Why Do We Need A War Hero?

I've heard several Kerry and Clark supporters imply that the only way to beat Bush is to run a War Hero.

Obviously, this theory benefits their candidates, but is it true?

Sure, a War Hero has an excellent advantage in a battle of image over National Security, and a recently active 4 star general has much better military leadership qualifications than...well, than anyone, really, other than another 4 star, especially one with inside security information.

But does Bush really rate all this. What has Bush done? Well, you could say, he has assembled a top notch war council/national security team.

But he hasn't.

Nearly every one on the team was first assembled on his dad's staff, worked together on Reagan's staff, or on Ford's staff. Anyone could have gone through the history book and called on these men, ifhe/she so chose.

But would that have been wise?

Let's look at their results, so far.

1)Ossama Bin Laden - Still alive, presumably still plotting terrorist attacks. Should change his name to Ossama Bin Forgotten

2)Al Queda/Taliban - Guess what - they control much of Afghanistan, so much so that the UN is pulling out of areas like Ghazni.

3)Saddam - Another missing bad guy. Is he dead, is he alive? No one knows, but you can rest assured that if he lives, he aint happy, and he's many times more likely to try to organize a terrorist attack on the US now

All Bush has done is walk in to a room full of cockroaches, and flicked on the lights. They've scattered, and we can't see them, but they are still there! Lights don't eliminate the roaches, any more than these battles have eliminated the terrorists.

Bush & Co have focussed on three targets, and have experienced 3 dismal failures.

With all due respect to their heroic service to their country, we dont NEED Clark or Kerry to beat Bush. These guys are soldiers. Bush is a zero. So, will a Clark or Kerry supporter please explain to me why they continue to insist that only a certified hero can overcome a complete zero?

The only thing I see from putting Kerry or Clark directly up against Bush, is that it makes Bush look better than he deserves. It's like backing up a few steps into center field when facing a new batter. It's a sign of respect, a signal that you think this guy might just crack one out of your reach.

With Bush's record, why give the voters such a signal? Why are you afraid of this guy?

except for one Clark supporter.

If Clark or Kerry supporters support them simply for the reason that they are military heroes, then I think they would be foolish for doing so. However, there are other reasons to support Kerry. He was a Senator, went up against Reagan, and is a known environmentalist.

Clark was also in the military and dealt with both foreign policy and military affairs. He also taught philosophy and economics at Westpoint.

I trust Kerry and Clark supporters enough to know that they are choosing their candidate for many different reasons, not just on the premise that they are military heroes.

But I don't. Maybe I have no business creating such a thread under the circumstances, but I think that if you take an honest look at the threads out there, it won't be long before you run in to exactly the type of messages I've described.

Why are we afraid of this Bush?

Honestly, frankly, and truthfully, I have looked at the pro-Kerry/pro-Clark threads out there and most of them don't just talk about their military credentials. Most of Kerry's threads discuss his achievements during Iran/Contra, his environmental record, and foreign policy experiences.

I'll wait for you to find threads about Kerry/Clark supporters supporting them simply on the premise that they were in the military. Until then, I stand by my word.

butI think you've missed the posts I've seen.

I'll try to find some, but I'm telling you right now that I will only indicate the threads in which I see such posts.

I'm not naming names. :)

take your time. You don't have to find it right now. Re-post this same topic in a couple days or weeks, I don't care. Or if you want to, just PM me when you do find them.

And if you do find numerous threads showing that Kerry/Clark people supporting their candidate simply because they are war heroes, then I will say I am wrong and issue an revocation of my statement in my posts.

And if you do find numerous threads showing that Kerry/Clark people supporting their candidate simply because they are war heroes, then I will say I am wrong and issue an revocation of my statement in my posts.

That is most certainly NOT required :)

Hey, this must be what polite debate looks like. whoa! :eyes:

it is a constant theme, if it wasn't what would be the point of the constant attacks on Dean for his deferment?

I completely agree with everything you said. But people want jobs, people have lost over 2 million net jobs said Bush took office.

Hundreds of thousands of jobs per state. I think Nevada is one of the few that didn't suffer much losses. An anomoly, unfortunately for the rest of the country.

