Clark on Fox is a good thing.

[ncteechur]

While at first many of us were unsure of Wes Clark appearing on Fox News with ____ & Colmes, I think it is a good thing.

First, he is able to counter the RW spew put forth by the crowd over there.

Second, he is able to connect with republican voters who may be disillusioned with W and who may be looking for a new candidate come 2008. He may strike a cord with many of those folks who may vote for him in 2008. (This is good if you are a Clark fan)

Third, if he does run, his appearances on their programs may temper their crapola about him.

It may be a smart move to keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

[knowbody0]

1. i agree

it is a doorway of enlightenment, and he is a better man for braving that territory

[Pirate Smile]

2. I agree also. Fight them everywhere - all 50 states and Faux News.

[Totally Committed]

3. I couldn't agree more!

He's taking them on, and talking directly to their viewers. This can only be a good thing when the elections come around -- whether he runs or not.

TC

[clydefrand]

4. Your statement below could also be applied to Bill Clinton's

reasons for keeping company with the senior Bush, I think.

"Third, if he does run, his appearances on their programs may temper their crapola about him."

Perhaps Bill is learning all he can about the Bushes and they about the Clintons and that might temper their crapola she is sure to get if she decides to make a presidential run in '08.

[FrenchieCat]

5. But, but, but....

Clark is talking to the people/voters in enemy territory.
Clinton is talking to the Bushes.

How do those two actions really compare?

The way I see it, Clark is attempting to get some converts for the 2006-2008 elections...not just for himself, but in general. And in doing so has taken some personal risk (cause liberals weren't too happy about it....and who knows what footage the RW will pick up from the cutting room floor?)

While...

Hillary has her husband doing the dirty deed at no real risk (it's not like he's running again....and all he's doing is hanging out with the Presidents and playing Golf and touring disaster areas). Not gotcha's, not thought involved, no taking it to the people.

To me, its like night and day.

[ncteechur]

6. Perhaps a Clark-Clinton ticket in 2008??

[FrenchieCat]

7. I like your order a whole lot better than those who say

Clinton/Clark

Clark as Commander in Chief to clean the shit up....
and Clinton as the President of the Senate

makes more sense!

[1932]

8. Clark on Fox is a fine thing. However...

...I think it's important not to be Polyannish about this being the great liberal intervention needed into the world according to Fox.

Clark is very particular kind of Democrat. He believes that the military is the appropriate solution to a much broader range of problems than the average Democrat might believe (and if you don't believe me, read Winning Modern War). He believes that the media should promote, humanize and laud the troops once they get started regardless of how you feel about the politics of the mission.

That's all fine stuff, but there's a broader range of opinion on these issues, and although Fox has Clark on to give his opinion, it's unlikely you're going to hear anything to the left of Clark coming out of any regular guest's mouth.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

12. Hark.....

Are those crickets and grasshoppers that I hear?

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:b5Aa5rqixpIJ:

[Totally Committed]

28. 1932...

I respectfully disagree with you on the following point of your post:

"He believes that the media should promote, humanize and laud the troops once they get started regardless of how you feel about the politics of the mission."

Wes Clark loves the troops. After 38 years in the military, I'm sure he feels as though these young men and women should be supported for their service to their country. He is a Vietnam War Veteran who saw, first hand, the treatment the military got during and after that war, and he vowed that would never happen again.

He is also one who believes that the buck stops at the commander's desk. I'm sure he feels a certain disgust every time he sees Bush or one of his Cabinet pass responsibility on to someone else every time something terrible happens in the war. He feels the highest military authority should step forward and take responsibility in those cases... not pass the blame as low as it will go.

And, last but not least, Wes has always told us that it is our patriotic duty to protest and speak out against the politics we do not agree with. There is a way to protest the politics of this war without denegrating the service of the men and women sent there to die and be maimed because Bush lied. Wes has spoken out repeatedly against the politics of this war, and has called out the appropriate people and put the responsibility at their feet. But I'm sure he feels that while the troops are in the field, words of support should be expressed in their direction. It's his way.

