WESLEY CLARK SPEAKS OUT

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2003/julio/saba12/28enred-i.html

WASHINGTON, July 11.— Retired general Wesley Clark, former NATO commander in chief in Europe, who is considering running as the Democratic presidential candidate in the 2004 elections, informed Newsweek that the world expects something more from a U.S. president than to strut about the deck of a aircraft carrier in pilot’s uniform. He should be a great leader and instead he is a little charlatan.

Clark has done nothing concrete to date other than to launch extremely harsh attacks on the president, George W. Bush, while his followers have opened an Internet website to collect funds.

more

[Neutrino]

1. Zbigniew Brezhinsky (sp) really let Bush have it on CBS News

last night about loss of Credibility in the World. He said the
remarks * made in his speech that are now proven to be lies--
constitute a SERIOUS matter, and that it should not be let slide.

A CBS poll indicated that as much as 95% of the American people
believe that * is totally responsible for what comes out of his
mouth. The fact that he scored a "Gentlemen's C" in his studies
and does not have sufficient command of the American language,
just doesn't cut it any more. He can read and he can speek, and
even an imbecile has some "edit" qualities between his brain
and his mouth.

The people are waking up slowly and surely.

[codeword]

2. "The people are waking up slowly and surely."

Never.

[TexasEditor]

4. Wake Up Call

All the people who have had their fingers crossed and were giving him the benefit of the doubt are looking at him in a different way, I think.

Don't Blame Me, I voted for Gore.

[barbaraann]

5. Well, they may not be waking up to his evil policies

but they ARE waking up to his lying. It may be the best we can hope for.

[jbm]

6. they don't really have to wake up..

they will drift with the 'Bush is bad' current the same way they drifted with the 'Bush is good' current. Those same americans that held Saddam responsible for 9/11 are probably never going to really pay attention,but they'll react to what they 'perceive' to be the case. If the image of Bush changes in the media,they'll switch sides.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

46. Don't rain on our small, but growing parade of scandal...

Some people are waking up, and the more that the media covers the story the more likely it will be that the message of Bush's criminal behavior will filter down to the lemming masses.

JB

[DrPepper]

3. The Power Elite

If Zbigniew is saying things like this then Bush must really be toast. Zbigniew is as bad as the neocons on foreign policy, just look at his book _The Grand Chessboard_.

[madmax]

38. I had that book in my hands today at Borders

After just reading the back cover and skimming a few pages I broke out in a cold sweat and started to shake. I put it down. TMI - I just not ready yet to read that book. But, I will - soon.

I've read Brock, Conoson, Toobin, Ivins, Begala, Hillary, Alterman - I'm suffering from information overload.

[Emboldened Chimp]

18. Brzezinski is PNAC!

His book "The Grand Chessboard" is all about American domination in a post Cold War world. If he's bashing the Chimp, then it spells big trouble.

[neverforget]

49. Too bad it's taken dead Americans and Iraqis to wake the people

up to these lying bastards.

[burythehatchet]

7. I'm a membor of the group that is enamored by Clark while knowing

very little about him.

But there is a very interesting trend emerging on the wacky right. Example: I was having a typical "discussion with a sometimes girlfriend about religion and politics (we see eye to eye on sex). And inevitably when the overwhelmig logic and "new" information that she heard placed her arguments in checkmate - i.e., "well I took two courses in evolution and there's nothing there". (Rrrrrriiiiiiigggghhhhtttt)

Here's the interesting part. When Chimpy's record is "clarifed" for her she retorts that "well if he's not the person that God wants, well then he will be replaced". It is surprising to me that even with 80 percent control of all media messages, the sheeple would drop him like a bad habit at a moments notice.

[codeword]

8. How can you have sex with this woman????

:)

[burythehatchet]

11. she's a lot better lookin' than me

:toast:

[0007]

16. YOU just cleared up the problem

I think she may have check mated you!

[Rhiannon12866]

13. I think it's excellent that Clark is speaking out

The important thing is whether what he's saying is continued to be reported. He came out June 15 on ``Meet the Press'' and said that he was pressured by the White House, starting on 9/11/01, to make a connection between Iraq and those horrific attacks. He asked for evidence of a connection and never received any. Russert never persued this, of course, and it was never taken up in the press like most of the revelations of the Sunday morning news talk shows usually are.:mad:

I like that Clark is speaking out, but also know little about him. I doubt that I could support him, though. I took that ``SelectSmart'' test to see which of the possible presidential candidates agrees most with my views. I must not agree with much that he stands for because he came in dead last for me, behind even Bush*!:shrug:

[stevedeshazer]

17. Note: Clark is on this Sunday

ABC's "This Weak" opposite Rumsfeld....

[Rhiannon12866]

20. Thank you!

I missed that particular ``Meet the Press,'' but will be sure to catch this! This should be excellent! Thanks!:D

[calimary]

27. I'd sure like to hear him identify who it was, phoning him,

five hours after the World Trade Center attacks, while he was on CNN, and telling him he HAD to say it was state sponsored terrorism and to link it to Saddam. Remember? He said he told whoever it was that he'd be glad to, but just show him the evidence. Then, he said he never heard back from anybody. I'd like to know who called him and tried to lean on him.

[Rhiannon12866]

40. Maybe he'll say so on ``This Week''

He certainly has become talkative. I agree, as I'd love to know, but am not holding my breath. He is military, and they are used to keeping confidences, but if he has spoken out this much, he very well may reveal more. I think we all want to know who, specifically, this was.:shrug:

[Mz Pip]

28. There is something goofy about

that SelectSmart survey. I took it too and had the same results. I've read Clark's postions on the issues and agree with him on just about everything and that stupid survey had him at a -7% for me. I don't by it. I am much more aware of my positions on issues than some damn Internet survey. In all honesty, I trust my own judgment; I don't need a surey to tell me who I agree with.

Really, who are these SelectSmart people anyway. Before we let them decide who we agree with don't you think it might me wise to check out their validity???????

MzPip
:dem:

[shimmergal]

31. There was something wrong with that poll.

Everybody on DU who took it came out with minus or very low scores for Clark. And very high ones for Kucinich.

Either it was spun to get support for Kucinich, or they just didn't input Clark's position on most issues (or they did so erroneously.)

[chasqui]

23. I am a little quizzed by GEN Clark

The entire idea of him running for the democratic nomination clashes with what I have been experienced in the military. The US Army is a thoroughly blue collared organization and, despite that, is also thoroughly republican.
The pervasiveness of the republican leanings among the officer corps makes me suspect GEN Clark's dedication to something other than Cheap Labor. I am essentially saying that someone that is not a part of the establishment would have a heck of a time making it that high.

[uhhuh]

45. hmm

A fundie that sees the chimp as chosen by God, but has no prob with casual sex??
Yep, typical RW hypocrite.

[jamesinca]

9. If he does not run, he would make a strong VP or cabinet member

If I remember right, Gen. have made mediocre presidents at best. Eisenhower walked on water, read minds and could walk thru walls right after WWII, that did not carry over to his presidency. I like having Clark on our side, but I want somebody who could almost give us 16 uninterupted years in the WH. Clark would make a great VP while he groomed for his own 2 term presidency. I may be wrong about all this, but I would like to see him get into the mix. I think all of the Dem candidates except maybe Lieberman and Gephart should get very nice VP and cabinet positions in this next administration. Can you imagine Al Sharpton as press sect. That would be a lot of fun to watch.

[RaRa]

10. Al Sharpton as Press Sec?

Oh my God! I would be glued to the tv like a junkie! I would sooo love to see him chew the press corp up!

[burythehatchet]

12. alas...

I believe it was reported that he wouldn't consider VP job

[dfong63]

15. being a general is not a sufficient qualification

... to be president. generals (at least in the US) come from a world where financial constraints are much different from what they are in other areas of govt. $700 toilet seats, planes that cost $100 million, enormous cost overruns on major weapons systems, sole-sourcing, and fudged performance numbers. a world where blind obedience is considered a virtue, and independent thought is punished.

how does a lifetime spent in this military wonderland prepare a man to be a political leader in a democracy? to cope with congress, political factions, dissent? to deal with complex budget tradeoffs?

it doesn't. General Clark has never held elected office. in my book he is no more qualified to be president than Ralph Nader.

supporters of General Clark say that the number one issue will be national security. a story in today's news,
a quagmire for bush?, says:

``The economy and jobs rated highest on American’s list of the issues that will determine who they vote for in the 2004 election, with 50 percent saying the economy was the most important issue and 22 percent ranking terrorism and homeland security first. However, the number Americans who believe that both the economy and homeland security are equally important issues has risen 13 points since the beginning of May, to 25 percent.''

of course, a general and his supporters WOULD think that "national security" is the top issue. but that just shows how out of touch they are, and why a general might NOT be the best choice at this time.

national security is bush*'s strongest point now. the economy is his weakest. a good general should know that it makes more sense to attack at the enemy's weaknesses than his strengths.

or maybe bush*'s lies will be the number one issue. but Clark is no better qualified than any other candidate to challenge bush in that area.

[Kahuna]

19. Whatever! Who is better prepared than Clark to

be Commander in Chief?

[dfong63]

21. commander in chief is only one of the president's duties

having good qualifications in one area doesn't cut it if he is deficient in the others. the military aspect of the presidency is important, but not as important as the generals would have us believe.

think of it this way. if having a general as commander-in-chief was so important, then why wasn't it written into the constitution? in fact, many sages have written of the importance of having CIVILIAN control of the military. one doesn't have to be a general to be a good president. a civilian president can get all the military advice he needs from the best generals under his command.

if general Clark believes as his son does, that "national security" is a more important issue than the economy, then that does not speak well for his sense of priorities. nor would it bode well for his electability.

[Pastiche423]

24. Excellent summations, dfong63

I do hope those that are drooling over Clark read and digest your words.

[Kahuna]

33. I thought they were pretty weak and not at all

thought provoking. To each his own though.

[Mz Pip]

29. The Constitution

doesn't eliminate military people either. I would not single out that one aspect of Clark to rule him out or to assume that he is lacking in other respects. And he is a CIVILIAN now.

As far as National Security being more or less important than the economy; I think Clark is more than capable of multitasking. He doesn't seem to be incapable of thinking about both issues. But for many people in this country National Security is a big issue, like it or not. It would be wise to remember that and not blow these people off as being misinformed or irrelevant.

MzPip
:dem:

[Kahuna]

32. You said...

You said...

"having good qualifications in one area doesn't cut it if he is deficient in the others." My response: all of the nine candidates are deficient as respects military concerns.

You said..
"the military aspect of the presidency is important, but not as important as the generals would have us believe." My response: That's your opinion which a lot of us don't happen to share.

[neuvocat]

36. What about Eisenhower?

Does anyone remember him?

:shrug:

[Oreegone]

43. "I like Ike" Eisenhower quotation

Though I was quite young....let us not throw stones because someone has military service, I know some very staunch liberals who are military lifers.

A quote by Dwight D. Eisenhower April 16, 1953

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the houses of its children. This is not a way of life...
Under the cloud of war it is humanity hanging itself on a cross of iron."

[kaitykaity]

25. Two words and an initial: Dwight D. Eisenhower.

I like Clark for VP because of his national
security credential and that's IT. That's enough.
I think he'd could be talked into the VP and/or SecDef
if it was sweet enough.

[Julien Sorel]

35. A few points, and a general, if you'll forgive the pun, observation:

how does a lifetime spent in this military wonderland prepare a man to be a political leader in a democracy? to cope with congress, political factions, dissent? to deal with complex budget tradeoffs?

