For 2008, I wish we Dems. had a candidate who looks like this....

[xkenx]

A southern, non-Senator, scripture-quoting, gun owner/hunter, war hero, 4-star general, who conducted the highest level diplomacy, won a war w/o the loss of a single American life, held numerous executive positions with the responsibility for education, healthcare, social services, training, security of his/her forces, who can flip any number of red states because he/she can appeal to Republicans and Independents, but who is
--pro-choice
--pro affirmative action
--pro labor
--pro environment
--pro universal healthcare
--pro alternative energy
--pro gay rights.

Wow, that's a tall order!! How could the democrats field that kind of a dream candidate? How could the Dems. find a candidate who is as progressive as they come, but looks like a moderate? How could the Dems. find a candidate who cannot be swift-boated on national security? How could the Dems. find a candidate who can inspire like no one since Bobby Kennedy? Wow, the Rethugs would really fear that kind of person! Boy, I wish we had a Wes Clark. OHMYGOD WE DO!!!

[msongs]

1. except for one thing in the description. nobody's perfect nt

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I'm looking kindly on Clark

He may be one of the few that might be able to lead us out of the mess we're in.....

[stonecoldsober]

3. Me, me... me... me... ME!!!

In my best Bill Murray imitation (from Groundhog Day).

[Eric J in MN]

4. I consider Wes Clark the most electable, but

...of course there will be a "swift boat" attack in which people who served with him trash him.

It worked against John Kerry, and so the Republicans will try it against Clark.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

12. Since there are photos of him in the hospital,

and since the man had to learn to walk again, I think it would backfire BIG TIME. He wouldn't let them get away with that garbage like they did last time.

[Wesin04]

18. Don't Mess with Wes

Swift boaters might try, but won't get far spreading that kind of trash about Clark. Dick Wadhams and Chris LaCivita (dirty players of the highest caliber) tried to use these same tactics against Jim Webb but they got it fired right back at them in spades. Wes Clark will do the same and simply not allow it to get a foothold. It worked against Kerry--didn't work against Webb and won't work against Clark.

[rocktivity]

26. But Clark will do what Kerry didn't -- FIGHT BACK.

Both the Rethugs AND the right-wing media! For example...

:bounce:
rocknation

[upi402]

5. Does he have a pro-labor history to review? n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

35. I'm sure he does

Civilian employees on military bases are all unionized.

I've heard that Clark had a good relationship with the unions, but I can't document it. Perhaps someone else can fill in the blank. I know I've never heard of any problems, and I recall that he was invited to participate in one of the government union training symposia a few years ago.

[MeanBone]

6. Clark's resume was good enough for 3rd place in the 2004 primaries.

Obviously, he'll have to bring more than that to the table in 2008. In his defense, he was about as green as it gets when it comes to political campaigning, and he got in late.

Based on the polls, his Fox News gig doesn't appear to be winning over many Democrats yet (probably because most of them don't watch Fox News). That doesn't mean it's been time wasted, however, as it probably has polished his political rhetorical skills to some extent.

The one glaring hurdle Clark faces obviously is money. Good poll numbers --> free media --> more campaign donations --> better poll numbers --> more free media --> more $$$ --> etc. If the general plans to run, he needs to declare earlier than the bigger names and try to get his numbers up, if he's going to contend. He can't afford to skip Iowa again, and Vilsack is already hard at work trying to catch Edwards and Hillary.

[rocktivity]

7. I wish I could think of someone, but I'm totally stumped.

:evilgrin:
rocknation

[Bitwit1234]

8. HE DON'T WANTA RUN

DONALD TRUMP...WAS TALKING TO A GROUP AND HE GOT ALL FIRED UP...EVERYTHING YOU MENTIONED HE SAID HE WANTED. BUT HE SAID HE WOULD NEVER BE PRESIDENT. PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TRYING SINCE 1988..WHAT DO YOU THINK. SORRY ABOUT CAPS. EATING A TURKEY SANDWICH AND DIDN'T DROP THEM.

[MrSlayer]

10. Donald Trump doesn't want to run?

I'm afraid I'm not following.

[MeanBone]

11. I think he was saying...

...that Donald Trump was eating a turkey sandwich since 1988 and then dropped it. Now he's running for president.

[MrSlayer]

13. Heh.

It could very well be.

[Clark2008]

27. I couldn't stand to listen to Donald Trump yammer on for

four to eight years.

I think I'll stick with Wes Clark, thank you.

[MrSlayer]

9. Hear Hear!

He's got it all as a candidate. Hopefully he can get some media push and get money raised. He's going to need a ton of cash to go up against the frontrunners. I'm ready to open my wallet again for the General.

[hsher]

14. Send Stephen Colbert to war and you've got it

Make him a 4-star general and he's undefeatable. Meets all your criteria.

[noamnety]

15. Clark is pro-war. Screw him.

"What about a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals? Today, setting a rigid, Washington-driven timetable is an option, but a bad one. A precipitous troop reduction could have far-reaching effects: emboldening Iran, weakening U.S. security promises to friendly states, and even sparking military initiatives by other powers — Turkey or Iran — to deal with the resulting security vacuum. Our weakened position in Iraq also could undercut our leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/illustration_by_2.html

Call me when he says "troops out now."

[xkenx]

22. Clark spoke loudly against the war, before and during.

He has always been about "War only only only as a last resort." He didn't get us into this mess. His op-ed piece in USA Today dealt with what to start doing if you are suddenly handed the mess.
And if you've played chess or bridge, recall that the initial plan gets modified as you see what moves the opponent makes. Clark's approach is no different. He's just very accomplished at overall strategy incorporating diplomatic, political, and military approaches.

[noamnety]

28. "Against the war" but won't bring troops home. Yeah, right.

Unless he's willing to BRING THE TROOPS HOME he's like every other damn politician, paying lip service to the anti-war crowd. I don't care if he has always been about "war
is only the last resort" or if "he didn't get us into it."

We're in a war now, and his plan is to stay in it, indefinitely.

Might as well tell me you're pro-choice but support overturning Roe vs. Wade.

To hell with him and every other hypocritical politician who wants to score points by pointing out how they didn't cause the mess, but thinks since we're there now, we may as well stay.

[Jai4WKC08]

34. So who is your candidate

Which one do you think will bring the troops home now?

You're just flat wrong to say Clark's plan is to stay in it indefinitely. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's my opinion Clark would be the most likely to bring them home soonest, because he's the most capable of doing so.

[noamnety]

36. It's HIS words, not mine.

He's against immediate withdrawal. Against troop reductions. Against setting any sort of a time table.

If he's refusing to define an end point, by definition, he's saying he'll leave troops there indefinitely. If you've found where he's articulated a "finite" end to the war please share it.

It's not good enough, two years out, to support pro-war democrats because "heck they all are prowar." That's a cop out, and people are going to die for that cop out. Here's a plan. We send a clear message now that we aren't interested in supporting anydamnbody who's in favor of prolonging this mess.

Stop promoting anyone who can't climb aboard that train. Anyone who promotes candidates who want to leave our troops in Iraq, anyone who promotes candidates who continue to vote for funding the war, needs to stop calling themselves anti-war. You can't oppose something by supporting it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2984919&mesg_id=2984919

[Donna Zen]

39. No permanent bases

Now if Wes Clark want No permanent bases in Iraq, then how does that square with your declaration that Wes Clark wants to stay in Iraq. Yes, he believes that calling for a rigid timeline puts the onus on the US rather than on the Iraqis. He thinks this is a bad call because it solves nothing and sets the US up for a failure to meet those deadlines.

He has asked instead for us to think regionally, because the only hope for stabilization lies within the region. Those people do not want a war in Iraq, or a war that destabilizes their countries.

Wes Clark wants out of Iraq. He wants out as soon as we can get out. If you want out of Iraq, then you would be wise to listen to him, because predicted and told all of the Senators now running for the presidency, exactly what an invasion would mean when he testified in 2002

if we were to attack Iraq, what would be Iran’s response? The answer is not clear, he said. In any case, overthrowing the Baath party in Iraq could create a more intractable problem. He laid out several outcomes. We might see a secular police state replaced by a radical Muslim republic that would be just as inimical to the United States. It is not clear that Iraq would hold together as a single state since its borders were drawn by imperial Western powers at the end of the First World War. And, in that sense, it is an artificial state. A post-Saddam Iraq might see competition between the Sunni, Shi’a, and Wahabi factions of Islam, as well as a struggle by the Kurds in the North for autonomy, and perhaps independence.

That was in 2002. Those senators failed to listen to him, and now you are doing the exact same thing. Redeployment and no permanent bases. I know what that means. What I'm unsure of is what the politicos mean by flexible timetables or benchmarks. pssst! News: they don't know what they mean either. And I sure as hell will not support someone who wants to punish Syria or bomb Iran. Although those candidates seem very popular at the moment.

[noamnety]

40. That was 2002. Now we're moving into 2007.

It's very nice that he was against the invasion in 2002. I was also against the invasion in 2002. So by your logic, he should be listening to me, right?

No permanent bases ... just INDEFINITE ones that stay open indefinitely ... that does not impress me.

We didn't get out of Vietnam by staying in Vietnam. We got out of Vietnam by getting out of Vietnam.

[Jai4WKC08]

42. No, you're reading into his words what you think is there

Clark doesn't believe in a timeline, but he has defined an end-point. Several in fact, since he no longer thinks we can achieve the end point he campaigned on and is willing to settle for far less. I'm quite sure he'll be redefining it again, since Bush will keep pulling the opportunity horizon close and closer in on himself. Who knows what will still be possible by 2009?

But the simple fact is, Clark is not a "pro-war democrat." He is on record for the same phased redeployment that the rest of the Democrats are supporting (in fact, he's the one who came up with the Reid/Pelosi "Real Security Plan" that describes it). You might try googling for that.

You seem to think it's possible to put everybody on a plane and bring them home tomorrow. It just doens't work that way--half the troops would get their asses shot off. None of Democratic leadership, nor the vast majority of Democratic voters want that sort of withdrawal and they don't want to just cut off funding either.

[noamnety]

43. If he's waiting for a diplomatic solution that restores peace in the region

that's indefinite.

Has he gone on record saying if he was elected for two terms, he would absolutely withdraw the troops by the end of the second term if a diplomatic resolution hasn't been found by then?

Can you point me to something that at least says troops WILL be out by 2016?

This says it all: "he has defined an end-point. Several in fact, since he no longer thinks we can achieve the end point he campaigned on."

Defining shifting unrealistic goals that can't be met is not an exit strategy. Putting people on ships and planes is an exit strategy. And if he can't or won't do that because "now's not a good time, half would get killed" then he's the wrong man for the job. It ain't gonna be any easier a year from now, just like it's not any easier now than it would have been a year ago.

Don't keep shoveling your face full of pie and talking to me with your mouth full about how you have some great strategy in mind for losing weight. Stop shoveling.

[Jai4WKC08]

46. Clark's earlier "end points" were not unrealistic when he proposed them

Clark always speaks about what should be done at any given time. He does that knowing full well BushCo will not do as he advises, but he feels obligated to offer the best advice he can in any case. It has nothing to do with an objective of indefinite occupation, and he is not a politician jockeying for his next run for office. He is stating how to get to the best possible end at the time he is speaking.

The goals may shift, but only because what is realistic changes.

And no, putting people on ships and planes is not a realistic option. It just isn't. I doubt I can convince you of that, but you should look around and notice that how few people who live in the real world think that it is. It cannot be done. Not by anyone. It is childish wishful thinking.

Btw, I don't appreciate you changing my words and then putting quotations around them. I suppose it is indicative of the same undisciplined way of thinking that leads to your so-called exit strategy.