Still, why are we afraid of Bush?

The guy is running on an illusion of military success. What bullshit.

The only thing I see from putting Kerry or Clark directly up against Bush, is that it makes Bush look better than he deserves. It's like backing up a few steps into center field when facing a new batter. It's a sign of respect, a signal that you think this guy might just crack one out of your reach.

There's a homeless shelter that I used to volunteer in sometimes; a friend of a friend is the director. Shall I ask her to recommend one of the more desperate cases and send them out against Bush? That would be the ultimate sign of confidence: Look at this, America! Bush sucks so bad we can beat him with a bum!!!!

i just lost it over your sig photo! because it's boring! ha hah ahahahah...

we need jobs, sensible environmental policy, a restoration of our civil and human rights, and end to increasing and global militarism, reproductive freedom...

on the other hand, my grandmother loves clark. she calls him, "the general" and says it with an almost sexual affection. if he motivates people to unseat *, i'm on board.

ABB.

But I don't like your straw man argument. Rather than address what I said, you distort what I said, then attack the distortion.

If I had recommended running a homeles man against Bush, I might deserve the jab (depending on the homeless man), but I didn't.

BTW - its not nice to call homeless people bums. My brother-in-law is a bum. He has a home, what he doesn't have is the drive to get a life. Possesion of a residence has nothing to do with bumliness :)

Anyway, just because it isn't a good idea to run a homeless person against Bush, doesn't indicate an error in my idea. We don't NEED to run a War Hero, homeless or not.

It's called reducto ad absurdum. Your premise is that by running someone who is strong, we make Bush appear strong. So I took it to the extreme to show why your reasoning doesn't necessarily work.

Ultimately, of course, the public decides who is strong and who isn't, and the public decided long ago that, other things being equal, a Dem is weaker than a Repub on foreign policy/national security. Somehow I don't think pretending that decision hasn't been made is going to change anyone's mind. Run a candidate of similar experience to Bush, and people will prefer Bush because he's a Republican, and they're the strong on defense party. That's not being scared of Bush; that's being aware of what the public's perceptions are, agree with them or not, and taking steps to counter them.

Your argument might play well here, where people hate Bush and many would believe he was the product of his mother's affair with a syphilitic milkman given the tiniest shred of evidence, but the public's attitudes are far different than what you will find here. This is an election; elections are like businesses, and the voters are our customers. We give them what they want or they will go to a store that will.

How very Repuke of you. I am sure they share the same views of the homeless.

Republicans tactic will be same. Remember what happened to the senator from Georgia?

hinted at going down that road with Clark? I bet he does.

It's just nice to have there, one less thing to knock. I think we need someone with strong foreign policy experience, terrorism experience, and the military background that comes from either being in the military and/or on the armed forces committee. Kerry has all of it, down to the minutia. In regards to this question, that's why I support Kerry.

Plus, he has the small business experience, environment, health care, education, anti-corporate, global AIDS, fair trade policies, energy, and just absolutely everything we need right now.

He is the Real Deal, he's the complete package.

going back to 2000. What the heck happened to his organization?

Was he expecting a coronation, or am I being crass to suggest that?

If he can't win the nomination, he'll never beat Bush.

not a campaign strategy. That's just me.

I just checked out his education statement. Here it is, with my comments:

"Strengthening America's Schools for the 21st Century
John Kerry believes that we need to invest in our schools instead of giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. He has the courage to fight for our children’s future every day. (So far, just rhetoric) When it comes to education, George W. Bush has been the photo-op President. He stands next to children and teachers for a picture, but he doesn’t stand with them when it comes to improving our public schools. By signing the No Child Left Behind Act and then breaking his promise by not giving schools the resources to help meet new standards, George Bush has undermined public education and left millions of children behind. (The last statements are true, and Kerry gets a point for targeting the No Child Left Alive Act.)

As President, John Kerry will roll up his sleeves and get things done for America’s schools. It’s time to stop sending new mandates from Washington to school districts without providing the necessary resources needed to carry out those new rules. That’s why John Kerry is proposing a new ‘Education Trust Fund’ that means fully funding education, no questions asked.

(WHOOOOOAAAAAAA...Give more money to the "Education Mafia," NO QUESTINOS ASKED?!!! That's insanity! Why does Kerry want to fund No Child Left Alive, and presumably high-stakes tests, when he should be fighting to ABOLISH them?)

John Kerry also believes that given the demands of a global economy, every single child has to be able to reach high standards in order to prosper. (PuhLEEZ! He's better distinguish between normal people's standards and the corporate standards that are driving education...) To ensure that all children can meet high standards, we need to do so much more to improve our public education system. John Kerry will support teachers, reduce class sizes, and rebuild crumbling schools. (Every politician and candidate in America is promising to reduce class size, and they've been talking about rebuilding crumbling schools for generations. Guess what: It costs MONEY to do those things, and you aren't going to have a lot of money to play with if you fully fund COSMIC JOKES like high-stakes tests and Bush's Leave No Child Alive Act.)

Unfortunately, NONE of the candidates have sensible education platforms, that I'm aware of, so it obviously cannot be the defining issue. The best Democratic candidate could (and probably will) have an utterly moronic education platform. And all we can do is remind the public that George W. Bush is even worse.

Screw the kids.

Scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the links. He's had to shorten them up since the first web site, people didn't take the time to read them. He's been working on education programs for years.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/

He's also proposing an Education Trust Fund that will be permanent so Presidents like Bush won't be able to underfund education.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1125.html

This link became the Early Learning Opportunity Act:
http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/cfm/record.cfm?id=181407

This is a program for teens to build low-income housing while going back to high school:
http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/cfm/record.cfm?id=181439

The Nurse Reinvestment Act is his program which provides education for nurses.
http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/issues/health_record.html

Here's some awards:

Parents for Residential Reform, Mass Families Organizing for Change and the Federation for Children with Special Needs presented The Powerful Friend Recognition Award to Senator Kerry "for his outstanding leadership and national voice on behalf of children with disabilities and their families".

Institute of International Education's "Steven P. Duggan Award for International Understanding" for lifetime achievement in public service and leadership in the U.S. Senate

"Zero to Three" Association's "Achievement Award" for work on early childhood development issues

National Health Association's "Legislator of the Year Award" for support of expanded child care and attention for at-risk children. Sponsored 1997 Early Childhood Development Act

Why do we need a war?

:shrug:
dbt

What do you think the carrier landing and the Baghdad trip, among
others, are about? It is the Clark F***ing Kent bloody administration,
guess what!

The media's objective is to make believe that the Air Force One
movie is for real with the shrub!

For whatever reason, a huge portion of the american electorate has
become a bunch of immature teenagers when dealing with politics and
politicians:

Beavis - Wouldn't it be cool if, huh, the president got aboard
a bomber and, huh, flew it over Mexico or something and, huh, like
bombed the crap out of them and stuff, huh, huh, huh...

Butthead - Woah dude! That would definetly like, huh, kick butt!

Beavis - Fire... fire, fire! fire!

This has made this unbelivable propaganda campaign incredibly
successfull.
That's what the dems are up against.

"they" always tell us what we need....last time i looked ...what we "have" because of the fear/greed spin is a trainwreck....

start with removing bush and the elitist/coporate grip on our govt....they are ruining this country

...for example, Bush is running on fear and terror. And the projected perception that he knows how to address threats. We don't need to project "hey, this guy can handle the threat better", we need to say, "The reason this situation exists is more complex than 'they hate us for our freedoms'. That's a line that might get a positive political response, but it doesn't actually bring us any closer to addressing the issue." We need to call out the Bushbots on their foundational assertion. We need to question 911, which this administration has been built on. And we need to not shrink away from doing so because of intimidation. Bush's FIRST AD of the 2004 campaign centered around this premise. That Bush was brave in attacking those who attacked us, but he is STILL STONEWALLING all attempts to actually find out what happened in the first eight months of his fraudulent administration. Demonstratably, their actions are making us LESS safe, and our future LESS secure. The media can try to spin it as Bush hate all they'd like, plenty of people from all OVER the political spectrum have voiced concerns. Why shouldn't we be asking questions? What we need, at this moment in time, is a person willing to ASK QUESTIONS and DEMAND ANSWERS. Not just answers that appease them, or answers that satisfy their campaign contributors. But real answers that make for a future in which America becomes a leader in the world - in health care, education, alternative energy, anti-terrorism measures that respect liberties - and not just a bully.

really nice.