"Nothing is more American; nothing is more patriotic; than speaking out, questioning authority and holding your leaders accountable." ~Wes Clark

"War. I've been there. Heard the thump of enemy mortars. Seen the tracers fly. Bled on the battlefield. Recovered in hospitals. Received and obeyed orders. Sent men and women into battle. Awarded medals, comforted families, attended funerals. And this soldier has news for you: Anyone who tells you that one political party has a monopoly on the best defense of our nation is committing a fraud on the American people. Franklin Roosevelt said it best: 'Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.'" ~Wes Clark, excerpt from his speech at the 2004 DNC Convention

"Patriotism doesn't consist of following orders--not when you're not in the chain of command. For the American people, for citizens in a democracy, patriotism's highest calling isn't simply following what the administration says. It's not blind obedience. It's not unquestioned adherence. The highest form of patriotism is asking questions. Because democracies run on dialogue. Democracies run on discussion. No administration has the right to tell Americans that to dissent is disloyal, and to disagree is unpatriotic . . . . We need a new spirit, a new kind of, a new American patriotism in this country . . . . this new spirit of patriotism should be dedicated to the protection of our rights and liberties . . . . In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." ~General Wesley K. Clark (Ret.-Army), September 22, 2003 at The Citadel

regarding this point:

"Clark is very particular kind of Democrat. He believes that the military is the appropriate solution to a much broader range of problems than the average Democrat might believe (and if you don't believe me, read Winning Modern War)."

I submit the following quote, which seems to rebut your point head-on:

Modern wars are won not only on the battlefield, but in television studio, in the diplomatic lobbies of international organizations, and, perhaps most of all, in the hearts and minds of civilian populations." ~Gen Wesley Clark "Winning Modern Wars"

Sounds like he thinks it takes a whole lot more than the military to be "the appropriate solution to a much broader range of problems than the average Democrat might believe." Maybe you should re-read the book....


TC

[KittyWampus]

49. 1932 Seems To Exist Largely To Post Misleading Statements About Clark

[1932]

51. Am I the only person here who has read Winning Modern Wars?

I completely admit to the possiblity that I'm misreading Clark, but I don't think that I am.

I encourage people to read Winning Modern Wars.

It's a fine book. But it's not crtical of the conduct of the invasion. It actually praises the invasion strategy, the way it adapted to changing ciricumstances, and its efficiency.

Clark is critical of post-invasion conduct and he is critical of the war being used as a distraction from other approaches to the fight against terrorism. However, Clark is not opposed absolutely to a military solution in the war on terrorism. He does think a seven-nation military solution (invading Syria, Yemen, Iran, North Korea, etc....IIRC) would be a huge mistake. And I think almost verbatim he says that all but two of those nations require a cooperative, investigative the consequence of which would push the terrorists into two of those countries, and in those two, another military solution would be appropriate. At that point in the book, he doesn't name which two he's thinking about, but he's very critical of Iran and Pakistan and none of the others, so I'll guess he's talking about those two.

Clark also thinks that it's wrong for the media to criticize the military because it jeopardizes the mission, and once the mission starts, the time for politics is over, and shouldn't resume until the military part is completed.

As for what I "exist" to do, here it is: after reading DU for a while, I noticed that RARELY do people discuss books they've read on issues they discuss here. It seems like the book-length argument rarely informs people's opinions. People read magazines and newspaper articles, and often they cite nothing to support their opinions. So I decided that I was going to read books and then post about what the books say. I would look at issues through the lens of the author whose book I had just read. The second book I read in this project was Winning Modern Wars. The last three I've finished are Aleida Guevara's book on Chavez, Joe Stiglitz's book on Globalization, and God's Politics. Right now I'm reading Fences and Windows by Naomi Klein. I believe that I've been posting for about 5 weeks now, and I've probably read seven books in that time, and I wouldn't be surprised if two-thirds or more of my posts are merely restatements of facts directly or indirectly from the texts of those books.