[noamnety]

49. Tell me what his end point it.

If he has a finite end to the occupation, when is it?

[noamnety]

56. Also

personal attacks violate the rules. The name calling ("childish") isn't acceptable.

If I put something in quotes and it's not something you said, then I'm not quoting you.

Back to the ISSUE. If his goals are never achievable for that region, when is he going to let the troops leave?

[Jai4WKC08]

60. Better read it again

I didn't call you childish. I said you were engaging in childish wishful thinking. That is NOT against the rules. But if the shoe fits...

If you were not quoting me, who were you quoting? Provide a link to the post or article. It sure as hell wasn't Clark. It wasn't anybody else I can find here. And the second half of your quote was exactly what I had said. Coincidence? Or are you just trying to weasel out of it now?

As for "the ISSUE" at hand... you have already made up your mind that "his goals" (they are almost everybody's goals) are not achievable, so what's the point? You can read Clark's USA Today op/ed as well as I can. He states quite clearly that NOW is the time for redeployment to begin.

Im sure that if Clark were running the show, he'd have been talking to all the players and the withdrawal of troops, as well as complementary regional security guarantees, would be part of the carrots and sticks he would have us offer. And since the results would be negotiated with all the states of the region, they would all have a stake in making it work -- that's what effective diplomacy does. But Clark isn't running anything, BushCo is not likely to do anything significantly different from before, and even in the last two days the situation has deteriorated further, so who knows what the next best possible "end point" will be.

You still have never answered my question. Who is the candidate (or other Democrat in a position to do anything at all), who would have us get the troops out of Iraq more quickly and with great success than Clark? You know, assuming they're in such a position come Jan 2009?

Maybe a better question is, are you holding any other potential candidate to the same standard? There are a dozen or more threads about Gore, Edwards, Obama... have you voiced the same complaint in those threads?

[noamnety]

64. Some of the other candidates support a deadline.

Clark doesn't.

Some have a definite end point. Clark doesn't.

I want a candidate that will get the troops out, and is willing to make a COMMITMENT to getting the troops out. A vague trust-me-I-have-a-plan-and-I-can't-tell-you-when-it's-gonna-happen is not a commitment. I want an engagement ring and a date for a wedding. I don't want to hear "we'll get married someday, baby."

(Clarification for those who might be confused: I am not actually quoting Clark verbatim as having said "we'll get married someday, baby.")

[Jai4WKC08]

73. Which ones?

None of the ones I mentioned (Gore, Obama, Edwards) support a deadline. Where are your protests in the threads about them and 2008?

I didn't realize you meant deadline when you said end-point. There's a big difference. Even the folks who propose a timetable (Feingold for example) give no deadline -- every last one of them have said that events on the ground will dictate how the withdrawal progresses. You're looking for a specific date, which is impossible. Any politician who gives you a specific date when he would every last soldier and marine out of Iraq is either lying to you or knows damn well he'll never be in a position to set such a deadline so is free to say anything at all.

[karynnj]

82. Kerry/Feingold had a deadline

They did say that they would have some flexibility - though it was essesially saying that they would stay a small finite amount of additional time - if things were moving well and it was warranted.

This strikes me, as a parent, similar to allowing the kids 15 more minutes when they are actively cleaning a room that I wanted cleaned by 5:00. (In fact, Kerry's response - was prefaced by saying, "We're not stupid .." ) Also, they need the President to insist on the deadline - which won't happen.

[Jai4WKC08]

93. Yeah, they did

That was one reason I focused my replies on Gore, Edwards and Obama, who seem to be highly favored around these parts of late. I know that none of them support a timeline.

And yet, I also know that when Feingold first came out with his timeline proposal, he ended up backpeddling just a few months later on how rigid he thought it should be. Then later still, he came out with this amendment with Kerry, with different dates (as anyone would expect). They did so knowing full well that it wouldn't pass. Which doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea to put it out there anyway, but only that it's easier to propose a plan you know you won't have to execute.

I'm not gonna criticize Kerry or Feingold for their proposals. But I don't beleive either would stick to a deadline if they didn't think it made sense when the time came (and no, not just an additional "15 minutes," but even the overall concept of continuing with the original plan). And of course, now Feingold has taken himself off the list of consideration. We'll just have to see where Kerry ends up.

[karynnj]

112. Feingold introduced the idea of a flexible target date for withdrawal

in August, 2005. From the beginning it had the same reason - to push the Iraqis to work towards self sufficiency. The fact that form the beginning he mentioned the word flexible was for the reason both he and Kerry spoke of last summer - if the deadline was nearing and very significant progress was being made but they couldn't meet the deadline - it would be extended.

Kerry in October, 2005 came out with a plan that spoke of getting out in 12-15 months - very near Feingold's target date of Dec 2006. Kerry's plan was more detailed on what to do between Oct 2005 and when they left. The 3 first things were to announce that we didn't want permanent bases (a long standing Clark and Kerry position mentioned in the 2004 debates), handing over the search and destroy and policing work to the Iraqis as soon as feasible and putting the soldiers in garrisons away from the main fighting.

Kerry (and I assume Feingold) offered the plans as what they would implement if they were Bush. All Democrats were asked what they would do and these and others were serious plans. In 2006, the Kerry/Feingold plan was accorded more respect and attention by Senator Warner, who liked parts of it - but thought the timeing was wrong. The plan was far more than a deadline. The part on holding a summit was included in the defense bill - approved by a voice vote. I do think that K/F at least accomplished getting the Seante to debate what should be done.

By the way - I didn't mean "15 minutes" with regard to the Iraqis - it would be longer - I was simply making an analogy that I thought explained how the idea of a "firm" deadline and the flexibility to extend it were NOT contradictory and couls both make sense. (If you want think about a project at work - if there's a Dec 15 deadline and all people are working as hard as possible - if you tell your boss a week or so ahead that it may take longer because of some unforseen problems - it would be very unusual to be told not to keep working.)

I do agree that all the others have NOT committed to a deadline.

[Donna Zen]

52. What you said, and what I said

since we were against invading Iraq is not the subject. I told you what Clark said to the Senate. That's all.

Clark is on record as saying that the Iraqis must understand that we can not stay indefinitely.

Look I don't know what you're doing next week, but Wes Clark will speaking at a three day conference in the Gulf. His subject and the subject of this conference is stabilization in the region. The conference has invited 144 world leaders including members of the UN. The regional issues are very weighty because out economic future depends upon leadership to bring this crisis to a manageable end. Unbelievable as it may seem, we still have some countries willing to listen to Americans...or at least Americans they trust. And yes, they do trust Wes Clark.

So in answer to your unwarranted assumption that Clark was waiting around for regional peace. No. He is working on finding a way to bring regional peace.

Hey, he walks the walk. Otherwise he'd be in NH and Iowa with all of the rest of the rubber-chicken candidates. Or maybe he'd be on a junket to Israel threatening to bomb Iran.

[noamnety]

53. And what if regional peace doesn't ever come?

Then we stay there indefinitely?

[Donna Zen]

54. No. Where are you getting this indefinitely stuff?

This past election said that America wants out...however, they don't want this to be a loss.

Now that may seem weird, but that is what the American people want.

Regional peace may not come, considering that bush's team are total assholes. And it is the Oval Office not the congress that controls foreign policy. Congress controls the purse strings, but I don't see the Dems cutting off the money. Do you?

We asked Clark about this once...his ideas etc. He said he takes in all available information, gives it his best shot, and then prays. He thinks that there is a slim chance that between diplomatic and political strategy, the region can find stability. Not necessarily peace. Nevertheless, as Iraq spirals down the toilet, it is important that Dems. do have ideas.

We can not and will not stay there indefinitely. The question that remains unresolved is how we leave. Because if the region implodes then I'm not sure we can gage what happens next. But yes, Iraq can get worse. Besides, the Sunni governments in the region cannot let this ethnic cleansing to continue, their people are also making demands.

This is the worst geopolitical blunder any country has ever made. The people who voted for this need to be kept out of the Oval Office.

[noamnety]

55. I don't want to hear "and then prays."

No offense, but that's been a failed foreign policy for the last 6 years.

And I know that's not the sum total of Clark's plan, obviously. But here's where I'm getting "indefinitely" from. His plan seems to be "we achieve these goals, and once they're achieved, then we leave." (please note, that is me summing up an attitude, not a direct quote that I am attributing to a person.)

But what happens when his goals AREN'T achieved?

A definite plan for withdrawal would be: We try these things, hope to achieve these goals, if they work, we leave. But if they haven't worked by this date ___________ we leave anyway.

An indefinite plan for withdrawal would be: We try these things, hope to achieve these goals, and we don't set any end date at which point we say "shit that didn't work" - we just stay there (indefinitely) until ... until what? What is the end point?

See the difference between the two plans?

[Donna Zen]

62. The failed policy of the past 6 years

....comes from people who didn't listen to Clark. I thought we've been all over that.

What exactly gives you the right to put words into the General's mouth?

Clark has already said that we will not stay there indefinitely. He told them not to go. He told all of them not go.

And guess what? He is not in charge of our foreign policy. Bush is in charge of foreign policy. Your saying "out right this minute or I'll have a fit," will not change that. Not at all.

Clark's pressuring for diplomacy might have some effect.

Wes Clark has been on your side since the beginning. He and Kerry opposed Joe Lieberman...none of the others came through. Why did he risk the wrath of Joe Lieberman's big money backers? Because he wants the troops out of Iraq. This country and it's people are more important to Wes Clark than his personal political agenda. If that seems unbelievable, I would think that the entrenched policians we normally deal with have polluted the atmosphere.

If you do not understand when someone is on your side, then that is very sad.

[noamnety]

65. Let's hope the troops that die in Iraq on his orders

properly understand he is on their side.

[Donna Zen]

66. Oh now you've put him in charge of the war?

His orders? Not one American soldier died when they were under His orders.

pssst! Wes Clark does many things, but he is not in charge of this war or the US foreign policy.

I thought you wanted to get the troops home? Then start supporting those who can get a few agreements with Iran and Syria and any other entities that are feeding this Civil War. Because the last thing any of wants is a regional conflagration.

[noamnety]

69. I'm talking about future plans

I haven't attributed anything that's happened so far in Iraq to him, anywhere.

If he runs, if he's elected and he opts to keep troops there, at that point any new blood will be on his hands. That's what this thread is about - trying to sell him as president in 2008 and speculating on how that presidency would look. And in the OP, ending the war is conspicuously absent in the list of things we're looking for in that Prince Charming that's going to swoop in and rescue us so we can live happily ever after.

If he's elected and won't end the war, it will be hard for me to view him as having been on my side, if the blood that's spilled is the blood of someone I care about. And that's how we all ought to be thinking. If you had family there, how would you feel about having no end in sight? One of my friends has a son who has done 4 tours in Iraq. FOUR! What the hell, you know? Dragging this on without a CONCRETE end in sight is unacceptable. Sending someone back to Iraq for the sixth or seventh time is unacceptable. It's unacceptable even if their orders are stamped with a smiley face and the words "he's on your side."

If he's in a position right now to pressure people to have troops stay, or have troops come home, and he's made a decision to pressure them to have troops stay, I don't hold him responsible for troops being there, he's not an elected official. But I do know it's not something I'd want to live with in myself.

