Clark could be Plan B for me only if---

--he publicly repudiated PNAC.

http://www.denniskucinich.us/article.php?story=20040102155547526

Studying up this morning on approaches for world peace, I was reading the infamous document Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century from the Republican William Kristol's think tank Project for the New American Century and I ran across this picture of Wesley Clark on page 16 of the publication (page 28 of the PDF). That seemed oddly out of place...but perhaps it shouldn't have. When questioned about Clark's failure to have registered as a Democrat until recently, Jeff Cohen remarked today "It's hard to imagine how a longtime Republican can win the Democratic nomination. You can't beat a real Republican, Bush, with a recently lapsed Republican, Clark". Why don't all of us Democrats, Greens, and Independents just re-register as Republicans so they don't have to come to our party?

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2003/11/14/74127/713/192

"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill - people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead" (Wesley Clark, Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner, Little Rock, AR, 5/11/2001).

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759

As for Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction", these were dismissed, in so many words, as a convenient excuse, which it is. "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," it says, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Did you read the text below the picture? Here it is for you:
"The continuing deployment of forces in
the Balkans reflects a U.S. commitment
to the region’s security. By refusing to
treat these deployments as a shift of the
permanent American presence in
Europe, the Clinton Administration has
increased the burden on the armed
services exponentially."

Also Clark has publicly repudiated PNAC! Guess you've got a Plan B!

1. After seeing the original poster quote the Clark-Lincoln Day Dinner thing again, (as though we've never seen it), it occured to me that I don't care if he is his/her "plan B." The obvious point of this post was to pull that out again.

2. Clark has repudiated PNAC.

for heavens sake.... someone find the link to Josh Marhshall's interview with Clark.... :)

not what he was talking about, but whythehell he's hanging out with those people.

Hi Eridani! From the UT fire, into the DU frying pan I see.*

Alas... Brush up Plan B.

Wes Clark don't dig the PNAC nasty boys - at all.

*Check your PM

Is he advocating, like PNAC, permanent military bases in the ME regardless of what the residents think?

"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office..",,
if he thinks so highly of them.. why did he vote for Gore ?,

Feel free to visit, don't leave a stinkie on the rug:
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2004/1/3/124236/0081
also, I just found a love letter from a PNAC-er to Dean in Wash Post.I lacked a link so I blogged it:
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2004/1/16/6287/46991
This is what PNAC thinks of HD:
Dean
may not be offering a stark alternative to Bush's foreign policy,
therefore, so much as he is simply offering Democrats a compelling and
combative alternative to Bush himself. The Iraq war provided the
occasion to prove his mettle.

If so, that has two implications, one small and one big. The small one
concerns the general election: The Bushies are planning to run against
a dovish McGovern, but there's a remote possibility they could find
themselves running against a hawkish Kennedy. The bigger implication,
which the rest of the world should note well, is that the general
course of American foreign policy is fairly stable and won't be soon
toppled -- not even by Howard Dean.

...or they'll pull out the "He voted for Reagan" thing again. You know how they get!

I know Eridani quite well - provide facts and sources, that'll do the job.

Which makes me a freakin' liar as I forgot to include a link to that fantastic TPM piece, myself.


:spank:

Terrific interview. I particularly love how Clark the so-called Republican credits the collapse of the Soviet Union not to Reagan, but to

"A combination of circumstances and pressures dating back to Franklin Roosevelt's and Harry Truman's early visions of how to win this competition..."

And he surely got Bill Kristol's knickers in a twist, didn't he?

What a guy! What a candidate! What a good, good time to be a Democrat!

nt

He does support abortion up to the moment of birth.

Just goes to show you that when he strays off the script he hasn't got a clue.

he doesn't have a problem.

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

there is no such thing as elective abortion up to the moment of birth, or "partial birth abortion." The only time a procedure even remotely resembling this is performed is in the case of protracted, unproductive labor which is potentially fatal to both mother and infant, and for whatever reason an emergency cesarean section is not possible. It is an extremely rare procedure, done only to save the life of the mother, and in many cases the baby is already dead.

You have done a great job refuting those "partial birth abortion" smears. :toast:

you are all so smart and quick to refute baseless charges

I just love to sit back and watch it happen

:toast:

we don't get "talking points," we get real information from an intelligent man, who not only knows his stuff, but empowers his supporters to read the facts and understand the issues.

To summarize the following: the US Space Command anticipates that US policy will worsen world poverty, that people around the world will object to it, and that the US needs a bunch of Death Stars to blow them away if they do.

Does Clark agree or disagree?

http://icpj.org/nuclear_weapons.html

The "U.S. Space Command in its "Vision of 2020" brochure describes its goal as, "dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S. interests and investments. Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict."

The command explains candidly that they are planning to control space, wage war, and serve the interests of investors. In their report they say: "The globalization of the world economy will also continue, with a widening between "haves and "have-nots." Therefore, the U.S. will be "challenged regionally" and needs to dominate "future battlefields."

Further URLs

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/space-command-plan-fy2004.htm

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsControl/Space.asp

That US policy will worsen world poverty?

He's an economist. Of course he'll agree with that.

That people around the world will object to that?

He's a political scientist. Of course he'll agree with that.

The the US needs a bunch of Death Stars to blow them away if they do?

I don't think he saw that movie. Is that the one where Luke finds out Chewbacca is his father? <<<shudder>>>

Clark is all Army, boots on the ground kind of guy. I doubt he'll be paying for any "death stars" during his Presidency.

Wow! You guys ask some weird questions.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything directly pertaining to that.

However... Seeing a rationale there that looks suspiciously like that of PNAC, I doubt it. There's no budget for such a tremendously ambitious plan (sounds nice, looks great on paper - requires massive funding that simply isn't available) Clark has already hinted at "carefully reviewing" the Star Wars / NMD program budget. He has outlined a more "Earthbound" approach for defense / national security. I could go on for a little while, but all these little details make me thing that embracing an imperial masterplan to dominate space is inconceivable and incompatible with Clark's views.

Then again, that's just my .02 and I'm not sure if there'll be a conclusive answer here. Well, unless Clark decides to slap the monkey about with a realistic space exploration plan; I'm sure that the underlying defense doctrine accompanying it would satisfy your question.

Until then... Sorry.

if he wasn't Wesley Clark.