Why Wesley Clark Is A Liberal - And Electable Too

[Mattforclark]

I am using Kucinich as a comparison because he is perceived to be a fringe candidate, an ultraliberal, and unelectable, and he has a lengthy and very specific platform on his website.

Why do Dennis Kucinich, the supposed share so much in common on the issues, yet Kucinich polls at around 2-3 percent, while Clark polls at around 15%? Why is Clark so attractive to moderate swing voters and some Republicans, while Kucinich is absolutely repulsive to this vital (if we intend to win) constituency? Both of them have a very similar long term progressive vision for the future of America and the world, yet for whatever reason Clark has much wider appeal.

Thesis: Kucinich and Clark (and to a considerable extent all the other candidates) have very similar positions, but one is perceived as more electable than the other. Even if despite this comparison you still believe there actually are major differences between Clark and Kucinich, consider that our government is based on the balance of powers. Clark has much more credibility and broad appeal to actually push his ideas through the other branches of government. Every liberal should LOVE Wesley Clark, because he is a liberal but doesn't appear to be a capital L LIBERAL to the average American. He has the substance we want AND the electability we ABSOLUTELY NEED. Look at just about any poll ever done - democrats WIN on issues like education, social security, and health care but LOSE because they are painted as 'soft on defence,' 'pinkos,' 'extremist treehuggers,' etc. Clark retains the substance while ditching the tar. If Clark were not called a General, he would be called a Treehugger, a Pinko, and a LIBERAL.

A point by point comparison of Kucinich's and Clark's stand on the issues, based on Kucinich's own platform as found on his website. Because this is based around Kucinich's platform, there naturally will be some issues that Clark does not have a position on, like Cleveland public power.

Affirmative Action -

Kucinich supports it, Clark supports it. In the recent University of Michigan affirmative action case, Kucinich and Clark both signed amicus briefs supporting the University.

Aid to Africa -

Kucinich supports it and wants to increase it. I think he would run it through his department of peace? Clark supports it and wants to increase it. He would run it through his new cabinet level Department of International Development (similar to what the UK has), and would increase its budget. He has said that he would like to increase it to as much as 3% of the US GDP.

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty -

Kucinich supports the treaty. This is an issue on which many people do not know Clark's position. You can find it out at http://www.wbur.org/special/specialcoverage/archive_121301.asp and listen to the end of his speech when he answers a question about the ABM treaty and National Missile Defence. Clark says that it is politically impossible for anyone to not support some sort of NMD, because then they are painted as (paraphrase) 'leaving Seattle open to nuclear destruction' just like Dukakis was and as Kucinich is now. Clark says further that NMD would be a good thing if it worked, but there isn't all that much reason to expect that it will work, and it is obviously a waste of money to spend millions of dollars on something that doesn't work. Where Clark differs from Kucinich is that as a 4 star general, he has the credibility to do the right thing - what lots of security experts say should be done, but what can't be done by someone like Kucinich.

Arab Americans -

In this section of his platform, Kucinich rails against how the patriot act, the possible patriot act II, and the general climate after 9/11 can be/is used against normal Americans who happen to be of Arab descent. Clark says the same things, but as with the ABM treaty, he can say them without being perceived as 'supporting the terrorists,' being 'against airport security,' and other such things.

Campaign Reform / IRV -

Clark and Kucinich are both in favor of Campaign Finance Reform and are both staying in the McCain/Feingold limits. Kucinich supports IRV, and I have never heard Clark asked whether or not he supports IRV so I don't know his position. Anyone?

Children's Issues -

Kucinich says that he favors making sure all children have health insurance, universal Pre-K, etc. A central tenet of Clark's health plan is making sure every child has health insurance, he worked to provide better childcare on the military bases he ran, opposed cuts in schools, and is generally amenable to this issues.

Civil Liberties -

Kucinich and Clark both have major problems with the patriot act, and the both - for whatever reason - support the flag desecration amendment.

Clean Water -

Kucinich (http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_cleanwater.htm)and Clark (http://www.enviros4clark.com/lcv.shtml) seem to be saying the same things on this issue.

Cleveland Public Power -

I admit that I don't know Clark's position on Cleveland Public Power... Kucinich has clearly talked more about this issue than Clark ever will ;)

Corporations -

Kucinich says all the things about 'corporate rights and responsibilities' you would expect of him. Clark has talked about the need for greater corporate accountability, the problems with enron, and ending Corporate Welfare.

Crime -

To the best of my knowledge Kucinich and Clark's positions on crime are very similar. Clark doesn't support 3 strike laws, and I don't think Kucinich does either.

Cuban Embargo -

Clark and Kucinich both want to end it.

DC Statehood -

Kucinich supports it, and while Clark has not made it a central feature of his campaign, I would be extremely surprised if he or any of the other Democratic candidates opposed it.

Death Penalty -

Clark supports a moratorium on it because it is impossible to dole out fairly, Kucinich supports abolishing it. If you want to actually stop people being executed rather than sit on principle, you have a better chance going with Clark IMO.

Department of Peace -

Kucinich favors a Department of Peace, which seems to be very similar to Clark's Department of International Development, except the Dept of Peace seems to have a more domestic bent. The name 'dept of peace' is more likely than Clark's 'dept of international development' to create a devastating visceral reaction on the part of right wingers. The result is that Kucinich looks like a 'pinko treehugger' while Clark does not.

Disability Rights -

Kucinich supports equal rights/opportunity for disabled Americans. Clark's position seems to me to be indistinguishable. Clark says "I agree with the Americans with Disabilities Act and I think it is great legislation. I have seen the impact of it across the nation and we need to establish a level playing field for people with disabilities. I will work with you Senator Harkin to make the act stronger! They are like anyone else that has a lot to contributed and just needs to be given a chance to do so." http://www.tom-roome.com/clark/

Drug war -

I think this is the first issue where one could actually make a good argument that there might be a substantive difference. Kucinich supports ending the war on drugs and everything else. Unfortunately this opens him up to attack ads making him look like a drug smoking hippie. Clark says "I don’t favor decriminalizing the use of marijuana. I might change my mind on that, but I don’t right now favor that." But he supports medical marijuana and has big problems with 'plan Columbia.' Clark's caveat 'I might change my mind on that' has to be taken as very encouraging though. Certainly, the general climate towards ending the drug war would be much better under Clark than under Bush.

Economy -

I think everyone here knows the two candidates position on this very broad issue, so I won't go into it. They don't seem to be that different to me.

Education -

They are both very strong on this issue. I won't bother going into it in depth.

Energy -

Kucinich and Clark both support renweables, oppose ANWAR drilling, etc etc. Can't see any difference here.

Electronic Voting -

Kucinich supports open electronic voting, and Clark I think is the same with his theme of greater government accountability and openness, though I don't know of any exact statements from him on this very specific issue.

Environment -

Kucinich is a solid environmentalist. Clark is too. Clark says that 100 years on, the environment as well as our constitution are the most important things. As with clean water, see http://www.enviros4clark.com/lcv.shtml

Farm Policy -

Clark and Kucinich both have rhetoric about helping the family farmer and all that. There are other related issues (environment, world hunger, trade, etc) that will be addressed seperately. Clark supports fair trade.

Gay Rights -

They both strongly support GLBT rights.

Genetically Engineered Food -

Kucinich is against it and I don't know Clark's stance on the issue, but fitting in with his positions on related issues I would expect it would be evenhanded and based on science and the known facts and possible dangers.

Gun Laws, Gun Rights & Violence -

Both support the assault weapon ban and gun control but support the 2nd amendment and fishing/hunting. Clark first said 'If you want to fire an assault weapon, join the Army,' which was stolen by Kerry in the 'rock the vote' debate.

Housing -

Both seem to share the standard Democratic position.

Immigrants' Rights -

Both favor.

Instant Runoff Voting -

Kucinich is repetitive w/ campaign finance.

International Cooperation -

Both support ICC, Kyoto, multilateralism, etc.

Iraq -

Both DK and Clark thought it was a bad idea to go to war in the first place, supported the troops during the war and now (and in the future when they are veterans). Both want to pull out while leaving Iraq as functional as at all possible, but on an incredibly complex and dynamic issue like this it is really impossible to say with any degree of certainty what one would do a year or two from now.

Jobs/Infrastructure -

They both want to put as many Americans back to work as possible and improve infrastructure. Clark was an Econ Prof at west point, he knows about this. Neither is a supply sider/trickle down economist.

Manufacturing -

Kucinich is more protectionist here, but this issue is dynamic with the importance of swing states and everything. I don't understand how that can fit with his support of more international aid and those things, but whatever. It doesn't make any sense. This is an issue in which all candidates seem to look like 'free traders' and protectionists at the same time. I doubt there is a very strong correlation with what candidates say they will do here and what they actually can do.

Medical Marijuana -

Both support it.

Middle East -

Both would be even handed and work for peace.

Military Spending -

Both would look at cutting it in certain areas, except Clark can do it without commiting suicide.

Nuclear Safety -

Kucinich doesn't like nuclear waste. Maybe Clark says more about it somewhere on the environmental page I linked to earlier, but I am just going to move on because I assume he has a rational position here and this issue isn't my personal top priority.

Open Debates -

Kucinich wants open debates, dont know about Clark.

Prescription Drugs -

Prescription drugs for seniors!

Racial Discrimination -

Neither of them are racists, both don't like discrimination, etc.

Reproductive Rights -

Both are strongly pro choice.

Social Security and Pension Protection -

Both of them support continuance of social security and don't favor allowing ppl to invest SS money in the stock market.

Sweat Shops -

No one likes sweatshops, and both support more attention to international development.

Tax Cuts -

Both want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

Trade -

Kucinich wants to repeal NAFTA/WTO, Clark wants to fix them.

Universal Health Care -

Kucinich wants medicare for all, Clark wants to give insurance to all children and to ~30 or so million Americans. Personally I don't care how we get people health care, I just care that it is done.

Veterans -

Both support funding for VA and supporting the veterans who have sacrificed so much for this country.

Voting Rights -

Both support voting rights.

Vouchers -

Neither likes school vouchers as far as I know. Fund the public school system.

Water as a Human Right -

Don't know if Clark thinks it is a 'human right,' but I am sure he drinks water and thinks everyone else should be able to as well. He supports 3rd world development, which goes hand in hand with this.

Weapons & Non-Proliferation -

Both of them support international cooperation, treaties, etc on this issue and think it is a good idea to focus on real threats rather.

Workers' Rights -

Both of them support unions, workers rights, and all those things.

World Hunger -

Clark and Kucinich support more international aid.

[WillyBrandt]

1. Great Work -- Clark/Kucinich 04!

Now, I think that would be the one to induce maximal wingnut insanity.

[Clark Can WIN]

58. You know, I never thought of that

they would just be flapping like jumping beans on a hot plate wouldn't they?

now that would be rich.

[Mz Pip]

2. Good work

I always liked Kucinich. He's my second choice.

MzPip
:dem:

[kentuck]

3. He's not a "pure" liberal....

Is that the secret to winning? Are there some issues that the liberals have to be willing to compromise upon in order to win elections? Is that the appeal of Wes Clark?

edited for verbage

[Mattforclark]

6. What is he not 'pure' about?

Name the issues on which he is impure. The only two I can think of are:

1) drugs, possibly

2) He supports fair trade instead of protectionism (as do I)

And remember, if Nader were President his legislation would have to go through Trent Lott.

[kentuck]

18. I was thinking of flag-burning and drugs....

We do not like candidates that veer from the true liberal path on those issues. I don't know where he stands on prayer in schools either ? But, I'm simply saying those are issues that hurt him with "pure" liberals. If he will compromise on those, what else will he compromise on?

[Donna Zen]

30. No prayer in school

Clark has said that wanting to break the speed of light is his only "faith based" initiative.

[Selwynn]

31. "Pure liberals" disagree on drugs

All agree that the drug war has failed and treatment not incarceration should be emphasized -

- but not all agree that drugs should be legalized, and anyone who tries to tell you that is lying.

[Mattforclark]

45. I disagree

with Clark on not decriminalizing Marijuana and on flag burning. Kucinich also supports a flag desecration amendment and Dean supports banning it but WITHOUT an amendment. On prayer in schools, Clark is strong on Church/state seperation - I bring this up since this is a legal issue - Clark has said that he would appoint moderate, sane Judges generally like Stevens or Kennedy, for example.

If I wanted someone who agrees with me 100% on every issue, I would be running for President. Any candidate is going to have different views from you on at least 1 or 2 issues. For me, because he is not closed minded on drugs, supports medical marijuana, etc, and because he is very strong on civil liberties other than flag desecration. If I had to pick 2 issues that I disagree with a candidate on, I could certainly do worse than decriminalizing marijuana and flag desecration.

[FrenchieCat]

47. He never said Kennedy....

he said Souter and Stephens....for me that's a big difference...

cause Kennedy is kinda a shaky, if you ask me.

After all the man did vote with the majority to install the Interloper we now have sitting in our White House.

[Mattforclark]

50. Ah yes

My bad.

At the 'hear it from the heartland' forum in Iowa?

I do like Kennedy's opinion on Lawrence V. Texas, though :) That's probably why I mixed them up.

[OKNancy]

15. I think a lot of the differences are superficial

Wes Clark has a wife, eats meat, and is handsome. And of course, the general thing...that's a big thing right now ( not with me actually, but with the average Jo/Joe )

[Zero Division]

4. Clark is the anti-Zell Miller

Zell is stabbing us in the back, while Clark, who once supported Republicans in the past, has provided us with one of the most liberal candidates to have a wide appeal amongst swing voters.

[Mattforclark]

5. Precisely

has provided us with one of the most liberal candidates to have a wide appeal amongst swing voters.

Yep. Clark is really one of the most liberal, but perceived by some as being centrist and even - get this - Republican. I don't know about you or anyone else, but if all Republicans shared Clark's ideas, I'd be such a Republican.

[IranianDemocrat]

7. Awesome post.

.

[Lefta Dissenter]

8. Awesome job

I'm sending it to my sister, who says she doesn't think Clark is liberal enough, :shrug: despite the fact that she hasn't (and won't) take the time to find out what Clark DOES stand for.

I guess she's not the one who got all the brains in the family!

[HFishbine]

9. Or

it could be that people just aren't paying much attention yet and when they come to know the policies of these candidates Kucinich will become as popular as Clark, or Clark will become as popular as Kucinich.

[Lefta Dissenter]

12. I think you're wrong (horrors!)

because you also need to add in Clark's experience worldwide - dealing with other governments, forming coalitions, playing well with others. He can be a diplomat - I'm not saying that Kucinich can't, it's just that he doesn't have the experience.

I heard on an interview a while ago (sorry, can't provide source or anything) that Kucinich was more of a divider rather than a uniter when he was mayor. Now, I have NO IDEA IF THIS IS TRUE OR NOT, but I would surely want to find out more about that if I were to consider voting for him, because we're all seeing firsthand what THAT produces. Also, as I understand it, Kucinich was anti-abortion up until not too long ago. There again, if I were to consider voting for Kucinich, I would want to find out if that's the truth.

And, my final point, you must face it, CLARK JUST LOOKS PRESIDENTIAL!!!!! Kucinich does not.

[FrenchieCat]

48. That's true

He does look the most presidential.....and in this "enquiring minds want to know mentality" of voters...that a great big asset!

[Pastiche423]

10. Disability Rights

Shallow rhetoric. No agenda. There ain't nothing there.

Dean's Disability Rights platform is well thought out, w/ comprehensive plans:

Fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

Enact the Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Supports Act (MiCASSA)

Enact the Family Opportunity Act

Provide technical support as states implement “Olmstead” plans to provide viable, sustainable options for community-based living

Ensure adequate resources for civil rights enforcement

Require every federal agency to demonstrate full compliance with laws protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities

Appoint a "Special Assistant to the President for Disability Policy" <--- love this!

Include people with disabilities in a wide spectrum of executive appointments

Hold a White House Conference on People with Disabilities

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_disabilityrights

Once again, clark only gives lip service.

[Pepperbelly]

11. While Disability Rights are important ...

they are not paramount to everyone. In both foreign affairs and economics, the areas of my concern, Clark is better. His jobs plan is far better and for me, THAT is paramount.

[Pastiche423]

14. Disability Rights are paramount to 56 million

American voters and their loved ones.

Not an amount to sneeze at.

But then, that is just one more issue clark has only given lip service to.

It is much more important to clark to amend our Constitution and Freedom of Speech.

[Mattforclark]

13. Consider

He gave the answer that I qouted in a town hall meeting shortly after he entered the race. He has obviously expressed strong concern about the issue, and with time he can develop more in depth policies. Instantly coming up with an in depth policy is not as important as having the basic principles to drive the creation of succesful policies in the future, when Presidents must adapt to unforseen circumstances.

[Pastiche423]

17. W/time...

I am getting really sick of hearing that weak excuse.

clark was not prepared and still is not prepared to run for the presidency. It is becoming clearer each day that passes, that he is not qualified.

[mikehiggins]

22. sick and tired?

Hey, P? Some of us are getting sick and tired of your constant litany of anti-Clark bull. You like Dean? Fine. You don't like Clark? Fine.

Don't delude yourself that anyone is listening. You have reached the point where any Clark supporter will automatically filter out your posts because of your "Johnny one-note" themes.

The real question is, if Clark is the nominee, even if he gets that shot with the active support of the party regulars, and Bill&Hill, and the Hollywood crowd, will you support him or will you give aid and comfort to Bush?

To go by your posts, the answer is no. Am I wrong?

[Pastiche423]

23. Are you aware of the ignore function?

Use it if you are sick and tired of my posts.

I will continue to post facts and my opinion of clark, so that the untold numbers of DU lurkers can read about the real clark.

I am going to support and vote for a real Democrat. My life depends upon it.

[tedoll78]

59. Can you do me a favor?

How do I tell between a "real" Democrat and a non-real Democrat? And where do I go to get certified to make such judgements?

[Clark Can WIN]

61. The thing that becomes most clear as each day passes

Is that you have remarkable stalking abilities. And the fact that in your world Dean walks on water and Clark has never done a fucking thing right in his whole life.

What is weak is the notion that your commentary on Clark has any value. That is weak.

[Donna Zen]

33. There are proposals

for assistance in his healthcare plan. I have a wicked bad headache right this second or I'd hunt them down.

[roguevalley]

16. From a family of two disabled people, I am interested in that.

But this was a discussion of Kucinich and Clark. Stepping
on it with Dean is too bad. More bad feeling for me about
Dean. I know that might not bother a lot of people but it
bothers me that when a discussion comes up and its about
others, someone will come in and smack it around over Dean.
I may have to vote for him in 2004 but at this point I am
learning not to like him. Irrational, maybe. But that is
the way it is going here.

By the way, brilliant post. Interesting line up between
two very interesting men. I am delighted and grateful for
the hard work you put in to compare these two men.

[dsc]

21. and I am sure you have been just as righteous

in your indignation on the 50 billion times it has happened to Dean threads curtosy of Clark supporters.

[_NorCal_D_]

19. Here

is another interesting bit of information to further your argument Mattforclark. By the looks of these political compasses, Clark is more liberal than Dean and even shares the same populist stripe as Kucinich.
:wow:
http://www.issues2000.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm
Dennis Kucinich is a Liberal Populist

http://www.issues2000.org/Wesley_Clark.htm
Wesley Clark is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.

http://www.issues2000.org/Howard_Dean.htm
Howard Dean is a Moderate Liberal

[Terwilliger]

20. so....you're voting for Kucinich then

Jolly! :bounce:

[Mattforclark]

44. Nope

Clark is my #1 choice both from pragmatism and conscience, which is what is so wonderful about him. Kucinich's rhetoric about cancelling NAFTA and things frighten me considerably, I am not as confident as I would like to be in his ability to get us out of Iraq in the best possible way, and similarly I am frightened of how he might handle various international crises. That said, I like a lot of his ideas and I think he would be better than Bush.

[Tatiana]

24. Kick

Well thought, excellent post!

[bowens43]

25. Clark has no verifiable history....

All we have is Clark's word, Kucinich has a history. After the war vote flip flop, the lavish praise for bush and and his administration, his speaking at a republican fund raiser and his support of the flag desecration amendment, his word carries little weight with me. IMO he might make a good senator or representative but not president.

[TLM]

29. Exactly... all Clark has are words...

Good words tehy may be, some are great in fact, but he's also said things that directly contradict his current claims. his script changes based on his audience and i do not trust anything he says.

i need to see a record of action. I'm not willing to put a man in the white house basede only on his word, when his actions and past words are as f-ed up as Clark's are.

[IranianDemocrat]

34. "His script changes based on audience" from a DEAN SUPPORTER!!!

BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

This coming from someone who supports confederate Dean.

[TLM]

35. Cheap shot are all you have....

I have facts to prove that Clark does a 180 depending on his audience.

Care to point out any other dem who said:


"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."



"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."



Maybe you can point out anther dem who worked as a lobbyist for defense contractors to help them profiteer off 9-11?

Wall Street Journal, 9/18/03

IN ANNOUNCING his presidential campaign, Wesley K. Clark promoted himself as the candidate best qualified to prosecute the war on terror. As a businessman, he has applied his military expertise to help a handful of high-tech companies try to profit from the fight Since retiring from a 34-year Army career in 2000, Gen. Clark has become : chairman of a suburban Washington technology-corridor start-up, managing director at an investment firm, a director at four other firms around the country and an advisory-board member for two others. For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business. .


That's EXACTLY what Cheney did for Haliburton.


more....

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications. One is Acxiom Corp., based in Gen. Clark's hometown of Little Rock, Ark., where he formally launched his campaign yesterday. He joined the board of the Nasdaq-traded company in December 2001, as the company started to market its customer-database software to federal agencies eager to hunt for terrorists by scanning and coordinating the vast cyberspace trove of citizen information.

"He has made efforts at putting us in contact with the right people in Washington ... setting up meetings and participating in some himself," says Acxiom Chief Executive Charles Morgan. "Like all of us around 9/11, he had a lot of patriotic fervor about how we can save our country."


<snip>

While he was originally hired as a consultant by WaveCrest Laboratories LLC, Dulles, Va.,to help find military buyers for its promising new electric motor, Gen. Clark became the company's chairman in April, and has also focused on selling products in the commercial market. But Gen. Clark's knowledge of and ties with, the military and government markets have been a large part of his appeal to potential employers.

Stephens Inc., the large, politically connected Little Rock investment firm, hired him to boost its aerospace business shortly after he gave up his NATO command. He left Stephens last year and opened his own consultancy, Wesley K. Clark & Associates.
While Gen. Clark was at Stephens, the firm also marketed him to clients such as Silicon Energy-in which Stephens held a stake - "as a good person to help us understand the federal procurement process," says Mr. Woolard. The company was trying to enter the government market, and Gen. Clark explained the process "and contacted people at the Navy and Air Force and told them what we had," Mr. Woolard says. (Silicon Energy was acquired earlier this year by Itron Inc., and Gen. Clark no longer advises the firm).

Time Domain Corp., a Huntsville, Ala., advanced wireless-technology company, recruited Gen. Clark to become an adviser in February 2002 through one of its chief operating officers, who had been a colonel under his NATO command during the Bosnia campaign. Gen. Clark has counseled the company on how to answer Pentagon concerns that its low-power radar system might interfere with global positioning and communications systems, as well as to better craft that technology for military use. board of Entrust, at the request of CEO William Conner, who had served with him on a Pentagon advisory panel.
At Entrust, Gen. Clark has provided advice on how to sell to various NATO governments, says David Wagner, Entrust's chief financial officer. He has also helped emphasize the firm's product securing electronic networks for new homeland-security applications.
_________________________________________________________

[IranianDemocrat]

36. You want me to post all of Dean's flip flops?

Ok here you go.

I guess since you get to quote the WSJ, it's only fair for me to quote the vermont GOP.
Flip: In 1992, Dean said, "I don't support the death penalty for two reasons. One, you might have the wrong guy, and, two, the state is like a parent. Parents who smoke cigarettes can't really tell their children not to smoke and be taken seriously. If a state tells you not to murder people, a state shouldn't be in the business of taking people's lives." The Rutland Herald, a Vermont newspaper, says that in those days "Dean was an outspoken opponent of the death penalty."

Flop: In early June 2003, Dean issued a statement declaring, "As governor, I came to believe that the death penalty would be a just punishment for certain, especially heinous crimes, such as the murder of a child or the murder of a police officer. The events of Sept. 11 convinced me that terrorists also deserve the ultimate punishment."

Context: Dean's statement added, "I would instruct my attorney general to seek capital punishment only in very serious cases, including those involving vulnerable victims and those involving terrorism." On June 22, 2003, Dean said on Meet the Press, "The only instances that I support the death penalty are 1) murder of a child, 2) a mass murder like a terrorist, and 3) the shooting of a police officer." He cited a series of 1994 Vermont newspaper articles that documented his rethinking of capital punishment. Dean said the rape-murder of Polly Klaas by a previously convicted sex offender prompted his rethinking. He said he worried that life imprisonment without parole didn't guarantee justice because convicted murderers could still get out on a "technicality." He rejected deterrence (except for cop-killers) and vengeance as arguments for the death penalty. He said he came to support capital punishment because terrorists and child predators are "incapable of being rehabilitated," and "to let these people out is too dangerous."

Flip: On Feb. 28, 1995, Dean said on CNN's Crossfire that Social Security "absolutely" needed to "increase the retirement age." According to a March 3, 1995 Newhouse News Service report on a subsequent Dean breakfast with reporters, "The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else." In June 2003, Dean said on Meet the Press, "I also would entertain taking the retirement age to 68."

Flop: At a presidential candidate forum on Aug. 5, 2003, Dean said, "I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."


DEAN FLIP-FLOPS ON COMPLETING MISSION IN IRAQ
March 2003: Dean Ducks Troops Question. “ repeatedly declined to say whether he thinks the United States should withdraw its troops immediately from Iraq, as some vocal war opponents urge. Responding to questions before and during the event, Dean declined to call for the troops’ return, saying he didn’t know the implications for geopolitics and soldiers’ safety and wasn’t privy to intelligence on the ground in Iraq. ‘I didn’t get us into this,’ Dean said. ‘Unfortunately, I’m not president now and I can’t get us out of this.’” (Joanna Weiss, “Dean Ducks Prescription For Quitting Iraq,” The Boston Globe, 3/27/03)

Dean Then Berated Bush For Suggesting American Troops Could Come In 18 Months. “If the President thinks our troops will be out in 18 months, he is smoking something he forgot about when he was at Yale.” (Rebecca Cook, “Howard Dean Rallies Supporters In Seattle,” The Associated Press, 5/15/03)

September 1: Dean Said U.S. Should Not Pull Troops Out Of Iraq. “We can’t leave Iraq. We can’t pull out, because if we do that, chaos ensues or else a fundamentalist Shiite regime may arise with undo Iranian influence, both of which would be more dangerous than Saddam Hussein.” (Howard Dean On CNN’s “Crossfire Goes Inside Politics,” 9/1/03)

ONLY THREE DAYS LATER: In Debate, Dean Said Our Troops Should Come Home From Iraq. DEAN: “We need more troops. They’re going to be foreign troops, as they should have been in the first place, not American troops. Ours need to come home.” (Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Albuquerque, NM, 9/4/03)

DEAN FLIP-FLOPS OVER AMERICAN LABOR STANDARDS

July 2003: Dean Called For Strict American Labor Standards For International Trade. “Unlike U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, Dean doesn’t want to get rid of the North American Free Trade Agreement. ‘This trade is important to America. It’s important for our national defense,’ Dean said. ‘But we need the same labor standards in Mexico and China as you have in the United States, and the same environmental standards.’” (Lynn Okamoto, “Dean Calls Economy Top Issue For 2004 Race,” The Des Moines Register, 7/19/03)

Dean Backpedaled In Debate, Saying International Standards Could Work. LIEBERMAN: “ay I say just briefly that Governor Dean … referred to American standards, not international standards.” DEAN: “Either is fine with me.” LIEBERMAN: “Well, then that’s a reassuring change of position.” (Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Albuquerque, NM, 9/4/03)


…To an Ever-Growing List of Dean Flip-Flops:

DEAN FLIP-FLOPPED ON PUBLIC FINANCING OF HIS 2004 CAMPAIGN

Summer 2003 Public Financing Flip-Flop: Dean “backed away from his pledge to adhere to spending limits, saying some advisers want to explore opting out of the Watergate-era public financing system because of his sudden fund-raising success. … ‘Could we change our mind? Sure,’ he said. … “Dean signed a letter to the promising to abide by the program’s rules, including its spending limits.” (Ron Fournier, “Dean Pulls Back On Spending Limits Pledge,” The Associated Press, 8/15/03)

DEAN ALSO FLIP-FLOPPED ON PUBLIC FINANCING OF HIS 2000 CAMPAIGN!

July 2000 Public Financing Flip: “Gov. Howard Dean is challenging his Republican opponents to accept a $300,000 campaign spending cap even if a federal judge overturns the limit. … ‘This law is important in restoring public faith in the election process,’ Dean said in a prepared statement. ‘Vermonters need to know that their small donations are just as important as a $1,000 check from a multi-national corporation or PAC (political action committee).’ Dean said he was at a financial disadvantage, first because he had a lower spending limit as an incumbent, but also because he faced two challengers who were likely to have at least $300,000 apiece.” (“Dean Challenges Republicans To Spending Limits,” The Associated Press, 7/21/00)

August 2000 Public Financing Flop: “Gov. Howard Dean abandoned public funding for his re-election campaign, saying he couldn’t take the chance he would be outspent 4-1 by his Republican opponent. Publicly financed campaigns were part of strict campaign finance reform legislation championed by Dean, who signed it into law in 1997. … Progressive Party gubernatorial candidate Anthony Pollina, the only candidate now using public funding, criticized Dean’s decision. ‘I am not surprised. In some way it shows his true colors,’ Pollina said. ‘Ultimately, it’s a victory for big money and bad for average citizens.’” (Wilson Ring, “Governor Abandons Public Funding,” The Associated Press, 8/18/00)

DEAN FLIP-FLOPPED ON LIFTING CUBA EMBARGO

Dean Once Favored Lifting Cuba Embargo, Now Says It Would Be Wrong. “Howard Dean, who sells himself as the presidential campaign’s straightest shooter, is starting to throw voters some curves. … Last weekend, Dean shifted his position on the trade embargo against Cuba. Dean, who had supported rolling back the embargo to foment human rights improvements, said he has become convinced such a move would be unwise. Cuban Americans, who generally support the embargo, are an important voting bloc in several states, including Florida.” (Jim VandeHei, “Dean Invites More Scrutiny By Switching Key Stances,” The Washington Post, 8/30/03)

DEAN FLIP-FLOPPED ON YUCCA MOUNTAIN

1996 Governor Dean Yucca Mountain Flip: “I am urging you to support changes in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that would ensure that the federal government meets its responsibility to electricity consumers to begin accepting spent fuel from commercial power plants in 1998. … Opponents assert that the shipment of nuclear waste is highly unsafe, but the facts prove otherwise. Over the past 30 years, more than 2000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel have been made on the nation’s highways and railways. No shipment has ever resulted in a release of radioactivity or public harm. … I sincerely hope you will support S. 1271 to establish an integrated spent fuel management program that includes a centralized, interim storage facility, continued site characterization of the potential repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, and an appropriate transportation system to move spent fuel.” (Gov. Howard Dean, Letter To Sen. Patrick Leahy, 5/1/96)

2003 Candidate Dean Yucca Mountain Flop: REPORTER: “As governor, you supported a plan to store the nation’s waste at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Do you still think this is a good solution?” DEAN: “As governor of Vermont, it was a grand idea because it would get the waste out of Vermont. But now that I’m running for president, I’ve got to reassess it and see what the science looks like.” (Amanda Griscom, “Q&A: Howard Dean On The Environment,” Alternet Website, www.alternet.org, Accessed 6/4/03)

DEAN FLIP-FLOPPED ON DEATH PENALTY

“Opportunist” Dean Now Supports The Death Penalty In Some Cases. “Vermont liberals say Dean’s governing history suggests more of a political tactician, a strategic opportunist who will ultimately run a campaign that inspires the middle as well as the left. … Some years back, reversed his opposition to the death penalty and now supports it in some cases.” (Terry M. Neal, “Will The Real Howard Dean Please Stand Up?” Washingtonpost.com, 7/31/03)

In Disastrous ‘Meet The Press’ Appearance, Dean Admitted To Death Penalty Flip-Flop. “An appearance on ‘Meet the Press’ by Dr. Dean on Sunday, arranged by his aides as part of this announcement swing, turned into what even some Dean supporters described today as something of a debacle, highlighting many areas of attacks Dr. Dean would be subject to in a general election or a primary. … Dr. Dean also acknowledged that he had changed his position on the death penalty -- he now supports it in some cases, after once having been a strong opponent …” (Adam Nagourney, “After A Year Campaigning, Dean Officially Enters Race,” The New York Times, 6/24/03)

DEAN FLIP-FLOPPED ON FEDERAL MEDICAL LIABILITY REFORM

1994 Federal Medical Liability Reform Flip: DEAN: “We’ve absolutely got to have malpractice reform. Absolutely. And I think it ought to be done at the federal level. In fact, that’s -- I think all 50 governors think that.” (CNN’s “Viewers Call In With Health Care Questions,” 7/18/94)

2002 Federal Medical Liability Reform Flop: DEAN: “As a doctor, I’d love to have all kinds of malpractice reform. That is not the federal government’s business. This administration, for all its talk about states’ prerogatives and local control, doesn’t believe in it. They simply substituted conservative micromanagement for what used to be liberal micromanagement. It’s like gun control. That is a state matter, not a federal matter.” (CNN’s “Capital Gang,” 10/5/02)

DEAN FLIP-FLOPPED ON RETIREMENT AGE

1995 Governor Dean Retirement Age Flip: DEAN: “Secondly, I am very pleased to hear Bob Packwood because I absolutely agree we need to … increase the retirement age. There will be cuts and losses of some benefits, but I believe that Senator Packwood is on exactly the right track. … ” (CNN’s “Crossfire,” 2/28/95)

2003 Candidate DeanRetirement Age Flop: RUSSERT: “Would you raise retirement age to 70?” DEAN: “No. No.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 6/22/03)

DEAN FLIP-FLOPPED ON CREATING
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

2002 Homeland Security Flip: Asked what he thought of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, Dean said: “I don’t have a quarrel with bureaucracy. I wouldn’t do it that way, but I think everyone does their own thing. … I’m not going to attack the President for trying to create a homeland security office—it’s a reasonable thing to do.” (Ann Rostow, “Give ‘Em Hell Howard,” Texas Triangle, 9/5-10/02)

2003 Homeland Security Flop: Howard Dean “‘says the creation of a homeland security department was a mistake and that Tom Ridge is the wrong man for the job.’ In an interview with CQ Homeland Security’s Freedman, Dean said: ‘I would not have created the Department of Homeland Security.’ He added: ‘Creating a new bureaucracy is rarely the actual solution to creating efficiency.’” (“Dean Takes On Homeland Security, Tom Ridge,” The Hotline, 5/21/03)

DEAN FLIP-FLOPPED ON CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY

1995 Governor Dean Social Security Flip: “The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. ‘It would be tough but we could do it,’ he said.” (Miles Benson, “And Politicians Wonder Why They Aren’t Trusted,” Times-Picayune , 3/5/95)

2003 Candidate DeanSocial Security Flop: RUSSERT: “But you would no longer cut Social Security benefits?” DEAN: “But you don’t--no. I’m not ever going to cut Social Security benefits.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 6/22/03)

[Donna Zen]

39. How could you forget:

Dean has two republican defense contractor lobbyist on his team to direct his defense policy. One is Joe Ralston, yep that Joe Ralston....Bill Cohen's little buddy.

[Code_Name_D]

42. Again, your idea of defending Clark...

is attacking Dean.

[Clark Can WIN]

65. maybe because it's a response to a "defense" of Dean attacking Clark

Ya think? :dunce:

[Code_Name_D]

66. To bad.

It still fails to defend your boy, the Pancia man. Just more smoke and mirrors. You want to attack Dean, you go right ahead. But that don't mean you defended Clark's record. Only that you are trying to change the subject. Again! Ya'think? Or you just trying to start arguments?

[Mattforclark]

46. Well

I disagree that 'all we have is Clark's word.' We have his history, which shows him supporting AA, childcare, abortion availability on military bases, and lots of other democratic issues. We have seen him in an executive role on foreign policy, unlike with Kucinich. We have seen him in executive power over military bases and every single soldier in Europe. That is a lot of people and is in many ways comparable to running some sort of state government. We know that he is capable of not operating only by military order from Kosovo, where he nogotiated with something like 19 other governments, and negotiating from Bosnia/Dayton. While he certainly does not have a voting record, it is an exaggeration to say that all we have is his word, IMHO.

"After the war vote flip flop,"

There was no flip flop. He was persistently against preventative war against Iraq. He would have supported the failed amendment that would have made Bush come back to Congress after going to the UN.

"the lavish praise for bush and and his administration,"

First, he was talking only about foreign and not domestic policy. Second he said that people like Powell and Rumsfeld made a good team and he hoped that they would succeed, bush was mentioned last and only as an afterthought. Meanwhile in that speech he promoted a foreign policy of attention and cooperation with allies, multilateralism, and working on things like global warming (Kyoto) and other long term problems. He hoped that their foreign policy would be like that. So did I, frankly.

"his speaking at a republican fund raiser"

I don't know about you, but if they paid me a few thousand dollars I would be GLAD to speak at a Republican fund raiser, or just about anything else for that matter.

"and his support of the flag desecration amendment,"

I agree with you there.

[Clark Can WIN]

64. Wrong, Clark does have a verifyable history

This from a 1998 report to congress, fighting for housing, health care, compensation and education for troops and their families. Sounds like a progressive to me:

"" RESOURCE PRIORITIES - AN INVESTMENT IN THE FUTURE

Quality of Life

"The judgement, creativity, and fortitude of our people will remain the key to success in future joint operations."

Joint Vision 2010

Our most precious resource is the service member and his or her family. Quality of life (QOL) is one of my very top theater priorities, as it is inextricably linked to readiness, retention, the reinforcement of service core values, healthy family life, high morale and mission accomplishment.

The quality of our housing, medical care, schools, religious services, public facilities, services and recreation activities define the American standard of living. The expectation of the DoD family, serving across the vast USEUCOM Theater, is no different.

Our goal is to ensure all USEUCOM forces enjoy the optimum achievable standard of living; comparable to that of the society they are pledged to defend and that of their DoD counterparts stateside.

Our most important 1998 QOL strategy objective was to analyze and quantify the impact QOL has on readiness. We took "expert testimony" from installation commanders and senior enlisted advisors from across the theater. Their conclusions were identical: quality of life is critical to personnel readiness and retention. They are not satisfied with the quality of the programs in this AOR. With the exception of Equal Opportunity and the Chaplaincy programs, none of the other 23 total program areas evaluated compares favorably with its CONUS counterpart. Family housing and barracks, pay and retirement, health care and dependent education were consistently identified as lagging the farthest behind. We must do better in compensating service members and families whose well-being is constantly taxed through repetitive deployments and the stress of family separations. USAREUR soldiers, for example, are often deployed two to three times during a normal overseas tour. Nonetheless, USAREUR continues to enjoy record retention rates. Our analysis tells us that these rates correlate directly to our mission focus while emphasizing soldier and family programs.

Overseas troops, civilian employees and families often rely solely on DoD-provided programs for support because they do not have the same off-base alternatives as their CONUS counterparts. Dependent education is a prime example. Today over half of USEUCOM service members have families with children in school. The DoD education system is the 27th largest US public school system, with 160 schools serving 78,000 students. USEUCOM provides logistical support for 118 of these schools and 50,000 students. Funding new programs such as all-day kindergarten and improved student-to-teacher ratios are extremely important to USEUCOM QOL. Your support for this funding is crucial.

Individuals responding to a recent theater-wide survey targeting dependent-education issues identified dependent education as the most important of eight QOL support-program areas. Our children deserve a world-class school system with curriculum and programs to match the best. This is the standard our military personnel and their families expect and deserve.

Athletics, music, art and associated after school activities are as critical as the core academic subjects of math, science, history and English.

Many schools do not offer vocational programs. They have been forced to choose between college preparatory or vocational offerings, because their budget cannot support both. We must take aggressive action to expand vocational, technical and school-to-work programs.

Additionally, I believe in the importance of linking Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) programs to the National Education Goals and Presidential Initiatives. We must work toward establishing an 18:1 student-teacher ratio for grades 4-12. We also need to push for program-based staffing. More counselors, technical support and special-needs teachers to match curriculum requirements not school size. I would also like to see theater-level School Boards that would participate in all DoDEA related activities.

The health and well being of our active duty and family members is increasingly important as we face an increased military operations tempo with decreases in recruitment and retention. We have an increasing responsibility to provide a world-class health and dental plan, with uniformity of medical and dental benefits and standardized processes for beneficiaries as they move throughout the world.

The $50M funding received via FY99 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation for Morale, Welfare and Recreation, and Personnel Support for contingency deployments was greatly appreciated and will improve the QOL for all those deployed. Additionally, I fully support the pay and retention issues addressed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the service component leaders. Improvement to QOL issues, in the long run, will serve to improve every CINC's manning concerns.

Housing

Last year Congress supported all but one of our FY99 Military Construction and Family Housing projects. I am grateful for your support, as are the troops and their families who benefit from these projects. The challenge of eliminating and renovating large numbers of inadequate housing is still a huge obstacle we attack on a daily basis. Those of you who have visited our theater know that more than one-half of our family housing and barracks fall far short of the DoD standards. Barracks constructed by the German Army in the 1930's have only received minor improvements and necessary maintenance and repair. Quarters built during the Marshall Plan era still have original kitchens, baths and utility systems.

Our Service Components have used a "worst first" strategy to upgrade our housing inventory. Current Defense guidance requires elimination of gang latrines by 2008 and elimination of inadequate housing by 2010. All services are on track to meet these goals. However, many of our service members will retire before their quarters are brought up to those standards.


The top-line increases reflected in the FY00 budget provided significant additional resources for Real Property Maintenance (RPM). However, remaining shortfalls in RPM accounts may further exacerbate the inadequate state of our housing. After must-fund requirements (fire protection, utility and trash removal bills, contracts and civilian pay) are met, there are precious few dollars left to do much more than emergency housing repairs. Commanders are making every effort to stretch their limited budgets, but our need is greater than the resources available.


Congress should remain committed to fixing housing in this theater."
"

[diamondsoul]

26. Thank ya much, Matt!

While we've chosen different candidates to support in the primaries, you've helped vindicate me for considering Clark as my #2.

I've maintained he's just about as liberal as Kucinich for some time now, and I still do. My major source of disagreement with him comes from Clark's military mind-set. Not a bad thing, per-se, but a bad method of reasoning in this specific case, imo. I do NOT like the notion of NATO being the major power in Iraq reconstruction efforts, however I do understand Clark's reasoning on several fronts.

1.NATO has much broader access to military personnel to fill any voids left by a reduction in US troops than does the UN.

2.US Military MUST come out successful. Unfortunately in this case I'm not convinced that's possible, period. Even so, as a General, Clark has HAD to think in those terms in order to command, which means he's sort of working from habit on this subject, imo, anyway. I respect that and I understand it, I just don't think it's a good way for a President to view the situation in the case of Iraq.

Does that second one make sense to you?

I genuinely thingk Clark and Kucinic would be one HELL of a combination for the White House! Some may laugh at that, but look at it this way- You have the diplomat/peacemaker and social justice advocate joining forces with the strategist and economist. If that ain't a combination to restore America to greatness, I don't know what is!

[Donna Zen]

37. About success

US Military MUST come out successful. Unfortunately in this case I'm not convinced that's possible, period. Even so, as a General, Clark has HAD to think in those terms in order to command, which means he's sort of working from habit on this subject, imo, anyway. I respect that and I understand it, I just don't think it's a good way for a President to view the situation in the case of Iraq.

This view is not about the military, but the diplomatic. As of today, the regime has announced a policy of dumping Iraq before the election. Personally I could care about bush's saving face in the world community, but as a world citizen who lives on this small planet, I do believe it matters a great deal. Our word is our bond, and if bush has his way, our word as marked by our deeds will mean even less than they do today.

Pretend that you are the new Kucinich UN ambassador trying to negotiate a global warming treaty. Leaving Iraq in shambles leaves you with no credibility when it comes to shared responsibility. Complain because there have been a series of truck bombs set off in America's major cities, and again, no one cares because your government made the world a more dangerous place. How we leave Iraq will have major repercussions for years to come.

This isn't about the world questioning whether we have a whoop-ass military; this is about the world questioning whether we have any honor left at all.

[Mattforclark]

49. Military mindset

Clark was disliked by some officers for not having the proper 'military mindset.' He studied diplomacy, international relations, and things like that at West Point and at Oxford, and he's had a chance to gain non-military experience on the international scene.

In his two books he writes a lot about the problem with having a solely military mindset - to win on the international scene you have to have much more than a solely military mindset, but also an understanding of the political arena and what you are actually trying to achieve.

He's not just about armored spearhead theory, urban warfare tactics, or things like that, though he can certainly hold his own in those areas :)

One other thing that I find very intresting and encouraging about Clark is that he almost became a scientist - he thought very seriously about going into theoretical physics - and was a math whiz. He thinks about things from a scientific point of view, and his mindset is not colored by dogma. I find that very uplifting, anyway.

[DemExpat]

27. Thanks for setting this out, Matt. Clark's the best Dem

and will make an excellent Democratic President. IMHO.

:kick:

DemEx

[TLM]

28. So tell me how to CLark and Kucinich differ on issues like..

Targeting civilains and journalists in war time, killing civilains, and targeting civilian infrastructure?


Also does Kucinich also think that Reagan and Bush Sr. were great leaders to whom we should all be greatful, like Clark does?

[Mattforclark]

52. OK, I will then

"Targeting civilains and journalists in war time,"

I don't know about Kucinich, butI think he would probably be against it. Clark is against it. If you are trying to hint at bombing government TV propaganda stations during Kosovo, Clark was in favor of that, but the people who worked there were not civilians any more than Goebbles was in WW2, the people in the Pentagon were on 9/11, or the sailors on the USS cole were when it was bombed. All were/are legitimate military targets in states of armed conflict between two opposing entities. The Serbians were even warned that NATO was going to bomb it before hand.

"killing civilains,"

I don't know about Kucinich, but I think he would probably be against it. Clark is against it. In Kosovo he tried to save civilians from being killed.

"and targeting civilian infrastructure?"

I don't know about Kucinich. In the case of Kosovo Clark made a utilitarian judgement call that doing things like bombing bridges would bring the war to an end sooner and with fewer deaths.

"Also does Kucinich also think that Reagan and Bush Sr. were great leaders"

I don't think Kucinich does, and I don't think Clark does. Clark, however, is factually correct in stating that the election of Reagan raised moralle in the army and resulted in the replacement of old equipment like M-60's and M113 APCs like for example with M-1's and M-3's. I've never heard Clark praise the closing of libraries or Reagans trickle down economic policies, though. As regards Bush Sr, to my knowledge Clark thinks that he did a generally good job handling the 1st Gulf War. Personally I would agree with that, and so would lots of other people, like Al Gore for example. But again, I haven't seen Clark say anything good about Bush Sr's domestic policies or his handling of the economy. Clark seems to have expressed distaste for Bush Senior's policies by voting for Clinton instead of Bush Sr.

"to whom we should all be greatful, like Clark does?"

Like Clark, I try to give credit where credit is due. I would give the present Bush, for example, credit for his HIV/AIDS innitiative, though admittedly I can't think of much else off he has done that is praiseworthy off the top of my head. I think we should be greatful to Reagan for helping to raise military moralle, because there is empirical evidence that he did. There are also things that Reagan did that he should not be commended for, such as create a massive deficit and his handling of Lebanon, for example. With Bush, I think we should be greatful for his handling of the First Gulf War, yes. It set a precedent against the aggression and invasion of other countries in the post-cold war world. The world might be a better place now if that precedent had been better followed.

[bleedingheart]

32. Kucinich has the luxury of a voting record, all we have for Clark

is his word. I am not saying that he would back down but doing and saying are two different things.

[mvd]

38. Very informative post

Thank you.

Even if Clark hasn't always had these beliefs, if he's seen the light, that's good - and I welcome him. We need everyone we can get. I don't think he will betray us - at the worst, he'll be an independent thinker. Independent thinking has a lot to do with being a liberal. From the 80s and nuclear plants to now and illegal wars, these evil Repuke extremists have destroyed so much. Now I don't even recognize my country.

[DemExpat]

41. Clark is an independent and enlightened thinker.....

he'll do much to unite the extremes of polarized America, by being a very unusual, extraordinary bi-partisan President.

The world needs Clark now, and he is the right man at the right moment.

Let's hope that Americans will have the insight to elect him.

Just my humble opinion, of course! :D

Go Clark!
:kick:

DemEx

[Renew Deal]

62. Core belief system.

I believe that he has a core blief system and always held some of these views. He has a good human rights, education, health care record in the military. His war and peace views have always been the same. He is also recognized for some environmental acheivments in the Army. I think that he has had to make up his mind on some issues since he decided to run. I mean who really thinks about the details of water quality? So i think that he has a core moderate to liberal belief system that he backs up with education and experience.

[Code_Name_D]

40. Clark is a libiral? Oh please.

Yes, nice graphics. And completely worthless and devoid of any semblance of reality.

If Clark was a liberal, than why would have been ask to give a speech at the Lincoln dinner? Repugs are of the opinion that all liberals should be shot as traitors, not give them podiums.

Liberals do not believe in killing civilians in war, while Clark defends this as a necessity of war. Even while enemy tacks escapes harm.

Liberals to not join efforts to be lobbyist for Henry Kisinger, a war criminal.

Liberals to not direct coups in South America.

Liberals to not sell privet information to the military in the name of homeland security. And profit form such acts.

Liberals would not lie about there party affiliation. Declaring themselves a Democrat, why hey have not filed the paper work to the Democratic party.

Liberals to not run from party caucuses, or debates.

Liberals would not let there supporters wage political warfare in his own silence.

Liberals paint no undo meaning for the Confederate flag, no hold such reverence for the US flag as to support the flag burning amendment.

Clark is a liberal? Than it is a form of liberalism that reeks way to much of the stench of the Neo-Con. This essay has far more "I do not knows" than it dose relevant knowledge. And comparing Clark to any one else is preciously the type of shallow resigning that have I have come to expect from the Kluckers. If Clark is such a great candidate, than why is it necessary to compare him to a 2% such as Kusinch? Is the author trying to show how similar they are by holding up a set of small issue? Or is he trying to prop Clark up.

The absence of the key issue is most notable. The War and the Economy. Two issues closely linked together. And Clarks pro-war position is getting harder to conceal by the day as more and more of Bush's pro war stance, falls under Clark's umbrella. Clark has already committed himself into continuing the occupation of Iraq and has made major policy speeches about going after Osama.

And all though the Kluckers are adamant that "Clark will sweep the south" I have yet seen one attempt to reach out to the South. Not one. Unless you would count Clark's pro-war standing.

Clark speaks only rhetoric. He tells his followers only what they want to here. No more, and no less. No truth, no wisdom, shall not escape the words of Clark, for he doesn't know the truth, and has no wisdom to offer. His campaign for American unity leaves many behind in its wake. He has already spurned the left as irrelevant, as well as those who dwell under the confederate flag. And while many are admonished for "seeing a pure candidate," the Clark supporters seem to fail to see how the Clark campaign demands a pure supporter. No one has a right to call Clark on his past, on his polices. The softest of critics becomes an engineer of a smear campaign, and face endless charioteer assaults in retribution. Such tactics strike me as all too familiar as the tactics from the brown shirt freepers.

And all of this is unfortunate. If even a portion of what Clark says is to be believe, than he would indeed be the one to bring change. Unfortunately, one who hides his past also conceals his plans for the future.

When Clark announced his campaign, he was swiftly painted as an anti-war candidate by the "liberal biased" media. A bold lie made in ignorance of Clarks many weeks of selling the war on the exact same media. And while true liberals were being chased from the air, Clark's brand of liberalism won him air time as a "Military expert."

And now we are being treated to another lie. Clark's liberalism. I must wonder. Is this only the opinion of one Clark supporter? Or shall we see a more agonized thrust of this lie in the future. And is any one truly fooled that the constant and sickening fawning over every word Clark speaks? While also assaulting every negative word against him without mercy?

Apparently Clark is aware that the lie is not taking hold. Already, he has decided to buy pass one state caucus. Is he afraid that he will face defeat there? And he has chosen to skip a presidential debate in favor of a fund raiser. Has Clark chosen dollars over votes? How far can he retreat with his campaign, and still retrain even the elusion of a chance at victory? Rumor has it that primaries in Florida and Oklahoma are in jeopardy of being pulled by the DLC. Is it because Clark has poor showing in these states? I can prove nothing, but are these just coincidences? Is the DLC that consumed by fear that Clark may lose even once? Do they have that little faith?

Change is upon the horizon. But what sort of change remains to be seen. For it is a change we American may not necessarily control. And those in control fear losing control must be blinding. It is a fear that many Clark supporters share, as one had said, "fear is the start of political wisdom."

Dean however, once noted that "we will not always have the worlds most powerful military." And was attacked for this statement. They fail to realize that Dean was not stating a policy, but an epiphany. An epiphany of the future of America so obvious, that the Clark supporters openly reject even is conception. Alas, it is not a future we can avoid. A willful ignorance of this will not slow its arrival, and indeed shall only hasten it. But if the end is to come, I will face it with courage, with my eyes open, and fully aware. Let the cowards like Clark run in fear, and hide in bravado and false pride.

America was morally slain with the closing of the campaign of 2000. The Panacea man has no power to change this.

[Mattforclark]

53. Point by point

"If Clark was a liberal, than why would have been ask to give a speech at the Lincoln dinner?"

Maybe because Clark was an extraordinarily succesful person from the local area? He accomplished a lot, and was highly intelligent and knowledgeable. Sounds like a great person to invite to me. When I heard Clark interviewed on NPR's Fresh air in ~2001, I admired him greatly and would have jumped at the chance to have him come speak to me, even though I didn't know what he thought about gun control, the environment, or tax cuts at the time.

"Repugs are of the opinion that all liberals should be shot as traitors, not give them podiums."

Really? That would seem to be an incorrect generalization, because I know some Republicans and they have never tried to shoot me, nor have they ever threatened to shoot me.

"Liberals do not believe in killing civilians in war, while Clark defends this as a necessity of war. Even while enemy tacks escapes harm."

I am a liberal, and I don't believe that one should try to kill civilians in war. Neither does Clark. Neither does Rumsfeld, for that matter. Not only is the intentional killing of civilians not a moral thing to do, but it is bad strategy. What do you mean by enemy tack?

"Liberals to not join efforts to be lobbyist for Henry Kisinger, a war criminal."

Define 'lobby for' and demonstrate how Clark is guilty of this, please.

"Liberals to not direct coups in South America."

Never heard anything about Clark overthrowing Latin American governments.

"Liberals to not sell privet information to the military in the name of homeland security. And profit form such acts."

Why not?

"Liberals would not lie about there party affiliation. Declaring themselves a Democrat, why hey have not filed the paper work to the Democratic party."

I am registered to vote in TX, but I have no idea whether I am registered as a democrat. I don't think I am, but I might be. I don't remember if there was a party affiliation box on the voters registration form. This doesn't mean that Clark, or I, am not a liberal.

"Liberals to not run from party caucuses, or debates."

So liberals can't make tactical decisions that it is better to skip Iowa because they entered too late in the race? I do think that skipping the NH debate is a bad idea, but it hardly means that Clark is not liberal.

"Liberals would not let there supporters wage political warfare in his own silence."

Say what?

"Liberals paint no undo meaning for the Confederate flag, no hold such reverence for the US flag as to support the flag burning amendment."

So Kucinich isn't a liberal either? What are you smoking and where can I get some?

"Clark is a liberal? Than it is a form of liberalism that reeks way to much of the stench of the Neo-Con. This essay has far more "I do not knows" than it dose relevant knowledge. And comparing Clark to any one else is preciously the type of shallow resigning that have I have come to expect from the Kluckers. If Clark is such a great candidate, than why is it necessary to compare him to a 2% such as Kusinch? Is the author trying to show how similar they are by holding up a set of small issue? Or is he trying to prop Clark up."

What are the issues that I said I do not know where Clark stands that you find so important? If they really are so important, maybe I can try to find out about them. As I stated, I am comparing Clark to Kucinich not because Kucinich has 2%, but because he has a long platform on his website and because he is thought to be one of the most liberal candidates.

"The absence of the key issue is most notable. The War and the Economy. Two issues closely linked together. And Clarks pro-war position is getting harder to conceal by the day as more and more of Bush's pro war stance, falls under Clark's umbrella. Clark has already committed himself into continuing the occupation of Iraq and has made major policy speeches about going after Osama."

The abscence of those issues is because they do not appear on Kucinich's platform. If you want to read Clark's economic plan, go to http://www.clark04.com. You are factually incorrect in asserting that Clark has and had a pro-war stance as regards Iraq. Do you think that we should not try to kill Osama Bin Laden, but should leave him alone? You don't want to go after him?

"And all though the Kluckers are adamant that "Clark will sweep the south" I have yet seen one attempt to reach out to the South. Not one. Unless you would count Clark's pro-war standing."

I didn't say that he will sweep the south. I think that he will do fairly well there, and better than any of the other candidates would do. Again, you are factually incorrect in asserting the Clark was pro-war.

"Clark speaks only rhetoric. He tells his followers only what they want to here. No more, and no less. No truth, no wisdom, shall not escape the words of Clark, for he doesn't know the truth, and has no wisdom to offer. His campaign for American unity leaves many behind in its wake. He has already spurned the left as irrelevant, as well as those who dwell under the confederate flag. And while many are admonished for "seeing a pure candidate," the Clark supporters seem to fail to see how the Clark campaign demands a pure supporter. No one has a right to call Clark on his past, on his polices. The softest of critics becomes an engineer of a smear campaign, and face endless charioteer assaults in retribution. Such tactics strike me as all too familiar as the tactics from the brown shirt freepers."

I am sorry that you feel that way. Maybe if you read Clark's plans you would realize that he does not in fact speak only rhetoric. You certainly do have the right to 'call Clark on his policies.' Just don't 'call him on policies' that he doesn't support, and I would be happy to debate with you.

"And all of this is unfortunate. If even a portion of what Clark says is to be believe, than he would indeed be the one to bring change. Unfortunately, one who hides his past also conceals his plans for the future."

I don't think he has hidden his past. He has talked about it quite a lot, in books, in interviews, etc.

"When Clark announced his campaign, he was swiftly painted as an anti-war candidate by the "liberal biased" media. A bold lie made in ignorance of Clarks many weeks of selling the war on the exact same media. And while true liberals were being chased from the air, Clark's brand of liberalism won him air time as a "Military expert.""

He's not anti-war in the sense of being a pacafist, he was anti-Iraq war. I am not a pacafist either, and I think if you looked around on DU you would find a lot of people who are not pacafists but didn't support the Iraq war.

"And now we are being treated to another lie. Clark's liberalism. I must wonder. Is this only the opinion of one Clark supporter? Or shall we see a more agonized thrust of this lie in the future. And is any one truly fooled that the constant and sickening fawning over every word Clark speaks? While also assaulting every negative word against him without mercy?"

If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck... Is it a duck?

"Apparently Clark is aware that the lie is not taking hold. Already, he has decided to buy pass one state caucus. Is he afraid that he will face defeat there? And he has chosen to skip a presidential debate in favor of a fund raiser. Has Clark chosen dollars over votes? How far can he retreat with his campaign, and still retrain even the elusion of a chance at victory? Rumor has it that primaries in Florida and Oklahoma are in jeopardy of being pulled by the DLC. Is it because Clark has poor showing in these states? I can prove nothing, but are these just coincidences? Is the DLC that consumed by fear that Clark may lose even once? Do they have that little faith?"

Your paragraph does not seem to be logically coherent to me. Can you rephrase it?

"Change is upon the horizon. But what sort of change remains to be seen. For it is a change we American may not necessarily control. And those in control fear losing control must be blinding. It is a fear that many Clark supporters share, as one had said, "fear is the start of political wisdom.""

Again, this doesn't make any sense to me. What do ou mean?

"Dean however, once noted that "we will not always have the worlds most powerful military." And was attacked for this statement. They fail to realize that Dean was not stating a policy, but an epiphany. An epiphany of the future of America so obvious, that the Clark supporters openly reject even is conception. Alas, it is not a future we can avoid. A willful ignorance of this will not slow its arrival, and indeed shall only hasten it. But if the end is to come, I will face it with courage, with my eyes open, and fully aware. Let the cowards like Clark run in fear, and hide in bravado and false pride."

What does Howard Dean have to do with anything I was talking about? I don't see what you are trying to say.

I agree that in a hundred years or so we might not have the strongest military in the world. China, for example, might have a stronger military. Or if things go really well, maybe we won't need a military, or all military will be controlled by the UN or some other international organization. That doesn't mean that I think it is a good idea to ensure that we suddenly do not have the strongest military now, and I don't think that is what Dean meant either.

"America was morally slain with the closing of the campaign of 2000. The Panacea man has no power to change this."

What is your logic and evidence to back up the assertion that Clark cannot "change this?"

In conclusion, you accuse Clark of using 'only rhetoric,' but it is my perception that you yourself use a lot of rhetoric. If you are willing to argue based on facts, I would be happy to converse with you.

[WillyBrandt]

55. Hear, hear!

Great work, my friend!

[eileen_d]

56. Damn, you're good.

I admire your reasonable responses, and the fact that you actually read the post you were responding to... I fell asleep halfway through ;)

[dobak]

60. Wow!

nice job MattforClark...

I just ignore him, but you did everyone a great service by responding to, and destoying, his useless post...

[Code_Name_D]

69. Keeping at it.

I have read some week and uninformed responses in my time. But yours would rise to the top of the list.

"If Clark was a liberal, than why would have been ask to give a speech at the Lincoln dinner?"

Maybe because Clark was an extraordinarily succesful person from the local area? He accomplished a lot, and was highly intelligent and knowledgeable. Sounds like a great person to invite to me.

Or maybe the Republicans paid him to attend, as the current memo says. Clark supporters keep trying to tell me how different Clark is from the Republicans, but during the Lincoln Dinner, Clark praises republicans. Do you under stand what this means? At means he looks up to them. He said so. But of course, he was said to say those things. So I wonder, how much is the DLC paying him now?

When I heard Clark interviewed on NPR's Fresh air in ~2001, I admired him greatly and would have jumped at the chance to have him come speak to me, even though I didn't know what he thought about gun control, the environment, or tax cuts at the time.

NPR recently interviewed O'Rilly. Do you admire him too?

"Repugs are of the opinion that all liberals should be shot as traitors, not give them podiums."

Really? That would seem to be an incorrect generalization, because I know some Republicans and they have never tried to shoot me, nor have they ever threatened to shoot me.

And this means what? Guy James just read two death threats that were e-mail to him over the air. Mike Malloy, gets death threats all the time. I read of a couple DUers where were nearly run off the road because of the bumper stickers they ware. Have you been to any protest lately? I could give you the numbers of three protestors where were almost run down by a runaway SUV while police looked on, never seeing a thing. You do know of Ann Coulter, right? Who advocates shooting liberals?

"Liberals do not believe in killing civilians in war, while Clark defends this as a necessity of war. Even while enemy tacks escapes harm."

I am a liberal, and I don't believe that one should try to kill civilians in war. Neither does Clark.

Than why did Clark bomb a TV station in Kosivo, resulting in the death of 20 civilians who were mostly reporters and technicians? Why did Clark order cluster bombs be dropped on residential areas, market places, water and power supplies, and non-military trains? All of which are prohibited under international law. Clark then defended these actions in his book, siting that these things were "duel use" parroting the Bush doctrine, as well as the slash and burn strategy used in Vietnam.

Neither does Rumsfeld, for that matter.

Than what was "shock and aw" all about? Where are there now an estimated 50 to 80 THOUSAND Iraqi dead? Are you really prepared to defend Rumsfeld in order to defend Clark?

"Liberals to not join efforts to be lobbyist for Henry Kisinger, a war criminal."

Define 'lobby for' and demonstrate how Clark is guilty of this, please.

Other examples could be cited but in this writer’s opinion, the association Dr. K is most afraid might be made public is with the little known company Acxiom.

Hardly a household name (we will try to change that), Acxiom appears to have been selected the lead company to provide software and pull together the network to furnish the information to DARPA’s “Information Awareness Office” (IAO) where John Poindexter of Iran-Contra infamy will prepare individual dossiers on every American citizen and the millions of aliens (legal and illegal) in the country.

The plan calls for the collection of information from a staggering number of sources e.g. banks, credit unions, health care organizations, the IRS and Social Security agencies, the INS, the FBI, grocery chains and any number of other companies and government agencies (federal, state and local) that have records of individual transactions.

But even this association might be covered up in these days of managed news. No, what scares Kissinger the most is the control and history of Acxiom itself. The company may be more than just a client. Mack McLarty sits on its Board of Directors, which implies some kind of investment to protect.

However, someone else obviously has an investment to protect as well. Jackson Stephens, the powerful Arkansas billionaire, has two men placed on the Board of Directors. One, General Wesley K. Clark of the Stephens Group is the former Supreme Commander of NATO and with Stephens backing appears to be gearing up for a run for the Democrat presidential nomination in 2004. The second Stephens man on the board is Stephen M. Patterson, a former director of the Stephens/Lippo Worthen Bank and its successor Bank of America-Arkansas.
http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg108164.html

Kissinger is the Chairman of Acxiom, to which Clark is a member of the Board of Directors. And Clark himself is a board member of several lobbying ferns that specialized in selling these information technologies to the pentagon. Is that definition good enough for you? Naw, of course it isn't.

"Liberals to not direct coups in South America."

Never heard anything about Clark overthrowing Latin American governments.

Clark was also Charmin of the National Endowment for Democracy. A qusi-government organization that contains some of the wors of the worst neo-cons on the board as Clark's peers. (More guilt by association.) And one of Clark's duties on that board was to directly over see the Venezuelan coup. Which failed. But not before more civilian casualties.
Go here to read more: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=460511

"Liberals to not sell privet information to the military in the name of homeland security. And profit form such acts."

Why not?

Um, you have no problem with intrusive searches, racial profiling, the no-fly lists, and other aspects of the Patriot Act? Let me guess. Bush is your second choice, right?

"Liberals would not lie about there party affiliation. Declaring themselves a Democrat, why hey have not filed the paper work to the Democratic party."

I am registered to vote in TX, but I have no idea whether I am registered as a democrat. I don't think I am, but I might be. I don't remember if there was a party affiliation box on the voters registration form. This doesn't mean that Clark, or I, am not a liberal.

Soooo you are so ill informed you don't even know what party you are registered too? Are you sure that you even live in Texas?

"Liberals to not run from party caucuses, or debates."

So liberals can't make tactical decisions that it is better to skip Iowa because they entered too late in the race? I do think that skipping the NH debate is a bad idea, but it hardly means that Clark is not liberal.

Skipping Iowa is not a "tactical decision." It's the act of a cowered who knows he can not win there. But rather than take a defeat, he will skip it. And the DLC has already said that they will back him on this. This means that Clark is trying to win the nomination by cheating. He only wants to run in the primaries where he knows before hand that he will win. I know of know Liberal that advocates cheating, or one who is afraid of being defeated.

"Liberals paint no undo meaning for the Confederate flag, no hold such reverence for the US flag as to support the flag burning amendment."

So Kucinich isn't a liberal either? What are you smoking and where can I get some?

Actually, I think you need to cut back. Where has Kuncinich jumped in on the Conservative flag fake issue? And where has Kuncininch rapped himself in the flag? And last time I looked, this little post was about Clark, not Kucininch. Or is it the result of a short attention span that makes you want to change the subject all of a sudden?

"Clark is a liberal? Than it is a form of liberalism that reeks way to much of the stench of the Neo-Con. This essay has far more "I do not knows" than it dose relevant knowledge. And comparing Clark to any one else is preciously the type of shallow resigning that have I have come to expect from the Kluckers. If Clark is such a great candidate, than why is it necessary to compare him to a 2% such as Kusinch? Is the author trying to show how similar they are by holding up a set of small issue? Or is he trying to prop Clark up."

What are the issues that I said I do not know where Clark stands that you find so important? If they really are so important, maybe I can try to find out about them. As I stated, I am comparing Clark to Kucinich not because Kucinich has 2%, but because he has a long platform on his website and because he is thought to be one of the most liberal candidates.

Two issues: And they are....

"The absence of the key issue is most notable. The War and the Economy. Two issues closely linked together. And Clarks pro-war position is getting harder to conceal by the day as more and more of Bush's pro war stance, falls under Clark's umbrella. Clark has already committed himself into continuing the occupation of Iraq and has made major policy speeches about going after Osama."

The abscence of those issues is because they do not appear on Kucinich's platform. If you want to read Clark's economic plan, go to http://www.clark04.com. You are factually incorrect in asserting that Clark has and had a pro-war stance as regards Iraq. Do you think that we should not try to kill Osama Bin Laden, but should leave him alone? You don't want to go after him?

BWAHAHAHAHA. Once again we defend Clark by attacking some one else. Oh so typical. Are you seriously trying to sell the idea that Kunininch doesn't have a platform on the war? The man was against the war when being against the war wasn't cool. He railed against the Iraq Resolution, and was on of the few democrats to vote against it. He has tried to launch several investigations into intelligence manipulation pre Iraq resolution, especially involving lies told about WMD. Do you REALLY want to go there?

And as for Clarks so called Economic's platform? I dissected every thing I could find about Clarks economics policy down in the Economics room. (One that the Kluckers never found.) Clark, dispute his degree in economics, seems to be wholly ignorant of even basic economic principals. He is a supply sider that wants to do every thing with targeted tax just and incentives. Tax cuts and incentives that go to the employer, and not the employee. But there are other parts of his economic plan that is just dope-smoken wired, such as his plan to reactivate a 19th century Homestead Act for "market driven population relocation." Whoooo that is some STRONG STUFF that he was smoking that day when he spat that one out.

"And all though the Kluckers are adamant that "Clark will sweep the south" I have yet seen one attempt to reach out to the South. Not one. Unless you would count Clark's pro-war standing."

I didn't say that he will sweep the south. I think that he will do fairly well there, and better than any of the other candidates would do. Again, you are factually incorrect in asserting the Clark was pro-war.

Am I? Than how come he believes it would damming America's ego if we pulled out of Iraq? Why did he pimp Iraq on CNN? Dose Clark still believe Husane has WMD? Why has he budgeted so much money for the occupation in his Economics plan? He is pro-war. He just dosn't have the guts to come out and say it. But reading between the lies makes me wonder how he keeps from frothing at the mouth every time he speaks.

"Clark speaks only rhetoric. He tells his followers only what they want to here. No more, and no less. No truth, no wisdom, shall not escape the words of Clark, for he doesn't know the truth, and has no wisdom to offer. His campaign for American unity leaves many behind in its wake. He has already spurned the left as irrelevant, as well as those who dwell under the confederate flag. And while many are admonished for "seeing a pure candidate," the Clark supporters seem to fail to see how the Clark campaign demands a pure supporter. No one has a right to call Clark on his past, on his polices. The softest of critics becomes an engineer of a smear campaign, and face endless charioteer assaults in retribution. Such tactics strike me as all too familiar as the tactics from the brown shirt freepers."

I am sorry that you feel that way. Maybe if you read Clark's plans you would realize that he does not in fact speak only rhetoric. You certainly do have the right to 'call Clark on his policies.' Just don't 'call him on policies' that he doesn't support, and I would be happy to debate with you.

Dude, I HAVE read them. And exactly that do you think my last post was about? An ode to brussel sprouts?

"And all of this is unfortunate. If even a portion of what Clark says is to be believe, than he would indeed be the one to bring change. Unfortunately, one who hides his past also conceals his plans for the future."

I don't think he has hidden his past. He has talked about it quite a lot, in books, in interviews, etc.

You never heard of his involvement with the NED, or the 17 other corporations that he is currently on the board for.

"When Clark announced his campaign, he was swiftly painted as an anti-war candidate by the "liberal biased" media. A bold lie made in ignorance of Clarks many weeks of selling the war on the exact same media. And while true liberals were being chased from the air, Clark's brand of liberalism won him air time as a "Military expert.""

He's not anti-war in the sense of being a pacafist, he was anti-Iraq war. I am not a pacafist either, and I think if you looked around on DU you would find a lot of people who are not pacafists but didn't support the Iraq war.

You seem to thing that being anti-war is the same thing as being a pacifist. Nope, being anti-war means at the vary least, having NOT committed war crimes. It's even on the application papers.

"And now we are being treated to another lie. Clark's liberalism. I must wonder. Is this only the opinion of one Clark supporter? Or shall we see a more agonized thrust of this lie in the future. And is any one truly fooled that the constant and sickening fawning over every word Clark speaks? While also assaulting every negative word against him without mercy?"

If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck... Is it a duck?

A walking talking duck is like no other duck I have ever seen before. Usually they waddle, fly, and quack up.

"Apparently Clark is aware that the lie is not taking hold. Already, he has decided to buy pass one state caucus. Is he afraid that he will face defeat there? And he has chosen to skip a presidential debate in favor of a fund raiser. Has Clark chosen dollars over votes? How far can he retreat with his campaign, and still retrain even the elusion of a chance at victory? Rumor has it that primaries in Florida and Oklahoma are in jeopardy of being pulled by the DLC. Is it because Clark has poor showing in these states? I can prove nothing, but are these just coincidences? Is the DLC that consumed by fear that Clark may lose even once? Do they have that little faith?"

Your paragraph does not seem to be logically coherent to me. Can you rephrase it?

No. I can not rephrase it for you. Comprehension is something you have to do by yourself.

"Change is upon the horizon. But what sort of change remains to be seen. For it is a change we American may not necessarily control. And those in control fear losing control must be blinding. It is a fear that many Clark supporters share, as one had said, "fear is the start of political wisdom.""

Again, this doesn't make any sense to me. What do ou mean?

Why? You prove my point.

"Dean however, once noted that "we will not always have the worlds most powerful military." And was attacked for this statement. They fail to realize that Dean was not stating a policy, but an epiphany. An epiphany of the future of America so obvious, that the Clark supporters openly reject even is conception. Alas, it is not a future we can avoid. A willful ignorance of this will not slow its arrival, and indeed shall only hasten it. But if the end is to come, I will face it with courage, with my eyes open, and fully aware. Let the cowards like Clark run in fear, and hide in bravado and false pride."

What does Howard Dean have to do with anything I was talking about? I don't see what you are trying to say.

Um, last time, you were confused on what we were talking about.

I agree that in a hundred years or so we might not have the strongest military in the world. China, for example, might have a stronger military. Or if things go really well, maybe we won't need a military, or all military will be controlled by the UN or some other international organization. That doesn't mean that I think it is a good idea to ensure that we suddenly do not have the strongest military now, and I don't think that is what Dean meant either.

And here we see the true measure of a Klucker's comprehension. When I say something bad about the Panacea man, the answer is simple, attack. But when the conversation turns to something of a little bit more substance? Then question marks start popping out of the ears.

But as this point is important, it bares repeating. In plain and simple terms, America can not afford this war, and the ten year deficit projection of even a moodiest expense is frankly infeasible. If the war is permitted to continue, inside 5 to 10 years, the US economy will face an absolute collapse. Such a collapse has only been seen one other time in Human history, the fall of Roam, and much of our current war and foreign policy bares an alarming resemblance to the final years of the Roman Empire. The nature of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan bares a disturbing similarity to Roams final campaigns into Northern Europe. And indeed, we see Vietnam being repeated as well, as the mighty vaunted US military, with all of the latest in technology, being laid low by lowly rocket grenades.

Indeed, our recent performance in Iraq demonstrates that the US military is already alarmingly inadequate and poorly structured. The army is stressed to the braking point, with most of the troops already deployed, and still more needed to even be competitive in Iraq. So Dean's epiphany has already come true. Or do you believe Bush's line that "we are winning" in Iraq.

"America was morally slain with the closing of the campaign of 2000. The Panacea man has no power to change this."

What is your logic and evidence to back up the assertion that Clark cannot "change this?"

Because Clark doesn't have any faith in the capacity in the human heart, or the will that wealds it. He has no faith in the concept of liberty for all. Clark dose not under stand that one's wellbeing is not secured through material means, but by being true to one's self, and to one's neighbors. Instead, all things come from force. To Clark, you defeat and enemy, by killing them, not by winning them over, and defiantly not in finding a mutual compromise. A just leader leads through humility, while a cruel leader leads through power.

Clark has no power to save America from its doom. For he has forgotten that the whole point of America, was to be a place of liberty for all, and that America dose not hold a monopoly on such liberty. For where there is liberty, the spirit of America shall surly thrive. Preserve liberty, and America will survive So ironically, the best way to save America is to allow it to die, and the best way to doom it, is to insist on its preservation at all cost, even at the cost of liberty itself.

[Mattforclark]

71. Point by point again

"I have read some week and uninformed responses in my time. But yours would rise to the top of the list."

Should I take that as a compliment?

"Or maybe the Republicans paid him to attend, as the current memo says. Clark supporters keep trying to tell me how different Clark is from the Republicans, but during the Lincoln Dinner, Clark praises republicans. Do you under stand what this means? At means he looks up to them. He said so. But of course, he was said to say those things. So I wonder, how much is the DLC paying him now?"

Why Clark decided to attend and why he was invited to attend are two seperate things. Do you agree with that? Certainly, the fact that he was paid to speak is probably one of the reasons why he decided to go speak to them. I said it in a previous post and I'll say it again. Would you go speak to a Republican dinner for a few thousand dollars? I sure would. As for praising Republicans, Clark gives credit where credit is due - to Bush for doing a good job in the First Gulf War and to Reagan for helping restore the moralle of the military. Like Clark, I too hoped that Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney (defsec in 1st gulf war), Rice, and all the rest would do a good job in the foreign policy department.

"NPR recently interviewed O'Rilly. Do you admire him too?"

ROFL, you think I admired him because Fresh Air interviewed him? No I admired Clark for the things he did that were mentioned in the interview. For the content of the interview, not the interview itself. Do you think there is a difference between content and existence of an interview?

"And this means what? Guy James just read two death threats that were e-mail to him over the air. Mike Malloy, gets death threats all the time. I read of a couple DUers where were nearly run off the road because of the bumper stickers they ware. Have you been to any protest lately? I could give you the numbers of three protestors where were almost run down by a runaway SUV while police looked on, never seeing a thing. You do know of Ann Coulter, right? Who advocates shooting liberals?"

It means that your generalization, and your logic, is faulty. Yep, I've heard of Ann Coulter. She came to my college recently to speak amid enormous protests.

"Than why did Clark bomb a TV station in Kosivo, resulting in the death of 20 civilians who were mostly reporters and technicians? Why did Clark order cluster bombs be dropped on residential areas, market places, water and power supplies, and non-military trains? All of which are prohibited under international law. Clark then defended these actions in his book, siting that these things were "duel use" parroting the Bush doctrine, as well as the slash and burn strategy used in Vietnam."

I already answered this question in post 52, if you didn't read it:

'I don't know about Kucinich, butI think he would probably be against it. Clark is against it. If you are trying to hint at bombing government TV propaganda stations during Kosovo, Clark was in favor of that, but the people who worked there were not civilians any more than Goebbles was in WW2, the people in the Pentagon were on 9/11, or the sailors on the USS cole were when it was bombed. All were/are legitimate military targets in states of armed conflict between two opposing entities. The Serbians were even warned that NATO was going to bomb it before hand.'

As for intentionally dropping cluster bombs on civilian areas and trains, please provide facts to back up your assertion. I do remember a case in Kosovo when they dropped a bomb on a bridge, and as it was falling a train came onto the bridge. 1) was it, as you claim, a cluster bomb? 2) was it, as you claim, intentional? To my knowledge, the answer to both questions is no.

"Than what was "shock and aw" all about? Where are there now an estimated 50 to 80 THOUSAND Iraqi dead? Are you really prepared to defend Rumsfeld in order to defend Clark?"

Do you think that 'shock and awe' was a concerted campaign with the intent of killing civilians? I don't. It was not the Christmas bombing or the firebombing of Hamburg. 50-80 thousand dead is not much less than were killed in the bombing of Dresden in WW2. If it is your opinion that most or all of the Iraqi dead were killed in 'shock and awe,' please explain to me why Baghdad does not look like Dresden. It's rather puzzling. I think that most of the Iraqi civilian dead were killed in the land campaign, not in shock and awe. I am not defending Rumsfeld, I am simply saying that I don't think he looked at a map of Baghdad and maniacally yelled out 'Look! It's someone's HOUSE! LET'S BOMB IT!'

"Other examples could be cited but in this writer’s opinion, the association Dr. K is most afraid might be made public is with the little known company Acxiom.

Hardly a household name (we will try to change that), Acxiom appears to have been selected the lead company to provide software and pull together the network to furnish the information to DARPA’s “Information Awareness Office” (IAO) where John Poindexter of Iran-Contra infamy will prepare individual dossiers on every American citizen and the millions of aliens (legal and illegal) in the country.

The plan calls for the collection of information from a staggering number of sources e.g. banks, credit unions, health care organizations, the IRS and Social Security agencies, the INS, the FBI, grocery chains and any number of other companies and government agencies (federal, state and local) that have records of individual transactions.

But even this association might be covered up in these days of managed news. No, what scares Kissinger the most is the control and history of Acxiom itself. The company may be more than just a client. Mack McLarty sits on its Board of Directors, which implies some kind of investment to protect.

However, someone else obviously has an investment to protect as well. Jackson Stephens, the powerful Arkansas billionaire, has two men placed on the Board of Directors. One, General Wesley K. Clark of the Stephens Group is the former Supreme Commander of NATO and with Stephens backing appears to be gearing up for a run for the Democrat presidential nomination in 2004. The second Stephens man on the board is Stephen M. Patterson, a former director of the Stephens/Lippo Worthen Bank and its successor Bank of America-Arkansas.
http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg108164.html

Kissinger is the Chairman of Acxiom, to which Clark is a member of the Board of Directors. And Clark himself is a board member of several lobbying ferns that specialized in selling these information technologies to the pentagon. Is that definition good enough for you? Naw, of course it isn't."

It sounds to me like he was lobbying for a specific Axciom product, not for Henry Kissinger. Did Clark go around and talk to people saying 'Hey, Henry Kissinger is a great guy! I think you should give him a job?' If not, your phrasing is very misleading, and if Bush had said it I bet you would rightly call it a lie (unless you were not aware that it isn't true).

"Liberals to not direct coups in South America."

"Clark was also Charmin of the National Endowment for Democracy. A qusi-government organization that contains some of the wors of the worst neo-cons on the board as Clark's peers. (More guilt by association.) And one of Clark's duties on that board was to directly over see the Venezuelan coup. Which failed. But not before more civilian casualties.
Go here to read more: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=460511"

It seems to me that this assertion contains numerous enormous logical leaps and unconfirmed allegations.

For example:

'Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, was quite candid when he said in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." In effect, the CIA has been laundering money through NED.'

What was the context in which this statement was made? If the NED is doing things that were once done covertly by the CIA, does it follow that NED is overthrowing governments? Or, in your considered opinion, is the only thing that the CIA did 25 years ago overthrow governments? Is it possible that the CIA might have been doing something good 25 years ago, like supporting democratic opposition parties, which is now done by the NED?

And if NED is doing:

'NED describes one of its 1997-98 programs thusly: "To identify barriers to private sector development at the local and federal levels in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and to push for legislative change... to develop strategies for private sector growth." Critics of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic have been supported by NED grants for years.'

Then, you know what? I am all for it.

"Um, you have no problem with intrusive searches, racial profiling, the no-fly lists, and other aspects of the Patriot Act? Let me guess. Bush is your second choice, right?"

Nope, George Bush is not my second choice. If I had been old enough to vote in 2000 I wouldn't have voted for him and I will not vote for him in 2004. If Clark doesn't win the dem nomination I will vote for whoever does.

As a matter of fact I do have problems with things like "intrusive searches, racial profiling, the no-fly lists, and other aspects of the Patriot Act." Can you tell me what Wesley Clark did that has to do with intrusive searches, racial profiling, or some other unreasonable sacrifice of civil liberties? Just because something has the word 'homeland security' next to it doesn't mean that the government is using it to take away your civil liberties. Might there actually be a few things done for 'homeland security' that are good and that we actually should be doing to prevent future terrorist attacks?

The Washington Post says:

'Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark helped an Arkansas information company win a contract to assist development of an airline passenger screening system, one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government.

Starting just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Clark sought out dozens of government and industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp., a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses and a wide array of personal details about nearly every adult in the United States and their households, according to interviews and documents.'

"Soooo you are so ill informed you don't even know what party you are registered too? Are you sure that you even live in Texas?"

I don't remember if there was a check box on my voter registration form in which you could register as a democrat, republican, green, or whatever. No, I don't have a photographic memory and I don't remember every detail of everything I have ever done in my life. Do you?

My family lives in Texas and I go to college in Maryland. So I sort of half live in both Texas and Maryland, but I am registered to vote in TX.

"Skipping Iowa is not a "tactical decision." It's the act of a cowered who knows he can not win there. But rather than take a defeat, he will skip it. And the DLC has already said that they will back him on this. This means that Clark is trying to win the nomination by cheating. He only wants to run in the primaries where he knows before hand that he will win. I know of know Liberal that advocates cheating, or one who is afraid of being defeated."

Yes, skipping Iowa is a tactical decision. I don't think Wesley Clark has done much campaigning for the Alaska caucus either. Is this 'cowardice' also in your opinion, or is it a tactical decision? ROFL, Clark is 'cheating,' huh?

"Actually, I think you need to cut back. Where has Kuncinich jumped in on the Conservative flag fake issue? And where has Kuncininch rapped himself in the flag? And last time I looked, this little post was about Clark, not Kucininch. Or is it the result of a short attention span that makes you want to change the subject all of a sudden?"

DK supports the flag desecration amendment. Given that the entire post was a comparison of Wesley Clark's positions to DK's platform, I think that DK is part of the subject of this thread. And if your definition of 'liberal' does not include Dennis Kucinich because he supports a flag desecration amendment, I think you need to go back and look at your definition of 'liberal.'

"And where has Kuncininch rapped himself in the flag?"

Just head over to http://www.kucinich.us/aboutdennis.htm and take a look at the top bar. Do you see an american flag? Wowsers.

"Two issues: And they are....

BWAHAHAHAHA. Once again we defend Clark by attacking some one else. Oh so typical. Are you seriously trying to sell the idea that Kunininch doesn't have a platform on the war? The man was against the war when being against the war wasn't cool. He railed against the Iraq Resolution, and was on of the few democrats to vote against it. He has tried to launch several investigations into intelligence manipulation pre Iraq resolution, especially involving lies told about WMD. Do you REALLY want to go there?

And as for Clarks so called Economic's platform? I dissected every thing I could find about Clarks economics policy down in the Economics room. (One that the Kluckers never found.) Clark, dispute his degree in economics, seems to be wholly ignorant of even basic economic principals. He is a supply sider that wants to do every thing with targeted tax just and incentives. Tax cuts and incentives that go to the employer, and not the employee. But there are other parts of his economic plan that is just dope-smoken wired, such as his plan to reactivate a 19th century Homestead Act for "market driven population relocation." Whoooo that is some STRONG STUFF that he was smoking that day when he spat that one out."

I am not attacking DK. I am simply pointing out that my post was a comparison of Clark's positions to DK's positions as expressed on his platform at his website. You say that these do not contain the issues of Iraq. Actually, they were mentioned, under headings like 'Iraq,' 'Economy,' and 'Jobs' but for some reason you don't seem to think that they were mentioned. If you are concerned about the alleged abscence of a plan for Iraq and for the economy, all you have to do is head over to http://clark04.com/issues/ and read his plans. No, Clark is not a 'supply sider.'

"Am I? Than how come he believes it would damming America's ego if we pulled out of Iraq? Why did he pimp Iraq on CNN? Dose Clark still believe Husane has WMD? Why has he budgeted so much money for the occupation in his Economics plan? He is pro-war. He just dosn't have the guts to come out and say it. But reading between the lies makes me wonder how he keeps from frothing at the mouth every time he speaks."

Clark thinks that it would be bad if Iraq descended into total chaos and full scale civil war and that now that we have invaded we should try to prevent that from happening. Your assertions that he was pro-war are simply false.

"Dude, I HAVE read them. And exactly that do you think my last post was about? An ode to brussel sprouts?"

Given that you have read them, what is your definition of 'rhetoric' and how do his plans fit that definition?

"You never heard of his involvement with the NED, or the 17 other corporations that he is currently on the board for."

Actually I had.

"You seem to thing that being anti-war is the same thing as being a pacifist. Nope, being anti-war means at the vary least, having NOT committed war crimes. It's even on the application papers."

I equate being against all wars as pacafist, because that is the definition of pacifism. Clark is not against all wars, nor is he a pacafist. He is against some wars, and Iraq was one of those wars. Clark did not commit war crimes. He was brought up on war crimes charges by a Serbian court during the Kosovo operation, along with Clinton, Schroeder, and various others. Do you think that the Serbian court's allegations are credible?

"A walking talking duck is like no other duck I have ever seen before. Usually they waddle, fly, and quack up."

WTF? Is that supposed to have a point?

"No. I can not rephrase it for you. Comprehension is something you have to do by yourself."

I am sorry that your paragraph is incomprehensible then. I guess we will just have to go to the next paragraph. Normally in open debate, when someone has a question or doesn't understand something, you will explain it to them. I am sorry that you don't want to do that.

"Why? You prove my point."

How can I prove your point if I don't even know what it is and you refuse to explain to me what it is?

"Um, last time, you were confused on what we were talking about."

Then please explain to me what I am misunderstanding.

"But as this point is important, it bares repeating. In plain and simple terms, America can not afford this war, and the ten year deficit projection of even a moodiest expense is frankly infeasible. If the war is permitted to continue, inside 5 to 10 years, the US economy will face an absolute collapse. Such a collapse has only been seen one other time in Human history, the fall of Roam, and much of our current war and foreign policy bares an alarming resemblance to the final years of the Roman Empire. The nature of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan bares a disturbing similarity to Roams final campaigns into Northern Europe. And indeed, we see Vietnam being repeated as well, as the mighty vaunted US military, with all of the latest in technology, being laid low by lowly rocket grenades."

Have you ever read 'the decline and fall of the Roman Empire?' It is a very good book, and if you read it you might increase your understanding of how Rome fell. You might learn that it did not fall in 5-10 years, for example. If you read about other empires, you might learn that the fall of empires has not "only been seen one other time in Human history." I agree that going to war against Iraq was a bad idea, but your historical comparisons seem to be exceedingly simplistic.

"Indeed, our recent performance in Iraq demonstrates that the US military is already alarmingly inadequate and poorly structured. The army is stressed to the braking point, with most of the troops already deployed, and still more needed to even be competitive in Iraq. So Dean's epiphany has already come true. Or do you believe Bush's line that "we are winning" in Iraq."

Actually, the US military did a very good job in Iraq during the 29 day part of the 'war'. Losing only ~200 killed and several thousand wounded is quite an astounding performance to anyone who has any knowledge of military history. No, I don't believe 'we are winning' in Iraq in a political sense, but I do believe that we overthrew the Saddam succesfully during the supposed 'major combat' portion of the war.

"Because Clark doesn't have any faith in the capacity in the human heart, or the will that wealds it. He has no faith in the concept of liberty for all. Clark dose not under stand that one's wellbeing is not secured through material means, but by being true to one's self, and to one's neighbors. Instead, all things come from force. To Clark, you defeat and enemy, by killing them, not by winning them over, and defiantly not in finding a mutual compromise. A just leader leads through humility, while a cruel leader leads through power.

Clark has no power to save America from its doom. For he has forgotten that the whole point of America, was to be a place of liberty for all, and that America dose not hold a monopoly on such liberty. For where there is liberty, the spirit of America shall surly thrive. Preserve liberty, and America will survive So ironically, the best way to save America is to allow it to die, and the best way to doom it, is to insist on its preservation at all cost, even at the cost of liberty itself."

Those two paragraphs seem to be rather ignorant to me. Does anyone else who may be reading this diologue also think so, or is it just me?

[Code_Name_D]

73. Plucking away.

"Or maybe the Republicans paid him to attend, as the current memo says. Clark supporters keep trying to tell me how different Clark is from the Republicans, but during the Lincoln Dinner, Clark praises republicans. Do you under stand what this means? At means he looks up to them. He said so. But of course, he was said to say those things. So I wonder, how much is the DLC paying him now?"

Why Clark decided to attend and why he was invited to attend are two seperate things. Do you agree with that? Certainly, the fact that he was paid to speak is probably one of the reasons why he decided to go speak to them. I said it in a previous post and I'll say it again. Would you go speak to a Republican dinner for a few thousand dollars? I sure would. As for praising Republicans, Clark gives credit where credit is due - to Bush for doing a good job in the First Gulf War and to Reagan for helping restore the moralle of the military. Like Clark, I too hoped that Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney (defsec in 1st gulf war), Rice, and all the rest would do a good job in the foreign policy department.

No. I do not agree. For the mear fact that he ATTENDED is the issue that I am trying to address, and which Clark Kluckers chose to ignore. The people whom you chose to associate with are reflections of your character. The people whom you praise, is also a direct reflection of your character. And the fact that Clark spoke so glowingly of Bush and the PNAC crowd during the Lincoln dinner, can only be seen in the same light as Prescot Bush parsing the courage and leadership of Chausler Adolph Hitler. Only those who are willfully ignorant, can so easily dismiss this willful association with Bush and his cohorts

"NPR recently interviewed O'Rilly. Do you admire him too?"

ROFL, you think I admired him because Fresh Air interviewed him? No I admired Clark for the things he did that were mentioned in the interview. For the content of the interview, not the interview itself. Do you think there is a difference between content and existence of an interview?

Your words. When I heard Clark interviewed on NPR's Fresh air in ~2001, I admired him greatly and would have jumped at the chance to have him come speak to me, even though I didn't know what he thought about gun control, the environment, or tax cuts at the time.

You didn't know what he was about, or know any thing of his politics, but you still admired him. Apparently, just because you heard his voice on NPR. If that is NOT what you meant, than you need to take greater effort in what you say.

"And this means what? Guy James just read two death threats that were e-mail to him over the air. Mike Malloy, gets death threats all the time. I read of a couple DUers where were nearly run off the road because of the bumper stickers they ware. Have you been to any protest lately? I could give you the numbers of three protestors where were almost run down by a runaway SUV while police looked on, never seeing a thing. You do know of Ann Coulter, right? Who advocates shooting liberals?"

It means that your generalization, and your logic, is faulty. Yep, I've heard of Ann Coulter. She came to my college recently to speak amid enormous protests.

No, I am stating a well known fact about the neo-cons position in regards to liberals and progressives. To argue other wise, is to argue from a mind numbing position of ignorance. Perhaps you would like a list of activity kill by right wingers? How about abortion providers, and tree sitters? What about the protestors (some of whom are my friends) where were nearly run down by a wring winger behind the wheal of an SUV? How about the 6 month old infant that was pepper sprayed at point blank range in her fathers arms by a riot cop? And incident that nearly killed the infant. And what about JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Martian Luther King Jr., and John Lenin? Why is the Antrhax Mailer still at large when the letters were mailed to Democratic congressmen? The domestic partner of a KGO liberal radio commentator was killed by a sniper? Shot through the window of his own home? What about the numerous examples of violence on gays? There bodies PROVES your ignorance.

"Than why did Clark bomb a TV station in Kosivo, resulting in the death of 20 civilians who were mostly reporters and technicians? Why did Clark order cluster bombs be dropped on residential areas, market places, water and power supplies, and non-military trains? All of which are prohibited under international law. Clark then defended these actions in his book, siting that these things were "duel use" parroting the Bush doctrine, as well as the slash and burn strategy used in Vietnam."

I already answered this question in post 52, if you didn't read it:

I did read it. And you failed to address any of TLM's points. As I am sure he will gladly point out when next he returns.

'I don't know about Kucinich, butI think he would probably be against it. Clark is against it. If you are trying to hint at bombing government TV propaganda stations during Kosovo, Clark was in favor of that, but the people who worked there were not civilians any more than Goebbles was in WW2, the people in the Pentagon were on 9/11, or the sailors on the USS cole were when it was bombed. All were/are legitimate military targets in states of armed conflict between two opposing entities. The Serbians were even warned that NATO was going to bomb it before hand.'

The TV tower was NOT a military target. It was not connected with the military in any way, had no military markings what so ever. Was man by civilians. And was unarmed and unable to protect themselves. And no dude, they had no warning that the TV station was going to be attacked, or other wise the civilians would have evacuated. The fact that they were transmitting propaganda is irrelevant. The mear fact that they WERE broadcasting propaganda meant they were not broadcasting military information. International law already establishes that radio transmitters, TV transmitters, and other civilian infrastructures are NON-MILITARY and are strictly prohibited from being targeted by the Geneva convention. Even Nazi Germany largely adhered to the rules of war as defined by the Geneva convention (with a few notable exceptions, such as the Bombing of London.). As it is militarily prudent to do so. Munitions are best spend against the enemy, not wasted on school chidden or broadcasters. And also explain to me why Clark killed more civilians in Kosivo than Moslosivich was even alleged to?

As for intentionally dropping cluster bombs on civilian areas and trains, please provide facts to back up your assertion. I do remember a case in Kosovo when they dropped a bomb on a bridge, and as it was falling a train came onto the bridge. 1) was it, as you claim, a cluster bomb? 2) was it, as you claim, intentional? To my knowledge, the answer to both questions is no.

You are already aware of the facts, as you just repeated one of my examples. You have already chosen to disregard this information, and now argue from a position of bias. Facts are irrelevant to you.

"Than what was "shock and aw" all about? Where are there now an estimated 50 to 80 THOUSAND Iraqi dead? Are you really prepared to defend Rumsfeld in order to defend Clark?"

Do you think that 'shock and awe' was a concerted campaign with the intent of killing civilians?

Oh so you are going to defend Shack and Awe now?

I don't. It was not the Christmas bombing or the firebombing of Hamburg. 50-80 thousand dead is not much less than were killed in the bombing of Dresden in WW2.

But killing 3000 American is an atrocity, right?

If it is your opinion that most or all of the Iraqi dead were killed in 'shock and awe,'

Yay. Your right, 50 to 90 thousand simply tripped on there soap in the bath tub. The daisy cutters and moabs had nothing to do with it. Kind of like on the A-Team where every one shots machine guns and blows up T&T every where, but no one ever gets hurt.

please explain to me why Baghdad does not look like Dresden. It's rather puzzling.

Well the oil ministry building still stands. And we all know the press is being completely open about sharing with us the extend of the destruction and casualties there, don't we. :eyes:

I think that most of the Iraqi civilian dead were killed in the land campaign, not in shock and awe. I am not defending Rumsfeld, I am simply saying that I don't think he looked at a map of Baghdad and maniacally yelled out 'Look! It's someone's HOUSE! LET'S BOMB IT!'

So sure are you? Didn't Trent Lot recently say "Let's level'em, and see what happens?"

Kissinger is the Chairman of Acxiom, to which Clark is a member of the Board of Directors. And Clark himself is a board member of several lobbying ferns that specialized in selling these information technologies to the pentagon. Is that definition good enough for you? Naw, of course it isn't."

It sounds to me like he was lobbying for a specific Axciom product, not for Henry Kissinger. Did Clark go around and talk to people saying 'Hey, Henry Kissinger is a great guy! I think you should give him a job?

He praised the PNAC crowd at the Lincoln dinner, is that good enough for ya?

(unless you were not aware that it isn't true).

Both Kisniger and Clarks name remains on the register for Axciom. Proof positive that this is FACT! But as I have already noted before. You are clearly not interested in the fact, only in officiating them.

"Liberals to not direct coups in South America."

"Clark was also Charmin of the National Endowment for Democracy. A qusi-government organization that contains some of the wors of the worst neo-cons on the board as Clark's peers. (More guilt by association.) And one of Clark's duties on that board was to directly over see the Venezuelan coup. Which failed. But not before more civilian casualties.
Go here to read more: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=460511"

It seems to me that this assertion contains numerous enormous logical leaps and unconfirmed allegations.

For example:

'Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, was quite candid when he said in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." In effect, the CIA has been laundering money through NED.'

What was the context in which this statement was made? If the NED is doing things that were once done covertly by the CIA, does it follow that NED is overthrowing governments? Or, in your considered opinion, is the only thing that the CIA did 25 years ago overthrow governments? Is it possible that the CIA might have been doing something good 25 years ago, like supporting democratic opposition parties, which is now done by the NED?

The CIA has been show to have an involvement in Venezuelan coup. CIA personal has been found to be directly assisting Chaves ouster, and funneling US dollars and weapons into the effort. And of course, the NED was the channel through which this money was funneled.

First you defend Rusmfled, then Ann Coulter, the bombing of civilian targets, and now you are defending the NED too? Do you even rules that these persons and institutions are part of the foundations of power for the neo-cons? I do not believe you are aware of this, for it is a glaring contradiction I have seen in Clarks defense. Each day, Clark looks more and more like a neo-con, and his supporters are neatly tricked into defending the neo-con in order to defend the Panacea man.

And if NED is doing:

'NED describes one of its 1997-98 programs thusly: "To identify barriers to private sector development at the local and federal levels in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and to push for legislative change... to develop strategies for private sector growth." Critics of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic have been supported by NED grants for years.'

Then, you know what? I am all for it.

No, it doesn’t surprise me that you would be fore it. Not one bit. Too bad you have no idea what it is that you support.

"Um, you have no problem with intrusive searches, racial profiling, the no-fly lists, and other aspects of the Patriot Act? Let me guess. Bush is your second choice, right?"

Nope, George Bush is not my second choice. If I had been old enough to vote in 2000 I wouldn't have voted for him and I will not vote for him in 2004. If Clark doesn't win the dem nomination I will vote for whoever does.

As a matter of fact I do have problems with things like "intrusive searches, racial profiling, the no-fly lists, and other aspects of the Patriot Act." Can you tell me what Wesley Clark did that has to do with intrusive searches, racial profiling, or some other unreasonable sacrifice of civil liberties?

Clark was chairman to the project that collected privet data from flight registration, bank accounts, medical records, library records, party registration, duty titles, and even grocery receipts in order to build a real time data base that would be sold to the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS would then use that data to build secret no fly lists that have already been deployed.

Just because something has the word 'homeland security' next to it doesn't mean that the government is using it to take away your civil liberties. Might there actually be a few things done for 'homeland security' that are good and that we actually should be doing to prevent future terrorist attacks?

Again you contradict yourself. Do you believe intrusive searches are instrumental in stopping terrorists attacks? Because this is what the DMS is all about! Big Brother, watching your every move. And Clark profited by helping to build the infrastructure needed for Big Brother.

The Washington Post says:

'Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark helped an Arkansas information company win a contract to assist development of an airline passenger screening system, one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government.

Starting just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Clark sought out dozens of government and industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp., a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses and a wide array of personal details about nearly every adult in the United States and their households, according to interviews and documents.'

"Soooo you are so ill informed you don't even know what party you are registered too? Are you sure that you even live in Texas?"

I don't remember if there was a check box on my voter registration form in which you could register as a democrat, republican, green, or whatever. No, I don't have a photographic memory and I don't remember every detail of everything I have ever done in my life. Do you?

Do you even CARE which party you are registered too?

My family lives in Texas and I go to college in Maryland. So I sort of half live in both Texas and Maryland, but I am registered to vote in TX.

How do you know? You don't bother to read registration documents before you sign them, and can not remember what you signed. And for something as important as which party you are registered from, one can only wonder where you leave your car keys every day. Yes, I DO know which party I am registered too. I even know in which district I am registered at, and where my polling place is located. (And no, I will not tell you, as this is privet information.)

"Skipping Iowa is not a "tactical decision." It's the act of a cowered who knows he can not win there. But rather than take a defeat, he will skip it. And the DLC has already said that they will back him on this. This means that Clark is trying to win the nomination by cheating. He only wants to run in the primaries where he knows before hand that he will win. I know of know Liberal that advocates cheating, or one who is afraid of being defeated."

Yes, skipping Iowa is a tactical decision. I don't think Wesley Clark has done much campaigning for the Alaska caucus either. Is this 'cowardice' also in your opinion, or is it a tactical decision? ROFL, Clark is 'cheating,' huh?

Alaska is a minor player in the primary system, and caries vary little weight in the full scheme of things. Alaska also comes in rather late in the season (If my memory serves) But Iowa is the second primary to take place, shortly after New Hampshire, and will be key in establishing who stays, and who goes. Iowa is also a large state with a lot of delegates assigned to it. Skipping Iowa means writing off those votes. Tell me again how this is a strategically wise move to ignore such an important stage in the primary process. Indeed, mythology has it that no Presidential candidate can with without first winning Iowa. Clark is also the first and ONLY candidate in US history to skip Iowa.

"Actually, I think you need to cut back. Where has Kuncinich jumped in on the Conservative flag fake issue? And where has Kuncininch rapped himself in the flag? And last time I looked, this little post was about Clark, not Kucininch. Or is it the result of a short attention span that makes you want to change the subject all of a sudden?"

DK supports the flag desecration amendment. Given that the entire post was a comparison of Wesley Clark's positions to DK's platform, I think that DK is part of the subject of this thread. And if your definition of 'liberal' does not include Dennis Kucinich because he supports a flag desecration amendment, I think you need to go back and look at your definition of 'liberal.'

I strongly oppose the Flag Burning amendment, and as such, has strong weigh into my feelings about liberal and progressive issues. DK's support of the flag burning amendment is a mark against his standing as a liberal and/or progressive. But the opinion of one issue alone is not a defining factor on weather DK is a liberal or not. Indeed, many positions, and even how he CAME to these positions, and his openness and responsive ness to debate and information are the defining aspects of liberal thinking in general. But a weighed sum of his thinking and intellect. Liberalism is not defined by a list of pros and cons as conservatism is defined as.

DK's position on the flag burning amendment weights against him strongly against him as it dose against Clark. But the difrences is that Clark has a lot more marks against him. Some of which I have detailed. DK for example has never even been offered a opportunity to speak at a Republican fund-raising even. Clark has not only been offered, but accepted. DK doses not condone the targeting civilians. Clark not only condones this, but has actively done so, and defended his actions. DK is not a board member of any corporation as he is a full time congressmen. Clark simultaneously sits on the boards of directors 18 corporations. Clark supports "free trade" known to liberals and progressives as "imperialism."

"And where has Kuncininch rapped himself in the flag?"

Just head over to http://www.kucinich.us/aboutdennis.htm and take a look at the top bar. Do you see an american flag? Wowsers.

Oh

MY

GOD!

Kuninich has red, white, and blue colors on his web page!

I am talking about Clarks "Patriotism New American Century." (Which some one observed was the acronym for PNAC. Coincidence?")

BWAHAHAHAHA. Once again we defend Clark by attacking some one else. Oh so typical. Are you seriously trying to sell the idea that Kunininch doesn't have a platform on the war? The man was against the war when being against the war wasn't cool. He railed against the Iraq Resolution, and was on of the few democrats to vote against it. He has tried to launch several investigations into intelligence manipulation pre Iraq resolution, especially involving lies told about WMD. Do you REALLY want to go there?

And as for Clarks so called Economic's platform? I dissected every thing I could find about Clarks economics policy down in the Economics room. (One that the Kluckers never found.) Clark, dispute his degree in economics, seems to be wholly ignorant of even basic economic principals. He is a supply sider that wants to do every thing with targeted tax just and incentives. Tax cuts and incentives that go to the employer, and not the employee. But there are other parts of his economic plan that is just dope-smoken wired, such as his plan to reactivate a 19th century Homestead Act for "market driven population relocation." Whoooo that is some STRONG STUFF that he was smoking that day when he spat that one out."

I am not attacking DK. I am simply pointing out that my post was a comparison of Clark's positions to DK's positions as expressed on his platform at his website. You say that these do not contain the issues of Iraq. Actually, they were mentioned, under headings like 'Iraq,' 'Economy,' and 'Jobs' but for some reason you don't seem to think that they were mentioned.

Wrong. I said that YOU never mentioned it in your post. Here is what you said.
Economy -

I think everyone here knows the two candidates position on this very broad issue, so I won't go into it. They don't seem to be that different to me.

Focus man, focus.

If you are concerned about the alleged abscence of a plan for Iraq and for the economy, all you have to do is head over to http://clark04.com/issues/ and read his plans. No, Clark is not a 'supply sider.'

How do you think I came to this conclusion? I went to his sight. I read his plan. Here is an example; he wants to give tax brakes and financial insinuative to corporations to encourage them to bring on new employees. This is by definition, supply side economics. Real economic theory says that one must increase the demand for goods and products before employment will go up. But Clark wants to give the money to the vary people who are responsible for the layoffs and off-shoring of jobs. That is like giving a thief a stypen so he won't steal again. And that is what supply side is all about, giving money to those who already have it.

You see, unlike yourself, it take a little more than hearing a 15 minute interview on Fresh Air before I fall in love with a candidate. I actually do my homework.

Red Flag here!
Whoops! Looks like you forgot to address something.

But there are other parts of his economic plan that is just dope-smoken wired, such as his plan to reactivate a 19th century Homestead Act for "market driven population relocation." Whoooo that is some STRONG STUFF that he was smoking that day when he spat that one out.

That just kind of slipped right on past, didn't it.

"Am I? Than how come he believes it would damming America's ego if we pulled out of Iraq? Why did he pimp Iraq on CNN? Dose Clark still believe Husane has WMD? Why has he budgeted so much money for the occupation in his Economics plan? He is pro-war. He just dosn't have the guts to come out and say it. But reading between the lies makes me wonder how he keeps from frothing at the mouth every time he speaks.

Clark thinks that it would be bad if Iraq descended into total chaos and full scale civil war and that now that we have invaded we should try to prevent that from happening. Your assertions that he was pro-war are simply false.

Iraq has ALREADY fallen into chaos! Bush put them there! We can no more win Iraq than we could win Vietnam. Clark only wants to perpetuate the problem. The only way to help Iraq now is to kick out the imperialists, and give the Iraqis back there country.

"Dude, I HAVE read them. And exactly that do you think my last post was about? An ode to brussel sprouts?"

Given that you have read them, what is your definition of 'rhetoric' and how do his plans fit that definition?

Rhetoric means any string of words or sentences that conveys no meaning or relevant information. Most forms of rhetoric tents to be self serving platitudes.

"You never heard of his involvement with the NED, or the 17 other corporations that he is currently on the board for."

Actually I had.

Dude. You don't even know to which PARTY you are registered too.

"You seem to thing that being anti-war is the same thing as being a pacifist. Nope, being anti-war means at the vary least, having NOT committed war crimes. It's even on the application papers."

I equate being against all wars as pacafist, because that is the definition of pacifism.

Then you would be wrong. As pacifists are NOT against warfare, only that they are against killing another human being. Not even to preserve there own life. Pacifists however were on the front lines of WWII, and were even on the beaches of Normandy as medics and chaplains.

Clark is not against all wars, nor is he a pacafist. He is against some wars, and Iraq was one of those wars.

False! He pimped for the war while he was a CNN commentator.

Clark did not commit war crimes. He was brought up on war crimes charges by a Serbian court during the Kosovo operation, along with Clinton, Schroeder, and various others. Do you think that the Serbian court's allegations are credible?

False again. Clark was never brought up on war crimes because the world court declined to here the charges. It is the law of the planet that American resides outside international law. But the weight of evidence against Clark in committing war crimes is rather ponderous.

"Why? You prove my point."

How can I prove your point if I don't even know what it is and you refuse to explain to me what it is?

Dude, you don't have to understand it, for my point to have been proven to others. There are 33,000 other persons that read this board too you know, and most are smarter than myself. Care to wager your dignity that they got my point? Well the funny part is, you already have.

"But as this point is important, it bares repeating. In plain and simple terms, America can not afford this war, and the ten year deficit projection of even a moodiest expense is frankly infeasible. If the war is permitted to continue, inside 5 to 10 years, the US economy will face an absolute collapse. Such a collapse has only been seen one other time in Human history, the fall of Roam, and much of our current war and foreign policy bares an alarming resemblance to the final years of the Roman Empire. The nature of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan bares a disturbing similarity to Roams final campaigns into Northern Europe. And indeed, we see Vietnam being repeated as well, as the mighty vaunted US military, with all of the latest in technology, being laid low by lowly rocket grenades."

Have you ever read 'the decline and fall of the Roman Empire?' It is a very good book, and if you read it you might increase your understanding of how Rome fell. You might learn that it did not fall in 5-10 years,

I never claimed that Rome fell in five to ten years. I said that America has five to ten years to it, if we continue this war in Iraq. Ops, another attempt to miss-represent my argument has been forted. Ouch.

for example. If you read about other empires, you might learn that the fall of empires has not "only been seen one other time in Human history."

You really should work on your comprehension some more. I said that the coming FALL of America has only been seen in one other example, and that was Roam. Roam built itself an economic global empire, just like the US has done through its "free trade" policy. Globalization is older than gunpowder dude. And it its end, Roam's economic interest was being frustrated not by rebellion abroad, but by the fact that the Senate was convinced that they were holding back there wealth. Infusions of wealth that was needed to offset the economic inefficiencies that resulted from internal corruption.

I agree that going to war against Iraq was a bad idea, but your historical comparisons seem to be exceedingly simplistic.

But you still argue in the necessity that it continues to be fought? And how is this for exceedingly simplistic?

How to get out of a hole. Step one.

STOP DIGGING!

It starting the war in Iraq was a war crime, don't you think that continuing the war is the same dam crime? Stupid question. Of course you don't.

"Indeed, our recent performance in Iraq demonstrates that the US military is already alarmingly inadequate and poorly structured. The army is stressed to the braking point, with most of the troops already deployed, and still more needed to even be competitive in Iraq. So Dean's epiphany has already come true. Or do you believe Bush's line that "we are winning" in Iraq."

Actually, the US military did a very good job in Iraq during the 29 day part of the 'war'. Losing only ~200 killed and several thousand wounded is quite an astounding performance to anyone who has any knowledge of military history.

Not really. Iraq had no defenses what so ever. There were no combat fronts. And most of the casualties were results of attacks of opportunity, hitting the poorly armed and armored supply lines that would get stuck in the sand or mud. Other casualties resulted from traffic fatalities as many had to drive in the dark with no head lights, or night vision, in extremely tight "bumper to bumper" formations. Even while many drivers had little to no sleep.

Most of the "coalition" casualties resulted from US "friendly fire."

[alcuno]

43. I'll vote for Dean or Clark and that's it n/t

[FrenchieCat]

51. Thanks....

I knew there was a reason I liked Clark.

Many said that Kucinich looked like Clark's mini-me at the Rock the Vote/Boat.....maybe that wasn't such a bad analogy. They both looked better than everyone else, IMO.

[RandomUser]

54. Kucinich and Clark recipes

There's a chef on the Clark Community Network who likes both Clark and Kucininch. He whipped up a few recipes for them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=710012

[Clark Can WIN]

57. holy moley

That's quite the essay there.

nice work!

[Hippo_Tron]

63. I'm actually gonna agree with Rush Limbaugh...

We are all pretty much liberals except Zell Miller. What he fails to mention is that we are damn proud of it, too.

[regnaD kciN]

67. The elephant in the middle of the room...

Economy -

I think everyone here knows the two candidates position on this very broad issue, so I won't go into it. They don't seem to be that different to me.

Well, I don't know "the two candidates (sic) position" on economic issues. At least, I know that Kucinich is a populist, but I have no idea about Clark.

And that really is the big, unspoken issue in the race. As Molly Ivins put it, it's not really about "left or right" in this country anymore, it's about "up or down." Is a candidate going to speak for the average workers in this country, or is he or she going to side with the corporations (while, of course, mouthing all the right words about how globalization "benefits us all," how cutting taxes for the elite will translate into greater capital investment, or how the solution is "greater productivity"...which generally translates into "abolish paid overtime so that you can lay off half the workforce and make the other half work twice as long and hard for the same pay")?

Like I said, Kucinich has positioned himself as a populist. A look at Clark's website, however, is distinctly murky. The most you get on the subject of "job creation" is the same tired old notion of giving tax breaks to businesses, combined with the somewhat loopy idea of creating jobs in the area of Homeland Security. His economic plan centers on deficit reduction, but does little more about the situation arising from Bush's tax giveaways to the rich except to suggest that the revenue be "recaptured" by repealing the upper-income cuts or "making other changes." While leaving aside the question of what those "other changes" might be, I would point out that this would, so to speak, stop the bleeding, but ignores the fact that enough damage has already been done by the upper-income giveaways that simply repealing them won't do the trick -- you're going to need to increase taxes on those brackets to more than they were pre-Bush. Finally, on the matter of globalization, Clark says little more than that we should take action if our treaty partners don't live up to their promises to open their markets to U.S. exports (in other words, benefiting U.S. corporations). There is not a word of concern about the very nature of NAFTA/GATT/WTO, etc., particularly the "race to the bottom" they inspire, and the fact that they allow an unelected, secret court to decide whether the U.S. will even be allowed to possess laws protecting jobs, the environment, or human rights within our own country.

I'm not saying Clark is a bad candidate, but his economic approach is not all that much different from the old DLC-style "pro-business" agenda -- make it nice for the corporations, and, maybe, they'll make it nice for us. That doesn't strike me as a liberal position, nor one that can resound with the "average Joe" who is now beginning to realize that the economic dice have been loaded against him.

[WillyBrandt]

70. This country was founded upon Progressive Taxation

Clark go so much hell for saying that.

And you're giving him hell for, apparently, not saying that.

[RandomUser]

74. On corporate loopholes

You might be interested in the Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission being proposed by Clark. He's trying to force Congress's hand in closing loopholes via up/down votes. It doesn't sound at all like he's coddling corporate corruption.

From Clark's economic plan on www.Clark04.com

End corporate welfare and close corporate loopholes: $300 billion. Wes Clark won't tolerate corporate welfare or corporate loopholes in the tax code. These provisions waste resources while providing companies with incentives to pursue handouts instead productivity growth and job creation. Wes Clark supports creation of the Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission to identify corporate welfare and then force Congress to vote up or down on an entire package of cuts. He'll also close loopholes in the tax code, like the ones that allow companies to avoid taxes by shifting income to Bermuda or buying life insurance for non-executive employees who never see a dime.

[texas is the reason]

68. the problem with clark is....

his words are just words.let's not forget that during the elections, bu$h was a "compassionate conservetive" who really cared about the middle class... clark can spit liberal virtues all night long, but i will be dammned if i trust a career military man with no political experience to run our country. Clark, as a general, has made a career out of doing and saying what it takes to win at all costs, in matters of life and death. looking at his background of support for reagan and both bushies, is it inconcievable that he would espouse the liberal platitudes necessary to win the primaries, and then morph into someone completely different once elected? call me crazy, but i just do not trust a man who has never had to vote for or veto against a bill in his life to run the country.

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. Problem?

I'm sorry, but I find your statement closed minded, and I usually associate that with traditional conservatives, and I know that you are not one of them. I have been type cast by those who don't know me very well as a radical anti war anti military activist most of my life. I was an active opponent of the Viet Nam War, and I shudder every time a Republican becomes "Commander in Chief" of the U.S. Armed Forces.

But even as an anti war activist back in the late 60's I remember being disturbed by a closed leftist mind set that for example, lept to the conclusion that all police were pigs. Stupid, narrow minded, condenscending and simply wrong. Many very honorable people enter law enforcement and/or the military. Pigs too, granted. The rape camps in Bosnia and the Rwanda genocide were watermark moments for me. I wish to God our armed forces had landed in Rwanda to stop hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians from being hacked to death by machetes. Clark, in my mind, has consistently been on the correct side of the issue regarding the use or non use of force by the United States. He made real enemies at the Pentagon for his willingness to consider "humanitarian" missions for the military, and for his appreciation for the need for international legitimacy for military campaigns, and support for multinational control over armed forces.

Clark is a brilliant white male in a nation where brilliant white males are given every chance to become extremely wealthy. He obviously is an achiever who reached the top of every thing he applied himself to. He spent 35 years in the military, and after reaching four star status he finally earned $120,000 a year. When he left the military he consciously avoided seeking employment within the military industrial complex, like virtually every other high ranking Defence department official or high ranking military officer does. He didn't cash in. I have seen Clark speak to small groups in person on two occaisions. His sincerity is transparent.

The Democratic Party is blessed to have him associated with it. He might be the only man with the stature and background needed to unite the country around a decent and democratic set of priorities. He can stand up to the false patriotism of the the Bush Administrations civilian hawks. I saw him near tears describing how the Republican neo coms are using the men and women of our armed forces as pawns in their ideological middle east Chess games.

Take off your blinders and listen to Wes Clark. He's for real.

[Justice]

75. Why That Is Not True

When Bush said compassionate conservatism, you knew it wasn't true even in 1999. He didn't behave that way as governor of Texas. He was AWOL. His words then didn't match his deeds.

When Wes Clark speaks - his speaks of his experiences, facts, circumstances etc. His words match his deeds.