[Tom Rinaldo]

80. Your logic has huge holes in it.

Whoever is elected in 2008 won't take office until January 2009. He or she can't give any orders about anything until then. Until then George W. Bush is the one who gets to give the orders as to when troops come from or go to Iraq. Until then, no one can force George W. Bush to do anything, and I think you know it. Sure, in theory Congress could withhold all the funding that provides all of our troops with supplies inside Iraq. If there was one chance in a million that this Congress would do that before George W. Bush leaves office, then I might be willing to discuss the pros and cons of that move with you. It's not going to happen, whether or not you think it SHOULD happen. Majorities in both houses of Congress will not vote for that cut off of funds. Try counting the actual votes some time, it is doubtful that Murtha would even vote for that one. If by any wild chance Congress did vote to cut off the funds, it would not be by the two thirds needed to over ride a Bush veto, and Bush would certainly veto an attempt by Congress to hand cuff his basic exercise of "Commander In Chief" powers. The minority of Democrats who might vote to cut off the funds would lose that vote and only suffer endless political attacks for withholding support for our boys and girls over there as a result.

So it is incredibly misleading on your part to make a post that posits what Wes Clark might order in January 2009 based on comments Wes Clark is making in November 2006. An awful lot can happen in over two years. I love the heart and soul of most anti-war activists, it is the frequent lack of strategic thinking from some that disappoints me. Wes Clark does strategic thinking. Do you know what Clark's major strategy for Iraq was during 2006? Working to restore Democratic control of Congress, because that allowed for investigative oversight of the Bush Administration, and because that deflated Bush's attempt to claim that the public supported his Presidency, which he damn well would have claimed if Republicans retained majorities in Congress. So Clark put his life on hold to campaign all across the nation for Democrats, including Democrats like Ned Lamont who had slightly different positions regarding Iraq timelines or whatever than Clark did.

Here is what we have to deal with now; Bush remains Commander In Chief of America's Armed Forces. Bush is not going to pull our troops out of Iraq anytime soon. There is a slim chance that Bush will initiate major pullbacks in the Summer of 2008 so Republicans can deprive Democrats of some Presidential campaign material for the November election. Before then, Bush will more or less stay his course because he is a pig headed idiot who doesn't want to and/or isn't able to concede that he led America into a total fiasco. He somehow thinks he can soldier on and get proved right in the end.

Meanwhile, as I know you know, this isn't about politics, not at base. At base it is about human life. The life of our soldiers, the lives of Iraq's civilians, the lives of people in Syria and Iran and throughout the entire region, all of those lives are at grave risk while Bush remains President. I think Wes Clark's efforts to find a way to put a regional cap on the violence spiraling in and out of Iraq is doing a whole lot more to preserve human life than any righteous but impotent call to bring all of our troops home NOW. Wes Clark has done more single handedly to push the meme with the American public, that it isn't Strong to not negotiate with your adversaries, it is idiocy to not attempt it, than any 5 other American political figures combined.

Wes Clark is aiding the silent coup against George W. Bush, the attempt to kick him upstairs to pure figure head status, while less crazed, less fanatical seasoned figures in the Republican Party - for the most part ones associated with Georges father; Bush the Elder, take over middle east policy planning. Clark is out there pushing for a Regional plan, he is pushing for offering American security guarantees to Iran and Syria in the context of an overall regional peace and security framework. Not only will that ultimately save lives in Iraq, it will lesson the chance of a new war with Iran in particular.

It is relatively easy to scream out moralistic rights and wrongs, but actually helping to save lives caught up in forces that one does not exercise significant control over is much more difficult.

[karynnj]

83. His commercial for Lamont was fantastic

[venable]

92. Clark was not against the war

in the run-up.

I have posted this article from FAIR. I post it again. Please respond.

The possibility that former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark might enter the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has been the subject of furious speculation in the media. But while recent coverage of Clark often claims that he opposed the war with Iraq, the various opinions he has expressed on the issue suggest the media's "anti-war" label is inaccurate.

Many media accounts state that Clark, who led the 1999 NATO campaign against Yugoslavia, was outspoken in his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. The Boston Globe (9/14/03) noted that Clark is "a former NATO commander who also happens to have opposed the Iraq war." "Face it: The only anti-war candidate America is ever going to elect is one who is a four-star general," wrote Michael Wolff in New York magazine (9/22/03). Salon.com called Clark a "fervent critic of the war with Iraq" (9/5/03).

To some political reporters, Clark's supposed anti-war stance could spell trouble for some of the other candidates. According to Newsweek's Howard Fineman (9/8/03) Clark "is as anti-war as Dean," suggesting that the general would therefore be a "credible alternative" to a candidate whom "many Democrats" think "would lead to a disaster." A September 15 Associated Press report claimed that Clark "has been critical of the Iraq war and Bush's postwar efforts, positions that would put him alongside announced candidates Howard Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio as the most vocal anti-war candidates." The Washington Post (9/11/03) reported that Clark and Dean "both opposed the war in Iraq, and both are generating excitement on the Internet and with grass-roots activists."

Hearing Clark talking to CNN's Paula Zahn (7/16/03), it would be understandable to think he was an opponent of the war. "From the beginning, I have had my doubts about this mission, Paula," he said. "And I have shared them previously on CNN." But a review of his statements before, during and after the war reveals that Clark has taken a range of positions-- from expressing doubts about diplomatic and military strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. "victory" in a column declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt" (London Times, 4/10/03).

Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine (10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a counter-argument to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time." Before the war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.

As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."

In another column the next day (London Times, 4/11/03), Clark summed up the lessons of the war this way: "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."

Another "plain fact" is this: While political reporters might welcome Clark's entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views "anti-war" is to render the term meaningless.

[Tom Rinaldo]

95. Your post jumps like a time machine all around the calendar

From before the IWR to after Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" I will be glad to respond, but to be more coherent than what I am responding to, I need to do so in multiple posts.

First regarding Clark's position prior to the invasion and his position regarding the IWR (I'll deal with the blatent distortion regarding Clark's comments in London after the invasion next):

Clark never said that there were no circumstances possible under which he could support war with Iraq, no leading Democrat said that; not Gore, not Dean, not Kennedy, not Wellstone, not Kerry, not Edwards. Back in 2002 none of them knew as much about Hussein's possible intentions to expand his WMD programs as they wanted to. Virtually all experts world wide back then assumed Iraq had some WMD. Clark thought Iraq probably had some poison gas and maybe some anthrax and such stockpiled, but Clark still testified before Congress that he saw no serious imminent treat from Iraq to the United States, and without that, no war against Iraq could be justified. In other words, Clark testified that the United States had plenty of time in which to work with the world community to come up with an internationally agreed upon program to determine what if any real threat Iraq posed to the world. During the same time span Clark also began to blow the whistle on PNAC's plans to remake the Middle East into democracies by force. In other words Clark was exposing the real reason why Bush was in such a rush to attack Iraq.

So yes, Clark believed that new United Nations resolutions regarding Iraq were needed, and that an effort was also needed to enforce the old ones, which as I'm sure you remember involved a program of United Nations weapons inspectors inside of Iraq, inspectors that Iraq had kicked out years before. Clark felt that the U.S. Congress had a legitimate role to play in providing leverage to those United Nations efforts. All leading Democrats were on the same page regarding this, including the men I list above. The debate centered on exactly what type of Resolution Congress should pass.

So, to cut to the chase then, regarding the question of whether or not Clark really opposed the Iraq war all along. Do you believe every word you see a New York Times reporter put in print, over the word of the Democrat being discussed? I think we can all name some New York Times Reporters, not to mention those working for other media outlets, who carried some water for the Bush Administration regarding Iraq back in 2003/2004. For example, does the name Judith Miller ring a bell? The NY Times Reporter in question for the original story that called Clark's IWR position into question, Adam Nagourney, is quite questionable himself, having written a number of distorted stories that always put leading Democrats in a bad light.

The real point of contention is this; Clark says that he said during the interview in question, that he would have supported "An" Iraq War Resolution, which instead got reported as "The" Iraq War Resolution. In the days leading up to the vote that approved "the" IWR, several more restrictive versions were under consideration in the U.S. Senate also, that would have made Bush come back to the Senate for a final go ahead vote to attack Iraq for example. Clark was in contact with Senator Levin and others prior to the final vote working together on a more restrictive IWR that Clark would have supported in order to increase leverage to get Hussein to cooperate with UN Resolutions. That is the IWR Clark meant. That is what Clark says he was talking about during the interview in question.

Those who don't like Clark are willing to call him a liar on that, and that is exactly what you have to conclude in order to believe that Clark supported the actual IWR that passed, that Clark is lying, despite all the evidence piled up below here, and much more, that shows that Wes Clark CONSISTENTLY argued against an attack on Iraq unless an imminent threat was shown to exist and all other options to deal with Iraq were thoroughly exhausted. At the very worse Clark get “caught” not being careful enough with his words during a casual interview with a reporter. It after all happened during Clark’s first week in politics. He chalks it up as a rookie gaffe. Clark’s learned a lot since then about how the media and political opponents operate.

In order to believe that Clark supported the IWR that passed the Senate, you would have to believe the same media sources that hyped the evidence of yellow cake uranium going to Iraq and all of the other pre-war hysteria hype over Clark's own word. Instead I ask you to consider all of this evidence below that supports Clark's position (compiled by CarolNYC):

Here is the text of Paul Wellstone's Senate floor speech regarding the IRW.
http://www.wellstone.org/archive/article_detail.aspx?itemID=5423&catID=3605

The quote about Wes from that speech is:

"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."

Here's the text of Ted Kennedy's speech before the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies regarding the Iraq War in Sept 2002, in which he references Wes' testimony a few times.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/14195

Here are the passages about Gen Clark:

"A largely unilateral American war that is widely perceived in the Muslim world as untimely or unjust could worsen not lessen the threat of terrorism. War with Iraq before a genuine attempt at inspection and disarmament, or without genuine international support -- could swell the ranks of Al Qaeda sympathizers and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts. As General Clark told the Senate Armed Services Committee, it would "super-charge recruiting for Al Qaeda."

General Hoar advised the Committee on September 23 that America's first and primary effort should be to defeat Al Qaeda. In a September 10th article, General Clark wrote: "Unilateral U.S. action today would disrupt the war against Al Qaeda." We ignore such wisdom and advice from many of the best of our military at our own peril.
....................
General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, testified before the Armed Services Committee on September 23 that Iran has had closer ties to terrorism than Iraq. Iran has a nuclear weapons development program, and it already has a missile that can reach Israel.
........
In our September 23 hearing, General Clark told the Committee that we would need a large military force and a plan for urban warfare. General Hoar said that our military would have to be prepared to fight block by block in Baghdad, and that we could lose a battalion of soldiers a day in casualties. Urban fighting would, he said, look like the last brutal 15 minutes of the movie "Saving Private Ryan."

Here's the transcript of the Larry King show where Ted Kennedy had this to say:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

"KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

[FrenchieCat]

96. You need to provide links when you put up a smear .......

that's for sure.

How can anyone even look at context as to what was said without the source? :shrug:

TO give you an example you pasted this, and I don't see how it signals Clark support for war??? you wrote that he said...."I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

Clark was talking about facts.....he wouldn't have made the moves that got us to the precipites of war. Bush did go ahead despite the allies' reservations. The Credibility of the United States was on the line, and they did go ahead and "do" it. The Presdient did put its credibility on the line. And the US and the UN did look at evidence and they did decide how to line up. So I'm not sure what this prove in terms of Clark's warstance. To comment on exactly how things were does not prove your point.

FACT-Clark did not want to go into Iraq, and felt that it would be a pandora's box and would distract from our duty in Afghanistan.
FACT-Clark testified to that fact.
FACT-Clark, even when the rest of the world was cheering after the fall of Bagdad, Clark was raising doubts about the mission.

But in terms of you quoting an entire article (against DU rules), not citing a link (ethically uncalled for), wanting us to buy into an article from FAIR as unbiased......makes you appear to be desperate.

Now if you want me to start pulling articles on John Edwards co-sponsorship of Iraq, his rah rah speeches on how we needed to go, on how he still supported the war wholeheartily a year later when no weapons had been found, and his "I was misled" apology 3 years later along with a chart of polls showing that Edwards only apologized once the polls had turned, I'll be happy to do that. The difference is that I would provide links, context, and his full words, not an editorially contrived hit piece.

[Tom Rinaldo]

98. My reply Part II

Regarding this sentance: "As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way". The key word is "seemed" which in context was a fair use of that word since that "seems" to be how it "seemed" to the person writing it, who had the good sense to at least acknowledge that it was a subjective opinion about Clark's views rather than one established by clear facts. This quote by Clark on CCN was highlighted by the writer:

"Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations."

First it is important to remember that Clark was at that point a non political military national security commentator. We are so used to Clark as he is now, openly political and partisan, that we expect him to express his own opinions about what is right and what is wrong, but that was not the role given him by CCN. Clark's role there was to help viewers make sense out of why what was going on in the world at the time that it was actually going on, not to express opinions about whether it should be going on. Despite that, Clark did preface his comments by noting his personal disagreement with Bush's policy and actions. It's almost amusing, do people on DU realize that CCN was getting flack from the Right about letting Wes Clark do commentary for them at the time, because he wasn't backing Bush up every step of the way?

When Clark said "But just assuming that we're here at this point" he was describing the point at which Bush had already told the world he was abandoning the United Nations approach and it was clear as glass in what Bush was saying that his mind was made up about what he was going to do next if Sadaam Hussein didn't leave Iraq, which is what the Bush Administration was pushing for in the final weeks before the invasion. Clark was saying that Bush had already cast his lot in favor of the invasion and Bush was going to have to procede without depending on further support that might well not be forthcoming from some traditional allies that the U.S. had counted on in the past.

It's not much different with this quote:

"The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

Again Clark was not in a role where he was free to advise on the wisdom of the approach that Bush was taking, Clark had already done that in front of the United States Congress in testimony that I linked to in my first reply to you. He thought Bush's policy was a giant mistake and he said so then. Again this is commentary about something that is plain out a done deel, Clark is only talking about how the chips were likely to fall as a result. That was his job on CCN. This is a problem about taking spontaneous live commentary out of context and spinning it like a policy position. Words like "the rest of the world's got to get with us", that wasn't Clark's position, that was his reading of the fait accompli that Bush was presenting the world with. If he had carefully been choosing words for a policy address he might have said "the rest of the world's got to deal with what the United States is doing". In fact that is what the rest of his actual comment goes on to imply.

The United States literally was changing the facts on the ground inside Iraq. Would the UN be willing to come into Iraq after the invasion and take on a serious role in the transition back to Iraq independence? Would the UN take a leading role in helping Iraq rebuild? Would the UN help look for WMD or help exercise temporary control of Iraq's Oil? As it turned out Bush didn't want the UN to take any serious role in post invasion Iraq, but that wasn't clearly known at the time Clark commented.

There's no mystery about Clark's belief about Hussein having WMD, and here is where the source you cite begins to jump the tracks by throwing out a complete red herring. Clark always thought Hussein had some WMD; WMD like left over poisen gas, not nukes. There is no shift of Clark's position here. Clark testified before Congress that the fact that Hussein almost certainly had some WMD did not equate with a justification for attacking Iraq. Lots of nations have WMD. We do, Iran does, North Korea does, China does, etc. etc. Clark thought we would find some WMD in Iraq but he did not think we should have invaded when we did because of them. It is a logical fallacy to tie Clark's thinking that there was WMD inside Iraq with support for the invasion. That is a link Bush made, not Clark.

On to writing Part 3...

[noamnety]

100. Some of the references are pretty disturbing.

I think we have to ask really what's the strategy here, because from the beginning, as we've looked at this, we've said the goal is to make Americans safer. And somehow this question has gotten turned into how much evidence do you have about these weapons when the real question, it seems to me, is is this the right strategy?

Now, we've answered that question. The credibility of the United States is on the line and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/05/ltm.04.html

Clark, Feb 2003. Wow.

Well, maybe he got smarter afterwards, once he saw how things were going.

And when the president of the United States does two things that I agree with -- one of them attacking the Taliban in Iraq, and the other is not quitting in the use of military force in the middle of a dust storm -- then I'm going to say so."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39875-2004Jan22?language=printer
Clark, Jan 2004. um, okay.

Then he clarifies, if you check the link, to say that he didn't support the war (as you can CLEARLY tell from the above quote where he says "the rest of the world's got to get with us"), and he didn't fully outline his objections to it because he wrote it for a foerign publication, see. "it's written in a foreign publication. I'm not going to take U.S. policy and my differences with the administration directly into a foreign publication."

Here's a thought. If you oppose the war in Iraq, say "I do NOT agree with attacking Iraq." EVEN if it's for a foreign publication.

[Tom Rinaldo]

105. You are also calendar jumping

You say:

"Here's a thought. If you oppose the war in Iraq, say "I do NOT agree with attacking Iraq." EVEN if it's for a foreign publication."

Clark did say that, continually, before the United States actually attacked Iraq, before Congress ever voted on an IWR. Repeating "I do NOT agree with attacking Iraq" while the occupation is already well under way kind of misses an obvious point I would say.

Now if you want me to quote a Democrat who actually said he still supported the invasion of Iraq, months into the American occupation, even knowing that no WMD were found inside Iraq, I can give you some John Edwards quotes from Hardline.

[noamnety]

107. "The world's got to get with us."

Uh, yeah. I don't so much see that as "continually" saying I do NOT agree with attacking Iraq. I see it more as saying The Whole World Needs To Attack Iraq.

Subtle difference, I know.


I welcome your offer to post quotes showing Edwards supported the war. Every candidate claiming now that they consistently opposed the war needs to have their records out there in the open. Go for it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

108. Regarding Clark's comments again

I'll copy part of what I said in my "Reply Part 2":

"The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

Again Clark was not in a role where he was free to advise on the wisdom of the approach that Bush was taking, Clark had already done that in front of the United States Congress in testimony that I linked to in my first reply to you. He thought Bush's policy was a giant mistake and he said so then. Again this is commentary about something that is plain out a done deel, Clark is only talking about how the chips were likely to fall as a result. That was his job on CNN. This is a problem about taking spontaneous live commentary out of context and spinning it like a policy position. Words like "the rest of the world's got to get with us", that wasn't Clark's position, that was his reading of the fait accompli that Bush was presenting the world with. If he had carefully been choosing words for a policy address he might have said "the rest of the world's got to deal with what the United States is doing". In fact that is what the rest of his actual comment goes on to imply.

Regarding John Edward's post invasion comments, you can read this transcript from October 13th, 2003 and draw your own conclusions about what he believed then and how relevent that is today given his later apolgy. I'm not trying to flame Edwards here, so you can pursue it on your own. It comes up early in the transcript:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

[Tom Rinaldo]

106. Thanks for the debate link by the way. I love this by Clark:

DISTASO: General Clark, earlier this month you said that if elected, there will be no more 9/11s in the United States. Then you scaled back, saying no one can guarantee anything in life. Some might say that leaves a little bit of an air of inconsistency in your positions. What exactly at this point are you guaranteeing along those lines?

CLARK: What I'm saying is I believe President Bush must be held accountable.

Before 9/11, he did not do everything he could have done to keep this country safe. After 9/11, he took us to a war we didn't have to fight and Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida is still going strong. We were at terrorist condition orange.

As president of the United States, my top priority will be to keep America safe. We're going to go after the terrorist networks. We're going to go after Osama bin Laden. We are not going to live in fear in this country. And we'll use all the resources of the United States -- international law, diplomacy, allies, economics and military force, if necessary -- to keep this country safe.

DISTASO: General, a top priority -- sure, that's everyone's top priority. That's a far cry, some might say, from a guarantee. So...

CLARK: I never used the word "guarantee." I never said that, John.

DISTASO: What did you say?

CLARK: What I said was that the president had been saying that the attack at 9/11 could not have been prevented, and that further attacks were inevitable.

I consider the statement that the attack at 9/11 could not have been prevented as an excuse to cover the fact that this administration didn't do everything they could have done.

CLARK: And I consider their statement that further attacks on the United States are inevitable as an excuse to cover for the fact that they are today not doing everything they could do to keep America safe. And that's wrong, that's why I'm running and that's what I'll fix.

[Tom Rinaldo]

104. My Reply Part 3

First let me preface this by saying that I am generally very positive about FAIR. I have a personal friend who does work for them. FAIR founder Jeff Cohen comes up to my part of the woods with some regularity, I've been at several meetings with him and a I have a personally autographed copy from him of "Cable News Confidential", which is a great book. Having said that, no one gets it completely right all of the time, and they didn't with Clark this time.

The surest sign of an attempt to smear General Wesley Clark "from the left" is the painstakingly cut up and reassembled way in which some of his critics attempt to present the comments Wes Clark made in the London Times on April 10th 2003. The fact that every comment that Clark made in that Op-Ed that points out the problems with Bush's Iraq policy are surgically removed, often to the ludicrous extent of joining together phrases seperated by 13 paragraphs of text through the magic of three dots (such as... this) should be all the evidence needed to make anyone suspicious that the material being quoted from is being manipulated to fit someone's covert agenda. FAIR wasn't the source for the Frankenstein's monster version of Clark's Op-Ed, but they obviously ran with it here.

This comment is simply a flat out wrong assertion of an opinion:

"After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate"

And my above assertion is easily backed up simply by reading from the full source material that allegedly shows that Clark lost all qualms about the wisdom of the war. It is the absolutely most simple fact check one should always do if one is seeking Fairness and Accuracy In the Media, but F.A.I.R. didn't even bother to do that simplest of steps here.

First they extracted and commented on this from Clark:

"Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

Let me point out for starters that Clark's qualms never included any doubt that the U.S. military could invade and depose Hussein, that was never in question for Clark. What was in question for him was the wisdom of doing so, not our ability to do so. That is a classic bait and switch against Clark, implying his praise of a military strategy somehow shows he wavored on his opinion of going to war in the first place. Whether or not Clark had earlier expressed doubt about a certain military tactic is not the point to FAIR's piece and they know it. The point of the artical was to question whether Clark opposed invading Iraq when we did, not to go over Clark's expressed opinions on how such an invasion would best be managed if launched.

But that is the least of FAIR's inaccuracy here. What follows is a horrible job of cut and paste editing to create a wildly distorted image. Let's look at what FAIR chose not to quote, shall we? Like the sentance immediately following "Already the scent of victory is in the air" which just so happens to be "Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph." What's that? Do I detect an unreported qualm? In fact FAIR chose to look right past the next two paragraphs (numbers two and three of Clark's Op-Ed, which go on to detail with amazing foresight the problems that lay ahead for Bush's occupation of Iraq:

"In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people."

How does FAIR square those concerns from Clark with the subjective bias of their reporting? How do those statements support their assertion that "After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate"? They simply don't, that's how. They obvioulsy assume that the reader doesn't have access to the full original piece. Maybe they never looked at the full original piece themselves, which really would be unforgivable from an organization like FAIR that prides itself on accuracy and fairness.

FAIR fast forwards through Clark's Op-Ed piece to next cite this quote from it:

"Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights."

OK, lets rewind their tape a bit. What did they skip right over that directly preceded that comment by Clark? Here it is in it's full original context:

"As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.

Now the bills must be paid, amid the hostile image created in many areas by the allied action. Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come — effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns. Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights."

How can anyone defend such clearly biased selective editing as "fair"? Remember all of these quotes from F.A.I.R were stitched together to support their bold assertion that Clark lost all qualms about the Iraq invasion. So of course they had to ignore the part of Clark's Op-Ed where he said the folowing, becauase they disprove the contention that they were making:

"The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West.

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns."

Clark's Op-Ed was full of dire warnings about what could easily go wrong, and Clark was saying this at at time when other leading Democrats inside the United States, like John Edwards, were still saying that the United States was right to invade Iraq, and were still viewing it as a total victory; Mission Accomplished.

And nothing could be more blatently intentionally misleading than F.A.I.R. making this claim:

"Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."

It nicely helped F.A.I.R. make its intended point to say Clark closed his piece that way, the only problem though is that it isn't true. Here is how Clark actually closed his Op-Ed:

"Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats."

Clark closed his piece by saying "Mission Not Accomplished" after presenting a two page shopping list of qualms about the Bush invasion of Iraq. FAIR's piece was nothing more than a subjective opinion piece using the tools of progaganda. They should be embarassed by it.

Clark is right about U.S. military power in a straight out simple war where the objective is to defeat an enemy in battle. But Clark was never warning about a U.S. lack of military superiority. He was warning about the lack of a sane U.S. foreign policy, and the dangers that presents America with in the world, where the objective can't simply be deposing a foreign head of state and calling that a mission accomplished.

[Clark2008]

29. No one's saying that, though, because everyone knows that

our future - the Iraqi's future - depends on the stability of the region.

That said - it's a crying shame that Shrub got us in this mess to begin with - and Wes was foresquare against that.

[Sparkly]

41. Which potential candidate do you support?

Which one is saying "troops out now?"

(Or are they ALL "pro-war?")

[noamnety]

44. missing the point.

If we continue to support candidates who want to stay in Iraq for longer than two more years (!), given that the election is in 2008, then we should expect a slate of candidates that continue to run Iraq and the US into the ground.

If we flat out reject anyone that can't form the words "Troops Out Now" then other candidates will find an opening.

[Sparkly]

45. "other candidates" such as whom? nt

[noamnety]

50. MISSING THE POINT

If your school cafeteria only offers deep fried twinkies or twinkies still in their wrappers, you could go back day after day and keep eating twinkies.

Or you can demand they offer some healthier options.

[Sparkly]

61. I get the point.

If your school cafeteria only offers varieties of Twinkies, you can stomp your foot really hard and yell, "Give me something else!"

"What do you want?"

"You're missing the point! Something else!"

"Like what, for example!"

"MISSING THE POINT! Something else!"

Eight years later, you've kicked holes in the floor and pounded the walls to the brick, and you've starved yourself to death.

Meanwhile, the school menu reads: "Deep Fried Twinkies or Deep Fried Ho-Ho's. Beverage: Melted Lard."

YOU'RE missing the point: if you don't have healthy, viable options to propose, quit pounding the walls.

[noamnety]

63. I know what I wouldn't do.

What I WOULDN'T do is start a promotional campaign saying how great one of the twinkie options is. Would you?

The cafeteria wasn't just a metaphor. Two years ago, the cafeteria where I work served crap. Not quite deep fried twinkies, but barely a step up from that.

Last year, I took it over. No chicken nuggets were served. Not one french fry. Fresh bread, fresh salad bar, homemade soups replaced that crap. Your solution seems to be shut up and eat the twinkies or starve. That's not good enough. It's good enough if it's 5 minutes before mealtime, but we are TWO YEARS before mealtime here. Come on.

If we refuse to support the pretend peace advocates who flash the peace sign while signing orders to send more troops to Iraq, they will not have the support to run. Other candidates would appear within the next two years. Kind of like Lamont, though he didn't win in the end - it's not enough to say our only choice is Lieberman. First we need a groundswell of vocal disapproval. Then other candidates will see they have a chance.

It's kind of like alternative energy. If you keep buying gas guzzling SUV's, the auto companies don't have much motivation to start producing alternative vehicles, do they?

We need some alternatives. Something other than Lieberman, who doesn't want to "stay the course" but wants to stay in Iraq until some ill-defined shifting moment that may never come, something other than Clark, who doesn't want to "stay the course" but wants to stay in Iraq until some ill-defined shifting moment that may never come.

They're both good on some social issues. They both want to stay in Iraq. Where is my lentil soup? I don't know yet, and I'm okay saying that, but I know I'm not interested in eating any more twinkies.

[Sparkly]

70. "start a promotional campaign saying how great one of the twinkie options is"

That's not an honest argument if you're talking about the General.

[Jai4WKC08]

75. I wish you'd quit lying about Clark

Now you're saying his position on the war is identical to Lieberman's? You've just made a complete joke of any legitimate concern you may have had.

Altho, to be truthful, you really lost it with your twinkie option. Sad.

[noamnety]

102. If you have a problem comparing Clark to Lieberman, tell it to Clark

HOLLYWOOD, Fla., Sept. 18 -- Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he "probably" would have voted for the congressional resolution last fall authorizing war, as he charged out into the presidential campaign field with vague plans to fix the economy and the situation in Iraq.

Clark said his views on the war resemble those of Democratic Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.), both of whom voted for the war but now question President Bush's stewardship of the Iraqi occupation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32450-2003Sep18?language=printer

[Jai4WKC08]

123. Now see? That's exactly what we've been talking about

You have taken two sentences completely out of context, cherry-picked them so to speak, to make it sound like they mean something they do not.

Your first quote has nothing to do with Lieberman (but in any case has been explained many times to be an inaccurate account of what was said).

Your second quote PURPOSLY leaves out the very next sentence, which disproves your premise. I can only conclude you deliberately intend to deceive.

Here's the entire paragraph:
"Clark said his views on the war resemble those of Democratic Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.), both of whom voted for the war but now question President Bush's stewardship of the Iraqi occupation. 'That having been said, I was against the war as it emerged because there was no reason to start it when we did. We could have waited,' Clark said during a 75-minute session with four reporters."

I would also point out that the ONE candidate in 2003 who jumped with both feet into this reporting to use it against Clark was none other than Lieberman himself. How ironic that, in his senate campaign this fall, he would use almost the exact same words to attack Ned Lamont.

[karynnj]

85. Clark was one of FEW Democrats that worked extremely

hard AGAINST Lieberman. The Dkos diary by a Lamont insider identified him as one of the two rock stars in terms of helping Lamont.

My guess is that if Clark (like Kerry) became President, he would be able to sufficiently change things in a way that would quickly improve the situation. Thinking that things would get bad at the rate that they have under Bush, if Clark were President is neither fair or likely. As Kerry seemed to suggest in 2004, a new leader could immediately change things just because as he is NOT Bush, he might get some leverage initially from people who are hoping for things to get better.

[snowbear]

86. Ahhhh, gimme' a freak'n break lwfern...

Who the hell do you want for prez, Cheech?!?



The good General will do an awesome job. The good General actually has a PLAN ... and the good General can WIN!

~~~~~~~~~~

[LittleClarkie]

133. He's married

I'd hate for the missus to beat me up.

[JeffR]

16. There's much to like about Clark

but this post is a bit much, IMO. Thanks, anyway.

[skipos]

17. Clark's biggest challenge is in the primary. Dem voters seem to love senators

despite the fact that only 2 senators have been elected president in the last century.

I think Clark would do well in the gen. election.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. If Bobby Kennedy hadn't been shot

And Gary Hart hadn't been ruined with a sex scandal, that number would be up to 4. Parties nominate the wrong senators.

[tkmorris]

71. That's an excellent point

And I just want to say that I think Gary Hart was the best presidential candidate I have seen in at least 30 years. We really really missed out on what would have been an outstanding president.

[GOPBasher]

19. I agree; that's what I said in 2004. n/t

[JNelson6563]

21. On another board where there are activists

a poster said something like this: Sitting around dreaming about 08 is for lightweights. Now is the time to get busy building local parties, organizing precincts and other important stuff.

I must say, reading this OP really drove that point home to me.

Julie

[xkenx]

23. Well Julie, since neither you nor MSM likes Wes Clark,

I figured he could use some more ammunition for his supporters to help spread the word. All the potential candidates are gearing up for 2008, so why not Clark supporters if that's what we choose to do? We're all here to see the best Dems. elected everywhere, so please don't characterize the chosen work of others as "lightweight" just because it differs from you. Considering that you consistently flame Clark, your bias is well-known.

[JNelson6563]

24. Put up or shut up

Show me where I have one time flamed Clark. Show me or shut the fuck up with the whining.

Let me save you some trouble, I haven't flamed on Clark, as I actually kinda like the guy. Sadly his more zealous supporters are too busy trying to come up with new and fresh ways to make him seem relevent that building powerbases at the local level seems to not show up on the radar. Of course it's a lot more fun and easy to post crap on DU that are obvious attempts to make him seem relevant and popular that it is to get out there and build from the ground up.

But don't worry bunky. If Clark gets the nom he'll have a better shot at the WH thanks to the work of the lowly foot soldiers you have no use for.

Julie--marvelling at what passes for "activism" in the minds of many

[xkenx]

25. My, defensive, aren't we?

I sure don't spend my time saving your anti-Clark posts, of which there are many, so I can't re-post them. Why don't you worry about what you do, as opposed to attacking what others choose to do? And since you seem to need very badly to have the last word, I promise to not respond to your next retaliation.

[JNelson6563]

30. I didn't think so

All my "anti-Clark posts" you cite but cannot produce. Isn't there a rule here at DU about slandering other DUers? I realize many rules have disappeared but surely that one is still in place?

Julie---seeing it's gonna be a long primary season with the narrow minded hero worshipping zealots

[Le Taz Hot]

76. May I just say, JN

Exactly, and I mean EXACTLY correct.

:applause: :woohoo:

[Tom Rinaldo]

78. Best to know what one is talking about before cheering

I work full time yet I spent 5 full days campaigning (yes, on the ground) in Congressional Districts outside of my own for Democrats seeking to defeat Republican incumbants in 2006 (one won, one lost). Since it just so happens that I am "a Clarkie", I am friends with quite a few of the other Clark supporters who regularly post on this and other internet sites. Guess what? Most of them also spent time "on the ground" working on behalf of candidates in 2006, both in and outside of districts they resided in. Not to mention making thousands of calls, phone banked on behalf of other Democrats. Grassroots Clark supporters gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to 2006 candidates also

Julie walks the walk as well as talks the talk, I know she is involved on the ground for the Democratic Party. My only quarrel with her is that she seems to have a fixation on only lecturing Clark supporters on DU about the need to organize in the field, and not just haunt virtual reality, with nary a scolding word said to the people here who continually post for Gore, for Edwards, for Obama, for Kerry, or for any other potential 2008 Presidential candidate.

But like Wes Clark, Clarkies threw themselves into working for Democrats in 2006 all across the country this year. NOT only on the internet. The only other group of Democratic activists who can trace their intitial involvement in nuts and bolts work on behalf of Democratic candidates for offices at all levels to their initially supporting a Democrat for President, who can hold a candle to Clark supporters as a group, in my opinion, are the activists who initially came together behind Howard Dean and went on to form Democracy for America. They have continued to do excellent work and my hat, were I to wear one in the first place, would continually be off to those men and women.

You are barking and whooping up the wrong tree if you think Clark supporters are not out there in the districts working to get Democrats elected. I can only hope, given your expressed attitude, that you are out there with us doing so.

[MODemocrat]

31. Clark has all that, plus he's intelligent, dignified & easy on the eyes

Every day of my life, I like the General just a little more than the day before. He's working non-stop for the Democratic Party, and his country. He does have it all, and sure do hope he has a good run at the presidency. We need him desperately. :bounce: :thumbsup: :loveya:

[cali]

32. I have no problem with Clark.

In fact, I like him, and I'll be interested to see if he can make a credible run, but frankly, I find this kind of adulation of any politician, kinda sickening.

[xkenx]

33. When you've finally been inspired by a public figure like RFK inspired us,

and you want to get that message out, and you think it's a positive for Dems., why call it adulation because we finally get a chance to turn to a person of honor and integrity? I was jaded about whether we would ever have someone who fit our loftiest ideals. The more that people can recognize Wes Clark for what he is, I'll gladly accept any hero-worshipping charge.

[bigriver]

37. Bobby was an Attorney General and an elected senator.

He busted organized crime and was an important cog for his bro's administration.

What has Clark done to deserve such adulation?

What has he done, period, other than killing people?

[Jai4WKC08]

47. Ask the Kosovars. n/t

[bigriver]

51. Ask the Chinese embassy.

Oh, the Kosovars can't vote in US elections, in case you don't know.

[Jai4WKC08]

57. You asked what he had done

Saving a million and a half people is something whether they can vote here or not.

Were there people killed in the process? Yes, of course. That's war. The Chinese embassy was a tragic accident. Those happen in war too. Ask Clark about the cluster bombs that fell in a school yard. That is the incident that haunts him most.

But the fact is, every possible precaution was taken, and all targets were cleared thru the NATO legal system. The UN war crimes tribunal absolved Clark of any wrong-doing -- it's significant in itself that he submitted himself to their review. Human Rights Watch estimates that approximately 500 civilians total were killed during the war. And since you seem to care more about people who vote here, not ONE American died in combat. That's not a bad record.

It's not all Clark has done, by the way. He's done a helluva lot more. But I was getting ready to eat dinner and had to keep it short.

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. I saw Clark speak about that school yard, Jai

It was at a vets event he attended in New Jersey while he was there to campaign for Paul Aronsohn for Congress. I wrote about it at the time. Here are the passages that describe that story:

"General Clark told the crowd that in Israel, every single vet returning from a combat deployment is automatically assigned a mental health professional who will provide extensive personal counseling to them if needed. He made a real point of saying, this isn’t the same as giving a soldier a reminder that your wife has probably taken on more responsibility for the family while you were gone, so don’t be surprised if she wants to chose the restaurant you go to that night. General Clark is so completely genuine in his concern that the men and women who sacrifice their freedom and risk their lives to protect our nation must be given whatever they need to heal their lives in the aftermath of conflict. This crowd knew that, and they listened in deep silence as he recalled meeting the parents of an Iraq Vet who recently committed suicide because he was haunted by the death in combat of his closest friend and guilt that he couldn’t prevent it. Clark commented, “If you ever see people in that much pain, you will do just about anything to help them.”

General Clark spoke of the mental stress he experienced himself for years in the aftermath of the combat wounds he suffered in Viet Nam, while acknowledging that his own case was a mild one. That struck home for me, but I found myself overwhelmingly moved when General Clark recalled an experience he had as N.A.T.O. Supreme Commander during the air war in Kosovo. As I listened I remembered that I had heard this outline before, but this time, standing in front of a crowd of mostly Veterans, there was a little more detail, and a feeling of intimacy that had me riveted. General Clark started by saying this about when he commanded the air campaign against Serbia; “I believe every human life is precious, and I knew when I was doing the bombing in Serbia – I went to bed praying we wouldn’t kill innocent people.”

Clark recalled a specific accident of War, a mechanical malfunction that affected one bombing mission. He described it in detail, he has it all etched into his memory, exactly how the bomb didn’t operate as designed, how targeting failed, the means by which the bomb “broke”, all the where and whys, and exactly what happened as a result. A cluster bomb designed to explode at 200 feet above a military target instead exploded more than a thousand feet above a school yard, and innocent children died. Wes Clark told this crowd I sat in that somehow, by some means that he can’t explain to this day, a Serbian grandfather of one of the children killed managed to get a personal letter delivered to him. “I got a letter from a Serbian grandfather. He said ‘You killed my granddaughter and I will never forget you, and I will kill you for it.’ And I don’t know how I got that letter during a War, but I’ve thought about that a lot, and prayed for forgiveness a lot.”

Wes Clark knows about War, and he despises what happens in War, it holds no glory for him, it can never be more than a lesser evil at best. That is Clark will do everything he can to avoid having our military fight a war unless it is absolutely essential that it be fought. Unlike the chicken hawk civilians in the current Bush Administration.

[RDU Socialist]

38. there is absolutely NO candidate who can avoid being swiftboated

if you honestly believe that Clark won't be swiftboated then you're delusional. Shit they'd probably go out and claim he personally demanded that the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia be bombed by NATO forces. Nobody's perfect.

[xkenx]

48. Of course they'll try to swift boat Clark, but

they won't succeed because they will have no credibility against this guy, and Clark will hand them a General Smackdown when they try.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[Sparkly]

67. "our islmofacist friends?"

Huh? :eyes:

[Odin2005]

68. Clark wold be better as the Sec. of Def. for President Gore, but he would be a fine prez nonetheless

[zann725]

72. I agree...partly, Clark WOULD make a better Sec. of Defense.

THAT's his strength, his background. Of course he also has charisma of Prez. candidate, but his best "positioning" IS using his Military experience IN a Sec. of Defense position.

The Prez. I personally would prefer see him serving would be Kerry. That would be my FIRST choice, but Gore is certainly a viable option, I could accept, if Kerry doesn't make it to the "finals."

[Jai4WKC08]

74. Except he can't be Sec of Defense

Not in the next administration anyway. Not until the summer of 2010.

Not that that it matters. Clark's breadth of experience makes him overqualified for the position in any case. He's BEST qualified to make the Dept of Defense, State, Homeland Security, and all the others work together.

[LWolf]

77. Some good things there.

Not all of those things are essential. I don't care one way or another about "southern," "non-senator," or "gun owner/hunter,"for example. Others are deal breakers.

These are the deal-breakers for me:

"scripture-quoting, war hero, 4-star general, who conducted the highest level diplomacy, won a war"

Scripture quoting gives me the creeps, and I don't want to hear it from the commander in chief of the U.S. Leave the scripture quoting in church and at home; keep it out of government.

A war hero, etc.? I know there are many who support this view. I also know there are many who were actually involved in areas of conflict with him that do not. I have a family member who was in Kosovo; that's just anecdotal evidence, but many of the people serving did not appreciate the general's work. Some more prominent folks spoke up about it when he was campaigned as a possible '04 candidate. You can google it if you want; it takes me 30 seconds or so to find high-level people who don't exactly revere his military record.

Regardless, I don't want a military man in the WH. I don't see military action as an appropriate way to solve international crises, and I don't want the guy who wrote "Waging Modern War" as president. If war is unavoidable, then the WH can call on him if the president thinks he is an expert. I don't want to start with that mindset, though. I want a nation whose focus is on waging modern peace, and I don't believe that peace is achieved through war.

"Flipping red states?" He might get some of the Republican vote, to be sure. I don't think he'll get much of the independent vote. I know more independents than I do Democrats, having been one myself for almost 30 years, and none of them are Clark fans. I'm not really interested in winning by choosing candidates that appeal to republicans. If I wanted the country to appeal to republicans, I'd be one.

I'm glad Clark and I agree on some of the issues, although I don't know that we agree on how to achieve them. I welcome him as part of a solution. He might make a good Secretary of Defense, if he can shift his focus from waging modern war to defending. I see defense of the nation and waging war as two different things, personally.

He is not, in any sense of the word, a "dream candidate" for the presidency.

[xkenx]

79. I guess I wasn't clear enough in my OP

Too much shorthand from me. I'll try to amplify.
I regard Wes Clark as sort of a reverse of "Wolf-in-sheep's-clothing." in that he is an anti-war progressive who is seen by large slices of the country as a tough hombre because of his 4 star general's uniform. Many people in red states will vote for him because of that. He does nothing to TRY to appeal to Republicans. They'll just vote for him as a strong-on-national-defense moderate. There are many here, myself included, who never imagined that we'd support a military man. We just came to learn that the military prepared Clark for executive leadership positions, but that Clark, who saw war firsthand, espouses diplomacy, cooperation, building friendships first, and war as only, only, only a last resort. He is even less likely to push war than many Dems. who did not serve, because those Dems. must posture toughness, lest they be smeared by Rethugs. as weak on terror. When the general speaks about war as a last resort, people listen.
I mention scripture quoting, not that that is Clark's M.O., but that he CAN quote scripture in the political sense so that voters who are religious do not feel uncomfortable with him. Clark is very much for separation of church and state. Yet he is knowledgeable enough to have chastised the fundies for not paying attention to the real Jesus' teachings.
As for military people disliking Clark, yes no one will be approved by 100%, but most of that stuff was campaign smears (Gen. Shelton, an advisor to John Edwards, who recanted his comments during Milosevic's trial at The Hague). While NATO commander, Clark had "Head of State" status, for the military, meaning that he dealt personally with the European presidents and prime ministers. It is said that it's hard enough for a few close friends to choose a restaurant for dinner, yet Clark exercised the diplomacy necessary to get all 19 member nations to sign off on all military operations in the Balkans. Ask the Kosovar Albanians (Muslims by the way) who were saved from ethnic cleansing about Clark. They've named a street after him. And, by the way, Clark was virtually the only voice urging intervention in Rwanda in the mid-90s. Not exactly a politically adept move for a military general, but a principled one.
So your stereotype of the military general needs some revisiting.
For more, take a look at Tom Rinaldo's posts on the subject; he is much more eloquent than I, and has done a lot of homework.

[LWolf]

81. I don't have a stereotype of the military general.

My remarks are specific to Clark. Based on his record, from the perspective of some who served under him and some other military leaders who didn't agree with some of his decisions when it counted. Also based on what he chose to write his book about, which is an honest reflection of his perspective, from my point of view.

I don't dislike General Clark. I just see more than one side of his record, see his experience from a different perspective, and don't think he's a good choice for the President of the U.S.. :shrug:

[Jai4WKC08]

89. Sure you do

You wrote, "Regardless (of his record), I don't want a military man in the WH."

That one sentence says it all.

[LWolf]

90. Yes. It says that I want a different mindset.

Whether the career military man sees military action as a legitimate tool, or as a last resort, I want someone whose career is focused, not on how to wage war, but how to wage peace. I don't mean the current "war=peace" bullshit, either.

That's not a stereotype; it's a simple opinion, if you must. The opinion that those who choose military careers, not those who chose to serve for a term, spend their lives thinking about, training for, and enacting military plans. It's what they are best trained for, and their is an important place for them. Not as the leader of the nation, though. I'd like the leader of the nation to have spent a lifetime training for how to accomplish things without combat.

[Jai4WKC08]

91. Oh, it's a stereotype alright

Any time you assume someone has any sort of "mindset" based on their profession, you are applying a stereotype. And a rather bigotted one at that.

Do you honestly think those of us with military careers only know how to accomplish things with combat? Think we duke it out for command billets? Maybe we swagger in to civilian offices and threaten to beat up anyone who doesn't give us what we want for our units or our operations? Or that we make our kids and spouses low-crawl with a bayonet between their teeth to the base schools and hospitals?

Military officers are just as varied in the way we function and view the world and in our hopes and aspirations and beliefs as any other group of individuals. There is no such thing as a military mindset.

[LWolf]

94. Ok. If you say so.

In that case, perhaps everyone has a stereotypical ideal of what they want, and don't want, in a leader.

Are there any military officers who would never touch a weapon, never fight, never order a soldier into combat, never send a bomb, never take any of the actions I don't want to take? Or is that a stereotype, too?

I don't know. I do know that the OP described what people want to "see" in a president. I disagreed with a small part of that description. I still do. A circular argument about the outlook of military personnel doesn't change that. I love some soldiers; they are my family and friends. I'm pretty familiar with their world view. I understand their perspective, I respect them, and I'd call on them anytime their skills were needed. I wouldn't vote for them to be president, though.

[Jai4WKC08]

97. No, not everyone

Not if you mean the military part. I could easily see myself supporting someone who has never been in the military. And while the military is where Clark got some of the attributes which make him a good leader in my eyes, it's not the military per se that does it for me. It's at least conceivable he could have gotten those same attributes somewhere else.

Not sure it matters, but I see an incredible contradiction in your willingness to have a president call on someone like Clark "when (his) skills are needed," and your assertion that you don't want a military guy in the White House because he wouldn't be someone "who would never touch a weapon, never fight, never order a soldier into combat, never send a bomb." :shrug:

Personally, I am 100% convinced that Clark is less likely to order a military action than ANY possible president who hasn't served that we're likely to get. There may be a few who value peace more (or at least as much), but they can't get elected.

[LWolf]

101. I'll explain, and acknowledge:

The explanation: I think we should call on experts for specific purposes. That's why I think Clark might make a good Secretary of Defense, for example.

I think the president of the U.S. faces a very broad range of issues and conflicts to deal with, and that only a very small fraction of those will ever require military action. I'd like the president's area of expertise to fall in a broader area. I'd like a president who would never consider any military action unless U.S. soil was under direct attack.

I didn't say that I "don't want a military guy in the White House because he wouldn't be someone "who would never touch a weapon, never fight, never order a soldier into combat, never send a bomb."

That was in response to the assertion offered that military officers don't fit a stereotype.

I will acknowledge that some people who have seen combat are the most likely to want to avoid it, and who may value peace above and beyond the norm. They have the best reasons to.

I know that Clark supporters are convinced; I'm not. I know some other potential candidates I think are better choices. Still, my response was to the OP, asking about what I wanted to "see" in a president. While the OP was obviously campaigning Clark, my response did not deal with him directly, but with the list of things people want to "see." I agreed with most, disagreed with just a couple. I still disagree. :shrug:

[Jai4WKC08]

87. Name me some names

You say you can find "high-level people who don't exactly revere his military record" in a 30-second google search.

I call bullshit.

I can count on one hand the number of general officers who criticized Clark during his 04 campaign and were wiling to give their names in doing so. Note that no one had before he ran, nor have they since.

Two were working for other campaigns -- Shelton and McPeak (the latter never even knew Clark). One initially backed up Shelton, but retracted his support when he found out about Shelton's politics, saying he didn't know Clark either -- Schwartzkopf. One was the CENTCOM commander who conducted the war that Clark spent so much time criticizing -- Franks. One was a 3-star who was passed over for SOUTHCOM command when it was given to Clark -- I cant remember the name, but I remember that he gave it -- but he never said anything bad that didn't relate to their professional competition.

Conversely, I could list for you dozens and dozens of "high-level people," from both the military and the State dept, one from the UN, who endorsed Clark and/or had nothing but the best to say about him. And they weren't afraid to let their names be used. Not to mention the thousands of us who were Veterans for Clark who worked for him or with or in support of him sometime in our military careers.

You say you have a familiy member who was in Kosovo who didn't like him. Fine. So what? I'm sure there are many who didn't. I never had a commander that everyone liked. But I'd say Clark is right up there among the most popular commanders I've seen in action.

Sorry, but I don't buy your argument about independents either. If Clark appeals to moderate Repubs, he will appeal to those independents who are between the two parties, and that's the vast majority of 'em.

Finally, it's is absolutely ABSURD to think that, just because Clark's two books have "Modern War" in their titles, he has some sort of "mindset" which considers "military action as an appropriate way to solve international crises." NOTHING could be further from the truth. Which you would know if you had actually read the books. Altho on second thought... I gotta say, the superficiality of yout judgment on his books is kind of the same as your judgment on Clark as a man. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[LWolf]

103. Some of them are probably those same general officers.

I noticed that you didn't name them, either.

I'll name a few: Tommy Franks. Hugh Shelton. William Cohen.

I won't quote them, or go any further with it though. As I've pointed out repeatedly, the point of my response to the original OP was to comment on what I want to "see" in a president, agreeing with most, disagreeing on a couple of points. The point was not to bash Clark, or to engage in a long, drawn out debate or argument about Clark's merits or drawbacks. I'm not going to do that. :shrug:

[Jai4WKC08]

116. Didn't name them? WTF!

Here's what I wrote, word for word, but with bold added:

I can count on one hand the number of general officers who criticized Clark during his 04 campaign and were wiling to give their names in doing so. Note that no one had before he ran, nor have they since.

Two were working for other campaigns -- Shelton and McPeak (the latter never even knew Clark). One initially backed up Shelton, but retracted his support when he found out about Shelton's politics, saying he didn't know Clark either -- Schwartzkopf. One was the CENTCOM commander who conducted the war that Clark spent so much time criticizing -- Franks. One was a 3-star who was passed over for SOUTHCOM command when it was given to Clark -- I cant remember the name, but I remember that he gave it -- but he never said anything bad that didn't relate to their professional competition.

As you can see, I named every single general except one, and I explained who he was in enough detail you would know it was him if you found the report. I could probably look up his name (so could you) but it really doesn't matter. You should notice that the two generals you name are included. Cohen doesn't count -- h was never a general. He was the REPUBLICAN senator Clinton made his Sec of Defense, and it's actually proof that Clark was fighting the good fight that Cohen opposed him.

Trust me, those are the ONLY names you'll find if you google for weeks. You might find something second-hand from a 3-star named Paul Funk, but it was later determined he was misquoted. So don't go trying to imply there are others, because there weren't. And every last swingin' one of them had a political reason for what he said. Shelton even admitted as much. This is something I followed very very closely during the campaign.

It pisses me off when people claim or try to imply that Clark had more enemies in the service than is normal any successful commander. It's swiftboating, pure and simple, whether it comes from the GOP or within the Democratic Party.

[ecstatic]

84. He won points in the "Because of Iraq" commercial

He looked authoritative, in control, strong, smart... Everything we need. I admit, I do not have a history of trusting Wes Clark but over the past year I've grown to respect him tremendously. I think he is one of our best choices right now.

[Auntie Bush]

88. We have one who looks just like that. His name is WES CLARK.

And he can beat the sh*t out of anyone that trys to swiftboat him.
The man has plenty of metals and golden balls!

Hey, it's Christmas! We can use more of them!

[Tiggeroshii]

99. Wes Clark is no Bobby Kennedy

At least as far as I can see. Kennedy had charisma, Wes Clark doesn't. Clark is very dismal in the politican ability area. Obama seems to be the inspirational, pro life, pro choice, pro gay candidate.

[Sapphocrat]

109. How is Obama "pro-gay"?

This reflects my take, as a gay person, on Obama:

<snip>

"I was reminded that it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided," Obama wrote in his recent memoir, "The Audacity of Hope."

But Obama's audacity is not only his unwillingness to support the issue, but also his misunderstanding and misuse of the term "gay marriage." The terminology "gay marriage" not only stigmatizes and stymies our efforts for marriage equality, but it also suggests that LGBTQ people's marriages are or would be wholly different from those of heterosexuals, thus altering its landscape, if not annihilating the institution of marriage entirely.

<snip>

But he ought to know, as a civil rights attorney, that granting LGBTQ Americans only the right to civil union violates our full constitutional rights as well as reinstitutionalizes the 1896 U.S. Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson. As a result of that case, the "separate but equal" doctrine became the rule of law until it was struck down in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.

<snip>

Although not a cradle Christian, Christianity became Obama's newfound religious identity late in his life. And his affinity to conservative Christian beliefs not only informs his decision on the issue of marriage equality, but it also solidifies his decision about us in a community of believers like himself.

<snip>

Obama's "The Audacity of Hope" is not a must read for LGBTQ voters, because he fails to fully comprehend or sincerely commit to the issue of social justice for all Americans. He does not tackle head-on how the religious rhetoric of this political era has played an audacious role in discrimination against LGBTQ people, leaving us with little to no hope, his rhetoric included.

<snip>

More:
http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=Op&article_code=2885

Being pro-civil unions -- a handy non-decision for those who want to appease the center-right without completely alienating the left -- only means he is not anti-gay; it does not mean he is pro-gay, by a long shot.

I'll be fair: Marriage equality is not the be-all and end-all of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans (although if it became a reality, it would take care of more than a thousand other rights that go hand-in-hand with marriage). But if Obama wants to convince me that his commitment to justice comes before his faith, and that his occasional toss of a bone isn't done solely to keep himself from being viewed as an overly religious conservative Democrat, then let's see his enthusiastic and unapologetic support for some other issues near and dear to our hearts: ENDA, DADT, immigration, etc., etc. -- all the rights heterosexuals take for granted, which are inaccessible to us.

[xkenx]

111. Wes Clark, in an act of incredible political courage,

appeared on the cover of the Advocate during the '04 primary season.

[Radical Activist]

119. Looks like spin

I see two things in what you quoted. First, he is saying that he feels obligated as a Christian to remain open to the idea of gay marriage. That's a pretty daring statement and one that challenges the christian right.

In the other quotes I see him saying that civil unions are unconstitutional. That we would have to have full gay marriage, not a civil union with only partial rights. That sounds like a good thing to me.

The way those quotes were spun makes me think the author has an axe to grind. Just because Obama says he is Christian and talks about his faith doesn't mean he hates gay people, and that seems to be the only misguided criticism that author of that article has. Prejudice against all Christians is no better than prejudice againsts all gay people.

[Radical Activist]

120. Obama was a sponsor of the gay rights bill in Illinois

It falls far short of providing gay marriage but it was the first major step Illinois took in protecting the rights of the GLBT community. I'd say that's pretty pro-gay.

[xkenx]

110. Then you haven't seen Clark in action

other than, perhaps, brief interviews where he's asked for his professional opinion. Here's how my wife and I becames Clark supporters:
I was a Kerry supporter prior to Clark's entry into the race, for all the usual reasons--Vietnam vet, good Progressive, lots of exprerience, etc. I felt he was doing well in early debates, but my wife said "Not so fast; Kerry sounds like he's lecturing, talking over people's heads, just not connecting with people." Once we started to notice Wes Clark, it turned to "OH MY GOD! THIS MAN HAS IT" (the indefinable "IT" that you know when you see it). The absolute clincher was Clark's first town hall meeting in Heniker, NH right after the first debate that he was in. That meeting was shown only on CSPAN, and it is since gone from the archives. The man was amazing, a political neophyte handling and connecting with the crowd like Bill Clinton. Answering any and all questions with sincerity, knowledge, compassion. I'll never forget a very hostile question from a woman, now retired from the military, who said that she was a victim of abuse in the military and nothing ever happened to the perpetrator, and what would he, General Clark, do about that? The woman was so upset and hostile, she was shaking. Instead of being defensive or blowing her off, he looked her in the eye and apologized for the military for what happened to her. He asked her if she used the chain of command for redress. She said "yes, but," and Clark said "Didn't work, did it?" "No." Clark went on to explain how they worked very hard in his commands for equality of opportunity, equal treatment, no abuse, etc., but understood that there were still problems, and that, as president, he would work hard with the military to correct the deficiencies. He also volunteered to speak privately with the woman after the meeting to learn more about her situation so that he could help. The woman melted before our eyes! I found out afterwards that Clark met privately with her for 20 min. after the town hall and that her complaint was serious--she had been raped. Instances such as this have convinced me that Wes Clark only needs sufficient exposure to have the following to be elected President. Once people get to know this man's intelligence, character, compassion, integrity, and depth of real world experience, they become dedicated Clarkies.
Elizabeth Drew wrote about reporting on a Clark rally in NH just before the primary there. She said that she hadn't seen such charisma and emotional response from the crowd since har coverage of RFK.

[FrenchieCat]

113. Well ya know.....

not all folks have good taste. I'd have to say if you see no charisma in Wes Clark, I'd hate to see how you decorate. Must be badly.

[Tiggeroshii]

114. I suppose there's charisma

But I havne't ever been moved by him. IS there anything particular I should see of him to get this reaction?

[FrenchieCat]

115. I think one needs to understand the charisma of someone who possesses

a lot of knowledge and loves their country more than their love of advancing their own ambitions.

Clark has the charisma of one who lives up to Country, Honor and Duty.

Here's something short, just an ad.....but there's something there that I like very much in reference to how Clark connects......
http://stanforddemocrats.blogspot.com/2006/11/favorite-campaign-commercial.html

Also, there is this:
http://ksgaccman.harvard.edu/iop/events_forum_video.asp?ID=2606

[Jai4WKC08]

128. Just about anything, in my opinion

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, but I appreciate your asking.

If you really go for the big crowd rah-rah stuff, where he connects to large numbers, there's his 2004 convention speech. Most people thought it was better than anyone's except Obama's. I found it on C-SPAN; it's towards the end of the segment that's labeled "Day 4, part 2" (sort of toward the end, right after Biden and before Lieberman, according to the way they list it):
http://www.c-span.org/Search/advanced.asp?AdvancedQueryText=democratic+national+convention&StartDateMonth=&StartDateYear=&EndDateMonth=&QueryTextOptions=&EndDateYear=&ProgramIssue=&Series=&QueryType=&ResultCount=10&SortBy=bestmatch&ResultStart=10

And if you'd like something a little more recent, and probably lots easier to access, he sure had the crowd whipped up in Texas last June:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpMV2G3TajA

Personally, I prefer the smaller, townhall type of meetings, when Clark just gets down with folks, answers their questions, listens to their concerns. He did quite a few of these back during his 2004 campaign. He's done a few since, but they tend to be much smaller affairs and not get captured on video. I've been looking all over and all I can find are the ones you have to buy from the C-SPAN archives. :( Perhaps someone here can suggest something.

[Jai4WKC08]

121. How can you say a thing like that, Tiggeroshii?

Clark has charisma in spades. Whenever and wherever he appears, he literally rocks the house, with one standing ovation after another. You want links to videos? Personal accounts? The statistics about how he was THE most requested campaigner for 2006 candidates?

Would anything convince you?

Look, you can say Clark has no charisma, and that he is "very dismal in the politican ability area" (whatever the hell that means). Maybe you think it's just a matter of opinion, and MAYBE you actually believe it and aren't just using it to justify your support of someone else.

But it's an honest-to-God undeniable FACT, not opinion, that there are many thousands who think he is wildly charismatic. It is my OPINION that, if he decides to run, more people will get to know him and see how charismatic he is, but only time will tell on that account.

In the meantime, for you to state flatly that Clark is not charismatic, when there is SO much evidence to the contrary, is quite frankly incomprehensible, and at some level fundamentally dishonest.

[LittleClarkie]

136. Clark has been steadily improving since 2004

He needed the practice. Don't kid yourself. He will be formidible if he decides to run.

[benEzra]

117. One potential dealbreaker for me...

would be the gun issue. If he renounced the Feinstein ban and took a leave-it-to-the-states position on stuff like that, I'd be for him in a heartbeat, but he had some very harsh things to say about gun-owning nonhunters during the '04 campaign.

That's the one thing I'd like to see him address. Otherwise, he appears to me to be an excellent candidate.

[Radical Activist]

118. can't be swift-boated?

If Clark did win the nomination you'd be in for a rude awakening. There was nothing dishonorable in Kerry's service to our country. Clark's background has nothing to do with whether he will be swift-boated or not. He can be.

And not many people seem to be as inspired by Clark as the devoted few here on DU. The Bobby Kennedy comparison is more applicable to Barack Obama, based on responsiveness from the general public.

[Jai4WKC08]

125. I agree about Kerry's service being honorable

But there is a significant difference between his service and Clark's, and it's simplistic to deny it.

First and foremost, Kerry came back from Vietnam and protested the war. He left some pretty vivid video where he testified to what he'd heard about the terrible things some GIs did, and much like the "botched joke" earlier this month, all that video was easily trimmed down to make it sound like he was personally accusing ALL GIs of terrible things. He also threw away medals, not even his own, and appeared at events with very famous and very much hated anti-war types, like Jane Fonda and the guys who were accused of planning to assassinate government officials. If you didn't live back then, or if you didn't associate with people who supported the war, or were even just ambivalent about it, you have no idea how many moral enemies Kerry made back in those days.

Fwiw, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of the things Kerry actually did or said, and I don't agree with the "guilt by association" that has been used against him. In fact, I very much agree with what Clark said, that if that's how he felt about the war, he had a DUTY to his country to voice his opinions.

What I am saying that these activities make him much more vulnerable to swiftboating than he would have been if he had come home, kept his mouth shut and gone on with his life. It made (and may continute to make in '08 if Kerry runs again) more Vietnam vets WANT to get back at him, even if it means lying, and it made many many more willing to believe whatever lies they heard.

I'm sure that if Clark gets the nomination, in fact, as it grows to appear he has a decent shot at getting the nomination, the swiftboating will start. But I don't believe it'll stick. Not to the same extent did with Kerry. For the reasons I give above, but also for the following:

One, because Clark will be prepared. In fact, I am 100% SURE one of the factors in his decision to run is whether he thinks he can beat the swiftboating he knows will come. One thing he will use is the very network of veterans he put together (along with Kerry, Cleland, Murtha, Webb, Sestack, and all the other fighting Dems) for the express purpose of fighting the swiftboaters in 2006. It'll be stronger still by 2008. But I doubt he'll leave it at that.

Two, becaue Clark will fight back -- hard, fast, and immediate. As we've seen so many times since 2003, Clark just doesn't take shit. Not from the media and not from anyone else. It's as much his nature as it is Kerry's to be cautious and deliberate.

Three, because at least some of the voters are going to be at least a little bit skeptical of swiftboat-like charges after seeing so much of it in 04 and 06. It certainly seemed to carry less weight in 06, but I'll admit that might be because it wasn't a presidential year. I never want to overestimate the common sense of the average American voter.

Finally, and mostly, Clark has so many many more people who know him and his military career than Kerry did.

Kerry was in Vietnam for less than four months. He knew the dozen or so members of his crew, and a handful of other personnel (several of whom ended up being swiftboaters themselves, to include his next higher commander). They had to stand up to over 250 people the GOP rounded up, most of whom didn't even know Kerry over there but just hated him for his protest activity, and who were made to seem like even more by the millions of dollars the GOP poured into the effort. The voters' perceptions were overwhelmed by sheer numbers.

Clark otoh has tens of thousands of veterans to draw upon to attest to the character of his service. His commander in Vietnam actually witnessed the action that won him his Silver Star and is on film describing what happened. His corps (3-star) commander, who just happened to be a very famous WWII vet (James Hollingsworth), is also on record attesting to Clark's valor. And a picture being worth a thousand words, there is this:

You won't see purple band-aids at the 08 RNC if Clark is our nominee.

Then there are the hundreds of his West Point classmates who backed him, many of whom have gone on to great accomplishment within the military -- class of '66 was "the class the stars fell on" because it produced so many general officers. He was #1 in a group of over 500

There was an interview that Brit Hume did with Maj Gen Bob Scales the same day Clark joined the race in Sept 03. Scales had been a Fox news military guy for some time. He's very right-wing and very much a Republican. But he still stood up for Wes Clark, talked about his patriotism and sense of service, no matter how many times Hume tried to lead him into saying something, anything, negative.

Quite honestly, the GOP is not going to be able to come up with much more than they already have, altho I'm sure they'll try, and throw the same money into it, at least until it becomes clear it won't stick. Whoever they may use will be the ones overwhelmed by sheer numbers who will speak the truth about Clark's record.

[Radical Activist]

130. I'm sorry you took the time to write all that.

I hope you cut and pasted it.

The swift-boaters were completely and absolutely discredited and yet the media continued to cover them. Kerry stood up to them. Everyone who served on a boat with Kerry stood up with him. None of that mattered and none of what you wrote will matter with Clark either. You are overly optimistic.

Also, the fact that Clark served with more people will make it easier to find more people with bad things to say about him. I've certainly heard people in the military with less than glowing things to say about him and I don't know that many people in the military. Clark's record and the truth have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Clark's only credentials are his military experience and that will be easy enough to discredit in the minds of many voters. Especially when they're attacking someone who doesn't doesn't have the experience to know what its like to win a campaign.

[Jai4WKC08]

131. Sigh... you always say the same things, RA

And never assimilate new or inconvenient information.

[Radical Activist]

135. I'm always responding to the same points.

I haven't seen anyone type anything new about Clark at DU in three years.

[Jai4WKC08]

138. It may not be new, but it might as well be

Because you refuse to acknowledge it exists.

For example...

Over and over again, people have written (and documented) volumes about Clark's credentials outside the military. Yet you still write, "Clark's only credentials are his military experience..." That's not a matter of opinion, you know. It's just willful ignorance.

And it's not just in this one post, but in almost every Clark-related thread you piss in. Which is most of them. If you really thought he's such a loser, you wouldn't bother to attack him every chance you get. Seems to me a candidate can be ignored if he has zero chance of winning any primaries. Unless you just enjoy causing fights and generating hard feellings.

Fwiw, you also completely ignored 90% of what I wrote above about how Clark is different from Kerry, and dismissed the other 10% with half-truths. If you want to think they are equally vulnerable, fine. But they are not, and being blind to the differences won't change a thing.

[LittleClarkie]

137. Oh you'd still see purple bandaids or somesuch

you forget that their smear doesn't have to make much sense, nor will they feel obligated to respect his service. It may not be a purple bandaid per se, but they'll ridicule him SOMEhow.

[Cascadian]

122. How about somebody who is anti-war and anti-PNAC? (n/t)

[xkenx]

127. That's the point re Clark--a general who is anti-war.

In every utterance about national security, Clark says, "War only only only as a last resort."
Clark was the one who convinced many Dem. Congresspeople like carl Levin to vote against IWR.
Clark gave testimony before both Senate and House Armed Services committees in Sept. '02, urging continued pressure on Saddam, working with allies, but not necessary to invade Iraq. Neocon Richard Perle, at the same hearing, chastized Clark for being too hesitant and timid. As Clark says, when you've seen war at its worst, what it does to your troops and their families, you want to avoid war if at all possible.

[TankLV]

124. I, for one, am sick and tired of Southern Presidents. Period.

Give the other parts of the country a chance, dammit!

But it will ultimately depend on the candidate...

So far I prefer Clark...

go figure...

[DuaneBidoux]

126. You missed one MAJOR thing: military experience (check!)

The only thing about Clark that could keep him from winning (I hate to say), is that he doesn't have very much charisma (I know neither did Bush--but he had the right wing faithful who would vote for a dead horse as long as a sign was hanging around its neck that said Christian).

[Jai4WKC08]

129. Doesn't he?

An awful lot of people seem to think he has loads of charisma. I don't know why you don't see it. Maybe it's a regional thing. Or generational.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

132. We do NOT need a southerner AT ALL.

Nor should we go out of our way to nominate one. The west and midwest are FAR, FAR more likely to swing in our direction than the south will EVER be.

[LittleClarkie]

134. U-RAH-RAH... blah

I prefer cheerleading posts to have some more meat on dem bones. Gotta speech, a press release, an appearance?