Clark: Democrats must defend other Democrats.

[Clarkie1]

Also from DailyKos article:

Americans will believe that a Democratic Commander in Chief will defend them when they first become convinced that "Democrats will defend other Democrats."

I think there is a lot to this. We have to show unity as a party. If all people see is Democrats attacking Democrats that won't believe the Democratic Party is strong enough to defend America.

We need to show America what our values are, while respecting differences of opinion.

Also, I think Clark announcing this early helps the Democratic Party regardless of who eventually becomes the Democratic nominee. The MSM will now focus more on Clark to some degree than before, and that focus means more airtime for Clark's views on the "religious wrong," Bush's "crowing about the sunrise," etc.

When Clark rallies for congressional and senate candidates in 06', his presence will also now be more effective and carry more weight. He will help defend Democrats from the Republican smear machine.

Issues he is and will promoting, such as an election day national holiday and the G.I. Bill of Rights, are also likely to get more attention and airplay.

This is nothing but good news for the Democratic Party.

[autorank]

1. I've been waiting for this for decades. He is CORRECT: KICK

and Nominate. This makes him our leader right now!!!

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[southlandshari]

2. A kick for you, Autorank!

:pals:

Oh, and that Clark guy is alright, too!

:thumbsup:

[autorank]

5. Hey there!

:hug:

Here comes the judge!

[southlandshari]

8. Hey, now....

let's stick to topic - at least in the public forums!!

I'm not sure I knew you were a Clark fan. A pleasant surprise.

:hug: right back 'atcha!

End of potential thread hijack.

[Carolab]

3. NO. Democrats who are DINOS should GO.

Anyone who is DLC should GO.

MOVEON is right.

[Clarkie1]

4. The Republicans have to go first. n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

32. We have to kill the cancer that is weakening our party sick first!

then we can regain our health and can take on goliath...our party is on life support right now.

cut out the cancer (DLC) and then BRING IT ON.

[wyldwolf]

37. that would be the Naderites and Neoleft McGovernites, right?

[Cuban_Liberal]

43. Careful, wyldwolf!

If you're not to the left of Trotsky, some here will call you a freeper.

:sarcasm:

[wyldwolf]

45. screw 'em

I'm more than a little tired of their ideological purity litmus tests.

[Cuban_Liberal]

48. You and me both.

The 'holier than thou' attitude of some posters is getting QUITE tedious...

[Carolab]

142. Barbara would like to know who we should support.

http://www.pacforachange.com/battle/

http://ga4.org/boxer2004/aprilvote.html?member_key=dksk7i4157x5nw

[rman]

222. you can't vote out Repubs, you can vote out Dino's

-

[wyldwolf]

247. yeah - let's start with any naderites and neoleft McGovernites

[Clark2008]

6. Democrats should defend Democrats.

I didn't hear any qualifiers.

Right now, let's get rid of the neo-cons.

Then we worry about party rule.

Mmmm-K?

[kerrygoddess]

17. I'll vote for that!

First things first!

[wyldwolf]

22. Well, that would include a slew of Naderites and New Left McGovernites

[IronLionZion]

30. Yeah, why attack Republicans when we can attack each other ?

:eyes:

When you attack Democrats, you help Republicans. Democrats come in all different types. Republicans seem to come only in corporate fascist.

And what exactly is the litmus test for being a Democrat? :shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

41. Sorry, I can't read your post, it makes too much sense

[Clark2008]

44. Yeah, I'm not a part of any organized group.

I'm a Democrat. :7

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[nolabels]

81. That seems to be the crux of it

I can only fault them to point that they are not up to job and have neither the tools or resources to do anything else. They are flotsam and jetsam at this time, ineffective as tits on Boar.

Attacking Republicans is much more sporting anyway :evilgrin:

[MontecitoDem]

57. This is not what Clark was saying!

Look, I was there in LA with him.

What he said is that Dems must stand up against the Republicans. And that Dems who side with Republicans are hurting the party. He said we won't win back the trust of the American people until Dems stand together and stop caving in to Repubs. That is what is making us appear weak to the Americn people, the same lack of backbone we all have been talking about!

[ReadTomPaine]

7. While I tend to agree in principle, this is not as easy as it sounds..

What about right leaning or corporate types like Democrat Zell Miller? Or Democrat Joe Lieberman? Or the DLC in general? What about outspoken Democrats who hold unpopular view on the other side, for instance Andrea Dworkin style, outspoken feminists? It's a lot more tricky than it sounds with a big tent and a fluid platform.

RTP

[Clarkie1]

9. Zell Miller is an extreme nut-case.

Clark is talking in general terms, he is not saying we should defend nutcases.

"Today, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander-in-chief."

-Zell Miller, fascist

"I don't think Zell Miller understands democracy very well. George Bush is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, but he's not the commander-in-chief of the American people, he's not the commander-in-chief of the country. We have a democracy. The president's decisions are subject to the approval of the American people."

-Wes Clark, patriot

http://www.brendanloy.com/archives/014555.html

[ArkySue]

26. Zell Miller is NO Democrat!

[Clarkie1]

11. As for Lieberman, he is far from my favorite senator.

But he did vote against the bankruptcy bill. That's something no Republican did.

We need to focus on the values that unite us a party, not the differences. Not now.

Not when we have a common enemy.

Boxer's my favorite, BTW.

[ReadTomPaine]

12. Credit where it's due. Paul Wellstone is rolling in grave over that bill.

[Clarkie1]

14. It's sort of like Lord of the Rings.

It's late, and I'm tired, and for some reason that makes me think more metaphorically. Maybe because dreams are metaphorical?

We are fighting the legions of Mordor.

All of the dwarves, elves, wizards, hobbits, and humans in the Democratic party need to UNITE.

[janx]

15. Dems seem to be in the process of doing just that,

state by state. There's an awful lot of organizing going on.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. Yes there is, and more that needs to be done.

I'm hooked into the Democratic Party Club for my local township. We formed the Club a little over a year ago, and we are working to strengthen our Party and keep it responsive to it's members.

Though I have not worked directly with Democracy For America yet, from everything that I can tell, people who are part of it are committed to doing the hard pain staking work needed to rebuild our Party. More Power to You (literally).

[ReadTomPaine]

16. You can also look on it as ...

the DLC being moderate republicans forced out of thier own party and now "sleeping on the Democratic couch" until we can fix their side of the system.

RTP

[Crunchy Frog]

18. Did someone say Lord of the Rings?

You've got my number there!

'Folly it may seem,' said Haldir. 'Indeed in nothing is the power of the Dark Lord more clealy shown than in the estrangement that divides all those who still oppose him.'

[Hippo_Tron]

42. Paul would've staged a one man fillibuster against it if he had to

Granted I don't think that he'd be surprised. He knew that on many occasions, the dems are too chicken to stand up for what's right.

[ReadTomPaine]

46. Yes. He would have stopped it all by himself.

We have to drive the bus now.

RTP

[Hippo_Tron]

49. I don't know if he would've been able to stop it

But you can sure as hell bet that a lone wolf standing on the senate floor for hours would get the media's attention enough so that the public would actually hear another point of view about this bill.

I keep thinking of the West Wing Episode where Leo (Chief of Staff) tells the President to stop moving to the center on everything and actually fight. Leo tells his staff, even if we don't pass any legislation... "We're going to raise the level of public debate in this country and let that be our legacy." I think that Wellstone definitely raised the level of public debate in this country by taking positions that were unpopular with his colleagues and at times even with his constituents: and if anything, that is certainly his legacy as well.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

104. Wellstone was horrified over 'Plan Columbia' which Clark oversaw as

head of Southern Command in '96-'97.

Wellstone visited Columbia and almost hit a landmine found on the airport road and then was sprayed with pesticide from a plane fly-over.

Plan Columbia is the US's military support of a repressive right-wing government to ensure that oil pipelines stay open.

The US gets more oil from South America than from the middle east.

Wellstone was eventually eliminated in a small plane crash, an American tradition for whistle-blowers and truth-tellers in US politics.

[FrenchieCat]

138. The link, Please?

Your word is like no word.

Thanks.

Here's what Paul Wellstone stated about Iraq ...in where he cited Wesley Clark's name and used Clark's words.....

We have succeeded in destroying some Al Qaida forces, but many of its operatives have scattered, their will to kill Americans still strong. The United States has relied heavily on alliances with nearly 100 countries in a coalition against terror for critical intelligence to protect Americans from possible future attacks. Acting with the support of allies, including hopefully Arab and Muslim allies, would limit possible damage to that coalition and our anti-terrorism efforts. But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=2778&catID=298

[JohnOneillsMemory]

144. AP: 'Senator Paul Wellstone Takes The Lead Against 'Plan Colombia'

(You still haven't answered my question: is our opponent the GOP or militarism? Thanks in advance.-jom)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/120200-01.htm
(AP story 12/2/2000)

>snip<

For Wellstone, a former civil rights activist and college professor, his two-day visit to Colombia also was aimed at making a stand against Plan Colombia, a drug-eradication effort being funded by $1.3 billion from Washington. Under the plan, dozens of U.S.-donated combat helicopters will ferry U.S.-trained Colombian troops into cocaine-producing plantations to seize them from insurgents.

But while the military is being strengthened, Wellstone says there is no firm plan to provide coca farmers with alternative livelihoods. He fears they will then be driven into the ranks of leftist guerrillas or the rival right-wing paramilitary group, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, or AUC.

Moreover, Wellstone is concerned that President Clinton authorized delivery of the aid even though the Colombian government has not met all the human rights conditions set by Congress. Among outstanding concerns is that the Colombian military has not severed its links to the AUC. The paramilitaries, responsible for numerous massacres of suspected guerrilla sympathizers, remain allied with the army in the field in anti-guerrilla operations. Many AUC gunmen are former government soldiers.

``If we continue to waive the (human rights) provisions of the aid package, then the message we are sending to the paramilitaries and the military is that human rights is not important to us,'' Wellstone told The Associated Press as he flew to Barrancabermeja.

>snip<
------------------------------------------------------
State Department Briefing On Attempted Wellstone Hit
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2000/12/irp-001201-col.htm

-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread7851.shtml
(Washington Post story, WP site has archived)
Bombs Defused In Colombia Before U.S. Visit
Posted by FoM on December 02, 2000 at 08:07:04 PT
By Scott Wilson, Washington Post Foreign Service
Source: Washington Post

justice Police in a violence-ridden Colombian town defused two bombs a few hours before a visit there Thursday by Sen. Paul D. Wellstone (D-Minn.) and U.S. Ambassador Anne W. Patterson, authorities reported today.

A Colombian police colonel said the bombs might have been rigged for an assassination attempt, citing the arrest of a man said to belong to a leftist guerrilla group hostile to U.S. military aid for the Colombian government.

But other U.S. and Colombian officials said there was no proof the American visitors were the intended targets. Wellstone and Patterson, who took up her post three months ago, traveled to Barrancabermeja, an oil-refining town 150 miles north of Bogota, as part of Wellstone's visit to review anti-drug activities in Colombia. Leftist guerrillas and privately funded paramilitary groups have clashed regularly in and around the city, battling for control of a lucrative drug trade that is the target of a new U.S. military aid package.

Jose Miguel Villar, a police colonel, told reporters today that two powerful, shrapnel-filled bombs were discovered near a route Wellstone and Patterson could have taken from the airport to to a brief meeting with human rights advocates in what is perhaps Colombia's most dangerous city. The explosives were rigged to a detonator and police said the man they found with the bombs was a suspected urban commando of the National Liberation Army, or ELN, Colombia's second-largest leftist militant group.
---------------------------------

Minn. Dem. Criticizes Colombia Plan

Foreign Affairs News Keywords: COLUMBIA DRUG WAR PAUL WELLSTONE
Source: The Associated Press
By KEN GUGGENHEIM

.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Paul Wellstone has been an outspoken opponent of the $1.3
billion Colombian anti-drug aid package, fearing it could worsen Colombia's
guerrilla war and drag the United States into the four-decade old conflict.

``I have some concerns about whether counter-narcotics and
counter-insurgency have become merged,'' Wellstone, D-Minn., said in an
interview with The Associated Press late last week.

>snip<

``I knew yesterday that we had to be careful,'' Wellstone said Friday on
arrival at Miami International Airport, en route to Minnesota.

Most of the Colombian aid package is for helicopters and other military
equipment to help Colombian security forces fight guerrillas who partly
finance their insurgency by protecting coca fields and cocaine laboratories.
U.S. officials have insisted they will not get involved in the guerrilla
war.

>snip<

``The human rights violations ranging from torture to murder to massacres
has gone down on the military side but is up on the paramilitary side,'' he (Wellstone)
said.
-------------------------------------
Roadside Bomb Found in Colombia Before Visit by U.S. Senator and Ambassador

Associated Press
December 1, 2000
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Colombia-US-Senator-Bomb.html

>snip<

Washington supports the Colombian military in its fight against the ELN and a bigger rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. However, the ELN is seeking peace concessions from the Colombian government, and an attack on senior U.S. officials would probably put those concessions out of reach.

Barrancabermeja is the most violent town in Colombia, with almost 500 politically related murders this year alone, according to human rights activists. Right-wing paramilitary squads and rebels have been preying on the townspeople and fighting for control of the region.

Wellstone, a second-term senator and a member of the foreign relations committee, arrived in Colombia on Tuesday night and left on Friday. He visited Barrancabermeja to lend support to human rights activists there.

[Clark2008]

148. I notice all of those have late 2000 datelines

Clark was head of NATO from 1997 to 2000.

He hadn't been NEAR Columbia for years. How you can hold him responsible for something that was outside of his command for more than five years (which it was) just proves you're fishing.

Fishing is a nice hobby, but your bait isn't working.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

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

[JohnOneillsMemory]

167. My error, you're right. US-Colombian policies were merely toxic in '96.

Clark was at Southern Command overseeing policy in Columbia and doing the PR work for the School of the Americas scandal in 1996-1997.

But your right. That was a sloppy implication on my part.

In 1996-1997 the US was doing heavy spraying in Columbia with a toxic chemical that Monsanto had to settle a claim on and change their false advertising of safe use. This was the same poison that Wellstone got sprayed with when he visited in 2000.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/Columbia/REHN713.html

>snip<

According to the GAO, the U.S. State Department escalated its support for aerial spray campaigns in 1996, and during the 1997-98 period, over 100,000 hectares (254,000 acres) of the Colombian countryside were sprayed. But during this same period, net coca cultivation in Colombia increased 50 percent.<2, pg. 16-18>

>snip<

But medical reports link exposure to glyphosate herbicides with short-term symptoms including blurred vision, skin problems, heart palpitations, and nausea. Studies have also found associations with increased risk of miscarriages, premature birth, and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Formulations in which glyphosate is combined with other ingredients can be more acutely toxic than glyphosate alone.<6, pgs. 5-8> Monsanto, a major manufacturer of glyphosate-based herbicides, was challenged by the Attorney General of New York State for making safety claims similar to those now being repeated by the U.S. State Department. In an out-of-court settlement in 1996, Monsanto agreed to stop advertising the product as "safe, non-toxic, harmless or free from risk."<4,6>

Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, a vocal critic of the "drug war" military aid, visited Colombia last week. During his visit he was treated to a demonstration of aerial crop eradication, in the course of which the Colombian National Police managed to spray Senator Wellstone himself with herbicides. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, this accident occurred shortly after the U.S. Embassy in Colombia circulated materials explaining that the spray was guided by "precise geographical coordinates" calculated by computer. Colombian police said the accident had occurred because the wind blew the herbicide off course.<7>

>snip<
----------------------------------------------------

But what still stands is the expensive weapon-heavy human rights-thin militarism also going on under Clinton/Dem/'Blue' that makes my point that the Pentagon and its military industrial complex is our problem, not just the GOP.

[Clark2008]

170. Uh-oh

We're moving dangerously close to Haitian Man Boobies!

Better known as the HMB 'round these parts!

:rofl:

[JohnOneillsMemory]

178. Is Gitmo Bay full of Haitians in appalling conditions funny to you?

Commandant Clark, Commander of Guantanomo Bay camps full of refugees fleeing a country starving from US sanctions?