I admit that I'm drawn to posts where I see big disparities between what DU'ers post and what is argued in more sophisticated, detailed books on the same issues. I'll echo an opinion when I see that a citation helps makes the point. But more often, when I see someone making a mistaken assuption, I say either explicitly or implicitly, "actually, in X book, so and so says..."

In this respect, I'm not even giving you my opinion so much as I'm giving you the opinion of the author of the book to which I'm referring.

For no other book do I get shit like "1932's here to mislead you about..." than Clark's book.

It's amazing that I can state the arguments Clark himself makes in his own book and get so much resistance from people who support him and should therefore already be pretty well versed in his arguments.

The funny thing is that I kind of am OK with Clark. I may disagree with his opinions about propaganda, the role of the military, the nature of American empire, when politics is appropriate during war time, but I understand why he's making the arguments that he makes.

I really don't see what point is served by pretending he doesn't make the arguments he makes. Why in the world we he write the book he wrote if he's going to run from these arguments? I think it would be more interesting and helpful to point out where people like Stiglitz and Clark disagree on the nature of America's "virtual" empire, or Wallis and Clark disagree on when the military is an appropriate solution to a problem. That would be useful.

[Clark2008]

57. No he doesn't.

In fact, he's said the opposite many, many times.

He says that the problems in Iraq, to date (other than going, of course) is that the Bush Administration is relying on the military to fix a political problem instead of involving the rest of the world and Iraqis.

Don't know what you've seen, but your assumption is incorrect.

Oh, and I have read Winning Modern Wars and I am out with the complete opposite conclusion.

Edited to add some quotes:

And there is a passionate resistance to the United States "imposing" our style of democracy to suit our purposes, even among democracy's ardent advocates. The fiery hearts of those who aspire to democracy beat just as soundly under Arab robes as they do under gray suits. Our "perfect union" may not necessarily be their perfect union. The process of creation and ownership may be more important than the form or structure, so long as we share a respect for the dignity and rights of the individual.

For the United States, this means that we shouldn't be trying to take too much credit for the changes that appear to be coming. Or be too boastful of our institutions. Or too loud in proclaiming this is all just about our national security. A little humility is likely to prove far more useful than chest-thumping.

This doesn't mean there isn't a lot more that we can do. The Syrian promise to withdraw from Lebanon deprives that country of structure, which could leave the society there vulnerable to the same opposing forces that ignited civil war 30 years ago. We should be working behind the scenes with friends to provide the support, balance and reassurances necessary for the revival of independent democracy in Lebanon.

We could also usefully engage Syria in a diplomatic dialogue that could provide it with more reasons to cooperate in Iraq and liberalize at home. At the very least, we should be helping to craft what comes next before we tighten the noose further on an already shaky Syrian President Bashar Assad.

And if we want more credit in the region, we could most likely gain it by working with our allies and encouraging greater democratic reforms in states such as Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia - always with an eye to an indigenous style of democracy rather than simply railing against the ayatollahs in Iran and the old thugs in Damascus.

Our success in Iraq is vital for the region, but it will require more than just the courage of our men and women in uniform. We need to be working quietly inside Iraq to promote the essential compromises that can lead to the formation of an Iraqi government. Our troops should be joined by Arab troops from our friends in the Persian Gulf region while the training of Iraqi security forces continues. And it would be useful to convince Iraq's neighbors that a stable democratizing Iraq is in their interests, too.

[1932]

58. If you think that's the opposite of what I've said...

...then I think I've been misread.

I believe I said that I read Winning Modern Wars as not being critical of the military invasion of Iraq, but being critical of the nation-buliding stage which is being conducted by a military not suited for that task. He says that this second stage requires cooperation of other nations.

Furthermore, as I've said, my reading is that Clark believes that cooperation and non-military solutions are required in most of the countries on the PNAC invasion wish-list. But he does say that he thinks one of the consequences of doing that is to force terrorists out of those countries and into two countries where more aggressive measures would be suitable. I believe he's talking about Iran and Pakistan based on other things he says, but that list of two might include North Korea. In any event, I presume he doesn't think a military solution is appropriate for Syria.

