What does Clark mean: : tamping down come home fever....is it Iraq?

[madfloridian]

"Moreover, it should be United States policy to divide Syria and Iran; weaken Hezzbollah; reassure the Gulf States by tamping down "come home fever". Blocking Russia from continueing it's quest for power and prestige in the region and persuing for the people of the region economic rights before human rights to ensure western style democracy takes root. "

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5810

Are the Democrats going to work against coming home from Iraq? There is discussion here about Iran as well.

To edit, I have been told these are not Clark's quotes but a bloggers' quotes. I left the quotes around "come home fever" in the subject line, and left the quotes around the paragraph I posted from the blog above.

I think I am being fair. I just wanted to find out if the conference this week-end is going to mean that they are going to discourage our leaving Iraq. Few Democrats have been very open about this, and I am just trying to decide the intent.

2nd edit: I was told to edit the subject line or be alerted on, so I took out the quotes. I will add them again later in a new subject line if needed. This is a life and death issue and our Democrats are discussing it privately. We need to know what is going on, especially with the marches going on today.

The blogger even has quotes around "come home fever", so let me make that clear.

[Dunvegan]

1. Since the phrase "come home fever" is right after "Hezzbollah"...

...I wonder if Clark was refrencing the Palestinians?

[autorank]

152. Self delete. Wrong place.

[incapsulated]

2. Those weren't his quotes, they were a blogger's post

Please don't post second-hand comments from a blogger's memory of events as if they are direct quotes.

[madfloridian]

3. I edited my OP with an explanation.

I am just trying to understand if our Democrats are being advised to stay in Iraq. It is a fair question.

[incapsulated]

5. I'm not there.

And I have no idea what they are saying. Erick was making a summation of his "take" and I have no clue as to how accurate it is.

If you have a "question" then he would be the one to ask, since he is there, no?

[Totally Committed]

6. Edit the title of the OP as well, please...

It still appears that Wes has said this directly, and he hasn't.

I feel this is direct retribution for the imagined "insults" you feel from your other threads. And, I feel that not only is that unfair (the insults are imagined, and some were even compliments), but downright nasty.

Again, please edit your OP title, ot I will have no choice but to alert on this.

TC

[MH1]

106. FWIW I just read the blog comment and it sure looks like

the blogger was sure that is what Clark said, and what he meant.

Is clarification of Wes Clark's position on bringing troops home from Iraq needed? Does he agree with withdrawing combat troops from Iraq by the end of 2006, by "over-the-horizon" redeployment which maintains a rapid response capability - as Murtha and Kerry and others have called for?

Link?

[Sparkly]

116. You can read ALL about Clark's positions, in his own words, on WesPAC.

It's really easy.

http://www.securingamerica.com/

[MH1]

121. Can you give a direct link to his most current statement about withdrawing

troops from Iraq?

[Sparkly]

128. You couldn't find anything about Iraq at WesPAC? Really?? nt

[Noisy Democrat]

145. You couldn't answer a simple question? Really? n/t

[MH1]

107. As for alerting....

it would say an AWFUL lot about DU if the mods reacted to an alert just because of the position of quote marks, considering some of the other shit that flies.

Just sayin.

(it stuns me that you even think it's alertable. Which DU rule would apply? Please tell me, because I sure would like to use it too.)

[autorank]

153. The OP is wrong, even on edit. Why are Clark, Hackett & others targets?

To edit, I have been told these are not Clark's quotes but a bloggers' quotes. I left the quotes around "come home fever" in the subject line, and left the quotes around the paragraph I posted from the blog above.

Amazing, knowing they're not Clark's position, the quotes in subject line is left for what reason? Oh, right, you're just "trying to understand if our Democrats are being advised to stay in Iraq," thus repeating the original totally incorrect characterization. "Advised" by whom, a blogger? :rofl:

This is another in a string of odd posts attacking Clark. He'll state a hypothetical and knock it down, and we get just the hypothetical. He'll make a strong argument and snips are removed from the argument that are counter to his actual position.

This GENERAL Opposed the Iraq War Before it Started !!!! Loudly

I have a question: Why is it that prominent military figures who speak out BOLDLY AGAINST IRAQ end up a target for some Democrats? Clark and Hackett come to mind.

Thank you for your service Geneal Clark and Major Hackett...to the United States armed forces and to the Democratic Party.

[ConcernedCanuk]

4. "to ensure western style democracy takes root" ?????

.
.
.

oh yeah

"western style democracy" is workin real good in the ole US of A

right?

[madfloridian]

7. Here is the paragraph I got the quote from. I want to be fair.

So no one can say I was not quoting fairly. Just to be sure:

"General Clark is addressing all, or most, of the Democratic Senators here at their retreat in Philadelphia. Senator Landrieu just gave him a very warm and flattering introduction and General Clark has just begun outlining his vision.

What's our vision? What's our position? How do we communicate it?
In his opening remarks, General Clark drew enthusiastic applause with his vision. He laid it out thusly:

It's a five part approach:

1. Responsible redeployment in Iraq

2. Strengthen our homeland security operations

3. Hunt down Osama Bin Laden and ramp up counterterror operations

4. Energy independence

5. Reinforce friends and allies

Moreover, it should be United States policy to divide Syria and Iran; weaken Hezzbollah; reassure the Gulf States by tamping down "come home fever". Blocking Russia from continueing it's quest for power and prestige in the region and persuing for the people of the region economic rights before human rights to ensure western style democracy takes root."

I realize this is the blogger speaking, so I want to be quite fair on this issue. It is too serious not to be fair and open. I just want to know if our Democrats are being advised to stay in Iraq. It is a fair question and deserves discussion.



http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5810

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

11. So you don't want to know what our Democrats are being advised to do?

I do. I care a lot about that. They are being advised to work for western style democracy, just like the Republicans are doing if the blogger is correct.

I find that sad on a day when so many are marching to protest this war.

I find it sad that it is easier to attack each other than address what is going on.

[wndycty]

13. I find it sad that you take one line from Wes Clark to question his . . .

. . .intentions, while ignoring EVERYTHING else he has said and how he is against this war. I'm sure Wes can better explain what he meant. You are asking people to speculate what he meant in a subtle attempt to question his progressive credentials.

[tishaLA]

26. It's not EVEN a line from Wes Clark

It's a line from someone writing about Wes Clark! At least a line FROM Wes Clark would be reasonable, but this is utterly fabricated.

It's so sad Democrats have to treat him this way and create a caricature of him and belittle him so. Sad indeed. But supporters of some candidates never leave 04 behind them. Constant attacks.

[wndycty]

30. Thanks for the clarification. . .

. . .and of course many who try to tear him down are unders some delusion that he was a stalking horse for their candidate who ended up showing poorly.

[madfloridian]

71. The blogger says it is from Clark. Be fair.

I have to take up for myself because I don't have anyone left here to get my back.

[tishaLA]

76. The blogger doesn't say it's from Clark.

To say so is unfair and just shameful, but it's what I have come to expect from supporters of some candidates who have not managed to leave 04 in the past. They attack good Democrats who are out there every day working to change the balance of power in Washington race by race.

The blogger put quotation marks around something, but that does NOT say "it is from Clark"; that might be his interpretation, as, for example, many people put paraphrases in quotation marks on DU every day, but we'll never know because some don't go to the source and instead make attacks against good Democrats.

It's so sad and not fair.

[madfloridian]

77. Here is the full paragraph. It is clear he talking of Clark's speech.

General Clark has just begun outlining his vision.

What's our vision? What's our position? How do we communicate it?
In his opening remarks, General Clark drew enthusiastic applause with his vision. He laid it out thusly:

It's a five part approach:

1. Responsible redeployment in Iraq

2. Strengthen our homeland security operations

3. Hunt down Osama Bin Laden and ramp up counterterror operations

4. Energy independence

5. Reinforce friends and allies

Moreover, it should be United States policy to divide Syria and Iran; weaken Hezzbollah; reassure the Gulf States by tamping down "come home fever". Blocking Russia from continueing it's quest for power and prestige in the region and persuing for the people of the region economic rights before human rights to ensure western style democracy takes root."

If that is not in the speech, the blogger is making it sound like it is.

[tishaLA]

84. That doesn't mean he is making a direct quote

And it doesn't mean that the post is even accurate.

It's so sad that some have to attack and misrepresent like this time and again. It's just not fair.

[Capn Sunshine]

174. Well he WAS there, and that was what he came away with

Is the General THAT unclear and wishy washy that an attendee at this speech would come away with a different message than the one intended?

And not one of the Clark supporters on this board was there? That in itself strikes me as odd, since they have been plastering this site for months with every breath he takes.

Now, nothing?

[dogman]

176. Why would we blow smoke out of our ass.

Wishy washy? What's your goal here?

[CarolNYC]

192. I think

Sunshine's goal is pretty obvious here...

I also think it's absurd to suppose that any of the Clark supporters here would be at this retreat, as we're not Senators or Senate staff....

And, if Sunshine thinks that everything's the General's been doing is reported here word for word, he's missing out on an awful lot that Wes is doing.

Of course, I think that Sunshine is way more aware of what's really going on that he pretends here...You know, he's not quite as dumb as he's trying to appear....Of course, it's also possible that I'm giving him way more credit than he's due....

[tishaLA]

190. It was the Senate Democratic Caucus

They're somewhat above my pay grade.

People use quotation marks carelessly all the time. You should read the papers my undergrads write. It is beyond any of us to figure out what a blogger means when he or she summarizes someone, but it is wholly disingenuous to pretend a blogger's representation is Clark's ("What does Clark mean?").

[Jai4WKC08]

202. If Clark were "unclear and wishy washy"

I doubt Harry Reid would keep inviting him back to advise the Senate Democrats. This is not the first of these retreats he's attended, and he pretty much put together Reid and Pelosi's Democratic National Security Advisory Coucil, of which he's an active member.

Besides, if there's one thing Clark never is, it's wishy washy. He may sometimes be unclear, but usually only when people don't hear the full context of what he has to say on a subject. Like now.

Also, from what I've read elsewhere, this wasn't a speech per se. He gave some introductory remarks, but they were followed by questions and a give-and-take discussion. So he certainly had the opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding that might have results... assuming any did.

Another point. One thing Clark does, and is very good at, is tailor his remarks to his audience. He was speaking to Senators, and ones with whom he'd been in discussions all morning. What might sound odd to anyone here, especially taken out of context and given that we don't know for sure exactly what was said, may have made perfect sense to the people he was talking to, and been in line with what had already been said. It might even have purposely worded to challenge some earlier remark. We just can't know.

You can't really be serious than any of us would have been invited to a Senate strategy meeting! Sheesh.
Yeah, we pretty much do keep track of Clark's activities, and knew about this retreat ahead of time. I think there was even a thread or maybe two about it here at DU. But attend? Right...

And finally, I think you know perfectly well why madflo is getting the reaction from Clarkies here at DU that she is. It has nothing to do with any question she's purporting to ask.

[tishaLA]

8. This is so sad.

To pretend that these are Wes Clark quotes in the OP. It's impossible to know "what Wes Clark means(s)"--too bad he can't even get respect by referring to him correctly, but that's part of the attacks he constantly undergoes by some people--when one doesn't even know what he actually said.

But this is what we expect with the constant attack on Gen. Clark by some supporters of some candidates. It is so sad and it's just not fair! So sad indeed.

[madfloridian]

9. I took out the quotes. Will put them back later if needed.

This is not an attack on Clark. How do you figure that? Our Democrats are meeting privately to discuss the way they approach this issue. It should be open for discussion.

[tishaLA]

12. Of course it's an attack

Supporters of some candidates do this to Gen. Clark all the time and it's so sad with all the work he is doing across the country to help good Democrats win seats. But those supporters of some candidates would rather try to attack him instead of thank him.

And of course it's impossible to say what Gen. Clark means because it's a characterization of what he is saying, not das Ding an sich. Just a caricature. So sad indeed, but I've come to expect it from those who want to tear down an honorable man.

[wndycty]

15. And its the same usual suspects everytime isn't it?

:kick:

[madfloridian]

16. No, actually, it is not. I am upset with all our Democrats about Iraq.

Many of us have been disappointed with Howard Dean's lack of speaking out as well. It is not personal, there are statements there that worry me a lot.

People are marching today over this war, and I question that what we have should be called come home fever.

I am heading out to canvass for our 2nd two hour event today...it is in the 90s here so too hot to keep at it very long. If you think I am unfair, feel free to alert on it.

[wndycty]

17. Good, hopefully two hours of canvassing will help clear the head. . .

. . .and make it easier to stop trying to find something sinister in everything General Clark has to say.

[Totally Committed]

21. That's so gratuitously disingenuous, it's pathetic...

So, go canvass already!

TC

[tishaLA]

22. Oh it's personal

That's why you said, falsely, that Gen. Clark said it. What does he mean, indeed? How can one know? The thread doesn't even have his words.

I'm accustomed to this kind of misrepresentation of Gen. Clark from supporters of some candidates, who seem unable to leave 04 behind them and, instead of giving praise to a man who goes all across the country to help raise money and support Democrats, try to attack him instead. It's just a sad state of affairs. False quotation marks. Disingenuousness.

Sad.

[wndycty]

25. The same way some misrepresented Tammy Duckworth. . .

. . .we should be used to it. The so-called "progressive grassroots" who believe other "progressive grassroots" (like myself) who are liberal as hell but pragmatic on political strategy are DINO's.

[karynnj]

135. You're upset with "all our Democrats"?

The range of their positions is huge - from people like Congressman McGovern to Senator Liberman. Have you considered Kerry's plan or watched his Faneuil Hall speech - he is clearly speaking out.

[Totally Committed]

18. It's a case of having her nose out of joint again...

thinking she's been attacked when she hasn't and wasn't, proving that no good deed goes unpunished.

To all reading here: Wes said NONE OF THIS. It was just unfairly presented that way.

Honestly!

TC

[wndycty]

19. When have you known some to let the facts get in the way of Clark bashing?

:kick:

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[wndycty]

31. Desperate people, reaching for straws. . .

:kick:

[karynnj]

136. It might be nice if they wait for a transcript.

Will WesPac have one? (If it was intended to be confidential the blogger was wrong to post it - as the real words can't be obtained.)

[Maddy McCall]

42. Context is everything.

Yours, as well as the blurb's.

[Totally Committed]

59. It's just so UNFAIR...

To lob a bomb like this about a DEMOCRAT, and then just blithely take off to CANVASS FOR THE DEMOCRATS... it's just beyond the pale.

ALl this "party unity" talk is just b*llsh*t coming from her. No one is working harder to get other Democrats elected in '06 than Wes Clark, so IMO it takes a lot of nerve to attack him this way and just LEAVE. SHe would never have stood for such an attack if it had been against Dean, and we all know it.

TC

[autorank]

154. Truer words are not spoken on this thread. Thank you. n/t

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2597601&mesg_id=2598706

[heartofthesiskiyou]

14. Well then I guess the question is

what is the current Clark position?

[Totally Committed]

24. www.securingamerica.com

All the answers you seek are there.

TC

[wyldwolf]

61. another important question...

What is the current DEAN position?

[madfloridian]

64. Dean is spouting the party line on Iraq now, which makes me question.

I question all of them, and I asked.

Guess I am really pretty hated here. Ok, if that is what it takes to address the truth so be it.

Dean is spouting the party line on this, and I don't really like it. I question where our Democrats are going on this.

If this means I have to "f*** myself" so be it.

This is from Clark's site, it is the blogger who is posting the event. The same thing was posted at DailyKos, and that poster wasn't called names.

I think if they are being advised to cool down the coming home talk, we need to know it.

[dogman]

66. I thought you posted on this subject a while back.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/03/real_security_t.php
This is really nothing new.

[madfloridian]

68. The statement in the OP is new, I had not heard it.

It puts a whole new slant on getting out of Iraq if that is really what he said. I asked a question about that statement.

[dogman]

82. I don't see anything new.

Snip>
Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full
Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary
responsibility for securing and governing their country
and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.
Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises
necessary to unite their country and defeat the
insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly
encourage our allies and other nations to play a
constructive role.

[Sparkly]

90. Ah yes, that IS familiar.

"Responsible redeloyment" following the resolution of political issues is definitely what I've heard from most Democrats.

I just hadn't heard the phrase "come home fever."

[Sparkly]

86. Neither had I. This person seems to be blogging live from Philadelphia.

Kind of difficult to debate until we know more about what General Clark actually said.

[madfloridian]

88. All I am trying to do is start a debate.

Exactly. Everyone here questions the stances of every Democrat on Iran and other subjects, Iraq, everything. We can question what Clark is saying to Democrats as well. I was fair in my post.

[Sparkly]

94. Well, far be it from me to accuse you of anything, but...

it does seem, from other threads you've started recently, that you became upset about another thread, misinterpreting it; and that your sudden interest in understanding something a blogger said General Clark said is more about retaliation, or perhaps baiting someone.

But if you've taken an interest in General Clark, there's a lot to read at CCN -- transcripts, articles, as well as podcasts and interviews.

[madfloridian]

99. Well, you just did accuse me while saying you wouldn't.

But it is ok. Just like the good old days, only this time I'm in it alone with no one to get my back.

[Sparkly]

101. Did I? I only meant to say how it SEEMS...

Btw, I joined DU after it became clear Kerry was the nominee. Not everyone was here for the "good old days," so maybe it'd be more productive to focus on current threads, issues, quotes, debates, etc...

[madfloridian]

102. The Iraq invasion and occupation is very recent.

That is what this was about before you guys started turning it into a dean thing...which is silly because it is so obvious.

[Sparkly]

104. So why bring up "the good old days?"

And who turned the Iraq invasion and occupation into a "dean thing?"

[madfloridian]

105. You and wyldwolf did that.

No one wants to debate what I posted about so you both turned into a Dean thing.

Hey, go ahead. I have already been called a bitch in this thread and told to fuck myself.

Anything else is icing on the cake.

[Sparkly]

108. I thought wyldwolf asked a legitimate question, pertinent to the debate.

I don't think the Iraq invasion is a "Dean thing." Nor do I think it's a "Clark thing."

Nor do I think this discussion is about "the good old days," but I'm just speaking for myself. You seem to see it differently, very often.

I think we did debate what you posted. I also explained why it SEEMS your post was disingenuous, given recent threads you've started right after another thread upset you (unnecessarily, imho).

And lastly, this thread will likely be locked, and the post you refer to will be deleted; but you've referred so many times to "go f*** yourself" in your own posts, it'll sort of remain here. I'm not sure why you want that.

I'm not saying you have a persecution complex, but it might be something worth reading up on.

[madfloridian]

110. Ok.

Whatever you say. If you and wyldwolf think that what Clark is saying to the senate Dems while Dean is in NC...has anything to do with what I think about Dean..and if it makes you happy. fine.

I did not alert on the post. I never alert on things. If that person thinks that it is America.

[madfloridian]

113. Why do you say the thread will be locked? Because I questioned?

I posted Clark's own WesPac blog, and I showed the source of my info.

So is that why you think the thread should be locked? I would leave that up to the mods myself.

[Sparkly]

115. I could be wrong.

I said "likely."

It SEEMS to me your OP question wasn't so much about a genuine interest in Wes Clark's policy positions, and more another in a series of threads started in response to discussions in another thread.

And it SEEMS others saw it that way, too. And often, such threads are locked. I may be wrong, of course. (I didn't alert on it.)

"So is that why you think the thread should be locked?" I didn't say "the thread should be locked."

"I would leave that up to the mods myself." I didn't say otherwise, myself. :shrug:

[CarolNYC]

109. Retaliation, baiting....yep

Pretty pathetic and oh so transparent.....

[madfloridian]

112. But what do you think about "tamping down the come home fever?

Would you be alarmed if he said that?

Turning the issue to me is not fair.

[Jai4WKC08]

205. It's perfectly fair

Given your track record.

But no. I would not be "alarmed" by the phrase until I heard the context in which it was used. He might very possibly have been referring to someone else's earlier use. For all I know, it was THE buzz word of the conference.

Assuming he said it at all.

[wyldwolf]

87. SURE he is. Did he tell you that?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Totally Committed]

23. Just when I was trying to find a politic way of saying just that!

WesDem -- :yourock:

TC

[wndycty]

27. Someone get a screen shot before that one gets yanked!

:kick:

[dogman]

29. What do you mean by that?

Are those your words, or are you misquoting some one?

[wndycty]

33. WesDem really took one for the team with that post. . .

. . .she should alert on herself, call Roy Black and see if she can get the same type of deal Rush did.

ON EDIT CORRECTED WesDem's gender.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Adelante]

34. What do you know about it?

Welcome to DU :hi:

[wndycty]

35. WesDem when someone with 3 COUNT THEM 3 posts alerts on you. . .

. . .you know you struck a nerve!

[Adelante]

37. Yeah, ain't it cute?

MadFlo's newest ally just pops right in there.

[Totally Committed]

39. Almost like magic!

Ain't computers grand?

Maybe the screenname should have been Senor Wensis... LOL!

TC

[heartofthesiskiyou]

43. MadFlo's newest ally? Huh

I guess I'm not going to get the answer to what is the clark position here. Sorry I thought I was in a discussion forum. Never mind.

[incapsulated]

50. Welcome to DU, heartofthesiskiyou!!

[Maddy McCall]

53. That thought had crossed my mind, too.

[Maddy McCall]

52. What do you want to know?

Ask a specific question. I see that your motive is to start a thread (you said that in a post in another thread). Ask questions and quit insulting people, and you'll get your answers.

[Maddy McCall]

51. Maybe it was a nerve that needed to be struck.

:hi:

I can't believe that madfloridian is STILL up to the same dishonest activities. I left that all behind after the primary wars. I'm just amazed that some people still hold those grudges--that she's so hell-bent on destroying Wes that she'll post a blogger's comments as HIS, and then ask DUers to explain what Wes meant.

:silly:

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[dogman]

63. Aaaah! Showing your intelligence and wisdom.

So refreshing.:thumbsdown:

[dogman]

36. That's the point. Who knows?

Why throw it out without a coherent story? It's called flamebait and it caught some.

[Totally Committed]

38. Wow. 3 whole posts, and now an alert.

Imagine my surprise.

Uncalled for. Go to www.securingamerica.com for Wes's ACTUAL POSITION on this and any other subject.

TC

[dogman]

40. Especially the small c.

Really respectful, doncha know?

[Totally Committed]

44. I guess we should be grateful it wasn't

clarkE. LOL!

TC

[Maddy McCall]

41. ...

:spray: :rofl:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:thumbsup:

[incapsulated]

45. It must be some strange astrological thing going on...

:rofl:

I love you, WesDem.

:hug:

[Totally Committed]

46. Every woman has her breaking point...

I love her, too.

:grouphug:

TC

[incapsulated]

47. TC, you should visit another thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2596905&mesg_id=2596905

"We have all become God's madmen, all of us..."

:rofl:

[Maddy McCall]

48. That one...

That one....

Just no words to describe it.

:hi:

[Totally Committed]

54. Makes you sort of wonder

wtf is in the water in her neighborhood.... :hi: sweetie!

TC

[Maddy McCall]

69. Better yet...

can I bottle it for the end-of-the-semester grad student party in May! Can you imagine a bunch of historians arguing over, say, the Turner thesis, while jazzed on that stuff?!

:hi: back, shugah.

[tishaLA]

49. Maybe he was also

dressed as an African American woman and wearing a confederate flag t-shirt. It'd might even be construed as a divine message of peace and healing.

That would certainly square the circle, wouldn't' it?

[madfloridian]

73. Later.

Will let you know.

[Sparkly]

55. I've never heard the phrase "come home fever"

But since it's about reassuring "Gulf States," my guess it's about calming Katrina victims who are eager to return home, letting them know there will help for rebuilding, etc...

[Aaaargh]

56. WORD: Clark has said plainly that he favors continuing the Iraq occupation

So why do Clark fans on this forum have shit-fits when anybody points out that that's the case? If you don't support that policy, why do you support the presidential candidate who advocates that? Or are you guys just trying to obscure the truth about what Gen. Clark advocates?

Again -- from Clark's Op-Ed piece 'The Next Iraqi Offensive,' printed in the New York Times last December:

"We need to keep our troops in Iraq, but we need to modify the strategy far more drastically than anything President Bush called for last week.

On the military side, American and Iraqi forces must take greater control of the country's borders, not only on the Syrian side but also in the east, on the Iranian side. The current strategy of clearing areas near Syria of insurgents and then posting Iraqi troops, backed up by mobile American units, has had success. But it needs to be expanded, especially in the heavily Shiite regions in the southeast, where there has been continuing cross-border traffic from Iran and where the loyalties of the Iraqi troops will be especially tested.

We need to deploy three or four American brigades, some 20,000 troops, with adequate aerial reconnaissance, to provide training, supervision and backup along Iraq's several thousand miles of vulnerable border. And even then, the borders won't be "sealed"; they'll just be more challenging to penetrate.

We must also continue military efforts against insurgent strongholds and bases in the Sunni areas, in conjunction with Iraqi forces. Over the next year or so, this will probably require four to six brigade combat teams, plus an operational reserve, maybe 30,000 troops."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/opinion/06clark.html?ei=5090&en=54d89019ebc70bb2&ex=1291525200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

30,000 happens to be the oft-quoted number of troops that would be needed to man the military bases we're building over there.

[Sparkly]

58. Strengthening the borders

seems important to keep the violence from escalating into a larger war that could destabilize the whole region.

He's not alone in saying the US should stay but redeploy; and the main thing he's said over and over again is that a POLITICAL solution is ultimately the only way to stop the violence.

[dogman]

60. So why the post?

There is a post that is vague on Clark's website. Why come to DU looking for an explanation? Why not wait for a full report and discuss what was actually said instead of inviting unknowing speculation? FLAMEBAIT seems the most likely reason to me. This is also based on prior posts in the last days accusing Clark supporters of various things by the OP author.

[1932]

134. So that everyone can have an intelligent debate about the issue?

[dogman]

175. Proving the point. You can't have an intelligent debate

without facts. A poorly worded blog report of an event that has had no other coverage is hardly the basis for an intelligent debate, but posting a part of it is great for FLAMEBAIT.

[1932]

181. I suspect that it's a fair characterization of Clark's feelings

since it's exactly what he said when he supported Cindy Sheehan's right to protest but said that he didn't agree with her, and since it's consistent with things he writes in his two books.

By the way, the "fever" quote was posted at securingamerica, right? What was the reaction there? Did people actually deny that Clark would have said that? Is there any indication in the posters previous posts that he's not reliable and that he isn't credible?

[dogman]

182. Many like to debate Clark's statements when taken out of context.

That is not an intelligent debate. As noted elsewhere in this thread we can speculate, but how productive is that? Read my posts and you will see a link to the Democratic Party site with the Real Security plan. Some of this would seem to be in line with that. There is also a link to another DU thread about the economic dissatisfaction of the Iraqi people. As noted in posts I have made and the posts of others, Clark has just returned from meetings in Iraq and the region. He spoke with military command and with Gulf state leaders. One would guess that this presentation to the Senate leadership was based on that experience. I do not know the blogger or what he was trying to achieve, but the report was clearly lacking in content and specificity. To my way of thinking that leaves it lacking as the subject of debate. The reaction at securingamerica that I read indicated there was not enough information to have a discussion at this time.

[1932]

188. I think some just like to figure out what Clark stand for.

And, again, I think the quote is consistent with other things Clark has written and said.

[dogman]

191. So this has all been debated before?

Which brings back my theory that this post is FLAMEBAIT.

[1932]

196. Two comments:

- it looks like this is news to a lot of people here who can't believe that he would have said that, and
- I think the fact that this was posted recently at securingamerica and it refers to a recent meeting between Clark and Democratic leaders sort of makes it newsworthy.

[dogman]

200. Don't forget.

You love a partial story so you can speculate and spin it to your agenda. There aren't all that many here who can't believe he said what? I think the fact it is unclear what was said makes it ridiculous to debate at this time. Go read the Real Security plan at he Democratic Party website. That was newsworthy, yet received little attention.
http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/03/real_security_t.php

[wyldwolf]

62. madfloridian, give us a quick update on Dean's position

I'll help. Here' a start:

Democratic Party leaders are beginning to coalesce around a broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries.

The concept, dubbed "strategic redeployment," is outlined in a slim, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb, in the fall. It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007...

Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee chairman, has endorsed Korb's paper and begun mentioning it in meetings with local Democratic groups.

Sounds a bit like redeployment to me.

[madfloridian]

65. He is saying whatever the party tells him to say.

He is spouting the party line. I answered you above.

The Democrats are going to let Bush go ahead to Iran. Dean even sounded sort of concerned when he was asked about it...said he thought if they really believed Bush would do it..they would speak up.

He is not in the loop on this now. I want to know what advice they are being given, and I am told to "f*** myself" and everyone thinks that is hilarious.

And I don't care. Our party owes it to us. I took the quote from the WesPac site, and it is posted at Kos. That diarist there still has his head intact while mine is dangling from the many cuts.

All for asking what it meant.

[wyldwolf]

85. Suuuuurrrre... whatever happenned to the "Dean speaks for me" meme?

Did Dean tell you that?

[madfloridian]

91. I support Dean's efforts to build the party.

He speaks for me on many issues. He does not speak for me on women's rights and the national security issue because he is allowing the party to set the agenda.

I hope it doesn't continue. He speaks for me in most ways, far more than others do.

I have questioned him here on those issues, and I will continue to do so.

Why is it so unbelievable that someone would question Wesley Clark on something?

[wyldwolf]

92. oh, I get it. When you agree with him, he speaks for you.

When you disagree, that evil party apparatus is forcing him to say those vile things.

[madfloridian]

93. So you let people speak for you when you don't agree?

Sad.

[Sparkly]

95. Let me try asking it this way...

On issues where you agree with him, is he honestly speaking his own mind, opinions, viewpoints?

On issues where you disagree with him, is he merely touting the party line?

[madfloridian]

97. Not always.

Since I am pretty moderate overall, I find myself in agreement with him on most issues. I think he is giving into the party on Iraq, and on women's issues.

Does he need to do that to win? Probably. But I don't have to like it when he does that.

However, I am very afraid that our Democrats are going to sit by and let Bush bomb or continue to bomb Iran and not take a stand.

I detected geniuine concern in some of Dean's statements, I think from the Prospect breakfast...when he was asked specifically about Dems and Iran. I think he honestly does not know what the party will do on that. I think that Iran is part of the progressive internationalism policy of the DLC/PPI. Just nicer than Bush would do it.

It worries me.

[Sparkly]

98. Coincidence?

He's giving in to the party on the two issues you disagree with him on? I think you understand wyldwolf's question.

Not a whole lot Democrats can do about BushCo's idiocy re:Iran, but I think they "won't get fooled again" as far as another IWR.

Meanwhile, General Clark has said a lot about Iran, what he thinks US foreign policy should be, why the Iraq fiasco has strengthened Iran's hand, and in particular why BushCo needs to talk directly with Iran. There's a lot on WesPAC about it.

[madfloridian]

100. I want to wait for a fuller explanation of the "come home fever."

Then I can tell more what I agree on.

[Sparkly]

103. You can read all about Clark's positions on Iran and Iraq right now.

He's been prolific in writing, podcasting, doing TV appearances, radio interviews and even the Democratic radio response several weeks ago...

NO Democrat is "going to discourage our leaving Iraq." They're all pretty much on the same page: get the political foundation in place, give Sunnis faith in their own participation, establish security, and basically get out.

I'm still not sure how Dean is speaking his own mind on issues where you agree with him, and where you disagree, he's touting the party line. Is that coincidence?

[wyldwolf]

96. No, but I don't blame others for forcing someone to say something

[madfloridian]

67. I also wonder about this statement by the blogger.

He says it is what Clark said...but I was not there. It again does not make sense and I just question it.

Wanting the truth is not an offense for which someone should be told to go "f*** yourself" and called a miserable "b****". Wanting to know what a general is advising is not wrong.

I wonder about this statement as well.

"Blocking Russia from continueing it's quest for power and prestige in the region and persuing for the people of the region economic rights before human rights to ensure western style democracy takes root. "

economic rights before human rights...makes no sense.

It is a question of what is meant. I see someone at the link I gave questioned it as well, but they were not attacked like I am being attacked here for asking.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5810

[Sparkly]

70. Why not take it up with "the blogger?"

If you spend a lot of time looking around WesPac's CCN, you might as well register and ask questions directly to the bloggers you're quoting here.

[madfloridian]

72. Someone sent it to me. I seldom go there.

It is alarming if he said that, and it deserves scrutiny. If he didn't say it as the blogger said he did, I will post that also.

Someone there asked for clarification, and they weren't attacked. They said they knew it would be on the internet or something like that.

[Sparkly]

75. I wonder why the person who sent it didn't just ask the blogger?

As I said in #55, it seems to me the reference to "Gulf States" has to do with Katrina victims who are anxious to go home and need reassurance that things are being done to enable them to do so.

[Totally Committed]

79. "SOMEONE SENT IT TO ME"??????

Oh, that's rich. Beautiful, in fact.

"Someone there asked for clarification, and they weren't attacked."

Look out... here it comes... we're all attacking her! Why would you think coming HERE and asking what a blogger meant and presenting it as Wes Clark's own words would not have the consequences it has had? This is not Wes Clark's blog, this is DU. If you are going to start whining about being attacked now, you do not live in the realm of reality.

:nopity:

TC

[madfloridian]

81. I don't mind it.

That is what I am saying. Pretty soon things just roll off one's back.

I was not complaining. A little stunned at being told to f*** myself and seeing that everyone thought it was so hilarious...the utter extremity of that hit me...but I'm all over it now.

[tishaLA]

89. It's instructive, isn't it?

It seems that supporters of some candidates email things to each other to post because they want to inflame things on DU under the auspices of "clarifying" what a blogger meant when he posted something! It's the kind of attacks people like Rove do, but this time against a good Democrat who is taking his time to help the party.

Edit: Removed unnecessary preposition.

[Totally Committed]

74. Nah, better to come here and stir things up but good....

it would be too easy to ask the blogger to explain. Plus, let's all be honest adults here and admit it -- that's was never the reason of her OP -- she was looking to misrepresent Clark intentionally. She succeeded.

TC

[tishaLA]

83. Yes. It's so sad.

It's just not fair that some can't be respectful of someone who is working so hard for the party. Heck, maybe Gen. Clark should have just done something else today besides help the Party--maybe he should have gone to a picnic or a wedding instead.

But he chooses to help. And he gets attacked by supporters of some candidates.

[dogman]

78. Then it would seem that is the place to ask.

Why throw the question out here where no one knows any more than what you have read there?

[Totally Committed]

80. Puh-leeeze... she's playing us for chumps again...

It was a disingenuous attempt to smear Wes. Period. It's unfair and pitiful.

TC

[MH1]

117. Holy crap...last I checked, "economic rights" was code for

"privatization" and/or "corporatization", aka unchecked capitalism.

I really can't believe Clark is supporting that though - he'd be toast.

[dogman]

123. My criticism of this post is that it requires speculation.

Since the blogging that the OP cites is less than clear it would seem wiser to wait until there is something concrete to debate. Since you choose to speculate, I'll play with this one.
There is another post on DU.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2254847
It contains the following.
Snip>Baghdad -- A majority of Iraqis say their country is in dismal economic shape and getting worse, with 3 of 4 respondents also describing security in the country as poor, according to a new poll conducted by a conservative American think tank.

The poll reveals a population with little optimism about its economic future. The findings show that Iraqis believe jobs are harder to find, electrical service is poorer, and corruption has increased dramatically since last year.<snip

Since Clark was in Iraq in the last couple of weeks, he is probably quite aware of the situation on the ground there. Since he attended a conference with leaders of nearby nations, he is also likely aware of their concerns about their security and the security of Iraq. I would see this as a report by him to Democratic leaders of what he found and his analysis of the same.

[Sparkly]

124. While we're leaping to broad conclusions based on cryptic messages

hastily typed while live-blogging, let me offer another perspective, having JUST as much idea what General Clark said and meant as you do. (Well, perhaps more, since I've read and heard what he's said over a long period of time, but just for the sake of argument in this case...)

"Economic rights" does NOT equal "privatization" and/or "corporatization." That is absurd on its face!!

"Economic rights" is KEY to oppressed people having control over their lives, KEY to impoverished people's ability to lift themselves from poverty, and a KEY component to human rights in general.

Thwarting economic rights is KEY to keeping people down!

Economic rights, for example, were central to the American Revolution, and they were (and remain) central to the Women's Rights Movement.

How you leapt from that phrase to "privatization" and "corporatization" is beyond me. I don't know that particular "code," or where it is you're "checking."

[MH1]

125. It is a republican code phrase.

"Economic rights" in Iraq meant privatizing the oil industry, giving the largest slices of the pie to US interests.

Frequently when rethugs talk about "democracy" they throw in "economic rights" by which they mean unfettered capitalism.

I am not suggesting that Clark means that - I worded it badly. What I mean is that is what some people will hear in the phrase "economic rights", and especially in the context given.

Let me repeat, I don't believe ANY dem but the DINO-est would actually mean that.

[Sparkly]

126. It is a republican tactic...

... to take cryptic phrases out of context, read things into them, and play "gotcha" -- however it may be phrased.

There is PLENTY of information, in Clark's own words, on WesPAC. If anyone has a sincere desire to understand where he's at, it's readily available, and easily understood.

[Donna Zen]

129. Republicans are corporate whores

The republicans say "compassion" and they don't mean that either. I don't think that any Dem. but a DINO would mean that either. Nevertheless, in some parts of Iraq the unemployment is at 90%, I think that a job would mean at least as much if not more than a purple finger. Corporate control of Iraq'a oil will not get them to the true meaning of "economic rights."

[Adelante]

133. He's talking about oil revenues

As it is, the Sunnis are stuck between oil fields north of them and south of them. They, who are after all the former army, have to be assured on "economic rights" in order for there to be any measure of stability at all. They are not going to sit still for a life of poverty while the rest of the country prospers.

I'm guessing like anybody else, but that's what I think it means.

[Clarkie1]

138. It seems to me in China that economic rights are preceeding human rights.

It is a well known theory and perhaps fact that economic freedom often precedes political freedom, not the other way around. Without political freedom there can be no human rights.

Again, I don't know if Clark said this. The hypothetical statement is not unreasonable, however, if the implications are fully considered.

Clark has been quite vocal that we should be talking directly with the Iranians, toning down our own rhetoric, and establishing more business ties with Iran. In the long run, that is in our best interest to support economic freedom and by extension eventual poltical freedom and improved human rights in Iran.

Of course, this is exactly the opposite of what the administration is doing with the heated rhetoric from Bolton, Condi, and others as well as the early call for economic sanctions.

I think I remember reading somewhere that in the Middle East (with its long history of conflict) you can rid yourself your enemies only by assimilating them. I suppose that is probably right.

Edit: After reading some of the other posts on this thread, I should mention I am not "speaking in code." Certainly unfettered capitalism is a bad thing. Particularly worisome in China is the damage being done to the environment there. And with global climate change, uncontrolled, unregulated ecomomic expansion is even more of a danger to the world. So when I say economic rights, I mean individuals being free within that sphere to pursue a small business, own their own land, etc. That can lead to political pressure, poltical freedoms, and eventually human rights.

[Auntie Bush]

111. Why do you always post something negative /false about Clark

and then cry foul (Nobody likes me) when you are corrected? :cry:

It's easy to be liked/appreciated around here...just say something positive about our candidates once in awhile. I like Edwards, Kerry, Dean, Warner and Finegold...but I love Clark! :love: I say positive things or nothing...unless I'm asked. Try it sometime!

[madfloridian]

114. Is it false? That is what I want someone to address.

If it is a false statement, posted at WesPac, Kos, and here, just tell me and I will make it clear.

[Auntie Bush]

118. I really have more important things to do than to research someone

else's negative comments. I suggest you read his website.
Why do you dig up negative things about Clark...come here...post them...then ask others to prove to you you're wrong.

[Donna Zen]

119. Excellent Post!

This is my first post in this thread although at different points, I've actually thought about answering the questions. (There have been some questions...and plenty of very inaccurate statements.) Anyway, I keep holding back because IMHO, the people asking don't want any answers.

So the man calling for NO permanent bases is accused of advocating for them. The man who doesn't think we need more troops, has strange numbers attibuted to him, and The man who never wanted to go Iraq, who wants to get out as quickly as possible, is made into a war-without-ender. It really is a waste of time an effort to make these posts. Really.

How do we save ourselves from ourselves when divided we fall? Everyone here knows more about politics than 99.9% of our fellow Americans, and yet we pretend we know nothing.

Yes General Clark does believe we must tone down the rhetoric about Iran. A blogger didn't write that, he said that yesterday on tv. He does see the over-heated rhetoric as getting in the way of diplomacy...hey, ya know, he's just returned from the ME and he has negotiated treaties. He may know exactly what he is talking about. Oh, and the Russians? They've just sold piles of surface to air advanced missals to Iran. Go figure.

This post is longer than I meant it to be. I really only wanted to say thanks.

[MH1]

120. Is it negative/false?

I looked at the blog. It appears to be written by a Clark supporter who believes he is documenting what Clark said. If the statement that he thought he'd heard from Clark surprised him, you'd think he'd check it out thoroughly before posting it! He is a supporter, right?

That Clark would say what is reported - given what it strongly implies - is important. Hopefully it turns how to have been a misunderstanding or a misstatement. But I don't think MadFlo was necessarily wrong to post it - hell, yesterday someone posted 2-year old flamebait on something Kerry said that's long since been explained, and it didn't get locked until the thread had been dead anyway for hours.

Frankly I don't follow Clark's statements closely, and I thought he was roughly in the same camp that Murtha, Kerry, Feingold and other leading Dems are in. The statement MadFlo reported indicates this may not be true, and it is something I want to know.

Perhaps - and I only say perhaps - it would have been better to get a more solid confirmation before posting. BUT that would be far more caution than is usually given to posting threads about leading Dems around here.

[Sparkly]

122. "reassure the Gulf States by tamping down 'come home fever'"

That's as useful a basis for debate as "Senator X said, 'The dog barks in the night.'"

If you want a SERIOUS debate of General Clark's own words, for cryin' out loud, start with the many, many words that are quoted verbatim at WesPAC!! There are weeks, months, years of them.

http://www.securingamerica.com/

[MH1]

127. Can you narrow it down for me?

What has he said specifically, recently, about how he would approach bringing troops home from Iraq?

I'm serious but I don't want to wade through all the stuff on his site right now. I do think a more appropriate response than flaming MadFlo or pointing to the WesPAC home page, would be to quote a recent, specific statement made by Wes on the subject.

Just my .02. I'm not anti-Clark and you will rarely see me on a thread like this. I was curious about what was quoted in the op and I am still curious. In context, "Gulf States" seems like it could only refer to the Middle East, so speculation that it refers to US gulf states (as in Katrina victims) seeems like a reach. But this will be clarified eventually anyway, and in any case Iraq is only one issue across the broad spectrum; unless someone is extremely off base it is not likely to be the single thing that makes me love him or hate him.

I also think MadFlo was flamed undeservedly in this case, based on what I saw on the blog, but then again, it's not like that doesn't happen to lots of folks at DU all the time. I'm sure MadFlo can take it!

[Sparkly]

130. No division between Clark and most other Democrats

except that General Clark has been quite specific about what BushCo foreign policy ought to be at every step of the way (props to Kerry for offering proposals, too).

It's really NOT that complicated.

"Next time do a little research."

[MH1]

131. "Next time do a little research."

Sheesh.

I'm done here.

[Sparkly]

132. No bumperstickers for sale here...

Sorry! :hi:

[karynnj]

139. Her request was not unreasonable

There are many people on this thread who are ardent Clark supporters. As such, you know far more about his positions than the rest of us. I know where WesPac is and have looked at it - but there's a lot there. Surely you could pull up one or two things.

I know that MH has given links to relevent Kerry positions when people have questioned where he stands. If you needed, say Kerry's position on South America, many of us in the Kerry group would have read the speech he gave about 2 weeks ago and could respond with the link. I certainly don't think all Democrats would or should know everything Kerry has said or done in the last few months or even know where to easily find something.

Similarly, it's not likely we know everything Clark has said - a fast way to get specific information should be to ask his supporters. Not lazy, just efficient.

[Sparkly]

141. I would believe that IF

you had to call up one of those obscure "where the candidates stand on issues" sites from '04. But General Clark has a site REPLETE with his views on Iraq. It's like directing someone toward a neon sign: "You can't miss it, unless you're trying!!"

What do you want -- Transcripts? Interviews? Podcasts? Articles? Videos? There are SO many statements there, and all of them consistent, you'd have to be blind not to see them in a short glance.

Go to http://www.securingamerica.com/. If you're still confused after 20 minutes, let me know.

[karynnj]

142. The point was you could have selected

the most recent one or the most complete or best one - so she (and I and anyone else) could easily link to it. In the example I gave, Kerry's speech is on his Senate web site, if you were asking his view on that, which would you prefer a comment that he has a Senate website (and a JohnKerry.com) one or a link to a relevant article?

[Sparkly]

144. Just in two seconds...

There are YEARS of transcripts and articles to choose from. Quick on-site things it takes SECONDS to find:

http://securingamerica.com/node/607
http://securingamerica.com/node/846
http://securingamerica.com/issues/bushrecord
http://securingamerica.com/issues/iraqplan

I'm going to watch Colbert on re-run now so can't help you further right now.

[Noisy Democrat]

150. I spent a few minutes reading

I went to Clark's site and searched for a thing on Iraq. I spent several minutes wading through a long interview, but still didn't find the answer to her question. I still don't know where Clark stands on withdrawal of troops.

When people ask point-blank questions about Kerry's position, I answer them. So do the other Kerry supporters I know. We provide quotes and links. Obviously, if people want to represent their candidate by telling people to just go read and figure it out for themselves, that's their choice. I'm not convinced of its effectiveness, though. For example: I've put in all the time I intend to on figuring out where Clark stands. I gave it a few minutes and gave up. People here could have conveyed some information about Clark's position on withdrawal from Iraq to people like me who don't know anything, but chose not to. Oh well. It'll be interesting to see how the "Hell no, we won't explain anything about our man's positions to people who don't already know" approach works for you guys in 2008.

ETA: The interview I found was the first link on your list. I still don't know the answer to MadFlo's question.

[Sparkly]

155. Oh for cryin' out loud!!!

Straighten out the politics (get the constitution changed to empower Sunnis), deal with it as a regional issue (talk directly to Syria and Iran, and secure the borders), work internationally to show other countries it's in their best interest to see Iraq stabilized, make a clear pledge that we aren't out to occupy Iraq permanently, and stop feeding the American people over-simplified, misleading platitudes.

Is that clear enough??

[Noisy Democrat]

173. And when does he want troop withdrawal?

Yes, to answer your question, you're getting much better at actually providing *information* for the non-Clark people who are reading this thread, but no, I haven't seen a single word about whether he thinks we should be talking about troop withdrawal or whether he thinks Dems like Kerry and Feingold are jumping the gun on that. Still, your summary told me more about Clark's position than I knew before.

[Jai4WKC08]

213. Some of it is up above in Donna's post

But I'll try to synopsize briefly, focused more on your specific question.

Clark does not support immediate withdrawal. He is concerned about full-scale civil war, genocide, and expansion to regional war. He has said we have a short window in which we can still achieve a D- solution instead of an F, but only if we can get the Iraqis to modify their consitution to ensure the Sunnis have a role in the government and a share of oil revenues, and keep the Iraqi armed forces and police from being totally dominated by the Shi'a which would be used as a club against Sunnis. Based on his experience in the Balkans, he believes a firm timeline inhibits the ability of the US embassador to influence this change. In fact, he is concerned that Bush will draw down troops to lower levels than necessary for such tasks as force protection and border security, in order to help Republicans win '06 elections.

But Clark has also said the window is closing, and that when it does, there will be no point in remaining. He has also said that we should publicly renounce any permanent basing of troops in Iraq.

Clark has never said that he thinks Kerry or Feingold are "jumping the gun" or anything like that. He was one of the first to defend Murtha. As far as I know, Clark's only significant disagreement with any of them is the establishment of a hard and fast timeline or withdrawal date. But then, even Feingold backed off from that one, or had last I heard--it was some time ago and I don't know if he's changed his opinion.

[Noisy Democrat]

149. To a non-Clark supporter, this thread is *amazing*

I imagine the people who already know everything Clark has ever said on Iraq think this thread makes sense, but to someone who doesn't know, it's bizarre. Near as I can see, someone found a startling statement posted by some blogger *on Clark's site* (isn't it?), brought it here, and asked whether it reflects what Clark thinks. Seems like a simple question.

Apparently, almost nobody here is willing or able to answer a simple direct question. I don't know a single thing about Clark's position on Iraq, so I scanned down, thinking that someone would simply answer the question, give a relevant quote, link to a major recent statement of Clark's, that kind of thing. I do that all the time when someone has a specific question about what Kerry said. But instead, people have been jumping up and down like chimpanzees on 'roids, screaming and flaming and tearing their hair out -- yelling something about misplaced quotation marks and how *dare* someone try to smear Wes Clark with a quote from Clark's own site and hell no we won't answer questions about what Clark thinks about anything, you can just go read his entire site yourself from top to bottom and figure it out, what's the matter with you, coming here and asking questions... Wow. Believe me, to someone who doesn't know what all the screaming is about, it's quite a sight to behold.

Maybe this is the way some Clark supporters want to represent their candidate. If so, all I can say is, good night, and good luck.

[JI7]

157. i think the problem is the OP is about a blogger rather than Clark himself

so even Clark supporters aren't clear on what exactly is going on . since they don't have the speech or whatever that started this discussion.

they answer one thing, but the blogger the OP mentions might be discussing something else.

[madfloridian]

159. The blogger was at the Senate Caucus with Clark.

He expressly stated he was posting what Clark said.

[JI7]

162. yeah, but bloggers can misinterpret or get things wrong sometimes

and still it's what the blogger said rather than a direct reference to what Clark said so it's debatable and just makes it tougher to understand what is going on.

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

184. I have a history that makes me "suspect"? You really said that?

Well, by golly, gee. Would you like to start on that history and explain it all to me? That is impugning my integrity. People who like what I posted, think we need to question....are behind me. I have notes of support. But they are NOT going to post in this thread and get attacked.

You said:

2) The author of the OP wrote it after a run-in on another thread when she mistakenly felt dissed by a few Clark supporters.

(3) The author of the OP has a "history" that made some feel her real motive was completely disingenuous, whether or not #1 or #2 had ever come into play.

Looking from the outside, and being someone who either has been here a short time or isn't around often (I am noting from your post count), I'm sure you wouldn't know how the history of a certain poster would play into causing such an uproar. In your *amazement*, I'm sure this thread seems unruly and unpleasant. I think it's *amazing* you found no fault at all with her behavior, only ours. But, to know the context and the background in this instance is everything. The Clark supporters didn't start this unpleasantness... it actually didn't start here at all. No matter what position on Iraq Wes has, has had, will have, or whatever, this poster was determined to start a flame war over it

Those are just some snips from what you said about me. Would you care to reconsider?

[Clarkie1]

137. I don't know if Clark said this or not.

So what I am giving you now is my opinion, not necessarily Clark's.

"reassure the Gulf states by tamping down on come home fever."

I would translate that hypothtical statement to mean, "reassure the Gulf states we are not going to leave the region in chaos by pulling all our troops out of Iraq without consideration to regional stability."

Seems like a reasonable goal to me.

[Gloria]

140. That's it, Clarkie1. Clark does not believe in "immediate withdrawal"

and in reality, there is no such thing. A pullout would entail months of evacuating personnel, equipment, etc....Clark believes that troops CAN be pulled out as the situation warrants, but it can't be done on an arbitrary timetable, for various reasons (including putting our soldiers in a vulnerable position); actual conditions have to be the determining factor as to when and how many troops are removed. He is extremely concerned about the US leaving the region in even more chaos than it's in now. He sees Iraq as part of a broader picture, not in isolation. The Gulf States--he means those in the Middle East region--are terrified of instability spreading through the region. He wants to bring the countries in the region into the process of helping Iraq recover from Bush's misadventure.
As Clark has often said recently, it's such a mess, that it's a choice been an F or a C- outcome.

Interestingly, I just read a story (and posted it to the WMW this week) about how some of the Arab countries are so worried that they are trying to step in. The Arab League is in the process of opening an office there. Most investment is now coming from Iran and other countries have been reluctant to go in and build and offer services. Now, they see staying out as just helping the country on the way to civil war and chaos, which they are very afraid of.

Clark's ideas are way ahead of the curve and have been for quite awhile.

[1932]

185. So fearing "come home fever" is consistent with Clark's quoted statements

about Iraq.

He doesn't want Americans to force a pull out when there are political reasons he thinks justify staying.

Which is what he said about Vietnam in Winning & Waging Modern Wars. In those book he says that the protesters at home forced the US to pullout when it was actually a winnable war.He calls it the "Vietnam syndrome" (Winning, p. 101) -- the fear of American casualties which makes the politicans at home lose their will to see an action through to the end.

[madfloridian]

189. I did not know that.

I think if he is going to be advising our Democrats about war, I might need to read the book. Vietnam was winnable he thought?

[dogman]

195. Yes, you should read it.

Then you can see a good example of disinformation on the internet. The poster has indicated this information is on page 101 of the book. I can assure you it is not. He does write however that the Iraq War distracts us from the real war on terror.

[1932]

197. Oh, please. Disinformation? Are you claiming that "Vietnam syndrome"

is not discussed on page 101 of Winning Modern Wars?

[dogman]

198. Those are the only two words in your post that are used.

And in a different context.
Snip>Now there should be no question about the courage of the American troops or their willingness to endure casualties-the Vietnam Syndrome is largely behind us.<snip
Put in to the time frame this was written, how is it related to what you wrote about protesters or winnable war and especially politicians at home? He is writing about the troops.

[1932]

201. Here you go:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1586482181&id=Is7UW5d6X2wC&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=%22vietnam+syndrome%22+wesley+clark&sig=qon2fMSPM4dSLwf1Gf6KYd_4IqQ

That's page 101. Clark calls Iraq a success if the measure is proving that America won't pull out when there's popular/political dissent at home (due to casualties) that prevent the military from achieving their objectives. This is a theme that he addresses through Waging Modern Wars -- the fear of casualties in Serbia prevented him from doing everything he would have otherwise done.) What happened in Vietnam, according to Clark? "Come Home Fever." What was Clinton doing in Serbia? Avoiding deaths that would give America "Come Home Fever."

Here's another page worth reading, this time from Waging Modern Wars:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1586481398&id=EEfdvF95tjcC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=%22waging+modern+war%22+vietnam&sig=rW3DySgIzHf026rfg8G3CebAyiQ

This page (17) lays out early a theme that Clark repeats throughout this book: Vietnam didn't work not because it was a bad war, but because politics got in the way. He says on this page the Pentagon was harassed by demonstrators. I think he's mixing up who was the victim in Vietnam. It wasn't the Pentagon or America.

Anyway, the full text of both of these books can be searched, so anyone can look up Vietnam and see what he says. I haven't looked, but, perhaps, "demonstrators" or "protestors" might also produce interesting results.

[dogman]

204. Strange?

When I click your link I see the same page I snipped the sentence from in my book. I see you highlighted the words Vietnam Syndrome, which I agreed are there. I do not see any mention of:
Snip>Clark calls Iraq a success if the measure is proving that America won't pull out when there's popular/political dissent at home (due to casualties) that prevent the military from achieving their objectives. This is a theme that he addresses through Waging Modern Wars -- the fear of casualties in Serbia prevented him from doing everything he would have otherwise done.) What happened in Vietnam, according to Clark? "Come Home Fever." What was Clinton doing in Serbia? Avoiding deaths that would give America "Come Home Fever."<snip
Could you highlight that portion also?
While you're at it could you highlight the part where he says the US or the Pentagon were victims?
I think it's a known fact that popular demonstrations helped end the Vietnam War. It was probably more likely the fact American mothers realized the power of their vote and exercised it. This was the prelude to the rise in stature of the feminist movement. But that whole subject is another topic for another post.

[1932]

210. The answers to all your questions

are on those two pages. Actually, two of your three answers are right on those pages (Iraq was a success if the measure is showing resolve in the face of casualties and media dissent (did that even happen?) and the part about the pentagon being harassed (the victim) of demonstrators). To answer your middle question, you have to read a few more pages from Waging Modern War to see the repeated theme that avoiding casualties hampered the mission.

Your last point about popular demonstrations -- I'm not sure why you wrote them. However, I'll point out that I think Clark would agree with you. I think he would say that those demonstations broke America's political will to see Vietnam through to the end (which, as you must know, he said at Table for One/TPM was winnable, and cited a biography of Mao as evidence of why). So what's your point? Why do you bring that up?

[dogman]

214. I only read what is written.

I still don't see victim or anything like it. Where on page 101 do you see "if"? This was written after the fall of the Hussein regime and is related to the fact the troops were successful in that phase of the war. That's why I wrote "time line". The book was not written yesterday and did not deal with the occupation of Iraq. Clark feels we have met our military objectives for the most part and that political and diplomatic objectives remain. I will admit you have moved the goal post pretty far. You've gone from page 101, to reading another book, to Table One.
I did not bring up popular demonstrations, you did. Look at the last sentences in your post I was responding to.
Snip>Anyway, the full text of both of these books can be searched, so anyone can look up Vietnam and see what he says. I haven't looked, but, perhaps, "demonstrators" or "protesters" might also produce interesting results.<snip
Again we can speculate as to what was said at this meeting mentioned in the OP, but basically you have proven my point, there is nothing new here. My speculation at this point is that Clark was relating to the Senators the fact that Gulf state leaders have conveyed to him their concerns that the rising pressure in the US to pull out of Iraq has them concerned about their security and the security of the region. That makes sense because that is what he has spoken about in the past and the situation has not changed because Bushco has not pursued diplomatic success and has been ineffective in pursuing political success. But at this point that is just my guess. I'm not going to debate things that I have no real knowledge of, or put words in Clark's mouth.

[madfloridian]

206. Thanks for that research.

I had not tried that Google book search before, and was not aware of it. He does consider the protests as harassing, apparently. Thanks.

[1932]

207. No problem.

Cheers.

[dogman]

209. There's a revelation.

Protests are harassing? Who'd a thunk it?

[wiley]

143. This is pathetic

Not a busy night or something? When's the next edit?

[madfloridian]

146. Well, it looks to me like our Democrats are getting advised .....

to hush up the anti-war folks so we can reassure the middle east countries around Iraq.

I asked because the big march was today. We will have a rally tomorrow, just as we do every week.

I asked because this kind of thing is not going to show up in a transcript most likely. I am not even sure they wanted us to see it. However, it does sound like they are saying let's cool it, reassure our partners, be sure we spread Democracy around those countries...the western kind of Democracy.

Now I sure have been jumped on here for asking, but that does not change what it looks like Clark advised the Democrats. I think being realistic about it is important.

The only way we can survive in Iraq is to spread more death and destruction. We have already effectively destroyed the cradle of civilization.....and I think God will make us answer for that crime alone. If we stay more innocent Iraqis will die..because our Democrats won't stand up and say get out. I have not objection to phased withdrawal of some kind of redeployment, but I do object to continuing this farce.

If you don't think we are going to spread Democracy, and if you don't think many of our Democrats, including Clark, want to do so...take a look at the articles at NED.

Richard Holbrooke on "How can America Advance Democracy Around the World"

Anwar Ibrahim on "The Future of Muslim Democracy"

Larry Diamond spoke on "Can the Whole World Become Democratic?"

Francis Fukuyama on "Identity, Immigration and Liberal Democracy".

Mark Malloch Brown on "UN Reform, Democracy and Human Rights".

It is an interesting site. Clark is a director, and I want to know what he thinks on this issue now, not what he has publicly said he wants. I believe our Democrats are being advised to stay in Iraq, and I think we should know it....not be led around by a nose ring.
http://www.ned.org/

[mmonk]

147. Legitimate questions.

I wonder what different positions dems will have especially in '08. I also wonder what standing the US will have then. Iraq is somewhere we shouldn't have gone to in this manner. Clark originally was not for doing it. He probably is looking at things from his vantage point now that we are there. Whatever the politicians think, we all need to be informed as much as possible. I don't think we can police the whole world in a manner that reflects how we have behaved recently. We will go the way of the USSR and implode, especially with the crushing debt the next president will inherit. I think the best strategy is to rejoin the world community because I think that's our best option for reestablishing world co-operation and multi national solutions.

[autorank]

148. Dr. Dean would not approve of misinformation about Gen. Clark. Not good.

After all, Dr. Dean is head of DNC and DOES NOT want Democrats to be the victim of mis informaiton.

The misinformation that this is from Clark would be frowned on by Dr. Dean.

[madfloridian]

151. This is a quote from Securing America by the blogger with him...

at the Democratic meeting.

Don't try the Dean would not approve stuff...this is serious business. I did not make this up, it is at Clark's own blog.

Please realize I am concerned that we are not getting out of Iraq, ever.

And I don't think our Democrats are willing to fight about Iran. I really fear they won't.

[Donna Zen]

156. Please read:

• General Clark wants ALL American troops out of Iraq--no permanent bases. He told the bloggers that if bush would follow his, Clark's plan,
we could get them out faster than any other way. When asked about his plan, he replied that he looks at the situation in total, puts out his
best plan, and prays. He is not telling Dems to stay in Iraq.

• He has just returned from 2 back-to-back trips to the Gulf region where he met with regional leaders.

• Even if we accept the bloggers words as close to Clark's, he did not remotely ask anti-war protestors to shut-up, he asked the senators to
tone down the rhetoric. The heat is probably not helping Dems. politically, and not helping the Gulf leadership. Ditto Iran. He said that we
must act cool headed at this point--take the high-road.

• General Clark has said that we did not bring democracy to Iraq; we brought violence to the region.

• Part of his time in the region was spent discussing the 200,000,000 people caught up in world immigration. Right now, because of the
situation in Iraq, Jordan is flooded with Iraq immigrants.

• I have asked for clarification from the blogger. I expect at some point, I will receive it.

• Our choice is now do we get an "F" on Iraq or a "D+" (Note: he has down graded from a C- since Gloria heard him.)

• Political change must come from within the country--from the human heart-- is one of his constant themes. In one of his op eds he wrote
that the desire for democracy and freedom beat just as strongly under a white robe as it does in under a grey suit, but their democracy will
not look like our democracy which is something America must understand and accept.

Wes Clark has been very consistent in his attitude about Iraq: the worst geopolitical blunder this country has ever made. He has said that since the summer of 2002. And when people spout off their consistently negative attitude about Wes Clark (this is not aimed at you MadFloridian) I wish they would stop and think for a second, that long before any Draft, during that summer of 2002, Clark was working the back rooms at the senate and trying to change the minds of those who would eventually vote "yes." The night that Gephardt caved to bush, General Clark was up and down from a table at a business meeting in Chicago, talking to Dashel on the phone, and trying to craft a version of the IWR that would permit bush to go to the UN but NOT give bush authority to go to war. Finally, he said that Dashel called him to say that it was over...Gephardt had signed on to bush's version. As Clark said: we tried; we just couldn't get enough people. He was not paid to do this, he was not lauded for doing this, he was later told by Democrats at DU and elsewhere that he wasn't enough of a Democrat. Personally that makes me sick, but I am just one person. Nevertheless, no matter what Wes Clark's future plans are, I know that I owe him the respect to stop people when they try to belittle him and twist his message. It is wrong, and he deserves far better... he was with us when we needed him. Leadership is standing up.

[madfloridian]

158. Thanks, let me know when you get the word on the comments I posted.

Thanks for not attacking me, and taking time to answer. Clark is apparently the go to guy on national security, and when I read those words they disturbed me.

There is confusion over this, and there is confusion over Iran. Dean was put on the spot at the Prospect breakfast over Iran...apparently they are NOT keeping him in the loop. Yet he is the one who gets questioned unmercifully on this.

I feel those words do deserve explanation, and I appreciate your taking time to find out.

[Donna Zen]

161. I'm sure he'll talk to Gov. Dean

General Clark recent schedule: returned at 1:00 am last Sat. from the ME. Did Dem. fundraising and a JJ Dinner Sat. Flew to Calif. Sun. Did fundraising Sun. Mon. & Tues. Wed. fundraising in NM, Thurs. fundraising in NYC, Friday...in Washington. Today in Philly. Maybe he hasn't spoken to him lately, but ya never know.

[Texas_Kat]

160. Thanks for the synopsis, Donna Z

Clark has always been consistent - he doesn't do 'soundbite' policy statements.

One of the things I've discovered as 'live blogging' has gotten more prevalent, is that it's damned hard to do. A 'live-blogger' has to be able to listen, type, record statements IN CONTEXT, and synthesize what's happening around them all simultaneously.

It's not an activitiy for the unskilled -- particularly when trying to 'live-blog' one of Wes Clark's policy speeches.

Wes Clark is a very 'dense' speaker (in terms of linguistic context and content). Every single sentence means something. There is no fluff, there is no meaningless (or repetitive) rhetoric. As one prominent blogger has said "It's like going to a graduate seminar with an final at the end."

I feel really sorry for the guy who tried to live blog this speech. Attempting to 'condense' what Clark was saying into 5 bullet points of half a dozen words each is impossible, and it shows. He did a very poor job of it. Anytime there's a real effort to 'live blog' any major address by Clark, there are usually 5-6 people all working together. This blogger was obviously in over his head. Probably why he stopped -- it was just too difficult to keep up.

As simple as it sounds to do, live-blogging is not for the faint of heart..... or amateurs. Not Clark's speeches, anyway.

So slow down the heart palpitations, bring out the anti-hyperventilation paper bags and realize that just because a spectator tries his hand at live-blogging, doesn't mean he'll get it right.

on edit: typo

[Donna Zen]

163. I once asked Eric Massa

..what it was like to work for Wes Clark. He said, "everyday's a PHD."

[Texas_Kat]

165. Yeah, scary isn't it?

I have a distinct feeling that this blogger had never done this before and had no clue how hard it is.

Well, that'll learn 'im.

[tishaLA]

166. Massa was on Franken this week

He was VERY impressive. A no-nonsense talker just like Gen. Clark and Paul Hackett.

[incapsulated]

164. Thank you, Donna.

I wish sometimes we could rate posts here, because yours deserves it.

:thumbsup:

[Donna Zen]

167. I just wish the format was better.

Plus, I lost a sentence along the way. Anyway, thank you; however, I'm fully aware that tomorrow or another tomorrow, half the people posting on a thread with Clark or Clarke or mr. clarke in the title, will have never read one thing I've written, but they'll have bookmarked that blogger's quote. So...there ya go.

[incapsulated]

168. It's there...

To read for people who honestly want to know the truth. The rest will never listen, anyway.

:hug:

[MH1]

170. Thanks for clarifying.

It is nice to see an answer to the original question. It is certainly nice to see some of the points (like the choice between D+ or F, although I am not sure D+ is even possible any more).

A couple parts trouble me though: "he asked the senators to tone down the rhetoric" - who was he referring to specifically? Does he include Congressman Murtha and others who are behind Murtha in this?

This does seem like a departure from what many here in the blogosphere have been screaming at their representatives in Washington for. Without seeing Clark's comments in full context (a transcript would be wonderful) I don't want to comment too much on the substance, but just note what it sounds like.

Is it possible he was asking the generals to "tone down the rhetoric"? It seems the generals have been the ones most vocal and drawing the most attention, far more than any senator(s).

If he did say and mean "senators" then my follow up question would be what he thinks about the retired generals being so vocal.

I think I still want to know about the "economic rights before human rights" part of the blogger's transcription. I think you or someone posted downthread about that, so I will go look before saying more.

[MH1]

171. Come to think of it...if he was "asking Senators"...given that

Kerry is probably the one who gave the most vocal and recent speech calling for a plan to get our troops out by the end of 2006. Of course he specifies prerequisites such as getting other nations, particularly in the region, involved in stabilizing Iraq.

I'll admit when I saw the op's subject, my curiosity was aroused because "tamp down come home fever" does seem like a negative response to Kerry's April 22 speech, which I happened to think was dead on (not to mention, beautifully delivered.)

Are we seeing a schism here, between the Dems who think we should be vocal about demanding the republican controlled government get our troops out of Iraq, and those who think we shouldn't be vocal about it (Wes?) - or maybe shouldn't be getting out at all (a la Hillary, as I understand it)?

I am not sure how a Senator calling for our goverment to resolve Iraq and get our troops out of there, is going to hurt Dems politically. I am not sure how it is wrong to be "vocal" about what is the right thing to do.

And I really want to know exactly who Wes had in mind when he spoke of "come home fever" (or whatever his actual words were - did the blogger invent that phrase on the spot, and if so, why?)

It bugs me that Kerry wasn't even able to be there to defend his position, due to a death in the family, and the "tamp down..." phrase does seem like it could have been aimed at him. I may be being too sensitive though. I await the transcript of the actual remarks, and any follow up clarification from Wes Clark himself.

[CarolNYC]

194. Wow,

now you're turning this into some kind of Clark attack on Kerry?! THAT is amazing. Sheesh....

[CarolNYC]

193. Bravo, Donna!

I know it feels like hitting your head against a brick wall sometimes....but this is a wonderful post...

Some people just have an agenda and they'll not let anything get in the way of that....Too bad for them...

[madfloridian]

215. This "misinformation" is from the communications director.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/29/112724/212

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

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

[Jai4WKC08]

199. This was not Clark speaking in riddles

It was a live blogger trying to synopsize his main points. Who knows how close he got?

I think it's also important to remember that the topic of discussion was NOT what we should do about Iraq, but what Democrats should do to convince the American people that we as a party can handle national security better than the Repubs. It was a political strategy meeting, not a policy development meeting. From what I understand, policy was discussed later, but it was not what Clark was speaking about when the blogger posted.

[Capn Sunshine]

177. Why attack the messenger, Clark supporters?

You guys are extremely emotional over this. Why not questrion the General?

I find it very hard to believe not one Clark supporter here was at that speech, and that the speech isn't then subsequently plastered all over the net, which is the usual modus operandi.

But then again, I've got a pretty bad case of "come home fever"....

[dogman]

178. Why ask why?

There are probably very few Clark supporters here who are US Senators or staff members. Maybe that fever has your mind congested and things are not quite clear to you. You might not have noticed the OP author's reactions on a number of posts lately.

[madfloridian]

183. Don't put the blame on me for questioning the general's words.

You guys say what you want with impunity, I get blasted to hell and back for questioning why he would say to spread western democracy, economic rights before human rights, and tamp down the come home fever.

This is not about me, this is about our soldiers dying in Iraq while our Democrats are close-mouthed. If they are being advised like that by a former general, I want to know. Don't you?

[dogman]

186. The General's words?

That is what started the criticism of your post to begin with. It is unclear what the General's words are. I already know his advice to the Party. It is contained in the Real Security plan on the Democratic Party website. Which words do you know to be those of Wes Clark?

[madfloridian]

187. Again, I post the words of the blogger who is there....

And that is all I have to go on. The words concerned me, so I asked. I will repost them because it is still being pretended here that I am not telling the truth, and I very much resent it.

"General Clark is addressing all, or most, of the Democratic Senators here at their retreat in Philadelphia. Senator Landrieu just gave him a very warm and flattering introduction and General Clark has just begun outlining his vision.

What's our vision? What's our position? How do we communicate it?

In his opening remarks, General Clark drew enthusiastic applause with his vision. He laid it out thusly:

It's a five part approach:

1. Responsible redeployment in Iraq

2. Strengthen our homeland security operations

3. Hunt down Osama Bin Laden and ramp up counterterror operations

4. Energy independence

5. Reinforce friends and allies

Moreover, it should be United States policy to divide Syria and Iran; weaken Hezzbollah; reassure the Gulf States by tamping down "come home fever". Blocking Russia from continueing it's quest for power and prestige in the region and persuing for the people of the region economic rights before human rights to ensure western style democracy takes root."

[Donna Zen]

179. Not opened speech

This was a closed meeting, a senate retreat. I have no idea why the blogger was there, or why they were live blogging. I did not attack any messanger. DU has a history. Sometimes history effects conversations that are current. If I run into the General while he is out saying good things about other Democrats, I would love to have him clarify the comments.

[MH1]

180. Will there be an official transcript?

If not, there probably shouldn't have been a live blog - too much opportunity for what has apparently happened.

I couldn't even find anything about the event on democrats.senate.gov, although I had seen somewhere (maybe here at DU) ahead of time that this event was occurring.

[JNelson6563]

203. We need a "bee-keeper" icon

For when such swarm action as this breaks out on DU.

:yoiks:

[dogman]

208. Only if we can have a "child with a stick" icon.

Or an antagonist baiting a FLAME trap.

[CarolNYC]

212. Aw, there's Julie....

I knew it was just a matter of time. :hi:

[madfloridian]

211. The post on this at DailyKos says this guy is the communications director.

No one there is attacking the poster. It is quite different. Maybe it is because he did not point out what was being said as specifically as I did, or because people were not really reading. But this is apparently a legitimate post by a legitimate poster, no matter how you try to paint what I posted here as attacking.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/29/112724/212

A snippet:

"Clark - Live from US Senate Democratic Caucus - Phila.
by Knightrider
Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 10:27:24 AM EST
Updates are being posted by Erick Mullen - Communications Director

Live at the United States Senate Democratic Caucus
Posted by erick on April 29, 2006 - 10:20am.

General Clark is addressing all, or most, of the Democratic Senators here at their retreat in Philadelphia. Senator Landrieu just gave him a very warm and flattering introduction and General Clark has just begun outlining his vision."

So continuing to say I am attacking or making stuff up, or that the blogger does not know what he is talking about...he is the communications director for a group which I just assume to be WesPac.

If I am wrong, please correct me on that.

Edited to bold, so I will be sure I did not make a mistake on the group of which he is communications director.

This has been quite a thread in many ways.

[The Magistrate]

216. Locking

Continuation of a flame-war from another thread.