Hysterical.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

179. I forgot, you posted that Jesus said killing for your nation was ok..yikes

And I don't want to be accused of not providing a link by FrenchieCat so here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1728212

post #45

[FrenchieCat]

187. Yea....K

But you didn't provide links....on the Wellstone deal, you repasted what you originally pasted that occured in 2000.....while throwing in additional accusation about Latin America.

Me thinks you are trying too hard, and it's starting to show.

The only link you have provided was the DU one just now about what a Clark supporter said. Must be Gotcha time!

So it appears that you can say anything, offer no links that actually deals with what you are saying...then say it again.

Who have I experienced using those tactics before? Yes siree bob, it's that kind of selective no fact/mucho fiction "memory" that troubles me.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

190. I provide mucho links. You provide mucho insults and cutesy graphic..

C'mon. Quit playing the schooyard gang ringleader role. It's played.

You have plenty of info and ability to debate without doing the posturing.

Are are you going to keep cautioning me against believing Republicans while you use White House staff and Karl Rove as sources as in that 'Rove wouldn't answer my phone calls' fracas above?

You see what happens when you go on personal attacks? You make mistakes, just as I sometimes do.

We obviously both care tremendously about whether Clark is a good candidate. So rise to the occasion again and play devil's advocate, not bully.

It's too late now. Enough for tonight.

peace, y'all.

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

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

[Clark2008]

200. Oh - I never got back to you on that one.

Yes... there are verses in which Jesus talks of the separation of church and state. And, while Jesus always subscribed to "turn the other cheek," He also knew of the impossibilities of that in Man.

John 18:36 acknowledges this. Here Jesus says: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

When Jesus says that if His kingdom were of this world His servants would be fighting, he implies that it is right for kingdoms of this world to fight when the cause is just and circumstances require it.

Christians are citizens of "two kingdoms"--our country on earth, and heaven. Jesus shows us that it is never right to fight for the sake of his spiritual kingdom, but that it is right to fight on behalf of earthly kingdoms (when necessary to counter evil and destruction).

This is why the Vatican, for example, has a series of steps it follows in determining "just" wars from "unjust" wars. Pope John Paul II declared the Kosovo War was a "just" war and the Iraqi War is not.

Apparently, you are no Biblical scholar. I may not always agree with the Pope, but I'm betting he - and the Vatican - know more about "just" wars than you.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

213. Your back to 'General Boykin'-mode and the Crusades vs Jihad. Very scary.

You illustrate the contradictions in the Bible and how dangerous the Taliban (US-supported under Reagan/Bush) and al-Queda (sometimes US-supported like in the Balkans under Clinton/Clark) and the fascist Dominionists of the GOP right-wing all are.

It's always a 'just war' for someone, isn't it?

Nice job. Thanks for continuing to make my point. Since you insist on digging a deeper hole that looks like a mass grave, here-it's even worse:

Do your homework on the Vatican, pedophilia, Aids/birth control, women's and gay rights. The Vatican causes terrible disease, death, orphans, domestic violence...

The Vatican is a political power that has promoted violence for years.


When John Paul I assumed the poverty and humility of Jesus instead of a king and then threw the P2 Fascists who ran the enormous wealth of the Vatican bank (very Biblical, right?) out on their ears he was assassinated after only 33 days in 'office.' It was a scandal back in 1978 and PJII was probably chosen under CIA/P2 fascist influence for his ability to incite Poles to take apart the Eastern Bloc.

JPI was like the JFK of the Vatican. When he tried to throw the CIA out, he was killed by the big money/spook cabal.

JPII then looked the other way in the 1980s as Reagan/Bush/Negroponte/Bolton set up death squads to terrorize Central and South American Catholic peasants using GENERAL CLARK'S BELOVED SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS TORTURE AND REPRESSION TRAINING.

Very Biblical, right? Where's your 'just war' now? You see how sickening it is to hear Clark touting his Christianity?

This was consistent with the rest of 20th century Vatican history.

The Vatican supported Mussolini and then Hitler. After WWII, the Vatican was the Southern European Command for the CIA which took in hundreds of Nazi war criminals as assets and helped set up 'rat-lines' for Nazis to escape to South America where they still terrorize.

The Vatican/CIA/P2 Fascist terrorist alliance used weapons left behind by the Allies to terrorize Europe with agent provocateur attacks to prevent the Communist party from making political inroads.

NATO was formed with Nazi generals and NATO helped terrorize Europe, too.

Unlike FrenchieCat's vendetta mode, I won't sneer "links please?" when you discuss the Bible. Everyone sees what they want to because every view point is in there, righteous smiting through pacifism.

If you really care about our future, examine the past and learn the scams we've bought into regarding power and 'morality.' Don't buy into the public theater.

Don't trust anyone blindly, including me, and do your own research. Please.

[Name removed]

230. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

196. and where is the fucking missing link on this subject

that you raise here?.....Commandant Clark, Commander of Guantanomo Bay camps full of refugees fleeing a country starving from US sanctions?
JOM?

[MollyStark]

204. John

Don't forget Krome Ave detention center. Remember Cubans get houses and welfare, Haitians get locked up and sent back to Haiti.

Compared to that what's a little hormonal experimentation on prisoners?

[OKNancy]

264. Clark was never in charge of Haiti

Haiti was under the Atlantic Command when Clark was there. Only after Clark left was Haiti changed to the Southern Command. I told "seventhson" this many times, but of course he never responded.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

266. Thanks for that info. I got embroiled in other responses and didn't get

back to that. I had prepared a post with info on the history of Gitmo as a prison that I'd assembled only to have the infamous Windows 'this operation has performed an illegal function and will be shut down' message obliterate it.

I've learned that references to seventhson are now coded inferences of freeperhood.

Since I've been warding off Big Brother Wall Street War Criminal Clark vigorously (who I see as a 'good cop' being offered as a foil to the 'bad cop' neo-cons) and watching his candidacy be constructed here at DU, I've been getting that accusation.

Is that your accusation? Did you really say this to seventhson or are you being coy with an accusation?

[dogman]

267. From the accusations you make Clark must have already been President.

He made Drug policy, he flew crop dusters over Wellstone, he declared wars, he ran multiple theaters of engagement. He developed plans to handle civil strife. He developed weapons systems. He worked up data bases on the 9-11 terrorists before 9-11. I know he is a talented multi-tasker but I am truly amazed. Who would have thought one man ran this country's foreign and domestic policy for so long?

[FrenchieCat]

188. I'm sorry, but your link does not read what you are typing.....

I don't see 1996 mentioned anywhere,nor is Clark's name mentioned anywhere.....what I read is this:
For a number of years the U.S. has sponsored herbicide spraying in Colombia, intending to curb illegal drugs at their source. Starting in January 2001 under U.S. oversight, the Colombian government will escalate its "crop eradication" activities, in which aircraft spray herbicides containing glyphosate to kill opium poppy and coca plants. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the well-known herbicide called Roundup. Opium poppy and coca are the raw materials for making heroin and cocaine.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/Columbia/REHN713.html

NEVER AGAIN!

[JohnOneillsMemory]

193. Right in the middle of the page! And Clark was heading Southern Command.

(And since your either playing dumb or trying to portray me as lying, here's more from the same source with the big picture indictment. Now I'm really quitting for tonight. sheesh.-jom)

>snip<

If dousing the Colombian countryside with herbicides is not an effective way to diminish the drug problem in the U.S., it is worth asking what drives our government's enthusiasm for this costly and destructive approach. One explanation is that the "war on drugs" is a pretext for policies that have little to do with drugs. Several U.S. industries stand to gain from U.S. intervention in Colombia's civil war. The Occidental Petroleum Corporation, for example, lobbied hard for the "drug war" military aid; and U.S. companies that manufacture the military helicopters used in Colombia were major supporters of the aid package.<12>

Waging an ineffective "war on drugs" abroad also helps to divert attention away from the political role of drug policy within the U.S. A recent report by Human Rights Watch, an organization that monitors and documents human rights abuses throughout the world, says that drug control policies within the U.S. have been the primary driver of this country's incarceration crisis, in which the prison population has quadrupled since 1980. The U.S. now has more than 2 million citizens behind bars. Rates of conviction and imprisonment are much higher among nonviolent drug offenders who are black than among their white counterparts.<13> Thirteen percent of black men in the U.S. -- more than one in ten -- are not allowed to vote because they are in jail or were previously convicted of a felony.<14>

Without the rhetoric of "fighting drugs," U.S. officials would have to admit to the American public that we are intervening in another country's civil war -- bringing back memories of Vietnam and other disastrous failures of U.S. foreign policy. Unfortunately, the analogy to Vietnam is appropriate as U.S. military involvement in Colombia deepens. During the Vietnam war, the U.S. defoliated and contaminated Vietnam's forests with Agent Orange, a herbicide composed of the chemicals 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T and routinely contaminated with the carcinogen dioxin. American veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange suffer elevated rates of diabetes and certain cancers, and veterans' children have elevated rates of major birth defects (see REHW #212 and #250 ). Under the banner of the "war on drugs," in Colombia once again we are waging a toxic war against another country's unique ecosystems and the health of innocent civilians.

* Rachel Massey is a consultant to Environmental Research Foundation.

[FrenchieCat]

195. WTF are you talking about?

Maybe you do need some sleep....unless you work "nights".

What's in the middle of the page? 1996? 1997? Clark's name? Don't see those things. What are you posting there? The middle of the page? So bold out the information that refers to General Clark and the time period and what he did on his command....or at least Google again. Doh!

Jeeze John O'Neill...this is just way too sad!

[FrenchieCat]

197. Sooooo the State Department in your book transformed itself

into the Defense Department?

Velly intelesting....and pretty liberal with facts, aren't you?

According to the GAO,

the U.S. State Department

escalated its support for aerial spray campaigns in 1996, and during the 1997-98 period, over 100,000 hectares (254,000 acres) of the Colombian countryside were sprayed.

[Crunchy Frog]

171. "(You still haven't answered my question:

is our opponent the GOP or militarism? Thanks in advance.-jom)"

A whole bunch of us are still waiting for your promised answers to questions we've asked. I would thank you in advance, but I'm really not expecting anything at this point.

I will however, continue to remind you periodically.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

180. Questions were...am I a pacifist and why pick on Clark, was that it?.n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

191. No, they were a bit more complicated then that.

I'll refresh your memory. Here's the link to my questions:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1714332&mesg_id=1716102

Your answer to me was:

JohnOneillsMemory (1000+ posts) Mon Apr-11-05 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #86

102. Excellent questions. Frikkin' hard ones too. (Damn!) Tomorrow....n/t

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1714332&mesg_id=1716848&page=

Let's see, you promised an answer "tomorrow", and that was almost eight days ago. I will keep waiting and continue to remind you.
:hi:

[JohnOneillsMemory]

217. Yup. VERY complicated. What is a 'just war'? etc...You're right about this

being at the crux of the bisquit of American politics.

You are right to get this central moral question which civilization has grappled with unsuccessfully for 2000 years atleast.

Since I'm not an ex-President/Theologian (although I play one on TV) please allow me the time to address the myriad topics concerned either piece meal in threads or 'eventually' without being spanked as a prevaricator. But thank you for the very reasonable re-focusing on your questions. You've presented one of the most cogent posts on the topic of General Clark's candidacy I've read.

My questions to you and others about whether our problem/enemy is the GOP or the militarism that the GOP fronts for (with Dem complicity) address the same complexities and I encourage you, in the same spirit of goodwill and comity, to examine your possible answers.

Let me get to the short easy answers to you here and now.

1) General Clark spent 30 years in the Pentagon and maintains his advisory status if not the exact same role so I do focus on his life and candidacy before other candidates.

2) I absolutely hold any person or candidate to the same standards because they are issues of universal humanity AND rule of law.

I've attempted to present the case that the US military has been used, not for 'just wars,' but for economic imperialism for the last 60 years that has a continuity with the last 100-even 400 years of small criminal groups stealing things at gunpoint and calling that 'Freedom on the March.'

I will continue to make that case and show General Clark's part in this scam despite his campaign rhetoric against the PNAC.

This is too big a topic for some to digest and they accuse me of McCarthyism or 'guilt by six degrees of separation.'

Time for more coffee and going outdoors to recharge on sunlight now.
peace,
Josh

[Crunchy Frog]

218. Umm, he spent 37 years in the military, not the Pentagon.

I do hope that you understand that they are not the same institution.

I would take you alot more seriously if you could be accurate with even the most basic of information.

If you are holding all potential candidates to the same standards can we expect to see this sort of posting in threads concerning other ones who have demonstrated "militaristic" characteristics, or are Clark threads the only ones that are to be blessed with hundreds and hundreds of your posts?

I really would have a little more respect for you if you were to demonstrate that type of consistency.

Edited to add: No, I will not be satisfied with your addressing "the myriad topics concerned either piece meal in threads or 'eventually'"

I took your original post to mean that you would be presenting me with a coherent set of answers once you had thought about it. I don't have time to go chasing all over this board looking for piecemeal bits of answers appearing in various threads on a time frame of "eventually". I'm sorry, but I will continue to dog you about this until I do get a coherent set of answers to my questions.

If that wasn't what you wanted, you shouldn't have made that original post promising to answer me. I intend to continue holding you to your word.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

223. "Military not Pentagon" ?? He was in command structure since the mid-70s.

I focus on militarism and General..GENERAL Clark.

This is not consistent to you? And you call ME "not accurate with the most basic of information"??!!

I hardly even know how to respond to that kind of 'logic.'

[Crunchy Frog]

226. Umm, you stated that Clark had served in the Pentagon

for 30 years. I posted that I believe the Pentagon and the Military to be separate institutions. At any rate, Clark spent most of his career in military bases all over the country, and later, other parts of the world. As nearly as I can tell, he spent a couple of years working in the Pentagon. You could perhaps then say that he worked in the pentagon for 2 years, but certainly not for the 30 years that you are claiming. Are you really trying to say that he was serving in the Pentagon while he was getting shot at in the jungles of Vietnam?

If I'm incorrect in believing the Pentagon to be a separate institution from the Military, I hope that you will provide me with accurate sources showing that they are indeed the same institution. I think that would be preferable to ridicule.

The inconsistency that I was pointing out was on a separate point entirely. I feel that you should be going into threads about all Democratic figures who have demonstrated a propensity towards militarism and do the exact same thing that you do on Clark threads. That would mean threads about Kerry, Edwards, and Hillary among others. If you don't, then I believe your actions to be inconsistent.

[Tom Rinaldo]

221. Here John, go at it.

I supported the United States contributing forces to the international effort in Somalia to end starvation there.

I supported the United States threatening to use military force to reinstall Haiti's democratically elected President, Aristide

I supported the United States, through N.A.T.O., bombing the positions of Bosnian Serbs and others who laid siege to the civilian citizens of Sarajevo for months, sniping on the elderly when they came out for water.

I supported the United States, through N.A.T.O. using force to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide in Kosovo.

I supported the United States contributing Peace Keeping forces to Bosnia and Kosovo.

I supported the United States using military forces to root out Al Quada in Afghanistan.

I, like Clark, wanted the United States to send military force into Rwanda to stop the massive loss of innocent lives taking place there.

I also supported U.S. involvement in WWII, and opposed almost all uses of U.S. Forces under Republican Presidents and some under Democrats, Viet Nam being at the top of the list but also actions like the invasion of the Dominican Republic under LBJ.

I just thought I should be clear about this.

By the way I also support the U.S. military efforts at rescue and support in Asia after the Tsunami. I think the Pentagon was involved in that one too.

[FrenchieCat]

194. Wait a Fucking cotton Picking minute.......I need to correct JOM

Slander and libel via cutting and pasting is not "picking"......it's way beyond that!

[Crunchy Frog]

173. Well, Paul Wellstone was probably afraid

that Wes Clark would organize a hit on him if he didn't talk him up like that. I'm sure he must have gotten some threats in the mail or something.

[iconoclastNYC]

33. He voted for cloture.....which was the key vote.

Liberman must go....now that Zell is gone, Liberman is the most visible DINO and he must be brought in line or dismissed.

[StudentOfDarrow]

232. Zell Miller doesn't count.

He has deserted the party, and is now an enemy. As for Lieberman and the DLC, they are Democrats. They are wrong a multitude of issues, but unlike Republicans, they are Democrats. With 44 Senators, we really can't afford to be that picky.

