Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clark/Bayh or Clark/Boxer?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 11:54 AM
Original message
Clark/Bayh or Clark/Boxer?
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 11:55 AM by Roland99
I'm beginning to like the former vs. the latter. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. If you want to win...
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 11:57 AM by nickshepDEM
Clark/Bayh or Bayh/Clark... I actually made this prediction (Bayh/Clark) as the winning ticket in 2008 a couple days ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. So what does your electoral map look like?
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 12:41 PM by wuushew





277 vs. 261
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. + Ohio + West Virginia
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 12:09 PM by nickshepDEM
And it puts alot of others in play.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moggie12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. Could possibly get Kentucky (IN's next-door neighbor) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. Maybe, but one thing is for sure.
Bayh/Clark would definitley put it in PLAY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moggie12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. Yep, might work, lived near Louisville for three years
They called the area, "Kentuckiana" because the TV stations broadcast reached into Indiana. Indianans loved Bayh, even the Republicans -- he was an extremely popular Governor.

P.S. I have to laugh when I see talk about Hillary in '08. She'd get 20% of the vote in places like KY!! (or VA, where I also used to live). The level of pure hate against her is unbelievable -- and they also hate Bill: Middle aged women there just despise him as a result of the "intern matter".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #30
37. Well...Kerry didn't take Louisville as strong as I'd hoped.
The same-sex marriage ban being on the ballot really helped swell the voting ranks for Bush. I don't know how well Bayh would carry into Ky. A lot would depend on what happens in the next 4 years, obviously. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #21
81. Also Tennesee's next door neighbor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemDogs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
84. West Virginia and Pennsylvania?
What makes you think that ticket takes either state? I know we all think our candidate is the one who can put it together, but you got have a reason everywhere. I can color a map, too, but unless I have reasons for red or blue, it is just coloring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #84
91. I was only being half-serious when I posted that...
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 06:04 PM by wuushew
however I really don't see Ohio or Florida for that matter rescuing themselves from the very dire situation of Diebolding/state election office fixing which now exist in those states. In general I hope to see Pennsylvania trend blue in the coming years.

Your probably right about WV, but after four more years of Bush maybe the voters would turnout for a right of center Democratic ticket.

I make no predictions about the Southwest without Richardson on the ticket with perhaps the exception of Nevada which unfortunately seems to have it's own set of voting problems as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThorsHammer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
85. You're very pessimistic
OH would almost definitely go blue. I'd also say there is a good chance in KY, WV, TN, NM, and AZ. FL would be in play at the very least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. One good vote ain't enough to elect DLC Bayh.
He's gonna have to do a lot more than that to get my vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
digno dave Donating Member (992 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #1
141. BOXER BOXER BOXER...that's all i hear on this site. We are FOOLS
if we keep thinking like this. God help us all to come to our senses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. Boxer/Dayton...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. not Dayton. Boxer/Ford Boxer/Clark Boxer/Obama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. Clark/Boxer! Isn't Bayh anti-choice?
I could never support someone who doesn't support a woman's choice to have control of her own body. Especially a man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. How big of an issue is abortion, though, really?
The likes of Rove have made it an issue but if it wasn't pushed like it has been lately no one will talk much about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. probably none, if you're male
But for women it is an important issue: it's our bodies and our future.
It's also THE issue for the Christian Right. Wait til Bush gets a couple of Supreme Court appointments and then you'll see what will happen to abortion rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. I think Iraq (and Iran/Syria?) is going to outweigh most domestic issues
And that's were Clark would shine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. president's do more that one thing
and my point is not to refute the possibility of Clark as a presidential candidate, but to point out that your rather odd notion that abortion rights isn't really a big deal, that it's simply an invention of Karl Rove, is completely wrong. It's only a small deal for those unconcerned with women's rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #18
48. I didn't mean to imply choice is not a big deal...I meant the debate
Roe v. Wade isn't going to be overturned. Too many doctors making money on it. That and it would mean a return to back-alley abortions and I just don't see that happening.


IMO, the debate is artificial and will go nowhere. It just gives the Fund-A-Mental Cases something to bitch about and make them feel good about their "faith".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #48
57. "too many doctors" performing abortions.. what planet are you on?
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 03:19 PM by impeachdubya

This idea that abortion is some giant profit-maker is pure RW talking point propaganda. And actual access to abortion is down something like 50% from where it was 14 years ago... so this idea that it's a booming business is completely wrong.

Lastly, look at where this all is going. The long work to stack the judiciary with RW ideologues isn't just for show. You would do well to research what the Right is talking about amongst themselves. The plan is to not only overturn Roe v. Wade, but also Griswold vs. Connecticut--- because what they would really like to do is eliminate that pesky "right to privacy" they hate so much, while banning most (if not all) forms of birth control, along with abortion. We ignore the fundies and their agenda at our peril.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #48
63. I wish I could believe that
but I fear it's not the case. Even Democrats are backing off from pro-choice positions. I hope you're right, but we need to defend fiercely those future Supreme Court appointments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
39. Well, if you're a poverty stricken, single woman who has 4 kids
and cannot afford another one and need an abortion in order to have enough money to feed and clothe the kids you already have, abortion is a HUGE issue. OR if you're a woman who has been raped and got pregnant, it's a HUGE issue. OR if you're a 12 year old girl who has been molested by your dad and got pregnant, it's a HUGE issue. It was too big a fight for women for us to just "let it go." I won't support anyone who is anti-choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #39
74. You're pointing out worst-case scenarios
You have to pick and choose your battles wisely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArtVandaley Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. I was under the impression he was pro-choice
Otherwise he's off the table. Abortion will be a huge issue in 2008, due to whatever happens with the Supreme Court. We need to hold strong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
34. I have never heard FROM HIM what his stance is. He's rated 50% by NARAL.
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 01:03 PM by in_cog_ni_to
Evan Bayh on Abortion
Democratic Jr Senator (IN): Click here for 7 full quotes OR click here for Evan Bayh on other issues.
Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on disallowing overseas military abortions. (May 1999)
Rated 50% by NARAL, indicating a mixed voting record on abortion. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)

Anyone in Indiana ever hear him say he's Pro-Choice??? Just curious.

His voting record is mixed. It's hard to tell what the hell he has in his mind. I'm not voting for ANYONE who is anti-choice.

http://www.issues2000.org/states/IN_Abortion.htm


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. He is voted YES to ban partial birth abortions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
58. I will not support a ticket with a pro-lifer. Period.

At that point, I go Green.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HoosierClarkie Donating Member (504 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
97. Bayh is pro choice
as far as Indiana is concerned. He did vote for the ban on Partial birth abortions, but the people in Indiana consider him pro.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrGonzoLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
99. Bayh is not anti-choice
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 07:18 PM by DrGonzoLives
He voted for banning partial-birth abortions, but that's about it. He's never really made it an issue, which is actually something of an achievement in Indiana politics.

ON EDIT: Got rating wrong, I was thinking of the NEA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IronLionZion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
113. anti-choice ???
Pro-life Democrats like Gore and Kucinich always flip flop and magically become pro-choice when running for president.

And even then, what in the world makes you think anyone will ever overturn Roe v. Wade? Seriously. Bush hasn't pushed for it. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
10. Any ticket with Clark is a loser.
Didn't you pay attention to the primaries? Democrats overwhelmingly rejected Clark. What makes you think he would do any better next time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. Actually, yes I did....
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 12:17 PM by truebrit71
And he won oklahoma, and placed well elsewhere....But because he wasn't in Iowa, and the MSM denigrated him at every opportunity, it put paid to any chance of the nomination....

So instead we got Kerry.

And you know how well THAT turned out.

Any more questions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #23
59. True, truebrit
What a joke... overwhelming;y rejected Clark???

LOL

Denial is strange, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #59
71. It certainly is.....
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cidliz2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #71
139. And too bad that you are deep in denial
Clark would have done better than Kerry by a great margin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrGonzoLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #10
102. He entered the race late
and was something of a neophyte - he's already grown, and by 2008 he will be ready to fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnOneillsMemory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
107. CLARK AND DARPA, SITTING IN A TREE. 'ACXIOM' POINDEXTER ETC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cidliz2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #10
138. You are wrong!
Clark dropped out in February before the MAJORITY of primaries even occurred. He was even with Edwards in that he won 1 state. NH was in New England Territory where Kerry, Dean, Liebermann are all well known. Clark didn't compete in Iowa. There was no way of telling how well he could have done in NY, Calif, ... So don't use the Primaries as an example because it is a very poor example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
11. The thing I'm thinking of the most is...
not to have the lead of the ticket be a Senator. That just hasn't seemed to do well. Besides, we need all the Dems in the Senate we can get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Don't run Senators
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 12:19 PM by Zynx
It's impossible to accurately explain their voting record and so it can only hurt them.

I still think Bayh/Clark is a good one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. So it would be better to have the top be someone with no experience at all
How about someone with executive experience?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. Realistically, you run governors BUT...
Ideally, you would want to pull people from the corporate world. President is effectively a CEO, after all. You need someone with a strong work ethic, intelligence and a decisive nature more than you need someone who understands politics.

Not to mention that that part of the private sector is where the best and the brightest in this country actually go.

But this is never going to happen because you need "governmental experience" for some reason, even though the President's job has much more in common with senior corporate officers than he does governors or especially Representatives and Senators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #20
100. Clark has no executive experience, eh?
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 07:18 PM by Clark2008
This is from a letter written to Joe Scarborough after he was a malicious bore to Clark the other night. I saved this paragraph from it because I specifically wanted YOU to read it (I didn't write it):

General Clark is an absolute expert on implementation of international strategic objectives. I have been familiar with him and we've formally met umpteen times over 11 years, beginning with when my husband was a Major, logistics operation officer, in the First Cavalry Division and Gen. Clark (two stars back then) commanded the Division. Certainly I contribute a lot of energy, time, and money to his PAC now, and his electoral pursuit previously. I happen to believe that of all of the Democrats last year who sought the nomination, with the possible exception of Rev. Sharpton, Wes was the only one with implementation experience. Furthermore, Clark has personally re-invented organizational transformation -- he knew how to operate his portion of the army or international coalition like a business, with a serious objective, but also with corporate-type issues. He knows that glowing accolades do not accomplish squat. It's after a massive foreign power declares that it's going to take action, and exactly how capable they are of following through on that action, that the analysts can make valid observations. And obviously, most of the time, the intelligent analysts have the facts and the gravitas to shoot holes through the actual tactics being undertaken to implement a strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gottaB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
13. Boxer/Clark
Though I would be happy with Clark/Boxer.

Clark/Bayh would be acceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
16. for what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HoosierClarkie Donating Member (504 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
17. Bayh would take IN, but
I do not think he is well liked here. (DU) Just a guess. ;) He is definitely moderate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. He would win alot of states that most Democrats couldnt.
Running as a socialy moderate - economically liberal candidate.