I think the only important point in this is that Clark is not absolutely against the use of the military as a tool to spread democracy and American values, but only when it's absolutely necessary. He clearly feels that America's virtual empire can often by spead by much less aggressive measures.

[Clark2008]

60. But he is agains using the military as a tool to spread democracy

He has said, "You cannot spread democracy with the barrell of a gun."

He advocates using the military as peace-keepers, but admonishes using them to promote democracy. He believes that role should be up to private citizens.

[1932]

61. but he's not ooposed to using the military to promote and protect USvalues

Read the last two pages of Waging M.W. They summarize his argument: the US may need to use force to protect and project its values. Its values are legitimate. He says doing what we can means we will likely "occassionally send our men and women abroad, into ambiguous, dangerous situtation" and that's good -- that's the "burden we must carry to maintain the benefits we currently enjoy."

[sundancekid]

9. from your lips to God's ears ... it disturbed me though that a comment

he made on InsHannity and Comatose was picked up and played/repeated on pig boy as evidence that */Rove was right ... UGH!
The (post London bombings) comment related to asking Muslims to get together and stop the violence as that's not what God would want (just paraphrasing).

[FrenchieCat]

11. Yeah, but knowing Pig Boy, who was trashing Clark

just the other day....how does that make sense that he would Trash Wes ond minute and then use what Clark says as a great point to illustrate Piggies own point?

That sounds like a disconnect to me. But then Pig Boy is disconnected from reality anyways.

I fear that whatever anyone says anywhere can be misconstrued and distorted anyways....so I don't think that we can worry about what Pig Boy says and does in that regard....as I don't think, hard as he may try, that he can stop Wes from possibly reaching the Fox Audience.

[formernaderite]

13. Clark needs to first run for an office somewhere, anywhere...

other than on the tube. I'd like to see a legislative record before I'd ever consider voting for someone. Anyone can make a pretty speech, I just need some concrete evidence of someones actual "views" rather than their rhetoric.

[Justice]

14. Your name suggests you voted for Nader - what office did

Nader hold before running for Prez?

[formernaderite]

18. Obviously our Nader votes were protest votes....

is that what your votes for Clark were too?

[Clarkie1]

21. They were a protest vote in one sense.

I'm sick and tired of career politicians thinking that gives them better qualifications to be president than people who have life experiences that bring more to the presidency than a name on a bill.

It wasn't the primary reason, but I voted for, volunteered, and donated to Clark partly because he had NEVER held elective office.

No politician has ever inspired me to do that.

[Totally Committed]

44. A M E N ! ! !

You are exactly correct about that, Clarkie1!

I feel exactly the same way. In order for a "politician" to win re-election to an elective office, (s)he has to raise a horrible sum of money. The lion's share of that money often has to come from Special Interest Groups and Corporate Interests. Because this is so, they "politician"'s allegiance is to those interests and not to the constituents that actually elect him/her. It's called corruption, and getting re-elected to office these days doesn't happen without even some of it. The longer a "politician" is in office, and the more re-elections (s)he wins, the more of this corruption rules how they vote, IF they vote, and who they side with (sometimes against the interests of the people they are sworn to represent.)

It is a rotten, dirty fact of politics today. Also, election and re-election to an office gives one a legislative record on which the Republican attack machine latches, and does what they do best -- attached all kinds of doubt and dirt if that elected decides to run for higher office.

Wes is free of all that mishugas, and he is as straight an arrow as I have ever seen or met. The man does not know how to tell a lie. I would give him my last dime to see him elected POTUS.

If he runs in '08, there is no one elst that could run against him, that I would support instead. NO ONE. As a matter of fact, there are a few candidates that, if the Dems run them, I'll be staying home.

