(((BREAKING))) CLARK ENTERS RACE

[newsguyatl]

BC-APNewsAlert 09-16 0020
BC-APNewsAlert
LITTLE ROCK, Ark.(AP) -- Retired Gen. Wesley Clark decides to
enter presidential race, sources say.

(Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
APTV 09-16-03 1022EDT


more tba, just crossing the wires

[deutsey]

1. Welcome Aboard, General!

:thumbsup:

I like Dean, but you ain't so bad yourself, from what I know. I'm looking forward to learning more.

[AlabamaDem]

3. YES!!!

I knew it!!!

[FauxNewsBlues]

14. Same Here

I support Dean, but the more the merrier, I always say. If Wes Clark earns the nomination, he will have my enthusiastic support in the General Election. I feel that way about all the nominees save Lieberman, who I will vote for, but not be enthused about if he wins.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Yippy

Sung to the tune of Bye Bye Blackbird

Pack up all your cares and woes

There I go

Bye Bye Bushco

[R Hickey]

4. I'd like to see a Clark/Hillary ticket

But I also like Dean and anyone who has a good chance to beat Bush.

[RamboLiberal]

55. No Hillary

I want to win not give Faux, Tweety and Rush their rating's wet dream. I like Hillary, but she's too polarizing outside the Democratic base.

Bet Rove's having a bad day - I think Clark is his worst nightmare.

[Ergotron]

108. Polarizing doesn't even begin to describe Hillary

It would be fun though to see Rush blow a blood vessel on national TV.

[study_war_no_more]

186. Polarizing? F--k that we are in post revolution status

time to take the fight to washington
go hillary!!

[DemVet]

183. Me too

n/t

[dbt]

5. FocksNews crawl picks up AP headline, 0925 Central

(Some pundit already blathering about how Clark would be the "Anybody But Dean" candidate.

:wtf:
dbt

[Donna Zen]

106. Naked attempt to divide and conquer

It's is not about what they do or say; it is about what we do and say. Only you control your mind.

[polpilot]

112. ditto. clear...crisp...clean...

Dean '04...

[newsguyatl]

6. CNN about to break in with it

[underpants]

7. Finally the Kerry/Clark ticket is in place

You do what to win the White House don't you?

[THUNDER HANDS]

13. lol

I'd sign up for that.

Maybe we can throw Dean a bone in the new Kerry administration ....like Undersecretary for rural development or something.

:)

[CMT]

19. Think it is more likely

to be Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean

besides we need to keep Kerry in the senate to hold that seat which is not up again until'08.

[ModerateMiddle]

45. that's not true

if someone is appointed to the seat, the seat would be up for a partial term election at the next election with a national ballot. That would be 2006.

[davidinalameda]

98. it would be a republican appointed to the seat

I rather have Kerry in it

[deutsey]

23. Nice to know how much you value those of us in rural areas

So, "rural development or something" is a "bone" you toss off to someone not frequenting the Olympian heights of your candidate?

Thanks. Warms my heart even more for Kerry. :puke:

[Evil_Dewers]

65. Kerry sux.

He gave Chimpy the greenlight for Project OIL (Operation Iraq Liberation).

[underpants]

94. Perhaps you should re read the Resolution

Just a suggestion.

[goobergunch]

154. Here's the applicable portion

SECTION 3. (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.114.ENR:

[IndianaGreen]

171. Kerry voted for the war that Clark opposed

The only ticket here is the one-way ticket to Boston for Kerry and his moribund campaign.

Clark is the wooden stake in Kerry's heart.

[GinaMaria]

184. Did Clark oppose the war?

Posted with permission from FAIR

FAIR-L
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

MEDIA ADVISORY:
Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"

September 16, 2003

The possibility that former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark might
enter the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has been
the subject of furious speculation in the media. But while recent
coverage of Clark often claims that he opposed the war with Iraq, the
various opinions he has expressed on the issue suggest the media's
"anti-war" label is inaccurate.

Many media accounts state that Clark, who led the 1999 NATO campaign
against Yugoslavia, was outspoken in his opposition to the invasion of
Iraq. The Boston Globe (9/14/03) noted that Clark is "a former NATO
commander who also happens to have opposed the Iraq war." "Face it: The
only anti-war candidate America is ever going to elect is one who is a
four-star general," wrote Michael Wolff in New York magazine (9/22/03).
Salon.com called Clark a "fervent critic of the war with Iraq" (9/5/03).

To some political reporters, Clark's supposed anti-war stance could spell
trouble for some of the other candidates. According to Newsweek's Howard
Fineman (9/8/03) Clark "is as anti-war as Dean," suggesting that the
general would therefore be a "credible alternative" to a candidate whom
"many Democrats" think "would lead to a disaster." A September 15
Associated Press report claimed that Clark "has been critical of the Iraq
war and Bush's postwar efforts, positions that would put him alongside
announced candidates Howard Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Rep.
Dennis Kucinich of Ohio as the most vocal anti-war candidates." The
Washington Post (9/11/03) reported that Clark and Dean "both opposed the
war in Iraq, and both are generating excitement on the Internet and with
grass-roots activists."

Hearing Clark talking to CNN's Paula Zahn (7/16/03), it would be
understandable to think he was an opponent of the war. "From the
beginning, I have had my doubts about this mission, Paula," he said. "And
I have shared them previously on CNN." But a review of his statements
before, during and after the war reveals that Clark has taken a range of
positions-- from expressing doubts about diplomatic and military
strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. "victory" in a column
declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair
"should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt" (London
Times, 4/10/03).

Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine
(10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a counter-argument
to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time." Before the
war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of
troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.

As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained
on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have
made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're
here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to
move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he
later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is
on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're
going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with
us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But
the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line,
too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the
United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who
they line up with."

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark
seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles
O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When
O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute:
"Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any
doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be
found. There's so much intelligence on this."

After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom
of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the
powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and
reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03).
"Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical
of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean
plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War.
If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four
divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly
made the right call."

Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the
region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a
sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and
Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards
of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair
"should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark
explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom
of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The
way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive,
since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily
silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of
victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall
and down Constitution Avenue."

In another column the next day (London Times, 4/11/03), Clark summed up
the lessons of the war this way: "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the
continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a
single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power,
especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable
today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain
fact."

Another "plain fact" is this: While political reporters might welcome
Clark's entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views
"anti-war" is to render the term meaningless.

----------
To make a donation to FAIR:
http://www.fair.org/donate.html

Please support FAIR by subscribing to our bimonthly magazine, Extra! For more information, go to: http://www.fair.org/extra/subscribe.html . Or call 1-800-847-3993.

FAIR SHIRTS: Get your "Don't Trust the Corporate Media" shirt today at FAIR's online store:
http://www.merchantamerica.com/fair/

FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit http://www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html .

FAIR's INTERNSHIP PROGRAM: FAIR accepts internship applications for its New York office on a rolling basis. For more information, see: http://www.fair.org/internships.html

Feel free to respond to FAIR ( [e-mail] ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to [e-mail] .

You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org . Our subscriber list is kept confidential.
FAIR
[phone]
http://www.fair.org/
E-mail: [e-mail]

[robbedvoter]

8. CNN just said it too!

[Beetwasher]

9. I Hope in his Comments He Mentions the Missing Kay Report

Now THAT would truly make this awesome.

[qanda]

10. I will now change my party affiliation

From Independent to Democrat so that I participate in the primary election and vote for the General!

[Code_Name_D]

I would have to move out of Kansas to do that.

We arn't even going to have a primary this year.

[no one in particular]

115. I know how ya feel.

We here in Kansas never really have had a say in selecting Presidential candidates.

Hell, our vote for President isn't going to matter much either.

[Donna Zen]

107. May you be the first of many...

n/t

[Ellen Forradalom]

182. Welcome to the fold!

Being a Democrat can be exasperating at times, but I never regret it.

[clar]

11. Hope he announces today

and gets in a couple of days media coverage. If Isabel hits, politics will take a holiday.

(Not so good for Edwards, my strong number 2)

[Myra]

138. Clark/Edwards!

Go team.

[MattNC]

12. YES!!!!!!!!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

15. I Am Ecstatic! (eom)

DTH

[madmax]

16. Ladies and Gentlemen

Please welcome the President of the United States.......

WESLEY CLARK!!

[dbt]

17. CNN already whoring (act surprised)

Just made a big deal of how late Clark is in declaring his candidacy. Totally ignoring the fact that the previous Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas (who beat the Bushes) made his announcement on October 1, 1991. Go figure...

:argh:
dbt

[Neecy]

41. heh

And did you notice that CNN's infamously right-wing Jonathan KKKarl didn't look all smug and amused when reporting about a Democrat for once?

In fact, lil' Jonathan looked kind of pale and queasy. That alone makes a Clark candidacy worthwhile!

[newsguyatl]

42. KARL

is one of the more liberal reporters, just fyi

[Neecy]

59. that's a new twist, then

Since Karl was quite the Young Republican when he was in college. Quite a swing, then, for him to just a few years later be 'liberal'.

[SPQR]

111. Interesting

how it's "too early in the race for most Americans to know who any of the Democratic candidates are", yet Clark is late in announcing. Sheesh.

[lindashaw]

18. MSNBC has it on their website

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=694&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20030916/ap_on_el_pr/clark
Ex-Gen. Wesley Clark to Seek White House
4 minutes ago

Yipee!!!!

[rjbcar27]

20. Shocked, I'm shocked I tell you.

Not exactly been a secret has it?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

21. No, But We're Still Allowed to Be Happy, Right?

Right? :-)

:bounce:

DTH

[rjbcar27]

25. Hell yes!

[RevolutionStartsNow]

27. Yes, you are!

You've been waiting a long time for this!

Go Clark!

[DemNoir]

22. OK

Lets see what he can do... I'm a Dean supporter but will be listening closely.

[MaineDem]

24. I'm torn

I've been supporting one candidate but I have good feelings about Clark.

[Loki]

26. Thank you General Clark

I hope Karl Rove doesn't have a peacful night's sleep until he's back in Texas permanently shoveling shit at the former pig farm in Crawford!

[treepig]

28. excellent!!

having a war criminal on your side is a HUGE step towards countering the 'democrats are weak on defense' meme

[Spentastic]

33. He he he

Made me laugh.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

34. Welcome To Ignore

Please go piss in someone else's pond.

DTH

[DoNotRefill]

168. Wow...

you seem awfully quick to ignore people who say anything critical of your "fair-haired boy"...Why is that?

[deutsey]

35. Welp, so it begins...

.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

49. If Clark's a war criminal, so is Clinton

Actually, you have a point. Let's be honest - all presidents have been war criminals. War is a crime, deal with it.

[treepig]

exactly - even nobel peace prize winner jimmy carter

carried out some pretty disgusting foreign policy adventures (such as setting up the soviet invasion of afganistan).

now we can be up-front about our credentials! yay!!

[Evil_Dewers]

63. War Criminal???

Bush/Rummy ain't on our side.

[treepig]

71. bush/rummy use their war criminal powers for evil

by contrast, i anticipate wesley clark will use his propensity to commit war crimes for good (relatively speaking, of course - at this point baby steps away from the chasm of facism descending over this country are better than nothing!),

http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html

the sad reality is that you have to have credentials as a blood-thirsty killer to be elected president in this country. clinton realized this fact by making a big deal out of presiding over an execution during his 1992 campaign:

WASHINGTON (AP) - In 1992, then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton left the campaign trail to oversee the execution of a cop killer. The decision drew criticism from liberal groups but helped the Democrat shed his party's soft-on-crime image and move toward the political middle

Begala was working for Clinton in 1992 when the candidate interrupted his presidential campaign to be on call for the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a 40-year-old man who defense attorneys said was mentally incompetent. Rector shot himself in his head after killing a police officer.

Arkansas law did not require Clinton to be in the state for the execution. Critics said he was using Rector to redefine himself and his party.

In a speech to a predominantly black audience shortly after the execution, Clinton displayed his knack for using wedge issues like the death penalty to prove himself a ''new Democrat'' without alienating his party's liberal constituencies.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e1939.htm

[foo_bar]

124. for arms goood

i anticipate wesley clark will use his propensity to commit war crimes for good (relatively speaking, of course - at this point baby steps away from the chasm of facism

Good war crimes (steps away from fascism):
- Stalin (20+ million civilians)
- Khmer Rouge (1.5-2 million civilians)
- French Revolution (c. 1 million civilians)

Bad war crimes:
- The Spanish Inquisition (c. 35,000 civilians)
- Jenin (56 to 500 potential civilians)

[ConservativeDemocrat]

141. Stalin and Khmer Rouge were both facist states

Fascism is the combination of state and economic power in the hands of a dictator and/or oligarchs. From the communist left this is achieved when the state expropriates all businesses. From the right, this is achieved when business monopolists gain exclusive power over the state. In both cases the justification tyrants use is nearly always "national security".

The Soviet Union, the Khmer Rouge, Fascist Italy, the Nazis, were all fascist states. Aside from some meaningless ideology that no one really believed, they behaved exactly the same.

Here's some suggested reading for you "foo_bar": Animal Farm.

The Spanish Inquisition was one of literally hundreds of merciless royal pogoms that terrorized peasants in the medieval world. The French Revolution - which killed about 40,000 people not 1 million - was an almost equally merceless reaction. Neither technically qualifies as a "war crime" because the concept of a war crime is extremely modern. It was just war.

As far as the original quote goes, I do see the occasional necessity of nipping fascist dictatorships in the bud through use of "war" (not "war crimes" as the original poster stated). The trick though, is to avoid becoming a fascist dictatorship yourself when doing this. While the U.S. certainly isn't one, I don't like the direction we're headed in.

- C.D.