I believe he would win all of the Kerry states (he might lose NH) and pick up Indiana, Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, and West Virginia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HoosierClarkie Donating Member (504 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. I agree.
I am just waiting for the replies that say he is really a Republican though. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. When they say that I say...
Go to issues2000.com and look at his voting record. It is not even close to conservative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. IF there is such a thing
as a neo-con dem - that would be him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Bayh is as liberal as you can be in Indiana...
If he went any further left he would be targeted and "thrown out" of office. (see: Birch Bayh)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #33
42. That doesn't make him presidential material
I don't know where people are getting that.


"Clark/Bayh" - if you like mannequins? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. More like...
"Bayh/Clark" - If you want to take back the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #17
40. Bayh wouldn't necessarily take Indiana
just becuz he has been a senator and governor, in presidential elections it is overwhelmingly Dem. After '00 and '04 we can't assume that just becuz someone represents a state that he will absolutely win it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #40
47. When you win by the type of margins Bayh does..
Its safe to say that state would lean towards Bayh in a Presidential election. The GOP would not be able to write Indiana off as a guranteed 11 EV's like they have for 30 years. They would have to work hard to get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrGonzoLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #47
103. That's the likely scenario
Sure, Republicans in Indiana vote for him for Governor and Senator - but, when it comes to President, so many are just used to voting GOP that it's not a given that the state will go blue.

It will, however, as you point out, become a battleground state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #103
129. I think Indiana would come out in force and support their hometown boy...
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 10:40 PM by nickshepDEM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HoosierClarkie Donating Member (504 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #40
96. He has never had
any competition in Indiana. He would definitely take IN. Republicans vote for him already here. If he were to run for President the other repubs would fall in line. Unfortunately I know a lot of them. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
22. Franken/Clark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #22
36. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Metrix Donating Member (293 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
29. Clark doesn't think there's anything wrong with depleted uranium
That has to change before I could support him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alisa Donating Member (169 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Can you point me to any location that say's this?
I have volunteered for Clark and think he is the greatest but I also think depleted uranium is the worst. I would not support him if what you say can be proved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. Democracy Now transcipt
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 01:10 PM by wuushew
Gen. Wesley Clark, being questioned by Democracy Now! correspondent Jeremy Scahill.
TRANSCRIPT:
JEREMY SCAHILL: In Yugoslavia, you used cluster bombs and depleted uranium...

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure did.

JEREMY SCAHILL: I want to know if you are president, will you vow not to use them.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I will use whatever it takes that's legal to protect the men and women against force.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Even against civilians in the Nis marketplace? Why bomb Radio Television Serbia? Why did you bomb Radio Television Serbia? You killed 16 media workers, sir.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: They were-


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/1632224&tid=25#transcript




Counter point from Clark on DU in 2001

http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2001_spring/little_risk.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #32
41. In regards to Yugoslavia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #41
69. In the same article that you cite....please note,
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 04:28 PM by FrenchieCat
Since the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, General Wesley Clark has not answered any in-depth questions about his targeting of civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia, his bombing of Radio Television Serbia, the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium, the speeding-up of the cockpit video of a bombing of a passenger train to make it appear as though it was an accident and other decisions he made and orders he gave as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0126-05.htm

That statement in the article above IS UNTRUE. Clark and Clinton and Albright were fully investigated by the U.N. and an International body working with the International Court.....

Please note that approximate 500 civilians were killed by NATO bombs...compared to thousands that were killed by the Serbs.....and hundreds of thousands that were displaced...which was the reason for the war in the first place. Although I place importance on everylife...when one compares the figures, this was one of the least deadliest wars ever....and for a better cause than most of the others....

Here is their final report: http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm

I am posting the TABLE OF CONTENTS...because each subject in that table is a link to the investigation's detail findings on Humanitarian issues related to the War on Kosovo....and the role that US's leaders played in them. It addresses all of the issues.....the civilian bombing, the train bombing, the use of Depleted Uranium, etc...

Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Table of Contents

I Background and Mandate
II Review Criteria
III Work Program
IV Assessment

General Issues
Damage to the Environment
Use of Depleted Uranium Projectiles
Use of Cluster Bombs
Legal Issues Related to Target Selection
Overview of Applicable Law
Linkage Between Law Concerning Recourse to Force and Law Concerning How Force May Be Used
The Military Objective
The Principle of Proportionality
Casualty Figures
General Assessment of the Bombing Campaign
Specific Incidents
The Attack on a Civilian Passenger Train at the Grdelica Gorge on 12/4/99
The Attack on the Djakovica Convoy on 14/4/99
The Attack on the RTS (Serbian Radio and TV Station) in Belgrade on 23/4/99
The Attack on the Chinese Embassy on 7/5/99
The Attack on Korisa Village on 13/5/99
Recommendations

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #69
72. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alisa Donating Member (169 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #69
75. I'll read your's if you'll read mine... Thank you for your effort's:
This is a long but worthwhile read, with many familiar names and places. Below holds enough information for me to say "things really are THAT simple". I do think so.

www.globalresearch.ca
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation

GLOBAL RESEARCH (CANADA) FEATURE ARTICLE

www.globalresearch.ca <http://www.globalresearch.ca>
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation


DEPLETED URANIUM: THE TROJAN HORSE OF NUCLEAR WAR
by Leuren Moret

www.globalresearch.ca <http://www.globalresearch.ca > 8 July 2004

To consult the complete text with figures and tables click:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR407A.html


Heat not a furnace for your foe so hot that it do singe yourself.
William Shakespeare (1564-1616)

The use of depleted uranium weaponry by the United States, defying allinternational treaties, will slowly annihilate all species on earth including the human species, and yet this country continues to do so with full knowledge of its destructive potential.

Since 1991, the United States has staged four wars using depleted
uranium weaponry, illegal under all international treaties, conventions and agreements, as well as under the US military law. The continued use of this illegal radioactive weaponry, which has already contaminated vast regions with low level radiation and will contaminate other parts of the world over time, is indeed a world affair and an international issue. The deeper purpose is revealed by comparing regions now contaminated with depleted uranium — from Egypt, the Middle East, Central Asia and the northern half of India — to the US geostrategic imperatives described in Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1997 book The Grand Chessboard.

The fact is that the United States and its military partners have staged four nuclear wars, "slipping nukes under the wire" by using dirty bombs and dirty weapons in countries the US needs to control. Depleted uranium aerosols will permanently contaminate vast regions and slowly destroy the genetic future of populations living in those regions, where there are resources which the US must control, in order to establish and maintain American primacy.

Described as the Trojan Horse of nuclear war, depleted uranium is the
weapon that keeps killing. The half-life of Uranium-238 is 4.5 billion years, the age of the earth. And, as Uranium-238 decays into daughter radioactive products, in four steps before turning into lead, it continues to release more radiation at each step. There is no way to turn it off, and there is no way to clean it up. It meets the US Government's own definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

After forming microscopic and submicroscopic insoluble Uranium oxide
particles on the battlefield, they remain suspended in air and travel
around the earth as a radioactive component of atmospheric dust,
contaminating the environment, indiscriminately killing, maiming and
causing disease in all living things where rain, snow and moisture
remove it from the atmosphere. Global radioactive contamination from
atmospheric testing was the equivalent of 40,000 Hiroshima bombs, and
still contaminates the atmosphere and lower orbital space today. The
amount of low level radioactive pollution from depleted uranium released since 1991, is many times more (deposited internally in the body), than was released from atmospheric testing fallout.

A 2003 independent report for the European Parliament by the European
Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), reports that based on Chernobyl
studies, low level radiation risk is 100 to 1000 times greater than the International Committee for Radiation Protection models estimate which are based on the flawed Atomic and Hydrogen Bomb Studies conducted by the US Government. Referring to the extreme killing effects of radiation on biological systems, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, one of the 46 international radiation expert authors of the ECRR report, describes it as:

"The concept of species annihilation means a relatively swift,
deliberately induced end to history, culture, science, biological
reproduction and memory. It is the ultimate human rejection of the gift of life, an act which requires a new word to describe it: omnicide."

1943 MANHATTAN PROJECT BLUEPRINT FOR DEPLETED URANIUM

In a declassified memo to General Leslie R. Groves, dated October 30,
1943, three of the top physicists in the Manhattan Project, Dr James B Conant, A H Compton, and H C Urey, made their recommendation, as members of the Subcommittee of the S-1 Executive Committee, on the `Use of Radioactive Materials as a Military Weapon':

"As a gas warfare instrument the material would be ground into particles of microscopic size to form dust and smoke and distributed by a ground-fired projectile, land vehicles, or aerial bombs. In this form it would be inhaled by personnel. The amount necessary to cause death to a person inhaling the material is extremely small … There are no known methods of treatment for such a casualty … it will permeate a standard gas mask filter in quantities large enough to be extremely damaging."

As a Terrain Contaminant:

"To be used in this manner, the radioactive materials would be spread on the ground either from the air or from the ground if in enemy controlled territory. In order to deny terrain to either side except at the expense of exposing personnel to harmful radiations … Areas so contaminated by radioactive material would be dangerous until the slow natural decay of the material took place … for average terrain no decontaminating methods are known. No effective protective clothing for personnel seems possible of development. … Reservoirs or wells would be contaminated or food poisoned with an effect similar to that resulting from inhalation of dust or smoke."

Internal Exposure:

"… Particles smaller than 1µ are more likely to be deposited in the alveoli where they will either remain indefinitely or be absorbed into the lymphatics or blood. … could get into the gastro-intestinal tract from polluted water, or food, or air. … may be absorbed from the lungs or G-I tract into the blood and so distributed throughout the body."

Both the fission products and depleted uranium waste from the Atomic
Bomb Project were to be utilised under this plan. The pyrophoric nature of depleted uranium, which causes it to begin to burn at very low temperatures from friction in the gun barrel, made it an ideal
radioactive gas weapon then and now. Also it was more available because the amount of depleted uranium produced was much greater than the amount of fission products produced in 1943.

Britain had thoughts of using poisoned gas on Iraq long before 1991:

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized
tribes. The moral effect should be good... and it would spread a lively terror..." (Winston Churchill commenting on the British use of poison gas against the Iraqis after the First World War).

GUIDED WEAPONS SYSTEMS

Depleted uranium weapons were first given by the US to Israel for use
under US supervision in the 1973 Sinai war against the Arabs. Since then the US has tested, manufactured, and sold depleted uranium weapons systems to 29 countries. An international taboo prevented their use until 1991, when the US broke the taboo and used them for the first time, on the battlefields of Iraq and Kuwait.

The US military admitted using depleted uranium projectiles in tanks and planes, but warheads in missiles and bombs are classified or referred to as a `dense' or `mystery metal'. Dai Williams, a researcher at the 2003 World Depleted Uranium Weapons Conference, reported finding 11 US patents for guided weapons systems with the term `depleted uranium' or `dense metal', which from the density can only be depleted uranium or tungsten, in order to fit the dimensions of the warhead.

Extensive carpet bombing, grid bombing, and the frequent use of missiles and depleted uranium bullets on buildings in densely populated areas has occurred in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. The discovery that bomb craters in Yugoslavia in 1999 were radioactive, and that an unexploded missile in 1999 contained a depleted uranium warhead, implies that the total amount of depleted uranium used since 1991 has been greatly underestimated. Of even greater concern, is that 100 per cent of the depleted uranium in bombs and missiles is aerosolized upon impact and immediately released into the atmosphere. This amount can be as much as
1.5 tons in the large bombs. In bullets and cannon shells, the amount
aerosolized is 40-70 per cent, leaving pieces and unexploded shells in the environment, to provide new sources of radioactive dust and
contamination of the groundwater from dissolved depleted uranium metal long after the battles are over, as reported in a 2003 report by the UN Environmental Program on Yugoslavia. Considering that the US has admitted using 34 tons of depleted uranium from bullets and cannon shells in Yugoslavia, and the fact that 35,000 NATO bombing missions occurred there in 1999, potentially the amount of depleted uranium contaminating Yugoslavia and transboundary drift into surrounding countries is staggering.

Because of mysterious illnesses and post-war birth defects reported
among Gulf War veterans and civilians in southern Iraq, and radiation
related illnesses in UN Peacekeepers serving in Yugoslavia, growing
concerns about radiation effects and environmental damage has stirred up international outrage about the use of radioactive weapons by the US after 1991. At the 2003 meeting of parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, discussing the U.S. desire to maintain its nuclear weapons stockpile, the Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi AKIBA stated, "It is incumbent upon the rest of the world ... to stand up now and tell all of our military leaders that we refuse to be threatened or protected by nuclear weapons. We refuse to live in a world of continually recycled fear and hatred".

ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

Four reasons why using depleted uranium weapons violates the UN
Convention on Human Rights:

LEGALITY TEST FOR WEAPONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

TEMPORAL TEST – Weapons must not continue to act after the battle is
over.

ENVIRONMENTAL TEST – Weapons must not be unduly harmful to the
environment.

TERRITORIAL TEST – Weapons must not act off of the battlefield.

HUMANENESS TEST – Weapons must not kill or wound inhumanly.


International Human Rights and humanitarian lawyer, Karen Parker,
determined that depleted uranium weaponry fails the four tests for legal weapons under international law, and that it is also illegal under the definition of a `poison' weapon. Through Karen Parker's continued efforts, a sub-commission of the UN Human Rights Commission determined in 1996 that depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction that should not be used:

RESOLUTION 1996/16 ON STOPPING THE USE OF DEPLETED URANIUM - DU

The military use of DU violates current international humanitarian law, including the principle that there is no unlimited right to choose the means and methods of warfare (Art. 22 Hague Convention VI (HCIV); Art. 35 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva (GP1); the ban on causing unnecessary suffering and superfluous injury (Art. 23 §le HCIV; Art. 35 §2 GP1), indiscriminate warfare (Art. 51 §4c and 5b GP1) as well as the use of poison or poisoned weapons.

The deployment and use of DU violate the principles of international
environmental and human rights protection. They contradict the right to life established by the Resolution 1996/16 of the UN Subcommittee on Human Rights.

FOUR NUCLEAR WARS

Although restricted to battlefields in Iraq and Kuwait, the 1991 Gulf
War was one of the most toxic and environmentally devastating wars in
world history. Oil well fires, the bombing of oil tankers and oil wells which released millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Arabia and desert, and the devastation from tanks and heavy equipment destroyed the desert ecosystem. The long term and far reaching effects, and dispersal of at least 340 tons of depleted uranium weapons, had a global environmental effect. Smoke from the oil fires was later found in deposits in South America, the Himalayas and Hawaii. Large annual dust storms originating in North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia will quickly spread the radioactive contamination around the world, and weathering of old depleted uranium munitions on battlefields and other areas will provide new sources of radioactive contamination in future years. Downwind from the radioactive devastation in Iraq, Israel is also
suffering from large increases in breast cancer, leukemia and childhood diabetes.

RADIATION RESPECTS NO BORDERS, NO SOCIOECONOMIC CLASS, AND NO RELIGION

The expendability of the sanctity of life to achieve US political ends was described by US soldiers on the ground, and from the air, along the Highway of Death in Iraq in 1991:

"Iraqi soldiers be young boys or old men. They were a sad sight, with absolutely no fight left in them. Their leaders had cut their Achilles' tendons so they couldn't run away and then left them. What weapons they had were in bad repair and little ammunition was on hand. They were hungry, cold, and scared. The hate I had for any Iraqi dissipated. These people had no business being on a battlefield."
(SHersh, New Yorker , May 22, 2000)

American pilots bombing and strafing, with depleted uranium weapons,
helpless retreating Iraqi soldiers who had already surrendered,
exclaimed:

"We toasted him…. we hit the jackpot….a turkey shoot….shooting fish in a barrel….basically just sitting ducks… There's just nothing like it. It's the biggest Fourth of July show you've ever seen, and to see those tanks just `boom', and more stuff just keeps spewing out of them… they just become white hot. It's wonderful." (L A Times and Washington Post, both February 27, 1991)

Nearly 700,000 American Gulf War Veterans returned to the US from a war that lasted just a few weeks. Today more than 240,000 of those soldiers are on permanent medical disability, and over 11,000 are dead. In a US Government study on post-Gulf War babies born to 251 veterans, 67 per cent of the babies were reported to have serious illnesses or serious birth defects. They were born without eyes, ears, had missing organs, fused fingers, thyroid or other malfunctions. Depleted uranium in the semen of the soldiers internally contaminated their wives. Severe birth defects have been reported in babies born to contaminated civilians in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan and the incidence and severity of
defects is increasing over time. Women in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and
Iraq are afraid now to have babies, and when they do give birth, instead of asking if it is a girl or a boy, they ask `is it normal?'.

Soldiers who served in Bradley fighting vehicles, where it was common to sit on ammunition boxes where depleted uranium ammunition was stored, are now reporting that many have rectal cancer.

For the first time, medical doctors in Yugoslavia and Iraq have reported multiple in situ unrelated cancers developing in patients, and even in families who are living in highly contaminated areas. Even stranger, they report that cancer was unknown in previous generations. Very rare and unusual cancers and birth defects have also been reported to be increasing above normal levels prior to 1991, not only in war torn countries, but in neighbouring countries from transboundary contamination.

Dr. Keith Baverstock, a senior radiation advisor who was on the staff of the World Health Organization, co-authored a report in November 2001,warning that the long-term health effects of depleted uranium would endanger Iraq's civilian population, and that the dry climate would increase exposure from the tiny particles blowing around and be inhaled for years to come. The WHO refused to give him permission to publish the study, bowing to pressure from the IAEA. Dr. Baverstock released the damning report to the media in February 2004. Pekka Haavisto, Chairman of the UN Environment Program's Post-Conflict Assessment Unit in Geneva, shares Baverstock's anxiety about depleted uranium but UNEP experts have not been allowed into Iraq to assess the pollution.

"DEPLETED URANIUM SCARE" - Claimed by President George W. Bush on the
official White House website:

"During the Gulf War, coalition forces used armor-piercing ammunition
made from depleted uranium, which is ideal for the purpose because of
its great density. In recent years, the Iraqi regime has made
substantial efforts to promote the false claim that the depleted uranium rounds fired by coalition forces have caused cancers and birth defects in Iraq. Iraq has distributed horrifying pictures of children with birth defects and linked them to depleted uranium. The campaign has two major propaganda assets:"

"Uranium is a name that has frightening associations in the mind of the average person, which makes the lie relatively easy to sell; and Iraq could take advantage of an established international network of
antinuclear activists who had already launched their own campaign
against depleted uranium."

"But scientists working for the World Health Organization, the UN
Environmental Programme, and the European Union could find no health
effects linked to exposure to depleted uranium."

The US war in Afghanistan made it clear that this was not a war IN the third world, but a war AGAINST the third world. In Afghanistan where 800 to 1000 tons of depleted uranium was estimated to have been used in 2001, even uneducated Afghanis understand the impact these weapons have had on their children and on future generations:

"After the Americans destroyed our village and killed many of us, we
also lost our houses and have nothing to eat. However, we would have
endured these miseries and even accepted them, if the Americans had not sentenced us all to death. When I saw my deformed grandson, I realized that my hopes of the future have vanished for good, different from the hopelessness of the Russian barbarism, even though at that time I lost my older son Shafiqullah. This time, however, I know we are part of the invisible genocide brought on us by America, a silent death from which I know we will not escape." (Jooma Khan of Laghman province, March 2003)

In 1990, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) wrote a
report warning about the potential health and environmental catastrophe from the use of depleted uranium weapons. The health effects had been known for a long time. The report sent to the UK government warned "in their estimation, if 50 tonnes of residual DU dust remained `in the region' there could be half a million extra cancers by the end of the century <2000>." Estimates of depleted uranium weapons used in 1991, now range from the Pentagon's admitted 325 tons, to other scientific bodies who put the figure as high as 900 tons. That would make the number of estimated cancers as high as 9,000,000, depending on the amount used in the 1991 Gulf War. In the 2003 Gulf War, estimates of 2200 tons have been given — causing about 22,000,000 new cancer cases. Altogether the total number of cancer patients estimated using the UKAEA data would be
25,250,000. In July of 1998, the CIA estimated the population of Iraq to be approximately 24,683,313.

Ironically, the UN Resolution 661 calling for sanctions against Iraq,
was signed on Hiroshima Day, August 6, 1990.

THE PARALLELS

War can really cause no economic boom, at least not directly, since an increase in wealth never does result from destruction of goods. – Ludwig von Mises

The parallels between Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan are startlingly similar. The weapons used, the unfair treaties offered by the US, and the bombing and destruction of the environment and entire infrastructure. In every city of Iraq and Yugoslavia, the television and radio stations were bombed.

Educational centres were targeted, and stores where educational
materials were sold were destroyed on nearly the same day. Under UN
sanctions, Iraq was not even allowed pencils for schoolchildren.
Cultural antiquities and historical treasures were targeted and
destroyed in all three countries, a kind of cultural and historical
cleansing, a collective national psychic trauma.

The permanent radioactive contamination and environmental devastation of all three countries is unprecedented, resulting in huge increases in cancer and birth defects following the attacks. These will increase over time from unknown effects due to chronic exposure, increasing internal levels of radiation from depleted uranium dust, and permanent genetic effects passed on to future generations. Clearly, this has been a genocidal plan from the start.

What has happened to Human Rights, to the Rights of the Child, to civil society, and to common humanity?

It is up to the citizens of the world to stop the depleted uranium wars, and future nuclear wars, causing irreversible devastation. There are just a few generations left before the collapse of our environment, and then it will be too late. We can be no healthier than the health of the environment — we breathe the same air, drink the same water, eat food from the same soil.

"Our collective gene pool of life, evolving for hundreds of millions of years has been seriously damaged in less than the past fifty. The time remaining to reverse this culture of `lemming death' is on the wane. In the future, what will you tell our grandchildren about what you did in the prime of your life to turn around this death process?" (Rosalie Bertell, 1982)

THE DEEPER PURPOSE: G*O*D*

"We must become the owners, or at any rate the controllers at the
source, of at least a proportion of the oil which we require." (British Royal Commission, agreeing with Winston Churchill's policy towards Iraq 1913).