[sandnsea]

10. Yeah well

Seems like I've heard that before. Dems don't let Dems bash Dems. The more people who say it, the better I guess.

And I think Clark being out in front would be a good thing too. Although I think I'll wait to hear his announcement from his own mouth.

[Fovea]

13. The Puglican model of unity

is not worthy of emulation.

We need to realize that we are going to be responding to a world shaking mess.

We need to put the average Americans in the place corporations are now.
Any Dem policy or pol who cannot step up to the plate for universal health, energy conservation, and rebuilding the American industrial capacity around effeciency and far less transportation costs/demands.

No Dems who are willing to extend the Inheritance tax, no dems who want more welfare for corporations.

If the DLC cannot kiss this, then they should consider becoming Jefford's indie. We Democrats must stop being a simple coalition, because we are watching the the Repuglican coalition fall apart. We need to become a movement.

And that movement will be about saving the working class American from the doom that will follow the PNAC ** administration's dismantling. Maybe it can be about raising the standard of Amercan citizens health, education, and freedom to that of say, Old Europe?

[patricia92243]

19. It looks like we might finally be getting some Democratic LEADERSHIP.

I don't mean our do-nothing representative in Washington.

First Dean as Chairperson, and if you agree with him or not, he definitely is a leader.

Now Clark is stepping up to the plate and saying some of the things that MUST be said and done - "Democrats must defend Democrats."

Sounds as good to me as Reagan saying the 11th commandment was for Republicans not to talk bad about other Republicans.

I'm almost beginning to feel a twinge of hope and excitement for us Democrats.

One of my main unhappiness with the Democratic Party WAS that we did not have a leader. That seems to be fading away. Oh happy day.

[NightOwwl]

20. Don't forget Reid...

He is kicking ass on Social Security and he is going to force Frist to a showdown on the nuclear option. The Republicans were expecting a mild-mannered reporter, and instead they got Superman.

[leveymg]

21. A Negative Perfect Example: AIPAC-Inspired "Dems Against Moran"

Jim Moran (D., VA 8th Dist.) is one of the more progressive people in Congress, particularly about war and peace issues in the Middle East. His criticism of Sharon's policies have made him the target of particularly bilious character assassination from pro-Likkud groups and well-funded opponents who appear to be backed by AIPAC and other Right-wingers.

Here's an example of an e-mail I received a couple days ago from a self-described "Dems Against Moran" group:

--- Moe Skeeto <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Maura Keaney wrote:
> <<I'm sure Jim is used to hearing complaints from many
> of the people in the 8th who have opposed him in the
> past. But as someone who volunteered literally
> HUNDREDS of hours for his campaign for no pay, and who
> helped to raise many thousands of dollars for Jim, I'm
> disgusted by this vote and I want a personal response
> from Jim about why he made this decision. >>
>
> So anti-semitic remarks, domestic violence, taking
> bribes, and punching people in the face didn't phase
> you, huh?
>
> Welcome to the opposition, I guess. You can expect
> your explanation when the rest of us get ours. We've
> stopped waiting, and hope to cast our own
> controversial vote at the next primary.
>
> WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!
>
> http://democratsagainstmoran.blogspot.com
>
>
>

putz :bounce:

[DaveinMD]

36. revisionist history

this of course occurred after anti-semetic remarks made by Moran. But nice try.

[leveymg]

50. And, I suppose Andy Rosenberg's campaign got NO money from the same

funders who bankroll AIPAC?

What "anti-semitic remarks"? Don't confuse denunciations of Likuud and Israeli Right-wingers, and their American backers, with blanket anti-semitism.

Who's the revisionist, Dave? By the way, you don't even live in Virginia. What interest is this to you?

:eyes:

[DaveinMD]

125. he blamed Jews

for the Iraq war. I do do work in Virginia. What does it matter if I live there. And anti-semitism of all kinds is abhorent. I have no problem with criticizing Likud. I hate Likud. They are extremists. But saying Jews could have stopped the Iraq war is akin to blaming Jews for a hole host of conspiracies.

[Clark2008]

166. Psssttt....

Arabs (and Aramaic and some Africans and Palestinians - who aren't 100 percent Arabic, by the way - and some Iranians) are Semitic, too.

Just wanted you to know.

[DaveinMD]

202. yeah I know

and bigotry against any group is wrong.

[leveymg]

199. AIPAC, OSP, PNAC. Largely overlapping, cooperating NeoCon network

A disproportionate percentage of NeoCons working on Middle East issues, the brain trust of the Bush Administration Iraq/Iran strategy, are Jewish Right-wingers who support Likud. That's the longer form of the same statement. Are you asserting this isn't the case?

This is NOT akin to asserting a universal Jewish conspiracy. Think about it, Dave. Maybe we can talk further?

:bounce:

[DaveinMD]

203. blaming

the larger Jewish Community for the war is lunacy. That's what he did. That's why he apologized. Jews are among the most reliably Democratic and Liberal voters in the country. That is a fact. Blaming Jews for the war was sheer lunacy.

[leveymg]

206. His apology was for those who had misunderstood what he said.

He's correct that the overwhelming sentiment heard within the Jewish community, particularly among most of the leadership, was initially strongly in favor of the Iraq invasion. I'm afraid that Rabbi Lerner and other anti-war voices were really drowned out by
the "mainstream", which has moved to the Right.

His actual statement was: "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this," Moran said, in comments first reported by the Reston (VA) Connection and confirmed by Moran. "The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going and I think they should."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5887-2003Mar10.html

Moran's statement was accurate, if decidedly impolitic. Really an extraordinarily candid expression of outrage that echoes what some Jews (a minority opinion) were also saying. Should he be pilloried for expressing an perception that you, as a progressive, probably share?

Just because the statement was an unflattering truth told by an outsider, doesn't make it an expression of anti-semitism.

:bounce:

[DaveinMD]

207. that's crap

it once again puts forth typical conspiratorical stuff that Jews dominate decisions about world events. Why don't we blame blacks for the war. I mean Powell and Rice were in positions of power. Blaming any group for the war is offensive unless you are blaming the Bush Administration.

[leveymg]

209. Go back to my post above about the AIPAC-OSP-PNAC NeoCon network, and

the disproportionate role of self-identified Likud supporters in planning and carrying the Administration's Iraq-Iran policies. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's fact.

Why deny that they are among the most influential architects of Bush's disasterous policies?

[DaveinMD]

212. putting in the entire Jewish Community

with the few conservatives is beyond ludicrous. The American Jewish community is incredibly liberal. Furthermore, saying the Jewish Community had the ability to stop Bush's war is akin to the crap in the Elders of Zion.

[leveymg]

214. You might want to read this, and get back to me.

http://www.counterpunch.org/christison01252003.html
CounterPunch

January 25, 2003

Too Many Smoking Guns to Ignore:
Israel, American Jews, and the War on Iraq
by BILL and KATHLEEN CHRISTISON
former CIA political analysts

Most of the vociferously pro-Israeli neo-conservative policymakers in the Bush administration make no effort to hide the fact that at least part of their intention in promoting war against Iraq (and later perhaps against Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Palestinians) is to guarantee Israel's security by eliminating its greatest military threats, forging a regional balance of power overwhelmingly in Israel's favor, and in general creating a more friendly atmosphere for Israel in the Middle East. Yet, despite the neo-cons' own openness, a great many of those on the left who oppose going to war with Iraq and oppose the neo-conservative doctrines of the Bush administration nonetheless utterly reject any suggestion that Israel is pushing the United States into war, or is cooperating with the U.S., or even hopes to benefit by such a war. Anyone who has the temerity to suggest any Israeli instigation of, or even involvement in, Bush administration war planning is inevitably labeled somewhere along the way as an anti-Semite. Just whisper the word "domination" anywhere in the vicinity of the word "Israel," as in "U.S.-Israeli domination of the Middle East" or "the U.S. drive to assure global domination and guarantee security for Israel," and some leftist who otherwise opposes going to war against Iraq will trot out charges of promoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the old czarist forgery that asserted a Jewish plan for world domination.

This is tiresome, to put it mildly. So it's useful to put forth the evidence for the assertion of Israeli complicity in Bush administration planning for war with Iraq, which is voluminous, as the following recitation will show.

<SNIP>

[DaveinMD]

216. I don't buy it

We can all find articles to promote a point. I don't know much about this publication, but I did notice an article by Edward Said. Regardless, blaming Jews for the war in Iraq is blatant bigotry. Put the blame on neo-cons of all religions. Jewish people are well aware of being blamed for a host of ills. Just dismissing the trotting out of these conspiracies does not establish what's wrong with blaming Jews for everything. The last time I checked, George W. Bush isn't Jewish. Condy Rice isn't Jewish. The religious right is largely not Jewish. Jews voter overwhelminly for Democrats in both 2000 and 2004. Stop blaming Jews for the ills in the world.

[Totally Committed]

23. God Bless Wes!

He has always been nothing but good news for the Democratic Party. It's just that some have not believed it. Hopefully, the run-up to '06 will convince them.

Wes IS the real deal!

TC

[wyldwolf]

24. Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment

From an old article: (heavily snipped here) Some folks here should read it and take it to heart.

Apparently, General Wesley Clark is making other big-name Democratic candidates for President nervous. How else to explain their recent attacks on Clark...

Last week at the Democratic Presidential debate in Phoenix, the attacks intensified and Clark defended himself, stating, "things have changed radically since 2001." Among other changes Clark points out, we've gone from huge budget surpluses to huge deficits, we've suffered the 9/11 attacks, and now we're in the midst of a poorly planned and conceptualized post-war strategy in Iraq. To all this, Clark expressed the feelings of many Americans when he said he was "very, very disappointed with how and this administration have led this country." Finally, Clark described how, in his travels around the country, he was getting "tremendous response, response from Democrats, independents, people who've never been engaged in politics and Republicans who are looking to us, to me, for a new vision and new leadership to take this country forward." Isn't that exactly what the Democratic Party should want?

Apparently not, as the ad hominem attacks on General Clark... are not simply isolated events. These types of attacks, which we'll call the "Democratic Party Moral Purity and Political Correctness Test" are major reasons why the Democrats have gone from the majority party in this country to one that controls zero branches of government - executive, legislative, or judicial. As the joke goes, when Democrats organize a firing squad, the first thing they do is form a circle. Or, as Will Rogers quipped back in the 1930s, "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!

Perhaps it's time for the Democrats, as they scrape themselves off the dirt floor where they live at the moment, to take a few lessons from the Republicans. First, fight for what you believe in. Second, fight against what you do not believe in. Third, really and truly stand for something. And fourth, apply Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment -- "Thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican" -- to your own party for a change, instead of forming the usual, infamous Democratic circular firing squad.

http://www.dailygusto.com/news/october/democrats-101503.html

[Coexist]

25. Happy to kick this! n/t

[Q]

52. Seems you left out a relevant part:

"Unfortunately, the top priority of Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman, and John Kerry right now apparently is not the good of the Democratic Party or even of the country, as it should be. Instead, their top priority at the moment simply is all about their own personal political standing. This is the type of thing that turns off Americans to politics. In a nutshell, these guys want to be President, and they know that General Clark represents a huge threat to their chances of winning the Democratic nomination. As far as Howard Dean and John Kerry are concerned, that is an accurate assessment of reality, because Wesley Clark is a strong opponent. "

[TayTay]

67. That's right

Because when Kerry voted against Condiliar Rice in both Committee and on the floor and voted against Alberto Gonzalex and against cloture on the Bankruptcy Bill and against the bill itself and against the Lawsuit Deform bill and so forth, well, he obvisouly revealed himself as a repub-lite. Didn't all the Repub lites vote that way as well?

When Gov. Dean talks about going into all 50 states and trying to build a coalition of grassroots supporters to return the Dems to power and advance the ideas that support working class America, just remember, you are being duped.

This is dumb. Gen. Clark may or may not be a formidible candidate in 2008. Right now, I want him to be a formidible force in getting folks to vote Dem in 2006. (I want this from all Dems.)

Your constant harping on doom is counterproductive. How do you ever hope to get anythign you support passed if you consistently write off the onyl people who are ever likely to support your ideas?

[wyldwolf]

79. yeah, because it wasn't relevant.

:eyes:

Hey! Where was your weekly doom and gloom manifesto?

[trillian]

27. Couldn't agree more!!

We'll need solidarity to kick the Bushites out of the WH

:kick:

[Totally Committed]

31. I am so pleased he has said this... truly.

Maybe now, those, he's-not-really-a-Democrat Democrats will believe he is. It's pretty hard to deny a man a place in a Party that he does nothing but go out and defend, rally, and encourage day in and day out!

WES CLARK '08!

TC

[FrenchieCat]

29. That's right....

If we're going to kicks some ass (and we must), I prefer it be some hard head delusional Republican Ass.

GOP ass kicking will make a Dem feel much better than kicking another Dem's butt...that's for sure.....especially, in a long run.

[Totally Committed]

34. You said a mouthful, Frenchie!

It will be an honor to fight the good fight with you and FOR WES!

TC

[BlueIris]

35. Nice. Thanks, General.

My heart still belongs to The Other Candidate...but this is an excellent point. Good to see him getting some coverage for making sense.

[porkrind]

38. Sounds good, but first we need a purge.

We need to sweep out the DINO trash, and get our candidates off the corporate gravy train. We need populists, not establishment apologists.

[snowbear]

39. Rock on KOS!

And rock on General!!!

[seabeyond]

40. i am a beleiver, yes i agree n/t

[flpoljunkie]

47. Ask Clark what he thinks of Dems caving on the one-sided bankruptcy bill.

[politicasista]

51. Well said General

[Adelante]

53. I just realized, the exact quote

"The American people will trust a Democratic President to defend America when they believe that Democrats will defend other Democrats."

As I heard it on the video.

[bobthedrummer]

54. A small question for Clark supporters, didn't he join the Democratic Party

last year when his presidential campaign began?

The point I wish to make is that General Clark does not have a record of party loyalty or working for reform as a Democrat except in the past two years.

For the record, I am an independent voter that has supported and worked for many liberal/progressive Democrats and their issues for 40 years.

Wes Clark became a Democrat last year, that's good, but he really isn't saying anything new here at all, imho.

[Sparkly]

55. "working for reform as a Democrat"

He's worked for equal opportunity, including promotions for women in the military and affirmative action; he's worked for effective diplomatic engagement over warfare, and stood up to the Pentagon and the White House when he believed he was right; he's worked to end genocide in other parts of the world; he's administrated fair healthcare and housing within his position; and yes, he's fought like hell for many Democrats and Democratic causes and positions.

If he wins the primary, I have no doubt he'll win the White House. And THEN we can see some real reforms.

By the way, I thought you were "purging" and ignored Clark now? :shrug:

[bobthedrummer]

56. I've purged and now take part in any forum I feel like without rancor.

But my question was apart from General Clark's much needed and laudable work on behalf of US military members and their families-didn't he become a Democrat last year when he campaigned for President?

He voted for Bush in 2000, correct? He was immersed in a Pentagon full of neo-conservative dominated highly politicized officers, many of whom hated President Clinton, correct?

Well now I'm going kind of off-topic with more questions that I would like to have answered, Sparkly.

[Totally Committed]

59. Bob...

Wes has said many times...

He voted for Clinton both times and Gore in 2000.

TC

[bobthedrummer]

63. Perhaps it was a reference to G.H.W. Bush then.

There was some controversy here at DU last year in regards to General Clark's political affiliations when he became a Democrat officially-and I may have been influenced by some of the political operatives that post here, especially during election years.

Maybe that's why I no longer rely too much on hyperlinks here.

[Totally Committed]

65. Bobarooner...

He voted for Clinton both times. He never voted for either Bush.

He did vote for Reagan, but so did a lot of Democrats. Jean Shaheen, Kerry's Campaign Chair was forced to admit she voted for Reagan, too, after she attacked Wes for being a "Republican".

TC

[Crunchy Frog]

75. It's my understanding from what I've read, that he did actually

vote for the first Bush in 1988, but voted for Clinton in 1992. I may be wrong about that. I hope it can be cleared up to everyone's satisfaction.

He has most definitely been voting Democratic since 1992.

