Honk if you're not an "INSIDER" but support Clark

What's this insider establishment (Clark), outsider (Dean) CRAP?

I'm as grassroots as you can get and support Clark. Is everybody else here who supports Clark some kind of OPERATIVE like the MOSTLY REPUKE pundits keep saying??

I support Clark because I want to kick Bush's ass.

If you ask me it looks like the DEAN campaign is making more of the insider outsider BS than anybody else and thinks nominating whoever they think is the OUTSIDER is more important than WINNING. What's the point?

Any other Clark DUers out there who don't work for the ESTABLISHMENT or am I the only one (yeah right)

I live in a small northern Wisconsin Town, hate, hate, hate, politics & politicians. I voted for Nader in 2000. I support clark because I hate that freak in the White House. I personally believe that Clark is our best hope to get him out. I will knock on doors, write letters, and make phone calls. Whatever it takes to get Texas on the Potomac out of our lives. Would you consider this grassroots.

I'm from Milwaukee originally. :hi:

Honk! Honk!

I'm certainly not an insider.

Never attended a political event in my life until last week.

Our Lt. Gov has officially endorsed Clark. Wisconsin is a wonderful liberal and progressive state and with great Senators like Feingold & Kohl and an extra special Representative like Obey I am proud to live here.

Maria

like the highest number of organic farm CSAs (Community Supported/Shared Agriculture) per capita of any state. I haven't checked the numbers recently but a few years ago there were like 53 in Wis, 18 or so serving Madison. Don't forget the Midwest Renewable Energy Fair. Wonderfully progressive state you have there. I have much enjoyed time spent in Wisconsin. don't forget the community owned Green Bay Packers.

(not meant to knock or belittle any other progressive states, provinces, cities, collectives or bioregions)

I think I am revealing myself to be a Progressive grass roots type. I am also someone who respects and is inspired by the General and his ideas (not just because he can and will beat Chimpy) But first and foremost, I support Ideas and discussion that transcend national boundaries and whoever the dem nominee ends up being. Get that poser sitting in Al Gore's chair out of office!

I'm hardly an operative. I've never even been to a local party meeting. Beating Bush* is my objective.

I doubt that working retail, earning less than $25,000, and never having worked on a political campaign makes one an insider.

I like Clark because he is not a politician and is willing to say things that may be unpopular with Democrats and liberals (flag burning, some positive comments about Bush). To me, Dean and Kerry try and make every comment sound like it was written for me and who cares about the moderates and conservatives. I want someone who appeals to most of my beliefs, but also appeals to some beliefs of moderates and conservatives.

Remember, the nation is split just about 50/50. Since this is a democracy, I would like a candidate who cares about that other 50% also.

He's not my first choice for prez, but I would rather suuport him if he gets the nod than four more years of that warmongering asshole.

Eyes on the prize, folks....eyes on the prize.

that makes him an insider.

And his campaign staff is full of anti-Dean Clintonistas who want to derail Dean because a Dean nomination would mean a Dem Party house cleaning and the Clintonistas would most likely find themselves booted out along with George Bush.

This election is too important to worry about CLEANING HOUSE at the party headquarters.

"Clintonistas" - I guess our goal in 2004 should be to get rid of them, not Bush. :eyes:

BTW, Clark has a record of disagreeing with the Pentagon establishment on many issues. If you don't like his candidacy, be aggressive about supporting your own candidate, but keep the eyes on the BFEE prize ferpetesake.

The house I care about cleaning in 2004 is the White House.

This is getting just silly.

like being anti-Dean is a bad thing. It's not a bad thing if you don't think he is the best candidate, or you don't agree with his views, and especially if you don't think he can win.

As previously said, our country is split just about 50/50. We need a nominee who appeals to some percentage of the "other" 50. Clark can and does attract some of this group.

Remember - it is not just the nomination - it is victory in November.

and made up of people who need to be under the leadership of a president who understands diplomacy and living in a global society.

I like that Clark knows people at the Pentagon and can work with people at the Pentagon -- that is part of the reality of being President.

steering commitee, including the woman that was the major fundraiser for not only junior but poppy too is OK with you? I would say these folks are anti-Dem. What a hypocrite! BTW have any of these 40 registered Dem yet?



Retyred In Fla
So I Read This Book

Is the Dean campaign brainwashing you into hating everthing in your own party that isn't Dean?

That is some toxic Kool-Aid there.

Retired Four-Star General Barry R. McCafrey recently said of Clark: "He is probably among the top five most talented I've met in my life. I think he is a national treasure who has a lot to offer the country."

"This is no insult to Army culture, a culture I love and admire, but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture. He was not one of the good ol' boys."

Colonel Douglas Macgregor said: "There is this aspect of his character -- he is loyal to people he knows are capable and competent. As for his peers, it's a function of jealousy and envy, and it's a case of misunderstanding. General Clark is an intense person, he's passionate, and certainly the military is suspicious of people who are intense and passionate."

Wesley Clark didn't fit in with military culture. Clark was a Rhodes Scholar, one of only 90 intellectuals so honored in the year of his receipt. Subsequently, he was a White House Fellow, which number approximately 9 accepted in any given year, out of over 1000 applicants from major schools across the U.S. A man who admires writers and poets, who reads Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Pablo Neruda, who speaks four languages, who has lived throughout Latin America and Europe and knows the world, who has taught economics and social science as an Assistant Professor at the U.S. Military Academy and who is a licensed investment broker, Clark is quite simply one of the most remarkable individuals ever to run for public office in this country. In my opinion, he cannot be summed up as a typical Pentagon Insider.

He is our best hope to end this nightmare!


:dem:

:-)

(Sarcasm)
What do you mean? Of course, I'm a DLC-loving, stealth NeoCon, Republican mole. I worship the ground Al From walks on. (/sarcasm)

As if... :puke:

Some people are simply determined to assume the absolute worst about Clark.

He appears to me to be the best candidate.

As far as the Pentagon, it doesn't seem as if he had many fans there. He had policy ideas that were quite different from the military brass at the time.

I like Clark because he is a guy who is inclusive instead of exclusive. Also he gets his point across with class, I call it Finessing the Passion. There is no reaason to yell when you know you've got the type of persona that commands respect and attention.

That's why I support Clark

I like the "operative" moniker, though. Makes me feel like I'm the resistance!

Clark is the man for the job!

I work at a grocery store for cryin' outloud!

nt

It was Clark's TV appearances this summer which really got me fired up. I never even contributed to a campaign before. And I've been voting since Reagan....

approve of the School of Americas?

How does that make you either a Democrat or a progressive?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=720477#721624

What policies that Clark is campaigning on, or the other candidates are raising, do you have questions about. I am not familiar with the schools of america, but I am skeptical of your use of something from his military service as showing he is not progressive.

