Non Clark supporters lets discuss Clarks mistakes and campaign errors

[xultar]

Let's openly discuss all of the major errors and points of the Clark Campaign.

What I would like though is for Clarkies to sit this one out. Please watch and not post.

Let's make sure every one gets the issues, problems, mistakes and other criticisms out one by one. Everyone, please keep the discussion civil and issue focused. Keep the discussion constructive non inflamatory manner.

All Clarkies please send me a private message. I'll explain...

[slinkerwink]

1. well...I'll explain this calmly.

Clark pulled out of Iowa, and lost the endorsement of the AFSCME which could've helped him with organization in Iowa. Clark also didn't show at the JJ dinner which prompted the Iowa Democratic chair and Senator Harkin to say, "One of these six here will be the next President of the United States"

Despite Clark's commitment to NH, in the newest poll, his support dropped from 11 percent to 4 percent. It remains to be seen whether Clark's TV ads will help make up that support.

But Clark not being in the NH debate for a $1.5 million fundraiser in NYC, will further make NH voters feel like he really isn't caring about them. Furthermore, the local TV carrying the next debate has coverage going into Vermont, Massachussetts, and New Hampshire. This is ignoring a potential local TV audience.

Clark's posturing himself for a national campaign does him a disservice at the expense of the voters in primary states such as Iowa and New Hampshire.

Oh, and a few good points about Clark:

His military record will stand out against Bush's pathetic military record.

He does know a lot about foreign policy matters.

He looks really good on TV. ;-)

[59millionmorons]

4. Well

Actually as a Clark supporter. I agree with you. But it is part of the learning process.

[SahaleArm]

27. Neither here nor there.

Clark pulled out of Iowa, and lost the endorsement of the AFSCME which could've helped him with organization in Iowa

'Could have' is the key, it was not assured; Dean was still in it as well, with money, and state poll numbers from Iowa and NH to back him up. This was a calculated decision, which to me, makes sense. A campaign is a trade off, which is why Clark is going after NH (Kerry is beatable) and SC. Iowa is just too damn expensive for what you get.

Despite Clark's commitment to NH, in the newest poll, his support dropped from 11 percent to 4 percent. It remains to be seen whether Clark's TV ads will help make up that support.

NH is just beginning so I guess we'll have so see what happens. My gut feeling is NH is Dean's to lose with Kerry sitting in a beatable 2nd. Clark's goal is second or at least third place with 15-20%.

But Clark not being in the NH debate for a $1.5 million fundraiser in NYC, will further make NH voters feel like he really isn't caring about them. Furthermore, the local TV carrying the next debate has coverage going into Vermont, Massachussetts, and New Hampshire. This is ignoring a potential local TV audience.

Again a tradeoff, his campaign needs money over 1000 words in a scripted debate where the goal is to not look foolish. He'll get plenty of NH face time between now and the debate, including an ad-blitz over the next few weeks.

[slinkerwink]

35. NH is just beginning?

We've been in NH for longer than Clark has, and he has 4% support to show for it....

You're ignoring the fact that NH voters are very committed voters that will go to the primary to vote for the candidate they feel has really connected with them.

[SahaleArm]

38. From the Clark campaign perspective...

NH is just beginning (see thread title). There are still many undecided voters in NH; the goal is to bring those as well as leaners from other campaigns. 15-20% is doable in two months.

-----------------------------------

Everytime I make a point you go on to tangentially infer something else. Stop reading into things that don't exist.

[Bread and Circus]

42. Accd to a recent canvass of 8,000+ NH voters, 95% are...

uncertain of whom they will vote for (8,000+ Dem/Dem leaners,
to be more specific). This was done by the Clark campaign.
Believe it or not. I think their numbers may be a little high
but given the fact that Dean polls near 50% in NH but only
17% nationally makes me think the NH numbers are an anomaly.

It's not to say Dean isn't "the guy to beat". He surely is.
It's just to say everything isn't wrapped up in a little
Deanie package.

[JNelson6563]

2. I have thought about this

and I am reminded of the hang a lantern on your problem stategy.

Here's my view:

There are a lot of people out there who have been completely hoodwinked by the Simian and his handlers, right? We have Clark praising Team Bush not-so long-ago right?

This can be a total plus if used properly.

See, here's the way I'd use it: (Clark) I too once thought we were well off under the leadership of this misAdministration. After watching this Iraq(nam) debacle play out I see I was clearly wrong. Many of you believed the pre-war build-up as it is a natural inclination to want to believe your pResident on matters as serious as war.

We have all been mislead, lie to. I am glad to have figured out the truth about this misAdministration and there is no shame in realizing your error unless you fail to correct your erroneous course. With your help we can all work together to undo the damage this pResident has caused.

That's my view, take it for what it's worth from a Deanie.

Julie

[FrenchieCat]

3. Hey, that's the idea I shot off to the Clark Campaign....

Glad you agree that in the General Election, Clark having been called a "republican" can only be good for candidate Clark and Democrats.

[JNelson6563]

6. no, not that he's been called a "republican"

I mean the things he has done in support of Team Bush. That can be turned around by the GOP to ask "why all of a sudden does he think he can do better?". It doesn't matter what others candidates have said, it is the quotes of praise and whatever footage there is. You know the game (though your post indicates otherwise), use their own words, not those of a rival from the same party, for full effect.

The "turn-around" while unacceptable to many hard core Dems is a big advantage to the huge "mushy" middle. Clark can do a "I was ok with Bush until all the lies came to light".

Proves he's not just a Bush-hater and that he's capapble of changing his mind as facts surfacing require.

I think he and Dean could mop the floor with Simian and Unca Dick. Now if only we could get the more obnoxious supporters of both camps to be less combative and confrontational.....

Julie

[xultar]

10. AMEN on your last statement...so you're saying

that all Clark has to do is say that He was fine until the lies came to light and this whole repug bush supporting thing will die?

I think he's said on many occasions that like most of us he supported bush after 9/11. Even though I can't stand bush I supported him because he was leading our country.

Now the lies have come out. That energized me more to work to make sure he is not elected in 2004. Just like I'm sure it energized Clark to run. He's human just like we all are. As a black female should I be shunned cuz I supported Condi Rice in the beginning until I found out she is just a repug with a black ladies body?

[Hep]

12. I never supported Bush

before during or after 9/11.

[xultar]

13. So am I not a democrat?

[Hep]

26. what an odd conclusion

to jump to.

I'm saying that FOR ME, trusting Bush after 9/11 is not so easily dismissed.

I believed that Iraq was worthy of multinational attention. I believed that they might have WMD, but I never for one minute thought that invasion was the right thing to do in March.

I'm just saying, for me, Bush was never trustworthy. That's it. I'm not making some broad accusation about your level of involvement of sincerity as a Democrat. Just sharing my take.

[xultar]

30. I didn't mean it that way, part of the reason why people are

criticising Clark is because he said that he was proud of * and Tony Blairs resolve for the Iraq war. What I am trying to figure out what the real issue is

People won't give him a break cuz he supported * and tony
They think he supported the war?
People won't give him a break because he gave * the benefit of the doubt?

I guess what is it about the supporting * that makes him unelectable as a democratic president

[Hell Hath No Fury]

77. It may make him (and others) unelectable...

in some eyes because it shows a startling lack of competence.

The lies were out BEFORE we ever stepped foot in Iraq, BEFORE Colin Powell ever went to the United Nations, and BEFORE Congress voted to give this schmuck a blank check to go into Iraq.

The beginning of those lies were there for everyone to see within weeks of 9/11 when it was reported that Rummie asked for plans on how to go into Iraq only hours after the attacks.

The evidence was available, and there isn't a single person involved with the government or military -- including Mr. Clark -- who shouldn't have known about it.

That type of incompetence doesn't instill confidence in a future leader.

This has been one of the most important times in our country's history -- personally, I want someone who saw it and called it right, who was able to wade through the Bush bullshit, and who refused to pussy their way around a tough situation by claiming they were only guilty of believing the information they were given.

The damn saddest thing is that there are too few of those who did.

[Demobrat]

32. I never believed Bush.

I never supported Bush. I will never support anybody who ever did support Bush, for any reason. If they fell for Bush's bullshit they're not smart enough to lead this country.

[JNelson6563]

43. no I am saying that Clark can

provide an out to all those who may now be embarrassed for having believed the lies and supported the Simian and his illegal war.

Sorry to see folks trying to spin/infer negatives from what I thought was a helpful post.

My bad. Lesson learned.

Julie

[xultar]

48. You are right, but I thought Clark already said what you said

he should say

[JNelson6563]

49. I believe you when you say he has

but I haven't heard it yet. It needs to be a talking point to reach the masses who are now seeing they were wrong about Bush and/or the war.

Say it loud General! Let the masses hear you!!

Julie

[_NorCal_D_]

22. Exactly

The RW spin machine will be hard pressed to find ways to discredit Clark. Even these instances where Clark allegedly supported Shrub n' company can be easily countered or used against them.

[vi5]

5. Not an anyone supporter........

And I think Clark has run a good campaign. Not as good a campaign as Dean has run (I'm not a Dean supporter either), but better than most of the other candidates.

I think he hasn't been specific enough about some of the criticisms leveled at him about the ending of his tenure in Kosovo. I don't think he's hiding anything but his vague responses about it aren't doing him any justice.

I think he needs to be more honest about his words of praise for bushco. Again, my gut tells me that it is much ado about nothing, but his responses (at least the ones I have seen) haven't exactly engendered feelings of comfort about his candidacy.

I like Clark and a part of me would be very happy to have him as the nomination. I wish he had thrown his hat in the ring earlier and I wish he had a few less missteps along the way, but by the same token he's had fewer missteps than some of the more seasoned candidates.

[Lisa0825]

7. Thank you!

My issues have already been mentioned by the others, but I just wanted to thank you for asking. As I stated in another thread, I am a Dean supporter, but have considered Clark my #2 choice since the draft days. However, as things like praising Bush and voting for Republicans came out, I was seriously reconsidering. I wanted the POV of a real Clark supporter so I could consider whether it was media spin or selective reporting... basically, I wanted a real Clarkie to rebut it for me, so I could decide if I could still support him as my #2 choice. So, I asked a friend, and she got really terse with me about the whole thing. I appreciate you being open to discussing these issues, for those of us who want to hear his side.

[xultar]

9. About Clark supporting Bush

First of all though I don't like Bush I supported him as the leader of our country after 9/11. I think most of us did.
Second Clark is a military man. Military men/women are schooled not to talk bad about the commander and chief. Nor, do military men/women talk badly about other military men/women.

It is tough to talk about and I can understand why a Clarkie would get terse because our country is @ war. Soldiers are dying and the biggest problem we have with a candidate is that he said some nice stuff about *.

Let's say WMD was found. What would we be saying right now. Then * would be able to say I told you so.

I don't look down on the General for supporting Bush @ one point. Now he isn't. Isn't that enough? What must he say or do in regards to this issue to lay it to rest? I'd love to hear what you think.

[Lisa0825]

19. what my friend finally said....

She finally told me, after I guess I convinced her that I honestly wanted her POV, that though Clark voted for Reps in the past, he also voted for Clinton and Gore and had given financial contributions to Democrats. I have voted Republican in the past myself, on a local level, and once for BushI, so knowing that Clark DID support more Dems than Reps was what I wanted to hear. I think if supporters won't openly discuss these things with people who may still be skeptical, then it doesn't give them a chance to win 'em over:-) That's why I didn't "get" why she didn't want to talk to me about it. I would think she should welcome the chance to try to pull me in.

[xultar]

31. That's true, from a Clarkies POV it is so tough even here

the min you say anything positve about clark they bring up the whole * issue.
Well that is getting rather tiresome. We always have to answer that. Regardless of what you've done in the past as a candidate if you have a COMIN to JESUS moment and you see the lite and decide to be a democrat...then be one. But to have people constantly questioning what you voted for in the past is a non issue if you're donating and doing the dance now.

I feel somewhat personal about this issue cuz my family accused me of being "white" all the time cuz I didn't speak slang, didn't dress Ghetto-Fabulous. That hurt because I am black. I imagine Clark is having a tough time cuz he is a democrat, hes taking a risk for it and he's still getting BEAT down. At what point do you say forget it and scoot. I wouldn't give clark any grief if he just walked away. I think he's too good for us to drag him in the race to get his head bashed in by his own party. No one deservest that.

As for being an independent...I don't care I think alot of military men and women register as an independent.

[xultar]

8. OK Clarkies, I may have made a mistake...Respond to the criticisms

Keep it substantive. Also do not attack any other candidates. If you have links to other threads where the issue has been covered feel free to link.

A person brought up a good point. It isn't good to let all of that sit out there unanswerd.

Clarkies...anchors away...Please respond.

Thanks and Sorry

[_NorCal_D_]

16. LOL

So much for that idea. B-)

[xultar]

21. Yup, a Clarkie contacted me and I aggreed that we

shouldn't let negativity linger about any democratic candiate. That is why I try to find some positive response to any attack on any candidate.

IT was worth a try. I screwed up...Sorry Clarkies

[Hep]

11. I wish he had declared earlier

I don't know if itis a mistake or not. I know Clinton waited even longer, but it seems like wasted time. Not that it's an easy discussion.

He's made gaffes here and there, but who hasn't?

[xultar]

15. True, I wish he had declared earlier also, what's funny is that

I'm sure he had to convince his wife. How horrible is it to go from not having people in your face all day to having people in your face all day.
How horrible is it to know that your husband could be assinated as a candidate and as president.
How horrible is it to not be able to spend private time with your husband and with your complete family with out press and campaign staf around.
I also couldn't imagine what it would be like having to watch every word that comes out of your mouth 24/7

Thanks for posting that Clinton started late also. I didn't know that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Clark's Wife

You are right. I met Clark's sister in law at a small meetup in upstate New York (great lady by the way). She confirmed that Clark did not enter earlier because he had given his wife his word that he would not run against her wishes (they've been married for I think 36 years). Gert (Clark's wife) had deep reservations and it took all of that time for her to set them aside enough to OK it. A very strong personal endorcement from Clark's sister-in-law by the way. No surprise, but nothing to be taken for granted.

[Pastiche423]

14. He entered the race

as party affliation unknown.

He then switched it to democratic two weeks later.

I believe he entered the wrong primary.

[xultar]

18. Is there anything Clark can do to convince you he is a democrat...

not to get your support but to convince you he is a democrat.

You know how clark won my support?

I read Al Franken's book. Clark wanted to help the Africans in Rawanda. Clinton, Cohen, Shelton didn't.

Clark wanted to stop 800,000 Africans from getting hacked to death.

The UN NATO will help Europeans but they won't help Africans.

Why do we send Hatians back but we keep the Cubans?

Any one who will fight to to the point where Shelton and Cohen hate them and they lose their command for helping AFRICANS is o.k. in my book.

[Larkspur]

44. If Clark wants to convince me that he's a Democrat

he should

1) exit the Presidential race now
2) run for some other office, like governor as a Democrat
he had that opportunity in 2000 but failed to take it
3) win that office
4) get experience running the affairs of the office
5) handle the affairs of his office exceptionally well, and
6) win re-election as a Democrat at least once

Then he can run for Prez under the Democratic banner and I'd take him seriously as a Dem.

[VolcanoJen]

29. That's not true. Clark declared he was a Democrat before announcing...

...his candidacy for president.

Clark announced on CNN that he was a Democrat 14 days before announcing his presidential candidacy. I think it's important to keep the record straight on this, and clear up any disinformation, regardless of whether one believes Clark really is a Democrat or not.

September 3, 2003 - Clark announces to Judy Woodruff on CNN that "I am a Democrat. That's the party I belong to."

Link to GD Discussion that day:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=269889

September 17, 2003 - Clark officially declares his intention to seek the Democratic nomination for President.

Link to Washington Post story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A24563-2003Sep17¬Found=true

[Pastiche423]

39. On September 3, 2003

clark was not a Democrat. He did not become a Democrat until October 17, 2003.

When he filled out his FEC form to enter the race, he wrote in "UNK" as his party affliation. A copy of that form w/his signature was posted here, at DU.

So, when he offically declared his intention to run, HE WAS NOT A DEMOCRAT!

I am a lifelong Democrat because I have believed in the Democratic ideology. I have been a Democratic activist for thirty one years, working to promote and support the Democratic Party.

clark voted for Nixon, Reagan, TWICE! and Poppy. He spoke at a repug fundraiser, two years ago. He praised whistle ass et al in May 2003! He stated he liked and would like to work again w/PNACers.

Upon being fired from the military, he went to work as a lobbyist for Acxiom, a BIG Brother U.S. citizen privacy invading company for the Pentagon!

As recent as a week or so ago, he stated he favored an amendment to our Constitution which attacks our Freedom of Speech.

He gave a graduation speech at the School of Americas, praising the graduates! For god's sake! The School of Americas is a terrorists training school!

At a conference in Switzerland, he happened to chat with two prominent Republicans, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman, now president of the University of Denver. "I would have been a Republican," Clark told them, "if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls."

I would have voted for IWR. I would not have voted for IWR, said Wesley "Already the scent of victory is in the air" Clark.

clark is nothing more than an opportunistic, expedient democrat.

I am supporting a Democrat that has talked and walked the Democratic

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

116. What Is The Democratic Ideology?

<<I am a lifelong Democrat because I have believed in the Democratic ideology. I have been a Democratic activist for thirty one years, working to promote and support the Democratic Party.>>


Is that the Zell Miller Ideology? The Orville Faubus ideology? The Lester Maddox Ideology? The George Wallace ideology? While I admire your devotion to the Democratic party, I personally don't think one can speak about the Democratic ideology. There is no single Democratic ideology. In our American system, unlike a parliamentary system, parties make compromises in their ideology before elections. In the end, we wind up with candidates and platforms that are not that far apart (the present administration excepted). I do not admire blind party faithfulness, but I do admire loyalty to an ideology. That ideology can be shared by others, whether or not they are card-carrying Democrats. As for myself, I am a Green who has become a Democrat because of the Bush Administration. I intend to vote Democrat and support the next Democratic candidate. I'm hoping that that candidate will be the most remarkable individual to run for political office in many years in my opinion, Wesley Clark. From everything I have read about him, he comes very close to sharing the values that I admire and that is enough for me, parties be damned.

[Pastiche423]

126. Would you vote for a repug

if he/she shared your ideology?

I've seen everything when a Green would support the SOA!

[Spazito]

17. I wish he had entered the race sooner...

but beyond that, I haven't seen any serious errors. There have been some missteps but no more than the other candidates. I think he has addressed most of the concerns expressed such as his praise of Bush, etc, just after 9/11 and during Afghanistan.

[CWebster]

20. A good a place as any to start

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

[xultar]

25. Wasn't that when we all thought WMDs were in Iraq?

Didn't we all think that Saddam had WMD @ that point? I am not one for war. He was looking at the same intelligence that everyone else was looking at. He was lied to as well. Let's say Clinton was President and he didn't go get the WMD and we were attacked. What would the Wingnuts have done to him?
They are blaming him for 9/11 as it is.

PLUS Military men and women do not talk bad about their commander in chief while @ war. They are punished severly. You have to take his military background into consideration.

Since I'm sure you don't care about that I won't as you in particular but other DUers

[Pastiche423]

34. "Wasn't that when we all thought WMDs were in Iraq?"

Who the hell is "we"?

Certainly "we" is not DUers. I can count on one hand how many DUers were not sure about the WMD. The rest of us were screaming from the rooftops that it was all a lie!

It is coming clear why you believe clark to be a real democrat...

[Bertrand]

52. By we, he is referring to Dean

Since Dean believed that Iraq needed to be disarmed and if the UN didnt do it, "we" should.

"as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html


Edit: quotes around we

[lastliberalintexas]

23. Listening to the insiders and consultants

While I may have some problems with Clark myself, he has shown some very good instincts in his short campaign. But he is relying on many of the same people who ran Gore's awful 2000 campaign, when they should have long ago been given a train ticket to Siberia.

NO Dem candidate should rely on the consultants. They are too out of touch with the base, the grassroots, and the non-voters we need to win. Clark would be better off listening to and following his inner voice, and I think his campaign would be better for it, too.


Disclosure- Yes, I am a Dean supporter. But at this point, I'll be voting for whomever has the D beside their name in Nov.

[xultar]

28. True, I would say that consultants...are a pain in the ass. I 2

was horrified to hear that he'd hired the GORE 2000 Disaster Squad.

I also think that the candidate does have to make sure they stay on target. I do not think that Gore kept a handle on his team and that is why they screwed up.

[xultar]

33. OK, there has gotta be more than that. Usually a Clark thread

generates way more posts than this! I know you're outhere and you're watching...Post I'm really interested to hear the negatives on Clark.

Must be that people don't follow threads when they leave the front page

[mitchtv]

36. I can overlook the * support thing

backing up his military friends during the action. I am an undecided liberal democrat. this flag burning amendment thing has caused me to just about eliminate Clark from "my" race. His behavior , however is exemplary. I do not trash any Dem candidates and I will vote for the nominee.

[xultar]

40. His complete stance is that he'd support one if the American people

supported one.

Kucinich and Gephard support an amendment Kucinich actually voted for the amendment. Dean has a similar stance though it appears that he's pandering to either side. Seeing how the PResident neither votes for or signs for the amendment whether or not he supports one is quite mute.

Does that help you?

[Myra]

56. Flag burning amendment issue

"His complete stance is that he'd support one
if the American people" supported one."

Do you happen to have a source for this xultar?
I'm not trying to give you grief.

But, as a current Clark supporter I was bothered
by his possible support of that amendment, and
do consider it mistake. I don't recall him qualifying
it by saying "~...if the American people supported one."
I don't see that qualifier on his website, or a
quote from the news. Actually that qualifier probably
doesn't sway me on the issue anyway.
("I'll do idiotic stuff if the 'Merkan people want idiotic stuff.")

I wrote to his website ([e-mail]) to state my
concerns and ask for clarification on his position,
but am not aware of any clarification.

Here's, in part, what I wrote:

"I've read recent media reports that you would
support such an amendment.
I'm very much against this perverse
amendment, which would make a symbol, a piece of cloth,
more important than the freedoms it represents.
Flag burning is a type of freedom of speech.
An amendment banning it would be drastic and misguided.
That piece of cloth isn't anything sacred; the Bill of Rights is."

[mitchtv]

91. it shows lack of leadership

I resent intrusion on the bill of rights.It is a stupid idea and I would prefer it if he said as much. However I will vote for him if he gets the nod.

[Zorra]

37. What mistakes?

Pulling out of NH was a good move, Clark would be wasting his time there, fighting a losing battle on someone else's turf.

Maybe ditching Iowa was a mistake, maybe not.

The people who are behind Clark know exactly what they are doing.

[Padraig18]

41. Actually, Clark has made few mistakes.

His major mistake, so far, was to pull out of IA. I honestly think he could have made a 3rd-place showing there. Other than that (and his late start), he's made remarkably few errors or gaffes.

[1971]

45. Patriot Act?

Ok, playing devil's advocate here, because I am leaning in support of Clark... but I am aware of how a military man might make some hesitate. Granted, Clark is in a class by himself, but...

What's Clark's real position on the Patriot Act?
I've heard that he thinks it needs a full review.
Seems to be in agreement that it has problems... but is there any documentation or policy press releases from his campaign that state his position on it more in-depth?

Like, is he as outraged by how the Patriot Act tramples our civil liberties (and has caused a lot of cities across America to denounce it), or is he one to think it is useful if used cautiously (but would not change much of it).??

[FrenchieCat]

46. Clark says about the Patriot act....

it needs to be reviewed. We need to see what has been used and what hasn't...and what it has been used for. Also need to confirm that whatever it was used for, were there already specific laws on the books that could have done the job just as well. He is saying, let's pour over this sh*t millimeter by millimeter and take notes...and then only keep what is useful according to the people of America. He said that people should have a voice in what this act contain, if anything is left after review.

Now if I find a transcript as to when he said that .....I will link it. But I am positive that is what I heard him say on a couple of occasions. As he is not a politician, he doesn't say the exact same thing twice....sorry.

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. Would change it a lot I think

I've heard Clark in person twice, and walked away satisfied on that score but I'm not sure I can remember his words on it. He starts out by saying it is dead wrong to defend our nation by sacrificing the ideals this nation stands for. He is quite clear that he is referring to civil liberties. He is inherently a bit cautious about making a sweeping general statement condemming all aspects of an act that runs well over a hundred pages, but he starts by saying that those aspects of the Patriot Act that contradict basic civil liberties should immediately be suspended, pending careful review. He wants to err on the side of Liberty. I heard him say that the entire act should be reviewed, and not just by a congressional committee but at the grass roots level. He feels the Attorney General should produce cases and hard facts to show why when and where the Patriot Act has been used, on what grounds was it invoked, for what purpose, for what benefit, and at what cost to our liberties. Why was it imperitive that the Patriot Act in specific be evoked each time that it was used? Why weren't other laws on the books sufficient to protect both our security and civil liberties? He thinks the Patriot Act was rushed through in a sea of emotion with little oversight. He sounds very concerned about it, sincerely so.

[newyawker99]

51. Hi 1971!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[1971]

57. thanks, newyawker99 -

:dem:
(Sometimes I just gotta come to DU for a respite from the chilly GOP world.)

[hilzoy]

53. Clark on the Patriot Act:

This Salon article is actually a partial transcript of a speech he gave to the SF Bar Association. It starts out about Iraq, but gets into civil liberties and the Patriot Act fairly quickly.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/11/04/clark_speech/

Highlights: "And Mr. Bush chipped away at reproductive rights, rolled back environmental laws, started rolling back workers' safety laws. But I don't think it was until the PATRIOT Act came out that we realized just how far from the mainstream Mr. Bush and his administration were attempting to stray. Because it wasn't until we saw the PATRIOT Act and how it was implemented that we realized how little respect they have for our civil rights and civil liberties...

I think it's time to say: Stop, stop, Mr. Ashcroft! Lay it on the table! Let's see what you did with the PATRIOT Act! Take it to the Congress, let us see every single incident in which you invoked the PATRIOT Act. What did you use it for? Why did you use it? Why couldn't you have used another provision? Why couldn't you have gone to a judge to get a warrant for wiretapping instead of going on in secret? Why do you need access to those library records -- have you ever gotten access to them?

We should lay it all out! If there are pieces that can be justified, OK, we'll consider it. But let's lay it out, and let's have it fully accountable, and in the meantime let's suspend the provisions that allow the searches and seizures without subpoenas and warrants, let's suspend them right now, and go back to real justice.

I believe law enforcement needs all the tools necessary to deal with the problems of terrorism. But I don't believe you can win a war on terror if you give up the essence of who we are as Americans."

Since you're considering other candidates, you might also be interested in Dean's record on civil liberties. There's a summary here:
http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,535358,00.html

[kerry-is-my-prez]

54. This is his statement on what REAL Patriotism should be - dissent, etc.

http://clark04.com/downloads/pdf/nap_philosophy.pdf

"This New American Patriotism is not just about waving the
flag and guarding our borders. It's about guarding what
makes us distinctive as Americans: our personal liberties,
our right to debate and dissent. We are not a country that manipulates facts, ignores debate, and stifles dissent.

We are not a country that retaliates against people who criticize the government. We are not a country that disdains our friends and allies. We are not a country that sheds blood before every other option has been exhausted. And we can't have a government that stands
for any of these things.

Debate, dialogue, discussion,disagreement, dissent - that's not wrong - that's not unpatriotic, that's one of the highest forms of
patriotism and love of country,and we need to say it.
- Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.)

And that's why I'm running for President - to return America to the core ideals of our democracy: personal liberty, service to country,
respect for others, the right to criticize and correct the government - in time of war, especially.

Debate, dialogue, discussion,disagreement, dissent—that's not wrong,
that's not unpatriotic, that's one of the highest forms of Patriotism and love of country, and we need to say it.

[Scott Lee]

50. I think Clark is a fine man, and here's my dos pesos on the topic...

As I've said before, and I'll say again, I could just as easily support Clark as I support Dean. Running together they could be unstoppable. But as you requested, here are a few thoughts on what Clark could improve on:

Clark is a threat to civil liberties. This came about after his voiced support for a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration. It's probably one of the most damaging points against him, as civil liberties is a hot issue this election in face of the attacks against it by the Patriot Acts. If I were Clark I'd bend over backwards to allay the fears of civil rights/liberties voters. I'd flesh out, honestly, why such a flag amendment is so necessary and what it would entail (what kind of punishment for violating it, etc.) I'd follow it up with a promise to do everything necessary to preserve our Bill of Rights. Moreover, if he went so far as to reverse himself on the issue, he would gain a lot of fans and people like me would never poopoo him for changing his mind.

Clark is a militarist and would give us more Iraqs Being in the military has plusses and minuses these days. Because of Iraq, many voters are going to be skeptical at putting someone with a uniform into the cat chair; they are gun-shy after what the sitting War Criminal has done. Clark has stated his opposition to the Iraq War, but what gaurantee do we have that he may not do something similar in the future - for his own reasons? How gung ho is he?

Clark is only an Eleventh Hour Democrat Wes has gotten a lot of flack over that. His late coming to the Democratic Party, coupled with his now famous quip about a single phone call keeping him from being a Republican, has many questioning his sincerity on being a real Democrat. How should he address this? What makes him a Democrat besides his late hour decision to run on the Democratic ticket? Flesh those reasons out in clear language, with a passion for the core issues that have defined the Democratic party in the past.

Well that's pretty much it for me, I hope this helps. To his credit, Wes Clark has been a class act when it comes not to shit-talking his fellow candidates and that's a major plus.

[1971]

55. RE: Clark is a militarist and would give us more Iraqs

Scott,
I'll jump in on this one (maybe someone else can take another issue):

My impression is that Clark is not a warmonger. When he discusses Iraq, as he did on Sunday on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, and in numerous other speeches and commentaries, as well as provided in documents on his campaign website www.Clark04.com - one can tell he's a straight-shooter and means what he says. Damn the media chatter about flip-flops - such shallow remarks are merely evidence of simpletons trying to box a complex message in their tiny TV soundbites, and of political partisans gobbling them up to regurgitate to the public as if they are God's given truth. Bah. (Personally, I've found that it's getting less and less possible to swallow whole the news that's reported - you gotta seek out other references, and get to the source if at all possible.)

From the Meet the Press transcript for Sunday Nov. 16th with Clark:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/994273.asp?0sl=-10

MR. RUSSERT: Let me go to Iraq, because when you first started your presidential campaign, there was a lot of discussion about what your position was and when, and I want to go back and review it. Let’s start with September 26, your testimony to the House Armed Services Committee. And this is what you said: “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. He does retain his chemical and biological
capabilities to some extent, and he is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities.” You went on: “Our president has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts...” And “I do believe the United States’ diplomacy in the United Nations would be strengthened if Congress can adopt a resolution expressing U.S. determination to act if the United
Nations cannot act.” And you continued, “As Richard Perle ,” chief architect of the war in Iraq, “so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that’s longstanding. It’s been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this.”
A month later you went up to New Hampshire, campaigning for Katrina Swett, a candidate for Congress in the 2nd District, and said this: “Clark endorsed Democratic Katrina Swett in the 2nd District in New Hampshire.” And “He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for the resolution.” And as recently as September of this year, in response to a question of the press, “On balance, I probably would have voted for it.”
This was the resolution that the president asked for, giving him the authority to go to war. And the record’s pretty clear, General, that you were supporting the president.

GEN. CLARK: Well, I don’t think the record’s clear, that I was supporting the president, Tim. I think the record’s pretty clear in the opposite direction. What I would have supported was taking the problem to the United Nations. I wanted to see the problem of Saddam Hussein taken to the United Nations. Yes, I believe Saddam Hussein was a challenge and a threat but I did not see an imminent threat. I’ve written thousands of words, I’ve spoken dozens of times on CNN and you’ve simply got to pull the whole record out to see this. I even said on the 16th of September on CNN, “Don’t give the president a blank check.”
The resolution I would have supported is a resolution that required the president to return to the United States Congress before he took any military action. I supported a resolution that would have given him leverage with the United Nations but not a resolution that would have authorized war at that time. So I want to make it...

MR. RUSSERT: But you did say, “Our president has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons. I support his efforts.”

GEN. CLARK: I do support the effort to eliminate those weapons and I did then, but I did not see it as a threat that required us to go to war at the time. And I’ve made that very clear, too.

MR. RUSSERT: After the war was commenced in April, you did write an article for The London Times and you said, “Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. ... President Bush, Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.”

GEN. CLARK: But, Tim, do you have the rest of the article with you?

MR. RUSSERT: I’ve read...

GEN. CLARK: The rest of the article you should show because what it says is: “You can have your victory parade. You can have the soldiers parade up and down. You can be proud of the fact that you commanded these troops and they crushed this Army, but you must recognize that the job isn’t done. It may be only beginning. You haven’t found the weapons of mass destruction. And you’ve got a long way to go to put anything in place in the postwar.”
I’m writing as a commentator. I’m fair, and I respect the men and women in the armed forces. I love them, I’ve spent my life there, and I’m proud of them. And they did, in their military duties, a fabulous job in following the orders of the commander in chief. I simply wouldn’t have given those orders at that time. Those weren’t the right orders. Diplomacy hadn’t been exhausted, we hadn’t brought our allies on board, and we didn’t have an adequate plan for what would happen next. You cannot go to war in those circumstances and be successful. In Kosovo, we had exhausted diplomacy. We had our allies on board and we had a plan for what we would do when the fighting stopped. It was exactly the opposite situation.

[Pastiche423]

59. Suddenly

at age 58, he is not a warmonger, when all of his life has been committed to war?

When and what was his epiphany?

It friggen blows me away that so many people are eating this bullshit, and quite happily, at that.

I feel like I did four years ago, when I went around begging people on both sides of the country to NOT VOTE FOR BUSH! I told them they would be sorry.

Now I am saying the same thing about clark. People are going to be sorry if he wins, then takes off his donkey jacket.

[Myra]

60. Hey Pastiche423

"...at age 58, he is not a warmonger,
when all of his life has been committed to war?"

Are you opposed to the prospect of a military
person ever running for presidency? I mean, leaving
General Clark out of it. I'm just asking the broader
question.

[SahaleArm]

61. Based on prior posts - a pacifist.

Who supports Dr. Intervention.

[CWebster]

69. "A pacifist"...you say it as if it was a filthy liberal or a leper

Like jesus Christ or Gandhi.

Do you catch my drift about how inappropriate that accusation is on the Left? No, I didn't think so.

[SahaleArm]

73. No I was pointing out hypocrisy.

How can you support Howard Dean on the principles of pacifism?

1. Dean is "anti-war." False. Dean was consistently, clearly, and contemporaneously opposed to President Bush's largely unilateral and pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, and he is the only leading Democratic candidate in that category. (Braun, Kucinich, and Sharpton also had the same position.) But he is not "anti-war." He supported both the first Gulf War and the Afghanistan campaign, for example. Dean's foreign policy positions are moderate. You can read more about Dean's foreign policy approach in this Washington Post article.

Dean was opposed to that war because it would harm U.S. national security and cost lives and treasure.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=728883

[Pastiche423]

63. Nope

You have seen my other posts regarding clark.

I have listed my concerns about clark many times on this board. IMHO, given his history he brings nothing to the Democratic Party. Just that he gave a speech at the SOA graduation, actually, is enough for me to campaign against him.

Where are the Democrats on that subject, btw???

I am opposed to killing innocent people, but I am not a pacifist. I believe in defending one's country, but not for imperialistic reasons.

[SahaleArm]

64. How about intervention?

Is taking out Afghanistan justified? Liberian Intervention? Support of Israel? The list goes on...

BTW have you seen this film? http://www.hiddeninplainsight.org/. The only candidates who would dismantle the SOA are Kucinch and Sharpton.

[Pastiche423]

66. How could Afghanistan be justified

when there has been no proof the country was involved? It's over two years later and there STILL has not been an investigation.

The plans to bomb Afghanistan were on whistle ass' desk long before September, 11 2001. Someone got pissed when the Taliban would not accept "our" carpet of gold, even after giving them $43B in May of that year. They din't want to play w/us, so instead they got a carpet of bombs.

IOW, we were going to bomb the shit out of them whether or not September 11, 2001 happened.

So no, I do not believe the bombing of Afghanistan was justified.

And no, I have not seen that film.

[SahaleArm]

70. Dean agreed with Afghan Intervention.

I take it you don't agree with him on that?

BTW the film is a documentary; it takes an in-depth look at US-South American policy.

[Pastiche423]

72. You are correct

I do not agree w/Dean on the Afghanistan bombing.

[TLM]

71. Notice they do not say Clark didn;t do the things you say he did...

instead they attack your standards, call you a pacifist or try to imply that if you support Israel or supported action in Afghanistan then somehow that means you are being hypocritical if you do not simply ignore the things Clark has done.


But they never say, “no, Clark didn’t target civilians in Kosovo”... or “no, Clark didn’t say he felt that journalists were the same as the army forces and were Ok to target”... they don’t say, “no Clark never worked as a lobbyist selling private information to John Ashcroft.”

Clark has the gall to talk about Ashcroft Stealing away our rights and privacy??? Hey Clark, Ashcroft did not steal our privacy, HE BOUGHT IT from companies like axciom thanks to people like you.

[Pastiche423]

75. OR

they throw out the -------- RW TALKING POINTS! They do it so often, that it makes me wonder why they know the RW talking points so well.

[SahaleArm]

87. Googling for the truth?

That seems to be common practice around here, along with 'unsubstantiated facts'.

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

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

Myth Buster: http://www.clarkmyths.com

[Code_Name_D]

94. Standerd defence: Blaim Clintion.

Your responce is off toppic, and thus is irrelivent. TLM raised these the fact that Clark delibritly targetd cavilans.

The use of ground troops, or their absences, no mater who gave the order, has no baring on the targets Clark chose.

But your defence has another problem. TLM showed how Clark actualy DEFENDED his stratigy to targeting cavilans. If the lack of ground troops was the cause of the problem, then why did Clark defend his stratigy of targeting cavilans?

[SahaleArm]

99. The wonders of war propoganda.

Under the guise of journalism, Milosevic used broadcast stations to further his mad plan of ethnic cleansing. Are they 'journalists' because they used a broadcast facility? Clark never purposely killed civilians if that's what you're implying. You're parroting of TLM is not only irrelavent but annoying.

[Code_Name_D]

109. I am a pearot

but you are still doging the issue.

Why did Clark target cvilans?

Given answer: They wern't cavilans.

But dude, the were not soldgers. They were not armed. Whey were not a military target. They did not threaten US forces.

Why were they targeted?

[SahaleArm]

114. Anyone have a translator on hand? *nm*

*nm*

[Julien Sorel]

102. Whack-a-mole

1) Clark did not 'target journalists'

2) Since when do lobbyists 'sell?'

[SahaleArm]

103. Where's Bill Murray when you need him?

[Rowdyboy]

65. Clark brings nothing except a distinguished military career,

flawless background in security, a brilliant mind, proven ability to delegate and problem solve, extremely effective vocal critic of Bush administration, reliably liberal on social issues, supports replacing "don't ask/don't tell", and can actually pull enough votes to beat Bush. But none of that seems to matter...I understand idealism and respect it but I also am quite pragmatic about the necessity to defeat George Bush.

I'm sorry you hate any Democratic candidate so deeply. I don't even despise Zell Miller like you despise Clark. I would truly hate to be on your bad side, even though you are non-violent. I'll bet you have a really mean glare.... :)

[Pastiche423]

68. I do not hate

DEMOCRATIC candidates. But I do dislike fake democratic candidates that become democrats for opportunistic expediency.

All of your pretty words about clark, are just that - words. Just like your candidate's. He has done nothing for the Democratic Party. Nothing.

P.S. I am a sweetie in rl, right Smitten?

[Rowdyboy]

133. At least you think my words are pretty....

Thats kinder than I expected.

[TLM]

76. Sorry but 1500 dead civilians, is a flaw...

"flawless background in security,"

Not according to this...

http://www.fair.org/extra/9907/kosovo-crimes.html

Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.



______________________________________________________
http://www.balkanpeace.org/monitor/yeco/yeco06.shtml

THE LONDON INDEPENDENT, Monday, November 22, 1999
US 'lost count of uranium shells fired in Kosovo'

By Robert Fisk in Pristina

American aircraft used so much depleted uranium ammunition during the Nato bombardment of Serbia that US officials are now claiming - to the disbelief of European bomb disposal officers - that they have no idea how many locations may be contaminated by the radioactive dust left behind by their weapons.

British and other ordnance officers ordered to defuse live ammunition in Kosovo have been fobbed off by the US military with "security" objections - and then with statements that no record was kept of depleted uranium (DU) munitions used in the Kosovo war.

A growing number of doctors and scientists suspect that an explosion of cancers in southern Iraq is caused by the US use of depleted uranium tank and aircraft munition warheads during the 1991 Gulf War. British and American doctors have suggested that it may also be a cause of the "Gulf War syndrome", which has caused the death of up to 400 veterans. Despite these fears, Nato this summer refused to assist a UN team investigating the use of depleted uranium munitions in Kosovo.

But information given to The Independent by European military sources in Kosovo demonstrates just why Nato should be so reluctant to tell the truth about the anti-armour ammunition - a waste product of the nuclear industry which burns on impact and releases toxic and radioactive material when it explodes. For it transpires that DU was used by A-10 "tankbuster" aircraft for more than a month in at least 40 locations in Kosovo, many of them "fake" military targets set up by the Serbs to lure pilots away from their tanks and artillery positions.

More tragically, A-10 aircraft used DU ammunition in two attacks against Kosovo Albanian refugees, the first on 14 April on the main road between Djakovica and Prizren. Hundreds of civilians were wounded in these attacks, carried out when Nato pilots - flying at more than 15,000 feet to avoid any injury to themselves - bombed refugee columns in the belief that they were military convoys.
____________________________________________________


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0923-08.htm

Given our collective recurring political amnesia, let's turn to an eye-opening August 1999 report from our British friends at The Guardian, concerning Clark's role as Supreme Allied Commander - a post viewed by Clark supporters as a major qualification to be our next president.

"NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. 'We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces,' U.S. General Wesley Clark explained - 'his,' of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians... The targeting of the studio was a war crime, perhaps the most indisputable of several war crimes committed by NATO in its war against Yugoslavia."

If you think the Guardian editors were being overly harsh in describing this as a "war crime," keep in mind that a panel of 16 judges from 11 countries who, at a people's tribunal meeting in New York before 500 witnesses, found U.S. and NATO leaders guilty of war crimes against Yugoslavia in the March 24 to June 10, 1999, "humanitarian" attack on that country.

As for Clark's reputation among the rank and file in our military establishment, the highly decorated and straight-talking Col. David Hackworth has written that Clark is "known by those who've served with him as the 'Ultimate Perfumed Prince.' (He) is far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die."

And we haven't even scratched the surface in discussing Clark's idealization of the Powell Doctrine, which led to NATO forces dropping tons of depleted uranium bombs on Kosovo, creating widespread civilian sickness as a result of contamination associated with DU.
___________________________________________________________


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html

A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

Nato, which soon stopped apologising for mistakes which by its own estimates killed 1,500 civilians and injured 10,000, said that "collateral damage" was inevitable, and the small number of "mistakes" remarkable, given the unprecedented onslaught of more than 20,000 bombs.

Yet once Nato - for political reasons, dictated largely by the US - insisted on sticking to high-altitude bombing, with no evidence that it was succeeding in destroying Serb forces committing atrocities against ethnic Albanians, the risk of civilian casualties increased, in Kosovo and throughout Serbia. Faced with an increasingly uncertain public opinion at home, Nato governments chose more and more targets in urban areas, and experimented with new types of bombs directed at Serbia's civilian economy, partly to save face. By Nato's own figures, of the 10,000 Kosovans massacred by Serb forces, 8,000 were killed after the bombing campaign started.
_________________________________________________



"extremely effective vocal critic of Bush administration,"

"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."


"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."

[Tom Rinaldo]

92. I expect to get flamed for this

but civilians die in every war, that's number one. Innocent civilians die even in justified wars. War is tragic even when war is right, and while war is rarely right, rarely is not the same as never. No civilians would have died in a bombing of a Belgrade TV station if the tyrant running it wasn't conducting a campaign of ethnic cleansing of civilian Kosovo Albanians. Ethnic cleansing by the way does not mean racially selective bathing, it too often involves, as it did there, wholesale murder of civilians. The TV station that was bombed was not the glorious "Free Press" as we know it. Not even Fox News or anything close. That station pumped out nationalistic propaganda to justify ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. That same station previously pumped out propaganda saying there were no rape camps or wholesale slaughter of civilians in Bosnia either. Slobadan Milosevic controlled the programming at that TV station, the same Milosevic who now stands trial in the Hague as a war criminal.

Hitler had his journalists too, they were directed by Joseph Goebbels if I recall. He defended ethnic cleansing also in state sponsered broadcasts. The massacre in Rwanda was fueled by hate broadcasts played over state controlled media after the government there had fallen into the hands of extremeists.

I agree with Clark. The TV station was a legitimate target. Extensive and prolonged legitimate attempts at diplomacy had failed. Milosevic had already unleashed his death squads and militias in Kosovo. Much as I would have preferred it to be otherwise, he wasn't about to be deterred by some symbolic precision strike bombing of a Serbain flag flying in a some deserted field. Clark is a hero to the Muslims in Kosovo now, and Serbia is free of Milosevic. His defeat in Kosovo was the beginning of the end for him, and the Serbaian people are much better off without him.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

130. "Propaganda TV is legitimate target"?? So we can bomb FOX NEWS?!

You've espoused the famously slippery slope of 'the end justifies the means.' Even if Clark wanted to wage war in a 'more efficient and civilian friendly way,' he still waged it in the civilian-destructive way that was the order of the day.

The issue of rebuilding trust with the rest of the world after the current neocon military coup and wars of aggression suggests that a generalissimo president might be a bad idea in the long run, even a professed multilateralist.

[SahaleArm]

131. If it's run by the military - yes

Milosevic ran his communications operations out the building with 'journalists'. That makes it a military target.

Fox, hmm :evilgrin:

[Myra]

98. Thanks for the reply Pastiche423

We totally have that in common, the disdain
for the imperial US. I mean, it's been bad
for decades, but under Bush it's just horrible
and flagrant and strident.

That's one reason I do like General Clark,
because of his outspokenness (even as a pre-invasion
commentator on ultra whorish CNN) against the dispicable
Iraq oil grab.

Not saying he's perfect; no one is.
But I really liked seeing a high ranking military officer
speaking out loudly against that particular Bush war crime.

[TLM]

67. Not only did CLark spend his military career making war...

as soon as he got out of the military he went right into war profiteering.

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.
_________________________________________________________




Clark was doing for various defense contractors, exactly what Cheney was doing for Halliburton... selling his influence to help them take advantage of defense policy and to profit off policy in the wake of 9-11.

[FrenchieCat]

104. So why not

go and vote for Dean and chant "You've got the power"...raise your hands in the air, and act like you just don't care..."you've got the power"......a la tony Robbins! Yea, go vote for the "Democrat from the Democratic/libertarian/republican/conservative wing of the Democratic Party".......(say wha?)....."you've got the power".... to have national 16%, which means 84% ain't for Dean......But "you've got the power"! yea!

And while you are getting the power, make sure that Dean gets some foreign policy experience so that when Bush makes his great big speech on 9/11/04 in New York City at the National Republican Committee he won't be able to totally desemate Howard Dean.

And make sure when we lose those 4 southern senate seats to Republicans and we won't even have enough for a fillibuster, to remember that not only will Dean not be able to rescind the tax cuts, he won't be able to pay for none of what he's promised, health care program, school tuition assistance(fake plan, enriches the banks).....yea, You've got the power alright...the power to get Bush reselected, is about all you got!

Thank goodness 84% of democrats don't want Dean!

Corporate hoes want Dean though!

[FrenchieCat]

93. But more troubling than that.....

Dean has also indicated that he stands for the flag as a symbol not to be messed with.....so WTF!

(I read Senate of Vermont Journal right here) http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2002/journal/SJ010116.htm

and Kucinich and Gephardt both voted for the FBA, who you guys going with, Kerry, Edwards or Lieberman? They haven't had to vote yet.

Joe Conanson wrote on 11/14:
Around that time, Dean rather pompously declared that politicians should declare their positions on the flag issue before voters went to the polls in 2002. That requirement didn't apply to Dean himself, as he "coyly" told the Rutland Herald, because he wasn't on the ballot that year. So now that he is running for president, the candidate who prides himself in speaking bluntly should explain the limits of his support for the First Amendment -- in plain English.
<8:22 a.m. PST, Nov. 14, 2003>
Article links
the Hill revealed: http://www.thehill.com/story.asp?id=139
first night: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=crowley111303
coyly: http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/38411

[Pastiche423]

100. That is a lie

and you damn well know it!

You can't defend the facts I've posted about clark, so you lie about Dean.

Sad. Way sad.

[FrenchieCat]

108. Where is the lie? Please?

Joe Conanson didn't write the article?.........
Or the Flag law doesn't appear in the Vermont Senate Journal?

You called me a liar....so what I am lying about?

Are you just losing it? Truth got you down?

[Pastiche423]

110. You lied when you said

"Dean has also indicated that he stands for the flag as a symbol not to be messed with.....so WTF!"

He never indicated any such bullshit.

[FrenchieCat]

111. He signed the Bullsh*t into law

see:
JOURNAL OF THE VERMONT SENATE
________________

Tuesday, January 16, 2001

The Senate was called to order by the President.

Devotional Exercises

Devotional exercises were conducted by the Reverend Wayne Jones of Northfield.

Pledge of Allegiance

The President then led the members of the Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Bills Introduced
Senate bills of the following titles were severally introduced, read the first time and referred:

Message from the Governor

A message was received from His Excellency, the Governor, by Kate O’Connor, Secretary of Civil and Military Affairs, as follows:

Mr. President:

I am directed by the Governor to deliver to the Senate communications in writing which require action to be taken thereon by the Senate.

Howard B. Dean

Governor"

J.R.S. 9.

Joint Senate resolution of the following title was offered, read the first time and is as follows:

By Senators Campbell, Ankeney, Bartlett, Bloomer, Chard, Condos, Cummings, Gossens, Kittell, Leddy, Lyons, McCormack, Munt, Rivers, Sears and Shumlin,

J.R.S. 9. Joint resolution in opposition to the desecration of the United States Flag.

Whereas, the flag of the United States is one of the greatest symbols of our nation, and

Whereas, this symbol represents the defining principles of our country, and

Whereas, these ideals also include the democratic principles of individual freedom enumerated and protected by the United States Constitution, especially by those amendments known collectively as the Bill of Rights, and

Whereas, Americans have placed their lives in harm’s way and, in hundreds of thousands of cases, have sacrificed their lives defending these principles, and

Whereas, their willingness to sacrifice their lives in defense of these cherished principles demonstrates one of the purest and most commendable forms of patriotism, and

Whereas, these patriots have focused on the flag as the ultimate symbol for which they and their families have sacrificed, and

Whereas, the flag serves important ceremonial functions at public gatherings, funerals, celebrations of patriotic holidays, parades and countless other gatherings, and

Whereas, respect for the flag and the various protocols attendant thereto (such as proper display, proper folding, saluting, et cetera) serves as the first introduction, for many young Americans, to the concept of patriotism, and

Whereas, therefore, we, the American people, accord our flag a unique position of respect, love and admiration, and recognize the importance of providing dignity and honor to this symbol, now therefore be it

RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

That the General Assembly expresses its respect, love and admiration for our United States Flag, and be it further

RESOLVED: That the General Assembly expresses its condemnation of all acts of flag desecration, and similar displays of disrespect for the United States Flag, and be it further

RESOLVED: That the General Assembly respectfully urges the Congress of the United States to take whatever legislative action it deems necessary and appropriate to honor and safeguard the United States Flag, and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Secretary of State transmit copies of this resolution to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President of the United States Senate and all members of the Vermont Congressional delegation.

Thereupon, the President, in his discretion, treated the joint resolution as a bill and referred it to the Committee on Judiciary.

Joint Resolution Adopted in Concurrence

[FrenchieCat]

113. Are you calling Joe Conason a Liar??????????????????

Dean's cute flag flap
Several readers distressed by Wesley Clark's remarks supporting the flag desecration amendment wrote in to declare that they had dropped their support of the retired general in favor of Howard Dean. But others pointed out what I didn't know about Dean's own record on this issue. Two years ago, as governor of Vermont, he brokered a legislative resolution that urged Congress to "take whatever legislative action it deems necessary and appropriate to honor and safeguard the United States Flag." While a bit vague, that sounded much like an endorsement of the Constitutional amendment.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2003/11/14/friday/?ref=http://images.salon.com/src/ads/aol/aol_splash2.htm

and according to this:
Dean intervenes in flag dispute
December 1, 2001
By TRACY SCHMALER Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER — Gov. Howard Dean is working quietly to try to broker a compromise in the prickly debate over a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration.

“I think this is a no-brainer; I think there is a compromise to be had and I’ve certainly made that clear to people who are involved behind the scenes,” Dean said during his weekly press conference Friday.

In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks Dean said he believed the Legislature would want to act on the question and suggested that it would be important for voters in the upcoming elections to know where their candidates stood.

“I do think the Legislature should pass a resolution,” he said. “I think the public is going to want to know where people are standing in the 2002 election.”

But Dean is not apparently holding himself to that standard. He refused to reveal his position on amending the U.S. Constitution banning flag desecration, noting coyly that he would not be a candidate in 2002. He may, however, be a candidate in 2004, if he decides to run for president.
-----------------
more to read.....http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/38411

[Rowdyboy]

128. Facts are SOOOO confusing....

n/t

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

58. Two key factors missing from Clark's campaign

I'm glad that Clark is pro-jobs, but I'd like him to speak about "fair trade" and how that is different than "free trade". At least Dean and Kerry have repated the rote of labor, environmental, and human rights protections. Gephardt and even Edwards are much easier to sell. He's usually so specific, but not on this.

Clark's grassroots are widespread, but shallow and unorganized. "Professionals for Clark" events are just great, but he needs a network that's going to reach into a lot of communities. His uniform will only get him so far, getting the grassroots to organize (like Dean has done) is the way to deepen support, instead of two voters, you get two voters and their 6 friends.

[hilzoy]

62. Your wish is our command...

"Promote free and fair trade. Trade has the potential to raise living standards both here and abroad, but we must ensure that the terms of trade are fair, and that we are competing on an equal playing field. Labor rights are human rights, and I'll treat them that way -- internationally-recognized core labor standards must be central elements of all new trade agreements. We must also improve our enforcement of labor provisions in existing agreements. Finally, we must be vigilant in our approach to unfair practices outside of the treaty context. For example, Bush has failed to prevent China from manipulating its currency, hurting American workers. As President, I'll do better."
From http://clark04.com/issues/americasworkers/

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

117. that's just boilerplate, standard crap

Clark just cut and pasted this from Kerry and Clinton. This means nothing. It should go without saying that we should demand human rights from our trading parters, has it really gotten so bad that this is now a badge of honor?

[SahaleArm]

127. I'm happy Kerry now believes in fair trade.

That wasn't always the case.

This was a vote on the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act (H.R. 3005), which would give the president "Fast Track" trade negotiating authority. Fast Track legislation does not require the president to include enforceable protections for the environment and workers rights in our trade agreements, lacks adequate procedures for consultation with Congress and the public, harms independent farmers and limits democratic debate about trade policy. Passed 66 Yea to 30 Nay.

http://www.mentata.com/ds/retrieve/congress/vote/VC107S6

[SahaleArm]

119. Deleted *NM*

*NM*

[Terwilliger]

74. so, you post this as if you're not a Clark supporter

well, that's interesting

[IronLionZion]

78. Establishment

They give him the money and support. Special interests, Washington insiders.

How much of his money is from average people giving $100?

[SahaleArm]

79. I did.

<sarcasm>

Of course I'm a Democrat not a Green so that must make me part of the establishment

</sarcasm>

[IronLionZion]

81. yes there are average people for Clark too

but he is still an Establishment-made candidate. They can and will control him when he destroys Bush.

[SahaleArm]

83. Who's they?

They can and will control him when he destroys Bush

:wtf:

[IronLionZion]

88. Establishment and Special Interests, Lobbies, financial backers

[SahaleArm]

90. Are you playing Devil's advocate?

:evilgrin:

[Tom Rinaldo]

95. If you didn't shoot from the hip

You would find out that, yes, Dean has the largest percentage of small contributions fueling his campaign, but in second place, way ahead of all the other major Democratic party candidates, is Wesley Clark. Fact.

[IronLionZion]

80. Pentagon And Kosovo

He ordered the bombers to fly too high and they killed the wrong
people.

He ordered a British General to confront Russian troops to stop them from landing, nearly causing a major conflict with a powerful ally.

The Russians brokered the peace deal and Clark took credit for it.

Fellow officers have said he is an arrogant bastard who thinks his education makes him superior. He treats his subordinates like shit.

He was forced to resign. He said that was the worst day in his life except when he was shot in Vietnam.

[SahaleArm]

82. The miseducation of a not so independent

Debunking Factory: http://www.clarkmyths.com

[IronLionZion]

85. ouch that was harsh

This thread was for debunking myths and criticisms of Clark right?

Those things are just what I heard that's all. I don't know if its true or if your Clarkmyths site is true either.

I'm no hater so don't be hating.

[SahaleArm]

89. Sorry, Just decided not to play nice today

:evilgrin:

The Dean camp is in full effect: slinkerwink, Pastiche423, CWebster, and the parrot TLM.

[FrenchieCat]

97. Dont forget Seventhson....or whatever that name is!

[SahaleArm]

106. A new one just joined the fray...

Code_Name_D :evilgrin:

[FrenchieCat]

112. Not new, old timer (n/t)

[Hell Hath No Fury]

84. The cynic in me...

is wondering if this endeavor is some sort exercise to help Clark refine his message to make it more palatable to the left wing?

[IronLionZion]

86. Clark should fire up the Grass Roots more

and be more inspirational like Dean. Where's the 2 million people giving $100 each to slay Bush and send his sorry ass back to Crawford?

[IronLionZion]

101. YOU have the power!

Clark needs to empower his supporters and make some powerful speeches. He seems very calm and polished all the time. Dean always tells us that we have the power to take our country back.

Dean is the scrappy underdog.

Clark is the polished gentleman.

Put both on same ticket and what do you get? A democratic victory or 4 more years of BUSHshit?

[SahaleArm]

107. Or even better how about unlimited power?

[IronLionZion]

115. you've gotta be shitting me

:wtf:

[SahaleArm]

122. I was mocking Dean *nm*

[maxanne]

124. aaaaaarrrrrgggghhhh

I'm afraid to go to sleep now. :scared:

[maxanne]

96. He's blown it in NH

We don't care about TV ads. We expect candidates to crawl all over the state. Clark hasn't. He's stayed in the cities, and avoided the north country. Hell, even Kucinich (who has a smaller budget I'd wager) came up here. We know that he's already written us off - so please don't expect us to jump on his bandwagon.

[WillyBrandt]

105. Clark will not follow the victorious path trod by

McCain, Tsongas, etc.

[maxanne]

118. Oh, I don't agree

he's headed right down the path to obscurity.

[FrenchieCat]

120. Oh, he's going somewhere alright....nowhere to go but up!

NH polls: Went from 4% to 8% in one weekend. It's called canvasing and his commercial started today.

Wanna See? Click here to view/download Wesley Clark's first TV ad:
https://secure.clark04.com/indexVideo.php
WMUR NH Primary Poll
The results:
Dean: 37%
Kerry: 21%
Clark: 8%
Gephardt: 6%
Edwards: 3%
Lieberman: 2%
Other Candidates: 3%
4.6% was the margin of error.

A poll on Friday had Dean at 38%, Kerry at 16%, Clark at 5%, Edwards
at 5%, 4% Gephardt, and Liberman at 4%.

So Clark and Kerry had big gains this week, at the expense of Edwards
and Lieberman.

[WillyBrandt]

121. He's obscuring himself to First Place

Latest gallup has him up 3 points, tied with Dean at 16%.

If he keeps up this kind of low profile, he'll be sneaking into the White House in a little over a year.

[FrenchieCat]

123. oh, and don't forget

to watch 60 minutes II Wesneday night...
and David Letterman on Thursday....

The man who going nowhere has a lot of places to go!

[WillyBrandt]

125. Oui, madame

For a campaign that has fallen flat and has been distintegrating from the start, it seems to be doing pretty well.

I think it must be the PNACers supporting Clark. There can be no other explanation.

[Rowdyboy]

129. The PNACers and Henty Kissinger...

Don't forget him.

[dsc]

132. I have two basic problems with Clark

One is that I have never heard a cogent explanation as to why he voted for every Republican he could (possibly save Ford in 76) from 72 to 88 but then started voting Democratic for President. I know he has offered some explanations but I don't find them satifying. This is a big sticking point for me.

Two is his utter lack of campaign experience. This is not a learn on the job type of thing. Perot looked great for a time and then crashed and burned. Clark's first few weeks did nothing to dispell this problem but instead made it worse. To his credit he is starting to turn the corner on this in some respects. His MTP interview was terrific. He did well in the Rock the Vote and the Planned Parenthood debates. But he has also written of Iowa and blew the SEIU endorsment. Time will tell here.

His positive campaign has been great. That is one of his chief selling points to me. But one and two are big deals.