[treepig]

144. in case there was any confusion

i was not suggesting that mr. clark's history of war crimes should be resurrected, or necessarily continue, in the fight against creeping facism. my hope is that his war crime days are behind him.

however, since he has shown the ability to slaughter civilians overseas, he has the necessary credentials to be deemed to be 'tough on defense' and 'keep america safe' (although, ironically enough, these actions are likely to spawn a new generation of terrorists that will haunt us 20 or 30 years from now). in any event, the soccer moms (etc) of the country can now safely vote for a democratic candidate who by virtue of rising to the level of general is a certified war-monger (how can you stay in the military long enough to become a general if you're authentically "anti-war"?). of course, because he opposed a specific war (iraq 2) all the anti-war folk can also enthusiastically vote for him. talk about a win-win situation!

[foo_bar]

162. snowballing

Here's some suggested reading for you "foo_bar": Animal Farm.

Did you catch the subject line?

The French Revolution - which killed about 40,000 people not 1 million

Closer to 2 million if we're talking "people": 1 million civilians, 1 million combatants, of which 40,000 were guillotined per se.

[roguevalley]

163. every president that is elected better be prepared to be a

'war criminal' or fuck off. Its what happens, war. Some people actually work to stop it and have better luck than others but its
part and parcel of the job.

RV, who HATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!war.

besides, there is NO perfect candidate.

[durutti]

149. So?

I hate to be so cynical, but really, every President we've had since World War II is probably eligible for a death sentence by Nuremberg standards.

[OKNancy]

74. The only war criminal in the race is Bush

got it?

[treepig]

81. bush is by far the worser war criminal

but not the only one.

the sad reality is that being a war criminal is a huge asset in this country, there's no point in denying it - so why not exploit it? personally, i find it incredibly distasteful - but (see my baby-steps-in-a-positive-direction post above) i think we gotta use whatever we can against the bush junta at this juncture.

[roguevalley]

164. hear-hear.

amazing, our ability to cannabalize each other. the alternative is four more years of dickwad.

[LearnedHand]

142. Excuse me??!?

:wtf:

Save your mudslinging for the pukes, please.

[treepig]

145. i say something positive about mr. clark

and you accuse me of mudslinging?

:wtf: right back at you

[absolutezero]

146. how's he a war criminal?

Being a member of the armed forces doesn't make you a war criminal unless you do something illegal. And don't give me crap about war itself being a crime,(sadly) sometimes diplomacy doesn't work.

[treepig]

150. you can easily do a google search and pull up allegations

of war crimes while he was NATO supreme commander in the war efforts against the serbs in the 1990's

some would claim, oh war is bad, let's give him a pass - the greater good being served was to stop the ethnic cleansing. ok, if military intervention was necessary there seemed to be two options:

1. send in sufficient ground troops to hunt down the individuals/groups responsible for the war crimes - perhaps in an operation similar to that now underway in iraq. of course, iraq shows the peril of such a course of action - an unacceptably high level of casualties to u.s troops.

2. indiscriminate bombing that kills a lot of innocent civilians, but at neglible risk to u.s./nato troops. of course, the 'smart' bombs are hyped as being capable of minimizing civilian casualties, but how smart can a bomb be that "accidently" destroys the chinese embassy?

mr. clark choose to pursue option #2 - minimize troop losses at the expense of collateral damage (i.e., civilian deaths) - i suppose some will regard this as an innocent choice, others as a war crime. in any event, in carrying out his bombing campaign, he used some pretty disreputable tactics, such as using humanitarian aid workers (or more precisely, persons posing as humanitarian aid workers) to gather intelligence used to specify bombing coordinates:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/care-f09.shtml

i think that's close enough to being a war crime to qualify.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

181. Do you think the ethnic cleansing perpatrated by the Serbs was okay?

Slobodan Milosevic and his chronies are the real war criminals. The intervention by the US and NATO was long overdue.

[Andromeda]

195. You know,

your name really fits you.

[Capn Sunshine]

29. DOES THIS MEAN HE WILL ANNOUNCE?

or do we get two more weeks of tease first?

[Pale Blue Dot]

30. Ok, now that he's in...

Can someone point me to a website that has a rundown of his stands on the major issues?

[MoonAndSun]

31. Dean is still my main candidate, but I do like Wesley Clark and having

another intelligent candidate in the running. It can only make the race better. Welcome aboard, Wesley Clark.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

32. Arrgh...CNN using it to dis Edwards

How lame is that? They are talking about how Clark is overshadowing Edwards' announcement, and laughing, "Didn't he already announce?"

I hate these people.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

36. Clark Is Announcing Tomorrow

This was a leak, and I doubt it was deliberate.

DTH

[AP]

I guarantee it was deliberate.

Edwards is Clark's real competition.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

51. Shrug

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, until more information ever comes out.

DTH

[Donna Zen]

170. two cents

To be a leak, it would have to be something that was unknown and therefore, was either deliberately or unintentionally "leaked" out. Now personally, I am not paid to watch the candidates in this race; however, I've known that Clark would announce on Wed for several days. Also, Clark said he would announce before giving his foreign policy speech on the Aug. 19'th. A speech that was planned months ago to put forth the themes of his book due out Oct. 14'th. The book was not written over night or even over this summer.

So how much of a big fucking leak can this be? CNN could have chosen to ignore it you know. They've been doing a fine job of that for at least three days.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

56. Clark/Edwards

I like Edwards, and I like Clark, that ticket would be fine. I'd rather have Clark/Kucinich of course.

[lindashaw]

92. I was thinking the same thing...

Edwards would make an excellent VP and bring a lot to the table. Graham has a lot to offer any administration...in fact, a cabinet made up of these candidates would be too much to hope for. I'd like to keep them all. Well...not JL.

[salin]

101. From reading this thread - it is clear that the media

appears to be trying to shape unfolding events. Regardless of the candidate one prefers - I think we SHOULD be paying close attention to the media behavior. We need to demand fair coverage - while preparing for the worst coverage. Take note - without taking sides on candidates - because mark my words similar things will happen to all democratic candidates - and especially against the eventual front runner.

To those who are dismissing things like - the pumping of a pre-announcement to distract from a current announcement - just because the charge may not suit your candidate - pay attention. We should join together when media coverage seems to try to shape public sentiment (down play, etc) for any democratic candidate.

[Vis Numar]

70. Clark's leaky campaign

There are gapping holes in his campaign, and I'm not talking about slots... the General has way too many friends that talk. It was the General that slipped that he met with Gov Dean last Sat for Breakfast, and today again, his friends talk too much.

[robbedvoter]

37. Time for the Charles Rangel quote:

"Nobody believed me when I said Hillary Clinton would be the next
senator from New York. And nobody believes me now. But Wesley Clark
will be the next president of the United States."

-- Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) Sept 14, 2003

[Not a robought]

38. Welcome General!

Look forward to seeing your contribution among the already existing panel of fine candidates. May we all work towards the defeat of everything Bush!

:hi:

[LightTheMatch]

39. I'm ecstatic!

This is great! I am an early Dean supporter but I am VERY interested in seeing how Clark does in the next few weeks.

[MGKrebs]

40. Dang. I guessed wrong on that one!

I did not think he would enter.

Welcome to the fight, General.

[PAMod]

43. Welcome to the fray!

This is the best multi-candidate Democratic field in my lifetime.

[caledesi]

151. Yes, it's a great field of candidates <as the Big Dog said>

[jmcgowanjm]

44. Clark will carry Arkansas there is no doubt n/t

[Walt Starr]

46. I am officially changing my support from Dean to Clark

Damn, it's great to have somebody in the race who can trounce the chimp thoroughly!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

48. Glad To Have You On Board, Walt!

Come on in, everyone, the Kool-Aid's great!

:evilgrin:

DTH

[leesa]

60. Right, more mindless strutting and threats and war

What progress.

[Walt Starr]

62. What mindless strutting and threats of war?

Clark has done none of that.

[Flubadubya]

90. Right, and besides...

a real military person knows that war really is the LAST resort, not like the freaking Chickenhawks that don't know any better and think it is a Monday night football game.

There is some hope at last.

[gasperc]

102. Oh, they'll have the knives out for Clark

Bush has no intentions of losing, our imaginations will not be able to begin to create the scorched earth Bush will lay upon the land in order to be re-elected.
Let's band together as tight as we can, it'll be the fight of the century


:mad:

[Guaranteed]

191. I had a look at Clark's website...

....the man has got it DOWN. He echoes my sentiments on our foreign policy exactly.
My only reservation is that it seems as if his position on the Iraq war might have been a little wishy washy. I read an article that said he seemed to go back and forth, and I seem to remember seeing him on Meet the Press (or one of those shows), and his passion against the war wasn't apparent (ala Madeleine Albright MAN she pissed me off).
We need someone with BALLS, FIRST AND FOREMOST.

[Zero Gravitas]

47. Good News

Despite what the corporate media says we have a strong field of Dem candidates and it just got a lot stronger. So far I'm for Dean, but more than anything I want a good strong Dem candidate that will toss that silly little usurper out of Al Gore's house. If that candidate is Gen. Clark than I'm 100% for him.

[jumptheshadow]

50. When is the press conference?

Is there any word yet on when the press conference will be? Will there be any way to watch it over the web?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

53. Tomorrow, and Dunno

:-)

DTH

[TheDonkey]

52. I'll be more intrested to see how liberal Clark is.

He hasn't exactly produced many policy plans yet.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

54. Jeez, Give Him Some Time, Huh?

He's announcing that he's RUNNING tomorrow. I'm sure position papers will come out soon.

DTH

[Nashyra]

61. I did notice that when Jonathan Karl made the announcement

that CNN had a crawl that said that "Clark was a former CNN analyst"

[goobergunch]

156. I will withhold an opinion on Clark until his announcement (n/t)

[cjbuchanan]

57. Poor John Edwards

His announcement is going to be second on all the news channels.

Congrats to all the people that worked to get Clark into the race.

[schultzee]

129. John should have stayed in the Senate where he is really needed

now. A filthy disgusting repug will likely replace him.

[leesa]

58. Did the opportunist decide what side he's on?

Good now we can continue fighting mindless wars for the military-industrial complex's enrichment. WooHoo!!
Funny how most of the handles I see supporting this man supported blasting countries for little or no provacation over the last year or so on this board. Just want blood.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

64. Donna Spanked You SO Hard the Other Day

That I'm honestly surprised that none of what she was saying managed to penetrate.

Oh well. Two for Ignore in 15 minutes. I think that's a record!

DTH

[OKNancy]

77. I'm for Clark because he is anti -war

He is the anti-war candidate who can win. You do want to defeat Bush, right?

[waldenx]

157. just a note

Clark is not anti-war. Not even anti-this-war.

[Donna Zen]

173. Sorry

He is against this war. In fact his position goes beyond war as a last resort to a position of matching dollar for dollar the monies currently sent to unstable, undemocratic countries for weapons with (at least) that many dollars for schools, hospitals, etc and cultural exchange. He rightly believes that ONLY the tools of non-war and a true adherence to our expressed belief in freedom will move us to world peace. I've been waiting my whole fucking life to hear someone say that. I hope you get to hear it too.

Read his Seton Hall address...it can be found on many Clark sites.

[Cappurr]

80. Just so you know the facts....

Wesley Clark has not been particularly Hawkish. And he wouldn't go along with a lot the the Pentagon brass. Hence, he was forced to retire. Clinton was furious when he found out, but apparently, it was a fait accompli.

So I think that shows that Clark may be a military man, but he has respect for when and how to use military power. He was not too damn enthused about the Iraq war.

[ronnykmarshall]

130. Oh really?

>>Funny how most of the handles I see supporting this man supported blasting countries for little or no provacation over the last year or so on this board. Just want blood.<<



You want to cut and paste some examples?

[quirked]

66. Isabel

Good that he is getting in ahead of all of the Isabel news!

Dave K.
-----------------------------
http://wesleyclarkweblog.com
-----------------------------

[Carmerian]

67. It's on Yahoo's front page!

"Wesley Clark launches White House bid"

[robbedvoter]

72. Let's keep it there! Rate it!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20030916/ts_nm/politics_clark_dc

[Ganja Ninja]

68. I like all the Democratic candidates except Holy Joe.

And I don’t ever want to hear them use the words “bipartisan or bipartisanship” again or I’ll drop the offender like a bad habit.

[Avalux]

69. Happy Happy Joy Joy!

Finally! Just announced on NPR too. Will have to make sure I'm near a TV tomorrow morning!

[dofus]

73. Have any of you Clark supporters

any idea what he was actually doing when he was heading up NATO?

Bombing the Chinese embassy for one thing.

This is NOT a guy who will get us out of Iraq. He'll protect all his military buddies.

I'm reminded of when Ross Perot first announced. People were just drooling over him, precisely because they knew nothing about him.

[Avalux]

76. I know plenty about him

and I'm not listening to your negative remarks. Go away.

[Cappurr]

85. Read my post No. 80

And no....he was not forced to retire because of the Chinese embassy debacle. That was a mistake. An INTELLIGENCE mistake....not a military mistake.

I'm about as Dovish as you can get, but I've watched Clark for a year now and he is a thoughtful former general, not afraid to take on the military and the powers that be. He respects power....he doesn't abuse it.

[Selwynn]

93. (nt)

[Robb]

155. Bombing the embassy

(prepares to duck)

Rumor has it the F-117A pieces were there en route to China. It's ugly, but probably a reasonable call for the day. I do want someone as prez who has made hard decisions like that, if indeed that's how it went down.

I'll wait for position papers before I change my avatar, however.

[treepig]

158. hard decisions, or poor choices?

based on the usa's history of involvement in kosovo/yugoslavia/serbia it's baffling why mr. clark would have gotten involved in the first place.

was it just poor judgement to get involved in that hornet's nest?

or was he valiantly trying to clean up clinton's mess?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ONE309A.html

"Many writers and reporters have traced al-Qa’eda and other terror groups’ origins back to the Afghan war of 1979­1992, that last gasp of the Cold War when US-backed Mujahideen forces fought against the invading Soviet army. It is well documented that America played a major role in creating and sustaining the Mujahideen, which included Osama bin Laden’s Office of Services set up to recruit volunteers from overseas. Between 1985 and 1992, US officials estimate that 12,500 foreign fighters were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and guerrilla warfare tactics in Afghan camps that the CIA helped to set up.

Yet America’s role in backing the Mujahideen a second time in the early and mid-1990s is seldom mentioned — largely because very few people know about it, and those who do find it prudent to pretend that it never happened. Following the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 and the collapse of their puppet regime in 1992, the Afghan Mujahideen became less important to the United States; many Arabs, in the words of the journalist James Buchan, were left stranded in Afghanistan ‘with a taste for fighting but no cause’. It was not long before some were provided with a new cause. From 1992 to 1995, the Pentagon assisted with the movement of thousands of Mujahideen and other Islamic elements from Central Asia into Europe, to fight alongside Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs.

The Bosnia venture appears to have been very important to the rise of Mujahideen forces, to the emergence of today’s cross-border Islamic terrorists who think nothing of moving from state to state in the search of outlets for their jihadist mission. In moving to Bosnia, Islamic fighters were transported from the ghettos of Afghanistan and the Middle East into Europe; from an outdated battleground of the Cold War to the major world conflict of the day; from being yesterday’s men to fighting alongside the West’s favoured side in the clash of the Balkans. If Western intervention in Afghanistan created the Mujahideen, Western intervention in Bosnia appears to have globalised it."

another issue is why did clinton fuck up so badly? according to the above snippet, it makes it sound as though the pentagon/cia carried out this operation more or less aside from presidential jurisdiction. if so, perhaps clark would be onto their shennigans and be able to prevent future problems of this type better than more militarily naive/out-of-the-loop candidates?

[Donna Zen]

175. The ever wanting soul sees only what it wants

Understanding the US command structure would help you unravel the tale of the Chinese Embassy. Every target (god, what a sorry-assed word) is approved at the highest levels of the US civilian government. Once the analysts chose the targets the list with the intelligence makes it to the Pentagon and the Sec. of Defense. Also, the Joint Chiefs and the President must approve those lists, every single entry. Only then do they make it back to the commander. In the case of Kosovo, multiply that by the number of countries involved excepting that only the US retains the right to see each and every one.

George Tenet, not Wesley Clark, stood before Congress and took full responsibility for the bad intelligence that lead to the Chinese Embassy bombing. Tenet didn't make that humble gesture because he wanted to help Clark defeat bush someday, he did it because the organization of intelligence flow in the many, many, spook organizations doesn't work. Still doesn't.

[drewb]

75. Wesley Clark - A War Criminal?

"The poster child for everything that is wrong with the GO (general officer) corps," exclaims one colonel, who has had occasion to observe Clark in action, citing, among other examples, his command of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood from 1992 to 1994


http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html

[Avalux]

82. That link

has surfaced many times and the info is well known. Not everyone likes the guy, obviously; that's not realistic. :eyes:

[drewb]

140. I actually don't know much about him...

I found that link by doing a Google search on him to try and find something out about him.

I was in the Army Reserves for 13 years and have a healthy aversion to officers, especially career officers.

[OKNancy]

84. There it is again

Everytime someone wants to pile on Clark they trot out this discredited website. It's like quoting Fox News to prove a point about Dean, or Kerry. In fact it's worse than Fox, it's closer to FreeRepublic.

[sidpleasant]

78. Good news for us, bad news for them

I'll support anyone who could beat Bush next year but right now I think Clark would be the strongest candidate. There's no doubt that Karl Rove is going to run the dirtiest, most vile campaign in history with his $200 million+ budget. Since Bush's appalling record on the economy is indefensible they'll try to change the subject by scaring the less thoughtful and making the election a referendum on "terra" and national security. Clark has the greatest immunity to attack on that issue, I think. Was it Professor Krugman who recently imagined Bush ads showing Dean morphing into Saddam Hussein? I just can't see Dean drawing a lot of votes south of Maryland or west of the Mississippi; he'll be portrayed by the Bush Cartel and its minions in the media as a northeastern far - out liberal. As a former soldier Clark may be able to appeal to the so called NASCAR dads that have been going Republican.

[RedEarth]

88. Good Points

I agree that Rove will be pulling out all the stops in this election. I too feel that Clark will be the best candidate to withstand the garbage coming from the repubs. Lets just hope Clark can raise enough money to counter the upcoming negative attacks.

[lindashaw]

89. We should all brace ourselves and put on body armor!

[Gman]

79. If you like the Nader/Green/Dean/Kerry bashing threads

you're gonna have a ball in the next few weeks with Clark getting into it.

[Not a robought]

83. Can you hear that squeaking noise?

That's the sound of what remains of Karl Rove's penis and balls retracting into his hideous body like a deflating balloon.

[MaineDem]

96. Please, not after I just took a drink

:7

The mental picture of that is just too funny!

[RedEarth]

86. Great News.......

I honestly feel Clark is the one candidate that a legitimate chance to beat the b... crime family. However, regardless of who the Democrats nominate, I will vote for our candidate.

[tinnypriv]

87. Message to clark: RUN TO DEAN'S LEFT

That is a win-win for the dems.

[bspence]

91. agree, but..

Go to the left, but remain fiscally responsible. Raise taxes, certainly. We're freakin' broke. But don't spend, spend, spend. I don't think Clark would.

I like Clark's war stance, and it certainly dismisses Repub's charges that Democrats are wimps. I just wonder how Clark is on every single other issue. What does he stand for besides being anti-Iraq war?

[Selwynn]

95. Does anyone know where Clark stands on anything...

..that matters? Or is everyone just joy-gasming over Clark for no particular reason?

Where is he on the following:
1) fiscal policy - taxes (repeal tax cuts?)
2) fiscal policy - deficit (drop?)
3) fiscal policy - budget
4) health care - tough on HMOs? In favor of health care reform?
5) civil liberties, and especially privacy rights - the patriot act?
6) unions and the working class -- minimum wage? Employee rights?
7) equality issues - gay rights, the gay marriage issue?
8) women's rights - abortion, sexual harassment and workplace abuse?
9) Education - the crisis in public schools - does he have a plan?
10) Foreign policy - does he even have a doctrine?
11) Foreign policy - multilaterism vs. unilateralism ?
12) Foreign policy - the role of the military in the 21st century
13) Foreign policy - policy towards the United Nations
14) Defense Spedning - will he cut, raise or maintain?

Does anyone know where he stands on ANY SINGLE one of these issues and if so, can you please not just tell me but point me to clear and credible evidence (i.e. reference links) to where I can find the information for myself?

Otherwise, frankly, I'm not interested in this kind of self-masturbatory party everyone is throwing about yet another candidate who has an ambiguous stand on almost everything that matters...

Give me some meat people -- why Clark? And I want concretes not warm fuzzies.

[deutsey]

97. That's what I'm really interested in hearing...n/t

.

[Selwynn]

99. That's what EVERYONE should be interested in hearing....

[bspence]

100. This is from Michael Moore's website about Clark

1. You oppose the Patriot Act and would fight the expansion of its powers.

2. You are firmly pro-choice.

3. You filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative action case.

4. You would get rid of the Bush tax "cut" and make the rich pay their fair share.

5. You respect the views of our allies and want to work with them and with the rest of the international community.

6. And you oppose war. You have said that war should always be the "last resort" and that it is military men such as yourself who are the most for peace because it is YOU and your soldiers who have to do the dying. You find something unsettling about a commander-in-chief who dons a flight suit and pretends to be Top Gun, a stunt that dishonored those who have died in that flight suit in the service of their country.

[Selwynn]

103. This quote bugs me...

"4. You would get rid of the Bush tax "cut" and make the rich pay their fair share."

I love the sentiment, but hope to god Democrats have better sense then to talk about the rich paying their "fair share" -- they rich pay double what I pay in taxes. It's not about "fair share" -- its about the only way a society is going to work is if those who most benefit from that socity feel a duty to give back to that society according to their means. The rich have to shoulder more, not less nor even an "equal ammount" of that burden - in a sense, they have to do MORE than their "fair" share because it is in their best interetests that everyone have an education, and decent public services and a reasonable quality of life if for no other reason (though there should be many other reasons) than the fact that it means more consumers in the market.

In order for a just society to exists, one that takes care of the poor and the sick and the tired and those yearning to be free -- in order to do that those with the means must feel a patriotic sense of duty to invest more into the society that contributed to their success. But it has nothing to do with "fair share." "fair share" would be a flat tax, which has its own problems.

[bspence]

109. Define "fair"

That's all they have to do. If you make a larger amount of money, you should have to pay a larger percentage.

[TEXASYANKEE]

125. It shouldn't bug you.

It's Michael Moore's quote, not Clark's. I can't see Clark stepping forward and making such a statement. It would be political suicide.

[mindfulNJ]

104. yes...we are ineteresting in hearing all that...

isn't that what campaigns are for?

[Selwynn]

114. Yes, but if you don't know any of those answers now....

....then maybe Clark shouldn't be hailed as the savior of the free world just yet...

[returnable]

105. Some answers...

...can be found here:

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on_the_issues.htm

And I don't think there is anything "self-masturbatory" about celebrating the announcement that a lot of us worked very hard for this summer.

[Neecy]

110. here's another

Leadership for America

[Selwynn]

117. I do

..there there is something self-masturbatory about people who know nothing about a persons stand hailing him as the best thing since sliced bread.

If you're not one of them then don't worry about my comments.

[returnable]

120. Not worried :)

Did you check those links?

[Selwynn]

121. By the way...

the draft wesley clark site - that's a site that tells what other people THINK his stances on the issues are, based on past quotes and things like that. The past quotes of an individual often don't reflect at all what their platform ends up looking like.

I appreciate the site and I will definately keep it in my mind. If Clark were to truly stick to such a platform that would be a great thing. But until I see something official I am not willing to get on this band wangon and get my hopes up. I did the same thing for Dean and ended up not really liking what I saw...

With Dean this place was in absolute love, Dean was god, Dean is the best thing since the wheel and on and on and on. So I started studying Dean on my own, and the guy is a complete and total moderate riding this flag of "I'm the liberal outsider rebel get excited about me" thing. He and Joe Libermann really aren't that far from each other. The only difference is that Dean lies about it and Joe admits it. That's disappointing to me.

I'll study clark carefully, but I'm no going to jump on any band wagon just yet.

[returnable]

122. I hear ya

I know a lot of folks personally who have been disillusioned with Dean.

I'm hoping Clark holds up better under the same scrutiny.

With his hat officially in the ring, we'll all find out soon enough.

[Donna Zen]

177. Are you sure?

I have tried to answer many of these questions on these threads, of course considering the forum those answers are fairly constricted and the limited specifics that exist without the formal position papers the will be soon arriving. That said...I would suggest you begin with Richard Holbrooke's book for the second person view and move on to Clark's book. Lately his setting forth the theme of the Enlightenment leads me to believe that Clark is very aware and in tune with Kevin Phillips "The Cousins War" tracing the origins of our current culture wars to the continuing struggle between the Enlightenment and the Calvinists. In addition, read Jihad vs McWorld if you haven't already....lots of Benjamin Barber in Clark's economic and foreign policy approach.

I did post the following last night, my first introduction to Wesley Clark:

This link will connect you to several goods sources:

http://www.united4clark.com/

But there are many other sources that have come my way. Here is one of the original posts by an amazingly savy politico. She was part of the original Wellstone team, and thus, I paid attention. BTW, this poster also ran two presidential elections at the state level, so her no nonsense message is very clear:

I have a couple of reasons for supporting him -- and I should add here that I support Dean too, and have donated some money to the folk who are starting to organize for him in the caucus next year. But I spent a lot of time thinking about how to beat Bush, and it was that which made me get a little more active supporting Clark.

I don't think Dem's have a chance in 2004 unless we are able to put National Security -- NATIONAL SECURITY IN CAPS -- out front. In the end people buy into a candidate based on trust, and security has a lot to do with that -- and none of the present crop, including Dean really, cut the mustard on that issue. I know there are some progressives who have an allergy to the Military (Clark covers that in his book) -- but in Clark you have a 4 Star General who also quotes Bob Dylan liberally. You have a character who thought through the youthful allergy to the military that he found in Clinton's early White House -- and came to laugh at it a bit when he realized what probably bothered them was his uniform, which he describes with wit as the "Ultimate Power Suit." He has a number of reflections on this, both witty and serious. I think as some of this is discussed a good many otherwise allergic folk will see the advantage of someone who cannot be questioned on "toughness" on National Security matters. Along with that goes the ability to tell Gingrich and DeLay that they are not competent to discuss military matters -- and make it stick. But we have to face up to the reality -- we have to get otherwise Republican Centerist voters -- and we will not get them with Dennis Kucinich, etc.

Clark is 180 degrees opposite Bush on so many levels I think will count Bush Declaims. Without suggesting rationals, he says, This is what I Believe (and as we now know, that's what God Told Him) -- Bush does not advance an idea based on evidence, good argument and the like, he doesn't really show the ability to do this. Clark on the other hand approaches almost every question as a chance to explain -- to lay out the rational, the evidence, past history, etc, as the reason for something. He can speak in clear sentences, and trusts that argument will convince you to support his premise. His style is to try to lead you into agreement on means and goals. Bush uses his limited rhetoric to bully or frighten people into agreement or at least to go along. Clark in contrast, expects people who listen to then agree or re-think, and then act. I profoundly believe that one of the most powerful political speeches ever made was FDR's first inagural -- but the quote is so often cut short. "We have nothing to Fear but Fear itself" as a shortened version eliminates the most important aspect of what FDR had to say when he went on to talk about "Nameless, Unreasoning, Unjustified TERROR that paralyses needed efforts to turn retreat into advance" -- it is the second part of the quote -- the cause and effect relationship between being terrorized, and being paralyzed that is critical. It is a vision of getting active on your own and society's behalf. Being an instrument of change instead of being a victim of fear. What we need in 2004 is someone who can recast that core truth, and expose Bush as the fear waving bully boy he is. It is a tough act -- and more a matter of attitude than any specific issue or program. But I don't see the possibility in any of the current pack of candidates...but I do see it in Clark. I suspect being trained to command in an all volunteer army has something to do with this -- and being a legislator is not exactly the right background in this environment. But I think it is our strongest thrust against Bush.

[barbaraann]

113. MSNBC just now attacked Clark.

"very unpopular with other military"
"too ambitious"
will get help from "Arkansas Mafia" like Bill Clinton did
no background in domestic issues

Unbelievable. I am speechless.

(The Arkansas Mafia quote is from Bob Kur)

[wes_clark_for_pres]

118. Folks in the Pentagon hated Clark

good enough for me!

[returnable]

119. Expect more of it

That's just how it goes.

No real bombshells there.

Heck, if the worst thing they can say about the guy is some other military types don't like him, well:

a) that should broaden his appeal to lefties who think he's just a puppet of the military complex

and

b) there will be plenty of military types who will also come out in his support.


As for being "too ambitious", when has ambition ever been a flaw in the Land of Opportunity? :)

[diplomats]

135. Notice they didn't say he was "unelectable"

those criticisms strike me as pretty weak. But we have to be prepared for worse. BTW, Clark has support well beyond Arkansas. I'm looking forward to seeing people like Charlie Rangel on TV singing his praises.

[wes_clark_for_pres]

116. Let the Repuke fax machines start humming

can't wait to hear the Wesley Clark smear "talking points" that will start to saturate the media. Bring it on Karl! What have you got???

[goobergunch]

123. I like Clark from what I've seen of him...

but I'll have to see his campaign before I can form a formal position.

[Forkboy]

126. Congrats to all the Clark supporters

The more the merrier I always say.

[ronnykmarshall]

127. YAHOO!!

as in the Yahoo link. But I gotta tell ya, I'm happy about this. I like Dean as well, so I'm hoping for a Clark/Dean or Dean/Clark ticket.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20030916/ts_nm/politics_clark_dc_6

[underpants]

128. Finally the Kerry/Clark ticket is in place

You do what to win the White House don't you?

[tlcandie]

134. Welcome Clark!!!

Clark supporters, don't worry about the bashing! Those who bash Kucinich do the same thing... continually pulling out the same one or two disinformation nasties to get their 'I have my mind and ears closed' point across! Just watch as it vaporizes into thin air when you don't take the bait and get defensive!


I wish him the best and will be watching as well :hi:

[DemExpat]

131. Oh HAPPY DAY.....President Wesley Clark!

Welcome, welcome, welcome.

:toast: :toast: :toast:

:bounce:

DemEx

[jamesinca]

132. Yipeee!!!

I am a Dean supporter, but I very much welcome another Dem in the race. Who ever takes the Dem Primaries I will vote for unless it is Joe Liberman, that would be a dark day for America. Welcome aboard Gen. Clark.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

133. 44! 44! 44! 44! 44! 44! 44! 44! 44! 44! 44! 44! 44! 44! 44!

Wesley Clark, 44th President of the United States!

[elcondor]

136. Finally!

Very happy to hear this! I was in class until, like, ten minutes ago so I had no idea this was going on! :D

[lanlady]

137. Bushbot wing-nuts in the cubes next to me are in a furor!!!!

Dissing Clark already, calling him "crazy" for some episode in Bosnia.

Well, boys, kiss your widdle Dubya good'bye, he's going down!

[Piperay]

139. YIPPPPPEEEEEEE

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: That is who I am going all out for....Wesley Clark!

[LearnedHand]

143. Welcome to the madhouse, General Clark!!!

This is one pacifist who's jumping immediately onto your bandwagon! For our sakes, hang onto that integrity and honesty (even if it's only the APPEARANCE of integrity and honesty); I believe you have what it takes to splatter ChimpCo. all over the walls!!!

:hi: | :bounce: | :party: | :yourock: | :toast: | :grouphug:

[neverforget]

147. I am very excited about this! This has made my day!

:bounce: :beer: :thumbsup:

[durutti]

148. He Can Beat Bush

That's all I care about.

[CarlWoodward]

152. Excellent news

Clark looks like he'll be a great candidate, and perhaps inject some excitement into this race. It's a good day for the dems all around.

[MadHound]

153. Great, just what we need

Another centerist to right wing Dem for President. I'm sure that From and the rest of the DLC gang are frothing at the mouth, since generals turned President are easily manipulated from the shadows. Yipee, not.

[robbedvoter]

159. Centerist? "Iraq - biggest blunder since the cold war" - we DRAFTED him!

We - activists, not DLC. Nice try, though.
Here's more "centerist" talk:
"Clark: We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this
country. It's in our constitution! We should be very clear on this...
this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment. It was
the idea that people could talk, have reasonable dialogue and discuss
the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck
by a divine inspiration and know everything, right from wrong. People
who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they
believed in reason, and dialogue, and civil discourse. We can't lose
that in this country. We've got to get it back.

[Selwynn]

160. There's a lot more to not being a centrist...

than one issue.

Everyone sights the war as the reason Clark is god and then nothing else... I like a lot of things about Clark - first in his class west point, Rhodes scholar, four star general, outspoken on the war, etc. But I know very little about what his platform will look like. If he sticks to his statements of the past (thank you draftclark.com) then I will be very interested. But no one knows exact where he will come down on most issues yet...

[MadHound]

165. Is that "we" the imperial third party "we"?

Or do you have a frog in your pocket? Yes, Clark is going to be another DLC centerist candidate. He has great admiration for his presidential mentor Clinton and will(and has) drawn many of his positions straight out of Clinton's playbook. The real interesting kicker is that a few months ago he was thinking of running on the 'Pug ticket. Sorry, I don't want a Clinton redux, or a 'Pug wannabe, I want a real change. We don't need more of NAFTA, WTO, media consolidation, welfare "reform" or other goodies for the corporate pocketbook. To me Clark is just one more reason to move on to Greener pastures come next fall. But hey, if you just want to "settle", or vote for the "lesser of two evils" then by all means Clark is your guy. Hope you can live with that. I certainly couldn't.

[roguevalley]

166. this isn't eisenhower. this is an oxford graduate, a west

point first in class graduate and a man with international experience. that he pisses off traditionalists in the pentagon
and elsewhere, fine. maybe its time for the world to hop to a
new tune.

GO wesley!

[MadHound]

189. You can be well educated and still be maniputlated

Happens all of the time, especially with generals who turn President. Most of them are West Point grads, some are quite highly educated, but most are manipulated because they've gotten into an area where they are over their heads. And on top of that, Clark is modeling his platform off of Clinton's. Please, spare me from Clinton redux, we need real change in this country, not just feel good faux change.

[DoNotRefill]

161. I just wish Clark hadn't paraphrased Heinrich Himmler...

on the gun control issue...

Clark: "If you want to fire an assault weapon, join the army."

Himmler: "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA. Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."

[roguevalley]

167. I agree with Clark on assault weapons.

they belong in the military. if some nazi said the same thing, well coincidence. besides, how many ways can you say the same thing?

[DoNotRefill]

174. Coincidence?

And here I thought Clark was this great historical scholar. The Himmler quote is pretty well known....that's how I found it. What stuck in my mind was that it had to do with people wanting guns should join the SS. I didn't remember who said it until I googled guns and "join the SS", and there it was. I'm SURE that Clark must have been exposed to it at some point. I was, and I'm no Rhodes Scholar. What disturbs me is that he read the quote, and then basically "made it his own", despite the fact that the quote is seen as generally being indicative of the fascistic tendencies of the Nazi party early on in an attempt to gather all means of force into the government's hands, and denying the Jews the means required to offer even token resistance to the Holocaust.

[ablbodyed]

178. SA & SS

They were NOT military organizations, they were PARAmilitary. Sort of like the now-secret militias that are going to bully the rest of us into acquiescence of the Bush coup, should he lose the election.

[Voltaire99]

169. Good. . .and bad news

Out with the good first, so we can get on to the more interesting stuff.

Yes, it's good for the race to have an electable candidate who espouses some progressive positions. Clark is the meat-and-potatoes face of Kucinichism...just with more iron in the diet, har har. (Sorry, fellow Dennis fans: America might be ready for decency in politics, but the major parties aren't.)

Now for the bad.

Clark's war crimes in Serbia (willful bombing of civilians) and rash judgment (he foolishly ordered British paratroopers to thwart a Russian advance--an order wisely refused by the British commander) are not the stuff of valor. They're not even boast-worthy. They're really pretty sad and despicable. Before waving the Clark flag, do some critical reading about him.

This record hurts the Democrats in two ways. First, it gives progressives plenty of reasons to ask once more why the Democratic Party has become so wan and lifeless that it requires a bloody warrior to espouse liberal positions (one answer: America loves violence, and war is the ultimate bona fide in such a culture; but why then further this?). Second, the Clark war record gives plenty of ammunition to opponents who will be able to throw back at him the same charge leveled now against the Bush administration in Iraq: indiscriminate killing masquerading as do-gooding.

However, bearing in mind what Treepig wisely argues in earlier posts to this thread, we are in a right pickle. There stands Bush on one side, and there stand Lieberman and the Junior Liebermen on the other. At this point, unless the race dramatically changes, it's possible that the need to stop Bush-led fascism may require holding one's nose and voting for a man such as Clark. More's the pity.

[MoonRiver]

172. OMG, OMG, OMG, HAPPINESS IS MOI!!!!!!

All I can say is thank you General Clark! :bounce: You are my hero! :toast:

[shcrane]

176. Kucinich was my man, but now

I'll have to give it up for Clark. I've heard parts of his speeches replayed on DemocracyNow, and I've really like what I've heard. I was quite surprised that this liberal-sounding guy was a four-star general.

[study_war_no_more]

188. If Hillary joins him I will also back him

Thats my kind of fight.
Grrrrrrrrrowl

[Kat45]

179. Woo hoo! I'm psyched!

This man could be the one to de-chimpify Washington.

[study_war_no_more]

190. hmmmmmm

:hippie:

[VolcanoJen]

180. Kick!!!

:-)

[tlb]

185. A repub general with his identical record would be labeled a psychopath

in the thread about his annoucement for president. The irresponsible recklessnes in his desire to confront the Russians doesn't go away just because after months of " coy " he finally puts a D after his name. Nor does the bombed Chinese embassey and the rest.

And a general relieved as Kosovo commander failing upwards to the presidency ? Unfit to be a regional CinC but presidential material? I don't think so.

But he is a marvelous spoiler for Dean and the other candidates. Derailed momentum, diverted contributions, diluted campaign staff and more. Thanks Bill and Hill and DNC/DLC.

[Guaranteed]

192. Man you're a party pooper

Thanks for taking the air out of our sails.

[Julien Sorel]

193. LOL

This guy is anti every threatening Dem candidate, pro war, pro death penalty, and he only pops in here every once in a while to make sarcastic comments about the message board, and accuse Democrats of being hypocrites. For whatever reason, the people who run this place have permitted him to remain, but that doesn't mean you have to take him seriously.

Simply imagine the hole he probably punched in his wall when Clark announced, and his blood pressure rising with every drop Bush suffers in the polls.

[Mackay]

196. Great image!

Actually... you know that photo of the 'angry mob' from the florida recount that later was proven to be Republican staffers paid to protest... I've always suspected that I would find TLB and TAH in that photo if their true faces were ever revealed. I just ignore them now...

That aside, congrats to the CLARK people. I will support absolutely anyone against Bush (including Clark). And I will send money to any Dem candidate who was solidly against the war from start to finish(Clark???).

I have one reservation against Clark: basically, the reasoning of many of his supporters. On another thread, their argument was "Don't hate him because he's a general..." Ironically, I think a lot of the military types on this board love him because he is a general. Both positions are equally stupid. And I couldn't help but notice that some of his supporters were also some of the apologists for the current war. By apologists, I mean the "We can't back out now..." people. Or the "Soldiers can't resist or complain..." people.

These same people, tend to be impressed by medals, etc. I want to see fewer posts about how many medals Clark has... and more posts about what his plans are for the economy, human rights, healthcare, etc... and of vigorous attacks against ChimpCo.

So some advice to the Clark supporters: Put together a real campaign, don't try to sell us "vote for him because he is a general". (Although that tactic will probably work with your average Republican jarhead.)

[PennyLane]

194. Did Anyone See The Post and Link About Clark.......

........that ran a few weeks ago? The one about his behavior when
things don't go his way? It stated that he could be a bit testy when
he's up against the wall. Also, his record from Kosovo, has a couple stains on it. But you know Karl Rove is going to be up night and day
trying to dig up dirt for the mud slinging! This should, at least, be fun to watch!
:toast: :bounce: :party:

[disgruntella]

187. I'm so bummed I missed this thread's debut

With all the hours I've logged on DU lately, I take one day off and look what I miss. Oh well.

Also reminds me when I worked a local news station updating web stats on election night - wathching this wires til midnight. Wondering what the results would be when I work up. Guess I should have stayed asleep for a couple weeks, LOL...

I'm glad Clark's running. Looking forward to lots more DRAMA on DU too.

[Guaranteed]

197. deleted