"It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas." (US President George W. Bush, Beaverton, Oregon, Sep. 25, 2000).

"If they turn on the radars we're going to blow up their goddamn SAMs
(surface-to-air missiles). They know we own their country. We own their airspace... We dictate the way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need." (US Brig. General William Looney in 1999, referring to Iraq).

Millions of years ago, before India crashed into the Eurasian continent and uplifted the Himalayas, the ancient shallow Tethys sea stretched from the Atlantic across what is now the Mediterranean, Black, Caspian and Aral seas. Rich oil deposits are now located where ancient life accumulated and `cooked' under just the right conditions to form large oil deposits in the ancient sediments. Long before 1991, Unocal in Afghanistan, Amoco in Yugoslavia, and various oil companies interested in Iraq oil deposits, had conducted extensive exploration and characterisation of oil deposits in the Middle East and Central Asian regions, including the northern half of India.

Britain has maintained an interest in Middle Eastern oil deposits for a century, and has been the staunchest military partner of the US since the first depleted uranium war in 1991 in Iraq. Germany, another military partner in Yugoslavia with forces now in Afghanistan, was one of the major economic beneficiaries of the breakup of Yugoslavia and the colonisation of the Balkans. US interest in Yugoslavia had much to do with building pipelines from Central Asia to the Mediterranean warm water ports in Yugoslavia. A silent and hidden partnership between the US and Japan provided large amounts of cash from Japan to finance the 1991 Iraq and 1995/1999 Yugoslavian wars, with additional help in Afghanistan by providing not only cash, but fuel for the war, from Aegis
warships of the Japanese Self Defense Forces in the Indian Ocean. Nippon Steel, Mitsubishi, and Halliburton are now partners in a Central Asian oil pipeline project. In 2004, despite much citizen opposition in Japan, the Japanese government has sent Self Defense Forces to Iraq for `reconstruction'. This action taken by the Japanese government, of placing troops on the ground in a war zone, will lead to rescinding Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, which forever prohibits military aggression by Japan.

THE IRON TRIANGLE (all under one roof): MILITARY, BIG BUSINESS,
POLITICS

The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

But what do oil, military partners, depleted uranium wars, and US
foreign policy have to do with nuclear weapons? The answer came to me in 1991 when I became a whistleblower at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory near San Francisco, California. Richard Berta, the Western Regional Inspector for the Department of Energy, told me "The Pentagon exists for the oil companies… and the nuclear weapons labs exist for the Pentagon."

Depleted uranium was used beginning in 1991 for three reasons:

To test the radiobiological effects of 4th generation nuclear weapons, which are still under development

To blur and break down the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons

To make it easier to reintroduce nuclear weapons into the US military
arsenal

Today, the US is number one in 4th generation nuclear weapons research and development, followed by Japan and Germany tied for number two, and Russia and other countries follow.

The Carlyle Group, a private massive equity firm, the 12th largest
defense business with an obscenely high profit margin, is a business
"arrangement" between the Bush and Bin Laden families, wealthy Saudis, former British Prime Minister John Major, James Baker III, Afsaneh Masheyekhi, Frank Carlucci, Colin Powell, other former US Government administrators, and Madeleine Albright's daughter. The Carlyle Group is the `gatekeeper' to the Saudi investment community. It owns 70 percent of Lockheed Martin Marietta, the largest military contractor in the US, and because Carlyle is privately owned, has no scrutiny or accountability whatsoever. A journalist who calls himself `a skunk at the garden party' described investigating the Carlyle Group, he said `it's like shadow boxing with a ghost'. The Group hires as lobbyists the best known politicians from around the world, in order to influence the politics of war, and privately profit from their previous public policies. The conflict of interest is obvious: President George W. Bush is creating wars as his father, former President George Bush, is globally peddling weapons and "protection". Lockheed Martin Marietta now owns Sandia Laboratories, a private contractor that makes the trigger
for nuclear weapons, with a Sandia laboratory facility across the street from Los Alamos and Livermore National Laboratories, where the nuclear bombs are made.

At the May 2003 University of California Regents meeting which I
attended, Admiral Linton Brooks was present and newly in charge of the nuclear weapons programme under the Department of Energy. Admiral Brooks informed California Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante and the UC Regents that the management contract for the nuclear weapons laboratories, held unchallenged by the University of California for over 60 years, will be put up for competitive bid in 2005. The favoured institution, with a faculty member on the `blue ribbon committee' making the contract award, is the University of Texas. This privatisation and management contract transfer of the US nuclear weapons programme will put control of the US
nuclear weapons programme close to the Carlyle Group. The incestuous
relationship between the US government, private companies, and the Bush and Bin Laden families in a way answers many of the lingering questions in everyone's minds about many of the ill fated decisions and policies that have been implemented.

* * *

Leuren Moret has worked at two US nuclear weapons laboratories as a
geoscientist. In 1991 she became a whistleblower at the Livermore
nuclear weapons lab, and since then has worked as an independent citizen scientist and radiation specialist in communities around the world, and contributed to the UN subcommission investigating depleted uranium. Her research is available on the internet and at http://www.mindfully.org
<http://www.mindfully.org/> . In 2003, she testified at the
International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan held in Japan. She is a Global Research Contributing Editor, a City of Berkeley Environmental Commissioner, and the Past President of the Association for Women Geoscientists.

Copyright Leuren Moret 2004. This article was published in World
Affairs – The Journal of International Issues, July 2004

The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR407A.html

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/> grants permission to cross-post
original Global Research (Canada) articles in their entirety, or any
portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text &
title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca <http://www.globalresearch.ca/> . For
cross-postings, kindly use the active URL hyperlink address of the
original CRG article. The author's copyright note must be displayed.

For media inquiries: editor@g...


The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/> grants permission to cross-post
original Global Research (Canada) articles in their entirety, or any
portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text &
title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca <http://www.globalresearch.ca/> . For
cross-postings, kindly use the active URL hyperlink address of the
original CRG article. The author's copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research (Canada) articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: editor@g...

To unsubscribe from Global Research (Canada) Feature Articles, send an email to: editor@g... with unsubscribe in the subject line

All Global Research (Canada) outward messages are scanned for viruses.

To visit our home page:
www.globalresearch.ca <http://www.globalresearch.ca/>
Centre for Research on Globalization
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alisa Donating Member (169 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #32
44. A sad thank you to you both for the awful news about Clark.
You have affected me, I will not work for Clark any longer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #44
92. I have seen your post #75....
And I am going to read it fully. Thank you for links to the Centre for research on Globalization website.

Thus far, in perusing the site....I am reading opEds that are not from mainstream International scientific journals of any kind. One passage in one of the opinion piece links Gulf War Syndrome directly to DU without any evidence beyond just stating that they are linked. Cause and effect linkeage are exactly what our medical community is there for....to study and determine the actual cause of an effect.... Thus far, medical studies have not shown that link.

The problem with DU is that although I believe that there is a reasonable cause to believe it may be harmful under particular circumstances... that assertion has not been backed up by the scientific evidence....unless one goes to it's catastrophic use (at levels 10000X beyond how it has been used to date) analysis...

There is certain hype about DU that although useful (as I don't like war nor weapons nor unrequired death and destruction) at keeping it on the forefront of priorities for research......does not meet the test in medical research communities that have allowed scientist to conclusively link various deseases to it. It is not to say they never will....but they have not to date.

If you actually read General Clark's answers on DU, that is basically what he says. He is not one to turn a blind eye....but DU has become a political issue when it should be treated as a medical one. Too much effort has been placed in denouncing the use of DU, and too little emphasis has been placed on proper medical research to answer the questions that the political antiglobalization groups should want answered.

Currently DU is a political "Hot potato" being utilized to make claims that are simply not backed up by science.....

It would take a Rhodes Scholar General to come into the White House and order more medical research to take place until a medical consensus or conclusion is reached as to what the harms of DU are....and under what circumstances (level of exposure, etc...). Currently, the studies that have been done have not concluded enough about Depleted Uranium.....based on the manner in which it is used.

....so I do think that asking ALL of our politicians what they think about the use of DU is useful.....But to single out the General and call on him to conclude based on unconclusive evidence that he should be the one to call for an end to it (when it is found in the arsenal of many Western Power)is asking a lot from one man....and nothing from the rest (in particular those in power, e.g., Senators and Representatives).

The verdict on DU is still out regardless of the fact that DU, for those on the extreme left has become one of "their" pet issue....

Unfortunately, they will not find any candidate to support based on the litmuth test...that a candidate should just denounce it's use and just be done with it. If there is such candidate....he would be in the category of a vanity candidate...running on highlighting certain "one voter" issues, garnering 2% of the vote....but not to win the White House.

I will give Wes Clark credit for at least answering the question posed to him....that appears reserved only for him, while the others go about their business of promising the world to us....and everything else. Wes Clark is a man of science.....and I doubt that when conclusive medical evidence of the dangers of DU are found, that he would try to ignore or downplay them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alisa Donating Member (169 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #92
123. Thank you for your reply
and your thoughts.

I have yet to study those links you've offered, and I will. I just want to point out that we "the people" need to stand up and set limits, or while that is happening (as I am now), it appears our representatives will not do it on their own. And when these limits and demands are being set, they unavoidably become political. I guess that's just how it goes. Yes it is also a medical issue but obviously not an issue to heal a naturally occurring illness. DU has crossed the line from merely a medical issue to a moral and political issue.

I am not persuaded that DU is harmless, far from it. Please read the material I painstakingly paginated for you. I think you will find something very very frightening and evil in it. These are my conclusions from my research. This is not my pet issue, it fills me with shame.

Perhaps your material will lay aside my concerns, we will see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #123
126. Sounds reasonable....I will read your info.
We are, after all, on the same side.

I certainly don't want to appear to glorify DU, as I have yet to find any "good" in it or anything positive about it....but I don't want to make it worse than it is....as it is already bad enough, IMO.

And yes, I do believe that it is a medical research issue....as the protestation against using it stems directly from the medical mayhem it allegedly inflicts long term.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #44
118. Then who?
Every Senator whose name appears on this board for consideration votes for and authorizes the use of DU. And what is really sad, is that no one asks them one thing about their votes. Also, they if elected they could not change the policy...only Clark could. Why? Because only Nixon could go to China.

Many of the disgruntled charges brought against Clark, could only be changed by lobbying Clark. And only Clark can ever do anything about the military pork. The rest of the field cannot speak with gravitas, and don't know where the bodies are buried.

Isn't it time to ask Kerry-Edwards-Bayh-Feingold-and the endless stream of elected officials about the use of DU. But no one ever does. And yet, they control the authorization and purse strings. Go figure.

I read an interesting piece by a woman who is a Green. What I liked about her point of view was how pragmatically she saw this whole thing. We can protest bush all day and all night, everyday and everynight, and he will never listen to us. But a Democratic president could be forced to listen, because as much as they don't want to be bothered, they are ever so slightly more interested in our points. Now_someone untrusted by the military or without the credentials to challenge a particular practice would get shot down trying to out DU.

