Everything I have seen from Clark (past and present) shows that he is pretty much just like Bush. I don't understand why so many people have rallied in support for him. Is it because he fought in Vietnam and is a General in the United States Army? He supported the Iraq invasion (sure he is now backtracking) but couldn't stop saying how much he loved the Bush administration in 2002. How can anti-war democrats support clark when guys like Dean have been against the war from the beginning. Lieberman was right "WELCOME to the democratic party Clark!"

I welcome comments, please prove me wrong, I just don't understand it.

And double Yawn... This is sooooo old and tired that it makes me sick! I am not an advocate for any candidate, but for goodness sake please give it a rest with the Clark stuff. :boring:

I haven't seen a thread regarding this.

Look around just a little bit and you will find plenty about Clark. Someone is sure to come along and give you the information you seek. I hope you enjoy DU, it really is a great place. Again, welcome!

Sorry I hadn't noticed...
oops, did I say that out loud...

Allow me to give you a list...Better yet...If you can read pick up AL Frankens book.

http://fordean.org/aa/issues/press_view.asp?ID=398
From Feb 02:

“He (Dean) does credit Bush for being "popular because he knows who he is, and he speaks unambiguously about his message." “

He (Dean) gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

I've taken a hard look at both Clark and Dean. Dean is the one who reminds me of Bush.

This Clark supporter attacks Dean with the following…

“He (Dean) does credit Bush for being "popular because he knows who he is, and he speaks unambiguously about his message." “

First notice how they never have direct quotes, but rather quotes from 3rd party op ed pieces where someone else is giving a partial quote wrapped in their opinion. Most of the time there isn’t even a whole sentence from Dean, just a few words. That makes it easier to lie about the context.

Clark's folks can’t post whole quote or direct quotes because without fail the context of the statement proves they are lying, or they are quoting someone who is doing the lying.

In that quote, if you follow the link, you find the whole paragraph before that statement sets a different tone. In fact the name of the article is “On the campaign trail with the un-Bush” but you wouldn’t get that feeling from the tiny bits these liars will quote and spin.


In the era of calm, passive, out-of-power Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., one just doesn't hear many Democratic elected officials saying the things Dean does. "This is probably the most dangerous presidency to the country since Herbert Hoover," he says to me. His take on Bush's State of the Union embrace of hydrogen-powered vehicles and an AIDS policy for Africa is even harsher; he attributes the decisions to "cynical politics" and says they "disgusted" him for that reason.
He does credit Bush for being "popular because he knows who he is, and he speaks unambiguously about his message."

Add to that the total hypocrisy like we see in the fact that this Clark supporter will attack Dean for saying something like that about Bush, then they ignore Clark saying the follow at a republican fundraiser in 2001.

"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."


"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."

"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."


So basically Dean is like Bush, according to this Clark Corps spinner, because he said Bush is popular… yet Clark says Bush and Reagan were great leaders whom he admired and that he’s so grateful to them at a republican fundraiser, and that doesn’t mean anything.

The Clark liars will harp on some quote from Dean from 10 or 12 years ago that he gave in response to a hypothetical question about circumstances that have long since changed, and act as if it applies to his policy today. Yet when asked about something Clark said TWO years ago, they’ll say it is in the past and is irrelevant.

Now onto the second BS quote… from the same piece.

“He (Dean) gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.”

Now first of all notice the quotes… the underlined part is not an exact quote, but a paraphrase. Although the Clark Corps liar love to try and trick people into thinking it is an exact quote, because this is what they try to use to claim Dean waffled on his position on the war in Iraq.

You see Clark said he’d vote for the IWR, then he said he wouldn’t, then he said he would… then he finally admitted he’s said it both ways and just didn’t know for sure but probably would have voted for it. Since they can’t defend Clark, the only thing they can do is try to argue that Dean is just as bad as Clark… that Dean waffled too.

The problem is Dean never waffled… his position has been consistently against the war because there was no imminent threat posed by Iraq, and thus no justification for unilateral pre-emptive war. What Dean did support was continuation of the inspection and disarming process, through the UN. And IF weapons were found and if there was a real imminent threat to the America, AND the UN refused to take action… then and only then, would Dean reluctantly support such action.

Now what the Clark liars do is cut this little bit out of the story and present it as if Dean was saying 30-60 days period… with no prerequisite of an imminent threat. But once again, if you read the few paragraphs before that quote, you see this that the quote has been taken out of context to hide the fact that Dean specifically notes before that statement that there is no imminent threat, and they hadn’t made the case for war.

Hence, today's phone calls. It's Thursday, Feb. 6, the day after Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations of evidence of Iraq's noncompliance with Resolution 1441. Edwards calls it "a powerful case." Kerry says it's "compelling." Lieberman, of course, is already in his fatigues.

Dean isn't sold. It doesn't indicate that Iraq is an imminent threat, he says.

From Washington come the barbs -- The New Republic calls it proof he's "not serious." ABC News' "The Note" wonders if he's backed himself into a corner. Dean has opposed the pending war because he didn't think President Bush had made his case. If he doesn't support military action now, the thinking goes, then he's just contradicting himself. Or, at the very least, he's been put in an untenable and -- for the moment, at least inside war-ready Washington, unpopular -- position.

He gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

So you see not only did Dean say that Powell didn’t make the case… in the paragraph just prior they reiterate Dean opposition to the war and ho unpopular of a position that was at the time. It s no wonder the Clark Corps cut that out, it shows they are lying their asses of.

And that begs the question… if Clark is so great, why do they have to put all this energy into making things up about Dean, finding quotes to spin out of context, and attacking folks who question Clark? Don’t let the liars fool you, because they’ll try very very hard to do so.

That was well done!

Thanks for that.

Its adisheartening to see so much spin put up against this man. However the fact that he is the real Deal has a funny way of bubling up through the muck over and over.

I really can't wait to get this guy in office.

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

But it's fun to participate in flame wars!
:crazy: :bounce:

Everything I have seen from Clark (past and present) shows that he is pretty much just like Bush.

How? He's not from a silver spoon elite family. He served in the military without going AWOL. The business ventures he's been involved in haven't been abyssmal failures. He graduated first in his class at West Point and was a Rhodes Scholar instead of sliding by. He is a proven leader not a paper leader.

My question to you is how in the hell could you ever have the idea that "Clark...is pretty much just like Bush?"

Flame bait!

Moving on...

....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

National defense he is JUST like Bush, and has been a republican most of his life.

Clark was a member of any political party most of his life....he was a military man who was above politics.

Maybe you're thinking of Lieberman.

Do you have any proof that this is the case? Can you point to his voter registration, for instance, that shows him to be a Republican?

Wait, this is just flamebait right? Nevermind. Enjoy your (probably short) stay at DU.

All I am doing is welcoming debate regarding what I see in Clark.

This debate has gone on for so long here, that many have grown weary of it. I think sometimes we forget that others, who are new, have not yet had a chance to experience parts of the debate that we are now beyond. I hope you understand and stick around to hear what others have to say about this.

then you know that he was an independent, NOT a republican. But, if you've been lurking, you already know that, right?

but voted republican and spoke at republcian fundraisers and worked as a lobbyist for henry kissinger.

Can you name any other democrat who does that?

...when will you give this up or provide concrete proof?

Clark is a senior adviser at CSIS - (Center for Strategic and International Studies)

1800 K Street,
N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006
Fax 202-775-3153

from their own website: http://www.csis.org/about

______________________________________________
The International Councillors, a group of international business leaders chaired by Henry Kissinger, meets semiannually to discuss the implications of the changing economic and strategic environment. The Advisory Board is composed of both public- and private-sector policymakers, including several members of Congress. Zbigniew Brzezinski and Carla Hills cochair the board. The Washington Roundtable meets three to four times a year with members of Congress, executive branch officials, and other Washington experts to discuss pressing policy issues of the day. The Houston and Dallas Roundtables bring together local business leaders and CSIS experts to discuss current international political and economic trends.
_____________________________________

OK so we have a K st lobby firm chaired by kissinger, that meets with congress 4 times a year to discuss policy, and their other offices are located in HOUSTON and DALLAS where they meet with business leaders.

CSIS is basicaly another Carlyle group using past government or international figures, like Clark, to push policy to benefit their business partners.

Also from their web site... http://www.csis.org/press/pr00_42.html
_____________________________________________________
GEN. WESLEY CLARK JOINS CSIS
Former Supreme Allied Commander Named Distinguished Adviser


WASHINGTON, July 10, 2000 — Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who commanded the first major combat operation in NATO history, was named today a distinguished senior adviser at CSIS.
______________________________________________________


As if that wasn't bad enough...Clark is STILL registered as a lobbyist for ANOTHER company.


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031002-122243-1914r.htm

Several of the other Democratic candidates not only criticized Mr. Clark's failure to register as a Democrat, but pointed to a recent disclosure in the New York Post that he remains a registered lobbyist for the Acxiom Corp., a Little Rock data-storage company.

by Kissinger, and he 'worked as a lobbyist for Kissinger?' It's silly spin. Typically in a corporate heirarchy, the chairman has no operational responsibilities, so Clark would not have 'worked for Kissinger' at CSIS.

Some Clark supporters rip on jackasses because they are jackasses, not because there's nothing else to say. This 'lobbied for Kissinger' nonsense is one of the more obscene stretches the demented Deanites have pulled.

Disappear now, and pop back up with the exact same claim later, like a good little whack-a-mole.

But hay, I bet you folks a hundred years from now will think this carnage and distruction will make a good banner add for a presdenchal campain. -Don't you just love radio.-

GRAPHIC REMOVED BY ADMIN: BANDWIDTH THEFT

I have to say it. Is there any thing out their as morbid?

I alerted you for this, but I'm telling you now it's incredibly bad manners, as well as stealing my bandwidth. Capice?

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

he was a lobbyist in a firm kissinger chaired.

First you CLark bots deny this even was the case, and now faced with solid proof of the connection to kissinger and CSIS, you'r going to split hairs of the definition of "working for".


Oh just because he had a job in a company where kissinger was a top guy, that doesn't mean he worked for him.

What's the best case... he worked towards the same goals WITH Kissinger... that's no better.

And you did address the fact he is STILL registed as a lobbyist for another company.

Actually, you're the one who is splitting hairs; I simply pointed the fact out.

And you did address the fact he is STILL registed as a lobbyist for another company.

I did? Where was this, pray tell? And why should I care, unless this is some kind of electoral violation, in which case the FEC should be involved?

Clark is a senior advisor for who? CSIS - (Center for Strategic and International Studies)! Kissinger is the chair of what? The International Councillors, a small group of CSIS member among other people. No where, and in no way, does this say or imply Clark is a part of THAT group of has any dealings with Kissinger.

Just for the record, Sam Nunn, a respected DEMOCRAT is the Chairman of CSIS - look at their website for proof: http://www.csis.org/about/#4

The CEO is Bill Clinton's former U.S. deputy secretary of defense John Hamre.

That was TLM lie #1.

CSIS is basicaly another Carlyle group using past government or international figures, like Clark, to push policy to benefit their business partners.

This was pulled from your imagination. Among other things, CSIS studies and advises in genetic and biotechnology research, gene therapy, and global food security. There is no proof that CSIS works in the same fashion as the Carlyle group.

That was TLM lie #2.

As if that wasn't bad enough...Clark is STILL registered as a lobbyist for ANOTHER company (Acxiom Corp)

Really?

Acxiom® Corporation (Nasdaq: ACXM) today announced that retired U.S. Army General Wesley K. Clark has resigned from the Acxiom Board of Directors, effective immediately. The Company said Clark originally had hoped to fulfill his duties as a Company Director but that the growing demands of seeking the U.S. presidency had made that impractical.

Acxiom Chairman Charles D. Morgan offered deep gratitude to Clark for his many contributions to the board. Clark had resigned his role as a consultant for Acxiom the day he announced his presidential campaign.

http://www.acxiom.com/default.aspx?ID=2312&Country_Code=USA

http://sites.stockpoint.com/wpost/newspaper.asp?Mode=QUOTE&Story=20031015/288b4964.xml&Symbol=ACXM&dispnav=washtech

That was TLM lie #3.

CSIS is basicaly another Carlyle group using past government or international figures, like Clark, to push policy to benefit their business partners.

In reality, a painful word for some, CSIS is a non-partisan, not-for-profit think tank. The current chair is Sam Nunn. Remember Sam? Former Democratic senator from Georgia, and a pretty good guy from what I remember. Carlysle Group = business. CSIS = Non-profit Think Tank. But they are somehow the same thing? All this information was in the link you provided, which makes me wonder about the integrity of someone who would make an outrageous claim and then 'support' it with a link that actually disproves it.

Finally, Clark was an advisor to the group, not, as you repeatedly claimed, a lobbyist, and the group Kissinger chaired wasn't CSIS itself, but a division. Either you were simply trying to get away with something, or you care so little about the truth that you don't bother to investigate your own wild-ass claims. Go cold-turkey on the Kool-aid, bub.

This is about the third time you've made some ludicrously dishonest claim and disappeared as soon as you're called on it, only to pop up again with another insane claim. Why don't you have the integrity, for once, to admit you are just making shit up, and then knock it off? What you are doing is disgusting and pathetic.

Since I doubt you will have the integrity to do this, simply expect to get hit over the head with this gross piece of dishonesty from now on -- even by your standards, it's a new low.

You said...

Clark is a senior adviser at CSIS - (Center for Strategic and International Studies)

from their own website: http://www.csis.org/about

The International Councillors, a group of international business leaders chaired by Henry Kissinger, meets semiannually to discuss the implications of the changing economic and strategic environment....

Hang on! We have a problem here. Notice the words in "bold" above. Clark is a senior advisor for who? CSIS - (Center for Strategic and International Studies)! Kissinger is the chair of what? The International Councillors, a small group of CSIS member among other people. No where, and in no way, does this say or imply Clark is a part of THAT group of has any dealings with Kissinger.

Just for the record, Sam Nunn, a respected DEMOCRAT is the Chairman of CSIS - look at their website for proof: http://www.csis.org/about/#4

The CEO is Bill Clinton's former U.S. deputy secretary of defense John Hamre.

That was TLM lie #1.

CSIS is basicaly another Carlyle group using past government or international figures, like Clark, to push policy to benefit their business partners.

This was pulled from your imagination. Among other things, CSIS studies and advises in genetic and biotechnology research, gene therapy, and global food security. There is no proof that CSIS works in the same fashion as the Carlyle group.

That was TLM lie #2.

As if that wasn't bad enough...Clark is STILL registered as a lobbyist for ANOTHER company (Acxiom Corp)

Really?

Acxiom® Corporation (Nasdaq: ACXM) today announced that retired U.S. Army General Wesley K. Clark has resigned from the Acxiom Board of Directors, effective immediately. The Company said Clark originally had hoped to fulfill his duties as a Company Director but that the growing demands of seeking the U.S. presidency had made that impractical.

Acxiom Chairman Charles D. Morgan offered deep gratitude to Clark for his many contributions to the board. Clark had resigned his role as a consultant for Acxiom the day he announced his presidential campaign.

http://www.acxiom.com/default.aspx?ID=2312&Country_Code=USA

http://sites.stockpoint.com/wpost/newspaper.asp?Mode=QUOTE&Story=20031015/288b4964.xml&Symbol=ACXM&dispnav=washtech

That was TLM lie #3.

so all they can do is attack those of us who point out the facts about the perfumed prince.

Your repeated assertion Clark was a lobbyist for Kissinger.

Prove it.

I'm challenging you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php#614977


Now are you going to admit you're wrong? Are you going to ignore these facts and keep supporting Clark?

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

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

Do you have any proof that this is the case? Can you point to his voter registration, for instance, that shows him to be a Republican?

Show us Clarks voter registration as a democrat.

I think their voter registration office holds those records.

Arkansas didn't have party check boxes on voter registration cards until 1996.

he is not registered as a democrat, but as an independant.

My point was responding to the request for evidence that was a republican by showing him registered as one. Well then, prove hes a democrat by showing his registration as one.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031002-122243-1914r.htm

"Mr. Clark told the Union Leader newspaper in Manchester, N.H., that he registered as a Democrat "on or about Sept. 3, about two weeks before announcing for the presidency," the paper reported in a Sept. 27 story.
The Union Leader reporter quoted Mr. Clark as saying that as far as political affiliation, "I wasn't anything. In Arkansas, you don't have to register for parties. You vote in primaries, and, of course, I voted in Democratic primaries." "

Notice I did not say he lied. Here is a link: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2003/nf2003101_0874_db038.htm

If you don't believe that do a search of Google: "Clark registered Independent" you will get pages of documentation of this point. That is what was so embarrassing about it when it came out. He was a registered Independent at that time the article was written.

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

"A Clark campaign spokesman at first told BusinessWeek that the former general had in fact updated his voter registration to reflect his newfound status as a Democrat. But a call to the Pulaski County Voter Registrar indicated otherwise. When asked to explain the discrepancy, campaign consultant Mark Fabiani says Clark hadn't yet had time to register as a Democrat."


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030922-105420-9821r.htm

Since entering the race, Mr. Clark has made a series of gaffes.
He waffled last week over whether he would have voted for the resolution to launch war against Iraq. Eventually, he settled on saying, "I don't know whether I would have or not. I've said it both ways."
Mr. Clark also confused some supporters over the depth of his Democratic credentials. After voting for Republicans Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan for president, Mr. Clark said he became a Democrat listening to Mr. Clinton's early presidential campaign speeches. Then, it was revealed, he spoke at a Republican Party fund-raiser in 2001 and was registered as an independent.
Telephone messages left with Mr. Clark's campaign office in Arkansas were not returned.

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

said he voted for Nixon, Reagan and Bush. Then in 92 switched to Clinton. Yet in just 2001 he was speaking at a republican fundraiser saying what great leaders Reagan and Bush were.

But he lied about his party registration...


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030922-105420-9821r.htm

Since entering the race, Mr. Clark has made a series of gaffes.
He waffled last week over whether he would have voted for the resolution to launch war against Iraq. Eventually, he settled on saying, "I don't know whether I would have or not. I've said it both ways."
Mr. Clark also confused some supporters over the depth of his Democratic credentials. After voting for Republicans Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan for president, Mr. Clark said he became a Democrat listening to Mr. Clinton's early presidential campaign speeches. Then, it was revealed, he spoke at a Republican Party fund-raiser in 2001 and was registered as an independent.



http://www.politicsus.com/front%20page%20archive/091803.html

Clark told CNN's Judy Woodruff earlier this month that he had decided to register as a Democrat. Left unsaid and unknown at this point is exactly when and why he decided to become a Democrat.


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

"A Clark campaign spokesman at first told BusinessWeek that the former general had in fact updated his voter registration to reflect his newfound status as a Democrat. But a call to the Pulaski County Voter Registrar indicated otherwise. When asked to explain the discrepancy, campaign consultant Mark Fabiani says Clark hadn't yet had time to register as a Democrat. "


In fact i think the only thing CLark has been honest about is his feeling that it is OK to bomb journalists. I've yet to see one Clark supporter defend Clark's position on murdering journalists.

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.

Clark's logic is exactly the same as that of the death squad commander who orders the assassination of a journalist or a publisher whose opposition newspaper supports the goals of a guerrilla movement. The targeting of the studio was a war crime, perhaps the most indisputable of several war crimes committed by NATO in its war against Yugoslavia.

National defense he is JUST like Bush

I simply don't see the connection here. When did Wes Clark ever lead a unilateral action against another country? Recognizing the fact that the military takes orders from the President and thus he would be structurally prevented from doing so, when? The answer: Never.

...Republican most of his life.

So not being a registered Democrat and occasionally voting Republican makes him "a Republican most of his life?" I don't see the connection here, either. I do see where people would be uncertain of his motives given his lack of longstanding Democratic registration and straight-ticket voting record, but that hardly makes him a Republican.

Do you want to win in 2004? I'm not saying our only hope is my guy, but as a party we have to do a better job of attracting people instead of shunning them. This idiotic obsession with ideological purity in voting records is absurd and self-defeating AND WILL LEAD US TO DEFEAT unless it is checked.

difference you know.

to give an address at a Republican "Lincon Day" dinner. And aprintly, his "independince" didn't restruct him from fundrasing for Republicans.

But then again, you know all of this. You are attempting to spin a half truth. Stressing the fact that Clark never declared himself as a Republican, while you would ignore his operations withen the Republican party.

Operations within the Republican party.... bwahahahahahahahahahaha



http://www.liberalresurgent.com/mooreclark.mp3

Michael Moore on Wesley Clark.

The Lincoln Day speech proves that the man was a non-partisan concerned about our (i.e., AMERICA)relations with Europe.....who got paid for the speech....just like he did when he spoke at the Democratic dinner the next month.

Unfortunately for Clark haters, they forget all information provided one day, to start anew bashing next day....maybe some don't like reading in general:

clark's lincoln day speech:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065

here is the full paragraph of contention:
------------------
You see, in the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect our country from communism. Well guess what, it's over. Communism lost. Now we've got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live. We've got to let them be all they can be. They want what we have. We've got some challenges ahead in that kind of strategy. We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. 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.
----------------------
notice he says he is glad to have them in office for the challenges ahead in EUROPE! obviously they have failed in holding Europe to our cause.

two paragraphs up from the maligned "praise" we find this:
------------------------
But we're also extremely vulnerable. Our economy--we're using three times--we've got three times as much foreign investment as we're investing--capital flow--as we're putting out there. They're investing here because they believe in us. We're using energy like it's going out of style. We're using five to eight times as much energy per capita as people in the rest of the world, twice as much as even the Europeans. We're vulnerable to security threats--everything from terrorism to the developing missiles that are--we know rogue states are developing to aim at us.

And so I think we have to have a new strategy, and we have to have a consensus on the strategy, and we have to have a bipartisan consensus, and politics has to stop in America at the water's edge. We've got to reach out, and we've got to find those people in the world and share our values and beliefs--and we've got to reinforce them. We've got to bring them here and let them experience the kind of life that we have. They've got to get an education here. They've got to be able to send their children here. They they've got to go home. And they've got to carry the burdens in their own lands, and to some extent we have to help them.
----------------------------
notice that in the first paragraph clark talks enviromentalism to a republican audience. also note the warning about terrorism pre-9/11.
notice in the second paragraph he talks about bipartisanship, and reaching out to the world community. two traits that he shares spot on with his positions today.


in the next two paragraphs he further defines the European challenges:
-------------------------
We've got a NATO that's drifting right now. I don't know what's happened to it. But the situation in the Balkans where we've still got thousands of American troops, it's in trouble. It's going downhill on us as we're watching it. Our allies haven't quite picked up the load on that. But our allies say they're going to build a European security and defense program with a rival army to NATO. Well, I think it's a political imperative that they do more for defense, but I think we have to understand that that linkage between the United Sates and Europe, that bond on security, that's in our interest.
Look, in politics they told me--I don't know anything about politics now, I want to make that clear. But they told me--I read, do my reading in Time magazine and so forth. And they said in politics you've always got to protect your base. Well, for the United States, our base is Europe. We've got to be there, and we've got to be engaged in Europe.

The Lincoln Day speech proves that the man was a non-partisan concerned about our (i.e., AMERICA)relations with Europe.....who got paid for the speech....just like he did when he spoke at the Democratic dinner the next month.

Oh, he was paied to sing prases to Bush. Gee, how dose it feel to know that your savor can be so easly bought. This is not the behavor of a by-partisen, but the behavor of a higherd mercinary who works for highest bidder.

I wasn't impressed the last time some one throw that in my face. Even less impresed now.

as a retired General to give speech to groups, of both parties, as well as non-partisan groups.

You reasoning is so "out-to-lunch".....very pathetic!

"IT'S YOUR ECONOMY AND YOUR WAR, STUPID!"
A REAL MILITARY HERO TELLS A GENUINE INTELLIGENCE FAILURE

And so subtle too. I hardly noticed.

The problem you are faced with, is that you can not deny that he a) attended this effent and b) that he praised not just Bush, but the whole PNAC gang. He even said that he looks forwored to working with them in the fucher. You can not deny this, becase its fact. Clark himself had even admitied as much, unapoligeticly I might add.

So. Rather than confront the obveuse, you try to play the "black is white" game, and try to spin to us that what Clark said, is some how with out merret.

"He was paid for it!" you have argued. As if his words are to be treated with no more importance than Tigger Woods peddling candy bars. That Clark is not to be held to even his own words.

But its an indefesable position, and you know it. Hence the attack. For this kife cut cross ways as well. If Clark's own words bare no inportance then, they why should I beleive him now? Is the CLC paying him to run? Did the RNC get outbidded here?

And if Clark is "non-partisen" as you claim, than why should I think that he will stand up to Bush at all? I know many have fantisys of Clark "wipping the floor" with Bush in the debates, but such a fantisy is not realistic with some one who is "by-partisen." And most especualy isn't realistic for a "centrist", for it is against the vary heart of centrisim to ven chalange your opponet. That is "neggitive campaining" and is strictly taboo, and still is.

Of couse, you would return with a long diatribe of all the "attacks" Clark has given Bush recently on the campain trail. But without exeption, these attacts are without substance. At no point has Clark ever detailed WHY Bush's positions are flawed. Not even withen his areas of expertise, be it military stratigey and economics. It is also not the genral sesaon of the campain. Should Clark win the primary, the attacks WILL stop as per the centrist play book. Clark will be more likly to shake Bush's hand, rather than call him on his AWAL status. And last but not least, how serusly can Clark be taken with his critizisems, when he was commisioned to lionize Bush.

Talk is real cheep, especualy when it is for sale.

I will admit, some of Clark's retoric is intreging, and even incuraging. It is just unfortunate, that I can not take him for his word. And that alone, is less than presdenchal quality.

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

Or are you just projecting your own emotions onto others.

I have no bias against Clark, despite your claim to the contrary. But can you truly say that you do not have a bias in his favor? Lie to me if you must, but do not lie to yourself. For if I am a Clark hater as you say, than where have I slurred him? And yet it is you, who is mighty swift with the epithets. Especially for one of neutral emotions. But the odd thing is, you are still attacking me, and not talking about any of Clark's virtues.

You go right on swinging away, throwing as many punches are you like. And you can dance the fancy foot work until your harts content. This isn't a boxing match here, and your king is still in check.

Have you ever read even a review of his new book? You speak with such authority but the entire 200 page work is a serious, point by point, refutation of Bush and his war, both tactically, geographically, and strategically. He blistered Bush yet you feel Clark's never addressed the issue? :shrug:

but the entire 200 page work is a serious, point by point, refutation of Bush and his war, both tactically, geographically, and strategically. He blistered Bush yet you feel Clark's never addressed the issue?

And which issue would that be? The fact that Clark is critical of Bush's war, or the fact that Clark will still prodead with it. You don't seem to comprehend my position, so alow me to define it for you.

NO WAR!

Not an altered one, and certanly not a more effective one. Bush is waging this war becase it is called for in PNAC. If Clark wishes to contiue to prosicute this war, than how is he also NOT serving the intrests of PNAC?

And he dose support the war, and its intent. His recent economc address budgeted for it. Not just prosicuting the war abrawd, but also contiuing "home land security" here. (Though not in thoese words, rest asured.) He has proposed a "sunshine review" of the Patrot act, but not its repeal. The fact is that we already know what the Patrot act is all about. For crying out loud, the whole thing is posted on the internet. Ashcroft has been PUSHING it. So reviewing it is the same as doing nothing.

Clark's "New American Patritosm" tells me quite clearly that he misses the point completly.

To me, a war hero rapping himself in the flag, is just as dangrus as AWAL rapping himself in the flag. A true leader however, will have no need for such camafloge, and will have no fear of standing before me as who he is, and what he stands for. And the harder and louder the appoligist croon for him, the more apprint this becomes.

not "incuraging". (Sorry, I know I'm a pain, I'm just an untreatable spelling corrector.) And yes, his message is encouraging. And I even find it hopeful.

That being said, the General is not my idea of a whore.

about 2 weeks ago after it hit the news, he finally registered as a Dem. He voted for Nixon, Reagan, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Clinton, Gore according to him. And yes he was speaking at a Republican Fundraiser to help raise money for the Rove machine and praised Bush's team. His supporters feel that he offers something that makes that not matter. A few of them seem to have reasons beyond the vague "he is electable" and tired "yawns" to issues you may have regarding his fuzziness on some issues.

Maybe glasses will help.

READ THE DAMN SPEECH IN ABOVE POST!

The ONLY reason he voted Clinton twice (supposedly) and Gore once was because he saw a potential to get in to an office in those administrations.

been a Republican. He was registered as an independent until recently.

Would Charlie Rangel (D-NY), among others, endorse a Republican?

Endorsements:

http://www.vote-smart.org/endorsements.php?can_id=MZZ72757

Actually, there are some striking similarities between Bush and Clark that I have observed thus far.

Both seem to argue of the necessity for bombing civilian targets as a strategic objective, then turn around and claim that civilian casualties are "inevitable."

Both support the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. In some of what I read from Clark's polices that suggests that he even supports Bush's "never ending war on terrorism."

Neither seem to see any problems corruption operating within the corporations of government.

Both have numerous ties to extremist heavy handed corporations. Clark currently sits on the board of 11 corporations. Some of which are virtual right wing think tanks.

Nether seems to be willing or able to answer direct questions. Especially those involving particularly unflattering subjects. Both seem to have selective memories on what they have said and done in the near past.

Both seem more intent on chasing away disinters and heckling the critics into silence, rather than trying to win support from the people.

Many Clark supporters use exactly the same dubious argument strategies as members of the Free Republic. As if they are more intent on poisoning the debate, rather than permitting it to take place. And both Clark and Bush supporters find themselves defending war crimes thought twisted anti-logic.

I have even read from Clark's speeches as he will use Karl Rove talking points on the condition of the economy. WORD for WORD. Something that is unforgivable for some one who has a degree in economics.

Such similarities are quite alarming in my opinion. Small wonder that Clark saw Bush fitting to receive his own praises.

I like what you say, you just said it better than I did.

Mind what you say, say what you mean. And you will mean, what you say. :)

When you consider he has NO EVIDENCE to back his statements up with.

I ask you for PROOF in terms of LINKS to CREDIBLE sources, which you have yet to provide when asked for that proof.

That you cannot debate with facts, as your lack of evidence proves you have NOTHING to back yourself up with. And the fact that you probably have me on ignore shows that you have nothing to counter my arguments with.

"Today, retired General Wesley Clark announced he is running for president of the US. Pretty amazing guy. Four star general, graduated first in his class at West Point, supreme commander of NATO, served combat in Vietnam. What, he won the bronze star, silver star, the purple heart. Wounded in battle. See, I'm no political expert, but that sounds pretty good next to choking on a pretzel, falling off a scooter and dropping the dog."

First of all, I completely disagree with your assertion that Clark is just like Bush. And no, I was not so star-struck with the uniform to completely bypass facts about Clark.

So here are my reasons

1) Clark has more foreign policy experience than any one of the candidates. He lobbied for intervention in Rwanda, he coordinated 19 NATO allies into ending genocide, worked with the United Nations and within the framework of international law, brough Milosevic to the Hague. He speaks 4 languages.

2) I would ask you to read the following. Clark's Sept. 26, 2002 testimony to the House Armed Services Committee.

"We have an unfinished, world-wide war against Al Qaeda, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately be won by persuasion as much as by force, when we turn off the Al Qaeda recruiting machine. Some three thousand deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaeda, and as all acknowledge, Al Qaeda has not yet been defeated. Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam’s regime to the Al Qaeda network."
http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

3) I apply 3 criteria to evaluating all candidates.
a. Do they have established records of leadership?
b. Do they have the ability to make wise decisions under extreme pressure and in moments of crisis?
c. Do their stands on issues correlate with mine?

Clark fits the bill. He's incredibly intelligent, has first-hand experience, and a great resume. And before anyone jumps all over me for using the resume, let me say that a resume is indicative of a person's achievement. While it does not provide an entire picture, it forms the frame of it. And from what I have read about Clark, his character and integrity are beyond reproach.

In fact, would you mind if I copy it to my files to use when these issues continue to pop up...as we can see they will?

If anyone is truly interested in learning about the truth as near as we can get, there are numerous articles on the web from the New York Times and other publications.

Also...as a reminder to Liberal...Arkansas residents are not required to specify a party. So, not only was he career military, he didn't specify like most Arkansas voters.

...but I'd invite you to use the Search feature to review some of the many past "debates" that have already taken place on the questions you've raised...

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.social.html

They are all about the same.

Pick another

You're only shooting yourself in the foot. If you really wanted to get Clark out of the race you should wait and beat this horse to death in 2004.
As it is now...you are making it old news. Pretty soon when you bring it up it won't mean a thing. Further more people will be so sick of it they'll consider it an attack and attach it to negative campaigning and it will have backlash potential.

My advice....keep it up...

pinching my nose, I will vote for him because he is the only one who can beat Bush.

Wish he had less interest in my rifles, though.

He's pro-gun, anti-assault weapons.

"I have got 20 some odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have them."

www.sportsmenforclark.com

If someone decides to burst into politics without ever having been involved in it before (and thinks he should go straight to the White House, no need for a lower office first), and if said person presents a platform consisting almost entirely of "he is the only one who can beat Bush" this a) is not a platform and b) is not very convincing. Within a few weeks, the effect wears off. Bye-bye!

are recovering. In fact a recent NH poll has Clark at 14% and Dean at 39%.

Than Bush is a populer presdent.

But if Clark is doing so well, why is he planning on skipping Iowa?

... up until very recently, Bush and the faux war on terrorism was joined the hip in people's minds. By saying the approved of Bush, they were saying they approved of his little wars.

Now we see the realities of Iraq and the economy have taken a lot of that shine of of Bush - his numbers are at pre-9/11 levels and I believe them. I don't believe 51% equates popularity especially since his re-elect numbers are bit dismal.

As for Iowa, it was a strategic move because he entered the race late. He can now invest more time and energy in the primaries to follow. But you knew that already. You just threw it out in hopes that the two newbies in the thread would bite on it.

You seem to be under the impreshion that I have removed you from my ignore list.

it'll be a party :toast:, kinda like the NRA blacklist but cooler.

By demonstrating an inflexabule biase.

Are you calling Mr. Kettle black?

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

let me know that I was being too rude. I actually thanked you for it. I'm about to return the favor. You are out of line with the above remark.

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

If you don't like the candidate, the remedy seems so simple to me-DON'T VOTE FOR THEM!!! I don't understand all the candidate-bashing. Aren't we all on the same side here?

N/T

Now everyone can see what I say about you... with the exception of you!

If they disagree with you and can prove you wrong, you ignore them. I am somehow not surprised by this.

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

Does this sound anything like Shrub to you? If you're interested in more info just visit his web site: http://www.clark04.com/

The 100 Year Vision

by Wesley K. Clark

Looking ahead 100 years, the United States will be defined by our environment, both our physical environment and our legal, Constitutional environment. America needs to remain the most desirable country in the world, attracting talent and investment with the best physical and institutional environment in the world. But achieving our goals in these areas means we need to begin now. Environmentally, it means that we must do more to protect our natural resources, enabling us to extend their economic value indefinitely through wise natural resource extraction policies that protect the beauty and diversity of our American ecosystems - our seacoasts, mountains, wetlands, rain forests, alpine meadows, original timberlands and open prairies. We must balance carefully the short- term needs for commercial exploitation with longer-term respect for the natural gifts our country has received. We may also have to assist market-driven adjustments in urban and rural populations, as we did in the 19th Century with the Homestead Act.

Institutionally, our Constitution remains the wellspring of American freedom and prosperity. We must retain a pluralistic democracy, with institutional checks and balances that reflect the will of the majority while safeguarding the rights of the minority. We will seek to maximize the opportunities for private gain, consistent with concern for the public good. And the Clark administration will institute a culture of transparency and accountability, in which we set the world standard for good government. As new areas of concern arise - in the areas of intellectual property, bioethics, and other civil areas - we will assure continued access to the courts, as well as to the other branches of government, and a vibrant competitive media that informs our people and enables their effective participation in civic life. And even more importantly, we will assure in meeting the near term challenges of the day - whether they be terrorism or something else - that, we don't compromise the freedoms and rights which are the very essence of the America we are protecting.

If we are to remain competitive we will have to do more to develop our "human potential." To put it in a more familiar way, we should help every American to "be all he or she can be." For some this means only providing a framework of opportunities - for others it means more direct assistance in areas such as education, health care, and retirement security. And these are thirty year challenges - educating young people from preschool until they are at their most productive, helping adults transition from job to job and profession to profession during their adult lives; promoting physical vigor and good health through public health measures, improved diagnostics, preventive health, and continuing health care to extend longevity and productivity to our natural limits; and strengthening retirement security, simply because it is right; first for our society to assure that all its members who have contributed throughout their lifetimes are assured a minimal standard of living, and secondly to free the American worker and family to concentrate on the challenges of today. Such long-term challenges must be addressed right away, with a new urgency.

We have a solid foundation for meeting these challenges in many of the principles and programs already present today. They need not be enumerated here, except to argue for giving them the necessary priorities and resources. We can never ensure that every one has the same education, or health care, or retirement security, nor would we want to do so. But all Americans are better off when we ensure that each American will have fundamental educational skills and access to further educational development throughout their lives; that each American will have access to the diagnostic, preventive and acute health care and medicines needed for productive life, as well as some basic level of financial security in his or her retirement.

To do this we will have to get the resources and responsibilities right. In the first place, this means allocating responsibilities properly between public and private entities. Neither government nor "the market" is a universal tool - each must be used appropriately, whether the issues are in security, education, health or retirement. Then we must reexamine private versus public revenues and expenditures. We need to return to the aims of the 1990's when we sought to balance our federal budget and reduce the long- term public debt. Finally, it means properly allocating public responsibilities to regulate, outsource, or operate. This means retaining government regulation where necessary to meet public needs, and balancing the federal government's strengths of standardization and progressive financing with greater insights into the particular needs and challenges that State and local authorities bring.

As we work on education, health care, and retirement security we must also improve the business climate in the United States. This is not simply a matter of reducing interest rates and stimulating demand. Every year, this economy must create more than a million new jobs, just to maintain the same levels of employment, and to reduce unemployment to the levels achieved in the Clinton Administration, we must do much more immediately. This is in part a matter of smoothing the business cycle, with traditional monetary and fiscal tools, but as we improve communications and empower more international trade and finance, firms will naturally shift production and services to areas where the costs are lower. In the near term we should aim to create in America the best business environment in the world - using a variety of positive incentives to keep American jobs and businesses here, attract business from abroad, and to encourage the creation of new jobs, principally through the efforts of small business. These are not new concerns, but they must be addressed and resourced with a new urgency in facing the increasing challenges of technology and free trade. And labor must assist, promoting the attitudes, skills, education and labor mobility to enable long overdue hikes in the minimum wage in this country.

You didn't cite one example.

You can see the differences here: http://www.issues2002.org/George_W__Bush.htm and
http://www.issues2002.org/Wesley_Clark.htm

As a Clark supporter, I appreciate your open mind. :)

Clark



Bush

B-):thumbsup:

I hope you explore the man further. From the conclusion you've drawn, I can tell that you haven't seen much. His view of the presidency is nothing like what we've seen in Bush.

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

I really think he/she might be older than "eleven", ya think?

http://www.issues2000.org/Wesley_Clark.htm

Wesley Clark:

Supports University of Michigan's affirmative action plan. (Jun 15)

"I'm concerned about the lock-up policy, the 3-strikes policy, putting people in jails and the way we've treated people in prison. We've got to look seriously at the American penal system and what it does when it returns people to the streets."

Supports universal health coverage

“We went into Iraq under false pretenses. There was deceptive advertising; you'd be taking to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq.”
”We're taking casualties. We haven't made America safer by this. We've made America more engaged, more vulnerable, more committed, less able to respond. We've lost a tremendous amount of goodwill around the world by our actions and our continuing refusal to bring in international institutions. “

Compared Bush to Nixon in abusing his power to bully Congress and US allies. "This is an administration which has moved in a way we have not seen any administration since Nixon to abuse executive authority to scheme, manipulate, intimidate and maneuver.”

Full sunshine review of PATRIOT Act. (Jun 19)

Supports funding for all-day kindergarten

Establish 18:1 student-teacher ratio for grade school. (Mar 1999)

Decries lack of funding for No Child Left Behind. (Apr 28)

“The way to deal with Castro is to send Cuba American tourists, American goods and American farm products. There could be no better way to deal with this last vestigial form of Communism than to turn American business and American agriculture loose on them.”

Work with the International Criminal Court. (Jul 2002)

"We've found many times in our experience that it's best to use force only as a last resort."

”Why are so many here in America hesitant to speak out and ask questions? We're going to ask those hard questions. And in a time of war, we're going to ask those questions in the highest sense of patriotism. We are going to hold the administration accountable for its policies and results.”

Disturbed that we suspended habeus corpus for War on Terror. (Mar 23)

would consider cutting defense spending if elected, he said. "We are trapped in .....an endless occupation" of Iraq".

"we should be very reluctant to use force. It has incredible, difficult and unintended consequences, which we are once again beginning to see as we deal with the situation in Iraq."

Invest 3% of GDP on development assistance abroad. (Nov 2001)

Supports ban on assault weapons

Immigration is vital to prosperity. (Jun 17)

I am very pro-immigration. (Jun 27)

The military needs to reconsider the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gay service members.

$5T tax cuts for the rich are legalized theft. (Jun 20)

Supports redistribution by progressive taxation. (Jun 19)

Supports a "freeze" on Bush's tax cuts that have yet to take effect for people earning $150,000 or more.

Need Marshall Plan for Middle East and Afghanistan. (Jun 17)

We went into Iraq under false pretenses. (Aug 17)

Israel: bring in Syria and Iran into peace talks. (Jun 17)

NATO was the reason for our victory in Kosovo. (Sep 2002)

Palestinians decided to return to terrorism after 2000. (Mar 2002)

Solution to terrorism is not bullets but world community. (Oct 2001)

.....Everything I have seen from Clark (past and present) shows that he is so totally different from Bush.

Liberal, smart, electable, and very internationally oriented.

:kick:

Welcome to DU, Liberalman11!
DemEx

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

Though he might take exception at being called illustrious.

What next? Insult his mother while you are at it?

But I have to laugh at this. You seem to be under the impreshion that throwing a lybrary of links at some one is a substitute for debate. Care to press you own argument?

and without any attribution, your opinion is like your (well you know what).....

I make my argument in the best of ways....with many voices accompanying me....instead of the lonely voice of the extreme Clark Basher...aka, Code_name_I hate Clark....

"IT'S YOUR ECONOMY AND YOUR WAR, STUPID!"
A REAL MILITARY HERO TELLS A GENUINE INTELLIGENCE FAILURE

I have indeed given you my oppinion. I have explaned it. I have expanded on it. I have defended it. And it is still evolving to take into acount much of that which you would claim has been "refuted." I now need to give you a link to my oppinion as well?

Or is it that you can't find a link, that refutes any thing I have said thus far.

I may be the Clark-hater as you say. But you are the one still throwing around the personl attacks.

Even though I KNOW that you won't see this because you are just like that, arguing your opinion WITHOUT fact to back it up with is about as effective as pissing in the wind when it comes to persuading people. If you aren't going to argue with facts to back yourself up with, then why do you even bother?

You did not miss a one. The lie that Clark supported the war in Iraq. It is well known that he did not.

The lie that he "loved" the Bush administration when in fact he only said that he supported them. And had to, as a General it is the law.

Always the same thing. A low numbers poster with Liberal in his handle posts a bunch of RNC crap in what he or she thinks is a liberal stealth package.

Tired of it. How about you?

I am tired of threads like this. I dont care if your bashing Dean, Clark, Kerry etc.

PLEASE

He came of age, like Clinton, with the idealism of the JFK era. For those of you who didn't experience that time, you must know how powerful that hope and idealism was. Even if JFK was from a wealthy family, they were not "upperclass"...coming from the rough and tumble world of Boston Irish Catholics. There was great change happening then in our country as we moved into a progressive era from the really rather awful previous 30 years.

Clark and Clinton were both profoundly affected by that heart-bursting idealism of the American Dream and service to one's country. Bush, on the other hand, seems to have slouched through the whole era without any of that rubbing off on him and without having to put forth any effort. It marks a difference in these men that is profound.

And that is what I hear when I hear Wesley Clark speak when he speaks from his ideals...no chance in the absurd debate format since he is still having to answer the shallow questions of the "flip-flop", etc...I hear his genuine horror at how our American ideals have been hi-jacked by idealogues that goes against everything that he spent his life defending.

And it makes me cry everytime and makes me have that same hope come alive...the hope that we can regain that moral authority of American ideals that is inclusive and reaches out to other...even if we're not perfect...nations and all individuals.

And, I can say, I too am proud to be an American in this old world.

Keep the faith alive, Wesley Clark.

He does that to me too.

Keep the faith alive, Wes!
:kick:

DemEx

I too was moved with hope and faith during the Clintion administration. But as the eight years wore on, it became evdint that this faith was bline, as Clintion seemed more conserned with working with the Republicans, than standing up to them.

Indeed, much of the growndwork for Bush's current power, bares Clintion's signeture, or passed under his nose while rasing no alarms.

And as good as Clintion was, Gorge W was able to take Herbert W's place as if Clintion never existed. And the war for Iraq oil proceaded, as it had never stopped.

Much has changed in the past three years. Democrats in large are no longer willing to blindly follow any fool the DLC sees fit to throw at is. Lebermen, Gepheardt, Kerry, all were presented to us on silver platers with lots of glitter sprinkled all over them. But as true centrist, they pander to the voters delusions. Only seaking to explote the doubt already found.

But the truth remanes flogged.

I am unempresed by Clark's stars, or awards. I can give you as many Nasis with severd limes as you can give me heroe. And for a "retired" Genral, I sure see him a lot in his uniform.

A want to see leadership stepforwerd, not another clown, who only manages to keep a straite face. I have been given zero resones whil I should support Clark, but I have also been given many alarming resons, why I should not. The quality of his defenders, and the substances of their arguments, is one of them.

...a very naive position.

But what else would I expect from Code Name Dismissed...

I just like my action backed by solid philosophical principles and a keen intellect. With Clark, those things are a given as well.

Now if your philosophical principles differ from Clark's...well, of course you should support another candidate. No problem there. We certainly have quite a few to choose from. :-)
Just make sure you honestly listen to what he is saying rather than allow others to define him before he gets a chance to speak out as often as those who have been in the race longer, as I am sure you are willing to do.

But, in my view, black/white partisan ideaology...such as we have been experiencing in recent years coursens or even eliminates any meaningful debate...and allows the wholesale takeover by one party who likes to work in the dark.

We need to throw them out!

Now, do I have doubts about my candidate? Yes. He isn't perfect, any more than any of the others are...but I believe he is the man who has the ability to defeat George W. Bush.

and your last post. Both express my sentinments better than I could. Coming of age in the 1960's left a definite mark on all of us who did. Thanks for sharing...

You are right, the Republican party is corrupted. But you have to understand that the Democratic party is ALSO equally corrupted. A corruption so deep that Bush's first line of defense, is the DLC. They gave him all but the worst of his judges, signed onto every major bill, declined to even speak on the scandal after scandal after scandal.

Indeed, the vary nature of the centrist platform, is to cater to the corporate interests, while packaging and branding those interests to those "on the fence." Centrisem is all about giving the elusion of power to the people, while never allowing the people to actually secure it. All while preserving the sanctity of the corporation, and keeping the wizards of money concealed behind the curtain.

Clark has been vary forthcoming about stating his centrist position & strategy. So, ergo, Clark is yet another corporate shill. At best a corporate shill of Clinton's quality. At best, defeating Bush without challenging the true power of the corporations, is a hollow victory. Clark knows this, as he plays both sides of the isle. He is also one of the few "Wizards of Money" that sits on many hallowed corporate boards.

I back all of this up objectively, and have no problem defending my option. Alas, it bothers me when others are so quick to dismiss concerns, and are once again seemingly eager to blindly follow anther Panacea Man. Case in point.

I just like my action backed by solid philosophical principles and a keen intellect. With Clark, those things are a given as well.

Why are these things a "given" with you? Do you not feel that a true leader earns his respect by his actions? For where you will way that these things "are a given", I would say that an assumption was made. I would be more forgiving towards Clark's past sins, if I had reason to believe that his supporters were not blind reactionary followers who found another personality. And while true, it is the hot heads that tend to grab attention. These "given" accolades seem to be most plentiful.

Just make sure you honestly listen to what he is saying rather than allow others to define him before he gets a chance to speak out as often as those who have been in the race longer, as I am sure you are willing to do.

Fare enough. And wise advice as well. Just remember, the purpose of having an open mind in the first place, is to eventually a firm conclusion. Unfortunately, all to often I encounter the notion that only Clark supporters are aloud to make up their mind. The rest of us, can only have an open one.

But, in my view, black/white partisan ideaology...such as we have been experiencing in recent years coursens or even eliminates any meaningful debate...and allows the wholesale takeover by one party who likes to work in the dark.

We need to throw them out!

Obviously, I agree with the sentiment. But what of the details? Throw WHOM out? If you take a look at this administration, you will learn that most of Bush's cabinet, served with his father's. And then with Ragan, and then with Nixen before him. A few of the old stalwarts even date back Ford administration. And the Bush family goes back as far as Adolph Hitter. And the corporate boards, laying off workers to bad their own pockets, are just as free to do so under a Democrat, as they are under a Republican. These are the real political forces behind US policy. A policy that changes little between the Dems and the Republican administrations. It is THEY whom I referee to when I say "throw them out!"

But forgive me for saying this. But it needs to be said. The "any one but Bush" crowd seems to not be aware of this. Least they haven't shown any understanding to this regard. Bush becomes the convent target. Nothing more than a sacrificial evil goat to be butchered every four years, as it has been butchered for decades. And while one might applaud the removal of Bush, virtually no thought is given to who would replace him. WillamPitt once stated that he would sooner vote for a baloney sandwich, than for Bush. While given as a measure for his contempt for Bush, also betrays how little thought, and even relevance, one would give Bush's opponent.

And it's not in all seriousness, necessarily a path to victory. Ashcroft may have lost to a corpse, but he promptly became Secretary of Justice. Katharine Harras ran against a dog, and still won, as a dog can not run for office. Pitt's baloney sandwich may get his vote, but still may not win the election, let alone govern.

Which brings me to HOW we will throw them out? Not a frivolous question. I agree with you that partisan politics only poisons the water. But the opposite of war is slavery. I see it as extreme foolishness to think one can constantly seek compromise with a party that is philosophically opposed against it, and see compromise in and of itself as evidence of weakness and morally lethargic.

This forces me to question how it is that you think some one who is "by-partisan" could ever possibly win. Let alone actually win.

The Republican's extremist agenda is polarizing the country, the center is shrinking, and dramatically so. The 2002 and California elections are not just evidence of this, but dramatic evidence. It's one thing to seek a perfect candidate, but one at least needs to find a true critic of the Bush Administration. Not every one is willing to vote for that baloney sandwich. And where a real option is found wanting, the voter may opt instead to wait for the real thing to show up.

I believe that Clark COULD be the more bi-partisan candidate that many Americans could rally behind.
Focussing criticism on THIS ADMINISTRATION - not on all Republicans, or all oil companies or other corporations - this would appeal to lots of voters IMO.
It appeals to me.
I see Wes Clark as a true critic of this administration without rejecting an entire political party, an entire capitalistic system (which most Americans support in general).
I don't know if any Dem (or baloney sandwich) can oust this crowd, but I do strongly judge, from my discerning, experience, and feelings, that Wes Clark would have a good chance at it.
It's not blind faith at all, to some of us he looks like the best man for the job as far as we can see....

DemEx

Certainly not blind faith at all. And I have no illusions that a Clark Presidency would be a smooth ride. The critics, as we plainly see, are not going away, but I believe Clark has great experience in holding together alliances that are so difficult that the Republicans probably aren't the worst he's encountered.

I'm just grateful he's willing to place himself out there.

Thanks for the compliment. Though I see you certainly had much to disagree with I said, I appreciate that you read it and gave such lengthy commentary.

I certainly see no evidence that Clark, nor Clinton for that matter, could ever be described as "corporate shills"...whatever that may mean. In fact, what does that mean...and why is it bad? Just to clarify and know what we're talking about here.

And you're right, I did make an assumption about his philosphical principles based on his eduction, his study and interest in philosophy, and what I am learning about him as I read through his books. His philosophy is there for all to see.

And not to belabor the point, I simply meant I want the Republican Administration out of office to gain some much needed balance. My fear is that a Bush reelection, espeically if we fail to have a check in one of the houses of Congress, will bring a runaway train that will mean so many bad things that I shudder to even place them out in the atmosphere.

I enjoyed reading all your comments. We share more than we're apart perhaps.

Thanks for the compliment.

Certainly.

Though I see you certainly had much to disagree with I said, I appreciate that you read it and gave such lengthy commentary.

I wouldn't call it disagreement per say, as much as it is me sharing my observations.

I certainly see no evidence that Clark, nor Clinton for that matter, could ever be described as "corporate shills"...whatever that may mean. In fact, what does that mean...and why is it bad? Just to clarify and know what we're talking about here.

A fair question. And I fear the answer is quite expansive. Come down to the economics room is you truly wish to explore the full answer to that but do be prepared for a long education. But to brake it down into its simplest terms is this.

It is commonly held that our founding fathers rebelled against Britain and King Gorge the III. But this isn't completely true as they rebelled primarily against a corporation known as the East India Company, that at the time, through King Gorge's grace, effectively owned the colonies, and every thing in them. Including, the labor of the people, and their fruits. The truth is that the crown didn't necessarily care weather America was an English colony or not. After all, the colonies were politically speaking already independent of the crown, as was necessary by the distances that separated the two shores. But the East India Company DID care as we were their fifes. And it was the East India company that levied and collected the taxes. The tax money was needed to fund the troops being deployed to the colonies in order to keep the colonies subservient to the interests of the corporation, as well as to recoup their lost profits as a result of their own corruption.

It became a vicious circle. The more the people rebel, the more troops were needed to maintain order, the more capital was needed to support the troops, the more taxes needed to be raised to fund the troops, and thus, the more the people rebelled, resulting with actions like the Boston Tea Party. While the dumping of the tea in the bay in and of itself may seem more symbolic. The boycott of tea was not. In fact, the boycott was so strong, that America became coffee drinkers, a consequence that still lingers to this day, to give you an idea of how deep that boycott was.

The Federalist papers reflect this. While there are many platitudes, to be found. The founding fathers argued convincingly that economic equality was the building blocks of true liberty. They also knew quite a bit about Roam, including how it fell. It fell because of corruption, eating its own economy. Thus, it sent out armies to procure wealth from other lands. Just as the East India Company was bring back wealth for Britain at the time. (I did warn you, the answer is expansive.)

To combat this, the founding fathers build into the constitution a system of checks and balances. Not necessarily to regulate liberty, but to regulate the power of government, and in tern, regulating the power of the corporation over the people, as government inevitably became the tool of the corporation.

Fast foreword today and we see an exact replay of history. In fact, this sort of repeat is something that history is replete with. Shays Rebellion was the first under the US flag. The civil war and the great depression were other examples of corporate power running amuck in government. (All though for the Confederate South, this was a mater of Aristocratic power, rather than Corporate power. But the consequences are the same. In fact, when the south says to this day, "it wasn't about slavery." They are unknowingly refereeing to the economic principals of slavery, upon which the Aristocracy was built.)

(Hmm, I may need a bigger soap box.)B-)

The problem is this. The Temple of Goddess Juno Moneta (The Roman equivalent of the Corporation that proved its own down fall.), the land lords and royalty of the dark ages, the East India Company, the Confederate Aristocracy, The "Trusts" of the 1920's and 30's, and modern US multinational Corporations, all have one thing in common. The ideology that profits are sacrosanct. The function of the corporation is to make profits for its holders. And nothing can be permitted to interfere with the mechanisms of making profits. And inevitably, the process of making profit works against the welfare of the people. Because the vary process of the people making a living, works against that very profit motive. For the more they make in wages and earnings, the lest profit the corporation has to show for it. So wages get pushed down, and down, and down, until the people have no choice but to rebel. Usually violently and with great loss of life.

But their is another fate as well, economic collapse. Remember that vicious circle? It is a circle that literally consumes who whole of the economy, and the scale of the economy is irrelevant. The whole point of colonization is to harvest their recourses form an economic stand point. But you can not harvest these recourses, without the people for they are part of the recourse to be harvested, literally, in the form of labor. But as these recourses dwindle, and the people rebel, it becomes harder to extract these recourses, and more expensive. Until you are expending more recourses, than you are recovering.

And that, with Iraq, is exactly where we are right now. Our foreign policy is geared towards commerce, the procurement of wealth from other countries. And this has been US policy more often than it hasn't been. As it has been official US policy currently as far back as the late 1940's early 50's. The Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Drug War, and currently, the "war on terror" are all little more than military operations designed to secure wealth. Clinton and even Carter held this policy. JFK tried to address this, but even he practiced this for most of his administration. He was only killed, when he got in the way of Vietnam.

:hangover:(Oh boy, this may take a while.)

Being a corporate shill basically mean you work to secure and protect the authority of the corporation over the people, to protect their rights to make a profit, at the expense of all else. And while some like to say that Clinton did a great deal to protect us from the corporations, we have to remember that America not the only population affected here. Lots of thread world countries fell under US dominance and NAFTA & GATT was the primary tool of conquest, which Clinton not only signed, but promoted. Clinton also signed into law lots of deregulation seams, systematically removing many of the checks and balances put into place by FDR, also one of the few men who understood this cooperation's as they were.

And in steps the Patriot Act, as it seeks to undo the constitutional checks and balances put in place by the founding fathers themselves, paving the way for corporations to legally press their interests in the future. And an interesting point you may wish to observe is that ironically its okay to challenge the government. Its when you challenge the multi nations that you get into trouble.

But the war on terror however, holds one dramatic difference. With the Vietnam war, we could afford to lose. The domestic economy was still strong enough, as well as the rest of the world was still recovering from WWII, to lend additional reinforcement to the domestic US economy. The use fiscal recourse was still largely in public circulation, a testament to just how powerful the post war boom was.

But today, we do not have that option. In short, we can not afford to lose the war on terror, or at least not from an economic stand point. But the vicious circle is still in place as well, so this is also a war we can not win. If the war is aloud to continue, the military budget will inevitably consume more of our recourses, and the domestic economic infrastructure will be cannibalized to power the military.

And this is where Clark steps in. As Clark has chosen to continue the war. All though he claims that he can pay for the war as we go, and to secure the help of Europe to pay for it (an unfounded assumption I think.), the fact is that Clark vastly underestimates how rapidly this war will spiral out of control. And it will spiral out of control because corporations like Halibertion are running into trouble extracting the wealth. And Halibertion HAS to have that wealth because of its own Enron like debt and book cooking. Other wise, it will go, just like Enron.

(My GOD, he is still at it!):eyes:

Even putting Clark's integrity aside, he is still faced with the same vicious cycle that he can not defeat. The enemy isn't Iraq. Hay, we can always drop a nuke. But the true purpose of the war in Iraq was never to defeat Husane, but to extract the wealth, needed to prop up the multinationals. The war was nothing more than attempting to secure that wealth through marshal force. But the corporations own greed can not be satisfied. Plus, securing that wealth is a lot harder than dropping bombs. In fact, it isn't even about greed any more. The corporations own corruption, debt, and structural weakness requires that huge sums of wealth is needed, just to keep the company salient. It's like splitting open the aorta, and now you need a blood transfusion as fast as your heart can pump it. Inevitably, you will run out.

My objections to Clark have little to do with Clark himself, to point a fraise, "its the economy stupid." Why else would a military General ALSO have an economic degree. That is no mer coincidence. To continue the war, is to continue to prop up the multi nations.

But there is a way out. A) Pull out of not just Iraq, but every where. A full recall and dismantling of the US military infrastructure, and B) allowing the collapse of the multi-nationals. They do not do any thing form an economic stand point any way. And all though huge losses will come out, and even drastically reducing the value of the dollar, the dollar and America will survive. And with proper re-regulation, you will be amazed at how rapidly a real recovery will take place. Growth in GDP would be in the 20%, not this 3% crap. As the capital hoarded by the corporations would suddenly be freely circulated back into the economy. Much as what the Clinton boom did, and what the WWII boom produced.

And quite frankly, we do not have an option here. The alternative is far worse than losing Bush's "war on terrorism." When Rome fell, it took the world with it. Nearly all of Europe, parts of Asia, and north Africa fell into the dark ages. In economic terms, the dark ages were basically the great depression of the 1930's magnified a thousand times. But where Rome fell, northern Europe came to power. But if Roanensc crash for America would envelope the globe. Latterly plunging the entire known universe into an economic and political chaos. And your guess would be as good as mine as what would result.

If we fallow Roam's demise, we would see a second dark age, with religious influences governing through fear and superstition. But it may as well be a meter striking the earth, as every aspect of culture, science, art, and even technology, was destroyed as a result. Though I am sure the Christian fundamentalists might actually like this.

:boring:

But others do see the writing on the wall. One reason for the Euro is to cut that economic umbilical cord. China is also independent, and could survive such a crash. Russia is considering the same thing, though it doing so will have little impact. The Arab world however, is another story. Opec is in fact one of the primary source of wealth extraction, and currently, one of the few willing ones. Currently, they still operate on the US dollar. Opec is "the sapling in the shade of the house." And as the sapling becomes a tree, and the house becomes ruins, it is now Opec that is propping up the dollar. The tree, propping up the house.

They are the ones who hold the plug for the US economy. Just the threat of Opec witch to Europe, or China, or heavens forbid Russia, would force a fun on the dollar. Holders wouldn't be able to sell dollars off fast enough, and the dollar could go from its current levels, to zero, yes, ZERO, in the mater of months. The gov could no longer finance its debt, and would no longer have even basic capital for expenses. We would be facing hyper inflation. Something that we have never seen in America.

And, this is a fate that the multinationals are also vary aware of. Its why they need the capital, its why hey need Iraq's oil. Its also why they need ANWAR's oil BTW.

-pant-pant-pant.

Opps. Maybe I went a little over board their. Unfortunately, I still didn't cover all of it. Only pieces. But I trust you get the idea of what we face.

But to re-thrust my point here. My opposition isn't directly against Clark, but against the never ending war for the corporations. And things are extremely bad. If a drastic change in our course is not made inside of 4 to 8 years, than this melt down scenario will happen. To pick on Bush vs Clark is truly irrelevant. The war has got to stop.

And of course, we all know Bush's opinion on the war. Unfortunately, Clarks opinion of the war is largely the same. He has SAID so. Oh he may tinker around with war strategy and troop deployments, but the real monster will not be addressed.

and I would have never known you were such a history buff (especially since I haven't darkened the door of Economics) from the flame wars up in the thread. Well done! Now...that said...I've gotta take this in small gulps in order to truly digest what you're sayin' here...if you know what I'm sayin'.

I'll start with my first bite here: "The civil war and the great depression were other examples of corporate power running amuck in government."

My personal favorite for corporate corruption and power grabs and total excess was the era of Big Business beginning with the railroad barons and extending through the scandals that finally ended that first great reign of gluttony.

I have always argued that, in contrast to the claims of Libertarians, that this is a function of government...to regulate business because ultimately, they fail to regulate themselves. That said...I think trade and business have made our nation the envy of the world...and the goal of most countries in the world.

Trade is the oldest profession....well...almost.

It is necessary. It is not evil. It brings good things to life. For that reason, I am for free trade but I loathe the wholesale and may I say CRASS misuse of corporate consolidation that the Bush Administration is sponsoring.

Which brings us back to my man...Clark.

His association with business is not bad...nor is it bad for him to work for corporations. In my view, he was exploring what the world was offering while he was looking for a new life...after a rather disappointing end to his career that meant so much to him.
And now, he has chosen to eschew the life of corporate board sitter...tho comfy and prestigious...to answer the call of service to his country.

Okay....I admit...I am a bit of a romantic (would you say blinded?) But this is why I am supporting him. He loves this arena better than the corporate arena.

Nailed me...I'm making another assumption. But it's one I believe. And that's all we got,baby...in the end.

(And I don't have time to go any further right now...but I'll be back for a little while a bit later.)

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

I didn't mean to put down a three page rant. Honist. There is a lot of stuff in there. Perhaps to much for one to slog through point for point. So I will try to focuse on its thrust and narrow the point.

Point one: Profits are scarred. Corporations that produce profits are equally sacred. So much so, that evens the lives of American citizens, their lively hoods, safety, and even rights, must be sacrificed in order to maintain profitability.

Point two: In order to serve point one, the US government sanctions theft, craft, corruption, and other criminal activity, all for the sake of maintaining profitability, as well as the viability of these corporations. To this end, if a corporation runs into trouble, the government must bail them out with tax payer money. Also to this end, the government is entrusted into securing the interests for the corporations. Hence we have NAFTA, GATT, and other "free trade" initiatives that actually only serve the interest of the corporations. Labor unions and environmental concerns are discarded.

Point three: As corporations get larger, they become top heavy, and can no longer support their own existence without huge infusions of wealth. Basically, they must guy stuff cheaply, and sell it at a premium.

Point four: This wealth is generally taken away the poor. Especially poor countries.

Point five: Military is used to secure these resources if they are not "traded freely."

Point six: As the people inevitably resist, this raises the cost of extracting recourses. The costs of these resources are then recouped from the poor, or the tax payers here at home, beginning the vicious cycle of economic death.

Point seven. The war on terror (not just Iraq now) is the final stage in that spire. The attempt to secure wealth through raw marshal force. But as precluded with the vicious cycle, the effort will inevitably cost more than is returned to the corporations. Even as the needs of the corporation continue to mount through corruption and graft.

Now I ask you. How can some one claim the power to save America, when they have already said that they plan to continue the vary policy that dooms it in the first place?

I just printed out your tome...pant pant...and unfortunately I am off on a trip for nine days, so the rest must be left on the table for another time.

A question....have you read Atlas Shrugged? All of a sudden it came to my mind. Is this what you're talking about? by withdrawing? I'm trying to understand.

You make so many references to them and yet provide no proof of your allegations or even the names of those companies and expect us to accept it as truth? Such arrogance I would expect from no less than Geortge W Bush.

and some (especially early on) rather thoughtful. Perhaps one of the Clark supporters might have links to a couple of the threads from just before he announced (when they threads were still often civil). In the calm discussions there were some good digging around to try to make sense of the spin, the different but accepted (the party declaration), and the real (all candidates have real pluses and minuses). While I stand on the outside of some of these debates, I can say that some of those discussions gave me more context and put some concerns (as I always have when I have yet to know about a candidate) to bed. They are worth reading - I just don't know where in the archives to look for them.

if anyone is interested! About 30 of them.......:D

:kick:
DemEx

At first I was pissed off...
then it became a laugh riot!

Thanks for the good time liberalman11

So, I'm not wasting my time.

Don't see any similarities...

> I welcome comments, please prove me wrong, I just don't understand it.

Weak, this thread is complete flame bait. Someone's candidate has been getting roughed up on DU and this is the response? Pathetic.

If "everything you've seen from Clark (past and present) shows that he is pretty much just like Bush," you should have no trouble coming up with at least a few solid examples.

You say "national defense he is JUST like Bush," but (not) surprisingly fail to back up your assertion with a single piece of evidence. Furthermore, it is not by any stretch of the imagination OBJECTIVE to call someone a "Republican most of his life" for voting Republican twice in the 80's - especially when it's also known that he voted for Clinton twice and Gore in 2000. You fail to even acknowledge his declared political stances now, which place him firmly as a liberal. If you have an honest interest in this, find out more here: http://www.ontheissues.org/Wesley_Clark.htm

If you want a real debate, you're going to have to come into the discussion with far more than the generalized opinions and half-truths you've stated in this case. It's no surprise to me that so many people are accusing you of flame-baiting.

Instead of starting a thread with "Clark is a Republican, prove me wrong," I'd highly recommend that next time you back up your arguments as best possible to make the thread more productive.

For those interested, watch and take a listen on the difference at Clark....then evaluate for yourselves the differences between he and Bush.

This is from this morning today show.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/today_front.asp

Go to the upper-right hand corner and find the screen shown here

Click the 1/6 button above the small screen until you reach 4/6, where you should see this


Then listen to Clark's review of Bush on both Iraq and 9/11.....

I had missed this. :)

has more redeeming quality than the Boy King.

Wes Clark - first in his class in West Point, Rhodes Scholar, wounded in Viet Nam, NATO commander. How is he "pretty much like Bush?!"

I CANNOT THINK OF A SINGLE REDEEMING QUALITY OUR UNELECTED MORONIC PIECE OF SHIT "PRESIDENT" HAS. NOT ONE.

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

that will turn on the DNC just as soon as he gets his foot in the door.

The senator praised Bush, saying he was "fulfilling an important role in emphasizing the threat and danger posed by hostile regimes that have malicious intentions toward the United States, Israel and the entire world."

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=133322

Let's find every dem who has ever uttered a kind word for Bush and boot them out of the party!

;)

EdgarFriendly has stated she is his preferred dem for president.

What was that about?.....
Desperation????????????????


"Bring Bush on!!

who stated during a recent interview that - GASP! - he liked Bush as governor of Texas. HERESY! This man does not belong in our party!

No offense to Dean supporters - obviously, I think the notion that anyone who has spoken well of Bush is a Republican plant - be it Clark, Dean, or Hillary - is asinine.

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the elimination of the Taliban. I thought that group was a clear and present danger to the United States, and I supported what the President did.

Howard Dean
May 22, 2003

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/052203A.shtml

Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president.

Howard Dean
June 22, 2003

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:JRAbrHmxaVQJ:www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp+Howard+Dean+russert+transcript&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Other dems praise Bush...

http://www.rnc.org/media/pdfs/dems043001.pdf

If you are going to condemn one democrat for it, condemn them all.

Otherwise, find a NEW lame reason to bash Clark. This one is tired.

Here's a list of Dem's praising Repugs and Boy George. Very impressive list of Democrats.

Some examples:

Ted Kennedy
Russ Feingold
Charlie Rangel

Just to name a few. Read the pdf file.

http://www.rnc.org/media/pdfs/dems043001.pdf

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

They're both citizens of the US
They're both married.
They're both fathers
They probably both have social security numbers
They probably both have drivers' licenses. I bet that Clark didn't have a DUI, though.
They both have IQs. Bush's is low, Clarks is very high.
Bush is a willing tool of the right wing. Clark is rather liberal. So, they both have something along the line of political philosophies. That's a similarity, right?
They both offered their opinions on the Michigan affirmative action case. Bush was against affirmative action. Clark wrote an amicus curi brief in favor of affirmative action.
They both..they both..nope..can't think of any other similarities.

They both served in the US military, although Bush only served for a couple of years in the Texas Air National Guard and was not even there for a good amount of time, while Clark served for 34 years, but hey, they both served in the armed forces!

It's funny to see right wingers complaining about Clark being too right wing.

perhaps you may have a job running future cnn debates.

You questioned Clark and das es vorboden!

Get ready to be attacked by every Clark supporter within ear shot… from all sides for even daring to question Clark.


Some of us here know Clark is a war criminal, not a democrat, and is a tool for Henry Kissinger and his war profiteer pals… but of course don’t expect to get an answer from any Clark supporters about those facts. All they can do is attack you.

But at least you're sticking with that same predictable message.

If you know the assertions you made are true, why is it that only 10 or so DUers actually agree with you?

Must be RNC plants.

:tinfoilhat:

Always the life of the flaim war.

I guess you must be proud of yourself. I guess it doesn't matter than no U.S. soldiers sied in the balkans conflict. I guess it doesn't matter that Milosevic was a war criminal. I guess it doesn't matter that Clark has been proven by the world community of not being a war criminal. I guess it doesn't matter that you use no evidence. I guess it doesn't matter that Clark has shown perserverance during conflict, while the biggest conflict Dean has ever faced in his life was choosing between Southern Comfort and Jose Cuervo after dodging the draft and being a 24-7 drunk.

I can't imagine how you could rationally equate the two. In terms of choosing a nominee, what we have to go on is the here and now, but you only seem to be interested in innuendo based on rumor and Repuke spin. Sad.

Please stop spreading the lies of the right wing. Clark NEVER expressed any support for Bush attacking Iraq. He only expressed praise for Bush attacking Afghanistan after 9-11. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, Clark, to this day has praise for Bush going into Afghanistan. It was only when Bush let up in the hunt for bin Laden to go into Iraq that Clark had harsh words for Bush's post-9-11 policy.

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

(CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

Wes Clark is a General, not a pacifist. His war stance on Iraq has always consistently been as follows:
He has always said that the Iraq issue should have been taken to the U.N. and NATO and handled in the context of attempting to work out diplomacy and to allow time for weapon inspections to work. He has always stated that he didn't feel that Iraq was an imminent threat. And he strongly believes that the war in Iraq has taken away resources away from the real war to be fought....the war on Terror that was being fought in Afghanistan. He also says that the war in Iraq did not qualify as a preemptive war...and last, but not least; Force should only be used as a last resort.

That's it....end of it....he didn't have to march in the peace marches.....He's not the type!!!

I don't want a Pacifist for a President.....I just don't need any wars fabricated and presented to me along with a bunch a bullshit!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I've seen it stated before on one of the endless Clark-o-bash threads, that Arkansas had no party affiliation check box on their voter registration cards until 1996. Also, other posters report living in states without these check boxes. Personally I kinda like the idea, but can see various drawbacks.

Nevertheless, if that is an accurate fact, then Clinton must also be counted as a non-Dem by DU purity standards.

In fact, even though my mother was an elected Democratic official, and even though I voted straight Dem, when I lived in a state where it didn't conflict with voting in the primaries, I was a registered Indy...for years. Why? Because it was not the governments god-damn business what I was up to.

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

And with that, I'm going to bed and off on a trip. Point taken and enjoyed. G'day.

Isn't the point to take back DC in 2004. I don't care if it's Clark, Dean, Edwards, Sharpton, or anyone else. We all have to remember that while the Primary Slugfest is to get to the head of the class, that we all, in the end will support whoever the nominee is... I like all of the candidates... The all have some good ideas... some of the ones that more than likely won't get the nod I hope will end up in some cabinet position in the Democratic Whitehouse.

Instead of all back biting and in fighting right now, we ought to just accept the fact that different folks have different likes for thier idea of who should get the nod. Dammit... that is what makes us the best Party around... WE ARE THE BIG TENT PARTY... not the Repugs... So before someone trashes to hell some other persons fav candidate, just remember that the candidate you trash today... may be the one you vote for tomorrow...

And as for the Repug infiltrators... I say we all visualize them being electrocuted by their computers... karmic kickback be damned...

They would listen to his town meetings. They would read the words in his policy statements. And if they did this, they would know his positions are world's away from Bush's. But I don't think this thread was started for the cause of honest assessment.