We're going to have to go with Clark

I've been thinking since this Saddam thing and am coming to the conclusion that the only Democrat that has a substantial chance of beating Bush now, and thats if the whole party jumps in behind him, is Wesley Clark. He's older, with gravitas, which frequently allows you not to be the darling of the media like Clinton was, and has more international experience than Bush - could never be called afraid of taking action when necessary etc.

Our standards - Kerry, Gephardt, Leiberman, et al are never going to live down that they voted for the war and have spent their time trying to back track for their base while looking strong for the general public, and they all just look stupid.

My favorite, Kucinich, and Sharpton don't have a chance in hell.

And our current front runner has been lambasting Bush about the war but if there's a backlash from Saddam's capture, he could become a loser to the general public, and besides, he has kind of a "mean" demeanor - he seems mostly negative everything and positive nothing.

I think Clark could take on Bush and win, unless their are skeletons we know nothing about. Any thoughts?

I firmly believe that General Clark's message has been circulating and resonating with the American public, and that BIG news is coming in the next few weeks!

:toast:

DTH

No fair - do tell!

:-)

DTH

It isn't Big Dog endorsing Clark. He is staying out of this fight. Sorry to burst your bubble.

The big news is that Clark will step aside.

Hawkeye-X

Every time I think you're about to drop the rhetoric, you backslide.

:eyes:

I never said it was Clinton endorsing Clark, BTW. As I said, I don't know what it is.

DTH

Now I won't be able to sleep for weeks until I know what this BIG News is! :bounce:

Since he's leading in fundraising.

Since he's leading nationally.

Since he's leading in NH.

Since he's leading in Iowa.

Since he's leading in SC.

Yep, I'd say we'd better go with Clark too. Makes sense to me :freak:

so he's going to endorse Clark. Mrs. Santa is holding out for Edwards.

The elves are solidly behind Dennis K.

Thanks.

This poll was taken after Saddam's capture.

Bush 52
Dean 31

Bush 53
Clark 28

NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll

If so, we have zero chance of carrying that state anyway.

DTH

And you are right about honesty being a virtue :eyes:

DTH

at date of that poll? Whatever the moe is I'm sure that Deans 3 point lead falls well within it.

Jay

Everytim eI see Dean, he just seems to be getting red in the face and bitching about Bush. He does brag about his record in Vermont but even then I haven't heard the specifics. He doesn't carefull elaborate a plan or a vision he'd like to see, and I rarely see him appeal to the people themselves to take their part in our little civic experiment. Sometimes I think the only reason he gets high numbers are because so many of us are absolutely ill of four years of Bush that we just love to hear somebody constantly telling him to shut up and sit down. Butnot sure that makes a winner.

http://howarddean.tv/


It'll show you a different side of Dean.

he's not very practical..
why should a person have to install software and restart their computer to see him speak.. and after that my computer crashed :(

then I remembered, I want bush to lose!



retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

We'll see this through to the end and win this one!

We must have a doctor or other peace activist elected in November. American are fed up with war mongers and those that use the military to boost their egos. We must get elected on peace and then we can change the world.

MICHAEL MOORE, ON GENERAL WESLEY CLARK

(audio of this transcript available at: www.liberalresurgent.com/mooreclark.mp3)

And then people say, well (in a mocking voice): "But Mike, but Mike, he voted for Reagan, Clark voted for Reagan!"

Yeah? So? So did most of America! You know? Do you wanna win? I mean, the only way you win, you see, is if you get most of America on your side. And if someone who voted for Reagan now says, "I'm joining your team, I don't believe in that any more," we have to open up our arms! This is why people don't like the left! This is why people don't like liberals! You know?

(In a mocking voice): "No, no, no, no, no, he, he voted for Reagan, no, no, not pure, not pure, don't like him, no, no!"

That's why nobody wants to join our side, we're so, like, up on our high horse! You know? What do you say to working class America, there's all these people who voted for Reagan, that now realize, they were duped! They were had! They're worse off now after 20 years of Republicanism!

You know? You, what do you say (in a mocking voice): "Nope, can't come to our side, you voted for Reagan!"

Jeez! I mean, come on, folks! You know? I don't know.

(In a mocking voice): "He was the Butcher of Kosovo!" That's the other one. (In a mocking voice): "He was the Butcher…Clark was the butcher of Kosovo!"

I've heard, I've heard an alternate version of the story, that was in the New York Times and the Washington Post last week. About why he was fired. Because he was trying to stop the genocide in Kosovo, in a way that would cost, even, that would cost, that would result in fewer civilian losses. I'd like to hear the story, I don't know, I mean, I'm just saying, I don't know, that's why I'm waiting to see, you know, what's being said here. I'd like to know.

But I'll tell you this much, folks. We're not fighting the Kosovo war right now. Don't let the professional left drag you into an argument that is a sideshow. We are fighting the Iraq war right now, that's the war we've gotta stop, and that's the war he says he will stop! That's the war he says he'll tell the American people the truth about how Bush has fought an immoral war! And that's what we need, we need that on our side.

DTH

Nader/Clark.. it really doesn't compute. It only verifies that MM is a follower of the cult of personality. I am not saying that is the general Clark supporter, not at all. I like Clark. However MM is schizophrenic politcally. He writes good books(if a bit sophmoric and bombastic)but he is no one to take advice from about candidates.

I'm a Kucinich lover,too, but we've got to be realistic, it isnt going to happen. If he had taken my email advice and gone gangbusters right off the top educating the people and getting right in the media's face making the points of why we need things like peace departments, he might have been able to do it. But he didn't - he's been quiet and mostly stayed out of the media, and his message is just too foreign to most Americans. Please accept the fact that most Americans should not be allowed to vote, but they are, so we have to live with the fact that they're idiots and will make kneejerk decisions. Sorry, I wish it could be true, too.

I'm just some regular American trying to get a little info about the candidates. I don't consider myself better in some way just because I read a poltical message board.

I consider myself better because I take the time and effort to stay informed and to consider the issues. Unfortunately, most people do not. It seems to me that most of the votes in this country come down to 56/37 - the wrong way. This tells me that only aout 37% of the people should be voting. I'm sorry I'm being a smart ass; I don't mean to offend you, but I thik it is true that most Americans do not inform themsemves or educate themselves nd consequently, most of their votes are questionable, shall we say?

nn2004, I agree with you completely. I really do. I've given money to Howard Dean but I'd still vote for Clark if he was chosen as the candidate.

But "those that use the military to boost their ego?" Clark was the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, I think his motivation is a bit more complex than that...

FYI.

I'm still hoping for a Dean/Clark ticket. I think they are stronger together than they are apart.

A backlash against Saddam's capture? Can you elaborate?

I LIKE Dean's mean demeanor! It's the best quality in a politician I've EVER seen. I think that mean demeanor is getting far more press for the Dems than playing nice guy. "Bad" press maybe, but still...

::smoke::

That dream has crashed.
Besides... it should be a Clark/Dean ticket. Only Clark can back Bushie in a corner on his alleged "patriotic" ticket.
Dean is a great bulldog - which is what VPs are for.

and the rest of us will do the same. I've been behind Dean since day one, I was behind him when Saddam was caught and I'm still behind him. That's not going to change. If others want to buy into fear, all the more power to them, but I'm betting on Hope.

Howard Dean in 2004....now more than ever!

Well, yes, that would certainly be the traditional democratic thing to do. Why do you think we can never get anyone elected? I don't think any democrat can get elected next year without complete support from the party rank and file and a lot of praying. But vote for whom you like; if I could, I'd vote Kucinich - and then we can all sit back and eat rolaids through another four years of the man who calls himself president.

those are superdelegates that he got. Dean also has Al Gore on board, along with Gov. McGreevely, and former Governor Babbitt.

Dean just got three Congressional Endorsements in 24 hours.... those are superdelegates that he got. Dean also has Al Gore on board, along with Gov. McGreevely, and former Governor Babbitt.

Very nice that Dean got those endorsements, however, it doesn't have squat to do with beating Bush, which is the issue here.

and believe me, I know why Democrats haven't been winning. They've been turning off voters like me with their negative attack ads, not offering a clear enough alternative to the incumbent, believing what the GOP says over having any confidence in themselves and spending more effort on trying to come up with new tactics when all they have to do is tell people what they stand for.

Howard Dean is a Godsend to voters like myself who want a clear alternative who tells it like it is and doesn't let what anyone else thinks or says divert his eyes from the prize. Swing voters aren't convinced by appearances, we're convinced by meat and potatoes issues, period.

I'm not a swing voter but I am growing more and more irritated by Dems who cave into rightwing rhetoric. Thats why we keep losing. We let them set the agenda, not realizing that their hate speech is out of pure fear. When they bash Hilary & Bill Clinton, its because they KNOW that people love them and that the Clintons have a lot of power. When they bash us, its from fear of us winning. When we accept who *they* put up as having the "best chance"-- we lose every time. Why is it taking so long for some people to understand this?

...he has kind of a "mean" demeanor - he seems mostly negative everything and positive nothing.

That's not my take on Dean's demeanor and campaign style at all. I've seen him speak a number of times and have always left inspired and hopeful.

I do!

Believe me. But I don't think we should be scrambling around and feel we have to go with Clark just because of the capture of Saddam.

Fuck that shit. You need to stop letting the reich wing frame the debate.

So they got Saddam. Big fucking deal. Lets not forget that he was in a hole, obviously not coordinating attacks against US troops. And, more importantly, Saddam is not the issue. We still need to stabilize Iraq and patch things up with the numerous countries that used to be our allies. Paying nations to be your friends may work on the smaller countries (coalition of the willing) but its not gonna work on Russia, Germany, and France.

Also consider that this war on Iraq should not have happened in the first place. There is no link between Saddam and 9/11, and the WMD reports were lies. Of course, "evidence" will be found, but only in the form of forged documents.

We should also not forget that one guy... whats his name... I can picture him... who is he... oh yeah! Osama bin laden. And then of course we can't ignore all of the warnings Bush recieved about 9/11, or how he censored the shit out of the 9/11 report, or how he is not cooperating with the 9/11 comission. We should also remember his cowardice, both during Vietnam and the morning of 9/11.

Then of course we still have to consider no-bid contracts to the corporation that serves as his chief advisor, Haliburton. And then the fact that he whores himself out to corporate interests and insists on passing tax cuts for the very rich gives us something to attack him on. We definately should not forget the shameful way he has turned his back on the nations seniors and children either.

While it is true that Clark would be a very strong candidate against this smirking, alcoholic halfwit, I don't think we should start falling into the trap of thinking he is our only hope.

sooner, rather than later.

NH/IA next month. it'll be interesting to see if anything's changed in the polls leading to the big days.

I'm always THRILLED when someone new joins the Clark team! It's nice to have you and IMO, you have made a VERY wise decision!

a horse and shoot a gun, which is more than the dim son can do.

... are willing to consider Clark. Several have shown up at my meetup. (If Kucinich Country can be said to exist in America, I live in it.)

If it's any consolation for making the choice to turn away from Kucinich and Sharpton, Clark has proposed something very like Kucinich's "Department of Peace" -- a cabinet-level agency devoted to peacekeeping, reconstruction, and conflict resolution. He says there needs to be an institutional counter-balance to the lobbying power of the military-industrial complex.

One less bad guy means that much less need for the big strong protector guy to save us.


The perception that Clark depends on is that Bush is incapable of defending the nation against all these threats and so people will turn to Clark as the experienced super warrior to protect them. SO not only does the capture of saddam make Bush look better at dealing with the current military situation, but it removes one of the so called threats. Both weaken Clark's position.


As with his father before him... after the war people's focus turned to domestic needs and Bush will be at a loss. The whole "we got saddam" will quickly turn to "then why are we still in Iraq." For the vast majority of Americans, the capture of saddam means Iraq is over.

That fact serves to strengthen the positions of the democratic candidates who are focused on domestic issues.

Clark has an ace up his sleeve, but that won't be much help if it turns out the game is Roulette.

As with his father before him... after the war people's focus turned to domestic needs and Bush will be at a loss. The whole "we got saddam" will quickly turn to "then why are we still in Iraq." For the vast majority of Americans, the capture of saddam means Iraq is over.

According to the post-capture poll numbers, Americans could care less about Saddam's capture. When body bags are still coming home and more of our kids are being sent off to war, no, they aren't going to believe Iraq is over. The media is still going to be talking about Iraq, so unless that vast majority of Americans doesn't watch tv, they're going to know Iraq ain't over. There's no question that before the election rolls around that Bush is going to have to come back and ask for more money for Iraq... that $87 billion is just about gone already.

There is still Afghanistan... remember that war we're currently fighting and have been longer then Iraq? Where we're failing at capturing Osama and where we're being unbelievably trounced? There's still North Korea, worries about more war with Syria and Iran and the fact that most of the world doesn't like us anymore. The capture of Saddam did basically nothing to boost Bush's poll numbers, so already the vast majority doesn't think much of the capture anyway. That's pretty big since BushCo had to do an about-face and trumpet the war as "Iraqi Freedom" when they couldn't find any WMD.

That fact serves to strengthen the positions of the democratic candidates who are focused on domestic issues.

First, what candidate is focused on domestic issues? There is none! ALL the candidates are focused on foreign policy issues, which is as it should be for this election because, like it or not, this election IS going to be about foreign policy issues.

Second, it's not a fact, it's a theory, and it's a theory that doesn't wash... look at Bush's post-capture poll numbers. There is no other issue for this election then foreign policy. We're in two wars with more on the way, and people are still scared of terrorists. The economy is getting better. People right here have said that their companies are highering again and their investment porfolios are finally perking up. Body bags ALWAYS trump wallets... always, always, always. Dean or any other candidate is not so dumb to try to run on the domestic agenda this time around because it isn't the top issue. That's how Clinton was able to say "it's the economy, stupid" and sit in the big chair for two terms... because Daddy Bush was trying to run on the weaker platform at the time.

Dean had actually better hope that the anti-Iraq war platform is still an issue because he's running on that platform. You pick your platform, and that's it... it's political suicide to switch horses in mid-stream.

Clark has an ace up his sleeve, but that won't be much help if it turns out the game is Roulette.

It isn't going to be. Our kids are still being sent off to war, and that sad fact isn't going to change by the time the election rolls around... body bags always trump wallets.

There's a simple way of realizing that this election will be based on foreign policy issues. Check out what it is we mostly talk about here other then the candidates and how much BushCo is evil... Iraq, 9/11, Saddam, Osama, terrorism, WMD, the troops, naughty Halliburton, etc. Aside from a thread thrown in now and then about a domestic issue, everything we talk about when it comes to issues is foreign policy.

If the capture of Saddam does anything, it bolsters Bush's* apparent competance as CIC. I think that is BS, but watch the polls rise. Clark was selling him self as a better military mind. I believe it is quite likely that he is.

That being aside, Bush could well look good enough because of this event to compete quite well on that front. I don't think a candidate 'strong on defense' will be the panacea people assume it might be.

Clark's credentials do not include much in the way of civilian government experience, like balancing budgets and funding schools. Other candidates look far stronger here.

he does have a Masters degree in Economics, is smart as hell and is an extremely fast learner. There is no doubt the man is MORE than qualified to be our president.

mess were in. :hi: Let him start out slow, Governing/Senate... you know prove himself in a civilian governmental leadership role first.

one way or another. ]

Clark needs less where it matters now.

Plus, he is smart in a way that is required for gret leaders...smart in a good way...not in a dumb way...not in an ideological way.

He's a problem-solver with morals.

Can't absolutely get better than that for these times.

especially since I live in an allegedly rural area and my county has only 100,000 people LESS than the state of Vermont.
So... you're saying my MAYOR could be president.
Clark has commanded more troops - and that includes their everyday life needs - than Dean governed.
Seriously - think about that.

which is worse:

Dean getting his on the job training in Foreign Policy?

or

Clark getting his on the job training in Domestic Policy?

Umm, I think I know which I would prefer!

He's the only person running who has any experience as president, such as it is.

Who do you trust with the car keys and the checkbook? Clark or Bush?
John
Clark would mop the floor with * in the general election. I don't know that Dean would.

With Kucinich, the tone will be "Can't help but" vote for him instead of "going to have to."

I'm starting to think that Democrats are very resistent to change. How many times do the same lessons have to be taught to make you guys a little bolder about things?

and the people are not that displeased with it.

We need better ideas, different ideas, ideas like John Edwards has been defining for his entire campaign.

Clark is not the guy we need.

Nice try though, and I really like Clark.

Clark has two big things going against him:

1. I don't think most voters in the U.S. are going to vote for a guy whose only background is as a military guy. This isn't the post-WW2 era -- a guy like Eisenhower could win because 10% of the U.S. population was in the armed forces at the height of WW2, and because there was a major "fear" factor associated with the Cold War.

2. As much as I'd love to support him, his arrival on the Democratic scene comes across as a totally contrived campaign. I think a lot of people just won't trust his motives -- like, where the hell has he been for the last few years while folks like Dean, Edwards, Kerry, Lieberman, etc. have been involved in politics on some level?

in the military. Traveling for 34 years and moving his family around for 34 years...he RETIRED to have a private life. The ONLY reason he is running is out of a heartfelt obligation to his country. He saw Bush and PNAC taking over this country and acceted his DraftClark call to help clean up the mess they have created. He DID serve in our military for 34 years, which is more than we can say for some candidates.

I don't question Clark's background or motives -- I'm simply pointing out that his lack of any political background is going to make a lot of people hesitant about voting for him. Military people often tend to be non-political in nature, since they serve under presidents of either party. This made for some difficulty on Clark's part because it took a long time for him to convince a lot of people that he really IS a Democrat.

Nobody ever had to bother asking Kerry, Lieberman, Dean, etc. what political party they belong to.

without having leadership abilities. Clark's experience is more than involvement in the military, he is experienced in the diplomatic area in that he has worked with leaderships of other nations and has recognition in many countries. There still remains a major 'fear factor'associated with terrorism that has been increased because of Bush Bullying.
2. The claim that his campaign is contrived is purely supicious speculation not based on fact and leaves the question open as to why people might not trust his motives. More speculation. Where has he been the last few years while Dean and the other pols have been doing a mediocre job of politicin'? Probably taking a break from his military responsibilities and involved in continuing his interest and studies of world affairs. Maybe he has come to the conclusion that he can do a better job of running this country than the pro-politicians who don't bother to examine the issues on a broader scale.

. . . are not my "anti-Clark" talking points, mind you -- they are echoes of discussions I've had with people who will be part of the 2004 nomination process.

The thing that really sticks in their craw is not a lack of leadership, but the lack of a clear POLITICAL track record coupled with his ambiguity about his party affiliation.

Indies, such as myself, like Clark because he DOESN'T have a political background, in the traditional sense.
Maybe these "politicos" you've been talking to need to wake up and see that the new boss shouldn't be the same as the old boss (thank you Pete Townshend).

that shares the profits with us like Clark did in Yuguslavia. Bush II is just too selfish.
Bush is at least funny sometimes. I will miss this little boy, playing president.
If Clark should become the democratic candidate and win, it would be a desaster for democrazy in this world. He should sit in jail in the hague along with Milosovic and the world should be allowed to follow the whole trial. That's all I'm asking for. The IMF and the Worldbank in coordination with the Nato did intentionally destroy the economy in Yuguslavia for about ten years. They were intentionally provoking ethnic differences. And at the peak of it, and Clark did even admit this, they were provoking Milosovics' reactions. It's even wrong to say it was Milosovic or his supporters. The people doing it on reaction of Clarks' provocation were mostly far right forces in Kosovo.
Please DUers, before you support Clark, just really try to find out, what this guy is about!
I just start to hear, Clark was a bastard, but he was with our bastards, ringing in my ears.
Hello from Germany,
Dirk

I think they may have a different opinion...and they LIVE there.

Clark's Kosovo: Why he's testifying at the Hague

Kosovar Albanians were watching closely as General Wesley Clark testified against Slobodan Milosevic before the International Criminal Tribunal at the Hague this week. Shpend Ahmeti, a Kosovar graduate student, was particularly interested since he credits Clark with saving his family.

"We thought that the world did not care about us, a small place like Kosovo," the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government student said. "We thought that Kosovo would never be on anyone's map. However, we found out that some people cared about Kosovars who were in trouble. Every Kosovar knows that General Clark was leading that group of people."

In the spring of 1999, Clark was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. He oversaw the military campaign that resulted in Milosevic's fall from power, saving 1.5 million Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing.

"You could have asked any three-year-old kid in Kosovo in 1999 after NATO troops entered Kosovo about who the most famous people are," Ahmeti said. "They would raise two fingers making the sign of 'v' for victory, shout 'democracy' and 'NATO' and mention the names of Clinton, Albright, but more than anyone, the name of General Wesley Clark."

"You don't appreciate freedom until you are deprived of it," Ahmeti said.
<snip>

http://www.americansforclark.com/story/47/

the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government?
I don't know too many of them. The only one, I had the pleasure to hear about, was cited on the advertising web page of Wesley Clark.
And if one of the victims of this war should be a victim of the Nato propaganda, too. It just gets even more cynical if victims are used this way.
And the crucial point really is, what happened during the decade before the bombings. And please don't try to tell me that Clark wasn't aware of the actions of the IMF and the Worldbank along with the Nato. They just destroyed Yuguslavia and when it was on the ground and helpless, they attacked the Serbs, because they started to defend themselves against the IMF.

"Commanding General Wesley Clark declared that it was "entirely predictable" that Serbian terror and violence would intensify after the NATO bombing, exactly as happened. The terror for the first time reached the capital city of Pristina, and there are credible reports of large-scale destruction of villages, assassinations, generation of an enormous refugee flow, perhaps an effort to expel a good part of the Albanian population -- all an "entirely predictable" consequence of the threat and then the use of force, as General Clark rightly observes."
Noam Chomsky

New York Times, march 27 1999
Sunday Times (London) march 28 1999
Newsweek april 12 1999
Just some sources if you don't believe me,
Dirk

Clark was on the team that negotiated the '95 Dayton Agreement. Leading up to that he met with both sides of the Bosnia conflict to learn the issues and advise the pentagon etc.

Are you holding him responsible for things he could control? NOT.

and during the war, even if you forget about everything else, he behaved irresponsible in a way that even surpasses Bush.
Maybe take a look at this article from the Washington Post:
http://diaspora-net.org/food4thought/novak.htm

It's my point of view that the destabilization of former Yuguslavia to recolonize it for american and european corporations and banks was much more criminal than the invasion of Iraq.
How many million people will lose their existence, their homes or their lives, when Clark becomes the president of the USA.
Dirk

Novak for the truth? I don't believe anything that guy says.

Look, as far as the politics question, Clark can show that video of Clinton hangin the big medal around his chest, as a matter of fact you might want to watch the "American Son" video produced by the Clark campaign: http://www.us4clark.com/mediaclips.html#ny

The Road to the White House Series presents Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.) at a fundraiser in New York City. The "American Son" film is shown. (12/10/2003)
File Sizes: 1-44 MB; 2-49.5 MB

On Clark and Yugoslavia, Clark has written a book on the whole affair "Waging Modern War" you might find it an eye opener as to the character and integrity of General Clark.

Yugoslavia collapsed due to the fall of the Iron curtain and the deeply rooted ethnic hatred that a dictatorship had controlled. What would you have proposed to stop the atrocities that were going on?

Rather than soap-opera campaigns produced by advertising companies to promote presidential candidates for the democratic party, that are willing to destroy whole countries for the benefit of big corporations and banks.

"Yugoslavia collapsed due to the fall of the Iron curtain and the deeply rooted ethnic hatred that a dictatorship had controlled. What would you have proposed to stop the atrocities that were going on?"

Please do me a favour and study the politics of the IMF and the Worldbank prior to the war with all the consequences. This is nothing but neocolonialism. You simply don't care about the truth. And by the way, I don't know Mr. Novak, but the key points of the article sound convincing to me and Clarks' decisions to provoke Russia and to cause what killers like Clark call collateral damage, to provoke massakers in Serbia that would justify the war, are well documented.

This soap-opera about ethnic hatred, covered before by brutal dicatorships did never convince me. Tito: a brutal dictator?
The serbs, the only yuguslavians, who didn't welcome Hitler but fight him, racists from the head to the toes???
It's not fear: we did listen to the american cold war propaganda that people, who love democrazy, are oppressed by evil communist dictators, for decades. And now, "communism" did just "control" ethnic hate? I'm dissapointed.
What would happen in the USA, if millions would lose their jobs from one day to the next? If the prices for food would raise 200% from one day to the next? And at the same time, the CIA along with Al Quaida, these best friends of General Clark and the UCK, would seperate one part of the USA against the next and so on and would use a lot of "intelligence" to play out all of them against one another. And all of this planned and prepared by Germany and the USA?
Dirk

Robert Novak is a flaming RW pundit who has a talent for distorting anything he touches. He his the same "journalist" that outed Valerie Plame the CIA NOC operative.

Lets agree to differ on sources for now, I accept that you do not trust Clark you are perfectly free to feel that way.

You said:
"...Rather than soap-opera campaigns produced by advertising companies to promote presidential candidates for the democratic party, that are willing to destroy whole countries for the benefit of big corporations and banks."

So America destroyed Yugoslavia? Why do you blame America, we had no control of that area, it was a dictatorship, and with direct ties to the Soviet Union. We had no forces in the area at the time of the outbreak of war.

If you want to know the unfortunate truth, it is that the economic system of the USSR and its Eastern European partners, was on a dead end to failure since the 1970's.

If you were personally involved or your family was, then I can only express my hopes that you and yours have been able to regain some peace in your lives.

ignorant and misinformed. You're simply not interested. Should I ask you for the third time, to study, what the US dominated Worldbank and the US dominated IMF did to Yuguslavia in the ten years prior to the war? They destroyed Yuguslavia economically. They did there exactly the same what they did in the Soviet Union until 1997. The life expectancy rate in the former Sovietunion is - after 15 years of capitalism - five years lower than 1989. Yuguslavia was halfway healthy economically before the "cold" war and blackmailing against them started.

I'm german, I'm not a victim of this. I'm just more concerned about Yuguslavia, because our government and corporations and banks were highly involved into the neocolonial illegal war against Yuguslavia.
And if you're not interested in studying what the IMF and the worldbank did, just study the goals of the nato-bombs and read between the lines.
Clark, Schröder, Fischer, our former defence minister Scharping and Clinton should be, where Milosociv is right now.
Did you ever ask yourself, why we didn't hear anything anymore from the trial against Milosovic. Why after much reporting during the first days of his trial, there's only silence now? Milosovic just did completely expose Germany and the USA there.
Dirk

I have read your posts over carefully to try and understand your point of view. You want to remove responsibility from the countries that had failed political systems and economic systems and blame western countries for this failure.

Its easy to blame someone else for ones own problems. On the other hand I am sure that western countries could have done more to ease the economic catastrophe that resulted. What you should realize is no one person be it Clark or Shroeder or any other decides how much to do. It is Germans and Americans like you and I and millions more like us. Your also right that I am bound to be ignorant of some of those economic issues, but I must have missed where Germany or the USA proclaimed any part of the former Yugoslavia as part of their territory.

As far as the trial of Milosevic, perhaps you would like to read todays news:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=17&u=/ap/20031216/ap_on_re_eu/milosevic_clark_12

Take care Dirk

In case, you don't want to go back to your soap opera, watching blonde white Clarks shooting evil indians:

"As heavily-armed NATO troops enforce the peace in Bosnia, the press and politicians alike portray Western intervention in the former Yugoslavia as a noble, if agonizingly belated, response to an outbreak of ethnic massacres and human rights violations. In the wake of the November 1995 Dayton Peace Accords, the West is eager to touch up its self-portrait as saviour of the Southern Slavs and get on with "the work of rebuilding" the newly sovereign states.

But following a pattern set since the onslaught of the civil war, Western public opinion has been misled. The conventional wisdom, exemplified by the writings of former US Ambassador to Yugoslavia Robert Zimmermann, is that the plight of the Balkans is the outcome of an "aggressive nationalism", the inevitable result of deep-seated ethnic and religious tensions rooted in history.1 Likewise, much has been made of the "Balkans power-play" and the clash of political personalities: "Tudjman and Milosevic are tearing Bosnia-Herzegovina to pieces".2

Drowned in the barrage of images and self-serving analyses are the economic and social causes of the conflict. The deep-seated economic crisis which preceded the civil war has long been forgotten. The strategic interests of Germany and the US in laying the groundwork for the disintegration of Yugoslavia go unmentioned, as does the role of external creditors and international financial institutions. In the eyes of the global media, Western powers bear no responsibility for the impoverishment and destruction of a nation of 24 million people.

But through their domination of the global financial system, the Western powers, pursuing their collective and individual "strategic interests" helped from the beginning of the 1980s, bring the Yugoslav economy to its knees, contributing to stirring simmering ethnic and social conflicts. Now, the efforts of the international financial community are channelled towards "helping Yugoslavia's war-ravaged successor states". Yet while the World's attention is focused on troop movements and cease fires, creditors and international financial institutions are busy at work collecting former Yugoslavia's external debt, while transforming the Balkans into a safe-haven for free enterprise." more: www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/dismanteling.htm

Hi,
Dirk

This is a discussion about a complex situation and it is common to have quite different views about these things.

I will accept that the west had policies to disrupt the east economically. I do not know many of the details. I read a good bit of the article which you linked.

I think the question of economic sanctions or other policies to attack states can be a difficult one. In the case of Yugoslavia which was aligned with the USSR, you will find that most people in the western democratic countries will not think it to be bad or immoral policies. Afterall we lived under the threat of nukes or conventional war for decades from the east. Did people suffer as a result? Yes. Were the eastern communist countries a real threat? Yes. Did any good come from it? I would argue yes, that the people of those countries have more say in their future than they did before.

about Bush. O.K. that's a bit easier, but do you think there is a job for us at Fox News?
Dirk

He had nothing to do with all that alleged ethnic cleansing.

I have it on good authority that on those times when he was accused of fomenting genocide, he was actually reading to blind orphans and helping find homes for disabled cats!

It's a frame-up, I tell ya!

The "Clark is a war criminal" of course comes from the kangaroo, in absentia trials conducted by Milosevic just as he was on the way out and was directing his judges to get back at NATO any way that he could. If you call Clark a war criminal, then you are calling Clinton a war criminal, Chirac a war criminal, as well as every head of state of NATO. All of them were found guilty in the same judicial process.

see who gets the most votes? I think that is the customary way it's done.

Clark can and will win against *, assuming we Dems are smart enough to nominate him to our ticket. Here's hoping.

:eyes:

And I've seen no substantial valid criticism.
Mostly just smears.
And a *lot* of attempted bullying on the subject.

http://www.clark04.com/

Enjoy!

- Must be a couple dozen times now.

- Your position gives undue credit to the Bush* regime. There won't be a 'backlash' from Saddam's 'capture' because he is not an issue in the 'war on terrorism'.

has the best chance of beating Bush. Dean is has unfortunately gained the reputation of being an angry upstart, consequently he turns a lot of people off. Clark carries with him prestige and experience in world affairs and is respected and well known within the world community. Clark has the ability to sustain an audience with his well spoken, modulated and intelligent discourse. Add the charisma of his appearance and bearing to the picture and he could very well come out a winner.

We have already seen the worst of the smears...and smears they are.

Every once in a while a man comes along at the right time to make things right...but it is a rare thing.

He's standin' right in front of us.

Now we need to give him the chance of our lifetimes.

He attracts all the American people, he speaks with his heart ....he will have alot of voters cross party lines for the leadership of a President like General Clark, a man with integrity to lead from the oval office putting the American people first which we certainly don't have now and never will with George W. Bush and alot of disgruntle republicans agree!

well you go right ahead and do that.

Out in the real world, Clark comes across as intelligent, CALM (unlike Dr. Dean), thoughtful but strong, and a leader. This is not ME talking, as a Clark supporter, this is what I am hearing from your average Joe/Jane Does. They're comforted by his 4 stars. They appreciate that he doesn't go off half-cocked. They like it that he doesn't back down from the idiots on Fox. They like it that he's telegenic.

I like Wes for his policy statements, his charisma, his leadership, and all the "right" reasons. And I LIKE HIS BRAINS. Hey, I'm pretty smart, and I want a President who is smarter than I am. Not some dim-bulb frat boy who will (allegedly) surround himself with smart people -- no, I want somebody like Jed Bartlett who is smarter than everybody else, dammit! Smarter than me, with four degrees! Presidentin' is HARD, and I want somebody who is UP TO THE TASK. Not somebody who is pissed off all the time, but somebody who is cool under pressure. That person is Wesley Clark.

Bake

That may seem like a strange idea but I'm kind of thinking it ought to be the way.

We at DU are no more a nominating committee than the DLC is. I hope we can generate enough interest in the campign that this issue of who best represents the Democrats can be decided by the voters.

I'm not thinking of this "Dean = Osama" thing, but maybe some real discussion of issues.

Please sign up for a Clark meetup in your area and get to know some of your local supporters. It's great fun and very informative.

Visit the site and put your heart into it.

Again, welcome aboard.

I think Dean is electable, but his candidacy has challenges that Clark will not have.

desktop killers like Bush?
That's called improvement! Go for the real thing, vote for Clark!
Speechless in Germany,
Dirk

And perhaps even a few disgruntled Republicans. This is something that no other Democratic candidate can do, IMO.

And the way the deck is stacked against *any* Democratic candidate, this may be a necessary attribute.

I'm watching Clark very closely.

I live in Missouri, which is so split between parties. On one hand are I-70 Democrats, but then there's the John Ashcroft Republicans in my place (his hometown--sucks to be a dem here). I think that Clark has got the best chance to show the poor rural voters that he is a helluva lot better than Bush, and I think that if he does get those voters and Missouri goes for Clark, we'll see a Democrat in the White House again. We always pick the winners.