Does everyone know that Clark had the balls to

[senseandsensibility]

criticize the religious right DURING the campaign last year? Yes, he did it, and on more than one occasion.

No, he didn't attack them, call them names, or descend to their level in any way. He merely stated that just because you can recite bible verses doesn't make you a good Christian. He asked his audience to look at the person's deeds, not words. He talked about his religious upbringing in an understated, humble, and self-deprecating way. He attended a Christian church in the South several nights a week, sang in the choir, etc. He spoke lovingly of the part the church played in his life,since he was fatherless at a very young age. But he was critical of today's conservative churches.

I know that he is also of Jewish ancestry. He was very respectful of those beliefs as well. God, what a classy guy. I think he should be the brave soul who tells America that saying you're a Christian is the NOT the same thing as being a Christian. It really needs to be said, don't you agree?:dem:

[Mark E. Smith]

1. Clark Is Our Best Potential Candidate For 2008.

In my view there is no one else who even comes close to delivering the real goods like Wesley Clark.

Great post. Thanks!

[Itchinjim]

5. Wes Clark is our man.

I just wish he had got in the '04 race sooner and not skipped the Iowa caucuses. I believe that he may just have well been nominated and that that election would have turned out very different.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda.

[Totally Committed]

6. He IS the best bet for 2008...

Thanks for the great post, Mark!

TC

[paineinthearse]

23. Wes 08

Gore and Kerry caved. Biden is PNAC. Kucinich would make a great Governor of Ohio. Edwards lacks experinece (1 term Senator).

I'm supporting Clark/Boxer or Boxer/Clark in 08.

[digno dave]

169. can we leave Boxer out of this

didn't you learn anything from the last election?

[tavalon]

179. I love Boxer

but now is not the time to put forward a woman. It hasn't worked thus far and frankly, I think we will see a black President before a woman President or Vice President.

The only way we have any chance at all is if we have such an overwhelming majority that the Thugs can't do their Diebold magic so we have to appeal to middle America and middle America is not ready for a woman in the White House.

BTW, I am a woman and I think that women are just as competent and frequently more competent than men. It just isn't the time to roll the dice and hope we've made it to that point.

After we rout the fascists, then we should advance the uber-competent women and we have a number of them out there right now with the experience and skill to do the job.

[HuskiesHowls]

2. I learned a LONG time ago

not to trust ANY one who proudly proclaims that they are a christian. And, if they proudly and loudly proclaim being a Born-Again Christian, its time to not only head for the door, but to do so while keeping your back against the wall so as to avoid the knife.

As Clark said, look to the way they live, the deeds they do, not to what they say. We need more people like him, and we need to support them in whatever ways we can.

[Zen Democrat]

148. I would except Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy has never pandered his beliefs. That's where the difference is obvious. Jimmy professed to be a born-again Christian, but Falwell and Robertson , et al, didn't think that was important at the time. Falwell raved against Carter in 1980 on the issue of --- Taiwan. Now the Religicons couldn't care less about Taiwan. Because for them it never has been about anything but power.

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. I'll take another look this time. He seemed ........

pretty unelectable in '04, so I didn't pay much attention.

[Clark2008]

9. He really only was unelectable in 2004 because the media

didn't want to let anyone know about him. They treated him as a one-trick pony and never gave any play to his domestic policy agenda - only to his military creds - WHEN they talked about him at all.

For my money, anyone the corporate media DOESN'T want is EXACTLY who we need to be pushing for. ;)

[senseandsensibility]

17. You know, to be honest

that was what made me take a second look at Clark to begin with. As soon I could see that the media was ignoring him, I knew it was because he was a strong candidate. They are scared to death of him. And yet I remember some people on this board saying that that was why they DIDN'T support him. If the corportate media wouldn't talk about him, they thought he was a bad candidate. Talk about playing into their hands!

[Discord]

193. Same thing with Dean. They trumped up his outspokeness

and called it rage, they edited a speech to make him "sound" like a raving lunatic. They mistook passion, for anger.

They pegged him as a liberal because he was from Vermont.

His voting record and public policy was anything but...

They feared him, they feared Clark. They knew they had the ammunition against Kerry.

Yet another reason why Reps and Senators should never run in this day in age... people just don't understand the "political process" well enough to understand how some votes can come about. They are easy to pick apart their voting record and obscure their platform.

[Mutley]

121. is that Drew Pinksy

holding a spongebob doll in your avatar? how hilarious!

[Totally Committed]

11. Take a closer look:

www.securingamerica.com

You'll be glad you did.

TC

[coloradodem2005]

4. I think he would be a good bet.

[jen4clark]

7. I do agree wholeheartedly!

If we actually have to endure the entire term of the current Regime things are going to be pretty fucked up by '08. For whatever reason I hold on to this little peep of hope that we'll take back one of the houses in '06 and impeachment hearings will start. I just can't imagine how we'll survive 'til '08 with these thugs in charge.

Between now and the next election in '06, our #1 concern should be ensuring we have fair elections. Otherwise, nothing else we do will matter.

[Clark2008]

8. I'm proud to say that I helped introduce him to the perils of the "Left

Behind" books and their implied stance that international organizations (such as the UN and NATO) were the imbodiment of evil.

It was an interesting conversation.

[tavalon]

180. Really?

Dish please?

[Jai4WKC08]

10. Needs to be said, and Clark's the one to say it

Oh, I wish more Democrats would, to be sure. But it's much harder for those with no religious background to sound convincing.

You know, for the whole media crapola about Clark's being a "political neophyte," he sure seemed to figure out on his own what the '04 election would be about. Damn good instincts, if you ask me. Probably come from a greater understanding of what real working-class Americans care about. Since he grew up among them and worked among them all his life.

How much exposure to "average Americans" do you get sitting in the Senate? Or a law office? The military is by far a much more diverse cross-section of America. Maybe not as much as it used to be, but a lot more than the constituents of any one state.

[Sparkly]

12. Yes indeed

He can say it in a way that people believe, accept, relate to.

[capi888]

116. This is a Christian Man who belives in taking care of least among us !

So if Karl Rove is watching today, Karl, I want you to hear this loud and clear - I'm going to provide tax cuts to ease the burden for 34 million American families and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty by raising the taxes on one-tenth of one percent of families in America, those who make more than a million dollars a year. You don't have to read my lips, I'm saying it.* And if that makes me an "old style? "Democrat, then, I accept that label with pride and dare you to come after me for it. Because what I am talking about today is in the best tradition of Wilson and Roosevelt; of JFK, LBJ, and Bill Clinton - and it is in the best interest of the United States of America!"

-WKC, sometime during the Dem primaries 2004

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. Clark was my favorite last time

and this time I certainly will not support Kerry again, so I'm willing to take another look at Clark.

[ZootSuitGringo]

14. Hopefully, C-Span will show his testimony

to congress that he will give on April 6th. It will be him against that neocon Perle testifying about Iraq past present and future.


Hearing Schedule for the Week of April 4 - April 8 2005
Wednesday, April 6- 10:00am-2118 Rayburn- Open
The Full Committee will meet to receive testimony on Iraq's past, present and future.

Witnesses:
• General Wesley Clark, United States Army (ret.), Former Combatant Commander, European Command
• Honorable Richard Perle, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense, International Security Policy

[tabasco]

15. I hope Clark will be our next President.

Today's headlines portend the beginning of the end of the disastrous Bush administration:

- 60 insurgents attack Abu Ghraib in well-organized attack.

- Gas prices to increase 40 more cents in next two weeks.

We need a true leader to get us out of this mess and my choice is Clark !

[JohnOneillsMemory]

16. "...look at the person's deeds, not words." Yes, please do. Please.

(Into the lion's den of people I disagree with about Wesley Clark. You all know I see him as a dreadful continuation of this country's policies for the last 100 years. Screaming "bullshit! crap! smear! Marxist! Serbian! GOP!" doesn't refute anything and is a transparent attack-the-messenger ploy. Please discuss Clark, not me.)

Note: I concede that Clark may be entirely sincere in his noble articulations and hopes for a US-led better world. So don't bother to make that case for his allegedly virtuous intentions and WORDS. Do please look at his ACTIONS, career, and historical context and consider that even under Saint Clinton the Imperfect, oil wars+war crimes+propaganda were US foreign policy. Just consider the possibility, as nutty as that sounds.*sarcasm*

Why Don’t They Ever Talk abaout the "8th and 10th Corridors"?
http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/mcollon.htm
(Caspian Sea Oil Reserves)
>snip<
Three weeks after the beginning of the war, General Michael Jackson, commander of KFOR in Macedonia and soon in Kosovo, confided to the Italian daily, Sole 24 Ore: "Today, the circumstances which we have created here have changed. Today, it is absolutely necessary to guarantee the stability of Macedonia and its entry into NATO. But we will certainly remain here a long time so that we can also guarantee the security of the energy corridors which traverse this country."

The Italian daily went on to say, "It is clear that Jackson is referring to the 8th Corridor, the East-West axis which ought to be combined to the pipeline bringing energy resources from Central Asia to terminals in the Black Sea and in the Adriatic, connecting Europe to Central Asia. That explains why the great and medium-sized powers, and first of all Russia, don’t want to be excluded from the settling of scores that will take place over the next few months in the Balkans."1

The Balkans were intentionally destabilized bringing on ethnic clashes like an old infection, then the military domination of the region for economic gain. A very old tactic of the US/Nazi/Oil/CIA government we live under.

Clinton, Albright, and Wesley Clark used the people now called 'al-Queda' as fighters in the Balkans, used depleted uranium weapons, killed many civilians, destroyed infrastructure, industry, killed journalists, but destroyed hardly any military targets. ALL FOR OIL. Because the Balkans are a strategic oil pipeline region from the Caspian Sea area rich in oil and gas. This 'NATO' bombing (really 99% US, just like Iraq) was the second step after Gulf War I on the way to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. Sound familiar? Yup. Clinton accomplished what he was supposed to for the military industrial police-state. And Wesley Clark is next in line in case the Repubs need to lay back for a presidential term and have a general who slaps a 'D' on his calling card and sweet talks the people into going about their business with no worries because Freedom is On the March.



http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9904/23/kosovo.02/
BELGRADE, Yugoslavia (CNN) -- A NATO attack on Serbian television -- a day after another raid smashed the home of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic -- prompted hard questions for the alliance Friday as it prepared to mark its 50th anniversary.

NATO missiles blasted the building that houses the main studios and newsrooms of Radio Television of Serbia, knocking it off the air for several hours. Alessio Vinci, CNN's correspondent in Belgrade, reported that at least nine people were killed and 18 taken to area hospitals with serious burns.

An injured employee of the station dangles from the rubble upside-down


The remains of the Serbian TV station after the NATO attack on the building

http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/lawyers_indict_nato.htm
(Lawyers Serve Indictment on NATO)


http://www.hermes-press.com/impintro1.htm
(The New US-British Oil Imperialism)-scroll down to the Balkans
>snip<
The UN-sanctioned war in the Balkans was all about oil and the pipeline easement for Caspian Sea oil to Western European markets through Kosovo to the Mediterranean Sea. When Yugoslavia refused to play ball with the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. and Germany began a systematic campaign of destabilization, even using some of the veterans of Afghanistan in that "war." Yugoslavia was broken up into compliant statelets, and the former Soviet Union was contained. The outcome: the de facto U.S. occupation of Kosovo--where America built its largest military base since the Vietnam War.
>snip<

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,688310,00.html
(Guardian: America Used Islamists to Arm Bosnian Muslims)
>snip<
Now we have the full story of the secret alliance between the Pentagon and radical Islamist groups from the Middle East designed to assist the Bosnian Muslims - some of the same groups that the Pentagon is now fighting in "the war against terrorism". Pentagon operations in Bosnia have delivered their own "blowback".

In the 1980s Washington's secret services had assisted Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. Then, in 1990, the US fought him in the Gulf. In both Afghanistan and the Gulf, the Pentagon had incurred debts to Islamist groups and their Middle Eastern sponsors. By 1993 these groups, many supported by Iran and Saudi Arabia, were anxious to help Bosnian Muslims fighting in the former Yugoslavia and called in their debts with the Americans. Bill Clinton and the Pentagon were keen to be seen as creditworthy and repaid in the form of an Iran-Contra style operation - in flagrant violation of the UN security council arms embargo against all combatants in the former Yugoslavia.

The result was a vast secret conduit of weapons smuggling though Croatia. This was arranged by the clandestine agencies of the US, Turkey and Iran, together with a range of radical Islamist groups, including Afghan mojahedin and the pro-Iranian Hizbullah. Wiebes reveals that the British intelligence services obtained documents early on in the Bosnian war proving that Iran was making direct deliveries.

Arms purchased by Iran and Turkey with the financial backing of Saudi Arabia made their way by night from the Middle East. Initially aircraft from Iran Air were used, but as the volume increased they were joined by a mysterious fleet of black C-130 Hercules aircraft. The report stresses that the US was "very closely involved" in the airlift. Mojahedin fighters were also flown in, but they were reserved as shock troops for especially hazardous operations.

>snip<

--this is about today's crisis of US vets down by the thousands due to depleted uranium weapon exposure, something Clinton and Clark blessed Yugoslavia with by the ton.
http://207.44.245.159/article8172.htm
(Heads Roll at Veteran's Administration Over DU)
02/23/05 "SFBV" - - Considering the tons of depleted uranium used by the U.S., the Iraq war can truly be called a nuclear war. Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter charged Monday that the reason Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi stepped down earlier this month was the growing scandal surrounding the use of uranium munitions in the Iraq War.

Writing in Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter No. 169, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, stated, “The real reason for Mr. Principi’s departure was really never given, however a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of the ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the US Military.”

Bernklau continued, “This malady (from uranium munitions), that thousands of our military have suffered and died from, has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth is now being revealed.”

He added, “Out of the 580,400 soldiers who served in GW1 (the first Gulf War), of them, 11,000 are now dead! By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on Permanent Medical Disability. This astounding number of ‘Disabled Vets’ means that a decade later, 56% of those soldiers who served have some form of permanent medical problems!” The disability rate for the wars of the last century was 5 percent; it was higher, 10 percent, in Viet Nam.

>snip<

http://www.fair.org/international/yugoslavia.html
(F.A.I.R. Resources: Balkans and Yugoslavia

http://brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/sources.html
(Analysis of the US-led Assault on Yugoslavia)

http://www.psywarrior.com/shapingperceptionsbalkans.html
(Shaping Perceptions During the Latest Balkans Imbroglio)

[MollyStark]

18. So you don't think he's the second coming?

Me either

[Clarkie1]

100. Your sarcasm doesn't help your cause.

Which appears to be to tear down a great democratic leader.

No, Clark is not the "second coming."

And his supporters aren't sheeple.:eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

164. She has a cause?

I'll have to go back and look at her posts and see.

[Crunchy Frog]

138. Hey, guess what, I don't think he's the second coming either.

I do however, think he's the Democratic parties best chance for taking back the White House, and I also think that once he got there he would make a damn fine President.

I don't believe I've had the pleasure before, so allow me to say, "Welcome to DU.":hi:

[LittleClarkie]

163. (peterpuma)Oh, two or three(/peterpuma)

Forever scarred by Warner Brothers.

Curse them.

[Totally Committed]

19. You are obsessed...

with hatred for Clark. You hate anyone who has ever been in the military.

TC

[JohnOneillsMemory]

21. Wrong. I am committed and knowledgeable. I hope to save soldier's lives.

Soldiers (and all of us) are lied to from birth about what our government does.

I am committed to the principle of informed consent for deciding how to spend our lives and deciding whether or not to take another's life.

Why you would leap to those rash assertions I can't guess. You leave your door shut without any explanation.

So be it. I have made myself clear.

[Totally Committed]

24. You've made yourself clear.

Indeed.

Over and over and over and over.....

Anyone who needs to keep making the same point over and over again the way you do, needs a new perspective and/or a new hobby.

My advice: push yourself away from the computer and go do something fun for a couple of hours. Go see a movie, shop for a new book to read (a novel, maybe...), get a haircut, hug your kids -- whatever.

You are obviously in need of a diversion, and I say that sincerely.

TC

[JohnOneillsMemory]

27. Thanks for your concern and advice. There is still a war on.

And it is fueled by lies. The truth must be repeated.

But thanks for your civility.

[Sparkly]

29. General Clark has spoken out consistently and strongly against this war

and spoke truth to power when called upon to speak to Congress; he also spoke the truth at the Hague.

You choose to believe conjecture, innuendo, hunches, and assumptions; you choose to draw cause-effects where things coexist, make leaps in logic to reach the conclusions you prefer, embrace the worst possible connections between elements based on shaky evidence rather than take anything at face value (yeah, Milosevic IS the elephant in the room, but you'll keep looking under the sofa for a mouse or two that's surely the REAL heart of the problem), applying blame and insinuating malicious motivations against people you've decided to malign.

Yes, we've heard it all before. We've discussed it all before. We've refuted it all before. Why you insist on jumping into every thread to dredge it all back up again is beyond me.

[dogman]

31. Who doesn't want peace?

Without soldiers giving their life, you'd be a slave. It's true there are unnecessary wars instigated by uncaring and conniving leaders. I am fully confident Clark is not one of them. Clark is the most capable of understanding what is at stake.

[Jai4WKC08]

26. Nope, it's all about YOU

LOL

We already know everything you've posted about Clark is a lie. We've refuted every single one a thousand times on a thousand threads. Why do it again? Would it stop you from haunting the next thread? And jumping thru the hoops again?

Figure it out, John. No one bothers to read the claptrap anymore. It never changes. There's nothing new. And it's all a fantasy.

As much real evil as there is in the world, it's really sad that you would waste your time and energy on this crusade against a good man who has always lived to serve this nation and the people of the world.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

28. wow. pathetic response. hope you aren't paid much by his campaign....n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

34. News flash! There is no campaign

But I do collect my retirement check from what you no doubt consider the MIC. Same place Clark gets his from. And I'm as proud of it as he is.

I'll let DUers decide for themselves who's pathetic.

[madfloridian]

39. Clark is VP of James Lee Witt, isn't he?

He is already drawing retirement? The JLW company works with Homeland Security, I believe, and trying to get FEMA back from under Homeland Security.

On Edit, yes he is. Here is a link to the website.

http://www.wittassociates.com/1205.xml

[Donna Zen]

42. FEMA out from under HS?

I'm looking at their client list and their other statements and no where do I see moving FEMA out from under HS as a goal.

As you know, unlike congressional reps, Clark had to quit every job he had when he ran. Gert said he has to make a living. They still have a mortgage, lived on an average of $50,000 their entire married life, and he drives a '92 Miada.

He does have a retirement based on his being a disabled veteran, but considering his potential earning power as an Oxford-West Point grad, money is not his motivating factor.

I hope he makes tons of money! He said he wants to give it away... good for him.

[madfloridian]

45. Here is an article about it.

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Florida/03FloridaSTAT02032605.htm

NEW ORLEANS -- Putting the Federal Emergency Management Agency under the Department of Homeland Security has hampered its ability to deal with hurricanes and other disasters, former FEMA Director James Lee Witt said Friday.

Emergency managers and other state and local officials attending the National Hurricane Conference applauded Witt when he urged that FEMA again be made a separate agency, saying it still could focus on all hazards whether they be terrorist attacks, earthquakes, floods or killer storms.

"The emphasis is not there like it used to be," Witt later told reporters. "Putting FEMA under the Department of Homeland Security has minimized their effectiveness in responding, in planning and training, the national hurricane program, everything."

Witt also urged more spending on the hurricane program, which is facing potential cuts, and said the agency has been too slow in passing federal emergency funding on to where it is needed.

"Put the money down to the state and local government," he said to more applause. "Let them do their job. They know what to do."

In Washington, FEMA spokeswoman Natalie Rule said there are no plans to remove the agency from Homeland Security's structure. Rather, she said, being included in the sprawling department has let FEMA respond more quickly to disasters by using Homeland Security resources like ships, planes and helicopters...."

[Jai4WKC08]

50. You're jumping to conclusions not supported by the facts

Witt was speaking as Clinton's FEMA director. He thinks FEMA shouldn't be under Homeland Security, but there's nothing in that article to show that the Witt LLC, in which Clark is a partner, is doing anything about it one way or th'other. It's like when Clark is interviewed about some military or foreign policy issue--doesn't mean he's working with anyone in the Dept of Defense to make policy. He's just giving his opinion, which is sought because of his experience.

I've read that Witt LLC has been working with governments in the Carribean on hurricane relief and preparation, and with Mid-East and South Asian countries for various other security issues. I believe they have some sort of contract with Nextel to work with community first responders within the US. But if they have any contracts with the US Homeland Security dept, I am unaware of it. Not saying they don't for sure, but I'd like to see a link to any evidence you've seen. Otherwise, you shouldn't assume that they do.

[madfloridian]

58. Where did you get that I was being critical?

I wasn't.

[Jai4WKC08]

65. Where did I say you were being critical?

You wrote, "The JLW company works with Homeland Security, I believe, and trying to get FEMA back from under Homeland Security." Then you produced what you claimed was "an article about it," But the article said nothing of the sort.

I was just providing the correct info.

[madfloridian]

68. Did you see this? I am very confused here.

"Putting the Federal Emergency Management Agency under the Department of Homeland Security has hampered its ability to deal with hurricanes and other disasters, former FEMA Director James Lee Witt said Friday.

Emergency managers and other state and local officials attending the National Hurricane Conference applauded Witt when he urged that FEMA again be made a separate agency, saying it still could focus on all hazards whether they be terrorist attacks, earthquakes, floods or killer storms.

"The emphasis is not there like it used to be," Witt later told reporters. "Putting FEMA under the Department of Homeland Security has minimized their effectiveness in responding, in planning and training, the national hurricane program, everything."

[madfloridian]

69. And this shows they are working with Homeland Security.

http://www.wittassociates.com/1419.xml

FEMA used to be a separate agency. Now it is not.

[Jai4WKC08]

81. I read both of those

Witt LLC does not work for FEMA. Witt himself used to, back before there was a Homeland Security dept. But not now, and his company doesn't either as far as I know. And since this is a thread about Clark, it's really only the company that's relevant, right?

Are you speaking of "Homeland Security" as a general concept, instead of a specific agency of the govt? If so, perhaps that's why we're confusing each other.

[madfloridian]

86. I did not say Witt now worked with FEMA, he has ties to Homeland Security.

I just mentioned it as a fact. Witt's company has ties to the Homeland Security industry.
I was not being critical just stating a fact.

http://www.homelanddefensestocks.com/Companies/HomelandDefense/News_Articles/Public_Safety.asp

[Jai4WKC08]

104. OK, now I think I understand

You're saying homeland security industry. When I see it capitalized, I assume you mean the govt dept of the same name. And the way you worded some things, that's what it sounded like too.

But sure. Witt LLC is in the security business (I see no point in putting "homeland" in front of it). That's why they took Clark in as a partner. Or technically, Vice Chairman. Got a FEMA guy (Witt), a transportation guy (Slater), and a defense guy (Clark). They can do the whole range of security issues.

I was also confused by your equating James Witt with Witt LLC. Whatever opinion he might give at some conference does not define the company's objectives. Not that either you or I (or Clark for that matter) would necessarily disagree with the opinion. But it's a long shot from saying Clark or the company is working on it.

Hey, anybody see in today's paper where Tommy Franks has joined the board of directors at Outback Steakhouse? I wouldn't eat there on a bet. LOL

[Donna Zen]

53. James Lee Witt worked to make FEMA a good agency.

And the article does say that he is critical of the agency's effectiveness under HLS; nevertheless, it does not state that his company is working to remove FEMA from HLS. (I'll go back and read your post. I probably misunderstood you.) Also, while the contracts that his company has achieved hasve some dealings with NGO and governmental agencies, it would seem that much of it is either private or with various states.

BTW, from the article, the bill to remove FEMA from HLS has been introduced by a "R". Although I would conclude that Witt knows of what he speaks; whereas, Wilson sounds like an asshole toadie.

[madfloridian]

60. FEMA is a mess now, under Bush.

I was not being critical. FEMA is not that effective under Homeland Security, at least not as an emergency management. They were not that adept during the hurricanes.

[CarolNYC]

48. "I hope he makes tons of money! He said he wants to give it away"

Yes, I remember him saying he wanted to be like George Soros when he got out of the military. Said his dream was to make enough money to give away to make a difference.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

70. You and many others are campaigning. So's Clark. Why deny facts?

So you're retired military? Is that why you respond angrily when I point out US history? Do you think I'm criticising you and your career personally? You certainly react if the discussion was about your personal integrity, not mine as you claim. That would explain alot about your reactions to my posts.

What is your history? I'm very interested. If you're retired military, I'm sure you have some insights to share. What makes you proud?

Yes,I do have a personal grudge. Against war criminals. Like Clark.

I have a relative who prosecuted Nazis at Nuremberg. Got'em hung.
My grandfather left his wife and kids on his Minnesota farm and joined up in WWII when he found out what fascism was doing to children. He was a SeaBee in the Solomons building airstrips and unloading ammo from ships.

I'm very proud of my grandfather's service to HUMANITY and his God.

BUT after WWII, the US government took in many of the Nazis they financed and ARMED in the 1920s and 1930s and became a private cabal of hardcore fascist militants that ignore the US Constitution (the one you take an oath to defend), the Geneva Conventions (law of the land under the Constitution), and every value of every religion.

The US government became what my Baptist grandfather left his family TO FIGHT AGAINST.

Go watch the film 'Fog of War' which interviews 1961-1968 Sec. of Defense Robert McNamara who admits that the US killed hundreds of thousands of civilians unnecessarily and that he was, in fact, a war criminal. He did it again in Vietnam and regrets it.

I understand that many are hanging on to the hope that the Bushes are just 'a few bad apples' in the American history barrel.

But that is not the case. I'm sorry if that is too horrible for you to accept if you have in fact spent your life in the service of this criminal US government.

I am sorry. But the truth must be faced if we are to gain our freedom from these Nazi rat-bastards without euphemisms of glory and honor that deny crimes against humanity for mere profit.

http://www.swans.com/library/art6/zig055.html
(A Century of US Military Interventions, --1999)

http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/CIAtimeline.html
(A Timeline of CIA Atrocities)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm
(Americas Third World War How 6 million People Were killed in CIA secret wars against third world countries, BY FORMER ANGOLA CIA STATION CHIEF, JOHN STOCKWELL)

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/31/1546207&mode=thread&tid=25
(Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions)

[Jai4WKC08]

93. Oh, so now you're proud of what your grandfather did in WWII?

For "HUMANITY," you said.

And to think, over last month or two, you said that WWII was solely about economics, that FDR was as much a fascist as Hitler, that there's no such thing as a "just war" and were citing some crackpot general who said all war is a racket back in the 1930s.

John, you're a liar as well as a crackpot.

But for the record. There is no Clark campaign. Clark is not campaigning. He has no campaign staff or campaign funds. He is not raising campaign funds. Campaigning is a very precise term as it applies to a candidate. Clark is not a candidate.

You can characterize what we, his supporters, post at DU as "campaigning" in a generic sense, but that's not at all the sort of "campaign" impled by your earlier statement.

So don't tell me I'm denying facts. You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass. That's why you have such oddball ideas about American history. You are totally incapable of distinguishing fact from fantasy.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

103. ?C'mon back from the edge, Jai4WKC08. "No campaign" and I'm a LIAR?

So your own username, the Clark DU group, your "join WesPac" logo, and the Clark campaign of 2004 are there in your own posts. Every one.

And you deny a Clark campaign?...and then call me a liar? Right.
Who's obsessed and irrational now?

My grandfather never killed anyone but he did what he thought was the right thing to protect the weak from the strong who preyed on them. Nobody in WWII knew that the US power elite had BUILT the Nazi war machine they were leaving home to die fighting against.

They were BETRAYED by the corporations running Congress the same way today's troops are betrayeds by the Busheviks and their lackey Congress.

Everyone works with what they know. No crime. I want to add to what they know so they make better decisions. Electing a war criminal is a step in the wrong direction.

Yes, wars ARE economic. FDR is a hero to me, not a villian. You are getting your history, such as it is, mixed up again.

"Some crackpot general..." Put Smedley Butler in a search engine and educate yourself about some one who is famously respected as a truth-teller in the endeavor where truth is the first victim, war.

History:
I never called FDR a fascist. Quite the opposite. He STOPPED FASCISM.
There was a coup plot by the owners of General Motors, DuPont, Ford, etc. to stage a coup against FDR to install FASCISM in the White House. They went to WWI war hero, General Smedley Butler, who they hoped would lead 1 million vets against Washington. But Butler believed in the Constitution and played along only to blow the whistle at the last minute. The Senate held brief embarassed hearings into the treason by their own financial backers and then buried the paperwork for decades. White wash is an old tactic.

Retired General Smedley Butler had a distinguished career BUT was horrified and angry to find out his career had been as a hit-man in the Caribbean for the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company.

Mussolini's fascism was so popular in the US that NY Governor FDR had to defend Butler when Butler insulted Mussolini in the press.

Consequently, Butler wrote the FAMOUS ESSAY called 'War is a Racket.'

Look, I'm trying to be gracious about the fact that REAL AMERICAN HISTORY has been buried and warped so that people will still sign up and kill on command for fascists who have run the White House since Truman signed the National Security Act in 1947.

Truman was horrified when he realized that the CIA he had created had taken over the US government like a virus and they WERE NAZIS and NAZI SYMPATHIZERS, fascism had been welcomed into the White House and it never left.

Eisenhower left office in January 1961 with the same warning against the power of the new military industrial complex. He knew the disease had outrun any cure from checks and balances. And still the CIA had been staging coups in Central and South America to protect the profits of United Fruit, AGAIN!

JFK was horrified by the Bay of Pigs disaster planned by Nixon who was supposed to win. JFK fired Allen Dulles from the CIA. The Dulles Brothers had been the lawyers who handled all the hidden American financing of the Nazis. And John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State.

JFK wanted out of the CIA's mess in Vietnam and signed security directive #263 to do so and planned to eliminate the curse of the CIA.

So they killed him. And then killed millions in Southeast Asia.

Stopping here.

You are showing exactly the problem caused by being ignorant of history when you are perfectly capable of educating yourself. Now multiply that ignorance by the Pentagon's firepower and you have the bloody world we live in.

You are showing that you don't know anything about the White House that supposedly you took orders from. How do you know what orders were legal? How do you know if there is a legitimate chain of command?

Clark retired and began lobbying for data-mining Acxiom to DARPA's John Poindexter. Do you know who that fucking scum Poindexter is? Do you know what fucking DARPA is doing with our tax dollars?

Yikes. Bookmark this thread. Do some research. Please.
"No Clark campaign." Puh-lease...

[Jai4WKC08]

107. Nope. None at all

If you can't grasp the simple distinction between grassroots support and a campaign, I suppose that explains a lot about your critical thinking skills.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

108. Oh, A petty legalism. You win. Now about history and killing...??...n/t

[Clark2008]

109. What I'm wondering is who's paying you?

Same shit, different day. Repeat it enough and it becomes fact mantra.

[Totally Committed]

126. It's a Neo-Con Tactic...

Repeat it until someone believes you.

TC

[wyldwolf]

137. what do you know about John O'Neil?

[Clark2008]

155. Apparently, he doesn't know that O'Neill and Clark were friends

That's for sure.

[wyldwolf]

158. I had heard that, too.

O'Neill was also very military minded. He was aggressive in his pursuit of the enemy.

He was, it seems, everything Johnoneillsmemory deplores about Wesley Clark

[Donna Zen]

40. What are you doing out there?

Note: When you made this same post on another thread, I answered you. In case you missed my original, I'll repost.

Hi JohnO',

I've not seen your posts for a while, although I admit to taking long absences from DU. I so hope you're doing well. I'll be flying on a US airplane soon something I've avoided by using Canadian routes. I remember you told me once you were foregoing the airlines, something I can sympathize with.

Anyway, when I read your posts and others with this same theme, a few things come to mind: should we in your opinion disband the entire military? If so, would the rest of the world suddenly find itself at peace. If not, then what is your proposal?

Also, does the "guilt" of killing extend only to those with a gun, or would you assign that guilt to anyone who voted for weapons systems and military budgets? Or as Thoreau believed, does the responsibility for war lie with every tax payer. Thoreau of course went to jail for his convictions by not paying his taxes; thus, I often ask myself his question to his visiting friends, what are you doing out here? Perhaps you've found a way around that, but I just continue to pay.

Recently Clark appeared at a Library of Congress round table with Sadako Ogata, former United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, where the subject of genocide came up. She responded to the difficulty of determining when to intervene by stating the obvious, that once 300,000 people are dead, you've waited too long. A hypothetical: if 300,000 people had died in Kosovo would that constitute a moral lapse, or would that be okay. BTW, in past posts, I've made it clear that I consider Milosevic as nothing more than a corrupt crime boss--a thug. That is not Clarkie propaganda, that is an opinion that I've derived from sources whom I trust, especially Samantha Powers and Chris Hedges.

As Clark has said: You will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the struggle to come. "You will choose whether we are known for revenge or compassion. You will choose whether we, too, will kill in the name of God, or whether in His name, we can find a higher civilization and a better means of settling our differences."

Wes Clark, no matter what is said or how many times it is said at DU, will continue to try and find a better means of settling our differences. The moderates in the Gulf trust him to counter the bush forces. I know that Wolfowitz and Perle and Cheney and Rice would never put themselves in harms way, never pick up a gun, but are willing--no eager--to put the rest of us there. Wes Clark does not believe that our differences can be settled with guns; he said this before he ran, he said during the election cycle, he is still saying it now.

He does believe that we must now leave a secure Iraq or we and the rest of the world could be drawn into their civil war. I'm sorry for that, but it is a correct read of the situation. There is no "whoops" guess we made a mistake. So the next four or more years will be a process of "getting out."

Hope this post finds you well.

[Auntie Bush]

125. Please go home! Take your matches and candle with you. Some

people don't realize they're not wanted...or are probably related to Carl Rove.

[senseandsensibility]

135. I have to echo what JimmyJazz

said to you last night in the lounge. Your screen name rocks!:)

[Zhade]

132. It's a thankless task, JOM...

...so let me thank you for continuing to show the truth, as much as some would like to dismiss it.

His endorsement of the SoA did it for me. I wouldn't vote for the guy if he was on fire. (Man, that's a weird sentence.)

No offense intended to Clark fans, but from the outside, it looks to me like you guys are too close to see his past. Hero-worship does tend to blind one to the hero's faults.

[dogman]

142. Truth or propaganda?

It the same old from the same old sources. There is no SoA, it was reformed due to past abuse. So your heros are anti-heros, no changing your closed mind is there?

[JohnOneillsMemory]

159. I hear that the KKK is 'reformed' now, too...n/t

[dogman]

170. Your heard this where?

Talk about hit and run.

[Zhade]

165. "There is no SoA".

Yeah, it's called WHISC now. Big change.

Funny, there still seem to be nuns and priests willing to go to jail (and being sent there) because they know that little has changed at Ft. Benning. I think I believe them over you. No offense intended.

[dogman]

171. Believe what you will.

They would impress me more if they were protesting at the Vatican for the return of the wealth stolen from the people of South America. But it's so much more chic to protest America, wrong or wrong. I would not argue though that things could well have deteriorated since Wes has left the command and the Bushies are running things again. Show evidence of misdeeds that went unpunished while Clark was in command. One day posters are bemoaning that Wes was tough on the CA and Sa military then the next he was giving them a pass. Which is it? Some here defend murdering dictators rather than believe Wes's word. As I said believe what you will.

[Zhade]

173. Some things right and some things wrong with your post...

They would impress me more if they were protesting at the Vatican for the return of the wealth stolen from the people of South America.

Hey, I'm down with that. The RCC (and most churches, IMHO) take way too much money from those who can't afford to give it.


But it's so much more chic to protest America, wrong or wrong.

Irrelevant, emotion-based argument.


I would not argue though that things could well have deteriorated since Wes has left the command and the Bushies are running things again.

I would not argue that myself, since I have seen little evidence that there has been much of a change at all, besides the name of the school.


Show evidence of misdeeds that went unpunished while Clark was in command.

First off, I'm not trying to convince you to believe as I do, just explain why I feel as I do. If, however, you would like some evidence regarding the school, I suggest a trip to www.soaw.org for the latest info. You can even read some of the government-authorized torture manuals used at the school.


One day posters are bemoaning that Wes was tough on the CA and Sa military then the next he was giving them a pass. Which is it?

Since this does not apply to me (I never argued the first part of your statement), this is irrelevant to our discussion. I can't answer for other people.


Some here defend murdering dictators rather than believe Wes's word.

Again, this is not me, so I cannot speak to this. Also, I do not take anyone's word as the ultimate truth. I believe the nuns and priests protesting the deaths facilitated by the SoA because of the reading I've done about the school, not based on their being nuns and priests (hell, I'm an atheist, so I'm in no way inclined to take any religious figure's claims at face value).


As I said believe what you will.

Well, of course I will believe as I do, just as you will believe as you do. I was asked why I will not vote for Clark, I gave part of the answer. I'm sorry that puts us at odds, but I don't hold you in lesser regard for your beliefs about Clark.

Peace.

EDIT: ".org" not ".com"

[dogman]

175. Here is Clark's statement.

Snip> "I strongly condemn human rights abuses of any kind. Throughout my career, I have fought to protect the fundamental rights of all people and to promote democratic values that empower people to prevent abuses of power and combat them when they occur."
http://www.clark04.com/issues/soa/
I take him at his word, others don't. Clark was in charge of the school 1996-1997 at which time he implemented changes. I have seen no evidence of wrongdoing while he was there. He has been open to the idea that if he is shown wrongdoing he would stop it. Obviously he would have to be in a position to do that. As I have said it would be foolish to not expect that atrocities could take place under the current administration. He has spoken out against what has taken place in Iraq, as have many former military leaders. I feel he is a man of integrity and trust that he would do the right thing. I also realize their is some disinformation out there. the only criticism of Clark I found on the site was a repeated story that attempts to tie him to some recent atrocity because he had expressed support of the school based on the schools purpose. Why aren't similar attacks made on all of the politicians who continue to fund it and actually have a say in it's existence? I think this is a cheap attack on an easy target and simply sought to use his visibility to raise the visibility of their cause.

[Zhade]

178. I will re-visit his involvement with the SoA.

I do have to say, though, that's not the only reason I don't feel I can vote for Clark. I will, however, re-examine those concerns as well, out of fairness.

[CarolNYC]

196. Very cool, Zhade.

Can't ask for more than that. I do hope that some day you get a chance to meet him and confront him with your concerns.

Peace, Carol

[MollyStark]

20. Clark currently goes to a conservative Church in Arkansas

Words mean little without actions. Clinton used words to manipulate all of us to think he was going to be good for liberal ideas *JOKE*. Since Clinton was advising Clark it wouldn't suprize me if Clark was less than sincere and doing nothing more than manipulating his audience by "attacking" the religious right. Maybe he was maybe he wasn't.

Many of the candidates criticized the religious right, but..... DK as liberal as he is voted with the religious right for years on the issue of abortion. Kerry though always strongly pro-choice, choked on the question about abortion in the debate with bush. He over stated his case and sounded in-sincere. Edwards said almost nothing. Sharpton was and continues to be the best voice against the religious right, though he seemed happy to take republican money and can't be trusted.

Dean attacked the religious right during the campaign and in every stump speach. Dean wins that award.

CMB, my candidate, didn't make it far enough to really get her voice heard. Al Gore has criticized them for years.

So why is it that you are the only ones campaigning for 2008? You are selling this guy like some cheezy Amway product. Is it any wonder that everone else is getting turned off to him?

[senseandsensibility]

22. Everyone else is getting turned off to him?

Interesting statement. Please back it up.

[Sparkly]

25. I don't think it matters what church someone attends, but

in many ways, a "conservative" one would be a plus in the general election, seems to me.

I don't really like comparing Democrats at this point, since I don't have an agenda to slam anyone, and wouldn't want it to come off that way. But I will point out that Clark spoke about what "faith" means to him personally before most others did, and made it central to his campaign speeches (as part of "faith, family, patriotism and values").

When someone is comfortable talking about their own experiences that way, others can relate to it, and those who identify can trust the speaker's point of view on, for example, the religious right. I'm not saying others didn't do it or couldn't have done it; I'm just saying Clark was out there from the start and delivers that particular message in a way that can really resonate with a range of voters that we need.

[MollyStark]

74. the OP was selling Clark as someone attacking the religious right

Now you are saying it's a good thing that he goes to a conservative christian church. Do you see any contradiction there?

[kevsand]

30. Clark supporters aren't the only ones

campaigning for 2008. Kerry is working the Iowa counties hard. Edwards is too, and spent the last week or so traveling around Missouri campaign-style. Feingold is reserving web domains for 2008. Bayh has new consultants on staff. Did you really think they're all going to stand still for two years?

The real test is going to be who does the most now to help Dean rebuild the party nationwide for the 2006 races. That's something we all can and should help with, regardless of who we'd like to see as the nominee in 2008. But while we're at it, we're obviously going to tell everyone we can about Clark.

If you haven't seen anyone yet that you like, that's perfectly understandable. Just please don't criticize us for knowing a winner when we see one.

[Jai4WKC08]

32. And which church would that be...

That you think is so conservative?

[MollyStark]

72. Second Presbyterian Church in Little Rock.

Mkay?

[Clarkie1]

76. Have you attended this church yourself? You seem to know a lot about it.

Here is a link to the church website:

http://secondpreslr.org/home.asp

"God loves a cheerful giver", ..that's what my minister says every week in church. We've got to do our share! -Wes Clark 1/12/05

Is that too "conservative" for you?

[MollyStark]

91. I have seen their website.... have you read beyond the word bites?

Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. Read up on it.

[Clarkie1]

94. Question for you.

Kerry is Catholic.

Clark is Catholic.

Does that mean Kerry and Clark are anti-reproductive rights?

You simply want to try and tear down Clark however you can. It's really pathetic, and you keep digging yourself into a bigger hole.

Clark obviously, since he considers himself Catholic and attends Catholic services, does not take any one church to be the one and only absolute truth of anything. I'm very cool with that.

[ICantBelieve]

186. NO Reformed Presbyterian Churches in Arkansas

According to the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, there are no churches in Arkansas:

http://www.rpcna.org/cong_loc.php

Where are you getting your information?

[kevsand]

199. Wow.

I was pretty sure that 2nd Presb in Little Rock wasn't one, but it never occurred to me that there'd be none in the entire frickin' state. That actually surprises me a little. Thanks for the link.

[Jai4WKC08]

110. Right Church, wrong depiction

It's not conservative and it's not "reformed"

[ICantBelieve]

185. The Church that Wes Goes To...

Well, I must admit that the church that Wes Clark goes to was not 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 344th on my list of considerations for whether to support him or not. So, I must only take the word of the people here that the Second Presbyterian Church of Little Rock is the Clark's church.

Here's the website:

http://secondpreslr.org/home.asp

I have no idea what would make someone think, from looking at this website, that it was a conservative church. I admit that I know virtually nothing about Presbyterians, but I did go to a funeral once at a Reformed Presbyterian Church and I seem to remember Reformed being in the name and that there was a distinct bias against women doing anything important in the church--I noticed this because there was some sign as I walked through the door about where women were allowed to sit or some other such nonsense. Now, take a look at the staff page at Second Presbyterian Little Rock:

http://secondpreslr.org/ourstaff.asp

[Clarkie1]

33. Wes Clark's religious/spritual journey

BELIEFNET: Your mom was Methodist.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: She was.

BELIEFNET: So how did you end up as a Baptist as a child?

CLARK: My mother told me once that she and my father agreed that I would not be brought up Jewish in Chicago. She had me going to a Methodist church. When we went back to Arkansas, she told me when I was four and a half years old, "You'll have to choose the one you want to go."

I remember the Methodist church in Chicago had these beautiful stained glass windows. So I saw a church in Arkansas that had those beautiful stained glass windows and it was right across the street from this barber shop that had a miniature barber's chair complete with the razor strap and everything.

So I picked that church. It was the Immanuel Baptist church. And so that was my church. I picked that church when I was not quite 5.

<snip>

BELIEFNET: You were 4 1/2 when your father died?

CLARK: Not quite 4.

BELIEFNET: Not to get psychobabbly here but any sense of how the death of your father was affecting your spiritual life?

CLARK: I'm sure it made me more spiritual. I feel confident that it did

BELIEFNET: Do you have any memory of church life and whether it was of any comfort?

CLARK: It was of tremendous comfort. I always said my prayers at night. My mother taught actually me to say prayers at night but most of it came from the church.

<snip>

BELIEFNET: Flashing forward a little bit, tell me how you became interested in Catholicism and how you ended up converting.

CLARK: I wouldn't have known anything about Catholicism if I hadn't been dating Gert. In those days, Catholics were much less ecumenical than they are today. Gert was always of the mind that she wouldn't go to another church except the Catholic Church. So when I would date her in New York City and later when we went to Oxford before we got married we always went to the Catholic church.

What had happened to me was, I had tried to go the Protestant churches in England and I had sought out a Baptist church and a Methodist church. And that was during the Vietnam War and in both cases the sermons were anti- the American military and full of wildly overstated claims about how bad the American military was. My West Point classmates -- my roommate was serving over there-he was killed during that period.

I wasn't about to go to church like that who didn't respect my friends who believed they were praying to the same God and serving their country.

We always believed in the 12th chapter of the book of Mark. That's what we were taught at West Point where Jesus speaks to the Pharisees and they try to trick him and say "You say we're supposed to be loyal to God but you're being a traitor to Caesar." And he said, "Bring me the coin" and said, "Who's face in this coin?" And the Pharisees say, "Well, Caesar of course." And Jesus says "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's."

<snip>

BELIEFNET: Any moments where you felt divine support more than others?

CLARK: Actually when I was wounded and recovering in Japan. I went to church there and I remember on the air base where their hospital was, I remember coming out of that church and feeling like I had been - at that point I just felt very, very close to God and that I'd done the right thing with my life. And I knew I wasn't going back to Vietnam. I just knew I wasn't going back

BELIEFNET: Any low points spiritually?

CLARK: No I can't say that there was.

BELIEFNET: Going back a bit chronologically, it was around the Oxford period that you were told your father was Jewish?

CLARK: That's right

<snip>

CLARK: When I went home I confronted her and I asked her, I said "Mom you never told me. Why?" She probably thought I was mad because I probably said it in an accusatory way, but I wasn't being accusatory. "I don't understand why you didn't tell me."

She started to cry. She said, "Wesley, you just had enough problems. You didn't need one more. You'd lost your father. You came down to Little Rock. You were in fights a lot. You had a Chicago accent. You just didn't need one more problem."

BELIEFNET: Why was she so sure it would be a problem?

CLARK: Because she'd seen the prejudice in Chicago. Once she told me this, she would then reminisce a lot about it. There were restaurants they couldn't go to. There were clubs they couldn't belong to. There were resorts they couldn't go to vacation to. There were friends they didn't really have. This was a prejudiced society.

And I think my mother probably felt the stigma when she went back to Arkansas as well. At the time, even when I was growing up in Arkansas, if you were Jewish you were not a member of the Little Rock Country Club. You had your own country club. It just so happened I lifeguarded for a few weeks at that country club. I always got along very, very well with Jewish people. I don't know why. I remember there was a man named Jay Hyman, classmate of mine, and I don't know it was funny thing, it was the way they thought, the way they talked, I just felt a certain familiarity.

So when I found my father was Jewish, a lot of pieces just seem to slip into place the right way.

BELIEFNET: Now you are still Catholic but you're going to a Protestant church?

CLARK: Right we go to Second Presbyterian Church in Little Rock.

BELIEFNET: Why are you not going to a Catholic Church?

CLARK: We stopped going to Catholic Mass some years ago in the Army. We'd go to these Catholic churches, and when you're Catholic, of course, going to church is a duty. But we'd walk out of the church and say 'God,' and we'd complain about the homily.

One night I walked out of the church when the priest said that we should never have fought the Revolutionary war and every war was bad. It was 4th of July. It was an outrageously political statement. I just never felt right when people in the church would take these overtly political positions especially when I felt like I was a good Christian, I was serving my country, and I just didn't feel like I deserved to be lambasted by the priest on the 4th of July.

We finally realized, ya know, we spent years with me complaining that the Catholics wouldn't sing the hymns. In the Protestant church I was in the church choir but for whatever reason, we didn't do that.

We just decided we liked to try Protestant services. We had some other friends who went occasionally to the Protestant services and said, 'You'll really like this preacher.' He was very good. This was army non-denominational services. So in the Army we just continued to go to Protestant non-denominational services.

BELIEFNET: So how would you describe yourself now?

CLARK: I'm spiritual. I'm religious. I'm a strong Christian and I'm a Catholic but I go to a Presbyterian Church. Occasionally I go to the Catholic church too. I take communion. I haven't transferred my membership or anything. My wife I consider ourselves---she considers herself a Catholic.

BELIEFNET: And you do as well?

CLARK: Yes.

http://www.belief.net/story/136/story_13636_1.html

The main thing I get from this is that Clark seems to find value in a variety of religious traditions. Quite the opposite of a religious fundamentalist. Obviously, he is not one to accept what anyone in a postion of authority says without question.

[madfloridian]

36. Here are links about his church memberships.

Since you were demanding it, I thought I would help you. I have no opinion on this myself. Just FYI.

http://www.philocrites.com/archives/000527.html

http://www.belief.net/story/136/story_13636_4.html

[senseandsensibility]

37. Interesting links

Thanks, but I still see no evidence of a "conservative" church. Perhaps some people consider the Catholic church conservative, but it was against the war. The other church mentioned, Presbyterian, happens to be my church. I was baptized in it at the age of four, and it is not conservative. It supported civil rights in the sixties. More recently, when we moved to a new city, the Presbyterian church sent us an invitation to attend a service. On their literature,they proclaimed support for unions, public schools, and the environment.

[MollyStark]

77. Presbyterian congregations are like every other denomination

Some Churches are conservative and others are more liberal. The one Clark attends happens to be conservative.

[Clarkie1]

79. Evidence? Link?

[MollyStark]

84. You would easily find it if you looked

It is a member of the Presbyterian Reformed denomination. They are the folks who broke off from PCUSA over the ORDINATION OF WOMEN. In addition they are strictly pro-life and even today DON'T ORDAIN WOMEN.

Here is a statement of their beliefs.



Our beliefs all stem from a full commitment to the authority of the Bible as the inerrant, infallible Word of God. This means that we believe in the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We acknowledge our total inability to save ourselves and, in faith, depend on Christ alone as our Savior. We acknowledge Him as Covenant Lord in every area of life, and we vow together to advance His Kingdom on earth.

We believe that God desires His Church to set forth clear statements of her system of doctrine that can be supported from Scripture. We therefore accept as our creed, or subordinate standards, The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. In addition to these doctrinal statements, we adhere to the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, which is our continuing application of God's written word to the world and the church of today.

We believe that God's Word clearly sets forth how He is to be worshiped. The reading and exposition of the Word of God are the central focus of our worship. Our musical praise employs God's Word only, thus making use of the divinely inspired Book of Psalms of the Bible. In keeping with the New Testament Church's directive for heart worship, we sing without the aid of musical instruments.

http://www.reformedpresbyterian.org/conv_beliefs.html

This is a fundamentalist Presbyterian church. Clark decided to attend this Reformed PC denomination rather than listen to a Catholic Priest tell him that war was wrong. :eyes:

[Clarkie1]

88. You are making a lot of assumptions you know nothing about.

You claim that, "Our musical praise employs God's Word only, thus making use of the divinely inspired Book of Psalms of the Bible. In keeping with the New Testament Church's directive for heart worship, we sing without the aid of musical instruments."

WRONG.

If that is true, then why does this church sponsor the "acoustic music cafe?"

"Programs may include traditional, Celtic, and/or contemporary folk, pop, bluegrass, jazz, blues, or other styles of music which are appropriate for a listening, family audience."

http://www.acousticsoundscafe.org/aboutasc.htm

You know next to nothing about this church.

:eyes:

BTW, I wouldn't listen to anyone tell me the Revolutionary War was wrong, either. Or WWII for that matter. Give me a break.

[MollyStark]

92. I am making no assumptions

I pasted information from the denomination web site.

[Clarkie1]

95. And you made the assumption

That the church Clark attends follows those guidelines in their entirety.

You assume a lot I've noticed, and not just about this particular church. It seems to be an ongoing pattern with you.

[MollyStark]

161. LOL

I assume that when a church changes from PCUSA to the PC reformed of North America that it is a concious choice. The congregation obviously was already conservative and decided that PCUSA with it's refusal to change the book of order to reflect the homophobic nature of some congregations just wasn't right wing enough.

[kevsand]

176. You still haven't shown us that they ever changed.

I've been looking myself for two days to find any link between 2nd Presb and the RPCNA. I can't find it. They still seem to be PC(USA). If you've got a link, please post it, because I'd really like to see it.

It strikes me as counter-intuitive. Why would a church with female clergy join a denomination that bans female clergy? We need a hard link here, not just spec.

[MollyStark]

160. This group has nothing to do with the church service itself

[susanna]

192. I am confused.

If the chruch he attends has split and gone to Reformed, why is the PCUSA logo still on the church's website? (The logo is the small red and blue cross. Click on it and it takes you to PCUSA's website.) I'm curious.

[x_y_no]

194. So far all we have is MollyStark's unsupported assertion

Oft repeated without any backup.

Nor has she explained how this church could have two female ministers if it is reformed.

[susanna]

198. Thanks for clarifying, x_y_no.

I read some more of the thread. Wow. Some people just will not admit they are wrong, huh?

My husband and I are PCUSA and our pastor is one of the most thoughtful and progressive people you'll ever want to meet. It's one of the reasons we go there. He has even asked me -- a woman! -- if I would be interested in going into ministry. (I actually look for the PCUSA logo when traveling just so I don't wander into a Presbyterian church that wouldn't like me so much.) :-)

[Clarkie1]

38. Thanks.

I actually did some quick googling myself and updated my post to provide more information.

Clark's religious/spriritual journey is a very facinating story.

[MollyStark]

71. sigh... I have read this before..... "Right we go to Second Presbyterian "

a very conservative southern Presbyterian church.

[Clarkie1]

73. Do you know what the minister of that church says at every service?

"God loves a cheerful giver," ..that's what my minister says every week in church. We've got to do our share! -Wes Clark 1/12/05

Gee, that's just so "conservative."

[MollyStark]

85. Do you know what the Reformed Presbyterian Church of N America

stands for? I do.

[Clarkie1]

96. Do you know what Clark stands for?

I do.

[MollyStark]

162. That is the problem

You just won't look at the evidence in front of you. With all the choices he has, this is the church he decides to go to.

[kevsand]

127. I think you've got the wrong branch.

I just went to the 2nd Presb Little Rock web site, and I see no link anywhere on their site to the conservative "Reformed" branch you refer to. I do see a link to the mainstream Presbyterian Church USA, also known as PC(USA), which is much more moderate than the ultra-conservative branches like Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) and Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). In fact, it's practically liberal by comparison.

PC(USA) is the largest branch of the Presbyterian Church, formed by the reunion in 1983 of the so-called "northern" and "southern" branches of the Presbyterians. RPCNA and PCA are fundamentalist splinter groups. Where do you see the link between 2nd Presb L.R. and the specific conservative branches? All I see is the link to PC(USA).

[ICantBelieve]

188. Do you know they have NO churches in Arkansas????

[Clarkie1]

97. Hmmm....since Clark is a liberal democrat

Wait, let me rephrase that. You may not yet be convinced that Clark is a liberal democrat, so let's just say he's someone who calls himself a "liberal."

Will people in this church listen to someone who calls themself a liberal?

Do you think Clark could convince any of his fellow church members to vote for a liberal? To vote for someone who was against the Iraq war and who is

pro-environment
pro-affirmative action
pro-union
pro-choice

etc., etc., etc.

Or do you think (fill in your candidate here) would be better equipped to do that?

I'd love to hear some of those Sunday morning conversations...

[southlandshari]

82. Thanks, Clarkie1

I hadn't seen the beliefnet interview with Clark before. Good info and insight there. I really liked Clark from the get-go, but never had the chance to cast a vote for him - Alabama voters (like voters in about 44 other states) don't get any real voice in picking the party's candidate. I hope Clark is on the ticket (P or VP would be fine) in 2008!

[cidliz2004]

35. You really don't get that Wes Clark has OVERWHELMING support from DU

so don't say something that is totally untrue about everyone getting turned off by him. Oh no, not by a long shot, no, in fact - more people are getting turned "on" by him. There will always be people that just don't see what is right in front of them the greatness of Clark- case in point, all of the people that voted for Bush, obviously didn't see what was right in front of their faces - evil.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

105. I have pm's thanking me for outing the general. People are sick of attacks

I'm adamantly against Clark and lots of Clarkies know that. A bunch of them are smearing me and encouraging others to, as well.

I have Clarkies jumping in with comments like 'FrenchieCat said you were a bullshit spinner.' And then offering no information. Just school yard bullying and name-calling. Efforts to discredit with personal defamation. Atleast FrenchieCat offers some info to back up her views. Usually. But first with epithets of "bullshit! crap! what's your motive?"

Just ugly schoolyard gangleader poison.

Now there are other people who share my view of Clark writing me to say "some of these Clarkies are just brutal and obnoxious. Thanks for standing up against them."

I think there are some immature Clarkies just doing the anonymous venom dance. BUT I also suspect there are operatives carving out a candidacy here and hounding any opposition with Rovian tactics.

I offer TONS of substantiation for my views and get criticized for doing exactly that. I have to get pushed repeatedly with personal venom before I respond with exasperation instead of calm discussion.

This thread has examples of this dynamic. Too many Clarkies are like Bushies, so convinced of his saintly good intentions and high-minded words that evidence from the past is just a smear to them. Yikes.

Clark's candidacy is highly contentious here at DU, not widely accepted.
That's my experience backed up by other DU-ers.

[Jai4WKC08]

111. You offer NO substantiation, John

You never do. Just the same old crap from the same old worthless websites. I've come to think you know damn well they're worthless. Half the time, they don't even pertain to Clark except in your fractured logic. You know people won't read thru all the shit. You're just going for the effect.

That's why I've given up arguing points with you. And so have a lot of others. It's just a waste of time. You're like MollySnark here. Posts total bullshit until someone proves her wrong. Then she takes up some other line of shit, or goes away. But she'll start back up on some other thread, with the same bullshit, as tho it had never been discussed before. It's an endless drill that becomes totally pointless.

So whine all you want to about OUR supposedly Rovian tactics. You're the one doing the smearing. You don't see Clarkies attacking other Democrats on DU. We think we should all be working together. But then, you're not really a Democrat, are you?

Meanwhile, you and your gutless pm buddies make up a tiny core of Clark-haters at DU. Everybody knows that. You believe, or pretend to believe, every left- AND right-wing lie about Clark (pretty much the same lies), from every disreputable source you can dig up. Altho I think most of you know better but don't care, or have another agenda altogether. Whatever. Doesn't mean shit.

Your pm's don't begin to compare to the total DU membership, or even the normally active members. And they sure as hell don't mean jack compared in number to Democrats in real life.

But hey, if those pm's stroke your ego, don't bother letting reality intrude. It never does in anything else you write.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

112. More energy demonizing me. Zip on Clark. Yeah. Got it. Usual response.

Your key words again: "bullshit, crap, meaningless links, no one reads it." Apparently, you can't handle facts and flame in defense.

I've given you sources like the NYT, Guardian, CNN, F.A.I.R., Toronto Star, atleast a dozen msm and alternate sources. There's so much against Clark that you can discuss many of his weaknesses as a candidate, war crimes being just one.

But actually backing up your views is suspect, is it?
What are you, one of those new 'faith-based Democrats?'

So you go tribal with "you're not really a Democrat, are you?"
Hey-this isn't some petty sports event. PEOPLE ARE DYING.

I'm the kind of Democrat who says FUCK OFF to war criminals like Clark and his buddies at FUCKING DARPA and FUCKING SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS.
Are those friends of yours? Why?

You can lead a warhorse to info but you can't make them think.

Good night. See again soon.

[Clark2008]

201. I know all the Clarkies who post here and none are operatives

You don't have to believe me, but they aren't.
They are all just regular citizens. I know all of them on a first-name basis and the only "campaigning" that is being done is the zeal of a grassroots effort.
Clark's blog was the only one to remain up during the entire primary season (after he dropped out), through the presidential run and beyond. Even Dean's morphed into something else.
Clark's has always been at http://www.forclark.com and, even now, incorporated into http://www.securingamerica.com, the blog has not changed. The reason I mention this is because you seem to think there is some organized effort. Well, there is, but it's all volunteer because we all believe in Clark.
And the only "organizing" in the effort is just to make sure we debunk ludicrious assertations like the ones you've made.
Yeah, we sometimes tell each other about polls and such, but mostly it's about a group of people - who also volunteer in other Democratic organizations - who think Clark would be the best president of our time.
Purely grassroots.

[Pepperbelly]

41. There is nothing conservative about Second Presbyterian Church ...

in Little Rock. Da nada.

Zip.

They feed most of the city's homeless as a matter of fact.

You shouldn't just make shit up as you go along. It does nothing for your credibility.

[senseandsensibility]

43. Amen

My republican parents left the Presbyterian church in the sixties because it was too lefty.

[madfloridian]

47. Don't be too critical of that statement.

He was also Southern Baptist and Catholic. Both are conservative.

[Pepperbelly]

49. Southern Baptist in his youth and yes ... I will be extremely critical ...

since I am very familiar with the church in question. If we don't police our own ranks when they strow scat on the floor, we will eventually lose contact with reality the same way that the gops have. Personally, I don't want any Kool-aid and I bet you don't either.

The fact is that there is no way that anyone who knows a damned thing about it can claim that 2nd Pres in Little Rock is a conservative church. It just isn't true.

Period.

So yes, that makes it bullshit and it needs correcting.

[Clarkie1]

54. So was JFK

Catholic, that is. You really have to look at Clark's whole religious/sprirtual journey in its totality to gain any real sort of understanding of the matter.

Edit: Kerry is Catholic too, isn't he?

[kevsand]

133. I was raised in a Southern Baptist church.

Wouldn't touch 'em with a ten foot pole now, of course. Does that make me a conservative Christian?

[Crunchy Frog]

146. Actually, both denominations have both liberals and conservatives

in them. At least the Southern Baptists used to and the Catholics still do. Jimmy Carter is, or was a member of the Southern Babtist church, as is Bill Clinton. John Kerry is a Catholic, as were JFK, Bobby, and the other Kennedies. The Pope was very conservative in some areas, and liberal, even leftist, in some others.

In any event, at the time that Wes Clark picked a Southern Baptist church to attend, at around age 5, it is extrememly doubtful that he had any notion of any political implications of that choice.

[kevsand]

177. In fact, my childhood church was kind of a maverick

in the Southern Baptist Convention. Not what I would call progressive, but ground level moderate was flaming liberal by comparison even then. We were often looked at askance by the other churches. They have since severed all ties with the Southern Baptists. Got too weird even for them.

[Clark2008]

200. I'm Southern Baptist and Catholic and, ummm, I'm here and I'm liberal.

Big f*'ing deal.

My father's side is Southern Baptist, my mother's side is Catholic.

This whole conversation - compelte with Molly Stark's failures to see that Clark's church isn't a "reformed" Presbyterian Church - is just too corny for words! :rofl:

[Jai4WKC08]

56. Haven't you figured out by now...

All the people who attack Clark just make shit up.

Fortunately, there aren't many of 'em. And they're not very good at it.

[madfloridian]

61. What in God's name are you talking about? I did not attack Clark.

This is sily.

[Sparkly]

62. I think that was in response to someone else's post

Not yours. Peace.

[Jai4WKC08]

67. I didn't say you were attacking Clark

But maybe I missed something, since you seem so defensive.

I was talking about JOM's long list of lies, and Ms. Snark's crap about attending a conservative church.

[MollyStark]

87. Look up Reformed Presbyterian Churches of North America

Lots of right wing fundamentalist churches feed the homeless.

You should really know what you are talking about before accusing other people of making shit up.

[Jai4WKC08]

98. Look up 2nd Presbyterian Church of Little Rock

It ain't "Reformed Presbyterian." Two of the four pastors are women.

http://secondpreslr.org/ourstaff.asp

You really should know what your talking about before... making shit up.

[CarolNYC]

117. two of the four pastors are women

Very cool, Jai.

I am a practicing Roman Catholic (and one who, though I didn't always agree with him, is grieving the death of the Pope) and, if they EVER get around to ordaining women, it certainly won't be in my lifetime. But I don't consider myself anywhere near a part of the religious right. And I know a lot of other Catholics, priests included, who could say the same...and the religious right would no doubt agree wholeheartedly.

I also know some priests who could be considered part of it. My sister, who lives in a very conservative area, belongs to a Church that put out a voting guide before the election where they were given guidance to base their votes on the issues of abortion, gay marriage and school vouchers! Just those three things, no social justice, no help for the needy, no unjust and unncecessary war, just those three issues! That about sent her over the edge and out of the Church...but she stuck it out, driving her car with the "Catholics for Kerry, No More Preemptive War" bumper sticker to Church and her Clark pin on her coat when she attended. She didn't get chased from the Church or refused Communion or anything but she did notice that friendships with a couple of the more conservative members seemed to have cooled quite a bit since.

We really do have to take religion back from the nuts...Clark can help a lot with that, methinks.

So can the two organizations I linked to earlier.

[kevsand]

128. See my post #127 above.

"You should really know what you are talking about before accusing other people of making shit up." Show me that I'm wrong. The link at the church's web site is to PC(USA), not to RPCNA. RPCNA split from PC(USA) because it was too liberal.

Methinks its pot-kettle-black time.

[ICantBelieve]

189. NONE IN ARKANSAS

If you actually took the time to go to the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America's webstie, you'd see that they don't have any churches in Arkansas.

[Clarkie1]

59. I really like Carol Moseley Braun.

A great and inspiring woman.

[Sparkly]

66. She is awesome

On the Chimp (paraphrase): "I don't look like him, I don't talk like him, I don't think like him."

Yes indeed, in so many ways she is the direct antithesis of him. And someday, when sanity is restored to our country, a woman like CMB will indeed be POTUS. I hope it's in my lifetime.

[Crunchy Frog]

141. So, you haven't noticed all the Kerry in '08 threads,

or the Boxer in '08 threads, or the Hillary in '08 threads, or the Edwards in '08 threads, or the Feingold in '08 threads, or the Warner in '08 threads, or the Bayh in '08 threads, or the Gore in '08 threads? Any others that I forgot to mention?

Perhaps you have some sort of obsession with Clark and hence only notice the threads promoting Clark for '08 while failing to notice all the other ones.:shrug:

[ICantBelieve]

184. Do some research...

it wouldn't suprize me if Clark was less than sincere and doing nothing more than manipulating his audience by "attacking" the religious right. Maybe he was maybe he wasn't.

You clearly no nothing about Clark if you can make a statement like that. No one who has ever had any contact with Clark would ever think he was anything but honest. You can criticize other things about Clark, but to accuse him of pandering to his audience is just plain showing that you haven't done your homework.

[CarolNYC]

44. yep...

It was in an interview on Al Franken's show that he said...lots of people can quote scripture but not everybody practices their faith.

I also remember him talking, at a fundraiser in Grand Central with Ted Sorenson shortly before the New Hampshire primary, about how the Republicans acted like they got their orders direct from God daily yet ignored the fact that one of the elements common to every faith is that those who have more should help those who have less and that the political party that actually practices that is the Democratric party.

I do think that Clark is a good one to help take on the religious right. It's great to hear him speak of his religious beliefs because he's obviously sincere, yet he doesn't overpower a nonbeliever with his belief. His religious history is so diverse and inclusive, too....Born a Jew, raised by a Methodist Mom, attended a Baptist Chruch as a child, converted to Catholicism in Viet Nam, attends a Presbyterian Church now...

Here's a snippet from a piece by Paul Glastris called A Campaign to Remember which appeared in the NY Times shortly after Clark dropped out:

"General Clark had another profound influence on this campaign: with the possible exception of Joseph Lieberman, he was the most willing to talk openly about his religious faith.
This was another area of cognitive dissonance for Democrats. Most voters — including most Democratic voters — take religion seriously, and prefer a candidate who does so as well. But perhaps out of fear of giving offense to secularist voters, most of the Democratic presidential hopefuls had remained largely silent about faith, effectively ceding to the president the language of faith and morality that resonates with so many Americans.
In his speeches and interviews, however, General Clark spoke with evident sincerity and knowledge about faith, especially his own. Other Democratic candidates soon followed, including Howard Dean. Yet Dr. Dean's comments — such as how he left a church in Vermont over a dispute about a bike path — tended to raise as many questions as they answered about his religious convictions. In short, they made him seem less genuine and more like a typical politician."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/20/opinion/20GLAS.html?ex=1112590800&en=0f4dd8dc46c39a61&ei=5070&pagewanted=print&position=

BTW, if anyone wants to join in the "fight", this organization is a good start:
http://www.interfaithalliance.org

And this one for Catholics:
http://www.catholicsforfaithfulcitizenship.org

[senseandsensibility]

57. Thanks Carol NYC!!

Leave it to you to actually have the facts!:) How refreshing. And I bow to your superior knowledge of all things Clark. I'm not being sarcastic either.

[CarolNYC]

118. hey senseandsensibility....

Thanks. :)

There are a lot of folks here who know a lot about Clark....You'll find that most of the people who became strong supporters did so after much research into the man. I know I spent a lot of time trying to see if he'd disappoint me...and he hasn't. ;)

[Crunchy Frog]

147. The really nice thing about Clark, and the way he talked about

religion, as opposed to Lieberman, is that he could do it without sounding sanctimonious and without doing it in such a way that it offended non-religious persons such as myself. At least that was my reaction to him, as a non-religious person.

[senseandsensibility]

149. Exactly!

That was my impression as well, and the point I was trying to make in the OP. He was humble about it, and did NOT come across as judge mental, nor as if he was trying to score points.

[Lefta Dissenter]

46. And what was so wonderful was that

while he was criticizing the religious right, he was also speaking of moral and cultural values that could attract progressive Christians. My brother-in-law, who was a dyed-in-the-wool Republican born-again Christian, came to hear Wes speak in Racine, and he was absolutely convinced that General Clark was the man to lead our country. The specifics of his plans were in keeping with my b-i-l's morals - namely looking out for those less fortunate, supporting education and schools, supporting small business, reducing the military budget, living in a fiscally conservative manner...

oh wow, what should have been... we'll just have to wait a few extra years, I guess...

[Clarkie1]

51. What we've ought to talk about is, for example, that,

"God loves a cheerful giver", ..that's what my minister says every week in church. We've got to do our share! -Wes Clark 1/12/05

[Sparkly]

55. That is so right -- and isn't it amazing how many different people

who've come to know him believe he could lead our country -- talk about a uniter!!

As an example: Contrast me with your brother-in-law: I'm a lefty who wishes Greens and DK could get elected; I'm a socialist at heart, and I wish communist philosophy could work. I'm a New England Liberal from birth.

I've said that before, but here's more than I've said on DU before now (are you listening, you "lefter-than-thou's?"):

Not only was it New England, it was right smack on a liberal college campus; not only was it a liberal campus, it was during the Vietnam war when such colleges were rife with protests; not only was it an anti-war liberal campus, my Dad was no "economics" or "political science" professor, he was a liberal MUSIC professor; not only was my Dad an artsy professor at a liberal New England college, my Mom ran around doing volunteer historic preservation and promoting arts in schools and working for initiatives to promote minorities; not only was I raised by liberal artsy parents, the New England campus was a WOMEN's college undergoing the challenge of becoming co-ed at the time; not only was that whole environment liberal, my Dad was organist and choir director for our Congregational church and just when I started equating belief in God with belief in the tooth fairy (at 12), they let me stop going to church. They also let me become vegetarian at 17. They also let me have a black high-school sweetheart. They also let me drop out of college, temporarily, to move to New York City. And I won't even get into what happened after that.

And yet I share with southern conservatives, former Republicans, military families, blue-collar workers, and many others different from me the belief that Wesley Clark would be a GREAT leader for our country.

He alone has the potential to unite such diverse groups of people, shatter the stereotypes the GOP has spent decades and millions to construct, and promote liberalism in this country like never before.

As far as I'm concerned, he IS The Man for The Times.

[senseandsensibility]

64. Your background sounds like a fairy tale to me

I have to admit I'm envious. My parents were (and are) very conservative. Their rigid outlook has influenced me in many ways, but I have to admit not all of them are bad. Still, I wonder what I would have become in the family atmosphere you describe. Your description made me think of all the offers I received as a high school senior to go to liberal womens' colleges in the East on a partial scholarship. But I was afraid to go, being a native Californian and a very sheltered one.

Well. we seem to have arrived in the same place somehow. I am also very liberal, and support Clark.

[Sparkly]

83. Upbringing isn't everything!!

For what it's worth, I have three sisters, and two ended up in California -- the Northern CA one's a Libertarian, Naderite, and Republican if pressed to choose; the Southern CA one is as liberal as I am; and the other one, in Michigan, became a born-again conservative. (My father used to say he could never figure out how she got that way.)

So even with that environment, my parents only got a 50% return. I'm just saying, for me, liberalism is so in my bones, and I'm 100% a "Clarkie."

I love how General Clark can take that same liberalism and make it appeal to conservatives and former Republicans (or "repentant Republicans," as he once said).

I love how he can unite the divisions the GOP has successfully cleaved in the past 30 years.

I love how he can defy the stereotypes that they've spent millions of dollars and decades of think-tanks to manufacture.

I love how he can unite white, pink and blue collars, how he can embrace north and south, rural and urban; how a four-star general can earn endorsements from outspoken anti-war people like George McGovern and Michael Moore.

I love how he can embody the best of intellect, courage, vision, patriotism, heart, justice, and compassion.

This man could be the salvation of liberalism for our generation, if the left would just GO for the gold ring in front of us!!! We could spend a gazillion dollars on think tanks and PR campaigns and ads and media outlets and what-not as the right wing has done since Vietnam, and hope someday it might click and shatter the rightwing's thirty-year campaign; OR, we can embrace this GIFT to our party, who on his own biography SHATTERS their gazillion dollar, 3-decade effort to stereotype liberals, to divide the country north and south, to divide the country religious/non-religious, to divide the country pro-choice/anti-choice, to divide the country urban/rural, and get right down to the TRUTH on fiscal matters, foreign policy, social justice, civil rights, Constitutional balances, etc...

THIS is our gift horse. I can't stand it when the people who posture as "leftists" can't SEE that.

Are you listening, Wes Clark Jr.??? Tell your Dad he is NEEDED in our country, one more time, and as we've never needed anyone before. Tell him there is NOBODY else who can do what he can, and it's never been so important! Tell him the TRUTH: whether or not he chooses to run, his role for our country is pivotal right now -- absolutely crucial.

And God willing, the circumstances will be right for him to run again. If he does, he'll have tremendous support in a unity this country is craving.

[CarolNYC]

136. s&s, I don't remember where you are in Cali...

but I understand that the General is supposed to speak to SoCal Grassroots with Q&A to follow on the evening of Sunday, April 17th, free and open to the public.

If that's anywhere near you and you can make it, please go. I'd love to hear your impressions after seeing him live at an event like this....I wish I could go. It sounds great....

[senseandsensibility]

139. Id love to!

Dang! I'm four hundred miles away from southern California though. I'd condsider it anyway, but it's a workday. :( Now I'm going to go pout!

[CarolNYC]

144. Awwww....too bad.

I would have loved for you to go. Don't give up yet. Maybe he'll swing up north one of these days....Here's hoping. ;)

[Donna Zen]

80. Yo Sparkly!!!

Mr. Z and I both graduated in Art from Kent State University. Being shot by ones government tends to clear the mind. I cannot relate my experiences on this board. But I can say, I unplugged from the system many years ago. I suppose I'm Catholic in a Thomas Merton kinda way. Ah the Way!

Emerson never officially joined with the Abolitionist because he felt that once one identified with an organization you had to accept the entire aura of that body. Although I participate with the Dem. county committee, I can appreciate Emerson's sentiment. I want no labels... I no longer need them.

As Wes Clark said when asked about his Catholicism and his stand on choice: I've lived all over the world, and I can make up my own mind.

[Sparkly]

89. Yo Donna!!!

I hear you!! Wow, were you there during the massacre?

My first husband was there shortly after; a close friend narrowly missed being shot (we may have mutual acquaintances!). What I remember most is how devastated my father was.

I appreciate what you said about labels. I think in these times, "conservative" and "liberal" don't work anymore. You're right. I always identified myself with words like "far-left liberal leaning socialist," but it's such an awkward way to relate to what's happening right now. They always refer back to past events, past perceptions, past campaigns, past propaganda, past proposals, past rhetoric.

Right here, Right NOW -- we need a uniter who can bring sanity to our country in fiscal, social, and foreign policy, and stop this rightwing driven, divisive LIE machine.

It's Wesley Clark. No doubt about it.

[MollyStark]

90. So he belongs to a denomination that won't ordain women

In fact they broke off from the Presbyterian Church USA over the issue, and that is okay with you?
They believe that the bible is the inerant word of God and that woman should not have the right to abort under any circumstances, and that is okay with you?
Clark attack the religious right? He voluntarily goes to one of their churches.

[Sparkly]

101. Hey Molly, you know the expression "looking a gift horse in the mouth?"

This man could do great things for women, minorities, and every part of the country in peril right now, from the Constitution to the Bill of Rights to cities that can't even deal with major attacks of any kind right now to a social situation dividing us in every way and messing with people's minds not to mention the things often discussed here -- healthcare, the national debt, Social Security, you name it...

And you want to discuss what some denomination of the Presbyterian Church says?!?

Wesley Clark is the ONE liberal who can get us beyond all that. I'm sorry you're stuck in your particular box.

[Jai4WKC08]

106. Two women pastors at the church Clark attends, Molly

Quit making shit up. Second Presbyterian is NOT Reformed. Check their website. I posted it up-thread.

Altho, that said, I don't believe the Clarks "belong" to any Presbyterian denomination at all. I believe I remember hearing him say that they are still Catholics.

Edit to add the link: http://secondpreslr.org/ourstaff.asp

[MollyStark]

115. That is because the congregatoin used to be affiliated with PCUSA

Sometime in the last year they have decided to switch to Reformed Presby of North America. They went from a rather moderate/liberal to a very conservative denomination. Many of the southern churches are doing this type of thing because they have been taken over by the "confessing church" movement (christian reconstructionists).

[kevsand]

129. Where is your evidence of this?

Their web page is still PC(USA), not RPCNA.

Plus, I just read their most recent newsletter/bulletin. Still very active in PC(USA). No mention of RPCNA. If you've got links to the contrary, I'd love to see them.

[stillcool]

52. i think that if and when we ever get to vote again...

we should make damn sure the bull-shit meter is turned on.

[sharonking21]

63. Clark's instincts

I am more of a secularist, but I think Wes Clark has the most well-rounded instincts of all of our current potential candidates on the topic of religion--as on most other things.

*Think for yourself.

*Speak up.

*Speak respectfully.

*Tell the truth.

*Don't just talk about it.

*Do good.


Works for me.

[Gloria]

75. Works for me, too. I think he's the most clear and to the point

of them all, other than Howard Dean.

He's refreshing.

[blm]

78. I recall almost ALL of them making significant remarks about the religious

right.

Sorry the media sucks so bad that they weren't heard more loudly, but I am also quite certain that it was part of the Dem convention speeches, too.

Paraphrasing: It's arrogant to say that God is on "a" side, when we should all be concerning ourselves with doing God's work here on earth....Poverty, environment, etc.....

[kevsand]

202. My favorite example

was in fact from the convention, as you suggest. Obama talking about how we worship the same God in the blue states was a marvelous direct reminder that the fundies don't speak for the majority of Christians (or Jews or Muslims, for that matter).

[Clarkie1]

99. An apropos Clark quote for this thread

"You will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the struggle to come. You will choose whether we are known for revenge or compassion. You will choose whether we, too, will kill in the name of God, or whether in His name, we can find a higher civilization and a better means of settling our differences"

Wes Clark

[MollyStark]

114. Words are meaningless

Read this article. Clark is a neo con.............

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen09182003.html

Let it never be said the neo-conservatives are not persistent. That's why they must be rounded up by the FBI and charged with violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes. But let's save that issue for another time.

The latest trick of the neo-cons is running retired General Wesley Clark for President as a Democrat. But not just any Democrat -- a "New Democrat." The same bunch that are pushing Joe Lieberman's candidacy are obviously hedging on their bets and want to have Clark in the race as a potential vice presidential candidate (to ensure their continued influence in a future Democratic administration of Howard Dean, John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt) or as a "go-to" candidate in the event that Lieberman stumbles badly in the first few Democratic primaries next year.

The "New Democrats" (neo-cons) are as much masters at the perception management (lying) game as their GOP counterparts (Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld). Clark's presidential candidacy announcement in Little Rock is one warning sign. This city is a sort of "Mecca" for the neo-con Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and its main nurturers, Al From and Bruce Reed. It was from Little Rock where the DLC propelled a little known governor named Bill Clinton into the White House. And although Clinton did not turn out exactly as conservative as the DLC hoped for, his support for globalization and selected use of U.S. military power abroad were neo-con keystone successes.

Now enter "Arkansan" Wesley Clark. Like Hillary Clinton, Clark is a Chicago transplant to Little Rock. And he is about as power driven as the former First Lady. According to Pentagon insiders, when Clark was Commander of the US Southern Command in Panama from June 1996 to July 1997, he was fond of "ordering" Latin American military commanders and defense ministers to appear before him. Some of the Latin American officials, particularly those from Brazil, Argentina, and Chile, refused to be bullied by Clark, whose personality is said to be acerbic. From his pro-consul position in Panama, Clark supported with US military advisers and American mercenaries, continued warfare against anti-oligarchic movements in Colombia, Peru, Guatemala, Mexico, and Bolivia.

[Clarkie1]

134. Why should I read the article?

You said words are meaningless.

:eyes:

[dogman]

143. My, I've never seen that before.

Yeah right. Wayne Madsen is such a reliable source, he's proven himself as someone who throughs out shit hoping someting will stick. He has a lousy track record. You go ahead and buy this obvious BS. First he is accused of running SoA and then he is ridiculed for calling these ruthless officials on the carpet. Which is it?

[Donna Zen]

152. I remember Madsen

Didn't he have the inside scoop on Florida's vote in 2004--the one that never panned out?
Figures that "Counterpunch" would print his tripe. Not too concerned with facts that one.

I think you're probably correct when you titled your post "Words are meaningless" and then cited Madsen. Cleaver.. very cleaver. But then, I always want to say that about your posts, except you've rejected my admiration.

Did you know that extremism whether it be labeled left or right is still extremism? I know and I'm sure you hate it too.

So here I'll stop! Ches... so you know.

[autorank]

102. Clark derives his politics from his political views; he does not derive

his political views from his political ambitions. Can't say that about a certain NY State Senator who thinks she will be our nominee. As for his mentoring from Clinton, give me a break. Clinton fired the guy (actually rotated him out early) which was an insult. Clark is out there supporting and sustaining himself to do what he believes is right and serve his country. He is a true patriot as evidenced by his actions. He could make mad $$$'s over the next 10 years but he's trying to work his life so that he takes care of his family and, at the same time, is able to serve his country.

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

[MollyStark]

113. You must think none of the rest of us can read or watch TV

Clinton was indeed behind Clark's run. There is no dispute over that.
Your opinion on where Clark and Hillary derive their politics from is speculation, your opinion, not a fact.

[autorank]

123. Wow, MollyStark, Welcome to DU. TV is not, well, hmm, the best source.

Clark's on his own. Whatever support he has he creates. He's not run by anyone. I don't know the Clintons and anyone who does would know more than I do, presuming the Clintons share their schemes. However, my speculation is that it's all about getting back in the WH. Clark would have delayed that.

Based on the content and tone of your comments, I actually do think you watch a lot of TV, maybe too much: :hi:

[FourStarDemocrat]

145. I've noticed her on other threads posting her adoration of Howard Dean...

So, perhaps there's some (or a lot of )harboring of old grudges and vitriole from the primaries. And she seems to post obsessively negative things on Clark threads- probrably makes up the majority of her posts.

[Crunchy Frog]

151. Something about those posts seems...

very, very familiar somehow...

[autorank]

172. Hmmm...good point.

[sharonking21]

131. Yes, welcome to DU

Because you started posting about the same time I did, I cannot help but notice the array of your posts on multiple subjects. There is a sameness to your posts, no matter what the topic.

You would do better to back up the things you say with relevant evidence. No one will take you seriously eventually if you continue just having "Did!" "Didn't", "Yes, he did!' "No, he didn't" types of conversations with people.

Most people on DU are here to actually learn something, not just to listen to unbridled and repetitive opinion with no content or context given.

I'm truly not being snarky here. Just giving the same advice I often gave to my college students when they they turned in their history exams full of opinion but little-to-no facts to back up what they said.

[senseandsensibility]

119. Hey, i'm on your side!

:shrug: I think you meant this for someone else, maybe? Great points about Clark, as always.

[autorank]

124. We're soul brothers! I was just addressing Clark as a true independent

operator. I thought your post was great. I should have made that clear. Sworry:hi:

[Totally Committed]

120. At Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/2/171355/6258

TC

[Mutley]

122. I love Wes Clark

he dropped out of the primaries before he reached my state (Maryland) and i was very disappointed to not be able to vote for him... i would absolutely love to see him run again in 08. he would have to be my top pick at this point.

[Zhade]

130. Good for Clark!

Still not voting for him.

[senseandsensibility]

140. Is it permitted to ask why?

:shrug:

[Zhade]

156. Sure, but you probably wouldn't like the answer.

I don't feel I can trust the guy, and his endorsement of the School of the Americas is a roadblock I simply cannot get past.

I'd be happy to later learn I'm wrong about the guy. So far, I don't think I am.

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

157. The SOA is nothing but a "RoadBlock" or a Red Herring aimed

At General Clark and no one else. Wes Clark was in charge of the Southern Command for one short year in 1996. This was the time when the school's curriculum was changed to include human rights courses, etc...

The atrocities done by a tiny minority of graduates were back in the 70s and 80s. That said, I dislike that school as much as other liberals do.

I do not, however, necessarily believe that the reasons for Clark's position are as nefarious as many here would like to believe.

Clark is certainly not the only Democrat to have defended or supported the school. I will say that every President has supported the SOA.

Let's tar Max Cleland with the same brush...
KEEPING OUR PRIORITIES WHILE KEEPING THE PEACE - Senator Max Cleland
Having said that, in my opinion we should and must continue such efforts as military education for our allies through the Marshall Center in Europe, the School of the Americas, and similar programs. It has always been my belief that those who understand war, including the true costs of war, understand peace and all of its blessings. Today, we train our military in the strategy of war and the art of peace. U.S. military personnel are well schooled as students of (Karl von) Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, (Alfred Thayer) Mahan, and the best known writers of conflict and engagement. At the same time, they also receive thorough and effective training in such fundamental American principles as subordination of the military to civilian control and respect for human rights. While our foreign military education efforts have not always succeeded in instilling such values, I believe that recent reforms will eliminate any such shortcomings in the future.
--------------------
Clark's main "support" for the School came in 1996, when he was the CinC of Southern Command for 1 year and at that time the school fell under his leadership.

Second, by the middle of the Clinton Administration, the U.S. had started to clean up its act significantly, with even State Department officials admitting that "they had done a lot of bad stuff in South America" in the '50s-'70s. The School now has a mandatory democratic education and civil rights component. It is a military training center that helps train officers from South American countries: newsflash--by the 1990s, most of the countries in South America had become developing democracies, as opposed to the authoritarian regimes the U.S. had supported in the '50s-'70s. The SoA also went through further reform, with an external independent oversight board. It's supported by countries like Canada--OK, not ALWAYS the paragon of virtue, but hardly an enthusiastic supporter of imperialism in the contemporary era.

Here are the facts on the School (conveniently dating back to around the time Clark was CinC of Southern Command), now renamed the Western Hemispheric Institute for Security Cooperation, from a non-partisan and progressive research institute's project on South America.

People who protest that institution have a right to demand restitution for past injustices, but as far as having real impact, they should turn their attention to the secret detentions and support for anti-terrorism in Asia and so on.The skills that these people were taught at the SOA were not torture, murder and mayhem but strategy and martial expertise. How these folks become twisted is not happening at SOA but in their own countries.

As Clark said, the corporate executives pillaging our economy went to Yale, Harvard, etc. Should we shut down those institutions? Now I agree, it's not the same thing, but, think of a more likely parallel and ask yourself should the institution be closed due to the actions of a small minority of students/attendees? You've listed 18 people out of 63,000 graduates. That's .03%. As General Clark said, a small minority.
----------------------------
There are terrible problems in South and Central America, with the links to the drug trade, human rights abuses by rebel, government, right-wing paramilitary, and plain old criminal groups, corruption, and poverty. Any program that could be used in a positive way, should be. Human rights are certainly not going to served by leaving the worst of these militaries to their own devices.

Link to PBS article with debate-style format on SOA
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec99/sota ...

Posted by Du's Tom Rinaldo a while ago on this subject....

The School of the Americas (now known by the touchy feely name of Western Hemisphere Institute for Cooperation and Security) is a terror training camp run by the Us government, whos graduates go on to organize death squads in Central America, rightwing paramilitary units to overthrow democratic regimes, and commit other terroristic atrocities."

I don't think it would still exist, and it wouldn't have operated openly for at least the last 15 to 20 years after some of those major abuses started coming to light, if that was the sole or even major mission of that institution. Many tens of thousands have received training of all sorts there. In one instance or another, to varying degrees, everything you said though is absolutely true. And I will go further and say that under the likes of Kissenger, and Reagan's Poindexter and Ollie North crowd, covert efforts to do exactly what you said were hatched by some within its confines.

However I am just not enough of a conspiritalist, or a radical I suppose, to buy that that school existed during the Carter and Clinton years with that as it's main intent, and that both of those Democratic Presidents fully supported everything you note went on there and maintained that school for those expressed purpose. I am more likely to accept that Presidents like Nixon, who set up his own "plumbers squad", and Reagan, who gave a green light to Ollie North's covert operations, allowed those shady operatives to use the cover of working inside those institution to further their covert ends, the same way that illegal and immoral operations are conducted through every established Government institution whenever honor and decency is suspended, including the FBI, the IRS, the INS and so forth.

In short I would say that Clark backed that School when he did because he felts that there was still an appropriate mission for it to play. Reforms were already underway when he spoke. A number of people who were trained there have done some terrible things. More didn't. Clark believes that positive lessons and models for multinational military cooperation have been developed in South America for fighting Drug Lords that can be applied to our international struggle against terrorists, operating in places like Pakistan and Yeman.

I would certainly ask of Clark both now, and should he become President, that he ensure that strong curbs be placed on either that institution, or any other that replaces it and attempts to pick up whatever legitimate functions it pursued, to absolutely minimize the potential for human rights violations flowing from training done at that School. It is my limited understanding that much of the reform efforts that were undertaken focused on that problem, which was most acute in the 1980's during Reagan's anti Sandanista days.

I would go further and say that all abuses should be completely eliminated, and guarenteed never to occur again, but I am too realistic to ask for that about anything. The U.S. will never have full control over the actions of agents from other countries that train with our military. Having said that, I acknowledge that elements of our military have been directly involved in terrible actions.
----------
That being said.....I don't believe that Clark actually supports the SOA much more than most other Democratic politician. Period.

[Zhade]

166. The SoA is not a red herring or a smear. It is a legitimate concern.

Perhaps not to you, but to people like the nuns and priests protesting at Ft. Benning and going to jail over it because they know the past and present history of the school (now called WHISC) and desire our government to stop teaching torture to soldiers of repressive South American governments.

The established facts are that the school teaches torture techniques as a matter of routine, and many of its graduates have gone on to use those techniques against civilians in their countries. Please understand that I mean no offense, but I will believe those nuns and priests who have exposed and fought against the SoA over you any day. That's not because I dislike you (I don't), but because they are simply more informed about the SoA than you are. That's just reality.

You can choose to overlook Clark's or anyone's involvement with the SoA (and to be fair, he only praised the school, he didn't teach there). I will not, and as a result I will not vote for Clark, ever.

That's just how I stand. Attacking me won't do any good - I know what's what, and won't be swayed by emotional arguments about Clark. He certainly says some great things, but his past actions speak much louder to me than his current words - and I wanted to like the guy at first.

We will never see eye-to-eye on Clark, unless he renounces some of the things he's done in the past (like his endorsement of the SoA). If he has, please point me toward those statements, and I will happily reasses the man.

Good day to you.

[Tom Rinaldo]

167. I think this is a fair question...

Would you ever vote for a Democrat who supported the fiscal appropriation to fund the SOA? Congressional Representatives are the decision makers regarding funding under our Constitution. They could have killed the SOA at any time, and still can kill the current School, by denying funding for it. It is a specific line budget item, it isn't a black box hidden national security appropriation. It can be closed by cutting off funding.

Serving in the Military it was not Clark's responsibility, nor should it have been, to establish national policy priorities. It was his responsibility to to implement the intent of civilian leadership. Both Carter and Clinton supported funding that school. Most Congressional Democrats did also. If your refusal to vote for Clark extends to refusing to vote for any Democrat who funded that School, I can understand and respect your position.

[Zhade]

168. Carter shut down the use of torture manuals at the SoA during his term.

He also CUT funding to the school. Reagan reinstated both the teaching of torture and funding.

As to the larger question, that would depend on the Democrat's knowledge of the school. If they are aware of the school's abuses (like Kucinich is, which is why he and others tried to get it shut down) and voted to fund the school, then I could not vote for them in good conscience, no.

A military man like Clark being unknowledgeable about the SoA seems far-fetched to me. I suppose it's in the realm of possibility, but I'd have to be convinced.

Here is an excellent piece on the SoA in The Guardian UK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,583254,00.html

Peace to you.

[MollyStark]

183. Even if this were true

Clark is certainly not the only Democrat to have defended or supported the school. I will say that every President has supported the SOA.

Many of us want to evolve from that position. As another poster has stated Carter cut back on the abuse and the power of SOA. I have no idea what Clinton's position was, but I am sure it was too far right for me. I don't want a repeat of the Clinton years except in terms of the economy and jobs (two areas that Clark's life in the military leaves him unsuited to handle).

[x_y_no]

190. And Clark worked to reform the curriculum to emphasize human rights

So why is Carter a good guy and Clark a bad guy?

After all, Carter could have eliminated the school entirely but didn't. Clark had no such power. He could only work within the system, and did so.

[Jesus Saves]

150. He also pointed out that our country was founded on Enlightenment

principles...

That we were not founded as a 'Christian' nation...

[Texas_Kat]

153. This is how Clark's minister counseled him before he decided to run.

Wes Clark:

"I also visited my minister - and his advice touched me deeply. He told me, "the right job for you is where the world's deepest need meets your heart's greatest gladness."

Sounds to me like good advice from ANY clergy.

[Donna Zen]

154. A story about that quote.

One of my students came to me with her college essay. Since she was applying to schools and interested in medicine, the essay was a narrative detailing how she had discovered a love of care-giving when her grandma was ill.

The essay, as narrative form can be, was all over the place. I suggested she look for a quotation to use as a "hook." Searching on line I pulled up "the right job for you....etc." She loved it, and suddenly the piece fell into place when she hung it off of those words. Not knowing who to attribute it to, she cited Wesley K. Clark.

Anyway, her college apps went out, and last week she was accepted to Boston University's pre-med program. That quote has been read by many people.

But what was really surprising was how the quote had encouraged her to check out Wes. Talking with her on Thurs., I learned that she now knows many a Clark quote. And her parents, one a republican and one a Dem, have also become Clark supporters.

Ya never know.

[MollyStark]

182. Great sound advice (I have read it on a card somewhere I think)

But nothing says that the world's greatest need is a Wes Clark Presidency.

[ICantBelieve]

187. You talk a good game...

But you don't do your research. You claim to have visited Clark's church's website, but obviously you haven't. You claim to have researched the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, but you haven't, or you would have seen that according to their website there are NONE in Arkansas.

Where do you get your information? Perhaps you could back up your accusations with some links?

Perhaps you should have found out that Clark only considered running for President after both Joe Biden, Jimmy Carter, and approximately 75,000 voters asked him to. Hmm... perhaps that's not the "world's greatest need" in your eyes, but I could certainly see how it would cause General Clark to ask his minister if he should give up his cushy retirement to run for President.

[Donna Zen]

197. So cool

I love the way you did that... start with a positive and then SLAM! put down the quote all the while admiting that you have nothing to base your bash on (notice this qualifier "I think.")

Of course I've come to admire your unvited one liners as a sign of someone on a dedicated mission. You start that second sentence with a rebuff although you have not stated what it is your opposing. Do you think that anyone will notice that you post lacks logic or direction. It's okay. If you talk down to us long enough, I'm sure you convinced that we will believe you.

Staying negative and mean spirited must take its toll, I do hope you are okay ches so ya know.

[Vinnie From Indy]

174. I Never Read Your Posts Because Of Your Headlines. You Must Be A Gigantic

n/t

[GetTheRightVote]

181. These were good statements for him to make, may be good man

for the seat of President.

:kick:

[MollyStark]

191. Good site for Clark information

the people here who idolize Clark might disagree with the conclusions of the site owner and they will probably smear his character, but they can't disagree with the Clark quotes.

[noonwitch]

195. That's one of the reasons I voted for him in the caucus

I don't know if he's running in 2008. I'm planning to vote for Hillary, at least in the caucus/primary.