I'm sorry...I can't get excited about Clark...

A General is not my idea of a peacemaker. I have major issues with him. So tell me why I am wrong on this? Or convince me why I should support him over say Kerry, Dean or Dennis...I frankly (for some reason) don't trust him as far as I can throw him.

I have a very difficult time believing that anyone who spent that much time and rose to to such a high rank in the military , can function effectivily as the head of a civilian government.

Look at Colin Powell. He was the lone voice of reason in the Bush administration that had the nuts to speak out against the pro war insanity. Often, the military leaders understand the true horror of war, more than the average person. That allows them to be more anti-war that those that are less informed.
I think Clark feels the same way. HE wouldn't send American soldiers off to war to support a political campaign, as Dumbyah did. Obviously, we need this specific change in our Presidential leadership.

My Lai

"Look at Colin Powell. He was the lone voice of reason in the Bush administration that had the nuts to speak out against the pro war insanity."

Gee, is that the same Colin Powell that lied through his teeth at the UN to pimp for this incredibly pro-war war?

Don't fall for the good cop/bad cop routine. If Colon Power wasn't lockstep, he'd be clipping coupons by now.

Look at Colin Powell. He was the lone voice of reason in the Bush administration that had the nuts to speak out against the pro war insanity.

i don't agree with this assessment. Powell was just the "good cop" to Rummy's "bad cop". whatever Powell's real feelings about the war, he played the role of a tool, a facilitator of the administration's policies. if Clark is at all like Powell, i want no part of him.

he can't be that bad. I am curious if Clark can raise money, organize supporters, et cetera being a political novice. The proof would be in the pudding -- if he could rumble with Gephardt, Dean, Kerry etc. and win he's our guy. If not, well, you get the picture.

It reminds me of Colin Powell in 1996. Although I know some extremely politically astute people who think Clark has the best chance of beating Bush.

Because Clark has the best chance of beating * and isn't that the primary goal for supporting any candidate?

"Because Clark has the best chance of beating * and isn't that the primary goal for supporting any candidate?"

Would you vote for a Republican Candidate simply because he could beat Bush?

Clearly we want the best DEMOCRATIC candidate that can beat Bush.:eyes:

Under the law of our state, he is as much a Democrat as I am. Should he wear like a donkey costume or ears or something? How many gops do you know who are pro aff action, pro choice, pro gay rights, pro civil rights, and pro women's rights?

You say you have 'major issues,' but you don't enumerate them. Blanketly dismissing Clark because he's a military man is facile. It's like saying, 'I don't trust lawyers,' or 'I don't like Southerners.'

Like Dean said, when people start attacking candidates over personal rather than campaign issues, you know they're in real trouble.

If he's the general from the movie "Behind Enemy Lines" then I would say he's an alright guy who has decent morals when push comes to shove, and wouldn't be afraid to go against the fray if it meant doing the right thing. I don't think he's qualified to take the top slot, but I think under Dean's strong leadership and wisdom that he could be ready in 2012. If he's the one I'm thinking he is, he would make a good representative for our soldiers and at the very least, a sensible and human implementation of our military.

a Navy crew?

Which is why I asked. I know he is somehow connected to that peacekeeping mission, but am unsure how, exactly. If it turns out that he is the one who put his career on the line to save that pilot, then I don't see where anyone would have a problem with him.

Here's a good summary:


http://www.usafe.af.mil/news/news99/uns99097.htm

But is he the one Gene Hackman played in the movie "Behind Enemy Lines"?
I'm not sure if that character portrayed Clark or not. Was Clark portrayed in the movie, and if so, who played him?

I do believe that the evil French NATO commander was based on Clark. It was a Fox production after all.

Do you have links to information that gives the whole story of his role? Preferably ones that come from an impartial source?

I don't know much about the guy and don't want to form an opinion on slanted info...either against or in favor of him.

I support Dean because I know what I'm getting with him since I live in Vermont. I know he's a good man, an honest leader and that he has what it takes to bring Bush down. If Dean is considering Clark as a running mate I want to know more about him.

Scott O'Grady, the pilot the movie was allegedly based on, has sued FOX for misappropriating his story.

http://www.e0nline.com/News/Items/Pf/0,1527,10419,00.html

I don't think this movie can be used as a fair indicator of Clark's character one way or the other.

Or do you know? Haven't looked at the link yet, but will in a minute.

As far as Clark goes, I can't tell you.

If you hear anything specific, I hope you'll post it. Thanks.

Dean is still my guy for the reasons I stated earlier. That's just not going to change...I stick with the tried and true as long as it works. I have no doubt that Dean will crush Bush in the general should he get the chance. In fact, I would just about put money on Dean pulling off the biggest political slaughter in history...IF the likes of the DLC leadership doesn't succeed in stopping him. I don't think they can, to be honest. I've seen Dean campaign, and no matter what Rove says and thinks, Dean is their WORST nightmare. The beautiful thing is that they won't even see it coming. Dean is NOT one to underestimate...not EVER. He does nothing half-assed.

Wesley did disobey orders in '97 or '98 to attempt the rescue some soldiers who had rolled over a cliff and into a mine field in a APC, rapelling down a cliff under fire to attempt aid. He then stayed with the bodies until help arrived.

BTW, he never told that story himself. The guy ordering him not to do it told the story, Richard Holbrook, BC's ambassador to the UN.

It's the story of the pilot who went down and was rescued during the whole Bosnia thing.

When the guy wont admit he is one? Especially in the face of Dean, who is actually making Dems feel proud again. Something that has been needed for a long time.
I am not sure he is even VP timber. How many commercials can the republicans make featuring his waffling statements on wether hes a democratic or not?

Plus his entire strategy up till now makes me worry about some sort of third party try by him. Think about it, if thjat was his plan wouldnt he go about exactly like he is?

life and worked in campaign for Democrats from 1968 on.

Then he wouldn't say that he has ruled out running as an independent or a third party, nor would he say that he believes in America's 2-party system.

I'd rather have a person with no political affiliation who will challenge this administration than a Democrat like Daschle who just rolls over and lets Bush get away with anything he wants. Party affiliation is meaningless if our party leaders don't stand up for us.

I grew up in the military and I know what it is about. It does not square with the Sermon on the Mount, period. Also, our present military is just a vast profiteering machine for people who have no real alliegance to anything but profit and power.

I would love to hear Gen. Clark speak out against the military-industrial complex the way Gen. Eisenhower did and vow to do something as Eisenhower failed to. It's possible he might do this but I don't think it's probable.

it would go far in my mind...

And there is no one better than a high-ranking general. If not Wesley Clark, who?

Eisenhower wimped out on fighting them but Clark might not.

I'd place mony on that bet too.

From a http://www.msnbc.com/news/953102.asp?0sl=-22">Newsweek interview 10 days ago:

"This recession has been a structural recession associated with a number of different factors, which have converged. It’s impacted in the near term by health costs, which are essentially increasing at such a rate that they are eating up productivity improvements, and in the mid and long term by education. We cannot create the kind of high-quality and high-value jobs we must have without substantially improving education for more people in this country.

In terms of the economy itself, the fundamental economic problem has been a lack of aggregate demand. The spark you have seen over the last quarter has been in large part because of increased defense spending. I think there are far more productive ways to use that additional money."

Also, I liked the "he hasn't monged any wars" argument. Hee!

I sounds like he might be an education-monger. That would be great! :-)

And if a candidate has to "mong" something, it might as well be education. :)

This is the most close minded statement I have heard. Most career military people in our country and others try to avoid war whenever possible...They have seen it first hand and General Clark believes in war as a last resort He is not a warmonger!

"He is not a warmonger!"

He hasnt 'monged' any wars ? .....

He hates war which is his problem with Bush being so quick to pull the trigger.

You are absolutely correct. How do we know he is not a warmongerer? Well how about the fact that when all the other retired generals were going along with the chickenhawks push for war, Clark was openly skeptical and questioning. That's more than can be said for many of our Democratic senators and congressmen.

Kerry, and Graham?

Bwahahaha!

Did I just say, "The Commie scum", in German?

"Die" denotes a female noun; It's "der kommunistische Abschaum".

Foiled yet again...

And I adore Mr Clark ..... not because he was a general, but because he is a brilliant man who wasnt afraid to serve his nation ....

Funny how Clark, who NOT ONLY graduated FIRST in his class at West Point, but also received his Master's in Philosophy at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar .... ALL AFTER he proudly served his country, having been wounded FOUR times in the process .... FUNNY how he was able to do ALL that: .. and yet MOST of the present vile administration took deferment after deferment, refusing to serve their nation ....

And, oh yes .... the rescue ..... this man is pure gold ... and a progressive to boot ...

What MORE can you ask of a man ? ...

Ill take the erudite philosopher over the seedy city councilman ANY day of the week ... winning previous office isnt all its cracked up to be ...

If Clark enters the race: ... I will vote for him .... NOT because he was a general, but because he is a brilliant man ....

because I just don't trust him. Call it a gut feeling.

your gut feeling is dead wrong.

:D

and my gut feeling is usually right.

necessarily reflect reality.

I know the man. Personally. He is not a wild-eyed meglomaniac. He is the most stable person I have ever met outside of Bill Clinton.

I'm not even going to get into that with you.

Yes I am...

Bill Clinton...by way of his infedility and inability to keep his dick in his pants brought disgrace and dishonor to the Democratic party. It negated all that had gone before. I voted for Clinton 2x...so that gives me the right to bitch about him before the flame wars start. If he had not been playing the field...there would have been no investigation and no impeachement. So thanks for giving me something to think about re Clark.

Have you ever met the man?

I DEFY you to describe anyone you've met with their feet planted as firmly in this world as BC. ANYONE.

BTW, your prudishness amuses me greatly and speaks of one with not enough experience in life to realize that all of us have feet of clay. I certainly do and know of no one who does not.

But when your hold the highest office in the land, your held to a higher standard.

You transcend your humanity and become divine?

Please. That is, at best, naive. Living in a particular house or doing a particular job does not either enhance your strengths or decrease your weaknesses. I suppose that if one has no weaknesses, that might be difficult to understand but for me, I have many and stand totally behind my remark: look at what Bill Clinton did in office and show me ONE single individual more grounded in the reality of this world.

Just one.

My Dad was...

since most have had affairs-I think you'd have to be a prude to favor 2 impeachments a decade over sex.

It spoke to me in 1999 and I listened to it.

and a pretty reliable gut.

I have my feelings about him too.

Everyone will be courting him for VP. What will you say then?

I'll be jumping up and down with excitement. No, that's not sarcasm, either.

I've stated a few times now I think Clark would be a great balance to alleviate worries about Kucinich's desire to curb defense spending. Clark wants the same thing, or so he's said in the past, and I sincerely doubt he's uninformed about what's needed and what's wasted.

What can I say, I like the man, and since PB has put my one concern to rest, I'm getting more anxious to find out what he'll do.

I feel like I'm watching a rerun of American Bandstand.


The hits just keep on coming.....


Can't we build up our candiates without pissing all over other people's candidates.

Did he announce? When? do you have a link to the announcement?

I think they might be ... haters.

Don't hate the player


Hate the game

I like the way he responds to the right-wingers. They are all afraid of him. Also, there is a story about him going through some territory in that Yugoslavia area when he was the NATO commander. A truck went off the road and Clark scaled down to check for survivors.

WHAT MORE DO YOU PEOPLE WANT!

I like Dean. too.

as a previous NATO commander.

We can't make the hawks go away. We have to deal with their issues. Clark does that in a way that is more acceptable to doves by making peace an international responsibility.

Personally, I'd rather make it Dean/Kucinich, but Dennis doesn't seem to be rising up into public awareness.

You my friend are in excellent company.

"We must take man as he is not the way we want him to be."

-Edmund Burke

In post 8 on this thread is Michael Moore's enthusiastic statement about Clark. Bashing everybody who has succeded in the military sounds rather prejudiced. If Tom Delay hates the retired generals on TV they can't be all bad.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=223620

It is clear you know jack about Michael Moore.

what he said was clear in context to not be sarcasm. I have followed Moore closely since his days with Roger.

Everybody who posts here is familiar with Michael Moore. I went to saw him speak in the Nader campaign. Not everybody is rude enough to say "you don't know jack"

Can't you tell?

Oh, what's that, you never got the Clark hater secret decoder/sarcasm detector ring?

Anyone that has followed Michael Moore can tell when he deadpans that it means sarcasm.

Have you seen BFC?

or do you want to admit you were in denial?

http://www.dailykos.com/archives/002197.html

"...(reportedly a fan of Michael Moore's Stupid White Men)."

Reportedly?

I saw no quote of Micael Moore's there.

Just what is it that I am in denial about?

matter further you'll see Moore did not mean the opposite of what he said. He said Clark was liberal on the issues and has been strongly anti-war and that is exactly what Clark has been. That wouldn't made for very good sarcasm, would it?

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on_the_issues.htm

http://www.digitalclark.com/

They would have been much better off just dismissing Moore as an idiot or a weasel for supporting Clark, since it's so obvious that it was in no way sarcasm. His quote is that the Democrats should nominate someone who can win. Clark can win. That's why Moore likes him. Simple as that.

I followed your link and found the one mention of Michael Moore's name. Michael said NOTHING in that article.

I heard with my own ears what he said. He was clearly lukewarm about Dean and clearly enthusiastic about Clark. You really should check things out before you post things like that. Oh, I forgot (not really), you're on the bash Clark team.

I invite people to listen to it for themselves, it doesn't sound like sarcasm.

I know more than jack about Michael Moore. He isn't prone to speaking sarcastically just for the hell of it, particularly when answering questions about his own opinion.

I'm with you ...

Well, it certainly helps to guide me in my thought process ... and, I'm ready for our country to move away from the influences and control of good ol'boys ... those folks are holding our country back, down, and backwards ... our infrastructure needs building; and people invested in, etc.; and, as long as we continue bell-wethered ... it's not going to happen ... just expect more of the same ...

My take ... my conjecture is that it's all part of the power play.

Power and who will have the power to control it … from protecting business interests to controlling investigations, etc.


Is it the PROMIS software … where it’s been … who’s profited from it … which is one of the keys to the power struggle going on?

I wonder if anyone has a running total of ’air’ time Gen. Clark has received of the last several years, and how much has it increased … a lot it seems.

... As a Senator, John Kerry was involved with the BCCI banking scandal hearings (so, he and others who witnessed these investigations know a lot) ... the investigations just seemed to 'end' ... I don't recall any heavies going into the slammer ... and, BCCI was 'global' in that it involved players who, i.e., citizens from the Middle East ... and, a google of Jackson Stephens should bring up interesting links ... and, of course, Clark, was employed by Stephens, Inc.

The term “BCCI” seems to be a lot like “Watergate” .. the term encompasses much more than one incident. BCCI is associated with such things as the PROMIS software, the death of Danny Casalero, Iran-Contra and the coup of 1980 re the hostages enabling Raygun to win in the last week.

I can't imagine anyone on the circle of contacts and networking as Gen. Clark to want to be associated with the reputation of Jackson Stephens. Being a Rhodes Scholar doesn't mean one has integrity. It says he's smart.

Moving up the ranks of the military must get as political as anything the higher one rises. Top Brass seem to end up quite wealthy (was its Franks or Myers building a mansion on the FL coast?} For an organization where the entry level pay is pathetic ... the other end of the spectrum seems quite well off; and, many of them end up on the Boards of Directors of some powerful corporations which, imho, equates to 'in with the good ol'boys' ... or Secretary of State ...

... and, Clark, of course, is a Board member of Acxiom, a huge global clearinghouse of data gathered on people and businesses … likely probably bought, certainly sold on about 196 million Americans -- that's a nice balance to Poppy Bu$h's The Carlyle Groups' company which does similar work, USIS … These are powerful databases - with information which could be quite helpful in power struggles, etc.

Apparently, Clark resigned from Stephens, Inc. last February-ish … probably a huge clue of positioning oneself.

... that Jackson Stephens ...

Was Jackson Stephens involved in George W’s Harken oil deal?

”Stephens, Inc. played a role in the Harken deal with Bahrain as well. Former Stephens bankers David and Mike Edwards contacted Michael Ameen, the former chief of Mobil Oil's Middle East operations, when Bahrain broke off 1989 talks with Amoco for a gas and oil exploration contract. The Edwardses recommended Harken for the job and urged Ameen to get in touch with Bahrain, which he did.”

http://www.sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/07/136245_comment.php

“The Promis-Like Profits Of The Harvard Endowment”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0207/S00165.htm

”But like many of the super-rich, the Stephens brothers were neither Republican nor Democrat. Jackson Stephens, who was a major fund-raiser for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, would also become one of George Bush's "Team 100" through $100,000 political donations in 1988 and 1992. The latter was the year that a Stephens-controlled bank would supply a $3.5 million line of credit to the campaign of Bill Clinton. No, these boys weren't hard-core Democrats. It was Witt Stephens who started the rumor that Geraldine Ferraro was Benito Mussolini's grandniece, a stunt he found so entertaining that he repeated it four years later with a story that Michael Dukakis was Aristotle Onassis' nephew. Such international wit was curious for a man who retired weekends to the family homestead in Prattsville, and boasted that he had left the state of Arkansas only once in fifteen years. Witt's brother Jack, on the other hand, could more likely be found on the 6,000-acre plantation that Jack owned in Chittlin Switch, Georgia, where he might be joined for a weekend of hunting by Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton, Oklahoma Governor Henry Bellmon, or Joseph Williams, the chairman of Williams Cos., of pipeline and telecommunications fame.”
http://web.textfiles.com/politics/og031.txt

Acxiom is like … big corporate brother …
http://www.danbrown.com/secrets/digital_fortress/big_corporate_brother.html

These good ol’boys need a front person to be the salesperson … we’ve certainly seen that in modern American history.

”CONWAY, Arkansas - Most Americans have probably never heard of Acxiom Corp., a giant information service tucked near the rolling Ozark foothills. But chances are that Acxiom knows quite a lot about them. Twenty-four hours a day, Acxiom electronically gathers and sorts information about 196 million Americans. Credit card transactions and magazine subscriptions. Telephone numbers and real estate records. Car registrations and fishing licenses. Consumer surveys and demographic details.”

If you do ‘people searches’ or ‘reverse phone # look up’ or see something like ‘can’t find what’cha looking for’ … you may see this on results’ pages

The Acxiom board includes Henry Kissinger partner Thomas F. McLarty. The Board seems to have a nice ‘team’ including military stragegists; computer and engineering experts; and, an Arkansas good ol’ boy network
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/733269/000073326902000007/proxy2002.htm


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/masters/2002-09-27-augusta-list.htm#n



Last year sometime (yes, some of us have been investigating and connecting dots on this subject long before, say, the last few months) … someone’s personal thoughts were posted on another group:

“When I saw Jackson Stephens and PROMIS software in the same sentence, practically, I got chills. Once you list the rest of the cast of characters, it's time for silver bullets and garlic.”… “Then we come to Mohammed Atta's Flying Circus, and lo and behold: more Jackson Stephens, who is also connected to Iran Contra thru Mena.

Some think that Kissinger may have quit the 911 investigation because of his associations with Acxiom - either as a client of his or through his associate’s connections.

I wonder if Gen. Clark could enlighten us on some of Jackson Stephens “investments”, i.e., his buying buying up radio stations now owned by Clear Channel or investments via Janus which is tied into Clear Channel.

Then, there’s Kansas City Southern aka KSCI which is Janus which is Stilwell with connections to Jackson Stephens and Henry Kissinger … and SBC is tied up in here somewhere … hey, I’m just an armchair concerned citizen tired of us being chained to corruption … please pitch in and help ...

Jackson Stephens, Sr. is a big-money man from Arkansas. A top donor to the Reagan and Bush campaigns, he suddenly switched to Clinton in 1990. He brought BCCI to US shores in 1979 and helped to launder cocaine profits from CIA drug smuggling in Mena, Arkansas and elsewhere.
http://www.subliminal.org/mugbook/money/stephens.html


the house that jack built - gulp!
by Daniel Hopsicker

October 31--Venice, Florida.

“Jackson Stephens, a name often linked with America's super-secret
National Security Agency, has been an influential presence for
several decades in the tiny town which served as port of entry into
U.S. flight and even military training for the terrorist cadre
implicated in the Sept 11 attack.

A block away from the Venice Florida airport stands an opulent three-
story red brick building that is a monument to the rivers of money
flowing through the Stephens financial empire.”

http://www.madcowprod.com/index8.html

Who would associate closely with this man and why?

To each his/her own, but I find it difficult that some wouldn’t be at least slightly concerned about Gen. Clark’s circles of influence.


From what I understand, Gen. Eisenhower hadn’t been a Democrat nor a Republican … it’s the career course, etc., which enables the ability to be … “military”, and not D nor R. It makes for the right circumstances for the right person at the right time - and, rarely so. Then one can virtually paint one’s own pallette to whatever benefits under current circumstances. While those who have been active in one of the Parties already have a studio full of completed and in-process works of political artwork (so to speak).

Seems Gen. Clark’s “positions” should have been as clear a year ago, as they are being focused group to now. I don’t have any stake in any of this … no White House job awaits me … but, I do want our country on a vibrant new course … unencumbered by the special interests and good ol’boys who want the world to revolve around them while we take back seat (if lucky) … surely the good ol’boy network is huge and powerful … but, to change the tide, we have to start somewhere … and, continuing any variation of the the last 30 years … I don’t see us progressing into the 21st century with the leadership we need … leadership which will be proactive in guiding us to be the shining example we should be …


Anyhow … we could build Gen. Clark into a candidate of our choosing … as a Party, help to select a VP or vice-versa who will guide us in a positive, progressive direction (much like the antithesis of what the GOP did with putting Nixon on Eisenhower’s ticket to take us on our current negative course) … but, what baggage will be included on this train trip; and, how will it effect change in this country?

Shall I judge him by the company he keeps?

Yes.

I’ll have my last French Gauloise now, and just for the heck of it ... I'll type "Lieberman" to serve as cover ...

so, exit ... stage left ...

McCarthy that is. Guilt by association much?

:eyes:

can I have one more Gauloise

I tend to smoke generics.

Welcome to Dick Chaney's America.

A wishy-washy mealy-mouthed centrist appease-all-sides pansy. We don't need a goddamned general in the Oval Office. Even the esteemed George Washington, whatever virtues he had, was Alexander Hamilton's Kept Boy. Generals - no matter what kind of persons they are - either bring war, corruption, or inepitude to the WH. Before any of you defend Ike, remember: Nixon.

This is probably due to them being used to doing things the "military way", or some other desk jockey hooey one expects of officers.

I do not want Clark to run, either as Prez or Veep. :thumbsdown:

clearly does not have all the facts.

Desk jockey?

And what are your credentials to make such a judgement?

I saw his pussy-ass performance on Crossfire the other day. He blows turds.

personal observation of a 30 minute program is all you need. I shall instruct my lawyers to strike you from the jury.

check your messages.

Did ya hear? Clark has now moved into second place for number of meetups. Can I get a woo hoo?

It's pretty common knowledge that most military officers are THE MOST RELUCTANT to go to war. Here we have a guy that is probably more passively inclined than 80% of the Democratic base. But because he's a military guy, we shouldn't support him. It offends our leftist ideals. What a joke. Yeah, let's not vote for Wes Clark who would have opposed the war with Iraq when we can vote for George Bush. What a bunch of horseshit. I believe that you are very young and unwise to politics. General Clark is a gift from heaven and if we're too stupid to take advantage of him then we deserve to be in the wilderness for the next generation.

I agree completely. I have no doubt Wes Clark would be among the last to have done what chimpy did. ANY of what chimpy has done for that matter! Having heard him talk about all manner of things military and political, I'd say he's a levelheaded man over-all. I'm betting he's a sickened by Bush & Co.s bumbling destruction as I am.

Now that I'm thinking about it, I think he was the first one I ever heard echoing my sentiments that Rummy was completely out of his gourd strategy wise when the invasion of Iraq started. He phrased it very carefully, but the meaning was pretty clear- we needed more ground forces to pull it off.

Clark also a former CNN spokes man as to the war is a fine looking man with many talents, one being to able to maintain composure under fire. Not just in the field but in public and on TV.
.
His recent indecision about which party to run under is interesting isn't it, he's a man of many coats.
.
He is also a man that lead NATO......you decide. Could we all be making the mistake of our lives?
.
Global corporations, or multinationals, are familiar to everyone. They are of immense size -- of the top fifty world economies, nearly half are corporations, not nations -- and they increasingly have no loyalty to any "home" country.
.
Propaganda -- including Hollywood productions and mass-media "news" -
- is increasingly global in scope, presenting a centrally- manufactured corporate party line to the world's people.
.
Corruption -- the elite corporate domination of public institutions -
- focuses more and more at the international level, setting up institutions (NAFTA, GATT, IMF, NATO, Brussels) ___which are designed to serve corporate objectives and which operate outside the dominion of national states.

didn't have much trouble working for international institutions.

I've always been very curious about how long the anti-war radicals' support of the UN could be maintained, considering that the UN is part of the same network of international institutions (the Bretton Woods institutions) as the WTO and so on.

If you think global capitalism that is mediated through international institutions is bad, try to comtemplate what happens if every country attempts to defend its own national sovereignty by any means necessary...oh wait, we get 19th Century imperialism and then World War I. Sounds like a great plan to me...

If he enters, that makes him, I think, the only guy out of the ten to have ended a conflict.

Add that to Washington's neutrality and non-entanglement policies, the Marshall Plan, and Roosevelt's negotiation of the Russo-Japanese war ceasefire (ok, he was only a colonel), and we've got a history of former generals acting as peacemakers.

Have you ever listened to the guy talk?