Again, only Nixon could go to China; only Clark can go to the Pentagon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alisa Donating Member (169 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #118
125. We need new leadership -- or leadership that will rise to ethical standard
I really like your point -
Nixon could go to China; only Clark can go to the Pentagon

I am not beyond pragmatics, still, I don't know if "only Clark" is true. The Commander and Chief of the armed forces can set these limits. If they truly mean it they can back it up with consequences, with our military, that will make it so. Not "truly meaning it" has us now confirming people who support the "legalizing" of torture.

I am very disappointed in our countries leadership. I feel our Democratic leaders haven't fought hard enough, now it is left to us, and we must do so. The Repub's, especially under the neocon agenda, are something we've never seen in America. They are synonymous with the worst regimes in history, in Germany, and China to name a couple.

Maybe I am an idealist but I will fight for my beliefs, why fight for mediocrity, or even worse, accept evil?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #125
132. I just searched for the article
I searched for the article I read, but I can't find it. Her name is Frances Piven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #32
53. Are you going to ask that same question to every candidate?
I'm afraid there will be no one left that could possibly win the election. Maybe if we get Clark in office we will not be waging wars...so we won't be using it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. Does he mean its not bad or just not radioactive
The "radioactive threat" from DU is grossly overblown tinfoil nonsense.

The toxic threat from it is quite another matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alisa Donating Member (169 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #35
43. What is it your saying here?
What difference? Do a goggle and find out about depleted uranium. Clark has lost me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #43
66. Are things really THAT simple? I don't think so.....
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 04:59 PM by FrenchieCat
Do you know where any of the politicians stand on DU? Do you know where John Kerry stood on it? What about Clinton? What about Howard Dean? What about John Edwards? I believe that Kucinich is the only one that has spoken out about it. None of the candidates' position is even known.

If we're chasing our Democratic Candidates around based on their agreement with well established science, we're being fools.

The fact is that the popular understanding of science is absymal in this country.

The facts about depleted uranium instead of the mythology.

The claim is made that Uranium tank shells represent "nuclear war." Nuclear war involves nuclear fission taking place in an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction. There is no nuclear chain reaction in Uranium tank shells. The fact that large number of persons confuse this issue is disturbing.

There are few to no dispassionate studies on the effects of DU. Do we understand the radioactivity of uranium isotopes (234, 235, 238)? Yes, and we can extraoplate effects based on the radiology of Uranium-238 (depleted uranium). U-238 is 18,000x less radioactive than 234 and 7x times less than 235.

Several reviews seem to indicate that the health effects of depleted Uranium are grossly overstated.

Here is a recent quotation from Chemical Reviews (Chemical Reviews, 2003, Vol. 103, No. 11, page 4269):

"The role of DU in the development of illnesses in
veterans of the Persian Gulf conflict has recently
been discounted, as the soldiers most directly in
contact with dust, namely those in or near explosions
of DU ordinance or armored vehicles or others who
treated or rescued the wounded, do not exhibit any
increase in the symptoms expected in those with
more direct exposure.
449,450 Depleted uranium has
40% less specific activity than naturally occurring
uranium, but as a heavy metal, it is still chemically
toxic.450 Thus, it follows that the kidney should be
the first organ directly affected by poisoning with
uranium, and yet these soldiers were not found to
have suffered any impairment of renal function.449"


Reference 449 is from the Institute to Medicine's report, commissioned by Congress on the etiology of Gulf War Syndrome: Pyridostigmine Bromide, Sarin, Vaccines;
Fulco, C. E., Liverman, C. T., Sox, H. C., Eds.; National Academy
Press: Washington, DC, 2000; Vol. 1.

This report seems to conclude that there is no evidence of the (expected) kidney dysfunction expected among Gulf War Veterans (I hope this is good news) and no lung cancer effects. There is not enough data to make a determination about other health effects.

In short, General Clark is merely stating the truth. Depleted Uranium has not yet been established as a major cause of health effects in Veterans. This is not to say that Gulf War Syndrome does not exist, only to say that DU has not been identified as the cause

-----------------
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en /

In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium.There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure.

In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.

Attached is an editorial written by Helen Caldicott that was sent to a friend who asked for her opinion. The comments fully sourced interspersed throughout her article is from occupational health worker who knows about depleted uranium.

Helen Caldicott, October 6, 2002 (Editorial published in the Baltimore Sun)

NEW YORK -- As the Bush administration prepares to make war on the Iraqi people -- for it is the civilian population of that country and not Saddam Hussein who will bear the brunt of the hostilities -- it is important that we recall the medical sequences of the last Persian Gulf war. It was, in effect, a nuclear war.

(COMMENT: No, in effect, it wasn’t despite the best attempts of revisionist historians.)

By the end of that 1991 conflict, the United States left between 300 and 800 tons of depleted uranium 238 in anti-tank shells and other explosives on the battlefields of Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The term "depleted" refers to the removal of the fissionable element uranium 235 through a process that ironically is called "enrichment." What remains, uranium 238, is 1.7 times more dense than lead. When incorporated into an anti-tank shell and fired, it achieves great momentum, cutting through tank armor like a hot knife through butter.

What other properties does uranium 238 possess? First, it is pyrophoric. When it hits a tank at high speed, it bursts into flames, producing aerosolized particles less than 5 microns in diameter, making them easy to inhale into the terminal air passages of the lung.

COMMENT AND SOURCE: (” In 2001 the UN Environment Program examined the effects of nine tones of DU munitions having been used in Kosovo, checking the sites targeted by it. UNEP found no widespread contamination, no sign of contamination in water or the food chain and no correlation with reported ill-health in NATO peacekeepers. Thus DU is clearly dangerous for people in vehicles which are military targets, but for anyone else – even in a war zone – there is little hazard. Ingestion or inhalation of uranium oxide dust resulting from the impact of DU munitions on their targets is the main possible exposure route.” (World Nuclear Association / Information / Uranium and Depleted Uranium, page 7) WWW.world-nuclear.org/info/inf14htm )

Second, it is a potent radioactive carcinogen, emitting a relatively heavy alpha particle composed of two protons and two neutrons. Once inside the body -- either in the lung if it has been inhaled, in a wound if it penetrates flesh, or ingested since it concentrates in the food chain and contaminates water -- it can produce cancer in the lungs, bones, blood or kidneys.

COMMENT AND SOURCE (“A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurement taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts to local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the possibility of significant exposure to the local populations was found to be very low.” (World Health Organization Fact Sheets / Depleted Uranium, page 2) WWW.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact257.html )

Third, it has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, meaning the areas in which this ammunition was used in Iraq and Kuwait will remain effectively radioactive for the rest of time.

COMMENT AND SOURCE: (“This second phase started in September 2001 and was concluded in March 2002 with the publication of the report “Depleted Uranium in Serbia and Montenegro – Post Conflict Environmental Assessment in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”. The report provided additional information and reveals important new discoveries on the environmental behaviour of DU. For example, we learned that still, more than two years after the end of the conflict, particles of DU dust can be detected from soil samples and from sensitive bio-indicators like lichen. However, as the levels were extremely low, it was only through the use of state of the art laboratory analysis that detection could be achieved. Based on our findings, UNEP could confirm that contamination at the targeted sites is widespread, though no significant level of radioactivity can be measured.” (Post Conflict Assessment Unit / Bosnia-Herzegovina, page 1) WWW.postconflict.unep.ch/actblhdu.htm )

Children are 10 to 20 times more sensitive to the effects of radiation than adults. My fellow pediatricians in the Iraqi city of Basra, for example, report an increase of six to 12 times in the incidence of childhood leukemia and cancer.

COMMENT AND SOURCE: (“Depleted uranium is not classified as a dangerous substance radiologically, though it is a potential hazard in large quantities, beyond what could conceivably be breathed. Its emissions are very low, since the half-life of U-238 is the same age as the earth (4.5 billion years). There are no reputable reports of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to ingested or inhaled natural or depleted uranium, despite much study. However, uranium does have a chemical toxicity about the same as that of lead, so inhaled fume or ingested oxide is considered a health hazard. Like most radionuclides, it is not known as a carcinogen, or to cause birth defects (from effects in utero) or to cause genetic mutations.” (World Nuclear Association / Information / Uranium and Depleted Uranium, page 7) WWW.world-nuclear.org/info/inf14htm )

Yet because of the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United States and the United Nations, they have no access to antibiotics, chemotherapeutic drugs or effective radiation machines to treat their patients.

COMMENT: (This reflects more wishful thinking by Dr. Caldicott. Neither the United States nor the United Nations impose sanctions with medicines, drugs or antibiotics. I could find the relevant UN document to prove this, but I don’t have the time and I think you’ll believe me.)

The incidence of congenital malformations has doubled in the exposed populations in Iraq where these weapons were used. Among them are babies being born with only one eye and with anencephaly -- the absence of a brain.

COMMENT AND SOURCE: (See the above World Nuclear Association citation: “Like most radionuclides, it is not known as a carcinogen, or to cause birth defects (from effects in utero) or to cause genetic mutations.” Also, “No reproductive developmental effects have been reported in humans, but studies are limited.” (World Health Organization Fact Sheets / Depleted Uranium page 4) WWW.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact257.html )

However, the medical consequences of the use of uranium 238 almost certainly did not affect only Iraqis. Some American veterans exposed to it are reported, by at least one medical researcher, to be excreting uranium in their urine a decade later. Other reports indicate it is being excreted in their semen.

COMMENT AND SOURCE: (“The cohort of individuals, about half of whom have embedded fragments, who are being followed at the Baltimore VA Medical Center as part of the DU Follow-Up Program, represents a group of Gulf War veterans who received the highest levels of exposure to DU during the Gulf War. Although many of these veterans have health problems related to their injuries in the Gulf War and those with embedded fragments have elevated urine uranium levels, researchers to date report neither adverse renal effects attributable to chemical toxicity of DU nor any adverse health effects they relate to DU radiation (McDiarmid, 1998b). They do, however note several biochemical perturbations in neuroendocrine parameters related to urinary uranium concentrations and in some subtle neuropsychological test findings; the clinical significance of these is unclear.” (A Review of the Scientific Literature As It Pertains to Gulf War Illnesses, page 5) WWW.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/du/mr1018.7.sum.ht... )

That nearly one-third of the American tanks used in Desert Storm were made of uranium 238 is another story, for their crews were exposed to whole body gamma radiation. What might be the long-term consequences of such exposure has not, apparently, been studied.

COMMENT AND SOURCE: (“DU exposes the skin to alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. In the case of short-term radiation from particulates deposited on skin, more than 95 percent of the radiation present is in the form of alpha radiation, which has a very short range and will not penetrate the dead outer layer of the skin and thus poses no documented health risk. Beta and gamma radiation from 238 U decay products can irradiate cells in the deeper skin layers. Sufficient mass of DU to create radiation sufficient to be of concern can occur with intact munitions and armor. However, DU munitions are shielded to limit emitted radiation, and thus people working with intact munitions or armor usually face little risk. The measured exposure to gamma and beta radiation from bare penetrator or armor is well below recommended occupational levels (CHPPM, 1998). As a point of perspective, to reach the occupational radiation dose limit for beta and gamma radiation, a soldier would have to hold an unshielded DU penetrator for more than 250 hours.” (A Review of the Scientific Literature As It Pertains to Gulf War Illnesses, page 4) WWW.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/du/mr1018.7sum.htm...

Would these effects have surprised U.S. authorities? No, for incredible as it may seem, the American military's own studies prior to Desert Storm warned that aerosol uranium exposure under battlefield conditions could lead to cancers of the lung and bone, kidney damage, non-malignant lung disease, neurocognitive disorders,chromosomal damage and birth defects. Do President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld understand the medical consequences of the 1991 war and the likely health effects of the next one they are planning? If they don't, their ignorance is breathtaking. Even more incredible, though, and much more likely, is that they do understand but don't care.

COMMENT: (Read that last sentence again! Never let science stand in the way of a blatant political agenda, as this last statement clearly shows. The fact is, there is no science in this entire article. It’s just pure propaganda.)

--------------

General Clark is probably right on this issue when he says:
NPQ | If the effects of depleted uranium have been so well
researched over the years, why the furor now in Europe?

CLARK | First of all, this was a long-term Serb propaganda
campaign started in the mid-1990s after the first NATO bombing
runs against the Serb forces in Bosnia. Since then, it has
ricocheted back and forth in the press. It has now picked up a
patina associated with European political dynamics vis a vis NATO.

To deflate this scare, those who want new testing on the subject
should do it in a comprehensive, scientific way and not on the
political stage.


Clark also goes on to explain in the article that the bombs using DU do NOT explode forming a cloud or Uranium Oxide.
They work like a shotgun.

The American weapon is a machine-gun bullet. It is not designed
to explode but to penetrate a target. It bores a hole through
armor with so much energy, because it is so heavy, that it spews
inside the tank or armored personnel carrier all kinds of bits and
pieces of that armor in a "spalling" or shotgun effect.
But there is no cloud that extends 300 meters.

Most importantly in terms of the current controversy, no NATO
soldiers were on the ground when any targets were hit with
depleted uranium weapons. They were fired by aircraft thousands
of feet overhead. So the idea that the Italians or anybody else
could have been exposed using or being near these weapons
doesn't hold water. There is no possibility that the Italians or
anyone else could have been exposed to any "cloud."

I suppose what is possible is that, if every day the Serbs went out
and erected a decoy that was then hit with 50 rounds of DU
weapons every day, there could have been, over time, a high
concentration of DU in one spot because the decay rate is very
slow. But all that even depends on how the target was hit, and
how it and the weapon were dispersed. But that seems unlikely. "
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alisa Donating Member (169 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #66
76. Please see reply 75 - it was meant as a reply to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #43
104. I'm willing to bet Clark never "had you" or you wouldn't turn tail
on one issue.

That's just an observation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alisa Donating Member (169 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #104
119. One big issue for me and I donated my time and money campaigning
for him.

Truly, I am very disappointed, I've seen him at his rallies and I think he had/has a lot to offer, but, yes DU usage is way too great a crime to ignore. To say that nothing is conclusive about DU usage rings like "global warming hasn't been conclusively proved".

Somewhere in this thread I noted that he is willing to reevaluate DU use, I will look for it again and read it. Maybe I will reevaluate him too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #29
60. Link Please...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #29
68. Clark never said that there's nothing wrong with DU.....
Why does Clark get blamed for DU....or does his answers (that don't say there is nothing wrong with DU) get distorted in an unreasonable way? Clark is being factual when he states that the science is not conclusive. Thus far, he is right.....literally.

No other Democrat is held responsible for this stuff, as though Clark actually invented and made this stuff himself.

It's a Red Herring and a third rail used against Clark exclusively ....while Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Dean, Biden, Warner, Rendell, Richardson, Obama, Bayh, Vilsack, Feinstein, Pelosi, Boxer, Gore, Clellan, and on and on...and none of the Republicans whatsoever are even ever asked the question....hell, the topic is not even raised with them.

In my mind, congress is the one that can and could have done something about this issue long ago...and didn't. But yet....you want to have a particular problem with Clark, who was not in congress, about this.

Clark has not said there is no affect whatsoever, and just shut the F*ck up about this. In fact, he is one of the few that is even willing to address the issue at all.

Wes Clark is listening....

Wes wasn't a vanity candidate...like Kucinich, who can say anything cause at the end he got what, 2% of the votes, if that, in most places? Maybe that's part of why Kucinich got absolutely not media coverage...who knows.

Wes Clark was not running for anyone's "signature" issue. Your principal stance is a good one, but reality is that the majority of voters ain't voting based on that....even Democrats. Wes Clark didn't run to to make a statement based on inconclusive science...beyond "We need to get Republicans out of the WH", which was his "signature" issue, Clark was and would be a wonderful candidate.

If you are a one "passion" issue voter....than that's fine... that's your choice. But for you to simply state, because Clark has not yet denounced DU, "well not him, then".....is asinine.

Clark, like all of the others (including Kucinich who has had his controversies with Reproductive Rights and Minority issues) will not be addressing every issue exactly the way you think the issue should be addressed. This expectation is just myopic and unreasonable, really.

But read my later post...where I provide you with the Facts on DU.....which are not conclusive, although some on the Left have picked it up as a "pet" issue...that is only brought up when talking about Wes Clark and no one else....like he made the shit, voted and approved it and is standing up saying "there is nothing wrong with it at all.....and you can take that to the bank".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnOneillsMemory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #29
108. CLARK AND DARPA, ACXIOM, POINDEXTER...HELL NO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lojasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
45. Neither
Clark/Boxer wouldn't win.
I would vote agaist Clark/Bayh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemDogs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. Neither
Although I will vote for Democratic ticket no matter what.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
50. Dean/Boxer or Gore/Boxer but never Clark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #50
62. Clark Is A Beacon Of Hope In this Time Of Darkness
Nothing against Boxer, Gore, or Dean
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. He's not my beacon of hope. He's a carpetbagger Dem in my book
and will be so until he proves himself otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. He's Already Proven Himself
and you know it. By the way, who did you support in the primaries? Just asking..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. It should have been obvious by my avatar.
No, Clark has not proven himself to me.

Howard Dean has far more credentials as a Democrat than Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vikegirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #67
73. Credentials?
You have to have "credentials" to be Democrat? That's a tad elitist. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #73
77. Unlike Clark, Dean started his Democratic days doing grunt work for
Carter's 1980 re-election campaign. His dedication caught the eye of one of Vermont's Democratic patrons, who encouraged him to run for the chair of his local Dem Committee. He won that chair and after a couple years doing that, he ran for state rep as a Democrat. After he moved from his district, he ran for lieutenant governor as a Dem and won that. He was propelled into the governor's office upon the sudden death of the elected governor. Dean did such a great job as VT gov that the people re-elected him 5 times.

That is what I call building a resume or credentials as a competent Democratic political leader.

How many civilian political elections has Clark run and won? Let's see if we include his attempt at Prez, that makes it 0 wins for 1 run. Were there any others?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vikegirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #77
86. So my father....
...can't be a Democrat now because he's spent 52 years voting Repug, is pro-NRA and is un-PC. He doesn't have the "credentials." I'll tell him he shouldn't have switched parties.

(And this premise probably insinuates that since you over over 1000 posts, you have more "credentials" than me to be on DU.)

Okie-dokie.

(BTW - I love Dean, but I also love Clark. Can't we all just make peace? :-( )

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #86
88.  He can be a democrat....


But I wouldn't vote for him to be president.

Slight difference there between becoming a dem and becoming a dem to run for president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vikegirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. You don't even know him!
:-)

He's changed a lot, thanks to the Bush Admin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #77
95. Ronald Reagan helped out the Democratic Party much the same way
before he became a Republican. So are you going to tell me Ronald Reagan was actually a Democrat when he ran for President?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #95
144. But Ronnie was a solid Republican when he ran for Prez, and he had
run as a Repub when he won the CA Governor's seat BEFORE running for Prez in 1980. He did try running for Prez before 1980, but he knew that his chances were slim and needed the experience, but at least Ronnie had built up Republican credentials by 1980 to convince Republicans that he would be good for them.

Now, what civilian political office did Clark win as a Dem before he ran for the Dem Prez nomination in 2004? Oh, right NONE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #64
70. We know YOUR book....
inside and out....and consider it a "trash" novel. Since Clark was in the military until 2000, he didn't align himself with a party. That hardly makes him a carpetbagger....except from those jealous ones that resent him because he took some of Dean's popularity by entering the race.

Grow up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #70
78. My book is very sound and Clark's argument that he's a bonafide Dem
is trash. He's fundraising stint for Bush and Cheney in 2001 doesn't help alleviate suspicions about Clark's Democratic credentials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #70
80. Since Clark was in the military until 2000...

"Clark was in the military until 2000, he didn't align himself with a party"

And when he got out, in 2001 he did align himself with a party...

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



Oh but those facts are just so inconvenient.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cidliz2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #64
106. I hate that attitude!
We want everybody to be Democrats and when somebody isn't a Democrat from birth he's a carpetbagger? Clark has voted Democrat for the last 12 years, doesn't that count for ANYTHING? Since when does changing your mind have to be held against you for LIFE? I wish people like you would just get realistic and realize that when you use that lame excuse you are telling potential Democrats that if you come into the Democratic Party, you will always be a 2nd class Democrat or a carpetbagger.....That makes for a nice WELCOME SIGN!

Do you remember the prodigal son in the Bible, when he returns to home he is welcomed like a hero! That is a Christian value.

Clark has much to offer us ALL OF US. His values are Democratic Values. Please just get over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #106
142. We only have Clark's word that he voted Dem the last 3 Prez elections
and his word is not verifiable on these votes, unlike the policy votes of elected officials.

I don't mind clark joing the Dem Party, but I expect him to earn his Democratic credentials by working his way up from the bottom to the top, not going for the top job of Dem nominee for Prez as his first civilian political campaign. That move showed me that he is a political jackal and was hoping that an apparently weak Dem Party would fawn over his general's medals and give him the nomination just because he's a general.

Oh, and he didn't register as a Democrat until AFTER he entered the Dem Prez Primary Race, so his word that he voted Dem for 12 years is very very suspect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cidliz2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #142
145. ANYBODIES word can be suspect
Look at his bio, it shows a character that is unparalleled in comparison to other candidates. While other candidates were striving to enlarge their bank accounts, Clark was serving our country and living in middle to low class residence (as well as his family) while he was serving his country. His intelligence, Rhodes Scholar, #1 in his class of over 500 at West Point, his writing, his leadership skills in the war in Kosovo, his record as Saucer (spelling?) in Europe all backing his intelligence. His bravery - jepordizing his career while fighting to try to come to the aid of the Albanians, his going back to fight after being shot in Vietnam, his fight to recover from his wounds and then electing to stay in the services, his repelling down a cliff to try to save soldiers from a firey crash when he was a General... Bravery!

I don't care if he was a Republican, what I care about is what kind of a HUMAN BEING he is. From all accounts (including being endorsed by scores diplomats and given a chest full of awards by the International Community) his character is what I am looking at. I also appreciated the way he DIRECTLY attacked Bush and didn't pussyfoot around his attacks. He would have been a great president.

If you are going to get hung up on what he freely ADMITTED TO over
a decade ago, then I feel really sorry for your apparent lack of ability to to have an open mind AND to be able see a treasure right in front of you when right there.

One of his most attractive attributes was that he WASN'T a seasoned politician (for the most part LIAR) He could have cut through a lot of the bullshit in Washington AND the fact that he isn't beholdin to anybody gave him more freedom to do what is needed to be done.

Actually his views were Democratic and the fact that he wasn't a hard line Democrat or hard line Republican was IN HIS FAVOR. That actually made him MORE ATTRACTIVE across party lines.

OPEN UP YOUR MIND and look at the BIG PICTURE not the narrow picture of "IF your not with us your against us.." Now who said that before?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #50
82. Good luck with the DNC thingy - way to gather support.
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 05:40 PM by robbedvoter
I am sure your guy will be grateful for the timely building of alliances. I know you'll blame others, but remember: every post like this loses you a number pf phone calls in support. keep it up. It's your game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #82
143. With supporters like you, Dean doesn't need enemies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
51. Boxer/Clark maybe. Boxer/RFK Jr. much better.
Why not go for the best?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
52. Neither / nor
I like Clark but by '08 the whole Army General thing will be played out and moot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #52
87. I can't vote for a war profiteer to be commander and chief..

Pentagon Ties Boost Clark's Business
Retired General Helps Firms Navigate Homeland Security and Defense-Procurement Maze
By Jacob M. Schlesinger and Sara Schaefer in Washington and Greg Hitt in Little Rock,Ark.

Wall Street Journal, 9/18/03

IN ANNOUNCING his presidential campaign, Wesley K. Clark promoted himself as the candidate best qualified to prosecute the war on terror. As a businessman, he has applied his military expertise to help a handful of high-tech companies try to profit from the fight. Since retiring from a 34-year Army career in 2000, Gen. Clark has become : chairman of a suburban Washington technology-corridor start-up, managing director at an investment firm, a director at four other firms around the country and an advisory-board member for two others. For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications. One is Acxiom Corp., based in Gen. Clark's hometown of Little Rock, Ark., where he formally launched his campaign yesterday. He joined the board of the Nasdaq-traded company in December 2001, as the company started to market its customer-database software to federal agencies eager to hunt for terrorists by scanning and coordinating the vast cyberspace trove of citizen information.

...

In aiming for the White House, Gen. Clark follows a long revolving-door tradition of government officials going back and forth between the public and private sectors. For now, at least, he plans to mix business and politics. "At this early point in the campaign, Gen. Clark will remain on his hoards," campaign adviser Mark Fabiani said this week. Gen. Clark did, however, miss a board meeting for Chicago-based Sirva Inc. yesterday to launch his campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #87
93. What's wrong with this???
So he wanted to help companies improve their capability's for homeland-security applications? Big Deal?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58300-2004Jan28.html


"He enjoyed much more success with Acxiom, the Little Rock database company.

Clark initially turned down an offer, made just after he left the military, to serve on Acxiom's board. But after the 2001 terrorist attacks, he agreed to tell government officials about the firm's capabilities without charge.

"We were doing some work with the FBI . . . and we contacted Wes again to get his ideas on how best we could help," said Acxiom chief Morgan. After the initial shock of the attacks, Clark and Acxiom saw the opportunity to make money, Clark as a lobbyist for the firm and Acxiom as a federal security contractor.

Clark registered as a self-employed lobbyist for the firm in January 2002. In May of that year he registered as a lobbyist for Acxiom on behalf of SCL LLC, an entity created to keep Clark's work for Acxiom separate from his work for Stephens. He was a lobbyist for Acxiom through Sept. 17 of last year, earning just under $500,000 total for his work, according to lobbying disclosures.

In a debate in New Hampshire, Clark said he was motivated by a conviction that "their technology will improve our security." Clark added, "I was insistent that we do so with a firm grip on the privacy issues." Morgan agreed that in board meetings and private conversations, Clark was fixated on making the best use of Acxiom's data without violating people's privacy."


That bastard Clark, wanted to help make our country safer! What a jerk!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #87
114. You quote the Wall Street Journal as a way of attributing
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 08:06 PM by FrenchieCat
Clark as a War profiteerer! Wow....desperation has found a place in you!
http://www.greenspeed.us/wesley_clark.htm
General Clark wants to talk about bicycles.
The retired general has been devoting much of his time to running a company making a new kind of electric motor that does not require gears or a transmission, but uses computer algorithms to maximize torque and efficiency. The company, WaveCrest Laboratories of Dulles, Va., hopes to put these motors into hybrid gas-electric cars or even hydrogen-powered fuel-cell cars one day. But for now, WaveCrest is focused on bikes. By adding one of its "adaptive motors" to a conventional bicycle frame, WaveCrest claims that its two-wheeler can go Lance Armstrong speed - 30 miles an hour - with hardly any pedaling at all. With General Clark in command, WaveCrest is looking to the military market first.
snip
Bicycles have been used in the military for more than a hundred
years. Six percent of British troops in the Boer War in southern Africa at the turn of the 20th century were on bicycles. Bicycles
were common during World War I. In World War II, the Japanese were able to take over the Malaysian Peninsula in 70 days largely because of the speed of its cycle- mounted troops, according to Jim Fitzpatrick, author of "The Bicycle
in Wartime'' (Bassey's, 1998).

In the 1960's General Clark witnessed the use of bicycles by the Vietcong to carry supplies down the Ho Chi Minh Trail in the Vietnam War. The Special Forces Command is trying out a half-dozen prototypes of General Clark's folding-frame bikes, which are powered by two 36- volt nickel-metal-hydride batteries and have a range of about 30 miles. Several other Army units and law enforcement agencies, including the police department in General Clark's hometown, Little Rock, Ark., are considering using them as well.

But some military analysts doubt that the electric bicycles will fit into American war

PS. There is a video on the website that illustrates why Wes Clark is a man of science.

I.T. experience: Clark served as a board member or adviser to several high-tech companies including Acxiom, Entrust and WaveCrest
Laboratories.
At Acxiom, he was a member of the board's audit
committee. He also scouted many high-tech companies as managing
director of Little Rock-based investment banking company Stephens.
He's an avid BlackBerry user.

He also impressed his colleagues with his understanding of economics and world markets as well as his management advice. One former business colleague says Clark made more accurate predictions about the wireless market than the technology analysts. Acxiom CEO Charles Morgan says that in 2002, when executives discussed how to reduce personnel costs, Clark was the first to raise the issue of how layoffs and pay reductions would affect morale.

Thanks to his membership on the board of data-mining
software vendor Acxiom, Clark is well-versed in the technology
available to comb private records in search of suspected terrorists.
Clark helped craft a report for the Markle Foundation
titled "Protecting America's Freedom in the Information Age,"
along with a group of tech-industry luminaries...
of the report's recommendations is that information owned by private companies that is relevant to the fight against terrorism should be left in the companies' hands and not consolidated into government databases.

Full article at http://www.cio.com/archive/011504/candidates.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal43110 Donating Member (687 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
54. I like Dean/Boxer or Gore/Boxer
Although if Dean gets DNC chair, he has promised not to run for president. And since I hope he gets DNC chair, I realize he may not be a factor in the '08 presidential race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
55. Bayh is a waste of skin, ok ?
He's an empty headed stuffed shirt pretty boy who hasn't had an original thought in his entire priviledged life.
He's living off his daddy's name and will say whatever the audience he's in front of at the moment wants to hear.

I'd rather vote for a ficus tree.


And yes, I live in Indiana.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #55
83. Agreed, Bayh is a lightweight
He's a professional politician, something that we DONT need right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #55
94. hippiechick, since you're in Indiana, is Bayh anti-choice? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #94
98. Honestly, it depends on his audience.
He's a master at taking a non-position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #98
109. no wonder no one knows.
:eyes: Thanks. I thought it was VERY odd when I googled for his position there wasn't ONE statement Bayh.. for or against abortion. Pretty bizarre. That tells me he's anti-choice until I hear otherwise from HIS mouth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrGonzoLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #55
105. The past few days...
he seems to be growing a spine. Voted against Rice, today criticized how the war is being run along with Kennedy...maybe he figures he's safe enough now that he can start doing that. :shrug:

He's gone up a few points in my book, but still a way to go, but four years is a long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
56. Kerry/Boxer
i'll run off and hide now. consider this a drive-by posting. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melnjones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #56
101. ha ha! :-)
does this mean we've been "kerry-ed"?
Guess it's not a poll. Still funny though.

Faye, as long as you're drive-by posting, I have a joke. What goes clip clop clip clop clip BANG clop clip clop clip clop






...







An Amish drive-by.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KissMeKate Donating Member (741 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
61. build the democratic party- and it matters less who we run.
we could run superman and still lose the red states, dont put your eggs all in pone basket. The party needs more people invested in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesEtoiles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
89. Edwards/Bayh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnOneillsMemory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
110. CLARK AND DARPA, ACXIOM, POINDEXTER--HELL, NO AGAIN..
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web/acxiom%2Bwesley%2Bclark%2Bdarpa

I'm going to post this repeatedly, every time the topic of the Genius Generalissimo comes up which will be often through 2008.

Just Say Fuck No to Big Brother. Wesley Clark is NOT our savior from the neo-cons, ok?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #110
112. Clark isn't "from the neocons"; please educate yourself n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnOneillsMemory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #112
116. I wrote "he is not our savior from the neo-cons." as in, he won't save us.
He was on the council of advisors who told Congress to get used to the war because the occupation of Iraq would be for 5 years and cost a quarter trillion dollars.

Despite his public tsk-tsking over mistakes in the 'prosecution,' he has been a behind-the-scenes advisor.

It was Dennis Kucinich who pointed this out during the primary debates on live TV. I thought I saved the link to the transcript but I'm not finding it. I remember because I was the one who found it in the transcript and posted a WTF? thread here at DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #116
121. Gee, I'm overwhelmed with your
"facts" that sit right there in your hip pocket.

Can I get anything to back up the "told congress to get used to the war because of the occupation of Iraq would be for 5 years and cost a quarter trillion dollars" quote?

I remember him testifying before both houses of congress about the the fact that there was no need to go to war against Iraq at that time...that time was on our side.

The Iraq Debate
Three Views on Moral and Ethical Dilemmas Posed by War
Sept. 27 2002 -- Attacking Iraq -- Is it right? Is it justified? Is it necessary?

The debate about United States policy toward Saddam Hussein has reached a fever pitch on Capitol Hill and the United Nations -- indeed, all across the globe.

In daily speeches and testimony President Bush and his Cabinet members are making the case that the Iraqi leader has chemical and biological weapons, and is close to creating a nuclear weapon. They are also suggesting Iraq has close ties with al Qaeda -- making Saddam a legitimate target in the ongoing "war on terrorism."

Recent polls indicate the nation is split over the use of military force to end Saddam's regime -- most Americans favor the notion of "regime change," but are wary of the Bush administration's unilateral push.

The nation seems to be inching closer than ever to another armed conflict with Iraq. All Things Considered senior host Robert Siegel interviews three people with a unique perspective on the debate -- a military general, a political philosopher and a theologian -- "all concerned about the intersection of morality, war and law," Siegel says.

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/war_interviews/index.html

Clark enters the spin zone
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2004_01_11_archive.html

Actual "FULL" Transcript of Clark's 2002 testimony to Congress
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/clark.perle.testimony.pdf

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnOneillsMemory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #121
134. September 23, 2003 Washington Post transcript. Here ya go.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A433-2003Sep25¬Found=true

SEIB: Turning on Iraq to Congressman Kucinich and Reverend Sharpton, you've both been outspoken critics of the war and have said, in fact, you'd bring the troops home. But the fact is that as of now the troops are there, the United States is committed.

Would you vote--will you vote yes or no on the $87 billion? And if the answer is no, what's the message you would send to the troops who are there today?

KUCINICH: The message is now I will not vote for the $87 billion. I think we should support the troops and I think we best support them by bringing them home.

Our troops are at peril there, because of this administration's policy. And I think that the American people deserve to know where every candidate on this stage stands on this issue, because we were each provided with a document--a security document that more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion.

A matter of fact, General Clark was one of the authors of that document that was released in July.

So I think the American people deserve to know that a candidate--and I'm the candidate who led the effort in the House of Representatives challenging the Bush administration's march toward war, I say bring the troops home unequivocally. Bring them home and stop this commitment for $87 billion, which is only going to get us in deeper.

After a while, we're going to be sacrificing our education, our health care, our housing and the future of this nation.

SEIB: Congressman?

KUCINICH: Bring them home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnOneillsMemory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #134
135. WesClark is outted by Kooch for pushing the occupation to Congress.
But his campaign interviews sound so...reasonable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #135
137. Wait a sec...
WHAT "document that was released in July?"

I love Dennis, but that WAS a political campaign, and you do KNOW how politicians are.

So -- WHAT "document that was released in July?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #135
140. Can we get a link to this "security" Document?
Couldn't bet Top secret as Dennis brought it up in a "hit and run" on General Clark in a debate.

I'd like to see it. Please have this document signed by General Clark reveal itself.

Thanks in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #110
115. Clark ain't No Big Brother.....and is not a Neo-con....and is the only one
That talked about PNAC and Neocons apart from a few radio talk show hosts...to the point that now the media is starting to use the words to describe Bush's agenda......

Clark and Acxiom; Or: Why Privacy Is A Myth and why CappII and Acxiom are not the same thing

Clark's involvement with Acxiom is a non-issue, like many other non-issues many seem to be pursuing. The problem isn't Acxiom, which is merely another company taking advantage of capitalism and angling for a lucrative contract. The problem is the CAPPS II program created by the government, and not because it violates privacy. Again, the information is already out there and was never private to begin with. Nobody broke the law to obtain it.

The concern is that the CAPPS II program is not foolproof, and innocent people will be scrutinized, which already occurs under the system in place. CAPPS II could only be an improvement over the current system if it is subjected to proper protocols of oversight and scrutiny to prevent abuse.

At issue is Clark's work lobbying on behalf of an Arkansas corporation called Acxiom, which maintains a database of legally obtained information that it provides to telemarketers or research groups. Acxiom won a contract from the Pentagon to assist in building a passenger database called CAPPS II that airlines would use to screen for potential terrorists. According to an Acxiom executive and government officials who attended the meetings, Clark was vigilant about insisting that privacy rights be balanced with security needs.

CAPPS II was to be a database of information such as housing stats, telephone numbers, and car ownership. The government can already access most of this information through DMV records (see the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994), state property tax records and phone bills for toll free government numbers, which document the number of every caller, listed or unlisted.

Many people are surprised when they learn about the wealth of publicly available information: extensive property records; birth, marriage, and death certificates; court records. Ever hear of The Smoking Gun? They post legally obtained court records concerning the famous and infamous on-line.

Thanks to the Social Security Administration, the federal government possesses the social security number of every citizen who has one, along with his or her name, birthdate, and latest known address. Based on annual tax filings, the government knows where people work, how much money they make, how many dependents they claim and the social security numbers of those dependents. They know even more about those who itemize, such as where their children attend daycare or whether the person likes to gamble.

The truth, privacy is a myth when it comes to personal information.



The CAPPS II program bears some similarity to work done by ClearForest, an Israeli company that specializes in data-mining. The US government has purchased a program from ClearForest that will scan 200 pages per minute, analyzing text and performing 'structural extraction.' According to ClearForest developers, this is an "extraction of entities from the document based on their visual characteristics and relative position in the document layout," which it then translates into XML. The program uses a learning algorithm to hunt for relationships between the various documents. For example, in Israel, the program noted an increase in the number of calls made from homes of suspected Palestinian militants days prior to an attack. Now the program scans phone records for such increases to predict attacks and pinpoint possible attackers.

Everyone wants to be safe. Nobody wants to board a plane only to discover that the person next to them is a hijacker, but nobody wants to be evaluated as a potential terrorist either, which is what programs like CAPPS II do.

Following 9/11, Congress voted away citizens' rights and passed the PATRIOT Act, which was ostensibly for fighting terrorism but in reality has often been applied to non-terrorist crimes, like drug trafficking, insider trading, and blackmail. Terrorism prevention was a ruse to convince lawmakers to broaden the government's powers to invade the privacy of its citizens at will with little oversight.

Some may argue that any tool that helps catch any kind of criminal is worthwhile, but it should be acknowledged that not everyone investigated, arrested, charged or even convicted of a crime is guilty. Thanks to advances in DNA technology, many innocent people have been released from our prisons. But what about those cases that do not involve DNA? It is statistically unlikely that false convictions are only made in cases involving DNA.

Clark, as he did while lobbying on behalf of Acxiom, stresses the need to balance citizens' reasonable expectations of privacy against the needs of the government to derail terrorism. He has called for a halt on any effort to expand the Patriot Act and believes the act itself it requires a complete review.

We have to be very careful of the PATRIOT Act. It was passed at a time of enormous perception of threat in this country. It was passed without full legislative analysis and review. Its been in place, a number of people have been arrested, a number of people have been deported. I think the PATRIOT Act needs a good, open air, public review, in the sunshine, before we retain it or modify it, or add to it.

...one of the risks you have in this operation is that you're giving up some of the essentials of what it is in America to have justice, liberty and the rule of law. I think youve got to be very, very careful when you abridge those rights to prosecute the war on terrorists.

The problem with efforts like the PATRIOT Act, the TSA lists and the new "Victory Act" bill, which among other things allows prosecutors to obtain records through administrative subpoenas, is that they insulate themselves with secrecy provisions that thwart oversight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnOneillsMemory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #115
117. Wesley's Acxiom was HACKED and 20,000,000 IDs were STOLEN!
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 08:55 PM by JohnOneillsMemory
What is your source for 'The Myth of Privacy' -? you didn't write that, FrenchieCat.

"According to an Acxiom executive and government officials who attended the meetings, Clark was vigilant about insisting that privacy rights be balanced with security needs."

Oh,an Acxiom executive. That's reassuring. And Wes sure SAYS nice stuff.

Acxiom was HACKED by a subcontractor who downloaded the identity info on 20,000,000 people and took them home on 30 compact discs. He was busted but not before the info was disseminated to other criminals.

This was one of the Three Mile Island-type leaks in the data industry.

That's Wesley's client. A..fucking..criminal..joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #117
120. Just trying to understand this...
I'm not familiar with the hacking incident. Is there a specific link in that search-list you could refer me to?

I'm also curious to what extent, or in what ways, you consider Clark responsible for hacking by a subcontractor. Should he have known it would happen and if so, could he have prevented it? What info was on the discs and what was done with them (or what potentially could be done with them)?

Serious questions; I'm not being sarcastic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #117
122. Please keep your language calm......hard to respond to you otherwise...
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 09:25 PM by FrenchieCat
Can you give me some detail about this Hacking....please? When, where and how. Thanks.

Here you are.....
http://blogs.salon.com/0002556/2003/09/28.html

Again.....Acxiom was not CAPPII...

And for your information....Privacy IS A MYTH....as I detailed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #117
124. Gee, Why don't we throw in the kitchen sink, while we are at it????
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 09:49 PM by FrenchieCat
Why and how Wes Clark gets the blamed for this, I don't know?

This guy was an employee for a firm contracted to do work for Acxiom....

Guess since I worked for Macy's via contract in San Francisco many moons ago, and an employee at the New Jersey store stole some clothes....that must make me guilty.

That's why it's hard to buy anything from the likes of poster John O'neill....cause conspiracy and association by 6th degrees of separation appears to be his calling card.

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7697
A Cincinnati man who plead guilty Thursday to cracking and cloning giant consumer databases was only caught because he helped out a friend in the hacker community.

Daniel Baas, 25, plead guilty Thursday to a single federal felony count of "exceeding authorized access" to a protected computer for using a cracked password to penetrate the systems of Arkansas-based Acxiom Corporation -- a company known among privacy advocates for its massive collection and sale of consumer data. The company also analyzes in-house consumer databases for a variety of companies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatrioticOhioLiberal Donating Member (456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #110
127. Bit of a fixation going here
Could be hazardous...take 2 asprin upon waking and you should be fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemDogs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #110
130. Absolutely agree -
It cannot be Clark. He might say the right things on the trail (although he doesn't always do that) but look at the ammunition they have, whether you agree or not. We can't afford to lose the votes of middle voters who care about civil liberties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #130
131. "middle voters who care about civil liberties"
It doesn't look like we're losing votes among "middle voters who care about our civil liberties." Most people who care about civil liberties voted for Kerry. We are losing votes among people who believe Democrats are "weak on national security," however.

It's not an either/or. General Clark has a record of working for equal opportunity, affirmative action, and taking on rightwing zealots, genocidal maniacs, Pentagon neo-cons, White House politicians, and many in-between.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #130
133. Oh, the Republicans are gonna throw stones at Clark
after the Patriot Act?

Oh, come ON!

And, as for some people here who think the purity test is an absolute, I remind you that voters seem to like someone they perceive as being similar to them. And, I have news for you people, MOST PEOPLE HAVE VOTED FOR BOTH SIDES OF THE TICKET AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER. The myth that "Clark was a Republican" only hurts him in the primaries, where, as we've seen, the Dems pick the WRONG candidate.

This last election shouldn't have been close enough to steal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
111. Clark/Boxer; I don't know who Bayh is, do tell n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HumblePiRSquared Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
128. Neither
Someone new on both ends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sleepless In NY Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #128
136. Clark/Boxer 2008... Dean for Chair
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
go west young man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
146. Definently Clark/Boxer!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC