Whenever you see a poster who claims to support Clark bashing a good Democrat for a past vote,

[Czolgosz]

please remind them that intelligent people, including our candidates, grow personally, ideologically, intellectually, and politically over their lives.

I have had lunch with Gen. Clark. He is truly a great man. If he had gotten into the race 3 months ago, I might very well be supporting him today instead of wavering back and forth among Obama, Edwards, and Kucinich, but even Gen. Clark has evolved. He voted proudly for Reagan and has spoken kind words about Bush which the General would not speak today:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WESLEY CLARK (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And I'm very glad we have a great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, people I know very well. Our president, George W. Bush. We need them there.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98580,00.html

"President George Bush had the courage and the vision . . . and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_21_55/ai_109186905

The point is not to trash Gen. Clark because he is a good man. A very good man. But he too has evolved. Perhaps there's a lesson there.

[msongs]

1. exactly nt

[pocoloco]

2. Duh.........There's a hell of a lot of difference in voting for a president

and voting for an illegal war!!

[WildEyedLiberal]

21. Really?

So voting for a president who engaged in illegal wars in Central America is perfectly okay?

I am not saying this to trash Clark, either, but your "logic" is seriously flawed.

[Jai4WKC08]

84. Really

A voter may not know about "illegal wars in Central America" (which btw have never been declared "illegal" by any court of international law). Clark was a field grade officer assigned mostly to troops units in Europe, Colorado and southern California where the typical duty day was about 12-16 hours per day in late '70s and all of the '80s. Whatever was going on in Central America was probably not of much interest to him, quite reasonably not even known to him, and certainly nothing he was responsible for.

Edwards was a US Senator. Voting on the war was probably the most important decision of his entire professional life. Moreover, he was on the intelligence subcommittee of the US Senate, so he has ZERO excuse for not knowing enough to make a better decision.

The two things aren't even vaguely comparable.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

137. Clark would have voted for the war too

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

Clark was the former NATO supreme commander. He surely was qualified to judge the merits of the claims made by Bush and co. and whether there were WMD.

[FrenchieCat]

138. I've got some information for you to read and a video for you to watch.....

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/dissecting_nagourneys_nyt_arti.html
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/the_iraq_war_resolution_did_cl.html
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/03/the_levin_amendment_the_resolu.html

Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7QLqt6QizE

[draft_mario_cuomo]

140. I know his position on the Iraq but he did say he would have voted for the IWR

If voting for the IWR in and of itself is a grave sin Clark cannot be exempted from criticism relating to it. Sure, he was much better on Iraq than HRC, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, and the others who voted for the IWR in 2002 but he was no Wellstone on the issue as he is portrayed.

[FrenchieCat]

144. So obviously, you won't read the links I gave you or watch

the Charlie Rose interview, cause you already know what Nargourney said Clark said in 2003 (a year after the vote), Right?

So I guess that Senators Kennedy, Wellstone, Levin, Conrad and Boxer all cited General Clark when they were on the Senate Floor stating why they would VOTE NO, because Wes Clark had told them to vote for the IWR Blank Check....


Clark stated specifically the issue of NOT giving Bush a "BLANK CHECK" via a Resolution while on TV back on September 16, 2002!

WOODRUFF: How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would pass in terms of what the president is able to do after?

CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.

So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.html

More recent Interview.....
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, I went to several Senators, including I think a couple who later ran for office, and, for the Presidency. I said, "Don't believe him." (laughs) "He's made up his mind to go to war. Don't give him a blank check."

Al Franken: Mm Hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But they gave him a blank check. I said it on CNN, "You can't give him a blank check." And I said it in the testimony that you have to make sure that there's a resolution. It's got to be a broad resolution so we can go to the United Nations, but it doesn't and shouldn't be a blank check.
http://securingamerica.com/node/932
===============
Kennedy Interview on Larry King....

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."
snip
There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

and Sen. Levin, who showed up with Clark at a WesPAC fundraiser a few months ago....here's what he said on the floor of the Senate BEFORE THE IWR VOTE when he submitted his own resolution THAT WASN'T A BLANK CHECK...:

"General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm

the late great Sen. Paul Wellstone–
“As General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=2778&catID=298

Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, who also voted NO....
“General Wesley Clark, the Former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, put it succinctly, and I quote: "If we go in unilaterally or without the full weight of the international organizations behind us, if we go in with a very sparse number of allies....we're liable to super-charge recruiting for al Qaeda." Let me repeat that. General Clark warned us: "We're liable to super-charge recruiting for al Qaeda."”
http://www.senate.gov/~conrad/issues/statements/defense/defense_stmt_021011.html


Clark, once he understood that a Resolution would be voted on, he supported the Levin Amendment--Go to the UN and get a vote from them......If you don't get what you want, come back to Congress and make the case.

[FrenchieCat]

146. Wellstone voted for the Levin Amendment......As Clark recommended......

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00235

[RapidCreek]

115. No voting for a president who sold arms and ammunition to Iraq

IS though...and the fucker did it very, very soon after he was elected. You remember arms for hostages, no? Voting for a guy who cheated on his wife and sold out the Democratic party because he felt he had arrived is most certainly on the scale of voting for an illegal war..because that is in essence what you have done. If Reagan hadn't been elected president we most likely wouldn't be occupying Iraq...The election of Reagan brought us Cheney and Rumsfeld...You remember Rumsfeld right? He's the guy in that picture shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

RC

[Tom Rinaldo]

116. Please see Post #114 below

Since this is a repetion of an argument already posted, I will simply point to a reply already made.

[Adelante]

3. You are entitled to criticize General Clark if you want

But do not pretend that examining voting records of primary candidates is "bashing" - that's just trying to shut people up, because you are afraid of the truth, it would appear.

[Clark2008]

4. Amen - and when one considers that what we SHOULD be

doing in a DEMOCRATIC (big D and little D) primary, then it makes the OP sound all the more sour.

Clark is a good man, but I can be a "Clarkie" and still want straight answers out of the people currently running. The two aren't exclusive.

[Cameron27]

5. You're entitled to criticize General Clark

but I don't think you're entitled to post a call out to Clarkies.

[AlCzervik]

6. bashing any democrat doesn't affect my opinion at all of the candidate

it does however affect my opinion of the poster.

[Adelante]

7. How do you define bashing?

I define it as exploiting a lie about a candidate.

[AlCzervik]

9. depends, every bash is different, but what you wrote--indeed. furthering

a bullshit story is probably the worst.

[Adelante]

11. What else then?

Aside from lies and bullshit stories, what constitutes "bashing"?

[AlCzervik]

12. depends, is it a pattern with the same poster, is it something shallow about their looks?

[Adelante]

13. Shallow about the candidate's looks

Yes, that would be a bash, I'd say; milder than a lie, but still a bash.

[Adelante]

15. Would you agree that very many people on DU

bashed Edwards about his hair? I think you would. Were all of those people Clark supporters?

[AlCzervik]

16. i don't know, i stopped reading those after the 1st 200 threads on it.

[Adelante]

25. So the first 200 threads were made up of Clark supporters

bashing Edwards' hair? Or was it DUers, some of whom were Clark supporters? Maybe it's become customary to think of Edwards bashers as Clark supporters, rather than a few Clark supporters who do, a few Clinton supporters who do, a few Obama supporters who do, a few Kucinich supporters who do, a few unaffiliated DUers who do, and so on. Maybe Edwards supporters are bashing Clark supporters.

[AlCzervik]

28. i have no idea, i don't check everyone's profile and not everyone has a banner

for the candidate of their choice, i wouldn't blame one entire camp or another.

[Cameron27]

31. I don't know if you saw the

threads here, where some absolutely horrible, already de-bunked smears were posted about General Clark. I was in some of those threads, and Clarkies responded with reams, and reams of information. There was less contention and more posting of docs with links than I've seen any other candidate's supporters provide.

And nobody was wringing their hands & whining about Wes Clark being singled out, and nobody was touting some grand conspiracy that was lurking to do him in.

That was a real bash and was it challenged the best way possible, by de-bunking the lies.

[jenmarie]

34. It gets difficult

when truth and facts are called smearing. It puts those not supporting a particular candidate in a tough position. If you point out an ugly truth, the supporters of that candidate go on the attack and call it a smear. So it leads me to feel like I'm not allowed to point out when someones actions don't match up to what they're saying.

The fact is, any ugly truth about a candidate is going to be used against them in the GE, so might as well get it out there. Edwards, imho has a lot of explaining to do on many things. To me he is a slick talker who has long had a gift for convincing people he's telling the truth. Hence, his success as an attorney.

I find it curious that the poster here singles out Clark supporters. What's that about?

[Cameron27]

35. I'm not sure, but I think it goes back to

a time at DU when I wasn't here.

[AlCzervik]

48. yes the great flame wars of 2004, i was here for it and it was ugly.

Clarkies vs. Deaniacs vs. Kerry supporters. That was a bad time and imo regualr GD has never fully recovered, i'm really hoping this primary season will be a tad more civil.

[Cameron27]

57. I certainly hope so,

it does sound awful.:scared:

[AlCzervik]

58. there only used to GD you know, GDP was started because gd was so busy

during that time.

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. It was ugly chimpsrmarter, I agree

But it was ugly all the way around, ugliness came from every direction, no one candidate or his supporters were immune and/or fully innocent. What is happening here now, on this thread, I find particularly disturbing. This thread isn't a candidate bash, it is a candidate supporter bash. It has too often been open season against Clark supporters on DU for at least six months, and somehow, because negative things aren't necessarily being said against Clark himself, that is supposed to be OK here. It even got 10 votes for the greatest list. It bothers me that others aren't speaking out against THIS.

This thread singles out Clark supporters as a group to be criticized. Talk about negative profiling. But what is worse than the broad scale smearing of any group is the hypocricy of bashing a group of people under the guise of complaining about bashing. Clark isn't running now, John Edwdards and a number of other Democrats are. Why should my concerns about any Democratic candidate be deemed as suspect because of who I personally like, but not anyone else?

When Clark gets questioned, or seems to come under attack, Clark supporters usually respond the way that we did at the bottom of this thread currently up on DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3250604&mesg_id=3250604

Notice that no Clarkie ever asked "So who are you supporting?" Note that no Clarkie tried to intimidate anyone into not saying anything against Clark, rather we directly responded to the issues raised. That is democratic debate. This thread is a manipulative attempt to shut down democratic debate, with one group targetted directly. "First they came for the Clarkies..."

[CarolNYC]

42. two ways

Yeah, there are two ways to handle the criticisms or "bashes" or whatever one wants to call them. One way is to answer them with facts and links and sources and, as you say, reams and reams of information. This is the way that I see most Clark supporters respond to criticisms of Wes. I find that a lot of Clark supporters have a lot of that kind of info at hand because, it seems, we've really researched Clark before deciding to get behind him.

Another way, of course, is a way we've seen so often. Attack whoever it is that brings up the criticism or the "bash", divert attention from the issue being brought up, try to turn the conversation to how awful Clarkies are, anything but defend against the charge. I can't imagine why anyone would choose that way unless they really felt there was no denfese for their candidate. :shrug:

[Clark2008]

19. But was the "bash" about his hair - OR was it a discussion

about the effectiveness of putting oneself forward as the "poverty" candidate whilst spending $800 on two haircuts?

See, I think saying something snarky about Edwards' hair is a bash, but pointing out the hypocricy of being the poverty candidate while spending the average working person's bi-weekly salary on a couple of haircuts is a legitimate beef.

[Adelante]

26. Superficial things about a candidate

Like "Breck Girl" is a bash.

[Jai4WKC08]

85. But complaining about $400 haircuts

Paid for by campaign contributions, is not a bash. It's a legitimate complaint.

[Forkboy]

69. As a Kucinich voting Edward's haircut basher

Thank you...that was one of my issues with it (the other being it was campaign money).I had my say and that was that.It was hardly a big deal,just another topic here in the grindhouse.

And to Edwards' credit he immediately rectified the situation,and maybe next time he'll choose a cheaper haircut as well. :)

I would be concerned with anyone STILL pushing the story though.

[GreenArrow]

18. looks, yes,

after all, Bush's smirk and Cheney's snarl tell us nothing about their character.

