The question remains: Clark/Kerry...

[BeHereNow]

WHY did Clark make the "off-the record" slur about Kerry to the press?
PLEASE...No Clark Zombie repies- this is a serious question.
Logic and analysis required for discussion of a reasonable question.
Thanks.
BHN
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_5132.shtml

"U.S. NEWS/COMMENT
Exclusive! Ever More Understanding of
the Stalking Horse Wesley Clark
(written at the request of Axis of Logic)
By Craig B. Hulet?
Feb 14, 2004, 08:50

INTRO:
Editor's Note: I asked Mr. Hulet to consider condensing and
updating his earlier 45 page article which we published earlier on
Axis of Logic. We made this request because we believe the
content of his earlier piece is of paramount importance. We
thank him for generously writing and providing this article for our
readers. The content of both articles will not be easy for
everyone to read and hear. But if Americans are asked to
participate in what is alleged to be a fair democratic electoral
process, it is vital that they consider the machinations of those
who serve up only 2 viable options from which to choose for
their next president. - Les Blough, Editor, Axis of Logic"

From Article:
Snip:
This article is less polemical than others regarding Wesley Clark
but remains accusatory; it is less a stray from what I would
normally write; I think it needs to be said, you do not have to
agree nor even like it. It troubles me enough to have written it.
This condensed version of my original article is written at the
request of editor Les Blough of the www.axisoflogic.com. Wesley
Clark, a consummate "insider," corporate player upon
retirement, millionaire with a little help from his friends and, in my
opinion a stalking horse for the Bush family regime. These are a
few things I didn't add to my original analysis and one
embellished by new evidence. Clark's recent statements to the press immediately below give
further and damning evidence that Clark is a life-long Bush
Republican and Stalking Horse for Bush Junior. He leaves the
Democratic race, stabbing the Democrat's only (remaining)
front runner in the heart over an "intern," Clinton-like issue: It's
Monica Lewinski all over again. He then proclaims his support for
Kerry (in military jargon it is called CYA). In my previous article I
stated, "He handed Bush the race, by handily handing Hannity
Kerry's head on Platter!" Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Savage will
savage Kerry; it will be felt all through the race; trickle-down will
bleed Kucinich and Dean into pale weak obscurity." I hope I am
wrong but it will be up to the mainstream media to decide
whether they "ought to" go after Kerry after what Clark has
done, or take the disingenuous "support" statement as the one
to follow. In any case the deed was done. RESS, where the woman in question
once worked...."

Snip to end paragraph:

"Kerry answers the sleazy allegations poorly, as might be
expected (he isn’t the brightest bulb in the pack) but he does
suggest he is the victim of a dirty tricks campaign. If this were
true then Wesley Clark is one of the tricksters, get it? (Source:
Don Imus radio show and The Independent (UK) Drudging it
"In closing, ask yourself the final fundamental question which
again helps make "my" case against Clark, and I didn't supply it,
nor selectively select it as evidence, Clark did ...to wit: Why did
he hand the Kerry intern story to reporters? Why did the
consummate team player place the Democratic hopeful in the
lead for the nomination in jeopardy with some slimy Monica
remark one would expect from Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney?
Kerry has to hope against hope the mainstream press find
nothing. Why, when Clark has stated all this time this was about
getting rid of Bush? Why, when all he had to do was shut his
mouth? And go quietly into the night... "

GOOD question.
Why make those remarks, "on" or "off" the record?
I think the damage was done before the endorsement
announcement, my question is WHY?
BHN

[KittyWampus]

1. God, This Is Boring

Edit: reminds me of the paranoid rantings that come from the "Freemasons rule the country" crowd.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[LandOLincoln]

4. Please read the approximately 4,997,832 1/2 threads on this topic...

here on DU, wherein this question has been asked and answered approximately 2,364,869 times.

Also see DailyKos for some insights into the truth of the situation.

Otherwise we'll be forced to label your post flamebait.

Thanks ever so.

[HuskerDem]

51. Or better yet, stop calling people zombies

because you don't like them and/or do not agree with them. I guess that's the work-around since cult references are specifically mentioned now in the rules.

[Tinoire]

59. One last post... Your nerves are as bad as mine right now I think

On edit- deleted. I was mistaken about a word construction (not yours).

Take care

[Tinoire]

7. Then ignore these discussions. Stop trying to stifle the discussions

we are used to having and enjoy.

If it's that boring maybe a candidate blog would be more interesting.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

8. i agree

it's as boring as those paranoid rantings about how Skull and Bones members rule America. oh, wait a minute. . .

[KC21304]

3. Clark referred to National Inquirer articles and said if

this stuff is true his campaign could implode. I am paraphrasing but several reporters said he did not mention intern, only Inq. article. I do not see this as a slur.

I'm not even going to comment on your article.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

5. if Clark did make those statements

then perhaps, as DU'ers who are smarter than I have suggested, Clark pre-empted the RW's release of this info in order to get it all out now so that the info has no more use a year from now when it really counts.

I might add that I completely disagree with your assertion that Clark is s Bush shill. He's far too critical of * to be doing any good for *. And did Clark divide the democrats as a stalking horse would? No, in fact, he acted as a magnet for Republicans who were skeptical of this administration.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Tinoire]

9. You're breaking my heart

:nopity:

It's not a totally fascist state... yet. We still have some semblance of free speech and it would be democratic of you to respect it.