[Adelante]

94. Well, that is a mystery

It's been said many times that he voted for GHWB in 1988, but he himself has never said he voted for GHWB. I've been trying to clear this up for a while. I should have asked DTH to ask him that question.

We all tend to forget that he voted for Jimmy Carter.

[MontecitoDem]

60. Where do you get the idea he voted for Bush in 2000?

just curious because I think you are wrong. But I'm looking for facts.

[bobthedrummer]

61. From General Clark's statements

[Totally Committed]

66. Which statements?

In particular, I mean?

He's never said any of that. I have been with him since the DraftClark days, and I have never heard him say he voted Republican as a matter of course. Not ever.

TC

[Crunchy Frog]

78. Could you be a little bit more specific about that Bob?

I'm genuinely interested in where people are getting this kind of stuff. I think you would agree with me that we should not allow misconceptions about Democrats get perpetuated, and that accusations and allegations that are unfounded in truth should not be allowed to stand.

I would say the same thing, even if we were talking about Lieberman, whom I detest. There are certainly valid criticisms that can be made of Clark, as there is with anyone, but those criticisms should be of things which he has actually done, and positions he has actually taken, not of things that he's simply been alleged to have done, when the allegation is incorrect.

That's the fair approach to take with any Democrat. Or even with anyone at all.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

Here's the "I would've been a Republican" quote. He was in fact serious.

This is from Newsweek's Howard Fineman.(grabbing salt shaker)

He reported that Clark was NOT joking about not getting return calls from Karl Rove. He cites Marc Holtzman and Colorado Gov. Bill Owens as confirming this NON-JOKING incident when Clark expressed to them AT LENGTH his bitterness over the GOP snub.
.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3760994

>snip<

After Al Qaeda attacked America, retired Gen. Wes Clark thought the Bush administration would invite him to join its team. After all, he'd been NATO commander, he knew how to build military coalitions and the investment firm he now worked for had strong Bush ties. But when GOP friends inquired, they were told: forget it.

Word was that Karl Rove, the president's political mastermind, had blocked the idea. Clark was furious. Last January, 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." Soon thereafter, in fact, Clark quit his day job and began seriously planning to enter the presidential race--as a Democrat. Messaging NEWSWEEK by BlackBerry, Clark late last week insisted the remark was a "humorous tweak." The two others said it was anything but. "He went into detail about his grievances," Holtzman said. "Clark wasn't joking. We were really shocked."

[Sparkly]

116. Oh yeah, let's believe Republicans

like Bill Owens, Marc Holtzman, and whoever is behind "Word was..." Let's not believe the Democrat who made the statement. :eyes:

It was obviously a joke. (Btw, did you know Al Gore's mother sang him the "Union Label" jingle as a lullabye?)

[Crunchy Frog]

128. Yes, Bill Owens is my state's governor.

I definitely trust his word.:eyes:

In any event, I wasn't asking you, I was asking Bob.

[FrenchieCat]

137. That paragraph is full of doo-doo.....

and ya know it.

Here's what "Dirty Work" had to say about that whole incident.

JOM, if you believe Republicans over Wes Clark, then there is no hope for ya.

September 24, 2003
Dirty work
As Ken Parish notes, perhaps the clearest signal that Wesley Clark is on the up and up is the way in which he already "has the loony right … in full-on attack dog character assassination mode". Ken was referring to an article in William Kristol's Daily Standard, the link to which EvilPundit supplied as evidence of Clark being "busted telling fibs".

The main charge refers to the story that has been put about by a couple of Republicans, who allege that Clark told them in January that he "would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his phone calls". What's interesting is the history of the story, which originally surfaced in Newsweek. Clark openly admitted to the line, but said he was just joking ("a humourous tweak"). Newsweek didn't quite accept this, and added assurances from the two Republicans that Clark was serious ("He went into detail about his grievances ... Clark wasn't joking. We were really shocked.").

Now, it seems to me that this spin strikes at Clark's base-building, which is where, after all, the primaries are being fought out ... suggesting that Wes is merely just another politician, being an opportunist with no real convictions, let alone left convictions. OK, one small unbalanced hit, but this is where the Standard's story comes in, and gets funny. The entire unedited reference, which is the story's lead, is as follows:

WHEN WILL Wesley Clark stop telling tall tales? In the current issue of Newsweek, Howard Fineman reports Clark told Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and University of Denver president Mark Holtzman that "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls." Unfortunately for Clark, the White House has logged every incoming phone call since the beginning of the Bush administration in January 2001. At the request of THE DAILY STANDARD, White House staffers went through the logs to check whether Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove. The general hadn't. What's more, Rove says he doesn't remember ever talking to Clark, either.

OK, let's quickly go through it. The Standard has (1) dropped all reference to the sources being Republicans, (2) failed to mention that Clark said it was a joke, (3) proceeded to actually substantiate that Clark was joking by checking that he was absent from the phone records, and (4) perversely used this fact to spin a fresh allegation that … he lied!

Can't wait till the story is repeated by an Australian columnist (which one? place your bets). It's going to be a long season folks. I could go through the other two pieces of crap in the Standard's article, but it's shooting fish in a neocon barrel. Suffice to say that the anti-Bushies can take heart. The enemy is rattled. Meanwhile, over at Calpundit, Kevin Drum has noted the more salient fact about the article, which "is that the White House is apparently willing to search Karl Rove's phone logs upon request by reporters". As you might guess, Kevin's commentators have been coming up with some good suggestions.

UPDATE: Love this one on the 'sock puppet' from Rush baby, particularly this bit: "That's exactly what he means here when he talks about how we must 'respect dissent'. If you don't hate America and this president, then you're not patriotic as they define it." As someone said in Alice and Wonderland, 'words will mean whatever I want them to mean' (or words to that effect).
http://backpagesblog.com/weblog/archives/000058.html

[JohnOneillsMemory]

155. It sure is. This does seem like Gore's "singing look for the Union label"

comment that got taken literally and then turned into a both faux scandal AND a faux rebuttal.

The key words 'Karl Rove phone calls' are not the story.

Oh, and note that while you caution ME against believing Republicans (a valid caution natch) this Ken Parish 'debunking' relies on THE WORST LIARS in the Republican White House and KARL ROVE, for gawd's sake, to counter Clark's own words:

>snip<

"White House staffers went through the logs to check whether Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove. The general hadn't. What's more, Rove says he doesn't remember ever talking to Clark, either."

>snip<

I'll concede that General Clark was probably using a figure of speech to describe his inability to get in with the 'in crowd' upon retirement.

Consider his charming ode to the Republican Party and slobbering on the Ronald Reagan Ring of Militarism and Death Squads at the infamous
Lincoln Day Dinner Speech
Pulaski County Republican Party
Little Rock, AR
May 11, 2001

Notice his delight in The Manifest Destiny of US military dominance.

Notice his describing how fun Fort Hood was, "golf and riding horses" with no mention of that Waco situation and tsk-tsking over Europe "where they got so much money...need us to do their defense for them."

>snip<

And over the years we built the United States army and our nation's military back up in strength. 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. I remember when he gave his speech on the fortieth anniversary of Normandy. I don't now how many of you all, do we have any World War II Veterans in the room? Anybody who is here? I think we ought to give our World War II veterans a hand.

I was a colonel in the Pentagon. I was working for the army chief of staff and doing lessons learned and things. And I didn't get to go to the celebration of Normandy, but I, we heard the speech when he gave it. He talked about how rangers took Pontahawk (ph) He talked about how they went up that cliff. He talked about the losses they took. He talked about how they did it for love. And we all cried.

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.

I was serving out at the national training center at Fort Irwin, California as the commanding general out there during Operation Desert Storm. And, I got to train many troops and leaders before they went over, but a funny thing happened about that time. The Soviet Union kind of collapsed. The Warsaw Pact disappeared. The East Germans gave up; they became part of Germany. The German army that was part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization moved into East Germany. I remember they sent a German brigadier general around the United States - to each of the army posts a German brigadier came in and he said, "Fellas," he said, "it's over, we won. The Cold War is over." We couldn't quite believe it.

I mean Desert Storm that was wonderful we whipped Saddam Hussein and all that sort of thing. But the Cold War was over, the Berlin Wall was down. And President George Bush had the courage and the vision to push our European allies to take the risk to tell the Russians to leave. And to set up the conditions so all of Germany and later many nations of Eastern Europe could become part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, part of the West with us.

And we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship.

Then a funny thing happened. It was very strange; I was this point down in Fort Hood, Texas with General Bill Paige. I was command general, first cavalry division. General Paige was the deputy corps commander. I had orders to go to Washington in April of 1994. I showed up there to work for General Shalikashvili as the director of strategy for the United States Armed Forces on the joint staff. And I discovered that when we lost our enemy we had lost our strategy. We lost our direction in the world.

We just, it just didn't add up. The week I got there, let me tell you what was on my plate. I showed up, I was a division commander, you know I was having a good time at Fort Hood. I learned to play golf down there. Um, I rode a horse two days a week. We had fifty-three horses in the first cavalry division. We trained and went to the national training center. We were prepared to go to war anywhere in the world. We deployed on no notice back to Kuwait three times. Uh, keep, make sure Saddam Hussein stayed straight

>snip<

Now I just want to ask you. Do you ever ask why it is that these people in these other countries can't solve their own problems without the United States sending its troops over there? And do you ever ask why it is the Europeans, the people that make the Mercedes and the BMW's that got so much money can't put some of that money in their own defense programs and they need us to do their defense for them?

>snip<

THAT'S ENOUGH. I HAVE TO GO THROW UP NOW.-jom

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

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

[JohnOneillsMemory]

168. Aww. Time to talk about me, not Clark again? Use a search engine...n/t

[FrenchieCat]

169. Plu-eaze

Provide the links from which you cut and pasted the various Clark quotes in a neatly compiled character assassination post, or don't post it.

In some parts, that's called.....PUT UP or SHUT UP.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

176. His own words "assassinate" his character? Wow. You agree with me!

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:-PVu7_Q_GpEJ:www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Wesley%2520Clark%2520at%2520Lincoln%2520Day%2520Dinner%2520Transcript.doc+Wesley+Clark+at+Lincoln+Day+Dinner&hl=en&client=firefox-a
or
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Wesley%20Clark%20at%20Lincoln%20Day%20Dinner%20Transcript.doc

"I remember a guy told me, one of the Bosnians, he said - he said 'Look at this city,' he says. 'Do you understand that there people over there who kill - they kill indiscriminately, that snipers are shooting at our children?' He said, 'I've seen a five year old boy tortured and killed.' He said, 'Now I can understand why they tortured and killed a grown man, but I can't understand why they tortured and killed a five year old child.' But you see; it just shows how innocent I was, because I couldn't understand why they tortured and killed anybody."

Hypocrite.

Contrast this gosh-golly Jimmy Stewart-esque reaction to the death of a five year-old in Bosnia with his comment to the House Armed Services Committee on 4/6/05 when he said of Iraq:

"General Casey did the right thing in shutting down Najaf and Fallujah in...all that action that occurred in the fall."

All "that action?" Like, slaughtering hundreds of women and children, napalm, chemical weapons, bombing hospitals and clinics, killing journalists.

My god. I pray this man never reaches the White House. My god.

[FrenchieCat]

181. Excuse me......

How is Clark stating...."' But you see; it just shows how innocent I was, because I couldn't understand why they tortured and killed anybody" being a hypocrite?

Now, can I get the link to his quote about shutting down Najaf and Fallujah? I need the context.

Cause you see, your context ain't most thinking folks' context.
Mr. O'Neill

[JohnOneillsMemory]

185. OK. Audio link from HASC on 4/6/05.

Without an available transcript, it took me hours to stream this and take some notes. Don't ever say I don't make the effort.

link:
http://hasc3.house.gov/04-06-05FullComm.asf

around 1:27:40 give or take

Mr. Taylor from Mississippi asks about Iraq, "where are we now?"

Clark describes a winnable ground war with the US troops pulling back out of the line of fire (which is for Iraqis) and taking up an "advisory capacity."

Yup. It's 'Vietnamization' all over.

But at the end of the hearing when asked for a final recommendation both Clark and Perle say the right things are already being done and "remain engaged."-3:31:00-ish

Good thing Clark is pushing for more vet benefits, isn't it?

[FrenchieCat]

186. Again.....

link me to a transcript, or provide me with the verbatim answer from Clark on the question that you were able to quote verbatim.

I don't trust your interpretation of events at this point....

[MollyStark]

205. I say the same prayer

The anti-war general who writes books about how to wage war. Not very convincing in my book.

Thanks for the links J, I have been bookmarking them.

[returnable]

62. No, not correct

Clark did not vote for Bush in 2000. In fact, he was quite clear about that. (How ironic that some want to paint Clark as a Clinton puppet, while others still want to call him a Republican plant.)

And although he only registered as a Democrat prior to his run, he campaigned for Democrats like Max Cleland once he retired from the service. As a military officer, he (correctly) stayed out of partisan politics.

For someone who has spent a fair amount of time on Clark threads, ya should probably do a little more reading up on the man. :hi:

[Totally Committed]

64. Thank you!

So well-said!

TC

[bobthedrummer]

68. In my humble opinion aren't you Clark supporters still undecided as to

just what he said yesterday in terms of announceing a 2008 Presidential bid?

I've found a few Clark supporters that I respect in regards to providing facts and they are honest when they don't know something.

One Clark supporter's information can be very different from another's here at DU-that's an undeniable fact about any candidate's supporters here.

:hi:

[Sparkly]

73. No, we're not undecided

There was a misunderstanding and it was quickly cleared up. A video was linked, and we can all see for ourselves what he actually said.

[Crunchy Frog]

74. No, he absolutely did not vote for Bush in 2000.

He has been voting for Democrats since Clinton's run in 1992. And he was mostly locked in conflict with the Petagon guys during Clinton's Presidency.

I hope that you are honestly trying to learn the truth, and not simply throwing out yet more unfounded accusations.

[Adelante]

244. He voted for Carter, too, Crunch nt

[Crunchy Frog]

248. I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

I did know that Carter was one of the people who helped talk him into entering the race. I guess maybe he's a Carter stalking horse.:P

[Adelante]

254. LOL

I didn't think of that

[LandOLincoln]

77. Wes Clark has been voting Dem since 1992

and changed his registration from Independent to Democrat in January of 2002.

http://jimsdigital.homeip.net:8080/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1046&start=0

[Totally Committed]

58. Wes was registered as an Independent...

up until he declared as a Democrat.

Most people registered in Arkansas are registered "Party Undeclared" or somesuch term. In the armed forces, most register independent as well.

TC

[bobthedrummer]

70. I've been independent all my political life, I've been in groups but never

joined any political party. Some of the groups I was associated with were RFK, George McGovern, NAACP, Black Panthers and SDS.

[Totally Committed]

71. I hope this helps...

Excerpt:

Registered as an Independent...
There’s no dispute about Clark ’s voter registration: he was an independent. This by itself means little, however, as nearly 96% of all Arkansas voters express no party preference when registering. Party preference is “optional” on Arkansas ’ voter registration form, and only 2.6% of the state’s residents were registered as Democrats at the end of 2001, according to the most recent statistics published by the Arkansas Secretary of State. Only 1.4% registered as Republicans.

>snip<

Then Voted for Clinton and Gore...
Clark says he voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and most recently for Gore and against George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election. Explaining why, on Dec. 2 he told National Public Radio interviewer Bob Edwards:
Well, in the United States Army you never have a party, at least most of us didn't as far as I know. You just voted for people that were strong for national security. When Bill Clinton ran in '92 and I listened to him and I had of course known of his record from Arkansas, I found him extraordinarily inspirational and I voted Democratic. I later ended up working around the White House when I was at the Pentagon. I was back and forth across the Potomac for various staff meetings and so forth. And I was impressed with the people in the Clinton administration . . . . That's when I learned that the old myths were wrong.... It was really that the Republican Party had become shrill and partisan and isolationist and the Democrats were working mightily to craft a new strategy to take us into a new world. And that's where I found myself.

>snip<

Chose to be a Democrat...
And when asked about his... credentials as a Democrat, Clark said this at his first candidate debate on September 25, 2003:
We elected a president we thought was a compassionate conservative. Instead we got neither conservatism or compassion. We got a man who recklessly cut taxes. We got a man who recklessly took us into war with Iraq.
I was never partisan in the military. I served under Democratic presidents, I served under Republican presidents. But as I looked at this country and looked which way we were headed, I knew that I needed to speak out. And when I needed to speak out, there was only party to come to.
I am pro-choice, I am pro-affirmative action, I'm pro-environment, pro-health. I believe the United States should engage with allies. We should be a good player in the international community. And we should use force only as a last resort. That's why I'm proud to be a Democrat.

----

Bob, this is information from FactCheck. I'm not wild about them as a source, but it's all I have. (sorry) I have lost the link to it as the link I have in my files no longer works. I'm sure if you Google this, you can find it. I'm working on a project right now, and haven't got the time or I'd do it.

I hope this helps you sort out whatever it is you're sorting out.

TC

On edit: Just found this in my files --

"When I got out of the military I was courted by both parties. I chose to become a Democrat," Clark said in Concord, New Hampshire, adding that he has voted for Al Gore and Bill Clinton in the past.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/elec04.prez.main/index.html

[Totally Committed]

72. Bob, did you know that...

George McGovern endorsed Wes in the Primaries?

TC

[LittleClarkie]

86. He was an independant who'd voted for Clinton and Gore

There's something on factcheck.org that illuminates his thinking. I can find the link in the archives if you like.

[Adelante]

92. Then you have something in common

He was an independent voter, too, until he became a Democrat. Now if you become a Democrat, you will have even more in common.

[ClassWarrior]

69. DU's 11th Commandment of Politics...

Thou shall not speak ill of another Progressive in public.

NGU.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

76. Excerpt of Clark Speech: Defending Democrats

"No Democrat can win in 2008, ...unless the American people believe that they can defend them! The American people will trust the Democratic Party, to defend America, when they believe that Democrats will defend other Democrats!
General Wesley Clark in LA - April 15, 2005.

I further interpreted Clark's statement to mean,...

"The American people will trust the Democratic Party, to defend America, when they believe that Democrats (in the establishment) will defend other Democrats (among their constituency)."

A good offense requires a good defense. Democrats must fight for what they believe in, and NOT ONLY for what they're against! Dem's must fight FOR national security, For health care, For fair trade, For equal rights, FOR family, FOR education, For the right to choose, and FOR science and technology, especially in medicine, ... and so on. We
and our leaders must define our issues with an offense on our playing field and defend them on our grounds. Only then, will this resonate into the conscienceness of the American people - that Democrats will secure their rights and freedoms.

[Larkspur]

80. I refuuse to defend my senator, Lieberman, in fact I have vowed never

to vote for him again. Of course, Lieberman isn't smeared by the Repuke machine. He's part of it!!!!!!

And Clark getting into the Prez race now, will increase his "Bored with Clark" vibe among voters, but that's OK with me. I've never liked Clark.

[Totally Committed]

82. I totally sympathize...

I feel the same way about my Senator, and he isn't half the a-hole Lieberman is!

TC

[Clark2008]

89. How is the public going to be bored with Clark.

The corporate whores never cover him.
This is the reason he privately (that became public) rallied his base in California.
We're the media now and it's going to take us the full three years to end-run the coporate media's "Hillary!" bullshit.

[MontecitoDem]

93. He's getting into the race for good reasons

Look, the other candidates can use their offices to do alot of he prep work for running. Take H. Clinton for example. She is fundraising to beat the band, perhaps for 06 Senate but easily can use this $$ for Presidential bid. She can travel the country and talk to voters on taxpayer money. Clark cannot do this. He needs our help early in order to have a fighting chance.

I know your feelings on Clark, Larkspur and I respect your differences with him on a number of issues.

I can also say that Clark wasn't asking us to support folks like Lieberman. (I was there in LA and heard it for myself). He was asking Lieberman and others like him who've rolled over too many times to support the Democrats!!! Critical difference.

[sandnsea]

99. lol

You don't like anybody, so I would guess Clarkies won't be too worried that you don't like him either. Shouldn't be anyway.

[Clarkie1]

110. At least he voted against the bankruptcy bill.

That's something not all dems did. And I understand he is very supportive of environmental issues, which is very important.

Hey, my favorite senator is Boxer so I'm no big fan of Lieberman. Still, it is always possible to look at a glass as half-full rather than half-empty. I understand Lieberman is very popular in Connecticut. Now, I don't live in Connecticut, so I'll leave it to the Democrats in Connecticut to run their own affairs and be thankful there is at least some water in the glass.

[Larkspur]

201. Actually, Lieberman voted FOR cloture to debate on the bankruptcy bill

before voting against the same bill. This way Lieberman could appease his corproate donors and deceive progressive Democrats that he voted against the bankruptcy bill. When reviewing the bankruptcy bill, you need to include the Dems votes on cloture because it was the cloture option that gave Dems the best angle to defeating the bill. By voting FOR cloture, Lieberman allowed the bankruptcy bill to go to the senate floor where he knew that it would pass.

Lieberman SUCKS!!!!

[WLKjr]

83. Defend them, but don't let them do stupid shat

Be like brothers and sisters to each other, but don't let each other do dumbass things.

I think clark is saying we need to look out for one another.

[Totally Committed]

84. Actually,

I think he's saying the American public will begin to trust Democrats to protect them when they see them protecting each other.

There is a certain wisdom to that, I think. Don't you?

TC

[WLKjr]

85. yeah, I do.

I know I would want to be corrected, but not dammned for a mistake in temporary misjudgement. I would want someone to defend me, but let me know I fooked up.

And he is right about the trust thing.

[LittleClarkie]

88. I can accept that

Criticism is one thing, but bashing is another. We let them know when we are displeased, but each one needs to be taken as a whole, not just vote by vote.

[LittleClarkie]

87. Ah, the General is also on the Dem Party Back Watch, I see

Good. The more the merrier.

To those who say "Get rid of the DINO's" just make sure you replace that DINO with a damn Democrat, 'kay?

[Totally Committed]

90. I agree!

DINO's must go. And we need as many great Democrats as we can get to take their places!

TC

[JohnOneillsMemory]

111. OK, what issues define DINO for you? Wall Street? Big Brother? Pentagon?

The BIG question is what is a DINO?

You already know I have many many items checked against the 'Forget Vietnam' General who holds stock in Acxiom.

TC. What are the issues, foreign and domestic where DINOs fail in your eyes? Because that is at the crux of who is 'us' and who is 'them.'

??

[Sparkly]

163. I don't understand your use of "US."

Are you a Democrat?

Is there some Democrat who wants to abolish the Pentagon and the CIA who you're rooting for?

Come to think of it, is there ANYbody out there claiming they'll do away with the military industrial complex and stop all this militaristic stuff about national defense?

And if so, how good are their chances of getting elected and getting anything done?

:rofl:

[JohnOneillsMemory]

272. I'm registered Democrat and have voted that way. I want my party back.

And Clark is exactly the wrong guy. Mike Ruppert agrees with me.

Does Mike Ruppert who tied Peak Oil to 9/11 as the New Pearl Harbor carry any weight with you? See his website http://fromthewilderness.com/

Author of CROSSING THE RUBICON: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil -- New Society Publishers

Voted onlinereviewofbooks.com
Non-fiction Book of the Year (2004)

Political bestsellers of 2004 as seen on
C-SPAN: Amazon.com's Top 5 list

Read this Mike Ruppert FTW report from October 1993 and see his assessment of the potential candidates for 2004 and how they fit in to the permanent oil war economy.

He sees a candidate being groomed who will give more of the same for the permanent oil occupation. His take on Clark is scathing. (I only clipped bits. Read this article top to bottom or read bumper stickers, whatever suits your style.)

His information on a Daniel Sheehan who has smothered lawsuits against the CIA and is now tight with Dennis Kucinich's campaign just might explain why Kucinich is not the player we hoped for.

>snip<

The US will never let go of Iraqi oil. But the message is clear: Change front men and continue with the program. No matter who wins in 2004, the game will be played as Vietnam was played - but for much higher stakes.

>snip<

Wesley Clark has been pounced upon with adoration by progressives and Democrats as though he were a God of reason and salvation. This late-comer entered the race in September at the top of the polls. In fact, he is a reincarnation of the most corrupt and violent aspects of William Jefferson Clinton. I have great respect for author and filmmaker Michael Moore, but when I saw him endorse Wesley Clark, I nearly choked. Let's refresh everyone's memory by looking at the retired NATO Commander's history. It shows us is that he has the perfect résumé to continue the job that the Bush gang began, and then botched.

>snip<

In June of 2000, I was stunned to see an announcement in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that a retiring Wesley Clark was going to go to work for billionaire investment banker and Presidential kingmaker Jackson Stephens in Little Rock. This set off alarm bells that Clark was someone to watch. In his current campaign literature, Clark lists his profession as an investment banker. And he is still employed by Stephens.

Stephens was the man who gave a down-and-out Bill Clinton a $2 million loan to jumpstart an ailing presidential campaign in 1992. There is also a glowing photograph of Stephens with a young George W. Bush in the brilliant expose of the drug money laundering and covert operations bank BCCI, False Profits. Several BCCI players, including Saudi banker Khalid bin Mahfouz, have been directly tied to the financing of Al Qaeda.

A search of the FTW web site shows that I have written about Stephens - Jimmy Carter's roommate at Annapolis -- six times. Stephens' firm Systematics, which has since gone through two name changes to become Axciom, was deeply connected to the PROMIS software scandal, the Worthen Bank, the Lippo Group, and subsequently through a 2001 FTW investigation to drug money laundering out of the Mena Regional Intermountain Airport in Arkansas. In that investigation, looking into the apparent release from US prison of Medellin Cartel co-founder Carlos Lehder, we found that one of Stephens' subsidiaries, Beverly Enterprises, had been connected to a suspected money laundering operation involving bearer bonds sold by Bill Clinton's Arkansas Development Financial Authority, sold by Stephens Inc, and underwritten by the insurance giant AIG and Goldman Sachs.

[KoKo]

91. I totally disagree. After four failed elections (counting in Clinton's

loss of House and Senate) then I think it's time that other Democratic voice speak up in criticism of "Failed Marketing Programs" or "Betrayed Beliefs of the Democratic Heirarchy," which have given us and Emperor/Dictator with unlimited power to do "We the People" unlimited harm for four more years. :shrug:

[MontecitoDem]

95. I can't believe this!

What Clark was saying is that Democrats who keep failing the party and rolling over for Repubs need to stand by our party and our principles. He's not supporting the DLC type, he is saying that they need to support us in order for us to win.

I was there at his speech and that is what he said. So actually, you and he are in total agreement on this one!

[Sparkly]

96. That's right -- he said if Democrats start talking like Republicans

and saying, "You know, maybe Bush was right," tell 'em "Get some starch!! Bush was wrong!!"

He was talking about not knuckling under one bit.

[wyldwolf]

100. there are many many reasons for the "failed elections."

[JohnOneillsMemory]

98. General Clark leads the charge towards embracing the Pentagon/police state

His 'securing America' theme is reinforcement of all the militarism and terror-mongering the GOP has accomplished.

Now he's ready to finalize the Democratic embrace of this same bloody expensive horror show.

Don't listen to Clark.
REMEMBER VIETNAM. REMEMBER VIETNAM. REMEMBER VIETNAM.

UNTIL YOU LEARN FROM IT AND LEARN TO SEE WHAT CLARK IS SELLING.

[wyldwolf]

101. you know who your description fits?

John O'Neill


Go ahead.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

106. O'Neill was uncovering the BFEE while Clark was singing its praises.

But some of your point is valid.

I picked that username after reading Will Pitt's essay 'Hell to Pay' which he wrote after French journalists published 'Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth.'

I thought it was useful to use one man, that FBI terrorist-hunter who died at the WTC, to represent the BFEE's oily corruption and complicity in 9/11, the largest focus of most people when I signed on to DU in early 2002.

General Clark is also a one man embodiment of a very different story.

Lately I've learned that the elimination of the Bill of Rights began under Clinton/Reno when a Palestinian-born professor in Florida was held for over three years with no charges.

DARPA had the Total Information Awareness program (which Clark still owns stock in from the Acxiom data-mining company he lobbied for) all ready cooked up long before 9/11.

The Pentagon, CIA, and FBI were moving into surveillance of all Americans and making plans to occupy American cities under Operation Garden Plot, as a response to a few bombings in the 90s.

Much of what we abhor in the current Republican-stolen White House was going on under Clinton, too. Not as bad, not as visible.

That's why I focus on issues, not just the bogus theater of the two party sports team wrassling for the cheering/booing fans.

I notice you rail against ultra-lefties as symptomatic of what's wrong with the Democratic party and especially DU.

What is your take on the military industrial complex and Clark?

Do you see the police-state and permanent war economy and war crimes as a problem? Obviously, I see them as THE problem.

[wyldwolf]

108. really?

Did you ever visit a site called rememberjohn.com?

RememberJohn used to post on DU.

He is quite the expert on O'Neill.

He would be the first to tell you that your description of Clark is of O'Neill, too.

Clark never sang the praises of the BFEE.

[FrenchieCat]

146. Wes Clark is on John O'Neill's Wall of Heroes.....

http://www.mindspace.org/liberation-news-service/heroes.html

[Sparkly]

151. Maybe John O'Neill's Memory's memory isn't so great.

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

157. I think we have confused our O'Neills....to tell the truth.

Think we are dealing with the memories of THIS John O'Neill! :rofl:

[Sparkly]

161. True.

No doubt John O'Neill's Memory has memories of John O'Neill as well as John O'Neill (not to be confused with Paul O'Neil).

[FrenchieCat]

162. Yep....the O'Neills

One was for the truth, one is decent, and one is totally full of shit :hurts:

[incapsulated]

165. lol

:rofl:

[Adelante]

211. You're the best, sis

No shit. :D

[Clark2008]

174. Yep... because the two were friends - or at least friendly and on the

same side.

And, no, JOM, I don't have a link. There are so many things I've picked up in books and on the Net and elsewhere, that I always don't have a link available.

But I do know that Clark is on O'Neill's Wall of Heroes.

[dogman]

129. Remember Vietnam and the Democratic Party that sank us in deeper.

It is one reason a lot of people don't trust us. Forget Vietnam's dragging us down and get it right. If people don't believe they can trust you with their lives and the lives of their families, you will continue to lose the national debate. re-fighting the Vietnam War in '04 was not at all helpful to our cause. It reminded people of our failing. obviously a lot of people are able to see past it but not enough to put it away.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

225. Vietnam was a CIA war that snowballed so Presidents had to deal with it.

It was going on when Kennedy squeaked into the White House and surpised Nixon who was working with CIA on the Bay of Pigs.

After CIA took it upon themselves to assassinate the puppet leader of South Vietnam, Kennedy was outraged and planned to take apart the CIA that was running the country on its own.

JFK fire Nazi-sympathizer and CIA director Allen Dulles and thereby signed his own death warrant.

He also signed executive order #263 for the full withdrawal from Vietnam by 1965. But there was too much money to be made in arms and drugs by the CIA and their military industrial Nazi Mafia cohorts so they killed JFK.

Johnson continued the Vietnam policies already in place because he had no choice even as McNamara counseled him that it was a disaster in the making.

Look it up if you like.

This is more of why I focus on the CIA/Pentagon/Weapons Industry cabal that uses Repubs AND Dems.

[dogman]

241. So what?

This has nothing to do with my post or Clark's statement. You give JFK way to much credit and LBJ was in it for the money, he had a choice. If your theory is true you might as well kiss your ass goodbye because there is no hope for any of us at that point. All your acquired knowledge is useless because you are powerless to do anything about it. If I believed as you I'd be in a survival camp with the RW militia. If you are correct, either every candidate is in on the conspiracy or is powerless to stop it for fear of death.

[madfloridian]

102. Well, I have a question. Why "Get over Vietnam"?

Why does Clark say to "Get over Vietnam."? I hear he said that the other night. I wondered just how he meant it? I would not think we should forgot such a terrible time in our history. I would think we would learn from it, embrace what we did wrong, remember the 58,000 soldiers who died there, plus the million Vietnamese who died...think my figures are close.

Why did he say that? If we get over Vietnam, it will just be easier to do it again and again.

I found it here, but not a good explanation.
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/wesley_clark_/2005/04/clark_to_dems_get_over_vietnam.php

[madfloridian]

103. Also this sounds like what I read in Good Night, Vietnam.

It is from 2003 at www.ndol.com

[FrenchieCat]

105. Vietnam taught many Americans, especially Democrats

to hate all things military, to the point of going to the extreme. Instead of blaming those who started the conflict and then kept it going, many just starting hating the soldiers as a symbol war. Soldiers who were following the orders....and in fact, at that time, couldn't even choose whether to serve or not (draft).

Clark is saying that soldiers didn't and don't make the policies. It's the civilians that we vote for that do. We need to hold those leaders accountable, just as we should have then.....not the soldiers.

Johnson, although he blamed himself, was for many, many years revered for his stance on civil rights....but his responsibility in the Vietnam mess was glossed over....as was Kennedy's and even Nixon's. Nixon was held at comtempt for a lot of things, but Vietnam was not ranked as high on the list as Watergate. NOTE: CIVILIAN ELECTED LEADERS START WARS; SOLDIERS ONLY FOLLOW THE ORDER THEY ARE GIVEN.

So as witnessed here, to this day, Many Democrats (and I know a few on this board even) hate everything military....and if anything, Looooovvvvvve their civilian leaders, no matter that it is the civilians that make the policy that ends up engaging our armed forces.

that's what "GETTING OVER VIETNAM MEANS".

[wyldwolf]

107. great explanation

thanks!

[madfloridian]

109. I do love our "civilian" leaders, and I admire our military.

But getting over Vietnam is wrong. If we forget our mistakes we are doomed to repeat them. In fact we are doing that right now.

[Sparkly]

113. It is not about forgetting them.

I just posted my thoughts about it, below.

[Clarkie1]

114. That's not what Clark means by "getting over Vietnam."

And I think you're politically savvy enough of the history and the image of the Democratic Party and the image the Republican party has created for themselves to understand that.

When you see an American flag sticker on the car in front of you, what kind of political affiliation do you think the occupant probably has?

Yes, that is the problem the Democratic Party needs to resolve.

[madfloridian]

117. 9/11 was not a failure of our military. A failure of domestic security.

Yet everyone is claiming our party does not have a good image on national security. I just don't think that is true. I think the DLC is pushing this so they can continue their and the PPI's "progressive internationalism."

I think we have fallen into the trap of letting the Republicans define us completely.

I don't think we should forget Vietnam.

[Sparkly]

120. "Everyone is claiming" it cause it's true.

Poll after poll showed it, even when we had a verified war hero running against an AWOL cowardly lying idiot.

No, we shouldn't "forget" Vietnam. We should get past the lies and divisions the Republicans have perfected and propagated out of Vietnam, and ever since.

[Sparkly]

119. Exactly right!

Perfect symptom of the problem. :hi:

[Totally Committed]

115. What he's talking about is

the anti-military position that the Democratic Party took post-Vietnam. Do you remember the way Vietnam Vets were treated when they came home? He's talking about THAT. He's also telling the Vietnam Vets it's time to forgive and forget the treatment, and get back to trusting and supporting the Democratic Party.

He's not talking about forgetting the effing war, fercrissake. He's asking both sides to re-examine their feelings of anger and resentment.

Why do people here insist on reading whatever this man says in the most negative possible way? Think about it.

TC

[madfloridian]

118. Whoa, there. I asked a fair question in a nice way.

.

[FrenchieCat]

160. And you received a lot of great rational and fact based replies....

so you must be happy!

[Sparkly]

112. If I could just add to that

Frenchie is quite right that "getting over it" means learning the lessons and moving on from it. It doesn't mean forgetting it ever happened or ignoring the lessons.

Here's what I think of when I hear Clark say we need to get over Vietnam: I think of George McGovern standing beside General Clark, a vehement voice against the Vietnam war speaking out to endorse a 4-star general. That was such an incredible symbol of healing for our country, it seemed to me.

I thought of it again when I saw Kerry and Clark together -- two soldiers who fought and bled in Vietnam, who made different choices about it, now solidified in unity of purpose. Together, I thought, they could begin the end of the painful wounds and divisions our country still suffers from Vietnam.

I say "our country" suffers and needs healing -- but a LOT of damage was done to the Democratic party in the wake of that war, largely by GOP design. And our country needs a strong Democratic party to get back on a course of sanity. We need to get past the stereotypes, lies and distortions manufactured during and since that time.

Democrats are still demonized as weak on defense, unable to keep the country safe, "peacenik appeasers," haters of the military, girlie men, etc... Many who were then protestors (or draft-dodgers) are now conservative Republicans, of course; and many who voted for Nixon are now staunch liberals.

What remains are the stereotypes that hurt Democrats -- a division of supporting troops vs. spitting on troops, or protecting the country vs. smoking pot. None of those divisions are true, of course, but the GOP has spent multi-millions of dollars and 30 years perfecting and propagating the memes.

I look at General Clark, John Kerry, Max Cleland, Al Gore, Charlie Rangel, George McGovern, and people I know -- and how they've been trashed by the lies manufactured out divisions leftover from Vietnam. Republicans took those divisions and used them to pry open deeper ones and create new ones.

It is absolutely time to get over Vietnam.

[Adelante]

122. Wow, Sparkly

Just wow.

[LandOLincoln]

123. You get an A+ for that brilliant little essay, Sparkly.

Very moving, and very true. :applause:

[Tom Rinaldo]

126. Wonderful Sparky, really wonderful

It is never time to get over imperialism, or the needless deaths that a wrong war brings. It is well past time to get over the cultivated stereotyping and divisions that allow Republicans to trot out protests against the Viet Nam War as a ploy to divert attention from their current and future wars.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

136. Key concept and root of our problem: "unable to keep the country safe"

Of course the smear that 'Dems are weak on defense and can't even defend themselves' has been how liberals have been bullied, discredited and forced into 'me-too-ism' running after the professional killers and criminals who took over this country 60 years ago.

Yes, General Clark has the body count to be a player in this disinformed and indoctrinated death culture that reveres 'righteous violence' and has a large Master Race Chosen Few component in its population.

So he's running on the idea that he'd make a better 'War President.'
This is not anything like moving towards a 'peace president.'

By going for a win on the 'Securing America' theme and amplifying the idea that the Pentagon and Homeland Security are to "keep the country safe" General Clark is PERPETUATING the BIG LIE that's at the root of this country's problems at exactly the moment when renewed Vietnam Syndrome and realization that we've been bankrupted, downsized, and poisoned by our government should be the breaking point that was reached in the 1960s.

Instead, General Clark offers a reinvigoration of the Glorious Lie that covers for 'the next last resort.'

He lies to hide that the job of the Pentagon/CIA has been to PREVENT democracy for 100 years and the job of Homeland Security is to PROTECT the illegal and immoral US government from "we, the people."

And sure enough, he calls for full funding of the Pentagon's Full Spectrum Dominance massive weapons procurement program while we our domestic lives disintegrate with half the budget already going to the Pentagon to maintain bases around the world.

Doesn't anyone else see this as more of the same problem, militarism?

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

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

[JohnOneillsMemory]

183. the Pentagon's Full Spectrum Dominance massive weapons procurement program

Insults. Usually means you don't have a response. Whatever.

What do you think of the problem of half our budget going to the Pentagon and Clark supporting more massive spending?

That's both a domestic and international issue. Where is our money going while schools close? F22s? Aircraft carriers? SDI?

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

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

[JohnOneillsMemory]

189. Pentagon spending "isn't an issue"?!! Yup, it is.

audio link from 4/6/05 HASC:
http://hasc3.house.gov/04-06-05FullComm.asf

1:56:30 Clark describes needing to "read the oil guage" to see if the insurgency is coming back up.

This is his only mention of the word OIL in regard to this oil war in an oil-rich region.

1:58:00 When asked what an adequate troop level would look like, he describes needing another 90,000 troops in the army alone and then reminds that the 1996 plan for Total Spectrum Dominance must still be "resourced" with all kinds of weapon systems.

Clark also suggests that some troops need to be freed up eventually for other 'activities' in the region as it heats up. Oh boy.

[Name removed]

198. Deleted message

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

[Tom Rinaldo]

220. Most think the question asked is relevant to understanding the answer

As always I urge all to actually listen to the whole hearing rather than let John dice and spice it for you. Oh sure, he "included" one question:

"1:58:00 When asked what an adequate troop level would look like,"

but John conveniently omitted all the context. Funny how context matters. Adequate troop level for what one might ask? For the military to do what it has been asked to do without deteriorating it's fundamental readiness might be the answer. Why don't folks listen for themselves?

Here, I can't prove this opinion of course, but my opinion is that John figures you won't find the time to bother. It's good stuff, important stuff, here again is the link:
http://hasc3.house.gov/04-06-05FullComm.asf

John also says "Clark also suggests that some troops need to be freed up eventually for other 'activities' in the region as it heats up. Oh boy."

No, Clark suggested that some troops would need to be freed up IF the region heats up. And Clark spent most of his time in testimony arguing that Bush was pushing the wrong policy that was causing the region to heat up, which he very forcefully argued against. I know these picky details are so pesky. So don't believe my word either. Listen for yourself.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

224. YES....LISTEN....PLEASE. THAT'S...WHY....I... PUT...IT.....THERE..DUH.

Stop turning my giving you exactly what I'm talking about on a silver platter into some 'trick.'

Good gawd, Tom. Even you?

[Tom Rinaldo]

240. John I am saying this sincerely.

I usually do not have a suspicion like that so let me tell you why I do about you. In my opinion, and of course we are talking about opinions, but they are opinions based on a public track record that any one can weigh for themselves, you consistently misrepresent what you link to. You constantly put words into Clark 's mouth and then blast him for saying them, for example. And you then leave a link to a three page article or three hour tape and say that is your source.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the fact that you do link to sources. I don't appreciate that you so consistently misrepresent what is found in those sources however. It happens so regularly that I have become suspicious, and this is what I have come to wonder. I wonder whether you think people will assume that you wouldn't give links to sources if those sources didn't back you up in the first place. And most people don't have a lot of time to follow up. Yeah most of us are doubtful enough of anyone making a dramatic claim to say; "Hey, do you have a source for that?" Usually people making false claims back off, because most outrageous claims can't be backed. You however will leave links, which intuitively suggests that the source will support your contention. Then you leave a summary of the important points that you claim the source covers. The only problem is that time and time again, and we have been through this a lot by now, the source does NOT support your contention, and if it does at all it is usually turns out to be a very biased source, which you failed to note in your post.

Here's a couple of tricks I picked up about marketing that you may or may not find germane to this discussion. Why on Earth are there so many things to buy that will cost you $10, $50 or $100 less if you mail back the instant coupon, rather than simply selling it for a reduced price in the first place? Actually there is more than one reason, but a chief one is that many people never get around to mailing back the coupon for any one of a host of reasons. They assume they will, they buy the product thinking they will, but they end up getting taken for the full price after all. They never follow up, but they would never of made that purchase in the first place if it wasn't for the coupon.

Here's another. The good old money back guarantee on items costing less than $75 dollars, say. Or the guaranteed for life guarantee. Sounds good. The product must be good or they wouldn't be making that offer right? Sales increase. But of course in order to get your money refunded or the item repaired or replaced you have to save and later find the original paper work from your purchase. You then have to package up the item and take a trip to the post office and send it off to a designated repair or service center. Then you have to wait for your check or replacement. Most people never bother. They spend more money and replace the item on their own. The guarantee turns out to be a near useless come on. The company knew it all along.

So yes John, I am urging people to actually go listen to the tape before taking in your summary of it. I am. I know many more people will read a simple post by you and hear your spin than will take the time to do their own research. Sad but true. And like I said I wouldn't be so bothered by that except for what I perceive to be a continual pattern of your misrepresentation of what was actually said, and the context within which it was actually said, in your sources. I and other posters point this out all the time and nothing seems to change. I pointed it out again here, with specifics, but mostly I am asking that people, not listen to me, not listen to you, but go judge for themselves.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

250. Your saying you consistently disagree so I must be consistently spinning.

And I, too, mean this sincerely with no animosity.

(First, look at the end of the thread below, #235,236,237,239.)

Tom, you don't make a valid 'case' against my presented topics and links.
You are now guilty of making unsubstantiated unlinked unexplained general attacks on me REPEATEDLY in the way you accuse me of doing to Clark.

I recommend you stick to Clark, he needs your help badly.

Look what you just wrote, "a link to a three hour tape."

There is NO transcript and I give the TIME MARKER almost to the bloody second for the audio stream! Quick, easy, honestly presented on my part in good faith for all to examine and disagree with privately or refute in the thread.

But you accuse in a Reagan-esque tone, "There you go again."

FrenchieCat pulled out some rebuttal of Clark's "Rove wouldn't return my phone calls" comment that relied on the veracity of the White House Staff and Karl Rove himself!! The very heart of deception!!!

And then she admonished ME for 'believing Republicans.'

WTF? But are you cautioning people against FrenchieCat's spin as a result?
Are you? No, because you both think Clark=good.

NOW HERE'S A CASE OF FRENCHIECAT PUTTING UP A BIG DOCUMENT AND NOT EXPECTING IT TO BE READ CLOSELY, TOM. I'LL REPOST IT IF YOU WANT. JUST SAY THE WORD. CAREFULL-IT'S MORE THAN A SOUNDBITE!
http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm
(Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)

You and FrenchieCat just cited the very last line. I went through the whole thing to see how it was arrived at. Remember the 9/11 Ommission Panel Report? Bogus verdicts both times.

That REALLY pissed me off, the UN report that gave up because NATO wouldn't cooperate in 1999! You blew that off after I spent hours reading the fine print, analysing, excerpting to show what nobody else bothered to actually read in a link that FrenchieCat put up. Namely, a total white wash that was only the tip of the iceberg in the 1999 NATO bombing.

But you accuse me, not FrenchieCat, your fellow Clarkie. Framing.

I think you need to also consider what happens to YOUR perceptions when you see Clark=good and JOM=bad at every turn in the same way you caution me.

Yes, I understand your sales explanation about reader's lack of effort. That you would pin that problem on me is Orwellian, at best.
Congratulations on discouraging indepth analysis, exactly what political theater demands of a know-nothing anti-intellectual population. That's why psy-ops works, because people don't look and are discouraged from doing so.

You haven't touched School of the Americas, Panama, Fallujah, my detailed illustration of exactly how the UN was thwarted by NATO in that whitewash report and gave up without investigating the 1999 bombing.


This is exactly what is happening in our national political psychology. Bushies see him as a nice guy so surely there is a good reason for all he does and his detractors are all 'THEM.' This is psychological framing. We tend to see the things that validate the ideas we already hold.

That is what is going on when you say 'I see you consistently misrepresent and others do to.'

Tom, I have in the last 24 hours another person PM-ing me to say "thanks for the Clark info and concerns, I hadn't seen that anywhere before. I'm saving that info."

Why do I keep getting PM'ed by people who agree with me on Clark? Probably this kind of demonization you and FrenchieCat and Sparkly are doing to me is effectively dividing DU, just the way the GOP wants it, and y'all blame me for not seeing it your way.

I'm trying to make the case that Clark is wrong in absolute terms (see those posts at the end of the thread) AND a perfect wedge candidate for an already fractured Democratic Party AND a war-saver if he is gibven the office since BBV means we don't vote anymore. But if I point out that this Emperor ALSO has no clothes and is worse in that he's more of the same with the appearance of change, then I'm the divider, right?

Complicated but that is how 'divide and conquer' works.

I use sources that come from all 'sides' and not just those sanctioned as 'blue.' And I announce that.

Do you have a list of sanctioned sources or should readers judge the source, the specific author, the author's sources, and the historical context in the potical theater of Psy-Ops Nation?

Does commondreams.org count as ok? Does counterpunch.org count as ok? Does Noam Chomsky count as ok?

The corporate media was co-opted by the CIA 60 years ago so should we not allow any links to the NYT, WP, Time, LAT, Miami Herald? All of these are prone to CIA-steering!

But you don't cite this caution that I do all the time (in my sig quote-Operation Mockingbird) so does that make you and others who don't cite this suspect?

Remember that Rebublican Paul O'Neill who blew the whistle on the Bushies for readying an Iraq invasion from day one? Don't trust him, he's a Republican, right?


Complicated issue, credibility, isn't it?


I don't just make comments, I put up links almost ALL the time.
I learned lots from DU-ers who put up information to be scrutinized like bobthedrummer, octafish, seamslikeadream, loriel, judilynn, etc.

I actually learned alot by reading at length with critical thinking.
If you don't like that kind of post, than stick to one-liners that people 'will read.'

But your portraying my references as a devious maze into an obscure unobtainable haystack where I'm hoping nobody ever finds the needle!
Or Sparkly calls it a shellgame for not understanding the connections I attempt to draw.

Again, posts #235,236,237,239 are a good start.

The more info I give, more you claim that it is a tactic to obscure since it isn't a sound-bite or bumper-sticker sized post. Now THAT is a GOP theme-"those liberal intellectuals think they're better than you and they will trick you with all that book stuff."

Enough of this.

[Tom Rinaldo]

257. I commended you on leaving links, specifically to that tape

That was never a problem for me. A source need not always be universally held in high regard either, though it helps when one knows if a specific source denies that significant ethnic cleansing existed in Kosovo, for example, if that source attacks U.S. involvement there, since whether or not ethnic cleansing happened has a lot to do with the justification for using force in Kosovo. But that is but an example.

First off I never said "There he goes again", did I? More to the point your association of Reagan with me was about as meaningful as your association of Hitler to Clark was on an earlier thread. You have a way of doing things like that John.

I encouraged people to actually go to the link you left, that is not at all a criticism of you having left a link to a long tape. I fully agreed with you that people should listen to it. What I disagreed with John, which I said I noticed a pattern of, was how you IMO mis-characterize the content found at many sites that you link to. In fact I pointed out telling two or three instances of that in how you summarized Clark's testimony and/or presented it out of context above in this thread. That is my issue with you, not the links. And I already was quite specific above about how I thought you twisted Clark's presentation.

John, I already made long posts to you on other threads after you brought up Fallujah, the School of the Americas, and what you call the U.N. White Wash on Kosovo. Probably we have not "talked about" Panama yet, true. I raised questions to you in those posts that you still have not answered. I've been there and done that. I can find those posts again if need be.

If you will do four things we can have fruitful discussions. Provide accurate quotes rather than distorted paraphrases when you are trying to make a point against Clark. Present that quote in the accurate context in which it was made. Be willing to have an open discussion that involves sharing of thoughts on the big picture, and not just constantly you presenting your own theories. And don't leave real and relevant questions asked of you dragging for days or weeks or until everyone seemingly has forgotten that they were ever asked in the first place. Those are my issues with you John, not the amount of material you drag into your posts.

I don't like it when you do something as simple and intellectually lazy if not dishonest as to take the detailed replies to the League of Conservation Voters that Clark gave to their questions and dismiss them as being written by the Pentagon, and therefor unworthy of any credence. Where does one begin to counter that type of logic? If you want to talk about the military , fine let's talk about the military. If you want to talk about Clark, fine let's talk about Clark. But to you it is all interchangeable. I can raise a positive comment Clark made on an issue and you will refute it with a page out of Reagan era military manual. I feel like I'm talking to a Moonie when I try talking to you. That is why I am trying so hard to get you to discuss some larger issues together, let's go off script, both of us.

[Sparkly]

229. Excellent deconstruction, Tom! n/t

[JohnOneillsMemory]

234. Much of the hearing Clark is doing a 'lessons learned' for "next time."

He cites the need to be better prepared for the next fallen government quite often and tells the committee that they better be preparing plans to 'pick up the pieces' when the next government, probably Syria, falls.

You know, the next 'last resort.'

His criticism of the chaos after the invasion of Iraq is great but there is a case to be made that he had his own problems after the 1999 NATO bombing in the Balkans.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0910-07.htm
( Was Gen. Clark Also "Unprepared" for the Postwar?
by Zoltan Grossman)

Published on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 by CommonDreams.org

>snip<

In his apparent quest for the Democratic Presidential nomination, General Wesley Clark rightly criticizes President Bush for waging a "pre-emptive" invasion of Iraq, and in particular for being "unprepared" for the post-invasion occupation of the country. Some Democrats are being drawn to the former NATO Supreme Commander as an authoritative voice against the Iraq debacle, and a "pragmatic" alternative to the disastrous Bush Presidency.

Yet these Democrats apparently have short memories. It was only four years ago that General Clark waged a war against Yugoslavia that had similarly shaky motives and spiraling postwar consequences. Clark has whitewashed the 1999 Kosovo intervention as a "humanitarian" campaign to rescue Kosovar Albanians from Serbian "ethnic cleansing," even though it actually helped fuel the forced explusions. The General credits NATO bombing of Serbian cities for bringing about the fall of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, even though Serbian democrats loudly objected that it undermined and delayed their ultimate victory. Clark claims that the postwar NATO occupation brought "peace" to Kosovo, but he was clearly unprepared for the violent "ethnic cleansing" that took place on his watch, largely facilitated by his decisions, under the noses of his troops.

First, the NATO intervention made a bad situation worse in Kosovo. The nasty civil war between Milosevic's Serbian nationalist government and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) militia in the Albanian-majority province had heated up in 1998-99. About 2,000 people had been killed, including civilians on both sides. Voices within the Clinton Administration clamored not only for "punishing" Milosevic, but for (pre-emptively) ejecting Serbian forces from Kosovo to prevent him from carrying out ethnic cleansing. Under Western pressure, Milosevic offered to withdraw from Kosovo, but the peace talks broke down.

Hours after the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia began on March 24, 1999, the Serbian ethnic cleansing campaign began, expelling hundreds of thousands of Albanians, and creating an enormous refugee crisis. CIA director George Tenet had predicted in February that a NATO "stick in the nest" could provoke just such ethnic cleansing. Accused of being "unprepared," General Clark defended the war as "coercive diplomacy," saying "This is the way the NATO leaders wanted it." The bombing was not in response to the ethnic explusions, but gave Milosevic the excuse and justification for them. The Kosovo disaster was a self-fulfilling prophecy, much like President Bush invading Iraq to eject phantom "terrorists," and in the process creating a new cause and battleground for them.

>snip<

more...

[Tom Rinaldo]

242. If the U.S. Kosovo intervention

had a net effect of increasing the hardships of the people who it was meant to help, one would figure they might be pretty pissed about it, wouldn't you? Certainly that can be said about millions of people in Iraq who Bush supposedly invaded to help. Funny thing though, Clark is still regarded as a hero to the people in whose behalf N.A.T.O. intervened.

Here John, chew on this. Republicans control Congress. Republicans control the White House. Republicans can and do point us toward wars and then start them. Clark was saying that that is exactly what this Administration is doing right now, and he is saying it will end up as huge mess that this administration has no plans or capacity to deal with, just like last time. And Clark said this about the looming Iraq also when he appeared before Congress with Perle and Clark was right then and Perle was wrong.

Why do you conveniently leave out, John, that Clark said in the strongest words possible that the Bush policy of leading us into a war with Syria and Iran is WRONG and DANGEROUS, or that he strongly advised changing the Bush policy so that we will NOT end up at war again?

Here is what Clark was doing. He was giving arguments that virtually everyone in that hearing could understand (except the Chairman it seemed) for why we should NOT go down that road again. He was explaining to them the costs associated with that wrong course of action. Some of the Republicans in that room would have hesitated about going into Iraq in the first place if they had known ahead of time that Clark was right and that Perle was wrong when they testified last time. Kerry and Edwards would have voted differently, I believe, on the IWR if they knew that for sure also. When people listen to the tape, note how many people from both parties conceded that Clark got it right last time, and Perle didn't. Clark is trying to STOP a pending war John, not just score political points by posturing. If the American people will open their eyes and see what Clark is pointing to, the direction this Administration is taking us and the cost that they will have to bear, both human and monetary, they will stop this war before it is too late. Congress can not stand up to the truth once the American people know it and Clark was telling them and us the truth.

[Tom Rinaldo]

219. "If Clark said it, he must be lying."

No John, that is not an actual quote of yours. It is really more of a paraphrase, a technique that you are so fond of. I am just summing up your position to make it easier for people who can't take the time to actually carefully read through everything you have said about Clark. Kind of the same service you offer when you conveniently sum up for other people what Clark literally says.

Here is what Clark says about the Pentagon budget:

"General Clark said his domestic priorities would include health insurance and rolling back parts of Mr. Bush's tax cuts. ‘I don't see why we can't have health insurance for every single American,’ he said. Asked how he would pay for it, General Clark said he was open to some cuts in the budget he is more familiar with — the Pentagon's. ‘The armed forces are a want machine,’ he said. ‘They are structured to develop want.’” (Source: New York Times, September 19, 2003)."

John would you agree that if somehow Congress actually cut 10% from the Pentagons 2006 Budget (not cut the rate of growth, but actually cut 10%) that Congress would still be "supporting more massive spending?". Giving the Pentagon 90% of what the Pentagon got last year for the following year would still be a huge appropriation. 90% of the current budget, hell 75% of the current military budget is still "a massive amount of money", is it not?

See, that is how I see you continually playing with words to slant reality. If Clark called for a 25% cut in military spending you would describe that as Clark calling for massive military spending. It is so predictable. Who besides Clark running for President last year called for actual cuts in the defense budget. Probably Dennis, I'm not sure if he did. Who else? And who are you singling out for attack on this matter? Hmmmm.

[Adelante]

228. Kucinich and Kerry

15% I think it was. Dean said he wouldn't cut it. I don't remember Edwards saying anything about it one way or the other.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

231. You cited 9/19/03 when he started a campaign. I cited 4/6/05 in Congress.

in front of the House Armed Services Committee.

You're bringing out his words from a jump-start campaign 19 months ago.
I'm bringing out his words from testifying before Congress 2 weeks ago.

Pretty manipulative on my part, isn't it? sheesh.
Hey, is there a transcript from that 4/6/05 HASC hearing yet? Citing audio streaming is a drag for everyone.

Clark is the one with the checkered associations and statements, not me. I am consistently anti-militarist, anti-war crime, anti-Pentagon budget, anti-CIA, anti-propaganda.



As for "singling (Clark) out for attack," General Clark is unique in his Pentagon career and late entry into politics as a Democrat (?) with so much contradictory material surrounding him that warrants scrutiny such as you and I are giving it.

Yes, I have brought out by far the most information to examine on Clark because I see him as our next big problem as a candidate and, god forbid, president.

His new opening salvo in LA-"defend me, get over Vietnam" is exactly my worst fear of the future of the already horribly compromised Democratic Party.

We Dems have been taken apart EXACTLY the same way that J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO took apart the left of the 1960s. And Clark fits the profile for the next step, in my watchful eyes.

Tom, I welcome your scrutiny because the truth of the matter will better be revealed by this prolonged committed examination.

As I said before, when FrenchieCat isn't in 'playground-mode' (now she's putting up a photo of SBVFT-other John O'Neill like a purple band-aid to scorn me) I respect her efforts to make her case FOR the General EVEN THOUGH I DISAGREE vehemently.

Atleast a few DU-ers make the effort even if they are in vehement opposition to my views. The rest of DU seems to be one-liners and me-too-isms.

[Tom Rinaldo]

243. In order to have a serious discussion John

you need to start taking seriously questions asked of you. Above in this thread I made a list of American military engagements and uses of our armed forces that I supported. It seems we disagree on Kosovo though I will remind you that you are in a small minority of Democrats on that one (if you are a Democrat, you always avoid that queston when it is asked of you and I do not see what is gained by avoiding that question if you say you want an open dialog). What about the rest of the list John. It is simply too easy to just say that you don't like the Pentagon killing people and that there have been serious abuses of American power. I made a list. If I was in Congress that is how I would have come down regarding those engagements. What about you? Some times hard choices have to be made. What choices would you have made? See post #221 above.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

253. Yes, I see your list. Very concrete and worth a review.

As I just wrote to another post of yours, I'm all for dialogue. This weekend has been all Clark all the time as you can see by the time stamps and I gotta get a break for animal needs.

I'm not running away. I couldn't if I wanted to.

[Sparkly]

259. And the pattern continues.

Add that to the list of posts you'll deal with later... :eyes:

[JohnOneillsMemory]

261. Get off. I've been posting for hours a day for the last two days. Dinner .

is getting cold and I'm taking a breather from this.

Answer my question: is the problem in this country the GOP or the military industrial complex that it fronts?

[Sparkly]

262. Like I said: The pattern continues.

When you're pressed, it's time for dinner.

Soon you'll be back, spend hours repeating the same things, and when pressed, it'll be time for dinner.

[Clarkie1]

265. Brilliant Post. Absolutely Brilliant. n/t

[JohnOneillsMemory]

131. No. That's not what 'forget Vietnam' means. It means forget the ugly truth

because it doesn't make a good soundbite to campaign on. Now that is a gross disservice to our abused troops of yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

(I understand your efforts as a grass-roots PR spokesperson for the General, FrenchieCat, by putting the best face on both him and DU by reminding us that we (Democrats and liberal progressives) support the troops. Some of us support them enough to want them home NOW and hold the White House, Repub and Dem Congress, and Pentagon brass responsible for this debacle.)


General Clark is advising a long occupation for our troops at the same time he's preaching support for our vets. Hmph.

General Clark is campaigning with 'you can't bring democracy at the point of a gun' and but says to the House Armed Services Committee:

"GENERAL CASEY DID THE RIGHT THING IN SHUTTING DOWN NAJAF AND FALLUJAH IN...ALL THAT ACTION THAT OCCURRED IN THE FALL." Outrageous butt-covering for the neo-con Pentagon. Absolutely outrageous.

Ah, the schizophrenia of the Wall Street Big Brother War Crime 'liberal' at work.


Don't trust anyone who wants you to forget the difficult past. Don't give in to the bumper-sticker-ization of campaign language if it denies the truth.

Real down-to-the-soul of humanity truths CAN fit on bumper-stickers:

'War is a Racket.' General Smedley Butler had the principles and honesty to admit this exactly 70 years ago. Clark can't say this, can he?

If he "had the starch" to speak that truth instead of portraying Iraq as a 'bad apple' in the barrel of American military history, this would be a better world with less war, poverty, disease, hatred, suffering.

But he has his own war to win again. Against the GOP which snubbed him.

And that means restoring glory to the neo-con trammeled flag. For the next "last resort."

[MontecitoDem]

135. Where do you get this stuff?

He didn't say "forget Vietnam" so ...

[incapsulated]

143. He also plans..

Should he be elected, to have silicon chips of some kind put in our teeth, so that he and the Pentagon-CIA-Wallstreet Triad can monitor all our movements, and track our buying preferences at the same time.

It's true. The man is evil incarnate.

[Sparkly]

149. If only we had a candidate who'd shut down the Pentagon and the CIA...

:sigh:

[incapsulated]

156. And remove these transmitters from my dental work! n/t

[Sparkly]

158. That's only the start

Both parties are slaves to the military industrial complex, but if Clark were to be elected he'd put chemical agents in the drinking water that would render us all hopeless bots to be used for his evil aims, including oil drilling, shooting civilians (just cuz), and of course, starting WWIII.

[incapsulated]

164. And that's after...

He outlaws coffee and cigarettes, to make us unfocused and easier to brainwash by the PNAC Brownshirts that will be on every street corner in what was formerly America, but which will be immediately renamed Clarktopia Inc. (a subsidiary of the Military Industrial Complex of Total Global Evil, Bwahaha, Inc.)

:scared:

[Crunchy Frog]

177. Hey, is it time to repost this picture?

Never forget Clark's command of invisible Mind Control rays.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

238. okay, that is kinda funny...even though I don't wanna laugh....n/t

[JohnOneillsMemory]

172. or a candidate who didn't support School of the Americas, Fallujah...n/t

You're impying that I'm an unrealistic utopian.

That is not accurate although it suits your dismissive intent.

Clark is unable to offer criticism of gross abuses and only targets the Bush** White House, his goal.

We have a growing resurgence of Vietnam Syndrome for a reason. And the reason is not just this White House. It is our country's economic dependence on oil and weapon sales at the expense of our domestic health, civil liberties, and decades long acceptance of mass murder overseas.

How do you feel about Clark telling the House Armed Services Committee that General Casey did the right thing in shutting down Najaf and Fallujah?

How much time did spend looking at the dead bodies in Fallujah half-eaten by dogs?

Do you, as I do, have the image of a child's face peeled off its skull like the cover off a baseball, burned into your memory?

Did you hear the terrified priest in Haiti on the phone with Pacifica Radio when thugs started shooting at him? Thugs unleashed by yet another US coup in Haiti back on 2/28/04?

I heard. I've heard the terror unleashed by the US military as they follow orders given by criminals who spin tales of glory and honor and security.

Is this funny to you?

Is that funny?

[incapsulated]

175. No, I am implying that...

You and your attempt to make Clark the anti-Christ, by using every known inhumanity to man, every conspiracy theory, every war, every injustice and every crime somehow his personal fault, responsibility and intention... A JOKE.

I ridicule what I find ridiculous.

Good-bye.

:hi:

[Sparkly]

210. And the shell moves again! n/t

[sharonking21]

215. Look, you may be sincere . .

but you are utterly misguided in my opinion.

You follow Clark threads around with a single-minded intensity that I find suspicious as to motivation. I rarely see you post on other threads--now I'm new here, so perhaps I am wrong about that, but it is my impression. I've begun thinking privately of you under the UU Jihad name: Jihadi John.

You try to blame Clark by association for almost every evil in the world.

I'm not sure exactly why.

Is it because he is ex-military? If so, that is ignorance speaking. The man is not defined totally by his career--in fact no one is. And, there is so much more to him.

Serbia?

Or perhaps you didn't take kindly to the GPS tracking chip I snuck up and implanted in your butt? This was done, of course, under the instructions of high-ranking Clarkie grassroots operatives, who as a group, of course, ARE OUT TO GET YOU! :sarcasm:

[Adelante]

121. Of course, if Americans had gotten over Vietnam

We would likely have President Kerry today instead of President Bush.

I can't imagine why you would draw a conclusion like this one:

"Why did he say that? If we get over Vietnam, it will just be easier to do it again and again."

[madfloridian]

124. History ignored is history repeated. It is easier in Iraq this time.

Not for me, but for the public.

[Adelante]

127. I certainly do agree with that

And so would Gen. Clark. I think Sparkly's post above explains his meaning very well.

[dogman]

130. He did not say forget, he did not say ignore, he said get over it.

Learn the lesson and move forward with that knowledge. Do not let it box us in. The biggest difference that I see between Clark and the NDOL position is that he does not want to use brute force to spread democracy. He would do it by setting an example to the world of what a positive force we can be by making things better at home and helping those that need it abroad. He recognizes the larger picture and the necessity of being strong at home so that the world admires us for what we are, not because we will punish them if they don't do as we say. If force is necessary we must use it in conjunction with those who have an interest in the outcome and have an understanding of the regional problem. Build a diplomatic coalition and make it incumbent on all parties to come to a peaceful resolution. The consequences of diplomatic failure would then be born by all involved parties.

[madfloridian]

134. But he does think the middle east wants Democracy.

I was surprised at that. I have a hard time thinking that muslim nations truly actually want a Democracy. True he does not think we should force it on them, but he does think they want us to do it.

I don't think that way. I think their world is quite different than ours, and I fear we are more in danger today because we are trying to remake their countries.

[dogman]

139. He has attended conferences in the ME last year.

Democracy to them may not be as we would picture it. In the sense that Palestine would like to rule itself and we are the most likely to enable that because of our influence on Israel. We should not be remaking them. We should be helping them come together and determining for themselves what is in their interest. They need security but most of all the young people over their need to see a future which requires jobs and education, just like any where in the world. The largest source of instability over there is that they see no future. He has pointed out that in their culture they cannot marry without an income. The royal families control the wealth and the rich employ foreigners for cheap labor. This has been the source of support for Al Quida. People here do not understand the suicide bomber's mentality. For them the promise of glory and the virgins in heaven is real. Much like the religious people here who look forward to being in heaven. It is his ability to understand other cultures and his personal contacts with the leaders over there that give him insight. This is why he was opposed to this war, he understood what the results would be for those people and us.

[MontecitoDem]

140. Wrong

You said "he does think they want us to do it." That's exactly wrong.

What he said was that he's been in the middle east and knows that many people there want democracy. But democracy "comes from your own heart" not through the desires of other countries - he never said that he thinks the muslim nations want US to do it.

Damn. Did any of you watch the video? I was there - heard it with my own ears five feet away from the man - and so much of what is being attributed to Clark's 5-6 minute speech in LA on DU today is utter bullshit.

Why are so many people interested in tearing the man down?

[Clark2008]

154. Then you don't know much about Islam, then.

Islam is a study of democracy, but not the capitalistic republic WE call democracy.

Their idea is different from ours, but they actually do believe in democracy.

I just spend two hours downloading something on dial up and I'm gonna go watch it - later, I'll post exactly how Muslims believe in democracy. But, just keep in mind, my ex husband and his entire family are Muslim. I know this stuff like I know the mole on the back of my hand (and I have one).

Muslims DO believe in democracy - just not our brand of it.

[Adelante]

208. Can you say they DON'T want democracy?

With any sense of sureness? Not all Muslims want theocracy. Many Muslims do want Islamic government, but they want it run as a democracy. There are all sorts in Middle East nations and Muslims are not all fundamentalists by any stretch. They don't all think with a single mind or have a single vision for what their country's should be all about.

Women insisting on voting rights, protests against occupation whether it be against the US in Iraq or the Syrians in Lebanon, public demonstrations against the Iranian government, this is all democracy, and these things would not be happening in these countries if people didn't want democracy.

They just do not want it imposed. They want to do it themselves in their own way. They want to design it in a way that works with their spiritual, intellectual, cultural, and social structure. This is what Clark is saying, if democracy is to be, it has to spring in the hearts of the people themselves. Trying to superimpose a democratic superstructure over any society, unless that society is wanting it already, is a losing proposition that only serves to alienate and anger people, not to mention requiring authoritan regimes kept in place, becoming eventually or right away the exact opposite of democracy.

Wes Clark believes in democracy, yes, very strongly, but he believes in democracy as an example, one to be lived up to and held to account by its citizens, not as a political or philosophical hammer to bang on other societies to get them to do our bidding.

[MontecitoDem]

132. Because 30 years later we are all still beating each other up over it

Because the Bush folks tried to destroy Kerry talking about things he did there and our side tried to do the same to Bush when we all should have been talking about Iraq and the awful shit going on there.

Because picking at the same wound for all these years diverts us from the serious issues we face today.

Because it will always be a divisive issue in American political life.

It's just like the need to eventually "get over" the death of a loved one - doesn't mean you forget them and it certainly doesn't make it any easier the next time. But eventually you must refocus on the present and the future and live your own life.

I was lucky enough to be there and that was my interpretation of what he said.

[Crunchy Frog]

182. Hey, I've got a really good idea madfloridian.

Why don't you watch the video yourself so you can hear his words with your own ears and in their original context. That way you can reach your own conclusions about what he meant instead of relying on someone else's interpretation.

You can download the video by clicking on this link:

http://www.yellowdogdem.com/WesClarkLA.mov

[LimpingLib]

133. I think we dont hold fellow Democrats accountable 99.9% of the time.

So people have already taken this advice in droves.

Now lets start by holding our candidates and office
holders accountable for a change.

Im tired of pro-war mongers not getting challenged when they claim to be anti-war and I tried of FBI/CIA puppets pretending to be pro-civil liberty.

The problem with the party is that we only attack Republicans over the same old crap over and over again.NEWSFLASH , it only HELPS Repulicans when we accuse them of being "anti-government" when they oppose a social program and it only HELPS REpublican candidates when we call them "warmongers".

We need to explain in micro detail what supporting a certain position means in real world terms so we can change the artifical perception the media, "law" enforcment, and foreign policy elite have created.

The AnybodyButGOP movement.... take #500.

ACTION!

Same old crap.

[incapsulated]

145. I think people are misunderstanding Clark's statement, here

Clark was not addressing the rank and file Democrats with this statement. He did not mean that you and I should shut-up and defend the Democrats no matter what.

In fact, in the video, he admonished us to "tell them to get some starch" if they should "get wishy-washy" about Iraq and the new Idea that Bush Was Right. "Bush was wrong!"

What he is talking about, I believe, is the lack of any sense of "team" in this Party. How many times have we said, "where are the Democrats??" when Kerry or Boxer or any other Dem was being attacked in the media by the rethugs? How many times have we seen the Republicans move like a pack of wolves to defend Bush or any other repuke under attack? Haven't you envied at least their their understanding that you must present a united front to the MSM when your party is under attack? That to allow each other to go down without defense is opening yourself to even more vicious attacks?

Does anyone remember when Gore was out there on his own in Florida, fighting in the courts for the votes that were his? Where were the Democrats?

Yes, this is a major reason that Rove and the rethugs are so shameless in their attacks on the Dems, they know they won't fight back, they know they won't come to each others aid.

That is what it means to defend other Democrats.

[MontecitoDem]

147. I think you are absolutely right

I heard this speech in person and haven't reviewed the video, so this is from memory. What he was saying is that Dems who vote with repubs are killing the party and they need to stand with us. This was a common theme at the Convention as a whole.

He absolutely was not telling us, progressive activists, to shut up and follow the DLC. He was telling the DLC to shut up and follow us.

[FrenchieCat]

152. Well you know......

Interpretation is a bitch sometimes.

People hear what they want to hear. Just sad that some want to have heard what wasn't truly said.

[incapsulated]

153. Thanks for your input

From someone who was there! It looked like a blast. :)

[cajones_II]

227. I'm glad you get it

I was at the speech in LA and everyone seemed to misunderstand this sentiment that I talked to. They also were convinced he had declared, and I thought maybe I'd had a blackout.

Our team needs to practice a few plays together, I guess, if DU is any indication

[Clarkie1]

270. Thank you.

For that thoughtful elaboration of the OP.

Well done!

:hi:

[Sparkly]

233. This thread is the height of irony!!

In response to a Democrat's call to stand up for Democrats, that same Democrat is attacked repeatedly, dragging in issues including:

Paul Wellstone
Columbia
The Vatican
Iraq
School of the Americas
Mussolini
Hitler
War on Drugs
The Pentagon
PNAC
McCarthyism
Karl Rove
Bill Owens
Marc Holtzman
Ronald Reagan's Ring of Militarism and Death Squads
Lincoln Day Dinner
Najaf
Fallujah
Napalm
General Casey
Vietnamization
BFEE
The Forbidden Truth
Bill Clinton
Janet Reno
DARPA
Total Awareness Project
Acxiom
DINOs
Terror-mongering
Military Industrial Complex
The Police State
Permanent War Economy
JFK
President Johnson
Allen Dulles
Master Race Chosen Few
Homeland Security
Full Spectrum Dominance
Military Budget
Oil
Troop levels
General Smedley Butler
House Armed Services Committee
Haiti
Barrancabermeja human rights activists
Monsanto
glyphosate herbicides
Guantanomo Bay
US sanctions
Christianity
John Paul I
P2 Fascists
Occidental Petroleum
Agent Orange
Al Qaeda
J. Edgar Hoover
Cointelpro

Did I miss anything? :eyes: Note that if you address, correct, refute, challenge, or put into context any one of such topics, the attacks shift to a different topic. It's a shell game.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

235. Pentagon, CIA, General Clark, militarism. All tie together. Absolutely.

You think you're being funny but if you actually look into the list which is mostly from my many links, excerpts, and analysis you are helping to make my case against the Big Brother-Wall Street-War Crime 'liberal' 'Democratic' candidate, General Clark and his career working for the single most psychopathically destructive corporation on the planet, USA, Incorporated and its private security firm called the Pentagon.

And that's not even a complete list! Rock on, Sparkly!

Thanks again for the list. Paul Wellstone, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, and Noam Chomsky would agree with me.

(Along with anyone with any knowledge of human rights, democracy, and environmental issues that the US government violates routinely.)

[JohnOneillsMemory]

236. Not a 'shellgame.' Try this list: 100 years of US miitary interventions.'

http://www.swans.com/library/art6/zig055.html
(A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS, From Wounded Knee to Yugoslavia, Compiled by Zoltan Grossman)

And this only goes to 1999.

[Tom Rinaldo]

246. John, please respond to my questions this time, please

Read 243 and then 221. In that order would be best. You keep saying that you want serious discussion, and you keep saying that you are not avoiding questions, but then you slip away again with topics left dangling.

edited to correct the first post number

[Tom Rinaldo]

251. Gave you a bum steer. Try #243 and then #221.

There are others left over from earlier threads but ya gotta start somewhere. I'll remind you of the others later.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

252. Dang. I just wrote a long post while you were here. Can't keep up.

Ok, let's work with what we've already put out.

You put up a list of military interventions that you consider justified.
I will investigate them and review at length but I hafta get some food and take a break.

That was a big list!

Because of Clark's almost announcement this weekend I've been reading and writing non-stop about him.

Of course I'll be back to discuss this. I'm getting some 'army of one' fatigue here but I ain't running away, just trying to have a life and some balance.

[Crunchy Frog]

249. And Wes has been in on all 100 years of it!

He was in on it when his grandfather was a sperm.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

237. And this list: 'A Timeline of CIA Atrocities'

http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/CIAtimeline.html
(A timeline of CIA Atrocities, by Steve Kangas)

And this only goes to 1993.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

239. Summary: The Pentagon/CIA is used to PREVENT democracy. Always.

So all of Clark's reinforcing of the idea that the US promotes human rights and democracy is a total complete and utter lie.

'War is a Racket' wrote General Smedley Butler.
'Winning Modern Wars' wrote General Wesley Clark.

[westcott]

269. Here's an idea

Read those books and try to see what he is saying about Modern War. It has very little to do with guns and tanks.
I hope to god you guys get it together. I will be working to make sure that Wes Clark is elected President.

[Adelante]

245. Poor Sparkly

:hug:

[Crunchy Frog]

255. You tried Sparkly.

:hug:

[Auntie Bush]

256. Some people just can't read and have their wee minds set

in stone just like fossils. Reminds me of trying to reason with a Fundie.

[Sparkly]

258. You said it, Auntie!!

:hi:

[Adelante]

260. Reminds me of trying to reason with a Fundie.

That's it right there :yourock:

[FrenchieCat]

263. It's called "snowing" in Spych-ops terms, Auntie

Some folks are trained at it.

If you count the assaults on Clark, in this and other threads, they are all, for the large part, coming from one source....although we can always rely on a couple of lightweights to throw in a sarcastic opinion here and there...but nothing like the leading character. So, in terms of the real smear work, it's all being done by one who will continue to try and influence others....cause that's the goal.

Just consider it as the left side of the Swift Boat vet thingie. It's not that it's necessarily coming from the left, but it has the most effect on the lefty audience. The righties can't use this stuff during the general election.....so, once again, Clark is being hit hard, often and early....while Clark is starting to, once again, gather support. Don't know if you ever encountered Seventhson, last election....but this is similar. Plan to see more.

It will be the same garbage....no real linkage to Clark, just degrees of association....vague as they might be.

You see, Spych-ops is the art of working on the mind of others...and the most important part is that you've got to give them what they want. First you win their trust by showing alliance on a lot of other issues....and then you hone in on the real target. It does require some skill, patience and perseverance, but facts are not necessary. It's about endurance and hoping that you can use all of the right "triggers".

The hope is that some will start to say....Wes Clark may be too controversial, or this guy has baggage. psych-Ops mixes fear in with trigger words. It is known that the Democrats don't want to experience a "Swift Boat" attack anytime soon, and so this method makes it appear that is just what would happen.

The only problem with all of that is that Wes Clark really doesn't have baggage...and his experiences are actually beneficial to the Democratic party, but with this kind of snowing method, pretty soon you can't see what was actually pretty clear initially. Changing the subject to general parallels when specifics don't quite get it is also a part of the approach...and is what you are seeing happening now.

Strap on your seatbelt. It's gonna be a bumpy ride!

[Totally Committed]

268. Some say "snowing"...

others say bullshit. Either way, you have to be careful where you walk as long as it's flying.

JMHO.

TC

[Name removed]

271. Deleted message

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

[Moderator]

273. Locking

Productive discussion on this thread has run its course.