General Wesley Clark is one smart politician...

[kentuck]

in my humble opinion.

He has a feel for what the American people are thinking and what they will be thinking in 2008. He is promoting an opposite policy to Bush and the Administration on Iraq, while at the same time promoting his loyalty to the troops and their families. He is positioning himself as a moderate centrist. After the division of the last few years, that will be a very popular position in 2008. Not only amongst many Democrats, but also amongst many Republicans and Independents, especially the Independents. Those are the voters that will determine who the next President will be.

His challenge will be to win the primary, which are usually more partisan in nature. However, if he were to falter there, he would be high on the list for any VP candidates. Politically speaking, I think he has his finger on the pulse of America at this moment. People want the nation to be united. They are tired of the division and I think General Clark senses that?

[MissMillie]

1. he would be my pick to be the next President

I think his remarks about Iraq are brilliant.

[mzteris]

2. I liked him the first time I ever heard him

speak - and I had no idea who he was or anything.

He is a very smart man, IMHO. (However, my husband doesn't trust ANYONE who was a "career military man"...)

[BeFree]

14. Your husband

Is a very wise man. The last thing this country needs leading us is a career military person.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Her hubby may be "wise"....but he must not know Wes Clark so well...

or maybe he's not that liberal since he's able to so easily paint an entire group with such a broad brush and make generalizationd without looking at the content of one's character.

He might also be asked if having this country led by the career politicians has actually resulted in anything better. Afterall, congress is full of political careerist and they are the ones that sent us to war....again.

So being wise is relative.

[BeFree]

30. Being wise is being wise

Sorry to discriminate, but having been wisened by being around career military has clued me in to the mindset which supports such a career move. And it tells me we need civilans running the politics. The military has infected our government and we need to totally clean the wound.

[FrenchieCat]

40. So in fact, you are her husband? LOL!

Cause that's where I'm getting confused! :crazy:

But if you have the same mindset as her hubby....then what I said still stand and is addressed to you.

The military is part of the government...it the part that is ran by the commander in chief who is a civilian. It is civilians have "infected" (your word....cause mine would be "effected") the military as opposed to visaversa, and with good intentions I assume. See Rumsfeld as just one small example. AND in fact, that is why our rules require that a civilian even lead the Defense department....so in fact the reverse of what you are saying is true.

Again, as stated before, to paint an entire part of a population with the broad brush you used is not a liberal value. But that's ok...cause none of us are perfect. There are prejudices of many kinds out there, and few are founded on anything that deals with reality, and even fewer are based on any real wisdom....but rather they are usually based on ignorance.

[BeFree]

47. I stand corrected

It is the civilians who have infected the situation.

Still, the brass has sat on their asses as trillions of dollars have gone missing, and gung-ho military types have blown away thousands of innocents.

Look, your guy may be one of the better types, I dunno, and you aren't saying anything that makes me change my mind about voting in career military types to leadership positions.

You want to impress me with Clark? You are gonna have to do a whole lot better than beat on little ol' me.

[FrenchieCat]

57. See...

here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2993932&mesg_id=2994972

[BeFree]

60. Well, that's not bad

But the fact that he is career military is a problem for me.

Ya know, I could post 32 pages about, say, Kerry. The thing is who can get elected? We shall see. But your man has a huge hill to climb, eh? And frankly, Clark supporters attitudes are a huge turnoff.

[FrenchieCat]

61. Well if having a conversation with someone that disagrees with

your take on a public forum is having an "attitude" than I am guilty of having "attitude". However, that runs both ways. On the one hand you obviously know very little about the man, but on the other hand you felt you have enough information to judge him and to in essence "dog" him straightaway on a thread that was positive until you got there. So maybe we all have attitudes....in which case you are not exempt.

If supporters "turn" you off someone you aren't even remotely familiar with, all I have to say is maybe you just needed an excuse....and if that is so, I guess that one is just as good as any.

Say whatever you want about "Clark supporters"....but the bottomline is that you won't find very many ignorant uninformed ones. That's an upside.

[BeFree]

63. No

It's come to be expected that supporters of a certain candidate have an attitude that is a turnoff, an expectation which has been reinforced in this thread.

I have a deep and abiding distrust of career military types. If you don't like it, that's tough. I will speak my mind whenever and wherever I see fit, thank you very much.

[FrenchieCat]

68. See that's exactly what I was talking about.....

Not only to you have beaucoup attitude as you have hypocritically accused others of having, but you "liberal"ly stereotype many....so far as I can count thus far military "types" and Clark supporters are at the bottom of your pond....where I'm sure others you don't care for reside.

Me, I have a deep and abiding distrust for those who call themselves "BeFree" because it can't get more ironic than that. So of course "BeFree" to speak your mind. BTW, that "Free" wouldn't be like the famous "Free"dom we keep hearing about in a bunch of speeches coming from the White House, would it?

In the end, however, I will say that I will agree to disagree and Peace be with you my human Brother! :headbang:

[youthere]

66. How dare you back your candidate!

You have no right to be well informed!:eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

62. Every potential candidate has a few supporters

who probably shouldn't be supporting the candidate if they want the candidate to win.

Not all, mind you. But some.

Me for instance. I'm a Kerry-krishna. Heh.

[BOSSHOG]

25. Thanks

I did 24 years in uniform and you would choose bush or cheney or limbaugh or o'reilly or hannity or santorum or allen or nixon or reagan or on and on and on over me? Sane, rational humans who actually know what it means to use military weapons and put our men and women in harms way should be way high on the leadership totem pole. General Clark provides competent leadership, foreign policy acumen, diplomatic savy, boots on the ground experience and compared to those non-career military personnel in the bush administration, he is an absolute godsend.

[BeFree]

31. Good

Make him the Secretary of Defense. Sounds like the best place for the man.

And don't paint my comments as accepting bushco. That's trashy.

[Pithy Cherub]

34. Trashy is painting with a broad brush

and not being open to individual attributes. That's the anti-wise.

[BeFree]

37. Art is in the eye of the beholder

A wise artist paints something nearly everyone can get the feel of, I would venture. It would be most unwise to paint something so narrow as to be seen by so few.

[Pithy Cherub]

39. Wes as Leonardo da Vinci. I like it.

A wise artist also paints with a myriad of brushes and colors and his work is lauded as lasting for the ages. The trashy artist demands everyone view through their eyes the same thing.

[FrenchieCat]

42. But isn't that against our rules of having the military run the defense Dept?

Isn't that exactly what you would not want(as a person that says that the military has "infected" our government) and why there is a rule that a person has to wait 10 years of having taken off the uniform before they can even be considered for that particular job?

And Bushco is the civilian that led us into this war, not Wes Clark. And the congress who voted for this war were all civilians as well, yet those who are dying are the military--now I think that is what is trashy.

[BeFree]

48. Nice try

But I didn't vote for bushco, and in no way shape or form support bushco, but the trash talk makes it seem as if I do. BS.

Standing corrected it looks like Clark can only be the Chief of Staff. Good place, maybe.

And who supported the invasion of Iraq? Career military types.

Clark may be ok, but I have read nothing to make me change my mind. Yall are gonna have to quit beating up on people if Clark is to have a chance. In fact, after reading the stuff here, I am more disinclined to support Clark.

[Leilani]

69. Career military types supported the war?

Get your facts straight.

The people who supported this war NEVER wore the uniform...they were all chickenhawks.

Bush, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Adelman, Feith, Libby, Kristol, Lieberman, Harman, Clinton.

Need I go on?

[Clark2008]

44. God, I'm so tired of having to repeat this: CLARK CANNOT

BE THE DEF. SEC.

The law requires the Def. Sec. be 10 years out of active duty military. By 2008, Clark will only have been out eight years.

Maybe the reason you don't want a "military man" is because you don't know alot about civilian/military interaction in the government.

[BeFree]

49. Oh, I do know about career military types

And the trillions of dollars down DoD hole. What does Clark say about that?

I stand corrected on Def. Sec. Looks like the best Clark could do is Chief of Staff.

[FrenchieCat]

56. Clark has advocated for cutting military spending/Pork as he puts it

and he testified against going into Iraq and wrote about it as well.

You don't know anything about General Clark, and yet you are in this thread......clumping him in a group that you say bah humbug to.

It would have been better for you to ask questions about him rather than to put him down without knowing anything about him. Maybe that tactic would have been more reasonable.

Here's some information on him to assist you in making a better determination about him as opposed to making a stereotypical judgement just because you can.

This is background information to let you know that Wes Clark was never Typical as a Military type.

Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Clark displeased the defense secretary, Bill Cohen, and General Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by arguing strenuously that—contrary to Clinton's decision— the option of using ground troops in Kosovo should remain open. But the problem seems to have gone further back. Some top military leaders objected to the idea of the US military fighting a war for humanitarian reasons. Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.

http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html
Clark was almost alone in pushing for a humanitarian intervention in Rwanda.

Pulitzer award winning Samantha Power for her book "A Problem from Hell" : America and the Age of Genocide
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060541644/qid=1114936910/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-7692952-2877630?v=glance&s=books
endorsed Wes Clark http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2003/12/index.html
The following excerpts from Power's book give the details. The narrative surrounding the quotes was written by another person commenting on the book. Note especially Power's last comment below on Clark's pariah status in Washington:

General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi.

She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .

He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).

According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.

She details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, "The man who probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic's battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance."

"Yet in Washington Clark was a pariah. In July 1999 he was curtly informed that he would be replaced as supreme allied commander for Europe. This forced his retirement and ended thirty-four years of distinguished service. Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move."


Samantha Power's comments on Wesley Clark at the December 17, 2003, press conference in Concord, New Hampshire after the General's testimony at the Hague .

"Good afternoon. It's a real honor for me to be here with General Clark, and with Edita Tahiri. My name is Samantha Power. I spent about seven years looking into American responses to genocide in the twentieth century, and discovered something that may not surprise you but that did surprise me, which was that until 1999 the United States had actually never intervened to prevent genocide in our nation's history. Successive American presidents had done an absolutely terrific job pledging never again, and remembering the holocaust, but ultimately when genocide confronted them, they weighed the costs and the benefits of intervention, and they decided that the risks of getting involved were actually far greater than the other non-costs from the standpoint of the American public, of staying uninvolved or being bystanders. That changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military.

The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing. And it was Pentagon reluctance to intervene in Rwanda, and in Bosnia, that actually made it much, much easier for political leaders to turn away. When the estimates started coming out of the Pentagon that were much more constructive, and proactive, and creative, one of the many deterrents to intervention melted away. And so I think, again, in discussing briefly the General's testimony, it's important to remember why he was able to testify at the Hague, and he testified because he decided to own something that was politically very, very unfashionable at the time."
http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/index.html

"If there was one thing that convinced me that Clark was a champion of Democratic values, it was his vocal support for humanitarian intervention to stop genocide in Rwanda and the Balkans. The fact remains that several Democratic leaders - the current standard bearers of our party - shirked from their duty of defending human rights and honoring multilateral agreements because it was not politically popular at the time. Clark, on the other hand, advocated intervention to stop the genocide in Rwanda and the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. Well, those credentials are Democratic enough for me."
http://www.lindsayfincher.com/2004/02/

and some information on his view on Pentagon Spending:

http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339 and audito to listen to at about 35:30.
"I think General Eisenhower was exactly right. I think we should be concerned about the military industrial complex. I think if you look at where the country is today, you've consolidated all these defense firms into a few large firms, like Halliburton, with contacts and contracts at the highest level of government. You've got most of the retired Generals, are one way or another, associated with the defense firms. That's the reason that you'll find very few of them speaking out in any public way. I'm not. When I got out I determined I wasn't going to sell arms, I was going to do as little as possible with the Defense Department, because I just figured it was time to make a new start.

But I think that the military industrial complex does wield a lot of influence. I'd like to see us create a different complex, and I'm going to be talking about foreign policy in a major speech tomorrow, but we need to create an agency that is not about waging war, but about creating the conditions for Peace around the world. We need some people who will be advocates for Peace, advocates for economic development not just advocates for better weapons systems. So we need to create countervailing power to the military industrial complex."

Clark: Don't spare Pentagon
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/25/elec04.prez.debate/
"We're faced with a very serious deficit problem. We need to keep the--we need to go back to the top 2 percent and repeal those tax cuts and we need to put all the government spending programs on the table, including the military programs"

And what Wes Clark has done since he's been out of the military:

Amicus Brief To the United States Supreme Court,
February 19, 2003
Based on decades of experience, amici have concluded that a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps educated and trained to command our nation’s racially diverse enlisted ranks is essential to the military’s ability to fulfill its principal mission to provide national security.

The primary sources for the nation’s officer corps are the service academies and the ROTC, the latter comprised of students already admitted to participating colleges and universities. At present, the military cannot achieve an officer corps that is both highly qualified and racially diverse unless the service academies and the ROTC use limited race-conscious recruiting and admissions policies.
http://www.texasforclark.com/affirmative.htm
----------------
Wavecrest - the company Clark started after he retired....
But right now, General Clark wants to talk about bicycles.
The retired general has been devoting much of his time to running a company making a new kind of electric motor that does not require gears or a transmission, but uses computer algorithms to maximize torque and efficiency. The company, WaveCrest Laboratories of Dulles, Va., hopes to put these motors into hybrid gas-electric cars or even hydrogen-powered fuel-cell cars one day. But for now, WaveCrest is focused on bikes. By adding one of its "adaptive motors" to a conventional bicycle
frame, WaveCrest claims that its two-wheeler can go Lance Armstrong speed - 30 miles an hour - with hardly any pedaling at all.
snip
That sweet spot occurs in many electric motors when they are spinning at thousands of revolutions per minute. When used in a vehicle, some kind of transmission or reduction gearing is needed to slow things down so the wheels can turn at their proper rate, said Elias Strangas, an electrical engineering professor at Michigan State University. WaveCrest's design could eliminate the need for a transmission or gears by getting the motor's r.p.m. to match the wheel's needs. Small motors could even be put at the wheels themselves instead of having one large motor under a car's hood. The WaveCrest bicycle relies on such a setup.
These so called in-hub motors could drastically cut the weight of a hybrid or fuel-cell car, Mr. Brauer said. And that could allow the car to carry extra batteries and extend its range.
http://greenspeed.us/wesley_clark.htm
------------
Emergency Preparedness Expert:
Clark has been involved in emergency preparedness for a long time as well....before he ran for any political office! Now wouldn't that be nice to have in addition to everything else Clark offers in expertise, a real expert on that subject. Wouldn't have to have him wait for a briefing....
http://www.wittassociates.com/
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_March_23/ai_n13467014
http://www.muhajabah.com/clarkblog/2005/06/general_wesley_clark_former_na.php
------------

Wes Clark is a true intellectual who quotes Plato regularily.....a Rhodes Scholar who graduated from Oxford University who majored in Economics, Philosophy and Political Science, was a White House Fellow, and now a senior fellow at the Burke Center at UCLA-- http://cbs5.com/education/local_story_261160914.html
His first lecture was on torture.

who speaks 3 languages apart from English.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=53 ...
Interviews
Wesley Clark: Why We Should Care About Darfur
April 20,2006

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/04/10/a_us_plan_for_darfur/
US plan for Darfur
By Wesley Clark and John Prendergast | April 10, 2006

http://www.dems.us/clark_wes /
November 07, 2005
Clark Steps Up For Darfur, Sudan

http://savedarfur.org/index.php?q=news/newsarchives/200...
Deja vu in Darfur - 9/01/2005
Sudan Tribune
Former NATO Commander Wesley Clark is urging the U.N. Security Council to dispatch about 12,000 NATO troops to Darfur to protect civilians and humanitarian operations until a large contingent of African troops is deployed there next year.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=48...
Commentary
Wesley Clark: NATO Forces Needed in Darfur
August 22, 2005

http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/USATODAY/2004/07/06/501055?extID=10026
Out of time in Darfur
By Wesley Clark and John Prendergast | Jul 06 '04

For the past year, the international community has shamefully acquiesced to the crimes against humanity occurring daily in the Sudanese province of Darfur.

"Janjaweed" militias, Arabs backed by the Sudanese government, are continuing to conduct mop-up operations against non-Arab villagers in a massive ethnic-cleansing campaign in the region. The current conflict flared early last year when two rebel groups in Darfur attacked government forces. The swelling crisis could leave hundreds of thousands dead in the coming months.

Also, Clark is a board member of this group here:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3060&l=1
as a Vice Chair -- of which George Soros is a chairman...
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1139&l=1

And here's some information on the Rwanda-Time line, and some comments about Wes Clark's involvement in attempting to get something done about it.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4018.html

and he just happens to know a thing or two about Science and Education, as a former professor

Testimony before the Senate on Education:
http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/hearings/107th/edr/impaid110801/clark.htm

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2006/jun/10/566627991.html
Wesley Clark touts science at YearlyKos
Retired general slams 'politicization' of research

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May05/Commencement/Clark_speech.html

Time Travel Clarification
What Wesley Clark Really Said About Time Travel

by Brian McWilliams
October 14, 2003

http://www.pc-radio.com/clark-timetravel.html
On September 30, I published an article at Wired News entitled Clark Campaigns at Light Speed.

The article reported on remarks made by Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark during a campaign event Sept. 27 in New Castle, New Hampshire. At the event, Clark stated his belief that humans will someday be able to travel faster than the speed of light.

Due to a faulty understanding of physics on my part, I originally reported that Clark had professed a belief in the possibility of time travel. While some experts have previously said that travelling faster than light implies time travel, Clark in fact did not specifically profess an interest in time travel.

After several readers e-mailed me about this aspect of my article, later on Sept. 30 I revised the online version of the story to avoid suggesting Clark had advocated research into time travel. (The quotes attributed to him, of course, remained unchanged.)

Unfortunately, my reporting error is travelling at light speed and has been duplicated in media outlets around the world. Newspapers including the Washington Post and New York Times as well as late-night TV show hosts Jay Leno and Dave Letterman have borrowed the time travel idea from my story.

Given the current impossibility of rewinding time, my efforts now to undo this mistake may be futile. But I hope to prevent this mis-reporting of Clark's remarks from spreading further. To that end, I have made an audio recording of the relevant section of Clark's Sept. 27 campaign speech available here:

http://www.pc-radio.com/clark-nasa.mp3

The audio is about 3 min. 45 sec. and the file is about 668 KB. Clark's comments about faster-than-light travel are at about 3:05. Feel free to publicize this link, and/or to download the file and distribute it freely. I can also provide on request a high fidelity version of the audio for broadcast.

Sincerely,

Brian S. McWilliams
PC-radio.com
http://www.presidentialufo.com/time_travel.htm

There is so much more that I could post until it isn't even funny!

[janx]

70. And I am tired of repeating this:

Congress can override that.

[Forrest Greene]

26. I'd Rather See As President

...a career military person who sincerely believes what he was taught — to defend the country & the Constitution against genuine enemies — than an MBA like Bush — taught that profit for his cronies at any cost is the only goal — or a lawyer, like any number of Presidents — who sincerely believes that winning for his sponsors at any cost is the only goal.

Although who I'd most like to see would be an accomplished Jazz musician. Smart, creative, aware of tradition, able to improvise under scrutiny, & committed to not making the same mistake twice. A little bit of soul wouldn't hurt, either.



(Edited to repair finger fumbles.)

[BeFree]

32. I'd rather see a musician, too.

What yall are ignoring is that the person elected was Al Gore. Go back to that point and start. Once you do you will quit trying to make it seem I prefer bushco. That's total trash talk. I would expect better from DUers.

[neuvocat]

55. You do realize Gore said he wasn't running, right?

[Nashyra]

28. PLEASE

We do need this military man, he knows what the troops are supposed to be used for and that is NOT a war of choice. He knows and he is dedicated to the men and women of the military, the veterans and to the civilian folks who have dedicated their lives to our armed forces not to the military industrial complex and the war profiteers

[BeFree]

33. No, we don't

We need someone like Al Gore, or John Kerry. And we had one, (take your pick) but we were ripped off. Clark would make a great Sec. of Defense, but being president ain't gonna happen.

[Pithy Cherub]

35. You don't speak for me and mine

unless of course you're having a royal wee moment...

[BeFree]

36. Very Interesting....

I don't represent you. What made you think I thought I did?

[sendero]

41. I kinda saw your point..

... I don't trust the military either - until you mentioned Kerry. Clark might be military, but I invite you listen to him speak, and them compare his words and sincerity to Kerry. While they are both good men IMHO, Clark has a way of making his progressive ideals clear and appealing that Kerry just doesn't have.

I don't wish to get into a Clark/Kerry debate, but I think that dismissing Clark simply because he was in the military is pretty short sighted.

[LSparkle]

3. His humility and genuineness appeal to me

Even if I he took positions I didn't agree with, I'd feel that we had a good and honorable man leading us if he were to win.

[Cosmocat]

6. Man ...

You can just see it in him ... As much as I saw a petulent substance abusing child in the clown at 1600 in 1999, I see in Wes Clark the qualities you noted, humility and genuineness ... He makes clear eye contact, you can see genuine regard ...

[lillilbigone]

4. If he's not smart enough to realize we need to GET OUT OF IRAQ

now, not years from now, than he is not smart enough to be President, imho.

[kentuck]

7. I think he's smart enough to realize that...

but he's also smart enough to realize the political consequences of endorsing such an idea in blunt terms. I'm sure that would be his goal.

[lillilbigone]

11. Are you really saying he is misrepresenting his beliefs for political advantage?

Maybe I misread what you are saying. I was just thinking he was wrong. If he's actually being dishonest about what he believes, as you posit, that's even worse.

[kentuck]

17. No. But I think his responses are more nuanced and complex...

than a simple, black or white, solution. However, he has been against this war since the beginning and has said many times it was unnecessay and not a "last resort".

[lillilbigone]

23. I think your characterizations of his view are not accurate.

People should just read what he has to say about it for themselves because his views, past and present, are consistently mischaracterized on DU.

Here is his plan for Iraq for anyone who is interested. Nothing in here so nuanced or complex that an ordinary person can't understand it: http://securingamerica.com/node/1961

[FrenchieCat]

27. Why is it that you have all of the answers on "Clark's Views" and

all of the rest of us are wrong?

Where do you get off feeling like you have so much more knowledge than so many more of us?

Please let us know what makes you so mentally superior to quite a few here at DU and to General Clark?

I want to know.

[Jai4WKC08]

53. Clark: "it is time for us to begin to redeploy"

That's a direct quote from the article at your link. What part of it don't you understand?

It's like I tried to tell you in that other thread. The AP reporter was interpreting what Clark said. That's why it wasn't in quotes. Once again, the reporter got it wrong.

If you don't believe me, listen to what Clark had to say on Washington Journal this morning. He made it very clear that thinks the Baker recommendation for a drawdown is sensible and he hopes Bush will follow thru on it. I didn't get the impression he was optimistic.

He also seems to have accepted that we're gonna have a timeline precede the diplomacy, saying the advantages are it puts Maliki on notice and provided a clearly defined course fo action to satisfy the American people. He also gave what I thought was an extremely clear explanation of the disadvantages, and I also got the impression that whatever timeline is established, it'll end up being pretty flexible in practice. Those aren't his words, just my impressions. Some of it probably based on what I've heard him say before.

You can either download the file (76Mb) from CCN at http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9906 or stream it from c-span.org.

[youthere]

67. There you go...

muddying the issue with facts.
:eyes:

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Captain Hilts]

20. He knows we need to dot every 'i' and cross every 't' to avoid leaving chaos...

that envelopes other countries.

[xkenx]

51. Ah, yet another post where you show up to trash Clark by misquoting his words.

[kentuck]

5. I think our country may be ready for an "intelligent" leader...

after this experiment in anti-intellectualism.

[ripple]

8. Nice assessment of Clark, but I just thought I'd point out

that much of your rationale for supporting Clark could apply to Obama, too. In a sense, you've answered the question you posed on the other thread.

I would like to see an Obama/Clark ticket. I think both men have tremendous potential as leaders and I think they would complement each other very well. One reason I like Obama at the top of the ticket is that I think he has stronger public appeal. Clark has excellent policy positions, but sometimes he comes across as rather bland when articulating them. Most of us political junkies can get past that and focus on the meat of what he's saying, but unfortunately, the general electorate doesn't tend to do that well.

One other thing to keep in mind is that from what he said this morning, Clark hasn't even begun raising any money to run. He'll be hard-pressed to win aginst candidates that have ongoing political PACs to pull from.

Hell, I'd be perfectly happy with Clark/Obama (in that order) in the White House, though. It just seems to me like it might be a tougher sell at election time.

[warrens]

9. With any luck, Iraq will not be an issue two years from now...

We'll be gone. Clark has other pluses, but he might be a tad too married to Iraq as his issue.

[FrenchieCat]

15. That will take a whole lot of luck.....

and the Repugs would have to share in the credit....

And I'm sure with the weakness in that area from frontrunning candidates such as Hillary, OBama and Edwards, they might try to push it over to the backburner at Democrats' peril....

Read this article that deals with the issue of 2008, the frontrunners and Foreign policy/National security....as it is fascinating. It gets into the Repugs' candidates as well, and their possible planned approach.

http://thepremise.com/archives/11/29/2006/736

[SoFlaJet]

12. Gore/Clark

'08

[Forrest Greene]

24. I'm With You On That

Gore / Clark 2008!

[FrenchieCat]

13. Did you see his Washington Journal appearance this morning?

If not, it is very interesting.

He was having a bad hair day (guess he doesn't have a personal stylist...although I certainly would mind that job...cause I would be excellent at it!), but other than that, his commentary and the Q&A is very telling. He really does understand clearly with what we are faced with, and a soundbyte isn't it.

For those who haven't listened or watched his appearance here's a link:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9906 (just click on the pic screen to get it to play)

[tishaLA]

16. Thanks for posting this

he was on too early for me to see this morning. It's a BIG file!

[bowens43]

18. So was nixon......

[kentuck]

19. Do you think Clark is like Nixon??

I would definitely disagree with that. I have not chosen a favorite in 2008, but Clark would be up near the top.

[FrenchieCat]

22. and F.D.R. and Clinton, and etc.., etc...

so he's not in such bad company as you would tell it!

[Dob Bole]

29. Funny that noone has said "So is Bush..."

:)

[Pithy Cherub]

38. Thoughtful kentuck, very thoughtful.

Strategically, the independents have been the biggest growing group. Hopefully they will declare in the primaries as democrats and vote for Wes because of all the attributes you have listed. :patriot:

[David Zephyr]

43. He is indeed. K&R

You know, Kentuck, I actually think that he is where the American people are coming around to be.

He is indeed very bright, which is one of the things I like the most about him. This brief 3-5 minute bio/video might introduce people to the level of his intellect (something that he downplays in public because he doesn't talk down to people).


http://securingamerica.com/node/402

[Clarkie1]

45. For Clark it's not about his own political aspirations. That's never #1 with him.

How he can best contribute to bettering America and the world is what's #1 for him. There's a bit in this Washigton Journal interview about his feelings about possibly running in 08'. He makes clear it will be a well thought-out decision based on how he feels he best and most effectively influence what is happening in the world today. If he thinks he can be more effective "behind the scenes," he'll do that. If he decides he can be more effective running, he will run to win.

http://www.ptnine.com/113006.WMV

[Tatiana]

46. People forget he was "drafted" to run for the Presidential nomination.

I think the fact that he declared himself a Democrat after having to spend much of his life and career apolitical speaks volumes about his values and principles.

He would make a fine President and do much to restore America's respect internationally.

[pnwmom]

50. The one thing I really don't like about him -- and it's a deal breaker

for me, at least in the primary -- is his plan for universal service.

It might be fine under a cautious Democratic administration -- but put a draft in the hands of a looney tune like Bush or a militaristic wingnut like McCain, and watch out.

[xkenx]

52. CLARK DID NOT PROPOSE A DRAFT!!!

He is staunchly for a volunteer military. In his primary campaign, he was suggesting that young people could contribute in many ways, like Peace Corps, Americorps, and others.

[Jai4WKC08]

54. His plan was completely voluntary

He did propose the establishment of a civilian service corps, but it was to be voluntary.
http://www.clark04.com/speeches/005/

Clark is strongly committed to an all volunteer military. He has warned that Bush's adventurism might require a draft to maintain a big enough military to support it. But his solution is to get rid of Bush, not institute a draft.

[pnwmom]

64. Thanks for the info. I was misinformed by the Rangel people

who associated Rangel's plan with Clark's.

[FrenchieCat]

58. You are incorrect on that....Clark favors a volunteer army because

he feels the forces operate better with people that want to be there, as opposed to manning a force with folks that are forced. He experienced Vietnam and rebuilding the forces afterwards. He was there when the draft was revoked and so he speaks of what he knows. He has said that numerous times, as recently as this week!

His Volunteer service plan was just that, voluntary only.
Here's how it would work: Every American age 18 or over will have the opportunity to register for the civilian reserve. If you register, you'll be asked to list your abilities and the types of service that interest you.

By registering, you commit that those skills can be called on at any time - domestically or internationally -- for the next five years. Every five years thereafter, you will be given the opportunity to re-register.

Should something happen during your five-year commitment that demands your skills, you can be offered the opportunity to serve for a period of up to six months.

Your service could be here in the United States, in the aftermath of an earthquake, a forest fire or a severe storm. Or you could also serve in distant lands, where the struggle for social justice and equality demands our immediate aid. As a village struggles to overcome isolation and hardship, a tribe works to preserve its ancestral territory, or a nation tries to piece together a government of laws.
http://clark04.com/speeches/005/

[pnwmom]

65. Thanks. I shouldn't have listened to the Rangel proponents

who pushed his proposal, in part, by associating it with Clark's.

[beaconess]

59. I like him.

I don't know if I'm going to support him in the primaries, but I like him a lot. He'd be a great president.