General Wes Clark Emerging as THEE Heavy Dem Hitter..2006

[Blaze Diem]

This Post Compliments of ---rmgustaf---
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=171x864

-------------------------------------------------
Gen. Clark to Speak at North Dakota Democratic-NPL State Convention!
This is very cool.


Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan and Congressman Earl Pomeroy announced today that General Wesley Clark will be the keynote speaker at the 2006 Democratic-NPL Convention in Fargo.

"This year the North Dakota Democratic Convention will host a lifelong soldier and public servant," the delegation said in a joint statement. "General Clark’s dedicated service to our nation is an inspiration for all North Dakotans. He believes in, and fought for, the democratic values that America was founded upon — the values of honesty and hard work. These are the values so many of us in North Dakota share."

A Rhodes scholar and a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Clark, 62, served in the United States Army for more than 30 years. During his service, Clark held various posts around the world including Commander in Chief of the U.S. Southern Command, and Supreme Allied Commander of NATO — a position once held by President Eisenhower. As Supreme Allied Commander, Clark led NATO forces in the conflict in the Balkans, where the United States was able to halt ethnic cleansing in Kosovo without the loss of a single American life.


http://www.demnpl.com/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={BA7CDFAA
------------------------------

I am anxious to see the momentum accelerate as these appearances loom large and bold in the face of the fractured GOP un-re-electables. Any alliance to GW BUSH will be their demise.
I predict this to be the beginning of a movement across the Nation to mobilize, with all our patriotic power and revolutionary might for the love of our America.
Watch from here through election eve., Nov 2006 and beyond as our pleas and prayers for the salvation of our Democracy proves to have been heard all along.
This is the beginning..
I want the Democrats to effing UNITE and Stand up together and show the GOP what REAL Patriotism to one's Country Looks Like.
I would love to be in Fargo North Dakota to see this one.
Thanks for this post rmgustaf...

Blaze...a fellow ND

[stepnw1f]

1. Clark Would Be a Strong Candidate

[Clarkansas]

2. Clark and Warner sound really good to me.

[Donna Zen]

3. Thanks for posting

I'll be attending a conference at the Kennedy Library tomorrow where Wes Clark will speak. He's also doing a Dem event in the morning for an early but annual St. Patrick's day gathering. A busy man... a great candidate, but for me it's this: he would make a great president who brings his own backbone to the job.

[wiley]

4. True, but he is focusing on 2006

as all Democrats and Americans sick of CORRUPT REPUBLICANS should be doing.

[SushiFan]

5. Clark is one of my heroes. Hillary, though, is the better candidate---nt

[FrenchieCat]

25. Why is Hillary a better candidate?

can you flesh out the reasoning behind your statement just a tad bit more?

[SushiFan]

105. She has best name recognition and polls best of all as of now---nt

[madmunchie]

118. I don't really put too much weight in those polls right now.

Hillary is unelectable, the only way that she would get into office would be if Diebold helped her out.

She has name recognition, but in the opposite way. She will bring out more R to vote against her than anybody else. PLUS, she is a woman, and although there is no reason why a woman couldn't serve as President, THIS country isn't ready to vote for one. Lastly, Republicans that would consider voting for a Democrat in 08', most likely would not vote for Hillary. Truth be told, she ensures another Democratic loss for the WH.

[xkenx]

83. 2008 is all about flipping red states.

Hillary certainly can't do it. Wes Clark is a progressive wolf in military uniform sheep's clothing. Many Republicans who didn't care for Bush, still couldn't vote for Kerry. Clark was the only Dem. they could consider. Clark has had more EXECUTIVE leadership roles than any Senator by virtue of his military commands where he had responsibility for the lives of hundreds of thousands of servicepeople and their dependents--the whole range of housing, education, training, healthcare, social services, sometimes in a dangerous spot. When Clark was Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Eisenhower's last military position), he had "Head-of-State" status, meaning that he dealt directly with prime ministers/presidents, not underlings. And Clark was virtually the only voice urging help for Rwanda. And Clark and Madeleine Albright were the ones who convinced Clinton to take action against the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, where Clark carried out the military action w/o the loss of a single American life. In this he stood up to the Pentagon brass who wanted nothing to do with "saving Albanians." And it was Clark who served for more than 30 years AFTER getting shot up and winning hero medals in Vietnam, when he could have gone for the big bucks in private industry. Try Swift Boating this guy--the smackdown will be heard around the world. Clark is all about duty, honor, country. When Clark's American Dream/American Hero story gets out to middle America, watch how many red states flip. And the beauty of Wes Clark is that HE IS A REAL LIVE D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T, with a progressive agenda equal to anyone.
Remember how much money Howard Dean (relatively unknown in 2003) raised thru grassroots/internet organizing to the point where he was MSM's "annointed one" until Iowa? Well, Wes Clark holds a commanding lead among activists if you believe DKOS and DU consistent polling. Here is a true leader who can dominate Rethugs on National Security turf!

[moobu2]

6. Clarks is a great person and I like him tremendously

But he’s completely unelectable as an American president.

He would make a great Secretary of State or something similar.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Why do you find him "completely" unelectable.....?

While I find him completely electable--

If you tell me why you think NOT....I'll tell you why your analysis is off.... :hi:

[Jersey Devil]

7. What elective office has Clark ever won?

I like Clark a lot. What I hear him say and what I read about him is impressive. But I remember the 2004 primaries and the debates and recall him being absolutely lost, ineffective and just plain bad as a campaigner. What makes you think he would be any different this time around?

[serryjw]

8. He's a quick study

Every time I hear him he sounds great. Don't sell his military experience short. Putting politics aside; someone is going to have to fix this mess after * leaves office. I don't know anyone besides Clark that KNOWS these people personally

[Jersey Devil]

10. I'm not selling anything short

I think this is one of the reasons why it is way too early for people to be taking sides. All I know is that the last time I paid any real attention to Clark was in 2004 and at that time although I found his ideas and personal resume to be excellent, he was a dreadful candidate in the debates.

You may be right. Perhaps he is a quick study and has turned it around and is now a dynamic campaigner. But since virtually none of us has seen much of him in a campaign type atmosphere it is impossible to determine if that is true or not.

I am going to wait and see what he brings to the table when the candidates announce and begin to mix it up.

[Jersey Devil]

13. PS- and my opinion will finally mean something

NJ has moved its primary for 2008 from June to February. In the past by the time I got to vote it was always over and done with for all intents and purposes.

[serryjw]

14. Personally, I am running out of candidates

I will support anyone from the progressive wing of the party.....they will never get the nomination. I will not support anyone so far that I think is running EXCEPT Clark.

[Jersey Devil]

15. Well, that is unfortunate

I certainly would like someone from the progressive wing of the party but I will support whoever is the nominee.

The alternative is just too unthinkable.

[serryjw]

17. I truly understand how you feel

But I have voted for the 'better of the two' for the last time in 2004. Since neither represents me I might as well vote my conscience.

[Jersey Devil]

19. You should harken to the wisdom of Mick Jagger

"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you just might find, you get what you need"

In 2000 the "conscience" of many was Ralph Nader, and look where it took us.

[serryjw]

22. Nice try

There is no way I can support/vote for anyone that voted for P1. I held my nose last time...not again

[Jersey Devil]

24. P1?

Sorry, maybe I missed something, but what is "P1"? Patriot Act? If it is then that eliminates just about everyone.

[serryjw]

30. "By George she's got it"!!!!!

n/t

[Jersey Devil]

77. How do you know how Clark would have voted on the Patriot Act?

Did he make any statements about how he would vote BEFORE the Patriot Act was voted on by Congress?

[serryjw]

88. I'm given him a pass

just like everyone gave Dean a pass during the primaries. He wasn't in the Pentagon, he saw the horrors of war first hand. I have read/listened to everything he has said in 3 years. I like him, I trust him if the can't be corrupted. I 'm not sure that anyone that can get the nomination can be trusted

[Jeffersons Ghost]

51. Yep... the U.S. Patriot Act vote leaves me with ONLY one choice

Have you guys ever heard of Russ Feingold?

[FrenchieCat]

90. Sure have......

But when I look at the equation of what seems to be on the front burner for our nation to move ahead....it is my opinion that Wes Clark would make a great President and has all of the qualifications required.

And although I do like Feingold well enough (especially when compared to the other prospects), I find that he would have a difficult time actually winning a National General election based on some of the criterias that many voters do look at. Feingold who has voted "NO" on just about every defense bill put before him (including Kosovo), who has been married and divorced twice and is currently single, who has a very ethnic name, who is a senator, and who is about 5'6" just seems to have a lot of handicaps to overcome in winning a General National Election.

[Blaze Diem]

9. This is NOT about who's running in 2008...thats another subject..

This is about unity, as it should be, to stop GWBush from doing any more damage to our Nation.
THIS IS ABOUT RE-powering our House and Senate in November 2006.
With this we may actually have a half a chance for a more legitimate election in 2008.

We absolutely need that shift in power this fall..its only 7 months away. I would like to see the same group that stood on the stage together at the Democratic Natl Convention in the last Presidential race, to step out loud and strong and do exactly as Wes Clark is doing with Dorgan, Conrad and Pomeroy in North Dakota.
Use their influence power and bigness..to bring on a political revolution.
This November's House and Senate elections are the absolute and ONLY path to the impeachment of GWBush.
The power has got to shift.
7 months is all we have.

This is NOT about whose running for President...its about whose going to stop GWBush.

---------

[Jersey Devil]

12. Huh?

I'll come back when you make sense.

[FrenchieCat]

20. There's been plenty of candidates who have won office, and

lost the presidency.

Ironic about this paradoxical box some find themselves in....

on the one hand politicians, for the most part....appear cautious, halting and meek....

yet on the other hand cautious halting and meek folks want to believe that only professional politicians are qualified to be a leaders. I'm just trying to figure out who made up that rule?

Considering how "fucked" things are....I personally think we need a real leader, not a politician right now. We've tasted what a politician is capable of....just ask "elected" former Governor Bush.

I'm so glad I think "out of that funky box" indeed!

[Jersey Devil]

28. Yes, but Clark has not only not won, he's never run for anything before

except for his late entry into the 2004 campaign. Look, I said I like the guy but I think we all deserve a chance to actually hear him speak and debate before deciding to jump on his or anyone else's bandwagon.

I saw him in 2004. His debating skills were nil and his speeches dull and lifeless. If that's changed I'll be the first one to jump up and down with glee. Yes, he's a great candidate on paper, but that isn't enough.

[FrenchieCat]

36. I disagree with you and what you say in reference to Wes' skills

in both debating and in Speeches....

But hey....we can agree to disagree, I hope! :shrug:

You see, the beauty about one's perception is that it's just that....one's own.

I'll tell you this though, the media made sure you concluded what you are concluding! Judy Woodruff was a biased disaster as the first moderator at the first debate Clark participated in! Britt Hume was no better in the next....and Peter Jennings and the whole "Michael Moore said Bush was a Deserter and he endorsed you" ambush was tacky and calculated.

Interview here with Michael Moore and Amy Goodman on Clark and the debates...
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/23/1622230

Presidential candidate Wesley Clark on Friday complained that one of the moderators in Thursday night's debate was carrying out a Republican agenda by questioning his Democratic credentials.

Brit Hume of Fox News Channel, who worked as both moderator and questioner during the two-hour debate with the seven candidates, pressed Clark about when he had first realized he was a Democrat.

Clark told reporters Friday, "I looked at who was asking the questions, and I think that was part of the Republican agenda in the debate."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/01/23/politics1458EST0651.DTL&type=printable

The '04 primary debates were ran by the media hoes....so whatever you saw, please know, there were not real debates.

Here's a fascinating article by a respected "Old school of Journalism" writer in the New York Review of Books on the '04 primaries-- It analyses things in a very detailed manner
: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16965

In my opinion, Wesley Clark makes wonderful speeches....and is not at all a boring speaker. But then, I supported him, and actually listened to what he had to say...while many who didn't support him, prefered to be told about his performances.
Here's a site with some of his speeches on video from early on in the '04 campaign http://clark04.com/downloads/videos/

American Son is really a good video to watch to get to the heart of Wes Clark
http://clark04.com/americanson/

As well as some more recent ones....
http://www.muhajabah.com/clarkblog/personal_accounts/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/5/154255/4964
http://www.awesclarkdemocrat.com/2006/01/the_list_2005.htm

[xkenx]

84. Frenchie, to piggyback on your reply,

Wes Clark inspires like no one since Bobby Kennedy if you get to see Clark in person, or in venues other than where he gets 30 seconds to soundbyte. His speech, reclaiming the flag for Dems. at the Convention nearly took the roof off the building. Elizabeth Drew wrote during the primaries that she attended a Clark rally where the intensity, the loyalty, the response to Clark's words, were unlike anything she has seen since RFK. This guy doesn't have to be a down home charmer--he's himself, which is all about duty, honor, country, and plain talk in easy-to-understand-language. He recently coined the phrase, "Two foot rattlesnake in a box" when referring to not needing to give a priority to going after Saddam Hussein. This guy gets it and has it.
I was a Kerry supporter prior to Clark's entry into the race, for all the usual reasons--Vietnam vet, good Progressive, lots of exprerience, etc. I felt he was doing well in early debates, but my wife said "Not so fast; Kerry sounds like he's lecturing, talking over people's heads, just not connecting with people." Once we started to notice Wes Clark, it turned to "OH MY GOD! THIS MAN HAS IT" (the indefinable "IT" that you know when you see it). The absolute clincher was Clark's first town hall meeting in Heniker, NH right after the first debate that he was in. That meeting was shown only on CSPAN, and it is since gone from the archives. The man was amazing, a political neophyte handling and connecting with the crowd like Bill Clinton. Answering any and all questions with sincerity, knowledge, compassion. I'll never forget a very hostile question from a woman, now retired from the military, who said that she was a victim of abuse in the military and nothing ever happened to the perpetrator, and what would he, General Clark, do about that? The woman was so upset and hostile, she was shaking. Instead of being defensive or blowing her off, he looked her in the eye and apologized for the military for what happened to her. He asked her if she used the chain of command for redress. She said "yes, but," and Clark said "Didn't work, did it?" "No." Clark went on to explain how they worked very hard in his commands for equality of opportunity, equal treatment, no abuse, etc., but understood that there were still problems, and that, as president, he would work hard with the military to correct the deficiencies. He also volunteered to speak privately with the woman after the meeting to learn more about her situation so that he could help. The woman melted before our eyes! I found out afterwards that Clark met privately with her for 20 min. after the town hall and that her complaint was serious--she had been raped. Instances such as this have convinced me that Wes Clark only needs sufficient exposure to have the following to be elected President. Once people get to know this man's intelligence, character, compassion, integrity, and depth of real world experience, they become dedicated Clarkies.

[Blaze Diem]

85. Well said..xkenx!! So well said..

This is true about Wes Clark..he has that amazing effect on his listeners.
He's smart and true blue, and with no hint of a cocky swaggerin oil man after his own self interests.

Great description of this fine man.
I'd love to attend anytime he comes nearby to speak.
Leaves you with a feeling of comfort in knowing SOME damn politician knows what this Nation needs to become strong and solvent again.

[anitar1]

43. Also , as I recall, Clark was not eager to pull out of Iraq.

I like clark and think he has a certain charisma, but do not agree that we should stay in Iraq. Not sure we need a military man in office.

[FrenchieCat]

46. Clark didn't want "IN" in the first place....and said so....but

IMO, he does feel that there has got to be a plan in getting us out that takes not just our troops into consideration, but also closing the pandora's lid behind us in a manner that doesn't just leave the Civil War that has already started to explode as we pack up. He's a Rhodes Scholar with years of experience in reference to fighting factions. I will defer to his judgement that getting out ASAP will not make it all Honkey Dorey....

But I will also say that far as he's concerned (from what I have heard him say)the time left in making things better prior to leaving is almost exhausted anyhow.....The window of opportunity in the Iraqis amending their constitution to allow greater and more equitable participation for the minority party will shortly be closing.....

But know this....as long as Bush is in office, we ain't coming out in the way that some would insist, and that's the truth!

From where I sit....and from what I've read...there ain't only a Black (stay) or a White (go) option to this Pandora's Box messopotania and anyone who thinks so either doesn't understand the Middle East, doesn't care to, would rather prove Bush wrong over all other goals, or simply speaks the line that they think others want to hear until one listens to the details past the headlines.

The repercussion of this war will be long and twisted....the road Bush paved cannot just be swept away!

[lyonn]

63. thoughtful/logical post. n/t

[roguevalley]

38. what elective office has bush ever won. think about it. :)

[bigdarryl]

49. Clark on electability

He's got to start somewhere. I will vote for him before i vote for Hillary

[Renew Deal]

71. How about governor of Arkansas?

My worry about Clark in 2008 is how he performed in 2004. He was a let down. He was supposed to be this brilliant guy that would incinerate any opponent and that didn't pan out.

[wiley]

120. How about Edwards for Attorney General of South Carolina?

Clark was let down. We won't get fooled again....or enter late. As soon as we take over the House and Senate in 06, we'll talk about who is running for President.

[Jim Sagle]

107. What elective office did Eisenhower ever win before he became President?

[oasis]

11. Hopefully they'll air it on C-SPAN.

[Blaze Diem]

16. C-SPAN airing would be great..I'd like to hear him speak.

Id like to hear his list of grievances re:Bush/Cheney and the selling of our Nation. How extremely dangerous their policies have been, and where we are headed if a power shift in our House and Senate doesn't happen this fall.

Plus it would be really wonderful to sit in a great room of like-minded people who genuinly give a darned about salvaging that last glimmer of democracy before BushCo snuffs it out forever.

A shift in power in DC this fall could allow Bush to be impeached.
That should be the big golden brass ring!!!

Maybe we could twist C-Spans arm a bit..nicely though.

[kster]

21. Clark talks about all of that, and

he is afraid to bring up the election theft machines?????

GOOD MAN :sarcasm:

[FrenchieCat]

23. He's has talked about them......

or didn't you know.

But please send him a letter....letting him know what he should be saying....I'm sure he'd like to hear from you.

By the way....what are the "elected" politicians saying about the election theft machine? I mean...the "top" Democratic contenders? Edwards, Obama, Feingold, Kerry, Clinton, Bayh-bye, Warner, Will-Sack, Biden. I'm just curious, and I'm sure I probably missed it. :sarcasm:

[kster]

26. So long as they won't bring up

the Election theft machine Edwards, Obama, Feingold, Kerry, Clinton, AND Clark all COWARDS!!!!! PERIOD

[FrenchieCat]

29. Clark speaks of the voting machines.....

Sorry if he doesn't get the kind of media coverage you demand for all to stop dead in their tracks when he speaks of them.....But he it is part of the what he discusses.....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/5/154255/4964

[Clarkie1]

32. Thanks for that link. Bookmarking.

"Later in the evening, he also personally expressed to me his concern about the integrity of the voting machines, the discrepancies of the optical tabulators, Republican led voter suppression, and complete awareness of county level irregularities. It's on his mind. Believe me. He knows what's at stake and he's not afraid to say it."

[kster]

33. Clark is no heavy hitter, neither is

Edwards, Obama, Feingold, Kerry, Clinton, And or the honest Republicans for that matter.

What the hell are they waiting for, There are cases all over the Uited Sates about the Election Theft Machines, But still silence from all of them, you tell me you want me to believe that one candidate is so special, but HE TO refuses to say anything about the rigging of elections. Well I have to disagree with you. Sorry!

[kster]

37. Will respond tommorrow got to go.....nt

[DLnyc]

27. Something to be said for running 'outsiders'

It's very hard for a senator, who has to please a particular local constituency, not to mention play along with the corrupt system in Washington today, to be credible as a 'reform' candidate.

I would say, as a wild guess, 85% of registered Dems, 50% of registered Reps, 60% of registered Inds and perhaps 30% of 'non-voters' could be motivated by an outsider seen as a serious reformer, but not by any sitting senator.

[Clarkie1]

31. I just watched Hotel Rwanda.

Watch the movie if you haven't and consider the fact Clark was the only general with a plan to stop the genocide.

He had a plan to establish escape corridors that with a small force that probably would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Nobody listened, or cared enough to listen. Nobody want to commit the troops or the resources. Most white people don't really care much about what goes on in Africa if it's inconvenient to help.

Personally, I think it's morally imperative for us as a "superpower" to elect Clark. He's a man of action, not words.

[file83]

35. Well, you struck a nerve with me there. Rwanda was an issue that

bothered me (to say the least) very much with Clinton. I just posted (like 1 min ago) that I thought Clark is a bad choice for President because I don't want a career Military man running this country (Military Industrial complex is another issue with me). But, maybe I'll reconsider him because of your argument for him.

Good point.:thumbsup:

[FrenchieCat]

39. I've seen that movie a couple of times....and I always end up bawling.....

because you see....as a Black woman I didn't understand Clinton on this and although as a Christian I will find a way to forgive him....I shall never forget that he had a choice to make....and made it he did.....800,000 lives worth!

Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Darfur are the reasons why I started and continue to support Wes Clark...cause he doesn't try to calculate based on what is in his "political" interest.....but rather he actually tries to move things in the direction of helping save lives (no matter whether White, Blacks or Muslims)....and that's what good leadership should be about ultimately.

Clark drew up plans for intervention in Rwanda....and they made him shelve them! Assholes!

[FrenchieCat]

40. shit....triple post? Jeez, I hate when that happens! n/t

[FrenchieCat]

41. editing 3rd of triple accidental posting!

will include pics of Clark instead!

[file83]

53. Concerning that triple post issue....

...I've noticed that happening to me everyonce in a while. It has only started happening to me after the DU switched over to their new equipment. I've never had a triple post, only double posts, but is irritating as all hell!

One time I got a double post, so I "self-deleted" the text out of the duplicate - only to come back 10 minutes later and the ORIGINAL post that had what I wanted to say in it got deleted for real! :mad:

I like the way you creatively used your extra posts though!

[lyonn]

68. And on the lighter side, his wife is terrific

Does that say anything about the man?

[Schema Thing]

73. Shit!

That pic of Wes and Gert wants me want to get married and grow old(er) with some woman. Damn, I thought I was over all that crap.:hippie:

[Blaze Diem]

80. Yep..I look at the pic also and wonder "what could have been"

(sigh)

[Doctor_J]

61. INSTANT cred, world-wide

we'd have immediate respect again, as soon as he was elected to replace Dumbass and Dracula.

[file83]

34. I just think that having a career Military Man as President at this point

is a bad idea. As if the Military Industrial Complex doesn't have enough representation in Washington DC already.

Don't get me wrong - Clark is a great person, probably even a better General, I enjoy watching him speak. But I don't want men of his background leading this country.

[FrenchieCat]

42. And instead you've got the MBA man leading

us into wars that we didn't have to fight...and you've got the politicians most without military background who voted for it.

I don't get how a man who almost died in Vietnam, was retired early because he didn't "like" the high altitude bombing orders (cause he knew that from high up the targets aren't as precise as boasted about), was ridiculed for letting us know about the PNAC plan, and has promised to cut the pentagon budget if elected wouldn't be better than a bunch of cautious politically calculative corporate concious politicians who have to flex their muscle at every turn to prove that they are tough.

The phrase Military Industrial Complex was made famous by whom? And what was he saying about it? And what was that man's background?

Stereotypes are dangerous.....and although they make things simple and orderly for our minds organization wise, things are never simple and orderly!

[file83]

52. All valid points...

...I'll look into those claims, especially the PNAC part. I had never heard that. If that's the case then obviously my skepticism about Clark is misplaced. Thanks for the heads up!

Plus, after I made the post that you just responded to, I was already beginning to change my mind on Clark, check this post I made:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2506687&mesg_id=2506835

The best way to learn about someone is to have a discussion with others about him. I voice my opinion and if I'm wrong, I appreciate it when people like yourself KINDLY correct me with valid points. No better way to learn than from his fans!

[capi888]

62. You are a Great Person file83

I am humbled by your posting. Courage and Fairness...Thank you, for giving me hope in the American people, by opening your mind, and listening. I know Wes Clark is speaking out, hoping that we all are listening with open minds, regardless of favorites or party. He is a true patriot, who wants nothing more than saving our country, while communicating to the people. Don't know if he will even run, but he knows its not a bout winning or losing , its about getting you ideas out to the people.
Thanks again for restoring my faith in people....2008 is not the focus now, its changing the House and Senate in 2006...a MUST for any candidate !!!!! Or all is in vain for America....

[OnionPatch]

54. I've heard him speak about the military

many times and he is very out front about how much he thinks they are abusing it. He talks about how the military *should* be run and it's very much in line with the way I, a peace-loving liberal, would like to see it run. I see him as being someone who might actually be able to reform our military into something we can again be proud of.

Edited to add: I am always proud of our soldiers whose intentions are usually pure, the part I'm not proud of is the way it's being run.

[Clarkie1]

58. It was a general who first warned of "the military industrial complex."

Your premise is illogical.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

44. The more I hear about Wes Clark, the more he shows his appeal

Someone like Clark or Warner would probably be our strongest prospect for 2008, especially if the Rethugs nominate someone like McCain, who'd be very tough. These two are popular figures in Red States and both manifest a record of remarkable accomplishment, while at the same time not being tarred with the blunder of supporting the Iraq War-- a big plus for 2008 that we shouldn't underestimate, considering the American public's general distaste for the Iraq fiasco.

Clark has the added bonus of being a decorated general, thus neutralizing the national security issue without having to stake any stupid warmongering stands to appear "tough." Plus, from what I hear Clark is fluent in several languages, including Spanish. I'll say this bluntly-- this is an enormous advantage in a national election these days, as I've noted myself in prior campaigns. Even third- and fourth-generation bilingual Latinos respond positively when they are specifically addressed and their culture is respected, and one of the ways (among others) that successful candidates have done this is to speak what is one of the world's most important languages. It's one reason no doubt that Antonio Villaraigosa in LA's mayor. Another big plus for Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

45. Did you know that Clark's daughter-in-law is Columbian?

which means both of Clark's only grandchildren are 1/2 hispanic.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

47. Thanks for the fact-oid

Wasn't aware of that, though maybe that helps to explain his apparent Spanish fluency. More interesting the more I learn.

[FrenchieCat]

48. Well I think he learned Spanish in school from a young age....

and used constantly it while Commander in Chief of the Southern Command...back in the middle 90's.

He also speaks Russian and German.

[Clarkie1]

57. self-delete.

[Justice]

50. Clark is Completely Focused on 2006 - and asks that we focus on 2006

Clark is completely dedicated to doing everything that he can do to take back a house of Congress in 2006. He asks that we do the same - ask what you can do to help - and then do it!

[Aaaargh]

55. Today Fargo -- Tomorrow the World

Aaaarghstradamus Predicts:

'Calendar Reads Four Times Two, Pleasant But Double-Talking White-Haired Military Guy Runs Back of Pack.'

[Inspired]

56. Speaking in ND equals...gasp...emerging heavy hitter?

Huh????

Nothing against the General. His supporters are loyal to the core. Hence the hoopla over this. Clark will have my total support in '08 if he can pull off the nomination.

However.....why does this little tidbit of news make the greatest page? He's speaking in North Dakota for crying out loud. Sure it is one of the 50 states but Dems are speaking all over the country at various conventions, rallies, etc. Why is this such a big deal?

[Blaze Diem]

60. Well a sincere pardon from me, BUT..

ND may be just another small state to many, but I see this as a general movement rather than the singleing out of one big event.

ND sits at the top of the "red states" across the Midwest, borders Canada, and considering the recent demise of woman's rights in South Dakota, it really IS news worth mentioning.
There are many states across this Nation who's people have little say about our government and who have the exact same concerns as those in the upper midwest, regardless of how big or small. People are in need of government change everywhere,
So the heavy hitters, yes , like Clark are necessary to remind the "forgotten" taxpaying patriots from border to border, that there is a way and a will to return democracy to our beloved America.
It happens in November 2006.
These local state citizens are the only ones who can demand a change in the illegal voting process in their own states. Don't expect DC to do it.
Maybe Clark's appearance is more about lifting up the freakin masses, then. It is a very big deal. No matter how seemingly insignificant the location.

These states are generally not mentioned, ever. Its OK, most people who live there don't WANT the attention anyway.
There was a moment when our GOP governor was considering running this year to defeat our Dem Senator.
Say what you want about either Dorgan or Conrad, we cannot lose one single Dem vote in D.C. They're both bright men who, like many, have had their voices ignored and hands tied by BushCo.

ND is also a primarily GOP voting state. The handsome ex Gov and his picture pretty wife, ex-pres of ND Banking industry, was the model of what GOP loves. However, he declioned the GOP wishes to run against our Dems. Don't know why. Maybe he didn't want to be owned by the GOP.

This is important news about Wes Clark, since it tells me that when a State as "insignificant to some", brings on a man like Clark to speak for the Dem Party, there is a bigger picture unfolding and I believe it is this:
The focus is NOT on the Presidential election of 2008, so much as it is right now on the election of Nov 2006.
They realize the ONLY way to take control of Bush and his possible impeachment is through a shift of power in DC this fall.

End of Story.. Thanks for the space to rant.
Its about 2006 ...for now.

[Renew Deal]

69. ND hasn't gone Dem since 1964.

Last year we had James Carville at the Nassau County Democratic committee dinner. What does that mean? That we have to win an election and protect our own? That's always true. Wes Clark and many others have spoken all over the place. There is no significance to him speaking at a Dem party dinner. Now, speaking at a Republican dinner in Arkansas. That's significant.

[Blaze Diem]

76. I wouldn't have gone out of my way to hear Carville..sorry, but

to hear Wes Clark at the Dem Convention,yes. I don't think last year would have given as much hope as we are holding this year. Simply because the 2006 election is only 7 months away. AND Bush's coalition of criminals are being found out.
Bush and those in lockstep support of him are at risk in November, The American people know that there need to be severe changes to stop Bush's policies.
This year presents a most likely time among no others to save our Democracy and our international dignity.
This election is THAT Critical ...I hope it is shouted loud and long, and as Howard Dean proved..grassroots does exist.
Carvill didn't have the influence Clark does..nor was the timing as critical as it is now.

I believe people are looking for leaders now, who will galvanize their concerns and change the way this nation and its corrupt voting system works.
Its ofter the people behind the front page and the limelight who change direction of their government.
The only message here and now is to stop Bush's control.
No matter WHO is demanding it.
Everyone on board for that can step up and be part of it..big, little, somebodies and nobodies..
That's when changing this country for the better of its people can only occur. Its a LONG, LONG road back friends..Bush has damaged so much..any contribution is necessary and welcome.

[Inspired]

82. ND is just as signifcant as SD...

I just don't see why this is has received so many recommendations for the greatest page, that's all. As I said, many out of office, or soon to be out of office Dems are traveling all over the country.

Daschle travels to (insert state)
Vilsack travels to (insert state)
Edwards travels to (insert state)
Warner travels (insert state)
(insert possible 2008 candidate) travels to (insert state)

Clark travels to NORTH DAKOTA

As if no one else has thought to do this. Sheesh.

[Renew Deal]

65. I agree

Warner is getting the cover of the NYT magazine this weekend. There are probably more subscribers to that than Democrats in ND. Does that mean Warner should get 70 recommendations?

[Blaze Diem]

79. Thank You..

You GET IT!

[roseBudd]

59. Wes fans check out my Clark quote on IRAQ WAR: What is it good for?

flyer available for download.

http://bushcheated04.com/war2.pdf

I am going to pass these out at 3rd anniversary invasion rally and wonder if this is the best Clark quote on the counterproductive nature of this war.

[FrenchieCat]

91. Kewl!

:thumbsup:

[Renew Deal]

64. Polls don't show that.

He's usually at the bottom of the list. It's usually Hillary and Kerry at the top. Warner is making lots of noise too.

[BootinUp]

66. It will be decided by Iowa, and NH same as last time.

I don't know why I get all worked up about it.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[BootinUp]

70. Thanks for coming to the rescue

wtf

[newspeak]

72. come on-why are you all debating at all

doncha know, the media we'll tell you who to vote for.

[Blaze Diem]

74. Anyone can run..but it won't amount to a hill'o beans if 2006 ..

goes to the GOP majority again.

The freakin pope won't beat BushCo Crime family.
Bush's hands need to be tied in the following years, and the bleeding of our democracy needs to be stopped.
Everything is on the line in November 2006.
I don't care who contributes to the shift in DC power.
As long as their contribution is to unseat enough GOP in November to break the stranglehold in our Senate and Congress.

Bush would not have gotten as far as he has without his majority.

Why is it so difficult to get this point through?
I'll focus on who is worthy of the 2008 Dem Nominee AFTER I've have fought for a balance of power in the election of 2006.
A great deal can be accomplished by changing control of the House and Senate.
I can't think of the horrors two more years of Bush will do to this Country should he be given these Houses stacked in his favor once again.

We may not have to worry about WHO the Dem nominee will be.

This year is critical.

[Ediacara]

75. Polls in 2002 showed Lieberman taking the nomination with no trouble

I think this far out with the party at large, name-recognition is all you're getting with these polls.

[BootinUp]

78. He knows that

Seems he is on some kind of Clarkie vendetta. :shrug:

[Jai4WKC08]

87. You really ought to update your info

In recent polling, while Clinton is always at the top, Clark usually ties with Kerry statistically. Even beats him in southern states.

And fwiw, Clark has never come out of reputable scientific polls "at the bottom of the list." That's pure bullshit.

Here's the last scientific poll from NH, taken in early Feb with a MoE of +/- 4%:

"...Hillary Clinton scored 32 percent among 600 likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters, followed by undecided (31 percent), and a host of familiar faces: John Edwards (9 percent), John Kerry (7 percent), Wesley Clark (7 percent) and Al Gore (5 percent). Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold and former Virginia governor Mark Warner each polled 2 percent, and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, former Senate minority leader Tom Daschle and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson polled 1 percent apiece."
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060212/REPOSITORY/602120386/1224

For more examples of state polling, check out http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/results.htm

Not sure any of it means anything. It's mostly name recognition at this point, as has been pointed out by other posters--Lieberman was leading the polls in 2002.

[stevedeshazer]

81. Why does Wes Clark oppose the pullout of American troops from Iraq?

I heard him say it on Ed Schultz's show. He rejects the Murtha plan, which I support (redeployment outside Iraq). He said that pulling out would acknowledge American failure.

Well, guess what. America has failed.

I cannot support anyone who advocates continuing this war, period.

I was really disappointed to hear him say this, he totally lost my support.

http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/31006Clark.mp3 (about 2/3 of the way through the interview)

[FrenchieCat]

86. Murtha's omits much......

Murtha's plan for disengaging from Iraq is basically to remove the US troops from within Iraq within 6 months and to position approximately 50,000 troops in neighboring countries. These forces would be there to provide quick strike capability in case terrorist organizations within Iraq need to be neutralized. Murtha's plan has alot going for it, and it has gotten people talking about a disengagement strategy. However, while we should get our troops out of fighting ASAP, there are key tasks that Murtha has omitted and which need to be included in any final strategy for Iraq. The current debate is really just a discussion on timing - "stay the course" versus "withdraw immediately/soon". And this one dimensional debate is not going to lead to an effective solution for Iraq.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/11/133322/16

Clark doesn't "advocate" this war and never has....he just understands better than some that leaving a big mess behind would most likely drag us back when we least expected it!

[Jai4WKC08]

89. It's not that Clark "advocates continuing the war"

It's that Clark believes the war will continue whether we're there or not, but that there are things we can do now to stop (or at least limit) the war, and to keep it from going regional. I don't think he believes the Bush administration will do those things, but he feels obligated to say they need doing. In fact, he said just last week that Khalilzad is trying to do some of those things and not getting any help from the White House.

But if the troops are pulled out immediately, those things not only won't happen, they can't. And as I understand what Clark foresees as a result, it is something like the following: Iraq will collapse as a unified state. Iran will move in to support what will be, for them, a Shi'a buffer state. The Saudis, Jordan and Syria will get involved to counter Iran and support the Sunnis, who will have pretty much all of the expertise and military hardware of Saddam's regime, so not a pushover for the Shi'a altho outnumbered. And Turkey will do what they think they have to to prevent a greater Kurdistan. The potential for a bloodbath will very high. And that's not even the worst case scenario, given that Iran is on the road to nukes.

That said, Clark does NOT advocate leaving our troops in the middle of such a situation. He has said that if the Iraqi govt doesn't find a way to bring the Sunnis in and form a government where each group's vital interests are protected, and do it in the next couple months while the Constitution can be amended, "the window will close" and we may have no choice but to pull out.

But Clark's main point is that we will never be able to completely walk away from the region. So we either act now to try to make things salvagable (his "C-minus solution") or pay for it in spades later.

Clark would be the first to admit that our very presence in Iraq creates anti-American feeling throughout the Islamic world and thus "supercharges" terrorism--he said it would back in 2002 and hasn't changed his mind. And it might be comforting to think we can pull the troops out and everything will be all better. But it's just not that simple.

To be sure, some people don't agree with with Clark's assessment of what's likely to happen. But he's got a pretty good track record of calling it right so far, and doing so when all the Bushies and way too many Dems were calling him crazy or paranoid or worse. I honestly don't think there's anyone in either party who has as a firm of a grasp of all the strategic possibilities and actors in the region. I do think there are a lot of politicians on both sides who are just telling people what they want to hear and angling for what they think will play best in the next election. But I'm cynical that way.

[stevedeshazer]

93. Thanks for such a well-reasoned response

To be sure, I still have reservations about continuing the Iraq war. What's to gain?

I respect General Clark a great deal, but this remains a big concern.

'Advocates continuing the war...' was unfair on my part; I continue to keep my options open.

ps - Clark supporters always answer my questions. I really appreciate that. :)

[Jai4WKC08]

98. Your appriciation is...

Much appreciated. :)

I'm really only posting to add that I personally don't think Murtha is one of the politicians who is pandering to the current mood of the voters (since Clark's response to Murtha's plan was what started this sub-thread). I think that Murtha, as an old marine colonel, is just seeing what's happening to the troops and it breaks his heart. It does mine too (I'm retired Army). I also think it does Clark's. In the first interview after he dropped out in '04, he said that one reason he got in because when he saw what was happening to the soldiers, he "wouldn't be able to sleep at night" if he hadn't done all he could to put an end to it. I think that's a very large part of why he busted his ass to help Kerry, and is working so hard to elect Democrats in 2006.

Murtha wants it to end (well, we all do), and he thinks that pulling the troops back to the perimeter of the theater will keep enough pressure on Iraq to at least stand a chance of holding things together in the region. Clark has expressed the utmost respect for Murtha on a number of occassions--I am convinced it's sincere--but he just doesn't agree. With Clark's experience in the Balkans, as the strategic planning officer on the joint staff, and given that track record I mentioned above, I trust his judgement more.

And too, because Clark is not an elected official, he's in a better position to voice ideas about what should be done, as if there were anyone in charge who would listen, whereas Murtha has to try to set the stage for what could be done if we manage to retake the House in November. Two very different roles and responsibilities. We need both their voices.

[stevedeshazer]

102. Eloquently said.

:toast:

To the voices.

[otohara]

101. Me Too - Heard Him on Schultz and...

I was so disappointed. He was talking all military tough, like fucking Cheney.

We have failed in Iraq General Clark, like the others before us! Schultz apparently agreed with him, cuz he sure didn't challenge Clark. Schultz is all enamored with Military Men - he was fawning over the man.

[BootinUp]

103. Talk about missing the point completely

Ed Schultz: General Wesley Clark here on the Ed Schultz Show. We sure appreciate it. Let's talk about Iraq. What is the definition of a civil war? Some people say we're in a civil war. Others say no it's not there yet. You as a military man and your training and your expertise, what is it?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, a civil war is just when neighbors fight against each other, but it's hard to say that we're not in a civil war by that standard. But the question is, you know, how, how intense is it? What's the outcome likely to be? How long will it- How, how damaging will it be, and, and, and will it grow to bring in the neighboring powers? Those are the questions that have to be asked. I think in Iraq, we've got a choice between a C- solution and an F solution. The F solution is pull out right now. Just tell them that's up, that's it we're fed up with you. You're not cooperating with us, and we've done enough. We're leaving. The end result of that is gonna be that the Shi'ite dominated military police and militias will seize control, drive the remaining vestiges of hopefulness out of the Sunnis, isolate the Sunnis. And the Sunnis will go to the Saudis, the Jordanians and others for support, and they'll fight to gain a foothold back into Iraq. That's the civil war that will spread to other countries in the region.

Ed Schultz: And then what happens to the United States military if that unfolds? What'll we do?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, we'll have to do something to dampen the conflict as best we can, if we're there. But the F solution is when we leave. Now the C- solution is we lean on top of the folks there in Iraq with everything we've got. We tell that Shi'ite President Hakim that he must change the constitution. He must allow Sunni leaders into responsible positions. He must crack down on and eliminate the Shi'ite militias. When he doesn't do it, you use leverage against him. You slow down the training of the troops. You slow the arrival of supplies. You re-deploy forces. You prepare to take other measures. And this is not going to be accomplished just by jawboning. If you do all this, there's a chance you could still pull together an Iraqi state. It wouldn't be a Western-oriented state. It won't be a US-style Democracy and it won't probably represent the hope of Democracy in the region. But it would be a state that probably won't threaten it's neighbors right away, and it might be a state that you could pull US forces out of without having it blow up.


The whole transcript is here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x635287

[otohara]

104. You're not cooperating with us!!!

and we've done enough. We're leaving.

Nice touch - blame the victims!

These people want us out of their county NOW! They've voted, they want us out!

Even General Pace says so.

"Understandably, Iraqis themselves would prefer to have coalition forces leave their country as soon as possible," Pace said on the Fox News Sunday show.

"They don't want us to leave tomorrow, but they do want us to leave as soon as possible."

[stevedeshazer]

108. Gee, did you leave anything out?

Ed Schultz: Well, I was going to ask you finally, John Murtha, does his re-deployment idea have merit-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No.

Ed Schultz: -at this point. You, you-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Not, not in and of itself. Hopefully we will re-deploy, and hopefully if we can get the Sunnis in government, change the constitution, it's possible that you'll be able to pull out a lot of troops. But to drive US strategy by the recognition that our Armed Forces are failing, the men are tired, doesn't seem to have worked very well, let's just go home, that's a real admission of failure. That's the F solution.

[stevedeshazer]

106. I like Gen. Clark, but this bothers me

Jai4WKC08 makes a good case in this thread, but failure is failure. We should call it what it is.

[Jim Sagle]

109. That's right, keep it simple.

:sarcasm:

[MODemocrat]

92. I really admire Wes Clark

He's really working hard for the democratic party, and making a difference.

[LWolf]

94. Maybe.

He sure seems to have a following of fervent supporters, anyway.

I'm not interested in Clark. That's not an attack, he just doesn't have the resume or platform that I'm looking for.

I don't want a military pov in the WH. I've had enough of thinking from a military perspective. I don't want a former Reagan voter. While I respect Clark's service, and appreciate his pov on many issues, I want someone in the WH with a different resume. I want someone who has spent their life focused on domestic issues and domestic policy. Someone with some background working for domestic policy. That's where I want my president's priorities.

I'm sure Clark has some good ideas, but it isn't his area of expertise, imo.

[Jai4WKC08]

95. I respect your priorities

But I don't think you give Clark enough credit for seeing the big picture.

Yeah, he's concerned with Iraq, Iran and our standing in the world. Especially right now when he thinks we're "on the edge of an abyss" (his words).

But he actually does have a lot of very real experience in education, protecting the environment and civil rights, and managing all the sorts of domestic issues that come with running a military community (which in the case of stateside post is essentially the same as a city, and for an overseas command, the same as a small state). His educational background is economics and political philosophy. And he cares about those issues at least as much as foreign policy. In fact, his single greatest focus is in restoring our system of democracy. In my opinion, he's one of the relatively few who "gets" how close we are to losing it.

In 2004, the media painted him as being a one-trick pony on foreign policy. That's almost all he was ever asked about in interviews, and not much more during the debates. And he wasn't in the race long enough, with a competent enough communications staff, and maybe not enough campaign experience of his own, to break thru that image. I hope he will be successful if he runs in 2008. I know he has it in him or I might not support him either. To me foreign policy is critical, but it's sure not the whole enchilada.

[BootinUp]

97. Keep an open mind then

At least if Dems can have an open mind to candidates like Clark, our party doesn't look like the antiwar, weak on National Security Party that too many Americans think we are. Thats the image that will prevent us from winning.

And the more you know about Clark and his way of thinking the more surprised you will be.

[AX10]

96. Clark knows that we need to rebuild the base.

Success in 2006 will set the stage for success in 2008.

[Blaze Diem]

110. Thanks for the postAX10..Gee you summed up all my rants..

into one simple yet eloquent statement.

You make it look so easy!!
Maybe I'm getting too emotionally involved in the urgency of 2006 election.
Man I gotta get a cup of coffee ..

Tks
Blaze

[AX10]

113. Actually, it is urgent that we win this mid-term election.

[otohara]

99. Yeah But, He Doesn't Think We Should Pull Out of Mess-O-Potamia

he's very bent on staying there and fixing what may not be fixable unless we leave the Iraq.

I like him a lot, but this tough military talk kinda freaks me out.

[FrenchieCat]

112. We can call it Mess-O-potamia....but Pandora's Box is what it truly is...

and if you think that things won't get worse if we don't try this last bit of time in trying to fix it.....I'm really sorry to say that we may not have seen anything yet.

Already we know that life never goes according to plans....well, lo and Behold, War doesn't either. Some think that if we leave, then reparation of the damage we made will begin. General Clark understand that it just won't be simple as that.

Obviously, the Bush Administration went into Iraq not wanting to understand or take into consideration the underlying complexities of the Middle East; the history, the culture, the religious secs, and the political fragility of it all.

Now some want to leave the same way, without even wanting to entertain what most likely will happen when we go.....and not wanting to understand that we did indeed open up Pandora's Box, and our leaving will not close it.....not even a little bit.

It's like the sleeping Dog we should have let lie.....Instead he was awaken...and although we would like to think that if those who did the waking simply step away, the dog will go back to sleep.

the geopolitical reality of the situation in the Middle East that we made doubly worse when we went in will stay real when we go.

To think that now our only concern should be to get our soldiers out of Harms way (which certainly should be a large factor in what we do next), is to NOT truly understand that what Bush has managed to do has much larger consequences than we would want to imagine....and affects not just an entire region, but could affect the future of many states and countries all over the world.

That's what makes Bush taking us into Iraq unbelievably fucked up and totally unforgivable.....because of the dangerous global consequences he set up when he decided to go with the PNAC plan.


In reference to talking tough......should we be talking soft? You've got to remember that Wes Clark is trying to get through to the numbskulls in the White House in the hopes that they will hear some of what he has to say.

War is not anything that one should want....but talking about what needs to be done pronto should not be made in a whisper. He's not advocating war....he's trying to provide answers on how to have us go away without setting off the looming explosions behind us as we do.

[Benfea]

100. Go Wes!

I was a Clark supporter before.

To be honest, I'd be happy with Dean, Kucinich or Clark, but I damn sure don't want to get stuck with another "electable" Republican Lite candidate (Hillary? Are you listening? You stay in your senate seat, dammit!).

[On the Road]

111. I Love Wesley Clark

I am glad he's on our side. He's like a Rhodes Scholar Smedley Butler.

I am not convinced he's a good enough campaigner for the top slot. But we'll find out if he runs next time.

[globalvillage]

114. I don't see how speaking in ND makes him THEE Heavy Hitter

But I can see this coming back to bite him

After a three-week campaign waged almost exclusively by U.S. and British troops, with no U.N. involvement, an article by Clark appeared in The Times of London calling it “a great victory.”

Clark wrote :

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled.

Liberation is at hand. Liberation -the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air.

. . . As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.

The article contained no hint that Clark opposed the "great victory" and no suggestion that he would have preferred U.N. diplomats handle the job instead. He did write a few days earlier that for an occupation of Iraq to succeed "we must gather legitimacy from institutions such as the United Nations and NATO." That article appeared in the Washington Times on March 23. Clark has posted that article on his campaign website, but not the gushing Times of London article.


September 19, Clark Starts Campaign:

Clark told several reporters he “probably” would have voted for the resolution.

From: The New York Times, September 19, 2003 :

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

A moment later, the Times quoted him adding:

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.

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

That said, I like Gen Clark. Despite the London Times article, I could support a Kerry/Clark ticket. I think he was misled as were many Dems (including Kerry).

Edit to correct title.

[FrenchieCat]

115. well, whadaya know!

:boring:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2482830&mesg_id=2484223

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2482830&mesg_id=2484244

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=321522

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2121094&mesg_id=2121094

[Theide]

116. Clark is the only electable candidate I see.

Wesley clark is the only truly electable candidate I see in the pool of potentials.

Hillary would be a great candidate, but the right wing media juggernaut has had over 14 years to vilify her. Most of the Joe six-pack demographic has been fed the idea that she is "anti-american" and they have eaten willingly. If you listen to the radio talk shows (O'Reilly, Hannity, Michael Savage, etc.), you will hear them actually say that they think Hillary is the most dangerous person on earth. Unfortunately, if you tell the public something often enough, a large number begin to believe it. She cannot win in the general election due to this concentrated propaganda effort, which has not eased off even a little since the original smearing of her reputation in connection with health care reform, way back in 1992-3.

Lieberman - not even an option - no fire in the belly.

Dean - Same as Hillary, except they managed to destroy him based on nothing at all, and in much less time.

Gore - Just can't see it.

Wesley Clark not only has the faith and trust of our armed forces, he has no real negatives for the right wing media juggernaut to pound on. The only thing they can fault him on is his willingness to play a bit of brinksmanship with the Russian military in Yugoslavia. Even that is a positive, because it gives him something unique. He engaged in said brinksmanship in order to stop the continuing genocide of Muslims in Yugoslavia.
This gives him something no one else can claim - credit with the Muslim world. Kind of hard to go on bitching about the "Great Satan" when it's leader is personally responsible for saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of Muslims.
Add to this the obviously clear grasp of Geopolitics (So clearly lacking in the current administration.) and a brilliant mind with a real understanding of strategy and tactics and you have the makings of a great statesman, a man who could lead America into a new age of global cooperation.
I have to admit I am not totally comfortable with the idea of a General being President, but despite that, he is my choice for the office.
On the domestic front, he has shown a penchant for putting forth realistic solutions that have been well thought out and can actually be implemented. Contrast this to the behavior of the current administration, which throws out an ill-considered initiative periodically, then implements just enough of it to put more money in the pockets of their corporate cronies (Halliburton,etc.). He has firmly established himself as a Progressive in the political arena, embracing many of the issues that matter most to the poor and middle class such as health care and schools.

Will we back the strongest of us, or will we divide our efforts, crippling ourselves and allowing this gang of criminals which are currently in power to retain their stranglehold on America? Will we struggle to regain our freedom, or will we give it up in the name of Homeland Security?

It's up to you, but for me, Wesley Clark is the right man to lead us from the depths of depravity to which our leadership has sunk into the bright clear light of a new and honorably lived day!

Wesley Clark for President 2008!!!!

[FrenchieCat]

117. Welcome to DU....and a very wonderful first Post!

I'm with you!

Did you know that Clark's orders (that Bloody Sunday Gen. Jackson) at Pristina Airport, if followed, would have given Putin less of an opportunity to invade Chechnya, and would not have started WWIII (as Alcoholic Jackson declared)?

Here is the article that talks about this incident.... paragraph 15 of http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
(the entire article is very interesting)!

:hi:

[Theide]

119. Yes I did

Thanks for the article, and thanks for the welcome. Glad to be here!