Help me explain the integrity of Wesley Clark to those who don't trust him

[Quixote1818]

Click on the link below for a small sample of what Wesley Clark is all about. I believe those who don't trust Wesley Clark simply don't know enough about the guy. If they did they would be blown away with what we know. I would like to ask other Clark supporters to express why you believe in Wesley Clark so we can help others who have know idea how sincere and amazing this man is see his integrity. We are not zealots we just admire his integrity and he moves us in a way that no other candidate for President has. I hope someone will post the story about him rappelling down the hill in Bosnia to save those in a jeep accident.

A post I made defending Wesley Clark

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1506875&mesg_id=1514915

[roguevalley]

1. Wes loves his country, stayed at a job with low pay when he could

have made gazillions with his resume because he believed in it, said on national tv that he's a liberal and proud of it, pounded the pavement for dems throughout the campaign, when even the other candidates were taking time off, has a degree in economics, which we now need as a presidential requirement in candidates thanks to bush, is a rhodes scholar, first in his class at west point, a combat veteran who understands war and how and when to do it, has the respect of most of the known world, managed huges budgets all his career, managed city-sized bases all his life, did the diplomatic thing with NATO and is a good father and family man, environmentally conscious and all around good citizen.

That is why I love, respect and support him, now, in 2004 and in 2008.

[madfloridian]

2. You know how so many say they like Dean....just not his supporters?

Think that might have a little to do with what has finally pushed some of us who try to be nice over the line?

You think?

[tishaLA]

4. I'm glad we got pleasant thoughts by the second post. Again.

I'm not a Clark supporter who is interested in pushing people one way or another around any lines. But I admire his supporters--my friends--who advocate for him every chance they get.

[madfloridian]

7. This was in post one.

"those who don't trust Wesley Clark"

It was saying the OP wanted to defend him. See, my point was you would not need to do so if people would quit saying how mean we are.

Does not inspire love, and those who are usually more rational, like me, are getting mad.

[tishaLA]

10. Many Clark supporters are quite rational.

and I'd hope we would never use a logical fallacy like, "If people would quit saying how mean people who don't like Clark are, we wouldn't not trust him" (the double negative was necessary, I thought, in this instance).

[madfloridian]

11. That is my point.

The irrational have taken over until there is no choice but to confront the issue.

It is rude to say you don't like any group of people, and I think it needs to stop.

[Sparkly]

Let me suggest

you confront by responding to a post wherein you find it. I don't see how we can stop something here that nobody's doing here... :shrug:

[madfloridian]

13. Read the post below where I said I like Clark.

Read the post.

[Sparkly]

14. I don't think I was clear.

If I understand correctly, you're upset that someone said they dislike Dean supporters, and you feel you need to confront it in this thread. I'm suggesting you confront it by responding to whatever post you saw it in, rather than bringing it up in a different thread. Does that make sense?

[tishaLA]

17. That's what I thought too Sparkly

but it's too late now, because this has already--by the second post--become a discussion on something other than what the thread was supposed to be. Typical.

[madfloridian]

18. I have brought it up in other threads.

But I will leave this one to you since you don't understand my point at all.

[Sparkly]

6. This thread is NOT about DEAN!!!

Why is it each and every thread about Clark immediately gets people dragging in Dean, while every thread about Dean immediately gets people dragging in Clark? I don't know why you guys insist on doing this, but please consider stopping it, because nothing good comes from it.

[madfloridian]

8. Read the OP again. He wanted an explanation, I'm giving it.

Read my post with an open mind. Stop yelling at me.

[Sparkly]

9. I see this:

I would like to ask other Clark supporters to express why you believe in Wesley Clark...

The second post in the thread about Dean was a snarky criticism of Clark; the second post in this thread about Clark is something about Dean. I'm just suggesting that this stop. Please. Okay?

[madfloridian]

12. Read this sentence in the OP.

"I believe those who don't trust Wesley Clark simply don't know enough about the guy."

So I was pointing out that a lot of what is going on here is pure defensiveness. It is like seeing how many times people can say they don't like us.

I like Wesley Clark fine, and I think he is a good man. I always did think so. I just think that some want Dean people to confront all the issues about politics, but they do not want to do so themselves.

I like Wesley Clark, but I am tired of a lot of his supporters going after me.

[Sparkly]

15. Okay, maybe you could help us get this back on track then.

I think it'd be great for this thread to be about what we admire in General Clark. As I see it, that was what it was intended to be about. I really don't think it was meant to be about saying we don't like you. I really don't think it was meant to be about you. So let's just leave it there, could we?

[madfloridian]

16. Well, then you did not get my point at all. It is not about me at all.

It really is not. I will leave the thread to you.

[Kahuna]

22. Are you sure, Sparkly? Because I really thought the question was...

how do you explain Clark to DEAN supporters. :evilgrin:

[Sparkly]

23. Kahuna!!

:spank:

[MontecitoDem]

26. Holy Sh*t!

Could you give the rest of us a break for a while?

[madfloridian]

42. Are you willing to do the same in the future?

I will if you will.

[MontecitoDem]

45. Can't say I know what you mean by that.

You seem to be doing drive-bys today. It was a tough day for all of us with the Inauguration, so I'm trying to be understanding.

[madfloridian]

47. I mean that both groups need a lot of respect for each other.

.

[MontecitoDem]

49. Look, I am not a group.

I have respect for individuals who hold all sorts of beliefs, including those I disagree with.

[Quixote1818]

53. I agree. Going after one another is stupid and accomplished nothing

I was thinking about how a few Dean people and a few Clark people have gone round and round. From afar driving in my car an hour ago it seemed kind of funny, and I am one of those who was doing it. I actually started laughing while I was driving. When you are seperated from the DU board reality sets in. The conclusion I came to is that Dean people and Clark people really just LOVE our candidates. We connect with them, we are inspired by them we identify with them and so on. It's almost like we are two different families and when someone says ANY tiny little thing about our candidate we go ballistic because "you don't talk about my Dad that way!" Is that bad? No, it's really kind of cute when you think about it because in reality we are all so much alike and the only thing that divides us is our love for OUR candidate. We get so caught up defending the person we care about we do stupid things yet we all know that deep down we actually really do like the other candidate and would work our asses off for Dean or Clark or who ever if they were nominated. Their was a revelry between Dean and Clark early on because they were the two front runners and so I think we all have some old stupid prejudices that get brought to the surface when someone says something bad about our guy. I have said a lot of things about Dean people that were wrong and were mostly said out of revelry and served no purpose. If I knew any of you in person I probably would not even think about saying such things, but behind a screen the imagination kicks in and often we say the first thing that pops into our head. All this bickering between fellow democrats is harmless and really kind of stupid because in the end deep down we really do like the other candidate a whole lot just not like we like our own. I think I will post this on the main board to see if we can make a board just for saying something nice about our rival candidate.

[Clarkie1]

3. I'd trust Clark with my life. Here's a link to the "jeep incident"

The higher he rises in national polls, the more often Wesley Clark will be smeared by Republican operatives who can depend on assistance from their friends -- and Clark's enemies...<snip>

...a retired lieutenant general named Funk told NPR's Eric Westervelt that he "frankly wouldn't trust Wes, either...<snip>

But listen to what NPR reported about Clark's combat history in Vietnam, where the young officer volunteered for service after graduating from West Point:

"In 1970, First Lieutenant Clark was wounded in the legs and arms by AK-47 bullets during an ambush by North Vietnamese troops. Despite being wounded badly enough to be evacuated, Clark stayed to fight and helped his unit mount a successful counterattack that earned Clark a Silver Star for bravery and a Purple Heart."...<snip>

Or consider Richard Holbrooke's bestselling 1998 memoir, "To End a War," opens with the awful episode when an armored personnel carrier plunged into a ravine and exploded, killing three American diplomats. Page 12 describes the scene immediately after the accident on the treacherous mountain road approaching Sarajevo:

"Since I was the only person on the mountain side who spoke both French and English," the former envoy writes, "I stayed on the road to work with the French while Wes descended . We anchored a rope around a tree stump so that he could rappel toward the vehicle ... Huge plumes of smoke rose from somewhere below us. We could hear Clark yelling through his walkie-talkie that he needed a fire extinguisher urgently." In a later phone conversation with President Clinton, Holbrooke informed the commander in chief that Clinton "could be especially proud of the actions of his fellow Arkansan, and put General Clark on."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2003/10/17/clark_attack/

The right-wing has been been nuturing the "Clark can't be trusted" meme for a long time. It's a filthy, grotesque right-wing lie wherever it appears, including DU.

[roguevalley]

5. I would too, Clarkie1. My nephew served in Kosovo when Clark

was NATO commander. He met Clark. He worships the ground Clark walks on.

[sendero]

19. I was a bit..

... skeptical of Clark at first. But after I saw him do about 3 TV interviews, my skepticism vanished.

Clark is head and shoulders better at communicating progressive ideals than any other presidential contender.

[eSTIV]

73. Not only Progressive ideals, American Ideals.

(sigh)

what could have been?

[Orangepeel]

20. you can't ever fully trust anyone

hell, Dennis Kucinich might have been a sleeper fascist just biding his time until he got in ;-)

I didn't trust Wes Clark last time and didn't consider supporting him. Some guy out of nowhere, never did a thing with the party -- why would I trust him?

Next time it will be different. He could have slunk away or been a thorn in the party's side after the primaries, but he didn't/wasn't. He did a great job supporting Kerry and was an excellent spokesperson for our side.

I don't know whether or not he'll be by choice in 2008 (gotta get through 2006 first), but I'm not writing him off like last time.

[Donna Zen]

21. From my archieves

Before I'd heard of the draft movement, before I saw his stunning performance on MTP, his name came up on another forum in a thread devoted to screening possible candidates. A woman who was part of the original Wellstone green bus movement, wrote about her thoughts outlining the need for Democrats to get the "weak on defense" label off the table, or we were heading for trouble. She made the case for General Clark.

Weeks went by, and slowly Wesley Clark the person, began to take shape. He was clearly progressive, and definately brilliant, but I needed more. No more wooden candidates need apply; winning would be difficult enough without trying to convince the public that a not-ready-for-prime-time good guy needed their vote. The military association never really bothered me. One has a choice of carrying unfounded, out-of-date baggage or letting it go and seeing things as they are, not filtered by a lens of distrust that clearly blurs ones vision. After seeing him on MTP, I was happy to check off the charisma box.

My Wellstone friend wrote about a meeting she had with the Senator the day after Clinton assigned Holbrooke and Clark the mission to Bosnia. I'm not sure how many realize that Wellstone was one of the strongest voices begging for intervention into the slaughter in the Balkans. Wellstone said, "Well, I've finally found my general." She also told of a party in the Iron Range that Wellstone had for Clark. So_is Clark a Wellstone plant?

Finally, I learned that a friend of mine has known Clark for over thirty years. I wrote to her, and her answer pretty much "sealed the deal." The General and I chatted about her.

I'm not sure when I wrote the letter, sent some money, and became a Founding Member. I'm looking at the pin at this moment, and it surely says "Draft" on it.

What started as a strategic move, has since become a chance to make a difference. For those who want to apply the litmus test, I remind them that reaching for negatives has never led to positive outcomes. For those who refuse to recognise the Draft Clark people as grassroots, if negating my efforts feeds your energy you have my permission to do so, but be warned, its your karma.

BTW, Clark has decided that the rightwing is wrong, we hold the values card:

"The republicans use religion to divide us, but Democrats know that all religions teach that if you have more, then it is time to help others brothers and sisters."

~Wes Clark (Portsmouth NH)

[Auntie Bush]

43. I'm bummed!

"I'm looking at the pin at this moment, and it surely says "Draft" on it." I was a founding member too (first 1000th to donate) and I never got a pin. I was robbed! I'm jealous! Would love to have it for prosperity.

[truebrit71]

24. Where to begin?

He is incredibly intelligent, he has served his country in an exemplary fashion. He is respected across Europe, and indeed around the globe for his intellect, his drive and his commitment to excellence and dedication to his fellow man. As Supreme Allied Commander for NATO he was responsible for every facet of military life including, education, housing, and diversity.

He is a leader that shows the way, rather than telling others what or how they should do it. He wouldn't ask anyone to do something he wasn't prepared to do himself. He believes in inclusion rather than marginalization, he throughly believes in the American dream and is driven to insure that those around him are encouraged to reach their fullest potential. His enthusiasm is not blighted by racial or lifestyle differences, and is a firm believer that those that need help the most not only deserve help but that they should get it.

He is a fiscal conservative in that he believes that bloated budgets are a waste of precious public funds, and he is no friend to the lobbyists.

He is a proud Democrat, he has worked tirelessly on behalf of other Democratic candidates, and is a champion of Democratic causes in his many television appearances.

He is a retired four-star general with multiple commendations and a genuine war hero, a gun owner, and was raised in the South. He speaks with passion about that which he believes and genuinely believes that the best way forward is as a united country, and not one fragmented, torn and bitterly divided.

I believe that he is our best shot at regaining the Whitehouse in 2008, I believe that he is the only President that would instantly garner respect and cooperation from frosty allies in Europe upon election, if for no other reason than not only can he point out Europe on a map without help, but he speaks several of the languages fluently. He has extensive experience on the international front having dealt with numerous heads of state and understands that "Yee-Haw" does not make a good foreign policy.

He is the best all around candidate that will appeal to not only the Democratic base but to middle of the road voters as well as moderate republicans.

In my humble opinion he is our best choice.

I supported him in 2004, and will redouble my efforts in 2008 should he decide to once again answer his country's call to service.

[eSTIV]

76. BRAVO, WELL SAID!

Clarkies are clearly intelligent and well-mannered. :)

[Sparkly]

25. Well, in short, I see integrity in the choices people make

especially the ones they don't have to make.

I marvel at whatever it is that makes a brilliant high school student decide to go to West Point, because serving his country is more important than becoming a professional in another career. I admire whatever it is that made him, after being first in his class, go on to Oxford and then stick it out in the army when so many other choices were available to him. And I admire that he stayed in despite the continual lure of the private sector where he could have made much more money and lived far more comfortably.

Finally, I admire the simple "When you can do good, you should" and his courage and integrity in standing up to the Pentagon and the White House when he believed it was right. I admire his decision to run as a Democrat, and to campaign tirelessly for John Kerry. And I'm looking forward to seeing what he does with WesPAC! :)

[Quixote1818]

54. Ok, I am starting to get tears in my eyes. It's so sad Clark didn't make

it as President. He would have been wonderful.

[MontecitoDem]

27. Anyone who has met him can see his authenticity

That is what first attracted me to his candidacy. Of course, his unpolished self was appealing to some, but problematic for his campaign.

He truly believes in the family, in protecting the family from all the things I worry about: losing jobs and losing healthcare, toxins in our air and water, failing schools without funding and being over-tested, a safety net for the elderly, the poor, the disabled. These aren't political positions for him, they are beliefs. He also knows how to protect our country. He respects the law, including laws protecting our civil liberties.

Personally, I don't know if he'll be the best candidate for our party in '08 - for me it's too early to tell. But he is an extraordinary man, imo.

[Generator]

28. Yeah I read that other thread

And I still can't get out of my head the idea that Clark wanted into the Bush administration after 9/11 and was rebuffed and thus his crusade. (EVEN though clearly things would be going differently in Iraq if Clark had any input-but if Clark is all he says he is then he would have certainly never lasted in a Bush admin)

Clark is smart, smooth, and says all the right things. I've seen him many times on Bill Maher, and I'll never forget him saying he wasn't ashamed to say he embraces the liberal word-for all the good things it really means.

But..he was a Republican all his life until 2002? I just can't reconcile that with being a liberal.

So can you debunk his past and show how he's really been at least a progressive all his life?

Or is it just a Bush as president conversion to liberalism?

[Sparkly]

32. No

He did not ask for a place in the Bush administration, he was not a Republican, and there's information on him at the Clark04.com and WesPAC2004.com websites if you would like to know more about him.

[Clarkie1]

33. Clark was never a Republican

Like most of his fellow Arkansans, he was a registered independent until 2003. Now, he is among a relatively small group of his fellow Arkansans who are registered to ANY political party. He Chose the democratic party because the democratic party reflects his values.

Clark voted for Clinton and Gore. Please do not spread the lie that Clark was ever a Republican. Yes, he voted for Republican presidents during the cold war as the vast, vast majority of those in the armed forces did (and still do). He may have felt the Republicans were stronger on defense, and felt at that time in history that that was an important factor in casting his vote, but he never became a member of the Republican party or endorsed the Republican party values at any time in his life.

"If any political party tells you they have a monopoly on the national security of the Unitied States, they are comitting a fraud on the American people" - Wes Clark

[TLM]

48. If it sounds like a republican....

"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."



Sounds like a republican to me.... either that or someone who will praise republicans when being paid by republicans, and praise dems when being paid by dems.


The man is, at best, two faced.

[Quixote1818]

55. Is that the best you can come up with TLM? You are reaching!

I believe he meant those things but Clark is a cordial person. Clark is like a Will Rogers who spoke at both the Republican and Democratic conventions and said "I never met a man I didn't like." Does that make Clark a Republican or a Bad person? No, he probably really liked Ronald Reagan and he also really liked Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Is it a sin to like people from the other party? If it is then the Democratic party really needs to take a look at it's self because that would mean we are staring to act just like the Bush administration.

TLM do you think Clark would say those things about Bush and Rice now? Absolutely not! Dean said nice things about Bush "REMEMBER"???? Does that make Howard Dean a Republican? You need to look a little deeper than just a few quotes that Carl Rove dug up to turn Democrats against Clark. If someone followed me around for years and took everything nice thing I ever said about Republicans and posted them you might think I am a Ditto Head. Don't just regurgitate the same old lines from Carl Roves play book. Come up with something substantial next time.

[TLM]

60. Yeah reaching right into Clark's own quotes...

"TLM do you think Clark would say those things about Bush and Rice now?"

Sure he would... if he thought it would help his career. And if he did I don't doubt that his supporters would still follow him just as they do now.



"Dean said nice things about Bush "REMEMBER"???? Does that make Howard Dean a Republican?"

Did he say those things at a republican fundraiser? Did he say he was glad Bush was in office and that we NEEDED him in the Whitehouse?

In 2001 Clark was working to help the republicans and war profiteering.

But what do you expect from a guy who supports the school of the americas?

[Quixote1818]

71. More of the same stuff. Yawn

First of all the fundraiser Clark spoke at was hardly a fundraiser just like the Democrat FUNDRAISER he spoke at the following week was hardly a fundraiser. Everything you are spouting is right from Sean Hannity and Ann Colter's mouth. We disproved all this stuff you are bringing up long ago. You know you would make a great Republican because you are great with their talking points which have all been disproved.

As to this statement: "Did he (Dean) say he was glad Bush was in office and that we NEEDED him in the Whitehouse?"

I hate to inform you of this but you are comparing Apples to Oranges! Clark was not in a political party. What else do you expect a General to say to the Commander in Chief?????????? I mean PLEASE JUST THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND! These arguments you are bringing up are old and tiresome. What is it you have against Clark????? Shit Dean is totally fine with me but you really have it in for Clark.

You do realize you are part of a very, very, very small far, far, far, far left fringe on DU that believes these Right Wing talking points don't you. :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

[TLM]

82. LOL Personal attacks, yet no response of substance...

"First of all the fundraiser Clark spoke at was hardly a fundraiser just like the Democrat FUNDRAISER he spoke at the following week was hardly a fundraiser."

You just admitted it was a fundraiser. And the fact he also spoke at a dem fundraiser just proves my point that he's a two faced fraud who will say whatever he thinks the crowd wants to hear. His positions are obviously not so deeply held if they change week to week depending on who is paying his speaking fee.


" Everything you are spouting is right from Sean Hannity and Ann Colter's mouth."

Funny I hear them calling people socialists and communists all the time. What I quoted was from CLARK'S mouth.

"We disproved all this stuff you are bringing up long ago.


Really so you proved he didn;t say those things? All I've seen you prove is that when confronted with facts, you can fire off personal attacks. Like this one...

" You know you would make a great Republican because you are great with their talking points which have all been disproved. "

Again you clam these quotes were disproved.... when was it proved that Clark never said these things?



"I hate to inform you of this but you are comparing Apples to Oranges! Clark was not in a political party. What else do you expect a General to say to the Commander in Chief?????????? I mean PLEASE JUST THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND!"

Clark had retired when he made those statements... and Reagan had not been CIC for over a decade. Nice try though.

And funny how you said that it was proved Clark didn't say those things... then turn around and say he had no choice and had to say them because Bush was CIC.


LOL! Kinda the same way clark tries to play both sides too.

[Quixote1818]

89. You are making mountains out of a mole hills

I hate to inform you of this but you are probably one of the few people that would not understand how silly your arguments are. Did Clark say these things? Yes. Does it mean anything? No. Like I said before, this is great stuff for right wing talk radio because you have an audience that wants to believe it even though a little reasoning makes it insignificant. However here on DU we see right through these silly little examples that can be taken many different ways and put in many different contexts. It basically comes down to the fact that you believe only what you want to believe and I believe what I want to believe however I think I will stick with the fact that Clark and guys like Holbrook are best friends. That speaks a 1000 times more volume than a couple of words of admiration for someone.

Today we have books saying all kids of crap about Thomas Jefferson and calling John Adams this great guy yet in the end John Adams still loved Thomas Jefferson and they both spoke of each other on their death beds. To me their relationship speaks 1000 times more about who Thomas Jefferson was than any Author could understand reading quotes from Jefferson. Sometimes you have to think from a different angle than just swallowing the stuff that is fed to you from the Right and from the Dean camp because they were scared of Clark. Dean was the only candidate who kept the "Clark is a Republican" line going. Why do you think that is? Because Clark was a Republican? No, because Dean wanted to win. It's that simple.

[TLM]

93. Clark say these things? Yes.

Nuff said.... the fact you're willing to ignore Clark's words while making personal attacks on me for pointing them out because you can't refute them, speaks volumes.

[Quixote1818]

100. And your point?

Clark said a lot of things that could mean many different things based on a million different situations and different contexts. Big whoop!

Personal attacks??? Explaining that your line of arguments sound like they come from Sean Hannity because they are so simple and don't take into account all the different variables. Sorry to inform you of this but that's just reality. Get over it and come up with some real earth moving proof that would convince a court of law not just a group of Ditto Heads who want to believe this stuff because they are prejudice just like you seem to be. The burden of proof is on you because you are the one making the accusations. If you are going to attack someone's character you SURE AS HELL better know what you are talking about otherwise you end up looking like nothing more than mean prejudice person out to hurt someone. You just don't seem to like Clark for some reason and I find that really sad.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

111. Don't Hate The Playa....Hate The Game...

eom

[Donna Zen]

113. Patrick Leahy?

You really need to start calling every Democratic member of congress who voted to continue the funding for the school of the americas republicans. Okay? Call every Democratic member of congress who voted to confirm Rummy and then blathered on the Sunday gasbags about how friggin great these people would be "republicans."

Of course you would then belong to a party of the few.

Pure but lonely.

The left is very good at condemning one another; it keeps them so busy that they fail to see the enemy in the room.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

29. Wes Clark for President!!!

[janx]

30. WHY?

?

[Clarkie1]

36. Why not? n/t

[janx]

40. He's not running for anything right now.

:shrug: If and when he is, fine.

But he isn't.

[Sparkly]

41. So?

One more reason to relax, then. He's still a leader to many of us, a spokesman for sane foreign policy, a strong critic of this administration, and a presence in the party. We're looking forward to seeing where he'll take WesPAC, and no doubt we'll follow his lead.

Nothing wrong with having a hero! In fact, it gives us hope on days like this one. :)

[janx]

50. Sparkly, I admire General Clark.

But I don't understand why people are hanging on to him as a candidate for president when he has not indicated that he's interested in it.

And Dems have to get away from hero worship. It is we who will have to solve this problem, not some hero. We are the ones who will have to get the country out of this horrible mess.

Anything that Clark can contribute (and I'm sure he will) will be greatly appreciated. I can't imagine (and I've believed this for some time) that any future Dem administration would not include Wesley Clark.

But he may want to take some time off for now. He's not running for anything, and some of the supporters of Clark from last year's primaries insist on pushing him for president in 2008. That's fantasy until we know what's going on.

[Quixote1818]

56. What are you talking about?????

What does anything you just said have to do with this? Why does there ever have to be a reason to say something nice about someone who is a person of integrity? Why do you feel a need to come in here and rain on our parade? Did you have a rough day? Did you get dumped? For Christ sake we simply just like Wesley Clark and we want to talk about him and say nice things about him because it makes us feel good inside! You should try it sometime because it feels nice to say nice things.

[Clarkie1]

58. He has indicated he is interested in it. And WE can solve this problem

not by hero worship, but by supporting and electing outstanding democrats like Wes Clark.

Clark is enabling his supporters to do just that by supporting WesPac.

"You know, it's really not about me, it's really about all of you." - Wes Clark

[Skwmom]

59. Well if the Dem's track record to date is any indication

who knows in what decade (or century) there will ever be another Dem administration.

[kodi]

31. if we can't elect a guy who is the best America has to offer, we aint shit

I do not want a common man or woman in the white house.

it is a peculiar and egotistical thing that americans say that they want a president with a common touch.

I bet that if push comes to shove they would tell you that they would want the very best doctor for their own heart transplant instead of a doctor who had the common touch.

why is that same value system not employed by the masses when it comes to electing a president?

wes clark is the best america has produced since george marshall. with him as president I believe america will be lead in the best possible manner.

[Sparkly]

34. I'm with you.

I think he's one in a generation, and ideal for the disasters King George will be leaving behind. Thanks for your post!

[abburdlen]

35. That's my feeling

I want a President that inspires me. Clark does. The real kicker is you get the resume, the genius, the incredible record and he does have the common touch.

[Spazito]

37. Wes Clark would be immediately accepted by other nations....

he had already proved himself by his service as SACEUR and the work he has done with the UN and NATO. He worked closely with Former Justice Louise Arbour,(a Canadian) when she was chief prosecutor for tribunals into the genocide in Rwanda and human rights abuses in Yugoslavia even when it was frowned upon by the Pentagon. He also tried to get the US to act on Rwanda when few others did.

Being one of the few Canadians that knew immediately who he was when he announced for nomination, I forwarded information about him as well as speeches he had made, etc, to other Canadians and all were very impressed with him and Canadians are even more suspicious of 'military' figures yet that concern never came up.

(I hope you don't mind a perspective from someone outside the borders of the US.)

[Sparkly]

38. He's known and respected worldwide by many

and was endorsed by a slew of ambassadors. I think by 2008 we're going to have serious problems to repair with Europe (and the rest of our former allies in the UN!) and General Clark will fit the bill.

[JoseRizal]

39. I would like to add a comment for Gen.Wesley Clark

Well actually, more like a compliment to the man who have inspired in me the sense of DUTY,HONOR,COUNTRY. The man have I think made some enemies during and after his military service. I for one do not think it is a hindrance or a subtraction to the General's integrity or his character. Rather it shows that Gen. Clark's persona shows who he really was and really is a man who will fight for his convictions, who will fight for what he believes is right not for himself but for the overall welfare of the Army which reflects to his country, the good old U.S.A.

I have often wondered why does some fellow officers of his are criticizing the General, for what benefit and what are the substance of the claims they have made,labeled against the liberal Gen. I for my own conclusion have come to think that most of his fellow officers comment on him can be traced upon Gen.Wesley Clark's independence a loner in the institution of the Army that are full of conservative thinking NCO's.

When Gen.Barry Mccaffrey said about Gen.Clark that he does not meet or meet the mold of a typical Army General, I think that was what he referring or alluding to. Also his detractors claim he's extremely ambitious,aloof,and arrogant. Extremely ambitious? my for what to do the right thing in Rwanda where almost nobody,no one in Pentagon would dare lay a finger on it? or Kosovo to help the Balkan region deal with Slobodan Milosevic. Perhaps if Gen.Clark was so ambitious that he could have just left the ARmy when it was in tatters on the brink of anarchy to go work as investment banker,become a C.E.O for a big corp. No he did not do that, Instead he stayed in the Army for 36 damn years of his life putting his life to service transitioning the broken force of halpless drafted army into the honed Army of volunteers of today.

If we looked upon his career through out he was a wonderkid who have made,transformed broken low morale troops, into top notch tip top shape. I want to go on and on just to illustrate what and how Gen.Clark manage his career illustriously in the Army for all those years. Most of these can be found on his biography whic is written by Antonia Felix, who also penned a biograpy for the incoming Sec.Of State Dr.Rice.

Truly, if some of the folks here want to know the person under the uniform should make an effort to pick up and read that biography. I will once again would like to separate myself from the rest of Gen.Wesley Clark's supporters here at DU,becaue I don't want them to be associated with what I have said,expressed with some of the posts I have made. Pls. refrain from associating the rest of the Clarkies with my posting for they have nothing to do with my own opinion.

I will fight for that man with anyone if any unfair unsubstantiated rumours,inuendos,connections will be labeled against the man who have given his life defending this country so that we can have the very freedom we thoroughly want to enjoy. Be it may that some of you will not like what I have posted but I was left with no other choice but to voice my reasoned opinion based on reality based facts not hyperbole.

I want to apologize to the rest of the Clark supporters or non supporters if I am jeopardizing the effort to have a positive discussion. For that I am sorry.

[Blue Wally]

112. A book that I would recommend....

David Halberstam's "War in an Time of Peace" which covers the foreign policy ventures of the Clinton years. The book was written pre-9/11 and long before Gen Clark had political ambitions. Halberstam gives a lengthy discussion of Gen Clark's career to set the stage for discussion of the Kossovo effort. Halberstam also covers the immediate aftermath of Kossovo, Gen Clark's replacement as SACEUR, and his subsequent forced retirement (they manuevered him out of every job befitting his rank). The telling thing there is that every single member of the Joint Chiefs found some trip he had to be on to be out of town for Gen Clark's retirement. The Secy of Defense (Cohen) was the only dignitary there. Usually all of the members of the Joint Chiefs are on-hand to retire an outgoing Joint Commander. As Jose noted, Gen Clark was not universally beloved in the Army and would certainly bring out the Army version of SBVT inb a future campaign (and a high ranking SBVT at that). I am not against Gen Clark, but want to point out that given his nomination in 2008, his election will not be a "slam dunk" because he is a war hero.

[TLM]

44. I've seen this all before....

And I bought it too for a while... until I started digging deeper and found out about who Clark worked for after 9-11, who and what he supported before he decided to run, and what he said about Bush and Reagan in 2001.

Unlike some I simply could not ignore these facts. Some Clark supporters remind me of the folks who want to beleive that the earth is flat. No matter what evidence to the contrary they are shown, they dismiss it.

Now I'm not saying Clark is evil, just that he's no democrat... sure he's a good man. I think lots of republicans could be considered good people. I'm sure there are republicans who have saved lives and done a lot of good things. Doesn't mean I'd vote for them to be president.

Clark has done good things, great things even... and he's done very bad things too. After he decided to run as a dem, he said a lot of the right things, but before that point he said a lot of wrong things too.

All in all he seems to change his story way too often for me to trust him. I don't doubt for a second that he'd run as a republican if he thought he could win.

[MontecitoDem]

52. Perhaps I see him differently than you...

it doesn't mean I haven't dug deeper, or that I'm being hoodwinked as you imply. I have met him. I have read his books. I have read as much that has been printed about him as I could, and watched as many interviews with him as I could. And I, a lifelong liberal democrat, activist in my community, chose him as my favorite candidate for the primaries.

Perhaps we just have a difference of opinion and there is some truth in yours and some truth in mine? Just as we probably have a difference of opinion about whomever you supported in the primaries.

[TLM]

63. So you are Ok with his position on things like...

the school of the americas?

[MontecitoDem]

68. A couple of things

What do you think his position on SOA is?

Here's some things he has said about this:

Statement of General Wesley Clark on the School of the Americas
(now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation)

I strongly condemn human rights abuses of any kind. Throughout my career, I have fought to protect the fundamental rights of all people and to promote democratic values that empower people to prevent abuses of power and combat them when they occur.

It is unacceptable that some who passed through the School of the Americas (now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) committed human rights abuses. Those that did should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - as should all who commit war crimes or crimes against humanity. In order to prevent such abuses from happening in the future, we must promote a policy of engagement and education with friends and allies in the region.

I strongly support the reforms that have been implemented at WHISC and encourage careful vetting of students. I strongly support oversight measures that ensure that antidemocratic principles are not taught at the school. Thanks to the work of human rights campaigners and others, WHISC is constantly improving the way it teaches the Army's values of respect for human rights, for civil institutions, and for dissent.


And from another site: http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2003/december/12_19Clark.shtml

One voter challenged Clark on his support of the controversial School of the Americas in Georgia. A recent newspaper story documents how Clark was a staunch supporter of SOA in congressional testimony.

While graduates of the program have committed human rights violations, they represent a “tiny minority” of the school’s students should be prosecuted for their crimes, he said, pointing out that former Panamanian dictator and SOA graduate Manuel Noriega is currently imprisoned.

“The School of the Americas teaches human rights,” he said.

Later in the forum, Clark revisited the issue when another questioner indicated he was dissatisfied with the general’s earlier explanation.

The program, he said, offers the opportunity for Latin American soldiers to be exposed to the Democratic culture of the United States so that they come to respect the values they are being trained to defend.



Personally, I think SOA should be shut down. I disagree with him on this issue, but I believe he is expressing his true opinion in his words above. I also disagreed with his thought that flag burning should be against the law. I don't know about you, but no single politician (or anyone else for that matter) has ever held the exact same thoughts, plans and ideals as me. But I can still support him, and with good conscience.

[TLM]

78. Oh come on that is such a BS answer...

The SOA teaches human rights so grads know how to skirt them. You know the whole point of the SOA is teaching techniques for death squads and torture.

What Clark said is akin to saying you fully support Nazi death camps, but feel any human rights violations the guards may commit should be prosecuted. They exist to violate those rights in the first place, so the comment is meaningless BS.

Clark said he thought it was OK to bomb unarmed techs and journalists in a TV station... so I'm not sure what exactly is his definition of abuse of combat.


And disagreeing with someone on tax policy or a vote on the no child left behind act, is hardly the same thing as disagreeing with them on supporting a school that teaches torture and murder as a means of oppressing people to maintain banana republics in south/central America.

[MontecitoDem]

81. Hmmm.

You know, I'm trying to respond to your posts in a very civil and respectful way. You don't seem interested in actually having a conversation about this, or acknowledging any other possibility than your already made up position.

So, since the Daily Show is over, I'll just say goodnight.

[TLM]

85. Sorry when it coves to teaching murder and torture...

I'm just not too civil.


And I assume by your statement that you think the SOA should be shut down, that you also know that despite the atempt to whitewash the SOA and rename it... they still do the same thing as always.

You and I both know that Clark knows what goes on there... and he said before he was running that he supports it. He can give excuses to try and cover his past statements after the fact, but that won't change the truth.

I just don't buy that kind of BS.

[MontecitoDem]

70. Also, have you heard him re Gonzales for AG?

another thread on this - worth checking out because it has the transcript

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1515414

[Quixote1818]

62. Explain this to me then

Why was Clark against the War in Iraq BEFORE it started and chose to speak out against it in front of the Arms Service Committee when 80% of the country was for the War???? You want to talk about doing the right thing when it was considered unpopular! Also, why were so many of his Democratic friends approaching him to run for president such as Sandi Burger and Richard Holbrook? Clark and Holbrook are like best friends! Holbrook loves Clark. Don't you think these guys had some sense of who Clark was and how he believed? I don't doubt he wasn't a Democrat at that time because thats the kind of person Clark is. He was not the type of person to get caught up in labels. He saw people for who they were but deep down his liberal tendency's
were always their just as deep down Benjamin Franklin was an American even though he defended England for so long until he was ridiculed and made fun of by King George. That woke up Benjamin Franklin just like the Iraq war woke up Wesley Clark. You sound like you would never forgive Benjamin Franklin for liking the British. Well I have news for you, people change and they can change in a big way when their eyes are opened up. You just have to learn to stop letting your prejudices get in the way of your ability to reason and see clearly. If you approach Wes Clark with out prejudice you would come to the conclusion that ONE HELL of a lot of people on DU have and we are about the most liberal progressive people in the country. You think that many DU people are that blind to the truth?

[TLM]

65. Clark said it both ways... for and against

"Why was Clark against the War in Iraq BEFORE it started and chose to speak out against it in front of the Arms Service Committee when 80% of the country was for the War???? "

Simple, because he was riding the fence and playing both sides of the issue just like Kerry did.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

[Quixote1818]

75. Yawn Again

Even if he had voted to give Bush the authority to put pressure on Saddam DOES NOT MEAN he would have actually gone to war and certainly not the way Bush did. And even if he did ride the fence on the authority part who cares????????? That's just smart politics and that's why Clark survived after Saddam was caught and Dean lost.

[TLM]

86. LOVE IT LOL!!!! First you say he was against the war 100%

when 80% were for it and this proves his courage and convictions.


Then after seeing his quotes you say....


"And even if he did ride the fence on the authority part who cares????????? That's just smart politics "


Thanks for proving my point. LOL!

[FrenchieCat]

88. If only you had a point....

beyond trespassing on threads to fill them with negativity.

You think you are so right...and that's what makes you wrong.

You have proven not to give a fig about humanity.....saving 1.3 million lives is not even worth a comment from you. It's like that's not what you truly care about.

It's like a game to you. Trouble is, it really isn't.

What counts, it appears, is the political game of bullshit....cause in the end, that's all this is. Maybe that's why you can have a post with LOL in the same sentence as WAR. Now how funny is war, really?

[Quixote1818]

94. You are not able to think abstractly are you?

Clark was against the war in the exact same way Dean was. Giving Bush authority to put pressure on Saddam is completely different than actually going to war. Do you not understand that? Is that over your head or something? Most Democrats voted for authority but were against the war under the circumstances and thought Bush would wait and only attack as a last resort with the rest of the world on board. You conveniently left out the abstract details however because all you care about is appearing like you won the argument when in fact you just got thrashed.

Dean said he would act unilaterally if he thought Saddam was a threat and thats exactly what we did. I don't think Clark would have. Their is a big difference here. In the end Dean conveniently could say he wouldn't have voted for the war because he never had to but his original words speak volumes about what he probably would have done and that was to act unilaterally. Clark was asked the question and because he is not a polished politician puts his foot in his mouth. Both did the same thing but you give Dean a free pass and impugned Clark's integrity. Why is that?

[votedem]

77. An honest question, for a point of clarity

Didn't Dean say he would have voted for the Biden-Lugar bill, too?

[TLM]

87. As was addressed over and over and over again....

The Biden Lugar bill was not the same as the bill that Kerry voted for and Clark said he would have voted for.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 2, 2002

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today said that a bipartisan Senate compromise on a resolution allowing the President to use force to oust Saddam Hussein is far more faithful to the Constitution than the blank check resolution being lobbied for by the White House.

"Thankfully, this compromise embodies the lessons learned from the Gulf of Tonkin incident," said Timothy Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Granting the President a blank check to engage in overseas adventures is a recipe for human tragedy. This compromise resolution acknowledges those lessons."

In its letter to the Senate, the ACLU reiterated that it is neutral on whether the United States should go to war. However, it told the Senate that it remains firm in its conviction that the Constitutional obligations on Congress to make decisions about war need to be respected, especially with foreign policy questions of this magnitude.

The new resolution, negotiated by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Former Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN), eliminates most of the similarities between the resolution the President wanted and the disastrous Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which led to a decade-long morass in which tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives.

Specifically, the Biden-Lugar compromise:

Clearly identifies the enemy. The proposed resolution closes the door to regional adventures in the Middle East. Under the proposed compromise, the President would have to seek additional Congressional authorization if he wished to widen the conflict in the region.
Spells out clear military objectives. Congress would hold a tight leash on the current conflict. This would be in marked contrast to its role in the Vietnam War, which was lost in part because of nebulous war aims. The Biden-Lugar compromise realizes the folly of sending troops into harm's way without delineating the specific military objectives to be accomplished.
Reaffirms the American conviction that war-making power should lie with the people. In contrast with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the Biden-Lugar compromise would respect the ongoing prerogatives of Congress during military engagement. The Constitution demands that American military decisions involving the use of force rest only with the people's representatives in Congress.
The ACLU's letter on the Biden-Lugar compromise can be found at:
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l100202a.html




Dean also laid out a very detailed explaination of his position on Iraq.


HOWARD DEAN: Look, I think the most important aspect and the most important quality for any chief executive when they're executing foreign policy is judgment.

I supported the first war in Iraq because one of our allies was invaded, and I thought we had a responsibility to defend them. I supported the war in Afghanistan; 3,000 of our people were murdered. They would have murdered more if they could have. I thought we had a right to defend the United States of America. But in the case of Iraq, the president told us that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were about to make a deal or were making a deal. The truth is, there are more likely to be people from Al Qaeda bombing Iraqis and Americans today than there were before Saddam Hussein was kicked out.

Secondly, the president told us that Iraq was buying uranium from Africa. That wasn't true. The vice president told us that the Iraqis were about to get atomic weapons. That turned out not to be true. The secretary of defense told us he knew exactly where the weapons of mass destruction were, right around Tikrit and Baghdad. That turned out to be false as well.

As commander in chief of the United States military, I will never hesitate to send troops anywhere in the world to defend the United States of America. But as commander in chief of the United States military I will never send our sons and daughters and our brothers and sisters to a foreign country in harm's way without telling the truth to the American people about why they're going there. And that judgment needs to be made first, not afterwards.

[FrenchieCat]

92. Why am I not impressed?

My candidate is better than your candidate routine is getting worn.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Clark's September 26, 2002, testimony to the Armed Services Committee, in which he states:
The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail...

...in the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This would require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force. This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam's weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action.

--------------
Clark's statements to the Associated Press on October 9, 2002:
Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war.

Clark, who led the allied NATO forces in the Kosovo conflict, endorsed Democrat Katrina Swett in the 2nd District race.
He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for the resolution, but only after vigorous debate...The general said he had no doubt Iraq posed a threat, but questioned whether it was immediate and said the debate about a response has been conducted backward.

Clark's own words indicate he would only support the resolution "after vigorous debate." Surely that can be interpreted to mean vigorous debate that would result in changes (otherwise, why debate?) --meaning he did not support the resolution "as was."

Considering he had previously testified to the Armed Services Committee that the resolution need not authorize force, we can guess what he might have felt one of those changes should be.

Combine that with his October 10, 2002, editorial in Time Magazine called "Let's Wait to Attack,"

In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months. The U.S. has total military dominance of the region. Although Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, he has no long-range missiles with which to deliver them. Certainly, the clock is ticking, because Saddam may eventually acquire the nuclear weapons and delivery systems he seeks. Nonetheless, there is still time for dialogue before we act.

[Quixote1818]

104. OHHHHHH NAILED HIM! YES! Thank you Frenchie!

I am glad you had all that because after the election I erased all my stuff for defending Clark. I feel so unprepared tonight because I don't have anything at my fingertips like I use to. I have had to do hap hazard searches for things which makes for clumsy ill prepared arguments and relying on memory rather than facts. Thank you and don't ever erase that stuff! We might need it again in 08!

Thanks again! Great Post

[votedem]

95. Thanks for the response.

ACLU is of course right: the Biden-Lugar bill at least acknowledged congress has some powers in the matters of war, and outlined more specifically what the goals were in Iraq.

But it did not require Bush to come back before an attack on Iraq, or any such thing.

Clark and Dean both expressed concerns about congressional power, but also the reason, time, and way in which we were (quite apparently) about to go to war. The quote you posted from a debate is good, but it seems similar to the concerns and lengthy testimony Clark gave to congress before the resolutions were considered.

Given that Dean and Clark were sounding the same cautions (Dean to the public, and Clark to those in power), and that both acknowledged some support for Biden-Lugar and its provisions, I just don't see how you can claim there was a big difference in their positions.

If you just don't trust Clark, that's fine enough, but I don't think creating some artificial policy difference is really necessary. You believe Dean, but not Clark. OK. I found there to be a huge overlap in Dean and Clark loyalties because they were quite alone in criticizing the IWR. So, that's why I was wondering what YOU thought about Biden-Lugar, not the ACLU.

[Quixote1818]

98. Excellent Point and well thought out!

[Sopianae]

101. Welcome to DU!

Common sense! Where have you been?

:hi:

[votedem]

102. haha

Thanks for the welcome ;)

I've been working campaigns, issue lobbying in my state, going back to school (again ;), and working. I'm indulging myself in some conjecture and debate because it's inaugural day, there's snow on the ground, and I was already pessimistic today, so I thought it couldn't get any worse by jumping in here ;)

[robbedvoter]

46. I once gathered a number of stories. Those who want to know

are welcome to sample:
What do I like about Clark

1. His personality(+ mind)
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2004/1/1/103242/1317
2.His mind:
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/11/22/204246/39
3. His heart
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/11/28/81836/095
4.His courage/lack of arrogance
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2004/1/1/103743/4163
His views (one example - preemption)
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/12/22/221958/58

5. His feistiness
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/12/20/12545/873

[JoseRizal]

51. lol that accusation would be too funny if it was true

man he would have run repub. if he thought he could win. Are u bleeping kidding me, tell me what do u think would have been the perfect oppurtunity to run for office as a repub right after 911 happened. Are u listening to urself? he was asked to run by the repub as a congressman but he declined and yes he was also courted by the dems to run for Gov. of AK. but also declined the offer.

In fact Clark himself said right after the event of 911 happened that one of his friends called hime and told him that in no way that the Dems would win an election let alone a presidential election. Clark could have joined the repugs even as a liberal he could have been like a Mccain.

The likes of u irked,confused me? If u dont like Gen.Clark fine not everyone likes the same person but to call not worthy as a democrat pls. the Gen. does not need permission slip from a deaniac or to pass a test of being a democratic from a socialist like u and ur ilks.

[mvd]

57. Very few Dean supporters are socialists

Most are either liberals who want our party to be vital again and separate enough from the Repugs, or other passionate center-left people.

Now I don't buy into the Clark Republican accusations. I believe Clark wouldn't have stayed in so long if he wasn't committed to the Democratic cause.

[Quixote1818]

64. I personally think the Iraq war opened up Clark's eyes.

That seemed to be the turning point when he realized "WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY THINKING?" It was that instant he realized he was much more a Democrat than Republican and he could not sit around and do nothing. Before Iraq Clark saw Democrats and Republicans as people and did not see the labels they had on them. Clark is that pure and that fair. But not any more! He is a Democrat now and in the deepest parts of his soul he always was.

[TLM]

69. LOL!!!!! Yeah the war he said he'd have voted for...

Too bad you little fantasy about Clark's heart and soul doesn't match up with what Clark said about the war and the vote.


(CNN 1/21/03)"I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations."

(CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

[Quixote1818]

79. LOL!!!!!! Right back at you

War and unilateralism: Dean caught fire in the 2004 presidential race based on his opposition to the Iraq war. But in July 2003, he cautioned that he had "told the peace people not to fall in love with me." He claims to have supported every U.S. military intervention after Vietnam and before Iraq. In August 2002, he said he would support a unilateral invasion of Iraq if President Bush could "show that there's evidence has either atomic or biological weapons and can deliver." Dean ended up opposing the war on the grounds that Bush 1) should have worked through the United Nations to disarm Iraq (or to depose Saddam, if Iraq failed to comply with inspections); 2) should have given more consideration to the concerns of U.S. allies; and 3) never should have claimed that Iraq presented an imminent biological or nuclear threat to the United States.

Gee, it sounds like Dean probably would have voted to give Bush authority as well. Interesting. Man that Dean has NO integrity does he? Actually I think he does just like Clark does but Politics is a chess game. You do realize TLM that I just nailed you to the wall don't you?

[MontecitoDem]

84. Quixote1818

Thanks for this thread! (I don't think you'll get anywhere with TLM, but that's okay.) Other than the few disrupters, it was a pleasure to read this tonight.

g'nite!

[TLM]

90. Dean's positon was consistant...

"Gee, it sounds like Dean probably would have voted to give Bush authority as well. Interesting. "

Only under the Biden Lugar version of the bill because of the requierment and restrictions... are you really this uninformed?

The new resolution, negotiated by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Former Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN), eliminates most of the similarities between the resolution the President wanted and the disastrous Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which led to a decade-long morass in which tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives.

Specifically, the Biden-Lugar compromise:

Clearly identifies the enemy. The proposed resolution closes the door to regional adventures in the Middle East. Under the proposed compromise, the President would have to seek additional Congressional authorization if he wished to widen the conflict in the region.
Spells out clear military objectives. Congress would hold a tight leash on the current conflict. This would be in marked contrast to its role in the Vietnam War, which was lost in part because of nebulous war aims. The Biden-Lugar compromise realizes the folly of sending troops into harm's way without delineating the specific military objectives to be accomplished.
Reaffirms the American conviction that war-making power should lie with the people. In contrast with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the Biden-Lugar compromise would respect the ongoing prerogatives of Congress during military engagement. The Constitution demands that American military decisions involving the use of force rest only with the people's representatives in Congress.
The ACLU's letter on the Biden-Lugar compromise can be found at:
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l100202a.html





"You do realize TLM that I just nailed you to the wall don't you? "

You've nailed nothing. Because you've made the wrong assumption that most dean bashers make, which is that Dean supporters think Dean is anti-all war ever. THe fact is Dean never claimed to be anti-war. He was anti-war without justification. His war position was consistant from the start, unlike clark who rode the fence.

Dean said clearly that he would only support the war if "In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred."

Neither of which happened, and Dean pointed that out over and over and over, and unlike CLark his position was consistant.


HOWARD DEAN: Look, I think the most important aspect and the most important quality for any chief executive when they're executing foreign policy is judgment.

I supported the first war in Iraq because one of our allies was invaded, and I thought we had a responsibility to defend them. I supported the war in Afghanistan; 3,000 of our people were murdered. They would have murdered more if they could have. I thought we had a right to defend the United States of America. But in the case of Iraq, the president told us that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were about to make a deal or were making a deal. The truth is, there are more likely to be people from Al Qaeda bombing Iraqis and Americans today than there were before Saddam Hussein was kicked out.

Secondly, the president told us that Iraq was buying uranium from Africa. That wasn't true. The vice president told us that the Iraqis were about to get atomic weapons. That turned out not to be true. The secretary of defense told us he knew exactly where the weapons of mass destruction were, right around Tikrit and Baghdad. That turned out to be false as well.

As commander in chief of the United States military, I will never hesitate to send troops anywhere in the world to defend the United States of America. But as commander in chief of the United States military I will never send our sons and daughters and our brothers and sisters to a foreign country in harm's way without telling the truth to the American people about why they're going there. And that judgment needs to be made first, not afterwards.

[Quixote1818]

97. Oh Sure, just like he was consistent here

http://www.factcheck.org/article93.html

Now this article is a great read. I thought it was about George Bush but no, it was about Howard Dean's vision for Iraq which reads like exactly what is happening.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j082703.html


I am not stupid enough to say Clark or any politician remained consistent and by no means is Wesley Clark perfect but is he a man of integrity? Yes! Is Dean a man of Integrity? Maybe! Does Dean play politics like they all do? Yes! You need to work on being a little more honest with yourself TLM. Try to see the Good in Clark that you see in Dean who you see with rosy colored glasses. You might find it feels kind of nice.

[FrenchieCat]

96. TLM......may I get the links for those statements please?

these two...Thank you in advance...

(CNN 1/21/03)"I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations."

(CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.

[TLM]

67. After 9-11 Clark was too busy war profteering to run for office

so instead he said that we needed Bush and his team in the whitehouse and that Reagan was a great leader at a republican fundraiser.

And you really need to learn what the word socialist means.


And nobody who supports the school of the americas can be considered a "liberal".

[FrenchieCat]

72. Anyone who doesn't give

credit for one who saved 1.3 million lives cannot be considered a "liberal".

And anyone who supports the notion of the Confederate Flag cannot call themselves a "liberal".

And you really need to learn what the word Humanist means.....

[TLM]

91. LOL!

"credit for one who saved 1.3 million lives cannot be considered a "liberal"."

LOL! Why not 10 million or hey 20... because had he not been ordered to conduct an air war, who knows how many would have been killed? So clearly he saved the whole world.


"And anyone who supports the notion of the Confederate Flag cannot call themselves a "liberal".

On the contrary, the notion that even those amercans who hold views we find distastful deserve good schools, healthcare, social security, clean air and water etc. is the very epitomy of liberalism.


"And you really need to learn what the word Humanist means....."


Odd, was I accusing people of being humanists as a means of insulting them? I recall the person i responded to calling people socilists and communists... guess your snarky attack really isn;t very accurate.

SSDD

[FrenchieCat]

99. Look....

It appears that you only recognize a hero if there are dead bodies to count. How ridiculous!

If all accounts from varied sources such as Human Rights Watch say that between 1.3 to 1.5 million Muslim Albanians were saved due to action being taken against Molosovic, who are you to snidely turn up your nose and say....since they didn't die, why can't we say even more were saved...hahaha? It only further proves your lack of any real interest in human lives...beyond using them to be able to smuggly point a finger.

In reference to the confederate flag...it has nothing to do with making sure citizens are fed and clothed. You are mixing your apples with your oranges. It takes real conviction to stand for equal rights for everyone and to stand for the removal of symbols that represent oppression and segregation....

Those who use the cloak of liberalism to rationalize not speaking out about symbols that go against what this country is supposed to stand for are cowards.

Clark is a liberal and proud of it. He stands against the Confederate Flag, and is therefore not a coward...nor is he a liberal of convenience.

"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.

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

In reference to Communism, Socialism and Humanism...I have no real problems with any of them. I come from a socialist country...so I have no fear. I do care about people, bodies, flesh and blood....and not just to used as a political card on a political web board to make a cheap point.

[ticapnews]

61. Clark was an inspiration to me...

I had never really worked on a campaign before, other than collecting signatures for a long-shot candidate for governor when I was back in college. After what happened in 2000 I vowed to do something in 2004. But none of the candidates really excited me. During the summer of 2003 I heard Wesley Clark's name mentioned and did some googling. I was very impressed with his record, which has all been laid out here pretty extensively. I joined the "draft" movement and started going to meet-ups. I had always been very interested in politics, but had never been motivated to get involved. I was surprised when the state campaign asked me to be on the Steering Committee but I gladly accepted. It was an honor to be able to speak to groups, especially veterans, about General Clark.

I was so inspired that I took a week off from work and went to New Hampster for the week leading up to the primary. It's hard to believe that a year ago today I was heading to Manchester for what would become a 37-hour day of non-stop campaigning.

Despite our lack of success in the primaries, I feel Clark's candidacy had a lasting impact, and I am part of the proof. Seventeen months ago I was on the sidelines. In the intervening time I have been a delegate to the state convention, volunteered for Clark, Kerry, Congressman Tom Allen and local Democrats. I've become an active member in the town's Democratic Party organization, which despite being outnumbered 45-25 by the GOP (with 30% Independent) elected two Democrats to the state legislature (and our GOP state senator switched parties after the election). And I heard Clark's call to service and have applied to be on two town committees. And I still wear my "Draft Wesley Clark" pin on my jacket :)

And if Clark does decide to run I will be right there to volunteer again. I understand that he has praised Republicans in the past. I can accept that he has voted for them in the past. If people are going to use that as a litmus test, then we have to write off a whole generation of "Reagen Democrats" because they voted for the Evil GOP 20 years ago. I prefer to look at it another way. He used to support these people. But call it whatever you like: He "saw the light," he evolved, he came around, he became more involved in domestic policy and found that he agrees with "us", whatever. He sees himself as a Democrat now. He is an example of the "big tent" we Democrats claim to have. He sends a message to moderate Republicans and Independents that it's ok to change your mind, that you are welcome in the Democratic party and yes, we are solid on national defense and security issues.

For people who don't "trust" Wesley Clark, all I can say is do what I did: some research. Check out his web site, go check out the Wesley Clark forum here at DU. We have a long time before we get ready for the 2008 campaign, but it's really never too early to start.

To that end, this week I registered my car with new vanity plates:
CLARK 08 :)

[MontecitoDem]

74. thanks for your post

:toast:

[phylla]

115. hey! I just got 08 CLARK license plates

In virginia- someone already has the clark08 one.

[FrenchieCat]

66. why I admire and support Wesley Clark.....

As a Black woman, a French immigrant, a mother, and someone who despises what is going on in my adopted country, I want what's best for my children who were born here and for their future...and in fact the future of all children all over the globe.

I was looking for a candidate to support back in mid 2003. I had marched twice in San Francisco against the war, and in fact I had marched against the stolen election of 2000...when the protestors only numbered in the low hundreds.

I was upset to see that elections could be stolen in this country; I was upset that the majority of the "free" press was not really free; I was upset that an individual like Bush could be passed off as the leader of the "supposed" Free World; I was upset that a tragedy such as 9/11 could be such a boon for our pResident; I was upset that no one was asking the hard questions about George Bush, his incompetency and his intentions. When you listen to Ray Taliaferro (Bay Area KGO radio host) like I did for the last 10 years, one doesn=t suffer fools lightly.

I was looking for a candidate with integrity, guts, and strong intellect. I was looking for a candidate who had an established track record at having done good and achieved results while being selfless with his/her own life. Looking at the announced Democratic line-up, I didn't truly see someone fitting that category and that I thought could win.

Since I was no longer watching television, I started doing a lot of reading. I found a book by Samanta Power about Genocide. In this book, Ms. Power constantly referred to a General Wesley Clark has having been one of the very few who wanted to stop a lot of Black people from being murdered. This General Wesley Clark also wanted to stop the murders of a whole lot of minority Albania Muslims. He was also an internationalist who had negotiated peace.

I looked him up and I liked what I read about him. I never saw him commentating on the war on CNN because I wasn't into watching Teevee and "war". Instead I read about him on Russian, German and French Websites. I read articles that had been written back during Kosovo and Bosnia, and I liked what I read about this Man. It was very clear that he had stood up time and time again when everyone else was sitting. Not just once, or twice, but time and time again. He stood up for human lives.....which is the most valuable thing that I can think of.

Maybe BECAUSE I came from Europe, but am also a minority, I truly appreciate what the General Clark did for the Minority Albanian Muslims. Maybe BECAUSE I am Black and part of me originates from Africa, I appreciate what General Clark wanted to do in Rwanda. Maybe BECAUSE I know (from experience) that many politicians talk a good talk, but frankly don't really give a shit if it means inconveniencing themselves, i.e., taking a chance, even if lives are at stake.

My mother was raised during the 2nd World War in war-torn France. She remembered and has told me the stories of how long it took for the Americans to intervene in that war. Three of her siblings died during this war......they died of malnutrition as they were hiding from the Germans....who ended up taking 2 of my great uncles away to the concentration camps (I am bi-racial).

I wrote Wes Clark a letter begging him to run...because I was desperate. As a Black person, he was really the only candidate that I felt I could truly work for and who I felt could win. Why? Because he is the only candidate that ever ran for President that actually put his career on the line to save lives. To me, that's more important than how long one has been a Democrat, etc.,etc., etc. You see, I don't give a rat's ass about party loyalty, because like Al Sharpton said, Better a new Democrat that's a real Democrat and those who have always been Democrats but act like Republicans. Labels are for those who need them. I don't. People have attempted to label me all of my life, and so, I just don't give a shit what label one wears....cause it's actions that count.

Bottomline is that a great man isn't measured by his party affiliations, or how much money he may have in the bank...but by the content of his character, i.e, by what he has actually done and whether he has made a real difference. Because a President and Leader of the Free(?) World needs to be someone who really cares about everyone, no matter who they are or where they are from, I see Wesley Clark as the most prepared, based on his past actions.... for that task than any others yet.

[msgadget]

80. A truly thoughtful and reasoned endorsement,

FrenchieCat. I'm quite impressed and you know what a skeptic I am. :thumbsup:

[FrenchieCat]

83. Yes...I do

(edited to say)....I should also say thank you!

[eridani]

103. What Clark did for Kosovo

Helped put into power the Al Qaeda-linked drugrunners of the KLA, who have just about finished the job they started under Hitler, namely getting rid of the minority Serbs, Jews and Rom of Kosovo.

Totally ignored resolution of the Serbian parliament, 2/3 of which was opposed to the stupid Ariel Sharon-like methods used by Milosevic to deal with that ongoing ethnic cleansing problem, which recommended instead that Kosovo be made a UN protectorate.

Showed a fine sense of judgment in figuring out how to bomb Serbian industries which were worker or government owned, while leaving the ones owned by foreigners alone. Also had no objection to requiring Serbia to sell off such assets as a condition for avoiding being bombed.

That said, he's probably among the better candidates for president just on the grounds that he would be in a really good position to trim some Pentagon waste. I've come to the conclusion that there isn't any way we can elect someone who actually opposes the post WW II imperial project started by Truman, so at least maybe we could get someone to curb its worst excesses with real insider knowledge.

We have 50 per cent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality . . . we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation.

--George Kennan, US Cold War planner, 1948 NSC-68 document
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/nsc-68/nsc68-1.htm
--Source: Naval War College Review, Vol. XXVII (May-June, 1975), pp. 51-108. Also in U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: > 1950, Volume I.


The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist -McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

--Thomas Friedman, "A Manifesto for the Fast World," The New York Times Magazine, March 28, 1999

[Quixote1818]

105. Thomas Friedman is known to lack integrity in his writing

If all that were really true don't you think the media would have followed up on that article since then? I mean it was written in 1999?


http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=898

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10323.html

[eridani]

108. And what about George Kennan?

He never said "Fuck human rights, we want their stuff?" Sorry, it's a matter of public record that he did.

Actual US policy since 1948 confirms that he got his way, from the overthrow of the secular democracy in Iran in 1953 to the imposition of torturing regimes of elite thugs all over Central and South America. Not to mention Vietnam.

[FrenchieCat]

106. So Kosovo was just Honky Dory?

No threat existed to the Muslims there...right? Malosovic was just playing with a few thousand dead bodies...not enough to justify any action, uh? Just like in Rwanda, I bet. Oh, no....Rwanda had the many many dead bodies to prove that there was a problem. Not enough Dead bodies in Kosovo? What should be the number of dead bodies before we intervene? 10,000, 50,000, 100,000...just let me know, so that I know to sleep at night until the right number is reached.

So unless things get bad enough to have a lot of dead bodies...than war should not be a option. I guess that's why US finally decided to enter WWII....cause gee, an attack on Pearl Harbor and NOT the 3 million gassed got us into that one.

and Clinton was just wagging the Dog....just like that movie said!...

Damn that Bill Clinton--War criminal!

Funny that those Republicans didn't like the Kosovo War...
Funny how the left uses the right's rationales when it suits them.

[eridani]

107. So your problem with taking the Serbian parliament up on their offer

is what, exactly? Clinton is corporate whore imposing the IMF on the Balkans in the same way and for the same reasons that Bush is imposing the IMF on Iraq, with Clinton being less bad because of way fewer casualties. The threat to the Muslims was the same as the threat to Palestinians posed by Israel, and Milosevic is a Balkan Ariel Sharon. However, that does not change the fact that Serbia and Israel still have legitimate security concerns.

http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/jun04/hed6535.shtml

The situation in that small province of multiethnic Serbia was the result of a long and complex history of conflict, frequently encouraged and exploited by outside powers, notably by the support to Albanian nationalism by the Axis powers in World War II. Each community accused the other of plotting "ethnic cleansing" and even "genocide". But there were reasonable people on both sides willing to work out a compromise solution. The constructive role of outsiders would have been to calm the paranoid tendencies in both communities and support constructive initiatives. Indeed, the Kosovo problem could have been easily managed, and eventually solved, had the Great Powers so desired. But as in the past, the Great Powers exploited and aggravated the ethnic conflicts for their own purposes. In total ignorance of the complex history of the region, sheeplike politicians and media echoed and amplified the most extreme nationalist Albanian propaganda. This provided NATO with its pretext to demonstrate "credibility". The Great Powers have in effect told the Albanians that all their worst accusations against the Serbs were true. Even Albanians know who know better (such as Veton Surroi) are intimidated and silenced by the racist nationalists backed by the United States.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO309C.html

"Upon my arrival the war increasingly evolved into a mid intensity conflict as ambushes, the encroachment of critical lines of communication and the kidnapping of security forces resulted in a significant increase in government casualties which in turn led to major Yugoslavian reprisal security operations... By the beginning of March these terror and counter-terror operations led to the inhabitants of numerous villages fleeing, or being dispersed to either other villages, cities or the hills to seek refuge... The situation was clearly that KLA provocations, as personally witnessed in ambushes of security patrols which inflicted fatal and other casualties, were clear violations of the previous October's agreement . The security forces responded and the consequent security harassment and counter-operations led to an intensified insurrectionary war, but as I have stated elsewhere, I did not witness, nor did I have knowledge of any incidents of so-called "ethnic cleansing" and there certainly were no occurrences of "genocidal policies" while I was with the KVM in Kosovo. What has transpired since the OSCE monitors were evacuated on March 20, in order to deliver the penultimate warning to force Yugoslavian compliance with the Rambouillet and subsequent Paris documents and the commencement of the NATO air bombardment of March 24, obviously has resulted in human rights abuses and a very significant humanitarian disaster as some 600,000 Albanian Kosovars have fled or been expelled from the province. This did not occur, though, before March 20, so I would attribute the humanitarian disaster directly or indirectly to the NATO air bombardment and resulting anti-terrorist campaign."30

[Sparkly]

109. A suggestion to the disruptors

I don't know why you feel the need to piss on every Clark thread that starts and disrupt EVERY one of them, but considering it's not accomplishing anything, I respectfully suggest you stop it.

You're entitled to your opinion and we've ALL heard it. But guess what? We're entitled to ours as well, and we're entitled to start threads with topics you don't like. Why don't you just leave these threads alone for a change? Your arguments are obviously not as persuasive as you wish they were, so why keep doing the same thing hoping for a different result??

Just a suggestion.

[eridani]

110. I never chime in unless someone gushes about Kosovo

Which is still an ongoing clusterfuck, even if events in the ME have pushed it off the frong page.

[Donna Zen]

114. Call the Wellstone foundation

Wellstone pushed for intervention in the Balkans. I'm sure they would be interested to learn that the late senator was a corporate whore.