So, it's Wes Clark in '08 for me! And one of the main reasons: HE HAS NEVER HELD ELECTIVE OFFICE.

TC

[txindy]

22. And those protest votes sure turned the tide,didn't they?

Too bad it was in the wrong direction.

My favorite Nader supporters are those that complain, "If Kerry had gotten more votes then Dumbya couldn't have stolen the election."

Well, gee. Huh. Where could those Kerry votes have come from? Perhaps the black hole those protest votes were thrown into?

Quite possibly.

A vote for Clark (a very worthy candidate) was a vote in the primaries.

A vote for Nader was a vote for Monkey Boy. When it mattered.

JMO.

[formernaderite]

23. If I lived in a closely divided state...I may have looked differently

at my vote. But I live in an overwhelmingly blue state, where a vote for Mickey mouse would not have negated Gores totals. So my vote for Nader was indeed just that, a protest.

[txindy]

27. Not when looked at on a national scale. A presidential scale.

And, the last time I looked, national totals were still being crowed about. This wasn't about the electoral college. Remember the headline in the British Daily Mirror paper?

Well, there were a lot more than that, IMO. Every protest vote fueled that idiotic "mandate" claim. Every last protest vote. Even, or especially, in the so-called 'blue' states.

By the by, as you may have inferred from my username, I live in Texas. Protest votes are not an option. They're available, but...no. Many more people voted Nader here in 2000. They wised up in 2004. No, Kerry didn't take Texas. We didn't think he would, but we certainly weren't going to add to Dumbya's national margin of victory, if he had one. Other people were unconcerned about that, obviously, and still appear to be so. Thanks.

[formernaderite]

29. I always find it interesting

that you people focus so heavily on third party voters...instead of attracting the 50% of the citizenry who chooses not to vote. That said, are you also upset that the Libertarians, constitutional party, and reform party voters swung some states to Gore?

[txindy]

30. I find attempts at justifying a useless act interesting, myself.

But that's just me.

[Zhade]

35. Um, did you even clarify if the poster voted for Nader in 2000, or 2004...

...before you condemned him?

Your post references 2004, but I didn't see where the poster said they voted for Nader THIS time around.

[Totally Committed]

37. And, that is necessary....

because???????

A vote for Nader turned out to be a vote for Bush in either election.... JMO.

TC

[Zhade]

39. Not in 2000 in a safe state it didn't.

I'd agree that voting for Nader in 2004 - after knowing all we do about b*s* - was incredibly stupid (and I never would have voted for the guy).

But in 2000, in a safe state, when Gore got 500,000+ more popular votes than the dick in the WH? Please. It's a world of difference.

[txindy]

38. Was it denied? No. And it doesn't matter in the slightest, anyway.

My post was about ANY election year vote, not 2004. That election was used as an example. It was stated that because the vote was cast in a "blue state" that it didn't matter. I don't care what year it was cast. The consequences are summed up visually in the Daily Mirror headline. Along with the "mandate" claim. That was just an example. Two thousand, 2004, whatever. It doesn't matter.

And apparently I am one of "you people," according to the protest voter. Interesting, that. Very.

[Zhade]

40. See post #39. It's a qualitative difference.

Gore WON in 2000, including the popular vote. So your tirade doesn't work for safe states in 2000.

2004, definitely. But not 2000.

[txindy]

41. Please.

It's not a "tirade." The subject isn't that important. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are launching a "tirade." :eyes:

Yes, Gore won, but by how many votes? How many votes went down the black hole marked 'protest'? All to make that voter feel better about....something. Because it was "safe."

Whatever.

I think 'protest' votes are nonsensical and self-serving. That's my opinion.

[Zhade]

42. Yeah, tirade's the wrong word.

I think I just liked the sound of that word.

But to answer your question, I think it was something like 500,000+ popular votes, and of course Gore won Florida even with the cheating and Nader Factor, so I disagree that protest votes in safe states are not worth making if the voter feels the need.