[Bucky]

31. "semblence of free speech"

I'm often amused when people who make goofy, irresponsible, or paranoid statements believe they're being oppressed just because someone else points out that their statements are goofy, irresponsible, or paranoid. Calling a spade a spade is exactly why we have free speech. It's free speech if you claim General Clark is a deep cover plant intent on overthrowing the rule of civilian law and it's free speech if I point out such statements are full of bean dip.

[Tinoire]

36. Semblance yes, as in Acxiom-syle. If you don't like an article

or a thread ignore it. That's what the ignore feature and hide thread feature are for.

I am so grateful that this wasn't the prevalent tone at DU when 9-11 happened because otherwise we never would have discovered the things we did. It all would have been considered "bean dip".

Answer the posters question and get done with it. I'm not at all amused by the hand-wringing, wailing and gnashing of teeth by people who need to insult others just because they don't like the conversation.

If you don't like it, don't participate in it.

[Tinoire]

60. Bad post. My apologies Bucky. That was just catty on my part

throwing Acxiom in.

[roguevalley]

84. So, some guy writes an article and alleges stuff. Is that the burden of

proof these days? If that's so then Edwards is a closet gay and
Kerry really did do that intern and Dean is a transsexual. If all
you have to do is write and story and say stuff, there. I wrote
a story.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[HuskerDem]

57. Uh huh............

like calling people "zombies" because the support a candidate you don't like?

or childish? Or telling them to grow up! Are those the kinds of adult converstaions we have?

[girl gone mad]

10. That website is...

so biased against Clark that it's hard to take them seriously.

I can't think of a single reason why Clark would make those statements and then a short time later drop out and endorse Kerry, so I tend to believe his words were taken out of context and misrepresented. The media engaged in such behavior throughout Clark's campaign.

[Kinkistyle]

11. Must eat Dem brains!

Me clark zombie. Must infiltrate Democratic Party to eat big, fat, nutritious, Democrat brains!! Already eat all of Repug brains - still hungry... must feed...

[John_H]

12. I hate to break it to you

since you really, really, reaaaaaallllly go for the make-even-oliver-stone-say-enough conspiracy thing, but the whole premise of your question is 100 percent unfounded.

Clark had nothing to do with the story. Didn't say anything about the affair (unless of course Drudge is more reliable than CNN and Clark) and we don't even know who said he said it. Was it Don Lambreau of the moonioe Times who was there? Bob Nofacts, who was also there? You know, reliable guys like them?

OK, you got me. This is Wes Clark, pulling our legs right? General, you got to lay off the Old Grandad. Do you expect people to fall for cite Drudge and Imus are actual news sources ruse? Please.

[Tinoire]

13. You are not permitted to ask questions any more

Do not rock the boat. It might sink. And you're terrifying the passengers & their fragile nerves.

[HuskerDem]

61. Yeah, I know what you mean.

I want to know when DK first started worrying about people controlling his mind from space too.

But I'm not allowed to ask that because it offends the sensibilities of the very admirable DK supporters and frays some fragile nerves.

I guess we should all be respectful of one another instead of dismissing each other as zombies.

[Tinoire]

97. Well you can ask... I've answered that question so many times

(though your question is falsely phrased) that I have the answer ready to cut and paste...

[Beaker]

14. CeeCee Connelly shot down the Clark accusation-

she was on Faux Noose Sunday, and interupted juanwilliams boot-licking to tell brit hume what bullshit the drudge depiction of what Clark said was...she didn't hear the conversation in question herself, but she had talked to the journalists who were present, and the real story was wholly different.
Look at the FACTS and not the innuendo:

Clark dropped out, even tho' he supposedly believed an intern story was about to implode the Kerry campaign-

Clark put his support/endorsement clearly behind Kerry.

Kerry has since appeared in campaign stops with Clark.

whatever was said obviously doesn't bother Kerry- why should it bother us? why should it bother you?
Do you know exactly what was said, and in what context?

[Renew Deal]

15. Clark never said it.

Is it so hard to believe that it is made up just like the rest of it? C'mon. The whole thing has been proven to be a lie with denials from everywhere. Then Clark knows that this will bring Kerry down and he drops out of the race anyway?

Maybe this can help you with us Zombies.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400049628/qid=1076995421/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-2693458-7229749

[incapsulated]

16. It never happened

Clark has denied it outright. Even a reporter on FOX said she spoke to the reporters that supposedly heard this comment and they all said it didn't happen.

The "affair" didn't happen.

The Clark comment didn't happen.

OK??

Some people just can't let go.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[incapsulated]

18. lol

Yes, for the "old days" when we could bash Clark or anyone other than our chosen one without dissent....

Not like now. Evil Brown Shirts. Talking Back. Refusing to be intimidated by smears and garbage. Not taking my silly links seriously...

Oh, the humanity.

[Tinoire]

38. No. The old days where people were all on pretty much the same

sheet of music, discussed things and had a larger goal than rallying around an empty slogan or rushing to a coronation after barely getting through 1/4 of "front-loaded" primaries.

You are distorting that posters' words & the persecution complex is annoying.

[incapsulated]

41. Annoying, huh?

"Left Wing Brown Shirt Jack Boot Squad"

And I have a persecution complex? I'm distorting words?

The projection going on around here is astounding.

Annoying? Tell me about it. This is the second time this poster has put up this particular consiracy theory, and this time it's after the entire incident has been discredited. But he doesn't give up, and calls anyone who disagrees "Zombies" beforehand just in case they plan to argue with him.

When they do, he pines for the "good old days".

Please. What self-serving garbage.

[BeHereNow]

43. Please...Show me a link

that discredits Clark as the source for this rumor.
I, unlike you, am willing to look at EVERYTHING.
All sides, all angles, all reports.
I then have questions...guess that make my an
ememy to the Blinded Left and Right, Eh?

I have looked at Mr. Hulet's research and found
it to be accurate.
I will gladly look at yours as well.
BHN

[incapsulated]

46. This is what I know

The intern story is phoney.

Clark has denied having anything to do with spreading the rumor and has endorsed Kerry.

Even on Fox news, there are reports from a woman who talked to those reporters and has no love for either Clark or Kerry that this "comment" didn't happen as Drudge said.

And then we have this inane, stupid conspiracy theory posted on the internet, that I am supposed to take seriously because you say so.

Forget it. Not gonna happen. Anymore than I take Drudge seriously.

Oh, and in case you forgot, Clark was drafted to run.

By Democrats. Like me. Unless I am a plant, too.

[BeHereNow]

49. Ah, Fox News...

WE all KNOW that a woman on Fox news is telling
the truth...
I would like to show you an item I have for sale
in the trunk of my car. It is an original nail from the Brooklyn Bridge.
What is it you KNOW?
And to what source to you contribute your absolute truth?
and where do you stand with Fox news?
When they tell you what you want to hear, they are
an honest news channel?
When they tell you what you don't want to hear,
they are media whores?
Which is it?
Or does it depend on the particular reality that
makes you feel good on a given day?
You have not provided ANY real evidence that
Clark did not start the rumor.
You can do better than Fox news as a source, I'm sure.
To my knowledge, Drudge has NOT retracted
the story, and the story will certainly benefit Bush.
so what do you really think is going on here?
BHN

[HuskerDem]

70. OH GOOD GOD

The woman on Faux news is not a Faux News Woman........... different creatures. Faux was the only "news" whore complex to ever take the rubbage seriously in the first place! Why? Because Faux and Drudge are both in perpetual BJ position for the RNC.

What logical sense would it make for another netowrk to have her on for a story they were smart enough to give no credence to in the first place? Ludicruous.

You really shot yourself in the foot with this one.

[Crunchy Frog]

89. "Left Wing Brown Shirt Jack Boot Squad"

Well, at least I'm glad that I'm not a Republican now. It's actually a step up from what we used to be.

[eileen_d]

79. Sounds like you're disappointed

that not everyone shares your own worldview.

I'm afraid what has happened to DU lately is that people with a broader spectrum of opinions, and a lower tolerance of bullshit, have deigned to join your private conversation.

We all apologize for the inconvenience. :nopity:

Meanwhile, all of us "newcomers" are supposed to sit back and enjoy being called brown shirts and Nazis for expressing our own opinions. Yes, Nazis - the post has been deleted, but one candidate's supporters were directly compared to NAZIS earlier today on good old "big tent" DU. So who the hell is kidding who? And if this post is too inflammatory, it's because I'm feeling pretty goddamned inflamed, and I am begging for my fourth ticket out of this particular circle of hell.

[teevee99]

20. apparently

paranoid and delusional are the new objective and intelligent.

and for what it's worth, this is my third username at DU. I've retired two when they hit 1000.
i've been here a while before this primary.

[Crunchy Frog]

94. Oh yeah! Like I'm going to believe that story.

You Clarkies just invaded en masse and...wait, what's that on my avatar? Oh my God! They've gotten to me! I'm one of them! Aaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

[Auntie Bush]

22. "I will no longer donate or contribute to a one sided discussion."

Good...now be gone! Besides you are deliberately starting a flame war.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Tinoire]

30. I'd edit my post for that one word

Fingers have been sturdily attached to the alert button all week and even though the Primaries are only 1/4 of the way through, there have been several calls for purges and a clamp-down on any criticism of the media's winning duo.

Take a trip down to Ask the Admin and enjoy all the posts requesting this new rule or that new rule. It's enough to make you wonder what the next 4 yrs are going to bring with that kind of mentality.

A few bad apples spoiling it for everybody.

[BeHereNow]

32. Thanks for the tip-

Tis re-worded.
Indeed..."sturdily attached to the alert button all week."
Like I said, hard to tell the Left Brown shirties form the left ones these days.
NO discussion!
NO debate!
NO dissent from POPULAR view of what will be best
for the Fatherland...
I know you hear me Tinore...
BHN

[roguevalley]

88. And I advise you to read some etiquette books. Even before you put

down your article, you called names. And you've called
names ever since. Don't expect 'serious' responses when
you clearly aren't interested in them. Frankly, get some
manners and maybe there will be a discussion.

[SWPAdem]

24. Now who is calling names and insulting people?

Site a credible, serious source and maybe someone will take you seriously.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[SWPAdem]

34. My apologies to you, but

you are scarcely objective when it comes to Clark. Your thesis has been disproven by reputable sources, yet you cannot give up the position. As for "Clark is our savior", I took a break from posting here several months ago because of the "Clark is a stalking horse, perfumed prince, empty uniform, tool of the MIC, not a real Democrat crowd". I save my argument energy for Republicans.

You are the one that started a post falsely accusing Clark of a role in the phony Kerry sex scandal. Yet, anyone that refutes that charge becomes a Clark worshipper in your opinion. Clark is out of the race. Get over it.

[BeHereNow]

35. So WHY

Did he (Clark) need to plant the question/distraction
as he left the race?
THAT is what I am asking.
Regardless of anything that has happened since-
You CAN NOT deny that the damage has been done.
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
Please address THIS question.
BHN

[SWPAdem]

39. Read my lips

He DID NOT plant anything, anywhere, anytime. I know that reality is a difficult concept for you, but try to accept it. You will feel better, almost immediately. Address this question: why do you persist in posting unfounded allegations? Deny that.

[kayleybeth]

42. There is absolutely NO proof that Clark said it in the first place.

Clark has categorically denied it, no mainstream news source has publically confirmed it, so it is nothing more than rightwing rumor-mongering at this point.

But you will of course believe what you want to believe. That is your prerogative.

[BeHereNow]

47. Your Point Is???

Clark has SAID many things in public record
that are in extreme opposition to the reality of his
private corporate profiteering life.
In other words, he has LIED.
And the fact remains, like it or not,
PUBLICALLY, although not officially
he has been attributed as the source of this
story. AND, the damage has been done.
How did this happen?
Please offer your thoughts on THAT.
HOW did clark come to be the source of the Kerry
intern scandal?
I would like to know.
Give me more on that!
Not your theory, but the proof that he was not the source
and WHY he was named as the source and by who.

BHN

[kayleybeth]

55. Only Matt Drudge has attributed Clark as the source

as far as I know. Sorry, but I do not consider Drudge a reliable source. If you have proof that Clark was the source of the story, please post it. Otherwise, one should not expect to have one's questions about this matter taken seriously.

As far as Clark having "lied" in the "public record", please post your sources and links. Simply calling him a liar does not make it so.

[Crunchy Frog]

86. We are the Clark Zombie Swarm.

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

Now just shut up and take your brain implant like a good boy. You'll soon understand the wisdom of Clarkism.

[For PaisAn]

19. The real question remains

You posted this question on 2/13/04 and got 39 replies. Just curious, why continue and who is this Craig Hulet?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=323155

We went through this garbage with the Clinton smears. One inquisition of a decent man was enough in my lifetime.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Shanty Oilish]

26. Re who is this Craig Hulet

I think he's a libertarian sort, and he espouses certain conspiracy theories regarding certain financial elites (Arab) and power elites (Bush). Until he gores your ox, you'd probably find him acceptable to most left-thinking people.

[Old and In the Way]

27. I think the "stalkinghorse for Bush" idea is pretty lame.

That, or Clark should be up for Best Actor at the Academy Awards this year.

But perhaps while the orginal smear went nowhere, they're trying to get some final mileage out of it by trying to split the Clark/Kerry block- by painting a Brutus face on Wes.

Sorry, no sale.

[fromadam]

28. I'm a pretty intellectually curious guy and yet...

... the "question" does not "remain" for me.

Instead of thinking harder on pre- and ill-conceived notions, think smarter on plausable scenarios. ;-)

[BeHereNow]

33. I am curious to know...

How many of the respondents on this thread actually
read the whole article at http://www.Axisoflogic.com

I am inclined to think very few if ANY.

BHN

[Tinoire]

37. I haven't. Have had a head-ache all day from the fascist tone

that certain peoplehave been pushing at the hilariously same time that they're wooing people to come support their candidates. That and the media shenanigans and the story about Murdoch pumping an obscene amount of money into Kerry's campaign.

I'll see you around. Time for bed now and see if I can get rid of the first head-ache I've ever gotten from a session at DU.

[BeHereNow]

40. This one is for you Tinore...

I know I need say no more...
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_5164.shtml
"In the End...
By Craig B. Hulet?
Feb 16, 2004, 17:16

February 15, 2004 - To see the world as it is, not the
way you think it is, not the as you wish it to be, is not the
easiest thing to live with or get others to accept.
"Anybody but Bush," is a sad commentary on the
Democrats...one hoped they stood on better ground.
The problems our country faces are not the sole
effects of Bush. Replacing him with an-"other" will alter
the decaying constitutional course but slightly, slow
the descent into empire not at all, change nothing
about outcomes in Afghanistan nor Iraq. It will not alter
the course America has been on for five
decades....aided, abetted by both D’s and R’s, both
Houses, every White House resident. This election is
about grown-up stuff."
SNIP TO:
"In the end, "things that matter," -- globalization,
corporate mergers and acquisitions; jobs lost and
companies "a-going-off-shoring" to avoid U.S. wages
and benefits; regional wars, oil exploitationist
expansionism -- the American-led empire’s global
corporate agenda will continue onward, forward, no
matter who resides in the oval office.

In the end, "things that don’t matter" to empire, you will
still have to yourselves to debate, argue, vote over,
fret over, over and over again: abortion, gun rights,
gay marriages, pornography, local tax issues; all our
"moral issues" we take issue with, with everyone else,
are ours to keep. In the end, it was the "things that mattered,'
that didn’t matter to most, so in the end, you always get the
government you deserve."

I think this says it all.
So sad to realize that we have indeed come to this.
BHN

[Tinoire]

53. Bitter, bitter smile. As you were posting that to me, I was posting this

Good-night my friend. I think we need to try not to be so angry. Until the day enough people understand and care, nothing will change things & our anger will only hurt us. Don't you envy, somewhere deep inside, the ability to close your eyes and pretend it's not true or just plain not knowing? I do. I really, really do.

====
In my heart of hearts yes I do & I've been saying that for years here ((that I do believe the war would have been started regardless of D or R in office))


Clinton was going to start this war (google OSU Berger Albright Iraq) but he couldn't get the support of the American people. Never forget that we starved and sanctioned Iraq for 8 years under Clinton and that Albright thought 500,000 children dead from the sanctions was an ok price to pay. Clinton was too smart to start the war without the proper support from the people and, I think, I hope, not immoral enough to allow the "catalytic event" (9-11) called for in the PNAC plan. Also certain Republicans had busily calculated that it would be more lucrative for them to lead the war. Clinton wanted to take Saddaam out badly and Gore (according to Clinton) even more so.

Before dying over 7 years ago, my father foresaw all these wars in great detail because the West needs oil badly and "the boys are going to be digging everywhere and under any pretext". Yugoslavia was just step 1. Look at a map of the Macedonian region and see where Kosovo, the new Republic of Albania and all the pipelines are located. At that time, he was so convinced, so clear that he told me where to put whatever money I had so that it wouldn't disappear in the coming stock market crash. (I couldn't put it in the companies he recommended and went with organic milk instead which did just as well). Then Afghanistan. Then Iraq.

1. Our way of life needs oil badly (just check what we're doing in Venezuela)
2. Our way of life needs to stop all this nonesense of OPEC countries dumping the dollar in favor of the Euro or gold
3. A little re-arranging of the geo-political scene was very advantageous to us and our ally in the regions

Don't forget that under Clinton we starved and sanctioned Iraq for 8 years and that Albright puclicly stated that 500,000 chidlren dead of our sanctions was an ok price to pay.

I understand your reasoning on the 3rd party thing totally and am torn, very torn on the issue so I just re-examine the house to see if a fresh coat of paint and new shingles on the roof are going to be enough or if I need to build a new one before winter comes.

It's our entire system that's at fault and right now, I just see the same interests always behind the scenes and just the figure-heads changing like a cosmetic changing of the guard.

I don't know what I will do in Nov. I don't know how much further I can bend. And that was just the war- you don't even want me to get started on NAFTA and other tools of corporate globalization that also have a hand in the current war. NAFTA, did you know, has language cemented in it calling for "utility privatization"- that includes water. Water which is a basic human right! And Kerry is on board with that. With the war. With occupation. Frankly, I am crushed that this is what our Primaries have wraught. And go back and forth between my conscience, my heart and my fears of what we know we'll get under Bush.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=346396&mesg_id=346624

[BeHereNow]

54. Good Night Tinore-

I still have your number-
Will be in your town over the weekend of February 27-29.
Would love to meet you in person.
I am taking my daughter to look at CCA for college.
tour on the 28th (10 AM-4 PM:) rest of the time is open.
Thanks for your last post.
Too bad most who read it wont have a clue what you are
referring too.
That is why we have lost the battle.
We have lost the country.
It is very sad.
Time will reveal all truth, as your father knew.
So why bother trying to share any information
with closed minds?
The truly wise are the ones who know they don't know.
Not many of that ilk at DU these days.
And so it is.
Nighty-night,
(((hugs)))
bhn

[Tinoire]

63. Hug to you too

:) but in all fairness, when I was growing up and my father would tell me certain things, I used to think he was exagerrating. Mind you this was in a pre-Internet age and I am now amazed he was able to foresee so much. Lots of it was based on history and classical Greek & Latin readings of how empires work and fail, coupled with really deep readings of the Old & New Testament. I would give anything to have him to talk to right now.

6 years ago I didn't care about any of this. Barely even watched or read the news. Had a life what :shrug:

I don't blame anyone for not reaching the same conclusions we do. My own sisters don't because they have a life and haven't been paying this pathological attention to the news for the last however many years.

If I mention DLC to my super-intelligent sister, she just opens her big brown eyes and asks what that is. At that point, there is no point in persisting with AEI, PNAC, or some of the most disturbing aspects of 9-11. I can't be hard on her for not knowing. She has no idea why anyone should even really care because we can't change anything. This week, I am really hurting because I think she's right.

It will be really good to see you, to meet you finally. Peace. Really this time, good-night :)

[SWPAdem]

58. Ah, the inhumanity of not being as pure as yourself

All hope is lost, let's not even vote, but just let Bush continue another four years....it is a wonder that your head does not ache from singlehandedly bearing the weight of saving the country.

:nopity: :nopity:

[roguevalley]

91. amusing. so people who write books, etc are telling the truth.

Hannity wrote a book. O'Reilly. Nuff said.

[Shanty Oilish]

44. I read it...

(Lock me beat me delete me I read it)
:)
Any attempt to question the motives and behavior of Wesley Clark, on DU, is like trying to smell different in an ant colony.

[BeHereNow]

45. Or like questioning GW's

reasons for evading Iraq in a Neo-con bible study.
Astounding, is it not?
BHN
"Any attempt to question the motives and behavior of Wesley Clark, on DU, is like trying to smell
different in an ant colony."

[HuskerDem]

48. Thanks for the triple insult..............................................

I'm a zombie, incapable of logic or reason.

Good God:

It is such a shame when anyone is willing to pour blind faith into taudry rumor.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[HuskerDem]

72. Because it's FUCKING DRUDGE eom.

[Tinoire]

56. You know that's not true. I think my friend was away from DU too

long and did not grow to appreciate that not only is no supporters' group here monolithic but that there are some very fine progressives behind Clark and Kerry. In all honesty, my journey to admitting, to seeing that, especially in Clark's case, that so many people were just as committed as me and possessing the same integrity and nobleness of goal I strive for, was long. I thought there were only a handful and I have humbly eaten my words for that unfair broad-brush.

But you must admit that there is a new contingent of DUers that is very intolerant of open discussion. They're in several camps. And sometimes I wonder if it's really intolerance or just righteous indignation from not having participated in all the discussions that eventually make you look at things so differently and sometimes with a very jaundiced eye.

Tomorrow, if I can find a certain post from a Clark supporter, I will send you a question in a PM about that tawdry rumor and get your thoughts.

I think all our nerves are on edge right now. I know mine are. I've raaaarely been as rude to people on DU as I have today and I know it's time to take a break.

Take care. I apologize to anyone whose feelings I have ever offended at DU unless they were trying to offend mine first and I hope that despite ideological differences, we can continue finding common ground but something a little deeper than ABB.

Peace

[HuskerDem]

77. Tinore I respect your opinion and I know you are not thrilled by the Kerry

trend, there are things I would change too. You are a good person which explains your support for Kucinich, he's a good man too.

I would have taken this posters concerns at face value had I not been labled a ZOMBIE repeatedly by the same.

I know you must agree this is wrong, and not conducive to a productive debate or atmosphere on DU.

Peace, I'm outa here till I get some Z's and my work done.

[NV1962]

52. Lunatic RW piddle, not identified as such - without your opinion?

Tsk tsk...

Here is the thread from which you very likely lifted that lunatic link, and then proceeded to post a new topic without identifying the required qualification of the source, and scantily an opinion of your own:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=343629#345944

First, I'm not a "Clark zombie" (now there's another term I object to) and second, I would like to see a more serious and mature approach of "news" and "sources" here!

:argh:

[Mobius]

62. Clark didn't say that. your post is invalid

and duped about 50 times :)

[Tinoire]

64. Clark supporters here - I know this must be tiresome but does it cross

anyone's mind that if almost every single response in this thread hadn't been so condescending, snitty, or down-right insulting that BeHereNow would not have gotten so defensive?

Sometimes people are away and aren't aware of all the past conversations. It's not always bad faith or blind hate.

[tameszu]

66. The same goes, Tinoire,

with the sources that some folks use, that tend to generate those kinds of reactions.

You're right that people aren't always aware of the past conversations. But there are certain modes of argumentation and sources--such as taking items from a source like Axis of Logic for Clark supporters, or CounterPunch for many of us--that just make our hairs stand. Doing so seems equivalent to bad faith to a lot of us...

[Tinoire]

76. I don't know Axis of Logic. Haven't even had time to read the

article yet but Counterpunch is silly. Yet... I understand your point & frustration. If it's any consolation (which I know it isn't) the accusatory feelings of bad faith are on many sides.

But it's not always bad faith.

There's no fix to this I'm afraid. It's totally frustrating for everyone. But I do understand what you're feeling.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

67. Tinoire...How Is "No Clark Zombie repies<sic>" in the Main Thread

in ANY WAY conducive to discussion?

You get what you give.

DTH

[Tinoire]

74. Not conducive but was there a particular reason you had to curse at me?

And so the wars at DU will rage on :shrug:

No skin off my nose because I'm about to turn my back on the entire charade of politics and get myself a nice, freeper-like life where I just won't care about any of this crap anymore.

Not conducive but I think it would have been preferable for someone to specifically point that out to the author from the very beginning. The tit for tat rest is even less conducive because I think it compounds the entire problem we have right now.

Today at DU was not a good day for many people. Too much in too short of a week.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

75. I'm Not Cursing At YOU, I'm Just Cursing

I tend to use profanity a lot, especially when I'm frustrated. I'm sorry if that bothers you. Here, I'll even edit it out.

DTH

[Tinoire]

80. Naw. No need. I'm not that offended. I could make a sailor blush.

Just particularly pained today after a 3 year fight. You can curse at me anytime. Well, maybe not... Wouldn't want you accumulating too many of those yellow love letters from the admin.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

81. Again, Not Cursing AT You, Just Cursing

And many of us are pained right now. It HAS been a hard week, especially for us Clark supporters.

DTH

[Tinoire]

85. Yes. I am sure... but you're not alone as you said

It's been very, very long for Kucinich supporters like me- not to take away from yours but it really has. Bone-weary is the term that comes to mind with few of the highs.

It will be good when it's all over. I look forward to that day.

I/P was a picnic in the park compared to this. Something told me to go to bed 3 hours ago :) (tired smile) Good-night...

[NV1962]

87. Niters

The world needs us fresh tomorrow. Let's start anew then - how 'bout that.

:-)

[Tinoire]

95. I am afraid it is too late for me to be fresh tomorrow lol

but all of us right?

I like your solution :)

Going to bed now. Tired and alone ;)

Peace

[SWPAdem]

68. With all due respect

look at the tone of the original post. Does the use of the term "Clark Zombie" not sound insulting to you? How would you respond?

[Tinoire]

83. I did not notice that term. If I had, I would have suggested it be edited

My point still stands though. We're never going to get anywhere if we tit for tat. Yes I would feel insulted too. Just as insulted as I do when there are posts calling Kucinich supporters new-age dreamers, fringe leftists or people who need to be purged from the party. There's lots to go round.

How would I respond? Hmmmm

Well I know I would have ended up rapidly editing my post about 3-4 times as I forced myself to calm down and understand why the poster said it that way and answered with something flippant something along the lines of:

As a zombie who was able to get a little salt today and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blah

http://www.123rtyre44.com

==
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blah

http://www.123rtyre44.com

====
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blah

http://www.123rtyre44.com

blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah :shrug:

Something along those lines by my third or fourth edit.

====

But yes, I would, in all honesty, have been offended.

[kayleybeth]

71. Tinoire, does it cross your mind that

if BeHereNow hadn't posted such a totally unsubstantiated rightwing rumor and stated it as FACT then maybe Clark supporters would not have been so defensive?

Newsflash to those of you who have wanted Clark out of the race since day one: Y'all got your wish. Clark is no longer in this race. Why on earth do some of y'all still insist on smearing the man using baseless, TOTALLY UNPROVEN rightwing rumors and innuendo?

[Tinoire]

90. Then my suggestion is that certain people not go about it in such a

way as to not have a large part of the the board thinking that they are stifling all discussion. The part about it being an unsubstantiated right-wing rumor begs to differ. It was substantiated in dailykos and for your pleasure, I will go find a post from the last few days, where a Clark supporter of good standing pointed out that Gert Clark had clarified the comment afterwards but it still substantiated the claim.

These heavy tactics are tiresome. I find the zombie point totally valid- but not this one. Every single camp here is still patiently re-debunking rumors and explaining them. It shouldn't be too much to expect that from Clark supporters. You don't have a monopoly on this.

[kayleybeth]

96. You're citing hearsay, Tinoire

you wrote:

"It was substantiated in dailykos and for your pleasure, I will go find a post from the last few days, where a Clark supporter of good standing pointed out that Gert Clark had clarified the comment afterwards but it still substantiated the claim."

That's nothing but hearsay, on both counts. With all due respect to dailykos and the "Clark supporter of good standing" whom you mention, I think a little more proof than that is in order before we go around stating this kind of rightwing smear as a "fact".

But you are of course free to believe whatever it is that you believe about Wesley Clark. I am not trying, nor do I ever hope, to change your mind.

[Tinoire]

98. Not even worth answering n/t

[kayleybeth]

99. Then why did you comment on it? n/t

[kayleybeth]

102. Very wise edit, Tinoire

n/t

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[kayleybeth]

104. Then why did you edit your original post?

n/t

[NV1962]

78. Action, reaction at work

BeHereNow posted some IMO reprehensible crackpottery from a highly questionable source, without comment other than that there are "good" questions raised in that totally inflammatory, total BS story - and then goes on to make a broadbrushing comment about "Clark zombies"

The piqued reactions in this thread respond to BeHereNow; it's not the other way round.

That's why I took offense at posting highly dubious material without due caution towards the source, as well as that silly "Clark zombie" remark. If someone treats supporters of a (former) candidate as a collective of braindead automatons, that someone (BeHereNow) shouldn't feign surprise at the angry backlash, either.

However - let's take this the positive way: this topic's an example of what can go wrong when posting inflammatory cr*p.

[Tinoire]

92. I agree about zombie. In fact that was the edit I made to you

much earlier near the top of the thread. I thought you were re-acting to zombie-like response.

I will be relieved when these Primaries are over. Greatly...

On edit: In post #59

[DoveTurnedHawk]

65. Craig Hulet Is a Fucking Crackpot Who Believes AIDS Was Created By the US

And deliberately spread by the CIA to depopulate Africa and make billions for Big Pharma. He also believes AIDS can be spread by sneezing on people, and by mosquitoes.

:tinfoilhat:

Unless you believe MATT DRUDGE, Clark never said anything about Kerry and his now completely debunked "intern" problem. This has been confirmed by more than one journalist (oh, but since there are no links of this on the Internet yet, it must not be true).

:eyes:

But let's suppose for the sake of a ridiculous argument that he did say it. There's a very simple explanation if he did: maybe he wanted to overtake Kerry in the race? Shockingly mercenary, I know, but hey, that's politics for you. I'm sure you and certain others will have no problems believing Clark is a mercenary opportunist, after all. And as they say, the simplest explanations are often the best ones.

Regardless, this story had no legs. Kerry did not fuck the intern, who wasn't even an intern. The media actually showed some restraint and didn't report on this non-issue very widely, as if sniffing peoples' privates were anyone else's business anyway. So if Clark really was trying to spread a story to harm Kerry, he sure chose a real dog of a story, especially since it was so easily debunked.

Clark is out of the race. He might be Kerry's VP, he might not, but that would be up to Kerry, who I'm sure has every incentive to investigate Clark with a fine-toothed comb if he's even considering the matter seriously.

Clark will not be President. While that saddens me, it undoubtedly makes quite a few others very happy. Which begs the question...why the fuck are we still talking about Clark and his supposed misdeeds, again?

:shrug:

DTH

[tameszu]

69. DTH, bearing direct orders from Gen. Smackdown

I have learned that you have just received a field promotion to Major Smackdown!

:spank:

[The Traveler]

73. Unconfirmed allegations accepted as fact

Hi. I'm Clark Zombie ... with several degrees and an appetite for **BRAINS**!!! (Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

Hmmm ... there is an almost Limbaugh-like tone to the article that leaves me unimpressed. Here's one of several big problems I have with it.

To grok the scenario, you have to accept that the "Kerry intern" story has been around for a while now. To state that Clark could have given it to the reporters is obviously a lie. I say lie because a) it has been well established the rumor had been in the mill for weeks (Christ, even I had heard of it before the Drudge thing ... and I'm not a newsman) b) you can't give somebody something they already have and c) the author Hulet is clearly an intelligent and well informed individual and so knows this. The only way these reporters could have possibly remained ignorant of the rumors up to the point of their alleged conversation with Clark suggests they were woefully incompetent. It is therefore incorrect, and in this case I think deliberately deceiving, to suggest that Clark introduced these reporters to that story.

Simple logical analysis yields this result. Guess Hulet supposed tha a reader of axisoflogic wouldn't bother applying LOGIC to an analysis of his writing? Funny, eh?

Remember Clark was a broadcast journalist of sorts for a time. I can easily imagine a "shop talk" session in which Clark says something like, "If that intern rumor is true, Kerry is going to implode." Which, given the accuracy of the press in general (and Drudge in particular) then gets translated into "Clark divulges Kerry had an affair with an intern." In short, this seems a little bit like the "I have scream speech" coverage ... a statement or event taken totally out of context and saddled with significance far beyond or diametrically opposite the actual conditions.

And you bought into it. You say I'm a zombie? Sorry ... don't mean rude but could you please dismount your high horse?

Other paragraphs of the article are of more concern due to potential implications and I need to do my own research on them. However, I have already easily caught the author in one gross (and it appears to me deliberate) misrepresentation of fact. I say deliberate because if the author is as good at his job as his use of language would indicate, then it is unlikely that his absurd charge on that matter could be levelled in ignorance. Of course, then Hulet may not be as good as I think he is, in which case he is not dishonest but merely wrong.

Waco -- a screwup of epic proportions. For some reason the Clinton admin had all kinds of heeby jeebies about various domestic militia types ... I guess for understandable reasons. Sortof. Sending tanks seems to be excessive. (Hope you appreciate the understatement.) But then the license given to the ATF in those years was clearly excessive. However, various sources have one thing clearly wrong.

The U.S. Army is not repeat not the only government entity with access to/authorization to use military grade weapons. Including tanks. Clark should probably speak out on this but it is quite possible that tanks can be manned by National Guard personnel (under jurisdiction of the Governor) or ATF. Delta was authorized at one point to support civilian law enforcement in certain tactical situations, an arrangement I always regarded with suspicion. In either case, an order from the civilian authorities to supply material in support of such units is in no way a violation of Posse
Commitatus, and therefore constitutes a lawful order any officer would have had to obey.

Allegations that Clark must have been involved because they were "his tanks" are really naieve. I believe government mishandling of Waco is far worse than even Hulet describes ... and some of the implications of those deployments even more chilling. There is no evidence, however, that Clark was complicit or involved tactically. To suggest that he had to be involved is simply incorrect given some of the wacky arrangements being made between law enforcement, the military, and paramilitary in those days. (At this point, I must add that I am unconvinced that those arrangements have been dismantled under the Bush administration. Scary.)

Finally, with respect to Clark's "reputation" ... well, that depends very much on who you ask. The "good old boys" don't like him very much, but then they pretty much don't like people who think for themselves, and have no patience for those who argue that winning the political battle, the battle for people's minds and hearts, is more important than deploying munitions. This is the same mentality that forgot to plan for post-war Iraq. He was also tolerant of gays and perhaps overly aggressive about minority and female inclusion ... and that is perhaps less appreciated of at certain levels than we would like to think. I can tell ya a few things about Shelton's reputation, for example, but I'd rather skip it. Suffice to say he is not the sharpest tool in the box. Creative thinking was never his strong suit.

One last point ... the Hackworth quote is taken from his retraction of previous unkind comments towards Clark, followed by an apology, which is then followed by his rationale. Its use out of original context and transplantation into Hulet's paragraph constitutes a deliberate slur. Check out defensewatch.com ... the original article is in the archives. In the meantime, I will forward this article to Mr. Hackworth, who I suspect won't like his name and words being used in this fashion.

Doubt being chastity of the mind, I will look into some of Hulet's allegations (especially with relation to SOA, about which I have almost zero prior knowledge) and which sounds REALLY bad. But thus far I have to say I am not impressed by the article and am definitely unimpressed with the author's journalistic integrity.

peace (god knows we could use some, eh?)

"rocker"

[NV1962]

82. OMG - blessed be your patience!

Applause for doing the unthinkable with that base material posted at the beginning of this topic... actually debunk it!

:toast:

[Tinoire]

93. OMG. This is A+ answer! You get an A+ !!

An A+ with extra credit!

Thank you for making the last post in this thread one that makes me think there is hope after all.

On edit: And on that... good-night.

[NV1962]

100. About SOA

I wrote a terribly long (and probably terrible anyway) piece here where I lay out my thoughts on the issue, and provide a link or two for more info.

[mmonk]

101. The right plays the left

that unwittingly does what the right wants.

[Moderator]

105. locking

1. If you start a thread in this forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. The moderators have the sole authority to decide whether a thread topic is inflammatory