I'm not a Clark supporter but man....people are jackals

[vi5]

This guy who no matter which way you look at it is someone who has served his country for 32 years in the military and during war time. Now I don't think this means he should automatically be president or have my support. But it damn well gets him in the door as far as I'm concerned and it gets from me an attentive ear.

Now he's on record as being pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, and against the iraq war as it was waged. Now those 3 things unto themselves put him firmly on the left side of the fence, so I also don't see why people are questioning whether he's a liberal.

And plus in this day and age of the demonizing of liberals and Dems specifically as unpatriotic and as wimps, anyone who is willing to stand up and say proudly that they are a democrat is o.k. in my book.

I'm not swooning or suddenly saying "He's my man!". In fact I can't see myself even voting for him in the primary. Dean is still my choice and Kerry is my second. Clark's got a long way to go to make it up that high on my list. But if he is the nominee I would vote for him proudly and without fail against Bush.

All I'm saying is the guy hasn't even started running yet and people here at DU are already biting at him and tearing him down. I've seen it from supporters of every candidate on here so nobody seems to be exempt. And I'm sorry but if your guy or my guy or whoever's guy can't stand up to the competition and if their ideas won't stand up to another person in the race adding another perhaps slightly different perspective and life experience well then maybe he or she isn't the one we all want or need. Remember, Bushco works in unwavering absolutes and never admits mistakes. We shouldn't be the same way.

This is just my long winded way of saying that if you don't like the guys positions on something, then fine. If you don't like his campaign strategy then fine. If you don't like his chances against bush in '04. But the degree of venom I'm seeing on here over the past few days comes across as little more than petty pouting from people who may be afraid of how their candidate will be affected and that seems silly to me. I'm still confident of Dean and his abilities and what I'm sure will be his continued success. And I hope that if things work out the way I wish them to that Clark will be part of a Dean administration. But I'm the first to admit that I don't have a crystal ball and I can't see into the future so I'm leaving all my doors and windows opening and committing myself to listening to what the guy has to say.

[indigo32]

1. It's really amazing isn't it?

I'm trying to remain optimistic and all... but what I'm seeing makes me sad.

[molly]

2. I, too, like Clark!

he's got it all - Kerry is still my first choice.

on edit - keep in mind that DU is NOT A REFLECTION OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

47. Amen, Molly

DU is NOT A REFLECTION OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC!

Amen to that.

Oh, and great word choice on "Jackals," vi5. I couldn't agree more!

DTH

[ima_sinnic]

3. yes I agree

The candidates will be weeded out by their own campaigning and by the perceptions, voices, and votes of the people. My first choice is still Dean but I don't feel "threatened" by Clark: if he is truly the best person then that will sort itself out and he will emerge on top, without anybody bashing anybody--and I will willingly vote for him (or whoever emerges). "Going with the flow" seems a good strategy right now.

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. We DUers need to

support WHOEVER the nominee is. Period.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. I Am

pro choice

pro gay rights

pro affirmative action

anti-Iraq War 2

anti American unilateralism*

pro universal healthcare

but I earned the epithet "one of Democratic Underground's more conservative members" because I defended Clark as well as the
selective use of force in a circumscribed number of situations.


*The U S should reserve the right to act unilaterally as should all nations but I don't see this an elastic clause... A nation better have a damn good reason to resort to violence...

[Clark Can WIN]

7. Yeah, I thnk I got thrown in the same boat

with you on that one DSB.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. I Am A Small Businessman In

Central Florida which is not Mississippi and I am easily to the left of 100% ,yeah 100%, of my clients yet on this board I am called a "conservative".

I guess it all depends on your point of reference...

Them are fighting words.... I'd rather be called a communist...

[Donna Zen]

59. To never have to say you are sorry

Please define "left"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. Being Pro Choice

pro affirmative action


pro gay rights


pro choice


pro decrimialization of drugs and prostitution


pro mulitilateral foreign policy

are all center left positions to me

[lanlady]

6. you mean gratuitous threads like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=351742&mesg_id=351742

Like you, I'm p.o.'ed at the way some DUers are going out of their way to tear into Democrats. The first mean-spirited accusations against Clark I heard yesterday were from the freeper morons in the cubes next to me at work ("he's crazy, he tried to start WW IV" etc). Then the same kind of nonsense--actually, even worse stuff--appears here at DU. That's really disconcerting.

[lindashaw]

21. This board requires contrarian thinking...the uglier it gets, the better

the Democrats are doing. We should really start to worry if we're not being infiltrated with mean-spirited Republicans. :)

You know how I learned about the fear-mongering? By watching the current administration.

We're doing great! :)

[oasis]

99. The freepers next door are worried about WWIII and still support Chimpy?

:shrug:

[JNelson6563]

8. *applause*

I have been disgusted to learn that so many Duers are no better than freepers. Especially disheartening has been seeing some of the long-timers formally very respectable posters behaving so.

Sad.

Julie

[CWebster]

9. What the hell dis you expect

To waltz right in and expect us all to bow down and kiss the army boot?

Sorry, no. This is the Left, remember---a progressive site, generally not impressed, in fact more likely repulsed by militarism and the increasing adulation of it in our culture.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Militarization_America/Militarization_America.html

Clark supporters should be expected to buck up and take it instead of whining now after the rest of us have endured months of ongoing bashing from those who endorse a candidate who wasn't even sure he was aligned with the Left or the Right.

[Bread and Circus]

12. Yeah we are bucking up...

and fighting the lies and spintrocity coming from the
Clark/Military-haters here.

DU is a battleground of ideas, and on balance Clark
supporters have staked out some hard earned ground.

All we heard before was "he's not running, he's not
a Democrat"....now that those two myths are dispelled
they don't have much (save lack of elected political
office experience) to sling. They have to result to
conspiracy theory type stuff.

It isn't going to work. They should rather investigate
Clark and give him time, he may actually be an answer
to there prayers though they don't even know it, yet.

[CWebster]

20. He is a "Democrat" of convenience

He is a god damn military man first. He has NO ZERO ZILCH NADA background or record or experience in politics or governing or holding an elected position.

[Clark Can WIN]

25. Thanks for helping to promote the the image of the Democratic

Party as a big tent party that is strong on national defense. :eyes:

[CWebster]

38. Strong on national defense

is not by strutting military arrogance around the world. it is offensive, stupid and it ultimately does not work. It is dangerous.

[Bread and Circus]

66. That's exactly what Clark says...

he is your man, Webster, give him a chance.

[Trajan]

68. You are defining the GOP leadership ....

NOT that of a Clinton nor a Clark ......

For the record: ... I believe the Yugoslavia campaign was worthy of a benevolent nation who cannot stand by and watch a whole people come under attack only because they are muslim ..... It was a just cause to stop the carnage of the Kossovars ....

But THAT does not constitute a "Strutting military arrogance" on behalf of ANY other administration on the par seen the last 3 years .....

Perhaps you are confused WHICH CIC had WHICH policies ? ....

[theboss]

31. "Goddamn" military man . . .

That's nice. The guy gives 30 years of service to his country and is hated for it.

[CWebster]

36. By participating in unjust wars?

The school teacher gives 30 years of service to their country for that matter.

Anything in the name of country that is in the interest of the military-Industrial class at the expense of the people of another country and that robs the lives and opportunities of this country - is not in service to country.

[Donna Zen]

93. I've come across teacher bashing on DU

......how they are the number ONE propagandists for the military state.

These blanket indictments end all conversation as they are meant too.

Military: BAD....vs.....Me and people who think like me: Worthy of the keys to the kingdom...so just shut up!

I do not know what philosophy that mindset is likely to advance; I do know that the words are not those of an enlightened liberal.

[knight_of_the_star]

102. By reading your posts

It seems to me that you are a pacifist. I respect that. However, it seems that you are one that takes YOUR pacifism to the extreme. I am a Wiccan, I believe an it harm NONE, but if I am stuck with a dilemma of choosing between doing nothing and letting a greater harm happen or causing harm by acting and preventing that harm, I will ALWAYS choose the latter, no debate. Something that you should understand, which is something that I believe in, is that peace is all well and good, but those who desire peace the most must be the most ready to defend that peace with lethal force if needed. Peace is meaningless if it means enslavement.

[Trajan]

65. A string of non sequitors ....

meaningless assertions that do not follow the initial question of gratuitous attacks against a fellow Democrat .....

[WesWing2004]

76. but then again

neither does Bu$h, ask the people of Texas!

You people are unbelievable, if you're so perfect why don't you run for f*cking elected office?

[MarianJack]

11. Possibly...

...our nominee will emerge stronger beause of having to emerge from a field of 10, like an urn fired in a kiln. bush is going to waltz through the rethuglican primaries with no opposition (probably) spending lots of $ smearing the D's and, hopefully, making himself look bad. :puke:

One thing we absolutely know. This will be the most negative, nasty & dirty campaign from the cheyney-bush junta that is possible and the media will let them get away with it.:silly:

We need to be united against them.

Personally, I don't even click on a candidate flaming thread anymore.

Any D over any r in '04! :bounce: :kick:

[seventhson]

13. The antriwar stuff is a baldfaced lie, it seems, promoted by Clark DUers

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

This really troubles me.

I fell for it here.

I HAVE NOT taken Clark seriously until today but it seems the antiwar argument is total bullshit.

Clark may be a set up. a fraud. The anti war stuff a total fabrication foisted on us by the proClark Duers (and a brilliant propaganda strategy I might add, when I fall for it so easily). I did not believe it at first (I have seen him on CNN -- he never sounded like he was against the war) but I believed the mantras repeated over and over and over here like good crap that he was against this war.

NO he WANTED MORE TROOPS!!! HE SAID THERE WERE DEFINITELY WMD'S!!!
He said Bush should be PROUD of standing up to the peaceniks and naysayers!!!

Clark can go straight to hell with Kerry (in this election) unless he tells me something different or that he was an idiot back then too. Those who proclaimed Clark as antiwar had beetr have something to back up their claims or I will never believe another post of theirs.

The way I read this FAIR article -- Clark is a lying sack of doodoo and deserves the heat from ALL OF US for lying his way into this election.

And I believe it will hurt DEAN and thus hurt AMERICA and hurt MY CHILDREN. So I am royally pissed about getting lied to by Clark and his supporters here at DU.

[vi5]

14. Do you have links for this?

Honestly. And I'm sorry but anyone who puts that much faith in one man
"it will hurt DEAN and thus hurt AMERICA and hurt MY CHILDREN."

is what I call a fanatic. That's just me though.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. God Grant Me The Wisdom To Respond In A Positive Manner...

Howard Dean said Wes Clark is a "good man" who "knows alot about defense".


You support Howard Dean so my question is what do Howard Dean's remarks say about:

you


Howard Dean


Wesley Clark

I'll patientiently await your response

Peace 03

Brian

[HereSince1628]

89. Even if I supported someone I wouldn't let them put words in my mouth

though my support might say something about me.

I guess it says Howard Dean recognizes that a general knows something about the military...gee THAT is a bold statement.

I guess is says that the general has a history that suggests he is successful in his ambitions to rise to the top of a system by appointment rather than election.

[Clark Can WIN]

16. Did your meds wear off too soon?

My god man. One axe grinding piece of fiction shows up and you are afraid Clark is going to eat your children? Do you blame us if we question your sincerity? You wouldn't be a
would you............?


The General on the war back in September http://pweb.jps.net/~gangale/opsa/ir/generals2.htm

[DrBB]

18. Here's what he was saying in February

"We are at a turning point in America's history. We are about to embark on an operation that is going to put us in a colonial position in the Middle East following Britain."
 
It is a huge change for the American people and what this country stands for, he said.
 
The Bush administration, he said, has not respected its allies and that is why it finds itself without the support of many Nato allies and even in those countries prepared to support the US, public opinion is against the war. Iraq, could have been contained without war, he said.
 
Clark also warned against a civil war in Iraq after the present regime is removed because of the ethnic and religious divisions in the country--Kurds in the north, Shiites who constitute the majority in the country, and Sunnis who now wield power.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=37738538

[Zuni]

85. That is more like the Wes Clark I remember

He seemed very skeptical and displeased with the Bush admin

[knowledgeispower]

97. And he thinks the people need to know the truth

Coming from a four star general...they just might be receptive to it. It is a brilliant move. My hat goes off to the Draft Clark folks.

[Brian Sweat]

22. I have nothing against Dean and I will happily get in line

to support him if he gets the nomination, but it is Dean supporters like you that have made me very weary of Dean.

[RetroLounge]

62. Hey Hey Hey! Don't lump us all together...

No where does his post say he supports Dean, and if he does, and if you disagree with him, or whatever, please don't generalize about us Dean Supporters. I may be in the minority here, but I am appalled at the candidate bashing threads, and sometimes get sucked into them myself, but whomever is the nominee, I will be 110% behind that DEMOCRAT.

We should be REJOICING that we have so many strong candidates, any one who could whip the Bush* and send his sorry ass back to the pig farm.

So from *this* Dean Supporter to you, congrats on Clark entering the race, I think he would be a fine President, and I look forward to hearing more from him on the issues, the debates, etc.

[Brian Sweat]

95. Hey Hey Hey! Learn to read.

The last sentence in the post makes it obvious that the poster is a Dean supporter. Also, I said, "Dean supporters like you".

[TacticalPeek]

40. "The way I read this FAIR article"

If I were to be as selective and distorting as this FAIR article, I could write a piece on aWol with similar sliced and diced 'quotes' that would make him look like a cross between Chomsky and Mother Jones.

We all have access to the net, tv, periodicals. Develope your own critique, and you will likely conclude that the 'militarists' are Perle, Wolfman, Asskroft and their chickenhawk ilk, while men like Clark and General Zinni are patriots who support the sane use of our military, not the insane foreign adventurism taking place.

[Bread and Circus]

69. Yeah I read the original London Times article...

It was a bit overenthusiastic at first but for
the most part further demonstrated Clark's brilliance
and ability to see the shape shifting future.

What he has predicted has come to pass. It is no wonder
why he bested 2000 other officers in predicting patterns
and future outcomes.

This man is in a Class all his own.

[Zuni]

86. It was a hatchet job

FAIR is known for that. A selective view of the facts from the extremely anti-military left faction.

Clark seemed very skeptical of the war, and I remember him making some comments before and during and after the war that left GOP pundits seeing red.

[retyred]

77. This un-FAIR crap

was taken apart yesterday, FAIR is biased by anything military and this piece is no different, guilt by accusation is a right wing trait, come back with proof then talk to us.



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
Retyred IN FLA.

[treepig]

17. i suggest we celebrate his (alleged) war crimes

after all, it's pretty much a requirement for election in this country to show you're capable of slaughtering innocent civilians.

and now we have our guy.

note the similarities to back in 92 i believe it was when the war criminal bob kerry showed interest in running - but then bill clinton went ahead and executed a mentally-challenged person which served the necessary role of establishing his credentials as a bloodthirsty, a hence presidential-worthy, candidate.

but then clinton got in over his head and played (or was too naive to prevent the military/cia from playing) a major role in internationizing the islamic fundamentalists which allowed (along with a lot more help from carter, reagan, bush I, and particularly bush II) them to enact 9-11:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ONE309A.html

"Yet America’s role in backing the Mujahideen a second time in the early and mid-1990s is seldom mentioned — largely because very few people know about it, and those who do find it prudent to pretend that it never happened. Following the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 and the collapse of their puppet regime in 1992, the Afghan Mujahideen became less important to the United States; many Arabs, in the words of the journalist James Buchan, were left stranded in Afghanistan ‘with a taste for fighting but no cause’. It was not long before some were provided with a new cause. From 1992 to 1995, the Pentagon assisted with the movement of thousands of Mujahideen and other Islamic elements from Central Asia into Europe, to fight alongside Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs.

The Bosnia venture appears to have been very important to the rise of Mujahideen forces, to the emergence of today’s cross-border Islamic terrorists who think nothing of moving from state to state in the search of outlets for their jihadist mission. In moving to Bosnia, Islamic fighters were transported from the ghettos of Afghanistan and the Middle East into Europe; from an outdated battleground of the Cold War to the major world conflict of the day; from being yesterday’s men to fighting alongside the West’s favoured side in the clash of the Balkans. If Western intervention in Afghanistan created the Mujahideen, Western intervention in Bosnia appears to have globalised it."

perhaps someone with mr. clark's on-the-surface-rather-disgusting credentials can nevertheless smell out and prevent such shennigans in the future . . . ?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I've Seen It All Now

The circle is complete....

Bob Kerrey

John Kerry

Wes Clark


have all been accused of being war criminals on this board....


Are any Dems immune?

Or just those that haven't served.

[Julien Sorel]

24. They're enablers.

[Democat]

32. The far far left hates the military like the far right hates everyone

Have you talked to some of these people?

[CWebster]

42. You wouldn't be trying to marginalise

anti-war sentiments as "far far left"? Speaking of freepers....

[Pepperbelly]

72. no more than you are attempting to marginalize Clark

supporters out of DU and the party.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Trajan]

74. Cripes ...

You make your bed, THEN refuse to sleep in it .....

Cmon ....

You take a STRICT anti-military stance that appears on its face to deny that ANY soverign state should have a standing army in this crazy, savage world, and then you try to disassociate yourself from those in the political spectrum whom regularly deny the need for any state that ability ....

I think that MOST people agree: .... Those who do not see ANY need for ANY military whatsoever can be defined politically as 'far left' .....

If you are going to embrace such rhetoric: .. then ABIDE by it .... AGREE with it ! ..... LIVE it .....

Dont run away from it .....

[CWebster]

23. Huh, the orchestration of the clash of civilaizations...

There aren't interested in dealing with the complexities, they just want to beat Bush at his own macho game rather than offer up an alternative approach.

[Clark Can WIN]

26. I really have to wonder who is unwilling to deal with complexities

here. Those who just see a military uniform and jump on a soapbox, raving about the military insdustrial complex as opposed to those who are actually capable of seeing past the uniform to the progressive vision of an electable candidate.

[CWebster]

29. If I have a toothache

I don't go to a accountant.

[jonnyblitz]

27. well put.

:hi:

[SiobhanClancy]

30. sorry..

posted in wrong place.

[bicentennial_baby]

33. Or not

[Donna Zen]

73. Not really

unless one enjoys simple-minded statements as a response to a post citing complexities.

Oh! meaning "well put" because verbal abuse makes me feel strong...that sort of well put....well, perhaps you are correct

[Bake]

28. The same DUers who scream about the Chickenhawks

Now decry Clark as a "god damn military man." Anything strange there? (YES) Seems to be mostly Deanyboppers, but what do I know?

I'm FINALLY actually excited about our prospects in 2004!!

Bake

[CWebster]

34. Sorry pal

Not once did I every mention the word "chickenhawks" as I knew people who burned their draftcards rather than kill. I knew men that went to jail. To me these were the true heros and brave men. And I saw men that weren't in a position to make those choices and they came back broken, addicted, unstable, scoffed by the military as cowards and losers--filling the ranks of the homeless, discarded. And the pattern forever repeats---so don't you sell your glory of war crap to me--if it is pushed either by those who make the wars but avoid the service or by those who participate as if they were in some Schwartzenegger remake of the Duke's "Green Berets".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. I Agree 100%

There were two honorable positions during the Viet Nam War... To serve as Wes Clark, John Kerry, Max Cleland and others did or to be a conscientious objector like Muhummad Ali and suffer the consequences....

I don't have much truck for those who sat out the war in college via dubious deferments or in the National Guard....

[CWebster]

39. Garbage

Anyone who could get out, did.

[WoodrowFan]

44. BS

A lot of people (Al Gore comes to mind) opposed the war but served anyway because they didn't feel it was right to leave the fighting to those who didn't have the money to go to college, or have a friendly doctor to give them a note saying "Pat can't serve because he has a bad knee." Clinton said at the time that if he were drafted, he'd serve, and in fact he did put himself in the draft pool and luck out with a high number, and Lord knows he opposed the war. I know you dislike Clark, but self-rightous towards anybody who served in uniform will not get us anywhere.

[treepig]

46. actually, gore served for political reasons

not out of principle, from the Washington Post:

Gore faced the same situation. His father was running for reelection to the U.S. Senate in 1970, and Al realized that whatever choice he made would emerge as a subtheme in that contest, which promised to be the most difficult of Albert Gore's career in any case. Since winning a third term in 1964, the senator had become increasingly outspoken: firmly backing civil rights and voting rights bills, opposing the nomination of conservative southern judges G. Harrold Carswell and Clement F. Haynsworth to the Supreme Court, and above all emerging as a leading opponent of U.S. involvement in Vietnam -- all unpopular positions in Tennessee, especially that last one in the pro-military Volunteer State.

Nothing seemed more complicated than sorting out the father-son issues. How could the son decide what was best for himself without thinking about what most helped his dad? Tipper remembered him constantly asking, "How is this going to affect my dad? How is this going to affect the race?" For nearly two years, he had told friends that he was pessimistic about his father's political future, believing that the senator "almost certainly was going to get beat anyway" -- no matter what he did.

If he chose to avoid military service, it undoubtedly would further diminish his father's chances, he thought, but even if he decided to enlist in the Army it might not help. There were brief discussions inside the family as far back as Christmas 1968 about the senator stepping down and not seeking reelection, bowing to the realization that his positions had alienated many Tennessee voters, but quitting went against Albert's instincts as much as Al running to Canada did, and the idea was summarily dismissed.

more at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A44095-1999Dec28¬Found=true

and more than you'd ever want to know about al, here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/goremain100399.htm

[WoodrowFan]

49. fair enough

but you get my point, some folks served even tho they opposed the war..

[treepig]

57. i agree, some no doubt did

and i suppose even gore is due some credit for loyalty to his family rather than using one of the many options open to him to weasel out of vietnam service.

but on the other hand, did he know in advance (due to his father pulling strings) that he'd be given a (relatively) cushy journalist position in vietnam?

on edit - apologies to weasels everywhere, no disrespect was intended.

[WoodrowFan]

64. strings

I wasn't aware his Dad pulled strings for him (I could be wrong) Gore asked for a reporter's job (and worked as a real reporter after he was discharged) but I believe he got the position because he volunteered and the Army usually gave volunteers the assignment they wanted.

But cushy? Cushy is getting a National Guard post writing press releases (ie quayle) or blowing off your National Guard service (ie, shrub). I don't think any enlisted man's post in Vietnam counted as 'cushy' even relatively. :-)

from the Post series..

Even as he was bombarded with "sensory patterns" during his many trips around the country, his experiences were circumscribed by the nature of his job and his skill at working the military system. He was a reporter, not an infantryman, and while he was never fully out of harm's way, neither did he face situations where he had to kill or be killed, and he was spared the sight of seeing any buddies die.

He had an M-16 rifle assigned to him, and photographs that surfaced during his later political campaigns showed him toting that weapon, though he carried it only on those few occasions when he drew perimeter guard duty. The rest of the time, the M-16 was checked in the armory while he moved about armed with his notebook and pen. Though he once told The Washington Post that he was "shot at" and the Baltimore Sun that he "walked through the elephant grass and . . . was fired upon," those war stories seemed enhanced in the retelling. He did not face direct enemy fire. He did arrive at a few combat scenes after the action, and several times base sirens warned of possible mortar attacks and he and his comrades scrambled for cover.

[treepig]

82. i can't find the link anymore

but the New Yorker had a much more cynical (compared to the Washington Post articles) portrayal of al gore's vietnam service. for example, in recognition of his status as a senator's son, officers made sure he was deployed in the safest possible areas to do his 'reporting'

in any event, he's still did actually go to vietnam, and in that respect is light years ahead of all the right-wing chickenhawks

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. I Read It Was People High Up In The Army On Orders From The White

House to make sure Al Gore wasn't "martyred" in Nam since his dad was locked in a tight Senate race with Bill Brock which he ultimately lost...

[w4rma]

83. Snopes debunks that WP article

…
after basic training at Fort Dix, he was assigned to Fort Rucker in Alabama as a Public Affairs Officer. Of the suggestion that Gore used political connections to ensure a non-combat position as an "information specialist," biographer Bill Turque wrote:

. . . there is no hard evidence that Gore's father, other government officials, or top commanders intervened on his behalf. Dess Stokes, staff sergeant at the Newark Armed Forces Entrance and Examination Station on the day walked in, doesn't remember any communication from superiors about Gore. A kid with Gore's background (a 134 IQ and a Harvard degree), he said, didn't need to be a senator's son with high-level contacts to get the military job he wanted: "You pretty much got your choice of assignments."

Gore has claimed that he eventually volunteered to give up his stateside post and go to Vietnam but White House influence ensured that his orders were held up until after the November 1970 election so that Al Gore, Sr. could not use the political benefits of having a son serving in Vietnam during his Senate re-election campaign that year.
…
http://www.snopes.com/military/goreviet.htm

[CWebster]

51. It ain't nothing personal about Clark

it is the entire set-up that I am wary of.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. Is It Your Positions That Draft Evaders

are on the same moral plane as conscientious objectors?

Was George W Bush who flew oblsolte jet fighters in the Texas Air National Guard on the same moral plane as Muhammad Ali who risked imprisonment and fofeitied three years of his prime career to oppose the war in Nam....

"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in a time of great moral crisis."

Dante Alighieri

[CWebster]

94. You bet

Those who remain neutral and do nothing when confronted with an unjust and immoral war.

Since I have been here this has been a progressive website. Today it is through the looking-glass. You are not going to appeal to the progressive Democratic base by strutting your militarism around. Don't you get it?

[knowledgeispower]

100. I wish we could live in a world with no military...

...but as of now, we can't. Moving towards that day is a good goal, but to think you can achieve it overnight is foolish.

SO, with that in mind, here is my view of soldiers:

They ultimately are not responsible for their actions on behalf of the military. Now I don't mean soldiers who slaughter villages for kicks...I mean the guys that do what they are told to do within the confines of military law. Why are they not responsible? Because the United States must have a military. If they had a military, but soldiers did not listen to superiors, it simply would not be an effective military. Therefore, soldiers must do as they are told by the government (within the extents of military law). So when soldiers are misused against an innocent people, that is the government's fault, not the individual soldiers'. And because we are a people functioning under representative democracy, it is ultimately the civilians' fault for electing the people that misuse the military. Hence the civilian control of the military.

[CWebster]

101. So, let's take a giganic step backwards?

[Q]

35. Although I don't subscribe to the ABB philosophy...

...once any candidate announces they should be given an 'equal opportunity' to compete for our votes and minds.

[CWebster]

41. Sure

but they shouldn't expect a free ride. Sheeeesh!

[kodi]

43. interesting comments. are we electing a president or a priest?

.

[WoodrowFan]

45. apparently only Ghandi is qualified

or Jesus. Not Mother Teresa though, she was anti-choice!

[sendero]

53. trust me....

.... Jesus could announce his candidacy tomorrow and there would be a faction of 'haters' here that would denounce him for an assortment of real and imagined flaws.

It must be nice living in a perfect world.

[tjdee]

71. Jesus! No way!

Oh please, some DUers would blame Jesus for mass murder, wars, etc. etc. Jesus himself would NOT be the DU choice.

[CWebster]

50. A president or a general?

You seem to imply that a moral and ethical foundation is the exclusive concern of the clergy?

[kodi]

55. don't be a clown, even if it becomes you

one could imply a lot, as you have on this thread, but i have implied nothing.

it has been your stance on this thread that clark does not rise to the level of morality that you demand from your own personal moral calculus for the leadership position of the united states of america.

that is your right and i support and have personally defended that right, as has clark. does he have to show you the bullet holes in his body to convince you?

but, your posts have repeatedly used rhetoric like an old testament prophet's in regards to people running for secular office and i find your slamming into the faces of others your own personal moral rectitude to be no less repugnant than a far right wing fanatic who demands perfect allegience to a set of his own principles by others.

frankly i am not a supporter of clark, nor of any democratic candidate yet, although i consider kucinich best reflects my own positions in politics, but what i am seeing in your posts is a level of distorted reality and moral indignation best left to fanatics and lunatics.

just as you have a right to express in your posts your opinion that clark is a minion of satan, i have a right to consider such remarks a reflection of a person who is an insufferable prig with his head up his ass.

[CWebster]

56. No need to get personel

Feeling ruffled?

It doesn't have so much to do with Clark- rather this ignorant and foolhardy adulation and worship of milirary idols as the measure of presidential worthiness. As if his bulletholes were christ-like demonstrations. And it fills me with profound disgust. I make no excuse for not hiding it. And I am sure, Kucinich wouldn't either.

[Larkspur]

48. As a civilian I refuse to bow down and worship Clark because of his

military record. If Clark want's my vote he will have to do it the way Dean did -- EARN IT.

If Clark is playing Clinton's political Houdini games, then he will have no chance in hell in getting my support.

Dean will not be hurt by Clark's entry because Dean is a champion campaigner and Clark is a neophyte. Remember, generals don't beg civilians for their jobs, but President wannabes must. Dean recognized what ailed Democrats and developed a plan to address it. Dean also invited his supporters to participate in his campaign. That is why his campaign is flourishing, despite his TV faux pas. Dean's supporters feel invested in Dean's campaign and Dean keeps giving us reasons to be excited about his campaign, thereby cementing our loyalty further.

If Clark's entry is to head off Dean at the pass to the nomination, he'll flounder because he's got no political campaign experience. Dean won 5 re-election bids as governor and the last one was is toughest with attacks from both the left and right. Dean is battled tested and a winner in the political campaign world. Clark is not.

[Bake]

79. Dean battle tested??? Not yet, not by a long shot!

Dean was governor of a lily-white state the size of a postage stamp. Big fucking deal. I bet they have some tough campaigns up there. Before that he was a Park Ave. born and bred rich kid. I have some serious questions about his so-called "liberal" bona fides, specifically, his commitment to preserve and strengthen Social Security and Medicare. I question his commitment to civil rights. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he wasn't one of the folks who marched with Dr. King, not that that is the sole qualification to speak about the issue. I just don't hear Dean speaking about it very much. Every Dean supported I know is as lily-white as Dean himself is (and for the record, I'm white myself).

I've tried to be open-minded about Dean, even curious. But every time I see him speak something about him rubs me the wrong way. I just don't think he's The One. And the way the Deaniacs around here talk, you'd think Howard's last name was Christ! On top of everything else, the attitude of the Deaniacs--that any question about their anointed candidate is an attack to be squashed like a cockroach--has really turned me off.

If Dean gets the nomination, I'll vote for him. But I won't be very thrilled about it, only slightly -- very slightly -- more so than if it's Lieberman.

On the other hand, if it's Kerry or Clark (and right now I'm excited about Clark!), I'll not only vote for him, I'll WORK for him.

Bake

[CWebster]

80. the "perfumed prince"

isn't exactly in the position to make that argument.

[Larkspur]

81. And Clark has no political campaign or governance experience

Is Clark trying to be an American Ceasar thinking that flashing his miliatry rank will hypnotize us into voting for him?

Dean was battle tested literally in his last re-election bid. The civil unions bill triggered death threats against Dean and he had to wear a bullet-proof vest on the campaign trail. His last re-election bid was his toughest, he faced oppositions from the Left and Right, and he still won a majority of the votes.

Clark has never run for office before, so we don't know how he'll do in a campaign, let alone run a civilian political office -- President of the United States. Yes, the President is a civlian postion, not a military one. And generals don't always make good foreign policy experts. Eisenhower approved the overthrow of Iran's democracy in 1953 and replaced it with the tyrant, the Shah of Iran, and Ike sent the Marines into Guatamala to help the United Fruit Co. keep it's land from be distributed to peasants. That's not the kind of foreign policy I want.

And I feel the same about Clark if he wins the nomination. I'm not a fan of generals seeking the presidency.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

88. "I'm not a fan of generals seeking the presidency." -- DUH

You've made that quite obvious by now, dear.

DTH

[Tinoire]

52. A late entry unknown DLC horse being paraded as a "drafted" Liberal

I am sorry. Clark supporters are just going to have to toughen up. For years we've bashed and praised every single one of the Dem candidates on this board because they were in office and scrutinizable. They were held to certain standards and weighed against issues and performance as each DUer made a personal, sincere, informed choice on who best fit their ideal.

Enter Howard Dean- an unknown but with a track record. He was dragged through the mud as people weighed the information and either stuck to their decisions, re-evaluated thier support, or jumped on board saying this is my guy.

Enter the last DLC horse of the race... their trump card as they see the other DLC candidates suffering the wrath of many internet activists and their grip on the party slipping by. This is DU and it is ludicrous to think that people will sit by quietly as the DLC makes another insiduous attempt to hold on to its power with a candidate no one knows anything about and tries to change this platform from a discussion group to a recruiting, advertising and damage control tool.

If you or anyone else is a DLC supporter, that's fine but this is not a DLC-loving board and other candidates have taken a WALLOP for being part of them. Clark is going to be no exception.

Some of us feel very strongly about not squandering this opportunity to get the most progressive candidate possible in office and are not taking kindly to having propaganda belied by earlier facts being pushed here. Every candidate here has gone through this- whether it was a protracted procedure or more concentrated (Dean). Is there any particular reason Clark should be an exception? Our DU archives have several anti-Wesley Clark threads based on facts discussed before anyone here realized he was going to run so the reception on a progressive, left-dominated board should have been no surprise.

Is there any particular reason a man who was determined to run since November and still hasn't announced that he's running (yeah, I know, he's "coy") should be given a free ride until the last minute while the entire DLC-orchestrated "draft" charade is fresh enough to be questioned and examined?

This is politics and this is war to get the best candidate out there. People have to know what they're buying and people who care have a responsibility to share what they know.

There's always the ignore button for sensitive types. That's what made DU and it's not going to change now just because a bunch of people think an unknown 30 year General is the new savior. There is no "savior"- there are only candidates who all must be examined so that people can make up their minds in an informed manner. DU has some of the best fact checkers on the internet and some of the smartest peopel who can weigh the pros, the cons, the propaganda, and the truth. If Clark supporters don't like the even-handedness, they should stick to the congratulatory Clark blogs.

Trust the DLC to trot out some unknown at the last moment so they can write whatever needs to be written on the slate to remain in power but at the same time, trust DUers not to fall for it quietly.

There, now my adrenalin is in full gear. Everyone have a terrific day!

- - - - - -

A General for the Democrats?
By Viveca Novak
Monday, November 18, 2002 Posted: 5:51 PM EST (2251 GMT)


Retired four-star general Wesley Clark, who has been famously opaque about his party preference and political future, met privately last week in New York City with a group of high-rolling Democrats and told them he was seriously considering a run for the White House, sources tell TIME.

Lunching with about 15 Democratic donors and fund raisers at the Park Avenue offices of venture capitalist Alan Patricof, a strong Gore backer in '00 who is neutral so far for '04, Clark laid out his credentials and his differences with George W. Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/18/timep.general.tm/index.html

[CWebster]

58. YES!

Allright! You just made my day. ;-)

[ignatius]

54. I am not Miss Mary Sunshine, I like to believe I am a realist,

but I thnk that after a canidate is selected we will close ranks and do our damndest to get the person elected,

For now I try to glean as much about the candidates views as I can, many of you really know an astonishing amount about the candidates, try to ignore the ass-biting, and give the freepers a kick in the butt.

Passion and energy is a positive thing and I really believe we can keep that charge after the primaries.

[chadm]

60. He's not a Progressive / Populist / Green

So why would Progressives / Populist / Greens vote for him?

[WoodrowFan]

61. Because Bush is WORSE

and you'll have to settle for 1/2 of a loaf than NONE under Bush. Why is it so hard to understand, there will be TWO, count them, TWO candidates with a chance of winning in 2004, Bush and the Democrat. Not Nadar, not some other 3d party candidate, but TWO. Pick one. One will give you a lot of what you want (ie the Democrat), one will give you ZILCH and screw over the American people and the environment for anothew 4 years (hint, that's BUSH). OK? Are we clear now?

[phegger]

78. I'm trying...

...not to get too upset over the knee-jerk Clark-bashing I see going on here (though I am getting tired of it). Hell, people have a right to their opinions and, for better or worse, some have made up their minds. The main problem people seem to have w/Clark is 1). his involvement in the military, and 2). his connection with the Clintons et al. Now, I don't automatically jump up and salute at the sight of a uniform (in fact, am inclined to do the opposite), and I was disappointed in some respects with Clinton as Pres. BUT I see that the man declares he's a liberal, he espouses liberal positions, he has a well-thought-out and seemingly accurate critique of the Iraq invasion, AND I can see that his military credentials give him the cover to do all those things. So I have to ask, why is there a problem here? The man's positions are what they are, look past your aversion to the military, your aversion to Clinton, and decide whether or not you can support him. If so, good (I think); if not, move on, support your candidate, and may the best one win. Bashing each over the head with judgemental rhetoric accomplishes NOTHING.

Let's keep our eyes on the prize, folks!


-ph B-)

[Pepperbelly]

75. and you assert this ...

because of ????

[Rowdyboy]

63. My God, an anti-war, pro-choice Democrat with a chance to win?

That will NEVER do! He might, actually appeal to someone other than Greens and the left. God, what if he actually picked up some centrists? Sickening...next thing you know, he'll actually try to win.

Just like that DLC freak Clinton.

[w4rma]

84. Are you saying that Gov. Dean doesn't? Because if you are, I disagree.

IMHO, Gov. Dean is running just about the best campaign in American history. He's also a passionate centrist. He has a proven ability to win elections consistantly, his final term as governor in Vermont was won with over 50% of the vote and he was up against both a Republican candidate attacking him from the right and a Progressive Party candidate (~10% of the vote) attacking him from the left.

Massive information dump on Gov. Howard Dean
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=43435&mesg_id=43435&page=

If you are truely interested in not having attacks on candidates thrown around you'll look in the mirror and quit attacking them yourself.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

87. Dean Can Win, But IMO Clark's Chances Are Better

1) He is a Southerner;

2) He has incredible military and foreign policy creds.

Dean's advantage is running a small state, but Clark can nullify that, IMO, by using the "outsider" theme that Dean also uses, and also by touting Clark's strong economic qualifications (Masters in Econ from Oxford, taught economics at West Point, was an investment banker, etc. etc.).

DTH

[robbedvoter]

67. Thank you for this! I admire passion and welcome exchange

but it has to be thoughtful. Getting stuck on the uniform when the man wearing it said repeatedly:

"The highest calling of the armed forces is
> not to wage war, but to prevent war."
is NOT thoughtful.
Purposefully ignoring Clark's anti-war statements - before and after Iraq ("the biggest blunder since the cold war") because Fair has taken 2-3 words sentences out of context is NOT thoughtful.
If you really want to know, read all sources. If you are just propagandizing an agenda, I'll ignore.
>

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

70. agreed

we can't shoot down potential nominees.

[CWebster]

96. jackals...

Speaking of which.,, I know there are paid operatives on these boards and judging by all these sudden new faces, I suspect someone released the hounds. Stand your ground, folks.

[Nashyra]

98. J D Hayworth on CNN

What an * Even more than an * I like the guy who came on after him and said that Clark would happily compare records with *. Because Clark will admit that he has got to get up to speed on some domestic issues is a plus in my opinion, instead of just saying a bunch of crap that sounds good and you can not afford to fund.