[WildEyedLiberal]

22. Amen.

I'd like to add that narrowing this to Clark supporters is kind of unfair. Every candidate has partisans who say vicious, hateful things about other Democrats in order to prop up their guy or gal. Those people do not do their candidate any favors... s'all I'm saying.

[spooky3]

8. This is one reason why candidates should have held elective office

before running for President. For one thing, it gives voters a chance to see how they would behave when representing voters and having to make tough decisions.

[Cameron27]

10. I think General Clark

has more than enough experience in making extremely tough decisions and it's on record for everyone to see.

[BeFree]

14. But, my Gawd,

He liked raygun? That, to me, as a good democrat, was not a tough choice at all.... raygun was the biggest crook besides W

[Cameron27]

17. Well maybe he won't run for president

and you won't have to worry about him getting elected.

[Clark2008]

20. A lot of people were fooled by Reagan.

As I recall, he won 48 or 49 states - that's an awful lot of Dems, too.

[Cameron27]

23. You know, I never argue

about opinions. If it's based it on a lie, then I'll kick into high gear, but while I may think they're idiots, I don't mind other people's opinions.

[BeFree]

24. Well then they were bad dems, eh?

Jimmy Carter told the Gawd awful truth and for that the bad dems didn't vote for him, they wanted the easy way out = Morning in America.

[CarolNYC]

41. Carter

You know one of the most pathetic things about Reagan's defeat of Carter was the effect it had on our country's development of solar energy. Reagan just set back everything Carter had helped get going in that direction. Considering how messed up the whole global warming thing is now, it's just too sad to think of how far along we could have been if we'd continued to build all these years on the foundation that Carter worked to put in place.

Jimmy Carter is one of my heroes, which is why I was so pleased to learn that he was one of those who had called Wes in 2003 and asked him to run. :)

[Cameron27]

43. OMG Carol,

I completely forgot that Jimmy Carter asked Wes to run. Thanks for making the point!

[CarolNYC]

44. a good man

Yeah, President Carter, a good man, knows another good man when he sees one apparently.

[Adelante]

27. But, my Gawd, who knows?

Maybe 30 or 40 years from now somebody will be saying about you: You voted for John Edwards who co-sponsored the IWR based on false intelligence he was told about when he was on the Intelligence Committee, that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars and resulted in the perversion of Constitutional protections."

Not a tough choice at all.

[Cameron27]

29. And then there's this opinion that I agree with.

:rofl:

[Adelante]

30. Let it not be said

I don't know how to bash back.

[BeFree]

36. Who knows?

Ha, equating Edwards with raygun is what the OP you are talking about, eh?

I don't plan on voting for Edwards, as you have assumed. But I will, like a good Dem, give all my support to, and vote for the democratic candidate which is selected by the party. If it is Edwards, that's who I'll support and won't be led into being a bad Dem and voting for some scumbag republican like a raygun. No. Fucking. Way.

I hope that is clear to you, Wesdem.

[Cameron27]

38. Well, I'm not sure if you have an opinion

about Edwards, who doesn't even know whether he voted for Nixon or McGovern.

[GreenArrow]

53. Sorry...

but how the hell could someone not know that, assuming it was his or her first vote?

[Jai4WKC08]

88. Good question

I suggest you ask Mr Edwards, since he's the one who claimed not to remember. His college roommate said he was having a hard time deciding.

[GreenArrow]

99. a hard time deciding, huh?

Well, I hope his intelligence was good, and he voted his conscience.

[FrenchieCat]

118. who knows!

It was his first vote, and the Vietnam war was raging.....and John Edwards would have been on a College campus. However, it appears that he doesn't remember who he voted for. :shrug:

[Adelante]

83. Clear and thank you

I turn a little bitchy sometimes, especially over OPs like the one opening this thread, having no purpose but bashing Clark supporters. For confusing you with an Edwards supporter, I apologize, BeFree.

I have voted the Democratic ticket for 40 years and wouldn't dream of voting for a Republican president, but I don't hold decades old opinions against anybody, really. If I did, I'd have to not vote at all, most likely.

On my reaction to your post, I will put it a slightly different way, because I still think it applies.

Maybe 30 or 40 years from now somebody will be saying about ME: She voted for John Edwards who co-sponsored the IWR based on false intelligence he was told about when he was on the Intelligence Committee, that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars and resulted in the perversion of Constitutional protections.

I hope I won't be forced to vote this way. However, the ticket will be the ticket and I will always be a good Dem by voting it.

[illinoisprogressive]

32. you had lunch with Clark? You should write about it.

I am not a clark supporter. But, he seems like such a nice man. It would be interesting to have your take on this.
I wish I could have lunch with obama.

[chknltl]

33. He and I are 100% in opposition on an important view.

If he has amended that view I have not heard this yet...if not, in spite of EVERYTHING else, (much I confess I like), I have no use for this person. I have never bashed him nor will I. If I am wrong about my issue, (there is a lot of science and evidence which supports me here and somewhat less to support him)...then I'll admit it and feel regrets for being deceived here. I just do not think on this one very serious issue that I am wrong. I have seen the evidence both pro and con here with an open mind. Even if I exclude being in error on the side of caution, I have seen enough here to be convinced that Clark is wrong. He certainly has just as much...or more access to the same data I have and I think of him as a fairly brilliant thinker so I can only conclude that he is deceiving himself at best or perpetrating a lie at worst. In either case, Wes Clark does NOT have my support nor until he changes his view AND demonstrates this publicly will he ever have it.

[Greyhound]

91. Care to let us in on what this issue is? n/t

[chknltl]

104. Sure

http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2001_spring/little_risk.html

I do not agree with his conclusions here. There are 2 sides to this coin...the bulk of the science so far does not suggest that the issue is merely propaganda. If one looks at BOTH sides of this issue one can come to ones own conclusions. Then I ask the concluder; "Would you allow your loved ones to handle this material with mere gloves and a gas mask?" If you would then you are NOT erring on the side of caution with your loved ones.

If this material is as bad for the environment as the studies say then Clark is perpetuating at the very least bad science. He has access to the same online data I have. I want to see the issue halted and cleaned up and the sick treated. He claims that he would use this material again should the situation warrant it! If I am wrong, then what I want will cost $$$ and we will have one less munition! If I am right, what I want will still cost money AND save lives AND halt the use of this material AND get those who are in need of specific treatment the treatment they need AND get this hazardous waste cleaned up AND perhaps cause those who have profited from this material to be held accountable. Wesley Clark is actually opposed to what I want, he suggests further studies will likely show that this material is not as bad as most say it is. Therefore I am not interested in giving him my support.

I'll not debate this issue any more than I would debate global warming. I accept that both are hazards to our planet and something must be done SOON. Studying the data which the profiteers would have me study on either issue is a waste of time and playing into the profiteers hands here. Some folks believe that global warming is a myth...well it is up to them to wake up on their own, until then they do not have my respect or support...EITHER

Other than that he is a great guy and I wish him well in his civilian life.

[Tom Rinaldo]

105. This is a fair position to take and I have no problem with it

I hope that you also communicate your concerns to members of Congress who have it in their power not to authorize any funding for it, and who have always had that power (I do realize that some in Congress have taken stands on this that you would approve on.) It is unfair however to simply say that banning it now would mean we had one less munition. It is also used as a defensive measure to provide more effective armoring, and to my knowledge nothing else currently can replace its degree of effectiveness. That said, I fully respect your position.

[chknltl]

106. I have written my congressmen about this.

My fave is Jim McDermott. He and I are in full agreement here and he is trying to do what he can...I have seen his many sponsored and co-sponsored bills on this issue over the last 6 years. They all disappear though...likely shot down but he never gives up. Jim McDermott has my FULL support. He of course is not the only one in congress who is working to do what they can about this and I have written many of them showing what support I can. This issue is a BIGGIE for me.

Thank you for respecting my oppinion. :toast: to you my fellow DUer

[Greyhound]

110. Ah DU, thanks for the reply and I agree that it is something we should not be using.

Like so many things we screw around with, we don't have nearly enough knowledge compiled for it to be put into wide spread use. The potential for very negative unintended consequences is far too great to take the chance.

I also understand from a military perspective how it is very attractive, but we should always err on the side of safety.

[chknltl]

111. Thank you also for respecting my opinion.

There are those here in the Democratic Underground who flame this issue often. I have tried not to attract them. I do not mind open honest debate on real issues to a point...I'll not waste time debating that Global Warming is a human influenced hazard that needs our attention NOW as opposed to awaiting further study for instance. There is more than ample science to back up that Global Warming is an urgent problem and to be quite frank I find those who suggest otherwise are part of the problem-not the solution. I feel the same way now about the DU issue. I will show an extra amount of support for those who are trying to find solutions to this problem and withhold my support from those who would openly suggest the problem is not real.
:toast: to you my fellow DUer greyhound1966

[Jai4WKC08]

131. Only two points I'd like to make

First, the interview you cite was conducted over six years ago, and I'm sure Clark was talking from information he received while he was still on active duty, which would have been seven or more years ago. From all I've read, everything Clark says in this interview was true at that time. Clark has said that if he is presented with new scientific evidence, then he will re-evaluate his position. But that said, he is also aware of the potential damage of all high-tech weapons of war and believes that, with some exception, it's a better idea to prevent going to war than to restrict any particular type of weapon.

Second, if you are unwilling to vote for Clark because of DU, I hope you will also refuse to vote for any of the Democratic candidates who has voted to fund DU weapons. I am quite sure that will eliminate the big three from your consideration.

I'm sorry you believe that the science of depleted uranium is as settled as the science behind global warming, but it's just not true. And since science is not a matter of opinion, I have to go with the current scientific consensus. It may well be proven wrong, but it's the best we have right now. You are of course free to hold your own opinion anyway. Just remember please that the Republicans use freedom of opinion as a basis to deny global warming, and to force the media into giving them the air-time to propagate their false ideas.

[chknltl]

147. You alter my reasons for not supporting Clark

I hear what you are saying... You feel I should be fair across the board with my support and non-support. I agree, fair is fair after all. IF the reason I choose NOT to support Clark was because he voted for the funding of these munitions then you are right in thinking me hypocritical should I support another candidate who performed the same way.

My issue with Clark has nothing to do with voting to fund a munition. When this interview occurred he was being asked this question because then and even earlier there were enough doubts and enough science to support that this material could very well be an environmental hazard, one which could cause considerable harm to the users, as well as innocent victims. That in itself is a big enough red flag to know that a lot more than "something is up" with this material.

Clark knew it back then too...he knew it enough to do his own research...he had access to BOTH sides of this issue! There were two sides then as there are now. If Clark had just stated in the interview that he was only using the weapons he was given and that he had no choices here I could have accepted this. He did not say that, instead he chose to do the research...I commend him here but he chose to support the research which SUPPORTS the use of this material...THAT is where he looses me.

The research which counters the use of this material easily places it in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions on WMD (Is America allowed to use WMD in the areas Clark authorized the use of this material? Could he have dropped mustard gas there? Of course not!) So Clark faced this thinking process: Should I authorize the use of a weapon which is considered by some experts as a WMD and by others as not being a WMD. What would YOU do my fellow DUer? Would you flip a coin here? Would you err on the side of caution or would you take a "damn the torpedoes full speed ahead" attitude and to hell with what the future may bring?

Place yourself in a hypothetical future where you are the General faced with a similar decision to make on a future weapon. You have access to data which claims it has horrible adverse affects above and beyond it's potential as a weapon, one which could persist LOOOOOOOONG after the battle was over potentially rendering the area of it's use poison to living breathing creatures. Yet the manufacturers claim this is all nonsense and they have the science to prove their points. Would you take the risks? Especially when those who advocate against the use are gaining nothing from speaking out but are trying to prevent catastrophe. What would you do? What did Clark do and say he would do again in similar circumstance?

I see it as a no brainer: NO this material has too much of a potential for being a WMD, I'll not risk the safety of the future of my troops or the civilian non combatants. Either find me another weapon or find yourself another General! (I admire Clark's words that he strongly supports his troops here...except he took the risk KNOWINGLY so I am not sure if his words factually represent his actions!)

Let me bring this back to Global Warming again...The science has been developing of course and will continue to develop. Back in the '70s there was enough of the science available to understand that human kind was having an impact on our planet and it was NOT a good one. So our choices THEN were the same as NOW. Do we choose to support the science which claims that mankind is NOT having an impact and continue to march as if everything is just fine OR do support the science which claims we ARE having an impact and so we march on from that point. The third alternative: Let's err on the side of caution. So looking back who was right and who is STILL attempting to persuade us that the science is wrong? One group wanted us to ignore the warning signs, they did NOT want us to err on the side of caution. They CHOSE to advocate the very talking points and "sciences" which favored those who were profiting from the very items which were causing this adverse impact on the planet.

There is nothing new here, I suppose the best I can do is say that when there are two opposing views stemming from science I feel better delving further into it by looking at the potential gains vs the potential losses. If the potential gains far exceed the potential losses then I suppose it is worth the risk. On the other hand if the potential gains are far overshadowed by the potential losses then I do not support this fools risk. When those particular potential losses include the health and welfare of my troops and the health and welfare of all who may be exposed in the future from my actions...well I'll easily choose to err on the side of caution. By choosing the safe course little is lost. By choosing the reckless course......well I suppose the science is still out here for some. I am not one of them.

Another important point to consider is what are those who profit from a product saying about it. I am betting we could easily find tons of glowing things to say about the YUGO...if we were the manufacturers. So what about all those who bought the YUGO...yep they made their choice...many likely still spout off with the very talking points made by the manufacturerers...but I sincerely doubt many are on the road. So when I hear someone talking the company line about a product I will hardly be convinced to buy into it. Which side of the science do you suppose those who profit from DU support?... A distinct reason to question that particular science right there.

This then is why I do not support Clark. It had nothing to do with how he voted, it had EVERYTHING to do with how he acted AFTER weighing both sides of the issue.

btw: I never said the science was as settled on Global Warming as on the DU issue, I used it as a comparison model. I could have used a similar model with the diminishing resources available to the Japanese Fishing fleet as opposed to the science which says there is really nothing wrong with those resources so let's just shut the hell up and let them fish!

I do feel that as time goes on, DU will be viewed as another outlawed WMD, one which civilized humanity is equally revolted by and at that time there will be precious few who support it's manufacture and use outside of those who would profit by it. In the meanwhile all this foot-dragging and counter arguments is slowing the day that arrives...and at what POTENTIAL cost? You do the research and report back that the POTENTIAL cost for massive serious human suffering is not there. By erring on the side of caution the only ones in misery here aqre those who profit from this material.

Lastly, this is not a partisan issue. nuff said

[Tom Rinaldo]

151. You seem to be a single issue voter in the sense that you have a deal breaker issue

...and based on your expressed opinions it does seem that Wes Clark is not who you should support. But you, for example, also raised Global Warming as an important issue, and in my opinion only Al Gore among our current and potential candidates has shown a deeper understanding of and committment to counter global warming than Wes Clark. If, for the sake of argument, Al Gore doesn't run, and you became convinced that Clark's stand on Global Warming was better than any other Democrat's, would you still not consider supporting him due to your concerns over DU?

My guess is yes, lol, but one more thing to consider. The greatest threat that DU potentially causes to the environment and those living in it is posed by the expansion of current wars, and the launching of new ones involving U.S. forces using DU. We, you and I and anyone else, can continue to lobby Congress about DU if we choose, but in the meantime, when the U.S. enters into combat is when any threat posed by DU is highest. I firmly believe that Wes Clark is the American politician (with any chance of actually getting elected) who would make a future U.S. war least likely. In fact he is already hard at work trying to prevent a possible war with Iran. If he fails at that I am afraid you will find some of your worse fears realized.

Good luck to you. I honor the depth of your committment to an issue that you care deeply about.

[chknltl]

152. Yes I would support Clark under those circumstances

but I would continue my part as an outspoken critic of the use of this product as a weapon. To me it is a WMD in the very same sense as a nuke. Ignoring the potential non military consequences of either is lunatic and plays directly into the hands of the profiteers. I want to see this mess cleared up as opposed to ignored, that is pretty important to me.

Al Gore WOULD be my dream candidate pick btw. I feel that all of our planets great issues are unaddressable in reasonable fashion with the bush administration holding the strings. Global Warming, Over Population, Aids, World Hunger, even Terrorism, none can be dealt with properly with the bfee in the way. Because of this view,I support Dennis Kucinich's H.R. 333 bill calling for impeachment investigations into dick cheney.

Thank you for a flame-less discussion. :patriot:

[dogman]

37. Too late!

Those points have been raised about Clark more times than I can recount. They have been rebutted by Clark supporters and facts have been presented to counter them without a tremendous amount of whining about how unfair other supporters are to raise them. The main counterpoints being that they are taken out of context and the original intent behind them is not represented. Do a search and you will see how numerous they are and might be surprised at the names of the posters who raised them. Is it unfair for all the posts pointing out the evolution of the stance of the GOP candidates on social issues, or are they legitimate questions? The lesson for me is in determining the reason for decisions and their effect on this Country. Another item to consider is whether that evolution is sincere or mere political pandering. Ultimately I have no problem with the presentation of facts in a discussion forum where they can be debated and individuals can make judgments based on those debates. When Clark supporters have responded to information with counterpoints or exposed outright lies, they have been accused of swarming. I am proud that the majority have not felt a need to abandon this forum because they could not take the heat and have diligently done their best to defend their beliefs. We are discussing the people who want to lead this Country. A full and frank discussion is in order. Opinions are opinions, facts are facts, and ultimately the final decision is up to the individuals to sort through those and come to their own conclusions. Votes for individual candidates and speeches to their supporters, weigh less to me than national speeches and op-eds, along with votes that create the laws we all must live under. I am able to prioritize issues and events, I expect others to be able to do the same.

[Sparkly]

39. Flamebait disguised as a helpful "lesson," imho.

Quotes out of context -- ignoring VOLUMES spoken and written over so many years.... What a novel tactic. :eyes:

[w4rma]

40. With all the other more caustic "flamebait", I find it interesting that you chose this

one to complain in. What's your agenda?

Heck, this isn't even flamebait.

[Cameron27]

45. It's pretty much a call-out w4rma.

Of course Clarkies are going to respond.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[CarolNYC]

49. Wow, that's some statement....

Please post the links that back up that contention....It will have to be a lot of them to give any credence at all to what you're suggesting here.

Thanks!

[w4rma]

50. I'm sorry but I can't because the archive for that period is down.

I'm speaking from experience, though. I was a Dean supporter and saw what they did back then in their caustic flamewar for the vice presidency nomination. And also because they perceived Edwards as their primary opponent for Southern states. Unfortunately their belligerence didn't help Clark one bit. Clark was my 3rd choice right behind Kerry, then.

[Cameron27]

51. I don't think all those threads can be

blamed on bono fide Clarkies, however, this thread is what it is. A call out.

I could start a thread asking why Edwards supporters refuse to take up the challenge of answering questions, and instead try to stifle debate by bashing the questioners. I mean really, who considers bringing up a candidate's voting record bashing? Yet, there are posters in some threads actually throwing that line out.

This is a political message board, and the honest way to refute any perceived bashing is to challenge it with facts, and docs with links to good sources.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Cameron27]

54. Holy shit.

Are you f'n nuts? Coordinate our talking points on another website? I will swear to you right now, that I am not involved in any such nefarious plot and I don't know any Clarkie who is.

[w4rma]

55. I don't think you've ever started a single flamebait thread, seasonedblue.

Are you a former Clarkie? Have you been engaging in flamebait?

In fact you're nothing if not polite and reasonable. But, please don't provide cover for others who aren't.

[Cameron27]

56. Alright, I'll let the others speak for themselves.

But I have no idea what you're talking about.

[in_cog_ni_to]

46. Gee.....this is only the 25,987th time these quotes have been posted on DU. They have ALWAYS been

posted as reasons he's "not to be trusted", "he's not a REAL Democrat", and just one more way to bash him. *sigh* I can't believe I'm reading these quotes AGAIN.:eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

59. !

:boring:

Clark was honest about his votes for President when he was asked, whatever the case. He remembered who he voted for and frankly stated it. Think it had something with not being calculating, and having being in the army and Reagan promising to really increase all military benefits, defense spending, etc...(Clark had lived through the rebuilding of the Army after Vietnam, which wasn't easy).....so yeah, Wes Clark voted for Reagan, like the rest of the country did. And yes, he evolved.....like 15 years or so ago...as he's been voting Democrat since.

In reference to his "kind" words for Bush, that one sentence out of that giant speech and the Gotcha "snipet" the Republicans used to make sure that Dems would have doubts about Wes. It worked. Their Chickenhawk President didn't have to compete against a war winning General.

Look at the sentence you typed (and linked a Fox News article to Boot!).......

Here's the missing part (the part that was cut off and was never ever played, although it is also on Video): "....We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe."

Wes had just retired a year before, and he was concerned about this administration's attitude towards NATO.

The next sentences in the speech continues like this...."We've got -- (applause) We've . got a NATO that's drifting right now. I don't know what's happened to it. But the situation in the Balkans, where we still got thousands of American troops, it's in trouble. It's going downhill on us as we're watching it. Our allies haven't quite picked up the load on that. But our allies say they're going to build a European security and defense program with a rival army to NATO. Well I, I think it's a political imperative that they do more for defense, but I think we have to understand that that linkage between the United States and Europe, that bond on security, that's in our interest. We let them carry the economic ball; we're doing the security ball. Look, in politics they told me - I don't know anything about politics now; I want to make that clear. But they told me - I read, do my reading in Time magazine and so forth. And they said in politics you always got to protect your base. Well for the United States, our base is Europe. We've got to be there, and we've got to be engaged in Europe. And that means we've got to take care of NATO, we've got to make sure the Europeans stay in it, and we've got to stay with the problem in the Balkans, even though we don't like it. We will get it resolved, and we'll help bring democracy and westernization to those countries there. We've got a Russia that's anxious to extend its former security zone. I was talking to the Poles last year before I left Poland. And they told me, they said - they said they've been to the inauguration of the Ukrainian president Kuchma. And they listened to what Putin said in his toast. And Putin looked at - picked up his glass of vodka and looked at - he looked at, at the Ukrainians, he looked at Kuchma, and he said in Russian - he said, uh, he said, 'Russia and Ukraine, we are more than brothers. We are in each other's souls.' Well this absolutely chilled the Ukrainians and the Poles, because it was a clear announcement that Russia is going after Ukraine. Russia can't be a great power, militarily or economically, until it regains control of the Ukraine. Last summer they had some Russians pose as Poles trying to buy up the electricity system. They didn't succeed posing as Poles; they bought it fair and square about six months ago. As soon as Putin became the president, he put some Ukrainian cities on 12-hour diets of electricity, so they had blackouts 12 hours a day during last winter. The squeeze is on the Ukraine. And we know that the squeeze is also on other nations around the periphery of the former Soviet Union so Russia can regain its security perimeter. China, clearly expanding power. It's growing economically. We've got to maintain some kind of an economic relationship with China. We don't want China to become an adversary."

The speech was given in May of 2001. And Wes was correct about Putin, The Ukraine, and China. It was before 9/11 and before Iraq became a target. I see the "kind" words as being polite, because there is no gushing of Bush at all.

In terms of the other Clark "quote" (a speech given in January of 2002)......this is what was stated about it..... Clark applauded the U.S. mission in Afghanistan as he addressed a large audience at Harding University, in Searcy, Arkansas. Clark's presidential campaign adviser Mark Fabiani said that the former general was simply crediting Bush for the Afghanistan campaign for which "90 percent of Americans would have agreed" at the time. Fabiani said it was the president's Iraq policy, which had not fully flowered by the time of the Harding speech, that was the "turning point" for Clark and launched his political plans.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,524416,00.html


Was highlighting a sentence here and a sentence from a couple of speeches a smear....in that the context was NOT made clear? :shrug: I think that we could all play by your rules, if we wanted to and find a lot of sentences and chop them off, or not.
http://jre-whatsnottolike.com/tag/legislation/iraq-war-resolution/
http://jre-whatsnottolike.com/2002/09/

The beauty about free speech and the right to criticize and ask questions of our political candidates is that it goes all ways, and so you have the right, same as the rest of us.

I had breakfast with the General (with a few others), and you know what....if he runs, I'll vote for him.

[Tejanocrat]

60. Is this thread related to these others?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3247018&mesg_id=3247018

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3251100&mesg_id=3251100

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3245608&mesg_id=3245608

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3245251&mesg_id=3245251

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3247344&mesg_id=3247344

[FrenchieCat]

61. Clarkie1 was a Clarkie

I don't think either the Count or the other person is.....

So I don't know if they are related?

What do you think? :shrug:

What about these?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3252059 - Nope, not a Clarkie!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3246396 - Not a Clarkie alluding to nefarious reasons why Durbing spoke on the Senate floor about Americans having been lied into a war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3235174 - Poor Hillary! :(

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3231654 - OP (who started this OP is the starter of that OP) telling us how Richardson would have voted on the IWR (States he would have voted FOR)

OP here questions Richardson again....(oops, this is the poster that wrote this OP we are currently posting in!)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3219513

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3231245 - Not a Clarkie!

[w4rma]

62. The_Count is also. (nt)

[FrenchieCat]

64. I didn't know that! Thought he was a Kucinich poster!

And what about the other threads......including the three I posted that this OP author authored on Richardson and Durbin? :shrug:

[Tejanocrat]

66. I was assuming Romney ...

(just kidding)

[FrenchieCat]

74. But look......

Would you call this a bash on Obama? You are linking an article titled, "The Obama Illusion". Why is this OK, but it is not OK for folks to question John Edwards? :shrug:

PS: I don't consider it bashing......and would hope that an Obama supporter could deconstruct it without the name calling.

w4rma (1000+ posts) Sun May-06-07 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #22
49. Hamilton Project, Lieberman campaign, against antiwar liberals in primarys, against Alito filibuster
Edited on Sun May-06-07 12:13 PM by w4rma
The Obama Illusion
Presidential ambitions from the start
lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and “other Wall Street Democrats” to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party
lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman
supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races
criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
voted for a business-friendly “tort reform” bill that rolls back working peoples’ ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations
oppose the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the grounds that such a widely supported social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry
expressed reservations about a universal health insurance plan recently enacted in Massachusetts, stating his preference for “voluntary” solutions over “government mandates.”
voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT Act
voted for the appointment of the war criminal Condaleeza Rice to (of all things) Secretary of State
opposed Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) move to censure the Bush administration after the president was found to have illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens
distanced himself from fellow Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin’s forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo
refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran
makes a big point of respectfully listening to key parts of the right wing agenda even though that agenda is well outside majority sentiment
joins victim-blaming Republicans in pointing to poor blacks’ “cultural” issues as the cause of concentrated black poverty
he claims that blacks have joined the American “socioeconomic mainstream” even as median black household net worth falls to less than eight cents on the median white household dollar
“If the Democrats don’t show a willingness to work with the president, I think they could be punished in ‘08”
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3252682&mesg_id=3252952

oooh.....than it even meritted it's own thread by poster!http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3252963

[Tejanocrat]

63. I don't know. That's why I asked. I have zero respect for the authors of the whack-a-dem threads.

There's been an awful lot of hate here lately.

I regret that Clarkie1 gave up that username because it was a tip off that whatever followed was likely to be something I could either skip it or read with a grain (or ton) of salt. I feel the same way about the other constant fact-twisters who are on a non-stop slur-a-thon against HRC, Obama, and Edwards. I have a theory that these on-line jihadists are really representatives of the advertisers over at DKos trying to shift folks from DU to DKos (and it's working!).

[FrenchieCat]

65. Well if you guys try hard enough, you might shame us all into being

quiet about everything.

I know that anytime I post about Edwards, I'm called out on the carpet....and I don't post smears, last I checked.

[Tejanocrat]

67. I'd as soon that folks don't post shit about HRC (who I don't even support), Obama, or Edwards.

There are tons of unfair and distorted posts about all three (especially HRC and Edwards).

I suspect that if people kept it to the facts, we'd all get along much better.

PS in your post you refer to "you guys" and "us all" -- who are "you guys" and who are "us all"?

[FrenchieCat]

68. When I support a candidate, I just post rebuttals on the slams,

whatever they might be. It goes a long way to educating the readers as to what the facts truly are.

Example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3253331&mesg_id=3253815

or here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3250604&mesg_id=3253833

I think slamming posters because of what they post doesn't inform anyone (including the many lurkers) on the facts....and I'm not sure how that serves the candidates. The candidates will be slammed by each other, by the Republicans and by the media. This is actually good training ground in coming up with candidate's defense. To believe that somehow everyone on these boards will at some point "trained" not to have any negative issues to bring up about various candidates is fantasy. It won't happen here and in the "on the ground" campaigns. It just won't! Politics is a blood sports, as Bill Clinton put it.......and if one doesn't want to get any blood on their clothes, they will need to stay away. I think that all of our candidates are aware of this, and so should their supporters.

[Tejanocrat]

71. No one is against factually accurate issue-based posts but there's a point where facts get distorted

and the issues fall back behind the hate. Read a weeks worth of posts. You see what shit gets locked as flamebait and what debates go forward. If you're not making personal attacks, or factually shady arguments, and your threads aren't getting locked, then I assume the OP wasn't talking about you.

You wouldn't unfairly attack a Democrat for changing his views over the years, would you? I'd assume that Clarkies - above all others here - would see that a candidate needs room to grow. The General certainly did (and I'm glad for it because he's a kick ass guy now, and I'm disappointed that he's not running this time).

[FrenchieCat]

76. "You wouldn't unfairly attack a Democrat for changing his views over the years, would you?"

you ask me....

Well,
It depends on what is considered "Unfair".....

How many years it's been.....

What's happened in the meantime......

What the cost of the view was......

What the reasoning of the change was......

Etc....in other words, there is no blanket "hey, he/she changed his/her mind....what of it?" for me.

If Clark wouldn't have voted for Clinton twice and Gore and then ran for President, I'd have much more doubt on why he became a Democrat. To be honest, I'd probably would not have believed him.

If Clark's speech quoted by OP contained nothing but superlatives about Bush, even in May of 2001, and there was no context as to what he was attempting to do (Most recently Retired SACEUR Pushing the admin to work for closer relations to NATO, has they had been pushing away even in May of 2001).......That would have given me pause.

If Clark had been wrong of Foreign policy issues (yes, he wanted to go into Rwanda, circa 1994) consistently, and now wanted me to believe that he would do what was right......as of only 1 1/2 year ago, I'd have big ass problems with that too.

In otherwords, there are no rules.........it depends on the circumstance, the issue, etc....
Most want to hold folks accountable, and in particular, after George Bush, it is not a small matter. Gen. Clark was held responsible for all that he has said and done. Whether it was his voting for Reagan, or saying something kinda of decent about Bush.....he's was taken to the wood shed for it...and obviously still is. He must have answered "why I am a Democrat" 12 times just while in Dem Debates alone....and it wasn't just posters here that did that, it was the media, other Dem Candidates....and they held his feet to the fire and cross examined him bigtime. And that is politics for you. I fact, some even attempted to tarnish his character and integrity (which is all that he had to begin with) without even saying why....and that was all over the press; "Classic Swiftboating", although it has never been acknowledged as such.

and in reference to this particular OP and all of the implying that has been going on on these board in reference to "Clarkies"......as others are "grouping" posters who have supported one candidate and accusing them of all of the mayhem, itt appears that Clarkies get the doo-doo side of the stick, regardless of how many posters supporting other candidates do what you are speaking of...including Edwards supporters.

I find no justice done when Posters are attacked for posting at DU. The DU rules specifically discusses the fact that DU posters are not to be attacked, even if political candidates are. You don't see this thread being locked, do you? Yet, far as I am concerned, there was context left out of the OP.

[Tejanocrat]

77. We certainly agree that the whack-a-dem posts don't come only from Clarkies; I've seen Kucinich,

Obama, Edwards, and Richardson supporters who have relied on doubtful sources and twisted facts in posts that focused more on criticizing another candidate rather than supporting their own preferred candidate.

Perhaps the Clarkies were mentioned in the OP because Clarkies started two recent and prominent threads which were locked a flamebait and which resulted in at least one poster starting a high profile thread about leaving DU and another posted surrendering his or her username.

To me, this is a problem that is not in any way limited to Clarkies, and I haven't seen any of your threads which would qualify as a fact-poor, flame-rich whack-a-dem thread.

[Tom Rinaldo]

82. This is by no means the only time Clark supporters got attacked as a group here

Really, it has been going on for a long time. It doesn't require much searching to see that pattern of complaints on DU. No other group of candidate supporters gets treated this way at DU, but those who perpetuate this wholescale smearing of fellow democratic activists do so repeatedly in public and never get called out as a group for doing so.

When Clark is questioned, attacked or bashed (whichever the case may be) on DU, Clark supporters almost always respond by defending Clark, and we back up our defense with extensive documentation and links. You see, we know that any attack a Democrat could think of against Clark will get used by Republicans against him later, either directly or by feeding it to some other Clark opponent. We are not naive about this. There is no real point in complaining about mean people who say nasty lies about Clark, the lies simply have to be confronted, periiod.

I think threads like this discredit opposition to another Democrat favored by the poster by discrediting the source of that opposition rather than defending the Democrat favored. What is wrong with this post I made on a thread about John Edwards, I would like to know?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3253782&mesg_id=3254087

No one has responded or complained about it directly so far, instead I see this generalized call out against Clarkies by an Edwards supporter. Changing the subject to complaints about Clark or Clark supporters will do the supporters of John Edwards no good in a primary contest in which Wes Clark is currently not even running. Face the questions directly and openly, that is my constant advice, and that is what I practice concerning Wes Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

70. "You guys" are all of the folks that fall apart and call any

questions on an issue per a candidate a "smear".....and dog out the posters instead of responding with facts on the issue.

In this case, I find that OP poster and a few others do this.......so I'm grouping 'em since it seems to be "the thing" to do these days; the "IN" style.

[Cameron27]

72. Where is the OP btw?

Nice big flamebait post and he scoots out?

[Tejanocrat]

73. And who's "us all"?

[FrenchieCat]

75. I don't call out folks.......if I can help it (except to show hypocracy)

I just debate issues and discuss candidates and provide facts.

[knitter4democracy]

78. What about the war he ran?

He bombed Christians on Easter in the churches and monasteries when the bishop was on our side and doing what he could to help stop the carnage. Many Orthodox are still angry about that, and I'm not sure he'd get our vote (not that we're a big group, but still, most of us are Dems).

[FrenchieCat]

80. It was a war, not a tea party.....and the victims that the US was intervening for were Muslims......

I haven't read about Christians being bombed on Easter Sunday while in church during Kosovo. Could you provide me with some reputable links on the detailes of that?

PS. I did find a link from FreeRepublic on this. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1142728/posts

I hope you have some better sources!

Thanks in advance!

[knitter4democracy]

86. I will do some searching.--found several links that aren't FR.

Our bishop preached about it that Easter Sunday, and I remember reading it in the paper that day.

Yes, the Serbians were our enemy in that conflict, but the Serbian Orthodox Church was on our side. Starting a bombing campaign on Easter and actually admitting that we might bomb churches because that's where people were going to be was wrong no matter how you cut it. Clinton didn't bomb during Ramadan, but it was okay to bomb on Easter?

ETA: In a quick Google search (Kosovo+bombing+Easter), I found this from NewsHour on PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/jan-june99/sermons_4-12.html

Also, this from the International Herald Tribue:
http://www.iht.com/articles/1999/04/03/italy.2.t.php

On this link, if you scroll down, you'll see that NATO refused to stop the bombing campaign for the holy day:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9904/11/nato.attack.05/

[Jai4WKC08]

90. No churches were bombed

And none were threatened of being bombed. Bombing a church is against international law (unless it's being used for a military purpose, and that wasn't the case). And there's nothing at any of the links you provide that indicate that people were bombed "in churches." Yes, the bombing continued on Easter. It didn't start on Easter, as you state. There's nothing illegal (or even wrong imo) with fighting on someone's holy day. Happens all the time.

[Tom Rinaldo]

81. So questions about Edward's recorded votes in Congress

...asked by a number of people by no means restricted to Clark supporters, leads to a singular calling out of Clark supporters on this thread, which then leads you to directly attack Clark, who currently is not running, on a thread that complains about Clark supporters questioning Edward's record, who is running.

Who is being complained about again? It's a little confusing. Edwards supporters are not going to be able to continue to deflect from defending Edward's record by blaming mean Clarkies for raising candidate inconsistency, that will soon be on full view in public during the debates anyway. It will keep getting older and older, especially if Clark stays out of the race. Get to work defending your guy the old fashioned way, with quality arguments and facts.

[knitter4democracy]

87. I'm not an Edwards supporter.

I was just responding to the happy-happy, joy-joy thing on Clark in the OP. I wasn't attacking him to build anyone up. Frankly, I'm a Gore person, and I know he has issues in his closet, including this one (I'd really like it if he'd admit this or apologize or something).

[Tejanocrat]

89. I think many here at DU use the term "Edward supporter" as a generic insult and not as a statement

about who you support.

As far as I can tell, there are some who use the term "Edwards supporter" to describe anyone who is against attacks on Democrats which are high on the rhetoric and loose with the facts (e.g., lambasting Obama for a vote that 90% of the Senate also voted for, bullying HRC for voting for "the bankruptcy bill" without clarifying that it was the weak 2001 bill which never became law and not the nasty 2005 bill which crippled middle class access to bankruptcy protection, bitching about the square footage of Edwards's house and overstating the square footage by more than double).

Try not to take it personally.

[Clark2008]

92. One caveat: I don't complain about Edwards house.

I complain about his votes for the Iraqi war and the first bankrupcy bill, his co-sponsorship of the PATRIOT Act and allowing banks to enter into the predatory lending arena and his abject failure to do much about poverty until after he was a senator.

And I don't really care about his hair, either.

[Tejanocrat]

93. Clark is a great guy. I wish he'd chosen to run this election. Do you have any reason to believe

Clark would have voted against the 2001 bankruptcy bill which a majority of Democrats voted for or refused to co-sponsor the ironically named Patriot Act -- which passed OVERWHELMINGLY -- if Clark was offered the opportunity to co-sponsor that act back in 2002?

I'm sure Gen. Clark knows better on those issues now (as does Edwards), but I see no evidence that Clark was more progressive than Edwards back during the first B*sh term. If we want a candidate who's ALWAYS been right on these issues, we need to get behind Kucinich.

I think that Clark, Edwards, and Kucinich are the only three who are talking about poverty (good for them!), but I don't remember Clark doing much on poverty back in first B*sh term. Let's celebrate that Clark and Edwards have now come around to our point of view on these issues instead of beating them up because neither one was a particularly strong leader on these issues 5 years ago.

[Adelante]

94. Clark might have voted for some kind of Patriot Act

But he is a bear on civil liberties protections and I don't see him voting for anything like the legislation that passed, no.

[Tejanocrat]

95. Do you recall what the vote was on the ironically named "Patriot Act"? Pick your favorite lefty

Senator who voted for the Patriot Act and then ask yourself: Back in 2002, was Gen. Clark really more progressive than that lefty Senator?

If you remember the issues back then, if you remember Gen. Clark's statements back then, and if you are honest with yourself, I can't believe you can answer those questions without agreeing with me that Gen. Clark would have voted with the VAST majority of the Senate including the VAST majority of the Democrats.

[Adelante]

97. I am very honest with myself and with you

Clark would never have voted for it. The Patriot Act is anathema to him. He loathes it.

[Tejanocrat]

109. Since you didn't answer my question, let's review: the vote was 98 for, 1 against, 1 didn't vote

Here are the yes votes:

Akaka (D-HI)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Here's the no vote:

Feingold (D-WI)

Landrieu (D-LA) didn't cast a vote.

If you think for one second that Clark -- who we both agree is a good man now and was also a good man back in 2002 but who was a very different man with different beliefs back in 2002 -- is a guy who would have stood alone with Feingold back in late 2001; if you think for one moment that Clark back in early 2002 was more progressive than Wellstone, Kennedy, Boxer and the rest of the most progressive Senators, you are either unfamiliar with Clark's statements and attitudes back in 2002 or you are deluding yourself.

Good night, WesDem, may all your dreams remain as sweet as this one.

[Tom Rinaldo]

113. Standing with Feingold in 2001 doesn't make someone more progressive

than anyone else based on a single vote on a single issue. I can show you votes where Feingold voted the opposite from most progressives. Just off the top of my head one related to Clinton's impeachment, another to a Supreme Court nominee confirmation. And to complicate the picture further, there also are instances when some prinipled Conservatives show at least as much concern about protecting our Constitutional Rights as most Liberals. None of this is to say that your point is totally without merrit. Nothing can be known with certainty how Clark would have voted, it is only a matter of opinion either way, and as you point out almost all Democrats voted for that act at the time.

But I will say this, unlike many Democrats Wes Clark has never had any concerns when it comes to appearing "weak on National Security." Because of his character, yes, but also because of his career of over 30 years service in the Army, Clark doesn't now and didn't then fret about whether or not anyone will think he is soft on terror and unwilling to do what it takes to protect our nation's security. I have no doubt that more than one progressive Democrat voted the way that they did on the Patriot Act at the time because they did not want to seem weak concerning protecting America from our enemies. That would not have been a problem Clark would have worried about. It by no means certain that Clark would not have stood with Feingold on this one. Knowing how strongly he feels about protecting our Constitution, you can count me with WesDem on this. I think Clark would have voted against the Patriot Act as it was written, but I won't claim to know that for sure.

[Clark2008]

120. Wellstone and Kennedy thought Clark was progressive enough to listen to

regarding the Iraqi War.

“As General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida." Paul Wellstone

http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=2778&catID=298

"Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified..." Ted Kennedy

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

[Tejanocrat]

125. We agree Clark is progressive, but you're on shaky ground pegging him to the LEFT of Wellstone and

Kennedy in terms of what his support for the Patriot Act would have been back in October of 2001.

I commend Feingold for being the only one in the Senate to correctly foresee the problems with the unpatriotic Patriot Act and to vote against it.

I wish 99% of our Senators didn't get this wrong, but they did.

For anyone to suggest that Clark would have been with Feingold and not with the 99% is self-delusional in my opinion, but we're all entitled to our opinion. If anyone wants to harbor that self-delusion, it does no me no harm and I'm grateful to have identified for me those who are so throughly consumed with the necessity of mentally confirming the conclusions that they have already reached that they cannot consider contrary evidence. That's good to know.

[Adelante]

126. "they cannot consider contrary evidence"

You have presented no such evidence. You speculated Clark would have voted for Patriot I and got speculation in return. Present your evidence and allow people to respond.

[Tom Rinaldo]

130. For your information 3 House Republicans voted against the Patriot Act

The original one, passed in 2001, was opposed by three Republicans in the House: Paul, Ney, and Otter. I just did a search to find that and I don't have time to look more into what type of Republicans these three were, though I assume "Paul" was Ron Paul, who is a Libertarian Republican. My point is that I doubt very much that all three of these Republicans were "more Progressive" than Kennedy, or Boxer etc., and voting against the Patriot Act didn't make them so. They just happened to have placed a very high priority on preserving our Constitutional freedoms. That issue does not always shake down nicely on a Progressive to Conservative scale. Like I said above, other Democrats could have voted with Feingold against the Patriot Act without being anywhere near as progressive as him, since 3 Republicans in Congress actually did, in their case in the other chamber.

Here is a link:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml

[Adelante]

122. I didn't answer your question, Tejanocrat, because

I took it as rhetorical. How the Patriot Act was voted is rather widely known here. A pity your condescension was wasted. I probably know as much about General Clark, his thinking, his work habits, his policy approach, and achievements as anybody on DU, having studied it for four years. Almost all Clarkies have earned a degree's worth of understanding of Wes Clark. It is immediately clear you are at a disadvantage. In familiarity with Clark's statements and attitudes at any time in his life, some times more thoroughly than others, Clarkies bow to nobody. That said, I am sure you can selectively provide statements he made to support your points. I can provide others or context to disprove them. We can play it that way if you want. I'm open and others in the thread will most likely participate in any discussion of that type.

What you asked, though, is for speculation on whether or not Wes Clark would have gone along on the Patriot Act of 2001. There is far more material on Patriot II, of course, since he addressed it immediately and fully in 2003 and the press was on the case. Any stand on Patriot I he may have taken in our imaginary scenario has to rely on less than tangible things: expressed beliefs, demonstrated moral courage, behavior in comparable situations, etc. Whether his positions are "progressive" or not, I leave to others to judge and label.

But while we are imagining, I can imagine any conversation you might have with Senators Wellstone, Kennedy and Boxer on the subject of Wes Clark and his "progressive" attitudes in 2002, or ever, might surprise you. It was Wellstone who said in the '90s, "I have finally found my General," hosted a dinner honoring Clark in the Iron Range in thanks for his conduct of the Kosovo war, and, like Kennedy and others, cited Clark’s testimony in his floor speech against the IWR vote. Barbara Boxer, as do many Senators and Representatives, had Clark give seminars to staff on foreign policy and national security.

This is because Clark is the expert that legislators turn to for advice in these and other areas. He knows more, a different example, about disaster relief, preparedness and recovery than probably most people in elected office would have any need to know, but have to know when they need to. He advises on privacy issues and economics and so on. He has the expertise and the mental abilities to apply critical thinking and strategic forecasting to almost anything. He sees past the present, as illustrated in his projections of precisely what degree of disorder would come on the heels of even a successful invasion, the subsequent resentments of the civilian population and violence by insurgents and jihadists, the blank necessity for every other alternative to have to fail before conflict is adopted as a policy, that preemptive war is never acceptable, but for sure failure is in store absent a plan for urban warfare, should any invasion proceed: That the IWR was a blank check and Bush would take it and do what he wanted with it. That kind of foresightedness is a gift he would have brought to any piece of legislation, I believe.

His positions on International Justice, including Guantanamo and torture, the Geneva Conventions, are well known. Less known is his amicus brief participation while in uniform in favor of Affirmative Action or his environmental award given years ago by the Audobon Society for helping to save a rare species of desert tortoise or his staunch support of gays in the military or his work on rebuilding housing on the Gulf Coast or R&D and production of alternative fuel cars and electric motorbikes. It’s always hard to know how somebody is judging what is “progressive” but I think these characteristics can serve as pointers. Clark is a great thinker, on this most people agree, but he is also a man of action. For example, when he learned that his own cell phone records were for sale, he not only sued immediately on his own behalf, but went to Congress and used his influence to push through legislation outlawing the practice for everyone.

So that’s some of the background I would draw on when imagining what Clark would have done regarding Patriot I. He is too much of a realist, though, not to know some kind of security legislation had to be issued in that era. Law enforcement, intelligence services, the justice system all had to be reordered to meet the challenge after 9/11. He would never have argued otherwise. What I maintain he would have argued for is more time spent on it to ensure that civil liberties protections were affirmed wherever needed. He would have argued strenuously for a balance of law enforcement needs and constitutional rights, as he did in the early period of revising CAPPS I on airline passenger lists; (no, he was not involved by the time of CAPPS II).

His famous line is that a hundred years out all we will have to show for ourselves is our Constitution and our Environment. As much as he worries about national security, he worries about Constitutional security. If he had been in the Congress during Patriot I, he would have fought tooth and nail, he would have influenced at least some of that vote, and above all, he would have pushed for those Constitutional protections. If in the end, after he did everything he could to make the bill something he could vote for, if that failed, then he would not have voted for it. “Progressive” or whatever. He never had to prove he was tough on national security, because he is tough on national security. What he’s had to prove is that he is tough on Constitutional security, and he has proven it to me, again and again.

[Tejanocrat]

133. We both like Clark. I will decline your invitation to list every reasons why it is implausible to

argue that Gen. Clark would have voted with the 1% of the Senate who opposed the Patriot Act in October of 2001 and not the 99% of the Senate who voted for the Act.

We both know about Clark's statements from 2001 and 2002. What does it serve to repeat them? We both agree that Clark's statements -- when properly understood in context -- do not reflect poorly on him. We agree about this, right? But those statements show that Clark's thinking in 2001 and 2002 was not the same as Sen. Feingold's thinking at the time. We agree about that, too, don't we?

We both know of the US News and World Report story published shortly before 9/11, and we both agree that nothing in that story should be read to reflect poorly on Clark, but shouldn't we also agree that the portrait of the up-and-coming rising star doesn't sound overly much like someone who would vote with the 1% of the Senate against the Patriot Act? Why go into that old news here and now? Can't we just agree that Clark is a great and committed Democrat now?

We both know about Acxiom and it serves no good purpose to re-hash that again here and now, does it? Can't we just agree that Acxiom's whole business model is not a model that Sen. Feingold would embrace? Can't we agree that someone who was in the 1% of demanding extra protection for privacy rights, like Feingold, is not someone would work for Acxiom? I'm not saying that working for Acxiom is a bad thing, but I am saying that someone who would take a position different from 99% of the Senate on a question of gathering information about citizens is also probably not someone who would have worked for Acxiom.

We both know who Clark has supported in the past and neither of us thinks that this is something that we should hold against Clark so what purpose does it serve to re-plow that turf? Neither George H.W. Bush, nor Ronald Reagan, nor Richard Nixon were presidents who respected individual rights so if someone would have been in the 1% of the Senate who would have opposed the Patriot Act in 2001 would probably not be someone who would have supported those presidents.

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree about whether Clark would have voted for the Patriot Act back in 2001. I see a lot of statements and circumstances on my side and I have said enough for you to understand that this is no idle speculation on my part so I'd rather not re-hash the issue here and now. On the other hand, I see a lot of faith on your side (but not so much evidence from 2001 or earlier about Clark's views). I believe that you are not to be persuaded on this issue based on what pre-2002 history or statements I could offer pertaining to Clark, and I have no interest in going into the issue in detail. If you have the need to believe this, it does me no harm.

Do we really want to pick old scabs when we share the view that Clark is a great American and a good Democrat who has worked his ass off for other good Democratic candidates all across America?

[Tom Rinaldo]

149. Sure there's a purpose in rehashing Acxiom if you leave misleading impressions

Do you know who Robert O'Harrow Jr. is? If not than google him. Start with this: REPORTER, WASHINGTON POST; AUTHOR, NO PLACE TO HIDE. There is no greater advocate for or writer more informed about the needs for privacy in the electronic age than he.

At a conference entitled: “NO PLACE TO HIDE: WHERE THE DATA REVOLUTION MEETS HOMELAND SECURITY”
http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/0504transcript.pdf

O'Harrow said this about Wesley Clark and Acxiom:

ROBERT O’HARROW:
"...There is a guy that I think many of us in the room respect and admire deeply, General Clark, and he serves as a great example of someone who was deeply involved in representing a company called Axiom. And Axiom was one of those companies that responded with – I know that from my reporting – very patriotic motives. They had a lot of that as a marketer and they shared it and they shared it to good effect; it helped. They also saw ways that they could change their business model and become part of the security industrial complex. And one of the people that was helping open doors for Axiom in Washington was General Clark. The reason I raise that is because I kept finding that General Clark got to places before I did and people spoke admiringly of his ability to say what he knew, to say what he didn’t know, to play it straight, and to in every case do it in the smart way, which is why people respect him."

And in reply Clark said a number of very interesting things, of which I will quote just two, but the entire conference transcript is available at the link above and makes for very thought provoking reading:

"WESLEY CLARK: Well, thanks. First of all, I have read parts of this book and I followed all of Robert’s work in the Post. I think it’s good work and I am a strong believer in the fourth estate and public scrutiny and – you know, I grow up like most of this did in the ‘60s on Eisenhower’s statement about the military industrial complex, but we are in the very early stages of looking at data and security.

I respect Senator Church and what he said in 1975 and it was visionary and the results of it were that the U.S. military was barred from collecting information on U.S. citizens. It was so bad at one point that as a battalion S-3, I couldn’t get the telephone numbers of the people that worked for me because they said, “Sir, this is protected by privacy,” and, you know, when you tell the military to do something, we do it and we do really well. So we really guarded each other’s phone numbers from each other, and I don’t mean to make fun of it. I mean if this is a legitimate concern; we just have to get the balance right..."

"... WESLEY CLARK:
...Can I just say one more thing about this impulse to privacy that you’ve mentioned, Bob, because when I was doing this – and I want to say this because Nuala is here, because when the government starts working programs and it does know where they go and where they going they are always cautious because everybody knows that these programs that do data are very sensitive. Before the government could even get a grip on some of these programs, when the word comes out on them they are blasted before people even understand it. So on the one hand, I understand exactly why there is an impulse for privacy. People – companies like Axiom were told, “Look, you just can’t compete for this contract if you talk about this to the press because we don’t know what the program is and we want to have – we want to be able to –“ this is – I’m speaking for the government – “We want to be able to see what data you have available. We want to figure out if we can use it, and we don’t want to have to answer a million enquiries from the press about it until we get it done. Then we’ll run it through.

You know, my instinct on it was a little bit different than the government’s, but I didn’t have any influence on them. I mean, my instinct would have to bring in the ACLU and to say, “Please create a group that’s sort of like a trusted group that we can bounce ideas off of and we want to run these ideas by you. And if you have strong objections, we want to hear them. We want to hear them right upfront. What we ask is that you will work with us in a collaborative sense so that – you know, you tell us before you run out to the Washington Post the next day and we have got (unintelligible.)” So, you know, we are just exploring ideas. We want to try to put this together and I do think there is a need for that. There is a need for enough privacy in governmental decision-making that the government can come out with programs and then have a chance to explain them, not to take anything away from the press because that balance is a dynamic balance. It’s fought by and maintained by hardworking reporters who make a lot of phone calls and get turned down a lot, but it’s a very important public duty.

So I am not sure if the balance is right is what I am saying. I don’t know if it’s right and that is one of issues we ought to explore..."


I have no real interest in picking old scabs. You do realize that this thread we are writing on called out Clark supporters by name, it supposedly was not one started to attack any National Democrat (though I think that is debatable)? Above in this thread I left a link to an example of a post I made discussing a controversy effecting another candidate. I am a Democratic voter who will participate in our Primaries designed to help select which Democrat among other Democrats our Party nominates. I think what I wrote was a fair and useful addition to the discussion going on, and no one yet has countered me on that or disagreed.

And I and other Clark supporters continue on this thread to field both negative comments about Clark, and other more nuetral questions concerning his life record. Since Clark still may run for President, it is appropriate for people to raise legitimate concerns about him, as it is to examine anyone who asks us to support him or her becoming President of the United States. But to be less abstract about it, let me be clear: I think John Edwards is an excellent Democrat. I think he in making a very positive contribution to the discussion of critically important issues in this nation. I am sure that he would make a good President of the United States. I am not sure that he would make a better President of the United States than would some other individuals who have offered themselves, or have been talked about, for that job. We all have a choice to make. Comparisons must be made.

In terms of commenting further on specific isues that you made glancing reference to about Clark in your post, I am afraid that the clock just ran out for me to do so. I leave on a business trip in two hours and have matters that need attending to now.


By the way are you confident that Ron Paul and the other two Republicans in the House who defied Bush and voted against the Patriot Act did not vote for Richard Nixon, and/or Ronald Reagan earlier in their life? Or any of the many Democrats in the House who also voted against the Patriot Act? I would not make that assumption. I think that part of your logic was weak at best. People come to new understandings over many years. If I were to ask you whether someone who co-sponsored the IWR that passed, and who was quoted by the White House on their web site arguing strongly in favor of that piece of legislation, might a few short years later be one of the leading critics of that President and the course of action that that legislation authorized, would that seem illogical to you also?

[Adelante]

155. When you are ready to get real, Tejanocrat, it would be a real time saver

You're in your third day now of slithering around in the bushes. In typical Edwardian fashion, I might add, of making a show of being positive while pushing the negative. Providing documentation and links would not be picking at "old scabs" - it is a courtesy provided for DUers who read this thread, which could number in the thousands, and offer some credibility to your claims, even your good will, and not a favor to me. I see no "statements and circumstances" on your side. I am perfectly willing to discuss General Clark's "statements and circumstances" prior to the Patriot Act vote in 2001, if you have any, that would confirm your theory that he would have voted for that legislation as written if he were in Congress at the time.

I would also very much appreciate a link to where General Clark is quoted as having voted for Bush I, as I have often seen that statement published but never verified, unless accepting "he has never denied it" is adequate to you. He has never denied he would have voted for Patriot I, to my knowledge, but then, he has never denied he would have voted against Patriot I, either.

Do you have a link that General Clark was employed by Acxiom when Patriot I was passed? No, you wouldn't have one, because although he was offered that position well before 9/11, he turned it down, before he joined that board in January 2002. But it would be disingenuous of me not to acknowledge Clark's pro bono work in that post-9/11 period with Acxiom to improve airline security by pre-screening passengers in order to more effectively identify passengers who might be terrorists.

Robert O'Harrow wrote in the Washington Post in September 2003:

A senior executive at Acxiom said Clark began knocking on doors for the company, without pay, out of patriotic impulses shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. Jerry Jones, Acxiom's general counsel and business development leader, said the company also wanted to do its part in the war on terrorism.

Acxiom is a data integrator that manages billions of records for some of the nation's top banks, retailers and marketers. The company said it has "the largest collection of U.S. consumer and telephone data available in one source" -- data that is used in part to enhance others' records and authenticate identities.

-snip

Clark also has met on the company's behalf with officials at the Department of Justice, the CIA, the Department of Transportation, the Transportation Security Administration and Lockheed Martin Corp., the defense contractor that is heading up CAPPS II.

Government and industry officials who have attended meetings with Clark described him as thoughtful and persuasive. Jones, the Acxiom official, said Clark repeatedly stressed the need to "properly balance legitimate privacy interests and the need for security." Jones said that was a core theme of Acxiom's effort to win government contracts.

In a meeting at the Department of Transportation in January 2002, according to participants, Clark described a system that would combine personal data from Acxiom with information about the reservations and seating records of every U.S. airline passenger.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7380-2003Sep26.htm

CAPPS I, the system in place at the time, was developed after the TWA 800 crash in 1996, and had flagged four people who died in PA and Washington on 9/11, but not the ones who crashed into WTC, and would later that year, Richard Reid. So airline passengers were already being screened based on their presonal data.

http://www.corpus-delicti.com/051902_aharder.html


Refining CAPPS I to more accurately pre-screen passengers, much of whose personal data was already in the pre-screening system, to be matched with that Acxiom had in its databases, which comes basically from banks and insurance companies, doesn't have to be viewed as the natural precursor to the nefarious form it took in CAPPS II in late 2002, when Clark was no longer involved with the project, was in the national interest. And that's how Clark viewed it. He had, keep in mind, already volunteered his expertise to the White House for the emergency and been rejected. But his neighbor worked for Acxiom and explained the possibilities of the system in terms of security; apparently this approach was at the company's behest.

Washington Post 1/29/04:

Clark initially turned down an offer, made just after he left the military, to serve on Acxiom's board. But after the 2001 terrorist attacks, he agreed to tell government officials about the firm's capabilities without charge.

"We were doing some work with the FBI . . . and we contacted Wes again to get his ideas on how best we could help," said Acxiom chief Morgan. After the initial shock of the attacks, Clark and Acxiom saw the opportunity to make money, Clark as a lobbyist for the firm and Acxiom as a federal security contractor.

Clark registered as a self-employed lobbyist for the firm in January 2002. In May of that year he registered as a lobbyist for Acxiom on behalf of SCL LLC, an entity created to keep Clark's work for Acxiom separate from his work for Stephens. He was a lobbyist for Acxiom through Sept. 17 of last year, earning just under $500,000 total for his work, according to lobbying disclosures.