Apparently you know little about how leadership works. Few successful leaders expect, encourage, or tolerate, for that matter, blind obedience from their charges. Leadership is a balancing act, where you have to constantly monitor and make adjustments for the moods and values of the people you lead, else you find yourself in a position as the adversary of people you need to follow you if you are going to get the job done. Clark is an unusually intelligent man who has been uncommonly successful at leading people; I suspect he has mastered this part of the leadership game quite well. This is particularly true, by the way, at the upper levels of military leadership, which is a sharkpool of politics, competing egos, and competing factions. Branches of the military compete against each other and the civilian establishment for funding, lobbying the Pentagon and congress in the process; and they compete within themselves on policy and process -- the military is not the 'wonderland' your fancy has painted it. The upper levels of the military is a bureaucracy much like any other, including the executive branch of this country. They simply wear uniforms -- usually -- instead of suits.


Oddly enough, or perhaps not, your argument is the inverse of the straw man you are attacking: whereas you claim that Clark supporters support him only because of his military experience, which is false, you yourself have clearly concluded that Clark, because most of his experience is in the military, is unfit for the presidency. That's incredibly narrow thinking of the exact same sort you attribute to Clark supporters.

[radfringe]

14. watched a couple of talkingheads on CNN this morning

they were discussing AWOL's statement about considering the "matter over"...

One talkinghead asked the other if he thought the "matter was over"...

The other talkinghead chuckled and said "...not even in your dreams..."

Drip....drip....drip....

[guajira]

22. I Have a Friend Who Knew Clark When he was Head of Nato and said...

he is a wonderful person and would make a great president!

Every time I hear Clark speak, I think that probably is true. I hope he runs as a Democrat, he would add excitement to the campaign!

[Julien Sorel]

26. Who cares about excitement, as long as he wins and then

does a great job?

[Oilwellian]

30. Here's a good bio on him

http://www.ifpafletcherconference.com/2001/bios/clark.htm

[farmboxer]

34. Don't Forget About The Corporate Mainstream Media!

They still have not let all the Bush scandals out!

They haven't even mentioned America's first coup in 2000!

[roguevalley]

37. Clark has the brains, skill with people, managing

budgets and hierarchies with and without pressure and
he's a good decent smart man.
He's a gentleman. I'm a VietNam War era gal and I have
huge reservations about generals becoming President. I
don't have it with Clark. He respects the Constitution,
believes in a strong economy, government's responsibilties
to the people and the poor and he's a Rhodes Scholar.
He's the closest thing to Clinton going now and I will
vote for him.

RV

[CornFused]

41. This Gen. is the man

who got fired for not listening to silly (sorry) people who where at white house/pengagon telling him to what to do. He did what was sound in that conflict and he got fired for it. This is kind of man we need. I wish it were a women though.

perhaps by the time the international day of action takes place, we might not need the action but celebrate that * is goner, :bounce:

BAB Olympia Webadmin
http://bandsagainstbush.com

Erase Errata will play a benefit show tomorrow at brotherhood in Olywa. come see their amazing performance!

[newyawker99]

44. Hi BandsAgainstBush!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[madmax]

39. If Clark were to run he would beat bush in a landslide

n/t

:kick:

[rman]

42. because?

[Mz Pip]

48. Here's a bit of speculation

Clark said today that the Niger/uranium fiasco is just the tip of the iceburg. He does not strike me as the type of person to throw out a statement like that if he weren't damn sure he could back it up. I suspect he knows what he is talking about and is getting his ducks in a row on it. He could be the one to throw light on the whole BushCo smoke and mirrors about Iraq.

If he can expose BushCo for the fraud that he is, he deserves a shot at rebuilding and repairing the mess Bush made.

If he could bring down Bush I'd vote for him in a NY minute.

MzPip
:dem:

[Rhiannon12866]

50. I said earlier on this post that I would be reluctant to support Clark

since, as a result of my ``selector'' results, I agree with him on absolutely nothing. Maybe I should take it again. I do know that, despite this, I would vote for him over Bush* in a minute, even though Bush* rated slightly higher in agreeing with my views. As if?:crazy:

[quirked]

47. Clark! All the way to the White House

See for yourself ...

http://wesleyclark.blogspot.com/resources.html