Must we label him or his supporters? Lets debate the issues. Help me out with the Schools of America...not up to speed on that.

Is a training camp for terrorists, in Fort Benning, Georgia. The school has produced some fine terroists, as the following article articulates:

Backyard terrorism

The US has been training terrorists at a camp in Georgia for years - and it's still at it.

- snip -

For the past 55 years it has been running a terrorist training camp, whose victims massively outnumber the people killed by the attack on New York, the embassy bombings and the other atrocities laid, rightly or wrongly, at al-Qaida's door. The camp is called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or Whisc. It is based in Fort Benning, Georgia, and it is funded by Mr Bush's government.

Until January this year, Whisc was called the "School of the Americas", or SOA. Since 1946, SOA has trained more than 60,000 Latin American soldiers and policemen. Among its graduates are many of the continent's most notorious torturers, mass murderers, dictators and state terrorists. As hundreds of pages of documentation compiled by the pressure group SOA Watch show, Latin America has been ripped apart by its alumni.

More...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,583254,00.html


On Dec. 16, 1996-- well after his apparent "conversion" to the Democratic Party-- Clark gave the commencement speech to the graduating class at SOA, praising their achievements and exhorting them to continue their battle against "narco criminals," and calling upon their joint brotherhood as "military professionals."

See http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/usarsa/SPEECH/cgscspch.htm.

We'll denote the graduates of SOA as the "universe", U, for our consideration; these are the only people we're looking at.

Inside U is a smaller set, which we shall denote B, for "bad people". This set represents the individuals you are referring to who graduated from the SOA.

B is a subset of U, meaning that all of the elements of B are contained within you.

Under these given constants, your argument is:

B (is a subset of) U, -> U (is a subset of) B.

((For the record, this is a proof that the two sets are equivalent)).

Do you care to try and prove this assertion, or will you continue to insist that the argument has been proven when it has not?

I also wonder... I'm reasonably sure you could find at least one person from West Point who would fall into a similar set B, described above. Are you going to now argue that the entirety of it's graduates are members of that set?

graduate who shouldn't be the yardstick for all Yale graduates!

Clark's speech is very positive.

<Snip>

ONLY DEMOCRACY COULD PROVIDE ABSOLUTE LIBERTY, BUT HE {Bolivar}WASN'T SURE DEMOCRACY COULD LAST, CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE OF THE TIMES. THAT'S THE CHALLENGE THAT ALL OF US ARE FACING, EACH OF US IN OUR OWN WAY.

TODAY BECAUSE DEMOCRACY HAS HELPED US RECOGNIZE TOGETHER OUR DREAMS OF SOVEREIGNTY EACH COUNTRY IS DIFFERENT, WITH ITS OWN NEEDS, CAPABILITIES, RESOURCES. AND EACH COUNTRY MUST DEAL WITH ITS CHALLENGES IN ITS OWN WAY.

HOPEFULLY WE CAN RELY ON FRIENDS TO HELP US WHEN WE DEAL WITH OUR CHALLENGES. BUT IN THE PROCESS, WE MUST RESPECT OUR DIFFERENCES AND OUR SOVEREIGNTY.

<Snip>

INSTITUTIONS LIKE COURTS, JUDICIARIES, LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES -- AS WELL AS TRADE UNIONS, STUDENT GROUPS, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS OF DOCTORS, TEACHERS AND LAWYERS. THE GROUPINGS OF GOOD PEOPLE WHO WORK TOWARD THE BETTERMENT OF CONDITIONS FOR EVERYBODY.

AND OF COURSE WE TEND TO BUILD SIMILAR MILITARY INSTITUTIONS COMMITTED TO SERVICE UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENTS -- PROFESSIONAL, COMPETENT, PATRIOTIC AND LOYAL.


That seems pretty progressive to me!

Perhaps I am mistaken, but were you one of those alleging that Clark supporters never rebutted claims made against him?

For the record, I approve of the abstract idea of the School of Americas, but my understanding of the implementation leads me to see it as a grey institution (in contrast to strictly good or strictly evil), but leaning towards good.

Um, thanks Pastiche423.
I would really like to follow up on this.

Someone posted yesterday that Clark gave the graduation
ceremony speech in 1996 at the "School of the Americas,"
aka the School of Assasins. It's reputedly where the CIA
teaches murder, torture, and how to overthrow foreign
democracies that conflict with our corporate interests.

Based on a goole search, it certainly appears that Clark
did give that speech, praising the school bla bla:

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/usarsa/SPEECH/cgscspch.htm
http://www.washingtonpeacecenter.org/articles/SOAopen.html

That *same year* - 1996, U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II
(D-Mass), linked the U.S. Army School of the Americas
to training in murder and torture, and asked the
Clinton Administration to shut down the facility.

So, it's impossible to convince myself that Clark didn't know
the true mission of the "school."

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/40/025.html

"Congressman Kennedy...said recent revelations by the Pentagon
that torture manuals were used in the school's curriculum were the "smoking gun"
...
The manuals instructed students in the use of "motivation by fear," paying bounties for enemy dead, executing opponents, subverting the press and using torture, blackmail and even injections of truth serum to obtain information.
...
"These tactics come right out of an SS manual and have no place in a civilized society. They certainly have no place in any course taught with taxpayer dollars on U.S. soil by members of our own military," said Congressman Kennedy.""

This is pretty disturbing to me.
I want to support Clark, but I'm not gonna do
deaf and dumb to do it.

Is there nothing you sophists won't argue?

Presented with a clearly logical and consistant argument to the contrary of your chosen position, you simply ignore it.

Didn't you go around not too long ago and just respond to people's posts with the logical fallacy you felt they were committing? Good thing you stopped.

One of my majors was history.

Your "defense" of the School of the Americas deserves only two responses:

1) derision
2) ridicule

One of my majors was history.

One of mine is CS; hence the logic formalism.
The other's Poly Sci, by the way.

Your "defense" of the School of the Americas deserves only two responses:

1) derision
2) ridicule

My "defense" is simply looking at the records of the number of graduates, and contrasting it with the number that have committed atrocities. Is there a problem with analysing the situation that way, or do you just not like the way the numbers worked out?

and al-Qaeda.

Hence, your "defense" is pure sophistry.

I read half of it and it looks like what I have come to expect from Clark. He tries to have a positive effect on these young people. Personally, I trust Clark to fix problems like the ones raised in the guardian article. Question is will he be given the chance?

a candidate that not only spoke at the graduation, but praised the graduating terrorists?

Do you read the article about the School of Americas? If you did not clearly comprehend what it is and does, I can supply you many more links that will.

To you, is there a difference between the Al Qaeda training camps and the SOA? And if so, what are those differences?

Please provide a list.

The School of the Americas (SOA) has been given other names -- "School for Dictators", "School of Assassins", and "Nursery of Death Squads". And, countries with the worst human rights records send the most soldiers to the School.

Countries / Graduates (since 1946)

Argentina / 931
Bolivia / 4,049
Brazil / 355
Chile / 2,405
Colombia / 8,679
Costa Rica / 2,376
Dominican Republic / 2,330
Ecuador / 2,356
El Salvador / 6,776
Guatemala / 1,676
Honduras / 3,691
Nicaragua / 4,693
Panama / 4,235
Paraguay / 1,084
Peru / 3,997
Uruguay / 931
Venezuela / 3,250

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/SOA.html

Given that those numbers add up to 53,814 people, and the Commandant of the SOA said that somewhere in the neighborhood of 60,000 people have attended the school, I'm willing to wager that you're not posting anything more than the enrollment statistics for the school.

Here's something you don't ever seem to consider: Attending SOA would probably look damn good on a resume for foreign militaries, right? So don't you think that those that attended would have a higher representation in said foreign militaries?

Given that many of these militaries are corrupt, is it then surprising that an attribute which would contribute to rising up in the ranks would be prevelant among high ranking officials, which would be the most likely to be responsible for some of the atrocities mentioned by your source?

Additionally: Your source does not once compare the number of the problematic persons to the number of total graduates. This is important information.

The Beach Boys must be proud of you!

I must necessarily be a graduate of SOA?

If my number of around 2% of graduates being members of the set you have a problem with is off, how about you display where I went wrong?

And I found no information contrasting the atrocities committed against the total number of graduates.

Following the logic presented in this thread, if 2% of the world are assholes, we are all assholes.

I don't give a flying fuck whether 75% of the graduates are CIA asset torturers schooled in repression or just 25% the graduates are.

The School of Americas has a vile history. Your "defense" of the institution could be used to defend Nazis, Hamas or the KKK.

If only 2% of the Nazis supported killing Jews, or only 2% of Hamas wanted to destroy Israel, or only 2% of the KKK wanted to lynch black people.

You'd get along quite well with Senate Republicans; You wanna make a thread somewhere and whine for 15 hours?

"Prove the percentages otherwise."

I'm waiting.

I have stayed out of this, but that was pretty funny. :spank: Somebody just got bitch-slapped.

Let us assume that Columbia is a representative sample of the set of graduates.

Out of 8,679 graduates, somewhere on the order of 150 graduates are "notorious", according to http://www.derechos.org/soa/. This is rounded up, because I possibly miscounted as I went down the list.

This is 1.7% of the graduates from Columbia.

Gee... I seem to recall something in the Senate about 98% being damn good.

I intended to ask you for a list from the class of 1996 that Clark addressed.

You said he spoke to terrorists. Obviously, he wasn't speaking to anyone who committed crimes in the 1950's, right? Which ones in the room he addressed were terrorists?

You chose to continue to insist your assertion is proven, when it is in fact not.

I'll make it easier for you:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec99/sotamericas_9-21.html

The Commandant of the SOA argues less than one percent of the graduates fall in your set B. Find me some evidence to the contrary.

You are actually arguing that the School for the Americas is a fine institution of higher learning.

You do realize, don't you, that you sound exactly like a tobacco scientist arguing that THERE'S NO PROOF that cigarettes cause cancer?

Did you look at my post, titled "Analysis", right before the one that you replied to with "Way to represent your school"?

I did the math; it appears that most of the graduates do not belong to the set of individuals that have done dispicable things. Find me some evidence to the contrary, and I will reconsider my position.

You are DEFENDING the CIA school of Latin American Repression!

I am arguing with someone who doesn't care about the facts; You have a position, you are going to stick to it, and no amount of evidence can sway you.

For the record: Sophistry - Plausible but fallacious argumentation.

Would you care to document how my argument is fallacious, without the a priori assumption that the SOA is evil?

and al-Qaeda.

Your sophistry is pathetic.

Un-fucking-believable!

I never thought I would read, on a progressive site, people condoning the School of Americas!

No one is condoning the School of Americas, least of all Wesley Clark (at least not by virtue of speaking to a class where no graduates have been associated with violence).

Your lack of rationalism and logic are totally unprogressive in nature. Your argument is like that of a creationist. "I believe what I believe and no one can prove me wrong." Nice!

or lack of desire to learn about the School of Americas is totally unprogressive in nature.

Would you defend him for doing so?

Because the same "argument" you are using here would "work" just as well in that scenario.

This is from the National Defense Authorization Act Meetings in 1999.

General CLARK. I will tell you that the IMET program is probably the most cost-effective means we have of engaging these countries. We need to bring their military leaders here at multiple levels. They need to see not only how America is operating and what American public attitudes are, they need to see how the Armed Forces in the United States think and train, the fact that we are nonpolitical, the fact that we are dedicated, the fact that we are a noncorrupt Armed Forces, the fact that we subsist on the public funding, so to speak, and don't try to line our pockets outside of office.

All of these need to be seen up close and understood to be believed, and we are teaching not only the technical and tactical aspects of military training but we teach democracy and human rights and many other programs through the IMET program. I can tell you that all of our instruction in U.S. service schools and institutions has been very, very carefully screened, especially the studies in the School of the Americas with which I am very familiar with my previous assignment. There is nothing going on in these institutions that you and the United States Congress wouldn't be extraordinarily proud of when you see the enormous leverage the United States gets in terms of bringing school attendees around to understanding American society and the way the American Armed Forces work. We make no apologies. We consider that we are an outstanding example and IMET is a way to show it.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has076000.000/has076000_0f.htm

Well, there you have it. I caution those who do not have first hand knowledge of the school from thinking they know the whole story. Of course I admit I don't either but I don't have any reason to doubt Clark at least not yet.

most USians vote the way they do:

Hey! clark said the School of Americas is just dandy, so there is no reason to doubt him!

Oh god is our country fucked!

Look you made your case and I read everything you had to say. What makes you so sure that Clark is wrong on this? Are you saying that we should not attempt to impart our ideals on South Americans while they also get combat training or are you against combat training altogether?

regarding the School of Americas at 1st was excusable.

But since you have been given multiple links explaining what it is and how many have tried closing it down due to it's inexcusable human rights abuses, the only conclusion I can come to, is that you simply don't what to deal w/the reality of it.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/SOA.html

'Today, America's image as a defender of democracy and justice has been further eroded by the School of the Americas (SOA), which trains Latin American and Caribbean military officers and soldiers to subvert democracy and kill hope in their own countries.'

'When they return to their home countries, graduates of the SOA hold a rather unique and peculiar view of their countrymen. They look upon priests, social workers, journalists, and liberal intellectuals, not as assets to their societies, but as dangerous subversives, working to undermine the system that keeps these soldiers, army officers, and their sponsors in power.'

If only you presented a reputable source for this frightening story, Or if Wes Clark was exposed for the pro-terror nut you claim he is (the man who lost his job because he wanted to stop ethnic cleansing), or if I was a youngster and susceptible in general to consiracy theories...

but these these are not the case.

What your links do show is that military power can be used for horrible things by people. I certainly wouldn't argue that. But who should we blame? What is the Root Cause of the problem? Certainly not a School in Georgia that offers military training as well as training in American democratic values.

One story you or someone else linked appears to be from a reputable source, I pulled a relevant section out:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/111900-01.htm

Published on Sunday, November 19, 2000 in the Atlanta Journal Constitution
Fort Benning School Braces for Protesters
by Yolanda Rodriguez

snip


The protesters allege that the school teaches Latin American military personnel tactics to use against their own people. It is scheduled to shut down next month and reopen under a new name, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Protection, in January.

The new school and curriculum will be reviewed regularly by Congress, the State and Defense departments and civilians from academia, clergy, and international nongovernmental organizations.

But even with the changes the protests are likely to continue, said Randy Serragio, one of the organizers for School of Americas Watch, which each year trains thousands of people in nonviolent action.


snip

interesting how many organizations and people that are involved in approving the curriculum for your terrorist training camps.

why don't we agree to disagree I am tired...

regards

Of course I do not favor training of terrorists. Since I do not know much about the school and its curriculum, I can only guess that it is an attempt to support American interests. It may do this very badly in which case I am in favor of fixing it or closing it.

I just don't see how you can take Clark's speech and determine that he favors training terrorists, perhaps we should ask him and allow him to respond.

has a long history of training terrorists. (See my post #52)

Either clark knew this when he made a speech at the '96 graduation and condoned it, or he is incredibly stupid.

How about another explanation. One supported by the context of his speech.

He was asked to address the graduating class and took it as an opportunity to ENCOURAGE them to respect human rights and democracy. Nothing in his speech suggests he condoned the historic abuses by other graduates.

Since he didn't have the power to close the school, and I'm not even sure if he had the ability to refuse the request to speak at the graduation, your conclusion is unfounded.

Thanks though.

Can't you just let the Kucinich supporters make their Coulteresque assumptions and guilt-by-association slurs!

He spoke to THEM! It doesn't matter what Clark said. He was in the same room and PRAISED them!

It doesn't matter that he told them:

"WE ALSO WORK TOGETHER IN THIS REGION BUILDING ROADS, SCHOOLS, CLINICS, WELLS -- OR IN TIMES OF EMERGENCY, RESPONDING TOGETHER TO NATURAL DISASTERS TO AMELIORATE SUFFERING."

or

"AND IT'S DEMOCRACY THAT HELPS US FOCUS SQUARELY ON THE CENTRAL DREAM THAT I THINK EACH OF US SHARE -- THE DREAM OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND JUSTICE AS WELL AS FREEDOM.

AS IT SAYS IN THE BIBLE IN PROVERBS, "KINDNESS SHOWN TO THE POOR IS AN ACT OF WORSHIP."

GENERAL JOSE SAN MARTIN TALKED OF A DEMOCRACY'S "GREAT RESPONSIBILITY: TO USE FORCE ONLY AS AN INSTRUMENT OF A FREE NATION'S SELF-DEFENSE."

Nevermind that he was asked to speak at a graduation ceremony. He wasn't (nor to my knowledge, has been) asked his opinion of the history of the institution or its reformation or closure. I will also wait for an answer from Clark.

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

Thanks though.

You were given the opportunity to PROVE your assertion and have failed to do so. I always give you the benefit of the doubt because I know you are an intelligent and well read person, and I value your contribution here. BUT THIS DOG WON'T HUNT!

Your argument is irrational and illogical.

SOA has graduates who are terrorists. Check. Well documented.
Clark spoke to graduates of SOA. Check. Well documented.
Clark supports and condones the historic atrocities of SOA graduates. BUZZ! No evidence.

the atrocities of the SOA graduates, why did he speak at their 1996 graduation, knowing full well the history?

Are you planning on replying to my posts above? I'd like to know what you think of the numbers I came up with.

Maybe I'm just open-minded, but I don't like to smear large groups of people based on the actions of a very small percentage thereof.

Period!

I do not believe in an institution whose "curriculum includes courses in psychological warfare, counterinsurgency, interrogation techniques, and infantry and commando tactics. Presented with the most sophisticated and up-to-date techniques by the US Army's best instructors, these courses teach military officers and soldiers of Third World countries to subvert the truth, to muzzle union leaders, activist clergy, and journalists, and to make war on their own people.

It prepares them to subdue the voices of dissent and to make protesters submit. It instructs them in techniques of marginalizing the poor, the hungry, and the dispossessed. It tells them how to stamp out freedom and terrorize their own citizens. It trains them to destroy the hope of democracy."

Your numbers mean nothing to me. The very fact that it exists is what matters to me.

So, by your own admission, the facts are meaningless.

Good to know; at least you're honest enough to admit the facts are against you.

That's pretty consistent with the content of Clark's speech, isn't it?

He encouraged them to marginalize the poor, the hungry and the dispossessed. He told them to make sure they go out there and destroy the hope of democracy, didn't he.

You don't have to support Clark, but you also don't have to draw conclusions that aren't supported by the evidence. Clark's addressing this group is no more a support of the historic atrocities committed by its graduates than Sean Penn's trip to Iraq was a support of rape pits!

Correct me if I have got you wrong. (Like I need to tell you that :))

You suggest that because Clark didn't CONDEMN the atrocities committed by former graduates of the school, he CONDONES both their actions and the school teaching them to commit those acts.

I suggest that because he didn't CONDONE the atrocities committed by graduates of the school that HE DOESN'T CONDONE THEM!

Mepham High School in Bellmore, N.Y. is going to have a graduation ceremony and someone will likely address that group of graduates. By your logic, that person MUST condemn the entire class because three members sexually assaulted another boy during a football camp.

And if that speaker doesn't condemn the school for the acts of those students, they will be CONDONING those acts?

That's what I'm starting to think Jim4Wes.

I'd like to know how General Clark could
condone the reputed actions of the
SOA(mericans/ssasins) graduates.
And based on his speech (which I did read),
he seemed pretty supportive.
Hell, his very presence at such an occasion
represents support.

I'm not willing to back his candidacy and ignore this
issue at the same time.

We could write to him individually to ask
about this, or perhaps organize one letter
with many signatures.

What do you guys think the most effective approach
would be?

Please take a look at the numbers I just found / calculated. I really don't think there's adequate evidence to argue that the SOA trains entirely (or even mostly) terrorists.

There is nothing wrong with asking as Myra says. I would sign a petition/letter, that asks about his plans on how to deal with the problems raised by Joe Kennedy. Clark is a military man, but he is a man that believes in war as a last resort and I find it hard to believe he would condone unethical teaching in this school. As far as I can tell he also tries to influence bad policy by getting involved.

I think I will write to General Clark and
see if I can get some kind of response.
I'll post the letter here once I do it
(but it likely won't be 'til Tuesday night
or Wednesday).

And if others want to write individually to
ask, perhaps we can reach critical mass and
increase our chances of getting an answer.
At the very least let him know there are supporters
and potential supporters who are concerned about this...

After further reflection, gathering names for
one letter, given how passionate people are on
this subject, would be like herding cats. :)

http://clark04.com/contact/

More later.

Did Clark speak at their recent graduations, too?

Any actual evidence, or are you having fun leaping about the thread with empty rhetoric?

and/or Hezbollah are "bad people."

Oh, you can't?

I guess that's because your "argument" is pure sophistry then. Wouldn't you agree?

To be clear, I am not saying the school has not made or is not making mistakes but I thought this is a valid point from one of the instructors talking about torture unethical war time acts by soldiers(pulled from PBS page)

CAPTAIN CARMEN ESTRELLA: Who better than a soldier to teach about those things? You know, I was in Just Cause, and I was in Desert Storm, and as a soldier, I feel very qualified to teach human rights because I'm exposed to the things that put you in a position where you have to make those kinds of decisions, whether, you know, are you going to help this person or not? And we put them in the scenarios and they have to react to that, and they do very well. And if they do something that is not correct, we tell them. We stop the class and we ask them what was wrong with this.

Just like my girlfriend, my father, her parents, and everyone else who ever served in the United States military.

:eyes:

Can everyone support a General who has fought and lead men into combat? I think we need to let some folks hold their strong opinions on that so I will not post any more on this topic.

Regards all

But when those opinions are supported by the left's equivalent of faith based intelligence, they have to be challenged.

The suggestion that Clark supporters approve of the historic atrocities committed by graduates of the SOA because Clark gave a graduation speech to the class of 1996 is illogical.

No evidence has been presented that refutes the progressive content of Clark's speech. He specifically included TRADE UNIONS, for Pete's sake!

No evidence was presented that proves any of the people Clark addressed have gone on to committ atrocities themselves.

No evidence was presented that Clark condones the atrocities committed in the past.

No evidence was presented that the SOA never graduated a GOOD person; an educator, administrator, lawyer, doctor.

Dubya and Rummy also hold strong opinions. That doesn't mean they hold opinions I won't challenge.

Its important to challenge ideological positions, but we can't win everyone over... you and others have challenged it, but the win is in the eye of the beholder. The only place to go is to ask the candidates and let each make their choices.

Big F*cking Deal

I don't know what world you live in but if we were all to be judged by your standards we would all fail miserably.

MzPip
:dem:

It's an interesting subject.

Tampa, FL here. Definately an outsider, this is the 1st campaign I have contributed to. Wes is the real deal.


:dem:

HONK

but I think that he is a man of great intellect, integrity, and strength. I believe that if Shrub goes up against a man of Clark's calibre, those that are currently "undecided" will make up their minds in a hurry.

I know that a lot of people say that they don't trust him because he's military, but hey, that's exactly what we have now. Look how swell they've done. I don't include Colon Bowel because he lost all credibility long ago, what little he had. (I hold a long-standing grudge because of his cover-up crap during Viet Nam.)

I was for Kerry before Clark got into the race, but I had no hesitation about changing. I still believe that he is truly the best out of the lot.

All that said, whoever gets the nod as the democratic candidate gets my vote. I don't believe for a minute that Lieberman or Gephart have a snow balls chance in hell, so I think I'm on pretty safe ground.

Since when is hating the party the prime directive?

The only thing I'm inside is my house because it's frickin' cold when you live over half way to North Pole.

Any Democrat that gets elected will arrive with their own team and their own style. The party changes. If you think about it, bush brought in his father's team, and even that god-awful s.o.b. changed his party if only for the worse. You really need to get a grip and give up hating Clinton. Clinton is no longer the president and only Rush and company still think he is. As an outside Dem, I wish Clinton were still president since inside or outside, this is the only planet I can live on.

Never been to a party meeting. I support Clark because I truly think he can beat Shrub.

Additionally, I'm not looking for a strong "father figure" to guide us out of peril, as some of the anti-Clarkies seem to think.

woman in Tulsa Oklahoma. I own my own dance school and my husband is a housepainter. I have done some work for the democrats...like stapling and mailing stuff and passing out yard signs. I also worked the Tulsa State Fair for the Mike Synar memorial. Oh and in the olden days I was quite the fem-lib on campus ( 1967-71)

That's about the extent of my insider knowledge.

An insider, no doubt in my mind. :-)

You know, does hurling insults at people's intelligence really make anyone think I'd drop down on my knees and beg their forgiveness for my obvious cloaking of my insider status? There are currently 600 people living in my town. Exactly what can I be inside?

Thanks for sharing Nancy.

but you knew that....the Clark team is lucky you are on their side!
Now..go inside.

especially his fiesty attitude...

.

Clark rocks!

Indeed, Clark does rock. As you see, I have come out of the closet. I still love Dennis Kucinich. I just honestly believe Clark is our best chance to oust *. Regards

Worked on grass roots movements throughout my life, anti war and environmental activist. Never lifted a finger for any electoral candidate in my whole life, and I'm 54. I am fully committed to Clark's campaign and just got back from spending a day helping out at the Manchetster NH campaign office (I live in upstate NY).

More honks

I didn't meet my first Clark supporter until months after I started to support him.

:kick:

Mother of 2 young adults in the middle of her higher studies in International Development, lover of animals, dabbler in painting, an ex-pat for many years but fervent Democrat.....

Clark is the only one in my eyes....
:kick:

DemEx

:hi:

I'm FRENCH(naturalized),

so you know that I am not inside or outside....

I AM UNDERNEATH.

Living in the Berkeley.......Self Employed........

I THINK MOST CLARK SUPPORTERS PROBLABLY HATE BUSH MORE THAN THE OTHERS....

WE SEE A GUARANTEE WIN, AND WE GO FOR IT.

NOT TAKING ANY CHANCE!