He has repeatedly challenged bush about 9/11

He came out incredibly forcefully against that disgusting bush commercial.

He has stated that we are less secure as a result of this administration.

And most of all, he has reminded us time and time again that a democracy is strengthened through dissent.

The last thing he is is intimidated by bush's bullshit.

I believe in Clark because he's brilliant, he's educated, he is compassionate, he loves our country, he's well-reasoned and articulate, and, despite the fact that he's a military man, or maybe because of that, he feels with all of his heart that war is a last resort.

That is why many support Clark.

I've not heard anyone say they support him because he is a war hero.

Please stop posting threads that are incorrect. They don't make any candidate look better.

...when I've read Clark's statements regarding S11. His voice on this matter, as well as Kucinich and Deans, is most welcome...

as recently as April of this year?

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

Clark was still playing the game of projecting as a moderate to the mainstream of America which at that time was still delerious with "Mission Accomplished" fevor. He did throw Bush and Blair a bone for their "resolve". But he was damning Bush with very faint praise. While he was saying the military campaign had gone quite well to that point, against the doubts of many, he absolutely nailed all of the outstanding issues that the military campaign did not resolve. As when Clark said this:

"As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.

And when he said this:

"The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West."

Clark made those statements around the same time Bush was prancing around on an air craft carrier. Clark was not clueless back then at all. He warned of serious concerns before the war, during it, and after it. What Clark obviously did not do was make an assault on Bush at that time. But Clark wasn't a politician yet then. A lifetime in the military high command imparts a degree of constant muted defderence to Civilian leaders. Military Brass influence through nudging, not assailing. They give loyalist statements while trying to steer internal discussions. Clark was in personal transition. He certainly was not a leader in the fight against Bush then, but his security judgements were sound, much more sound than Bush's obviously. And Clark IS a leader against Bush now. It is clear to anyone who hears him speak publically. He has completed his transition and burned a lot of bridges with old military colleagues in the process. If Clark can get the Democratic Party nomination, his perceived past moderation will be more of an advantage than disadvantage.

Do you remember what Reagans's big line was about becoming a Republican? "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me." And thus was born the "Reagan Democrats" movement. Clark was never in the Republican Party, but he wasn't a voice against it either. He played out the military non partisan script (he appeared at local fund raisers for both parties). If Clark is the nominee he will quickly identify himself with the yearnings and hopes of the 85% of Americans who "pulled together" around Bush after 9/11, and he will express the exact sentiments now felt by the 55% of Americans who now see that Bush is not winning the war on terrorism and has made America less safe while ruining our economy.

Because I'm mature enough to know that strenght (in geopolitics
but also in other matters) does not derive only from raw power.

The problem with that reasoning is that presently a majority
of american people were made to believe by the media that a presidential candidate requirement
is to be Bruce Wayne, or Clark Kent. The media has deliberately spun
the shrub into one of those and there is no way they will do the same
to a dem candidate.
You want to give the voters Professor Xavier, but the question is,
will the voters grow up enough in an year's time to want anything else
than Wolverine? The media won't help...

..vote on that one thing.

Of course, war heroes are going to promote that fact about themselves as will their supporters because it does score points in the public's mind - especially in today's climate.

Many of us have said that Kerry and Clark trumps the one ace Bush and his people THINK he has - being strong on national defense.

And the polls usually confirm it. While Dean leads in the polls for the dem nomination, Clark and Kerry fair better in general election matchups with Bush.

But again, never seen anyone here say we need a war hero.

To be fair, though, I have seen it expressed that we need someone with strong foreign policy experience and defense credentials -not because that is more important than other factors - but because that issue is popular today with the electorate.

Wars are a good waste of the goods a country should be making and not to blow up. Plus it kills the young that a country needs. War heros are not all that big with this party, or with this person. Let the GOP have their killers. They love to kill anything that moves.

Those who have bought all the Republican spin about what patriotism represents and never see the quagmire we are in due to military bravado. My guess is most are naive about the true nature of war---even in the case of "just wars" and long to see one of our own strutting on an aircraft carrier. They are afraid that any challenge to these images would be condemned as "un-American", so rather than challenge the deception, they buy into it and emulate the Republican model to innoculate against political attacks.

is something that Clark and Kerry understand more than you know.

That is the whole point with Bush, he hasn't a clue about the true nature of war - he is just playing an adult version of RISK.

You don't always have to experience something to know how bad it is, but once experienced, you know beyond any doubt.

they would be bragging about it or encouraging our young to join up as if it was the good and heroic thing.

Kerry testifying in front of congress 1971:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html

I'm on this board 10-12 hours a day nearly every day and NO Kerry or Clark supporters have said we need a "military hero". Jesus, people, don't take the bait.

card and went as far to make his official announncement on an aircraft carrier. In fact, he blew his own chances by harping on it during a time when the country was embroiled in the reality of Bush's drum-beating fantasy, which he supported and now can't seem to dig himself out of. What amazes me about Kerry is how confused and mixed his direction is and he has no clear message other than his military experience (which he saw as a negative at the actual time of it)and his attacks on other candidates. And Clark---what else has he got--it isn't like he has any political record and wasn't even a Democrat until he decided to run for president.

This is ludicrous, for months posters have been championing the need to project our own strong military image through our chosen nominee to foil the Republicans domination. It has been the only and highest priority to some, and now they deny the entire scenario they framed as their argument. Un-fucking-believable.

Someone who has credibility on International affairs and National Security. It could be an ex Secretary of State, like Madelein Albright who was a civilian all the way. It could have been New Mexico Gov. Richardson, who was Ambassador to the United Nations and did direct diplomacy with the North Koreans. It could have been someone like Ex Senator Nunn, or someone like former Sen. George Mitchell also, who has experience in International diplomacy.

Again, speaking for myself, I do not say that our candidate HAS to have that personal experience, or that he or she has to have served in the military. I say that it is highly advantageous if our candidate has that experience, and if our next President is as close to up to speed, internationally, as possible. AND I am not saying I would support any candidate who has that advantage over any candidate who doesn't. I assure you, I would not support a typical General for President. I don't care if he is advising John Edwards, I would never vote for Hugh Shelton.

with this authority? Wouldn't that be the case in a military dictatorship? In that case military represention would accurately refect the relationship with the world and the standing in the "homeland". It is interesting that we are expected to promote this image to represent our country. Is this the ideal image we should be presenting to the world considering it is the one that the world has learned to hate us for?

General - War Hero - President.

Clark's appeal is his foreign policy experience, his diplomatic experience - not so much his experience in war (other than the fact that he has been there and so knows how bad it is).

People keep putting words into the mouths of supporters of other candidates. It shouldn't be that way -

is based on a military foundation.

between having a clue on the subject of national defense and in being a "military hero". Words mean things. Prior military experience is not a requirement to be a good president, but it certainly doesn't hurt. And, if you have the military card in your hand, you'd be a fool not to play it.

No one has said being a "military hero" is a requiremnt to be elected president-at least not that I've seen.

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html

"...a fool not to play it"...Something to be proud about...

And, yes, I am fully aware that war is a monsterous, hideous, sickening experience. I also think that people who have experienced it first hand, who have seen the carnage and the waste, who have lost their friends and comrades (and-in some cases-various body parts) are likely to be a bit more sensitive to the use of military force.

I'm a non-vet but I have a high respect for those who have served, particularly in times of war. I think many in the country share that respect. You do not. I don't criticize you for that-its your choice. Nor do I criticize Dems who are non-vets (I DO reserve the right to bitch about Republican chickenhawks all day long).

BTW. Kerry is WAY down my list, behind Clark, Dean and Edwards because military service is not my primary requirement for a candidate. It factors in, along with a variety of other issues. I simply dislike to see our candidates attacked for something they should be proud of (certainly they have more reason for pride than George Bush).

Those who remember 9-11 might think the electorate is concerned about national security. Look how well the DEMs did running for Congress in 2000. Rather than focus on his mishandling the war on terra, the focus was the economy. A lot of good it did for them.

I'm NOT attacking Clark or Kerry, not in the least!

Nor am I baiting anyone, nor putting words in anyones mouth.

Yeah, word use is important, but getting hung up on terminology is obfuscation. When I ask "Why Do We Need A War Hero?" I'm not suggesting that people have used those precise words.

You may be able to search DU for the words "war hero" and not get one hit, but y'all must realize that there are some people here who promote Clark and Kerry as military men, or rather - berate other candidates for lack of military experience.

For those of you who are picky about word use, in my very first sentence of the original post, I said this: "I've heard several Kerry and Clark supporters imply that the only way to beat Bush is to run a War Hero."

They implied the war hero issue.

You guys want some evidence, I'll be happy to submit. It will take some time, but I'll be back w/ it :)

For the record, I don't think we NEED a war hero, but it certainly wouldn't hurt

accepted as a plus by average American voters. Its certainly not a prerequisite for election, but it certainly gives and advantage in the minds of many.

Many at DU expect the election against Bush to be a piece of cake. After all, WE all hate him, so everyone in the country must too. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. We absolutely nominate our strongest all around candidate to even stand a chance against BFEE-even a chance! Even then, he or she will be buried in oil money, media whores, and the full power of an incumbent administration to buy as many votes as possible.

How many Americans could identify the National Endowment for Democracy? An organization which often does exactly the opposite of what its name implies. The NED was set up in the early 1980s under President Reagan in the wake of all the negative revelations about the CIA in the second half of the 1970s. The latter was a remarkable period. Spurred by Watergate-the Church Committee of the Senate, the Pike Committee of the House and the Rockefeller Commission, created by the president, were all busy investigating the CIA. Seemingly every other day there was a new headline about the discovery of some awful thing, even criminal conduct, the CIA had been mixed up in for years. The Agency was getting an exceedingly bad name, and it was causing the powers-that-be much embarrassment.
Something had to be done. What was done was not to stop doing these awful things. Of course not. What was done was to shift many of these awful things to a new organization, with a nice sounding name-the National Endowment for Democracy. The idea was that the NED would do somewhat overtly what the CIA had been doing covertly for decades, and thus, hopefully, eliminate the stigma associated with CIA covert activities.


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/TrojanHorse_RS.html

Clark sits on the board and I can't get one person to respond to this revelation.

I like Clark because of the breadth of his experiences, especially working in a multi-lateral way (because we really are in a mess) as well as his many other qualifications. I also like the view he has that we already have a virtual empire, we don't need to try for a classical empire by conquer and rule as well as recognizing that war is a last resort, not a first option.

There are a few candidates I can support and will if he doesn't get nominated.

Sure, a War Hero has an excellent advantage in a battle of image over National Security, and a recently active 4 star general has much better military leadership qualifications than...well, than anyone, really, other than another 4 star, especially one with inside security information.

You do realize that the administration has pandered to fear? Military folk make a lot of people feel safer.

All Bush has done is walk in to a room full of cockroaches, and flicked on the lights. They've scattered, and we can't see them, but they are still there! Lights don't eliminate the roaches, any more than these battles have eliminated the terrorists.

Nice analogy! I like it. :-)

So, will a Clark or Kerry supporter please explain to me why they continue to insist that only a certified hero can overcome a complete zero?

Well, I'm more of a Kerry supporter than a Clark supporter, but I like the guy for his ideas and not his military service. Vietnam was terrible... a lot of guys really believed they were doing the right thing when they enlisted or were drafted (unlike now, when we knew going in to Iraq that it was an invasion for control of Iraqi oil). I'd think someone with Kerry's experiences would be hesitant indeed about getting the country involved in any war.

Again, I think any of the Democratic candidates could give Bush what for in a debate. It needs to be someone who is quietly confident and can present facts that make a case any person with an IQ over plant life can understand though.

and it will definitely hurt Bush. :evilgrin: