Wes Clark is the BEST choice...

I HOPE he runs again. He's a quick study and seems to have learned a lot from his '04 run. Who else has the military experience he has? He should run but wait 'til after Obama announces his decision, but he shouldn't wait TOO long this time. We need to find a way for the media not to ignore him like they did last time. I bet if he gets in, Kerry will NOT get in. That would make HIM the only one with the experience needed in these times. Obama could be a good VP, but doesn't have the experience necessary yet. Being Clark's VP could be the perfect move for both of them.

Even though it will mean giving up his commentator job, he should declare ASAP. I've noticed he is frequently left out of the pundits' prognostications. It would behoove him to start visitng Iowa, NH and the other early primary states NOW.

And if he didn't want to, he wouldn't have run.

as soon as they realized he may run in '08. It was a brilliant move for him to be an analyst on Faux so the people who'd never hear of him would see him regularly.

Meanwhile, Faux News/GOP al dream race is McCain/Guiliani versus Hillary/Obama. Every Faux headline and story is designed to frame 2008 with the above choice.

A McCain vs. Hillary Clinton race is the neocons wet dream for GOP victory in 2008.

But the GOP is so frightened of Wes Clark, that Faux,Hannity, et al won't even acknowledge Clark's existence, or put his name in their polls!!!

and the biggest plus is by being on FAUX he has been experienced first hand by all the FAUX watchers, and let's just put it this way, He's no Alan Colmes.

The GOP wants to run against Hillary or Obama. They do not want McCain vs. Clark.

Yes, Clark is the ONLY candidate to SURPASS McCain . .in spades. If the DNC/DLC interfere or marginalize Clark this time like 2004, they're just plain RIGIDLY STUPID. Then I say to hell with the egotistical Democratic leadership. My only hope is in the Doctor to keep the next primary on task.

As for your need to mention Clark's "looks" and "height," what the heck do you think we're selecting here??? Not Mr. America. . .it's Mr. President.

After all this country has gone through these past 6 years, I really believe most voters will put priority on LEADERSHIP, not LOOKS.

Anyway, Wes Clark is a really good looking LEADER last time I looked. . . :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:



And his whole family are lookers. . .both inside and out. . .

for our candidate and because of TV we will never have a bald/ugly/short/fat president. Wes is perfect. John Edwards is a tad too pretty IMHO.

About Edwards, too. He (Edwards) also seems too contrived and boyish at the same time. I don't know if you or anyone else noticed, but he always touches his face, wipes his face/mouth, has these certain motions which bug the heck out of me. And his thumb-pumping in the air when his suit jacket lifts up too high as if his jacket is too small. I don't know. He just doesn't seem authentic. When I watch his speeches I know exactly when he's going to touch his face. Shallow? Probably. If he was deeper maybe it wouldn't bother me so much.

lips that drive me crazy.

Edwards contorts his lips in strange ways and Dean makes his lips look like the Joker.

he looked like a basset hound. I guess we are all somewhat shallow. The difference is I will vote for a basset hound.

and I agree with your comments. :D

It was a stolen election site that uses snarky parody to slam all involved and to show via photoshopped evildoers just how they think and act if they ever said a truthful word.

I'll check out your website. :hi:

that distracts me...but if he's our candidate...I'll happily ignore it.

He seems to have a habit of sticking his tongue out a lot and it's annoying. He did it a lot during his debate with Cheney as well as taking sips of water way too many times.

it drives me nuts.

It drives ME nuts, too! :hi:

and it distracts me, too.

He probably gets dry mouth and does it so he can keep speaking, but he needs to find a way to break the habit. I can't believe no one has coached him about it yet.

might put a democrat in the White House for 16 years.

After 8 years of Clark as president and all the foreign policy experience Obama would obtain...he'd be in a perfect position for 2016.
He's also be a seasoned politician, more mature and the southern raciest will have had 8 years to get comfortable with a black man. I think that a Clark/Obama ticket is our best bet for now and in the future.

experience in a president. Neither did the founders. And frankly, I think experience is not the most vital quality in a candidate. I think a certain kind of intelligence, one that can swiftly synthesize information is important. An ability to listen, to surround oneself with people of excellence, a broad and deep education, curiosity- those are all at least as important to me when choosing a candidate as experience.

given the fact that Clark has NATO diplomatic experience. HE will be seen as being prepared on ending the war in Iraq and handling foreign policy, IMO.

to become a POW.

to give Bush the authority to torture. Just so he can get votes from Bush's base.

the military experience would be a bonus.

the criteria I laid out, fits their favorite candidate. In any case, I think you may well be right about it fitting Clark, but I see Clark as another person who would make a good President, but doesn't have what it takes as a candidate.

And what is the necessary criteria, in your estimation, of a good candidate?

you don't think military experience is a strong "plus"? And frankly, Clark has all the qualities you mentioned as well as his military experience.

getting involved in some skirmish briefly at some point in his youth.

That's right.

:rofl:

What you just said about the founders made absolutely no sense since they CHOSE a military leader as our first president.

Did you really mean to say that?

so in that case, anyone who voted for the Iraq War should be eliminated.

military experience as well as being a very successful president. Of course military experience is not 'needed' in a president; FDR proved that. What we 'need' in a president is a person with outstanding intelligence, outstanding abilities to lead, to make studied decisions, diplomatic experience, and, in this day and age,foreign policy experience. Political and social experience is a vital quality in a candidate. To say that experience is not a vital quality for leadership is naive argument at the very least.

and a very good man. I like him alot. We have lots of good people to choose from.

I think he needs to settle for a major role in the next administration.

and I think Clark would make a GREAT president! :D

But he's not organized enough. I love Clark, so don't get me wrong.

And why don't you think Clark would make a great president?

And why don't you think Clark would make a great president?
=========
It's not that I don't think Clark would be a great President. It's the fact that he has not prepared for a campaign to run for President in 08. He does not appear to be "ready" for a presidential campiagn at this time. So, chill out:)...........I'm on your side:).......

Don't you think Clark would be a great Sec. of Defense or Sec. of State?

that Clark isn't prepared to run in '08? He may be getting ready to announce with all his ducks in a row. (When I said he's always ready, I was talking about Spongebob). ;)

Yes, I think he'd make a great Sec Def OR Sec State but I also think he'd be more useful as "The Decider." :D

He has all the experience he needs in all fields. Besides...he'd be pretty old (though not too old) to wait another 8 years to run. We can have both Clark and Obama...so why not be smart and try for both?

Others above mentioned the president doesn't need military experience.
True...but my first thought was...neither did bush* and cronies and look at the mess they got us into with their lack of understanding of any military planning. Clark's military experience gives him that valuable experience in strategic planning, foresightedness and prophetic ability to understand what will happen next. We NEED those skills to get us out of the horror in Iraq and prevent us from getting into another war with China or Iran or whoever......

To add to the list of Clark skills we must include the fact that he personally already knows many world leaders, has valuable negotiating experience and respect as an honest knowledgeable LEADER. If anyone can regain world respect for our country...Clark can!

I just don't see him taking the steps for a serious run. So, I think he's a great choice for an important position in the next administration. Sec. of Defense? Sec. of State? Sounds good to me.

Hope you work on his campaign. Hopefully this nation is thirsting for a candidate that has all the qualities clark contains; truly someone we can repect and look to do the equitable thing. The nation just has to grow up to realize that an 'aw shucks' someone who we 'can sit down and share a beer with' doesn't make for decent leaderhip.

Maybe you were watching different stations, but especially August through October 2004, it was seemingly all about Clark. And long before that he was on shows like Meet the Press. I'd never heard of him in late 2003 and my mom came running into the room one night after a replay of Meet the Press shouting something to the effect of "I Hope He Runs!!! I Hope He Runs!!! He's the first person in many years who is smart and seems honest!" He wasn't ignored in 2004 at all.

After the first caucus/primary, the focus went more toward Kerry, but that's expected. He chose not to run in Iowa and that's his own mistake which he now has said he regrets (though it seemed obvious at the time). Though after the first set of primaries, he got a lot of attention too because of his efforts in New Hampshire and later his win in Oklahoma.

I remember watching cable news a lot that year while in my dorm studying and the only person who probably got more media attention than he did was Howard Dean.

To those on DU who claim he doesn't have a chance, you're dead wrong. If he runs, he'll be a serious candidate.

but it seemed clear that the media wanted a Kerry-Edwards run-off, nearly ignoring Clark when he did so well in NH after not running in Iowa. He won in OK but that got little if any coverage also.

They often potrayed him as being as likely as Edwards to upset Kerry IF anyone could upset Kerry.

I among many others were very angry at the LACK of coverage he received.

cause I'll be waitin'! :)




Clark got so little coverage, they didn't even include him in the study that I linked above!

I knew YOU would have some facts about the Clark black-out! :hi:

:hi:

The ONLY thing:

A campaign bus got a speeding ticket, in OK I think. That was it! I seem to remember Wes Jr. saying something about that.

Even NOW, Tucker Carlson ONLY refers to Clark as having an "ill-fated campaign." :eyes: That's ALL I heard about him except for once about a month ago when a Dem. strategist actually mentioned Clark as her choice for the "dark horse candidate." I started a thread about it.

I think you mean 2003. Clark dropped out of the race in February 2004. And there was absolutely NO coverage of him starting about December 2003. Hell, the media reported his driver getting a ticket while campaigning in Oklahoma, but only relunctantly (and quietly) reported that, you know, he actually WON that state in the primaries.

I'm a bit confused as to what you mean.

Thank you. I was starting to think I was going nuts. :D

:D

maybe the end of Jan. I honestly don't know what's too early or too late for Clark, but I'm sure if he's running, he's already got his strategy worked out....Gore really is the only one who can afford to jump in late IMO.

Clark is NOT the choice we should be thinking of after a four (will be at least)
year war. Generals are trained to seek military solutions. We need
Diplomatic Solutions to this quagmire we are now neck deep in.

Charismatic or not, let's not try to out-McCain McCain (gag). Let's choose
a real democrat, someone who deserves the Presidency!

Hmm who could that be? Oh yeah the guy who actually won in 2000.

Eisenhower was a lousy president, so would Clark be. Trust me.

Yep I've got that old-time religion

Have you read up on him at all?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/7/18592/1665?detail=f

solution. He has stated repeatedly that military force is not the solution.

But you obviously haven't read up on Clark! You obviously don't know a rats ass about him or you wouldn't have made those inaccurate comments.

I personally never would have made a derogatory comment/accusation about another possible candidate unless I knew what I was talking about. That comment was as true as if I said, "I like bush because he's a hell of a visionary leader."

1) Diplomatic Solutions - Dayton Peace Accords: Check

2) What makes you think we don't need (partially at least) a military solution?

3) Clark is a REAL Democrat, and he comes from a family of Democrats. His father was active in Democratic politics.

4) There is NOBODY in this party who doesn't DESERVE the presidency. I like ALL of our Democratic potential
candidates, but Wesley Clark is my top choice.

5) Eisenhower was not, in my opinion, a "lousy" president. He warned us about the military-industrial complex.
Apparently he had an idea about what it would do to our country.

6) To arbitrarily connect Clark to Eisenhower makes NO sense. There may or may not be similarities, but to say
Clark or anybody else would be a certain way or do a particular thing just because someone else did is, well . . .
You get the idea.


There are many reasons why I like General Clark. I'll try and summarize off the top of my head:

1) His humble berginnings. His dad died when he was 4 years old. His mother raised him. She worked as a secretary
and they later lived with his grandparents. His grandpa worked in a lumber mill. He never made more than $60,000
a year till he was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, and then, if I have this right, he made about $90,000 a year.
He made over a million dollars a year as hge wrote books, and WORKED for it. He earned it. No corporate giveaways/
backscratching here.

2) His diplomatic experience (Dayton Peace Accords for example)

3) His leadership experience. As such, he had responsibility for the housing, education, health care and more, for
over 100,000 military families.

4) His educational experience. He taught economics at the college level, and is teaching now in California.
(Sorry, I don't have the name. Attn: Can any Clarkies out there help me out here?)


5) His intelligence - Rhodes Scholar. First in his class at West Point.

6) His compassion - I saw first hand evidence of this in his 2004 campaign. I can't remember where it was,
but there was a woman there who had been sexually assaulted by someone in the military, and was very upset.
She asked him about this at a town meeting. He told her that he would talk to someone and get something done,
and that this behavior was unacceptable. He talked to her personally afterwards. There was another instance where
he was asked a question about health care from a woman who had lost a child because of a lack of access to health
carfe. She was crying, and he walked over to her and took his time, and he comforted her. It was plain to see that this
made a difference. He cares for our soldiers and their families. He has said more than once that he loves our
soldiers. What is happening now to our men and women overseas is breaking his heart. Another example I saw
was his 60 Minutes II interview with Dan Rather. Nov. 2003 I think it was. If you saw it, you'll know what I mean.

7) All the work he did for Democrats in the 2006 elections. Tom Rinaldo has a complete list of what hisdid, and
the list is quite long.

8) His heroism. He is the most decorated general since Eisenhower.

9) His economic experience. He worked for the OMB in the White House. Not sure if it was for Clinton or bu$h 41.


. . . . to be continued

better yet...make that 4 stars.

I have a Wes Clark pic and quote on my IRAQ WAR: WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR flyer

Please educate yourself before posting.

My 53 years on this planet has taught me to view military leaders with some skepticism.

I does worry me moreover that he is under contract to Faux news.

YMMV

Son Of Spy

you would find some illuminating things.

THE "DUCK PRINCIPLE"
Ducks don't wear signs labeling them ducks. If it has a ducksbill, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, then you know it's a duck.
Wes Clark is one of the Democratic Party's foremost progressives by virtue of his actions over the years, not by any labels that people want to throw at him simply because he had a career in the military.
It is time to appreciate just how lucky we are to have this national treasure. Just a few items:

--Clark was always butting heads with the stereotypical "macho" military Neanderthals because he saw the horrors of war firsthand in Vietnam and always espoused "diplomacy first."
--Clark was one of the leaders of the all-volunteer Army created after the Vietnam debacle. To keep personnel in you had to do a good job of providing for their family needs, health, education, equal opportunity.
--Clark actually won environmental awards at bases under his command.
--When Clark was working at the Pentagon in the mid-90s, he was virtually the only voice crying out to intervene in Rwanda.
--It was Clark's voice, along with Madeline Albright, who persuaded the Clinton Admin., over the objections of the Pentagon, to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Tell the Kosovar Albanians that Wes Clark isn't a liberal, progressive, humanitarian.
--It was Wes Clark's voice prior to the Iraq invasion who urged that we exhaust all possible diplomatic means before any military action, including in testimony to Congress.
--It was Wes Clark who filed an Amicus Curiae brief in the University
of Michigan affirmative action case.
--It was Wes Clark who committed an act of political courage by appearing on the cover of the Advocate (gay rights magazine)

Since when is it some kind of a black mark for someone to give to his country by serving in the military if he does so in a principled manner? Wes Clark felt that he could make the most impact by providing a progressive voice to that institution.

So I'd have to say Wes Clark is my Democrat, liberal, antiwar, progressive "DUCK" because he has proved it.

Not since Bobby Kennedy have I been so inspired by a public figure as I have been inspired by Wes Clark.

The Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II is frequently held up now as the classic example of a Super Power, in this case the U.S., having pursued a policy of enlightened self interest in relationship to the rest of the world. At the close of WWII the United States was totally dominant, War had directly devastated the homelands of all of the other major powers in the World, but not America. Our military had sole possession of Atomic weapons, our economy was booming, but Europe, by contrast, was devastated. At similar prior points in history, a super power with no force existing capable of resisting it might have colonized and exploited to the max it's vanquished foes and weakened competitors. The United States certainly took advantage of the situation, but it also worked to rebuild the shattered economies and infra structures of the nations in Europe where the fighting was fiercest, including former American enemies like Germany and Italy. Massive amounts of foreign aid and humanitarian assistance flowed from the United States into Europe.

The Marshall Plan is named after its prime architect, then American Secretary of State George Marshall, otherwise known as General George Marshall, who went on to be awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize.

From Wikipedia:

"General of the Army George Catlett Marshall, GCB, US Army (December 31, 1880 – October 16, 1959) was an American military leader, Secretary of State, and the third Secretary of Defense best remembered for his leadership in the Allied victory in World War II and for his work establishing the post-war reconstruction effort for Europe, which became known as the Marshall Plan..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Marshall

I find that stereotyping is not a useful tool to use in evaluating an individual.

Everything is not the way it seemed.

The Marshall-Plan Hoax
Marshall Plan vs. Robbery, Murder and Destruction?
An Eternal Mockery of the German People!

Marshall Plan in lieu of Morgenthau Plan??
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/marshallhoax.html


Slaves to the Marshall Myth
http://www.mises.org/story/1374

than military leaders. Good CIC's pick the best military leaders for the job. Do you have some gripes about Geo.Washington, Ike Eisenhower, JF Kennedy, Jimmy Carter. et al? 53 years old? Pfhtt!
Age doesn't always guarantee wisdom.

but neither necessarily does longevity at DU.

It has been my experience that Secretaries of Defence
tend to skew the the results of CIC's military choices.

Dean Risk comes to mind...I mean Rusk.

Are you even aware of Clark's positions? I'd say no.

He has it all. We need to get him to run again.

"He has it all." Yes he does.:patriot:

I saw a speech he gave about six months ago and I was very impressed. I have a soft spot for Edwards because I have seen him speak in person a few times, but I could support Clark happily.

way back in August, 2005, i had the opportunity to ask General Clark a question (or two;-)) in a live blogging session he took part in ...

among the many topics asked and answered, General Clark made the following statement (and i quote):

Were we to pull out precipitously from Iraq, and destabilize the emerging political efforts there, the consequences would likely be a steep jump in the price of oil and hardship for millions of Americans as a consequence. But the consequences and thus our interests go beyond oil. As I said in my comment to Jai, potential for a civil war in Iraq would be high if we leave before there's an agreement and the militias disarm.

what concerns me, concerns me deeply, is the standard General Clark set for US withdrawal ... my assessment of what General Clark was saying was that the US really couldn't withdraw, or at least shouldn't withdraw, until 1. an agreement is reached and 2. the militias disarm ...

perhaps General Clark's views have changed in some way since our online chat ... if so, i hope those who know him better than i do can provide additional information ...

but reading his statement as clearly as i can, and let's say "twisting" his exact words as "i'm hearing them", i heard the General say that we are essentially trapped in Iraq until "Iraq is made whole (i.e. able to stand on its own two feet) and until the militias disarm ...

let me specifically ask those who are supporting General Clark, do YOU think we need to remain in Iraq (i.e. militarily) until those two conditions are met? do you think my interpretation of what General Clark said in some way misrepresents his position on these two essential conditions? i appreciate that there are many other aspects to his (and my) position ... but, nevertheless, as a bottom line, is General Clark saying that whatever else we do and whatever other efforts should be made, we cannot leave UNTIL IRAQ IS STABLE and at relative peace?

General Clark, and perhaps most or all other Dem candidates too, cannot have my vote or my support under these circumstances ... i respect General Clark ... he is clearly a person of great skill, compasssion and wisdom ... but in the end, setting the standards he's set for ending the US military occupation of Iraq is absolutely unacceptable to me ...

However I am not saying that you and he likely see eye to eye on this. Clark said the following in New Hampshire at an even that I was present at. It was in the context of him talking about an appearance he made on FOX where the news anchor was baiting him about whether CNN should have shown footage of an insurgent sniper shooting an American soldier, and what the family of that soldier should say to CNN. I'm taking this from a blog I wrote at the time, from the tape recording I made:


"I'd say to the families that I'm very very sorry for the loss of their loved one, but I don't think they should be asking CNN the question. I think they should be asking the Administration the question, of whether that soldier..."

At this point the crowd erupted into strong spontaneous applause, partially drowning out Clark 's words which I am able to pick up again with:

"...whether his life was worth the mission - because I don't think there's a strategy to win, and I don't think without a strategy to win we ought to be asking one more American soldier to die in Iraq, and that's the way I feel about it."

In context what Clark meant by "a strategy to win" isn't what Bush means by those words. It is, however, closer to what you describe; leaving Iraq somewhat stable and at a marginally livable level of peace. Where I know that you and Clark clearly differ is that he, the last that I knew, had not given up all hope of that still being possible. Because what he sees at stake here extends far beyond the borders of Iraq to ultimately include the entire Middle East and the world economy, Clark thinks the stakes are very high, which is why he is concerned about prematurely conceding that the worst case scenario is in fact the only remaining scenario. But Clark is of course a keen study of past conflicts, and in the military there is no place for wishful thinking. When it is time to cut your losses, when no other alternative is plausible or justifiably can be pursued at the cost it would take, it doesn't matter how badly you think "you can't afford to lose", it is simply reality. Regrouping, retreating, and dealing with that reality sooner rather than later then makes the most sense.

I know you well enough WT2 to know that you think that point was long ago passed, but I am trying to answer your question here. Clark has been advancing ideas, for the most part focused on regional diplomacy, that make up for him a minimal strategy to achieve the little that still has not been totally lost. That would include preventing a larger regional war, and leaving behind a non totally chaotic Iraq. Clark has supported various concepts of redeployment and partial withdrawal to force Iraq's security forces to accept greater responsibility. But if, in Clark's opinion, no strategy to achieve the minimal goals he hopes for remains plausible, Clark would say we needed to face that reality. At that point there is no justification for asking another American soldier to risk their life inside Iraq. That is what his comment meant to me. So that is another trigger for leaving Iraq, and I know that Clark is constantly weighing it.

all good points but does Clark no longer set those two conditions for US withdrawal?? ... as i said in my previous post, i appreciate that there are many things Clark would like to see happen that is clearly not happening (and clearly, with bush in office, is NOT going to happen) ...

but what of these TWO SPECIFIC conditions for withdrawal? have i fairly interpreted Clark's statement and is this still his position?

as an aside, and perhaps a future thread, any information you could provide re: Clark's position on this issue would be greatly appreciated ... General Clark responded to my question about US imperialism and "big oil" with the statement (i'm paraphrasing) that the US "should buy the oil it needs" ... the contracts discussed at the link are all perfectly legal; it's just that we've destroyed Iraq and made its government so weak and its people so desperate that the contracts are nothing more than imperialistic exploitation ... so, yes, we should buy the oil in a "real market"; what's happening hear is nothing short of theft and blackmail ... I would love to hear General Clark speak out on this issue ... in my view, it's what the whole war and occupation have been about since before it even began ... no time tonight to go around on that one though ... any research or info you could provide would be great ...

I would say No. That's because you are pulling up for discussion comments Clark made in the context of a spontaneous online discussion that took place at a different time quite a while ago. OR to put it another way, I don't think it was Clark's intention during an online chat to be formally setting those forth as the two conditions needed for U.S. withdrawal, and certainly not to set them in stone to be applied consistently through out future changing circumstances.

This quote from Clark that you use above...

"As I said in my comment to Jai, potential for a civil war in Iraq would be high if we leave before there's an agreement and the militias disarm..."

...had as it's focus the possibility of an Iraq civil war, and the consequences of one. Clark touched on the specific meaning and consequences of such a civil war elsewhere in that kos discussion. Clark there meant Civil War defined more as full frontal military efforts to achieve full scale ethnic cleansing in all parts of Iraq, not what he then described as a lower level pattern of sectarian killings civil war. So the thrust of Clark's comments regarded whether continuing American efforts could help forstall that type of Iraq civil war and in some ways help facilitate agreements that ultimately would be needed to avoid one of that nature. The examples he cited flowed from Clark's basic concern. For example, if that type of civil war could instead be averted by negotiated partitioning of some areas while leaving some militias intact, than the need to disarm militias would become moot. If Syria and Iran could be convinced to close their borders to those seeking to use their nations as staging grounds for escalating violence inside Iraq, than reaching comprehensive agreements with all parties inside Iraq may not be as important, and so on.

The goal is to prevent a total spin out into spreading violence and chaos, not to disarm this or that militia per se, or to reach this or that agreement per se. And the underlying assumption is that there is still a chance to achieve that goal. At the point where that assumption no longer remains plausible, the rational for holding off withdrawing troops dissolves also. So, again no, I don't think Clark would say the terms you used were pre-conditions for withdrawal. As I've commented on elsewhere, Clark is pushing for regional diplomacy to see what still is possible to salvage. Without it I don't think he has much hope that anything can avert further disaster, but that is just my impression.

As to Oil and shotgun deals and imperialism, when Clark said we should pay market prices to buy the oil we need I am sure he was intentionally describing fair trade, driven by genuine market forces, not extortion. Almost from the moment of the Iraq occupation Clark was calling for International agencies to take over the temporary administration of Iraq and its resources while Iraq's new government formed, he knew there would be little perception of legitimacy to the efforts to restore Iraq's sovereinty if the U.S. kept controll of the process:


Portsmouth Herald
Portsmouth, NH
Tuesday, December 2, 2003

Clark says U.S. is losing ‘war on terror’

By Shir Haberman
shaberman@seacoastonline.com
Campaign 2004 Archive

Gen. Wesley Clark soundly criticized President Bush on how he is managing the war on terrorism.

"We are not winning the war on terror," said the former NATO commander. "Today’s terrorists are regrouping in Afghanistan, while tomorrow’s terrorists are being recruited in Iraq.

"We should get an international authority to oversee the reconstruction and help recruit international troops, freeing up American forces to go after terrorists," Clark said. "Our current efforts are not only ineffective, but dangerous."
http://www.seacoastonline.com/2003news/12022003/col_capi/63444.htm

I don't want it to be made with no regard for consequences. I don't want a Cindy Sheehan solution. Just having a new team and getting rid of Bush Cheney might make a difference IMHO. It has occured to me that Iraqis may very well be cutting off their noses to spite their faces but can't change as long as the current admin that caused all this chaos is gone. If I was an Iraqi I would be so angry everyday I can see myself doing self destructive things, even though it's not my nature.

:hi:

No way. Clark has way more experience. He shouldn't play second fiddle to Edwards.

:hi:

:kick:

He needs to DEMAND attention! Make statements, hold press conferences, get himself noticed if possible.

of color.

:rofl:

I'm sorry. I couldn't resist that. I really couldn't. Bad Clark2008, bad girl. :)

I'm already sick of Edwards' "two Americas" platform again.

Election, that is.

:patriot:

Maybe Clark doesn't want to run. Or maybe he wants to be in a dem cabinet post. pentagon.
just wondering.
I did not pay that much attention to him the last time but, people seem to like him. I just wonder if he wants to do something else. Some want to be in the cabinet and not the top spot.
I hope you get your wish but, I just wonder.
I also wonder who I'll support if my candidate doesn't run.

I hope he sees we NEED someone like him to run. His move to be a Faux military analyst was a great move if he IS thinking of running because it has exposed him to people who'd never be exposed to him otherwise. He also knows he'll have to get in earlier and go to Iowa. If he doesn't run, I'll support whoever the majority voted for (even though I'd have to hold my nose if it was Hillary).

.

to go and contest on American Idol or not.

Decision and doing's what's right sometimes takes some thought. Wes Clark ain't one that just checks to see the landscape and stick his finger to the wind.

This here are serious matters!

But I caught that governor from New Mexico... Richardson... flipping past CSpan the other night and he was impressing me. I don't think he'll throw his hat in the ring, but if he does, all of these stalwarts may find themselves on the short end of the stick.

on my Iraq War flyer along with quotes from Odom and Goss.

Why oh why didn't we pick the man on the right for our president?
It down right sickens me :puke: that the idiot on the left is in office. The world situation would be so much different if Wes had been our president. Just shows how important it is to study up on our candidates...even before the primaries and become an intelligent voter.
I just wish the media could educate the populous instead of feeding us trash...like the hours they spent on Kerry's joke. Wow, that was real important news. But nothing about what our potential candidates stand for. Nothing! We should all demand they discuss the real pros and cons of each candidate.

and trying to figure out which candidate was most electable is really hard. Clark was late and he certainly wasn't polished. It's sad but any gaffe in a debate or rally can change everything. Not that Kerry wasn't also gaffe prone. IMHO Swift Boat Vets and election fraud in Ohio of course are the only reasons '04 went the way it did.

For now I just refer to him as President Clark. ;)

Corporate Press has decided who our candidates will be. Poop on them.

I hope the media doesn't shut him out again.