Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why do so many at DU like Wes Clark?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:04 PM
Original message
Why do so many at DU like Wes Clark?
I am a Feingold supporter right now, but I can't ignore that so many still support Clark over Feingold for 2008. (which by the way is only secondary to 2006) I see a lot of support for Clark here, but I would like to see some people say what issues you like him on and what things he has done that makes you like him. This is an opportunity to make him shine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. I like him...
but I think he's too moderate to moderately-conservative on social issues for me. I much prefer Feingold, or even John Edwards. My ultimate wish would be for another Al Gore run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. I think you would be surprised
If you became familiar with his take on social issues. If you like Feingold, Gore and Edwards on social issues, Wes doesn't take a back seat to any of them. He is for single payer health care, is fighting global warming and speaking out for energy independence, is against tax cuts for the wealthy, in favor of affirmative action and a woman's choice... It just goes on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Traveler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #7
107. Clark, Edwards, Feingold ...
Hmmm ... looks like a pretty good field to me. These are all outstanding people. There are some others ... I'm not convinced Al Gore won't enter the fray.

I don't see myself really getting behind Biden or H. Clinton. I'll vote for 'em, but don't expect bucks or passion from this corner.

Still, I think the we are in for a real battle of ideas over the next couple of years.Perhaps out of that struggle we shall emerge with a workable consensus that can move this country forward again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #107
197. I'm for Edwards myself
Very decent guy, and can bring this country back together again. I think we need that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Can you be more specific on which social issues?
Cause I bet a closer examination of Clarks stance on them might be helpful especially compared to Feingold and Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerry-is-my-prez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
183. Edwards isn't to the left of Clark.You haven't looked very closely at them
Edwards is quite conservative in most issues. Do you think he was nominated to the Senate from North Carolina for nothing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. Because he shoots straight, and from the hip...
and very rarely misses.

Wesley Clark is a man of honor. There's little more one could want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. hehe, "shoots straight, and from the hip" is too bumper stickery for me
I was kinda hoping for issues and things he has done/is doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. There are a lot of people who see him as a winner with his military
background and moderate stance on a lot of issues. I would be okay with him, and I was once staunchly against him. But he's grown a bit on me and would be a far better candidate than others I won't name for fear of their operatives jumping down my throat. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
135. His support started as Liebermanism imo
Edited on Mon Apr-03-06 03:04 PM by Jersey Devil
I think that he originally gained support because Democrats were afraid that unless we had a warrior as a candidate we would have no chance as the "weak on defense" party, the same kind of strange thinking that imo pushed Lieberman over the edge into a war mongering Bush sycophant.

Having said that I have been listening to Clark and like very much what he has to say. He is the opposite of war mongering but still a very strong man. I could support him strongly as the nominee though he is not my first choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
5. For a lot of the same reasons people support Feingold:
Edited on Sun Apr-02-06 09:11 PM by ocelot
A solidly liberal position on the important issues and a terrific combination of brains, honesty and guts. Neither of them is afraid of anything and will not hesitate to take risky positions for the sake of their country. If we nominated either Clark/Feingold or Feingold/Clark in '08 I'd be thrilled to death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
6. For many of the reasons I like Feingold.
Integrity, leadership, and courage. That basically leaves electability. My personal opinion is that Clark is more electable. I would have no real problem supporting Feingold however I think Clark has a broader appeal in the General Election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cosmocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. YEP ...
And, this is not a knock on Feingold ... He is earning his stripes ... But, Wes is more "electable" ...

Feingold was on C-Span a month or so ago, and he was getting some obligatory calls from conservabots ... One of them called him "slick" in a homer bucksnort yarnell kind of way ... That is what feingold will be up against from the "base" R/Cons ... Again, not that I see him that way, I think he is a dead eye, by the books straightshooter, but to freepers, that makes him pretty scary ...

Wes ... He has a way about him that smooths over some of the R hate ... This guy does regular bits on Fox and never causes a stir ... Any other lib ends up, visibly about ready to take a chair off someone's head ... Wes sees what is going on, and is so darn good he slams the Rs without them even knowing it ...

More rings on the tree, BIG international creds ...

I like Feingold and would readily get behind him ... But, Wes is the package ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
90. Excellent points made concisely.
Both are excellent candidates and leaders.

Clark has proven leadership skills and international respect.

Clark is more electable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
capi888 Donating Member (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
9. He is on C-Span NOW Take a look and see! N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. i was about to write that lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
capi888 Donating Member (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Sorry, LSK
I wanted to get it posted so people can see and hear for themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. hes very impressive
I followed him a little in the primaries, but was a Dean supporter. But I have nothing against Clark and that was one very good speech he just made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
11. He' s on now on C-Span......
Edited on Sun Apr-02-06 09:18 PM by FrenchieCat
watch and form your own opinion!

Also read this journal entry on why I support Wes!
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/FrenchieCat/3
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
12. I like Feingold, too
In fact, they are a lot alike, not only on issues, but in terms of integrity and honesty. You never have to wonder if they are telling you the truth or playing politics. Straight out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femmocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
14. I was a Clarkie in 2004....
and I still admire him so much. He is a brilliant man, a great military leader, very articulate, and well-versed on the issues. He is a liberal on the issues that matter to democrats I believe, but I couldn't rattle them off right now. I know he is pro-choice, for health care, public education, and against the war, for example. He always makes so much sense to me. I'm not sure how "electable" he is, but he did win one primary in '06. I believe he would appeal to red-states voters who wouldn't view him as an east coast-latte drinking "librul." He has stayed active since 2004 with his website and by campaigning for democrats across the country. I would work my butt off for him again in a heartbeat if he choses to run again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femmocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Correction....
He won a primary in 2004, sorry! I think it was Oklahoma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Yes, Oklahoma
And he didn't do as badly as a candidate as some people like to say. Not bad at all.

This is from my Journal

Clark entered the primary race a year or two after everybody else was running. He was a novice candidate who ran in a field that was 80% elected officials or former elected officials; experienced campaigners, in other words. The only other candidate without an election history had been a preacher-political activist since childhood, a very, very experienced campaigner.

So how did Clark do?

In a four-month long campaign, before withdrawing on 2/11/04 and endorsing Kerry, Clark competed in 13 states. He won Oklahoma over experienced campaigners. He came in second in Arizona, New Mexico and North Dakota ahead of experienced campaigners. Third in New Hampshire, Tennessee and Virginia ahead of experienced campaigners. Fourth in Missouri and South Carolina ahead of experienced campaigners. Fifth in Delaware, Maine, Michigan, and Washington ahead of experienced campaigners.

Since the day he dropped out in February 2004 and began campaigning non-stop for John Kerry, he's been campaigning for Democratic candidates all over the country. He's now a very experienced campaigner in his own right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #14
116. welcome to DU!!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #14
178. When you meet him, you believe in his honesty

and his broad based wisdom.

He is smart and so kind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
19. Intelligence, guts, honesty, and very good positions
On everything from LBGT rights to taxes. What's not to like?

BTW, I also like Feingold. I think Clark and Feingold are two of the most important voices in American politics today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
20. I'm NOT voting for Clark!
Edited on Sun Apr-02-06 09:31 PM by Breeze54
He voted for Reagan TWICE and Bush TWICE and for the present bush-Moron!
:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
That's all I need to know!
No F**KING WAY does he get my vote!
He's another "used to be" a repig! Yeah, right!
Until it was inconvenient...(See Election 2004)
Leopards don't change their spots!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Proof Please
I'm Asking nicely, so please answer nicely with some documentation please.
Thank you.

P.S. In know better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. So don't vote for him
Who gives a shit :shrug:

However, he was never a Republican and voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004. Try facts, they are wonderful things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #25
36. LOL
I think I'll add that to my arsenal of replies when the ignorant haters come out.

"So don't vote for him. Who gives a shit?"

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. That's simply false. Clark NEVER voted for Bush.
He was never registered as a Republican. He voted for Clinton twice, then Gore and Kerry. Is that not enough of a Democratic record?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Thank You Ocelot
People sling shit when they get desperate. You know what I mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #26
38. He said he voted FOR Nixon, Reagan and Bush!!
http://www.factcheck.org/article97.html

Clark says he voted for Richard Nixon during the Vietnam era,
and later for Ronald Reagan as the Cold War was coming to an end.
“I voted for Reagan and I voted for Nixon.."
Clark said at a campaign appearance in Derry, NH on Dec. 20.


Clark also has been quoted as saying he voted for George Bush,
the current President's father, in 1988, and Clark has not denied this.


Clark says he voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and most recently for
Gore and against George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election.

(OK...I was off by one? but how do YOU know for sure who he voted for?) :shrug:
FACTS Please! Prove it!

Soon after Clark emerged as a candidate for the Democratic nomination,
the Republican National Committee released a videotape and transcript of a speech
Clark had given May 11, 2001 for the Pulaski County Republican Party in Arkansas.
Most of Clark ’s address was a nonpartisan discussion of foreign policy,

but Clark did say this:

"If you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done.
And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell,
Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill
- people I know very well - our president George W. Bush.
we need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe."


After US forces toppled the Taliban government in Afghanistan Clark
praised Bush's military leadership in another speech,
also captured on videotape, to a university audience in Searcy, Arkansas
in a speech on January 22, 2002:


"I tremendously admire, and I think we all should, the great work done
by our commander-in-chief, our president, George Bush, and the men and women
of the United States armed forces."


:puke: :puke:

I question his judgement.
And none of you know for sure who the hell he voted for in 2000 or 2004!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #38
46. Here's some information for you....
Edited on Sun Apr-02-06 10:34 PM by FrenchieCat
This stuff is old and has been rebutted so often until, I don't think I will spoil my night, after having watch General Clark on C-Span, by responding to the same old shit......

so here read this...

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


and here!
Here you are. Don't know if the link is still good, but found this in my arsenal.....it's the speech. Clark gave the same speech at a Democratic fund raiser a week later.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065

here is the full paragraph of contention:
------------------
You see, in the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect our country from communism. Well guess what, it's over. Communism lost. Now we've got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live. We've got to let them be all they can be. They want what we have. We've got some challenges ahead in that kind of strategy. We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be doneAnd I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.
----------------------
notice he says he is glad to have them in office for the challenges ahead in EUROPE. He was after all the Supreme Allied Commander of Nato...so US relations with Europe would be important to him. He is hoping for the best...considering....in a time pre 9/11 and pre Iraq war.

in the next two paragraphs he further defines the European challenges:
-------------------------
We've got a NATO that's drifting right now. I don't know what's happened to it. But the situation in the Balkans where we've still got thousands of American troops, it's in trouble. It's going downhill on us as we're watching it. Our allies haven't quite picked up the load on that. But our allies say they're going to build a European security and defense program with a rival army to NATO. Well, I think it's a political imperative that they do more for defense, but I think we have to understand that that linkage between the United Sates and Europe, that bond on security, that's in our interest.

Look, in politics they told me--I don't know anything about politics now, I want to make that clear. But they told me--I read, do my reading in Time magazine and so forth. And they said in politics you've always got to protect your base. Well, for the United States, our base is Europe. We've got to be there, and we've got to be engaged in Europe. And that means we've got to take care of NATO, we've got to make sure the Europeans stay in it, and we've got to stay with the problem in the Balkans, even though we don't like it. We will get it resolved, and we'll help bring democracy and Westernization to those countries there.

two paragraphs up from the maligned "praise" we find this:
------------------------
But we're also extremely vulnerable. Our economy--we're using three times--we've got three times as much foreign investment as we're investing--capital flow--as we're putting out there. They're investing here because they believe in us. We're using energy like it's going out of style. We're using five to eight times as much energy per capita as people in the rest of the world, twice as much as even the Europeans. We're vulnerable to security threats--everything from terrorism to the developing missiles that are--we know rogue states are developing to aim at us.

(that statement above was made pre 9/11)
Clark continues ......
And so I think we have to have a new strategy, and we have to have a consensus on the strategy, and we have to have a bipartisan consensus, and politics has to stop in America at the water's edge. We've got to reach out, and we've got to find those people in the world and share our values and beliefs--and we've got to reinforce them. We've got to bring them here and let them experience the kind of life that we have. They've got to get an education here. They've got to be able to send their children here. They they've got to go home. And they've got to carry the burdens in their own lands, and to some extent we have to help them.
----------------------------
notice that in the first paragraph clark talks enviromentalism to a republican audience.
also note the warning about terrorism pre-9/11.
notice in the second paragraph he talks about bipartisanship, and reaching out to the world community. two traits that he shares spot on with his positions today.
-------------------------
Here, General Clark in talking to Tim Russert about the Freeper's "Videotape" that came from guess who???? Your friend.....Drudge!

GEN. CLARK: That’s politics, Tim. But, you know, I’m not a politician, but I am a fair person. I supported the president in Afghanistan. I think we should have gone in there and stayed in there and gotten Osama bin Laden. And I give the men and women in the armed forces, including our commander in chief, who is at the top of the chain of command, the credit for waging a very effective campaign, as far as it went in Afghanistan. And I think you have to give credit where credit’s due.

As far as the earlier speech is concerned, you know, I did not vote for George W. Bush. I had reservations about it. But I do know Colin Powell and Paul O’Neill and Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. I wished them well. I wish they could have led this country well. I don’t want to see America fail. I don’t want to see another American soldier killed in Iraq or another American here at home lose a job. And I think it’s the duty of every American to put country above party
--------------------------------------
If praising Bush makes Clark a Republican then Dean supporters are in for a shock: Gore is a Republican!!

"There are no divisions where our response to the war on terrorism is concerned," said Gore, who ran unsuccessfully for president against Bush in 2000 while winning the vote in Iowa. "George W. Bush is my commander in chief."

http://tinyurl.com/2jcxv
Dean is a Republican too:
From Nov 2001 Rutland Herald--

Gov. Howard Dean on Thursday said he was generally pleased with how the Bush administration had responded to protect the country against future terrorist plots.

“The way the administration has handled the situation in Afghanistan has been very, very good,”...
http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/38357

He's pleased with Bush.... he's very, very happy with the way he's handled things!

Oh My God! Dean must be a Republican! I don't trust him HE'S NOT A DEMOCRAT!

If I looked I could find Ted Kennedy praising Bush and take his comments out of context. Would that make him a Republican who loves Bush? No.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #38
80. Jimmy Carter was a DraftClark supporter
Edited on Sun Apr-02-06 11:23 PM by Texas_Kat
So, I'd say, if Jimmy can get over Clark voting for Reagan, you have no reason to gripe.

edited to add:

George McGovern on Clark in 2004: "Today, I am proud to stand here this morning and announce my support for a true progressive, a true Democrat, and the next president of the United States. A man whose progressive policies on education, taxation, health care are in the finest tradition of the Democratic Party. A man whose ideals, decency, and compassion are in the great tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton. A man whose life's work and devotion to America will serve as a beacon to our young and give pride to us all. That man is Wes Clark...."

Guess George didn't have a problem with WKC voting for Nixon either.

BTW, Clark voted for Clinton twice.... so he couldn't possibly have voted for Daddy Bush -- unless it's in some alternate universe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #38
140. How can you question who he voted for in 2004?
It would be very strange if he was out there day after day defending Kerry and hitting Bush, to even think he would have voted for Bush in 2004. (At any rate, he likely switched at least 1 vote, so he's at least equal. (Compare to Biden (who went off on an ego trip, discussing why Kerry should have voted like him on the $87 billion - rather than giving Kerry's reasons (slush fund with no oversight (pretty prophetic) and should be paid by giving back some tax cuts) or Kerrey (who felt it necessary to contradict Kerry's comments on Tora Bora)or the lack of support by Begala and Carville.

Clark certainly gets credit for 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #140
146. 1992 going forward is not in doubt.
1988 is uncertain. And the reason we know that Clark voted Republican in some prior Presidential races is because he told us so. Clark is the source for that supposedly damning information. Not that it stopped George McGovern or Jimmy Carter from offering powerful early suuport for Wes Clark inside the Democratic Party, but what do they know anyway, they weren't that involved in politics at the time, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #26
164. Correct except he voted for Bush I once, but that was the end
of his Repub voting record. He got to know Clinton and Dems in his first administration, and decided they were nothing like what he'd been led to believe. By no stretch did he wait until his prez run to suddenly become Dem.

http://www.factcheck.org/article97.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #20
30. site your source - 2nd request
Well???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #30
39. Pretty demanding aren't you?? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. YOU said Clark voted "for the present bush-Moron!"
Prove it or retract it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:27 PM
Original message
why don't you read your own post
this question is probably better suited for yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. I'll vouch for Wes Dem.....who is neither.....
But I will say this; your attacks are hella old. got anything new for us? Otherwise, just take a walk through the archives and you'll find the debunks to your smears.

Now.....are you for winning the House and the Senate in 2006 for the Democrats, or are you here to smear good Democrats who are helping us get there? Inquiring minds want to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. See your own post #20
"He voted for Reagan TWICE and Bush TWICE and for the present bush-Moron!"

I have nothing to prove to you. Your boorish behavior throughout this thread speaks for itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #30
53. sorry, but on DU we have a little custom of INCLUDING SOURCES
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkansas Donating Member (701 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. "That's all I need to know"
Lies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crazy Guggenheim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
33. Not true! For one thing he was never a *member* of any party until
he registered Demo. I hear that the military also frowns on *anyone* registering as one party or another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #20
42. lucky for Clark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #20
52. read this
"Why expend energy on the past when we have such grave danger facing us in the present and in the near future? I don't feel bad nor do I care that Clark -- or anyone -- voted for Reagan over 20 years ago. Let's face it, the vast majority of Americans voted for Reagan -- and I want every single one of them to be WELCOMED into our tent this year. The message to these voters -- and many of them are from the working class -- should not be, "You voted for Reagan? Well, to hell with you!" Every time you attack Clark for that, that is the message you are sending to all the people who at one time liked Reagan. If they have now changed their minds (just as Kucinich has done by going from anti-choice to pro-choice, and Dean has done by wanting to cut Medicare to now not wanting to cut it) - and if Clark has become a liberal Democrat, is that not something to cheer?"

- Michael Moore

http://www.clark04.com/moore/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #20
78. Too bad more Repugs
didn't think like you in 1980 and refuse to vote for Reagan because he used to be a Democrat. They welcomed him into the Republican Party.

Yeah, leopards don't change their spots. Reagan proved to be quite the Dem. :crazy:

Mz Pip
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
93. Check your facts. Clearly, you DON'T know all you need to know.
Incidentally, Reagan was a memeber of the Democratic Party.

Clark, however, was never a member of the Republican Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
150. I believe factcheck.org said
Edited on Mon Apr-03-06 03:54 PM by LittleClarkie
he voted thus:
Nixon
Reagan
Bush I
(And this is where he figured out that the Dems were nothing like what he'd ever been told. Because Clinton won the election and the registered Independant Clark got a chance to work with him and other Dems. He decided he was more like them than the Repubs, and liked how they were inclusive, and tried to bring everyone along, as opposed to Republicans who were more exclusive.)

Hence...
Clinton
Gore

He also votes issues, apparently, the biggie being national security.

Edited to add link...

http://www.factcheck.org/article97.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #150
224. Here's the problem a lot of us have with that source
Fact Check (which is not Democrat-friendly and thus always suspect) throws out that Clark voted for Bush41, even says he has been quoted as saying so, but they do not provide the quote itself nor do they cite the source. Everything else there is sourced, but not that. Strikes me a very odd.

Fact Check does quote Lieberman as saying he did, but the Lieberman quote just lumps Nixon, Reagan, and Bush41 together. After some of the over-the-top bullshit Lieberman was putting out, about Clark and most everybody else around the same time, I don't put much credence in what he said.

They also say he has not denied it. But if it were never actually said, and if he was never asked (they provide no evidence that he was, and I can't recall ever hearing anyone ask), why would he? Considering he had already admitted, without prompting, that he voted for Nixon and Reagan, and caught a lot of flack for it, I could easily see where the question of whether he voted for Bush41 would seem moot.

Personally, I tend to think Fact Check is just guilty of sloppy writing. Altho that may be too much benefit of the doubt as to their motives. I don't know which of their staff wrote it (and that seems to make a quality difference with Fact Check... some of their researchers are better, and fairer, than others) but it was a bit of a hit piece on Clark anyway. They go on at great length about his having praised Republicans, even repeating themselves, but only footnote an article where other Dems praised Bush43 as well. They don't actually bother to quote anyone, and there's no link in the footnote.

But the bottom line is this. Until Fact Check or someone else can tell me when, where and what Clark is alleged to have said about voting for Bush41, it's not sufficient just to say that he did. I have never seen any direct evidence anywhere else. And I've seen WAY too many misquotes and out-of-context statements from even the most usually reliable sources to take anything at face value. I most certainly don't consider Fact Check reliable or authoritative.

Umm... not that it matters to me much. It was almost 20 years ago, before the end of the Cold War, when the country (and the military) was in a very different place.

One other tiny grumble with what you wrote, LC. Clark voted for Clinton before he'd had a chance to work with him or a Democratic administration. So he must have begun to see the light on his own. It had more to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union and what a poor job Bush41 was doing in dealing with the post-Cold War world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ginnyinWI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #20
161. spot remover here...
Edited on Mon Apr-03-06 04:46 PM by ginnyinWI
First I voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Reagan, and Bush I.

Then I voted for Clinton, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry (and became a campaign worker for Kerry). And I swear I will never vote for another Republican, ever. Spots do change.

Do I get kicked out of DU now? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crazy Guggenheim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
21. It's really interesting about, that he seems like a cross between Dean
and Kucinich. I was surprised how liberal he is!! Also he's a brawler, which is what I like!!

:popcorn: :popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Agreed. Talking single payer Health Care system.....
Edited on Sun Apr-02-06 09:38 PM by FrenchieCat
and posing on the cover of the Advocate adds up to what most would call a "Liberal"....apart from all else he believes.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crazy Guggenheim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. He did vote for Reagan twice as far as I know. But I think he voted
for Clinton and Gore. Not sure about Bush I though. Heck, Randi Rhodes voted for Reagan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. Bush Sr. I'm not sure about
Absolutely not W. Never.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #34
49. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #49
55. You are getting personal....
Edited on Sun Apr-02-06 10:38 PM by FrenchieCat
and considering the number of posts that you have managed to accumulate....I wouldn't do that if I were you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #49
60. If you think I haven't seen those links a MILLION TIMES
You are wrong. In finishing this inane, positively absurd discussion, I never said Clark didn't vote for Bush Sr. I said I don't KNOW he did, because while others have said so, I have never once seen him quoted as saying he voted for Bush Sr., while he freely admits having voted for Nixon and Reagan. If you have a quote by Wes Clark that he voted for Bush Sr, I would very much like to see it, simply to have the issue settled in my own mind.

However, you have ZERO, less than ZERO proof of the following. Not only is it a lie, but you are pretending you never said it.

You said, "He voted for Reagan TWICE and Bush TWICE and for the present bush-Moron!" in your post #20.

It's pretty pathetic that you would deny saying this in your post #20 when each and every person that comes into this thread can go to your post #20 and read it for themselves.

And you call me a drunken illiterate idiot?

-End-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DanCa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #27
134. Yeah I heard that Randi said she voted for Reagan on AAR once too.
Hell my old man voted for Regan but he also voted for Senator Kerry. People can learn from thier mistakes you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #21
31. Hey Crazy G, I like that characterization....
a cross between Dean and Kucinich....Never thought about it that way but you know, I think he is....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
24. Yep. Secondary to 2006.
2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
28. I see the others speaking of his qualities, but there is one
other I see: His ability to speak plainly on the issues. That is his military training.


He comes across as a real soldier, a prime example of the good people you can find in the military. Not saying that will make a good president, but it does help make a good man.

I like him as a person, but I haven't decided who I want as president. Liking the candidate is important when it comes time for me to join the campaign.

I like Feingold too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
capi888 Donating Member (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. Are you watching C-Span
He is discussing, health care, employment, enviorment, social security, education, international affairs, he is NOT a one act guy...IF YOU LISTEN. He is answering questions off the cuff from concerned citizens....ALL different topics...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #35
96. The guy is pretty sharp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
37. I'm a Kerry supporter, but Wes reminds me of JK
I enjoy both men's intelligent, literate takes on issues, their brave service to their country, and their personal honor and integrity. Clark is definitely my runner-up candidate behind Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #37
45. I supported Clark until Kerry got the Dem. nomination.
Edited on Sun Apr-02-06 10:09 PM by 8_year_nightmare
After learning more about Kerry, I adored his qualities.

I admire Clark just as much. Like Kerry, he has lived an admirable, accomplished life. Clark graduated 1st in his West Point class, is a Rhodes scholar, & he knows military strategy. He's certainly very qualified to be a commander-in-chief & he has the compassion, intelligence, & good judgement to be a great one. I think he would pick an impeccable cabinet & would listen to their expert advice in leading our country to its best potential.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #45
54. Yeah, Kerry and Clark both have the wisdom and gravitas it takes
Both men would make an excellent president, and I truly feel that if either of them is elected in 2008, the other will either be VP or Secretary of State.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #54
126. That would be a dream ticket.
Of course, now I'm smitten with Russ Feingold, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #126
186. Russ would be a good AG
Imagine, an AG who respects the Constitution!

I forget what that's even like. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #186
189. Another Bobby Kennedy with fire in his belly
& his heart in the right place. I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ginnyinWI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #37
162. they are both intellectuals
That's the similarity I see; also they both have "heart". Something I don't see in every Dem out there. But yeah, Kerry is still first choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
43. This DUer doesn't
School of Americas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gloria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
44. I FORCED by wingnut mother to watch him tonight on CSpan...
She started mocking him...but by the end as he discussed China and Iraq, said "I agree with him on that!" and as she got a snack she said, "At least he isn't a jerk like most of them running..."

AMAZING
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. Damn! Your mom is hardcore!
Sorry about that! :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
56. desperation... some even wanted McCain
Edited on Sun Apr-02-06 10:39 PM by Truth Hurts A Lot
Clark is a nice guy but we really don't know much about him on his loyalties. But these days many of us are just concerned about who we think is electable...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. You should correct your statement and just say "you" don't really know
Cause me...I know about Clark's loyalties.

K?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crazy Guggenheim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #56
64. Hey fellow Deanie! I doubt it's an electability issue. I'd say that Clark
was as electable as Edwards. However, the only problem I would have with Clark is he came out of no where; so to speak. All of a sudden here's this man who's a candidate that no one really heard of before; in politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
July Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #56
121. What loyalties do you think he might have that concern you?
I'm not sure what you're saying here.

He's been very forthright in his statements about the nation and the Democratic Party, so I don't find any reason to question his loyalties. I'd like to understand what you mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
57. Clarity and intelligence.
It must be his philosophy background. I honestly cannot put it into words. He is "no bullshit". And I would offend people here if I told you that overcoming his uniform was a big big deal for me.

It's his look and sound. He is honest. And his replies were always focused, directly on the mark, short, and informed to a honed edge. He is a man of logic. He is hands-on in his experience. That qualifies him for office right there.

He has that clarity. A bright shine. There is no tarnish, and no spin.



I want Gore or Feingold. Gore is a solid man with honorable and KIND values.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #57
59. good post. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
61. I don't get it...
but then I have this thing about electing people to high public office that have never held lower offices. You generally don't get to start out in business as the CEO of a Fortune 500 company...why then do people think it's ok to start out in government as the President?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
July Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #61
122. I see your point, Velma, but I also see Clark as a real leader.
And then I compare him to W, who was elected to the Texas governorship, and have no doubt in my mind that Clark would be a far superior president. So I can live with his lack of elective office. I was kind of hoping he would run for senator or governor in Arkansas, because I believe he'd be good at any job he could achieve, and holding one of those offices would also help him with people who feel as you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #61
125. Clark has been in government for 38 years
He held head of state status in NATO. He has negotiated treaties. He has worked policy issues with his allied head of state counterparts. He was responsible for providing education, housing, healthcare and all sorts of quality of life services to hundreds of thousands of US citizens, much as a governor would. And worked with Congress directly for the resources to provide those same services, again much as a governor works with a state legislature. He worked with almost every agency of the federal executive, probably more than any governor has ever done.

The only part of public office Clark had not done before Sept 03 is campaign. Now he's done that. If he runs in '08, we'll get to see how well he's learned the tricks of that trade.

Twelve of our 43 presidents started out as generals, so it has historically been one of the accepted paths to "high public office." Some performed better than others, but none of 'em were as bad as some of the former elected officials we've had. There is no reason that our choices should be limited to those who have served in the Congress or the state house.

Personally, I don't see how being a Senator qualifies someone to run the federal executive. The jobs are completely different. And a senator's campaign experience comes solely from appealing to the citizens of a single state. Being a governor affords executive experience, but it invariably leaves out the foreign policy piece of the puzzle, and also involves a limited constituency. Clark has both executive and foreign policy experience, and the people he led and took care of came from all over the nation and every economic strata.

I accept that campaign skills are important. I think Clark has 'em, but I'll grant you that they are not yet proven (altho he did win a primary in a state not his own, which is more than all but one of the "proven" politicians managed in 2004). But I put a higher priority on who can best lead this country after the disasterous 8 years of BushCo, and on whom I feel I can trust to do what's right for Americans and the people of the world. In my opinion, that's Wes Clark. Whether he can campaign successfully or not will take care of itself in the primary process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
62. I posted a poll about how left-center-right DUers feel about Clark.
Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=748803

I found the results and comments interesting. You might want to scan through it for some more views.

The surprise to me was not just that more "Dean/moderate" DUers were favorable than unfavorable (about 3:2), but that Clark was very widely regarded as someone that "left of Dean" Duers would be comfortable with by an overwhelming ratio (nearly 7:1). ("Right of Dean" DUers said they would NOT regard a Clark candidacy with favor by 2:1, but there were only 3 who identified themselves that way, so I don't think that category means anything.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alphafemale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
63. He hates war.
He's smart.

He's charming.

He's "not bad looking."

He's in better control of his temper than McCain.

But he's also not an emotionless cold fish. (Like certain other candidates we've run.?)

He's never given * a sweaty, cowering, delta pup hug like McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. Ya know...you could say all the same things about me...
plus I've got an actual education in Public Affairs. What makes him more qualified than me to be President? Hell, I've at least been elected a precinct chair. Has Clark ever held even the lowliest elective office?

Being cute and smart and hating war is not enough. Learning how to actually govern before running for the highest office in the land might be a good idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alphafemale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. Oh...I thought the question was why we LIKED him
Oh, I really doubt he'll be the candidate either.

But the argument could be made that he's way more qualified than the current idiot in chief.

Texas governorship is a figurehead.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. Well, I'm from Texas...
and one of the main reasons I gave people not to vote for Georgie-porgie for Governor way back when was exactly the same...he had ZERO experience for the job. And we saw the results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. Since he retired he has gained significant experience
in domestic politics. You realize that he was key in working behind the scenes to put together our parties new National Security Plan and bring the left middle and right factions together on it, and he was chosen to deliver the key points on it at the Press conference and the weekly radio address.

And do you want to talk experience in International politics?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. What I want...
is for him to start at the bottom and learn what it takes to govern. Run for lower public office...learn some skills....develop a record that we can look at to see if we really think he's the right person for higher office. I don't trust people who think they should get to start at the very top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. Its not hard to judge his abilities
Edited on Sun Apr-02-06 11:08 PM by Jim4Wes
Stop ignoring his record of accomplishment in life. You're making lame excuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. No, I'm telling you what I think...
and what I have always believed. If I changed that belief just for Clark...that you get better government if the people in it learn what they're doing from the ground up...then I would be a hypocrite.

There are plenty of people with accomplishments in life who would not make a good president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #76
83. vice versa
Some of our more undistinguished Presidents all with earlier elected office political experience.
James Buchanan
Andrew Johnson
Franklin Pierce
Warren Harding
William Harrison

The standard you advocate is certainly not without hazard.

The ability to lead, to connect and understand both domestic issues and international, policy wonk, very distinguished record in military, record of supporting our causes and candidates.

in case someone wants to learn more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #70
75. "Experience" is relative.....your assessement is "simplistic" and
And I believe things are not as "simple" and that Wes Clark DOES have the experience required.....

When I look at history, what I see are Presidents that were elected Not because of what they had done in a previous office, as much as what they had to offer in personal character, style, temperament and life experience. Also, the issues they raise, the time in history, the way their campaign was ran, and the media’s own influence. Those are the major factors used to win elections.

President Kennedy didn’t get elected because he was an experienced senator, as much as because he had a compelling life story with his PT109 heroism and his personal charm and demeanor. Reagan was elected because of his affable great one liners and his rethorics (I can make us great again) and his movie star persona. He certainly did not become President because of his Governor’s record in California. President Carter won because he appeared honest, thoughtful and was literally an unknown to most. Voters, not what great things he did for Georgia.

John Kerry didn’t run in ‘04 based on the fact that he had accomplished great things in the office that he has held for over 20 years. Rather, he chose to run on his personal story of 35 years prior and the current issues. Most voters really don’t have a real clue has to what Kerry had achieved in office all of these years, because that is not what he chose to highlight.

So if I was asked why Wes Clark, it would be because of his personal life story and achievements. Maybe the fact that he has never held office is a plus, but remember that to some, it’s a minus...and the excuse they give for not supporting him. So the issue of holding an elected office is a mixed bag.

The facts are that Clark has not held any elected office, and is not per se a professional politician. However, is not a bad thing as far as I am concerned.....because I believe that it is his executive experience, character, leadership abilities and courage do make Clark “elect able”, because it is what Presidents need more so than anything else; Clark has these traits, IMO, although not via an elected position.

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

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

As chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/articlearchives/civics/presres/prsnapsh.htm

----------
Some will stay thinking in the box that we have been put in....and when thinking "President"...will only think about what the CW will push.....celebrities politicians (Hillary and Edwards) and Senators (Biden, Kerry, Bayh, Feingold and Boxer)and Governors (Warner, Richardson and Vilsack), and that's OK. But if you look at what this country needs right now - a leader with courage, and determination to do the right thing, those other candidates pale in comparison to Wes Clark, IMO.

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

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

Some surely say that Wes Clark has no legislative or policy accomplishments at this point, and to that I will disagree because it depends on what you would label as "policy accomplishments".

Clark, a Rhodes scholar with advanced degrees from Oxford in Economics, Political Science and Economics was also a White House Fellow and served as a Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He taught economics, and social science at West Point. He has worked as an Investment Banker since his retirement in 2000. So Clark is intelligent, experienced and qualified to deal with more than just National Defense and Foreign policy.

Did his "policy accomplishments" take place in an office? The answer is No.
Clark action on Affirmative Action
http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/eclark24_20031024.htm
Success of military diversity proves affirmative action works
Snip
In the University of Michigan affirmative action case this year, I joined military and political leaders in an amicus brief affirming my deeply held belief that policies combating discrimination are essential to good order, combat readiness and military effectiveness. As a result of these policies, the military is one of the most integrated institutions in America. And our country is safer today because it is defended by a diverse, integrated, talented military that is the envy of the world.

Testifying against a war before both houses of congress when you don't have to, counts as an accomplishment in my book.
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm

Is standing up to the Pentagon and trying to get done “what’s right” an accomplishment? I think so.

Clark policy action on Genocide which eventually led to his "early retirement"
b]Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html
Clark was almost alone in pushing for a humanitarian intervention in Rwanda.
Pulitzer award winning Samantha Power for her book "A Problem from Hell" : America and the Age of Genocide
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006054164...
endorsed Wes Clark http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2003/12/redeeming_wes...
The following excerpts from Power's book give the details.
General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi.
She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .
He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).
According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.
She details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance."
".....Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move."

Samantha Power's comments on Wesley Clark at the December 17, 2003, press conference in Concord, New Hampshire after the General's testimony at the Hague .
"...I spent about seven years looking into American responses to genocide in the twentieth century, and discovered something that may not surprise you but that did surprise me, which was that until 1999 the United States had actually never intervened to prevent genocide in our nation's history. Successive American presidents had done an absolutely terrific job pledging never again, and remembering the holocaust, but ultimately when genocide confronted them, they weighed the costs and the benefits of intervention, and they decided that the risks of getting involved were actually far greater than the other non-costs from the standpoint of the American public, of staying uninvolved or being bystanders. That changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military.

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

http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/the_subtle_ar...
---------------
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html
http://www.ospolitics.org/usa/archives/2003/11/26/how_i_beca.php
--------------

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


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicofaraby Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
65. I don't.
He's military.

I don't like military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #65
69. So, you love the civilians that start the wars then.....
Edited on Sun Apr-02-06 10:59 PM by FrenchieCat
and the ones that fund them?

Interesting.

Here's Clark statement on the Industrial Military complex. Hope you find the statements from the "Civilian" folks you support, and post them here as well.

Interview with Laura Knoy:
http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339

(Not an offical transcript, but) a transcribed version of what Wes Clark said:

"I think General Eisenhower was exactly right. I think we should be concerned about the military industrial complex. I think if you look at where the country is today, you've consolidated all these defense firms into a few large firms, like Halliburton, with contacts and contracts at the highest level of government. You've got most of the retired Generals, are one way or another, associated with the defense firms. That's the reason that you'll find very few of them speaking out in any public way. I'm not. When I got out I determined I wasn't going to sell arms, I was going to do as little as possible with the Defense Department, because I just figured it was time to make a new start.

But I think that the military industrial complex does wield a lot of influence. I'd like to see us create a different complex, and I'm going to be talking about foreign policy in a major speech tomorrow, but we need to create an agency that is not about waging war, but about creating the conditions for Peace around the world. We need some people who will be advocates for Peace, advocates for economic development not just advocates for better weapons systems. So we need to create countervailing power to the military industrial complex."
----------
Clark: Don't spare Pentagon
"We need to put all the government spending programs on the table, including the military programs," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/25/elec04.prez.d.../

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicofaraby Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. That's nice. No sale.
I actually prefer civilians that don't start wars, but if you want to make assumptions and put words in my mouth, you are free to.

I won't get on my soapbox, but anyone who can rise in the Pentagon isn't going to get my respect or vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #71
77. Well it is allright if you have that view....and we can certainly agree
Edited on Sun Apr-02-06 11:19 PM by FrenchieCat
to disagree....

And afterall, being a "Liberal" can be defined as Wes Clark put it....

"We live in a liberal democracy.... You know, this country was founded on the principals of the Enlightenment.... It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn’t founded on the idea that someone would get stuck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can’t lose that in this country. We’ve got to get it back."
--Clark's answer to Bill Maher asking whether Clark was a Liberal during an interview, 2003
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicofaraby Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #77
81. Don't get me wrong
It's great that Clark believes in liberal traditions, but I'll never vote for him. I could never trust the military in political power. Nothing personal against Wes Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. Not to pester you just want to point out
That many Americans that have served in the military went on to have distinguished political careers. John Kerry is one example. Clark is not in the military anymore, he is now an American citizen, like you and me, but with experiences in why we should only use military action as the last resort as he says.

He is an expert on how the pentagon works, thats why he feels he can identify waste and reduce the DOD budget without sacrificing our security capabilities probably better than most Democrats in politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicofaraby Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #84
86. It's not about military service.
There used to be no choice in the matter and I can make allowances for that. Any man over 50 may have had military service forced on them. And frankly, I don't like Kerry either. I had to hold my nose in 2004.

It's a matter of Clarks "success" in the military. If you can becaome a general in that den of theives and liars, I don't want to be around you, even if you are MY theif and liar. Being an expert on how the Pentagon works isn't a good thing. I don't think the Pentagon is capable of reform. Besides, rising to general doesn't make you beter at spotting waste. Hire an accountant for that. Rising to general in the Pentagon means you are better at getting funding for some higher general's brother-in-laws weapon manufacturing plant. Generals are the problem, not a solution.

Damn, who put this soapbox under me....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #86
89. A final comment in response then
So Generals are thieves and liars and politicans are what exactly. There are a lot of people that would probably take issue with you on that. cya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicofaraby Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #89
94. I'm sure you are right.
Many people DO take exception to my feelings about the military. I'm used to it. However, that doesn't change my feelings about that particular pack of scam artists.

Have a nice night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #81
88. I think you didn't get my point.....
Of course Wes Clark Believes in Liberal traditions...the question really is, are you a Liberal?...because, because your built-in prejudice would disqualify you, from what I can tell the true meaning of Liberal is. You see being a liberal means one who's thinking is open. You have closed your mind, and therefore, I'm just wondering if you ever thought of yourself as a Liberal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicofaraby Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #88
92. Why yes I do consider myself liberal.
But I never knew that you were the door guy at "Club Liberal."

My thinking is just fine, it simply doesn't align with yours. I'm sorry you can't handle that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #92
97. I think you were just being challenged to share
some of your philosophy on liberalism.


Not directed to you
I hope we don't take stuff personally this is just a discussion y'all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #92
98. I'm sorry, but I beg to differ.....
Edited on Mon Apr-03-06 12:08 AM by FrenchieCat
It's not about whether you agree with me or not...it is the fact that you have demonstrated that it doesn't matter what a person has done in their lives, what they may say, who they may be....if they are military, you will not be voting for them for President...as you said "nothing against Wes". So you see, you are not a liberal in the true sense of the meaning, because if you were, if nothing else, you would judge people on the content of their character and their accomplishment, not on the fact that they were in the military.

As a Black person who happens to also be female AND an emmigrant, labels don't mean much to me...and I judge based on the individual...not based on their race, their sex, their sexual preference, their profession or any other "label".....

Considering that the army is one of the most socialistic organization in the United States, and that it has been civilian leadership that have started wars......you really don't have a leg to stand on in refusing to give someone consideration based on some simplistic inflexible "DOOR" that you hold at the front of your mind, and still feel that you have the right to call yourself a Liberal. Labels are just not grabbed by those who want them....they are based on their actions and their words...and you have spoken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicofaraby Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #98
101.  I don't care who you are or where you are from.
But I am judging Clark based on his choice to pursue a military career. I think that choices like that speak volumns about people. I think that if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas.

Look, obviously, you are pro-military. Fine, whatever. But frankly, you don't get to decide if I'm liberal. Who in the hell do you think you are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #101
112. I am a "real" Liberal,
That's who.

Others who read this will understand exactly how you built your box and locked yourself in it.

Good Night, and Good Luck! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicofaraby Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #112
113. I think the irony speaks for itself.
Sweet dreams.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #65
155. What a hateful statement. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicofaraby Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #155
169. I didn't say I hated him.
I just said I wouldn't vote for him because I don't trust the military.

What is with you people? It's like I kicked your puppy or something.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #169
191. amazing. you generalize like it was a good thing. i suppose if you
were really in trouble you wouldn't want the military to help you. I remember when they come and help with disasters. if your house washes away, what then? You are locking out a brilliant, educated man who when it COST SOMETHING declared himself a LIBERAL on the BOOB TUBE with PRIDE. Half this board wouldn't have said it then to our NEIGHBORS but he did on tv and he's done for us heroic things. I support him because he's an economist (economic disaster looming), he's a soldier (who UNDERSTANDS the cost of war) and because he's a bold, articulate LIBERAL.

Don't generalize. Its an ignorant way to start a conversation.

RV, who dined to the Viet Nam war news and body counts daily and lost relatives to that fiasco.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #169
204. You said you don't like him
And you said you don't trust him.

That's close enough to hate for me.

You know, a lot of us at DU are as military as Clark, or we have friends and family who are. Some of us consider Clark a friend. So you gotta expect a little bit of a hostile reaction. You didn't kick our puppy--you kicked us or our friends or family members. And you seem to be ok with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicofaraby Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #204
220. I am OK with that.
I don't like the military. I don't trust the military. And I'm OK with that.

The OP asked a question. I answered. Now I'm getting attacked and called a hater because I told the truth. I prefer Kucinich or Feingold. I'm not "hating" Clark. I'm simply not supporting him.

This is surreal. WTF people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #220
222. WTF indeed
"Not liking" or "not trusting" (e.g. hating) someone just because they are (or were) in the military is what's surreal. Or worse.

Sorry. I'm not used to people with such blatant and baseless hatred for me, my husband, and my son. Even people who hate us for being Jews usually don't express it so openly.

This isn't about whether or not you support Clark. That's your choice either way. Good people can disagree. This is about your reason for not doing so, which is really fucked up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicofaraby Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #222
226. Well, I don't get it.
I don't like or trust the military. So you say I am a hater for not liking the military. Hmmm. I just don't see any diference between my opinion about the military and 90% of DU's members stated opinion of right wingers. If you dislike and distrust Bush's policies are you a hater?

Well, I guess I'll have to live with that. You are entitled to your opinion.

BTW, nice insinuation that I'm a Nazi. Classy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
67. His goo-goo-googley eyes.
I like Wes. I like Russ More, and Al even more, intermsof the '08 Nomination. But I like what I've seen & heard of Wes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
79. I'm wary of charismatic career military people. Too authoritarian
... for my tastes. Been there; done that. No more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. Who, Who?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
incapsulated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #79
85. The last General we elected *ended* a war...
And warned us against the military industrial complex.

And every single war this country got involved in during the past and current century was inititated by CIVILIAN PRESIDENTS.

But people don't see past the uniform that someone used to wear and blame the people who fight the wars rather than those who start them. Which is the Democrats fucking loss.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #85
91. As a Viet Nam veteran, I'm among the LAST that doesn't
Edited on Sun Apr-02-06 11:54 PM by TahitiNut
... "see past the uniform," thank you. :eyes:
Some folks just "love a guy in a uniform." How does that condescending stereotype feel?
Thanks for the pointless and irrelevant history lesson. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
incapsulated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #91
95. Then why do you assume...
Edited on Sun Apr-02-06 11:57 PM by incapsulated
Like so many others, that his military service will make him "authoritarian", please? Because the chicken shit draft dodgers in office that are turning this country fascist sure ain't military men.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #95
99. You apparently don't understand the term "authoritarian" (not unusual)
Edited on Mon Apr-03-06 12:20 AM by TahitiNut
au·thor·i·tar·i·an personality
n.
A personality pattern reflecting a desire for security, order, power, and status, with a desire for structured lines of authority, a conventional set of values or outlook, a demand for unquestioning obedience, and a tendency to be hostile toward or use as scapegoats individuals of minority or nontraditional groups.

Theory of the Authoritarian Personality

Those persons who cling to fascist ideologies, according to the theory, distinguish themselves through their inappropriate, prejudice-laden view of social and political relationships. From this background in their personal history arose the assumption that the emergence of certain phenomena such as anti-Semitism and ethnocentrism stands in close connection with this particular personality structure. Because fascistic groupings get support essentially from the right-conservative camp (although that does not suggest that the right-conservative camp invariably lends these groupings such support) parts of the conservative outlook are likewise judged as an expression of this personality structure. As an instrument to measure this outlook, the AS-scale (for "anti-Semitism") the E-scale (for "Ethnocentrism") and the PEC-Scale (for "political-economic conservatism") are used.

The instrument for assessing the underlying authoritarian personality structure was the so-called F-Scale ("implicit antidemocratic tendencies and fascist potential"). This scale is comprised of the following subscales:
  • Conventionalism -- the tendency to accept and obey social conventions and the rules of authority figures; adherence to the traditional and accepted
  • Authoritarian Submission -- submission to authorities and authority figures
  • Authoritarian Aggression -- an aggressive attitude towards individuals or groups disliked by authorities; particularly those who threaten traditional values
  • Anti-Intraception -- rejection of the subjective, imaginative and aesthetic
  • Substitution and Stereotypy -- superstition, cliché, categorization and fatalistic determinism
  • Power and Toughness -- identification with those in power, excessive emphasis on socially advocated ego qualities
  • Destructiveness and Cynicism -- general hostility, putting others down
  • Projectivity -- the tendency to believe in the existence of evil in the world and to project unconscious emotional impulses outward
  • Sex -- exaggerated concerns with respect to sexual activity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_Personality

In essence, "authoritarian" speaks more to those seeking 'leaders' than the autocrats they find. Indoctrinated in a military culture, Clark may indeed be possessed of these attributes ... but he's surely to attract a following (and sponsors?) wherein such attributes are common. FWIW, the 'corporate culture' of privilege and entitlement is just as apt to breed authoritarian personalities and those who exploit them as the military. Think about it.

For an interesting read, relevant to today's political condition, see http://www.tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/news_item.2005-10-27.6168871533
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #99
100. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #99
103. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #103
104. That sure sounds like projection to me.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #104
105. Yeah, I figured you'd say something like that.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #105
106. Oh? Hear that a lot, do you?
Edited on Mon Apr-03-06 12:26 AM by TahitiNut
:eyes:

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #105
108. I'd just let it go at this point. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #99
109. I think you are right that Clark could appeal to fear-based authoritarian
types who have been conned into voting for a silver-spoon sucking/sniffing, draft-dodging, fratboy, ex-cheerleader imbecile by the corporate media. But I have the impression that he is a true believer in "The American Dream" (a fiction, in my view) and honestly wants to make a just world possible. More like Roosevelt trying to save capitalism from itself than LaFollette or Wallace, and in that respect no different than the best of the possible Democratic Party candidates, but the best we can expect as a counterforce to fascism.

I don't see him as an authoritarian, more a communitarian -- maybe I am being fooled -- but the fact that he will likely get some votes from those whose struggle for survival is still based on the second lowest rung of the "hierarchy of needs" is not a negative at all.

The downside I see is that as an honest believer in the American myth he may be unprepared to wage the battle against corporatism that he will find himself waging. Roosevelt knew that this was what he was fighting. Clark may not. On the other hand, Kerry, Gore, both Clintons, Biden, and most everyone else have already indicated they will NOT fight that battle. So what to do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #109
119. I don't seriously disagree with anything you've said.
Edited on Mon Apr-03-06 06:25 AM by TahitiNut
I guess I find it somewhat perplexing/amusing that a fairly well-nuanced remark about being "wary of charismatic career military people" has stimulated some venomous retorts in this little sub-thread. (You'd think I pissed on the grave of some martyr.) I believe I have enough experience with the military to make that assessment with some confidence, having initially flirted with a military career myself with two years as a cadet at the Coast Guard Academy and then having served as a draftee in the Army with a tour of duty in Viet Nam. Not that I expect to be taken as some expert (on DU!? Heaven forbid!), but that I'm confident enough in my experience to form that opinion - as a "recovering authoritarian" myself.

I personally respect Clark's manner, articulation, and a majority of his stances. I also respect his service and his apparent intelligence. I don't presume to "know his heart" (only Junior seems to possess that skill) or have insight to his beliefs. I do know that he succeeded in an authoritarian culture, both complying with the direction he was given and receiving compliance from his subordinates. You can take the person out of the culture but you can't take the culture out of the person. I don't dislike CLark. I'm just not inclined to put him at or even near the top of my list.

I have greater agreement with Kucinich or Feingold, however. I'm a liberal. I believe in justice and equity for all, wealthy and poor alike - no "losers" - not more accommodation for the entitlements of the wealthy, perpetuating their narrow privileges. We have far too many politicians on the national stage willing to "go along to get along" to degrees that make me uncomfortable. As a non-partisan independent, I lack the fervor for a somewhat fictitious means that may be a substitute for the ends that I support. Thus, I support the person above all else. That's why my preference would be for a Gore/Kucinich or Feingold/Kucinich ticket ... or some equivalent. I see Clark as being significantly to the right of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #119
136. your assessment is nothing but stereotype
and an empty one at that. Authoritarian personalities are not required for success in the military unless you can show me that the only way to get the respect and hard work from subordinates is by being an asshole. That is what you are implying no matter how nuanced you think you were.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #119
139. People vary, and stereotyping sometimes rubs wrong
Edited on Mon Apr-03-06 03:28 PM by Tom Rinaldo
When I was in a college SDS chapter, there was one person in the Administration that all of the campus radicals genuinely liked and respected a great deal. He was Dean of Student Affairs at the time, and whenever us radicals went and did something radical, sooner or later we would be talking with Dean Crafa. The man was always down to Earth, he always listened to us sincerely, and sometimes he pushed for positive changes at the University as a result of ongoing dialogs we had with him. When he held a Christmas Party at his home off campus, the campus radicals were always invited. He was a good man. This was 1968 in suburban New York State, and radicals were still demonized as communists by many back then, but Dean Crafa always treated us more like friends than adversaries.

I knew that Dean Crafa had been a military officer, but I didn't know that he was still in the military reserves, or that he was of a rather high rank (which I have since forgotten). I think it was at one of the parties held in his house that he later revealed to some of us S.D.S. members (to be honest we just took the name without really affiliating with the National Organization) why one time when he rushed over to negotiate with us in a building that we were occupying at the time, he didn't take his overcoat off. It seems he was still in full uniform after having just finishing instructing a military class of some sort on the subject of nuclear deterrence. He thought it best to side step any questions about it at the time, but he freely revealed it later to our laughs.

Dean Crafa was the only person in the University Administration in those days that the campus radicals fully trusted. He was the least authoritarian person in a position of authority that I ever met on a campus, and I went to several universities in my life time. And believe me, we tested that guy good.

I'll speak for myself. I hate to see a good man attacked based on an assumption about what he must be like based on a stereotyped belief about "people like him" . It does rub me the wrong way, probably because it just strikes me as being so unfair, how can someone defend against a negative stereotype? And must we really go through this exercise on a Democratic message board, after we as activists have fought stereotyping for decades in American society?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #139
193. Well, your half-vast experience sure does trump my four years
... of quarter-vast, diverse experience in the military. Wow! :eyes:

You are more than welcome to your opinion, based on whatever you wish to use. When I gave the basis for my opinion and a reference to the values I employ, I did so with candor and reason - and I really don't need anyone's permission or agreement.

It really amazes me how venomous some of the posts in this subthread have been, when all I said was that I was wary, based on my significant relevant experience. If as mild a comment as that is treated as some threat, or called an 'attack,' by a mini-swarm of zealous supporters, warranting personal attacks and superficial vitriol ("stereotyping" indeed! sheesh!), then the strength of what's or who's supported, or even the confidence in him, seems to be brought into serious question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #193
194. I wasn't venomous in the slightest
And I would gladly compare the tone of my post that you are replying to, to the tone of your post to me in that regard. I too stated an opinion, one which happens to disagree with yours, and I never regard disagreement as being inherently venomous, do you? I didn't say that my experience was more authoritative than yours, and I certainly didn't imply anywhere that you needed anyone's permission to state your opinion, though you seem to imply that I question your right to hold your opinion. That, in a back hand way, is a slap at me that I don't think is justified.

I relayed an early personal experience, but I could have added a number of others that are similar. I thought it would deescalate the tension in the discussion if I wrote personally also, excuse me for trying.

I'm sorry if you took offense but stereotyping is a bedrock Liberal issue, and it is not out of line to raise it as a concern. You are free to disagree that it is a valid concern in this instance of course, and to state your reasons for so thinking. But Democrats always stand for judging a man on his own merits (I'll use "male" terminology because we are talking about a man here) not on who his parents were, how much money he has, what color his skin is, what religion he has or doesn't have, what school he did or did not graduate from, where he lives, or how others who share one or more of the above characteristics with him have acted in the past. In other words, Democrats are extremely wary of "profiling". I don't think that is really subject to dispute. We can dispute whether or not you are screening out Wes Clark based on "profiling" that rejects him on the basis of your perception of how those with a similar career profile behave in general. That is the issue I raised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #194
195. I did NOT say you were. Please ...
... try reading what I DO say instead of some mischaracterization. I am only responsible for what I say and imply, not what the reader infers.

I stand by my wariness of anyone with a prolonged and successful career in the military. I am personally aware of the military academy indoctrination. As a cadet, I experienced it and I knew cadets at both West Point and Annapolis. I NEVER ONCE demeaned Clark's considerable intellectual achievements or many of his stances on important issues. Not once. I have known hundreds of career people in the military, officer and enlisted, active and retired, including some relatives, personally! I'm not talking about impressions of people I merely met - I'm talking about in-depth personal experience. I'm also NOT saying I lack respect for people who serve this nation in the military. I have posted MANY times regarding the respect I believe they are due for their service! Nor have I characterized authoritarianism as some simple, cartoonishly binary attribute. The fallacy of "black or white" in a world of grays (and hues) is just silly.

The pretense (by SOME) that I've made some foul attack on Clark is baseless!

I tire of the swarming ... the mob filibustering of anyone who doesn't entrancedly kneel down and kiss the ground some candidate walks upon. I see this no more prevalent than with Clark - and I must wonder why that is. (Hell, just look at this whole thread.) I don't see Kucinich supporters crusading anything like Clark supporters. Is it because I'm just not looking or is there some fact-based rationale? I don't know. I do know it's tiresome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #195
199. Your comments were attached to my post which is why...
...I commented as I did. You replied directly to my post with complaints about how your posts on this thread were being regarded, and at no time did you say that I wasn't guilty of the behavior you were complaining about, so I don't think my reading was off base. I do accept your clarification however.

I think you are not being fair about another point however. This entire thread was an invitation for Clark supporters to come forward and post positive things about Clark. So naturally a lot of us came to this thread. To then accuse us as "swarming" here would almost hold up in court as a classic case of entrapment.

Have you spent much time on Gore or Kerry threads lately. There's always a bunch of them, and Gore in particular is frequently held up as humanity's only possible savior. I happen to like Gore by the way, he has a lot going for him, but I don't get angry at the enthusiasm of his supporters.

And like I said you are as free to your opinions as I am to mine, even though the OP (which is not by a Clark supporter) specifically invited positive comments about Clark, that would make him shine for those who don't know him. I don't think your comments fit that description but I don't accuse you of "spamming" a Clark positive thread, even though you just accused Clark supporters of "swarming". I think we have both had space enough to make our differing cases about Clark on this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #199
206. Well, I responded to your post, since it was one of the more reasonable.
If, in the process of responding, I make other relevant remarks, that's just what they are: observations. I was referring more to the 'swarming' in this little subthread - a subthread that surprisingly formed from my comparatively benign reply to the OP. Mea culpa. I detest and avoid messsenger-centrism. Thus, I tend to make remarks that AREN'T personally-directed - more of a "let's look together" instead of a "look at YOU!"

That said, I have no animosity towards Clark. "Wary" does not mean "indicted and convicted." I don't regard him as evil, corrupt, or anti-democratic. Likewise, I have no animosity towards Gore or Kerry. As far as military experience goes, I tend to prefer someone with experience as an enlisted man (e.g. Gore) than officer (e.g. Smirk, Nixon), and junior officer than senior officer. I think the experience being asshole-to-elbow with the "great unwashed" is the kind of experience that's irreplaceable. Maybe that's a kind of "reverse elitism" - but I don't particularly care. I've done both, so at least I have some direct experience to form an opinion.

I typically avoid these threads because the typical "my daddy can beat up your daddy" tone is immature, far too messenger-centric, and rarely revelatory. I was moderating during the 2004 primary season, so I had my attention drawn to some of the more extreme shit. Even so, I'm sure there was more that I missed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #206
208. OK, Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it
I have a better sense of where you are coming from, and I understand how you are using the term "wary". Most of us are wary of one or more things about the background of possible candidates. Given my druthers, I generally would rather not elect multi millionaires over people of more modest means, but I strongly supported RFK and I worked hard for Kerry after he got the nomination.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #195
200. OK, so you answered my question below
Maybe not specifically, but close enough. You don't have as much experience as I do, but certainly more than I gathered from your previous posts.

That said, it's still stereotyping. You're still making assumptions about an individual based on experience with others. Just as you make broad generalizations about Clarkies.

I'm not sure I even understand what you mean by the word "swarming," but assuming I do, what makes you think we are swarming? The subject line of the original poster asked for Clark supporters to come into this thread. So it is only natural that a lot of us would read all the replies. We see remarks about Clark we believe to be incorrect or misleading and we try to correct them. There's nothing wrong with that.

And there are a lot of us who are DU regulars, you know.

You know, since the OP specifically asks for replies from Clark supporters, it's probably really more appropriate to ask why anyone else would come into the thread to post something negative. And there do seem to be several of you, some quite ugly in the content of their replies. And not just here--whenever there is a thread about Clark, we can count on a certain number of anti-Clark DUers to post all sorts of trash, most of it the same old tired smears and lies instead of valid arguments of the pros and cons of his political efforts. And we know of at least one off-DU website that wallows in hate for Clark. Tell me why I shouldn't I assume that it is you who are doing the swarming?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #193
196. Diverse? Maybe, but hardly comprehensive.
You seem to think, based on "two years as a cadet at the Coast Guard Academy and then having served as a draftee in the Army with a tour of duty in Viet Nam," gives you the ability to speak "authoritatively" (sorry, but that's the word for it) about what military officers are like.

Let me ask you something. In your 4+/- years of military experience, how many 4-star flag officers have you met? How many officers of any grade have you really gotten to know well? I don't know what your MOS was in Vietnam... maybe you worked in MACV... but most draftees in 'Nam were lower-enlisted infantry men who saw their lieutenant fairly frequently but not socially, their captain only occassionally, and no higher ranking officer more than rarely. But what they do see, every day, are NCOs, many of whom do in fact tend to rule with a heavy hand. Especially in combat, or a theater of war.

From what I know about the Coast Guard (not a lot, but I do have a nephew is a USCGA grad), they have a completely different culture and I do not consider it particularly relevant. If they're anything like the Navy, they likely tend to be extremely authoritarian. The tradition that the captain of a ship is God would tend to make them that way.

But I do know the Army, Clark's branch of service. I spent over 20 years in, retiring as a LTC. I don't think of myself as authoritarian, and while I may be prejudiced, there are a number of people posting to this thread who know me personally and I think most of them would confirm my assessment. Moreover, I've known MANY senior officers, some of them quite well, and they are not all, or even mostly, authoritarian. It takes a helluva lot of collaboration to make a large unit work. The commander requires extensive support from outside units, non-military agencies, and even non-governmental organizations, over which he or she has little or no control. And his/her staff tends to be made up of sharp, agressive, capable officers, but with their own egos and aspirations for promotion, and the commander has to get them to work together as a team.

And one further point... in my experience, the commanders who are most charismatic tend to be the least authoritarian. Think Bradley vs. Patton--ok, so both were "charismatic" in their own way, but there's no doubt who the typical GI wanted to serve under. Clark got a lot of support in his campaign from people who had served under his command; they quite literally flocked to work for him again. To put it bluntly, he didn't get that from being an asshole.

I don't know if you've seen my post below (#127), so I'll repeat some of it. I've met Wes Clark a number of times. I never served directly under his command, but I was in several units that supported his missions, at the Ft Irwin National Training Center, while he was negotiating with the Serbs at Dayton, and at SOUTHCOM (I retired before he moved to SHAPE). I know the reputation he enjoyed as a commander, and I've seen his leadership style first hand as a grassroots supporter of his 04 campaign and more recently for WesPAC. He is NOT authoritarian except when he needs to be (and by that, I refer mostly to situations when lives depended on the decisions he made). He is not afraid to make tough decisions, and he takes responsibility for their outcomes. But if time permits, he prefers to get as much input, information and opinions, as possible from as many different sources as possible.

So I hope you don't think I'm being mean, or attacking you, but you really don't know what you're talking about. And yes, you are stereotyping. You are judging a man without knowing much about him as an individual, based on relatively little exposure to people who happened to wear the same uniform in a completely different time and place. It's not a very liberal thing to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #196
198. "Fish will be the last to discover water." (Einstein)
Please read my post #195. You like Clark. Fine. Vote for him. :shrug:

Amazing! I make a fairly benign remark and get five 'true believers' in this subthread telling me how flawed my values and opinions are and how inadequate my experience is! Wow! :wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #119
144. News Flash! Clark falls to the left of Gore
One thing many of us Clarkies are counting on is that most Americans who don't pay much attention to detail will assume Clark is more moderate because he is a general. But really, Democrats should know better.

Take a look at this chart.



It was prepared based on policy positions on these issues/questions:

Economic Issues
Require companies to hire more women & minorities
More Federal Funding For Health Coverage
Privatize Social Security
Reduce use of coal, oil, and nuclear energy
Decrease overall taxation of the wealthy
Immigration Helps Our Economy – Encourage It
Support and Expand Free Trade
More Spending on Armed Forces
Reduce spending on missile defense (Star Wars)

Social Issues
Abortion Is A Woman's Right
Sexual Orientation Protected By Civil Rights Law
Permit prayer in public schools
Parents choose schools via vouchers
Mandatory "Three Strikes" Sentencing Laws
Absolute right to Gun Ownership
Link Human Rights To Trade With China
Drug Use Is Immoral: Enforce Laws Against It
Death Penalty
Allow Churches To Provide Welfare Services
Seek UN Approval for Military Action

You can see where they got the data and how they broke it down at http://headstrong-america.blogspot.com/2005/12/graph-rates-2008-hopefuls-on-issues.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #119
188. The one act that convinced me that he was not a "typical"
miltary professional OR politician was when agreed to be the cover boy for The Advocate magazine.

Interview here: http://www.advocate.com/letters_detail_ektid01562.asp
It's a pop-up, so you may need to go to the search page and click on #11 to get it to open:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=364&topic_id=824791&mesg_id=826491

The cover photo was posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x824791#824959
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #99
110. Those "persons" that you speak of do not Represent Wes Clark...
Edited on Mon Apr-03-06 12:54 AM by FrenchieCat
Conventionalism -- the tendency to accept and obey social conventions and the rules of authority figures; adherence to the traditional and accepted
Clark's problem was that he was a great general but not always a perfect soldier--at least when it came to saluting and saying, "Yes, sir." In fact, when he got orders he didn't like, he said so and pushed to change them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1

Authoritarian Submission -- submission to authorities and authority figures
Clark has been open about the fact that he was hurt when his command was cut short. He offered clues about why he was treated so badly in his first book, Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future of Combat, published in 2001, and recollections of highly placed civilians in the Clinton administration confirm what he wrote. Clark displeased the defense secretary, Bill Cohen, and General Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by arguing strenuously that—contrary to Clinton's decision— the option of using ground troops in Kosovo should remain open. But the problem seems to have gone further back. Some top military leaders objected to the idea of the US military fighting a war for humanitarian reasons. (Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.)
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

Authoritarian Aggression -- an aggressive attitude towards individuals or groups disliked by authorities; particularly those who threaten traditional values
AND
Sex -- exaggerated concerns with respect to sexual activity
The Largest Gay and Lesbian publication in the nation endorsed Wes Clark for President in 2004....
EDITORIAL | washingtonblade.com
Endorsement: Clark for president
Gay activists were among the first to flock to Dean’s vow to ‘Take Back America,’ but as voting finally begins, smart gay support should go to a uniter not a divider.

http://www.washblade.com/print.cfm?content_id=2013

Anti-Intraception -- rejection of the subjective, imaginative and aesthetic
Clark was a Rhodes Scholar, and received an advanced degree from Oxford in Politics, Economics and Philosophy. Clark is not your average day military officer. In fact, many in the military did not accept him as a Good Ol' Boy.
By and large, the jobs General Clark got in the Army were fix-it jobs, turnaround jobs where he often replaced fired officers. He worked on shattered morale, on developing an all-volunteer army, on ways to reduce casualties from friendly fire. If you did jobs like these well, you bred resentment. His performance reviews were extravagant in their praise. He bred resentment.

"Wes was always looked on as too well educated, too wired, too good-looking," said Barry McCaffrey, a retired general who admires him. "He's not a simple crunch soldier. The Rhodes scholars have always been a little suspect in the Army."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/politics/campaigns/23CLAR.html?ei=5007&en=87014e50ca31809a&ex=1384923600&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=all&position=

Wes Clark speaks 4 languages....

Substitution and Stereotypy -- superstition, cliché, categorization and fatalistic determinism
Clark advocated for Affirmative Action, and fought to have intervention in Rwanda and Kosovo....to assist Africans and Albanian Muslims. Currently, he is advocating for U.N. Peacekeeper to be sent to Darfur. In addition, he defended Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Sen. Durbin and others, in public, on National Television....advocated for our Freedom to descent....which cost him his job at CNN.

Power and Toughness -- identification with those in power, excessive emphasis on socially advocated ego qualities
Here was how Clark felt the War on Terror should have been fought...just 3 days after 9/11, he wrote this OP-Ed. Doesn't sound like he was calculating power or thoughness in the manner in which would be nothing other than effective....:shrug:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A28598-2001Sep14¬Found=true

Destructiveness and Cynicism -- general hostility, putting others down
If putting Bush and his administration down and being cynical of them...then yes, He qualifies for this one!

The others are silly...and please let me know how they apply to Wes Clark.

I support Wes Clark, and I don't possess the Attributes you list.

So how does this theory actually work again?













Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #99
111. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-02-06 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
87. I like Clark. But I have no idea who'll I support in '08.
My like or dislike isn't in relation to '08.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinksrival Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 12:17 AM
Response to Original message
102. Wes Clark was the answer I searched for after 2000 elections and *ush
I am a lurker since Oct '03. I don't post to much cause I tend to be long winded on what I feel passionate about. Then the thread is gone! But your post spoke to me .
I was at a yearly "kick-off"conferrence in Malta for the global company my husband works for. It was the week "shock and awe" began. We were with people from offices all over the world and we represented the first North American office. I cannot begin to describe the shame I felt for being an American. I never want to feel that way again. So I started searching for someone I could be proud to represent me as an American.
I was surprised but so thankfull to find what I was looking for in Wes Clark. I have been a complete supporter since I first reseached him as a candidate in Sept. '03. Everything I learned seemed to be too good to be true and I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop. Well it's been two years and still waiting. He continues to impress me as an intelligent, compassionate, humble leader that truely wants to serve his country.
I have seen him numerous times and one thing that has always struck me was how Bush's war in Iraq has effected him. You can see and hear the anguish he feels when he speaks about this ill conceived war he told congress not to wage and it's effects on our military, our country, and the world.
After being wounded in Vietnam, Wes Clark as a Rhodes Scholar and first at West Point, had many opportunities before him. But after seeing the devastating effects of the draft and the Vietnam war he felt he could best serve his country by working to restore the all volunteer Armed Services. I believe with the lifetime of hard work and dedication Wes Clark and other military leaders had achieved this goal. I was a military wife for the first six years of my marriage from 86' to 92' and I can attest to this.
He is a true patriot that has fought hard for the ideals and values this country was founded on. The America that the majority of us know and love and feel we have lost. He has fought for the soldier and his family and now he wants to fight for us.
But you don't have to take my word for it. You can research for yourself.
www.securingamerica.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
114. Clark was my no. 2 choice after Howard.
After hearing Clark and seeing him work a crowd, I'm impressed. A Gore/Clark ticket wouldn't upset me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeNY Donating Member (242 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:37 AM
Response to Reply #114
117. Gore/Clark
I don't know why, but that actually would work...

If you asked me that in 2004 I would have disagreed...

Bill C.'s administration looks like it was Pax Americana now thanks to Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 01:31 AM
Response to Original message
115. Back to the original question posed by the OP
Apparently Clark engenders support for many many reasons.

There is a collection of essays over at Securing America that spoke eloquently to me.

These two (of the many posted there) are my favorites:

“What's with all the Clarkies?”
http://securingamerica.com/node/527

and

“We trust him with our eyes wide open”
http://securingamerica.com/node/517

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:45 AM
Response to Original message
118. Will you Clarkies please tell Wes ...
Edited on Mon Apr-03-06 03:47 AM by Neil Lisst
Ditch the double windsor knot on your tie, Wes. You are slender. You need a slender knot. Go with the single windsor knot.

Videotape it both ways, and you'll see what I mean.

As you Clarkies may know, I am committed to the nominee in 08, but I'm not in anyone's camp now.

I'm passing this along because I study these things when the candidates are on the tube with the talking heads. Wes has vastly improved his TV presence since 04, and the more he does it, the better he gets. He needs to be on TV every day, on more than one channel. He needs to take a position every day. Wes has no job, no constituency to serve, like all the senators, so he should be appointing himself the daily responder to the Bush talking points.

A wise politico/thinker once said "if you want to be a leader, find a riot and get in front of it." Well, walk through Democratic Undergrouns and get the pulse of mainline Dems, and you can see that they are tired of mealy mouthed responses that don't get it done.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
120. 1) Issue positions; 2) Electability; 3) Intelligence; 4) Competence
Edited on Mon Apr-03-06 07:12 AM by 0rganism
Wes Clark is a providential boon to the Democratic party.

OK, look, here it is in a nutshell: a flagg general and SACEUR, well-regarded in many allied countries, extremely liberal on domestic/environmental issues, reasonable with respect to foreign affairs, advanced degree in economics, never divorced, accumulating campaign and public speaking experience every day, and running as a Democrat.

We will not get a better candidate than this. I'm sorry, it's just the facts as I see 'em. Clark would run strong against anyone the republicans can throw at him. The republicans are praying he gets zorched by the Democratic base in the primaries.

Nothing against Russ Feingold personally or politically, he's a brilliant man with uncommon integrity, but I'd rather not be running senators as presidential candidates. Too many liabilities, too outspoken on the record, too easy for the republicans to marginalize -- "Feingold for President" is a GOP strategist's wet dream. Meanwhile, we'd lose his valuable voice in the senate, and keeping his seat Democratic would require considerable additional effort.

Governors and generals make the strongest presidential candidates. Virginia ex-Gov. Warner is another potential strong runner, but his issue positions are way right of Clark's. I'd take Clark over Warner in an instant, but reluctantly choose Warner over Feingold in a primary just to have a shot at retaking the presidency.

That's my take.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
July Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #120
123. Good summary of Clark's plusses, Organism.
You get to the nut of it: electability. "We will not get a better candidate than this," though there are other good candidates. I, too, think Wes is eminently electable and could garner many crossover votes from disaffected Republicans. I like other potential candidates, as well, and will support the Democratic candidate no matter what, but Clark is at the top of my list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #120
137. Hot Damn ! .... Well said, O'Wise One ....
I could not have expressed the issue better ....

When I listen to Clark speak; I hear STRONG support for the progressive FDR-LBJ public policy agenda ... He maintains a decent appreciation for a strong defensive posture (NOT an offensive posture, like the current regime), and therefore cannot be tainted as 'weak on defense' .... It must again be noted that FDR, JFK, et al, were NOT 'weak on defense' ... Theye did not shy away from a fight ...

I have no issue with a liberal president who holds a pragmatic view that a strong military is necessary for the protection of their nation .... as long as THAT is the true goal .... Clark embodies both a reverence for New Deal-Great Society issues, and a strong outlook on RATIONAL national security ...

I would vote for Wesley Clark in an instant ..... His bona fides are superb, in my book ....

HOW can the GOP claim THEY are better for our nation's protection when it is THEY who looked away from such threats prior to the fall of the WTC ? .... THEY didnt do the job ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
124. I love Wes ! I think he is a perfect choice.
He is positively brilliant (Rhodes scholar !). He offers a keen military mind and proven success. This will be a good match against McCain in particular. In 08, the country will definitely need someone with military savy to try and clean up Bush's mess. He also has a moderate air about him that will appeal to the moderates, who we need. He also has no senate votes to have to defend.

I think that Feingold is brilliant, as well. However, I do feel that we will be constantly hearing the "he's too liberal" mantra. I think, though, that Feingold can hold his own against anyone in a debate and defend the choices he made. But, as top-of-the-ticket choice, I don't want to start out of the gate in the hole. (Same with Hillary, since 51% would never, ever, ever vote for her.)

I would support Clark/Feingold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
127. Most of us came to Clark because of issues and electability
Most of us have stuck with him because of the quality of the man himself.

Let's face it, there are a lot of good Democrats with the right positions on most of the issues. Some of them are probably even electable.

But Clark is both of those and a lot more. He's incredibly intelligent, compassionate to a fault (if that's possible), and dedicated to the principles upon which our nation was founded. He always tells the truth, and he's not afraid to stand up for what he believes in, even at great personal risk or hardship. He is probably the hardest, most determined worker of any of our national leaders. The man puts in an unbelievable work day, every day. If you follow his schedule at all, you will be amazed at what he takes on and how much he accomplishes.

And in addition to all that, I think one reason we're loyal to him is because he has always been loyal to us. He really cares about what we think. He communicates with us frequently, and it is not just one-way communication. He actually discusses with us, answers our questions, asks us questions, challenges us to think for ourselves, and shows respect for our opinions even when we disagree. How he manages to do it with hundreds, maybe thousands, of his more dedicated supporters, and without the staff of an elected official, is hard to fathom, much less explain. But he does. It must have something to do with wanting to badly enough to try. I guess it's called leadership.

I had to laugh, reading up thread where some guy with 2 years at the Coast Guard academy and a few more as a drafted soldier, talked about how authoritarian Clark must be as a general. Clark has probably the most collaborative leadership style you will ever find in a leader from any profession or walk of life. Sure, he's tough enough to make hard decisions when he has to, and to take responsibility for the reults. But he is also a teacher, a philosopher, and a team player. He introduced me to the concept of intellectual courage--the ability and willingness to stay open to new ideas, new information, new solutions to problems, even when they threaten to shake the foundation of what you've believed up to that point. It's a difficult concept to live up to, but Clark does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
128. Clark over Feingold; Why? Clark has strategic vision.
Edited on Mon Apr-03-06 02:52 PM by Tom Rinaldo
My reasons to support Clark are four fold, and the basic reasons are inter related. I really like Clark on the issues, which is over half of his appeal to me, and I'll expand on that below. I rank this at over 50% because if Clark took the wrong stand on an important range of issues, it wouldn't matter how I felt about him otherwise. The remaining three reasons are all closely bunched for me, but they are key to my support of Clark, because while it isn't easy for me to find other Democratic politicians to agree with on issues, it isn't near impossible either. Number Two. I love Clark for his character, his independence, and his personal integrity, which may come in a close second for my reasons to support him. Clark is an honest man who has always believed in making personal sacrifices on behalf of his nation. That is the mark of a leader I can respect. Clark has always walked that walk. I can spend a lot of time writing about that because I have spent a lot of time thinking about that and what about Wes Clark appeals to me. Perhaps I will write more on it in a follow up post. In my mind, of those considering a Democratic run for President in 2008, Wesley Clark and Russ Feingold top the pack for me on both these two points, with Wes and Russ breaking away from the rest on honesty, independence and character.

My last two reasons are these. Ability and Electability. I'll talk about them in that order but my stress here is on Ability, because we already spend a lot of time on these boards talking about Electability. Most by now know how bright Wes Clark is; first in his class at West Point, a Rhodes Scholar with three advanced degrees from Oxford etc. Clark also has extraordinary personal courage, which has been demonstrated in dramatic ways periodically throughout his life. Our next President will need both. Clark is highly skilled at analyzing complex problems and arriving at realistic risk assessments for all the response options available. He has a demonstrated ability to think outside the box, to see possible ways of approaching a problem that are not conventional wisdom. Factoring in the real likelihood of resistance to a proposed course of action is a tactical skill that many politicians are lacking in, but that ability allows a political leader to craft a strategy for accomplishing his or her goals that goes beyond their ability to choose the right position to fight for. Clark is unrivaled in that regard.

Politicians compete in a system that rewards identification with a popular message. A failure to adequately achieve a specific political end can be blamed on the opposition and their allies, without overly hurting the popularity of a politician who is skilled at appealing to his/her base. Clark spent most of his adult life working in the military, which has a more objective basis for defining success and failure. War, whether winning one or preventing one through deterrence, is always about life and death. Appeals to emotion may motivate the ground troops, but they have no role in strategic thinking. At the highest level, military leaders are required to read and anticipate trends emerging in a complex mix of changing circumstances, and to prepare to face a range of possible scenarios, rated to reflect the probability of their actually happening. And then they prepare plans to deal with those possible contingencies to maximize the likelihood that our side will prevail should conflicts emerge. Clark excels in these abilities, which any study of his career quickly confirms.

What does that mean for us now? Clark is simultaneously being a strong partisan Democratic leader and a strong non partisan National leader, and his ability to do both is both remarkable and essential to being able to win an election to be President and restoring America to a path of peace and prosperity, in league with, not in opposition to, most of the world's people. I pay close attention to General Clark and I see how he is weaving a new platform for the Democratic Party in words that have strong meaning, reflecting values held dear by Democrats for generations, but which also resonate with all Americans of good will who sincerely wish a better future for all Americans and good relations with people the world over. Clark knows how to sell our package to America, and his political moves are all calculated to do just that. From appearing on FOX news, to fighting to get Ed Schultz onto Armed Forces Radio as a counterpart to Limbaugh. Also by his strongly embracing our men and women in uniform while simultaneously tearing into the Commander in Chief for his incompetence in turning the World against America, for taking us into Iraq, and for completely mismanaging our occupation inside Iraq. Watch Clark's tireless campaigning for Democrats in Red States, and his unwavering focus on retaking Congress in 2006. Clark is always thinking strategically. He is attacking the Republican Party in their strongest areas, which is what Republicans have always done to us. Clark is on the offensive to restore the two Party system and respect for our Constitution by undercutting critical portions of the support base that the Republican Party counts on.

And the approach Clark takes to politics, the strategic overview, the analysis of which course most likely will lead to victory, is evident in Clark's clear and constantly evolving thinking about how to tackle America's now chronic ills. If you watched Clark take questions in an appearance in New Hampshire that CSPAN just broadcast on "The Road to the White House" he showed that in discussing the health care crisis in America. He knows the problems with where we are now. He knows exactly where we have to get to. He knows the obstacles that have the potential to stop that forward progress, and he has a plan to overcome those obstacles. Clark explained all of that in detail, "off the cuff", during a question and answer period. I think our problems in this country and in this world are quite grave right now, and it's going to take some incisive strategic thinking, not just inspired political policies, to get us out of them, and I see no one more capable of this than Wesley Clark now operating inside the mainstream political arena. Clark is capable both of developing a winning plan and selling it to the public. That's what the Democratic Party needs right now.

Of course the above is a part of "Electability" also. But Clark has other advantages others have mentioned, like not being a sitting Senator. Like being the Democrat most persuasively identified with the ability to keep America safe in a dangerous world. Like a career in an Institution most Americans, especially Moderates, independents and Republicans, admire; the U.S. Army. Like having a fantastic First Lady in waiting in Gert Clark. Like having participated in a National election cycle once already, first as a candidate and then as one of Kerry's top surrogates, giving his a recent base of experience to draw on for such a unique electoral challenge.

On the issues. Clark not only would have kept us out of Iraq, he fought to keep us from entering Iraq, he outed PNAC, he always said Bush failed to keep America safe prior to 9/11. Clark is the leading Democrat to stress the need for diplomacy in the Middle East now, not just inside Iraq, but with Iran also. Clark defines global threats like massive poverty and A.I.D.S. and global warming and pandemics as true National Security threats to America that can only be faced by working closely in a cooperative generous spirit with the International Community using International institutions. Clark has been a fervent defender of minority rights, and of Gay and Lesbian Rights. Clark is Pro Choice. Clark is a loud voice for the Constitutional protections of our Bill of Rights. Clark thinks international trade agreements have inadequately protected worker and environmental rights. Clark is strongly Pro Union. Clark wants increased government support for emerging safe energy technologies. Clark thinks when budget cuts are discussed the military can not be spared. Clark calls himself a Liberal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #128
129. oops.
Edited on Mon Apr-03-06 02:48 PM by KG
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #128
132. Have I told you lately that I love you?
Well ...at least what you write.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #132
141. LOL! Thanks n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
130. he's soooo manly. he makes me swooooooooon!
:loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #130
131. Why don't you tell us what you really think? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #130
138. Well that's a good thing too....although Tom Rinaldo didn't include it!
and yes it is true, he is an alpha man (although soft spoken when required), married for 34 years, looks good on TV, doesn't have squinty eyes, and doesn't put one to sleep when he talks....In other words, he fufill the superficial qualities that "some" look for in their Presidential candidate.

That doesn't hurt; that's for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DanCa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
133. What's not to like about Clark
He has been against the war from the beginning, speaks several languages, is charasmatic as all get out and is for stem cell research. Plus he's a non senator and there is a paper trail voting record that can be picked apart by the repukes. Michael Moore also endorsed him that's good enough for me.

Note I have no problems voting for Senator Feingold but I would love for us to run a non senator for a change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UrbScotty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
142. I like both... But as you say, 2006 is more important now (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nimrod2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
143. I met the General, he impressed me, I liked him since....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ksec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
145. I like Clark because hes a good man with character
I also like Russ Feingold because hes a good man with character.

I like most all the Dems and would vote for any of them.

I wish Russ's censure would have gotten more support. It makes the dems in congress look like cowards, although I understand the strategy , its perception that can make or break politicians with our uninformed masses/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YankeyMCC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
147. Qualified, intelligent, well spoken
untouchable on the whole 'national security' debate.

He supports much of what I support on social and environmental issues. He's got some good ideas on economics.

I originally supported him over Kerry...if it was again a choice between Clark and Kerry I don't know which I would choose. Probably Kerry with hopes of a Clark cabinet post, but I think I would support Clark over many others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #147
149. At least Reagan was Governor.
What public office has he ever held?

Wes is NOT qualified. Ambitious, but not qualified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #149
151. George W. Bush was a Republican Governor and...
Dwight T. Eisenhower never held elected office prior to becoming President. Which one do you think made a better Republican President?

If you consider having held prior elected office by definition to be a prerequisite to being qualified to become President, which seems to be your position, than obviously you will find Wes Clark unqualified regardless of whatever his accomplishments or abilities are. Personally I find that foolish, but it obviously drives your thinking on Clark's qualifications.

I would have picked a former General Colin Powell over a former Governor Lester Maddox also, even though by your standards Maddox was more qualified than Powell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #151
166. Wes wants us to trust his campaign promises
To know what kind of president he'd be. I'd rather look at a record in Government. Campaign Promises are garbage.

Since we're calling names I think you are a hero worshiper and you are flocking to a strong military daddy type. You dont even know who's running yet but you know Wes is the best pic based on his stars.

But I'm the foolish one. OK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #166
174. Thank you, yes, I've looked at Clark's record
and without exception he's lived his (and our) Democratic values.

How many career politicians can say the same?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #166
177. Yeah that's me, looking for a strong military daddy type...
Edited on Mon Apr-03-06 05:54 PM by Tom Rinaldo
Since you are so perceptive I guess you must be right and I must be wrong. Oh Oh, I guess that means I need a strong non military daddy type.

It was foolish of me to say that I thought it was foolish of you to disqualify anyone from being President just because they never held elective office. Forget everything I said about General Eisenhower and Governor Maddox. Obviously Jessie Ventura is more qualified to be President than Wesley Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YankeyMCC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #149
152. Last time I looked the Constitution didn't require having held public
office and there's a lot more ways to be qualified than holding public office.

I'd rather have someone with his credentials and experience but lacking in winning an election than a talking head that's won elections but is basically a moron.

So I guess our definitions of 'qualified' is a little different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #152
165. Are those the only thing you look for in a candidate?
Age and the country they were born in? Nice standards. Myself I think the highest office in the land calls for more then just being over 35 and born in the USA.... like a record in government.

Silly me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #165
168. BZZZZ Foul. Age and country of birth are the only disqualifiers
still in the Constitution to becoming President. So I usually don't bacl 25 year olds for President or people born in Austria. But if you want to try, go ahead and waste your vote. Now what qualifies someone to become President is a whole other matter which we have already disagreed on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #168
172. I was responding to
The person who said : "where in the constitution does it say..."

So for that person the only qualifications are the ones listed in the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YankeyMCC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #165
180. Try again
you're missing the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ksec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #149
159. I like that he hasnt held an office
Hes fresh and clean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #159
167. Right.
The Devil you don't know is better than the Devil you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #167
173. Spiro Agnew was considered a pretty Liberal Republican Governor
when he was Governor of Maryland. Most people knew squat about who Agnew really was or who he was accepting bribes from. They certainly didn't expect a far rightist to emerge when Agnew became VP, but yeah he was a former Governor, whoop-die do. It is easy to know a lot about Wes Clark. He has a very clear record in office to judge him by, it's just that he wasn't elected to it that seemingly has you so bothered. Or you can study what Clark has written, he has literally written volumes, that's supposedly how we screen Supreme Court nominees, isn't it? Except Wes Clark actually answers questions about everything he's written clearly and directly, unlike the cloaked ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ksec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #167
184. It worked for bushy and his Roberts pick
No history means no ammo/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #184
185. But Clark has the "naivete" to actually answer the questions asked him
Here is what Mario Cuomo once said about Wes Clark:

""Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn." - Mario Cuomo

Well that's one trait I hope Clark never learns, though he has gotten quite skilled at verbal jousting from taking on the FOX jocks week after week, always coming out on top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
148. Internalized the right-wing spin on why we lose.
So they want to crown a military guy. They think this will be the magic bullet. It's foolish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #148
160. Don't underestimate those supporting Clark.......
Edited on Mon Apr-03-06 04:45 PM by FrenchieCat
Because the magic Bullet is obviously not held by those who find that being a professional politician is a pre-requisite to winning the Presidentcy....(see election 2004 - Dimwit Dumbell vs. 20+ years elected official).

The last time that there were no incumbents from either parties running in a presidential race was in 1952. We were at war in Korea at the time. The individual that ended up winning and serving 2 terms had no prior elective experience.

Using "Foolish" to describe those who believe that they would rather go with history and judge individuals on merits besides being a professional politician is what's foolish, IMO.

PS. That "military Guy" is also a 4 star General/Former Commander of NATO/Most Decorated since Eisenhower/Rhodes Scholar-Oxford Masters graduate/Author/Commentator/Led the Last war US ever won/4 language speaking/peace Negotiating/Plato Reading/Affirmative Action supporting/Former Presidential candidate/Netroot strong individual and a fucking Democrat!

How many of those "guys" are there, anyways?

Please don't sell him or us short.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #160
170. Self delete - dupe
Edited on Mon Apr-03-06 05:07 PM by iconoclastNYC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #160
171. What kind of president would he be?
You can't tell me because he has no record in politics.

I'd like a record to look at. Call me foolish.

Wes 2008 is all about gimmickry.

Look no record! That's a plus! No really.

Lookie -- four stars!

They can't say we are weak on the military.

He says he's a Democrat now... that's good enough for me!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #171
175. As opposed to our differences above
It is very easy to see what type of Democrat Wes Clark is now. He campainged for Kerry all across the nation in 2004, Clark's given the Democratic Party Weekly Radio Address four times in the last year. Clark's appeared at dozens of Democratic Party fund raisers, and he's campaigned hard for Democrats throughout the country non stop since the 2004 Election. If you want to boil that down to "He says he'a a Democrat now", I think that says a lot more about you than it does about Wes Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #175
211. Talk...talk....talk.
It's harder to do the right thing when you are in office and your reelection is in the line.

I know other people running who have proved how they react under political pressure. Wes has no record in politics to judge.

Wes has made good campaign promises. What are campaign promises worth?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #171
176. Look, you should think what you want....cause at the end of the day
It just can't matter to me that much; i.e., what you think.....

But I will tell you this, and in fact, I have told you before.....Clark DOES have a public record to look at....as he has worked for our government most of his life.

What he doesn't have is votes in the world of politics.

for as many there are of you who finds that a vote is the only measure of a record, there are as many who will be thankful that there are no votes, yet there is a record of public service and a career long trail of action apart from words (Clark voted with his career--if you know why he was retired early).

So to each his own--

You should vote for the politician, and I'll vote for the one who I think best qualifies for these times, your lithmus test be damned.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #176
179. Yep, a public record.....
...not just campaign promises...actions he's taken through long years in public service.

I've brought this up with Iconoclast before....and, of course, was ignored....

To some people, votes speak louder than actions....what are you gonna do? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #179
212. A vote is an action.
A promise is not an action. It's a promise, easily broken.

To some people campaign promises speak louder then a real record in politics.

What are you going to do ?

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #212
213. Clark put his career on the line to stop a Genocide.
Edited on Tue Apr-04-06 08:19 PM by Tom Rinaldo
And if you dispute that see post #192 on this thread. For me that is more real than a vote in Congress. Clark lost many long time personal friends in the military when he decided he had to take on Bush publicly over Bush's tragic military misadventures, but Clark didn't hesitate to do it because he knew it was what had to be done. Or you can take a small thing, like Clark agreeing to pose for the cover of a Gay periodical that did an interview on him. That said more to many gays and lesbians, about Clark's willingness to stand up and be counted for them, than any number of votes. Or you can take the voluntary brief Clark entered before the United States Supreme Court in defense of Affirmative Action in Michigan, before Clark entered politics, something no one made Clark do. Or you can take Clark defending Michael Moore for his attacks on the Iraq war while Clark was doing commentary on CNN, again before Clark entered politics. That sure as hell impressed Moore, because no one in the Democratic Party had shown a willingness to stand up for him. Or you could look at how hard Clark fought to get John Kerry, a man who defeated him in the Primaries, elected President.

Oh but I forgot, Clark doesn't have a real record in politics. Can't trust him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #213
217. You can produce the longest list of ACTIONS ever seen for this guy....
and he'll ignore them and say he doesn't believe in campaign promises....It makes no sense but he does it continually....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #213
233. Clark was not commander in chief.
Edited on Wed Apr-05-06 05:41 PM by iconoclastNYC
That was Clinton. He deserves the credit. He would have taken the blame. You give Clarke way too much credit for following orders.

There is more to being president then running a war.

He's never held elected office, he has no record in politics as an elected official.

More and more you Clark boosters expose yourself for what you are.

Doing your job in the military qualifies you for being president!

Getting a endorsment from Michael Moore qualifies you for president!

Being on CNN or Fox news qualifies you for being president!

I'll for someone with a long history in the Democratic party, with a solid progressive voting record as an elected official or solid experience as a governor persuing the progressive agenda.

The White House is no place for a political dilettante.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #212
216. Why do you keep on ignoring the posts where people
bring up the ACTIONS that Clark has taken? You do it all of the time. You just look like a blind fool....or an ignoramous or something like that....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
153. Because he was one of the few Dems who spoke out against the war.
He'll have my eternal respect for that.

He's intelligent, experienced, honest and liberal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
154. I prefer Gore or Feingold
or Boxer or Conyers. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
156. If Kerry had picked Clark as his running mate
he'd be president right now.

IMHO.

Clark would make a great choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YankeyMCC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #156
157.  I share that Opinion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #156
187. If cows could fly I'd be in the steel umbrella business.
:shrug: So, it really wasn't election fraud, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DanCa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #156
203. I agree with you 100 percent.
I have nothing against John Edwards, I would vote for him without batting an eye lash, but alot of people voted for Dubya cause they were scared. If we would have had two war heroes on the ticket maybe it would have been enough to sway the election. Okay I am an optimist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
158. the more I hear him, the more I like him
I don't know any other politician that consistently does that for me.

Even if I disagree, something about the way he presents his point makes it very apparent that he knows what the hell he is talking about.

He is a strong leader and a smart sonofabitch.

I would love to have the opportunity to vote for this man. I actually voted for him in the Florida Primary, even though Kerry had the nod sewn up by then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Schema Thing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
163. He's lived a purposefully heroic life
Frankly, America needs a hero, and the world needs to see America publicly embrace someone larger-than-life "good" to atone for our embrace of so much bad.

Americans can (and will, if given the chance) embrace Wes Clark. I know of no one else who could as quickly and effectively unite the country and at the same time make friends worldwide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
181. Quotes like these:
"If Karl Rove is watching today, Karl, I want you to hear me loud and clear: I am going to provide tax cuts to ease the burdens for 31 million American families -- and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty -- by raising the taxes on 0.1 percent of families -- those who make more than $1,000,000 a year. You don't have to read my lips, I'm saying it," Clark said.

"And if that makes me an 'old-style' Democrat, then I accept that label with pride and I dare you to come after me for it."

Clark made that statement when he rolled out his progressive income tax plan prior to the New Hampshire Primary.


He made this one while a guest on one of Bill Maher's shows, in 2003:

"We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this
country. It's in our constitution! We should be very clear on this...
this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment. It was
the idea that people could talk, have reasonable dialogue and discuss
the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck
by a divine inspiration and know everything, right from wrong. People
who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they
believed in reason, and dialogue, and civil discourse. We can't lose
that in this country. We've got to get it back."


This came from a New Hampshire Public Radio Interview in 2003 (link to audio follows):

"I think we're at a time in American history that's probably analogous to, maybe, Rome before the first emperors, when the Republic started to fall... I think if you look at the pattern of events, if you look at the disputed election of 2000, can you imagine? In America, people are trying to recount ballots and a partisan mob is pounding on the glass and threatening the counters? Can you imagine that? Can you imagine a political party which does its best to keep any representatives from another party — who've even been affiliated with another party — from getting a business job in the nation's capital? Can you imagine a political party that wants to redistrict so that its opponents can be driven out entirely?...it's a different time in America and the Republic is - this election is about a lot more than jobs. I'm not sure everybody in America sees it right now. But I see it, I feel it."
General Wesley Clark
November 5, 2003

It is still available to be listened to, archived at: http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339


And Clark is still turning them out. He said these last Saturday:

"This Administration has taken us on a path to nowhere - replete with hyped intelligence, macho slogans, and an incredible failure to see the obvious. It started with a fight we didn't finish against Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and included a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq. Along the way we've failed to halt proliferation with both North Korea and Iran and the Administration has shown tragic incompetence in everything from nation building in Iraq to disaster relief in Louisiana. "

AND FOR THE SAME DEMOCRATIC RADIO ADDRESS:


"Let's face it: we're not going to win the war on terror unless we start making more friends and fewer enemies in the world, and we're not going to be able to protect the American people without a new strategy. "
http://www.dnc.org/a/2006/03/retired_general.php




More Clark quotes can be found at this DU thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=235&topic_id=3434&mesg_id=3434



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerry-is-my-prez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-03-06 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
182. Very intelligent, grt. knowledge of foreign policy/military but peacelover
I'm very far to the left and back him with NO hesitation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
190. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #190
192. You are so far off base, it ain't even funny.....
Edited on Tue Apr-04-06 04:06 AM by FrenchieCat
You've been hanging out at too many extremist websites...the ones that also call Clinton a war criminal, for sure....

To begin with, the Humanitarian crisis was already occuring in the Balkans.
Additionally, Clark pushed NOT to have the bombing done from high altitudes exactly because then the target became more indiscriminating...he requested Apache Helicopters...who fly much, much lower than the bombers, and would have hit targets with much more precision and less innocent casualties.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1¬Found=true

Clark wasn't allowed to use helicopter gunships for fear that they might be shot down, despite the fact that the helicopters didn't need to fly over Kosovo itself and the helicopters' missiles could have been more precise in hitting targets than bombers flying at 15,000 feet. The argument over whether there should be even contingency planning for the use of NATO ground troops in Kosovo (at the time, it appeared that they would have to fight their way in) caused a serious clash between Clinton and Blair, particularly when they met in April 1999 at the White House residence on the eve of a NATO summit. Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel Berger, argued strongly against contingency planning for ground troops. It would, he said, be controversial domestically and might imply that the air war wasn't working. It was clear that Clinton, who remained largely silent, fully agreed with Berger. A close Clinton associate has told me that "to this day" Clinton regrets that he removed the option of ground troops.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795


The problem with folks who like to apologize for Molosovic also like to act like 250,000 didn't die in Bosnia...before Kosovo even occurred. The NATO Bombing coupled with Clark's threat to Molosovic that he would put boots on the ground is what halted Molosovic from continuing with his planned Genocide. I know that folks like you wanted to find 250,000 more bodies in Kosovo before you would admit Genocide...but the NATO intervention was to STOP THE GENOCIDE...not come to the rescue AFTER THE FACT. The Nato Operations claimed approx 500 Civilian deaths....not a small number, but hardly the "bloodbath" Milosovic apologist normally attempt to infer...

Here is some reading for you to do. Educate yourself!
PS. Republicans were AGAINST Kosovo for the most part...so your argument that those who side with Clark are closeted Republicans is turned on it's head!
-------------
Bush would Disengaged as soon as he became President.
“The role of the US military is not to be all things to all people." George Bush, 2000.

Bush does not support an open-ended commitment to keep our troops as peacekeepers in the Balkans,” said a spokesman. An advisor added, “Gore seems to have a vision of an indefinite US military deployment in the Balkans. He proved today that if he is elected, America’s military will continue to be overdeployed, harming morale & re-enlistment rates, weakening our military’s core mission.”
http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush_Kosovo.htm
=========
I guess that Barbara Boxer was just full of shit during the Condi Rice SOS Hearings, when she said....
"My last point has to do with Milosevic. You said you can't compare the two dictators. You know, you're right; no two tyrants are alike. But the fact is Milosevic started wars that killed 200,000 in Bosnia, 10,000 in Kosovo and thousands in Croatia, and he was nabbed and he's out without an American dying for it. That's the facts. Now I suppose we could have gone in there and people could have killed to get him. The fact is not one person wants either of those two to see the light of day, again. And in one case we did it without Americans dying. In the other case, we did it with Americans dying. And I think if you ask the average American, you know, was Saddam worth one life, one American life, they'd say, "No, he's the bottom of the barrel." And the fact is we've lost so many lives over it. So if we do get a little testy on the point, and I admit to be so, it's because it continues day in and day out, and 25 percent of the dead are from California.
We cannot forget. We cannot forget that. Thank you. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/politics/19cnd-rtex.h ...
---------

The Bosnia War occured prior to the Kosovo War. U.S. Troups, via NATO were more involved in the latter than the former. The Bosnian Conflict(a civil war), were approximately 250,000 were killed, was ended via the Dayton Peace Accords of 1995. Holbrook and Wes Clark were instrumental in writing up the treaty.
=======

A Short History:
The Bosnian-Herzegovinian declaration of sovereignty in October of 1991, was followed by a referendum for independence from Yugoslavia in February 1992 boycotted by the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Serbs. Serbia and Bosnian Serbs responded shortly thereafter with armed attacks on Bosnian-Herzegovinian Croats and Bosniaks aimed at partitioning the republic along ethnic lines and joining Serb-held areas. The UNPROFOR (UN Protection Force) was deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina in mid-1992. 1992 and 1993 saw the greatest bloodshed in Europe after 1945. In March 1994, Bosniaks and Croats reduced the number of warring factions from three to two by signing an agreement creating a joint Bosniak-Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Each nation reported many casualties in the three sided conflict, in which the Bosniaks reported the highest number of deaths and casualties. However, the only case officially ruled by the U.N. Hague tribunal as genocide was the Srebrenica massacre of 1995. At the end of the war more than 200,000 had been killed and more than 2 million people fled their homes (including over 1 million to neighboring nations and the west).

On November 21, 1995, in Dayton, Ohio, presidents of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Alija Izetbegoviæ), Croatia (Franjo Tuðman), and Serbia (Slobodan Miloševiæ) signed a peace agreement that brought a halt to the three years of war in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the final agreement was signed in Paris on 14 December 1995). The Dayton Agreement succeeded in ending the bloodshed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it institutionalized the division between the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Muslim and Croat entity - Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (51% of the territory), and the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Serb entity - Republika Srpska (49%).

The enforcement of the implementation of the Dayton Agreement was through a UN mandate using various multinational forces: NATO-led IFOR (Implementation Force), which transitioned to the SFOR (Stabilisation Force) the next year, which in turn transitioned to the EU-led EUFOR at end of 2004. The civil administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina is headed by the High Representative of the international community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia

=========
The Kosovo Conflict was indeed related to Bosnia, but started in 1998. By April of 1999, the U.S. working under NATO intervened in what appeared to be a repeat action of Muslim Ethnic Cleansing. The fact that NATO intervened is one reason cited that "only" 7,000-10,000 were killed there instead of the 200,000 in Bosnia.
============

Yes, the Senate Republicans voted in it's majority AGAINST the U.S.'s participation in taking any action in Kossovo. Republican Senators voted 38-16 AGAINST Kosovo action at the time that the vote took place for U.S. to participate with NATO. However, the Democrats in the Majority voted for it.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3805/is_200107/ai_n8985421/pg_4

Most Republicans except for the moderates were against it. Kissinger was one of the Frontman spreading the lies of "wag the dog"
Kissinger exposes lies behind US-NATO war
By Barry Grey
28 May 1999
In the course of a newly published article criticizing the Clinton administration's war policy in Yugoslavia, Henry Kissinger is obliged to expose some of the basic claims underlying the pro-war propaganda of the US and NATO. Appearing first on the May 24 Internet edition of Newsweek magazine, the article, entitled "New World Disorder," carries the following blunt summary:

"The ill-considered war in Kosovo has undermined relations with China and Russia and put NATO at risk."

Kissinger portrays the Clinton administration's policy in the Balkans as a combination of political opportunism, incompetence and recklessness. He is particularly concerned with the long-term consequences for US relations with Russia and China, as well as the alliance between the US and the European powers.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-controversies59.htm
==============
Where is that Republican commitment today? Until Mr. Clinton forced their hand, many Republicans wanted to let our allies do all the fighting and take all the risks. They seemed to want America to lead -- from behind. If the United States had actually followed this path, the damage to the NATO alliance would have been irreparable. If the United States won't take on a bully like Mr. Milosevic, why should anyone in Europe believe that Washington will be bolder in meeting even more dangerous threats to European security in the future?
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=271
===============
Kosovo was what the Late Pope John Paul called a "noble" war....
a war against Genocide. As Samantha Powers, the Pulitzer Award winning author on the subject of Genocide put it...I spent about seven years looking into American responses to genocide in the twentieth century, and discovered something that may not surprise you but that did surprise me, which was that until 1999 the United States had actually never intervened to prevent genocide in our nation's history. Successive American presidents had done an absolutely terrific job pledging never again, and remembering the holocaust, but ultimately when genocide confronted them, they weighed the costs and the benefits of intervention, and they decided that the risks of getting involved were actually far greater than the other non-costs from the standpoint of the American public, of staying uninvolved or being bystanders. That changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military.

The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing. And it was Pentagon reluctance to intervene in Rwanda, and in Bosnia, that actually made it much, much easier for political leaders to turn away. When the estimates started coming out of the Pentagon that were much more constructive, and proactive, and creative, one of the many deterrents to intervention melted away.

http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/index.html
==========
==========
The Magistrate (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-28-05 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #150

153. If Anyone Is Desirous Of Facts In This Matter

The Unhappy History of Kosovo

One: Origin of the Quarrel

The clash in Kossovo of Arnaut and Vascian, as the peoples known to we moderns as Albanian and Serb were oft known in Ottoman days, differs from the usual run of Balkan bloodletting; it describes a real ethnic difference. Serb, Croat, Slovene, Montenegrin; all are Slavs, divided due to institutions only. Albanians remain in some proportion survivals of the old Dalmatian and Illyric peoples of Roman days, taken to craggy peaks for refuge from a tide of Slavic invasion commencing with the sixth century.

Medieval Albanian Catholicism offered further differentiation from Orthodox Serbs. The northeastern extension of the Albanian remnant, and the southern marches of the Serb, coincided roughly in modern Kossovo. Here the Serb Czar and Orthodox Patriarchite were able to exert authority the more atomized Albanian polity could not. After the death of the Albanian chieftain Skanderberg, and the Ottoman routing of Venice from the latter’s Adriatic lodgments, late in the fifteenth century, Albanians generally converted to Islam.

In Kossovo, this established local Albanians’ dominance over the Orthodox Serb peasantry, as the Ottoman gave landlord’s tenure only to Moslems. More enterprising or desperate Serbs migrated north; Albanians of similar motivation replaced them from the west. The locale remained poorly ordered, and a frequent theater for rebellion and consequent Ottoman suppression.

The catastrophe suffered by the Ottoman besieging Vienna in 1683 led to the swift seizure of Bosnia, Albania, and Serbia by Austrian and Bavarian Catholic armies. An Austrian force ventured into Kossovo in 1689, setting Albanian and Serb alike both to rebellion against the Ottoman and to battle against one another. The Austrians soon were routed at Nish. In Kossovo, the Ottoman killed every inhabitant they could lay hands on for days. Serbs fled north in great number, Albanians fled west.

With Ottoman authority reasserted, it was mostly Albanians who returned. These soon outnumbered the Serb survivors and progeny. Erection of an autonomous Serbia early in the nineteenth century enticed Kossovo Serbs to migrate north and acquire a freehold farm there. The Russo-Turkish War of 1877, which saw near collapse for the tottering Ottoman, was preceded and followed by Serb attacks.

These fell on Ottoman garrisons and Moslem inhabitants in the south of modern Serbia, culminating in the 1878 sack and firing of the Albanian quarter in Nish. Islamic refugees fled into Kossovo; Christians fled into Serbia for shelter from ensuing pogrom, and advancing Ottoman soldiery. The peace imposed by the Treaty of Berlin left Kossovo under unrestricted Ottoman rule.


Two: To the Yugoslav Monarchy

Albanian agitation for autonomy on modern terms within the declining Ottoman imperium began at Prizren in Kossovo, and at Istanbul. The Serb remnant in Kossovo were subjected to a wretched existence, without recourse from predation by landlord or hostile brigand. Early in 1912, declaration of an Albanian state ignited a successful rebellion in Kossovo against the Ottoman. In the Balkan War, pitting Slav and Greek against the Ottoman that autumn, Serbian armies struck south through Kossovo with great massacre against the Albanian populace. The Treaty of Bucharest in 1913 confirmed Serbia in possession of Kossovo.

During World War One, Austria-Hungary put Serbia’s army to flight in 1915. Albanians in Kossovo rose against the retreating Serbs with utmost savagery. The Serb soldiers replied in kind to fight their way through to the Adriatic, there embarking on French ships to tremendous Allied acclaim. Serb armies re-entered Kossovo from the south by the 1918 Armistice, and were bitterly resisted by Albanian rebels. The new Yugoslav monarchy with its Serb king did not succeed in breaking organized resistance till 1924 in Kossovo. Brigandage, and brutal reprisal, remained endemic to the locale.

The Serb monarchy of Yugoslavia superintended a determined effort to secure its rule in Kossovo. Land was stolen from Albanians as “undocumented,” and made available for Serbs who would venture south to settle on it. Schools teaching in Albanian, originally encouraged in the hope they would keep Albanians backward, proved hotbeds of secessionist agitation, and were suppressed. In 1937, the monarchy entertained proposals by a leading Serb intellectual, the assassin turned historian Vaso Cubrilovic of Belgrade University, that all Albanians be forcibly expelled from Kossovo.

Near the start of World War Two, Fascist Italy seized Albania. Nazi Germany seized Yugoslavia in 1941. The mines in northern Kossovo, and most Kossovo Serbs therefore, were retained under Nazi occupation; the remainder of Kossovo was awarded to Italian Albania. Serbs in Italian Kossovo, mostly recent settlers, were pitilessly persecuted by Albanians, even against occasional Italian opposition. The S. S. security division “Skanderberg” was largely recruited among Kossovo Albanians.


Three: The Tito Era

After Italy capitulated in 1943, Tito, the Communist partisan leader, declared Kossovo would be allowed self-determination if Communists won. In 1944, his partisans succeeded in fighting their way into the place, with some local Albanian support at last. Royalist Chetnik partisans violently opposed any idea of Kossovo secession, winning Tito even more support in that locale.

Tito, however, reneged on that promised self-determination, annexing Kossovo anew to Serbia as an “Autonomous district” within his new Yugoslavia. The Albanian Communist leader, Enver Hoxha, was in no position to contest the matter, amid talk under Stalin of a Balkan Federation to include Albania itself. Tito’s break in 1948 with Stalin ended any real hope for Hoxha he could fold Kossovo into his hoped for Greater Albania.

Kossovo’s populace was then about three-fifths Albanian and one-quarter Serb, with the remainder including Moslem Slavs, Catholic Montenegrins, Turks, and Gypsies. Tito saw that Communist party and police supervisors in Kossovo were Serbs. These energetically hunted up the least hint of Albanian secessionists, harvesting batches of them for show trials in 1956 (coincident with the Hungarian revolt), and again in 1964.

Tito purged his Serb Interior Minister in 1966, for opposition to economic decentralization. Albanian Communists replaced Serbs in Party and police supervisory posts in Kossovo. In the “Prague Spring” of ’68, Kossovo Albanian students demonstrated for national status in Yugoslavia, and an Albanian language university. After many arrests, Tito granted the university in 1970. Albanian language textbooks could only be got in Enver Hoxha’s Albania, which opened a connection to the new Kossovo school in Pristina for his enterprising “special service” agents.

A new Yugoslav constitution in 1974 gave autonomous Serbian Kossovo effective national status, with a representative on the Yugoslav collective presidency. Albanian Kossovo police and party personnel suppressed radical cliques, inspired to “Enverism” (as secession became called) by Hoxha’s agents. Some of these cliques, formed about 1978, included young men who would later become leading lights of the present-day Kossovo Liberation Army.

Tito died in 1980. In spring of 1981, Kossovo Albanian students at Pristina University began demonstrations demanding independence, even fusion with Hoxha’s Albania, to applause from spectators. Yugoslav Interior Ministry troops arrived, and broke the demonstrations, shooting and beating scores to death. Kossovo Albanian party and police officials sustained the crack-down, loyally denouncing “Enverist” radicals, and arresting and beating hundreds suspected of such leanings.

Radical secessionist leaders fled to sanctuaries in Western Europe. Several, meeting near Stuttgart in 1982 to form a popular front, were ambushed and shot dead by unknown assailants. Surviving radicals concluded the bullets came from Serbs in the Yugoslav Interior Ministry, and swore blood vengeance. Under the name of Popular Movement for the Kossovo Republic, a handful of such trained in Albania, and attempted a campaign of gun-battles and bombs against Kossovo and Yugoslav police.


Four: Rise of Milosevic

These largely would-be assassins had no material effect, but a profound moral one. Any crime against serbs in Kossovo was in serbia reported as secessionist terror, and crimes against Serbs in Kossovo, particularly against property of isolated farms and Orthodox sites, occurred with increasing frequency. The Serb Orthodox Patriarchite was ranged alongside the Serb Academy of Sciebces in protest of this, with the latter, in 1985, calling the current situation genocide against against Serbs in Kossovo.

At the start of 1986, the banker Slobodan Milosevic ascended to leadership of the Serb Communist Party. Belligerence in favor of Serbs dwelling outside Serbia’s boundaries, or in the autonomous districts of Vojvodina and Kossovo, offered a ready lever for political power. Kossovo Serbs were organizing militias with assistance from Serb Interior Ministry police; Hoxha’s death had not altered Albania’s support of “Enverism” in Kossovo.

Early in 1987, Milosevic arrived in Pristina’s suburbs for a meeting with Kossovo Serb leaders. A large crowd of Kossovo Serbs rioted before him against the largely Albanian Kossovo police. It was not chance; four days before, Milosevic had met with the riot’s instigators, and a schedule had been fixed for the outbreak.

Widely broadcast film of the incident established Milosevic as champion of distressed Serbs. Later that year, Milosevic used this popularity to force Serbia’s president from office. In the summer of 1988, Milosevic’s Serb Communist Party organized a campaign of Kossovo Remembrance rallies throughout Serbia proper, claiming an average attendance of half a million at each. In November, Milosevic as Party chief dismissed the Albanians in Communist Party leadership in Kossovo, and promulgated constitutional changes effectively stripping Kossovo of its autonomous status.

Albanian Communist leadership in Kossovo mobilized sizable demonstrations and hunger strikes in protest early in 1989. These were broken with loss of life by Yugoslav Interior Ministry troops, who seized the arms of both Kossovo’s national guard and police. Closely surrounded by tanks, the Kossovo Assembly voted itself out of effective existence on March 23.

Milosevic now accepted the Presidency of Serbia. Continuing Albanian demonstrations in Kossovo were broken by Serb and Yugoslav soldiers and police; hundreds of arrests were accompanied by torture. At the end of the year, Albanian intellectuals and some Communist leaders collected to form the Democratic League for Kossovo. The police terror stilled the demonstrations early in 1990.

Milosevic ratified Serb Parliament decrees forbidding Albanians to buy land from Serbs in Kossovo, and removing Albanians from civil service, including hospitals, schools, and the police. The latter quickly became overwhelmingly Serb. The Albanian membership of the Communist Party in Kossovo took up membership in the League for Democratic Kossovo.


Five: The Kossovo Resistance

This L. D. K. was led by the writer Ibrahim Rugova. He inspired Kossovo Albanians to a program of passive resistance to Serb authority. A “shadow state” emerged, quartered in private dwellings, and with a government in exile operating in Germany. Rugova’s “shadow state” held elections, administered Albanian language schooling, even collected taxes. These applied equally to Kossovo Albanians dwelling abroad; most were guest-worker laborers in Europe, but some were prosperous businessmen, or smugglers of stolen cars and narcotics and prostitutes.

The handful of violent radicals constituting the Popular Movement for the Kossovo Republic (P. M. K. R.) were denounced by Rugova as stooges of the Serb police, and he was widely believed by Kossovo Albanians when he did. The radicals’ sporadic gunshots and arsons each served to signal a fresh campaign of interrogations and beatings by Serb police, directed against the nonviolent “shadow state” organizers.

With Yugoslav and Serb armed forces devoted to war in Croatia and Bosnia, Milosevic was content to leave Kossovo at this status quo. On Serb victory in Croatia, one of the leading Serb killers, an Interior Ministry employee known as Arkan, moved to Pristina with scores of armed followers. “Enverist” radicals of the P. M. K. R. secretly convened in Drenica (where resistance to the old Yugoslav monarchy had persisted into 1924), and there voted themselves the armed force of the Kossovo Republic. Albania’s newly elected government maintained cordial relations both with these radicals, and Rugova’s pacific Kossovo government in exile, now established near Bonn.

Kossovo Albanian boycott of official Serb elections in December 1993 gave Milosevic a resounding victory over his rival for the presidency, the Serb-American businessman Panic, and allowed the killer Arkan to win election to a parliament seat. The “Enverist” radicals were split into a Marxist faction, the National Movement for the Liberation of Kossovo, and a Nationalist faction, the Kossovo Liberation Army. The latter had a better footing abroad, where the pacific Rugova’s government in exile at Bonn was beginning to explore establishing its own armed force. Albania continued to assist by giving military training to dozens of radicals, and allowing transit through its borders.

The bloody summer of 1995 saw Serb massacre of Bosnian Moslems, Croat expulsion of Serbs, and NATO bombing of Serb forces in Bosnia. The Dayton Accords confirmed Serb gains in Bosnia, and recognized the rump Yugoslav Federation Milosevic dominated, from his seat for Serbia in its collective presidency. The pacific Rugova used his control of Albanian language media in Kossovo to maintain popular commitment to passive resistance, while the fledgling KLA demanded Serb departure from Kossovo, and launched a new campaign of sporadic shootings and bombings.

Serbia was greatly unsettled by the influx of refugees from Krajina and Slavonia. In Yugoslav elections on May 31, 1996, the Montenegrin presidency went to an opponent of Milosevic, and in Serbia, opposition parties won local posts in many cities. Milosevic refused to allow victorious opponents to take office in Serbia. He allowed three months of demonstrations, then bought off his principal Serb opponent by offering him a cabinet post. The demonstrations were mopped up by brutal police attack, and opposition figures allowed to take local office found their function superseded by various national agencies. The Vatican brokered an agreement Milosevic signed to allow Albanian language schools official existence in Kossovo, but he took no steps to implement it.


Six: Taking Up the Gun

In Bonn, the leading functionary of Rugova’s government in exile, Bujar Bukoshi, rejected passive resistance, and turned the radio transmitter he controlled to broadcasts supporting the KLA. Early in 1997, Albania’s banks were revealed as Ponzi swindles. Mobs looted government facilities, including military arsenals, and swiftly reduced the land to anarchic chaos, in which a Kalshnikov rifle could be had for a five dollar bill.

Bukoshi’s embryonic forces, consisting of a few hundred exiled policemen and soldiers, established themselves in Albania as the Armed Forces of the Kossovo Republic (F. A. R. K.), in competition with the KLA. Albanian students organized demonstrations against Milosevic’s refusal to implement the Vatican agreement on schooling, ignoring orders to desist from Rugova. Serb police crushed the demonstrations with extraordinary brutality.

KLA attacks, which by the Serb government’s claims had been occurring roughly once a week, and claimed ten Serb lives since 1995, began to take place almost daily at the start of 1998. In the old rebel district of Drenica, near the village of Likosane just before noon on February 28, a gunfight broke out between KLA men and a Serb police patrol. Once it was over, Serb police massacred the men of a wealthy Albanian clan considered leaders of the hamlet. Five days later, Serb police surrounded the family compound of a KLA leader and shelled it for hours, then went into the ruins and murdered women, children, and wounded, to a total of 58, including the KLA man, Adem Jashari.

These murders turned Albanian village elders throughout Kossovo against Rugova’s passive resistance. They put hundreds of their young men at the disposal of the KLA. In Drenica, and near the Albanian border, armed partisan bands appeared in such strength the Serb police retired to establish encircling roadblocks. Western diplomats threatened Milosevic with dire consequences if the murders by his police were repeated. Milosevic agreed to begin implementing the Vatican schools agreement, and to meet with Ibrahim Rugova. Simultaneously, Milosevic admitted the ultra-nationalist Chetnik party into a coalition government with his Serbian Socialist Party, and loosed his Serb police once again into Drenica.

This campaign was conducted with the same degree of atrocity that characterized previous operations by Serb police. In one typical incident near Gorjne Obrinje, after fourteen Serb police were shot in a fire-fight, a group of fourteen Albanian women, children, and old men found hiding nearby were shot point-blank by Serb police. Some 200,000 Albanians fled their homes to avoid the fighting, some to southern Kossovo and some to Albania. President Clinton ordered a show of force by U. S. warplanes over Yugoslavia, and in October, his pressure secured an agreement by which Serb Interior Ministry troops were to vacate Kossovo, negotiations with Kossovo Albanian leaders were to begin in earnest, and a body of diplomatic observers would enter Kossovo to monitor events. During the course of negotiating this agreement, Milosevic told a U. S. general that the way to bring peace to Drenica was to “kill them all.”

The monitored cease-fire brought many Kossovo Albanian refugees back to their homes. In Albania, the Kossovo government in exile’s small armed force was violently absorbed by the KLA; in Kossovo, KLA men began arresting and executing functionaries of Rugova’s “shadow state” as collaborators with Serbia. They also murdered about a dozen Serb civilians, and a Serb village mayor. By the start of 1999, fire-fights of company and even battalion scale between KLA guerrillas and Serb police were once more occurring.

Near dawn on January 15, battle broke out between KLA guerrillas and Serb police near the town of Racak. After nine KLA men were killed the rest fled. During the afternoon Serb police entered the town, raped and murdered two women, and murdered forty-three unarmed men and boys. Serb Information Ministry spokesmen in Pristina next morning invited Western journalists to visit the scene of a “successful” fight against the KLA; when they reported what they saw, Milosevic declared the KLA had fabricated the incident, and demanded the diplomatic observers quit Kossovo. The chief judge of the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal for Yugoslavia was denied entry to the country.

Seven: The NATO Intervention

NATO demanded the talks agreed to the previous October begin in February, and threatened military action to force compliance. The meeting at Rambouillet Chateau featured a severely fractured Albanian delegation; its principal factions (all of which hated one another) were Rugova’s adherents in the old LDK, old line Communist functionaries from that same umbrella group, and the KLA led by Hashim Thaci. After days of negotiation, Milosevic struck out about half the already settled agreement, substituting his initial demands, which the Albanians and NATO had already rejected, and forced collapse of the talks on March 18. Two days later, 40,000 Serb police and soldiers with 300 armored vehicles launched a fresh offensive into Drenica.

NATO air strikes commenced against Serbia on March 24. While these aimed at destroying Serb anti-aircraft defenses, Serb police and soldiers in Kossovo commenced a wholesale assault on the Albanians of Kossovo, aimed at driving them from the country by exemplary massacre. During the course of this campaign, roughly 10,000 persons, mostly young men, were murdered by Serb police and soldiers. Almost a million Albanians took to flight, either west to Albania, south into Macedonia, or into the mountains of Kossovo itself. Lightly armed KLA guerrillas could accomplish nothing against the Serb forces.

When Serb air defenses were disabled, NATO warplanes began attacks demolishing bridges, power stations, and the like in Serbia proper. With Serb police and soldiers forced to retire their heavy equipment to shelter in bunkers by NATO air bombardment in Kossovo, their murder squads became vulnerable to attack by Albanian partisans, many of whom were not, properly speaking, KLA, but village militia deployed by their clan elders. When Serb police and soldiers attempted to group together to overpower these guerrilla bands, the Serbs were savaged by NATO warplanes.

On June 3, Milosevic capitulated. Serb police and soldiers retired northward; NATO troops moved in. Kossovo Albanian refugees streamed back to their homes. Many set upon Serbs still remaining in Kossovo. NATO troops intervened to protect lives, but not property; even so, several dozen Serbs, many elderly, were killed. The overwhelming majority of Serbs resident in Kossovo fled north into Serbia, or into that small portion of northern Kossovo around the mines where they had long constituted the principal element of the populace.

A government for Kossovo, formed under NATO auspices, blended elements of the LDK and KLA, with the KLA’s Hashim Thaci emerging as Prime Minister, while Ibrahim Rugova, the nonviolent leader, found himself without power, or much prestige. The KLA has kept its word to disarm only poorly, and remains a police problem for NATO occupation troops. It has attempted to provoke guerrilla war in the adjoining areas of Macedonia which are largely populated by Albanians, but has had scant success there, either in baiting the Macedonian government into atrocious reaction to their activities, or in gaining wide support among Albanian people in those districts.

Postcript

This piece was written several years ago, which does not, of course, alter the body of facts it presents. In the interim, there does not seem to have been too much change. The remnant Serbian population of the district has been squeezed north and out, and the doing, while unwholesome, is about all that could be expected under the circumstances. There has been some friction between the K.L.A. and the NATO forces, but nothing approaching the scale of even the first stages of revolt against Milosevic.

The situation is, by and large, about as good as could be expected, given the history and recent trauma of the place.






the Kosovo war did not begin in 1998....nor was it based on hundreds of thousands of dead bodies...

The Kosovo War started in April of 1999, and it was based on an active plan of Genocide by Milosovic that was being carried via displacement, starvation, destruction, and yes, murder as well.

So if you are correct, why were there Fleeing Albanians BEFORE April of 1999?

http://www.refugees.org/news/crisis/kosovo_u0998.htm
September 1998
In mid September, the situation in Kosovo is getting worse and the lives of thousands of innocent people are at risk. Serb forces continue to pound villages in northern and western Kosovo, effecting over half of the province's population in the last seven months. International aid agencies estimate that between 270,000 and 350,000 people have fled the fighting, as many as 250,000 remaining "internally displaced" inside Although their plight has generated worldwide recognition, international attempts to foster a diplomatic resolution to the conflict have failed to yield tangible results.

According to the Associated press, there is talk of possible, eventual Nato-supported military action ranging from the deployment of troops along the Albania- Kosovo border, to air strikes, to the deployment of ground troops, but humanitarian organizations remain skeptical that decisive U.S., European, or Nato-supported action will come soon. In the mean time, daily reports of horrendous human rights violations, massive destruction, and increasing bloodshed document the dire prognosis for Kosavars "contained" in the crisis by recently erected border controls.

On September 16, the New York Times reported that Serbian forces were "rounding up men and boys from ethnic Albanian villages and refugee camps in Kosovo, an act that US officials fear could be the prelude to their execution, as happened during the war in Bosnia." One week earlier, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, Julia Taft said at a press briefing, "Without a cease- fire, without a pull-back from this intrusive fighting, there will be 100,000 to 200,000 casualties looming in the months ahead."

Still, there are no decisive plans by the U.S., NATO, or European allies to avert the current and impending disasters with military action. The U.S. is "considering a variety of options" for getting emergency aid into Kosovo and continues to support diplomatic interventions and the preservation of Yugoslavian borders.

On September 16, Serbian and Albanian leaders reported heavy fighting in the area between the towns of Kosovska Mitrovica, Podujevo, and Vucitrn, north of the capital, Pristina. German Defense Minister, Volker Ruhe, stated that the West could resort to military action "within three to five weeks," if Milosevic fails to comply with an impending U.N. Security Council Resolution designed to put an end to the conflict. According to U.N. officials, the Resolution will not explicitly authorize military action.

On September 17, the government of Montenegro began implementing a plan to send refugees from Kosovo to Albania. Over 4,000 refugees being held in the village of Meteh, Montenegro, were transported in busses to the Albanian border point of Vermosh.

On September 18, Ethnic Albanian Leader, Ibrahim Rugova, gave his preliminary endorsement to a 3-year U.S.-backed "temporary" plan to restore local autonomy to Kosovo (stripped by Milosevic in 1989). According to the associated press, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic "supported" the plan aimed at "normalizing the difficult and risky situation and halting the attacks and the use of force."

On September 21, amidst renewed Serbian attacks in the Drenica region, Ethnic Albanian leaders released their version of the U.S. supported "interim" peace proposal. Under the arrangement, Kosovo would become an "independent entity equal" to Serbia and Montenegro, with its own courts, police, and central bank. Its status as a province in Yugoslavia would be retained temporarily and negotiated in the future. Serbian officials rejected parts of the proposal but, reportedly, agreed to release their own version in the upcoming week.

On September 22, the New York Times reported that the "worsening plight" of refugees and internally displaced people from Kosovo was "increasing the possibility of NATO intervention." Britain and France urged the U.N. Security Council to finish drafting the Resolution designed to make (Serbian) "compliance mandatory," and raise the "specter of military force." According to U.S. officials, the pending resolution reflects an emerging consensus in favor of military action, however, "NATO allies have not yet reached an agreement on the use of force."

---------------
And calling other people names doesn't help your case one bit!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theobscure Donating Member (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #192
205. how ridiculous to censor my post...but whatever...
Just to clarify the distortion that remains in response to my post.

1) I said that the bombing escalated the ethnic cleansing, not started it. To pretend that my post was a defense of Milosevic is just patently dishonest.

2) Whether or not Republicans agreed or disagreed with the Clinton Balkan policy is entirely irrelevant to my post. The entire gist of it was about how Democrats are obsessed with appearing Republican-enough in terms of perceived patriotism. Democrats in power indulge in military interventionist policies and destruction that are along the same lines as what the Republicans do. To deny this is just as destructive to the foundation of America as anything Bush and his neo-con nuts do.

To boil morality down to a question of merely, Democrat or Republican, is, no matter which side you come down on, equally dangerous to the future of this country. If making such a self-evident statement gets me banned; so be it. It is so disheartening to see a board full of "progressives" engage in the exact kind of narrow, rigid and dogmatic thinking as fundamentalists. Looking at my little 4 year old niece makes me want to cry. Our country is doomed.


As for the source of my "extremist" views. Here is one source. From the "extremist" website of The New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031117fa_fact

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #205
210. Your post was deleted because you were calling "names", being ....
condescending and patronizing.....If you don't remember.....
take it from me, it was totally unrequired and broke the rules of this board.

Now, in reference to The New York Article, please read what was said by other more reputable writers in reference to that particular piece, the author, and his possible motives for that pile of shit that was printed, inaccurate and skewed as it was. It is was some would call a "hit piece"...probably arranged by Clark's detractors, primary opponents, or some GOP operatives...


Defending the General
The New Yorker's unfair slam on Wes Clark and his role in the Kosovo war.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Nov. 13, 2003, at 7:13 PM ET
I don't know whether Gen. Wesley Clark is qualified to be president, but Peter J. Boyer's profile in this week's New Yorker—which paints him as scarily unqualified—is an unfair portrait as well as a misleading, occasionally inaccurate précis of the 1999 Kosovo war and Clark's role in commanding it.

Boyer relies heavily on some of Clark's fellow retired Army generals who clearly despise him. The gist of their critique, as Boyer summarizes, is that Clark, while a brilliant analyst, "had a certainty about the rightness of his views which led to conflicts with his colleagues and, sometimes, his superiors."
snip
Boyer acknowledges that Clark alienated some generals simply because he rubbed them the wrong way. First in his class at West Point, a Rhodes Scholar, an officer who felt at ease as a White House fellow and as a high-level Pentagon planning analyst—Clark's résumé did not fit many traditionalist officers' view of a warrior. However, Clark's most outspoken critics disliked him because of his views and actions during Kosovo, and that is where Boyer misreads both content and context.

Kosovo was the United States' first post-Cold War experiment in "humanitarian intervention." Clark, who was the U.S. Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (and who, before that, had been a military aide in the Dayton negotiations over Bosnia), supported going to war in order to protect the Kosovars from the savagery of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic. Secretary of Defense William Cohen and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, who had no taste for interventions of practically any sort, opposed it.

That much, Boyer has right. But much else, he does not.

Boyer also distorts the war itself, mischaracterizing it as a senseless adventure. He tacitly takes the chiefs' position on this, without noting that many others besides Clark (and, for that matter, Albright and Holbrooke) held otherwise. Thousands of Bosnians were dying in a war that U.S. military power could have ended. Hundreds of thousands of Rwandans had recently been massacred in a civil war to which neither the United States nor the United Nations raised a finger, much less a fighter plane, in protest. Many of those pushing for intervention—and they included not just Clark but some of the most liberal, customarily antiwar politicians and columnists—wanted above all to avert another massacre. A case could be made—and the chiefs made it—that the United States shouldn't get involved in such messes where our own national security wasn't threatened. But it is false to attribute Clark's passionate lobbying, as Boyer pretty much does, to mere stubbornness.

Boyer is also off base when he likens the Kosovo conflict to George W. Bush's war in Iraq. He notes that Clark recently criticized Bush for invading Iraq without U.N. approval, yet observes that the Kosovo war was also initiated without the Security Council's permission. The bypassing of the United Nations that marked the onset of Kosovo, he writes, "did not seem entirely dissimilar from the prewar maneuverings regarding Iraq," when Bush bypassed the U.N. and resorted to a "coalition of the willing."

In fact, the two wars—both their beginnings and their conduct—were extremely dissimilar. True, when Clinton realized Russia and China would veto a resolution calling for intervention, he backed away from the Security Council. However, he did not subsequently piece together a paltry, handpicked caricature of a coalition, as Bush did for the war in Iraq. Instead, he went through another established international organization—NATO.
More....
http://www.slate.com/id/2091194/


AND....Oooops...well whatdayaknow, another writer taking up for the General and wondering what does Boyer have AGAINST Clark...


Boyer Plate
Who is New Yorker staff writer Peter Boyer -- and why is he after Wesley Clark?


By Matthew Yglesias
Web Exclusive: 11.14.03
Print Friendly | Email Article

This week's New Yorker contains a profile of Wesley Clark with a striking thesis -- that the general's "military career, the justification for his candidacy, may also be a liability." Author Peter Boyer argues initially that Clark's plans for a military campaign against Slobodan Milosevic during the 1999 Kosovo conflict were too aggressive...

Such schizophrenic charges about Clark's role in the Kosovo War -- he was too aggressive; no, he was too timid -- have been percolating in the conservative press for months. But while the charges are not surprising, it is surprising to see them appear in the level-headed, liberal New Yorker. Until, that is, one knows a little bit about the article's author, Peter Boyer.

Boyer appears to have made something of a career for himself as a conservative interloper at otherwise liberal media outlets. Back in 1992, his sympathetic profile of Rush Limbaugh for Vanity Fair drew praise from the conservative Media Research Center as being "fair." In 1997, as a Frontline correspondent, Boyer promoted one of the more obscure "scandals" of the Clinton years in a show (titled "The Fixers") based around an allegation that Commerce Secretary Ron Brown had been involved in a complicated scheme to convince a Hawaiian couple to buy an Oklahoma natural gas company. An independent counsel appointed to investigate the matter filed no charges against Brown

Later, Boyer produced "Secrets of an Independent Counsel" for Frontline, a highly sympathetic portrayal of Donald Smalz, the man who managed to spend $15 million dollars on an investigation into $36,000 in gifts received by Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy. Espy was successfully driven from office by the investigation, and then acquitted of all charges. Beyond the Clinton scandals, Boyer also authored a 1994 profile of Al Gore for The New Yorker. The piece's disparagement of Gore's military service and portrayal of his childhood in a Washington hotel became a source of the largely hostile storyline into which the media fit future Gore coverage during the 2000 campaign.
More....
http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/11/yglesias-m-11-14.html










Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theobscure Donating Member (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #210
214. interesting
As if I've never seen a "condescending and patronizing" or "unrequired" attack on Republicans on these boards. And there's the difference. Hypocrisy. Thank you for your confirmation.

You can call the New Yorker piece and others, "hit" pieces all you want. He called the shots and pushed the Clinton administration (and by the way, you also lied about me calling Bill Clinton a war criminal- I did no such thing) and NATO into intervening. He also was the champion of the bombing method the NATO forces initially employed.

The case that some type of intervention was warranted or even required can certainly be made. However, his Shock and Awe type bombing was counterproductive and immoral. It was counterproductive because it created confusion, escalating both the ethnic cleansing and humanitarian crisis. It was immoral because it unnecessarily killed plenty of innocent civilians, destroyed infrastructure that will hamper prosperity for years to come, and showered the region with depleted uranium that has caused cancer rates in the region to skyrocket. (we will I'm sure also be seeing the same type of devastating birth defects we now see in Iraq from our first war there and are also beginning to see in the children of our own service people)

If the cause in the Balkans was worthy of our intervention, it was worth doing it right. Putting troops on the ground would have not only been the least destructive course, but also the most beneficial. If it wasn't worth the risk of sending in our paid soldiers from the beginning, U.S. and NATO, then it wasn't worth our involvement at all.

Our cowardly, murderous, and malignant bombing campaigns, now fashionable and perpetrated by Democrats and Republicans alike, most often used as some kind of "neanderthalic" tool of diplomacy or as mere public relations propaganda or to avoid any kind of sacrifice or to line the pockets of the military industrial complex, are a disgrace to humanity. If you see it another way, fine. But don't be such a hypocrite when the other party chooses to employ it as well. You will have forfeited the moral ground on which to stand.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #214
218. The difference is your usage of words....you were calling folks names
Edited on Tue Apr-04-06 11:42 PM by FrenchieCat
calling us sycophants, etc.,etc.,etc.....while I was describing your written behavior, not you as an individual.

But I want to also say that you must not have even read the articles that I posted...from what I can tell,
cause if you had, you would have read that Wes Clark was the only one pushing for Boots on the Ground....the Pentagon was not.

You wrote....If the cause in the Balkans was worthy of our intervention, it was worth doing it right. Putting troops on the ground would have not only been the least destructive course, but also the most beneficial. If it wasn't worth the risk of sending in our paid soldiers from the beginning, U.S. and NATO, then it wasn't worth our involvement at all.

Actually, you agree with General Clark...whether you like it or not....

There's a quote in his book, Winning Modern War, In which Clark says exactly what you have just stated, except for more eloquently; He said "If a cause is not worth dying for, then it is not worth fighting for"


The Unappreciated General
International Herald Tribune The General Who Did Too Good a Job
By Patrick B. Pexton
Tuesday, May 2, 2000; Page A23
He ordered 50 Apache attack helicopters to take the battle to the Serb ground troops, only to see the force reduced in size and then left to sit in Albania while the White House and Pentagon fretted about casualties. Clark also was right about readying troops for an invasion. The preparations for a ground war helped persuade Milosevic to surrender. Link previously



Seattle Times
Posted at 07:06 a.m. PDT; Wednesday, August 4, 1999
Clark's Exit Was Leaked Deliberately, Official Says
by Dana Priest
The Washington Post

Cohen, who clashed with Clark during the war over Clark's desires to plan for a ground invasion, made the decision to remove Clark early and without consulting him beforehand, because he wanted to find a way to keep Gen. Joseph Ralston, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Ralston, set to retire next year, said the NATO post was the only job he wanted.


and Again...you forget may have forgotten about the 200,000 dead Bosnians prior to Kosovo, as well as the 800,000 dead Rwandans.....the difference is that Clark never did...and he felt this mission was urgent.

"If we have learned but one thing in the tragic breakup of the old Yugoslavia, it is the need to act early and robustly in a crisis. The United States, as the leading power in NATO, should know this best of all. In 1991 America stood by as the United Nations and many European nations tried unsuccessfully to cope with devastating war in the Balkans. Some 200,000 casualties and 2 million people made homeless, capped with the gruesome massacre of more than 5,000 Muslims at Srebrenica, finally pushed the United States and NATO into action. In 1995, when the United States pledged to commit American troops to enforce peace alongside European allies, we brought the hostilities to an end.

In 1999, as ethnic cleansing grew in Kosovo, NATO backed up unsuccessful diplomacy with Operation Allied Force, which reversed the Serb violence and ultimately led to Slobodan Milosevic's being removed from power and delivered to The Hague in June for prosecution. --Wesley Clark OPEd
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=2164&l=1


In the end, approximately 500 Civilian casualty were resulted by the bombing according to prominent Human Rights groups,..and it is estimated by most that although Casualties is never something one would want, it was a relatively small number when compared with the numbers of deaths that would have resulted if there had been no intervention.

Genocide By Mass Starvation
Los Angeles Times
April 25, 1999, Sunday, Home Edition

http://www.refugees.org/news/op_eds/042599.htm

President Slobodan Milosevic's ability to stop and start massive refugee flows out of Kosovo is a chilling sign of his power and intent. From the Nazis to the Khmer Rouge, closed borders have been a serious sign that genocide is occurring. Genocide does not require gas chambers or even mass graves. A favored tactic is calculated mass starvation. That is what is happening in Kosovo.

Serb forces used food as a weapon during the war in Bosnia. They rarely engaged in battle, preferring to surround and besiege an area, subject it to shelling and cut it off from food.

Long before the bombing began, Milosevic began a systematic campaign to deplete Kosovo of its food resources. Beginning last summer, Serb forces:

restricted importation of basic items into Kosovo, including wheat, rice, cooking oil, sugar, salt, meat, milk, livestock, heating fuel and gasoline;

looted warehouses and burned fields, haystacks, winter food stocks and firewood.

killed livestock and often dropped their carcasses into wells to contaminate the water;

shot at ethnic Albanian farmers trying to harvest or plant;

Harassed, persecuted and sometimes killed local humanitarian aid workers;

created nearly 300,000 internally displaced people, most of whom stayed with private families, eating what private stores of food they had managed to save.

In the best of times, Kosovo is not a self-sufficient food producer. By early this year, with planting and harvesting brought to a halt and with food stocks consumed or destroyed, there were no food reserves outside Serbian government shops. Most of the population was dependent on humanitarian aid delivered through a network of U.N. agencies and local and international nongovernmental organizations. That network is gone. The International Committee of the Red Cross, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Food Program are out of Kosovo. International nongovernmental groups have been expelled and are now working with refugees outside Kosovo. Local nongovernment groups have been decimated, their staff members lucky to become refugees themselves.

Before NATO's military objectives can be achieved, Milosevic will already have accomplished his objective: Grinding down Kosovo's 1.8 million ethnic Albanians. One rule of war is this: Men with guns do not starve; civilians do. NATO is not going to beat the Yugoslav military by starving them out, and if it did, the civilians would perish long before them.

As hunger and disease loom, various interim steps have been suggested: internal safe havens, food air drops, humanitarian corridors. Each is flawed, largely because each requires cooperation from Milosevic that in all likelihood will never come to be. Milosevic could achieve his aims simply by dragging his feet.

Everyone is concerned about the lives of NATO servicemen, but the people on the executioner's block cannot wait for a risk-free, soldier-friendly environment for their rescue. They can't wait for the amassing of 200,000 troops, if that will take months of buildup and field support. They can't wait for a "permissive environment."

Mass Graves, Mass Denial (PDF)
http://www.bard.edu/bgia/journal/vol2/63-66.pdf

http://www.religioustolerance.org/war_koso.htm
Did the Serbs commit genocide?
Civilian populations are increasingly being targeted during recent civil wars. However, atrocities must match certain specific criteria before they are considered genocide. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as "certain acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such. The proscribed acts include killings, causing serious bodily or mental harm, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, forcibly transferring its children to another group, or deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its destruction in whole or in part."
Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia during the mid 1990s started as mass expulsions of civilians. It escalated to include internment in concentration camps, mass executions, rapes, etc. There was a clear policy by the Serbs "to exterminate Muslim Bosnians as a group..." Their actions were generally considered to be genocide. There is a general consensus that widespread atrocities were also committed by the Muslims and the Croats (largely Roman Catholic). But the level of their war crimes did not reach genocidal proportions.

There have been allegations that the Serbs were engaged in genocide in Kosovo before and during the NATO bombing. Media correspondents and human rights investigators conducted large-scale interviews of Kosovar refugees. The data collected show that the Geneva Conventions concerning civilians had been ignored and that extremely serious war crimes were perpetrated by the Yugoslavian army, police and militias. There appeared to be a consensus of human rights investigators that the quantity and type of documented atrocities proved that genocide was committed by the Yugoslavian government against the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. This belief was confirmed as the NATO forces occupied Kosovo. Mass graves were located and are being systematically examined by forensic specialists. Ethnic Albainians came out of hiding with horrendous stories to tell. In excess of 11,000 murders were reported to authorities. According to a report by the U.N.'s chief prosecutor in Yugoslavia, Carla Del Ponte, on 1999-NOV-10, 2,108 complete corpses and an unknown but large number of incompete corpses were found. By 1999-NOV, a total of 195 grave sites in Kosovo had been analyzed; another four hundred remained to be investigated.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2147781.stm
Mass grave found near Srebrenica
Tuesday, 23 July, 2002, 22:35 GMT 23:35 UK
Forensic experts in Bosnia have discovered a mass grave in the north-east of the country, close to the site of the Srebrenica massacre in 1995. It is thought the grave contains the bodies of Bosnian Muslims killed by Bosnian Serb forces after they captured Srebrenica.

Skeletons 'incomplete'
The grave site was discovered on Monday near the Serb-held village of Kamenica, some 70 kilometres (45 miles) north-east of Sarajevo.

The commission said it had "reliable proof" that the remains were transported to the grave from another location, in order to conceal the remains from war crime investigators.

He said some of the skeletons were incomplete, and that others were found with their hands bound by wire.

More than 7,000 Bosnian Muslims were killed after the fall of Srebrenica, in the worst massacre Europe has seen since World War II.

So far 6,000 bodies have been exhumed from numerous mass graves around the town, but only 300 have been identified.


Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadzic and his army chief Ratko Mladic have been implicated in the Srebrenica massacres.


New mass grave found in Kosovo as Milosevic trial nears
Posted: 02/11/2002 11:10 amLast Updated: 2002-02-11 11:58:09-05
Kroni I Mbretit, Yugoslavia - Kosovo villagers have discovered a new mass grave, just two days before former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic goes on trial for engineering genocide in their province.

The remains were uncovered in western Kosovo on Sunday. The remains of up to 20 bodies were found in a shallow grave by children playing in the area.

Several villagers living near the grave will offer testimony in the upcoming trial of Milosevic, which starts tomorrow in the Hague, but their testimony will focus on other events, and not the grave uncovered Sunday.
http://www.wndu.com/news/022002/news_12301.php

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/09/serb.grave/
BELGRADE, Yugoslavia -- Serbian forensic experts have discovered another mass grave near a lake in southwestern Serbia.
The grave is believed to contain bodies of ethnic Albanians killed during the 1999 war in Kosovo

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/11/bosnia.pit/index.html
Bosnia mass grave found
June 11, 2001 Posted: 3:58 AM EDT (0758 GMT)
MOUNT MALUSA, Bosnia -- A mass grave containing bodies of victims of the notorious Foca prison camp has been discovered in Bosnia, Reuters has reported.
Bosnian Muslim officials found the grave hidden deep in a dense forest after receiving a letter signed by "a Serb from Foca," the agency said.


-----
So you see, trying to instill Peace is never perfect, and war is certainly never bloodless.

But as you sit in front of your computer, and insinuate that it all could have been done so much better, with no casualties and done just as well....the irony that you don't see is how easy is this is for you to say this, someone who never really had to try all the while criticizing others who did their best, for the most part. That's what makes your claims so dishonest.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theobscure Donating Member (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #218
219. why don't you respond to what I actually say?
First you make an assumption that I am defending Milosevic and now you've apparently moved to making the assumption that I said no ethnic cleansing occurred. It's just not true, not even insinuated.

You missed or ignored my phrase "from the beginning" regarding troops on the ground. Clark only went forward with plans to put troops on the ground, after his bombing exasperated the situation. If you want me to give him some credit for realizing his error and pushing a weak-kneed administration to make it right, then fine.

But it doesn't change the fact that it was his bombing campaign to begin with. It doesn't change the fact that more people in that region will be suffering (and are suffering) the after affects of that bombing for generations to come than were killed in the cleansing. It doesn't change the fact that this type of "button pushing, video game" warfare not only never works, but takes the pain and sacrifice out of war and will only serve to perpetuate more and more of it. And you say I'm the one minimizing the difficulty of war?

What scares, angers, and saddens me is that we have two parties who have conspired to entrench themselves in power and insulate themselves from challenge by cooperating to rig election laws. Both parties are pro-empire and pro-war. This is not democracy. The fact of the matter is a Clark presidency would differ little from the Bush presidency in terms of the essential macro issues facing our country and the world.

Another point I made in passing in my deleted post was that he is a typical mainstream Democrat in terms of changing positions based on political expediency. His 2004 campaign is clearly illustrative of that fact. We don't need hindsight analysis; but foresight and progressive principles. He, like every other Democrat nominated in my nearly 40 years, lacks both vision and direction. Again, not what this country or the world needs in these troubled times.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #219
221. You are wrong....and I have commented on the issues you have raised....
Edited on Wed Apr-05-06 03:04 AM by FrenchieCat
I responded to your Hit piece post by providing two sources that shot it down (Slate and the Prospect), and provided you with the author's possible motive to "hit" Wes Clark. You shrugged and said....well anyway, I still believe this and that.....so much for your response.

I have responded by providing you with sources that shows that Wes Clark wanted Boots on the ground much more than an Air War because of the negatives that come with High altitude bombing....To which you are responding that "not soon enough".....(down below, I document that he never truly believed an Air war would necessarily do the job....and the fact that from his days following Vietnam, he always understood the problems with high altitude strikes).

I only posted information about Genocide and the urgency of what was happening because you make it sound like it couldn't possibly get worse, and that in fact, the intervention made it worse....which I do not buy.

You seem to want to blame NATO for making things worse, while I give them credit for making things better. I provided evidence that things were already fucked up. You ignore that and are telling me that they just didn't make it better. Well, no, not for a hot minute. That's the nature of war certainly.

You say Clark only went forward with plans to put troops on the ground, after his bombing exasperated the situation.

That is simply not the case. The high altitude gradual bombing was not Clark's plan.

I see the potential results of the Genocide that might have been (cause i've seen them before), the fact that it was stopped and the undeniable truth that people's lives were saved, albeit, not every single last one of them.

You see only the bombing and believe that there should have been a better way, although you don't know what that way would have been, as you can only guess, because you also don't have an outcome to discuss that actually occurred.

In the end, I am a realist who looks at the end results of that intervention understanding that not intervening would have been worse, and I am glad that it turned out as it did....understanding that perfect is usually not possible in the case of forced intervention and war.

You are an Idealist who looks at the end results feeling that it could have been done better doing something else, something that you cannot be certain as to the results because it never happened, but still you feel passionate enough to criticize the known results.

Wes Clark is a great man, and is a great General, not a perfect man nor a perfect General. that's my opinion, and not much you have to say will change it, because I have done my research (just as I am sure you feel you have done yours).

He put his 34 year career on the line to attempt to do what was right...and yes, he paid for it with an early retirement. that is what I believe. You should go on believing what he is this terrible person who likes to bomb innocent people just because he can. In the end, what matters are the facts....and the facts are that there are 1.3 million Albanians who are grateful to the General for having the courage to do more than just talk a good game and keep handing out promises of "coming to the rescue, one day".

For those folks, what we say has little consequences to them. They are alive, and for them, that's much more important than this debate.

Here's some parting information.....from a "not very friendly" author, who still is saying what I am saying, even in painting Clark in an unflattering light (most which I have debunked). Point is that the Air war was not Clark's plan...and he did lose his job for wanting "boots on the ground".

The Irony is that the war was still won with Clark not fighting it the way that he felt would have been most effective under the circumstances, and yet his threats to fight it the way that he prescribed to the enemy is what actually got Milosovic to retreat.

Clark has been unwilling to describe Allied Force as an airpower success. The now-retired SACEUR, appearing in May at National Defense University in Washington, D.C., declared to all assembled that airpower could not be expected to do much in future armed conflict. "Boots on the ground," he said, would be needed for decisive military action.

Incredibly, Clark's 479-page memoir does not even mention the Air Force B-2 stealth bomber-one of the war's most effective weapons-much less recognize the B-2's key contribution to the success of the operation.

In contrast, the Army's AH-64 Apache attack helicopter (the core of Clark's boots-on-the-ground fantasy) gets extended and favorable attention-despite the fact that it did not ever engage in combat.

However, Clark had misgivings about airpower. He believed that the limited NATO air strikes had been effective in Bosnia in 1995 (Operation Deliberate Force), but his professional view of airpower was shaped in the 1970s, a time in which, as a student at the Army's Command and General Staff College, he researched and wrote a thesis about the "ineffectiveness" of Operation Rolling Thunder in Vietnam.

Clark's skepticism about airpower was only reinforced by what he thought he knew about Desert Storm. The general believed (incorrectly) that the Gulf War coalition's airpower hit only about 10 percent of the Iraqi forces.

It was exactly this obsession with trying to put boots on the ground in the form of an invasion in Kosovo that likely cost Clark his job as SACEUR. Even in its rockiest periods, the US military Chiefs and White House officials offered steady support for the NATO air campaign. Clark, however, lobbied hard for a NATO decision to gear up for land war.

Clark had warned Albright that the Serbs would most likely attack the civilian population in Kosovo as soon as air strikes started. Worse, NATO could do nothing to prevent it. It would be "a race" between NATO air strikes and what the Serb forces could do on the ground, and in the short term, Clark said of the Serbs: "They can win the race."

Meanwhile, Clark was doing his utmost to get Apache helicopters, Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) ballistic missiles, and lead elements of Army ground forces into theater to turn up the pressure on Milosevic. By mid­April, Clark had developed a very strong interest in a ground option because he wanted a backup plan to pull out in case the NATO air campaign fizzled. The potential outcome of the air attacks was "unknowable," he said, and "without a ground force, there was no assurance that we could actually force Milosevic out of Kosovo."

Clark wanted the Apaches to rapidly target and strike Serb ground forces, and he had asked for them the day before the start of Allied Force. Although he did not receive authorization to employ them during the air campaign, the Apaches were a consuming interest.

A backup plan was a prudent step, but Clark ultimately pursued the ground option with a personal determination stronger than anything else he did during Allied Force. He estimated the air campaign effectiveness would peak by July then start to diminish. However, good summer weather, support from Albania, and NATO's firepower advantage meant that ground operations could force the Serbs out, Clark thought. Clark also felt that visible preparations for ground operations would "significantly raise the pressure on Milosevic." By "working backward from the first snowfalls in the mountains of Albania," he decided that he must have national decisions from the NATO allies "to begin preparation of the ground forces on May 1."

Clark's urge to champion a ground campaign could not have come at a worse time. He took his plan to Washington during the NATO 50th anniversary summit where there was arrayed against him a formidable lack of interest. The Macedonians refused to let NATO use their territory for offensive operations. The NATO allies, many with long experience of peacekeeping in Bosnia, were not eager to insert ground troops. Throughout Washington, the ground option was a nonstarter. Shelton warned Clark not to lobby for the ground option behind the scenes at the NATO summit. "If that option is going to be sold, it will be sold by the President, not by you," Shelton told Clark. The Secretary of Defense, William S. Cohen, ordered Clark to say nothing about ground forces during the NATO meetings. "We have to make this air campaign work, or we'll both be writing our résumés," Cohen added.
http://www.afa.org/magazine/Sept2001/0901clark.asp


Goodnight!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theobscure Donating Member (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #221
227. if he was so against the air campaign and knew it wouldn't work..
Edited on Wed Apr-05-06 03:27 PM by theobscure
why did he go along with it? Why didn't he ask to be relieved of his command? Instead, he chose to command a strategy that you say he was against, believed would not work in the first place, and realized was a threat to further instability (cleansing, humanitarian crisis).

I find it interesting that you lend credence to a "hit" piece that supports your view, but dismiss in totality one that doesn't. Whatever. It's pointless to play dueling sources.

I said from the beginning what should have been done if we were going to get involved, which is apparently what you say Clark wanted to do in the first place, get troops on the ground from the start.

To say (paraphrasing), "it could have been worse, but it wasn't, so we must have done the right thing," doesn't go very far in convincing me. Things can always be worse. Things could be worse in Iraq right now. Are you giving Bush and his neo-cons credit for them not being so?

The last thing we need in the White House next is a career military "yes" man. He is an offspring of the military industrial complex, who apparently was so obsessed with rising through the military ranks that he paid no attention and formulated no opinions regarding issues outside of the military during his first 40+ years as an adult. This is a progressive to you? No thanks.

You have continued to ignore the depleted uranium issue. Any gratitude held for Clark and NATO in the region will disappear quite soon as the connection between the bombing and the skyrocketing cancer rates is fully realized. Not to mention the extreme likelihood that similar birth defects seen in Iraq now, will appear in the Balkans. I suspect that giving birth with regularity to children with organs outside of their body and other hideous, anomalous birth defects will dampen enthusiasm for the method of the Clark-led NATO intervention.

Which leads me back in conclusion to the whole point of my initial post and the tone of it. I don't have any problem with you or anyone else supporting Clark for president. What I do resent is the ridiculous and specious characterization of him as a progressive. He is a pro-choice Republican; you apparently are as well. There is nothing wrong with that.

The problem is that Republicans and their close relatives, the Democrats, have colluded together to create an illusion of democracy. The Democrats for the last 50 years have been a fraud as far as providing opposition to the Republican driven agenda and direction of this country. If you want to have a party separate from Republicans with such trivial distinctions, go right ahead. But quit pretending that it is any more than that. And most of all,(speaking euphemistically) stop standing in the way of and aggressively preventing progressive parties and proposals from gaining voice.

I am sick of having no representation in government for so many common sense, rational, and moral ideas that are essential for this nation's government to cease being a menace to the world and increasingly to it's own citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #227
229. "...Republicans and their close relatives, the Democrats..."
A-ha! This explains a lot.

Clark is one of the most progressive Dems who ran in '04, and he'll probably the most progressive Dem except Feingold if he runs in '08. But none of the Dems are progressive enough to qualify for the label in your mind, are they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theobscure Donating Member (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #229
230. I appreciate how you continue to validate my points.....
You pretend like you've uncovered some great hidden agenda, when you are merely restating the all-encompassing theme of all my posts.

To say that Clark is the most progressive Democrat speaks volumes to my point that we really have no opposition party in this country. We have Republicans and Republican-lites, or wanna-bes, entrenched in power, blocking any truly progressive and logical and moral and popular reform in our country.

Is it nefarious or just cowardice? A combination of both, it appears. It doesn't matter though; the end result is the same.

You are certainly right; it's extremely unlikely I will find any of the Democratic candidates acceptable. I, unfortunately, never have. Clark masquerading as the progressive choice, however, appears to me as the most blatantly offensive affront to reality.

I might as well go back to voting for real Republicans like I did in my naive and misguided youth. The catastrophe of following this same course is inevitable. I'd just assume get it over with by way of the Republicans' zeal, than languish in the incrementalism of Democrats. Perhaps with the former, there is a chance my niece will get the opportunity to experience some renewal of hope and democracy and a rebirth of morality and sanity, at least in the back portion of her life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #219
225. Everybody knows Clark advocated for ground forces
From the very beginning. It was Clinton who promised Congress he would not use ground troops. That's all a matter of public record.

As a matter of fact, the reason Clark was fired was most likely that he continued to push for ground troops. Cohen is on record as opposing it, and he is said to have thought Clark went around him to get Clinton to change his mind. Clark denies going over Cohen's head, but he does believe it was Clinton's permission to plan for ground forces that led Milosevic to surrender.

And while I agree with you that the bombing accelerated the ethnic cleansing initially, most experts agree it was nothing like what would have occurred if there had been no military action at all. There were already somewhere around a million ethnic Albanians forced from their homes and living in the mountains completely without shelter. If they had still been there when winter came, the death toll would have been enormous.

For Clark's part, the reason he wanted ground forces is precisely the one you cite. He knew it would have helped prevent civilian casualties. But he also writes in his first book that it was either bomb or do nothing. There was just not sufficient political support for a ground war, not within the US and not with our NATO allies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theobscure Donating Member (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #225
228. I think you just proved my point that the bombing did absolutely
no good. It only escalated the ethnic cleansing. What did it do to help the people who were already refugees? It only indirectly created more.

In light of this, I don't see how you can possibly say that the choice between bombing or doing nothing, offered any constructive or moral course of action. Why take command of a bombing campaign that (according to you) he didn't want, knew wouldn't work, and feared (rightly so) would escalate the crisis? How is this morally defensible, much less heroic? It's also entirely conceivable, perhaps even likely, that he knew full well about the depleted uranium issue in regard to our bombs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #228
231. Did you even read what I wrote?
Because you're certainly twisting my words.

The bombing was absolutely necessary and saved well over a million lives.

A ground war would been better. Done it faster but with fewer civilian casualties. But a ground war wasn't politically feasible, for us or the allies. Once NATO was committed, it was possible to convince Congress and the allies that escalation to a ground war might be necessary, and the very threat of a ground war brought an end to the war. But in 1998, the only two possibilities were an air war, or a million plus deaths.

I'm not gonna get into the DU argument with you. I'll just point out DU is a completely legal weapon by international law. It's absurd to expect a US combatant commander not to use it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theobscure Donating Member (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #231
236. yes I did, and nowhere did you say that Clark went along with a..
bombing campaign that he didn't want, knew wouldn't work, and realized would escalate the crisis BECAUSE he felt it was the only way to lure the U.S. and it's allies into using the method (ground forces) that would work. I'm assuming that this is now what you mean or meant all along.

That certainly would explain why he was fired. I would say that's a pretty arrogant, presumptive, and dangerous ( in terms of risk and audacity) use of power. He's fortunate the results were viewed so acceptably. You may call this courage; I call it recklessness.

I also don't find courage in carrying the responsibilities of morality no further than the technicalities of legality. Evidence is increasingly clear that the Pentagon and the military were well aware of the dangers of depleted uranium by this time. It's not clear whether Clark knew; but to dismiss the issue out of hand with your legality justification is irresponsible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #236
238. The bombing did NOT escalate the crisis of Genocide in the matter
Edited on Wed Apr-05-06 07:23 PM by FrenchieCat
that you term it.

You are being a technocrat.

The Intervention and the Bombing did eventually get Milosovic out of power, even if it was the threats of Ground troops that ultimately help him see the light.....and that did stop the kind of Genocide that he had in mind.

It's like saying that the Americans shouldn't have bombed Berlin, because it made the Germans speed up the exterminations of the Jewish prisoners.

You are one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't, damn you all! type, far as I can see :eyes:

And no, I'm no fucking pro-life Republican....I'm a fucking Black naturalized socialist born in Paris, France! Doh!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
201. Strong leadership. Excellent experience. Outstanding character.
Wes Clark tells the truth and supports the troops. Those are just two items that are not common in terms of the multitude of politicians out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DanCa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
202. He'll gaurantee us a win in 2008
And I want a win. Can you tell me of another progressive who can grab more than one red state?
We simply cannot afford to hand over the supreme court to the rethugs for the next four years.
And again he is a non senator that's a huge plus for me personally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
207. He was a lobbyist for Acxiom
Edited on Tue Apr-04-06 02:52 PM by Marie26
The friendly firm that created the no-fly lists. I like him, but after learning that, I'm not sure I trust him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #207
209. The leading civil liberties expert on this trusts Clark
The Author of "No Place to Hide", Robert O'Harrow Jr., fully vouches for Clark and the brief work he did on behalf of Axiom regarding screening plane passengers for possible terrorists trying to board immediately after 911, Clark hasn't worked with them for years.

Here is a link to a web site put up by O'Harrow and the Center for Investigative Journalism in case you are not familiar with O'Harrow's work:
http://www.noplacetohide.net /

Here's what O'Harrow had to say about Clark and his involvement with Axiom at this conference held in 2003:

"“NO PLACE TO HIDE: WHERE THE DATA REVOLUTION MEETS HOMELAND SECURITY”

MODERATOR:
P. J. CROWLEY, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS

FEATURING:
GENERAL WESLEY K. CLARK
JAMES X. DEMPSEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY
NUALA O’CONNOR KELLY, CHIEF PRIVACY OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
ROBERT O’HARROW, JR., REPORTER, WASHINGTON POST; AUTHOR, NO PLACE TO HIDE

ROBERT O’HARROW:
"...There is a guy that I think many of us in the room respect and admire deeply, General Clark, and he serves as a great example of someone who was deeply involved in representing a company called Axiom. And Axiom was one of those companies that responded with – I know that from my reporting – very patriotic motives. They had a lot of that as a marketer and they shared it and they shared it to good effect; it helped. They also saw ways that they could change their business model and become part of the security industrial complex. And one of the people that was helping open doors for Axiom in Washington was General Clark. The reason I raise that is because I kept finding that General Clark got to places before I did and people spoke admiringly of his ability to say what he knew, to say what he didn’t know, to play it straight, and to in every case do it in the smart way, which is why people respect him."

Here's what Clark had to say himself about working with Axiom at that same event:

"...Can I just say one more thing about this impulse to privacy that you’ve mentioned, Bob, because when I was doing this – and I want to say this because Nuala is here, because when the government starts working programs and it does know where they go and where they going they are always cautious because everybody knows that these programs that do data are very sensitive. Before the government could even get a grip on some of these programs, when the word comes out on them they are blasted before people even understand it. So on the one hand, I understand exactly why there is an impulse for privacy. People – companies like Axiom were told, “Look, you just can’t compete for this contract if you talk about this to the press because we don’t know what the program is and we want to have – we want to be able to –“ this is – I’m speaking for the government – “We want to be able to see what data you have available. We want to figure out if we can use it, and we don’t want to have to answer a million inquiries from the press about it until we get it done. Then we’ll run it through.

You know, my instinct on it was a little bit different than the government’s, but I didn’t have any influence on them. I mean, my instinct would have to bring in the ACLU and to say, “Please create a group that’s sort of like a trusted group that we can bounce ideas off of and we want to run these ideas by you. And if you have strong objections, we want to hear them. We want to hear them right upfront. What we ask is that you will work with us in a collaborative sense so that – you know, you tell us before you run out to the Washington Post the next day and we have got (unintelligible.)” So, you know, we are just exploring ideas. We want to try to put this together and I do think there is a need for that. There is a need for enough privacy in governmental decision-making that the government can come out with programs and then have a chance to explain them, not to take anything away from the press because that balance is a dynamic balance. It’s fought by and maintained by hardworking reporters who make a lot of phone calls and get turned down a lot, but it’s a very important public duty.

So I am not sure if the balance is right is what I am saying. I don’t know if it’s right and that is one of issues we ought to explore..."


May I ask if you fly often, and if you flew often during the year after 9/11? I had to for work. It was amazing how many half empty planes were in the air back then, and how nervous the passengers who were still willing to board an airplane were. A saw a lot of small restaurants in New York City close because they couldn't bring in enough revenue to keep the doors open. Airlines laid off tens of thousands of good Union members while they cut back their flights dramatically. It helped kick the U.S. into a Recession and many working class people lose their homes during Recessions. If something hadn't been done to give people some confidence that they weren't going to be flying with a potential hijacker, most of those who still did fly during the year after 9/11 probably wouldn't have. I know I would have given up my business if there were a couple of more attempted hijackings, I simply would have stopped flying.

One flight I took scared me to death. I took off from LA and we flew over Salt Lake City exactly when the opening ceremonies for the Winter Olympics were taking place in 2002. I couldn't stop thinking about what a target that would have been for terrorists to dive a plane into if they could. I'm being honest with you. I wanted Airlines to be able to do responsible background checks on passengers. I never complained when I was pulled aside for special searches, and I was sometimes. I can look kind of scruffy, lol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ice4Clark Donating Member (466 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-04-06 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
215. For those who doubt whether he's a democrat
here is a partial list of his appearances in 2005 for the democratic party and candidates:

-Alabama Democratic Party Rally, Birmingham
-Alabama Democrats/Grassroots dinner at Doe's in Little Rock
-Alabama House Democrats Dinner, Keynote, Birmingham
-Arizona Democratic Party Press Conference with Veterans
-Arizona Democratic Party "Democratic Vision" Speech
-Arkansas Democrats Khakis & Catfish event
-Annual Wisconsin Corn Roast at the La Crosse County Fairground, West Salem
-Association of State Democratic Chairs Quarterly Meeting Reception with Chairman Dean, hosted by General Clark, Little Rock, Arkansas
-Audio message for Maine Democrats re Muskie Lobster Fest 8/7
-California Democratic Party Convention
-Clark County Clinton Day Dinner, Arkadelphia AR, Keynote Speaker
-Congressman Charlie Rangel's 75th Birthday Gala
-Dallas Democratic Forum, Texas
-Democratic Activists Lunch, Mason City, Iowa
-Democratic Activists Meeting, Emmetsburg, Iowa
-Democratic Party Evaluation and Strategy Retreat, Williamsburg VA
-Democratic Party Memorial Day Radio Response
-Democratic Party Radio Address on Iraq
-Democratic Party of Arkansas 2005 Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner
-GOTV audio message for Paul Hackett OH-02
-Iowa Democratic Party fundraiser, Okoboji, Iowa
-Iowa Democratic Party fundraising breakfast, Decorah
-Iowa Democratic Party fundraising breakfast, Sioux City
-Jimmie Lou Fisher Campaign Debt Payoff Fundraiser, Little Rock, AR
-Lea County Democratic Party headquarters, Hobbs NM Groundbreaking ceremoney
-Maine Democratic Party Ed Muskie Annual Lobster Festival, Brunswick ME, Keynote Speaker
-Manchester City Democratic Committee Annual Flag Day Dinner, NH, Keynote speaker
-New Mexico Jefferson Jackson Dinner - keynote speaker
-Oklahoma Democratic Party reception/fundraiser, Keynote, Stillwater, Oklahoma
-Online fundraising for Jim Pederson, opposing Arizona US Senator Jon Kyl
-"Path of a President" Dinner, Clinton Presidential Library, Little Rock - keynote speaker
-Payne County Democrats fall celebration, the Brayfest, Stillwater, Oklahoma
-Radio Interview, KPCC Radio (NPR Affiliate), "Air Talk" with Larry Mantle; "The Future of the Democratic Party"
-Wisconsin Democratic Party, Fundraiser luncheon, Madison, Wisconsin
-Wisconsin Democratic Party, 4th Annual Corn Roast, West Salem, Wisconsin

Congressional Events in 2005:
-Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference, Washington DC
-Congressional Candidate Boot Camp, Guest Speaker, Phoenix, AZ
-Congressional Mission to Haiti; UN Peacekeeping Reform Study Group
-DSCC Petition: Demand Accountability Past and Future on Iraq
-Democratic National Security Advisory Group Report
-House Armed Services Committee Testimony on leadup to Iraq War
-House Democrats' GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century Announcement Forum; Petition: GI Bill of Rights
-'Out of Iraq' Congressional Caucus, Washington DC
-Senators' Democratic Policy Committee lunch, guest speaker
-UN Task Force Congressional Hearing Testimony


He is humping his butt to help the dems win on 06. That is his only focus at this time. Tho I hope he runs again for office, if he doesn't he will still travel the country, speak out and give some of us hope of taking back our country and holding the administration accountable. He truly believes in country first, what's good for the nation and listens to one and all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JStuart Donating Member (64 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
223. simple.
He's ELECTABLE and he's not Hillary. A man of conviction who can "speak" to a broad group of people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoonzang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
232. I'd like a Clark and Feingold to be on the same ticket..
But I worry about what the repugs will do to Feingold. First of all this is America and Feingold is Jewish, so they'll drop alot of subtle hits to stir up latent anti-semitism. Secondly, he's been divorced twice. That could be a big problem...

Eh, it all depends...we can think of these things after the 2006 election. We'll probably lose that for some reason so it won't matter anyway. Yep...I'm Mr. Optimistic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
234. I like Feingold a lot better on the 2nd Amendment than Clark...
Clark's "if you want to keep your guns, go join the military" line (referring to rifles with handgrips that stick out, and guns holding over 10 rounds) sounded like a threat to me.

I really like Feingold's close-to-the-people style as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #234
239. I thought Clark said "if you want to keep your Assault Weapon"...
"I support the Second Amendment. People like firearms, they feel secure with firearms, they should keep their firearms," said Clark, who has been shooting weapons since he was young.
Source: Jim VandeHei, Washington Post, p. A5 Sep 19, 2003

People who like assault weapons should join the Army
I have got 20 some odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have them.
Source: Interview on CNN Crossfire Jun 25, 2003
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_Gun_Control.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #239
242. He did...S.1431 and H.R.2038 defined "assault weapon"
Edited on Wed Apr-05-06 09:34 PM by benEzra
as any civilian self-loading rifle with a handgrip that "protrudes conspicuously" from the gun. IIRC, it also banned any detachable-magazine shotgun, banned any civilian firearm holding more than 10 rounds, and banned this small-caliber farm/utility rifle (which I own) by name:



Military automatic weapons are already tightly controlled by Federal law and have been for 72 years now. Russ Feingold knows that; it appears that Mr. Clark either is not aware of that, or was being disingenuous. I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is merely misinformed on Federal firearms law, but that in itself is disturbing to me.

Since my wife and I own the types of guns Mr. Clark was speaking of (one mini-14, one foreign-made rifle with a protruding handgrip, my wife's 15-round 9mm pistol), I'm not sure how to take his statement as anything other than a threat to ban the guns he was speaking of. Feingold, on the other hand, voted against S.1431/H.R.2038, and as a gun owner I deeply appreciate that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #242
243. Sorry, personally I don't like guns at all......
Edited on Wed Apr-05-06 09:50 PM by FrenchieCat
And when I heard Clark talking about this.....I was glad to hear it. I'm sure that Gen. Clark had me in mind when he said this.....which was before he was even running for any office (pre primary '04)! :hi:


An assault rifle is a type of automatic rifle generally defined as a selective fire rifle or carbine, chambering intermediate-powered ammunition. They are categorized between the larger and heavier light machine gun and the weaker submachine gun. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armies, having largely replaced or suplemented larger, more powerful rifles in regular use.

The name is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr coined by Adolf Hitler to describe the Sturmgewehr 44. It gradually became a popular term for this type of firearm. The term has since been retro-actively applied to earlier weapons with similar traits.

The AK-47 is the iconic assault rifle.

Primarily in the United States, the term assault weapon is an arbitrary (and politicized) phrase generally used to describe a collection of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features associated with military/police use, such as a folding stock, flash suppressor, bayonet, protruding pistol grip, or the ability to accept a detachable magazine of a capacity larger than ten rounds. The phrase assault weapon has been used primarily in relation to a specific expired gun law that was commonly known as the "Assault Weapons Ban", "Clinton gun ban", or "1994 crime bill". It is a common misconception that the assault weapons ban restricted weapons capable of fully-automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns. Fully-automatic weapons were unaffected by the ban because they have been heavily restricted since the National Firearms Act of 1934, and other, more recent laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #243
244. Assault rifles are VERY tightly controlled by Federal law, and aren't
what Mr. Clark was talking about.

By definition, an assault rifle is capable of automatic fire (e.g., it is capable of operating as a machinegun) and all such guns are VERY tightly restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (yes, 72 years ago). All such guns are pretty much limited to military and police use only; to own one as a civilian, you have to pass what amounts to a Secret-level government security clearance, and a civilian transferable pre-1986 assault rifle will run you a minimum of $15,000. A civilian-transferable M16A2 can set you back $75,000 or more, IF you get government permission to own one. Mere possession of one without government authorization is punishable by up to 10 years in Federal prison.

That's not what Mr. Clark was discussing. He was discussing "assault weapons," which is an anti-gun-lobby term for a NON-automatic CIVILIAN rifle, shotgun, or pistol with modern styling or over-10-round capacities. As I said, the bills Mr. Clark was referring to at the time (Senate Bill 1431 and House Resolution 2038) defined an "assault weapon" as any civilian rifle having a handgrip that sticks out. See the last paragraph of the Wikipedia entry that you posted:

Primarily in the United States, the term assault weapon is an arbitrary (and politicized) phrase generally used to describe a collection of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features associated with military/police use, such as a folding stock, flash suppressor, bayonet, protruding pistol grip, or the ability to accept a detachable magazine of a capacity larger than ten rounds. The phrase assault weapon has been used primarily in relation to a specific expired gun law that was commonly known as the "Assault Weapons Ban", "Clinton gun ban", or "1994 crime bill". It is a common misconception that the assault weapons ban restricted weapons capable of fully-automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns. Fully-automatic weapons were unaffected by the ban because they have been heavily restricted since the National Firearms Act of 1934, and other, more recent laws.


It is precisely this misconception that Mr. Clark is laboring under; he appears to think the "assault weapon" issue is about military automatic weapons, rather than civilian guns with handgrips that stick out.

My wife and I don't own any assault rifles, and couldn't afford to buy one even if we had government clearance to do so. We DO own several "assault weapons," i.e. modern looking civilian guns, and would like to keep them.

I can post the text of a few proposed "assault weapons bans" if you'd like, so you can see for yourself...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
235. Why do so many at DU bring this up about every fourth day?
Lack of flamewars? I think not.

I think Wes Clark would make a fine president. As I think Feingold would. They are my top two seeing as the good doctor looks as if he is going to hold to his promise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #235
237. I'm sorry...but there is an an active discussion going on with this thread
Edited on Wed Apr-05-06 07:11 PM by FrenchieCat
Between one who would have rather seen 1.4 million possibly die by Genocide in Kosovo and blames Wes Clark for saving those lives as a negative, and those who feel that, like what should happen in Darfur today-450,000 deaths thus far, the Kosovo Intervention was warranted....and based on the political climate of the times (after the Somalia Debacle-18 American deaths and the U.S. ignoring Bosnia-200,000 deaths and Rwanda-800,000 deaths)that it was handled as best as it could given the circumstances.

It is actually a very interesting debate!
The conversation started with a post no longer available (due to the nature of the name calling within it)--but that is what is keeping the thread kicked.

See here..... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=824791&mesg_id=835613

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theobscure Donating Member (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #237
240. despicable...will this above post be deleted?
First you accuse me of being pro-Milosevic, then a genocide denier and now a genocide advocate. And I'm the one calling names? If you are going to throw these accusations at me why don't you continue to do it directly at least and try citing something I actually said (instead of alluding to a deleted post that suggested or even insinuated no such things).

Calling Democrats in general sycophants is beyond the pale; but the kind of ad hominem attacks seen here constantly against non-Democrats is tolerated and celebrated?

I would care less about what you called me if my original post was allowed to stand. But now you flat out lie about what was in that post to mischaracterize me. Are you the one that had it removed as well? How convenient.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-05-06 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #240
241. Oooh.......
Edited on Wed Apr-05-06 07:41 PM by FrenchieCat
I'm sooooo busted! :scared:

Edited to add...-- Oh, so you're a Non-Democrat. Interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC