Clark capitalizing on Bush’s fear mongering.

[TLM]

This is another reason I’m finding Clark more and more distasteful. I’ve noticed over the last few days the new meme being circulated is kind of a combo of the “Dean can’t win because Vermont’s population is so small” and “These are dangerous times and we need Clark to protect us.”

There seems to be an effort by the Clark folks to encourage and support the Bush administration’s goal of keeping everybody cowed and scared and in need of a big hawkish protector… they just want to replace Bush with Clark.

One of the major factors that attracted me to Dean was that Dean has been taking on the fear mongering and the panic culture that the Bush administration is fostering and using as an excuse to rob us of our civil liberties… Clark wants to maintain it and use it to his advantage.

Clark wants to keep us scared. That’s not acceptable. I do not want to trade one hawk for another hawk who is just going to maintain the same climate of fear so he can use it to his advantage.

Is this going to be Clark’s campaign, that we’re all in such great danger that Dean can’t hope to protect us so we need to be scared, and we need Clark to protect us?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. How does what Clarks supporters do and say

demonstrate that Clark himself would like to keep us scared? I fail to see the connect between what Clark has done or said and anything you posted.

(BTW I am not a Clarkie...the post simply makes no sense)

[CWebster]

33. It makes complete sense

Read post #2. The poster acknowledges, without even thinking of how they've completely absorbed the spin of fear, that we must embrace Bush cabal's deliberate strategy of fear machinations and terror threats, and cast our nominee as a "protector" in the guise of military bravado. That is just buying the entire lie---the entire scam, the ultimate triangulation---we can beat the Republicans at their game. The Democrats should promote a nominee who opposes the Republican construction for what it is--and speaks to that rather than offering tactical alternatives to play along with the same illusion--while those soldiers are being targeted for little more than Bush's campaign.

[MIMStigator]

51. Too late, the public has already bought into the fear.

Bush has 200 million $ to spend making the idiot public fearful and it will work, it already has. Our candidate has to be able to convince them that he will protect them from the monsters.

[CWebster]

52. Sort of like...

since Hitler was so convincing we have to run our own version?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

67. Clark is not fear-mongering - Terrorism is Real and a Real Threat

That should be obvious. Terrorism is a real threat, for many reasons, and Bush hasn't done a damn thing about it. Except for make it much worse of course.

Clark is absolutely NOT fear mongering or exagerrating threats from terrorism. If he had wanted to do that, I'm sure he could. What Clark's camapaign is most famous for is saying, in public, overtly, that it is patriotic to criticize the President and the government in a time of war. Having someone with Clark's background say that is VERY helpful to us, and I am very grateful that Clark's doing it.

Clark is pushing an image of himself - like all the candidates do - and that's politics. Dean is pushing an image of himself, and I find Clark's image more likely to win over people who vote for images in the general election.

When it comes to substance, it seems to me that all of our frontrunners have the same socially liberal, fiscally conservative, corporate-lite neo-liberalism at heart - better than Bush and the Republicans, but not where I want to end up.

The only thing Dean has over Clark in my opinion is a better run organization and some new endorsements by groups I respect highly (SEIU and AFSCME, Jackson). I also like Dean's support for gun rights.

If only we could have Gephardt's solid union record, Dean's organization and buzz, Kucinich's platform, and Clark's resume in one candidate, we'd have a new FDR.

[TLM]

71. But that's the big lie, and a big problem with Clark...

Bush and Clark both want to say the boogie men are coming and they'll be here any time to get us because they hate our freedom so much... when in fact the terrorist threat is something that exists because of the actions of people like Bush and his partners and Clark as well.

A hell of a lot of terrorists use actions like the murder of civilians by American forces in Kosovo to get new members and encourage hate for the US. These hawks, regardless of if they say they are dem or repuke are fostering this problem. They make it worse so they can take advantage of the fear.

There is no military hawk driven blow shit up solution to terrorism. The solution to terrorism is to remove their incentive for wanting to kill us... not by upgrading to an even bigger higher ranking war hawk to protect us from the evil terrorists.

The solution, as Dean has said, is to build up strong middle class in these nations and to stop raping their countries for profit. Clark has touched on this idea somewhat, but he's still playing the military protector card and that's just not going to fly

I do not trust politicians who want to keep the people afraid.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

75. radical Islamicist terrorists exist and are real, and target Americans

"Bush and Clark both want to say the boogie men are coming and they'll be here any time to get us because they hate our freedom so much... when in fact the terrorist threat is something that exists because of the actions of people like Bush and his partners and Clark as well."

That's just not true - Clark has NOT said that. Show me some quotes. It's true that US actions have caused a lot of resentments that cause terrorism, and stopping those actions is the number one step to stop it. But the best lies are based on truths, and Bush's boogieman terrorist is based on REAL, ACTUAL terrorists, and Americans are concerned about it.

"A hell of a lot of terrorists use actions like the murder of civilians by American forces in Kosovo to get new members and encourage hate for the US. These hawks, regardless of if they say they are dem or repuke are fostering this problem. They make it worse so they can take advantage of the fear.

There is no military hawk driven blow shit up solution to terrorism. The solution to terrorism is to remove their incentive for wanting to kill us... not by upgrading to an even bigger higher ranking war hawk to protect us from the evil terrorists."

Sure, and Dean and Clark are nearly exactly the same level of "hawkishness" - both supported the war in Afghanistan (and I shed no tears over the destruction of the Taliban) and were against the "sideshow" in Iraq. Just because Clark is military doesn't mean he's more of a hawk. Seems to me the danger is privlidged civilians with power to send us to war, without having to deal with the consequences themselves.

"The solution, as Dean has said, is to build up strong middle class in these nations and to stop raping their countries for profit. Clark has touched on this idea somewhat, but he's still playing the military protector card and that's just not going to fly"

Dean gave a good speech here, but more NAFTA, more WTO, more multinational corporations aren't going to create a middle class in other countries, nor is it meant to. Unfortunately, neither Dean nor Clark will do much about this.

Clark isn't playing the military protector card, I think you are just completely misreprenting what he's said and what his campaign is about.

Regardless of anything else that Clark has done, and regardless of whether he wins or loses, the fact that a establishment, high ranking military general, with the image that Clark has, is stating openly and publically that civil rights do not end under wartime is a very good thing, because that is the exact OPPOSITE of what Bush and Ashcroft and Franks have been saying.

I want union members voting Democratic, I want soldiers voting Democratic. I want leaders of those groups running for office in the Democratic party, if they can inspire members to vote Democratic, and promote Democratic principles.

There are many things to criticize Clark about, but this is not one of them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

97. Apples and Ping Pong Balls

I am responding to the statement in your post above that "A hell of a lot of terrorists use actions like the murder of civilians by American forces in Kosovo to get new members and encourage hate for the US." and I beg to differ. All cases of civilian deaths in the course of the use of American military power don't provide fertile ground for terrorists to get new members and encourage hate for the U.S. World War II didn't for an obvious example. Neither the French of the Germans hate us for the civilian deaths that occurred in Europe in that war. Of course you use the term "murder", not killing, of civilians. The fire bombing of German cities might be viewed by many as the murder of civilians (might be viewed that way by me, waging war is a complex and bloody proposition), still America was not hated in the aftermath, nor did anti American terrorists proliferate.

I know your feelings about the NATO bombing of Milosevic's Belgrade TV station. I have seen you call Clark a war criminal for that many times on many threads, even though an international investigation of the NATO bombing campaign around Kosovo brought no charges against NATO's political or military leaders, while Milosevic is now on trial as a War Criminal. However, though we disagree strongly on that issue, an honest debate regarding specific uses of military power and possible war crimes can always be held, and NATO's campaigns in Yugoslavia can be looked at in the course of such a debate. But that is not what I am responding to, nor am I interested in returning to that specific debate with you here now. I only made note of it to acknowledge that your sentence did specify "murder of civilians" rather than the "killing of civilians" as an incitement to terrorism, and I do note that that is what you have accused the U.S. and Clark of doing in that war.

Despite our strong disagreement and different positions, I think it is relevent, given your statement, to look at the facts regarding the true aftermath of the "murder of civilians in Kosovo" as you call it, and how that has effected American security, and perceptions of the U.S. throughout the world. I believe the comparison between how U.S. security has been effected by the invasion of Iraq compared to the NATO bombing campaign in the Kosovo war belies the premise of your statement regarding terrorist's responces to U.S. military actions. I don't think your blanket statement holds water, and it seems to me a clumbsy attempt to tar Clark with the same brush rightly used against Bush. It is not a "one size fits all" issue.

The terrorists who hate America so much that they crashed planes into the World Trade Center, are muslim "extremists" (our description of course, not theirs, though I feel OK about using it). The United Sates, through NATO, essentially intervened in the Balkins, both in Bosnia and Kosovo, on the side of Muslims in both cases. The bombing campaign that brought deaths in Belgrade killed Christian Serbs, not Muslim Albanians, as one ethnic nationalist commentator that I read so delicately phrased it. And what is the aftermath? The U.S. now enjoys relatively positive relations with the Serbian people and their government, which is now is free ofa corrupt dictatorship, and Christian terrorists from the Balkans are not stalking America.

The Muslims, in the Balkans, are grateful for the U.S. intervention, and that gratitude is still being openly expressed both to the U.S. and to Clark personally. U.S. peace keeping forces in the area are not the subject of constant killings and/or an insurgent campaign to oust them from the region, and the U.S. does not claim any sovereign powers. I would argue that American National Security, in addition to basic human justice, has been advanced, not reduced, through our opposition to etnic cleansing throughtout the entire former Yugoslavia. And I won't even use the clasic NATO expressed rationals (preventing destabalization in the region which would have caused massive refugee dislocation crisis in Western Europe. The need to demonstrate that NATO could effectively respond to a crisis on its door step blah blah. etc. etc.) I think Clark was personally motivated by a moral and humanitarian crisis to press for U.S. military inbolvement, and you I gather think NOT, but this is basically a tangent to my larger point about America's security and the use of our military.

Growing deep hatred for America in the Arab and Muslim world is not a recent trend, though I agree Bush fans those flames. There are many explanations given for the roots of that hatred, but virtually all agree that within the Arab world in particular, there is a growing perception that America has increasingly become a "Crusader" nation, always siding with Jews and Christians over Muslims. Obviously the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the major flash point, but not the only one. The critique also goes back to the belief that all the U.S. cares about is Arab oil, and American business interests in the region. We are seen as having no concern over how many Arab lives are lost or destroyed by the Arab dictators that we back, or by encroaching Jewish Settlers etc. If you expand the region further you can include Persia, and our backing of the Shah. The U.S. is perceived as being anti-Muslim.

U.S. military actions in defence of Muslims in the Balkans is the only major exception to that pattern. The U.S was actually criticized by Muslim nations and leaders for not intervening earlier and with more force, in Bosnia in particular where muslims were being rounded up into seperate death and rape camps. The U.S. was accused by many in the Muslim world of being indifferent to the suffering of Muslims, especially when no oil was at stake, and that was seen as the reason we stood aside so long and let Muslim civilians be murdered. The eventual American military actions in the Balkans muted that critisism for a time. At least it took the "neglected plight of Bosnia and Kosovo Muslims" off the list of attack points used against the U.S. for always siding against Muslims.

So you see I find your statement "A hell of a lot of terrorists use actions like the murder of civilians by American forces in Kosovo to get new members and encourage hate for the US" to be misleading and misguided. I see a hell of a lot of terrorists using American actions to get new members and encourage hate for the US, yes, but none using U.S. actions in Kosovo for that purpose. Au contraire. Lack of U.S. action in Kosovo woutd have been used by terrorists to get new members and encourage hate for the U.S.

[alfredo]

77. I see it differently. He isn't protecting in the sense of

militarism, but a complete change in addressing the conflicts. He has made it clear that security cannot come from militarism and stealth martial law. That differs from bush and hitler.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

59. The public is fearful regardless of what Clark does. Denying that

they have that fear (or better, that THAT fear has them) is hardly a viable alternative for suppressing those fears. Furthermore, the thread starter TALKS about Clark's supporters not anything SPECIFIC that Clark has done.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[CWebster]

39. garbage

The latest Newsweek poll has Bush losing the male vote. So much for the macho US muscle flexing act. The chances increase that any of the candidates could win against Bush---no need to compare dicks.

[LiberalBushFan]

100. why is this deleted?

I reviewed the rules, I have no idea what rule was broken

[kerry-is-my-prez]

41. But people ARE scared and will continue to be no matter what

Bush and Rove will continue to play on that and there's NOTHING we can do about it except show how the Dems are just as strong on defense and terrorism as they are. THAT is our big challenge. THAT'S why I support a Clark/Dean ticket. IT pretty much takes care of THAT problem.

AND in 2008 or 2012 - Dean can win because he will THEN have the foreign policy/defense credentials.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Look TLM...

There's the forest.....see beyond the trees.....

Handwriting on the wall says.....

Dean has a great chance at the nomination....
lousy chance of winning....

this theory is not made up, but based on facts...

Voters do want to feel safe.....and that's not what Dean is offering.

However, for you to take it to where you are painting Clark with the same brush that falls on Bush is plain downright
FLAMEBAIT...
From a very famous Clark hater and basher....TLM......

