Ok. Explain why I should vote for Wes Clark

[Nikki Stone 1]

I think Clark is a DINO and I think that his connection with Clinton and Arkansas will be exploited for all it's worth. But I am willing to hear arguments on the other side. Since I see more polls up about the election today, I figure this is a good day to ask.

As for me, I am very liberal, very pro-choice (I don't like wobblers on this issue), and very concerned about the environment.

[Auntie Bush]

1. Where have you been when all those questions were answered?

[Nikki Stone 1]

3. Preparing for my oral exams, no doubt.

But, I'm here now. :)

[Paul Dlugokencky]

2. Good Question!

In '04 I thought he seemed like a decent and very capable guy, but I did wonder about his having voted Republican in the past. I do think he would have been a better choice for VP than Edwards, who - in my opinion - didn't bring anything worthwhile to the ticket.



http://www.cafepress.com/kickindemocrats

[Nikki Stone 1]

4. Would you want him as the 04 candidate?

And would you feel comfortable voting for him if he were?

[Paul Dlugokencky]

26. No

I was for Kerry since '03. I took my Kerry bumper sticker off five minutes after he conceded the election (after vowing that every vote would be counted). 2008... who knows? But I'm still not sure about Wes.



http://www.cafepress.com/kickindemocrats

[Nikki Stone 1]

36. Is there any Dem that would get your unequivocal support?

For me, it would be Boxer. Feingold doesn't look bad, but I need to get more information on his voting record.

[Paul Dlugokencky]

51. Boxer, Yes! Gore, Yes!

But let's face it... no one in this world is perfect. I might even support Kerry again...and maybe Clark if Kerry doesn't run again. Edwards: No.



http://www.cafepress.com/kickindemocrats

[Nikki Stone 1]

53. We seem to be on the same page in some ways

Why not Edwards?

[Paul Dlugokencky]

76. Based on 2004

Caught him a few times on C-SPAN during the primaries. I thought he was a mediocre campaigner and possibly a bit of a phony. Just my gut, on that last bit, though. I think the party can do better.



http://www.cafepress.com/kickindemocrats

[Nikki Stone 1]

86. I really liked his wife

She looked really sharp.

[Paul Dlugokencky]

149. Agreed!

She's great. I hope she's doing better.

[Totally Committed]

184. Jean Shaheen, John Kerry's Chairperson, voted Republican!

When pressed about her voting record, after she went after Wes as a "Republican", Shaheen was forced to admit that she had voted for Reagan (or was it Nixon?) Hillary Clinton was a "Goldwater Girl" in college, before she met Bill. Arianna Huffington used to be a RW Pundit, fercripessake!

(Ronald Reagan was a liberal Democrat, and headed a Union, before switching to Republican. When asked why, he said: "I didn't leave the Party, it left me.")

If this "voted for a Republican" b.s. is used as a "litmus test" for every "Democrat", very few will belong in the Party.

Grow up and know that reason implies that at least one can see shades of gray instead of strictly black and white.

TC

[Hippo_Tron]

207. Oh and then there was Zell Miller

Of course, the highlight of his career WAS his party switching, so you know.

[ScooterTramp]

5. You think his connection with one of the greatest Presidents

in history would hurt him? By 2008 we'll be begging for fiscal responsibility! Bill Clinton's surplus will dance in our dreams.

[Nikki Stone 1]

8. Come on, you know what Rush and FAUX will do to him

nt

[Rowdyboy]

11. Is there any Democratic candidate we can run that Faux and Rush won't try

to destroy? If Jesus Christ rose and ran as a Democrat, they'd talk about how scandleous it was that he hung with criminals and prostitutes....You can't win with those freaks so your best bet is to totally ignore them. If you want to vote for Clark (or anyone else), do it based on their history and positions, not how Rush will react.

[Nikki Stone 1]

74. His history and position are exactly what I am trying to get

Still researching.

[ScooterTramp]

34. So many people in the US will be starving they'll forget rush!

[Nikki Stone 1]

39. "Always look on the bright side of life"

What a thought.

[ScooterTramp]

47. Perhaps it's a bleak outlook. Call it a prediction.

[Nikki Stone 1]

52. Peak Oil? Stock market crash? Invasion by the French?

Enquiring minds....

[ScooterTramp]

65. The first two in short order, yes.

[Nikki Stone 1]

69. The one thing I don't get about Peak Oil is why isn't anyone making

a bigger deal out of all this?

[ScooterTramp]

78. Erm, we are talking about *, remember? He didn't listen to Zinni, and

he didn't listen to Shinseki concerning the number of troops needed to occupy, not invade Iraq. He is very short sighted, arrogant, and insular. Every business he's been in has cost those around him, including his present one.
Why would he presume to care if we're out of oil in a few years? He has billions.

[Nikki Stone 1]

89. Actually, I was thinking about our own party, our current leaders and

potential candidates. I wouldn't expect the Shrubmeister to have an interest in anything involving real people.

[ScooterTramp]

121. You're right there. I've been screaming "PEAK OIL!" for three years.

No one seems to want to look for alternative fuel.

[Adelante]

153. Wesley Clark does

He's been talking about it for years and says we will never have national security or economic security until we do it.

[ScooterTramp]

154. That's for certain! I like him anyway.

[FrenchieCat]

62. What would they do? Call him crazy?

That's about all that they could do.

They aren't about to contrast Clark's Kosovo with Bush's Iraq...that's for sure. Clark's success, unlike Kerry, did not occur years and years ago. Kosovo is documented and relatively fresh in the mind of current journalists.

The Right would not call him on the lefties issues during the general election. Clark's problem is not a general election....it's the Democratic primaries.

The righties only have the WWIII comments, WACO (already tried, but didn't go anywhere), and "He's Clinton's puppet". These ridiculous charges have already been countered and refuted. (I can provide you the refutes on each.....if you would like).

[Nikki Stone 1]

70. They could drag out all of those generals to say that Clark was

dishonorable without mentioning specifics (like they did in 2004.)

[FrenchieCat]

87. the last time checked, Shelton

when finally responding to making comments about Wesley Clark during the primary....(as a favor to John Edwards, IMO)...said to the Hague Prosecutor (asking because Milosovic had used Shelton's words on Clark)......"it was just politics".

This is what Shelton had to say about Clark in 2000--
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2000/s20000502-secdef.html
"So, General Clark, men and women of EUCOM, we thank you again for your outstanding leadership and for reminding us that behind the greatest alliance in history stands the finest military in history. And it is for this and other reasons that I am recommending the creation of the Kosovo Campaign Medal, which I hope will be awarded to all who participated in that great effort."
"Of course, as we just heard a moment ago, behind the military leader to whom we pay tribute today, stands a pillar of strength in her own right. Gert, through some 33 years of marriage, and, I think, almost as many moves, you too have served this country with great distinction, raising your voice on behalf of our forces and their families. Gert, thank you for your service to America and to this alliance. "General Clark, thank you for your service in a most noble cause, and thank you for your courage, your character and your commitment, which has greatened the hearts of American people and the people of Europe. We are truly indebted to you, forever in your debt."
-Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
General Hugh Shelton, May 2, 2000.
http://tinyurl.com/3hb6b

Maybe this was a Gen. Shelton problem? Not Clarks....
http://frenchiecat.forclark.com/story/2003/11/23/203932/69

[Skwmom]

90. If it was so "easy" to take down Clark, they wouldn't spend so

much time and effort trying to keep him off a Democratic ticket. The Republicans manipulate the Democratic primary for a reason.

[Totally Committed]

158. By the same token,

if he were no viable threat to any other Democratic candidate for the nomination, threads like this one would not pop up every day.

First, one, then another, and then another.

Wes is not DINO, I can attest to that. Why aren't you going after a real DINO like Lieberman? I'll tell you why, because Lieberman is no threat to your chosen candidate, and Wes is.

You'll also be interested to know that the Gen. Shelton wasn't sent (at least directly for all to see...) by the Wingnuts to smear Wes last time out, he was hired by another Democratic candidate. It's a sickening game of Democrats taking down other Democrats. And, frankly, it sucks. But, that's the way the "game" is played these days.

After enough of these threads, pershaps it will become apparent to all that this is a coordinated attack on Wes Clark, organized and hatched in order to skew the support he could get from this site and those who read here.

TC

[Adelante]

155. He has his own generals

He doesn't need Hugh Shelton, who besides having said it was "all politics" when he was pushed to the truth during Clark's Hague testimony, was consulting, at the time he was attacking Wes, for the Edwards campaign.

[Skwmom]

85. Since the Rove machine worked overtime in 2004 trying

to derail Clark (while pushing other candidates), I think they are worried that "Rush and FAUX" won't be able to do to Clark what they have and can so easily do to others.

[Pepperbelly]

144. SNAP OUT OF IT. Nikki ...

they will do the same thing to ANY candidate we run.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

6. I was pretty disappointed with his appearance on Bill Maher's

show the other night. He did eventually speak up against the Bush mouthpiece guy, and his answers were good, but not especially inspiring. Natalie Mains from the Dixie Chicks actually was actually more spirited and scored bigger points IMO. Of course she doesn't have to be so politically guarded.

[Nikki Stone 1]

7. What were some of the issues that he addressed?

Mahr's show can be a bit of a free-for-all. And Mahr has his own narrative to propagate. He had Noam Chomsky on once--who gave his usual clear answers--and Mahr dismissed him completely as a radical leftie. Chomsky has more brains in his left toe than Mahr will ever have in his whole brain, and it annoyed me that Mahr was so flippant and dismissive of a really great thinker.

[cosmokramer]

16. Chomsky is smart, but he is a radical.

As I jew, I find Chomsky quite offensive. My opinion.

[Nikki Stone 1]

19. I know that he's not everyone's cup of tea

But what he was saying that night about the war in Iraq was not particularly radical. It was pretty much what a lot of us say here.

[Adelante]

24. 'It was pretty much what a lot of us say here'

That might tell you something.

[Nikki Stone 1]

41. That we are all radicals?

Hmmm.

[Adelante]

66. Ha ha

I thought you were still on Wes there, but you were talking about Chomsky. Sorry, my mistake.

[Nikki Stone 1]

72. Oh, Ok..

That makes more sense. ;)

[tinfoilinfor2005]

40. Clark strongly took issue with the claim that the soldiers all love

this president but had no respect for Clinton. He said that he was with Clinton many times when the troups cheered him and were supportive of him. But in his defense, Maher let the other guy ramble on and on but clipped off Clark in many of his responses. Maher seemed to be zeroed in on Gays in the military and kept yammering on about that.

[Nikki Stone 1]

44. Yeah, Mahr can get very fixated on things, and he cuts people off

Maybe there's a better forum.

[Adelante]

93. Yeah

Did you see where Maher said something about Bush and the Middle East, and Clark said, "I want to talk to you about that." Maher said, "I know you do," but then Maher changed the subject and never returned to it. I think Wes expected the discussion would take place at some point when Maher was ready, but Maher was never ready.

[Nikki Stone 1]

102. Clarke may be used to actual debate and not the whims of a talk host

In real debate, you get used to taking your turn and listening to the opinions of others. A show like Mahr's is all about throwaway applause lines and dedicated to his whims du jour.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

107. Yes. I thought his original show was much better for those reasons.

No I rarely watch anymore. He can be quite smarmy and preachy and I don't really much care anymore that he knows for a fact that there is no God, that drugs are harmless and fun and women were put on earth for his pleasure.
My apologies for the rant, Nikki; I do understand that your thread is not about Bill Maher.

[Nikki Stone 1]

109. Hey, I could match your rant on Mahr and then some.

I think he's a prize prick. But I know some people like him, so I usually don't say much about him.

[Adelante]

114. Exactly

Even in the candidate debates, though, he would wrap up his response within the time limit imposed, while the others just talked over the red light until the moderator cut them off. He is very polite.

[fujiyama]

135. For one...

he shot Maher down on his "Bush is right about the war and ME" crap.

There was a thread here about what he was telling Maher after the show - Maher spouted his neocon lies on the war and Clark simply shot him down.

Clark also made a fool of Frum at one point when Frum was going on about why the left isn't saying something about nuclear proliferation. Clark told him "YOU'RE president isn't doing anything about that".

Clark's statements on abortion also indicate that he is pro choice and I have heard no wishy washy statements of his on that.

I'm not completely sure if his '04 site is still up - that should describe his platform.

I don't understand this belief that he's somehow a DINO, atleast any more so than Hillary, Kerry, Dean, Edwards, or anyone else that either ran in '04 or is planning on making a run in '08. He's definetely better on fp than Clinton, Biden or Lieberman.. Sure he hasn't had a long active history of participation in the party, but I'd judge him by his recent statements. So far they are good.

[Dave Sund]

27. There's a thread around here somewhere about what he said after the show

That he pretty much laid into Maher after the show about how Bush lied, and "you don't get to do that."

[Adelante]

37. Yes and there were witnesses, lots of them

It was in a restaurant after the show. Frum was there, too. Wes blasted Maher about letting Bush off the hook. Loudly at one point, as I heard it.

[Nikki Stone 1]

45. Pity there's no video of it.

I'd enjoy that with a good merlot.

[Jai4WKC08]

128. But there is video of what Clark said on Maher's show.

Not a lot of opportunity for in-depth discussion. I recall that he said "don't ask, don't tell" doesn't work, and when the Bushite tried to go into the "social engineering" vs. military readiness bs, Clark said his ideas on military attitudes were "10-12 years out of date."

I also remember a real good smackdown when Clark said (and I'm paraphrasing a little), "Yeah, I'd like to talk about nuclear proliferation. YOUR president has done nothing about it." and then something about, "let's talk about it; you'rll lose."

Well, hell... why am I trying to remember what he said when I can just post the links, which are fairly obvious by their file names what they refer to.

http://www.yellowdogdem.com/genocide.WMV (5 MB)
http://www.yellowdogdem.com/props.WMV (1 MB)
http://www.yellowdogdem.com/cic.WMV (3 MB)
http://www.yellowdogdem.com/gay.WMV (6 MB)
http://www.yellowdogdem.com/nuke.WMV (2 MB)
http://www.yellowdogdem.com/guns.WMV (3 MB)
http://www.yellowdogdem.com/golf.WMV (7 MB)

[melnjones]

9. go to

www.securingamerica.com

[TacticalPeek]

10. Simple: the most progressive potential candidate with a chance of winning

That defines whom I will support: the most progressive Dem candidate with a chance of winning the Presidency.

Check it out, google around, try http://securingamerica.com.

Somebody show me anyone else who is more progressive and that is whom I will support. Such a critter might emerge over the next year or two, but I seriously doubt it. But my ears are open.

:)

[Nikki Stone 1]

18. People can say most anything on a website

or on the road. Nothing against Clark personally, his website says all the right things. But, as a rule, I distrust political websites, even when they are not about a particular candidate, but about an issue.

Is there something in the man's record or background that really speaks to you as a voter?

[cosmokramer]

21. Lost his father at (almost) age 4...raised by single mother...

...then later step-father and grandparents in Arkansas. Was always dirt poor or working class, has a multi-cultural background, and used his large brain to make a life for himself.

Helluvalot better than anything the GOP can throw at us.

[TacticalPeek]

38. Hmm. I may be confusing myself.

Apparently, one's public position papers and speeches are off-limits for your consideration. And, likewise, what is said on websites or 'on the road'.

Lest I go chasing moving goal posts, tell me what sort of things would be of interest to you that might convince you to support Clark? And if they were demonstrated to your satisfaction, would you support the man?

[Nikki Stone 1]

80. I usually look at voting records and past history for integrity issues

Political websites are sales vehicles, even when they contain good information. All candidates have some negatives, and I like to see them in advance. I keep track of my own Senators, which is why I would support Boxer.

[melnjones]

94. Understandable...

You might want to do some research on how he took care of the troops under him while he was supreme allied commander over NATO. His record there is pretty impressive, and at least in my book that should be pretty good indication of how he would handle domestic issues like education, health care, etc in a leadership position in our government.

[Nikki Stone 1]

100. That would be the kind of stuff I'd like to see

Where could I find info like that?

[melnjones]

112. I'm gonna

go review the websites i have bookmarked and find one that has good info specifically on that, and I'll post it back here for you soon!

[Nikki Stone 1]

113. Thank you, I appreciate that

:)

[CarolNYC]

126. Cool, mel...

As I just said in the post above, I know it's out there...just hoping someone can find it.

[CarolNYC]

125. Good question

This is a good question. Does anybody have a link to solid info about this? I know I've heard and read of this but something solid would be a lot more convincing than our simple declarations that it's true, I think. I'll try to see if I can find anything but I'm going away this weekend and don't know when I can get back to you on that one....Good question, though.

[Pepperbelly]

145. Nikki ...

I have known Wesley for my entire life. There is much about the man that speaks to why he would be good and perhaps even great.

He comes from a background of FDR Democrats. He believes pretty much what a majority of DU believes regarding social issues. In economics, he is all about assisting those who are in need, he is all about equality, he is all about freedom. In war, he pretty much despises war and f\views it as a failure of policy, not an end to policy.

[sundancekid]

190. unlike most politicians, his bio video "American Son" does justice

to documenting that he prefers to KICK butt UPLINE when needed, rather than the perennial KISS butt we see in the go-along-to-get-along syndrome; also, the testimony and testimonials of his subordinates detail how he takes good care of those entrusted to his care and charge (large enough military family and industrial complex to rival a governornship) ...

Point 2: he's scary smart, and uses those smarts at every opportunity ... I still like his answer when asked what he thought was the difference between him and W? "I read."

Point 3: the successful 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate will have to be PURPLE (a combination of blue and red) -- exactly like MOST of the states and counties in our country ... in the end, all political outcomes WILL be local.

If you have a mind to, read his articles in the magazine Washington Monthly (online) or as posted at various websites.

Integrity. Intelligence. Incomparable.

[billkurtmeyer]

12. Vote for him when? I didn't no he was running for anything.

Aren't we jumping the gun a little bit?

[Rowdyboy]

15. Actually, Clark has sent EXTREMELY strong signals that he'll run in 2008

I certainly hope he follows through...

[Dave Sund]

17. I think his point is...

we're starting the primary battles around here a little early. As long as it doesn't get heated I don't see the harm.

[Rowdyboy]

23. Oh, I totally agree, but people fixated on politics just can't seem

to help themselves. And long term strategy isn't a bad thing...

[Adelante]

33. Yes, he did

Happily.

But it's not on the front burner quite yet. He's more concerned with 2006 than 2008.

[Adelante]

32. The management would certainly think so

But when somebody asks a question, it's hard not to try and provide answers.

[cosmokramer]

13. Dino? Huh?

Super smart (I have spent personal time with him, privately--he operates at about Mach 40--he is the smartest man I have every met, including Clinton), leader of NATO, VERY WELL RESPECTED throughout Europe so he will be a wonderful diplomat, 1st in Class West Pointer, Rhodes Scholar, FP credentials are the BEST of anyone out there, his stance on women's rights is left, left, left, and he is more liberal than Howard Dean. I refer you to his policy papers on his website www.securingamerica.com, and to the archived Clark04.com for his incredible tax plan, healthcare plan, and new energy policy.

Please educate yourself on the good General, objectively.

[Nikki Stone 1]

25. As I said before, I take all political websites with a grain of salt

That is why I don't consider them "an education". I am more interested in patterns of behavior over the years, and since Clark has held no elective office and has no paper trail of votes, it's hard to tell what he will do. At least with Kerry, I know where he stands, both pro and con.

[cosmokramer]

28. Watch the 'American Son' video...

...this will tell you about his life and what he has done with it, policies aside.

[Skwmom]

104. I think you should spend a little more time researching Clark.

How he has conducted his life speaks VOLUMES about what kind of man he is. Few men (or women for that matter) would put their career on the line to do the right thing (as Clark did in Bosnia).

Mario Cuomo on Wes Clark: "Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."

Clark in 08 - Elect a leader. The last thing we need in Washington is another self-serving politician.

Many seem to think any discussion of the 08 primary is premature. Well the Rove machine isn't going to wait until 07/08 to begin manipulating the process. The Republicans started pushing Bush in 1996. Consequently, by the time the 2000 primary rolled around the "conditioned" Republican masses nominated Bush even though they felt he was the least qualified for the job. The Republican machine and media are already trying to manipulate the 2008 primary. To remain silent and let them push Democratic disasters would be playing right into their hands.

[Nikki Stone 1]

111. I agree that Dems can't let the neocons manipulate the choice of candidate

I would like to see more information.

[Pilgrim4Progress]

168. A personal account

Here's an essay by someone who worked directly with Clark and personally saw him in action:

The Man for all Reasons

If you are lucky, once in your lifetime a truly exceptional person will cross your path. I met and know such a person: General Wesley Clark. For three years, I had the privilege of working for General Clark when he served as Supreme Allied Commander-Europe. I can attest to the fact that he is a general's general and a soldier's general.

I first met General Clark in June 1998 on a special assignment in Maastricht, Belgium, in support of General Hugh Shelton. I was immediately struck by two things. First, although General Clark wore the uniform of a four star General, he spoke as though he were a polished diplomat. He seemed comfortable in both worlds - as a General and as a spokesman for NATO.

The second thing I noticed was the way he treated his subordinates. He treated everyone equally, regardless of their rank, and he listened - really listened - to what people had to say. And the General's security detail clearly loved working for him. This is not common; most security guys don't get to know their principals on a personal basis.

A year later, I got a call from my assignment officer. He told me I could either work at the Pentagon for the Secretary of Defense, or I could work for General Clark. After my memorable first encounter with him, there was no question what I would do. I said that I wanted to work for General Clark.

In the weeks before I arrived at SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe), I thought that I would be the "token Hispanic." When I arrived, I quickly found out that I was mistaken. I had never seen so many minorities working in any high-powered setting. I learned that it was because General Clark values diversity and wants to give everyone a chance.

And from the moment I arrived, General Clark and his wife did everything they could to make me feel welcome. My first assignment was to take the General to his quarters and then to a dinner engagement with NATO officials. After the event, the first thing General Clark asked me was whether I had gotten anything to eat. To most four-star generals, security is an instrument. With General Clark, it was a different story. He always treated his staff like family.

During the war in Kosovo, I saw how deeply compassionate General Clark is. He worried about the pilots who were out on night missions, and he would not go to sleep until he knew the last pilot had bedded down. Instead, he would work in his study, going over the latest intelligence reports and providing updates to the alliance and officials back in Washington. When he finally went to bed, it was only for two hours, and more often than not, he would be awakened by calls. His instruction to me before going to bed was: "Cris, push every call through." No rest for the General.

In fact, I don't think anyone in the U.S. armed forces worked harder than the General. His superiors in Washington, DC knew this. They would often preface their calls by saying, "Don't wake General Clark." All of us who worked for him were amazed by his constant upbeat tempo and energy. We wanted to do everything possible to take care of him because he was doing so much for America and NATO.

And no matter how pressing a situation became, General Clark always stayed calm. I recall when an F-117 went down - the only plane to go down during the entire campaign. In contrast to other officers I knew who would explode in tense moments, General Clark remained calm and efficiently took the necessary steps.

I don't think anyone else could have done what the General did at NATO. For anyone who thinks that was a small accomplishment, just get nineteen friends together for dinner and try to pick a restaurant as a group. General Clark took nineteen countries and built consensus through dialogue. He gave Milosevic a chance, and then took action only as a last resort.

General Clark is an extraordinary leader. People trusted him because they knew that he was honest and a straight shooter. And there was no mincing words with him. He always wanted to hear the truth. You didn't put things off. He wanted to know what had gone wrong so that he could make corrections and get back on the right track.

But most of all, General Clark is loyal -- loyal to his country and to the United States Army, the organization that brought him up from West Point cadet to Supreme Allied Commander. I have worked around a lot of generals, and I can say that the Boss is one of the best I've ever worked with. He cared deeply about the soldiers he led, treated all of us who worked for him with the highest respect, and served his country with dedication, courage and honor.

Cris Hernandez Jr, Chief Warrant Officer (Ret)
Former Personal Security Officer to the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe

http://cris.forclark.com/story/2003/11/18/185117/66

[Totally Committed]

170. Excerpt from Endorsement Letter from the Primaries:

"I met Wes Clark in 1995, while he served as the U.S. military representative on a high-level negotiating team attempting to bring peace to Bosnia. We met just hours before he and his colleagues were setting out for the Bosnian capitol city of Sarajevo via a reacherous mountain road. In the hopes of evading hostile fire, the convoy raced around the steep curves, and the lead vehicle
tumbled off the road into a ravine. Clark, who had already received a Purple Heart in Vietnam risked his life to try to rescue his colleagues. He tied a rope around his waist, and repelled down the side of the mountain laced with landmines toward the burning vehicle. Three Americans lost their lives that day.

During his career in U.S. Army, Wes Clark consistently revealed a rare courage. In addition to risking his life to save others, he also risked his career, by leading the fight to convince the Clinton Administration to use military force to prevent genocide in Kosovo. He understands that the United States has the power to change the world, and he understands the great responsibility that comes with this power.

For nearly a century, American politicians have put realpolitik before truth by denying the Armenian genocide. General Clark is the only candidate with truly international stature. He is the only candidate with experience working with NATO officials, whom he is uniquely positioned to influence. And he is the only candidate to have actually commanded a military operation to stop genocide. It is time to elect someone with the courage to speak the truth, to take on
powerful lobbies, and at last to acknowledge the horror of what happened in 1915. Wes Clark is a brave man, a real leader..."

Samantha Power, Author
"A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide - Harvard University

http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=503

TC

[Adelante]

172. Affirmative Action

He joined the amicus brief at the U of Michigan, if that helps. It was from a military perspective, but it made a big impact on a civilian institution.

New York Review of Books
Volume 50, Number 8 · May 15, 2003


Feature
The Court and the University
By Ronald Dworkin

-snip-

The second development is even more striking: the enthusiastic support for affirmative action among America's largest and most powerful businesses and within the military. Sixty-five of the best-known American corporations, including General Electric, Microsoft, and Coca-Cola, filed an amicus brief urging the Court to uphold both Michigan plans.<9> "In the practical experience of the amici businesses, the need for diversity is indeed compelling," it says, and adds that because of "the increasingly global reach of American business," these businesses "need the talent and creativity of a workforce that is as diverse as the world around it." Many other corporations, including IBM and General Motors, filed their own briefs to the same effect.

The most arresting amicus brief of all, in view of the war in Iraq, was filed by a group of twenty-nine retired military and civilian leaders, including General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, who directed the allied forces in the 1991 Gulf War, Robert McFarlane, who was President Reagan's national security adviser, Admiral William T. Crowe, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1985 to 1989, and General Wesley Clark, who was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe from 1997 to 2000.<10> The brief declares that racial imbalance in the war in Vietnam —over 10 percent of the servicemen but only 3 percent of the officers were black—caused "increased racial polarization, pervasive disciplinary problems, and racially motivated incidents" that sometimes "reached a point where there was an inability to fight."

The service academies and ROTC have since instituted "race-conscious recruiting and admissions policies," and the brief concludes, "At present, the military cannot achieve an officer corps that is both highly qualified and racially diverse" without such policies.<11> Several of the justices referred to the military brief in oral argument: they pressed the solicitor general and the other lawyers opposing Michigan to say whether they thought the armed forces' affirmative action programs are unconstitutional. The lawyers were evasive.

So there is now growing support for the view that affirmative action is of great and general value to the country, because it attacks the economic racial imbalances that have proved so harmful. There is also less apparent support, at least among leading American institutions, for the once-popular view that affirmative action is unfair to white applicants. It is sometimes said that college and university applicants have a right to be judged only on narrow academic criteria, but that cannot be seriously maintained.<12> Places in selective universities are not merit badges or prizes for some innate talent or for past performance or industry: they are opportunities that are properly offered to those who show the most promise of future contribution to goals the university rightfully seeks to advance. These goals can be, and historically have been, social as well as more narrowly academic.

-more-

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16271

Here is an Op-Ed column Clark wrote in the Detroit Free Press on the subject:

-snip-

There is one thing the opponents of affirmative action have never wanted to admit: it works. I know this first-hand from my thirty-four years in the United States military. Affirmative action was essential to creating the diverse officer corps we need to defend our country. Throughout my career, I have seen the benefits of seeking out qualified minority candidates for leadership positions - and I am a beneficiary of their leadership.

In the University of Michigan affirmative action case this year, I joined military and political leaders in an amicus brief affirming my deeply-held belief that policies combating discrimination are essential to good order, combat readiness, and military effectiveness. As a result of these policies, the military is one of the most integrated institutions in America. And our country is safer today because it is defended by a diverse, integrated, talented military that is the envy of the world.

It was not always so. In the years immediately following President Truman's courageous decision to integrate the military, there was still racial tension in the ranks. The marines witnessed racial violence at Camp Lejeune. The Navy experienced trouble on board the Constellation, the Kitty Hawk, and the Hassayampa. Twenty years later, I saw first-hand the demoralizing effect of the racial divide between the officers and their soldiers and among the soldiers themselves. As we stated in our amicus brief: "The painful lesson slowly learned was that our diverse enlisted ranks rendered integration of the officer corps a military necessity." Affirmative action was crucial to achieving that integration and reestablishing a sense of justice within our Army.

The military is, in many ways, a microcosm of our society. That is why a group of former military leaders cared so deeply about the University of Michigan case. The achievement of a diverse student body at a university, like the achievement of a diverse officer corps in the military, will make Michigan a better, more well-rounded, more just institution.

My commitment to affirmative action is based on my belief in all that unites mankind. But I am also committed to affirmative action because it works. Our president, on the other hand, seems unable to pull himself away from his right wing advisors long enough to examine the facts. The Bush Administration argued against affirmative action in the Michigan case. And they've done everything possible to undermine diversity, not promote it. I think Mr. Bush should head down the hall and talk with National Security Advisor Condi Rice, or speak with General Colin Powell, both of whom have testified to their support of affirmative action.

-more-



http://www.clark04.com/articles/010/

[Dave Sund]

14. He seems to be reasonably progressive

I wouldn't read much into his being a Republican before. He was a military man, and the military is overwhelmingly Republican. No one was really sure what party Eisenhower in 1952, and both parties recruited him. I wouldn't read too much into the previous party affiliation of Clark. He's pretty clearly on our side, now.

The number one reason I'm going to support Clark, is because I think he's the best candidate.

- He's from the south.
- He's got progressive ideas.
- He's got grassroots support.
- He's got impeccable National Security credentials, which the Republicans cannot smear without looking foolish.
- He's an excellent speaker.
- And he's uncompromising about Iraq. Bush lied, the ends do not justify the means.

I think Wes Clark is our best candidate. In hindsight, he probably was our best candidate in 2004, too. He gives us instant credibility on national security. A voter sees that he's a former general, and they will listen to what he has to say about defense.

He ran a poor campaign in 2004, I'm sorry to say. But this time around, he's got experience and support, as well as time that he did not have two years ago, when he entered the race so late.

[Adelante]

29. Nice post, Dave Sund

But Clark was never a Republican. He was an independent until he registered as a Democrat. He voted for Carter, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry. He also voted Democratic in several states in local races when he was still in the Army.

I do agree with your point, too much is read into his affiliation history.

[Nikki Stone 1]

31. He did run a poor campaign, but most Dems did

I don't hold that against him. I am concerned that the Democratic party might not be the best fit. Someone here mentioned his reputation in Europe. I'd like to know what our European allies think of him. I think our current nutbag in the White House has taken great joy in alienating most of Europe, except, apparently, the new pope, but that's another story.

[CarolNYC]

127. respected in Europe

I don't have anything solid about foreign leaders right now but, in the Felix biography of Clark, I know there's a quote from someone Clark worked with in Arkanas, I think, who attended an international business get together in Europe about the time Wes was leaving the SACEUR post, I think, and he was amazed at how popular Clark was in Europe. Everyone kept saying how sorry they were to see Clark leave to the point where the guy wondered "What kind of water does this guy walk on?"

Also, I met a young German student, who was doing some kind of internship in NYC, at a RedefeatBush phonebanking session last fall. We started talking about VP and he said he hoped it would be Clark because Gen Clark was well loved in Germany. In fact, when he'd come to NYC, the first thing he looked for was the Clark campaign office but that was right about the time Clark dropped out, so he was unable to volunteer.

Also, from that book, concerning the environment, the author spoke to someone from Wavecrest who said that, when Wes was making the decision to run, he would have conversations with his co-workers agonizing over what Bush was doing with the war on terror and his disastrous environmental policies. Check out his involvement with WaveCrest too. He really does care about the environment.

And, yeah, I suggest getting the bio out of the library.

[Adelante]

20. Liberal, Pro-Choice, Strong on the Environment

That describes Wes Clark. But tell me why you think he is a DINO? In what specific ways do you consider him a DINO? I will be happy to try and answer your questions.

[Adelante]

96. Nikki? My question?

I have to go, but I'd really like you to explain why you think of Clark as a DINO. I'll check in tomorrow.

[CarolNYC]

22. Nikki...

Voting is a long way off yet and I don't really want to tell anybody how they should vote. I assume you're seriously looking for info here but then I tend to take people at their word which I imagine has caused me to be taken in by folks more than once here.

Still, hoping you're serious about this, I would suggest that you get to know a little about Clark for yourself and see what you think.

There are a list of resources that I compiled here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=235x6296

And his answers to the League of Conservation Voters questionnaire are here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=235x6306

Do check out some of the video and audio at www.u-wes-a.com, including some of the stuff recorded long before he declared so you can see how he was before he was a candidate.

As for me, the more I researched him...and I did a lot of researching before I decided to get in on the draft. I felt it was a great and terrible thing that I was asking him to do, run for President and I had better be sure I felt he could be a good President before I asked him to do so....the more I came to believe that he was a good man. You know, I didn't even know if he was Democrat or Republican. I just knew I trusted him with my life and the lives of those I loved. I knew I agreed with him on the essential things and I trusted that he'd always be straight with us and put our, the people of America's, interests first, whatever label they threw on him. Maybe you guys consider that a bad thing, that I would have wanted him to be President no matter what Party claimed him....but it's a great feeling to have such total faith in a person like that, that the party label didn't matter.

[Nikki Stone 1]

30. Carol, I am serious

I am a ticket voter. I check off Democrat and I turn in my ballot. But, I have a lot of reservations about Clark. There's not a voting record to turn to and political websites are just that. I would love to support Kerry again, and I'd be thrilled if Dean could run. I'd even throw my support (and dollars) behind Hillary, even though she is pissing me off these days. I'd love to see Barbara Boxer on the ticket somewhere, but she is too important in the Senate.

I'd like to not have the reservations I do, but I'd like something more concrete than a website.

[CarolNYC]

55. Cool, glad to hear it.

Sorry to sound a little skeptical but I get burned a couple of times for being too trusting and I become cautious for about a minute or two. :)

I understand what you mean about political websites. What about books? That first link I posted gives a list of books Clark is featured in. The Antonia Felix biography is short and a quick overview of his life. That would give you a bit of an idea of what he's done and how he's responded to things throughout his life.

Or try Samantha Power's "Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide" or Halberstam's "War in a Time of Peace". They give you some insight into Clark also...Or Holbrooke's "To End a War"...

Oh, and if you get the chance, go see him in person, preferably at some long form event, like one of those panel discussions or a talk at a University.

And thanks for asking the question.

Oh, and I hope you did well in your oral exams. :)

[Nikki Stone 1]

63. Thanks. If he comes to a university in SoCal, I'll certainly go see him

I know what you mean about getting burned.

Your list of books is interesting. I'd like to get a picture of what he has been doing during his career, what policies he tended to support in the military. I'd also like to know what he will do about this debacle in Iraq.

[tishaLA]

67. Maybe he'll even come to my university in SoCal

and I'll be able to drag myself away from writing my dissertation to see him. But somehow I have managed to learn about him without those two things happening.

[Nikki Stone 1]

81. What sources did you use?

And what convinced you?

[tishaLA]

103. Many of those listed here

and an attention to his speeches, interviews, and biography before the primaries started last year.

Frankly, this is the wrong time to be educating yourself about Clark as far as I'm concerned. The time would have been over a year ago when he was running or in a couple years, should he choose to run.

[CarolNYC]

129. Iraq

On Iraq, well, for one, he wouldn't just pull out. If that's what you're looking for, you won't get it from him. He's of the mind that now that we're there, we have to make it work...for the sake of the Iraqis and our safety too. I know he's got something out there somewhere with the steps he would take in Iraq.

I did like what he had to say about fighting the "war on terror" in his Winning Modern Wars book. You can take that one out of the library also...If you don't want to read the whole thing, go to the last chapter, especially the part starting on page 188 of the hardcover.

This passage popped out at me, so much so that I typed it out when I found it and sent it to all my friends and family to show them that this guy was on the right track, at least IMHO.

"The United States needs a cabinet-level or subcabinet-level agency that is charged with developing plans, programs, and personnel structures to assist in the areas of political and economic development abroad. Call it the Department of International Development. Focusing our humanitarian and developmental efforts through a single, responsible department will help us bring the same kind of sustained attetion to alleviating deprivation, misery, ethnic conflict and poverty that we have brought to the problem of warfare."

I much prefer that approach to trying to kill every last one of "the evildoers".

This is a nice conversation so far. Thanks for starting it.

[TorchTheWitch]

137. the Iraq debacle

"I'd also like to know what he will do about this debacle in Iraq."

Probably the most informative info on that can be found listening to the audio of his testimony last April 6th before the House Armed Services Committee (where he gave Perle a well-deserved beat-down). The audio is here:

http://www.house.gov/hasc/schedules/
Scroll down to April 6th and click on the microphone to listen.

[FrenchieCat]

60. I think that I understand your concern.

and a good way to put it, perhaps is....what has Wes Clark done to show who he truly is? I realize that you are not so interested in What Wes Clark has said. I got that drift from the fact that you refer to his website and stated that anyone can say or write anything...and that is probably legit.

I have a lot of material, and don't want hit you with too long a post (although this post is long). So read this, and I can provide more....cause there is more.

Personally, I support Wesley Clark not for what he has said....but what he has stood for over time. It is true that in politics as in any Thinking type of profession....what you say is as important as what you do. I think a combination of demonstrating that Clark has stood when many others (who could have stood too) stay sitting might be what you are searching out.

First, I say that Clark is one who would be willing to lose his position if it benefitted his principle. That's an important trait not often found.

Clark action on Genocide which eventually led to his "early retirement"
b]Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Clark displeased the defense secretary, Bill Cohen, and General Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by arguing strenuously that—contrary to Clinton's decision— the option of using ground troops in Kosovo should remain open. But the problem seems to have gone further back. Some top military leaders objected to the idea of the US military fighting a war for humanitarian reasons. Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html
Clark was almost alone in pushing for a humanitarian intervention in Rwanda.
Pulitzer award winning Samantha Power for her book "A Problem from Hell" : America and the Age of Genocide
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006054164...
endorsed Wes Clark http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2003/12/redeeming_wes...
The following excerpts from Power's book give the details. The narrative surrounding the quotes was written by another person commenting on the book. Note especially Power's last comment below on Clark's pariah status in Washington:
General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi.
She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .
He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).
According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.
She details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, "The man who probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic's battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance."
"Yet in Washington Clark was a pariah. In July 1999 he was curtly informed that he would be replaced as supreme allied commander for Europe. This forced his retirement and ended thirty-four years of distinguished service. Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move."

Samantha Power's comments on Wesley Clark at the December 17, 2003, press conference in Concord, New Hampshire after the General's testimony at the Hague .
"Good afternoon. It's a real honor for me to be here with General Clark, and with Edita Tahiri. My name is Samantha Power. I spent about seven years looking into American responses to genocide in the twentieth century, and discovered something that may not surprise you but that did surprise me, which was that until 1999 the United States had actually never intervened to prevent genocide in our nation's history. Successive American presidents had done an absolutely terrific job pledging never again, and remembering the holocaust, but ultimately when genocide confronted them, they weighed the costs and the benefits of intervention, and they decided that the risks of getting involved were actually far greater than the other non-costs from the standpoint of the American public, of staying uninvolved or being bystanders. That changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military.

The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing. And it was Pentagon reluctance to intervene in Rwanda, and in Bosnia, that actually made it much, much easier for political leaders to turn away. When the estimates started coming out of the Pentagon that were much more constructive, and proactive, and creative, one of the many deterrents to intervention melted away. And so I think, again, in discussing briefly the General's testimony, it's important to remember why he was able to testify at the Hague, and he testified because he decided to own something that was politically very, very unfashionable at the time."
http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/the_subtle_ar...
-------------
Does testifying against a war, when you don't have to, count as action....or talk? I guess in politics, besides voting, guess all of those guys and gals do just that–talk. I think it counts...cause not that many were talking much back then.
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm
--------------
Clark defended Michael Moore on National TV (on CNN) at a time when dissent was not "in Vogue". That's one of the principal reasons that Michael Moore backed Clark....not just because he felt that Clark was electable. MM wrote a lengthly letter about the fact that his support for Clark was not just superficial....but that he felt that Clark would make the best president and why.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0116-12.htm
---------------
I think that Clark acted on Affirmative Action the entire time he was in the service. He also helped write the Amicus Brief for the AA case that was won a short time back.
Clark action on Affirmative Action
http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/eclark24_20031024.htm
Success of military diversity proves affirmative action works
October 24, 2003
BY WESLEY CLARK
When I left the military and contemplated entering political life, many issues led me to find my political home in the Democratic Party. Affirmative action was one of the most important. This is an issue that Democrats both understand well and feel deeply. And, based on my experiences, I believe without hesitation that we Democrats are right in our belief that affirmative action is good for all Americans.

In the University of Michigan affirmative action case this year, I joined military and political leaders in an amicus brief affirming my deeply held belief that policies combating discrimination are essential to good order, combat readiness and military effectiveness. As a result of these policies, the military is one of the most integrated institutions in America. And our country is safer today because it is defended by a diverse, integrated, talented military that is the envy of the world.

Does testifying against a war, when you don't have to, count as action....or talk? I guess in politics, besides voting, guess all of those guys and gals do just that–talk.
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm
------------------
CLARK RECEIVED THESE AWARDS FOR HIS ACTIONS AS A HUMANITARIAN WARRIOR.... HE'S THE ONE THAT COULD WIN US PEACE. HE IS RESPECTED BY MANY COUNTRIES IN THIS WORLD.
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/awards.htm
General Wesley K. Clark USA (ret.) is the nation's most highly decorated officer since Dwight Eisenhower. Among his military decorations are the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (five awards); Distinguished Service Medal (two awards); Silver Star, Legion of Merit (four awards); Bronze Star Medal (two awards); Purple Heart; Meritorious Service Medal (two awards); Army Commendation Medal (two awards); NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to Kosovo, NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to the Former Republic of Yugoslavia, Legacy of Leadership and Lady Liberty(TM) Award.
His Foreign awards include the Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (United Kingdom); Commander of the Legion of Honor (France); Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany; Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, with Swords (Netherlands); Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy; Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit (Portugal); The Commander's Cross with Star of the Order of Merit of Republic of Poland; Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg; Grand Medal of Military Merit (White Band) (Spain); The Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold (Belgium); Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class (Czech Republic); Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic; Commander's Cross, The Silver Order of Freedom of the Republic of Slovenia; Madarski Konnik Medal (Bulgaria); Commemorative Medal of the Minister of Defense of the Slovak Republic First Class (Slovakia); First Class Order of Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas (Lithuania); Order of the Cross of the Eagle (Estonia); The Skandeberg Medal (Albania); Order of Merit of Morocco; Order of Merit of Argentina; The Grade of Prince Butmir w/Ribbon and Star (Croatia) and the Military Service Cross of Canada.
(Central Europe Sep. 8, 2000, U.S. State Department Oct. 2, 1999, http://Individual.com)
Going back when the Medal of Freedom meant something!
Jesse Jackson, Gen. Clark Awarded Medal of Freedom

[Sparkly]

61. Excellent examples, Frenchie!!

:thumbsup:

[Nikki Stone 1]

84. You got my concerns right.

And the book sounds interesting. It will be on my summer reading list.

I knew about the Michael Moore connection and it seemed off that Clark of all people would support Moore. I think of Clark as more "New Democrat" DLC material.

[FrenchieCat]

88. Why.....

Cause he was the Supreme Allied Commander under Clinton....who was?

[Sparkly]

98. That's the heart of something huge, right there

The stereotypes about what a "military man" is, and what a Democratic president is, just don't jibe right away, because it is just that: a longstanding stereotype.

It takes some mind-opening to get beyond that. I had as far from a "military" upbringing as anybody could imagine (and as far from conservative, as well). But General Clark absolutely speaks to me from a liberal point of view. And I love Michael Moore. It's not for nothing that people like Moore and George McGovern and Mary Frances Berry endorsed him, for many of the same reasons I support him.

Don't assume he's conservative. (Although I'd love for conservatives to assume he's conservative.) If nothing else, I believe his biography breaks the old memes paid for and propagated by the GOP over 30+ years. He can bring liberal values to people who, right now, have all sorts of bizarre notions of what's "liberal."

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Adelante]

43. Why, welcome to DU!!

:hi:

[Sparkly]

46. Welcome to DU!

You'll probably find some like-minded 'thinkers' here. :hi:

On edit: That wasn't meant for you, WesDem!! :rofl:

[Nikki Stone 1]

48. I'll second that "why".

Curious to hear your take.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

92. That's not enough.....

Please give us more. Your inevitability theory is not the most fascinating.

Round here, we like our opinions backed with some facts.

We all have opinions....and you've heard about that saying, I'm sure :hurts:

[Sparkly]

106. No doubt s/he's looking for facts right this minute

to back up such negative assertions. But so far... "nothing there."

[Jai4WKC08]

77. Hit & run

Not worth the space it's taking on the server.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

97. Meaning YOUR post....

Hit and run is someone that shows up with an opinion, but no source to back his theory...which is what an opinion actually is.

We'd like the back up of you calling Wes Clark "nothing".

That's a lot of negativity toward a fellow Democrat that has been kicking NeoCon Republican ass for the last few years.

[Dinger]

115. Well Said Frenchie

Our problem is, we have so much to back up with, it's hard to pick and choose which is best.

[Sparkly]

118. Well, it seems Mr. "Nothing There" is no longer there. n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

124. Probably a right-wing troll

Heck, one real good reason to support Clark is how viciously he's attacked by the far-right. Go to freeperville sometime and do a search. Sometimes you can tell a lot about a man by the nature of his enemies.

[Sparkly]

42. A few things about what he's shown

He entered and stayed in the service when he could have made a fortune in the private sector, which shows me he's committed to the country, not to money.

He chose not to be a career politician, which shows me again that he wasn't interested in pushing papers, signing bills and speechifying (no offense to politicians in general) but in more hands-on, less visible kind of service; and it shows me he hasn't got the "strings attached" that can come with years of wheeling and dealing in Congress.

He's spent his life serving the country itself, not either political party; that shows me his thinking is broad and his commitment is deep, traits that can appeal to many and help heal the divisions in the country wrought by the GOP.

He chose to be a Democrat after being Independent throughout his life, which shows me he is a Democrat on principle and belief, not tradition or well-worn label.

He embraces our causes and worked hard for our nominees in 2004, both locally and nationally, which shows me he considers working for the good of the party the same as working for the good of the nation, as I do.

He told the truth about having voted for Nixon and Reagan, which shows me that he's honest and courageous.

That's just my point of view, and just a start. I'm sure others have more.

[Nikki Stone 1]

49. Thanks, but there's so much Republican support there

I just worry that when push comes to shove, we'll essentially have a Republican in Democrat's clothing as president.

[Sparkly]

54. I'm not sure what makes you think so.

He's been sharply vocal against the Bush administration. There are plenty of Democrats who once voted for Republicans at some point. Read Michael Moore's reasons for supporting Clark:

http://clark04.com/moore/

[FrenchieCat]

68. Do you really think that

Clark is a Republican? Why do you think that?

Do you think the leading Gay Washington Blade would have endorsed him, if that was the case? http://www.washblade.com/print.cfm?content_id=2013

Would a Republican appear on the cover of this magazine?


Do you really think that the Native American Times would have endorsed a Republican (even in disguise)?
http://nativetimes.com/index.asp?action=displayarticle&article_id=3445

What about George McGovern?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/18/elec04.prez.clark.mcgovern/

Do those calling Clark a Republican really know more than these folks? Personally....I don't think so.

[Adelante]

202. 'so much Republican support there'

Voting Republican, (and he's been honest enough to say so, even as it damaged him politically), 20 and 30 years ago.

Voting consistently Democratic in the past four presidential cycles, plus Carter back then.

I don't really see how it translates to 'so much Republican support there.'

It translates into exactly what he is, an independent turned Democrat.

[Auntie Bush]

57. Thanks so much Sparkly. I was hoping you'd see this post & jump in.

in with both feet. You splane things so well. What would we do without you? :hug:

[Sparkly]

59. Aw shucks, Auntie...

:blush:

[Stinky The Clown]

50. I don't usually reply to these things 'cuz they often tend to inflame ....

... more than they educate.

I read the forgoing posts and generally (no pun intended) agree with them all.

But for me, there was one thing that swung me to Wes Clark perhaps as much or more than anything else. He's an extraordinary man of ordinary circumstances.

He grew up humbly, and for a good while without a Dad. He joined the military and was an honorable soldier. To me, that honor outweighs even his accomplishments and awards. He was honorable.

As a soldier - an officer - he lived in, and had his family in, very 'ordinary' circumstances. Other than since his retirement, he earned less money than me, and probably many other who might read this. Not that I measure him by his money, but I measure him by how he can relate to me and other ordinary citizens. Of the major '04 candidates, that was a pretty small group. Clark, Edwards, and Kucinich.

I can imagine living next door to any of these three men. And that's not a 'have a beer with' test. It goes to their ability to relate to the citizens they hope to lead. I prefer to have a leader who has been where the vast majority of Americans have been .... in very ordinary circumstances.

We can talk about all the other issues, but the sale gets made for me when I know my president knows who I am.

[Nikki Stone 1]

56. That's an interesting perspective

Clinton appealed to a lot of people for the same reasons.

And in reference to the thread, I deliberately DON'T want flames or fights. I am really trying to figure out what to do this coming election. I am hoping that 2006 will bring more Congressional Democrats in.

[Sparkly]

58. 2006 will be important!

And if you're interested in Clark, I'd suggest watching him during those campaigns. I have no doubt he'll be out there, and working through WesPAC, to support Democrats.

[Jai4WKC08]

75. There's more to Clark than his stated opinions on policy

His record as a senior military commander should tell you a lot.

For example, he had an exemplary environmental record when he was a base or community commander. Even won awards at Ft Irwin, CA as a 2-star. And that in an Army organizational culture not known for encouraging its people to sticking to the highest environmental standards.

It's not for nothing that Gaylord Nelson, thought of by many as the father of the modern environmental movement (google him if, on the off chance, you haven't heard of him), endorsed Clark during his presidential run.

And while I understand your feeling about policy papers and political websites, I think it's significant (it was for me anyway) that the first thing that went up on Clark's campaign site after he announced his bid, was his "100 year Vision." It's one of the few documents that got carried over to his new website, at http://www.securingamerica.com/vision. For Clark, the two big issues over the long haul are preserving our environment and our Constitutional form of government. I would submit that you don't find many politicians who even think much about what effects their actions and policies might have in 100 years, much less grasp the truly important issues for our very survival as a people.

As I said, that's just an example, one that's especially important to me. Clark also has a very real record of action for other progressive issues, like civil rights and education. You might not think a military officer does much with these, but at the senior levels they do. Or they can, if they will only take an interest. Clark did. He stood up for minorities, supported gays, and worked damn hard to improve schools on his bases. So it's not just a matter of pretty words on paper. He does have a record, just not a legislative one. But it seems to me that making things happen with real people counts for a lot, maybe a lot more, than sitting in DC and playing the Congressional game. Way too many senators vote one way one time and another way the next. Are their records really that much more indicative of where they stand?

Finally, I think you can also look at his record to see that he really is a man who stands up for what he believes, even when it's not the popular or politically expedient thing to do. Symour Hersh says Clark has "a great streak of integrity." That's partially because Clark stood up for him, both the accuracy of his information and his right to report it, when a lot of others were trying to shut him down.

[Nikki Stone 1]

95. Interesting remark by Hersh

Where is the info on this:

"He stood up for minorities, supported gays, and worked damn hard to improve schools on his bases."

I had lots of friends who grew up on military bases, and they weren't always the best places.

[FrenchieCat]

105. In reference to Education, I wasn't in the military....but

as far as the importance of education, Clark did have some great proposals......coupled with his interview with Josh Marshall of TPM, you get a good feel:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/clark.interview.pdf

Wesley Clark
Clark wants to make the first two years of college free for most students while simultaneously restraining spiraling tuition increases. He would provide $20 billion to a "State and Local Rebate" fund for vocation skills and workplace training for students who choose not to go to college. He'd also provide $70 billion toward a universal preschool plan for all 4-year-olds and for 3-year-olds if their parents wanted it. He would target federal funds to focus on teaching reading in the early grades.
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/decision2004/issues_education.html

[kevsand]

110. Most of the info for that

came from personal testimonials of people who had served with him. Some of them appeared in the American Son video, and others made appearances on his behalf during the primaries. I think there might have been a couple of written endorsements on the old web site, and I also think there was some mention of these issues in the various bios and other books that have already been listed above. If you need specific print references, I'm sure someone here can dig them out.

[Jai4WKC08]

116. The info

Is mostly in the hearts of the many former subordinates, from junior enlisted to general officer--white, black, Hispanic, male, female--who volunteered countless hours in his campaign.

I know that's not a very satisfying reply. Perhaps someone else can come up with a little more hard evidence. I don't know what documentation that's left that I can refer you to that wouldn't be just campaign material.

But I've met these people, so I know they're real. I've heard how they speak with fondness and pride of having served in various units Clark commanded. I've heard them tell of the townhalls he ran personally for military families. I've heard from the personnel officer who said he'd be on the phone, calling Dept of the Army to go to bat for someone who wasn't getting a fair shake on assignment or promotion because of his/her race or gender. I've heard the story the subordinate commander who was counselled on how to deal with a gay soldier who had "come out," and had Clark reply, "what if it were your son?"

There's not much proof, I know, in a second-hand story, but in this case it's all I have to offer. You can believe me or not.

[Jai4WKC08]

122. Oh, here's something on education

I forgot I had this. it's from a CD-Rom I got from some outfit that compiles federal records by topic. It's Clark's testimony before a House subcommittee on education reform, from back in 2001, a little over a year after he retired and well before he was considering any sort of political career. Just the formal statement, not the question and answer session that I suspect followed. It's probably available on line somewhere, but I wouldn't know where to look.

***************
Impact Aid: Making the Commitment to our Military Family

Hearing before the Subcommittee on Education Reform
Committee on Education and the Workforce
United States House of Representatives
November 8, 2001

General Wesley K. Clark
United States Army, Retired

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee.

Thank you for inviting me to testify today on the critically important subject of impact aid and the education of the young people in the military family. Let me commend you for holding this hearing, and for your willingness to address this issue.

Put simply, the quality of youth education remains a key factor in the retention and recruitment of personnel in the Armed Forces. Beyond mere expedience, our nation must assure that the children of its Armed Forces personnel are provided a top quality education. The United States' military force is highly educated and its members hold the same expectations for their children's education. More of our men and women are basing their decisions to enter or leave the military on perceptions of the quality of education their children will receive. It is significant that as the ranks of our Armed Services have fallen, funding for impact aid has fallen short of the level needed by our children's schools. If we want strong, educated, committed men and women in our Armed Services, then we must provide for their families well being.

Currently, there are approximately a half million military dependants who attend school in districts surrounding military bases. Less than 15% of military children are in DoD schools; the rest attend public and private schools off-post. In my home state of Arkansas, in the vicinity of Little Rock Air Force Base, there are approximately 2500 students who attend school off post. The three school districts are eligible to receive assistance under the federal impact aid program. However, the impact aid program is funded nationally at only around the 60% level. What does this mean for Little Rock? This means that the three school districts in Little Rock bear a great burden in meeting the educational requirements of each child, both military and civilian. Currently, the three districts receive $575,000 in federal impact aid. If the program were fully funded, the school districts would receive somewhere around $3.8 million.

This significant shortfall translates into a decrease in the number and quality of academic and extracurricular programs the schools can provide to its military and civilian children. It also means a decrease in armed forces retention and recruitment, which is cause for great concern. We do not want to see our military children losing out on the quality education they deserve and their parents expect. Impact aid was designed to reimburse public school districts the full cost of educating the military child attending public or private school off post. In 1950, the Congress recognized that the loss of traditional revenue sources like property and personal income taxes negatively impacted the local school districts. Traditionally these types of taxes have accounted for a significant portion of the local school district's annual budget. However, military students can negatively impact the district's financial resources because their parents do not pay such things as income taxes, license fees, and property taxes. While the nominal cost of educating one student varies from district to district across the United States, one thing remains clear, the federal government must do more to fund the education of our military children. The federal government must live up to its promise to care for its military family by fully funding the impact aid program. If we want to retain and recruit the best men and women, we must provide for their families and this means making an extra effort.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while much has been done in recent years to strengthen accountability and decentralize responsibility and authority in the DoD school system, off-post schools remain beyond the control of the military and DoD leadership. However well-meaning the off post school leadership and staff may be, these schools face particular challenges as I observed in my assignments at Ft. Irwin, Ft. Carson, CO and Ft. Hood, TX. Such schools tend to suffer from restricted funding and higher than average per pupil cost due to the turnover of students associated with military reassignments. In normal communities, the public schools draw on a diverse tax base and enjoy a relatively stable student population. This stability reduces school stress, disciplinary problems, and the general frictions that are inevitable at the beginning of each school year. Civilian schools with substantial population of military families often suffer from reduced tax base as well as extraordinarily high turn over of students even during the school year.

Federal impact aid was created to address these problems. It is a matter of money but it is not a hand out. These additional resources are very much needed. The federal government impacts school districts and our government should do its part. I know that the Committee has worked hard on behalf of our military family to provide the best possible education for our children. This is an important issue to me and I commend the Committee for it.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I would
be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[kevsand]

134. That's a nice piece.

I hadn't seen it before. It really underscores Clark's commitment to a broader range of social issues long before he ever became a candidate.

[Clarkie1]

64. Clark has a vision; he is not a DINO.

Where would the Republican Party be today if Republicans rejected Reagan because he was once a member of the Democratic Party?

In any case, Clark was never a member of the Republican Party. The facts speak for themselves:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=97

Clark inspires as no public figure ever has. I never became actively involved in politics until Clark became a candidate, and and as a result in 04' became heavily involved in my local congressional race. He is a breath of fresh air.

I suggest as others have that you do your own research, and draw your own conclusions from the facts about Clark. Clark has a vision for this country beyond the next election cycle.

------------------------------------------------------------------
An excerpt:
(As prepared for delivery)
Manchester, NH
January 10, 2004:


“Today, vast segments of the developing world's population are struggling, desperate for America's engagement, understanding and assistance. Right now, more than half the world's population is struggling to survive on less than $2 a day, and nearly 1 billion live in chronic hunger. More than one billion of the world's adults cannot read, three-quarters of them women. And half the children in the poorest countries are not in school. Malaria, tuberculosis and diarrhea alone kill 8 million people a year under the age of 15. And already in South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe, half of all the 15-year-olds are expected to die of AIDS. We cannot - we must not - allow this to go on.

But that's just what we're doing. For too long now, America has failed to live up to its awesome responsibilities on the world stage. We are the richest nation in education, health care, science, and bottom line dollar wealth. Yet, more often than not, we turn a blind eye to developing nations around the world, those which desperately need our help. More often than not we put the bottom line first.

America's wealth, strength, and character provides us with great power -- but they also confer great obligations...

...We'll still need our armed forces and we'll take every necessary action to make America safe - but we'll gain that safety not by force of arms, but by who we are and what we represent. For we should be an America not puffed up by pride in our own power, but rather an America humbled by the recognition of our common humanity. We must make sure that globalization helps people around the world, raising living standards and improving the environment everywhere - rather than leading a race to the bottom. Working together, we can build a world in which the rule of law - not the rule of force - governs relations between states. A world in which leaders respect the rights of their people, and nations seek peace, not destruction or domination. And neither we nor anyone else should live in fear ever again."

Wesley Clark
http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=taxonomy/term/5
(scroll down to "remarks on 20-year vision for America)

---------------------------------------------------------
"There are a lot of good Democrats in this race, but Wes Clark is the best Democrat." - Sen. George McGovern

"I have decided to cast my vote in the primary for Wesley Clark. That's right, a peacenik is voting for a general. What a country! I believe that Wesley Clark will end this war. He will make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. He will stand up for the rights of women, African Americans, and the working people of this country. And he will cream George W. Bush.'"
-Michael Moore

"Just when the world is being dragged into the death spiral of an unending cycle of violence by a vision-less, coldblooded collection of think-tank warriors goose-stepping their way into the new millennium with a stunning lack of respect for human rights, the environment, or international law, along comes a man with the proven credentials of intelligence, integrity, and courage singularly equipped by his spirit and experience to lead us out of this mess. Don't listen to what the lying liars say about him; listen to what he says. Wesley Clark is a prayer answered."

Peace,
Kris Kristofferson

" seems to be preoccupied, and I'm quoting now, with building legitimacy, with exhausting all diplomatic remedies... So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."
-Richard Perle, war-monger

"To those who say that Wes Clark has never held political office: anyone who can command NATO, and keep all those forces together, and win that war without losing one American life, knows what it means to hold political office."
-Tom Harkin

---------------------------------------------------------------
Great thread on Clark here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=235&topic_id=3434&mesg_id=3434

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

I could provide more, but I am sure others will provide their thoughts and other useful places to get started in your analysis of Clark. Thanks for the post, it's a good question to ask!

[Carolab]

71. Google Wayne Madsen and Wesley Clark.

You might learn something.

[Clarkie1]

73. .

"Just when the world is being dragged into the death spiral of an unending cycle of violence by a vision-less, coldblooded collection of think-tank warriors goose-stepping their way into the new millennium with a stunning lack of respect for human rights, the environment, or international law, along comes a man with the proven credentials of intelligence, integrity, and courage singularly equipped by his spirit and experience to lead us out of this mess. Don't listen to what the lying liars say about him; listen to what he says. Wesley Clark is a prayer answered."

Peace,
Kris Kristofferson

[FrenchieCat]

91. What?

That Wayne Madsen likes to smear folks like Gen. Clark?
Or that Wayne Madsen likes to get us excited about the Voting apparatus with complex conspiracy theories that end up being wrong?

You can learn from some extremists....but I would trust someone like Gene Lyons much more than a Wayne Madsen.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

[Jai4WKC08]

99. Learn something that'll need unlearning later

Madsen is a nut-case.

[Nikki Stone 1]

101. Not keen on Madsen in general

He seems a little over the top to me.

[FrenchieCat]

108. I Think that history is our friend.....

When I read this article dated June 2003....after listening to Clark's 2002 testimonies, you understand that not only was Clark willing to speak up early about the Bush admin's plan.....but he didn't mind being ridiculed for it.

At the end, he was prescient about it all....
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842
Media Silent on Clark's 9/11 Comments
Gen. says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence

Sunday morning talk shows like ABC's This Week or Fox News Sunday often make news for days afterward. Since prominent government officials dominate the guest lists of the programs, it is not unusual for the Monday editions of major newspapers to report on interviews done by the Sunday chat shows.

But the June 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz that it didn't generate. Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.

Here is a transcript of the exchange:

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

DO YOU DOUBT THAT THIS HAPPENED? I DONT!

Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."
More.....

[Clarkie1]

123. This still sends an icy chill down my spine every time I read it.

I have no doubt in the veracity of Clark's statement.

[dogman]

120. Me either.

When I google Madsen I find he was in Reagan's NSA. I also find him tied to every conspiracy theory against B$$$. As much as I would like to believe most of them and think there may be a grain of truth in many of them, I wonder if he isn't setting the left up to appear as kooks like they did to Rather with the TANG memo.

[Crunchy Frog]

83. This is a good site to check out if you're really interested

in his positions on various issues. Hope you find it helpful.

http://www.clark04.com/issues/

[Ksec]

117. Hes a good man

Hes just a good guy who would make a good President.

[FrenchieCat]

119. Funny how the Democratic voting public can

give Hillary Clinton, the wife of the last Democratic President, high percentages in polls to be the Democratic nominee....but in a time of war and Democrats being called "Weak on Defense"...somehow, Clark's relationship to Clinton (the fact that he was Supreme Allied Commander during the Clinton WH) is bad?

Look....considering that it was Clinton who fooled around, not Clark, I don't think that Clark being friends with Clinton should mean that he's not his own man. Why do you think that Clark disagreed with Clinton's choice of plan to bomb Kosovo from high altitudes and prefered having boots on the ground? Because Clark understood that the higher up you go to drop bombs, the more civilians are likely to be killed. Clinton didn't want any soldiers dying (after Somalia)....but Clark cared about the innocents as much as he cared about his soldiers. So no....Clark is not Clinton redux.
Read this....
The Unappreciated General
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1¬Found=true

and Waiting for the Generalhttp://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
The well written piece by Elizabeth Drew

Reading these two pieces will tell you much about Wes Clark, The General.


And If you are "very pro choice" then a Clark candidacy would only be good for that concern. He was even criticized for being "too pro choice"...based on a remark he made stating that it was really up to a woman and her doctor throughout the entire 9 months.

Protecting a Woman's Right to Choose
Thirty-one years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the guarantee of liberty in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution extends the right of privacy to encompass a woman's decisions related to pregnancy and child bearing. Time and again, during the last three decades, that right has been threatened. The Court's ruling has been tried and tested and affirmed - but it will be tested again. Wes Clark is committed to defending Roe v. Wade. Wes Clark will protect women's choice by protecting privacy and promoting the health of women and families.

Protecting Privacy

Women's decisions related to pregnancy and child bearing are personal decisions, not political decisions. Wes Clark believes that it is wrong to make a choice that should be left between a woman and her doctor and her family into a political issue. He will protect women's privacy by:


Standing up for choice. Wes Clark is pro-choice. He believes that the government has no right to come between a woman, her family, and her doctor in making such a personal and private decision. Wes Clark will protect the fundamental principle at the heart of the doctor-patient relationship: that doctors and women should make medical decisions based on what's best for the individual given her unique circumstances. He believes that the courts have struck the right balance between women's privacy and the complex issues that arise as pregnancy progresses.

Protecting women's safety and health. A woman, of any age, should never be forced to endanger her life. Wes Clark opposed the ban on late term abortion enacted by President Bush and Republicans in Congress last year because it didn't provide an exception for the health of the woman. And he has opposed parental notification laws that don't allow judicial bypass or notification of another responsible adult, because, while parental involvement is always preferable, it isn't always possible.

Nominating judges who will uphold the law. We as a nation have embraced several simple, important constitutional values, such as one-person, one-vote and the right to privacy that are settled law. Wes Clark is committed to appointing judges with the highest qualifications, from diverse backgrounds, who will uphold the law and enforce fundamental constitutional guarantees-- including the rights of privacy and equality.
http://www.clark04.com/issues/choose/

[autorank]

131. FrenchieCat, nobody says it better about Clark.

"Why not the best?" That's our challenge. And believe me when I say this, by 2007 we will be desperate for the very best person available to run this country. Since Clark has actually run a number of large projects and organizations with great success and since those experiences relate directly to the challenges we face, it's time for the best.

Clark has two years to make himself widely recognized. He will do this, I believe, by being himself--bright, impatient with idiots, a true American patriot, and a LIBERAL who is the only Democratic candidate to stand up and claim that term.

To all the doubters, just keep an open mind and let your ears hear and your eyes see...Clark will be your choice.

A man who will offer leadership and demand sacrifice!

Wes Clark a true American :patriot:

[eridani]

130. Definitely not a DINO, but an imperialist nonetheless

Oversaw major atrocities in Southern Command, particularly Columbia, approves of School of the Americas. Thought bombing worker-owned factories in Serbia, while leaving those owned by foreigners strictly alone, was a great idea. Backed the ethnic cleansing of the Krajina by the Croatian Nazi Tudjman. Has not disavowed the goal of setting up military bases all over the ME and Central Asia.

Good on domestic issues, but so was Lyndon Johnson. If we are stuck with having an imperialist as president, we could do far worse than Clark, and have. Doesn't mean I'm going to be happy about it.

[FrenchieCat]

133. How long was Clark in charge of the Southern Command? Do you know?

Please provide your evidence for each negative statement you have made here. I've heard what you are saying before...but at least the person that said these things did provided cut and paste information for me to deconstruct. You provide nothing.....and yet, as much as I have researched Clark, you expect me to go with that?

I will be waiting for your cited sources as to where you got your information.

Thank you in advance.

[eridani]

136. References

For everything except his stance on permanent military bases in Iraq. I know Kerry explicitly disavowed this goal, but can't find anything on Clark.

Krajina ethnic cleansing
http://www.balkanpeace.org/rs/archive/july00/rs60.shtml

Southern Command
http://www.exeter.edu/communications/pr/Clark.html
From 1996 to 1997, General Clark served as Commander in Chief of the United States Southern Command, Panama, where he was responsible for the direction of U.S. military activities in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Columbia atrocities
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/Columbia/TiesThatBind.html
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1996/killertoc.htm

Human Rights Watch has also documented the disturbing role played by the United States in support of the Colombian military. Despite Colombia's disastrous human rights record, a U.S. Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency team worked with Colombian military officers on the 1991 intelligence reorganization that resulted in the creation of killer networks that identified and killed civilians suspected of supporting guerrillas.

School of the Americas

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-01.htm
Clark never headed the school but had dealings with it when he led the US Southern Command from 1996 to 1997. He delivered a graduation speech there in 1996 and has praised the school before Congress. George Bruno, the cochairman of Clark's New Hampshire campaign and a former ambassador to Belize, was a paid adviser to the school when it reopened with a new charter in 2001.

Now, on the stump, Clark strongly defends the school, without denying that some graduates have committed atrocities in their home countries.

http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=721

When Hector was in military custody, he was tortured on the orders of a Colombian officer trained at the School of the Americas. Training manuals in use at the SOA at the time advocated the torture, execution, and imprisonment of people who support “union organizing or recruiting”, distribute “propaganda in favor of the interests of workers", “sympathize with demonstrators or strikes”. or make "accusations that the government has failed to meet the basic needs of the people." Hector was hung by his hands from a tree in the hot sun for two days. The permanent nerve damage he suffered caused the tremor in his hands.

When he was released from prison, Marxist guerillas asked Hector to give him the names of the officers who tortured him, and promised that they would be killed. Hector refused. He explains: “From the very first day, I forgave my torturer. If I met him today I would embrace him. But we will not be fully reconciled until the School of the Americas is closed, the place where he learned to leave me trembling forever.”

What Kosovo was really about

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1309037,00.html

'Wars, conflict - it's all business," sighs Monsieur Verdoux in Charlie Chaplin's 1947 film of the same name. Many will not need to be convinced of the link between US corporations now busily helping themselves to Iraqi state assets and the military machine that prised Iraq open for global business. But what is less widely known is that a similar process is already well under way in a part of the world where B52s were not so long ago dropping bombs in another "liberation" mission.

The trigger for the US-led bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 was, according to the standard western version of history, the failure of the Serbian delegation to sign up to the Rambouillet peace agreement. But that holds little more water than the tale that has Iraq responsible for last year's invasion by not cooperating with weapons inspectors.

The secret annexe B of the Rambouillet accord - which provided for the military occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia - was, as the Foreign Office minister Lord Gilbert later conceded to the defence select committee, deliberately inserted to provoke rejection by Belgrade. But equally revealing about the west's wider motives is chapter four, which dealt exclusively with the Kosovan economy. Article I (1) called for a "free-market economy", and article II (1) for privatisation of all government-owned assets. At the time, the rump Yugoslavia - then not a member of the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO or European Bank for Reconstruction and Development - was the last economy in central-southern Europe to be uncolonised by western capital. "Socially owned enterprises", the form of worker self-management pioneered under Tito, still predominated.

Five years on from the Nato attack, the Kosovo Trust Agency (KTA), the body that operates under the jurisdiction of the UN Mission in Kosovo (Unmik) - is "pleased to announce" the programme to privatise the first 500 or so socially owned enterprises (SOEs) under its control. The closing date for bids passed last week: 10 businesses went under the hammer, including printing houses, a shopping mall, an agrobusiness and a soft-drinks factory.

But there is little talk of the rights of the moral owners of the enterprises - the workers, managers and citizens of the former Yugoslavia, whose property was effectively seized in the name of the "international community" and "economic reform". As the corporate takeover of the ruins of Baghdad and Pristina proceeds apace, neither the "liberation" of Iraq nor the "humanitarian" bombing of Yugoslavia has proved Chaplin's cynical anti-hero to be wrong.


http://www.doublestandards.org/pilger12.html

Nato's clients were the Kosovo Liberation Army. Seven years earlier, the KLA had been designated by the State Department as a terrorist organisation in league with Al Qaida.

At the Davos summit of neo-liberal chieftains in 1999, Blair berated Belgrade, not for its handling of Kosovo, but for its failure to fully embrace "economic reform". In the bombing campaign that followed, it was state owned companies, rather than military sites, that were targeted. Nato's destruction of only 14 Yugoslav army tanks compares with its bombing of 372 centres of industry, including the Zastava car factory, leaving hundreds of thousands jobless. "Not one foreign or privately owned factory was bombed," wrote Clark.

Erected on the foundation of this massive lie, Kosovo today is a violent, criminalised UN-administered "free market" in drugs and prostitution. More than 200,000 Serbs, Roma, Bosniacs, Turks, Croats and Jews have been ethnically cleansed by the KLA with Nato forces standing by. KLA hit squads have burned, looted or demolished 85 Orthodox churches and monasteries, according to the UN. The courts are venal.

[FrenchieCat]

138. Blaming Clark for everything that occured within the military

during the last 50 years is a pretty extreme measure and is done by those who hate the military...period. This extreme perception is why most folks, when concerned about National Security....vote Republican....and why the armed forces tend to vote that way as well. The irony is that it is the civilian leaders who pass the laws, make the policies, fund the defense budget, and allocate resources within the Defense Dept. itself (which is why SOD cannot be a military personnel unless retired more than 10 years = a civilian SOD).

You may hate to hear this....but that's what Wes Clark was talking about when he said very recently...."we have to get over Vietnam". Not to forget Vietnam (which is different)....but to stop blaming the military, when it is the civilian leadership that made and still make the policies. The military carry out the orders......based on the policies. So your finger is most likely pointed at every single President and the various congresses (both Democratic and Republican) we have ever had...I guess. I don't think that issue you have with the entire United States of America's government for the past 50 years is what will win an election in the U.S.
--------------
In reference to your evidence to indict Wes Clark, let me warn you....I do read links. So with that, I have a few comments about the evidence you presented.

Krajina ethnic cleansing
http://www.balkanpeace.org/rs/archive/july00/rs60.shtml
This piece does not mention General Wes Clark anywhere, who was not in charge in the early 1990s. He did deal with the military portion of the Dayton Peace Accords in 1995, which did help bring peace to the region. Some might criticize the Accords, but militarily speaking the plan was sound (that was Clark's part in that). I further suggest that the killing going on during the 1991 War in Croatia should not be placed at the feet of General Clark who was not in any place of command dealing with that issue in 1991.

Southern Command
http://www.exeter.edu/communications/pr/Clark.html
From 1996 to 1997, General Clark served as Commander in Chief of the United States Southern Command, Panama, where he was responsible for the direction of U.S. military activities in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Clark was in charge from June 1996 to July 1997. That's one year..

Columbia atrocities
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/Columbia/TiesThatBind.h...
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1996/killertoc.htm
I have read what you offer at both of these links, and I don't see General Clark's name, nor does it really deal with the time period in which he was in charge. Please re-read the documents and let me know what Clark did exactly. It appears instead that 1996 is the year that a lot of these investigations occurred and a lot of these reports were written up. The date that I see the most listed in both reports is the year 1999 as a year that shit happened. Clark was NATO Commander of Europe for two years by than.

In reference to the School of the Americas
SOA is always only used against Wes Clark, but the institution has been around Since 1963. Who was President then?
Not to defend this Red Herring against "only Clark", I believe that the attrocities discussed so frequently when SOA is brought up date back to the '80 and before.

"if you find anything that teaches human rights abuses . . . I'll close the SOA."--Wes Clark
http://www.birddogger.org/news.php?id=150
Context is important and something Democrats always accuse the GOP of lacking when making statements against our own.

First of all, 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 aren't up to date--they 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.
-------------------
A Tom Rinaldo's Response that I am taking the liberty of posting. (Hope you don't mind Tom)
If that were all it was
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 conspirialist, or a radical I suppose, to buy 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.

[eridani]

141. I'm looking at current policy, not past actions

during the last 50 years is a pretty extreme measure and is done by those who hate the military...period.

I don't hate the military, I hate imperialism. And I referred mainly to events taking place in the 90s.

but to stop blaming the military, when it is the civilian leadership that made and still make the policies. The military carry out the orders......based on the policies. So your finger is most likely pointed at every single President we have ever had...I guess. I don't think that is what will win an election in the U.S.

Um. Clark aspires to a role as a civilian leader, so I expect him to critize those policies now. And yes, my finger is pointed, not at every president, but at every president since the end of WW II. The Democrat policy maker George Kennan explained what imperialism is 50 years ago.

We have 50 per cent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality . . . we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation.

--George Kennan, US Cold War planner, 1948 NSC-68 document
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/nsc-68/nsc68-1.htm
--Source: Naval War College Review, Vol. XXVII (May-June, 1975), pp. 51-108. Also in U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: > 1950, Volume I.

Excuse me, but this is utterly amoral thuggery and an ethical abomination as a basis for policy, but that's what our policy has been. And no, I don't like it any better when China does it to Tibet or Russia does it to Eastern Europe. Note that no US military action against Russia or China to make them turn these colonized countries loose ever took place--our wars were only against poor countries that wanted to use their resources for their own benefit.

You may well be right that a candidate that advocates giving up the imperial project is not going to get votes because too many voters benefit from the theft of the world's resources. That's short term benefit though, and long term we will destroy ourselves as a functioning society if we persist in trying to conquer our resource base instead of throwing everything we have into inventing the post-oil technology that we need for survival, sooner rather than later. My question to Clark--are you going to be a leader here or not? We will eventually be forced to give up imperialism on the grounds of expense, just as the Soviets and British were forced to. The only question is how hard the landing will be and how Clark proposes to handle it.


Krajina ethnic cleansing

This piece does not mention General Wes Clark anywhere, who was not in charge in the early 1990s. ... I further suggest that killing going on during the 1991 War in Croatia should not be placed at the feet of General Clark.

I am not taking him to task for his actions but for his failure to speak out against this instance of ethnic cleansing, which is not the slightest bit different from what Milosevic wanted to do to Kosovo. Clark seems to have no problem taking credit for Kosovo. The Krajina cleansing was carried out with the aid of US private mercenaries. Why no opinion on it?

Southern Command

Clark was in charge from June 1996 to July 1997. That's one year.

Yes. A year in which he had no objection to the ongoing war against independent civil society in Columbia.

Columbia atrocities
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/Columbia/TiesThatBind.h ...
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1996/killertoc.htm
Please re-read the documents and let me know what Clark did exactly. It appears instead that 1996 is the year that a lot of these investigations occurred and a lot of these reports were written up.

Again, I'm not criticizing actions but his lack of an opinion. Not saying anything is indirect approval.


"if you find anything that teaches human rights abuses . . . I'll close the SOA."--Wes Clark
http://www.birddogger.org/news.php?id=150
Context is important and something Democrats always accuse the GOP of lacking when making statements against our own.
He should have closed it on his watch, not defended it.

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.

What you are talking about here is purely cosmetic 'reform' not real reform. As of this very year atrocities in Columbia are STILL being committed by graduates. And yes, Democratic presidents have backed the imperial project too, though the Repubs tend to be far more vicious and dishonest.

It is only something of an improvement that our current imperial overlords are pushing impoverishing 'free' trade agreements on Central and South America instead of carving up union organizers personally.

http://www.soaw.org/new/index.php
http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=110

As with the "working" mission of the SOA, the purpose stated for the new school downplays the militaristic aspects of the training offered and focuses instead on "leadership development, counter-drug operations, peace support, and disaster relief." These courses existed at the SOA but have never been well attended. The 2000 SOA Certification Report to Congress shows that in 1999 a scant 14% of SOA soldiers took the peace operations, civil/military relations and the like. Over 85% took the standard SOA fare: commando tactics, military intelligence, psychological operations, and combat training.


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.

Great. Those are places where we currently farm out torture so as not to be directly linked to it. And the drug lords would not even exist if we stopped the seriously stupid War on Some Drugs.

[FrenchieCat]

139. Your link on what KOSOVO was really about appears to be DEAD

Serbian apologists love to tell the tale that there was nothing happening, and Clinton just got greedy. Some called it "wag the dog". Most of those that said this were Republicans.....who didn't want any distractions from Monica.

What Kosovo was really about
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1309037,...

This link is dead. Do you have another?

Although I can't read it, it appears to be a commentary, i.e., someone's opinion, and although I treasure opinions, they do not trump facts.

Here are some facts about Kosovo and what was happening there before the war:
The Kosovo War started in April of 1999, and it was based on an active plan of Genocide by Milosovic that was being carried via displacement, starvation, destruction, and yes, murder as well.

http://www.refugees.org/news/crisis/kosovo_u0998.htm
September 1998
In mid September, the situation in Kosovo is getting worse and the lives of thousands of innocent people are at risk. Serb forces continue to pound villages in northern and western Kosovo, effecting over half of the province's population in the last seven months. International aid agencies estimate that between 270,000 and 350,000 people have fled the fighting, as many as 250,000 remaining "internally displaced" inside Although their plight has generated worldwide recognition, international attempts to foster a diplomatic resolution to the conflict have failed to yield tangible results.

According to the Associated press, there is talk of possible, eventual Nato-supported military action ranging from the deployment of troops along the Albania- Kosovo border, to air strikes, to the deployment of ground troops, but humanitarian organizations remain skeptical that decisive U.S., European, or Nato-supported action will come soon. In the mean time, daily reports of horrendous human rights violations, massive destruction, and increasing bloodshed document the dire prognosis for Kosavars "contained" in the crisis by recently erected border controls.

On September 16, the New York Times reported that Serbian forces were "rounding up men and boys from ethnic Albanian villages and refugee camps in Kosovo, an act that US officials fear could be the prelude to their execution, as happened during the war in Bosnia." One week earlier, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, Julia Taft said at a press briefing, "Without a cease- fire, without a pull-back from this intrusive fighting, there will be 100,000 to 200,000 casualties looming in the months ahead."

Still, there are no decisive plans by the U.S., NATO, or European allies to avert the current and impending disasters with military action. The U.S. is "considering a variety of options" for getting emergency aid into Kosovo and continues to support diplomatic interventions and the preservation of Yugoslavian borders.

On September 16, Serbian and Albanian leaders reported heavy fighting in the area between the towns of Kosovska Mitrovica, Podujevo, and Vucitrn, north of the capital, Pristina. German Defense Minister, Volker Ruhe, stated that the West could resort to military action "within three to five weeks," if Milosevic fails to comply with an impending U.N. Security Council Resolution designed to put an end to the conflict. According to U.N. officials, the Resolution will not explicitly authorize military action.

On September 17, the government of Montenegro began implementing a plan to send refugees from Kosovo to Albania. Over 4,000 refugees being held in the village of Meteh, Montenegro, were transported in busses to the Albanian border point of Vermosh.

On September 18, Ethnic Albanian Leader, Ibrahim Rugova, gave his preliminary endorsement to a 3-year U.S.-backed "temporary" plan to restore local autonomy to Kosovo (stripped by Milosevic in 1989). According to the associated press, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic "supported" the plan aimed at "normalizing the difficult and risky situation and halting the attacks and the use of force."

On September 21, amidst renewed Serbian attacks in the Drenica region, Ethnic Albanian leaders released their version of the U.S. supported "interim" peace proposal. Under the arrangement, Kosovo would become an "independent entity equal" to Serbia and Montenegro, with its own courts, police, and central bank. Its status as a province in Yugoslavia would be retained temporarily and negotiated in the future. Serbian officials rejected parts of the proposal but, reportedly, agreed to release their own version in the upcoming week.

On September 22, the New York Times reported that the "worsening plight" of refugees and internally displaced people from Kosovo was "increasing the possibility of NATO intervention." Britain and France urged the U.N. Security Council to finish drafting the Resolution designed to make (Serbian) "compliance mandatory," and raise the "specter of military force." According to U.S. officials, the pending resolution reflects an emerging consensus in favor of military action, however, "NATO allies have not yet reached an agreement on the use of force."
---------------
I believe that the Kosovo war was to STOP and PREVENT genocide.....So the fact that ONLY few thousand bodies were found in the 20% thus far of the suspected gravesites should make all of y'all feel really superior.

First, I want to say that the Right Wing is happy that you have determined that no Genocide was occuring in Kosovo....cause that is what they have been saying for quite some time.

Genocide By Mass Starvation;
NATO Strategy Makes Sense On One Level. But, In Humanitarian Terms, It's A Fatal Miscalculation. Los Angeles Times
April 25, 1999, Sunday, Home Edition

http://www.refugees.org/news/op_eds/042599.htm
President Slobodan Milosevic's ability to stop and start massive refugee flows out of Kosovo is a chilling sign of his power and intent. From the Nazis to the Khmer Rouge, closed borders have been a serious sign that genocide is occurring. Genocide does not require gas chambers or even mass graves. A favored tactic is calculated mass starvation. That is what is happening in Kosovo.

Serb forces used food as a weapon during the war in Bosnia. They rarely engaged in battle, preferring to surround and besiege an area, subject it to shelling and cut it off from food.

Long before the bombing began, Milosevic began a systematic campaign to deplete Kosovo of its food resources. Beginning last summer, Serb forces:

restricted importation of basic items into Kosovo, including wheat, rice, cooking oil, sugar, salt, meat, milk, livestock, heating fuel and gasoline;

looted warehouses and burned fields, haystacks, winter food stocks and firewood.

killed livestock and often dropped their carcasses into wells to contaminate the water;

shot at ethnic Albanian farmers trying to harvest or plant;

Harassed, persecuted and sometimes killed local humanitarian aid workers;

created nearly 300,000 internally displaced people, most of whom stayed with private families, eating what private stores of food they had managed to save.

In the best of times, Kosovo is not a self-sufficient food producer. By early this year, with planting and harvesting brought to a halt and with food stocks consumed or destroyed, there were no food reserves outside Serbian government shops. Most of the population was dependent on humanitarian aid delivered through a network of U.N. agencies and local and international nongovernmental organizations. That network is gone. The International Committee of the Red Cross, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Food Program are out of Kosovo. International nongovernmental groups have been expelled and are now working with refugees outside Kosovo. Local nongovernment groups have been decimated, their staff members lucky to become refugees themselves.

Before NATO's military objectives can be achieved, Milosevic will already have accomplished his objective: Grinding down Kosovo's 1.8 million ethnic Albanians. One rule of war is this: Men with guns do not starve; civilians do. NATO is not going to beat the Yugoslav military by starving them out, and if it did, the civilians would perish long before them.

As hunger and disease loom, various interim steps have been suggested: internal safe havens, food air drops, humanitarian corridors. Each is flawed, largely because each requires cooperation from Milosevic that in all likelihood will never come to be. Milosevic could achieve his aims simply by dragging his feet.

Everyone is concerned about the lives of NATO servicemen, but the people on the executioner's block cannot wait for a risk-free, soldier-friendly environment for their rescue. They can't wait for the amassing of 200,000 troops, if that will take months of buildup and field support. They can't wait for a "permissive environment."

Mass Graves, Mass Denial (PDF)
http://www.bard.edu/bgia/journal/vol2/63-66.pdf

http://www.religioustolerance.org/war_koso.htm
Did the Serbs commit genocide?
Civilian populations are increasingly being targeted during recent civil wars. However, atrocities must match certain specific criteria before they are considered genocide. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as "certain acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such. The proscribed acts include killings, causing serious bodily or mental harm, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, forcibly transferring its children to another group, or deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its destruction in whole or in part."
Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia during the mid 1990s started as mass expulsions of civilians. It escalated to include internment in concentration camps, mass executions, rapes, etc. There was a clear policy by the Serbs "to exterminate Muslim Bosnians as a group..." Their actions were generally considered to be genocide. There is a general consensus that widespread atrocities were also committed by the Muslims and the Croats (largely Roman Catholic). But the level of their war crimes did not reach genocidal proportions.

There have been allegations that the Serbs were engaged in genocide in Kosovo before and during the NATO bombing. Media correspondents and human rights investigators conducted large-scale interviews of Kosovar refugees. The data collected show that the Geneva Conventions concerning civilians had been ignored and that extremely serious war crimes were perpetrated by the Yugoslavian army, police and militias. There appeared to be a consensus of human rights investigators that the quantity and type of documented atrocities proved that genocide was committed by the Yugoslavian government against the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. This belief was confirmed as the NATO forces occupied Kosovo. Mass graves were located and are being systematically examined by forensic specialists. Ethnic Albainians came out of hiding with horrendous stories to tell. In excess of 11,000 murders were reported to authorities. According to a report by the U.N.'s chief prosecutor in Yugoslavia, Carla Del Ponte, on 1999-NOV-10, 2,108 complete corpses and an unknown but large number of incompete corpses were found. By 1999-NOV, a total of 195 grave sites in Kosovo had been analyzed; another four hundred remained to be investigated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2147781.stm
Mass grave found near Srebrenica
Tuesday, 23 July, 2002, 22:35 GMT 23:35 UK
Forensic experts in Bosnia have discovered a mass grave in the north-east of the country, close to the site of the Srebrenica massacre in 1995. It is thought the grave contains the bodies of Bosnian Muslims killed by Bosnian Serb forces after they captured Srebrenica.

Skeletons 'incomplete'
The grave site was discovered on Monday near the Serb-held village of Kamenica, some 70 kilometres (45 miles) north-east of Sarajevo.

The commission said it had "reliable proof" that the remains were transported to the grave from another location, in order to conceal the remains from war crime investigators.

He said some of the skeletons were incomplete, and that others were found with their hands bound by wire.

More than 7,000 Bosnian Muslims were killed after the fall of Srebrenica, in the worst massacre Europe has seen since World War II.

So far 6,000 bodies have been exhumed from numerous mass graves around the town, but only 300 have been identified.

Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadzic and his army chief Ratko Mladic have been implicated in the Srebrenica massacres.

New mass grave found in Kosovo as Milosevic trial nears
Posted: 02/11/2002 11:10 amLast Updated: 2002-02-11 11:58:09-05
Kroni I Mbretit, Yugoslavia - Kosovo villagers have discovered a new mass grave, just two days before former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic goes on trial for engineering genocide in their province.

The remains were uncovered in western Kosovo on Sunday. The remains of up to 20 bodies were found in a shallow grave by children playing in the area.

Several villagers living near the grave will offer testimony in the upcoming trial of Milosevic, which starts tomorrow in the Hague, but their testimony will focus on other events, and not the grave uncovered Sunday.http://www.wndu.com/news/022002/news_12301.php

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/09/serb.grave/
BELGRADE, Yugoslavia -- Serbian forensic experts have discovered another mass grave near a lake in southwestern Serbia.
The grave is believed to contain bodies of ethnic Albanians killed during the 1999 war in Kosovo

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/11/bosnia.pit/index.html
Bosnia mass grave found
June 11, 2001 Posted: 3:58 AM EDT (0758 GMT)
MOUNT MALUSA, Bosnia -- A mass grave containing bodies of victims of the notorious Foca prison camp has been discovered in Bosnia, Reuters has reported.
Bosnian Muslim officials found the grave hidden deep in a dense forest after receiving a letter signed by "a Serb from Foca," the agency said.

[eridani]

146. The following link worked for me

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1309037,00.html

And you are flat out wrong about Albanians in Kosovo. Ever wonder why they are a majority in the first place? That's because they enthusiastically assisted in the mass murder of Serbians by the Nazis in WW II and as a result became a majority from then on. They are now finishing the job they started, and wiping out the Jews and Gypsies as well. Milosevic was reacting to this basic fact, and the head of state he most resembles is Ariel Sharon, using legitimate security concerns as an excuse for brutal and stupid responses.

Where in these analysis is the fact that 2/3 of the Serbian parliament was IN OPPOSITION to Milosevic, who was only in office because they couldn't find a way to unite against him. They proposed (as an alternative to the Milosevic hamhandedness) that Kosovo be made a UN protectorate. Did the US use this as a basis for further negotiation? Hell, no! Instead, they insisted that all Serbian industries be privatized as a condition for not being bombed. Care to explain what the hell that had to do with the situation in Kosovo?

And as for exaggeration, is the Wall Street Journal a lefty anti-imperialist rag?

http://www.doublestandards.org/pilger12.html
By June 1999, with the bombardment over, international forensic teams began subjecting Kosovo to minute examination. The American FBI arrived to investigate what was called "the largest crime scene in the FBI's forensic history". Several weeks later, having not found a single mass grave, the FBI went home. The Spanish forensic team also returned home, its leader complaining angrily that he and his colleagues had become part of "a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines, because we did not find one – not one – mass grave."

In November 1999, the Wall Street Journal published the results of its own investigation, dismissing "the mass grave obsession". Instead of "the huge killing fields some investigators were led to expect ... the pattern is of scattered killings in areas where the separatist Kosovo Liberation Army had been active." The Journal concluded that Nato stepped up its claims about Serb killing fields when it "saw a fatigued press corps drifting toward the contrarian story: civilians killed by Nato's bombs ... The war in Kosovo was "cruel, bitter, savage; genocide it wasn't."

I'd say that Milosevic is far more to blame for the war in Bosnia, however, no one ever mentions that it need not have occurred. Alia Izetbegovic, a fundie Muslim who was a Nazi collaborator in WW II, pushed aside the more moderate Fikret Abdic (who had the most votes, and was not in favor of secession) and held a referendum for independence. (The previous postwar custom in Bosnia was that all three ethnic groups had to agree to this.) Had this not happened, you would not have seen all three groups get susceptible to the nasty nationalist propaganda by the likes of Karadzic et al.

On November 5, 1990, a year before the civil wars in Yugoslavia have started, the US Congress passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriation Law 101-513. This bill, without a previous warning, cut all aid, trade, credits and loans to Yugoslavia and then pushed the World Bank and International Monetary Fond to do the same. The bill derecognized the country of Yugoslavia and announced that the U.S. will deal with the constituent republics instead.

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/Zimmer.html

New York Times ("U.S. policymakers on Bosnia admit errors in opposing partition in 1992", by David Binder, August 29, 1993):"
On February 23, 1992, in Lisbon, the three Bosnian leaders - Mr. Izetbegovic , Radovan Karadzic for the Bosnian Serbs and Mate Boban for the Bosnian Croats - endorsed a proposal that the republic be a confederation divided into three ethnic regions. Mr. Izetbegovic's acceptance of partition, which would have denied him and his Muslim party a dominant role(!) in the republic, shocked... United States policy makers...

"The embassy was for recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina from sometime in February on," Mr. Zimmermann said of his policy recommendation from Belgrade. "Meaning me."..."

Guess what? After all the fighting and bloodshed, what Bosnia has is pretty much what leaders of the three factions agreed to in 1993! They could have had the same thing without the fighting if the US ambassador had not intervened.

[FrenchieCat]

165. thanks for the working link.....

actually, it's ironic...because the article about the economic situation currently in the Baltics echos Clark's sentiments exactly.

In a recent radio interview, he stated that the reason that Kosovo is in the mess that it is now in is because of money.

The Interview.....
http://www.scpr.org/programs/talkcity/index.shtml#
Go down to Feb 2, 2005. Click to listen.

[eridani]

197. Don't have streaming audio--

--however, I'm sure Clark has a lot of sensible things to say. What I really want to hear though, is why anyone would think that a demand that Serbia and Kosovo sell off state industries or have them destroyed by bombs has anything to do with preventing ethnic strife.

[FrenchieCat]

140. Please read what Senator Barbara Boxer had to say about KOSOVO

Now why would Barbara Boxer believe the facts I cited....and not the opinions you cited? Mmmmmm.

Is Ms. Boxer just gullible, and bought into the fact that there was Genocide....although you say there was none? You know more than she does, I guess.....

Please note how recent this quote is...1/19/05

Senator Barbara Boxer at Rice for SOS hearings:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/politics/19cnd-rtex.h ...
"My last point has to do with Milosevic. You said you can't compare the two dictators. You know, you're right; no two tyrants are alike. But the fact is Milosevic started wars that killed 200,000 in Bosnia, 10,000 in Kosovo and thousands in Croatia, and he was nabbed and he's out without an American dying for it. That's the facts. Now I suppose we could have gone in there and people could have killed to get him. The fact is not one person wants either of those two to see the light of day, again. And in one case we did it without Americans dying. In the other case, we did it with Americans dying. And I think if you ask the average American, you know, was Saddam worth one life, one American life, they'd say, "No, he's the bottom of the barrel." And the fact is we've lost so many lives over it. So if we do get a little testy on the point, and I admit to be so, it's because it continues day in and day out, and 25 percent of the dead are from California. We cannot forget. We cannot forget that. Thank you. " Senator Barbara Boxer(D) of California

oh, and by the way

Approx 500 civilians were killed by the bombing in Kosovo. Although that's too high of a figure, it may well have saved thousands if not hundreds of thousand.
http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm
While it is estimated that 100,000 Iraqis (and they are still dying) were killed during the Iraq war. Now, if you think that it's all the same, then we truly do know where you stand on war and peace....and whatever candidate you back better be a pacifist....for you to be consistent. I don't think that a pacifist would win an election in this country. Heck, even the late Pope considered the Kosovo war as a "Just War". So indicting Clark on Kosovo is just really too.....shall we say "over the top"....methinks.

[eridani]

147. Yes, she's gullible

See above links. The US started the war in Bosnia by urging Alija Izetbegovic to reject an agreement about ethnic autonomous zones, that by sheerest coincidence are almost exactly how things are arranged in Bosnia now. Had that not happened, the semi-autonomous zones would exist as they do today, only without the war.

And she is neglecting the final solution in Kosovo imposed on the minority Serbs, Jews and Gypsies by the Albanians who have just about finished the project dating from WW II that they shared with the Nazis.

[FrenchieCat]

152. Unfortunately, whatever links to provide evidence you started out with

it appears as they have been dropped from your repertoire....because you have returned to only speaking in opinions.

You have stated that something didn't exist although I demonstrated via credible sources that it did. Kosovo was a war to PREVENT the Genocide. Unlike Rwanda.....no one waited around until 300,000 were piled up to act. So for you to be looking for 300,000 bodies is pretty ridiculous.

ALl I have to say is an extremist is an extremist....and that you are.

You have indeed laid blame for the last 50 years of foreign policy at Wes Clark's feet...simply because he was in the military. And in effect you are judging him guilty due to other's civilian policies because he didn't speak out in the early 90's, when he was a no star and a 1 star General.

You might as well blame us all....because according to your criteria, we are all guilty.

IMO, it may take a general to win the peace.

[eridani]

198. And where is the evidence that any genocide was prevented?

The sources you cite are just as much opinions as any source I cite. REPEAT: I am not blaming Clark for the last 50 years of policy--all I want to know is how he plans to CHANGE it!! What he said in the 90s is not relevant--I want him to say something now.

And yes, we are all guilty. I have no interest in breastbeating or wallowing, only in CHANGE. The past is water under the bridge-what are we going to do about it NOW? Does Clark want 300+ military bases all over the world, and a bunch more in the Middle East imposed on populations there against their will, or does he plan on having the Defense Department really be about defense only?

[Jai4WKC08]

175. Serb apologist and propagandist

Pure and simple. Like all propagandists, they spin the facts when they can, make shit up when they have to. Sometimes both, because the "Big Lie" works best of all.

Everyone who was there knows damn well what the Serbs were doing. To include the Serbs who lie about it now. Milosevic himself is on public record saying they had tried to eliminate the Kosovars after WWII and they weren't gonna fail this time.

There's not a single group of people around today who aren't here because their forebears killed off some other group. That's not to excuse the bad in our history, and certainly not to suggest we forget it. Or fail to recognize the impact it has on what happens in today's world. But you can't excuse genocide today just because the victims' ancestors may have participated in it generations ago.

[eridani]

205. As revenge for the Albanians' elimination of so many Serbs

in WW II. The Serbs were doing unto others what those others were doing unto them. The Muslims and Croats were Hitler's allies. Some Serbs (including Milosevic) might have wished they could do to Kosovo what the Nazi Tudjman did to the Serbian majority in the Krajina (with the aid of American mercenaries), but the 2/3 majority opposed to Milosevic was perfectly willing to turn over the administration of Kosovo to the UN. Unacceptable to Clinton without tagging on some bullshit about selling off their state enterprises or have them bombed into rubble. Why?

[mattclearing]

132. I remember making a similar post a few months ago.

Frenchiecat is still enlightening the Clark-doubters, I see.

You'd be amazed how often this topic comes up.

Hopefully people will figure out how great Clark is soon so it won't be such an issue of debate.

[LimpingLib]

142. HMMM..leme think.... (3 hurs later).... ..(thinking)........

.....(scratching my head so hard the hairs are ripping out).

Ive reached the conclusion it would be alot easier to explain why you should consider the benefits of rubbing acid into the raw flesh of you open eyes.Once I can sell you on that one then I will get the confidence to move on to more unmitigated audaciousness.

You see...... acid really has its benefits...............

[LimpingLib]

143. I GOT IT!!!

For turning a defensive organization that was ready to be abolished (NATO) into another offensive monstrosity for all posterity.

I sure this "anti-war" (man revisionism sure is sweet aint it?) dream candidate will be a real dove though once in office.

Vote Wes Clark. The regressive "progressive".

War is Peace!

[FrenchieCat]

151. Whatever....

If you wanted NATO abolished, then YOU, my friend are not Democrat!

[FrenchieCat]

150. Nothing to see here......

Just a non witted comment based on nothing, AND it's not even funny.

[Totally Committed]

163. Sick. (n/t)

TC

[Sparkly]

186. Yet predictable.

[CWebster]

148. Clark is intelligent and straightforward

But the line is drawn at his embrace of the SOA. It makes all his other arguments moot.

[Pilgrim4Progress]

156. Distinctions need to be made

It seems to me that it's important to distinguish whether he supports abusive policies attributed to SOA or not.

And I think it's clear he does not.

What I've heard from Clark is that he believes in engagement. I think he believes that engagement and dialogue and education can bridge cultural gaps. And he believes that the best leadership employs every possible diplomatic and communication tool available to promote understanding and solve international problems. He invites and welcomes cultural exchange, and compares Americans' relative lack of knowledge of other cultures and languages with the knowledge others have of America.

To paint him with the broad brush of the abusive actions of some SOA graduates, is, to me, like Republicans calling Democrats "baby-killers" because of pro-choice opinions.

[CWebster]

169. You mean, like bad apples in the gestapo?

One must ask what the purpose of the the SOA is:

Allegations against the school intensified in 1996, after the Pentagon declassified a report that said manuals used there in the 1980s advocated fighting insurgents with execution, blackmail, kidnapping, and torture.

In 1997, as commander in chief of the US Southern Command, Clark praised the school before the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying its mission had changed since the Cold War days. "This school is the best means available to ensure that the armed forces in Latin America and the armies in Latin America understand US values and adopt those values as their own," Clark said at the time.

But some members of Congress, including Massachusetts' late Representative J. Joseph Moakley and former Representative Joseph P. Kennedy II, pressed for legislation to close the school. In 2000, Congress did so. Weeks later, a new school -- the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation -- reoponed in the same building...



...US Representative James P. McGovern, a Democrat of Worcester, introduced a bill last March to shut down the school, cosponsored by 102 representatives, including Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio and Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri -- both candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination this year. Senator John F. Kerry, another candidate, signed on to a Senate bill to shut down the school, introduced in 1998, according to McGovern's staff.

The school has "become a symbol that represents all of the things we don't want people to think of us in Latin America," said McGovern, who has endorsed Kerry in the presidential race. "It's a stain on our human rights record, and it seems to me that at a time when we're trying to lift up our credibility around the world, especially in the area of human rights, it would be a very powerful statement" to close it.

In New Hamspshire and Wisconsin, Clark has defended the school to questioners. "We are teaching police and military people from Latin America human rights," he said last week in Concord. "And if we didn't bring them in and teach them human rights, they wouldn't be able to learn human rights anywhere."



http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-01.htm

Why does Clark suggest that we must teach them American values--and why does he suggest that perhaps they, like the sub-Latin barbarains they surely are, in our eyes, be incapable, without our saintly guidance, of comprehending human rights without us--especially since that ain't exactly what we have been trainng them in all along.

Yeah, it stinks to high heaven.

[Pilgrim4Progress]

177. Not defending SOA

Have just heard and read enough about Clark not to see that as defining him. Yes, he thinks that something positive can be salvaged from the institution, despite the history. I can understand others' disagreement with that position. But he clearly doesn't advocate the abuses you speak of.

I think he's very respectful of other cultures and is highly respected abroad by those who've known him. I've heard him bemoan the fact that Americans on the whole seem to have little knowledge of other languages and cultures, from whom we have much to learn.

From his recent editorial in the Baltimore Sun:

And there is a passionate resistance to the United States "imposing" our style of democracy to suit our purposes, even among democracy's ardent advocates. The fiery hearts of those who aspire to democracy beat just as soundly under Arab robes as they do under gray suits. Our "perfect union" may not necessarily be their perfect union. The process of creation and ownership may be more important than the form or structure, so long as we share a respect for the dignity and rights of the individual.

For the United States, this means that we shouldn't be trying to take too much credit for the changes that appear to be coming. Or be too boastful of our institutions. Or too loud in proclaiming this is all just about our national security. A little humility is likely to prove far more useful than chest-thumping.

[jfenway]

209. Do you embrace the USA?

But the US abused Abu Ghraib prisoners, among other less than honorable things we've commited in the past. Do you agree with that?

If you do embrace the US, does it render all your arguments moot?

If not, do you want to renounce your citizenship now?

Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no answer only please. :P

J.

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

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

[Jai4WKC08]

182. I hope you will save this

Amen, WesDem. I hope you will save this and the next time we get one of these "Convince me to vote for Clark," post it at the top. Or maybe not at the very top. Because I do think that most people like Nikki are asking a sincere question, if not always artfully stated. But then, they can't be blamed for not understanding where their question will lead.

But post it sometime toward the end of what you describe as "Clark supporters try to provide the information requested. The thread grows. There is a mostly civil discussion lasting several hours.

I just hope Nikki and any others who are reading this thread and the ones that will invariably follow will take a very close look at the people who come here to attack Clark. They are NOT Democrats. They do not believe our nation is best served by a strong Democratic Party. They don't give a flyin' fuck whether Democrats ever win another national election... except for those who care very much that we not.

The latter are GOP freepers. The rest are anarchists, or communists, or extremist greens, who want to see the two party system collapse--if that means 4 or 8 or 20 more years of Republican rule, so be it. All of them are working toward the same end, if for different reasons. And any Democrat who is strong and outspoken and has a chance of making a real difference in this country, be it Clark or Dean or even "gullible" Barbara Boxer (see #147 above), becomes the target of whatever mud they can sling, just hoping something will stick.

[Sparkly]

185. And I might add...

- It's not about what Clark is saying now, it's about his actions in the past.

- It's not about what Clark did in the past, it's about what he's saying now about the present.

- It's not about what Clark is saying now about the present, it's what Clark is now saying about the past.

- It's not about what Clark is saying now about the past, it's what he said in the past.

- It's not about what he said in the past, it's about what he did not say in the past (when he was active military and not a public speechifier).

:crazy:

[Clark Bar]

200. WesDem,

do you think Seventhson and his ilk are back trolling here on DU?

[Adelante]

203. Welcome to DU, Clark Bar

There are always Seventhsons trolling on DU. It's to be expected. They can't stay away. They want their concrete cookies.

[Clark Bar]

219. WesDem,

thanks for the welcome. I have been lurking here for years. I did get kicked off long ago when I defended myself from a remark about my anatomy because I owned a Suburban. :>) Respect and admire the General!

[Totally Committed]

159. Mario Cuomo said,

"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."

And, anyone who has seen him lately knows he has learned a lot. He can only get better, too.

TC

[ScreamingMeemie]

160. What's he running for????

The primaries are quite a ways away. You've got time to do the research, no?

[FrenchieCat]

161. You're right....he's not running for anything right now,

but I will tell you that I don't mind providing information on Wes Clark for those who are truly interested in finding out the truth about him, and ask reasonable earnest questions.

Although I didn't start this thread, I understood that I had to participate in it once the statement was made "I think Clark is a DINO".

He's a good Democrat and a great man....although like us all, he's not perfect.

He's concentrating on raising funds to help other Democrats win in 2006.....and that is what is most important. If a Supreme Court Justice decides to retire and we have not yet taken back, at least, the senate......then Houston and "all of America"....we really do have a big ass problem (like we needed more).

[Zynx]

164. Well, replacing Rehnquist is not a disaster

You couldn't get Rehnquist confirmed today.

[FrenchieCat]

166. What about Sandra Day O'Connor....

who was the actual one talking about retiring? Replacing two judges....one an activist extremist RW and the other a Centrist who is often THE deciding vote....would be a disaster. That's my take.

[Zynx]

167. That is quite true - but I think Rehnquist is going to go first.

He is almost certainly dying.

[ScreamingMeemie]

174. Frenchie, I totally agree. He won me over during the primaries although

I didn't support him. I just find these leading, flame inviting posts irksome. :hi:

[Totally Committed]

162. If you are serious about educating yourself about Wes Clark:

His Biography:
http://www.securingamerica.com/biography

His "100 Year Vision":
http://www.securingamerica.com/vision

An Overview of His Issues and Positions:
http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=taxonomy/term/3

A more In-Depth Look at his Issues and Positions (Including a Woman's Right to Choose):
http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=issues/overview

His Career Highlights (Including glowing comments from those in the military who served with him):
http://www.securingamerica.com/highlights

TC

[SpaceBuddy008]

171. cuz, Rhetoric is Reality and he has been 'schooled' in the mastery of it!

and you can trust a retired general, who is a product of the system...

to reform and reduce the obscene frankenstein defense budget, which is the counterweight and albatross to all humane progress in this country.

plus he is brilliant enough to see the pendulum swinging back to the democrats, WHICH IT DID ! except you see for the prime problem of voting machines and fair, free voting rights and equality of the vote and such.

so what will clark and his zealous supporters patriotically do about THAT?

if they are such 'true believers' and need Clark as leader why don't they go infiltrate and rescue the republican party?

if anyone can find clip of SharpTon-gue calling out Clark -by welcoming him to the "slap-the-donkey" party....please post link

please let's talk issues not help propagate the prevalence and patheticness of 'the politics of personality'

DO NOT YOU THINK WE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING WHETHER OR NOT TO EVEN TRY TO vote at all?


realities that exist only in the minds of the policy-makers
themselves

[Totally Committed]

176. I'd like to know, here and now: SpaceBuddy008...

who did you vote for in the last election?

I voted for John Kerry. I didn't like it, but he wasn't George Bush, and Wes CLark asked all 200,000+ people in his database (of which I am 1) to please vote for John Kerry.

That should give me some standing here at DEMOCRATIC Underground, but with you, and those who think like you it doesn't.

If you voted for Kerry, you should know that both he and his runningmate voted for the IWR, and never retracted it, never apologized for it. Wes Clark was against the IWR and stated so many, many times. Again, my vote was essentially against Bush, and not for Kerry. If you didn't vote for Kerry, where the hell do you get off questioning my loyalty or my politics, here, on this site?

You asked what we Clarkies are doing about Election Reform. There are many of us involved in Election reform groups at our local and state levels all over the country.

You implied we are Republicans (DINO's). I was a Democrat my entire life. I worked on state and national campaigns each and every election of my life. Over the years, I gave an enormous amount of money in support of the DNC. I have demonstrated against wars, for environmental causes, and for human rights causes. I worked hard for Roe v. Wade, and womens' rights, and have been a child welfare activist. Wes Clark is my candidate because, after educating myself about him and his stances on the issues, I found him to be the best fit for me.

If you do not agreee with him on the issues, by all means, back someone else. But if you attack either him or his supporters here or elsewhere, prepare to be called on it.

I will not have MY integrity or honor questioned, and I won't stand by and allow Wes to be smeared either.

TC

[LandOLincoln]

173. Nikki, I just read Bosshog's rant and your response to it...

and I wonder if you realize how relevant it is to your questions about Wes Clark? Hope you don't mind if I quote the relevant paragraph:

..."I had two uncles: one who served in Vietnam and one who didn't. The one who didn't serve--just lucky, didn't get called up--was always hot to send the military to any hotspot in the news. The uncle who served kept telling him, "You just don't understand what you are asking people to do." They got in pretty bad fights. The one who served was and is a Democrat. The one who didn't is a frigging neocon."

[xkenx]

178. The Essence of Wes Clark

Wesley K. Clark
Remarks for True Values Tour
Tulsa, Oklahoma
January 28, 2004
Good morning, Tulsa! It's great to here today, in my first stop after a very successful night in New Hampshire!

For four months now, I've traveled the country, talking to voters, and more importantly, listening to them. And what I'm hearing down here in Oklahoma is no different than what I've heard in New Hampshire and across America: under George W. Bush, America has lost its way. Eight million Americans are out of work. Forty-four million without health care. College costs are through the roof. And twelve million children are living in poverty.

For all his talk about values, George Bush doesn't really seem to lead by them. And I think it's time he did. It's time he remembered the American values that built this country. The true values that make us Americans: patriotism, faith, family, and inclusion.

I'm running for president because I long for a better America.

An America where everyone has a shot at the American dream, no matter where you're from, or what your background is.

An America where families come first, and a good education and top notch health care aren't just luxuries for the chosen few.

An America where we don't just preach our faith - we practice it.

An America where we look up to our leaders, believe in our government, and trust our Commander in Chief.

That's the America I believe in. And I'm running to bring those American values back to the White House. To bring a higher standard of leadership back to Washington.

And it starts here, on this campaign, with all of you.

I should tell you up front, I am not a career politician. I haven't spent years holding hearings and cutting deals with high-priced special interests. Four months ago, when I decided to run, the Washington-types tried to warn me off. They told me to leave politics to the politicians - that I was an outsider, just a soldier from the South. Maybe it's because I've never been in politics, but I don't believe that America is run by politicians in Washington. I believe it's run by people like us, in places like this.

And if there's one thing I learned during my thirty-four years in the Army, it's that real leadership comes from acting and doing. Not talking and debating. It comes from setting real goals, and being held accountable for achieving them. It's about putting the nation's interests above any personal or political interests. And I simply couldn't stand by and watch the country I fought for unravel before my eyes, while the people in Washington did nothing to stop it. I had to stand up for the ideas and the values I believed in.

Today I want to talk to you about some of those values, and how, over the past three years, our President has abandoned them.

First is patriotism. When you're President of the United States, that means, first and foremost, protecting this country and all its citizens - at home and abroad. To do that, we need the strongest armed forces in the world. But we also need to commit ourselves to using force only as a last resort, after we've exhausted all other options.

Unfortunately, our President has a different approach. He took us to war even though there was no connection to September 11th and no imminent threat to the United States. Even though our allies weren't fully on board, and we hadn't exhausted all diplomatic alternatives. Even though we didn't have a plan to win and get our troops home safely. That's not patriotism. It's bad leadership.

And today, even after the capture of Saddam Hussein, our troops are still in harm's way, and al Qaeda is still at large. More than 120,000 service men and women are still in Iraq, placing enormous stress on tens of thousands of families back at home. And more than 500 have been killed -- sixteen in the last week alone.

This simply cannot go on. We need to clean up the mess in Iraq. I've got a success strategy to do just that - to get our soldiers home with Iraq and America standing strong, so we can focus on the war on terrorism and the real enemy: Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network. We've got to rebuild our alliances and restore America's historic role as a leader around the world. And we've got to give our veterans and soldiers the care and benefits they deserve.

The second value I want to discuss is faith. Not just where you pray, or who you pray to, but the fundamental value all faiths teach: that if you have more in life, if you're more fortunate, or more favored, then you have an obligation to reach out and help those with less.

Growing up in Arkansas, I learned that a lot of people can talk about religion and quote the scriptures, but not everybody practices what they preach.

We're seeing a lot of that today in Washington. Our President talks a lot about leaving no child behind. But since he took office, half a million children have fallen into poverty. He talks a lot about compassion. But his compassion seems to be directed more at the Enrons and Halliburtons of America than at the millions of American families who can't make ends meet.

That's unacceptable. And when I'm in the White House, we're going to reach out to those who are struggling. We're going to lift two million children out of poverty by raising the minimum wage, giving tax relief to hard-pressed families, and providing help with housing, childcare and transportation to those who need it most.

And that brings me to the third value I want to discuss - family values. I know what it's like to struggle to make ends meet - and to watch every penny you have. I didn't grow up with much. My dad died when I was four, and he left us with less than a few months rent. My mom took a job as a secretary just to pay the bills.

We didn't have much more when I was in the Army. For more than half of my thirty-four years, I earned less than $50,000 a year. I spent the summer of my fortieth birthday with my family living in a trailer in the Mohave dessert. So I know what it's like to struggle at the end of every month just to save a few dollars for a rainy day. I know what it's like to drive a car with tape on the muffler because you don't have the money to replace it. It isn't easy. And as president, I will never, ever forget where I'm from and who I'm for -- America's working families. They will be at the heart of every decision I make, starting with the most basic decisions about our economy. Because you can't take care of your family without the opportunity to work and make a decent wage.

But the sad fact is that today, too many Americans are working harder and harder for less and less. Under George W. Bush, the typical working family has seen its income fall by nearly $1,500. And as incomes have fallen, expenses have gone up - way up. The result is that too many families are struggling to make ends meet. The Republicans talk a lot about family values. It's time they started valuing families.

My Families First Tax Reform Plan is going to turn this around. Under my reform plan, families of four making under $50,000 will stop paying income taxes altogether - they will not have to pay a single penny in federal income tax. And all taxpaying families with children making under $100,000 will get a tax cut. The average family will get $1,500 - real money they can use for groceries, prescription drugs, and utility bills. I know how much of a difference $100 a month can make. I've been there. That's why we must give America's working families the tax relief they need and deserve.

And my plan won't increase the deficit by one dime. I'm going to pay for it by closing corporate loopholes and by having families with incomes greater than $1 million a year pay a five percentage point higher tax rate on the amount they earn over a million dollars a year. And we're going to take back the tax cuts George Bush gave the wealthiest Americans - those earning over $200,000 a year - and use that money for job creation.

That's just the beginning. You can't build strong families without basic health care. We're going to extend health insurance coverage to 30 million Americans - including every single American child.

And we're going to give every student who needs it a $6,000 grant for each of the first two years of college, helping an additional one million Americans enroll in college. Because the bottom line is that our children will never compete in the 21st century economy if they don't have a 21st century education.

These are the kind of family values that will unite our country, because strong families are the key to strong communities.

That brings me to the final value I want to talk about today - inclusion, and how we're going to bring people together.

Growing up in Little Rock, we learned about inclusion -- the hard way. I was twelve years old when we had the integration crisis at Central High School, when nine brave young men and women faced down a mob to get their education and educate all of us. It took the 101st Airborne Division to show us that fundamentally we're all alike, and that every single person in America must be treated equally regardless of their race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation, or any other factor.

That's what we believed in the United States Army. For 34 years, I served with men and women from all backgrounds under one flag: the American flag. And right from the beginning, I knew that our diversity is our greatest strength, and that the wider we open our doors, the stronger we are. That's why I've always stood up for equal opportunity and affirmative action.

And I'm leading this campaign the same way I led in the Army. The doors of my campaign are open to everyone. Because when we take on George Bush this fall, we want everyone to join us, no matter what your party registration says. We want Democrats. We want Independents. We want Republicans too - and we won't even make them repent. There's just too much at stake not to open our Democratic doors to all who share in our values.

That's how our party has succeeded in the past and how it will succeed in the future: by pulling together winning coalitions from across the spectrum. Coalitions of southerners and seniors, of veterans and rural Americans. That's what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did during the New Deal. And what led John F. Kennedy to victory in 1960 and Bill Clinton to the White House in 1992. And, I'm going to build on that same winning strategy in 2004 - on the same coalitions that built our great party -- to send George Bush back to that ranch in Texas.

That's what my campaign for president is all about - bringing those values to Washington. They are the values I lived and led by for thirty-four years in the military -- and the values we need now more than ever to set our country straight.

Let me finish up by saying this: I respect my opponents in this race. But I think that there is one issue above all others in this primary. And that is: Who is best equipped to beat George Bush. In a closely divided country, I think we need someone from the heartland to win. In a country at war, I think we need someone with the experience and understanding to lead. Someone who's been on the frontlines of battle and international diplomacy. In the face of a ruthlessly political President, I think we need someone who knows what he stands for -- who has put his career on the line for what he believes -- to stand up for Americans.

So, if you are happy with the direction of our country, you should support the politicians who are running it. But if you think we can build a better America, and you want someone who is part of the solution, then I am your candidate. If you want a higher standard of leadership back in Washington, then I am your candidate. If you want a leader committed to the national interests, not the special interests ... to open, honest, and accountable government, then I am your candidate. If you want leadership committed to the next generation, not just the next election, then I am your candidate.

Together, with your support, we're going to take America back -- and move our country forward.

Thank you.

[xkenx]

179. The "Duck" Principle

Ducks don't wear signs labeling them ducks. If it has a ducksbill, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, then you know it's a duck.

Wes Clark is one of the Democratic Party's foremost progressives by virtue of his actions over the years, not by any labels that people want to throw at him simply because he had a career in the military.
It is time to appreciate just how lucky we are to have this national treasure. Just a few items:

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

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

As for voting for Nixon and Reagan, he did so 20-30 years ago, simply because he felt they were strong on national security. Clark discovered that the modern Republican Party is so different they wouldn't have Nixon, and maybe not even Reagan. Clark evolved to where he started voting for Democrats, and then officially registering as a Democrat after registering as Independent for many years. Reagan WAS a democrat prior to running for Gov. of California. Are any Democrats wanting to say that Reagan, in his later years was a Democrat, simply because he started out that way?

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

[Sparkly]

192. That is a great post, xkenx!!

But you know, maybe he's just good at pretending he's a duck... :P

[xkenx]

180. Clark's Care for Subordinates

Clark supporter feels called to duty

General made believer of wary aide
Thursday, November 27, 2003

By ANNMARIE TIMMINS
Monitor staff

As a junior Navy officer, Eric Massa had no choice the first time he went to work for Gen. Wesley Clark in 1996, as Clark's assistant in Panama. The Navy set up the interview, and Massa hoped to mangle it with blunt honesty.

"I didn't want the job, and I told him so," said Massa. "I was afraid of working for a pompous moron, of which there are several wearing stars. I had worked for senior officers who didn't care about people, and I didn't want to do that again."

It turned out Massa and Clark had something in common there, and Massa spent the next four years attached to Clark, first in Panama and then in Europe, during Clark's stint as supreme allied commander in Europe.

When Massa left Clark in 1999 it was under protest and only because Massa had been diagnosed with advanced cancer. Now, years later, Massa - recovered and retired from the Navy - is working for Clark's army again, this time as a campaign staffer trying to get Clark elected to the White House.

Massa wasn't looking for the job this time, either. Clark asked

him to come on board after learning a month ago that Massa had "involuntarily resigned" from his government job at the urging of Republican bosses. They were upset that Massa had visited Clark at a Democratic campaign event.

"They said I was a political liability and that if I liked Wes Clark so much I should go work for him," Massa said. A lifelong Republican, Massa just re-registered as a Democrat. Massa is the son of a Navy man, and as such grew up outside America and with a respect for the military. The family came to the United States when Massa was 16, and after graduating from high school in Louisiana, Massa attended the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

In all, Massa spent 25 years in the Navy, 16 of them on sea duty. In the mid-1990s, Massa's commanding officer told him it was time to decide how he wanted to fulfill his joint duty, a requirement for officers to spend part of their service with another branch of the military.

When Massa said he wanted to do something out of the ordinary, he was told an Army general by the name of Wes Clark was looking for a Navy aide. All he knew about Clark was that he had stars on his Army uniform, and that didn't carry much weight with Massa.

Their 50-minute interview, however, convinced Massa to withhold judgment.

"He had questions I didn't expect from a military man," Massa said. "He asked me if I was familiar with Greek literature, if I read Homer, what I thought about the Illiad.

"And the last 20 minutes were devoted to people questions," Massa said. "He asked me what I would do if a young soldier came to me and told me his wife had died. Or a homosexual soldier told me he was being harassed. His whole thing was treating people with dignity and respect."

Three hours later, Massa was on a plane with Clark to Panama, where Clark was commander in chief of the U.S. Southern Command. Massa described his job as Clark's executive assistant and deputy chief of staff.

Once there, Massa asked Clark what the Homer question was about. Massa remembers the answer: "He said he was looking for someone who was well-rounded enough to talk about issues beyond military terms."

For about 13 months, Massa shadowed Clark, keeping notes of his meetings and drafting follow-up letters to the people Clark had met. Massa said Clark forbade his staff to begin any of his correspondence with "I" because Clark wanted the emphasis on the recipient, not himself.

A show of support
When Clark was promoted to supreme allied commander in Europe in 1997, he asked Massa to stay on and be his advance man. Massa agreed and moved his wife and kids, who had been waiting for him back in San Diego, to Brussels, Belgium. After Clark arrived, Massa was again a close assistant and became one of Clark's main liaisons to Washington, D.C.

Massa had every intention of staying in Europe as Clark's assistant until he got sick in late 1999. He hadn't recovered from running a half-marathon but chalked it up to the flu. He blew off a doctor's appointment his wife had made for him, thinking he'd work it off.

On Nov. 9, 1999, Massa looked up from his desk to find Clark standing there. Clark told Massa that his wife had called worried about his health.

Clark had arranged another doctor's appointment for Massa, and when Massa protested, Clark gave him the only direct order Massa recalls receiving in four years. "I think we have lost the fundamental relationship between a four-star general and a Navy commander," Clark told him. "You will go to the doctor."

The doctor diagnosed Massa, who had never smoked, with advanced lung cancer and gave him four months to live. Clark cut through red tape to get Massa and his family back to the United States for treatment.

Just before Massa left, Clark convened the staff and tearfully awarded Massa the Legion of Merit medal for his work. Clark had received the same medal in the 1970s when he was a speech writer for the then-supreme allied commander.

It's one of the few times Massa saw Clark cry.

"Everyone thought that was goodbye, that I was dying," Massa said.

Back home in San Diego, doctors were more optimistic and diagnosed Massa with non-Hodgkins lymphoma, not lung cancer, and began aggressive treatment.

Unknown to Massa, Clark had a soldier tracking Massa's surgery. As soon as Massa came to in recovery, staff told him he had a call. It was Clark. At the time, he was overseeing the bombing of Kosovo.

A different kind of service
Massa retired about three years ago; he waited so that the last thing he did in uniform was attend Clark's retirement. Now he's living in a hotel in Manchester, trying to avoid a fast-food diet and bringing his family in from New York when he can.

He talks wistfully about the job he lost to get here. Massa was in Washington overseeing part of the Navy budget as a member of the House Armed Services Committee. His departure was reported by the press and has since become fodder for online political sites.

But he doesn't regret where it got him. On the trail, Massa is helping get Clark the veteran vote - and whatever else needs doing.

"If Wes Clark asked me to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, I'd ask him if he wanted it done in the summer or the winter," Massa said.

[Adelante]

187. Great

I was looking for this for Nikki.

[xkenx]

181. From A Poster on DU

Everything you've posted so eloquently could have come from my heart. AND I have another, completely selfish, personal reason.

My son decided long ago that he intends to make the military a career. This kid is not a gung-ho shoot-em-up type kid, but one that turned down a nomination to the Air Force Academy because he so adamantly opposes the way the leadership has dealt with women's issues there. A kid who is a 4.0 honors scholar and is majoring in political science and international affairs. A kid who is a Democrat through and through and values the leadership in a military that is based on a meritocracy.

My selfish, personal reason: I would trust Wes Clark with my son's life.

Wes Clark is a man who understands the value of each and every life and what a tragedy it is to lose even one. He understands that every action he takes has consequences. Wes has used his talents, his skill and his conscience to make sure that every decision he makes guarantees the best outcome with the least cost in lives and heartache. Tirelessly, sleeplessly and with unfailing courage and unceasing care.

Oh, there are a lot of politicians that I might vote for, but there are NONE that deserve to make the decision about whether my son lives or dies.

Except Wes Clark.

Because you see, I think he may be the only one out there that values my son as much as I do.

[xkenx]

183. Clark 100 Year Vision

A 100-YEAR VISION
by Wesley K. Clark

Looking ahead 100 years, the United States will be defined by our environment, both our physical environment and our legal, Constitutional environment. America needs to remain the most desirable country in the world, attracting talent and investment with the best physical and institutional environment in the world. But achieving our goals in these areas means we need to begin now. Environmentally, it means that we must do more to protect our natural resources, enabling us to extend their economic value indefinitely through wise natural resource extraction policies that protect the beauty and diversity of our American ecosystems - our seacoasts, mountains, wetlands, rain forests, alpine meadows, original timberlands and open prairies. We must balance carefully the short- term needs for commercial exploitation with longer-term respect for the natural gifts our country has received. We may also have to assist market-driven adjustments in urban and rural populations, as we did in the 19th Century with the Homestead Act.

Institutionally, our Constitution remains the wellspring of American freedom and prosperity. We must retain a pluralistic democracy, with institutional checks and balances that reflect the will of the majority while safeguarding the rights of the minority. We will seek to maximize the opportunities for private gain, consistent with concern for the public good. And the Clark administration will institute a culture of transparency and accountability, in which we set the world standard for good government. As new areas of concern arise - in the areas of intellectual property, bioethics, and other civil areas - we will assure continued access to the courts, as well as to the other branches of government, and a vibrant competitive media that informs our people and enables their effective participation in civic life. And even more importantly, we will assure in meeting the near term challenges of the day - whether they be terrorism or something else - that, we don't compromise the freedoms and rights which are the very essence of the America we are protecting.

If we are to remain competitive we will have to do more to develop our "human potential." To put it in a more familiar way, we should help every American to "be all he or she can be." For some this means only providing a framework of opportunities - for others it means more direct assistance in areas such as education, health care, and retirement security. And these are thirty year challenges - educating young people from preschool until they are at their most productive, helping adults transition from job to job and profession to profession during their adult lives; promoting physical vigor and good health through public health measures, improved diagnostics, preventive health, and continuing health care to extend longevity and productivity to our natural limits; and strengthening retirement security, simply because it is right; first for our society to assure that all its members who have contributed throughout their lifetimes are assured a minimal standard of living, and secondly to free the American worker and family to concentrate on the challenges of today. Such long-term challenges must be addressed right away, with a new urgency.

We have a solid foundation for meeting these challenges in many of the principles and programs already present today. They need not be enumerated here, except to argue for giving them the necessary priorities and resources. We can never ensure that every one has the same education, or health care, or retirement security, nor would we want to do so. But all Americans are better off when we ensure that each American will have fundamental educational skills and access to further educational development throughout their lives; that each American will have access to the diagnostic, preventive and acute health care and medicines needed for productive life, as well as some basic level of financial security in his or her retirement.

To do this we will have to get the resources and responsibilities right. In the first place, this means allocating responsibilities properly between public and private entities. Neither government nor "the market" is a universal tool - each must be used appropriately, whether the issues are in security, education, health or retirement. Then we must reexamine private versus public revenues and expenditures. We need to return to the aims of the 1990's when we sought to balance our federal budget and reduce the long- term public debt. Finally, it means properly allocating public responsibilities to regulate, outsource, or operate. This means retaining government regulation where necessary to meet public needs, and balancing the federal government's strengths of standardization and progressive financing with greater insights into the particular needs and challenges that State and local authorities bring.

As we work on education, health care, and retirement security we must also improve the business climate in the United States. This is not simply a matter of reducing interest rates and stimulating demand. Every year, this economy must create more than a million new jobs, just to maintain the same levels of employment, and to reduce unemployment to the levels achieved in the Clinton Administration, we must do much more immediately. This is in part a matter of smoothing the business cycle, with traditional monetary and fiscal tools, but as we improve communications and empower more international trade and finance, firms will naturally shift production and services to areas where the costs are lower. In the near term we should aim to create in America the best business environment in the world - using a variety of positive incentives to keep American jobs and businesses here, attract business from abroad, and to encourage the creation of new jobs, principally through the efforts of small business. These are not new concerns, but they must be addressed and resourced with a new urgency in facing the increasing challenges of technology and free trade. And labor must assist, promoting the attitudes, skills, education and labor mobility to enable long overdue hikes in the minimum wage in this country.

If you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing.

[BootinUp]

188. No I won't ;)

Its just too damn early to be talkin about it, and it gets too much discussion already. How about we talk about what he is up to instead. (This may be upthread I am afraid I haven't read the whole thread)

April 21st-April 24th: Trip to Kazakhstan
Start:
April 21, 2005 - 10:00am
Location:
Kazakhstan

General Clark will be traveling to Kazakhstan from April 21st through April 24th.

calendar
April 30th: White House Correspondents Dinner
Start:
April 30, 2005 - 6:30pm
Location:
Washington, DC

General Clark will be attending the 91st Annual White House Correspondents Dinner in DC. Traditionally, the dinner is a bi-partisan event held to honor and award distinguished reporting and journalism.

calendar
May 4th: Tribute to Liberators--Keynote Address
Start:
May 4, 2005 - 7:30pm
Location:
Washington, DC

General Clark will be delivering the Tribute to Liberators keynote address for the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. This event is closed to the public.

calendar
May 6th: Germany and NATO: The Next 50 Years
Start:
May 6, 2005 - 11:00am
Location:
Washington, DC

General Clark will be a panelist for the Atlantic Council's Conference on "Germany and NATO: The Next 50 Years". General Clark and others will be discussing Germany's role in an evolving NATO.

calendar
May 7th: Lyon College Commencement
Start:
May 7, 2005 - 9:00am
Location:
Batesville, AR

General Clark will give the May 2005 Commencement Address at Lyon College and will also receive an honorary degree. Founded in 1872, Lyon College is the oldest independent college in Arkansas operating under its original charter.

calendar
May 14th: Associated Press Luncheon
Start:
May 14, 2005 - 12:00pm
Location:
Little Rock, AR

Details coming soon.

calendar
May 14th: Democratic Party of Arkansas 2005 Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner
Start:
May 14, 2005 - 1:00pm
Location:
Little Rock, AR

General Clark will be attending the Democratic Party of Arkansas 2005 Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner. Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. will be featured as the Kenote Speaker. For those interested in attending, pleast contact: Amy Wallace Cowan, [phone] or [e-mail].

calendar
May 15th: Ripon College Commissioning Ceremony
Start:
May 15, 2005 - 1:30pm
Location:
Ripon, WI

General Clark will speak at the ROTC Commissioning Ceremony at Ripon College to acknowledge the commissioning of new Second Lieutenants. He will also receive an honorary degree at the Ripon College May 2005 Commencement ceremony. Founded in 1851, Ripon College is a four-year, private, residential, liberal arts and sciences college.

calendar
May 18th: Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
Start:
May 18, 2005 - 12:00pm
Location:
Chicago, IL

Details coming soon.

calendar
May 23rd: Jimmie Lou Fisher Campaign Debt Payoff Fundraiser
Start:
May 23, 2005 - 8:00pm
Location:
Little Rock, AR

Now what shall we talk about. :D

P.S. another clarkie assembled this list and I stole it from her. So don't credit me for it.

[Clarkie1]

189. I'll just add a couple of things.

"Former FEMA Director, Transportation Secretary, and NATO Commander provide unrivaled and strategic counsel to the public and private sectors. JLWA serves clients in areas of crises management, public safety, geopolitical strategy, security, and transportation and critical infrastructure."

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

And what he was doing this Wednesday...

http://pilgrim.forclark.com/story/2005/4/20/224315/518

[Sparkly]

191. Kazakhstan isn't a vacation spot

It's the location of his next smackdown of Neocon representative Richard Perle, who keeps comin' back for more. ;)

[BootinUp]

193. I hope I don't get called

for hijacking a thread, but you caused me to look up some facts on this struggling country.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kz.html

Environment - current issues

radioactive or toxic chemical sites associated with former defense industries and test ranges scattered throughout the country pose health risks for humans and animals; industrial pollution is severe in some cities; because the two main rivers which flowed into the Aral Sea have been diverted for irrigation, it is drying up and leaving behind a harmful layer of chemical pesticides and natural salts; these substances are then picked up by the wind and blown into noxious dust storms; pollution in the Caspian Sea; soil pollution from overuse of agricultural chemicals and salination from poor infrastructure and wasteful irrigation practices.

yikes.

[Adelante]

213. Yes, he's attending the Eurasian Media Forum in Kazakhstan

He met with the president of Kazakhstan privately in his home. They talked about bilateral relations, economics and democracy. I wonder if Perl was invited? Nah.

[Placebo]

194. He's not even on the ballot anywhere.

And probably never will be again. For President, anyway.

[Clarkie1]

195. I just read a really great article today.

What's the Matter with Liberals?
By Thomas Frank
The 2004 presidential campaign provides a near-perfect demonstration of the persistent power of backlash—as well as another disheartening example of liberalism's continuing inability to confront it in an effective manner. So perfect, in fact, that it deserves to be studied by political enthusiasts for decades to come, in the manner that West Point cadets study remarkable infantry exploits and MBAs study branding campaigns that conjured up billions out of nothing but a catchy jingle.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17982

[Totally Committed]

210. This was one of the best articles!

Says it all. I highly recommend it!

TC

[BootinUp]

196. fishin

for a bite?

[Comicstripper]

199. Maybe I can help (as a Clark skeptic):

I was initially suspicious of Clark: his motivation, his ideals... he seemed like a true politician, nothing more.
However, I'm currently rooting for Clark for the 2008 nomination, and here's why:
In order to win, we'll need a few keys things:
-270+ electoral votes. Clark will deliver the solid blue states, and his southern charm and moderate image give him the potential to bring in Arkansas (home state), Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, and New Mexico.
-A clear message/ A strong candidate. People don't want to vote for someone who doesn't stand for something. Clark is a gifted orator, has a squeaky-clean image (save for the Pristina airport incident), and knows how to shape the debate to his advantage. You don't become a four-star general for making your bed.
-A real Democrat. People haven't been voting for Republicans because they don't like Democrats; it's because Democrats haen't been acting like Demorats. Clark is surprisingly left-of-center, but his southern accent and good looks give him a populist charm that transcends political ideology.

Clark is presidential. He has the Three Most Importanr Body Parts a politican can have: brains, heart, and balls.

[cosmokramer]

201. Bravo! Well said!

:kick:

[autorank]

204. Well said!!! Nothing to add (and that's saying a lot for me)

[FrenchieCat]

206. I hear you.....and I will say that in reference to this statement of yours

has a squeaky-clean image (save for the Pristina airport incident)

That is actually not a negative mark on his record...but certainly they will try. I'll explain that incident here and now:

Please know that the Pristina Airport incident only demonstrates what an outstanding leader and commander Clark is; the fact that he took no shit and knew which way was up? THIS OCCURED 6 YEARS AGO...NOT 40 YEARS AGO, and it was ALL WELL DOCUMENTED.....NEWS STORIES IN MAINSTREAM MEDIA, ETC...

Gen. Sir Mike was the WHINER on this one. His nicknames? "Macho Jacko" and "Prince of Darkness"!

here's a few of views, and please pay close attention to what PUTIN ENDED UP DOING IN CHECHNYA BECAUSE OF IMBECILE GENERAL MICHAEL JACKSON DISOBEYING CLARK'S ORDERS........

The first from that article by Elizabeth Drew (a real journalist who writes for The New York Book Review:

"Much has been made of a single sentence in a long argument that Clark had with General Sir Michael Jackson, the British officer in command on the scene at Pristina airport, who said, "I'm not going to start World War III for you." Clark devoted an entire chapter to the airport incident in his first book, and his account has been confirmed by others. He explains that at first he had the support of the Clinton White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the secretary-general of NATO, Javier Solana. But when the British refused to support him, largely in response to Jackson's objections, Washington backed down. Clark himself reported Jackson's now-famous hyperbolic line to Shelton as an example of what he saw as an emotional overreaction. Berger says, "To say that Wes was reckless is to misunderstand the context; it's an absurd notion."
Read the whole article here (It's good!):
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

And here's another take on it:
Sending in Russian paratroopers was absolutely unnecessary and extremely provocative. The area was still very volatile and crawling with Serbian paramilitary units. It would have been very easy for the Russians to be mistaken for Serbs by NATO units, especially at night. The airport had no strategic value - Russian officials were making a purely political statement. By the same token, if the airport had no strategic value, why was Clark so concerned? Especially since the Russians were our quasi-allies in this complicated political conflict.

...back in 1999 Russian military officials admitted they were ill-equipped to fight even a limited engagement anywhere in the world. One general wrote in a contemporary Russian military journal that they would have been hard-pressed to field an army of 10,000 troops at the time. Almost assuredly they would have backed off if NATO had called their bluff. Did Clark understand this weakness better than anyone else, and did NATO miss a genuine opportunity to assert its dominance over the Russians? Isn't that the raison d'etre for NATO?

Think back to Berlin in 1945. General George S. Patton urged Eisenhower to let him drive the Russian army back east across the Russian border. He understood better than the naive Eisenhower and Churchill that Russia had become the biggest threat to the west and was not about to return conquered territory back to the allies or the original governments. He also understood that Russia's army, while victorious over the depleted German army, was in no shape to resist the allies. In a very real sense we missed an opportunity to avoid the cold war entirely. Republicans, conservatives, and hawks generally agree with this hindsight assessment. It highlights the irony of political partisanship that the same people condemn General Clark for essentially the same behavior. Clark very much resembles Patton: aggressive, hard-nosed, a brilliant commander, and despised by his peers and superiors - one would think Republicans would appreciate him for that.

It makes sense that Clark, being the highest ranking military commander in all of Europe and an expert on central Europe, knew better than any person on the planet what the capabilities and tendencies of the Russian army were - that was his job. Clark knew exactly what he was doing and what the risks were. He knew the Russian high command would never risk a humiliating and historical defeat at the hands of the Americans - which even the Russians admit would have been the outcome. Their military machine was on the verge of total collapse in 1999. One strong piece of evidence for that is how the Pristina issue was finally resolved. The 200 paratroopers could not be resupplied and the Americans eventually sent in food and water - essentially a humanitarian mission. That's how pitiful the Russians were. So all in all, I think the doomsday scenario can be discounted, and contemporaneous military observers agree that Gen. Jackson's "WWIII" comments were pure hyperbole.
http://epivox.com/wesleyclark-knoxville/local_editorials.cfm

Clark's problem was that he was a great general but not always a perfect soldier--at least when it came to saluting and saying, "Yes, sir." In fact, when he got orders he didn't like, he said so and pushed to change them.
>snip

More presciently, Clark was right about the Russians. When fewer than 200 lightly armed Russian peacekeepers barnstormed from Bosnia to the Pristina airport in Kosovo to upstage the arrival of NATO peacekeepers, Clark was rightly outraged. Russians did not win the war, and he did not want them to win the peace.

Clark asked NATO helicopters and ground troops to seize the airport before the Russians could arrive. But a British general, absurdly saying he feared World War III (in truth the Russians had no cards to play), appealed to London and Washington to delay the order.

The result was a humiliation for NATO,

a tonic for the Russian military and an important lesson for the then-obscure head of the Russian national security council, Vladimir Putin. As later Russian press reports showed, Putin knew far more about the Pristina operation than did the Russian defense or foreign ministers. It was no coincidence that a few weeks afterward, Russian bombers buzzed NATO member Iceland for the first time in a decade. A few weeks after that, with Putin as prime minister, Russian troops invaded Chechnya.

Putin learned the value of boldness in the face of Western hesitation. Clark learned that he had no backup in Washington.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1¬Found=true

Gen Jackson criticized by Kosovo report
http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19991018nato3.htm
Referring to Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the commander of Kfor, the report says: "ComKfor's intent was not always transmitted with sufficient detail and co-ordinating instructions. Even when detail was requested from Kfor it was not always forthcoming. This led to improvisation at brigade level and a consequently asymmetric effect within Kfor as different brigades made their own interpretations."

Confusions also occurred through unclear divisions of responsibility between each Nato country's own national headquarters and alliance headquarters in Brussels. "The division of responsibilities between national and Nato operational chains of command took some time to become clear," says the report.

Brig Freer was in charge of the Parachute Regiment and Gurkha soldiers who were the first, apart from special forces, to enter Kosovo, on June 12. The report, prepared for the Ministry of Defence's comprehensive "lessons learnt" exercise on the Kosovo war, and copied to Gen Jackson, is unusually strong criticism of the command structures in the operation. Because there was little or no Serb opposition to the arrival of the Nato peacekeepers, the failings identified were not fatal.
....
The report supports recent testimony to the United States Congress by Gen Wesley Clark, Nato's overall commander during the Kosovo campaign. In July, Gen Clark told congressmen that the Alliance was "hamstrung by competing political and military interests that may have prolonged the conflict".

Even last week, RAF chiefs admitted that they still had no idea exactly how much damage had been done. "We don't know how many tanks were destroyed and we will have no way of knowing," said Air Vice Marshal Jock Stirrup, the assistant chief of the air staff.

World: Europe
German to assume K-For command
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/444350.stm

German General Klaus Reinhardt is to replace Britain's General Sir Mike Jackson as commander of Nato's Kosovo peacekeeping force, K-For.

The appointment comes amid continuing controversy over the outgoing K-For commander's failure to prevent Russian forces from taking Pristina airport before the arrival of Nato troops in June.

a clash between him and Gen Clark after he was accused of disobeying an order to prevent Russian troops from taking the airport.

He refused to block the airport runway, saying he did not want to start World War III, and sought the intervention of Britain's top military commander to help get the order reversed.

Angered by the apparent insubordination, the chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee is now to hold hearings into the incident, believing it calls into question Nato's chain of command.

Macko Jacko Supported the War in Iraq
The can-do general for war and peace
(Filed: 26/05/2003)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk /news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F05%2F26%2Fnjack26.xml
....
General Sir Mike Jackson's forehead is scarred, his cheeks are pitted, his nose sunburnt and the pouches under his eyes could carry his entire mess kit. His face could be a road map through the last 40 years of British military adventures: the Cold War, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq.

Today, the new whisky-drinking, cheroot-smoking Chief of the General Staff is surrounded by men in suits and women in short skirts from the MoD press office. Gold braid drips from his mountainous shoulders as he stretches out on a leather sofa in the old War Office.

The peace rallies and the lack of United Nations support never alarmed him (you can't imagine much worrying this general). "No soldier who has seen active service wants to rush into a war, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils," he reflects. "I'm quite satisfied in myself that it was right."

Nor is he concerned that no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found. "I understand that not everyone saw the necessity of bringing Saddam Hussein to account, but it was the right thing to do and I'm proud that this nation swung behind the troops when their lives were on the line."

He was less impressed, just before the war began, when Donald Rumsfeld seemed to be suggesting that the British troops were tagging along for the ride. "I saw the comment about the British forces not being necessary. I don't think he had an idea how many British troops were committed, but the first days of the war straightened him out," says the general. "Our performance was outstanding in the south."

Gen Jackson is not renowned for his love of Americans. When commanding the Nato troops in Kosovo, he refused an order from Nato's supreme commander, Gen Wesley Clark. The American wanted him to assault Pristina airport, which had just been taken by some Russians. Gen Jackson evidently told him: "I'm not going to start World War Three for you."

He smiles at the story. "I might have said something like that," he admits.
==
His role in 'Bloody Sunday' controversial
Bloody Sunday Inquiry `Consider Recall for General Sir Mike'
By Kieran McDaid, PA News
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=6705183"
Britain's most senior soldier may be recalled to give further evidence to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, it has emerged.

The three Saville Inquiry judges are considering whether to ask General Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, to return to the witness box in London to discuss a controversial document alleged to be in his hand writing.

General Jackson, who was an adjutant in the Parachute Regiment on January 30, 1972, said he had no recollection of taking part in the compilation of a list of what soldiers fired at, when he gave his evidence to the inquiry two months' ago.

A contemporaneous handwritten note of the engagements, alleged to be in Gen Jackson's hand writing, was submitted to the inquiry last week by the Ministry of Defence.

Colonel Ted Loden, the major in command of the army unit which fired more than 100 shots on Bloody Sunday, had claimed he made a list of engagements, which was later typed up, after interviewing soldiers in his armoured vehicle.

[Hippo_Tron]

208. He opposed the Iraq war from the getgo

And at the time I think he was a correspondent for the Certainly Not News network. From his positions, he seems pretty liberal. If Russ Feingold doesn't run, which I see as an increasing possibility on account of him not having a spouse currently, then I'm probably going to support Clark.

[TreasonousBastard]

211. You've been given lots of reasons here, but...

why jump the gun?

Nobody will be running for President until after next year's elections when we see what Congress looks like and how the voters REALLY feel about things.

Right now, they're all dancing around and putting feelers out, setting up "exploratory committees" and keeping their names alive.

But actually running? Nope, not until after next November, and no doubt we'll see a few new names pop up. And, even then they'll be playing it safe and not really running for at least another year. The first one with his hat in the ring is the first one to get knocked out.

So, the job is not to worry about who might run for President, but to take back congress.

Get back the House and start filing articles of impeachment. By the time that's over with, it'll be time to worry about who the next President will be. And we'll see which Democrats really have the fire in the belly to make the run and win.

[Clark2008]

212. Why can't we consider both?

I don't have a one-track mind, you know.

[TreasonousBastard]

214. If you insist, then go ahead...

but there's not much to do for 2008 right now, and a lot of groundwork for 2006 can be done.

Energy should be put to its most efficient use, nu?

[Totally Committed]

215. There are also a lot of threads like this one started by Non-Clarkies...

who feel the need to ask about our candidate or attack him.

Whether or not he decides to run in 2008, I reserve the right to educate anyone who asks or to defend him against a filthy smear... from whence it comes. I will not stand down from that task. As long as these threads are started, I will post what need-be.

AND I will do the things I am already doing for 2006 on the State and local levels and for voting reform.

One can, as pointed out, do several things at a time.

TC

[Clark2008]

216. As a Southerner, part of my "laying the groundwork for 2006"

involves framing the debate around candidates for both 2006 and 2008 who can overcome the rightwing media manipulation of Southerners.
The South, since it voted last for Clinton in 1996, has been manipulated into voting against its economic interests because of Republican wedge issues.
We need Dems like Wes Clark who can speak to Southerners on issues of faith, which includes what Jesus really WOULD do (and that's not hate). We have to break through these barriers, first, before we can get folks to listen to Dem economic proposals, which actually favor the poor and working class, and foreign policy issues, which don't support (or shouldn't) going to war to protect our "precious oil."
There are many on this board who think we shouldn't even fool with the South or mid-West, but I don't subscribe to that belief. I think that turning a couple of red states into blue states is most important to winning both 2006 and 2008.

[Totally Committed]

218. You know..

you are exactly right! Framing the debate in Red States -- especially the Southern ones -- can never beging too soon. See this thread in that context is very intelligent.

TC

[Adelante]

217. I agree, Wes Clark agrees

But we are being asked the questions in this thread and answering them. This thread, obviously, was not started by a Clark supporter. :hi: