Is Clark a mole operative? {poll}

Is Presidential Democratic Party candidate Gen. Wes Clark a Rovian deep-cover project yes it is possible today or no, tin foil hat failure.

n/t, I said!

please people, enough. Just read about the man, interviews etc maybe you'll learn something

not for the naive

before you parents ever set eyes on each other. your naivte is showing

longtime anti-fascist independent voter.

no kidding 3.2 million votes and potentially Party members-I like the populist Democratic progressive wing the old school Party for which I've been beaten and bloodied throughtout the years but I'm not with your "In crowd" thanx a lot, Brian!

Username: bobthedrummer

Send private message Add to buddy list

Profile name Profile value
Member since Before July 6th, 2003
Number of posts 2844
Avatar Image
Gender male
State WI.
Country United States of America
Hobby Hiking for hours
Comment B.A. Sociology/Human Development 1992
A.A.S. Marketing 1980

Politically progressive independent

So, still think there is no difference between the Democrat and Republican parties?

it can be hard to tell.

Naivite is a requirement in voting for Nader, or believing in deep cover moles emeging as prsidential candidates. The world does not work that way, and age is no guarantee of wisdom.

What a sorry mess this Democratic Underground is......The substance of debate is what I would find in a 3rd grade homeroom Class. I don't want President Toy Flight Suit to be reelected....but from the sound of the Dean supporters' view of Clark....and maybe even the Clark supporters' view of Dean (although I, as a Clark supporter refuse to bash Governor Dean).....I believe that Many will stay away from the polls during the general......since many seem to be building into such a frenzy of hatred, contempt and distrust.......

"Why do they have wars Mommy?".......
"Because Tommy, people just don't know how to get along"....
"Why Mommy?"
"Because at the end, I don't think they really want to"
"Why Mommy?"
"Because if we were all were at peace, they wouldn't have anything to do"

Those who have experienced WAR work for PEACE
SUPPORT OUR TROUPS, ELECT ONE!

I've noticed everyday that newer Clark supporters make statements like that and denigrate DU. That is why I am starting to think that some of the people who claim to support Clark really don't and are just trolling to disrupt.

I would not go to a board that I thought was a "sorry mess." But I guess you think you're here to save us. :shrug:

I am hoping that some would tamper themselves....I am trying not to lose hope in Democrats being different from Hate talk radio. When one is a liberal, there are not as many avenues as one would think....guess I am hard up.

interviews, etc and I have have learned that I do not like him.

There is no way in hell I would ever vote for him.

I do not TRUST him.

Enjoy voting for Bush in 04.

Just because she isn't supporting Clark, doesn't mean she's supporting Bush. If that was the case, we'd all just better pack it in, because that means all the Kerry, Gephardt, Dean, etc. supporters are really going to vote for Bush.

I have seen you post here so many times. It's all anti-Clark. I rarely notice you posting something positive about anyone, especially Clark.

you will find I say many postive things about the Democratic candidates. I support four of the Democratic candidates.

clark is not a Democrat!

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2003/nf2003101_0874_db038.htm

He's not officially running for president either.

The paper work hasn't been submitted yet. These things are working themselves out. Once again, we have caught Clark telling the truth. He said that he was not with any party and that's obviously true.

who would argue that backing Clark will be politically expedient and therefore is good for the Democrats, whether Clark is a true Democrat or not? Personally, I think this is about the WORST thing the dems could do right now. But in politics, the worst decision is often the most politically effective.

Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.




http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GOW309A.html

"There are an awful lot of people," a retired four-star general told the Washington Post, "who believe Wes will tell anybody what they want to hear and tell somebody the exact opposite five minutes later."

Maybe that's why documentary filmmaker Michael Moore fell hook, line and sinker for former General Wesley Clark's claim that he's opposed to war.

Clark, of course, isn't opposed to war -- not in any fashion that counts, and anyone who thinks a career military man who fought in Vietnam and led NATO's 78-day war on Yugoslavia is opposed to war must be doing a practicum in bamboozling the public, or has been bamboozled himself.

Clark's alleged antiwar credentials were apparently established by a few reservations the former general expressed about the Pentagon's tactics in Iraq, as in "I would have done it differently," so to say Clark is opposed to war is like saying the former executioner is opposed to capital punishment because if he were still in charge he would have used a noose, not the electric chair.




"The poster child for everything that is wrong with the GO (general officer) corps," exclaims one colonel, who has had occasion to observe Clark in action, citing, among other examples, his command of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood from 1992 to 1994

"At the beginning of the Kosovo conflict,CounterPunch delved into the military career of General Wesley Clark and discovered that his meteoric rise through the ranks derived from the successful manipulation of appearances: faking the results of combat exercises, greasing to superiors and other practices common to the general officer corps. We correctly predicted that the unspinnable realities of a real war would cause him to become unhinged. Given that Clark attempted to bomb the CNN bureau in Belgrade and ordered the British General Michael Jackson to engage Russian troops in combat at the end of the war, we feel events amply vindicated our forecast.

With the end of hostilities it has become clear even to Clark that most people, apart from some fanatical members of the war party in the White House and State Department, consider the general, as one Pentagon official puts it, "a horse's ass". Defense Secretary William Cohen is known to loathe him, and has seen to it that the Hammer of the Serbs will be relieved of the Nato command two months early.
Gen. Wesley Clark Fights On and On
CounterPunch November 12, 1999

The real question about Clark though is whether it matters who he is or not. He would probably be a puppet just as much as Bush. It sounds real bad, I know, but think of this: Clark would destroy Bush in the general election. Bush would have nothing on him because he will stake this whole election on national security. The deserter against the general! It could be a Mondale/McGovern/Dukakis type loss for the other side.

I guess I am saying Clark could be our Reagan. Good or bad?

:wtf: is with the Clark bashing???

He IS NOT "conspireing" with the Bushistas to take over the world!!!

He is an ARDENT CRITIC of Bushie!!!! Get over it!!!

all of them...

You can title it: Is Kucinich a shill for Vegans and WTO rioters.

The "get over it" part...in private, I've been thinking of all the Deanies as SoreLosermen...never thought I'd see the day that I would use those terms in relationship to a fellow Dem

Awaiting the accusations of being a Repug lover............

I remember watching what the pukes did to McCain last time around. I remember thinking that another reason that I am proud to be a Dem is that we won't kill each other in some B/S political civil war. I am disappointed at that part of how the race is playing out. Many Dem guns are pointed at Dean. All guns (right and left) are pointed at Clark. Dean is creating a fracture in the party by labeling people Bush lite and saying his supporters are not transferable. Very bad.

"I've been thinking of all the Deanies as SoreLosermen...never thought I'd see the day that I would use those terms in relationship to a fellow Dem"

Funny how you find yourself attacking dems when you support CLark.

Apparently, in your mind, no one else is entitled to an opinion nor can they respond to what they perceive as an attack from you, using your own techniques. You have all the questions, answers, and rights.

Well, I've had more than enough fun with you. Mama always taught me that it was rude to get into a battle of intellect with an unarmed person. DDDDDDDDDDDDDIIIIIINNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGG! Take it away, IGNORE feature.

All of that Bush bashing and the liberal stance has has on almost every issue is just a trick to fool us into voting for him. If he is elected, he will implement conservative policies like raising the minimum age to collect social security and preserving at least part of the missile defense system.

"All of that Bush bashing and the liberal stance has has on almost every issue is just a trick to fool us into voting for him."


2 years ago Clark was saying how great bush was and how we needed him and his staff to lead and protect us...


Clearly this proves that at the very best Clark's positions change depending on who he is pandering to and at worst he is a repuke who is lying to us.

``But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.''
--- Wesley Clark, may 11, 2001 link

It is the Republicans, since all Dems are bedwetters who are "soft on defense." ;)

That is not a position. Not everyone is a rabid partisan attack dog.

discover that a) that was the only time GWB was mentioned in the entire thing, b) the speech had very little to do with politics, or c) that Clark was getting the audience's attention so that they'd listen to the IMPORTANT part of the speech, namely just about everything except what you quoted.

Jake Tapper: Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ...

Wesley Clark: I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

(Deputy Secretary of Defense) Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. (Deputy National Security Advisor) Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy) Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with (Pentagon advisor) Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues.

Jake Tapper: Do you disagree with them on their worldview?

Wesley Clark: I disagreed with them on some specific aspects. I would not have gone after the war on terror exactly as they did and I laid that out in the new foreword to the paperback edition of "Waging Modern War". But I also know there's no single best plan. You have to pick a plan that might work and make it work. That means you've got to avoid the plans with the fatal flaws. This administration came into office predisposed to use American troops for war fighting and to realign American foreign policy so it focused on a more robust, more realistic view of the world than the supposedly idealistic view of the previous administration.

But the views that President Bush espoused recently at the American Enterprise Institute, if his predecessor had espoused that view he'd have been hooted off the stage, laughed at, accused of being incredibly idealistic about the hard-nosed practical politics of the Middle East. So this is an administration that's moving in a certain direction, and now that that's the direction they've picked they've got to make it work. Like everybody else, I hope they'll be successful. It's too important; we can't afford to fail.
<snip>
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/index_np.html

Before the war he was praising the President for having the cajones to go to war with Iraq. It was only the WAY the war was conducted ("on the cheap") that bothered him.

As for the other issues, I don't think Clark even knows enough of the President's policies to attack them. In the debate he couldn't even respond to many questions that should have easily led to Bush bashing.

Now I am not necessarily anti-Clark (though I have my doubts). But lets not pretend he is some kind of hard line democrat.

n/t

.

very scary...realpolitik style.

But he sure do smell funny. The timing and all as well as his warm and touching comments as regards the Bushco team.."these people are friends of mine........" add Ike's admonition re: the military/industrial complex and there it is, he sure do smell funny.

You need to be watching for black helicopters if you vote yes on this poll.

But hey, I know someone who knows someone who could get a job for you. I think that the White House will be looking for someone to take over their push polling operation pretty soon.

Very interesting-welcome to DU:hi:javadu!

There's no right wing conspiracy. Just take your pill.

I don't need any, thanx!

:tinfoilhat: time.

To the 35% of you who've voted "Yes" so far - I must say that I understand that just about as much as I understand why 50% of the American public still approves of Bush.

If you honestly believe Clark is a Rove operative, your local bookstore has a library of conspiracy theory books they'd like to sell you.

issues2000.org says that Dean and Clark are nearly identical on the "liberal" scale. If you review Clark's stance on the issues, he's pretty liberal, especially from a social standpoint.

So, to make the same leaps of faith it takes to assume Clark is a Republican,

Clark = Dean
Clark = Republican
Dean = Republican ?!?!

Oh my, Howard Dean is a Republican! Yeah, right. And Ray Charles is God.

His stances on the "traditional" liberal/Democrat issues are probably MORE liberal than all but 2 or 3 of the Perfect 10. You know why? Because he can GET AWAY WITH a socially liberal stance on the issues.

Don't you get it? With the exception of Kerry, Clark is the only person in the race that can believe in a liberal agenda and have any chance of winning the primary. He can afford to, because he already has Bush trumped on the Commander-in-Chief crap. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Bush is STILL perceived as a leader, military and otherwise, by 50% of the US.

Either you believe Clark's stances on the issues or you don't. Frankly, it would take an incredibly concerted effort to lie about EVERYTHING in his campaign, but apparently 35% of you actually believe that.

Not to mention that it's a very convenient excuse and an answer to everything. If you remove, "But, Clark is a Republican" as a response, you might actually have to research the issues. And, you might discover that he's a lot more liberal than you think. Or, you might have to actually think about your response instead of copy/pasting "Clark is a Republican".

Unless, of course, you really do believe that everything is one big Rovian lie. That makes it pretty easy to bash him and support your candidate. Hell, if all you have to say is, "At least my candidate isn't a Republican", that makes your candidate look pretty good, right?

Edit: changed the percentage as it went up while I was typing this.

That the next election is over the Nascar Dads not the soccer moms. And only Clark can get the Nascar Dad vote.
“If you do not stand for something you will fall for anything”

there isn't a race on on Election Day!

:P

Excellent post Boxster, I find it sad that people from the left are so quick to act like those from the right and prejudge with little or wrong information.

When shown face to face Dean and Clark are similar in very many of their viewpoints.

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

that is filtered through your mind not ours.

Was Ross Perot a DLC plant?

Was Pat Buchanan a Carvillian mole?

Was Ralph Nader paid millions by the RNC and the Carlyle Group to stay in the race and fuck Gore and the rest of the country, including 3.2 million Greenies?

he's more of a hedgehog

link

the guy is either some kind of mole or a 4-star incompetent. first in his class at west point; a rhodes scholar; called a "genius" by colleagues; but forgot to register as a democrat before running as a democrat?

voted for nixon, reagan, bush I... fundraised for GOP in 2001... expressed admiration for PNACers in the administration... praised bush II and blair after the war... for most of 2003, before announcing, refused to publicly state his party affiliation... after announcing, claims he "lacks strong partisan" tendencies... and now, this fiasco... i'm sorry, that's just a bit too non-partisan for my tastes.

She's a deep undercover mole. Or just an analyst, according to NoFacts.

The paper work hasn't been submitted yet. These things are working themselves out. Once again, we have caught Clark telling the truth. He said that he was not with any party and that's obviously true.

?

is ok always has been.

I am for Dean but Clark may win, and this seems like demonization to me. I think he represents establishment dems that I would not like to be nominated, but calling him a mole is over the top. Democrats don't need to be doing Rove's work.

That is classic political reality.

meant to fuck Gore, the 3.2 million Greenies and the rest of the country?

When it looked like Nader wouldn't come close to getting 5%, he should have dropped out.

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

Aren't the polls here cookie based? Deleting your cookies and voting multiple times is a freeper-like tool.

And here's a fact: DU is not truly representative of the Democratic party. Most of us here (including me) are far more librul than our "mainstream" Democratic breathren. DK gets far more support here than he does in the real world, where he is unelectable.

Was Ralph Nader a Rovian mole? Answer the question. Yes or no.

One vote per identity.

even if they are. If they are moles they will be identified by bad judgement and political views. That is appropriate criticism. This is not. This is demonization of a candidate.

I'm so glad you support unelectables and hurt the Democratic Party!

If Dennis K doesn't get the nomination (is his support still at 1%?), will you be writing in Nader's name?

in a Clark thread

Whose mighty name? Dennis the Menace Kucinich who presided over a bankrupt Cleveland when he was mayor? Or the great and powerful Ralph :puke: who fucked us as a spoiler?

You think a President Gore would have lied and invaded Iraq?

Get your own website, Naderite.

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

:)

that Cleveland went bankrupt because Dennis stood up to banks and corporations, and that his actions saved the people of Cleveland over $200,000,000, and that the people of Cleveland love him, and keep re-electing him, in a district that has, I believe, more republicans than Democrats. :)

:dem:Kucinich, the real thing.

if he's a mole, he's a DLC mole, not a rovian one. The DLC screwed up BIG TIME hitching their wagon to Lie-berman.

that greatly shaped General Clark's career to now IMHO.

Shock and Awe
http://www.dodccrp.org/shockIndex.html

Revolution in Political and Military Affairs/RPMA
http://www.guerrillacampaign.com/coup.htm

He could harm a divided Party as a mole would.

____, everybody's got one.

Maybe you can take the man in his own words. Happy reading.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#1001031244pm

Karl Rove convinces a man (who could possibly beat his guy, Bush) to run for President, as a dupe for the entire Democratic party. Obviously, the Clintons have to be in on it, which means that Clinton must have been hiding his allegiance to Bush for years. Or maybe Clinton was duped, too. We all know he's not a very smart man.

Hell, why stop there, maybe Rove is pulling the strings of all the Democratic candidates!:

1) He gets Kerry and Gephardt to run so that the Democratic party will look like it supported Bush on the war the whole time;

2) He gets Lieberman to run so that the Arab vote goes to the Republican party;

3) He gets Kucinich to run because he knows America will never elect a man that liberal;

4) He gets Graham to run so that when his campaign fails, his criticisms of the handling of 9/11 will be forgotten:

5) He gets Carol Moseley Braun and AL Sharton to run to fragment the black vote and the female vote, thereby making it easier for one of the others to win the primary;

6) He gets John Edwards to run so that he can formally announce for president on the same day as Clark, therefore getting the media to comment on how much more attention Clark is getting, and;

7) The Howard Dean/Rove link is already documented. Didn't Rove say "That's the one we want"?

Boy, this Rove is a dasterdly and clever fellow! He controls BOTH parties!

In the way all debunkers do, by making absurd total control argument.
The best manipulator works with the minimum of meddling. It is not necessary to do everything only key points, like getting someone in the Democratic party to put up Clark as a spoiler for Dean.
And so far it is working.
But we must just remember; “there is no RW conspiracy”

I'm a believer in LIHOP and MIHOP. I just think that the proponents of this particular tinfoilhat theory have such an agenda that they cannot see the obvious logical fallacies of their theory.

BTW, I have not decided who I will be supporting for the Dem. nomination, but I am leaning AWAY from Clark. So my agenda is not what you might think.

But I know enough of manipulation to know how easy it can be. In a crap game you do not have to control the numbers on the dice to win, all you really need is a shill standing on either side of you.
And to meddle in the Democratic primary you need not own all the candidates or even any of them. Just a few well placed people could move them in a way you have planed for, which is what I think has happened.

1. Why would Rove, while Bush's poll numbers are so high, plant someone in the race who could, becuase he is a four-star general, easily discredit Bush in his one area of strength, national security? Why would he have his "candidate" announce at a time when the Iraq furor was dying down? Didn't we get days of press coverage questioning Bush about Iraq because of this?

2. Why would he pick someone that Bill Clinton decribed as "one of the two stars of the Democratic party"? Has Clinton been duped, too, or is he in on it?

3. Why would Rove plant someone in the race who actually had a shot to beat Bush if he made it past the primary? Isn't the ultimate goal to have Bush and his cabal running the show? How does aving a friend of Clinton's in the White House accomplish this?

4. Why would Clark come out and say "I'm proud to be a liberal"? That's a good way to attract Democratic votes, but not a good way to win a general election. And why did Rove say "That's the one we want" in refernce to Dean and his percieved inability to win because of his liberalness?

5. Clark is actually losing support because of questions of his connections to the Democratic party. Was this part of the plan? Or was Rove just being incompetent?

6. Finally, can you point to anyone involved with the Clark campaign that has any connection to Rove, Bush or the PNAC?

1. Rove did not plant anyone but convinced some of the Democrats that a military man was there only hope. That was fairly easy to do because they had set up the target (bush as a military man). His candidate announced just as Edwards and Braun announced but the Media was all over the Clark story. The Iraq story had nothing to do with it.
2. Bill Clinton had nothing to do with it, and had Clark not been talked about the remarks would not have been published.
3. Once again you have fallen for the “Clark is the only one” spin and assume that Clark can beat bush in November. That is not at all clear to me. In fact If Clark gets it I predict Bush winning in a close race due to low voter turn out. Sure Clark will get the NAScar dads but will louse more than he gains.
4. You do not believe Rove except when he tells you what he wants? Clark’s statement means nothing if he praised bush just in 2001 unless he had a sudden conversion. And I would bet that if he is the nominee the Repugs will bring it up over and over till the democrats just give up and not vote at all, figuring that it was all fixed from the beginning.
5. The plan was to stop the populist Dean and that is all that matters, because low voter turn out is the objective here, not a democratic victory.
6. I don’t know anyone in the Clark campaign do you? And I do not know any one here that supports Clark. They could all, or most all, be freepers as far as I know, and as far as I could ever know, because if people are manipulating they will not tell you what they really believe.

Your first step has Rove convincing some Democrats only a military man could produce a Democratic win. How did he do that? Did they have lunch? Do they exchange late-night telephone calls? Are these really Rove's moles, too? What Democrats take political advice from Rove?

Your aspersion that those here who support Gen. Clark are denizens of Free Republic is offensive, and just might be worthy of an alert. Many of his supporters are senior to myself here; at least one besides me has served as a moderator here for multiple terms.

Who in Damnation are you, Sir, and where the Hell did you come from?

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

They set up the target by having bush land on the carrier and for weeks after that he gave speech after speech to a military crowd that cheered him on wildly. Those are all images that were burned into the mind, but if you missed it you are one of the few.
If my observations offend you sir then consider this, I am offended by your use of the term sir. I am not your superior officer. And this is not the military underground.

If you want to know who I am read my profile and I will read yours and that is all that we can expect in this forum now is it not? But if you want to really know me then read what I have written. I have made it easy because for the past six years I have only written under the name of zeemike. My ideas and opinions are all that I have to offer to the public.

Big mind full of shit
Little mind, not a bit

"It is wrong to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."

Of the profoundly wealthy and snobbish.
Charming or tedious my ass.

Most will quickly find your rump tedious, though still, you would be best advised to lead with it, as the best you can offer the world.

"I just think that the proponents of this particular tinfoilhat theory have such an agenda that they cannot see the obvious logical fallacies of their theory."

Uh, don't you think the same thing can be said regarding your dislike for Bush and LIHOP/MIHOP?

Don't forget that Rove ordered Rep. Rangel to support Wesley Clark....and most of the rest of the Black Democratic Caucus.... when they come around.

you just like using the word 'realpolitik'

today, Clark could be a mole.

n/t

...an egotistical asshole who stuck us with this bunch of crypto-fascists we have now! Thanks, Ralph! :puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr::puke::grr:

His ties to Rummy and Carlucci at Princeton and his damage to Gore and the Nation convinced me

Coulter could be a liberal trying to discredit conservatives by making outrageous claims.

Donovan McNabb could be white but posed as Black to take advantage of the NFL's lucrative affirmative action program.

You could be a push poller. I think you've got the talent. And, as I said in an earlier post, I know of a job that could be available soon.

Clark scares some very thoughtful DUers

is all. Scared?? yeah like GWBUSH isn't the scariest damn thing this country has seen since Nixon.

I personally do not, but a third of the people here do.

Even if he is genuine, can we afford to lose that many votes?

n/t

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

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

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

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

but not on Medicare.

I believe no Democrat should be compared to Newt Gingrich.

If Dean is the nominee, his 2004 view on Medicare will not be the same as his 1995 view.

Do you somehow believe that calling them idiots will make them change their mind?

It does not matter whether or not Clark is a mole. What matters is that a large number of people think he is, and will act on that belief.

His poll is very deceptive.

a one-percent increase

.

not in this population sample!!!:hi:

All 'maybes' and 'yesses' and even the 'I don't knows' could be in that 38%. Plus, your poll is highly unscientific and is a very small sample of the DU community, most of which is against Clark. Unscientific opinion polls mean nothing. I never understood the hype of 'DU this poll' or 'freep this poll'.

Your poll sucks because your question is misleading.

A better poll:

Is Clark a Rovian mole?

Yes.

No.

Don't know.

Hell, add a 'maybe' choice.

Restart your poll and I'll stop being a motormouth.

my, my...

my, my...39%

eom

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

because he is soooo handsome. What a hunk!

:eyes: Btw, I'm a deanie.

Then DK is a babe magnet who puts charmer Bill Clinton to shame...

eom

Your vote shows why many people who are casually familiar with Democratic Underground laugh at it. This thread is embarrassing.

someone claimed to have voted twice-use your alert button here.

the people that voted 1 time "Yes" because they believe it.

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

if you have two ids.

all this shaped Clark's military career-long series of papers on things PNACer's love
WAR.
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/library/bibs/wafar03.htm

I really smell that PNAC stench...

The original article:
 " I WENT BACK through the Pentagon in November 2001, and one of
the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were
still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This
was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and
there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria,
Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. So, I thought, this is what
they mean when they talk about “draining the swamp.” It was evidence of
the Cold War approach: Terrorism must have a “state sponsor,” and it
would be much more effective to attack a state than to chase after
individuals, nebulous organizations, and shadowy associations.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/969671.asp?0bl=-0

The Islam on Line take off:
7 Muslim Countries Were On U.S. War List: Wesley Clark
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2003-09/22/article04.shtml

He's already denouncing them.....

Wait...What did Dean say about PNAC? I can't hear you? Say again?

What a mistake! I reflected—as though the terrorism were simply coming from these states. Well, that might be true for Iran, which still supported Hezbollah, and Syria, complicit in aiding Hamas and Hezbollah. But neither Hezbollah nor Hamas were targeting Americans. Why not build international power against Al Qaeda? But if we prioritized the threat against us from any state, surely Iran was at the top of the list, with ongoing chemical and biological warfare programs, clear nuclear aspirations, and an organized, global terrorist arm.

And what about the real sources of terrorists—U.S. allies in the region like Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia? Wasn’t it the repressive policies of the first, and the corruption and poverty of the second, that were generating many of the angry young men who became terrorists? <snip>

<snip>

And if we wanted to go after states supporting terrorism, why not first go to the United Nations, present the evidence against Al Qaeda, set up a tribunal for prosecuting international terrorism? Why not develop resolutions that would give our counterterrorist efforts the greater force of international law and gain for us more powerful leverage against any state that might support terrorists, then use international law and backed by the evidence to rope in the always nuanced Europeans that still kept open trade with Iran and the others?

So in other words, become the world's cowboy and set up your own international court? And the countries on your list just... happen to be the same ones on PNAC's list :shrug: Another "independent" coincidence I guess.

Maybe I'm just blind and stupid but if that's not PNAC, I don't know what the hell is! What I'm reading here is let's use Al-Queda as an excuse to continue the PNAC plan- I see absolutely NO denunciation of PNAC in that quote you provided. If anything- all I see here is the same neo-con plan under a different packaging.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969671.asp?0bl=-0

Your smear campaign is a joke.

Tip 1: Differentiate between your editorializing and that which you're quoting. Your whole schtick is based around cutting and pasting to obfuscate your criticism in a mountain of words. You also editorialize by highlighting words to impose your POV while pretending to give objective information.


So in other words, become the world's cowboy and set up your own international court? And the countries on your list just... happen to be the same ones on PNAC's list :shrug: Another "independent" coincidence I guess.

Maybe I'm just blind and stupid but if that's not PNAC, I don't know what the hell is! What I'm reading here is let's use Al-Queda as an excuse to continue the PNAC plan- I see absolutely NO denunciation of PNAC in that quote you provided. If anything- all I see here is the same neo-con plan under a different packaging.

Clark is advocating a method to deal with international terrorism which is multilateral and relies on cooperation to achieve the mutual desired result - safety from these attacks. He is presenting a diplomatic alternative to war, but war is a necessessity if a country, like afghanistan, continues to harbour terrorists that have an active campaign against another nation and are not being delt with internally.

The NeoCons are promoting the idea of forced "democracy" to liberalize and privatize foreign markets while destabilizing a region to give leverage to Israel. They are attacking States rather than focusing their energy on international terrorism, while Clark is proposing an alternative to this foreign policy. He's even proposing the creation of a department to spread the ideas of liberal democracy to prevent the NeoCon Cry for imperial bloodshed, so youre wrong with your assessment.

62 percent of you people think Clark is a Rove operative?
How silly and imbecilic. Maybe I'll have to think twice about trusting anything I read here, if Clark is on the same level as the enemy, The Shrub.

Everyone who voted for the first option should be ashamed of themselves.

They did not create this situation of mistrust.

No shame in seeing through the bullshit.

It's unfair to pick out people. Sorry.

zero actual proof. Entire Speculation based on zero actual proof. No proof. To those that voted yes shows not only ignornace of the situation, but stupidity in general for having such a formualated opinion based on zero actual proof.

Are you aware you said that 4 times in that one short post?
I always find that amusing to hear when this board is full of questions that people have and that have not been answered at all, or minimally at best, and you say Zero Proof.

:D

as for the "questions", they've all been addressed one time or another here yet are continuously brought up, not to mention entirely circumstantial to theory which is being postulated on in the subject title for vote.

But I do think he is a plant to keep the party in the hands of the untra right wing Dems. I also think the fact most of his supporters are not long time DUers is telling. Seems like the whole Draft Clark thing was fabricated.

I was worried Dean was the DLC hedge bet but Clark makes me think Dean is the real anti DLC man.

Maybe the establishment has embraced him not because of Dean, but because they think he has the best chance of not only beating Bush, but having other Dems ride his coattails to congressional Seats. In other words, you dont know.

IMHO.

DEMOCRATS: Fer Chrissake, stop sabotaging yourselves!!!!!

the people who say Clark is a mole...I say you're more likely to be a mole. read up on COINTELPRO - no tinfoil hat required.

devotes an entire show to simply reading some of the posts here, and laughing at them? Rush could do it:


'Now it's time for the DU follies (Reads several conspiracy theory posts) See folks? These are the kind of left wing liberal wackos I'm talking about. An embarrassment to this great country. blah blah blah...'

Guess he's not :shrug:

No big deal, we still have 9 known strapping Dems to pick from... And among those Dems, there's still Lieberman as a die-hard pro-war candidate (who at least has had the integrity to be truthful).

Maybe Clark should just remain an Independent.

i think Clark will hold up a little better to the criticism than the other 9, despite being singled out by the GOP as the biggest threat to Bush, but im sure he appreciates your concern.

And militarism breeds fascism in an empire. Scary neo-conservative traitors again. They contaminate everything you know. Everything. Even politics. With moles about underground. Moles.

Establishment = stagnancy
I doubt the Bushies enjoy being ripped on by Clark.

n/t

eom

he said that already when he pledged anew his service in military that combined with Rove fiasco prompts my caution with this General.
Private armies of neo-cons Halliburton
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6008
DynCorp.
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6328

have also been entitled, "Are you on medication?"

no meds for me, thanx!

are we all insane? I beg to differ.

Foolish, ignorant of the world, unaccustomed to real political calculation, certainly.

Madness is a much higher calling; it requires real effort and suffering.

be all fools? Rove is clever, so was Al Haig, so is Gen. Clark IMO.