So sad, so sad!

[rumguy]

4. does clark have the campaign skills to beat bush?

Dean has a creative pinache to him that maybe can compete with Bush. We need a bold candidate that can attract attention. Dean and his team so far have been good at that.

Maybe Clark is learning...and his staff is just getting organized. I hope he gets a good staff that thinks outside the box, cuz that's what it's going to take to beat Bush.

[Skwmom]

7. Don't you think Dean's ability to attract attention has something

to do with the money they've been giving to his campaign and the media's cheerleading for him?

[Kahuna]

28. Riiiiiiight. The repukes are jumping backflips over...

their latest underhanded scheme to manipulate our nomination process. Because, it's working.

[last1standing]

73. That is an unsustainable lie!

Look at http://www.opensecrets.com and you can find that for yourself. But that would be too much trouble for an ingnorant hater.

As for Clark, he is not trying to be a fearmonger at all. He would even make a great nominee and president. It's just a shame that so many of his and Dean's supporters are such hatemongers.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Well 2 months in....

I believe that they are doing quite well. The new CNN poll shows that Clark has the best chance to beat Bush...and that's what it's all about, now isn't it?

The fellow below ignores me...and I guess you too.....but what he won't be able to ignore is that his argument of thinking Dean will win the general election makes no sense....

If he doesn't realize that the Republican "Trump" card is national security, he's ignoring more than just us.....like the true hard facts.......

Buried heads in the sand....will only cause slow death!
Nothing more, nothing less! Nuff Said!

[Bandit]

47. Are you saying big bad ass Americans are actually cowards and need

a Daddy to protect them? Republicans are cowards ~ No doubt about it but America as a whole ~ I don't think so.

[JNelson6563]

61. care to cite them?

Dean has a great chance at the nomination....
lousy chance of winning....

this theory is not made up, but based on facts...

My sources seem to differ greatly from yours.

Julie

[JNelson6563]

92. kickin' so I can hear these "facts"

this opinion comes from.....

Julie

[Eloriel]

94. Yeah, I'd like an order of facts too, please

This should be good.

Eloriel

[TLM]

3. Heh... both responses so far are from people I have on ignore.

Imagine that.

[Kahuna]

29. Cool. That makes sense too. Attack Clarkies while ..

having them on ignore....... :eyes:

Nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh... I can't see you..nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh, you can't touch me. :wow:

[TLM]

72. I do not have them all on ignore...

just the ones who do little more than repost crap from Clark's blog and bash Dean.

[SEAburb]

56. maybe it's time to get out of the Deanie bubble

You are getting a distorted view of the world around you.

You have the Power! You have the Power! You have the Power!

[girl gone mad]

5. I haven't heard anyone saying that.

I would hope it wasn't true.

Clark seems to take a view which is in opposition to Bush's ideas on fighting terrorism, and he himself doesn't seem to be fearmongering as much as looking for solutions. Here's a quote:

"There's also the broader picture to consider. The fact is, the United States represents only about 5 percent of the world's population but is using 25 percent of its consumable resources. If Hans Morgenthau were here today, he would tell you that politics among nations is a function of human nature itself. And when you have lands in which people are impoverished, humiliated, resentful, angry, and ignorant, you're providing the ideal culture in which the seeds of terrorism will grow and come back against us again and again. We have to face up to this reality."

I haven't picked a candidate yet. I'm not sure if I'm ready to trust Clark.

[TLM]

8. THat's not the fear I'm talking about...

Dean also has addressed removing the culture that creates the terrorists. What I am talking about is the fear being created here at home.

The fear that Bush Co. is creating here at home to get people here so scared that they'll be willing to trade freedoms for security.




Here's a quote from another thread... I've seen this meme repeated a few times over the last few days.

"We are a country at war. We will be for some time. One can say there is a learning curve for certain issues pertaining to our way of life etc. There is NO learning curve when it comes time to protect us and our allies abroad. Its a matter of life and death. "

[rumguy]

10. I hate to say it TLM but the general populace is not

intellectually ready for that type of argument. If that's the argument - don't be afraid you've been tricked into it - we will lose...no doubt about it.

[Skwmom]

6. Dean wants to ignore national security which is a critical issue

because Dean is WEAK in this area. Too bad. National security is a valid concern. We've spent billions and are no safer than we were 3 years ago.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Again I say....

Heads buried in the sand will only cause slow death.....

nothing more, nothing less.

[rumguy]

12. you amaze me frenchie

you're such a stalwart defender of clark...nothing wrong with it, but you're tireless

[FrenchieCat]

15. That's how badly I

WANT BUSH OUT.......

I don't want to move back to France.....
I love America and it's been ruined!

Further the entire world, including France, stands to be totally f*cked because of this vulture monster currently in the White House.

I cannot stand it I say! I want what's best for my adopted country....and Clark is really the person that can stir this damn world correctly back to the 21st century!

[kerry-is-my-prez]

45. Thank you Frenchie! I keep on respecting the French more and more

First - that little country fought against the great big U.S. (AND won) and led the fight to single-handedly save the world from disaster in Iraq.

And now we have Frenchie tirelessly fighting for his/her candidate AND you do it unobnoxiously. As a fellow Clarkie I might be a little more sympathetic to your cause BUT I'd admire you even if I weren't.

Keep up the good work.

We'd never see the French with a President like Bush - they're too feisty!

[Skwmom]

13. How many people on both sides of the aisle have stated

that it's not if we get another attack it's just a matter of when (especially those that sit on the special committees).

[Pastiche423]

17. You've bought the whistle ass et al fear

lock, stock and barrel.

I am voting for hope, not fear.

[JohnKleeb]

18. Thats how I would too if I could

Dont let fear get you down. BTW I am glad Dean is talking about stoppoing the culture of fear that Bush has made, and you know who else has, Kucinich has too, I know its my bias but heh, I am glad he is, I think he brought up Roosevelt's famous line and such, I dont know but I am glad Dean does this too. You probably are just as sick of this culture of fear Bush has created. I am sick of it.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Idealistically,

I wish all were as "in the know" as we are that this fear is manufactured...although with Bush at the elm, it's been actually worst than my worst fears.

However, I am speaking about the voting populace....because in being a pragmatic individual, I am looking to win.

So if the majority has bought into the Fear message...we cannot ignore it when coming up with the strategy to beat bush....

The message has to be that Bush as made us less safe not more....

You have to fight fear with fear...

Hope is the underlying message, I agree....

But coming out of the mouth of one that has no record in dealing with the object of the fear will not win us an election.

and Frankly winning is the bottomline....not Hoping to win!

[JohnKleeb]

21. I vote with my concience in the primary, my head for the nominee

to paraphrase what Ivins said. I understand youre pragamatic, thats not me but thats all good. no record with dealing with fear? my candiate is a congressman, *taps his avatar*, I wasnt talkin about Dean. I am a Kucinich supporter. Personally my primary goal is to get Bush out but I got my idealism too and my idealism is just me. I am too young to vote period though.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Unfortunately,

Pie in the sky leaves none in your plate.....

you cannot have your cake and eat it too....

The primary is for anyone to win....
but the general election is not...

Pragmatism rules out idealism....because it's a strategy that has to be played...from the getgo.......

Once we have the wrong nominee, we are f*cked......
and no amount of "idealism" will affect the outcome of a loss....

I'm sure many Greens in Florida realize this now.

[rumguy]

19. another attack is possible

if not likely, hope or no hope that IS the reality...

[TLM]

74. Attack is always possible...

and it is far more likely, if we take on a hawkish military posture, that we'll end up suffering more attacks in a prolonged ongoing conflict.

Clark unfortunately represent business as usual, and is simply trying to present himself as a better choice than Bush because he's better at business as usual since he's been part of the business of war his whole life.

I want a leader who can fill other nations with hope, not smoking craters. We're never going to scare the terrorists into not attacking us. These are people who are willing to die, they are beyond fear of Death because for the most part they are religious nuts with nothing to lose.

Clark is not the answer.

[Skwmom]

24. I'd suggest you listen to DEMOCRATS that sit on some

of the special committees. They've said the same thing.

[Carolina]

31. duh! of course another attack is likely

since Bushco is pissing off everyone, including former allies! It doesn't take much intelligence (as in access to classified info) to figure that out. Al Qaeda is regrouping, Afghanistan is a mess, and Muslim men and women are rallying to help Iraq "crush America." The list goes on ...

[kerry-is-my-prez]

49. Yes - and apparently they have caught wind of another "plot" to do

something here in the U.S. Now either this "plot" is one manufactured by BushCo or an actual one - it will serve the same purpose. I just had dinner with 12 Republicans last night and they're all still scared - they said basically said that they felt that they needed to stick with Bush because he was a "strong" leader who was actually "doing" something AND because it wouldn't be a good idea to switch Presidents right now becasue of "everything that going on."

They do not get the fact that most of the problems are due to BushCo's ineptness AND I don't know if they will ever hear that messge OR believe it - thanks to the wonderful media we have.

[Skwmom]

54. No duh. That's why we look stupid and weak when we

refuse to admit that valid national security concerns exist.

[TLM]

14. What gives you the idea Dean wants to ignore national security?

Here....

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

This is from a speech did months ago, before the Iraq war started. And he was spot on... his grasp on the situation was more clear and firm than the guys in congress who were supposed to have all this secret info and experience to go on.

[FrenchieCat]

16. It doesn't matter what Dean says....

It only matters if most voters are willing to take the chance....
and in respect to that, I say no.

To show me a policy speech that Dean made is not what is going to nutralize the NATIONAL SECURITY TRUMP CARD that Bush will use.

You can stick your head back into the sand now.....and know that your argument is just so weak...just like Dean will be perceived in the case of national security.

[CWebster]

37. what a load

National security and foreign policy?

Bush has made it a more unsafe world for Americans, increased the liklihood of terrorism and the US president isn't welcome in any country of the world--except maybe Israel or Poland or some small country that had to be bribed. Bush isn't even welcomed by the people of England--our closest ally. It wouldn't take much to blow his act out of the water--but the Democrats, as they have been for far too long, are unwilling to wage a counter-attack--and really, what more do they have to lose if they are going to lose anyway by buying into Bush's hoax?

So, you suggest that we reduce our position to the lowest common denominator---that since the great masses of voters are assumed to buy the fraud, we must play along instead of countering the fraud, and offer them the same lie.

[rumguy]

46. you miss the point

American's are NOT going to buy that it's all a "hoax". That is a losing proposition.

And Clark is not the "lowest common denominator" for christ's sake - he's just a lot more experienced than Dean in military affiars and foreign policy.

Just getting Bush out of office isn't going to make the "hoax" vanish. It's not all smoke and mirrors any more, the propaganda is, but the reality is that Bush HAS made the world a more dangerous place...

Clark could counter the Bush propaganda and provide real solutions to deal with what are in fact real problems.

[CWebster]

53. Okay, since they won't be convinced or they are told they are not

by the media, we must abide by the hoax..The media that Clark states he won't re-regulate, although Clark mouths the proper script about the bias in the media...

[Eloriel]

98. Boy, I am not going to vote for the wrong guy,

work to put someone demonstrably bad for America, into office just because some know-nothing pundits here and there THINK Dean isn't electable. They've been wrong on every other thing about Dean, and they're wrong on that too.

The simple fact of the matter is, Clark is NOT more electable.

Again and again I see that this is the rock-bottom issue that makes all these Clarkies so strident: abject fear.

They don't necessarily think Clark is so great, they just see that uniform and think it (and it alone) can stand up against Bush.

BAH! I refuse to live in that kind of fear -- most especially when there's a candidate who beats the hell out of that candidate and absolutely IS electable. Hell, Dean's support is literally all over the board. But don't let a little thing like the facts (better numbers, more money, more supporters, better grass roots and an outstanding organization, better campaign by leagues, and is already demonstrating his ability to bring in brand new voters plus Republicans, Independents, Greens, etc., etc.) stand in the way of your fear.

Eloriel

[Skwmom]

25. His grasp. Don't you mean what his advisers where telling

him to say. To try to paint Dean as some "all knowing" politician is a joke.

[TLM]

62. Dean and his advisors were right...

while Lieberman, Clark, Kerry, and Edwards with all their knowledge and information and experience were wrong.

Or maybe they were not wrong as much as they were simply trying to ride Bush's war time coat tails to advance their own careers.

[Eloriel]

96. We are LESS SAFE than we were 3 years ago, and Dean says

that.

I don't find him weak at all in the area of national defense, foreign relations or anything else that Kerry and Clark are supposedly superior ("more experienced" on). Right now the issues are ultra-simple: find a way to get the hell out of Iraq. Fix our relationships with the whole rest of the world. Get NKorea to stand down -- and Dean's approach is pretty much like Clinton's (engage! engage!), which I approve of wholeheartedly.

What, exactly, is Clark's idea for NKorea?

None of the top 3 candidates that I can see have a substantively different view on what to do about Iraq. But Dean got there first -- his 7-point plan was posted in early April. Kerry was next and Clark (assuming he has one) was much later.

Dean's no dummy, and he's got both great instincts and apparently some fine advisors.

Finally, I agree wholeheartedly with the premise of the first post in the thread: that Clarkies (and Clark himself, by virtue of his entry into the race at all and willingness to talk up, and talk up, and talk up his military resume). Unfortunately, Kerry is also doing this, and in a far more blatant way, even. That's shameful. In fact, it's demagoguery, plain and simple.

Eloriel

[Scott Lee]

101. Thank Senor "Bring It On"

If any subsequent democratic presidents try to continue that corroded tactic I'll pull my support completely from the Democratic Party.

And I'm sure I won't be alone.

[AmericanDem]

102. WELL I GUESS YOU FOUND MY LINK

and you even replied to it! :puke:

[LiberalBushFan]

23. this debate is over nothing

becuase Clark is doing no fear-mongering in the first place, and even from his supporters, the need for protection is a far less common reason than many others. They can both say that Bush exaggerates threats to make people follow him, but Clark is the one that more people will believe it from. Try and deny that last fact. Many very anti-Bush people for some reason (rhymes with encyclopedia) think Dean would be even worse, despite his media attention. Clark's not so vulnerable to that. Some clear-headedness is needed here.

[formactv]

26. How frightened are you?

What part does fear play in your thoughts on the coming election? Do you live in fear of a terrorist attack?
I don't.

[Carolina]

32. Agree, I have no fear

about another terrorist attack but am scared shitless of four more years of Bushco

[Kahuna]

27. So, that latest DU poll (WK 44%, HD 31%) has you

so rattled that you stoop this low. And this is awfully low brother.

Please explain. How exactly does Clark what to keep us scared when he speaks out repeatedly about how the bushistas have been waging a war of fear on the American people? Please cite just one example.

[CWebster]

38. If all the campaigns posted polls to freep on their main blog

You would probably see the numbers go up for Lieberman with a host of new posters with low post counts.

[Kahuna]

43. Yeah right. That still doesn't explain why Dean only got...

178 votes. DU was crawling with Deanies four months ago. As you know a lot of them have flipped over to Clark since that time. You just pretend not to see the posts. Check this one out...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=777592

[CWebster]

55. Yeah, I read all your contrived testimonials in an effort to create the

bandwagon effect. Just like the Bush media uses the flag as their own and then has everyone rally around it. Don't think we can't see through your transparent operatives--they all hit at the same time and DU turns into an echo chamber for Clark talking points. Those who find it credible are the same ones who can't see the same tactics used by Fox news. As a matter fact the entire argument for Clark is the same for Bush--fearless leader projection.

[TLM]

60. Oh yeah DU polls where there are dozens of single digit posters

showing up after a call is put out on the Clark blog is really freakin me out....

nevermind the fact that Dean meetups are about to hit 150,000 people, and Clark has less than a thrid of that. Nevermind the 600,000 bucks Dean was able to raise in 4 days to combat Bush's lies in NH.

"Please explain. How exactly does Clark what to keep us scared when he speaks out repeatedly about how the bushistas have been waging a war of fear on the American people? Please cite just one example."

As I said, by maintaing that fear so he can campaign as the big strong protector. Clark is refering to everything as a security plan... plans for farms and jobs are "security plans." Clark is really pushing that he's the national security guy, because we need him to protect us. His followers are mouthign this same meme, just read the blog.

I pulled this off the CLark blog just now:

"Many of us, though, are attracted to General Clark because he personifies patriotism and because he has much better views on how to promote the national security of our country than any of the other Democrats or, of course, the current pResident.

The problem, of course, from this state legislator's perspective, is that she perceives what Clark is doing as letting Bush define the race and then saying that he, Clark, is simply better on Bush's issues than Bush is."


That's basicaly what I'm saying... Clark is leaving Bush fear mongering in play, and simply presenting himself as better at dealing with the boogieman than Bush or the other dems.


From anohter post on the blog:

"The war on terrorism and national security are going to be the battleground for this election and there is not one thing that we can do about it. It is not going to be possible, while the country is at war, and we have over 100,000 troops on the ground in a shooting gallery, to change or redefine the argument. "It's the economy, stupid" or some similar catchy phrase will not be able to withstand the kinds of images we just saw of George Bush in Iraq. "

[FrenchieCat]

64. TLM, learn

to connect the dots....................

Let's see....a campaign is 2 months 10 days old......

supporters of Clark are supporting Clark.....

on various sites, which would be NORMAL AND EXPECTED.....

Dean's campaign is how old???????

so whatever Clark supporters are doing, Dean supporters started how much earlier?

Hence older starting date for Dean supporters makes them "real DU members"....

Lower post numbers for Clark supporters makes them "Freeper invaders"

ACCORDING TO TLM...

WHO SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF HIMSELF!

DESPERATION IS A DESPERATE SOUL'S BEST AND ONLY FRIEND!

[mmonk]

30. I don't get the connection between a Clark supporter

who says something and Clark's real positions or his demeanor which doesn't include attacking Dean.

[TLM]

65. He attacked Dean on the draft issue just the other day...

and a day or two before that attacked Dean on wanting regulation.


I'm starting to think that you CLark supporters either never watch Clark, or you're just flat out lying about what he has said.

[unfrigginreal]

35. I don't think it's fear mongering

but they sure are pushing the uniform. And who can blame them, what else has he got? He's just not panning out to be the candidate that most, including me, hoped he would become. I truly thought that he would run as an outsider with a platform for change, similar to Dean's, but every day through statements he makes it becomes more obvious that he is the ultimate insider.

Until his campaign can start connecting with Joe Schmoe, 4% in NH and 4th in SC now, he's not going anywhere. Ignore the phony momentum.

[TLM]

66. Exactly... like a typical CO, clark is up top saying one thing

while the CLark corps is on the ground doing something else.


Clark stand up there like big brother with his shiney stars pushing what a great powerful military man he is and how as a soldier he can protect us. His troops chant in unison that Dean doesn;t have the FP experience to protect us the way Clark can.

I think the nation nailed it...

I went the extra mile to cover Clark, even parting with a significant amount of my valuable time on this earth to volunteer, under an assumed name, for his campaign. Desperate measures were required, because solving the Clark puzzle is a desperate problem. It is not easy to explain how a man who voted for Reagan and Nixon, was a speechwriter for Al Haig, worked in the Ford White House alongside Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and was a passionate supporter of the Vietnam War could become a darling of the liberal antiwar crowd. Thirty-five years ago, hundreds of thousands of people took angrily to the streets, universities were taken over and a sitting President was hounded from the White House because of people like Wesley Clark.

Now Clark is presenting himself as a White Knight to the modern version of that same demographic, and he is being welcomed with open arms. He appeals to roughly the same class of people as Howard Dean, with a subtle difference. The Dean crowd self-consciously sees itself as a political force. When Dean tells supporters, "You have the power!" they holler like banshees, creating a Mike-Dukakis-teach-in-meets-Who-Let-the-Dogs-Out? kind of effect. But the chief crowd ritual in the Clark campaign is that of a group of hushed, groveling supplicants staring dewy-eyed at their savior Caesar. The vibe is all about ceding power, not empowerment.


I think that is it exactly. The Dean folks are the folks who want to fight back and change things... the Clark folks are the folks who want a military commander father figure to protect them and give them orders on what to do and how to think. Dean represents a hope for something better, while Clark only represents a maintianing of the status quo by a hawk with a higher rank.

[maha]

36. You are making this up, yes?

I like Howard Dean, but I wish his followers would stop whining about Clark.

"I’ve noticed over the last few days the new meme being circulated is kind of a combo of the “Dean can’t win because Vermont’s population is so small” and “These are dangerous times and we need Clark to protect us.”"

#1, "Dean can't win because Vermont's population is so small." This is a variation on the old "Clinton can't win because Arkansas is a small state" meme. Clarkies are saying this? Isn't it true that all of Dean's opponents, including Republicans, are saying this? In the world of political mudslinging, this is pretty mild.

#2, “These are dangerous times and we need Clark to protect us.”

I am a Clark supporter (Dean is a close second for me), and I haven't heard ANYBODY say that. You made that one up.

[hedda_foil]

40. I have. Repeatedly. Right here on DU.

On top of that, Clark trolls on the Dean blog are repeating the same meme. Nobody there buys it of course. I've seen it on dkos as well. It's all over the place and it's coordinated.

Sorry, you don't beat Bush by running as the "better warrior." People who are looking for a warrior image will buy Bush's. Clark isn't a national hero. There's a big difference between a four star general (who will be smeared into a small grease spot by other generals and the stupid hat trade picture alone) and a war hero of Eishenhower or Grant's stature in their day. If you're looking for a war hero image to beat Bush, that's what it would take. The heroic commanding general who beat Hitler and saved Democracy. The heroic commanding general who beat the South and saved the Union. Clark starts from a position of just another general who's name is vaguely familiar. Schwartzkoff, for God's sake has a higher image (not that I think his image is warranted) from a war that was fought several years BEFORE Clark's little air war. (Sorry, that's how it's remembered.) Powell was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during IRW-1 and had (as a potential candidate) a massively higher image than Clark.

Nobody much remembers Clark as a general other than his groupies. He starts from a resume and a vague recollection. From there, the Bushies have so much to throw at him that I shudder thinking about it. ALL of it will stick with the vast majority of people. He praised Bush and his crew (on camera) will be easily spun to depress Democratic turnout. He is on camera and in print making statements of praise about the war. Sorry, but he is, and whatever real or imagined excuses his advisers and supporters dream up, they're campaign gold for Bush. He traded hats with Mladic and got posed on camera showing the swap. Mladic, of course, will be spun as a terrorist, which isn't far off. HELLLO????

That's just part of the smear part. For the love of Pete, I could easily run a successful TV campaign against Clark for Bush and I'm no pro. Even if he HAD the funds to counter those ads, it wouldn't do much good. He won't look like such a smart semi-familiar general for long. Not when his only message that will even begin to get through is that he can run Bush's war better than Bush. Not when Rove is already moving heaven and earth to get a photo-op turnover of the government in Baghdad in late October (surprise!) It doesn't matter at all to them that that government will be a sham and will fall within minutes of the election. It's gonna happen if Rove can make it so. Chalabi has already said so. Then what's left for Clark?

I won't even go into his lack of domestic policy experience, his total lack of experience in dealing with a legislature of any kind, his unfamiliarity with latter-day cut-throat party politics.

The Clark campaign is spun of thin air and wishes. It's strategy is horrendous. A sure loser.

[Nashyra]

42. I am a Clark supporter

and have not heard anything of that sort either. IMHO the dirty tactics that the Repukes will use on Dean if he is the nominee is that there is no foreign policy experience and they will tongue in cheek say that "* has made some mistakes but can we afford some one with NO experience compared with someone who has made some mistakes and corrected them in this time of potentially dangerous times we now live in post 9-11". That is my guess in the line of attack by the Repukes, unfortunately people will buy into it because they are too lazy to do their own research. I like Dean he is my second choice, but I think a more powerful ticket would be Clark/Dean or secondly Dean/Clark. Notice I said powerful not the best Dem ticket but right now the focus is ABB and then when we are in the WH we can move back to the left.

[Kahuna]

44. How do you know they are "Clark trolls?" Maybe the next

time you see one of those posts you can post it here for us. Not that I don't trust your word but it does seen highly improbable.

[TLM]

68. Sorry maha, i quoted two posts from the clark 04 blog...

"I am a Clark supporter (Dean is a close second for me), and I haven't heard ANYBODY say that. You made that one up."

and another post from here repeating it almost word for word.

And the nation just did a piece of Clark's continuing use of military jargon and analogies.

[Jerseycoa]

93. Yes

"And the nation just did a piece of Clark's continuing use of military jargon and analogies."


Based on his book, a book about war written by a general. Really surprising.

[sangh0]

48. Dean is a fear-mongerer

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5606&JServSessionIdr003=jb4gjy9yt1.app193a&news_iv_ctrl=1421

"In two years, they've turned a $200 billion budget surplus into a $300 billion deficit. Despite their extravagance, the economy is stagnant. More people have lost jobs than in 20 years. Families are losing their health insurance. Investments and retirement accounts have lost trillions of dollars. And the Administration's answer to every problem is still more tax cuts for the rich.

The Bush Administration's policies at home and abroad are reckless and just plain wrong...

Nor has the Administration prepared sufficiently for the possible retaliatory attacks on our home front that even the President's CIA Director has stated are likely to occur...

I agree with President Bush - he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is.

He is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver.

He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War.

He has murdered dissidents, and refused to comply with his obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions.

And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb...

The CIA and Defense Department have indicated that, by far, the most likely scenario for Saddam using chemical or biological weapons - or sponsoring a terrorist attack - would be precisely if we invaded Iraq, because then he would have nothing to lose...

We have been told little about what the risks will be if we do go to war....

It is possible, however, that events could go differently, and that the Iraqi Republican Guard will not sit out in the desert where they can be destroyed easily from the air.

It is possible that Iraq will try to force our troops to fight house to house in the middle of cities - on its turf, not ours - where precision-guided missiles are of little use.

It is possible that women and children will be used as shields and our efforts to minimize civilian casualties will be far less successful than we hope.

There are other risks.

Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.

Iran and Turkey each have interests in Iraq they will be tempted to protect with or without our approval.

If the war lasts more than a few weeks, the danger of humanitarian disaster is high, because many Iraqis depend on their government for food, and during war it would be difficult for us to get all the necessary aid to the Iraqi people.

There is a risk of environmental disaster, caused by damage to Iraq's oil fields.

And, perhaps most importantly, there is a very real danger that war in Iraq will fuel the fires of international terror.

Anti-American feelings will surely be inflamed among the misguided who choose to see an assault on Iraq as an attack on Islam, or as a means of controlling Iraqi oil.

And last week's tape by Osama bin Laden tells us that our enemies will seek relentlessly to transform a war into a tool for inspiring and recruiting more terrorists.

We should remember how our military presence in Saudi Arabia has been exploited by radicals to stir resentment and hatred against the United States, leading to the murder of American citizens and soldiers... "

We have the most dangerous situation in East Asia in a decade ...

In Korea, the Communist military forces are concentrated along the border with the South, less than forty miles from Seoul. Rockets and missiles, bombs and troops could strike with little or no notice. Even in the best case, a war, once begun, could take thousands of lives and seriously endanger the 37,000 American troops deployed on the Peninsula.

How did we get into this mess? ...

Within months, North Korea could become a confirmed nuclear power. Unlike Iraq, it has an advanced missile program, which would make its possession of nuclear arms even more dangerous.

The result would be the certainty of heightened tensions throughout East Asia, the likelihood of nuclear blackmail, the risk of a regional arms race, and the chance that the nuclear materials will be put up for sale to the highest bidder. ..."

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

"Today our government has become overrun by special interests. Working with President George Bush, they have turned our government into a system that works for the profit of the few not the benefit of the many.

They have in the last two elections flooded our politics with over 5.1 billion dollars in contributions.

They have walked into the Vice-president’s office and written energy legislation that keeps us shackled to fossil fuels.

They have written health care legislation denying access and affordability, and keeping prescriptions away from seniors."

[Bread and Circus]

50. More dirty lies, smears, and fearmongering of your own.

Pathetic

[ClassWarrior]

57. BUUUUUTTTTT!!!!!...

Say it with me now...

WE'LL GLADLY VOTE FOR WHICHEVER OF THESE FINE AMERICANS GETS NOMINATED.

There, that was easy, wasn't it?...

:P

[Deja Q]

58. We are in danger, don't ever forget that.

Unless the corporate empire is stopped and our entire society re-structured, America will fail.

America's demise could happen within a decade. (with all the economic concerns about housing bubbles, deficit spending, and all of that...)

But then again, it may not. But don't feel warm and cozy just yet:

IT WILL HAPPEN within 50 years because our ill-conceived, wasteful, greedy-for-the-few society based on limitless expansion rather than steady stabilization depends on having more and more resources to use. Those resources (which isn't all oil, of which we had our one and only wake-up call in the 1970s) are slowly running out. Do you think people are going to stabilize on current usage now? NO! Our economy is based on expansion, so that is what it must do.

The mighty is going to fall. And I don't want to be around to hear the *THUD*. And, fortunately, I won't have any children to damn me or my generation for not being able to stop the waste, let alone bright enough to have even seen the problem. Some people are (most of us progressives), but the mass majority of Americans just want food and shelter. Everything else they don't care about.

Just remembered, our own use of sweatshops and foreign country exploitation has also added to the hate the world has of us. Again, it's part of the Corporate Empire.

[TLM]

69. Funny how half the clark folks say I made it up and CLark isn;t doing this

then the other half go off about how he;s right and we'll be attacked any second.

America will be destoryed if we don;t have Ubber CLark in there to protect us.

[bpilgrim]

63. any canidate would be foolish NOT to - n/t

peace

[Field Of Dreams]

70. The only fear I have is that Bush will be re-elected.

To me, Clark is the best bet to prevent that horrible scenario from happening.

Bush doesn't have a leg to stand on against him in foreign policy and foreign affairs.

[TLM]

76. Says who? The repukes will spin CLark as a FP failure.

while Bush is a hero who saved the world from the evil Saddam Hussein and Osama.

We're not going to beat bush by being a bigger hawk... especially when the hawk some want to run got fired from his command and has several other generals the republicans will bring out to attack him as arrogant and incompetent. Bush Co is going to have some major FP sucess as an october surprise... Iraq change over or the location of Saddam etc.

Trying to run against Bush as a bigger hawk will fail.

[AmericanDem]

78. "bigger hawk" ? how bout American Eagle

Try an American Eagle! It isn't Clark's postion to further escalate this mess Bush has gotten us into but to clean it up and bring home our troops as soon as possible. Wouldn't you want to be led by someone like Clark with an American Eagle resume on world affairs and defense then to be led by someone like Bush or Dean with a resume of a chickenhawk or pigeon?

[TLM]

81. LOL! How about a bigger Hawk...

"Wouldn't you want to be led by someone like Clark with an American Eagle resume "

You mean like targeting civilians, bombing journalists, speaking at the SOA, supporting vietnam, getting fired from his command, supporting Reagan and Bush sr., and being a defense contractor lobbyist?

That's your idea of an american eagle resume? That's a god awful resume in a good light, but just wait till Rove's spin machine gets ahold of it.

I'd much rather have someone like Dean who did not go to vietnam and worked to save lives than someone who did and worked to take them. Face it, Bush and Clark are both hawks.

And right now a hawk is the last thing we need in the whitehouse.

[AmericanDem]

82. you need to read without your blinders

I guess your in the camp of Milosevic then?

[TLM]

85. Ahh yes, disagree with Clark bombing civilians in Kosovo...

so you must be a milosevic supporter.

Same argument that if you disagree with Bush bombing civilians in Iraq, you must support Saddam.


Disgusting right wing style arguments from the Clark Corps, imagine that. Hawks of a feather...

[Field Of Dreams]

79. Let them trot out the Generals who shill for the GOP.

There is nothing in Clark's service records or reviews that reflects incompetence.

Hugh Shelton has already made his digs and has come under scrutiny for not adding any specifics to his smear.

Gen. Barry McCaffery is a Clark fan. There are others who worked along side Clark who have very positive things to say about him.

Also, Clark may have worn a uniform, but he is not running as a hawk. He is less hawkish than anybody in the current administration.

[TLM]

83. LOL!!!!! Nothing in his records that reflects incompetence???

So dropping 20,000 bombs and hitting only 13 takes is not incompetence? Having fully %80 of the murders commited by the serbs commited AFTER the bombing started is not incompetence?


Clark was fired from his command and that alone will be spun into a issue of incompetence and power hungry madness very very easily.


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.

Nato does not dispute the Serb claim that just 13 of its tanks were destroyed in Kosovo - a figure which gives an altogether different meaning to the concept of proportionality. Nato fought a military campaign from the air which failed to achieve its stated objectives.



And he certianly is running as a hawk...



http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20031215&s=taibbi


In a room full of people in satin jackets embroidered with union acronyms, Clark entered flanked by a pair of boosters dressed in shiny red VFW jackets. Seeming harried, he gave a short address that was laden with military metaphors: "I'm going to go on the warpath to stop that," "We have to attack on the employment front" and so on. As his speech went on, it became painfully clear that Clark had the idea of workers confused with soldiers. "As I stand here today, I tell you that in the Army, we knew that the unit was never any better than its parts," he said. "The generals weren't any better than the soldiers. When you're in uniform, you're part of a team..."

Heads turned in shock all throughout the audience. What the hell was he talking about? But Clark plowed on. He began to recount his biography, noting that the Army had allowed him to "be all he could be." Five minutes later, he said it again. "Every part of this society," he said, "has to get the support that they need to be all they can be."

After the conference, I chased after him in the parking lot. "General," I said. "You're not seriously going to make 'Be all you can be' your campaign slogan, are you?"

He smiled, then gave me a little nudge with his elbow, apparently thinking I was with him on this one. "Son," he said, "it is my campaign slogan."

[rumguy]

84. Something tells me you voted for Nadar

Thanks for spinning RW talking points against Clark. Fired? Power-hungry? Remember the reason he ruffled some feathers in the Pentagon is because he was on Clinton's side...it's sour grapes now...by only a few being pumped up the the RW.

And that second article is nothing but hipster trash. Look at me while I'm act so ironic and make fun of everyone. That article also trashes Dean - it's not even worth the effort to read.

[TLM]

86. Something tells me you have to resort to personal attacks...

because you can not refute the argument.


"Thanks for spinning RW talking points against Clark."

You mean like when Clark attacked Dean for draft dodging or regulation? Oh wait no, I forgot, Clark can do not wrong so when he attacks democrats on draft dodging or attacks regulation it is OK and not right wing crap.


"Fired? Power-hungry? Remember the reason he ruffled some feathers in the Pentagon is because he was on Clinton's side..."

Oh well then clearly the right wing won't attack him for that. You're right clearly Clark is invulnerable and can not be attacked by the right wingers for his failures in Kosovo, being fired from his command, Waco, other generals having poor opinions of him, and his trading hats with terrorists.

The fact is that Clark will be attacked on this, and it will stick because the truth about his record in Kosovo is anything but flattering. Add some right wing spin to that and you've got a candidate that will lose the middle, lose the base and be left with nothing to run on because he has been robbed of his one advantage, those four shiny stars.



"And that second article is nothing but hipster trash. Look at me while I'm act so ironic and make fun of everyone. That article also trashes Dean - it's not even worth the effort to read."

Did Clark not say those things? This is hardly the only source for the fact Clark’s words have been steeped in militarism and hawkish hype.

And bashing sources won't change those facts.

[rumguy]

89. A calculated Clark smear

That second article is not journalism. Sorry it isn't. That article has been thourougly debunked in a number of threads on this board. Things were taken out of context and things said via Clark's dry sense of humor were taken as serious....

Clark won the Kosovo war...end of story. He didn't start it, Clinton did, remember? I guess Clinton is now a war-mongering hawk too...

Michael Moore likes Clark...ok? Maybe you should follow the lead of one of the prominent greens out there and not drift off into some hazy land where the military is evil, military action is always wrong when civilians are killed, and anyone who partakes in it should be damned from ever getting your vote...

Go join the Green Party, cuz obviously you're addicted to losing...

[Field Of Dreams]

88. Clark's peer reviews

When I refer to service records, I mean the oral and written reviews he received from superiors. With stuff like the following in print, it makes it kind of difficult for GOP military brass to spin Clark as incompetent:


“In General Wes Clark, America found a scholar, a soldier and a statesman – a scholar who understands the forces of history on our time, a solider of unquestioned courage …. A statesman whose influence has been felt from the Americas where he helped to guide the fight against drug barons, to Dayton, where his counsel helped end the bloodletting in Bosnia.”

William Cohen, Secretary of Defense
May 2, 2000


“Professional and moral attributes are impeccable. Strong in all areas. Best leader-thinker in the Army…a great leader who takes care of soldiers and families…He has it all and has done it better than anyone else.”

General Edwin Burba, Jr.
March 20, 1992


“Wes Clark has been a superb battalion commander and will be a superb brigade commander. He is an officer of the rarest potential and will clearly rise to senior general officer rank. He will be one of the Army’s leader in the 1990’s.”

General Colin Powell
May 21, 1982


“Clark exhibits the best balance of professional ethics of any officer I know. Particularly noteworthy is his demonstrated selfless dedication to his men, his unit, and the Army. He exhibits absolute integrity of word, deed … he established and observes scrupulous ethical and moral standards.”

Colonel Lester E. Bennett
June 2, 1980


“Major Clark is the most able White House Fellow I have known during my seven years in Washington … he brought to his work a brilliant mind and rare common sense. He has initiative, style, imagination, moral courage, and integrity – each in extraordinary degree … he has a rare sensitivity to others and a remarkable ability to motivate and lead them … he is totally dedicated to public service as a military officer.”

James T. Lynn
Director, Office of Management and Budget
July 8, 1976

[ThomWV]

80. Exactly Backwards

I think that is the most backwards assessment of a candidate I have seen yet.

Clark does not promiss to feed on the fears of the Nation, he promisses the Leadership to bring us out of it. The fear is there and it was casued by Bush, not Bin Laudin, to deny it is foolish. Clark is not trying to prolong it to his advantage, he is stepping up to remove it from the fabric of our lifestyle. I for one am mighty happy that we have the man to do just that and do it while not trampeling on our Constitutional rights.

Thom

[ClassWarrior]

87. repeat after meeeee...

I WILL VOTE FOR EITHER OF THESE FINE MEN IF HE GETS THE NOMINATION...

I WILL VOTE FOR EITHER OF THESE FINE MEN IF HE GETS THE NOMINATION...

I WILL VOTE FOR EITHER OF THESE FINE MEN IF HE GETS THE NOMINATION...

when I snap my fingers you will awake refreshed and un-argumentatative...

[Field Of Dreams]

90. LOL! Yes I will.

Let me guess, you're really Tony Robbins. :7

(sarcasm off)

[ClassWarrior]

91. He's a Dem, I hear... LOL

n/t

[Democat]

95. It's called strategy - he is using Bush's energy against Bush

If Bush is going to make this election about war, then we bring a general to the table.

It's a way to win, like it or not.

[Eloriel]

99. Yes, demagoguery can win.

But it's a mark of weakness to have to resort to it.

Eloriel