Supporters: Clark's Got That Special Something

<...>

That buzz has put Clark, a retired general who officially joined the race just four weeks ago, at the top of some national primary polls and third in a University of New Hampshire poll released yesterday, behind former Vermont governor Howard Dean (30 percent) and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (17 percent.)

Clark has landed there having invested far less time and energy in New Hampshire than most of his eight Democratic rivals. He has visited the state only once as a candidate (although he's planning a second visit for next week) and named a New Hampshire campaign director only Friday. As of yesterday afternoon, his New Hampshire staff still hadn't opened his Manchester office.

<...>

Thompson, who has offered to help the campaign with public relations, believes Clark is the only candidate who can beat President Bush in the general election because he doubts the other front runners, Dean and Kerry, can win the southern vote.

The same rationale brought Faye Frey of Caanan to Manchester Monday night. She was a Dean supporter until she decided that Clark was more electable. She talked up Clark's centrist views to a couple of undecided college students.

"The most important thing is that George Bush gets beat," Frey said.

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/state2003/101503clarkmeetup_2003.shtml

DTH

the ability to match Bush dollar for dollar in fundraising. CFR seems like a bad idea, hindsight being 20/20.

(Clark)... stands up for things that are normal.

Well, if Mr. Clark can translate Annie Mullen's predisposition to support him into votes at the ballot box, I would say that Clark then has a good chance to remain competitive.

"Things that are normal"? What an indictment of Bush & Co!

I am a Democrat and will look at the man.

Dems...do yourself a favor and stop buying the GOP talking point that money is what matters. Bush is a whore and will get a lot of it. The GOP will of course suggest that money is an issue. Can we be that dumb?

Fuck this damn money shit. The individual that wins will be the one with the most votes.....not bucks.

sides will have to spend more or less evenly. It's the time leading up to the election that is going to be crucial. That's when the big time smearing is going to happen, and it won't be pretty. Once the Republicans finish their convention, the spending game will be even; until then, look out.

He should funnel ad dollars into a TV and billboard campaign for an Internet site that will accept donations. Don't just do a dull campaign, get somebody really creative to coordinate it. Take the best from Dean's playbook, whether the candidate is Dean or not. There are a lot of people out there who abhor this administration and will contribute to an on-line site.

Can a campaign accept money from international donors? You better believe that half the world wants Bushco dumped because he is a danger to civilized society.

On edit: I just read Billy's post. Democrats should launch this Internet site ASAP to combat the smear campaign which the Republicans plan to start in February or March.

normalcy in love & war? junior is screwed! Period.

I don't have much faith that Dean or Kerry will win much if any of the South.

Particularly with Bush's War chest. Bush/Rove can paint them as Nothern Establishment liberals from June to November with a ton of 30 second spots.

..."telegenic", bright and shiny first impression hold up against all the fact-checking and relentless background investigation?

What's the substance behind the marketing spin and sizzle?

Whoever gets nominated will inevitably find themselves in a vicious campaign. What is Clark's actual record of achievement?

As NATO commander in Yugoslavia, he did absolutely nothing to distinguish himself. To the contrary, he lost his job and disgraced himself ("character and integrity issues") with high-up Pentagon Hawks. On the other hand, he totally turned off the Doves, too:

Robert Fisk report"

http://www.geocities.com/cpa_blacktown/20000209rfiskinduk.htm

I think Clark can handle anything thrown at him much better than Dean (who's already referred to as Deanie Weenie and being drawn in a hotdog costume). A deanie weenie will never get elected as commander in chief.

The "integrity and character issues" smear is because Clark went over their heads. He had the guts to stand up for what he thought was right instead of sucking up to his superiors (putting his army career on the line). Tell the people freed from ethnic cleansing that he did nothing to distinguish himself.

"Deanie Weenie"? Isn't that on the same intellectual level as "my dick is bigger than yours"?

I have been very nice lately trying to be civil to everyone, simply because we all need to unify when this is over with, but personal attacks such as yours are uncalled for, and totally unnecessary.

Wes Clark doesn't need you to defend him, and I don't need to hear you refer to Dean or his supporters as "Deanie Weenie." We got enough of this faux macho shit from the current occupant of the White House.

The only question I have is this: What is your candidate, whoever he/she may be, going to do to get us out of Iraq ASAP (and I don't mean a year or longer from now)?

to the other poster as well? Or should Clark people just be expected to take it, while complete bullshit posts like #3 go unchallenged?

If all you do is follow the dog around cleaning up, he never learns to stop shitting on the carpet; a couple of gentle whacks on the nose after the dog shows poor alimentary control, on the other hand, has the potential to teach all but the most stupid of dogs how to behave ;-)

Even those his "followers" want to bury their head in the sand and ignore Dean's inability to win in the general election.

This is not a personal attack. I didn't refer to his supporters as "Deanie Weenie" and like it or not the opposition is already referring to Dean as Deanie Weenie (but not to loudly because they certainly don't want to ruin their chances of having Dean be the nominee). School playground level - that is the level that Rove works at and it sells really well to the general public.

To be able to get our soldiers out of Iraq, the Democrat is going to have to be elected first. I hate to tell you, but Dean does not have a snowballs chance in *ell of winning in the general election against Bush.

The Pillsbury Doughboy. :evilgrin:

Not on appearance. I hope that you do the same.

To pretend otherwise is being naive.

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

People constantly blame Clark for almost starting World War 3 and such, but mainly those comments come from the jealous Republican'ts who wish they would have been in Clark's position...Clark was dealing with inferior minds on the issue who now like to sit back and call him a "nut". Well, that nut saved 1.5 million Albanians from the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and received the nation's highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Clinton for it. Call him what you like but Clark is the man for the job in 2004...

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Only if you accepted uncritically all of the contemporaneous, PSYOPS-at-CNN-PR-spinning that so heavily filtered all news from Kosovo, both before and after the NATO bombing.

I can't blame you for not being aware of what's NEVER reported by American media sources, but that whole 'ethnic cleansing in Kosovo' justification had about as much substance to it as the more recent "Sadam's got a 45 minute direct threat window to unleash massively destructive weapons on all of us". Which isn't to say that there weren't serious social and political problems, rooted in the ethnic disputes, but instead of honestly working to help resolve them, the American response at the time was the old colonial divide-and-rule-- totally polarize the situation and precipitate an armed conflict, prior to sending in your own troops and bureacratic administrative apparatus. Ethnic divisions in Kosovo have gotten worse, not better, since NATO's taken over. All of the non-Albanian ethnic minorities--the Gorani, the Serbs, the Gypsies, the "Egyptians", the unfortunates of Mixed Ethnicity, and the Turks, along with many Albanians thought to be too tolerant of any of the preceding-- have been faced with much more blatant mistreatment than ever existed before the conflict started.

But I digress...

And considering your use of a term like "Deanie Wienie", it's probably been wasted effort...

Cutting to the chase, my point is simply that whatever your misperceptions about the ability of Dean to stand up to the heat of a nasty Republican attack, if Clark ever actually has to "stand" on his record as NATO commander, he's going to look like Toulouse Lautrec's shorter brother.

The humanitarian justification was largely fabricated, US officials claimed there had been massacres with the victims numbering in the tens or hundreds of thousands, and that we had satellite pictures of mass graves, etc. But when the war was over the bodies just weren't there, much like Saddams WMDs. Part of the PR war was propagandizing the US public, but the other part was bombing the Serbian media. Wesly Clark ordered the bombing of a Serbian TV station, and killed 16 civilians, much like Rummy's military has gone after al-Jazeera in Kabul and Baghdad. Apparently General Clark subsribes to the notion that part of winning in modern warfare is blowing up journalists you disagree with. A brilliant tactician, stong on defence. And he has medals too.

Conducting that campaign required maintaining unanimity among nineteen nations, some of which did not actively support the enterprise in the first place. This is an extraordinary achievement in military diplomacy.

The intent of Butcher Slobo in Kossovo was quite clear, and there was indeed a murder campaign under way. Worst-case estimates are always passed out to the press in such circumstances, and sensible persons understand zeroes may need trimming. The actual impetus was to prevent a repetition of the mass murders in Bosnia, and to remove from power their author. The military defeat was essential to his eventual removal, and Butcher Slobo is now where he belongs, on trial at The Hague under United Nations auspices for his crimes.

You do not seem to much understand the role of state television, and stations owned by members of Butcher Slobo's clique, in maintaining his power and executing his crimes. You see some elements of propaganda in our own media; you might want to increase that intensity by a factor of ten as a thought experiment, if you wish to understand the circumstance. The essential element of war is to break the moral of the enemy: what maintains the enemy's fighting moral is a proper target for military action. The thing is not a tea-party, any more than is revolution.

He'd spend 20 yrs in the military by the time he was 37 years old. You couldn't ask bush anything about his life until after he reached 45. Go ahead - fire away at Clark - and oh yes, run side by side pictures of Clark & Slimy Shrub in their uniforms - and oh yes, put their records side by side also

Four-star General versus the AWOL Flight Suit. Ha!

The way to beat Bush in 2004 is to ensure that the voting public KNOWS George Bush's actual record of "achievement" -- before, leading up to, and throughout his (temporary) tenure as acting CEO of America Inc.

His party must be kept on the defensive with one truth after another.

It's not like their isn't enough ammo to go around! I can't imagine any currently campaigning Democrat having skeletons in their closet larger, ore numerous, and more heinously covered with American blood and shame than those of George Washington Bush himself.

It's time to throw down the gauntlet. This is no ordinary upcoming election in IMO. To me, the neocons are a nothing less than a dangerous political cult.

Time for progressive activists to step up the deprogramming of America!

Yes, it's shaping up to be a vicious, expensive fight for whoever wins the nomination, but on-the-ground citizen activism costs far less than what we have yet to lose if our country remains in this administration's hands.

I'm brainstorming for ways I can educate my community and hopefully influence a few votes. Which reminds me, if there are any Bay Area/Silicon Valley DUers out there who'd like to brainstorm with me -- please drop a line...

that thet bogus crap to freeperland..from where it came.

repeating.

A little more reading is my prescription for your ailments. The desease? seemingly breathless to repeat what they have heard, without attempting to get any source beyond a flame bait piece.

You are doing the GOP proud. Shit, look at who votes for them! I think the term is Dittoheads.

Now, surely, a principaled and reasoned thinker and philosopher such as yourself would not want to repeat GOP talking points without doing a little tiny bit of research? It surely wouldn't hurt: You should start with this reading material...actual archives of the time...not today's "1984" rewritten history!
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/departure.htm (12 articles from mainstream press at the time of Kosovo departure, e.g. LA times, Washinton Post, etc...)
http://www.dod.gov/news/May2000/n05032000_20005033.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/interviews/clark.html
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=bjq57awwJ36hUmhMuLKmgm%3D%3D

"In Gen. Wes Clark," Cohen told the audience, "America found a scholar, a soldier and a statesman -- a scholar who understands the forces of history on our time, a soldier of unquestioned courage ...Cohen praised Clark and the command for their part in NATO Operation Allied Force. He announced that he has proposed the creation of a Kosovo campaign medal. "No one should ever doubt either your service or your success," he said. "Faced with an adversary who manufactured a vicious, humanitarian nightmare, you responded with compassion and speed to relieve human suffering."

CLINTON CHARACTERISTICS. PLENTY ALIKE.

Clinton Characteristics!

I have questioned sometimes as to whether some of the candidates enjoy campaigning or see it as a distasteful duty. They'd rather be writing position papers...
As for his record of achievement--it would stand up to scrutiny next to anyone's record currently running. Especially whistle-ass's record. I think that's a great idea--during the campaign, put their records side by side. Slogan "Vote for the real leader..."

in governing civilians, therefore how could having no record stand up to scrutiny? That makes no sense.

do I have to remind you? :crazy:

Do I have to keep reminding YOU?

Thousands of families depended upon him when he was
commanding. Housing, education, medical support, all
of it. He commanded civilians all his career.

He's got that special nothing.

;)

;-)

By the way, it's my understanding that Clark, in response to your repeated demands yesterday, has decided to accelerate the release of his position statements. Apparently when someone as important as you gets on a message board and says, 'I want to know what his positions are' about 30 times, it gets results. And people say Dean responds to the grassroots! With supporters like yourself making your desires known, no wonder Dean jumps to AIPAC's -- I mean your --demands.

as for what else, we don't really know that yet...

1) His economic recovery plan, which is good but not as good IMHO as Dean's,

2) His national service plan, which I have worries about, and

3) That he takes traditionally Democratic stances on the issues.

I will continue to withhold judgement. However, I really don't see how people can support Clark without more details.

including parts (not all) of Waging Modern War. Today, I ordered Winning Modern Wars. IMHO this man is Bill Clinton with a purple heart and no sex scandals. He is a deep thinker, his social views are very close to mine, and I consider him the best overall Democratic candidate since Bobby Kennedy in 1968.

Once again, this is just my humble opinion...take it for what its worth or ignore it.

Clark is a brain...military or not. People seem to attribute his time in the military as a negative for a Democrat. That is idiotic. Go to his site and read what the man is all about, if after learning the facts on the man, Wesley Clark, you feel like he could not be a great "civilian" leader then vote otherwise, but anybody who supported Clinton has to believe that Clark is the best and brightest of this field and the only chance to truly rekindle the 8 years of peace and prosperity that we all enjoyed under Clinton. RowdyBoy says it best when he says that Clark is "Bill CLinton with a purple heart and no sex scandals." Exactly, and he also has a silver star, bronze star, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom for saving 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. If anybody wants to put personal records up for comparison, it is sad because no one else can hold a candle...

And for what it's worth, if a certain Sirhan Sirhan never would have been born, this country might not have all the problems we have today.
Remembering RFK 35 years later...

I don't understand the uniform problem. I get the impression some would never support a career military person.

its an opinion piece

Big difference. :-)

DTH

I'm having a hard time deciding which one I like the best, but clearly Dean has no background in international relations or military issues (does he?), and Clark lacks background and experience in both political campaigning and in domestic issues. I really, really like Dean's ideas on health care. I really, really like Clark's views on repairing the U.S. relationships with the rest of the world. So, my suggestion is that we Dems work for a ticket combining the two best candidates - I don't care who heads the ticket.

By the way, I would vote for anybody but Bush. Good God, what a rip-off of the American people he and his cabal have been! Evil, arrogant, greedy, and selfish.

Dean-Clark. I'll take Clark-Dean too, though.

No matter how you put it we've got a winning combinaiton!

If this team went on to the 2004 election I bet even KKKarl Rove couldn't bring them down.


GO! Clark!
GO! Dean!

My first choice however is Clark. I think he is such a kutie!

Dean's got governing experience at the executive level. His strengths are domestic. Clark obviously brings foriegn policy strengths to the table. What an unbeatable combination.

While such a ticket may not suit many a purist it would sit well with a big majority of voters.

I just wonder what those who support one but hates the other will do if this ticket comes to pass.

Julie

at this point in time. Bush and Schwarzenegger assumed offices with practically no discussion of policies and no experience. They were both empty slates, but they won.
If the debate is - who has the policies and experience to win - that does not appear to be what interests the voting public.
Personally, I cannot figure out what voters are looking for, especially after Ahnold.

Clark has dealt with Americans from every state on a regular basis all his adult life. I think that's why such a diverse group of people relate to him immediately, and they do. Everyone else is identified with a region to one extent or another. Clark is a southerner in terms of where he was brought up and his current address, but he's also been charged with dealing with every variety of American that we've got.

Clark dealt with Americans from every state on a regular basis all his adult life?

This country is NOT a military state.

He has no idea how to deal w/civilians. He has never governed Americans from every state on any kind of basis.

What are you talking about?

But this may come as a shock to you - he military is made up of people. In fact, recent studies have shown that military personnel have almost identical DNA as civilians. He has had more experience with more types of Americans than most people and than most of our candidates.

by a loooooooong shot. They are not comparable at all.

He only has experience w/military personal. He has no experience w/civilians.

Who do you think lives on military bases? Just soldiers?
How about civilians and other dependents? How about the
schools on bases? How about the medical centers on bases?
They have civilians running/working in them. Really. If
you are going to make generalizations, I would like to
have facts inserted. I am not angry about this but more
annoyed. Every base I've seen and been on has civilians
and civilian infrastructure.

Its a town. Consider them towns with more guns than usual.

Granted, the military life and civilian life are not identical but I fail to see how that totally shoots down Clark's qualifications. People are people so why should it be...Clark couldn't "govern" civilians equally?

Governing and ordering are not the same. The relationship between a civilian leader and We, the People vs the relationship between an officer and his subordinates is vastly different.

Ordering and being ordered is all that clark has known for his entire adult life. When you add in the direction he chose after leaving the military, he is clear that he is not a Democrat. Nor did he choose to work for We, the People. (See Stephens corp, Acxiom, SOA, NED and praising whistle ass et al)

He is Trojan Horse pushed by the DLC.

there were a lot of smart people who felt it made no real difference who won the Presidency because, after all, both major candidates were tools of the establishment and things would just roll on pretty much as they had since Clinton got into office.

Well, we all saw how that one played out, didn't we?

In 2004 we have to have an acceptable candidate that is also acceptable to the general voting public. Acceptable, hell. We have to have a candidate that the general voting public will embrace, and take into their hearts, maybe even sit down and have a beer with.

This time we have to look at what is best for the US, and the world, which means putting a candidate in the field that can beat George Bush. There are some who think this will be a cakewalk, that by next November Bush will be a lame duck only waiting for someone to come along and knock him off his perch. Nothing could be more wrong.

We need a candidate who can run against him even if the economy is improving, and the Iraqi's are asking to bear our children.

The only one out there who can do something like that is Clark.

Dean's campaign depends on things getting worse, which might seem like a smart idea if you don't think the White House and the GOP will not do everything in their power to make things look better to the average voter. One example? Suddenly, the administration can see its way clear to push for veteran's benefits, the exact same benefits Bush and Co. claimed were far too expensive before Clark entered the race. Now, a "compromise" is suddenly possible. THis is what we're facing, the power of the incumbent and the millions of dollars the right is making available, and what we need is someone from outside the Beltway who can make the case for doing the right thing without having to explain a lifetime of compromise and back-room deals.

The only candidate we have that comes close to that is Clark so, if you want to win next year, cut the crap and get on board.

It's apparent that anyone who can say that has never been familiar with upper military command. These people come out of the military and are almost universally successful at whatever they try (and let's leave out the defense contractor revolving door).

The reason that they are successful is that they are culled and trained in handling and organizing people to get the most efficient operation possible. "Ordering and being ordered" is NOT the way the military works.

I am not trying to defend clark. In fact, I haven't quite decided on clark v. dean yet, tho in all honesty I find myself leaning toward clark. But to claim what you did does not reflect a solid grounding in either management styles or the reality of organizations.

Don't you think it's time we stopped attacking dem candidates and turned our ire on the repugs? Unless you don't want to see a dem win?

Dem?

clark is as much a Dem as I am a repug.

Our country is in very bad shape. We need someone that has proven he can balance a budget, understands how to bring healthcare to almost all citizens, is not/has not been involved in the MIC and HAS A DEMOCRATIC RECORD WE CAN ALL EXAMINE!

clark has jack of a record. This is a Democratic primary. In a Democratic primary, it's the Democratic activists that vote, primarily. It's the Democratic activists that do the work to get the vote out. It's the Democratic activists that push for someone that represents the Democratic Party.

clark DOES NOT represent the Democratic Party. When he filled out the FEC form to run for president, he filled out his affliation as UNK!

He represents more of the Dem party than you dare to admit....
and he would, more than any other candidate, represent me, because I am most concerned with international relations.

:kick:

DemEx

our country at home? At home where our democracy is swirling down the toilet? At home where we are losing our civil rights? At home where we are losing jobs to overseas? At home where an extraordinary amount of people do not have healthcare? At home where our schools, where we educate our future are left unfunded? At home where our lack of environmental controls are polluting the planet?

What exactly do you mean by international relations?

Besides, how might clark turn out to be one of our greatest Dem presidents when he isn't a Democrat?

but since I believe that a country's fate is totally interconnected with the rest of the world, and because I live outside the US and see what enormous effects its actions have on the situation here......I want a President with international feeling, something I think Clark has the most of all the candidates.

His vision will have great impact on all areas....globalization processes, agreements with other nations, international economic, environmental, human rights cooperation etc.

You have one image of the man, I have a totally different one. You base yours on information and interpretations, I base mine on them too but come to different conclusions.

Different life experiences also affect our judgements....

He seems liberal enough for me on abortion, gay rights, education etc. to wear the Democratic label.

Clark is Democrat enough for me, and if he wins the nomination and the election, he WILL perhaps be one the greatest Dem Presidents.

But I'll vote for ANY Democratic candidate that gets the nod.

:kick:

DemEx

military on a base, such as Clark has been, does govern
people. They are responsible for EVERYTHING that needs
to be done to make life happen in a town, which a military
base essentially is. You have to know how to manage
medical, educational, etc concerns as well as the military
stuff. These people come from EVERYWHERE.

I would support clark/dean, dean/clark and clinton for
secretary of state. who else but Bill could get the world
off our case, thanks to dimwit in the white house?

According to Salon.......

Rank and bile By Eric Boehlert

G.I.'s speaking out, angry vets signing petitions, generals attacking him. George Bush's once-rosy relationship with the military is turning sour.
--------------
Could 2004 be the year when the military vote swings to the Democrats? That might seem too farfetched a hope for Democrats, who have watched the military become a solidly Republican bloc over the past 30 years, to the point where a recent study found Republicans outnumber Democrats 8-to-1 among today's officers. But that trend, at least, could very well come to an end -- and the entry of four-star Gen. Wesley Clark into the presidential race as a Democrat and powerful Bush critic surely helps.
--------------
The reason is simple, says Hackworth, a White House critic whose Web sites, Soldiers for the Truth and Hackworth.com, have been documenting the contempt many service men and women feel for the Iraq war planners. "Most military guys who understand war, professional soldiers, they recognize America is engaged in its largest and nastiest war. And like in Vietnam, they don't see any light at the end of the tunnel," he says. "My e-mail, overwhelmingly from soldiers and vets, says these guys are really pissed off about the handling of the war. And what's amazing is the huge number of folks from this group no longer relating to the Republican Party
-----------------
Merle Black, professor of government at Emory University in Atlanta and an expert on politics in the modern South, thinks that for now the military is with Bush. But a change in fortune would be disastrous for the White House: "If Bush loses the military vote, he loses the election," says Black. While the number of votes that come out of the military community, including family members and retired veterans, is relatively small in comparison to all the ballots counted on Election Day, Florida's disputed recount proved just how critical a voting bloc it is. (As a political entity, there are roughly 2 million active-duty soldiers and reservists currently serving, not to mention their extended families. There are an additional 10 million veterans, with the largest percentage made of up of aging World War II fighters.)
---------------------


More importantly, the voting bloc represents a larger civilian population, largely white, male and somewhat Southern, that today places national security at the top of its concerns. It's a voting bloc that has become increasingly hostile to the Democratic Party in recent years.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/02/military/index.html

and well like practice at giving lots of orders. Just what our democracy needs, another fellow who won't listen.

And to all you strategists out there who claim, Clark is the only viable candidate. Your similar strategies of damn the platform, screw the base, the left etc. have performed wonderfully over the last four years. Grow a heart, grow some balls, and lets please get someone in there who can energize more than just the centrists.

In the end going after the centrists, leaves sheeple with even less of a contrast on which to make a decision.

We can all agree that we'll vote for anyone but Bush, but is Clark really the best we can do? Since when do we look to the military for Democratic leadership? Or ex-Rupubs? Oh sure, he's handsome in a uniform, telegenic and electable, but so is Bush. He may also be very intelligent, but then so was Bush the First. With no track record, no voting record as a representative how do we know what we're really getting? What if we're all sitting here in 2005 looking on as Clark decides to liberate Iran? Then what do you say to the Naderites?

Maybe I'm off base, maybe Clark is different, is somehow "anti-war" and not a Trojan Horse for the same military-industrial complex that gave us Bush, but I wish I could be more convinced of that before I face the possibility of having to vote for him...

IMHO and in most experts opinions - Dean cannot beat Bush. Partly because of his temperament (his many gaffes and blow-ups) also his "flip-flopping" on the issues and partly because of the label that he has allowed to be "stuck" on himself - that he is a far-left liberal (which WE know, of course is not true).

This label is partly because of the "gay unions" thing, partly because of his comments "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," partly from some of his comments about the Iraq war (which he has "backtracked" on), and dozens of other off-the-cuff statements he has made.

The DLC support is special.

I wish he would decide what he believes long enough to write a platform.

I think that having a military man run the country may not be such a good idea. He is used to ordering people to do things not be a diplomat. He already wants us to all join the no pay volunteer country rebuilding.

Bias.

Clark negotiated with 19 countries via NATO. If you picked up a book, you could actually read about Clark, instead of waiting for someone to hand you a platform. That type on non researched general opinion, I thought, were reserved to Corporate media.

In addition, the volunteer Corp Clark is discussing offers Health Care and pay (just won't get rich). Not everyone fulfills their aspiration for this country sitting in front a computer you know! Some actually put their actions before their words.

Cynicism is a state of mind that may aptly apply in your case. However, it's also telling of the rethoric of the lazy, dazed or confused.

neo-conservative moles from his military career, IMHO. I'm wary of Clark and the moles around his campaign.

Sorry to rain on your daily parade of Clark promotion, DTH. I see that you must be a true believer in the man or actually part of his campaign given that you post pro-Clark stuff every frikkin' day. I appreciate your energy and enthusiasms but sincerely believe they are misplaced.

AND, his record as NATO commander just won't go away. It is his track record and diminishes all the wonderful things he says today.

I'm not going to pull the clouds over your Clarkie sunshine every time but I can't leave it alone today. Look deeply into the Memory Hole.

"In Gen. Wes Clark," Cohen told the audience, "America found a scholar, a soldier and a statesman -- a scholar who understands the forces of history on our time, a soldier of unquestioned courage …, a statesman whose influence has been felt..."

Cohen praised Clark and the command for their part in NATO Operation Allied Force. He announced that he has proposed the creation of a Kosovo campaign medal. "No one should ever doubt either your service or your success," he said. "Faced with an adversary who manufactured a vicious, humanitarian nightmare, you responded with compassion and speed to relieve human suffering."

The secretary awarded Clark with his fifth award of the Defense Distinguished Service Medal. The award citation credited Clark with leading EUCOM through the entire spectrum of military operations from warfighting to peacekeeping to humanitarian relief.

Cohen also presented Clark's wife, Gertrude, with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Award for Distinguished Public Service. The award cited her for more than 30 years of volunteer service to the men, women and family members of America's armed forces and those of the nation's allies.

http://www.dod.gov/news/May2000/n05032000_20005033.html

John, you want to keep repeating the GOP talking points of Clark "track Record"....so, Read this and note, hereafter, if you continue to spout your no fact nonsense, you may be called a Liar:

July 30, 1999
Outlook on line
GEN. WESLEY CLARK WAS RIGHT -- AND SO HE MUST GO

Washington -- If there is one thing that our supremely politicized and overbureacratized Pentagon just hates these days, it is the concept of victory.

The word "win" is never used in its wars anymore, having been replaced by such words as "neutralize," "negotiate out," "virtual war, "Cabinet war," "cease-fire" and not "unconditional surrender," and an "exercise in coercive diplomacy." In fact, the very word "war" is suspect, too seemingly harsh in the mind-set of conflict-therapy and instant reconcilation that has infected our military as well as the White House.

No wonder these generals and admirals in what once was called the War Department got rid of the one genuine military thinker and hero we have, Gen. Wesley K. Clark. What did he think he was doing, insisting upon winning?

Now, the Pentagon and the White House insist, vociferously but lamely, that Clark, the supreme commander of NATO, is being let go three months early, next April, because of scheduling problems. Sort of like, "We're not going to be home on Tuesday when the plumber comes, so make it Monday!"
----------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT 1999 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

Levin Statement on Departure of General Wesley Clark
July 28, 1999
WASHINGTON Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., issued the following statement today following the announcement that General Wesley Clark would step down as NATO supreme commander in April, 2000:

"I have known and worked with General Wes Clark for many years. He is an outstanding military officer. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for his tremendous leadership of NATO's military forces during the recent Kosovo conflict. I look forward to working closely with General Clark through the end of his term as SACEUR."
-----------------------
Soldiers For The Truth
Perspective on the Military: Why Wesley Clark Got the Ax at NATO
The general exposed the gap between pretended "combat readiness" and refusal to accept war's risks

By: EDWARD N. LUTTWAK
Published in the LA Times August 6, 1999

Edward N. Luttwak is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington

Defeated generals are sent home in disgrace, but it is most unusual to dismiss victorious ones. Whatever the future may hold for Kosovo--and it looks rather grim at present--there is no doubt that NATO's war against Serbia ended in victory. Nor is it in doubt that its military commander, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, was very much the victorious general of that war.

So why was Clark fired? The official answer is that he wasn't fired at all, but merely asked to accommodate his successor at NATO, Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, by stepping aside a bit early. That is all very plausible except that any four-star general can be parked in a special assignment while awaiting a new command. Because Ralston is especially well-liked, nobody would have objected to the exception.

So why was Clark fired? There were the usual tactical disagreements inevitable in any war, as well as a typical clash of perspectives between the commander in charge of a regional war who wanted all possible forces and the Pentagon chiefs who must also worry about all the other potential wars around the globe. That is all very normal and has happened many times before.

Take This:

The Unappreciated General
International Herald Tribune The General Who Did Too Good a Job
By Patrick B. Pexton
Tuesday, May 2, 2000; Page A23

Nine years ago, Washington put on a lavish victory parade for the conquering troops of Desert Storm. The nation cheered the men and women who, in a six-week air campaign and 100-hour ground war, with only 148 combat deaths, defeated a ruthless dictator who had seized and pillaged a neighboring land. The generals who led an unwieldy multinational coalition to triumph were feted, toasted and mentioned as presidential material.

Not so for the general who won Kosovo, although he too ousted a murderous tyrant who burned and occupied a neighboring land. This general also led a cumbersome multinational coalition to victory in a short war--this time with zero combat deaths. But Gen. Wesley Clark, supreme allied commander Europe, will come home to no special welcome, no TV or book deals and no talk of the presidency. Clark's reward for victory is early retirement. Tomorrow, several months before his tour of duty would normally end, Clark will turn over the European command to an officer more to the liking of the ever-cautious White House and defense secretary.

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.
-------------------------
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

Mon dieu, monsieur. Ecoutez, s'il vous plait:
1) Please don't accuse critics of Clark of being GOP or liars. That's just rude.
2) The info you offered in rebuttal was that Clark got medals, no parade or book deal, was pushed out for political reasons. Oh, and Carl Levin said nice things about him. Whoopee.
3) Civilian carnage, DU weapons.
4) I apologize for not handing you the links for you to peruse. My intention was to throw out a flag and suggest that those with the ability to click a button and look into this CRITICAL MORAL ISSUE take the time to do so. Period.
5) Thanks for attempting to address the issue but YOU DIDN'T.
6) Bon soir.

That means people who back Clark and want to share positive information about him.

Shoo, all of you detractors!


DemEx

That special something only applies to clark supporters.

That makes sense. It's only clark supporters that could see anything special about him. All others know that's a lot of hooey.

Sounds so deliciciously good to me!:thumbsup:

I'd rather have honey than Cator Oil anytime!!:thumbsup:

http://www.msnusers.com/_Secure/0TQDGAhUZcQDYGlkRtw78hW!cNkRi!t2iwBnwn0A*!eHG4pC5XnRiJSDg1jLVFYBHcF5QwQq7KkukxtYSqKsUz594nmEQcuQ5WWoTCGyixGlAg9hMP*Dzzw/runwesrun_web.jpg?dc=4675439652952261997

“America’s great military strength, including particularly the precision air attack and special forces capabilities built up by President Clinton during the 1990s, and commanded so well by President Bush over the past year, has been stunningly impressive in this war to date.

— Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., Jan 14, 2002, Georgetown University lecture

“Our actions under President Bush’s strong leadership since September 11th have gone a long way toward forestalling this new iron curtain.”

— Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., Jan 14, 2002, Georgetown University lecture

“I strongly support President Bush's appointment of Governor Tom Ridge as Director of Homeland Security. The fact that Governor Ridge has President Bush's ear will make a very difficult job easier.”

— Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., Jan 15, 2002, University of Oklahoma

:shrug: ;-)