[txindy]

43. Okay, we can agree to disagree.

No worries. :hi:

[Zhade]

45. I disagree!

:P

[Totally Committed]

33. Republicans use legislative records against candidates...

or haven't you been paying attention?

What a load of happy horse-hockey!

TC

[FrenchieCat]

46. Here's Clark's record.....

YOUR POINT: Clark has no elected office experience whatsoever.
MINE: Granted, that is true; Clark has not held any elected office, and is not per se a professional politician. However, I will add that executive experience, character, leadership abilities and courage is what Presidents need moreso than anything else; Clark has these traits, IMO, although not via an elected position.

Bush Jr. had elective office experience, and worked with legislatures....and IMHO, that did nothing for how well he has performed on the job. I disagree that what this nation is in need of right now....or possibly in 2008 is another professional elected politician.

Let me know if the last few Democratic politicians we have put up, who had previously held elected position, are currently as president.

a very simple job description for POTUS from Scholastic:
The Constitution assigns the president two roles: chief executive of the federal government and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As Commander in Chief, the president has the authority to send troops into combat, and is the only one who can decide whether to use nuclear weapons.

As chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/articlearch...
----------
YOUR POINT: He has no legislative or policy accomplishments to point to

MINE: Well he does and he doesn't. It depends on what you would label as "policy accomplishments".

Clark, a Rhodes scholar with advanced degrees from Oxford in Economics, Political Science and Economics was also a White House Fellow and served as a Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He taught economics, and social science at West Point.

Did his "policy accomplishments" have to take place in an office? If so, too bad, otherwise:
Clark action on Affirmative Action
http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/eclark24_20031024.htm
Success of military diversity proves affirmative action works
Snip
In the University of Michigan affirmative action case this year, I joined military and political leaders in an amicus brief affirming my deeply held belief that policies combating discrimination are essential to good order, combat readiness and military effectiveness. As a result of these policies, the military is one of the most integrated institutions in America. And our country is safer today because it is defended by a diverse, integrated, talented military that is the envy of the world.

Does testifying against a war, when you don't have to, count as an accomplishment?
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm

Clark policy action on Genocide which eventually led to his "early retirement"
b]Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
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.
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. 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."
".....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 .
"...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...
---------------
Constituent base is relative. I realize that Warner won one election, and so he does have the edge of having won....though he never ran a national campaign...something Clark did do.
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html
http://www.ospolitics.org/usa/archives/2003/11/26/how_i_beca.php
--------------
Some will stay thinking in the box that we have been put in....and when thinking "President"...will only think about celebrities politicians (Hillary and Edwards) and Senators (Biden, Kerry, Bayh, Feingold and Boxer)and Governors (Warner, Richardson and Vilsack), and that's OK. But if you look at what this country needs right now - a leader with courage, and determination to do the right thing, those other candidates pale in comparison to Wes Clark, IMO.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1548301

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1517151

I think that the below Awards speak volumes of Clark's policy accomplishments...although they may not have been for being the Governor of a small state...
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/awards.htm
General Wesley K. Clark USA (ret.) is the nation's most highly decorated officer since Dwight Eisenhower. Among his military decorations are the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (five awards); Distinguished Service Medal (two awards); Silver Star, Legion of Merit (four awards); Bronze Star Medal (two awards); Purple Heart; Meritorious Service Medal (two awards); Army Commendation Medal (two awards); NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to Kosovo, NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to the Former Republic of Yugoslavia, Legacy of Leadership and Lady Liberty(TM) Award.
His Foreign awards include the Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (United Kingdom); Commander of the Legion of Honor (France); Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany; Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, with Swords (Netherlands); Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy; Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit (Portugal); The Commander's Cross with Star of the Order of Merit of Republic of Poland; Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg; Grand Medal of Military Merit (White Band) (Spain); The Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold (Belgium); Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class (Czech Republic); Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic; Commander's Cross, The Silver Order of Freedom of the Republic of Slovenia; Madarski Konnik Medal (Bulgaria); Commemorative Medal of the Minister of Defense of the Slovak Republic First Class (Slovakia); First Class Order of Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas (Lithuania); Order of the Cross of the Eagle (Estonia); The Skandeberg Medal (Albania); Order of Merit of Morocco; Order of Merit of Argentina; The Grade of Prince Butmir w/Ribbon and Star (Croatia) and the Military Service Cross of Canada.
(Central Europe Sep. 8, 2000, U.S. State Department Oct. 2, 1999, http://Individual.com)
Going back when the Medal of Freedom meant something!
Jesse Jackson, Gen. Clark Awarded Medal of Freedom With 13 Others
Washington - An emotional President Bill Clinton praised the "keen intellect and loving heart" of sometime political rival Rev. Jesse Jackson, and the leadership of the iconoclastic general who disagreed with his strategy during the Kosovo air war, as he bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom .....

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Texas_Kat]

16. Some People Never Change

Do you have another tune? or just this one?

[Justice]

17. It occurred to me suffering thru klerik and woolsey last night before

wes that Hannity may think Democrats will hear the RW message while waiting for Wes to speak. It was painful to hear them. Had to mute.

[Texas_Kat]

19. Do you think we'll be corrupted?

or do you think it will energize us.....

I don't really think most Democrats who tune in to hear WKC are in danger of losing their equilibrium, do you?

[Sugarcoated]

20. Well, it was a complete fluke that I happened upon Wes

so I didn't suffer too much, just having to look at Insannity's smug lying mug (sorry you had to go through that Justice). I've seen him on O'Reilly also. And I agree, he's trying to reach red America. I think he can win some over, especially the disenchanted who're waking up from the stupor.

And, just an aside, but did anyone read Dean Koontz's "Twilight Eyes"? Remember the "Goblins"? Don't want to give away the plot to anyone who may want to read the book, but, I always think of the goblins when I see any one of these RW thugs. I think it's actually real. They ARE goblins.

[LeftyDarthBrodie]

24. I've only see two of General Clarks appearances and

both went over well for him, in my opinion. Surprising O'Reilly let him speak but I very much doubt Hannity would. Does anyone have audio or video of his appearance with Hannity?

General Clark is a great ambassador for us into the great Red world of Bush's America. He seems able to control his temper which is very important to be able to do when "debating"" people who think that winning a debate requires being louder than your opponent.

I have a feeling that, if his job at Fox continues for two or three years, he will say something in which he contradicts himself in some way which will then be used against him. While I'd support Wes for POTUS or VPOTUS in '08 I feel he can do as much good cleaning up the mess that the Pentagon and the State Department will be after Rummy and Rice.

[CarolNYC]

31. link to video of the last Hannity appearance

is here:
http://www.yellowdogdem.com/070705.WMV

I believe the first Hannity appearance is online somewhere also....

Watching this last one, I must admit my first thought when Hannity mentioned going into Iraq to get rid of Saddam's WMD was that Clark should have said "what WMD?!" but he's much more disciplined than I. He knew what points he wanted to get out and he wasn't going to let Hannity sidetrack him and control the conversation. God bless Wes, he's got much more strength and guts than I ever will.

[LeftyDarthBrodie]

32. Thanks

and I totally agree with you. I checked the WesPac website after posting before but didn't find anything. He has been, in the two appearances I have seen, very cool, calm, collected and obviously informed. The man spent 30 plus years in the military I very much doubt Hannity or O'Reilly can rile him up. His career as an academic also proves his intelligence is far beyond that of any Fox "News" host.

[CarolNYC]

34. you're weclome.

Yep, cool, calm, collected, informed...He's also, I think, very determined. He knows exactly where he wants to go with this Faux gig and he's not going to let any of those idiots derail him.

[Totally Committed]

25. Wes called for help from the Muslim Religious Community...

i yesterday morning's appearance on Fox. He asked them to start talking about the real meaning of the writings of the Koran, and to help stop the "hate talk" that incites the young to acts of terrorism. This morning, this appeared in the NYT:

NYT: New (Finsbury Park mosque) Imam Calls for Help in Catching Bombers
New Imam Calls for Help in Catching Bombers
By CRAIG S. SMITH
Published: July 9, 2005

LONDON - The new imam at the Finsbury Park mosque, once a hotbed of radical Islam, had a message for those who gathered for prayer on Friday, a day after four bombs killed at least 49 people: help identify the bombers, he told them. Show your anger at what happened here.

His call to cooperate was a stark and deliberate contrast to a former imam, Abu Hamza al-Masri, now detained and facing extradition to the United States to face terrorism-related charges. Under his leadership, the Finsbury Park mosque became a recruiting center for jihadists for holy wars from Bosnia to Afghanistan.

It is that image the residents of this North London immigrant neighborhood are working hard to shed, eager to demonstrate to an increasingly anxious country that they are not to blame for the attacks on Thursday and that Finsbury Park has rid itself of extremists....

>snip<

The struggle in Finsbury Park reflects the broader divide between two Muslim worlds in Britain - the majority of moderates and the radical Islamists who live among them. For years, a relatively small band of radical Islamists hijacked Finsbury Park's image and threatened its economic rejuvenation.

But the moderates are reclaiming the mosque. They installed a new board of trustees who brought in the new, moderate imam. The mosque now offers a course on Islam for non-Muslims. The neighborhood's other, smaller mosque has thrown open its doors in an aggressive program to show London and the world that they do not harbor terrorists. It holds regular "open mosque weekends," in which all comers are invited to tour the mosque, watch videos about its charitable programs and eat from a buffet of halal food....

Link for article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/international/europe/... ?

Link for DU thread that posted it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Is there a direct connection between the two? There could be. And, if there was, just look at the results! I know Wes was also talking to those Imams in the middle east, but this is a really good start, imo.

TC

[ooglymoogly]

26. i love wes clark

and everything he does just further cements that faith in him.

[sellitman]

36. I am not a Clark fan but I agree.

he is just the type we need on Faux News. The righties love the Military. Maybe he can knock a little sense into them?

[ellenfl]

47. is he on at a particular time? i'd like to catch him. eom

[Adelante]

48. No set time

But there is usually somebody here giving a heads up once his schedule comes out.

[ellenfl]

55. jeez, i'd hate to have to watch fox all the time to catch him!

i'll keep an eye out for announcements. are they usually in the title of the thread?

tia

ellen fl

[Adelante]

56. I hear you

;)

Yeah, usually it says "Media Alert" or "Clark on Fox" -- something like that.

[CarolNYC]

59. I understand....

I don't even have cable and so I count on the internet posted clips or pieces that my Mom tapes for me to see him and even just watching the little bit of Hannity or O'Reilly I have to sit through while they're interviewing Wes drives me absolutely batty. How do people watch those guys on a regular basis?!?!?!

It seems the appearances on shows like Hannity and O'Reilly are scheduled and announced a bit in advance. You can usually find them listed on www.securingamerica.com....although the General's schedule is not up there now...It will be back up soon, hopefully. And usually someone here will alert that he will be on, either in this forum or the Wes Clark forum. He's often also scheduled to make quick appearances on morning or afternoon shows without a lot of advance warning. Someone from WesPAC will usually alert Clark's blog or the yahoo groups that he will be on shortly before he is and, I don't know about others, but I'm often reluctant to post an alert on something like that here because I know the appearance will be short and I know there are some here who get annoyed when Clark's name shows up in too many thread titles.

In any event, often links to videos of his appearances are posted in the Clark supporters forums so even if you miss him, like I do, you can catch it after the fact...

[Independent_Liberal]

50. Clark is an American hero!

I'm glad that he's appearing on Fox.

[freeEarthLove]

52. clark rocks

clark rocks

[Totally Committed]

53. Welcome to DU, freeEarthLove!

Your name is so 60's! I love it... Glad to have you here.

TC

[DemExpat]

54. Absolutely agree here.

And he will do just that.

DemEx