(I had one of those bell thingys on my bike.) Anyway......from south central PA......mother of two, grandma of two, ......live in a little village in the heart of PA Dutch Country. INSIDER? Yeah...I know the inside of my refrigerator (just cleaned it) and vacuum cleaner (I just dumped it.)

If they coat the board in this FUD, they'll only get challenged in one or two places; they can then hope to influence all those who didn't read the rebuttals (*cough*Pastiche*cough*).

No war crimes were commited by NATO forces in preventing Butcher Slobo's designs in Kossovo. The continued assertion there were is based on two things: an a priori view that use of military force by the U.S. is illegitimate by definition, and a lack of appreciation of how the laws of war apply to its actual practice. It is not possible to prove anything to persons who hold that view, as they have not arrived at by its having been proved to them, but only have adopted it because it fits their accustomed ideological parameters.

More important is to understand that such charges have no resonance with any but a tiny band of left extremists, most of whom have opted out of the electoral process for various splinter-group actions, and a similarly tiny band of right extremists, who will never vote for a Democratic Party candidate in any case. The general public will be rather inclined to view the NATO campaign in Kossovo as a favorable contrast to the current botch-up in Iraq: it was quickly successful, with a minimum of casualties, and the criminal who was its object is now on trial at The Hague.

- Magistrate -

Something along the lines of:

"Many left extremists have the view the the authors of the Geneva Convetion outlawed all forms of warfare, without knowledge that they did so. These extremists are incorrect."

I'd search for it, but I don't know what search terms I'd use to find it.

Is anyone who serves in the military a war criminal?

Just curious.

Before being ousted from power, Slobodan Milosevic's Court indicted and convincted in absentia, Clark, Clinton, Chiraq, Madeleine Allbright and others for war crimes. Ironic that Clark detractors have to resort to this, the opinion of the bloody war criminal and ethnic cleanser Milosevic. A list of those indicted along with Clark.

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton
British Prime Minister Tony Blair
British Foreign Minister Robin Cook
Former British Secretary of Defence George Robertson
Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
Former U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer
German Defence Secretary Rudolf Scharping
French President Jacques Chirac
French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine
French Defence Minister Alain Richard
Retired NATO commander General Wesley Clark
Former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana

The punditry even called bush* an "outsider", despite the fact that he's the son of a president and was governor of a large state.

Fuck the pundits.

Clark is okay by me.

Ding Dong.

Boy, did this thread ever blow up in Pastiche's face. I was of the opinion that the SOA was really bad news. Now, they don't sound like monsters after all. I'll have to look into this a bit more. I think it would be a good idea to ask the general about it. It's sure to come up at some point. ...better from one of us.

Actually, you know, we should all thank Pastiche, CWebster et al. Have you ever noticed that when there are no opposing views in a thread the thread dies quickly? They're helping us to hone our argument/message/etc.

Spoken like a true know-nothing Clark supporter.

Or are you planning on responding to the numbers I posted above?

Here's your "argument" in "defense" of the (CIA) School of the (repression of) the Americas :

You can't PROVE that more than 2% of Nazis were "bad" Nazis. Therefore, the Nazi Party must be A-OK.

You can't PROVE that more than 2% of the KKK were "bad" Klansmen. Therefore, the Klan must be wonderful.

I said I wasn't going to discuss this part any further, but I missed this particular post.

My point is not that, as you put it, you can't prove more than x% of the graduates did horrible things. Rather, it is that those criticizing SOA have documented, apparently, all the people who are known to have committed atrocities. When you take the number of people that have committed said atrocities, it is significantly smaller than the total number of graduates.

The argument that the Nazi Party is bad is not based solely on the claim that y people who were members of the Nazi Party also did horrible things. The same with the KKK. The Nazi Party and the KKK are inherantly nasty organizations, that admit to stand for nasty things (they just fail to see them as wrong).

My understanding of the protestors disdain for the SOA was that it stemmed from the abuses of its alumni, rather than anything inherant about it. Hence my defense was entirely logical: demonstrate that the set of these alumni was significantly smaller than the set of graduates.

If you would like to make an argument against the SOA on less quantitive grounds and more qualitive ones, I'd be happy to address that.

The SOA trained people who then went on to do horrible things. This still isn't an argument against the SOA; it's an argument against the people the SOA has trained.

What I meant is something along the lines of:
The SOA is inherantly evil, because it has X as it's goal; X is evil because of... etc.

Or maybe:
The SOA is inherantly evil, because it does X; X is evil because...

If you're going to argue that it is evil because it's alumni have done horrible things, then in my mind, the alumni in question have to be a much more significant number than 1 or 2%.

Note that I'm not saying that those atrocities are permissible - far from it. However, I don't think it's at all fair to use the actions of a small percentage to tar the entire institution, especially given that most of U.S. foreign policy was propping up authoritarian dictatorships in South America during that time.

Way to argue your issue by insulting another member! You're sooo superior!

that Clark supporters would actually defend the School of the Americas on my beloved DU.

CAPPS II provides the US federal government with a full profile on every innocent citizen without making us ONE IOTA SAFER.

Successful US citizen hijackings of US domestic flights HAVEN'T HAPPENED FOR 30 YEARS. And no US citizen passenger has EVER destroyed or crashed a passenger plane. So why are we trying to protect against something THAT ISN'T A THREAT? Because Clark & his neocon buddies IMAGINE that this threat is real and/or relevant?

Meanwhile, CAPPS II helps organized terrorist groups by letting them know in advance what risk level the US government puts on their members in which ticket purchasing conditions -- giving real terrorists a BETTER chance of evading enhanced security and succeeding.

But I'm sure Clark can justify this trade off. See, the CAPPS II no-fly list is not just a convenient excuse to foist Big Brother Total Information Awareness on an unwittingly trusting population. No, sir. See, it's a rational trade off in a world ruled by Clark's fantasies of James Bond villain super-terrorists.

Yes, CAPPS II is flawed; that's not what I'm talking about.

He didn't "lobby for" CAPPS II. He "lobbied for" his company providing information for CAPPS II.

"As a consultant, he helped the company win a government contract worth an undisclosed amount to provide data and consulting services to the CAPPS II program."
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:yFetbNoSDf0J:www.msnbc.com/news/972597.asp+clark+acxiom&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Google Cache

Axciom didn't develop CAPPS II, they just sought to provide the government with information for screening for airlines. So, if you have a problem with what Clark did, then you have a problem with screening for airlines in general, rather than the crappy implementation that is CAPPS II.

the crappy CAPPS II implementation and the inherently INSECURE (read: gameable) idea of using computers to screen passengers for their security levels.

It doesn't take a fucking Rhodes Scholar to figure out that terrorists could simply game the system by having members of their cells take a few test flights. So what's General Clark's excuse?

Let me ask you this. If using computers to screen passengers could actually somehow make air travel MORE SECURE, why doesn't Israel use them?

I'm not going to argue with you, because the last time I did, you tried to argue that the Queen of England only gave knighthoods to PNAC neo-con republicans. And you said that having a knighthood is a bad thing, and that Clark's knighthood (or rather the equivalent award given to Americans by the Queen) was proof that he was a neo-con PNAC republican. And I believe at the end of that discussion, you still insisted that there was no proof otherwise that being knighted was not a mark of evil.

No, thank you. I have no interest in getting into another argument with you and watch you attack the Queen of England for giving Clark a knighthood. Suffice it to say, you lost your credibility with me a long time ago.

and you are instead reduced to presenting a bizarre, deceitful ad hominem strawman ...

because you know I'm 100% right.

Yes, Stickdog, the Queen of England is indeed a PNAC neo-con republican and everyone who has been knighted by her is indeed evil. I even asked you point blank if being knighted was a bad thing, and you said yes. I wonder how many people on DU agree with you. Smearing the Queen of England to attack Clark just because she gave Clark a medal is pretty low.

And that is hardly the only instance of rather questionable stances by you.

Goodbye, Stickdog. You have the honor of being the first person I'll put on ignore. I was able to get through the initial anti-clark barrage when he first announced, and have disagreed with many others. I don't believe that everyone must support Clark or that they're not entitled to their own opinion. But I guess I've finally decided that there's nothing of substance from these debates with you. Actually, I decided that after your smear of the Queen, but I guess I'm acting on it now.

Please contrast your rabid anti-clark behavior (and yes, I remember your nonstop smears since he's announced, though I was willing to accept differing viewpoints and stay civil) to mine, where you won't find me in a Dean bash thread or in a pro-dean thread making anti-dean remarks.

There are Dean supporters I like and respect, like Paidrag. And then there's you, the first person I'll put on ignore.

Buh-bye, Sticky. And thanks for the amusement.

You are simply lying about me on all counts.

How typical.

zoom!

Tonk

I work at a school. Some of my students deal drugs, some carry weapons, some flunk out, some come in from juvenile probation. Some go on to do good things.

So am I to be judged because once a year I do an Awards Night honoring my students?

OHMYGODOHMYGOD, SHe workd at a school that has people who do bad things!!!!!!!!! OHMYGOD OHMYGOD OHMYGOD SHe must condone them.

Yep, I really dig those teenage felons. :crazy:

MzPip
:dem:

The fact that Clark is NOT a career politician, and yet has international diplomacy and governance experience with domestic issues, is something I find attractive about him.

fucking thing about the School of Americas or its history? Because your post suggests you do not.

Because then your analogy would be far more apt.

Couses on drug dealing or weapons carrying are not necessarily a bad thing. What you do with that info is another.

Will we condemn anyone who speaks at a Police Academy graduation because some of the graduates took the knowledge they learned from their coursework and worked it against the system? Mistreated witnesses, beat up suspects, raped Louima with a broom handle. All these folks were graduates of the police academy. So should we condemn someone who spoke at their graduation?????

Knowledge is neutral. What you do with it is not. To paint Clark with such a broad brush of guilt by association is pretty disingenuous.

MzPip
:dem:

al Qaeda teaching, either.

Right?

Because the same argument applies.

Right?

Nazi teaching, al Qaida teaching or KKK teaching has any justification other than outright hatespeak and your point might be worth debating.

MzPip
:dem:

Notice they never use new information, they just repeat the same debunked "Clark is a war criminal" "Clark is PNAC" "Clark is the antichrist" BULLSHIT.

Why do I bother to try. Sigh.

Same old arguments:
Guilt by association
Paint with a broad brush

Some folks need a class on critical thinking...

MzPip
:dem:

their tactic is to repeat the same debunked lies over and over and over again, in as many places as possible, so that it sinks it. And if they do it in a 100 places, and you don't respond to all 100 of them because it's the same argument you've debunked, then they'll point to one of those places and say "Ah ha! See? I told you they had no answer." Even though you had answered and debunked that same argument in 50 of the 100 places.

And depending on what the random reader reads, they may read the argument, but not the detailed refutation. After all, it's easier to spread a lie than to use the same methodical debunking over and over and over again, especially when you get tired and discouraged because you've already addressed that issue and they bring it up as if it's never been answered. They'll just repeat the same debunked smears until we get tired of answering them and start ignoring or laughing at them. Then they'll say Clark supporters are meanies who tease people with legitimate concerns or have no answer to questions, despite the fact that you've already answered them. Hey, maybe there are newbies who haven't seen the debunking argument and would fall for the smears.

instead "the same old debunked lies" over and over and over and over and over rather than ever doing any debunking that isn't pure sophistry.

For example, nobody can defend the Big Brother CAPPS II "no fly" list.

So how can Clark defend the fact that he sat on the fucking board and lobbied for a company that makes millions off its procured contract to supply the federal government with the private information that it needs to generate a full profile on every innocent US citizen even though this vast invasion of privacy actually makes flights LESS secure to any putative future terrorist attacks?

Clark spoke out against the technology being used in anyway that violated civil liberties.

MzPip
:dem:

Get a grip on reality.

Or the "Clark lobbied for Axciom's Big Brother 'no fly' list" fact.

etc.

etc.

because you say so.

Right?

You win.

Clark is a terrible awful person because he spoke at a graduation of a school where some of the graduates may have used their education to do bad things. Whatever.

Guilty by association.

Thank God that doesn't hold up in our courts of law.

MzPip
:dem:

Let's all hail the truly admirable history of that revered CIA institution called the School of the Americas -- just like our hero General Clark very recently did, after he'd retired from the military!

I'm not going to address the stuff above, because we reached the point where neither of us are saying anything substantive.

However, what are you talking about "after he'd retired from the military"? The speech that's been linked and discussed happened in 1996, while he was the CIC of the U.S. Southern Command. Is there another you'd care to discuss?

But I can't find a link to this at the moment, so I'll concede the point.

may have used their education to do bad things"

Have you any idea how ignorant you sound? The School of Americas is not a high school, nor even a college. It is a training school of adult terrorists!

I am so outside of it I am across the border even!

inside or out. Don't care! Just blow them horns, folks. We gotta get rid of BushCo.

I have said that I'll vote for anyone but Bush. Clark is my favorite, and after listening to Michael Moore's interview on C-SPAN, I lean even more to Clark.
:yourock:

;)

I support him and hope he kicks Bush's ass. But he is the Establishment's answer to Howard Dean. Dean is out of their control, so their media, money, and influence goes to Clark to beat Dean. They desperately want Clark vs. Bush. They are afraid of Dean beating Bush so they will attack him as much as they can.

The Establishment is not really Democrat or Republican, that's just smoke and mirrors for the people. They have always come down hard on mavericks like George McGovern, Barry Goldwater, John McCain, Mondale, etc.

Clark refused to enter the race until it was to his disadvantage to do so. He only ran because the Dem candidates seemed unlikely to defeat the * fascist regime. I believe Clark has the best chance of saving US from becoming the world's next rogue nation, destined to be destroyed (and this time it won't be by Islamic extremists, but our former allies). I sincerely hope I never face that day, so my vote goes to the General.

If Dean was not the frontrunner and Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, or Lieberman was, then Clark would not be in this race. Dean only came to the front over the summer. Then Clark mysteriously appears as a Democrat in the Fall.

Don't get me wrong, I still strongly support Clark. Just don't think he's some perfect messiah who came here to save us from evil george bush.

Some say he is absolutely brilliant, and a good honest man.

Others say he is TOO ARROGANT to admit when he is wrong or to accept advice/criticism from others and treats subordinates badly.

I don't know who the real Wesley Clark is. DO you?

eom

I'm so happy that Clark finally announced his candidacy! He waited so long, but now he's one with US. I'm a pro-choice (big time), pro-gun control, keep Medicare, Social Security, and Medicade solvent, etc., etc., liberal, and I know this guy can turn our country around. Yes, this is only MHO, but, I've been around the block a time or two (well, maybe three, and my gut says he's everything we've been waiting for.

Nice site, that Z-Pub! They run "ADL Watch," and they are apparently useful in smearing Wesley Clark. A twofer!

http://www.zpub.com/notes/adl2.html

Funny about that.

Certainly don't read any of the supporting links provided if you love US-sponsored terrorism, the Iraq War and Bush as well.

Say what? Where's the evidence of that?

They are VERY anti-anti-Semitic, but where did they support Bush and the Iraq war?

You just made a claim--where's the evidence?

One of their links goes to David Duke.

So, in smearing Wesley Clark, you provide a link to a crackpot website that runs "ADL Watch," which watches the purportedly evil machinations of this organization devoted to fighting anti-Semitism.

I say, look at this "ADL Watch" crap--this is the website referenced in an anti-Clark argument? Whaa?

You say look at the links. Benighted me needs to be enlightened.

I look, and there's a link to David Duke's website!

Anyway, go on. Your sources aren't credible, and neither is the handwaiving miscellanea that constitute your anti-Clark argument.

Use it.

You enthusiastically tell me to read the provided links, which are peppered with Neo-Nazi trash.

Moreover, you cite the same Website in your "case" against Clark. The point was to show that you were using a disreputable source that should be discounted by those you are speaking to, as well as you yourself.

And where's the proof that the ADL is pro-Iraq War and pro-Bush? What that just a flip comment?

(Use my brain? Which links are OK, Mr. Guilt-By-Association? The non-Holocaust denying ones?)

Stop lying.

you showed DU that was full of hateful anti-Semitic links. http://www.zpub.com/notes/, which you used in your anti-Clark "case", has links to Stormfront and David Duke.

This brings your source--zPub/notes--into discredit.

The point was to ask how you can use as evidence a website that has up "ADL Watch." Instead of saying--"well, sorry, there's better places. That site isn't the best source for my otherwise wonderful case"--you pile on:

- You said, weirdly, that ADL supports Bush and the Iraq War.
- You say, after your ADL thing, to check our the supporting links

I check those supporting links--on the page we are talking about--out. And they include links to anti-Semitic bigots.

Instead of renouncing this hateful place, and the garbage it contains, you continue.

It's a travesty.

It was merely a jump page to sources.

A collection of nonsense--true, half-true, false, irrelevant--whatever helps make the point.

Sounds like the debating tactics of one (or perhaps two) anti-Clarkies.

page I linked.

Typical Clarkie sophistry.

You made this claim as a detour on your anti-Clark crusade. Any evidence, or is it a self-evident aside?

http://www.adl.org/presrele/Mise_00/2002_resolution_a.asp

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/UnitedNations_94/4159_62.htm

http://www.adl.org/Israel/advocacy/advoc_misstate9.asp?xflag=1

Need more? Check here:

http://www.google.com/search?q=+site:www.adl.org+ADL+Iraq&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N

Here are the primary sources I endorsed:

http://www.soaw.org/

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/111900-01.htm

http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=465

http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/role/globdem/globprot/2001/1127glo.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,583254,00.html


Now, do you have a problem with any of these primary sources?

used to smear the ADL on the wonderful website you offered.

You linked to the page with the hate link, not me.

I linked to a great page filled with links to The Independent, The Nation, The Guardian, Common Dreams, etc.

You ventured off the page in a transparent attempt to smear the messenger.

Another look at zPub/notes shows us this:

http://www.zpub.com/notes/znote-splc.html

Attacking the Southern Poverty Law Center.

This isn't goddamn Yahoo collecting the world. This is a website choosing to put up what it puts up. And you cite it in attacking Clark.

Misdirection.

Derision.

Obsfucation.

I disown the site. I didn't recommend the site; I recommended a page of links on the site.

The end.

Anti-Defamation League liking Bush & the Iraq war?

Are you really ignorant of the facts here or are you just being obtuse?

Sophistry - subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation

Demagogue - a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power

The broken record is getting tired but thanks for playing.

Typical Clarkie nonresponse all gussied up with a few vocabulary words.

have to do with the price of tea in China, for sophistry's sake?

Duke: "You lied to me first!"

Walsh: "What the---YOU LIED TO ME FIRST!"

Duke: "Yes! Yes. But you didn't know I was lying to you when you lied to me down by the river. So as far as you knew, you lied to me first!"

Walsh: "How can I argue with this guy. I don't know what the f*ck he's talking about."

You want me to read the links from that page on the website you gave out. These aren't three-degree of separation links: these are direct links from that page. Links that you said I should check out--

To David Irving, infamous British anti-Semite and Hitler apologist.

To David Duke, American neo-Nazi, and polished bigot.

To StormFront, one of the most vicious and popular racist websites in America

I need to read those links to understand? You referenced this webpage, which sponsors those links quite directly, in your anti-Clark smear job.

It's a disgusting thing you've done.

Just plain folks here. Never been involved with a campaign before.

This rhetoric that's been tossed around is nothing more than crap.

Here in Cincy we campaigned for him at the Bengals-Kansas City game in the misty rain and believe you me we felt as grass roots as grass roots can get.

I really believe he has a good chance to beat Bush, even with the Republican manufactured and programmed voting machines! Clark is out only chance. Clark/Dean ticket would be great!

(although I would proudly support Dean, too, if he wins the nomination, and work hard for his election)