they weighed the costs and the benefits of intervention, and they decided that the risks of getting involved were actually far greater than the other non-costs from the standpoint of the American public, of staying uninvolved or being bystanders. That changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military.

The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing. And it was Pentagon reluctance to intervene in Rwanda, and in Bosnia, that actually made it much, much easier for political leaders to turn away. When the estimates started coming out of the Pentagon that were much more constructive, and proactive, and creative, one of the many deterrents to intervention melted away. And so I think, again, in discussing briefly the General's testimony, it's important to remember why he was able to testify at the Hague, and he testified because he decided to own something that was politically very, very unfashionable at the time."

http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/the_subtle_ar...

[newsguyatl]

84. yes, i read.

and yes, i did my research on clark last year.

but no, i didn't bother with your post.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[newsguyatl]

89. nice insult frenchiecat

... but alas, why am i not surprised? :eyes:

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[Sparkly]

131. It's absolutely childish and silly, isn't it?!

Exactly my point. :hi:

Clark supporters are so "thin-skinned" -- but we sure know some 'tough-skins' who keep one hand on that alert button. :eyes: Knock yourself out.

[newsguyatl]

133. yes, the post was childish and silly.

glad you agree. :hi:

btw, i'm here all night.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[newsguyatl]

124. local news doesn't count.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

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

[newsguyatl]

143. MY insult to YOU?

are u even kidding me?

you insult my profession, my credibility and my intelligence, and you can't take the fact that i doubt your writing abilities.

and as for your other comment in that post, you should be ashamed, clark2008. but i highly doubt you will be.

[janx]

172. You show grace under pressure more than I did the other night...

and don't let anyone insult your profession, talent, and intellect. The stuff that you've had to see versus what you knew or must have known--it's incredible.

Cheers. :toast:

[David Zephyr]

260. You also show a lot of grace, Janx.

:toast:

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[TLM]

346. Yeah I read... and Clark is no oppertunist...

he's a flat out WAR PROFITEER... just like the thief in the white house who Clark so lavishly praised at a repuke fundraiser before suddenly deciding he was a democrat.

He's a standard MIC revolving door war profiteer.


Pentagon Ties Boost Clark's Business
Retired General Helps Firms Navigate Homeland Security and Defense-Procurement Maze
By Jacob M. Schlesinger and Sara Schaefer in Washington and Greg Hitt in Little Rock,Ark.

Wall Street Journal, 9/18/03


After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications. One is Acxiom Corp., based in Gen. Clark's hometown of Little Rock, Ark., where he formally launched his campaign yesterday. He joined the board of the Nasdaq-traded company in December 2001, as the company started to market its customer-database software to federal agencies eager to hunt for terrorists by scanning and coordinating the vast cyberspace trove of citizen information.

...

While he was originally hired as a consultant by WaveCrest Laboratories LLC, Dulles, Va., to help find military buyers for its promising new electric motor, Gen. Clark became the company's chairman in April, and has also focused on selling products in the commercial market. But Gen. Clark's knowledge of and ties with, the military and government markets have been a large part of his appeal to potential employers.

...

Stephens Inc., the large, politically connected Little Rock investment firm, hired him to boost its aerospace business shortly after he gave up his NATO command. He left Stephens last year and opened his own consultancy, Wesley K. Clark & Associates.

...

At Entrust, Gen. Clark has provided advice on how to sell to various NATO governments, says David Wagner, Entrust's chief financial officer. He has also helped emphasize the firm's product securing electronic networks for new homeland-security applications.

[FrenchieCat]

364. twisted....and incomplete and no links....

We have just arrived to propaganda land....where folks post whatever they want...and don't even allow you to verify the paragraphs cut out, etc..

Plus I still don't see what he's done wrong. Care to elaborate with some links this time?

So desperate to try to down good Democrats....it's sad.

[Clarkie1]

90. If Dean runs I will do everything in my power to defeat him in the primary

because I don't want another Republican president in 08'

Also, Dean just isn't liberal enough for me, and I would never support a presidential candidate who thionks we need to support people waving confederate flags to win in the south.

That said, I think Dean would make a great DNC chair.

[newsguyatl]

94. err, thanks

dean thanks you for your kind support.

[Clarkie1]

96. you're welcome n/t

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[newsguyatl]

105. another good one, frenchie cat

:thumbsup: :hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

99. I think he might make a good Presidential candidate. Just not the best one

so I don't spend time talking Dean up for that role, though I think he would brings a lot of strengths to the table as a Presidential candidate, along with some weaknesses. I think Dean is absolutely the best person tor DNC Chair however. I expect to be backing Clark for President in 2008, but I personally think we could do far worse as a party than nominate Dean. Right now however, with Dean an active candidate for another important post that will be settled soon, I don't think now is the right time to discuss any failing I think he might have as an ideal Presidential candidate.

[madfloridian]

101. Exactly right.

Unless I get to say what I want as well. Fair is fair.

[Clarkie1]

104. It started with post #79; let's just end it now n/t

[newsguyatl]

106. oh why stop now?

keep the insults coming!

they're good for my blood pressure :thumbsup:

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[Clarkie1]

110. Nope, not going to call Dean a political opportunist

Have a pleasant evening. :toast:

[Cheswick2.0]

284. LOL

We're shaking in our boots. Considering Clark raised money for republicans just two or three years ago, you might want to consider that line of attack.

[TLM]

348. Yeah you're right...

People who have confederate flag decals on their pick ups shouldn't have health care, shouldn't have social security, shouldn't have clean air or clean water, and their kids shouldn't have good schools. Dean was totally wrong about that.

I swear.. people on the left react to Dean's comment with the same level of logic and reason that right wingers use when reacting to gay marriage.

[FrenchieCat]

367. People who are running for President

Should support the Confederate Flag in any way. They should be denouncing it...not saying....We have to help those people too.

That so white of ya!

I liked what Wes Clark had to say about that flag. Too bad Dean didn't say something similar....

"The Confederate flag flies in the face of our most deeply-held American values - diversity, equality and inclusion. I believe that the only flag we should fly is the one that brings us together - the stars and stripes - and that the Confederate flag should never, ever be flown on public buildings.

Democrats should all condemn the Confederate Flag."

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/7166307...
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/7732...
http://www.abcnews4.com/news/stories/1103/108751.html
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1507782

[Donna Zen]

114. Absolutes and assumptions

RE: the DNC. I support General Clark and I have looked at the attributes necessary to run the DNC. Dean meets many of those criteria. The one has nothing to do with the other.

2008--???????????????? Do we really know?

Watching the campaigns and now the hearings, I get the sense that I'm viewing a bad remake of "Bullworth" or the even worse "The Manchurian Candidate" with all of the handlers and focused group mutterings--not answers. Never answers.

But I have met Wes Clark many times, I grew up with one of his good friends, and I've talked to many others. I can't understand your take on the man since it is nothing I've observed or picked up on.

I can say that in all of this time, he is the candidate who struck me as the least "canned." The Bullworth-manchurian image never crossed my mind. He is who he is. That is difficult for some to wrap their mind around, at least it was for me. It is a quality rarely seen in politics, but there it is.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[newsguyatl]

130. some do...

i never said "all."

i've read several posts here where clark supporters have admitted this.

if you're not one of them, why take offense? :shrug:

[Clarkie1]

132. I've never seen those posts

[newsguyatl]

134. sorry.

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

139. Clark supporters do try to see the forest for the trees, okay?

By the way, I think a Clark/Boxer ticket and Dean and DNC Chair starting February 13, 2005 will be unstoppable. That would shake up the whole damn Party and all for good! No more career politicians, reformed or not, for me.

[Clarkie1]

169. I agree wholeheartedly! n/t

[ClarkUSA]

136. Neither have I, Clarkie 1

And I take offense, newsguyatl. because it's fugly accusation considering it wasn't easy for me to support Dean for DNC Chair after all Clark supporters had to go through during the primaries. And I came to my decision out of a sense of political altruism that your nasty accusation shat on. You may not have said all, but that's what you implied.

[newsguyatl]

142. don't tell me what i did and didn't mean to imply

u don't know me.

if you it doesn't apply to you, you shouldn't be offended.

[ClarkUSA]

154. I found what you said offensive

I guess you're another Clark-basher. I'm a newbie, so it's nice to identify who is who.

[newsguyatl]

155. why the constant name calling, clarkusa?

i'm not a basher of anyone -- but bush and his ilk.

[ClarkUSA]

165. Name-calling? Moi?

I just wanted clarification. I'm a newbie so it's important for me to know who is who.

[Sparkly]

137. Neither have I.

:shrug:

[Crunchy Frog]

311. That's quite a generalization you're making.

Care to back it up?

[moggie12]

107. Well, since everybody's having fun, how about in '09:

Clark - President (am negotiable as long as it's not a Senator)
Warner - VP (need at least one Governor on ticket)

SOS-Barbara Boxer
Sec of Defense- Hagel or Lugar (bi-partisan, nice touch)
Atty Gen'l - Feingold

DNC Chair for Life (in reward for rescuing Dem Party): Dean

Also, I'd like Dem majorities in both House and Senate.

Then, after re-election, in '16, I'd like....

[robbedvoter]

109. Thanks for bringing it back home.

[Dems4HowardDean]

123. How about a Hillary/Boxer 2008 ?

[lojasmo]

126. I'll take any combination of the three. N/T

[Larkspur]

138. No way will I support Carpetbagger Clark for Dem Prez nominee

I'll vote Green if he's the nominee in 2008.

Clark is about as Democratic as Zell Miller. At best he's a faux progressive. He consults for the military industrial complex. That is no progressive institute.

And to top it off, Clark won't build up his civilian political credentials by running as a Dem for say, Governor of Arkasas. Clark needs to prove to me that he's a Dem, and his word is no good in my book, and he has to prove that he is a competent civilian political candidate who can win election and reelection.

Oh, and yes, Clark publicly admitted on the Charley Rose show that he was sent into the 2004 race to take anti-war supporters away from Dean and his aides participated with the other gang of Dem thugs in the dirty tricks that brought down Dean's campaign in Iowa. No way will I ever support that political jackal.

[newsguyatl]

141. get ready larkspur

here they come....




((and to think, all i said was i thought he was a political opportunist, even buffered it with the fact that i don't dislike him))


but YOU, oh man, you've gone too far ;-)


prepare for the onslaught...


i've never been insulted as much as i have in this thread as i have in my 2 years at du.

[Sparkly]

144. Poor baby

And you said *we* were thin-skinned. :nopity:

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

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

[Larkspur]

148. Clark and kerry supporters did attack pro-Dean threads

during the primaries and I'm just giving you a taste of your own medicine.

[ClarkUSA]

151. The primaries are over, Larkspur, and I wasn't a member of DU then

I am trying to get over my grievances. This is 2005. I think both Clark and Dean wouldn't want this infighting.

I have seen plenty of pro-Dean threads here at DU and not one Clark supporter has gone in and said anything deliberately offensive. Not one.

[madfloridian]

153. No, that is not true.

We are all trying to get over our grievances, but we won't unless we face up to the primaries. We have all been better for a while, but I am getting upset about this.

Right now, Dean is running for an office, Clark is not. If he does in the future, fine.

This is bashing central for Dean opposers and folks all over the web are aware of it.

Yes, it does happen in threads I post nicely....it happens often.
Tonight, I had my fill. Why?

Because Howard Dean is running for chair this month. It could be a huge change in our party and clear the way for Clark in 08 if that is what you want.

The bashing here of Dean and Kerry is outrageous. I only go after the DLC because they have leaders of it who have compromised our party.

[ClarkUSA]

160. madfloridian, I am not sure whether we're talking about the same thing...

I know about the Dean-bashing. I don't like it either. But I just haven't seen the same Clark supporter come and raise shit about Dean on each and every pro-Dean thread and bringing up old stuff.

I am not supporting Dean because I think he'll "clear the way for Clark in 2008."
You and newsguyatl sharing the same skepticism, huh? Okay, then. I guess I and other Clark supporters couldn't just be supporting Dean because we see him as the best man to bring some energy and change to this Party, right?

[Larkspur]

177. I don't raise shit about clark on every clark thread, but this thread

included Dean and was the typical clark supporter view that Dean as DNC chair cleared the way for clark to be prez nominee without having to build credible civilian political experience.

My feelings about Clark haven't changed since 2003. His performance in the 2003-04 Dem primary race and the actions of his aides against Dean in Iowa just re-affirm my suspicions about clark as a political jackal. And clark continues to re-affirm my suspicions about him as he chose to return to serving the military industrial complex and not puruse civilian political office.

[Sparkly]

189. This is ridiculous tit-for-tat

I haven't seen one Clark supporter bashing Dean nor saying he should be DNC chair in order to "clear the way for Clark." That's no excuse for the smears and accusations against Clark. I've outlined in several other threads exactly why I think Dean would be a great DNC chair, describing his talents in detail, yet all I see is whining that everybody's "bashing Dean" (and then bashing Clark in retaliation!). This is truly ridiculous.

[Clarkie1]

194. Do you even know what businesses Clark is working for now?

In addition to raising money for democrats through Wespac?

[janx]

204. Something about a theme park and consulting for a television

series--that's all I've heard. And nobody should criticize that, because Clark is entitled to his own life after all.

[madfloridian]

209. James Lee Witt out of Arkansas now.

I would have to look up the ones before the campaign.

[Clarkie1]

319. Wes Clark's biggest business venture

http://www.wittassociates.com/index.xml

[Tom Rinaldo]

196. How doth thou insult? Let me count the ways...

This started as a positive thread regarding Dean Clark and Boxer. It supported Dean becoming DNC Chair which just so happens to be the post that Dean says he wants. Dean is the one pledging to not run for President if he becomes DNC Chair and Dean is asking for the support of all Democrats to become DNC Chair.

So this is how you characterize this thread and justify making a series of anti Clark statements where little or nothing negative was being said about Howard Dean: "typical Clark supporter view that Dean as DNC chair cleared the way for Clark to be prez nominee without having to build credible civilian political experience."

Note the phrase "cleared the way". Are you also upset with Howard Dean for "clearing the way" for some other candidate in 2008? This is all his choice, remember? That would be the logical extension of your comment.

So a number of Clark supporters here have expressed support for Dean to become DNC Chair, which is exactly what he wants Democrats to do. Now that certainly is a great justification for launching into a rant about Clark "having to build credible civilian political experience", isn't it?. People like me, who support Wesley Clark for President are somehow committing a sin if we agree with Howard Dean that he would make a great DNC Chair? You see no need to even entertain the possibility that I and other Clark supporters may sincerely feel that way? You simply assume that I am lying about my expressed beliefs? How fair minded of you. Would you feel more comfortable if we actually were bashing Howard Dean and trying to stop him from getting the position that he says he wants to get? Sure seems that way. Then you could attack us for it. Of course you are already attacking us for actually backing Dean, so that keeps it simple for you, doesn't it?

So somehow positive things being said about Howard Dean, at a time when many Dean supporters are upset about negative things being said about Howard Dean, becomes a justification for saying negative things about Wesley Clark?

And what level of discourse have you chosen to avenge the insult of Clark supporters supporting Dean in his chosen quest? Calling Clark a "political jackal", accusing Clark of serving the "military industrial complex", to name just two of the charges in just this one of your many posts here. You and a few others keep complaining about how Dean was treated by others on DU last year when he ran for President. Then you recycle one or another grievance from then against Clark or his supporters. We are not talking about the past. We are here in the present saying POSITIVE things about Howard Dean. I can't name the number of times I have seen a Dean supporter express upset over how past criticism of Dean is bubbling up again on DU when Dean is trying to move forward into a new role. So why are you so intent on bringing up the past yourself?

[Larkspur]

225. This thread was about supporting Dean for DNC Chair and Clark for Prez

I support the former and strongly opposed the latter.

Clark supporters should just accept the fact that their guy is not liked by many people. I gave my reasons for opposing clark and if you don't like them, too bad. I base my opinions on clark from clark himself. He has doen nothing to change my mind about him.

[Tom Rinaldo]

226. Well I don't expect Dean supporters to just accept that their guy

isn't liked by many people, not when ugly things are being said about him after everything he has tried to do to help the Party. Funny you expect that from Clark supporters but perhaps that is because you are one of those who still refuse to accept that Clark has done and continues to do a great deal to help the Democratic Party. I don't expect everyone to agree with me about the Democrats who I strongly support, but I don't expect them to be savaged at DU either as if we were talking about the worse of the Republicans. But perhaps you are among those who insist on calling Clark a Republican despite everything he has done and continues to do to help the Democratic Party.

And you didn't comment at all about my main point in the post you replied to. You accuse Clark supporters of cynically supporting Dean for DNC Chair but the only cynicism I see is yours in not being willing to accept the fact that Deanies are not the only ones who value a great deal of what Howard Dean has to offer. You dismiss my, and others, actual positive feelings about Howard Dean as some type of political manipulation aimed at helping Dean get the postition that he actively is trying to get. That is sad and that is insulting and that has nothing to do with whatever reasons you say you have for opposing Clark. That is your own attitude talking and it reflects a lack of respect for my opinions and challanges my honesty in expressing them.

[ClarkUSA]

197. Larkspur has got some hate on about Clark, doesn't she? Fascinating.

You and newsguyatl and even madfloridian is buying into this, eh:

"The typical clark supporter view that Dean as DNC chair cleared the way for clark to be prez nominee without having to build credible civilian political experience"

Guess what? All of you miss one very important fact. Supporting Dean in NO WAY means he won't get on a 2008 ticket. In fact, he's MORE likely to get on a ticket, the same way Richardson was vetted as VP for Kerry while he was DNC Chair.

If I didn't want Dean in 2008 in anyway, I sure wouldn't support him for DNC Chair.
But forget about it. I won't mention my support for Dean as DNC Chair again here nor will I defend him against Dean-bashers again. You and newsguyatl have
shown me the light.

These suspicions reveal much more about you than Clark people, who are some of the most honest and principled people I know.

Oh and Clark wasn't in Iowa. Geez, do you like making stuff up and never backing it up. But I guess you're hoping what Karl Rove says is true.

[Quixote1818]

179. If Dean folks gets this much grief from fellow Democrats then imagine

what kind of grief you would get from the Right? You might take that as a clue as to how well Dean sells. I will admit that I have some prejudices against (not so much Dean himself) but his supporters because many of us were scared as hell that Dean would get the nomination and we would get pounced! Now I like Dean and I agree with him and think he is really sharp but he positioned himself in an unwinnable position during the primary's. In fact he forced Kerry and Edward's to vote against the 87 Billion (I know I will catch grief for this) because Dean was running away with the base. So Kerry voted against the 87 (yes that is REALLY why he did it lets be real) to look more attractive to the NUT CASE far, far left. Dean also forced Kerry and the pack to say all kinds of things they had to back track on in the General election. Was Dean right to be against the War right from the beginning? Absolutely yes! Was Kerry stupid for voting for the War? Absolutely yes! HOWEVER, politics is politics and when it comes down to WINNING you have to use common sense. So in a nut shell Dean running on a platform that was unwinnable forced Kerry and Edward's to put themselves into a position that made them look like flip flopper's down the road.

This was why I was pulling my hair out! Trippi had Dean appear to move soooooooooooooooooooooo far to the left he fucked the rest of the candidates over and making votes and saying things that were bound to hurt them later on. His followers became like fanatics and Dean was becoming the absolute DREAM opponent for Bush. I mean they were loving seeing Dean do well. In fact they were giving Dean money! This is why I think many of us have hard feelings about the Dean movement. It fucked us over in the end. Dean is a great guy but his movement was so fanatical they elevated Dean to godlike status to the nutty far, far left which ultimately hurt our cause. It's OK to go left in the Primary's but you can't go so far left that you pull everyone into taking unwinnable positions. And the funny thing is Dean is probably the most conservative of the whole group.

Let me be clear, this was never about ideology as we are all on the same page here it was about common sense and how campaigns were being run. It was about the Dean campaign THRIVING on the ANGER of the Base to move to the top at everyone else's expense. Anger campaigns ABSOLUTELY never win elections! They will most certainly win you the base but not the swing voters in a national election. Understand Dean Folks?

[madfloridian]

187. Well, let's see.

Kerry got no grief from the right...sarcasm. Clark would be ripped apart at the seams over Kosovo...the right wing sees no ambiguity in letting Bush off the hook over Iraq...and bashing Clark for Kosovo.

Of course Dean would be ripped by the right. They took Kerry's strongest point and they destroyed him with it. That is what they do.

They would do it to anyone. Incidentally, if Dean was actually getting the lead by standing against the war, and he meant it....then the others were not being true to themselves. They should have stood for what they believed.

If they were pulled farther left by Dean....maybe that is where they should have been.

[Quixote1818]

193. Ripped apart over Kosovo??? LOL!!!

Compare Kosovo to Iraq!!!!!! Think about that for a few minutes. Clark lost ZERO Americans. I think Kosovo was a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE plus for Clark in a national election. It showed Clark knew what the hell he was doing running a War. You are kidding right?

[madfloridian]

199. It does not matter what I think. Or what you think.

Someone said they would attack Dean over the scream...sure they will. They will attack everyone... question is do we have the courage for it?

I doubt it.

[Quixote1818]

203. And you don't think Dean would have swung back to the center?

If you truly believe Dean would have stayed to the left after the primary's you are lying to yourself. Dean would have done a complete 180% turn toward the middle. I promise you that would have happened.

[madfloridian]

205. Dean never went left, that is what is so funny.

If you don't believe me I have a huge long post here about the DLC calling him a fringe activist, and us as well. He defended us. Then the blog posted all the good centrist stuff the DLC had said about him through the years. He never pretended to be anything but what he was. A very practical, rational man, who can not be labeled.

[madfloridian]

207. Here is proof the DLC called him that.....

I have more of it...too late tonight. Dean never pretended...they called him and us fringe.

Dean Statement in Response to DLC's Charge that Public Servants are
"Fringe Activists"

“Once again, the DLC has chosen to put their own political agenda
ahead of the progress needed to unite the Democratic Party. This election
has barely begun, and the DLC has repeatedly dismissed people who attend
caucuses, who get out the vote, and now the 1.3 million members of AFSCME as
‘fringe activists’ who do not reflect ‘the mainstream values, national pride
and the economic aspirations of middle-class and working people.’

“The DLC staff can say what they want about me, but they owe an
apology to the 1.3 million members of AFSCME. Our teachers, our health care
workers, and our state and local public servants don't need a lesson from
Washington insiders about the needs and concerns of middle- and
working-class families. What they need is a Democratic Party that will stand
up for them.”

Posted by Mathew Gross at 04:27 PM
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000206.html

Fineman on the DLC Memo
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000213.html
Quoting because the archives are hard to read:
"FINEMAN ON THE DLC MEMO
I went and read the memo. It's hysterical. I don't mean funny. I mean, it's hysterical. He calls them everything but a plagiarist, an elitist, an activist. It's like, it's a compliment to Howard Dean. They're reacting like Howard Dean has already won the nomination. Howard Fineman, on the DLC memo attacking Howard Dean, on Hardball, 5/15/03

Posted by Mathew Gross at 10:25 AM

Former DNC-Chief Steve Grossman to DLC: "Creating Conflict is Not
Leadership."
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000225.html
SNIP.."FORMER DNC-CHIEF STEVE GROSSMAN TO DLC: "CREATING CONFLICT IS NOT LEADERSHIP."
On Wednesday, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) released a memo in which the DLC argued that traditional Democratic values are an aberration and that the thousands of grassroots Democrats inspired by Governor Howard Dean's message to take back our party?are activist elites and not real Democrats. Former DNC chairman Steve Grossman wrote to members of the Democratic National Committee in an email sent yesterday, criticizing the DLC:

Having served proudly as National Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, I was disappointed by recent statements by the Democratic Leadership Council that disparaged Governor Howard Dean's record of fiscal discipline and social compassion. I was particularly distressed because DLC leaders chose to label tens of thousands of grassroots Democrats who are energized by Governor Dean's message as elitist. "

Liberal Oasis on Howard Dean and the DLC
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000226.html
SNIP.."May 16, 2003 PERMALINK
The "Smear Dean" Campaign Is On
(posted May 16 2:15 AM ET)
(minor edit May 16 12:45 PM ET)

The DLC memo is titled "The Real Soul of the Democratic Party."
But it should be "Kneecapping Howard Dean."

However, it is so ludicrously ham-handed, Dean trumpeted it himself on his campaign web site. (A smart rapid response that bodes well for the future.)

If the memo was a principled argument over what the party should stand for, that would be fine. You can have honorable disagreements within one's party.

But the memo is nothing but a string of half-truths and contradictions designed to ward off insiders from backing Dean, while at the same time undermine Dean's support from the Left....."

And the recriminations began against many who were in leadership positions and backed Dean. It was real and it happened. Long article here, very good.

[Quixote1818]

214. Here is where I believe Dean hurt himself and appeared too far left.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think these were Dean's positions on these issues.


1. He was for Universal Health-care across the board. Was he right? Yes, would the electorate go for it. No.

2. Gay Marriage. If I remember correctly Dean was not just for Gay Unions but he was actually for Gay Marriage. To you and I this seems fine but it would have doomed Dean in a national election. See this article http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540576/

3. Against the war 100%. Was he right absolutely! Would the electorate go for it? No, not then. Today yes, then no.


Clark had the right tone on Universal Health care. He wanted to insure 20 Million Americans who were not covered. I personally like Dean's policy better but Clark's was smarter for the general election.

Clark was for Gay Unions not Gay Marriage. Much better position for the national electorate.

Clark and Dean were against the war from day one. Clark gave a speech in which he came down against it before it was started and Richard Pearl is on record saying Clark was against it. Dean however had an image problem Clark would not have had. A General could get away with being Anti War but Dean, a New England liberal who went skiing instead of going to Nam was ripe for attack as a weak, wimpy liberal.

In a nut shell, Clark was in a much, much better position for a national election.

[Larkspur]

271. Dean had political courage, Clark did not

Dean took his anti-Iraq war position when 70% of the nation approved of it. By the GE, the voters had either turned against Bush and the war, or at least didn't approve of the way Bush handled it and the fact that there were no WMD's found, so Dean would have been the better choice for Dem Prez nominee because he, not Clark, would have made the Iraq War the moral issue of the day that would have sunk Bush.

The Iraq War was Bush's Achilles heel and Dean, the man who demostrated political courage when the other "more experienced" candidates didn't, would have been the best candidate to take him down.

[Quixote1818]

298. Excuse Me - Clark spoke out against the war before it started Dean did not

Also, no one is really sure how Anti War Dean actually was:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000940.html

Viewing Saddam Hussein as a threat

On the September 29, 2002, episode of Face the Nation, Dean seemed to believe, wholeheartedly, that Saddam Hussein was a threat that needed to be dealt with.

While questioning the immediacy of the danger Hussein posed, Dean nevertheless said, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."

Then, in February 2003, Dean agreed with Bush that the Iraqi threat was real; he simply disagreed with Bush as to how the U.S. should go about dealing with that threat.

"I agree with President Bush -- he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is," Dean said. " is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents, and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given."

[Larkspur]

309. Dean shared Al Gore's view of Iraq and Saddam

Gore also said in his Sep 23, 2002 speech in San Fran that Saddam was a threat to the region, but he wasn't a major threat against the United States and did not support Bush's unilateral war against Iraq. However, if solid evidence came to light that Saddam was indead building WMD's and planned to use them, then Gore would have supported an attack on Saddam to take out those WMD's and remove Saddam from power. Gore's support for the war was conditional on solid evidence.

Dean came out more forcibly against the war by the end of 2002 and early 2003. And if you recall, Al Gore originally endorsed Howard Dean in December 2003, not Wes Clark, for president because Al said that Dean came the closest to his view on Iraq and that immoral war.

[Quixote1818]

316. Gore Endorsed Dean because he THOUGHT Dean was going

to win and that would make Gore look good. The odds looked good but unfortunately Saddam was caught the next week and Dean dropped like a rock in the polls. You are going to take Gore's words as gospel? You don't understand politics do you?

[janx]

330. Really? Do you find Al Gore that untrustworthy?

?

[Larkspur]

333. No, Gore publicly said that he endorsed Dean because...

1) Dean shared Gore's opposition to the Iraq War,
2) Gore was impressed with Dean's organization and ability to excite the Democratic base. 2,500 Dean supporters wrote letters to Gore asking for his endorsement for Dean.
3) Gore recognized that Dean had leadership qualities that would make a fine president. Gore touted Dean's "sound judgement" in opposing the Iraq War when the polls said it was political suicide to do so.

And Dean didn't drop in the polls after that statement about Saddam for long because his statement turned out to be true. By Jan. 3, 2004, Dean had come within 6 pts of Bush. Clark was still 10 pts away

From CNN/Time 1/3/2004 as posted on Kos (November results in parentheses)

Bush 51 (52)
Dean 46 (40)
Not Sure 3 (8)

Bush 53 (49)
Clark 43 (42)
Not Sure 3 (9)

You're the one who don't understand politics.

[Larkspur]

275. On Dean and Gay Marriage, you are wrong

Dean was for civil unions. He opposed gay marriage, at least at this time, because it did not have the support to pass. He believed that civil unions would give gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexuals. And he believed that states, not the Feds should support civil unions, gay marriage, or neither. Whether you agree with this issue being a state or Federal one, is another discussion.

[Quixote1818]

299. You are right, I discovered that after I posted however I said I was not

sure on the Gay Marriage issue.

[Larkspur]

188. Typical anti-Dean response

The Iraq War is the most IMMORAL War this country has been in since Vietnam. Dean, not Kerry, had the winning forumla to beat Bush. Even Rove admited to Woodward that Dean making the Iraq war the main moral issue posed the biggest threat to Bush's re-election chances. Kerry, by voting FOR the war, neutralized Bush's Achilles heel.

Dean qulified how he would vote on that $87 billion package -- he said in the debate that he would have voted against it until Bush ended the tax cuts to the wealthy, otherwise, he would vote for it to make sure that the troops had the supplies they needed. Dean wanted Bush to be pressured to show the American people how he'd would pay for the immoral war.

Kerry, as usual, screwed up. He should have just mimic'ed Dean's line verbatum. He co-opted almost everything else.

[Quixote1818]

198. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

Poll after Poll after Poll AT THE TIME the primary's were being conducted showed that Americans wanted someone who voted for the War. Do you not remember that? At the time Americans were looking for someone who was strong! GET IT? Clark was against the War as well but he could get away with this position becasue he was a General and no one would call him a wimp.

Are Americans Stupid? YES! But in an insane society a sane man must appear insane, at least to get elected. Don't you remember? Most Americans WERE FOR THE WAR because Bush sold it to them like a champ. You guys are so out of touch with what the electorate was looking for it's absolutely scary. I mean I am scratching my head in amazement here. You are absolutely right about your feelings about the War but you are completely in left field on what was the best position for a Democratic candidate to take when the primary's were going on. Today, Deans position would probably be right on but not then. Times have changed because support for the war is now under 50% but back then it was around 60%. Durring the election it was down around 53% and now because of no WMD's and 1,300 dead Americans and no end in site it's below 50%. Was Dean right? ABSOLUTLY!!! But he most certanly would have done a 180 towards the middle after getting the nomination. You can bet the bank on that.

I think Dean people get ideology and smart policy mixed up with what Stupid Americans afraid of terrorists are looking for in a candidate. It was not the time and place to be selling Anti War policies. It was OK to criticize the handling of the war but not going to war. Not when 80% of Americans were for the war. Are Dean people smart! Yes, you should be in charge of the country. Are Dean people out of touch with how to win elections. Yes, I believe so. You can't base your feelings on how you see things, you have to base them on how the electorate is feeling at the time.

[Larkspur]

248. Wrong, wrong, wrong

Dean had come within 6 points of Bush by the begining of December. He was either tied or closer to defeating Bush than Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, etc at that time.

Polls showed that Dean had as much a chance at defeating Bush a month before the Iowa Caucuses. That is when the "electibility" issue was hatched by Kerry and Gephardt aides to attack Dean. Clark aides also participated in it.

[Quixote1818]

294. Caught you! Here is ACTUALLY what the polls said. Dean down by 22

CNN/USA Today 1/2-5:
Bush 59
Dean 37


CBS 12/21-22:
Bush 55
Dean 35

ABC 12/18-21:
Bush 56
Dean 38


CNN/USA Today 12/15-16:
Bush 60
Dean 37

[Larkspur]

312. Online polls don't count.

And polls from 2001 don't count.

The polls in December 2003 showed Dean within 5-6 points of Bush and Any Dem either tied or beat Bush.

[Quixote1818]

318. Those were NOT on line polls????

USA Today/CNN, Time, CBS?????? Those were official polls taken by phone in DECEMBER 2003 NOT 2001. Don't try to slime out of this. I completely caught you posting BS.

Here is a link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2003-11-17-bush-poll.htm

Link to your bogus polls please?

[Larkspur]

323. Here's CNN/Time poll rom Jan. 3, 2004 about 2 weeks prior to Iowa

From CNN/Time 1/3/2004 as posted on Kos (November results in parentheses)

Bush 51 (52)
Dean 46 (40)
Not Sure 3 (8)
51-46 is 5 pts


Bush 53 (49)
Clark 43 (42)
Not Sure 3 (9)
53-43 is 10 pts

Hmm, my math says that Dean was closer to Bush than Clark.

[Quixote1818]

334. I posted a half a dozen polls. Is that the ONLY one you can find?

[Larkspur]

325. Your poll was from Nov. 17, 2003...

that was just about the time Dean got the duel endorsements form SEIU and ASFCME and a month before Al Gore's endorsement, so this poll didn't register Dean's big gains at that time.

Your polling argument is bogus and outdated.

[Quixote1818]

328. You are so full of it. Look again!!!!!!!

http://polysigh.blogspot.com/2004/01/there-seems-to-be-some-confusion-in.html

[Larkspur]

336. I got that date from the link you gave me

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2003-11-17-bush-poll.htm

Go look for yourself.

[Quixote1818]

337. Forget that site go to the other one Also here is some background on

the poll you posted:

There seems to be some confusion in the polls regarding a Dean v. Bush race. Today's USA Today/CNN poll has Bush ahead 59-37, but a TIME/CNN poll from earlier this week has Bush up by only 5 points, 51-46. What's going on here? The USA Today poll has a larger sample size, but not enough to make for that kind of difference. My guess is that something is amiss in the timing and methodology of the TIME poll. It was done by Harris Interactive so I'm not sure about the methodology. Also, the poll was conducted from December 30 to January 1, probably not the best time to reach people at home. Finally, the TIME poll seems the an outlier when you look at polls over the last month:

http://polysigh.blogspot.com/2004/01/there-seems-to-be-some-confusion-in.html

Seems the poll you posted was considered the "outlier". Better luck next time.

[lojasmo]

320. CNN/Time 1-3-2004

From CNN/Time 1/3/2004 as posted on Kos (November results in parentheses)

Bush 51 (52)
Dean 46 (40)
Not Sure 3 (8)

Bush 53 (49)
Clark 43 (42)
Not Sure 3 (9)

[Quixote1818]

338. Sorry, that poll was considered the "outlier". Thought to be unreliable.

http://polysigh.blogspot.com/2004/01/there-seems-to-be-some-confusion-in.html

There seems to be some confusion in the polls regarding a Dean v. Bush race. Today's USA Today/CNN poll has Bush ahead 59-37, but a TIME/CNN poll from earlier this week has Bush up by only 5 points, 51-46. What's going on here? The USA Today poll has a larger sample size, but not enough to make for that kind of difference. My guess is that something is amiss in the timing and methodology of the TIME poll. It was done by Harris Interactive so I'm not sure about the methodology. Also, the poll was conducted from December 30 to January 1, probably not the best time to reach people at home. Finally, the TIME poll seems the an outlier when you look at polls over the last month:

[lojasmo]

339. It's all academic at this point.

As I said previously, I'd take any combination of the three over what we got this year.

[Quixote1818]

343. You can say that again. Dean is 1000000 times better than Bush.

[lojasmo]

347. Yeah, that too.

But I was talking about the democratic ticket.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

242. Excellent post Quixote, I agree with all of it except Kerry's IWR vote

It was a good vote, well explained, and they never got to use it against him- whereas the 87 billion dollar became a liability, and as you say, Dean made it necessary to appear rabidly anti-Bush/Iraq War in some small way, and so Kerry basically needed to make the reminder to the base that he is at his very heart and soul- a liberal.

[Quixote1818]

302. The IWR vote is debatable and you could be right

Kerry was right to vote that way but it was risky and if it were not for Dean he probably would have voted the other way so Bush could not come after him like he did. It's a complicated situation and Kerry was in a difficult situation no matter what he did. My personal belief is that if it had not been for Dean Kerry would have played it safe but then again you could be right as well. Who knows?

Thanks for the complements.

[Adelante]

224. Funny about that

"Dean is running for chair this month. It could be a huge change in our party and clear the way for Clark in 08 if that is what you want."

While many Clarkies are supporting Dean for chair, many others are not. The very reason posed for not supporting Dean is that Dean is not the best pick in the interest of Clark's 2008 prospects. There's no way of knowing until the time comes, but that is not the first reason Dean-supporting Clarkies give. They (we) think Dean is the best choice to lead the party.

"The bashing here of Dean and Kerry is outrageous."

What are your thoughts on Clark-bashing? In particular, the lies repeated endlessly by your colleagues in any thread they can fit inside?

[Larkspur]

251. Dean supporters were and still are targeted by Kerry and Clark supporters

Dean supporters were targeted first and we keep fighting back. Get use to it.

[Name removed]

265. Deleted message

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

[Larkspur]

266. Feelings mutual, WesDem

[Quixote1818]

307. Maybe because Dean was loosing by 22 points to Bush

yet was leading the Democratic candidates. You can see why we were pulling our hair out. We didn't want to loose. Nothing against Dean we were just looking at reality and we were afraid you all were going to doom us to a landslide loss which most likely would have happened. At least Kerry only lost by two points. Dean would have gotten smoked.

HOWEVER!!!! If the election were today after what happened in Fallujiah with no end in site and support for the war Finlay slipping below 50% Dean might might have been in a position to win. Times have changed though since November. Support for the War was still above 50% then and people had the perception Bush would follow through better in Iraq (stupid). The War just took too long to really get bad for Dean to be in a position to win. Saddam being caught is really what doomed Dean.

[madfloridian]

331. Not true. That was spin. There were polls showing him with 6 of Bush.

That is part of the unelectable crap spewed out, just as it is about to be done here again.

[TLM]

349. Hell they put out calls on their Clark blogs to come to DU

to attack Dean supporters.


Dean takes off like a rocket, and suddenly this guy who has been raking in the dough speaking at repuke fundraisers and working for defense companies as a war profiteer after 9-11 shows up to run... and the guy is not even registered as a dem.

There's no way in hell I'd vote for him.

I choked back the vomit and voted for Kerry, even though I knew he was going to roll over for his frat brother. But if the dems nominate Clark, I'll just stay home or vote green.

[madfloridian]

152. I have the transcript, I paid almost $10 for it.

I don't intend to post it and get bashed. Basically, that was the gist...look up Mark Fabiani, anti-Dean.

I am sorry, but reality is necessary now.

[Sparkly]

147. Yeah... okay.

Tell us something that hasn't already been discussed, refuted, shot down and rehashed hundreds of times over the past year. :eyes:

[Tom Rinaldo]

156. That was a flagrant ugly twisting of words you just posted

Clark did NOT admit "that he was sent into the 2004 race to take anti-war supporters away from Dean". The transcript exists, go ahead and post it, but don't edit the content to suit your taste, then paraphrase it to push a smear. First, Clark was not "sent into the race" by anyone, and he never said or implied that he was let alone "admit" it. The arrogance you are showing to those who participated in the Draft Clark movement is staggering, to dismiss it as a non event and instead paint Clark as an establishment puppet following orders. Some political forces that wanted to "stop Dean" threw support behind Clark for exactly that reason, and Clark freely admitted that that dynamic occurred. That is called honesty and candor. I would like to see more of that in politics but obviously there is a price to pay for being honest when some will twist words said freely without deception to use as weapons against anyone respectful enough to give honest answers to direct questions. Like every one of the 10 or so Democratic candidates, Dean included, Clark had his own reasons to run. It is called Democracy to let the voters decide on a candidate after all.

Clark never said that he ran to "stop Dean", he said the exact opposite on numerous occasions. The only person Clark was running to stop was Bush. Yes Clark feared Dean would fail to accomplish that task, because of the focus on issues of national security in the 2004 Election and Dean's relative lack of hands on experience in that area. That is a matter of honest dispute over what we needed in a candidate. The fact that Clark decided to seek the office himself doesn't make Clark a "stop Dean" tool anymore than John Kerry and John Edwards and even Dennis Kucinich were. Everyone of them were trying to stop everyone else from getting the nomination.

If you have a quote by Clark saying that he was "sent into" the race to stop Dean I would love to see you produce it. It was a very cheap shot to make.

[madfloridian]

159. I have the transcript, I paid almost $10 for it.

I do not intend to post it, but the words indicate that is what the campaign was about. He heard Fabiani's quote, and he did not deny it. He almost admitted it, very close.

I also know that Clinton did make calls for him before Iowa and NH, to Dean supporters asking them to support Clark because Dean was unelectable...those civil unions you know.

If you want the transcript order it. There are about 6 lines that say it all.

Order Dean's book, which is not bashing, just stating facts. He never attacks Clark at all, just says what Clinton did. Plus the others.

As we heard tonight there is more, but he won't say it. Ok?

[robbedvoter]

162. He ALMOST admited it? I got the tape, I suggest you tone it down

from almost to "at least that is what it seems to me"
If this were such an important fact to you (and you repeat it often), you would post the words. There aren't any - I watched that tame many, many times.

[madfloridian]

170. Do not tell me to tone it down, please.

I have the transcript. I am not lying or exaggerating.

[janx]

206. I read the transcript. Clark surmises that the support from inside

D.C. --when things were taken away from the grass roots--were probably of the "Stop Dean" variety.

Beware, Clarkies!

[madfloridian]

208. And does not deny when Fabiani says:

we were the anti-dean campaign...and then there was no more Dean.

[janx]

213. Yeah. Clark knew. But he wasn't running for those people;

he was running for those grass roots people who supported him. He probably thought that the D.C. contingent would lend credence to the grass roots support.

But he hadn't run for office before.

He's a fine man and an exemplary general.

[Tom Rinaldo]

218. Every political pundit said that every Democrat tried to be the anti Dean

once Dean established his strong early lead. Some of us at the time tried to frame it differently here on DU, saying that it was a competition to become the alternative to Dean, but the media loved drilling in that "anti-Dean" label, who would emerge as the "anti-Dean"?, etc. etc. so that is how the race came to be known for several months.

There is no specific time reference given with that quote. By January pundits were all saying that Clark had set up his campaign to compete effectively against Dean. Sure he did, Dean was seen as the man to beat for the nomination. Clark's team certainly weren't working on strategies to edge out Gephardt for Christ's sake. Every politician in every race develops a plan to position themselves to defeat their strongest opponent. Dean's initial strategy was to become the "Anti-Kerry" but he soon soared well past that bench mark.

Common wisdom, which I do not completely agree with by the way, says that Clark was doomed once Dean collapsed. Clark's comments were off the cuff to the effect that "there's some truth to that " Yeah, because there was. What's wrong with a little honesty? That was a pretty reasonable comment for Clark to make. Dean was the front runner and in January it seemed there was no one else with any chance of overtaking Dean. Certainly not Kerry who was melting in NH. Certainly not Edwards who was lagging in single digits in all the polls. Only Clark was showing positive momentum, and that was defined by all as catching up to Dean.

Iowa changed all that. Remember Edwards wanted everyone else out of his way after Iowa so that he could become the "anti-Kerry", since Dean was then seen to be fading. Suddenly the media switched their story line to a Kerry Edwards race instead of a Dean Clark race. That was the begining of the end for Clark. The comment you cite is fairly accurate when you think of it. When Edwards became the "anti-Kerry" he did that for the most part without directly attacking Kerry, but you know Clark for the most part didn't directly attack Dean either. Clark received more hits (that being a Republican crap) than he gave out to other Democrats opponents including Dean. But because Dean was always so scrappy, compared to how "sunny" Edwards was, it fed into all of that "anti-Dean" language. The true anti Deans were men like Gephardt and Kerry who kept tearing into Dean during the debates, not Clark.

Clark's candor here is being used against him.

[Tom Rinaldo]

212. I accept that janx

But it has been characterized very differently on this thread. Clark honestly speculating on why he received some insider support from those who wanted to "Stop Dean" is very different than him "admitting that he was sent in to Stop Dean". Very very different. Start with that "sent in" part. It is bad enough, in my opinion, that anyone believes that Wes Clark was just a hired hit man, but to boldly assert that he admitted to exactly that citing a specific transcript which in reality SAYS NOTHING OF THE SORT, is dishonest, period.

As to your main point, no, we don't have a lot of trust for the DNC. They will groom one or more regular trusted "in the club" politicians to support next time around, just like they wanted to do all along in 2004. I really do want Dean to get the Chair. That operation needs a major shake up, and Dean is skilled enough to do it in a way that will not be overly destructive. Clarkies keep saying that Clark was a gift to the Democratic Party, well right now I think Dean is also. I hope they don't blow it.

[janx]

215. I didn't mention anything about the DNC--but I'm tired, and it

is late.

I've mentioned to you before about how I believe the grass roots Clarkies were used. That's rude of me, I guess, but I still believe it.

I think General Clark is great, and I would never say a bad word about him. But I don't know if any military chest-puffery would have made a difference against Chimpy. This includes Kerry. When we do that, we play upon the same field of fear that the right wing dictates.

[Cheswick2.0]

321. He admited it

I think MF is just leaving a slight door for your dignity. Clark admited it. He was the anti-Dean.

[Clarkie1]

195. "those civil unions you know?" What sort of half-baked BS are you

implying? Clark is FOR civil unions and has said so. He's for equal protection.

Please do post your "transcript." Whatever Clinton wanted is irrelevant. Clark isn't some puppet on a string. In fact, quite the opposite.

[madfloridian]

202. Clinton did call Dean supporters....I am not BS, shame on you.

He told them that Dean had forfeited the right to be president because of the civil unions bill. I have posted this often from Dean's book. I have said how ironic that Clark was for civil unions as well. Kind of sad, too, that it happened. But it did, and there are gay supporters of Dean who had it happen to them.

That was not from the transcript, but from his book.

[Clarkie1]

317. That's unfortunate then, but has nothing to do with Clark n/t

[madfloridian]

335. You are hiding your head in the sand on that one.

.

[Larkspur]

163. He admitted that Clinton egged him to enter the race to stop Dean's

momentum.

Clark is a deceiver. He ran a fundraiser for Bush and Cheney in 2001 and then 2 years later claimed to be a Democrat and run for the Dem Prez nomination? I call that being a political jackal, not a defender of democracy.

During the 2003-04 primary race, Clark didn't mind being used by political operatives to run a stop Dean campaign. That shows he is a political jackal in my book.

There is no way Clark will ever win my support. He's not trustworthy.

[newsguyatl]

167. watch it with some of these folks, larkspur

;-)

i've now been accused of a physical threat.


nope, i'm not lying.

[ClarkUSA]

173. Post the transcript or stop smearing now, Larkspur

Clark ran a fundraiser in 2001 the way Dean went out of his way to give
Kenny Lay tax breaks in 2001. See how it works? See how the GOP get
their talking points across?

I'm sure I'll be seeing you soon in another pro-Clark thread.

Bye bye.

[Larkspur]

175. Yep, spoken like a true Clark supporter

You can't stand the fact that Clark is a faux Democrat and a deceiver. He's got no civilian political experience nor is he interested in doing the hard work to build credibility in that realm.

Clark would be fit for Secretary of Defense. That's my best offer to Clark, but of course he has to wait til the 10 year limit is in effect for him to be eligible for that job. So I guess working as a consultant for lobbyists for the military industrial complex will pass the time for him until he's eligible for SOD. That makes sense to me.

[Sparkly]

183. YOUR "best offer to Clark?"

Who are you? :shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

186. Yep, proud of it, just like George McGovern...

"There are a lot of good Democrats in this race, but Wes Clark is the best Democrat."
Sen. George McGovern, who endorsed Wes Clark for President in Jan. 2004

-------------------

"To those who say that Wes Clark has never held political office: anyone who can command NATO, and keep all those forces together, and win that war without losing one American life, knows what it means to hold political office."

~ Tom Harkin


I guess if his level of political experience is good enough for Tom Harkin, it's good enough for me. I think I'll ignore the Rovian talking points and believe real Democrats like them. You could be sitting at RNC HQ trying to stir up trouble between Dean and Clark supporters at DU, for all I know.

[TLM]

353. Here are the words from clark at a repuke fundraiser in 2001

"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."

"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."

"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."

[Crunchy Frog]

350. Well, once you get elected president

I'm sure that Clark will gladly accept your gracious offer of SOD.

Though this thread is sorely testing me, I will not respond to your post by saying "spoken like a true Dean supporter". The truth is that a tiny and urepresentative but very vocal minority of Dean supporters make posts of this nature. I don't know why they do it. It almost seems as if some people want to do as much as possible to earn a bad reputation for Dean supporters, or to try to turn as many people off of Dean as they possibly can. If that's what you are trying to accomplish with these posts then I can only congratulate you for a job well done.

As a Clark supporter, I will try to adhere to a higher standard in my own posts.

[madfloridian]

178. The transcript is expensive. Order it and post it yourself.

I have it, but I am tired and saying good-night.

[Sparkly]

185. How convenient.

You mention it twice a week, but you've never found the time to back up your claims about it with an actual quote.

[janx]

216. Sparkly, it is not available online.

That much I know.

[ClarkUSA]

192. I have watched show on tape and have never heard such words...

it is just more unsubstantiated Clark-bashing. I guess it's our lucky day at DU!

[truebrit71]

157. Umm Clark wasn't in IOWA....and as far as I know he didn't have any aides

there either. Care to back that accusation up with some proof? A link maybe? Also please provide a link to the Charlie Rose "admission".

Thanks.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

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

[Larkspur]

180. Clark running a fundraiser for Bush and Cheney in 2001 is all the proof

I need that Clark is a faux Democrat.

[Name removed]

182. Deleted message

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

[Clarkie1]

184. yeah, who needs those "Reagan Democrats?"

What we really need in the Democratic Party are people who have been Democrats since birth, to hell with the rest!

And independents like Clark and the vast majority of people in his home state of Arkansas who never register for either political party? To hell with them to! We don't need them!

We can't change any Republican minds to support our liberal agenda, so why even try? People who haven't been members of the democratic party since the age of 18 just can't be trusted and will never be genuine democrats like us.

The Republican party is becoming the party of inclusion; we must become the party of exclusion!

So what if Clark voted for Clinton and Gore. So what if he's more liberal than Dean. So what if Michael Moore and George McGovern endorsed him. Michael Moore and George McGovern aren't real democrats either. When they endorsed Clark they sold themselves to the Republican party. They are in the employ of Karl Rove, who controls everything!

[Jai4WKC08]

230. What an outrageous lie!

And despite what Rove may tell you, saying it over and over again doesn't make it any more true.

Clark NEVER "ran a fundraiser for Bush and Cheney." Not in 2001 and not ever since.

He was a guest speaker at a local Repub event shortly after he and his wife moved back to Little Rock, after retiring from the military and having served as SACEUR. Of course he would have been a draw to either party, and he was trying to meet people in the community.

A week or so later, he spoke at a local Democratic event. For the same reasons. He was not persuing a political career at the time, and his remarks were not partisan.

Was either event a "fundraiser"? Probably... those things usually are at some level.

But he didn't "run" anything. He didn't even ask people to support or give money to either Bush or the local Repubs. And while he may have spent a few seconds complimenting the Bush administration (mostly the people in it he knew personally), he also went on at great length to denounce the very isolationist and go-it-alone policy that the Bushies would eventually adopt.

[TLM]

355. Denounce the Bush team? That's funny...

"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."


At this point the very best defence you can come up with is that Clark is a two faced liar who talks out both sides of his mouth depending on who is paying him.

[Cheswick2.0]

283. Don't worry, all delusions aside, Clark will never be the nominee

He has no political experience and his supporters think he is "too good" to run for governor. If he were just fresh from winning a war or something like Ike was, that would be different. He might have a chance then. Simply being the guy Clinton brought in to stop Dean isn't going to go far in 2008.
I don't have anything in particular despite the behavior of some of his supporters. But he has to do something besides talk to convince me has reliable democratic party convictions. Getting rich off the phony war on terror isn't going to do it for me.

[janx]

161. Unfortunately, this has turned into one of those threads that

harkens (pun!) back to the primaries.

But threads based on speculation often do that. It might be better to concentrate on the subjects at hand, and those don't include Clark's running for anything (and I've never had a bad word to say about him) or Boxer's running for anything (and she has always been one of my favorites).

There's a lot of ugliness in this thread, and there's a lot of humor, too. I've been guilty of being one of the ugliest in a thread recently.

But I must say: Boxer is and has been one of our greatest contemporary senators. I have long admired her. She stood up for her state in the middle of the Enron debacle and she stood with purpose, strength, and grace. She has continued to do so.

The conversation Boxer had with Rice during Rice's confirmation hearings was probably the first time I noticed serious, public debate between females in high levels of our government. That was what struck me the most.

Did anyone else notice this?

[robbedvoter]

164. And it started as an oasis of harmony in a dark day...It was nice.

But some can't stand harmony on this forum. So....

[janx]

229. So you decided to try and out someone?

By the way, RV, you got it wrong.

[David Zephyr]

257. Thanks.

It was meant to be nice. Thanks.

[Crunchy Frog]

351. David, I'm very sorry that your thread got hijacked

by a small number of haters and flame warriors. I agree with you that both Dean and Clark have alot to contribute to the Democratic party. I think alot of people share that opinion. Some people, for some reason, seem to want to stir up trouble between the two camps of supporters.

I don't know what the real agenda of some of these posters is, but I will do my best not to bite on flamebait.

Thank you for trying to start a friendly, respectful, and civil thread.

[David Zephyr]

352. I appreciate that.

I think that there would be some who would be surprised to find out how close and friendly that Governor Dean and General Clark have become. More than that, almost all of their stated positions generally overlap.

Another thing they have in common is that both men --- and my terrific California Senator, Barbara Boxer who I don't want to leave out --- are all despised over at the Free Republic. And that should tell all of our friends here (even those that disagree with us) something.

Thank you. The thread has been for the most part civil and I think shows that we have more in common than not. :)

[newsguyatl]

171. yeh, i'm a hater of freedom

... and of harmony ;-)

btw, how are you? nice to see you here, whew. :hi:

[janx]

200. I'm tired, and it's late.

I taught a night course and then I have an 8:00 a.m. course tomorrow, so I won't get much sleep at the beginning of the semester. But I love teaching, so I can't complain.

Hater of freedom...? Newsguy, you're one of the best we have. I cannot imagine being in your position, honestly. It must be very different. We should all respect that, especially now.

:toast:

But it's late now, and I hate to see the old arguments, especially when most of them deal with conjecture.


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..................

[Clarkie1]

181. Boxer is fantastic, and I'm very proud she's my senator n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

201. Yes I did janx

Albright held an important role under Clinton but I can't think of a Republican female who really went up against her. Once upon a time African Americans rarely had parts in TV commercials, people expected to see all white faces on their TV screens. At least in that way, the more natural political confrontations like the one you comment on happen involving women, the more progress we will have made.

And thanks for the effort to restore a positive tone to this thread.

[janx]

210. It may have happened before, but I'd never seen it or been

aware of it before. It was amazing. Finally, two women in federal government got to have a real debate about the future of our nation.

And I was thinking: "Damn, Boxer reminds me of my mother!"

(I am still mourning my mother's death. She died in August of 2000.)

[Tom Rinaldo]

190. I still support Dean for DNC Chair because our Party needs him

That is what I believe. I think Dean understands the problems our Party faces and he knows how to go about fixing them. I know Dean has enemies among elements of the Washington based Party leadership. I know some of his enemies are desperately trying to find someone to "Stop Dean".

It doesn't matter how often anyone on this thread or any other thread on DU takes a cheap shots at Wesley Clark or at any his supporters, myself included. It doesn't matter how often anyone raises one or another incident from the Primary season that highlights antagonisms from the past. Dean is right for the job and he is a strong asset to the Democratic Party whether or not he becomes DNC Chair or decides to run for President again.

I will always defend Wesley Clark when it seems appropriate because he is a good and honorable man who is also a strong asset to the Democratic Party. That is also what I believe. No stupid sniping on this board, or left over hurt from last year will change any of this for me. I can dig up plenty of things that happened on DU that upset me as a Clark supporter. I can dig up things done or said by Howard Dean also that upset me as a Clark supporter. Kerry's NH State campaign director outright called Wesley Clark a Republican and guess what? I haven't forgotten that but I also spent 5 days on the road in Scranton PA (among other things) doing every thing I could to get John Kerry elected.

And you know what? I know there are more than a few Dean supporters who have very negative feelings about Wesley Clark, and I do not hold that against Howard Dean, who I will continue to have positive feelings about and continue to wish well. I hope that doesn't confuse anyone.

[David Zephyr]

231. Tom Rinaldo

You always make a lot of sense to me, Tom.

[sundancekid]

191. finally, you give us the TRIFECTA ... props to you

[David Zephyr]

255. Thanks.

I like your moniker, too. :)

[incapsulated]

211. This is what Clarkies get for supporting Dean

Stabbed in the back and have their guy ripped to shreds for no goddamn reason.

I'm still going to support Dean for Chair, as I did from day one, because he's the best man for the job.

But I'm sick of fair-weather friends and irrational Clark haters and self-pitying, vicious liars.

I'm sick of DU.

[janx]

217. Incap: Hyperbole does not suit you.

Humor suits you better. You are so enlightening and funny sometimes! Hope to see you later. I can't blame you.

[Leilani]

221. Incap, I agree with every word.

I supported Dean & defended him against bashers.

Tonight I feel like I got hit in the gut.

"Fool me once..."

[David Zephyr]

252. Incapsulated.

I was a huge Dean supporter and enthusiast, worker and donor from the beginning of his primary campaign and I am now enthusiastically behind his bid to be the Party Chair.

That said, I have grown to really like Wes Clark, who I distrusted when he first entered the primary race and posted here quite a bit about that distrust. I watched carefully as Wes Clark burned any bridge he may have ever had with the Republican Party, made it clear where he stood about a woman's right to choose, gay and lesbian equality under the law, and how he was a consistent voice against the War in Iraq. In my eyes, Wes Clark would make not just a good president, but I think he would make a historic president and represent the poor and working classes perhaps like no president since FDR.

I am on board with Clark in 2008 and it is not too early to discuss this either.

I might mention that I was truly bothered that Bill Clinton tried to manuver General Clark to run against Howard Dean for Chair which was without a doubt the move to "clear the way" for Hillary in 2008. Wes Clark declined. That says a lot to me.

I greatly appreciate your support of Governor Dean to be our Chair and I thank you for it. I am not the only Dean supporter who like Wes Clark here at the DU.

[Donna Zen]

322. Nice thoughts

Yes, I said far up thread that I thought that Dean met the criteria for what was needed for leading the DNC. Trying to keep my mind straight rather get totally emotional about this.

There is something I would like for you to understand about this entire Dean v Clark primary argument. While I'm sure there were many Dems. including many of the primary candidates who wanted to stop Dean, that is partly the nature of any election; however, it would mean that the General willingly exposed his family to a cruel media, left behind lucrative jobs, and condemned himself to having his career belittled. He did know that this would happen, that he made the run and accepted the probablity of this public pain for some imaginary Clinton ploy is ridiculous.

There are reasons that he did consider: that the Democrats to beat bush needed someone who could take the national security card out of play, and strangely enough, the concept of a draft pleased him from an historical perspective. It pleased him even more that the venue was cyber-space. Of course there were Democratic heavy-weights who pushed about a run; they had been courting him for some time along with the republicans. Clark's resume is a huge prize for any party. The Democrats won; I'm not sure after reading the remarks made at DU if I could say the same for Clark. But mark this. I know for a fact that a luncheon took place early in the spring with three people at the table. None of them was a Clinton person. Two were/are unaffiliated and one is far too cerebral to be involved in the insider game. Two were extremely rich. The meeting had nothing to do with Dean, and everything to do with getting bush out. It was that lunch coupled with the draft that convinced Clark, whose wife was not especially kean to put herself in "a fish bowl."

What was done afterwards I do not know. I just know about the meeting.

Yes. It tickles me, a veteran of the 68 convention, days of rage, a survivor of Kent State, to be lectured to about the military and what and who General Clark is. Do they think that I don't do my homework? Don't wear the liberal label?

I am sorry that this thread disolved into ashes. I know a very fine DU poster who was so disgusted that they de-registered from DU today. If we keep this up, then we will condemn ourselves to a long, lonely tour in the minority.

[Sparkly]

332. Great post, Donna

:hi:

[incapsulated]

379. David, I'm sorry

(I am also sorry for kicking this thread, but I felt you deserved a response.)

I was in quite a state when I posted this and did not mean to paint all Dean supporters with some broad brush. Normally, I avoid these sorts of flamefests like a plague. But the hate being spewed in Clark's direction recently really got to me.

I haven't said a bad word about Dean for over a year now. The only time I've even mentioned him was to defend him against stupid attacks or push his bid for Chair, something I sincerely hope will happen.

I appreciate your kind remarks about Clark. I, too, have come to really appreciate Dean and what he can do for this party.

I'm taking an extended leave from this forum, though, because I just don't have the stomach for this kind of fighting right now.

[Adelante]

223. This thread took me back

I'll take a pass and continue to support Dean for DNC chair. His supporters, with few exceptions, can kiss my ass.

[David Zephyr]

258. Thanks for being big.

This Deaniac greatly appreciates your support for him as chair and I know that there are lots like me as well, WesDem. You, like so many Clark supporters and the man himself, continue to show a lot of grace.

If Clark runs, I'm there with both feet with you.

[OnionPatch]

227. I like the way you think!!

nt

[David Zephyr]

259. I like the direction it would take our party.

Thanks.

[moggie12]

232. Wow

For those 21 words in your original post, you sure got your money's worth. I bet the ratio of words in the original post to words written in reply is like 1:2000.

[jswordy]

233. Could it happen? Well....

Dean for DNC chair

You heard it here first, not gonna happen. The fix is already is in. Donna Brazille, yesterday, said there are several good candidates for the chairmanship who have not yet announced. There ya go. Shades of pre-Iowa. The smoky room will pull up a dark horse. Just like Clark came in as a DLC effort to blunt Dean pre-Iowa (by Clark's own words).

Wes Clark for prez

This is more plausible, since he is a shill for the DLC and DNC already, and a Republican in Dem clothing. A Clark nomination would then fit with the "GOP Lite" Democratic Party, which is what the old-line pols want it to become.

See this link...read the whole thing...and you will see why he very well COULD be the next Democratic nominee. It is filled with good Clark quotes, too.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

For me personally? Naaaah. I'll have to sit that elex out, I guess.

Boxer as veep.

I dunno, why not? The party might as well lose its friggin' mind like it did with Mondale/Ferraro and give voters yet another reason not to vote for the ticket. As much as I'd LIKE it not to be so, Americans are not ready yet to elect a woman or a minority to the top two offices in the land.

So this whole combination has LOSER stamped on it, even at this early juncture, in my book.

[jswordy]

234. Clark praising Bush

Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner
Little Rock, Ark.
May 11, 2001

"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there.'"

"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."

Newsweek, Sept. 29

"I would have been a Republican," Clark told them, "if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls."

[Sopianae]

236. So what?

A gazillion Democrats praised Bush. Too bad you forgot to include the rest of the speech where he blasted them for their foreign policy.

As for the Karl Rove B.S., it has been debunked for a million times. There was NEVER a phone call. It's all lies repeated by freepers.

[jswordy]

239. Yes, I forgot that NEWSWEEK magazine is...

...run by the freepers! Dang, how could I forget that?

CLAMP THAT FOIL HAT DOWN HARD NOW...WE WOULDN'T WANT IT BLOWING OFF!

I'm just waiting to see how the party shakes out, so if it wants to run Clark, fine with me. I'll sit it out then. I haven't seen a good Democratic political implosion since Dukakis!

[Sopianae]

241. Let me get this straight.

If Clark is the nominee then you will sit out the next election? And YOU question his commitment? Alright. Wonders never cease...

[Sopianae]

235. Dissidentvoice?

LOL! Gives meaning to the phrase "loony left".

[jswordy]

237. Yes, that's it! Attack the SECONDARY SOURCE...

of the information, because you cannot attack the rpimary sources linked to and referred to in it. Excellent diversionary tactic. But it cannot change the truth. And I can link to hundreds of other pages from the so-called MSM, a veriable list of reportage from during the campaign period, if I had the time to do so.

[Sopianae]

238. Yeah, right...

:eyes:

[jswordy]

240. Clamp that foil hat down hard...

...plug your ears and go la-la-la-la-la...

That's how we lost the last election. Hehehehehe.

[Sopianae]

244. Foil hat?

Hm... Let's see who is linking to a site full of thin foil nuts?

[jswordy]

245. When will Clark stop telling tall tales?

Clark Never Called Karl (but he said he did!) This is too good, right here.

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

I know, I know, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!!!!"

Heheheheheh.

[Sopianae]

247. Weekly standard????

That is definitely a right wing rag. So much for your sources. It is kind of embarrassing, though. I have NEVER seen anyone quote them on DU.

[jswordy]

253. I read them all, across the board, AND had you looked...

you would see he has links to the source material in NEWSWEEK magazine and other sources, friend. If you limit your reading to just what you LIKE TO SEE, you are woefully uninformed. But I forgot: LA-LA-LA-LA, right?

I am a lifelong Democrat who does not want to see my party sold down the river to the likes of Clark and his ilk. I still want us to be DEMOCRATS. But if it happens, like I say, so be it. I'll sit this one out. I learned a hard lesson from John Kerry.

Fool me once...etc...

[Sparkly]

254. And Al Gore said his mother sang him the Union Label song as a lullabye

but she didn't!!! :crazy:

So glad you dragged this one in, though. Got to get every stupid rightwing talking point into each and every thread that mentions Clark, right? So we couldn't miss this one. :eyes:

[HoosierClarkie]

246. Some advice...

Don't engage. It is not good for one's health. ;)

[Sopianae]

250. I know, I know...

Sorry!

:toast:

[jswordy]

256. OIC how it works...

...as long as the site is an echo chamber for what you want to hear, it is kewl. But legitimate debate between fellow Democrats or opposing viewpoints is another matter.

Keep that hat on...LA-LA-LA-LA!

I wish you peace.

[Jai4WKC08]

345. Slander and "legitimate debate" are quite different things

Check your quotes. The second one was about George H.W. Bush, and said specifically with regards to strengthening NATO. You know, the alliance that GW isn't and has never been interested in working with? In fact, the whole damn speech was a condemnation of GW's policies.

It's the same as lying to take quotes out of context and make them sound like something they're not. That's what Repubs do.

As for the Newsweek quote, it was a joke. And yes, the primary source (the guy Newsweek was quoting) is a Repub. In practically the same breath as the original report, the White House said they received no calls.

But of course, the truth won't stop you from repeating the lies. That's another thing that Repubs do.

[HoosierClarkie]

243. Reading this thread

has made me more sad today. Do we need this right now? No. This thread started out as a suggestion. We need to really get a grip here. The primaries are over. The damn election is over. (stolen) This thread is just so freaken sad!

[robbedvoter]

249. I actually learned that some people CAN work together. if we can

only communicate over the noise of the troublemakers. You'd think dean supporters could use some allies - but some do their best to keep the s* well stirred. Well guys, good luck with that DNC thingy.

[jswordy]

261. troublemakers...hmmm...that would be...

...anyone who disagrees with you, right?

LOL

[JoseRizal]

269. God Bless Howard Dean but I can't stand some

of his communist,socialists supporters. I have no idea that these people are the ones who hold the rigth to accept and reject people from the Democratic party. I thought that the Democratic Party is a party of inclusion not exclusion.
It is getting on my damn nerves what some of this pathetic people are doing to their fellow DUers and feloow DEMOCRATS, who happened to support a wonderful ex military general,Gen.Wesley Kane Clark. Who I also happen to support, not only because of his vast foreign policy expertise but also of the General's modesty,open mindedness and the ability to use many ideas that are best for this country.
What I find most disgusting with some of the Deaniacs are that they are trying to force the Democratic party to become more like a socialist party and that is my opinion.
News to you people you can't just simply throw away people like us who have an inherent belief of supporting a guy with a strong moral convictions like Gen.Wesley Clark. Me personally, I'd go to war for this guy with anyone within this party who are eager to cast him off as some madman,mass murderer,and oppurtunist. These example are m....f...upsetting you deaniacs dont own the DU nor the party of FDR,TRUMAN,KENNEDY,JOHNSON,CARTER,OR CLINTON.
As far as I can read and researched from these presidents they never ran or close to governing as a m...f...socialist nor entertain the idea of communism. Communism was the enemy of this country you .....
One more thing, I have no right to ban or to discriminate people who happen to like Dr.Dean and his ideas and I think this should apply to the sorry people who are purporting the garbage they are spewing against the General and to the people who are supportive of him to the people who are looking to support him and his ideas. This party the Democratic party I repeat does not belong to Dr.Dean nor to Gen.Wesley Clark, this party belongs to the people of U.S.A. and if you can't handle my ramblings I say bring it on PM me if you want I'll meet you wherever u are if ur ready to put up if not STFU wackos.

[Larkspur]

272. And many of us Dean supporters have legit reasons to oppose Clark

I don't see Clark as a moral person. I see him as a political jackal who thought that the Dem Party was so weak that he could wave his general's medals and the Dem rank-and-file would swoon over him. Boy, did his delusions get knocked down fast.

And I don't need Clark supporters as friends or allies. The world is much bigger than them. I don't base my support of a candidate on his/her rank-and-file supporters. I base it on the candidate him/herself. I base my views of Clark on Clark and I'm not impressed. Get over the fact that there are many Democrats and progressives who don't like or trust Clark.

[Quixote1818]

315. You might want to think about your hatred for Clark

It's amazing to see you come right out and say you don't like Clark. It's one thing to not think a candidate can win and argue about that but for someone to say they hate another candidate is a little extreme! Clark has dedicated his life to this country. Did you ever hear the story about Clark driving with Richard Holbrook when a Jeep went over a cliff and exploded? This was in Bosnia. Clark stopped the vehicle, grabbed a rope and started repelling down a muddy hillside while being shot at in the rain with Holbrook yelling at him to come back. I mean shit, the guy risked his life and forgot about himself completely to try to save someones life and he was no spring chicken. How many Generals would do something like that? How many people period? And to think you don't like Wesley Clark??? You really need to think about that for a while. Go meet some of the people from Kosovo who love Wes Clark because he saved their lives. Saved them from being exterminated.

Not liking someone is not a very liberal, tolerant position. Clark supporters are thin skinned but only because we admire the man and we are completely in Awe of his integrity and honor. We know all about the guy and we have grown to love him as a sincere person of honor and service to his country. Yes, some Democrats actually celebrate honor and military service when it's pure and honest. Clark and Kerry have all the traits I wish I had thats why I look up to them. They are good people who care about service and dedication to their country and the American People.

[Larkspur]

326. I don't hate Clark. I don't TRUST him

nor do I trust his motivations for running for President. He's a glory seeker.

[Quixote1818]

340. Glory Seeker? So when he spoke out at the Armed Service committee

against going to War with Iraq he was seeking glory? He was all by himself on that stage. No, I think he was worried about the country he had served all his life even living in a trailer with his wife and kids working his ass off. Think about it! First in his class at West Point and he chose to live in a trailer working his way up the Military ladder because he absolutely LOVED his country and wanted to serve. He could have been making big money yet chose to serve his country. Now retired he has dedicated his life to helping Democrats get elected with his PAC. I have met Wes Clark and if you could have seen him campaign for Kerry the night before the election here in New Mexico you would have seen someone who was absolutely dedicated with a passion to serve his country. It was in his voice, it was in his eyes, it was in his soul and it radiated out of him in such a powerful way I was simply in Awe. Why do I like Wesley Clark? Because of one thing mostly! His integrity! I hope you will take the time to really see Wes Clark for who he is and I absolutely promise you will find a man who means well. I promise you that.

Look, we are all Democrats here. We are much more alike than we are different and Dean and Clark are very much alike. If Dean had gotten the nomination I would have worked my ass off for him. With that I assure you that as someone who has followed Wesley Clark for some time and read all about him and studied his life and accomplishments. As someone who has seen him in action and heard the sincerity in his voice, Wesley Clark is a good man. I promise you that!

[TLM]

359. There are lots of republicans who are good men/women...

Doesn't mean I want them in the white house.

Clark has ZERO dem creds. CLark was/is a war profiteer cog in the MIC, just like Cheney... taking advantage of that revolving door between the military and private sector defense industry.

Give this a read. I don't vote for war profiteers no matter what party they claim to be in this week.



Pentagon Ties Boost Clark's Business
Retired General Helps Firms Navigate Homeland Security and Defense-Procurement Maze
By Jacob M. Schlesinger and Sara Schaefer in Washington and Greg Hitt in Little Rock,Ark.

Wall Street Journal, 9/18/03

[Clarkie1]

342. I'd trust Clark with my life. n/t

[madfloridian]

274. Nor do Clarkites own this board or the party.

I have never said insulting things about not liking Clark supporters, but you guys think it is fine to bash us at every turn.

[Leilani]

296. So far on this board, Dean Supporters have posted the following:

Clark is:
Too risky in the WH
politcal opportunist
carpetbagger
faux progressive
his word is no good
political jackal
a deceiver
faux democrat

& that's just a sampling.

And we should be happy campers?

I think NOT!

[madfloridian]

305. Oh, trust me, I understand.

First of all you exaggerated. Just like you did last night saying I was condemning the military..

And would you live to count the things said about Dean and us lately?
I post here about the progress for chair, and it turns to flaming.

You are over-reacting.

[Leilani]

314. HA! I'm over-reacting?

Show me the list of Dean slurs by Clark supporters.

You can't because it doesn't exist.

Maybe policy disagreements, but no hatred. And in the last few months, lots of positive words & comments, & encouragements, by Clark people.

Unfortunately, that may soon end.

[madfloridian]

327. Just as Dean is running for chair, you guys will go after him? Fair enough

Good job there.

I had the utter gaul to say what I thought about generals being president, and you are going to attack Dean even more now.

Or will it be us you go after even more.

You were not one of the main ones, but you sure did jump me on this.

[Crunchy Frog]

354. And Dean and his supporters

are the ones who get victimized and attacked on DU.:eyes:

This thread has made me very sad, mostly because I like Dean, and I know a number of Dean supporters personally who I like a great deal, and some posters seem to be trying very hard to make Dean and his supporters look as unattractive as humanly possible.

The sorts of posts that I'm reading on here make me want to hate Dean. Why would supporters of someone want to make him look bad? I honestly don't understand it.:shrug:

[madfloridian]

308. You don't like his "communist supporters"? Did you threaten us?

SNIP...."One more thing, I have no right to ban or to discriminate people who happen to like Dr.Dean and his ideas and I think this should apply to the sorry people who are purporting the garbage they are spewing against the General and to the people who are supportive of him to the people who are looking to support him and his ideas. This party the Democratic party I repeat does not belong to Dr.Dean nor to Gen.Wesley Clark, this party belongs to the people of U.S.A. and if you can't handle my ramblings I say bring it on PM me if you want I'll meet you wherever u are if ur ready to put up if not STFU wackos."

This sounds like a threat??

[TLM]

357. So not supporting Clark makes one communist?

This is DU, not FR... in case there's some confusion.

[madfloridian]

276. Why don't you list the damn troublemakers, make us a list.

I like to know what category I fall into. I have tried, but today I have reached my limit.

Clark is not running until 08, and I refuse to worship him until then. Maybe not then..

Dean is running and you guys gave a try to be nice to have him out of the way. Yes, there was a thread with many saying it.

I think it may be time to let you guys have the board.

[MontecitoDem]

303. You know that violates DU rules, so why ask?

I'm pretty sure there are a lot of former-Clark supporters who have been advocating for Dean as DNC chair. Isn't that what Dean wants?

A request/advice: (feel free to ignore) could you please stop posting "Shame on you". I don't really understand why you do it, but I've seen you say it innumerable times when you and someone else get in heated discussion. It's inappropriate to try to shame someone who has a difference of opinion with you, and it doesn't make your argument any stronger.

[madfloridian]

306. Saying shame on you is better than insulting someone.

I know, make a damn list for me of how I should post.

[MontecitoDem]

310. How about try listening to someone's post without assuming ill will?

geez.

[David Zephyr]

262. Weighing in on my own thread about 3 great Democrats: Dean, Clark & Boxer

I'm truly sorry to see that there are some of my fellow Dean supporters who took opportunity to run down Wes Clark in my thread.

At the same time, I want to express my gratitude to the many, many Clark supporters who have been big enough --- and smart enough --- to recognize that Howard Dean would be a break out chair for the national party galvanizing new voters to join our party and helping us to win elections again.

Finally, thanks to my fellow Dean supporters who were quick to speak up for Wes Clark who has more than proved his commitment to our Party, stood up against the War in Iraq, turned down Bill Clinton's transparent attempt to maneuver him against Dean for Chair to "clear the way" for Hillary, who has stood up against bigotry targeted at gay and lesbian Americans, who has stood up for a woman's right to choose, and who has burned any possible bridge he may have ever had with the Republican Party.

Wes Clark is a Democrat and stood against this stupid war in Iraq when the vast majority of our Party leaders would not. I was distrustful of him when he entered the primaries and posted here at the DU all of my distrust at that time. Well, that distrust is gone.

I like Wes Clark.

And, of course, I'm just nuts about my Senator Barbara Boxer out here in California.

[Sopianae]

267. Thank you, David!

Thanks for reminding us that most Dean supporters are like you.

I've been lurking on DU for a long time (I only started posting a few months ago) and I still remember your thread about Clark's Q-factor. That is one of my favorite threads ever!

:hi:

P.S. I hope Dean will be the next DNC chair.

[David Zephyr]

288. Back at ya.

Thanks for your kind words and for supporting Governor Dean for our Chair. The support I have seen for Dean as expressed by Wes Clark's admirers here at the DU, including that of the esteemed DoveTurnedHawk, has been inspiring to me. :) Oh yeah, the Q factor.

[Leilani]

270. Thanks David!

I wish there were more DUers like you.

It started off as a terrific thread, but unfortunately, we Clarkies who are supporting Dean for DNC Chair have to have our guy attacked & our supporters threatened. If this is what working together means, I don't think I can handle anymore of it.

I thought the primaries were over, but the hate & vitriol lives on.

[David Zephyr]

289. You're welcome.

:)

[madfloridian]

273. So I am a bad guy now?

?

Because I had a say? I am a bad guy now? After all my posts which avoided saying bad things about Clark?

Right now, I just feel sick inside.

Sounds to me like Clark supporters want no criticism at all, even though he is not running until 08.

Dean is running for an office now, and the bashing is back..

The new meme is "I like Dean but I hate his supporters."

Very nice, very classy.

[incapsulated]

277. Please.

"Sounds to me like Clark supporters want no criticism at all, even though he is not running until 08."


Clark isn't "running" for anything, and may not run in '08 at all. But Clark was viciously attacked on this thread and all you did was pile it on.

As someone who goes ballistic at even the memory of something bad said about Dean a year ago, you are one to throw stones.

Is it too much to ask that the name of Clark be in a thread and not have it degenerate into calling him every shitty name in the book, regurgitating lies that have been refuted since the primaries and being called a republican?

Jesus Christ.

[madfloridian]

279. I told NO lies. I most certainly did not. I do not deal in lies!

I did not call Clark names, I never have.

Your rage should be directed elsewhere, not at me.

[incapsulated]

281. Nice bit of editing, there

The only thing I personally accused you of was "piling it on".

Have fun?

Oh, and a distortion of the truth is as good as a lie, when the point is to discredit someone.

[madfloridian]

282. "regurgitating lies"

I do NOT exaggerate facts either. I have posted things that are true and not ugly.

I give up.

[TLM]

360. You're not allowed to criticize the general....

That's the military mentality, and the mentality of those desperate for a war "hero" father figure to order them around. Some people want that kind of leadership... and they flip out when confronted with independent thinkers who don't need a daddy/president/general.

Some folks like that think of any criticism of Clark is an attack and met with accusations, insults, even veiled threats. They react to criticism of Clark's supposed Dem conversion the way that fundis react to criticisms of the literal translation of the bible.

They can't admit Clark may not be who they've been led to believe he is... they have too much invested in that particular pipe dream.

[madfloridian]

286. David, I must ask you something.

It appears to be ok for some groups to say and write that they hate Dean supporters, or Dean, or both.

Yet, if I post a legit criticism, part of my opinion about the white house holding a military person....then I am being criticized by you?

Can we not criticize Clark or Clarkies or say what we think? Is this what you mean?

[David Zephyr]

295. Of course you can.

First, you are not a "bad guy" as you asked earlier (nor a bad gal either, for that matter).

I can understand your anxiety about having someone with military credentials in the White House, but that coin can be flipped two different ways.

George McGovern was a decorated bomber in World War II and yet became the voice of our nation against the wicked war in Vietnam.

Professor Howard Zinn also had been a bomber in the war and yet is one of the leading voices in our nation against imperialistic wars.

John Kerry, Ron Kovic and so many others from the Vietnam theater of war came back to try to stop the madness of that war. John Kerry would have made a good President in my eyes which is why I supported him after Dean was eliminated in the primaries.

On the other side of the coin, we have our current large crowd of chicken-hawks like George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Trent Lott, Bill Frist, Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert who all avoided military service and yet love to "play" soldier and who had no reservations whatsoever about sending our boys and girls into this disastrous war in Iraq.

Sometimes people who have experienced first hand the hell of war are more dubious about it's so-called "glory".

In any event, you are not a bad person. But I would humbly ask you to reconsider, to give a second look at Wes Clark (a military guy who opposed the war in Iraq). And I do also thank you for supporting Howard Dean for our Chair.

[ihaveaquestion]

263. GREAT TICKET - I LOVE IT!

[txaslftist]

264. Dean for prez in '08, Feingold for Veep.

[kslib]

268. Screw that. Boxer for Supreme Ruler of the Universe!!

:evilgrin:

[JoseRizal]

280. Why not some of the socialist/communist supporter of Dr.Dean

make or join another party instead like ah..the Great Socialist Party of America, or The Best Communist Party of America. I am not advocating for them to be dismembered from teh DEmocratic party coz I have no right to do it and it is very undemocratic, I am just suggesting it to everyone who have problems in dealing with Military people. Sorry guys it just gets into my nerves when this shit are being spewed against this gen. or any General for that matter with an unsupported claims bias views and using lunatic right wing hack job.
This is the problem I have on this site and also with the party which

And to let everyone know here I am of Filipino descent who immigrated in Canada in 1995 then left for the U.S.A. in 1998 to be with my mother who lives in Vallejo, CA. I am a proud grandson of Sgt.Vicente Barcia who fought along with the Americans against the imperial Japanese in WWII. I am proud to say that many many Filipinos are very thankful of Gen.Douglas Mcarthur and the people of the U.S.A who have helped us defeat the Japanese. I am a proud son of an Army dad who fought many whacko rebels who wish nothing but to disrupt the democracy of my old country the Philippines into communism which I detest and oppose behemently.

I hope I am wrong with my assumption with regard to this sites tendency to be anti military. Like my gramp and Dad I to want to enlist in the Army, not because I want to kill Iraqis or commit torture but because I believe in public service, which is to serve this great adopted country of mine the U.S.A. Yes while it's true that I can serve my country in a different course or different route I still am eager on joining this field of service because I believe
what Gen.Clark believes and stand for and that is DUTY,HONOR,COUNTRY.

[TLM]

363. Try to understand this concept... it isn't hard.

Not wanting to have former career military leadership running the civilian leadership is not... NOT... being anti-military. I'm a big supporter of the military, provided they remain within the confines of their established roll in this country. That roll being defense of this nation... NOT leadership of this nation.

The office of president should never, in my opinion, be occupied by recently retired career military officers who's only leadership experience is from within the military command structure.

This is not a position based on being anti-military or communist or socialist... rather it is based on a working knowledge of how bad is can f-up a country to mix the military and civilian leadership rolls, especially during a time of war. The military industrial complex is not something I want to encourage.

You want to toss around labels like communist and socialist... I suggest you study up on what they actually mean. Because wanting to avoid conflicts of interest that come when the military and civilian leadership start blending together is neither.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

285. Kucinich as DNC chair, Genl. Smedley Butler-Prez, Boxer-VP.

We desperately need a Smedley Butler who single-handedly stopped the DuPont Coup against FDR in 1934 and criticised Mussolini.

He was a paragon of anti-fascism.

He wrote the famous expose of the Military Industrial Complex called 'War is a Racket.'

Now compare and contrast Smedley Butler and Wesley Clark. I dare you.

Yes or no, can you see Clark writing 'War is a Racket'?
Hmm. Southern Command. South America. Central America. Hmmm. Interesting...

[JoseRizal]

297. Dude youd only support a General or military people

if they pass your standard of socialism. If that is the only standard you are willing to adhere for a military person to enter your precious party then so be it. I think what some of you folks have to face is that the Democratic Party should not symbolizes the many fringe conspiracy crap that some of the Left wingers spew out.

PAnalyzation and being objective are one thing but to discern and concuct some shit job on someone who have risked his career and his life so people like you and me would have the right to fully express it no matter insane it is. I don't view Gen.Clark as god like figure or a prophet for it goes against my Christian belief. I can only speak for myself I am not a fanatic fan of Gen.WEsley Clark, I just so happen to value his legacy as a soldier who fought for this country in Vietnam and Kosovo. We may agree to disagree on the value of the Kosovo campaign but the end result of that are arguably one of the best examples on how to wage war with an ALLIANCE OF 19 NATIONS WHICH IS THAT OF NATO. IF ANYONE KEEPS ON HARPING ON GEN.WESLEY CLARK AS A MASS MURDERER THEN WE MUST ALSO INDICT OUR BELOVED PRES.CLINTON DOWN TO SEC.OF STATE ALBRIGHT AND THE REST OF HIS ADMIN. WE MUST ALSO INCLUDE THE 19 NATIONS SUCH AS CANADA,FRANCE,GERMANY,BELGIUM,UK,HUNGARY,BALTIC REPUBLICS,SPAIN,NORWAY,ROMANIA,SLOVENIA AND ITS HEAD OF GOVT. AND STATES. WHY ONLY POINT OR BLAME IT ON THE SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER WHO WAS GIVEN AN"ORDER AND TASK" TO CARRY OUT THE MISSION.

IF SOME OF YOU PEACENIKS WANT TO DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THE WAR AND ITS STRATEGY WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION ON IT. I VERY MUCH DOUBT IT FOR THE ONLY THINGS THAT SOME OF THE LEFT WINGERS CARED ABOUT IS THE FALLACY OF NOT HAVING CIVILIAN CASUALTY, MAY IT BE THE DEVIL THEMSELVES LIKE HITLER OR MILOSOVIC,SADDAM HUSSEIN,KIM JONG-IL,OSAMA BIN LADEN. AS IF THESE FINE PEOPLE WILL BE AS MERCIFUL NOR WOULD VALUE YOURE PRECIOUS OPINIONS. I ONLY WISH THAT SOME OF YOU HAVE SOME VALID ALTERNATIVE TO WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE AND WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE WITH RESPECT TO THE KOSOVO CAMPAIGN.

All I have seen thus far are baseless criticism that is it because thats what most left wingers are good for to criticize endlessly. I suggest when you criticize back it up with some reality based answers not wishful thinking. If I was one of the many KOSOVAR ALBANIANS that were saved by the NATO INTERVENTION, WITH GEN.CLARK'S LEADERSHIP I would probably be dismayed by the attacks of some of the posters here on this thread. I SUGGEST TO SOME OF YOU WHY NOT ASK ALBANIANS WHO WERE THE MINORITY IN SERBIA WHO BECAUSE OF PRES.CLINTON THEY NOW HAVE ATLEAST HAVE THE ABILITY TO FOLLOW THEIR DREAMS OF SIMPLY LIVING TO GOVERN THEIR OWN LAND WITH DIGNITY,LIBERTY AND JUSTICE.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

313. US military's job has been to prevent and disrupt democracy. Here ya go.

I hear the passion in your post with raging at 'socialist peaceniks' but you are misinformed and rather insulting as well. But let that pass.

(on edit) I see from your own personal history why you might see the US military as some kind of savior. Don't forget that the US 'obtained' the Phillipines from Spain and US Marines slaughtered hundreds of your people to quiet the resistance to their occupation.

The US overthrew the democratically elected president of Haiti this year. The people there don't feel saved. They are subject to murder and terror.

The US aided an attempted coup against Venezuala's Chavez and drove him into the arms of the Chinese. Self-fulfilling prophecy is a US specialty.

My grandfather left his wife and kids at home to go fight Hitler in WWII. This was a moral response to the Nazis. Now, however, I know that the American and British financiers and corporations were war-profiteering while they paid for Hitler's rise to power. They even provided over half the steel for Hitler's war machine.

Your obsession with 'communists' distracts you from realizing that there are those who kill for power and those who don't. The US government uses mass murder to support their economy.
I support those who don't.

If you think the NATO bombing in Kosovo was an altruistic mission of mercy, you are naive. There were many other elements of strategic importance to the US, just like the 'toppling' of Saddam. One of them was maintaining both the credibility of NATO along with the US control of it to define the US role in the post-Soviet era.

The US military has been the private army of the US corporate interests who own and operate Congress for atleast the last 100 years.

This defined as 'fascism' and it is supported by fear-based blind-faith follow-the-leader emotions.

This isn't just leftist rhetoric. It is real science developed by behavioral scientists, neurologists, sociologists, linguists, and historians.

And the diagnosis for the conservative American mind is an ‘Authoritarian Personality’ which researchers have declared a precursor to a pathological behavior called FASCISM.

After WWII, psychologists turned their studies to figuring out what personality traits led to large populations accepting the inhumane fascism of Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler. What they discovered was something they termed 'The Authoritarian Personality' which, in a nutshell, is fearful and prone to seeking security through pack identity (virulent nationalism), attacking other identity groups (like Jews, blacks, Gypsies, gays, Muslims, etc.), and revering cruel dictators (the strong father as Fuhrer) who promise to kill the boogeymen in their minds.

All that ugly behavior results from intentionally exaggerating people's fears in order to inflame a primal reactive part of the brain called the amygdala that is vigilant against survival threats.

Millions of years ago, the amygdala was the most important part of our brain that kept us from getting eaten by other animals. We have since evolved more sophisticated brain systems that allows us to be social and rationally discern who wants to harm us and who just wants to have the next dance. The amygdala responds quickly without using the rational left-brain thought process that people such as 'liberal elitists' might use to think for themselves instead of blindly accepting the things they are told by authority figures on TV. Since vision has been the most important tool for identifying friend from foe, television has been a brainwasher's dream tool for instilling propaganda into the American psyche.

A web of cultural lies is taught to American children in school and then reinforced every day in movies and on TV for the rest of their lives to ensure their obedience and complicity in economic eugenics and war crimes.

Americans are raised to erroneously believe that they:
1) live in a democracy where their government represents them.
2) compete in free markets.
3) share equal opportunity for all.
4) see their government spreading democracy and protecting the innocent around the world.
5) inherited the status of Best in Show Among Humans in 1776, 1945, 1991 and 2003 by winning the Revolutionary War, WWII, and both Iraq Wars I and II. (Korea is forgotten and Vietnam is used for blaming liberals and non-compliant journalists.)

This is a well-defined historical narrative that describes America as the strongest and most virtuous moral force in the world ever. So surely the President of these United States must embody all that is good about our country. And reporters better be nice to him.

I call this Superman Cowboy Jesus-syndrome.

Ronald Reagan fit this movie-role-as-national-identity perfectly for many Americans who didn't realize that he was a senile figurehead for a cabal of murderers who successfully portrayed the poor as lazy thieves and secretly armed terrorists against foreign governments in the name of Christian compassion and democracy.

Here is how Americans have been led down the path to a Master Race group-think that accepts as both inevitable and just that domestic policy should be eugenics and foreign policy should be imperialism:

Ever since the US lost the Vietnam War, the social atmosphere here has been very similar to post-WWI Germany. The hyper-nationalist German people were told in the summer of 1918 that they were winning World War I. But in the fall, they were suddenly informed that they had lost. They were stunned and angry as the victorious Allies raped them economically and their orderly society imploded into chaos. They looked around to find who among them had betrayed them and robbed them of their much-deserved victory over their inferiors. They demonized, assaulted, and killed Jews, labor unionists, socialists, Gypsies, and homosexuals.

The same scapegoating atmosphere bloomed in the US after Nixon was disgraced and the Vietnam War was revealed to be a quagmire of atrocities which had also ruined the economy. The Republicans have cleverly exploited this petulant atmosphere of entitlement denied to bring us to where we are today, mired in a culture war against liberals, feminists, blacks, homosexuals, and dangerous Middle Eastern foreigners, pretty much the same targets as the Nazis.

Ever wonder why 'liberal' became a swear word? Now you know. It is the American power structure’s synonym for ‘Jew.’

In fact, there is a name for this late 20th century fascist movement brought into the early 21st century:
Dominionism.

Dominionism is an alliance between Christian fundamentalists, Cold Warrior Fascists, and the Military Industrial Oil Complex, just like the rise of the German Nazis who, by remarkable coincidence, were also financed and supplied in their day by many US corporations, including George W. Bush's financier grandfather, Prescott Bush.

The rule of law as embodied in the Geneva Conventions and the US Constitution is their common enemy. 'Might makes right' is their brutal value system that used to be called 'the divine right of kings.'

A coup against president Franklin Delano Roosevelt was organized by some of the largest US corporations in 1934 to prevent his New Deal from tempering capitalism and warding off mass poverty and starvation. The coup was prevented at the last minute by General Smedley Butler who played along with the plot when he was asked to help until he blew the whistle on the corporate enemies of the US Constitution. The Senate held a brief and embarassing investigation into their own financial backers and then quietly buried the matter.

The same General Smedley Butler wrote an essay a few years later titled 'War is a Racket' chronicling his realization that his career in the US military had been as a soldier for war-profiteering corporations and not for the sentimental rhetoric of July 4th picnics. General Dwight Eisenhower would later make the same warnings against what he termed the Military-Industrial Complex as he left office in 1951.

After years of ever more influence and control of the US government, the drug, oil, and weapons industries finally succeeded in the coup of 2000 with the court appointment of the general election's loser, George W. Bush. African American voters were disenfranchised in massive numbers to perpetuate and reinforce their political lynching.

It all rather makes sense, doesn't it? Military and financial powers work hand in hand to reinforce and protect each other by keeping people starving and fighting each other over worthless things like flags and uniforms. Meanwhile, the powerful swell up like ticks on the blood of the people they fool into doing the fighting and reward them with not much more than parades, ribbons, plaques, and brass bands.

The key to understanding politics is that Power protects Power and gives not a whit for ethics or ideology. Hence the pathological amorality of corporations. And nation states behave like the corporations that own them, not as the sum total of the words to lushly orchestrated national anthems.

Power has a vested interest in keeping people divided, fearful, and ignorant using all those -isms we've become wary of-racism, sexism, etc. The most dangerous and least recognized as such is nationalism.

Some Americans see through this and have evolved past nationalism and racism but lately it seems that a majority have not. And there is an alliance of media corporateers and fascist politicians who are determined to prevent Americans from finding out how this scam works.

Central and South America's history is filled with the torture, death squads, and dictatorships the US has imposed on it for 'stability' which really means a US-friendly gangster who gets weapons and training in torture from the US.

Sorry to rattle your illusions. I know it is painful. But not as painful as US torture as described by former CIA Station Chief in Angola, John Stockwell in 1987. (So many more tortured, dead, and missing in the last 18 years.)

John Stockwell, former CIA Station Chief in Angola during Poppy Bush's tenure as Director of the CIA quit in disgust and has blown the whistle on the thousands and millions of people dead as a result of CIA secret wars to destabilize governments around the world.

In this 1987 speech he describes the teaching of torture using homeless people as subjects and even warns that some in the Reagan White House (many of them today's neo-cons) were planning to suspend much of the US Constitution, open concentration camps, torture and execute people after secret detentions, and wage illegal wars. This has all come to pass and he warned us 17 years ago. He was probably called a conspiracy theorist at the time.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm

Excerpt:
>snip<

“The CIA was in fact forming the police units that are today the death squads in El Salvador. With the leaders on the CIA's payroll, trained by the CIA and the United States.

We had the `public safety program' going throughout Central and Latin America for 26 years, in which we taught them to break up subversion by interrogating people. Interrogation, including torture, the way the CIA taught it. Dan Metrione, the famous exponent of these things, did 7 years in Brazil and 3 in Uruguay, teaching interrogation, teaching torture. He was supposed to be the master of the business, how to apply the right amount of pain, at just the right times, in order to get the response you want from the individual."
--------------------------------------

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm
If you flip over the rock of American foreign
policy of the past century, this is what crawls out ...

invasions ... bombings ... overthrowing
governments ... suppressing movements
for social change ... assassinating
political leaders ... perverting
elections ... manipulating labor unions ...
manufacturing "news" ... death squads ...
torture ... biological warfare ...
depleted uranium ... drug trafficking ...
mercenaries ...

It's not a pretty picture.
It is enough to give imperialism a bad name.

Read the full details in:

Killing Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II.

by William Blum


"Far and away the best book on the topic."
Noam Chomsky

"I enjoyed it immensely."
Gore Vidal

"I bought several more copies to circulate to
friends with the hope of shedding new light
and understanding on their political outlooks."
Oliver Stone

"A very valuable book. The research and organization
are extremely impressive."
A. J. Langguth, author, former New York Times Bureau Chief

"A very useful piece of work, daunting in scope,
important."
Thomas Powers, author, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist

"Each chapter I read made me more and more angry."
Dr. Helen Caldicott, international leader of
the anti-nuclear and environmental movements

Table of Contents
Introduction
1. China - 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid?
2. Italy - 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style
3. Greece - 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client state
4. The Philippines - 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony
5. Korea - 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be?
6. Albania - 1949-1953: The proper English spy
7. Eastern Europe - 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor
8. Germany - 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to terrorism
9. Iran - 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings
10. Guatemala - 1953-1954: While the world watched
11. Costa Rica - Mid-1950s: Trying to topple an ally - Part 1
12. Syria - 1956-1957: Purchasing a new government
13. Middle East - 1957-1958: The Eisenhower Doctrine claims
another backyard for America
14. Indonesia - 1957-1958: War and pornography
15. Western Europe - 1950s and 1960s: Fronts within fronts within fronts
16. British Guiana - 1953-1964: The CIA's international labor mafia
17. Soviet Union - Late 1940s to 1960s: From spy
planes to book publishing
18. Italy - 1950s to 1970s: Supporting the Cardinal's
orphans and techno-fascism
19. Vietnam - 1950-1973: The Hearts and Minds Circus
20. Cambodia - 1955-1973: Prince Sihanouk walks the
high-wire of neutralism
21. Laos - 1957-1973: L'Armée Clandestine
22. Haiti - 1959-1963: The Marines land, again
23. Guatemala - 1960: One good coup deserves another
24. France/Algeria - 1960s: L'état, c'est la CIA
25. Ecuador - 1960-1963: A text book of dirty tricks
26. The Congo - 1960-1964: The assassination of Patrice Lumumba
27. Brazil - 1961-1964: Introducing the marvelous
new world of death squads
28. Peru - 1960-1965: Fort Bragg moves to the jungle
29. Dominican Republic - 1960-1966: Saving democracy
from communism by getting rid of democracy
30. Cuba - 1959 to 1980s: The unforgivable revolution
31. Indonesia - 1965: Liquidating President Sukarno ...
and 500,000 others ...... East Timor - 1975: And 200,000 more
32. Ghana - 1966: Kwame Nkrumah steps out of line
33. Uruguay - 1964-1970: Torture -- as American as apple pie
34. Chile - 1964-1973: A hammer and sickle stamped
on your child's forehead
35. Greece - 1964-1974: "Fuck your Parliament and your
Constitution," said the President of the United States
36. Bolivia - 1964-1975: Tracking down Che Guevara
in the land of coup d'etat
37. Guatemala - 1962 to 1980s: A less publicized "final solution"
38. Costa Rica - 1970-1971: Trying to topple an ally -- Part 2
39. Iraq - 1972-1975: Covert action should not
be confused with missionary work
40. Australia - 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust
41. Angola - 1975 to 1980s: The Great Powers Poker Game
42. Zaire - 1975-1978: Mobutu and the CIA, a marriage made in heaven
43. Jamaica - 1976-1980: Kissinger's ultimatum
44. Seychelles - 1979-1981: Yet another area of
great strategic importance
45. Grenada - 1979-1984: Lying -- one of the few growth
industries in Washington
46. Morocco - 1983: A video nasty
47. Suriname - 1982-1984: Once again, the Cuban bogeyman
48. Libya - 1981-1989: Ronald Reagan meets his match
49. Nicaragua - 1981-1990: Destabilization in slow motion
50. Panama - 1969-1991: Double-crossing our drug supplier
51. Bulgaria 1990/Albania 1991: Teaching communists
what democracy is all about
52. Iraq - 1990-1991: Desert holocaust
53. Afghanistan - 1979-1992: America's Jihad
54. El Salvador - 1980-1994: Human rights, Washington style
55. Haiti - 1986-1994: Who will rid me of this
turbulent priest?
56. The American Empire - 1992 to present
Notes
Appendix I: This is How the Money Goes Round
Appendix II: Instances of Use of United States Armed
Forces Abroad, 1798-1945
Appendix III: U. S. Government Assassination Plots
Index
_______________________________________________________________

Essays by William Blum
Other essays can be found in Blum's new book, Freeing the
World to Death: Essays on the American Empire (see below)
Feel free to disseminate any essay without permission,
but please mention www.killinghope.org
To subscribe to the Anti-Empire Report, send an email to [e-mail],
with subject line "add". It's optional, but I'd also like your name and
city; the latter only in case I'll be speaking in that area.

*Anti-Empire Report, December 19, 2004

*Anti-Empire Report, November 19, 2004

*Anti-Empire Report, October 24, 2004

*Anti-Empire Report, September 17, 2004

*Anti-Empire Report, August 21, 2004

*Anti-Empire Report, July 14, 2004

*Anti-Empire Report, May 12, 2004

*Anti-Empire Report, April 2004

*Anti-Empire Report, March 2004

*Anti-Empire Report, February 2004

*Anti-Empire Report, January 2004

*Anti-Empire Report, December 23, 2003

*Anti-Empire Report, December 1, 2003

*Anti-Empire Report, November 2003

*Anti-Empire Report, July 2003

*Anti-Empire Report, April 2003

*Debate on US foreign policy, Trinity College, Dublin, 9 Oct. 2003

*The Warmongers' need for a justification for the
devastation of Iraq (April 2003)

*What Do the Imperial Mafia Really Want? (Feb. 2003)

*Book review: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (2002)

*Talk delivered by William Blum, Oct. 16, 2002:
"War against terrorism or expansion of the American Empire?"

*The September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks and the
U.S. bombing of Afghanistan -- Some observations (Jan. 2002)

*How the US provoked the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan
and starting the whole mess: Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski

*Cuban political prisoners ... in the United States (June 2001)

*Hiroshima: Needless Slaughter, Useful Terror (1995)

*Madeleine Albright, ethically challenged

*The United States, Cuba, and this thing called Democracy

*The U.S. vs Iraq -- A Study in Hypocrisy (1998)

*The Bombing of PanAm Flight 103 -- Case Not Closed (2001)

*Treason: None dare call it nothing. (1999)

*The myth of America's booming economy (2000)

*Die Berliner Post-Times, 1943

*Irreverent Observations

*A New Yorker trapped in Los Angeles (1996)

___________________________________________
*Michael Parenti: a concise history of American imperialism

_________________________________
----------------------------------------
http://www.swans.com/library/art6/zig055.html
(A Century of US Interventions 1890-1999 doesn't include Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti in 2001, 2003, 2004 respectively)

The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 1999. This guide does NOT include demonstration duty by military police, mobilizations of the National Guard, offshore shows of naval strength, reinforcements of embassy personnel, the use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement Agency), military exercises, non-combat mobilizations (such as replacing postal strikers), the permanent stationing of armed forces, covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role, the use of small hostage rescue units, most uses of proxy troops, U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes, foreign disaster assistance, military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat, civic action programs, and many other military activities.

Among sources used, besides news reports, are the Congressional Record (23 June 1969), 180 landings by the U.S. Marine Corps History Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug. 1982), and Daniel Ellsberg in Protest & Survive. 'Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993' by Ellen C. Collier of the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service.

[JoseRizal]

324. Why would you ever feel insulted if what I label you is true

in terms of your political,social beliefs clearly reflects that with the post you just did. Yes I was and am aware that the U.S.A has been in war or involved in some kind of war ever since its inception. The fact is that I will not and cannot just believe that every American action is somehow heavy handed or illegitimate or cowardly,corrupt or whatever kind of hyperbole you would like to label it.

However, I will not just blindly put down your reasoning and the examples that you have made to back it up. I will be concise with my response to you, for me it is quite simple yet will seem complex to you. I think that on every issue there are always pros and cons and to every success theres always people,events that will conspire to undermine, unravel and try to bring it down. Some of the examples u posted are valid in your own point of view but not with mine. The validity of it perhaps will resonate with some of the people here at DU but we are once again because we live in a DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY you are free to do so to come with that conclusion.

I don't believe however that we live in undemocratic country or fascism or fascist govt. Nor I believe that the corp. hve the hold on this country at least not yet. From I can gather I found your post very anti corporation. Corporation as you are well aware are not only made up the board of directors,its CEO but also of the many regular working folks who are tying to better themselves, trying to reach the American dream. There is nothing wrong with people making money as long as it is honest and decent. Yes you may argue that corp. are inherently corrupt that may also be true to some extent. But to agree to that conclusion and observation is to also agree to the viable point that inherently we as human beings are corrupt people.

You can't for one moment believe that the form of govt. that you have would be somehow beneficial towards our fellow men. The Soviets did that and we all know what happened. China curved their stance when it comes to capitalization as evidence China is now one of the leading economic force in the world. One thing is clear no matter how noble how sincere one man's effort to bring harmony and economic equality to everyone it just is not viable. Human individualism at the end will rebel and will resist that idea. God itself did not impose total domination among his creations for he has given us free will. Freedom to choose the path of salvation or the path of destruction.

I believe that restrictin human potential for the sake of the state is in itself evil act to suppress the human potentials along with its dreams and yes ambitions. I respect you opinion alot sir or maam for youve been here quite a while, judging from the number of your posts.
I am however, not inclined to agree with everything you will say against the Gen and I myself as one of his supporter. As to madfloridian I do not seek physical altercation nor I want to kick your ass, if that is what you were referring with ur post. I posted that becaue person like you who I am sure is very intelligent can be sometimes over the top with ur ranting against the Gen. Pls. don't deny it coz it is very obvious unless you are just oblivious to ur posting which hightly doubt.

Youre post consist of insults inuendo and downright nastiness towards an individual who have done nothing, I REPEAT NOTHING AGAINST YOU AND THE REST OF YOURE RESPECTIVE FRIENDS. NOTICE THAT MOST OF MY POST DOES NOT INCLUDE PERSONAL VENOM AGAINST DR.HOWARD DEAN, BECAUSE FRANKLY THE GUY GOT BALLS AGAINST HIS ENEMIES AND HE STAND UP TO WHAT HE BELIEVES IN. FRANKLY, IF THE GENERAL DOES NOT RUN IN 2008 AND DR.DEAN DOES I WILL SUPPORT THE MAN 200 PERCENT. WHY BECAUSE FIRST AND FOREMOST I AM A DEMOCRAT AND DO NOT, WILL NOT PUT ANY LEGIT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE DOWN NOR ATTEMPT TO IMPUNE THE CHARACTERS,INTEGRITY AND HONESTY LIKE WHAT U AND SOME OF YOUR FANS ARE DOING TO A GREAT DEMOCRAT LIKE "GEN.WESLEY KANNE CLARK.

[TLM]

368. WOW! Great post....

Lots of good info and examples of the BS we are spoon fed about how perfect and infalable US policy is.

Apparently that makes you a pinko commie peacenik to notice that the military is more often being used to benefit the pocketbooks of the rich than the lives and safety of all americans.

[TLM]

365. Do you know what the school of the americas is?

If so, how do you feel about it?

If not... you're too uninformed to bother talking to.

[madfloridian]

369. Peaceniks?

LOL Peaceniks?

[moggie12]

329. Holy crap. This thread is ALIVE! It's got a life of its own!!

Reply #313 is longer than my master's thesis!

Run for the hills! It's taking over DU!!! AAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

[FrenchieCat]

370. LOL!

Finally, something funny said tonight.

The Clark bashers and haters are alive and well on DU.

It's ironic that many don't give a damn about any lives that general Clark might have saved. But they do care about the SOA whenever they can....but not really.

It's sad...not giving a fig about 1.3 million people....but caring so much about....well nothing really. It's a grudge that's being held.....jell-ousy, I call it.

Why should Wes Clark be getting so much attention, when it's Dr. Dean running for DNC Chair? Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaah ......not fair

Such naked hypocracy!

[AuntiBush]

373. I'm so glad I found DU!

When I found this group, by pure accident 1 night while sadly surfing 'round in my solo misery after this last election, I lurked awhile, afraid to post - not feeling adaquate or good enough.

But, I must admit, I love all of you're postings, regardless and feel empowered hanging out here at nights because each and everyone of you have, in your own way made me feel "not" so all alone.

Thank you all DU'ers! Thanks to each of you that brought me out of my dispair from 2 stolen elections and confiming what I already knew but had forgotten. That Democracy is alive and well, right here!

Mean that.

[Leilani]

381. Lol!!!!!!!

Finally, some humor! Thanks moggie!

[votedem]

372. Hello, DU. First post :)

It's inauguration day, and I'm just ******* exasperated. I can barely even conceive of a rational political system anymore.

You know, one where both parties are interested in free and fair elections. Paper Trails. Election Day Registration. An Election Day holiday as recommended by both Ford and Carter.

As you may notice, this is my first post.

I usually don't come here unless somebody points me to a thread, because I find it to be a bunch of bickering and infighting. But already being so depressed today, I thought I'd wallow in it some and drop by.

I was surprised and heartened to see this thread on top and so active.

Three of the most liberal and progressive and strong voices we have being promoted for leadership.

Then, of course, I read the thread. So many people unwilling to accept a four star general JUST because he was in the military. Which is fine, I had reservations too. But he was (IMO) the most liberal, progressive and STRONG voice in this last race, aside from Kucinich.

And Dean, for his part, isn't going to take any **** from the freepers. He's not going to mince words, and he's not going to wait around to act. We need somebody like that. Although, I hope he reconsiders his primary position on, well, the primaries. IMO it's as broken as the general election.

Oh, in response to a note upthread, and as a New Yorker, I'm BEGGING YOU to let us keep Spitzer for a term. The Governorship in this state might be THE strongest in the nation, and we have the longest serving Gov in the nation, and he's a Republican. He's hell bent on ENDING PUBLIC EDUCATION and making it unaccountable to voters. The budget has been late for 20 years and counting, and we have the most corrupt and ineffective legislature in the nation (Brennan Center). Please, let us have ONE freaking term. He's all we have. I'm BEGGING YOU. Seriously. I'm on my knees in front of my freaking computer, folks. We have all the candidates of both parties now running to "fix Albany", and this next cycle could actually get people in to DO it.

Anyway, those are just some of my thoughts today.

As for me, I'm into State politics. It's where I've been most effective, I think. Sadly, I only got to Ohio for one weekend of work this last cycle. Looking back, of course, I should have gone only there. But then again, I'm poor and will go wherever people pay for me to go.

So, Hello, DU.

[AuntiBush]

374. Welcome!

Hello to you, too!

[MontecitoDem]

377. Welcome

Yeah, this is a crazy thread. You'll get to know the various characters pretty quickly, and which threads are likely to turn into a brawl - entertaining! unproductive!

There's also lots of good stuff, but sometimes hard to find. Check out your state thread. They don't tend to be very active, but you can hook up with others with the same issues and connect.

Anyway, fabulous first post. I work locally (and soon a bit beyond our county) and it rocks. You can really get things done!

cheers

:toast:

[votedem]

378. Re: Welcome

Thanks for the tip.

And thanks for the welcome, both of you ;)

[Leilani]

380. Hey, Welcome to DU!

You certainly sound thoughtful, & well-reasoned. And as you can see, we are in need of people like you.

Sometimes it's not a foodfight, but these things take on a life of their own.