In a debate in New Hampshire, Clark said he was motivated by a conviction that "their technology will improve our security." Clark added, "I was insistent that we do so with a firm grip on the privacy issues." Morgan agreed that in board meetings and private conversations, Clark was fixated on making the best use of Acxiom's data without violating people's privacy.

"The last thing Wes wanted to see happen was for the information to be improperly used," Morgan said. "He was heavily engaged on the issue. He was interested in how to maintain separate repositories of data, walls between data sources, that could be linked on demand when authorized."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58300-2004Jan28.html

Somewhere in the DU archives are copies of Clark's lobbyist reporting. He lobbied the government for about four months and then renewed, although he did no further lobbying under the renewal. All of this was at one time posted to the Clark04 website, which is no longer active, along with his service record, financials, fundraising records, voting registration records, etc.

I'm no fan of data-mining or Acxiom, but I do find it difficult to see why this work should indicate any propensity for Clark to have voted for legislation like Patriot I.

On the expansion of Patriot I he is on record:

Salon 3/24/03
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/index_np.html


One of the things about the war on terror that I am disturbed about is that we've essentially suspended habeas corpus. Which is something that's only been done once in American history and then only for a very brief period.

When I go back and think about the atmosphere in which the PATRIOT Act was passed, it begs for a reconsideration and review. And it should be done. Law enforcement agencies will always chafe at any restriction whatsoever when they're in the business of trying to get their job done. But in practice we've always balanced the need for law enforcement with our own protection of our constitutional rights and that's a balance that will need to be reviewed.

Meet the Press 6/15/03
http://www.mediamax.com/securingamerica/Hosted/public/MeetThePress_6_15_03.wmv

MR. RUSSERT: The attorney general of the United States, John Ashcroft, wants to expand the Patriot Act which would give him more powers in terms of apprehending terrorists, identifying people who are giving "material support." Would you support that effort?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, not without a thorough review of where we are right now with the current Patriot Act. I think one of the risks you have in this operation is that you're giving up some of the essentials of what it is in America to have justice, liberty and the rule of law. I think you've got to be very, very careful when you abridge those rights to prosecute the war on terrorists. So I think that needs to be carefully looked at.

Rolling Stone, September 25 2003
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5937568/is_wesley_clark_the_one


-The president is urging Congress to grant him wider powers to wage war on terrorism at home.

WKC: Come on, give us a break. The Patriot Act, all 1,200 pages of it, was passed without any serious congressional discussion. There was no public accountability, and now he wants more? What does he think this country is? We shouldn't do anything with the Patriot Act until it's unwrapped. I'd like to see what violations of privacy it entails, and whether those violations are in any way justified by their preventing terrorism in this country. And we need to do it now before we take another step forward and pay for that.

-Is it disloyal for a retired general to criticize the president during a time of war?

WKC: Look, I'm not going to let Tom DeLay or Dick Cheney or those guys who've never served in uniform take away from the right of men and women who served honorably in this country's armed forces to criticize policy. If soldiers' lives are at stake, the time to criticize the policy is now, not when it's over. I think the height of patriotism is to speak out. Even in wartime in a democracy, you need a democracy. You need people with the courage to stand up and voice their opposition without being labeled unpatriotic. I've always thought that the height of loyalty is to ask questions and help sort things out.

For what it's worth, the Democratic Party itself uses Acxiom's database services:

http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/expenddetail.asp?txtName=ACXIOM&Cmte=DPC&cycle=2006

[Tom Rinaldo]

96. What nonesense

If you go back and read my post I never claimed that the person I respoonded to had to be an Edwards supporter, but I did point out the irony of an attack on Clark getting posted on a thread that an Edwards supporter started to in order to shame Clark supporters into not attacking Edwards. A number of openly identified Edwards supporters have complained at DU about being treated unfairly here. My point about the need for supporters of Edwards or any other Democrat to defend their candidates with facts and solid arguments rather than complaining about those who challenge their candidate remains.

And I just love your use of "there are some who" to make an accusation that comes straight out of your creative imagination. Want to point to some posts to back that up? I have no doubt that some people here can either fairly or unfairly be accused of bashing Obama, HRC, or Edwards, but where is the term "Edwards supporter" used to describe anyone who is against attacking Democrats?

It goes full circle doesn't it? You just responded to a post by someone who attacked Clark by being high on rhetoric and loose with the facts, and you seem to have no problem with that, when it is Clark who gets attacked. And notice that a Clark supporter responded to the factual basis of the attack, she didn't start a rant about "Gore supporters".

[Cameron27]

98. Never mind.

/more good info coming, the thread was worth the trouble.

[knitter4democracy]

101. I didn't take it as an insult or mean it as one.

I'm sorry if I came across that way. Frankly, even though I'd love to have Gore run again, I'm undecided on the rest and try not to partake too much in all the nastiness. I don't like Clark, though.

[Adelante]

103. Not liking him is no problem

Not everyone does. We just like to try to clear up misperceptions if we can. :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

100. Admit what? You said something about bombing christian churches on Easter......

But it didn't happen. So what "skeleton" would the "Skeleton" that you are talking about be?

If you are going to "bomb" a "happy-happy" smear-all-DUClarkie Thread started by an Edwards supporter, please at least have the courtesy of providing actual evidence instead of alluding to something without the back up that would support what you post. Dropping "clues" on "possible" "skeletons" ain't gonna quite do it. Considering that Gore was part of the administration that condone the Kosovo War, and Gore benefitted from its success, your comments are rich but without meritt.

[knitter4democracy]

102. Did you check all three links?

Or are you just itchin' for a fight? In that link, I said to go halfway down to see about the bombing on Easter. *sigh* You asked for links, and I gave you three, one from PBS, two from international sources that are solid.

I also addressed the Gore issue. I would like him to admit to it and apologize, frankly. Nice to see you ignore that point, too.

[NCarolinawoman]

107. knitter4democracy, I commented earlier this morning on your thread regarding

a beautiful letter you wrote and had published.

Please understand that General Clark is a practicing progressive Christian who takes his faith very seriously. A friend of mine who lives in DC and is involved in one of the "stop the genocide in Darfur" groups refers to Clark as "the Humanitarian General". To shed some light on this, General Clark has even used the term, "the pornography of war".

I read the links you posted and appreciate the effort you went to, but
I never saw any evidence that churches were actually being targeted. Mistakes were certainly made, as in all wars. And yes, there is often not a let-up on religious holidays. A good example is George Washington crossing the Delaware to attack on Christmas Eve.

The culprit in all of this is ultimately Milosevic, who brutishly manipulated hs own people. I believe that is why Clinton, Gore, and 19 European Nations wanted General Clark to take this on. I know, as you mentioned, there were very many good Serbs who couldn't stand Milosevic and got caught up in this thing against their will. Here is an excerpt from the Kosovo Diaries:

"A Serbian officer ordered a soldier
to shoot a 5 year old Albanian child. The soldier refused. The officer screamed the order again. The soldier answered that it would be better to die himself. The order was repeated and so was his refusal. The officer shot the soldier and then the child. A Serb died for an Albanian!"

http://www.mrds.org/Regions/easterneurope/kosova/KOSOVA.html

[NCarolinawoman]

108. Darn, I apologize for that link not working....

I am not good at links. Very sorry.

[knitter4democracy]

119. I get that mistakes were made. I get that it was war.

I hate what those racist bastards did, too. Hate it. All in the name of their race/faith when their own bishops told them to stop it. Bastards. I hope there's a special place in Hell for them, turning on neighbors and brothers like that.

The problem is that they were bombing on the holiest day of the year. Earlier that year, they made sure not to bomb during Ramadan, but bombing during Holy Week and on Easter? You have to understand--nothing is holier than Easter to an Orthodox Christian. The entire church is crowded with people standing for hours starting around 11pm on Holy Saturday night, and then the service goes on until around 2 or 3 in the morning only to have another service at 10 on Sunday morning. People go home to eat the Paschal meal and then sleep a bit to get ready for the Easter service again later that morning. It's the highlight of the year. Churches are often in the middle of town, and being full of people, would be tempting targets and frankly hard to miss (often the tallest building in a village). Many people stayed home in fear and so weren't able to bring the Easter light into their homes for the year. That's a huge thing to us.

It's not like saying, well, so people missed a holiday. Oh well. Easter is the highpoint of the year to us. It's the holiest of days, and we spend all of Lent and Holy Week preparing, making special foods ahead so we don't cook that day, abstaining from so many foods, music, movies, and the most devout, sex, to prepare ourselves for the Easter light. It's hard to explain to non-Orthodox, but it's definitely not just any other holiday. NATO was asked by many, many groups to stop the bombing campaign just for Easter (not even Holy Week with its many, many services), and they refused. It's still hard to swallow that one.

[Tom Rinaldo]

121. I sympathise with your feelings on this

Under N.A.T.O.'s command structure, whether or not to suspend bombing on Easter would not have been a decision General Clark would have been authorized to make on his own. Undoubtably his own position on that issue would have been listened to seriously by the N.A.T.O. members, and I honestly don't know what Clark's position on that issue was, but Clark's advice was not always taken by N.A.T.O. It was a highly political process, with a full consensus of every N.A.T.O. member needed for any significant decision, including lists of bombing targets. Ssupending the war, for even a day, would have been viewed as a poltical decision more than a military one, and unless all of N.A.T.O.'s member states agreed with that decision, bombing would not have been suspended, and obviously (I agree unfortunately) it wasn't.

[knitter4democracy]

128. Oh, I had been under the impression he had more say than that.

I know that everyone appealed to President Clinton and asked him to stop the bombing as well as asking NATO command to stop. People are still upset about it.

[Jai4WKC08]

123. You keep saying NATO bombed churches and that's a lie

You have provided ZERO evidence -- not even a single claim by any source -- that NATO targetted or bombed a church at any time during the Kosovo war. Yes, they continued bombing during Easter. Yes, I'm sure a lot of Serbian Christians were in church that day. Yes churches would be easy to target. So what? It NEVER happened.

Intentionally bombing a church is, in most cases, illegal. In fact, failure to exercise due prudence to avoid bombing a church is illegal. Bombing on a holiday is not illegal. There were very good strategic AND tactical reasons to continue the bombing on Easter. You can disagree about whether it was the right thing to do, but there's no war crime in it.

Another point. Whether we bombed during Ramadan or not (and I doubt it's true that we did, since Ramadan is a whole month), you can bet the Serbians continued their operations thru Ramadan. So doyou think they deserved a break in military operations on their holiday?

[Tom Rinaldo]

124. To clarify my above post

My sympathy was for bombing haven taken taken place on Easter, which it did, not for Churches being bombed, which they weren't. Not knowing all there was to know I can't be sure, but I think I would have supported a one day halt in bombing as a gesture. Your point about the Serbian death squads operating throughout Ramadan is of course well taken.

Oh, and while I'm at it, I just noticed that the OP starts out a Clark quote by identifying him as a Democratic Presidential candidate. Very misleading. That quote was made years before Clark entered the race or even entered politics.

[knitter4democracy]

127. You're right. I cannot find an account of a church being bombed.

The bombs fell on their fields and vineyards, from what I can see, and on homes and villages, but not on a church from what I can find. Still, I'm not arguing about war crimes here but what is right or wrong. Clinton stopped military action against Saddam during Ramadan that year and then kept up the bombing on Easter. That was wrong. The best explanation I've found yet is here:
http://www.mitropolija.cg.yu/duhovnost/vatanasije-cry.htm
It's full of Orthodox-speak, which is easy to scan past (all of the prayer-like words, etc.). Look for the actual descriptions and stories and how angry the Metropolitan was at the Serbs who started the whole damn mess. Best one I've read today in searching through old records.

[Jai4WKC08]

129. Huh?

You wrote, "Clinton stopped military action against Saddam during Ramadan..."

What military action against Saddam? Clinton bombed Saddam for 4 days total in 1998. There was no stoppage of that action for Ramadan. He also maintained the no-fly zones in the north and south, but those were never interrupted for any holiday.

You know what I think? I think you really don't know what you're talking about and are just parroting the anti-Clinton/Clark rhetoric you get from pro-Serbian sources (all of which are right-wing Republican, even if you are not -- even the religious ones). Please wake up and realize that you cannot trust the Serbian propaganda machine. They are liars. Look at it the way I do about Israel. I'm a devout Jew and I support Israel most of the time, but I would never ever accept as fact anything about Israel, Islam or the Middle East published by an orthodox Jewish source, even tho I might understand and sympathize with many of their positions. They are just far too partisan to be reliable.

As for whether it's right or wrong to bomb on a religious holiday, it seems to me that in the case of the Kosovo war, if bombing on Easter shortened the war by helping to convince Milosevic to give up, then it was a VERY good thing to do.

[knitter4democracy]

134. Every Serbian I know is a Dem and proudly so.

Every Orthodox priest I've ever known, Russian, Antiochian, Greek, whatever, every one has been a Democrat. I'm not sure where you're getting that Serbian-Americans are Republicans. When our Metropolitan Maximus preached on the bombing while visiting our cathedral, he cried in anger and frustration over someone he thought he could trust, but he never stopped being a Dem. No one I know has. Granted, I don't know every single Orthodox American in the world, but I have to say I don't know where you're coming from on that. The strong Dem influence in the Church is one of the reasons my husband and I converted to the Orthodox faith instead of staying evangelicals.

The Serbian Orthodox Church was massively against Milosevic and his cronies. The bishops all preached against him, and monasteries and churches gave sanctuary to Albanians, trying to stop the slaughter. That's something that's often forgotten and I remember being completely ignored in the mass media at the time. I couldn't understand why, but it's not like I blame President Clinton for that. He didn't control the media like the Bush Administration does.

Italy was against the bombing campaign, many churches came out against it, many human rights groups came out against it--but it was all a Republican smear campaign? That makes no sense. Check the other links for a more complete story.

If the US had intervened in the recent Israeli attack on Lebanon the same way we did in Kosovo and bombed on Passover, would that be okay? It's the same level of holy day. I know we'd never do that, though, and not just because of AIPAC or anything like that. We wouldn't because it's wrong.

[Jai4WKC08]

156. You've got to be kidding

Where did I get the idea that Serbian Americans are Republicans? How about the last presidential election, when Serb-Americans contributed more to Bush and the GOP than any other ethnic group. Or when the Serbian-American publisher of the Cleveland Plain Dealer overturned the decision of the paper's editors to endorse Kerry and forbid them from endorsing anyone. Or maybe when I heard the president of Serbian American Council crowing about how Serbs had delivered Ohio to Bush. Or when there were, and STILL ARE, attacks on Kerry, Holbrooke, and Clark in all the Serbian propaganda websites, and many of the same articles carried on more well-known right-wing media sites like drudge, newsmax and worldnetdaily.

Look, I don't mean that every single Serb American is a Repub. I happen to know one who isn't. And there's no reason at all to think Serbs are any less individuals with their own opinion than anyone else. But do some research and don't just spout out anecdotal information based on your personal experience.. Just because most of the Orthodox church leaders you happen to know are Democrats, that has nothing to do with who the Serbian American community as a whole. Even if the vast majority of Serbs are Orthodox Christians, they apparently are no more likely to follow their clergy lockstep than any other Americans are.

Also, you're wrong about Italy opposing the Kosovo war bombing. Italy is part of NATO and supported every single decision of the NATO civilians and military leadership. Italy is even home to many of the aircraft who flew the bombing missions out of Aviano Air Base.

And btw, Passover is not the equivalent to Easter, and it's a week long. I doubt Israel has ever stopped military operations of any sort during Passorver. Perhaps on Yom Kippur, but of course, that's the day the Eqyptians attacked in 1973, so they really didn't have much choice.

[knitter4democracy]

157. I hadn't heard any of that.

We're in a Russian church now, so I hadn't heard all that going on in Cleveland (where we lived for four years). Man. That's messed up and very disappointing. Very sad.

http://www.iht.com/articles/1999/04/03/italy.2.t.php
Many Italians were very against the Easter bombing. It caused big political problems. That's what I was referring to.

Orthodox Easter is a week long, too. It starts with Palm Sunday the week before, and then there are as many as three church services each day during that week. From Thursday on, it's pretty much solid church and preparation for church at home. That's why I used that as a reference. It's so much that my husband gets that week off every year because he doesn't want to miss that much church and leave all that prepwork on my shoulders if he kept his usual work hours.

[RapidCreek]

112. Ones evolution should not take place a the age of 60

Or the major parts, thereof. Wesley Clark voted proudly for Reagan and has spoken kind words about Bush, you say...I had just graduated from High School when this nation was saddled with Reagan. I new he was an asshole then...the day he got elected...and it wasn't because he was a Republican...it's because he felt he had arrived and sold out the Democratic Party....it is because of the crap which came out of his mouth, it's because HE FUCKED AROUND ON JANE WYMAN. I knew Bush was an asshole since before he was governor of Texas...I certainly knew it when he "beat" Ann Richards. I knew it when I learned that he had cheated on his taxes with Harkin oil to name just one instance of many examples of his HIGHLY undesirable traits.

This is a man who would be responsible for appointing people to government positions. His demonstrable problems with rating his fellow human beings this late in life would serve up some rather grave consequences...certainly not the sort of character I would be expecting of a presidential candidate.

I would expect a presidential candidate to have a fully evolved character....not to be a "nice guy"....whatever the fuck that means. He's not a good man if he voted for Reagan or has had occasion to speak kind words of or to Bush...he's a gullible moron at the very least....an outright asshole at the worst..neither qualities I find attractive.

The same can be said of Mrs. Clinton or any other congressperson who voted to give George Bush the green light to wage war in Iraq.

Please peddle this bullshit someplace else.

RC

[Tom Rinaldo]

114. Did you forget that Jim Webb actually served in Reagan's Cabinet?

Do you think you are a better judge of character than Jimmy Carter, the man who Reagan deposed as President, who called up Wes Clark in 2003 and urged him to run for President as a Democrat? Or George McGovern who endorsed Clark for President in 2004? Have you never seen the quotes from Al Gore and other fine Democrats saying nice things about George Bush? Do you realize that Arianna Huffington ran the campaign of her Republican Husband trying to win a Senate seat away from Diane Feinstein in California in the 90's?

And by the way, did you stop to think that if Wes Clark was 60 when he voted for Reagan, then the youngest he could be right now is 83? Not.

[RapidCreek]

135. Evidently I am

Carters speech and actions are responsible for hanging around his neck a sign which reads "worst president in history", which of course is far from the truth....none the less, it is what it is. George McGovern was never anything other than a Representative and a Senator from SD...what's your point?

I don't particularly care what Democrats....or Huffington did to suck up to Republicans. That's not the point is it. Why don't you address what I said in my post instead of attempting to redirect the conversation. Why don't you tell me I was or am wrong ....then you can defend you sycophantic fantasy's.

RC

[FrenchieCat]

117. Clark would have been around 33 years old when he voted for Reagan in 1980....

and had been in the military starting at 19 with West Point.

The American people voted for Reagan in the majority in how many state? :shrug:

John Edwards was in his 50s when he voted for the IWR and co-sponsored it.
He was running for President a few months after that vote, and he hasn't stopped since!

[Jai4WKC08]

132. Self delete

n/t

[RapidCreek]

136. yea so what

The poster to who I referred was explaining how Clark has "grown up" since then...I assume he is about sixty now. Hence my mention of that age. More to the point though, one should be grown up, or what ever you want to call it, by the time one reaches 18. One who chooses a career in politics most certainly should be.

John Edwards is an opportunistic dick....who has reinvented himself a populist.

RC

[FrenchieCat]

141. I think that being in your 30s and being busy rebuilding the army after

an ugly war in where one almost died might is a fair reason why one might have voted for Reagan.

The point is that Clark didn't lie about who he voted for....and in fact answered a question he could have not answered. he could have just forgotten like other candidates did.

I certainly forgive Clark on that one, and he didn't even write an OpEd stating that he was sorry to have made the mistake. Guess I'm old enough to believe that being in your 30s in reference to voting for someone that just about everyone else in the country voted for is not so serious a crime as to merit an OpEd. :shrug:

[RapidCreek]

143. I see, being busy rebuilding an army after an ugly war

in which one almost died is a fair reason to vote for a draft dodger....yea that makes allot of sense. You might forgive him, I don't. Neither does my uncle, who took one in the ass in the Battle of the Bulge. Neither does my father who was in the 82nd Airborne.

Ronnie oddly wasn't a soldier but he played one for the cameras.

Voting for somebody shouldn't be about who everyone else is voting for, chief. I didn't vote for Ronnie and no one in my family did and they didn't because they could see the writing on the wall.

Peace and Inner Harmony,

RC
A 100% disabled American Veteran

[FrenchieCat]

145. Ronald Reagan's Bio states otherwise.....

On May 25, 1937, Reagan was appointed a second lieutenant in the Officers' Reserve Corps of the Cavalry, serving with Troop B, 322nd Cavalry.<17> After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Reagan was prevented from serving overseas due to nearsightedness,<18> and remained in Hollywood for the duration of the war. At the request of the Army Air Force, he applied for a transfer from the Cavalry to the Army Air Force.<18>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#World_War_II

[RapidCreek]

148. Yea like I said

he dodged the war and served in a non-combat role making movies instead. Near sighted my ass. My father was near sighted...it didn't keep him from being a sharp shooter, jump master and a sergeant. One doesn't need perfect vision to stop bullets.

Reagan did like Bush but he was a little smarter about it.

RC

[Tom Rinaldo]

150. What are your feelings about Senator James Webb now?

Do you think he is a positive addition to the Democratic Party or not? He actually worked for Reagan in Reagan's Administration you know.

[RapidCreek]

153. That remanes to be seen.

He certainly has a positive outlook on the police action....how he stands on things other than labor is a mystery.
I've yet to hear him remark on the fact that the "funding resolution" is still a BLANK CHECK to Bush regardless of all the Democrats claims to the contrary. The only thing Bush would be held to is a "report on progress". No report on EXACTLY were the 80 billion he seeks, or the 500 billion he's already gotten is going. I can tell you one thing...if you added up all the ordinance, medical, transportation, salaries etc. that the military is getting it would barely come to a billion. I challenge you to give me ANY accounting of this figure or the differenced between it and the 80 billion or the 500....quite frankly YOU CAN'T because there isn't currently any accounting and there isn't one being insisted upon in the new funding bill that was just vetoed.

This is the reason that Kucinich voted against the bill, though everyone seems to be yelling and screaming how great the funding bill is and what a bastard Kucinich is to vote against it. Kucinich is the ONLY one who is actually looking out for the soldiers.

Peace and Inner Harmony,

RC
A 100% disabled American Veteran

[draft_mario_cuomo]

139. Clark would have voted for the IWR too

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

[FrenchieCat]

142. Actually, he would have voted for the Levin Amendment.

Do you know anything about that?

There is a current resurgence by certain Democrats who would like to believe that Wes Clark would have voted for the Blank Check Iraq Resolution that passed back in 2002. This may be occurring partially because so many of the Dem potential Candidates for 2008 did indeed vote for it, and so it would be useful for misery to have company.

One of the items used for their “proof” is that 2002 article that I previously discussed here
But there is one additional piece of evidence that has recently been pulled out again as proof of General Clark’s intent in terms of what he might have done had he been in congress.

It’s that ditty of an article written by Adam Nagourney based on an interview with General Clark on the day that Wes announced his candidacy in September of 2003. At the time, this article actually worked quite well in its aim (to squelch the General’s candidacy in the Democratic Primaries) due to the “headline” the New York Times so kindly decided on, and based on what was billed as a 90 minute “free rolling” interview by its author, Mr. Nagourney. Here’s a reprint of the original article http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm


Now on first glance the article “seems” damming! However, in closely reading this article, I had more questions about Mr. Nagourney's agenda than I did on Gen. Clark’s position on the Iraq Resolution......
continue here ---> http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/dissecting_nagourneys_nyt_arti.html

4th paragraph of the article you cite....
General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. "
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

Edwards and Hillary voted NAY on the Levin Amendment.
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/03/the_levin_amendment_the_resolu.html

See EPIC in this September 9, 2002 action alert pleading that we write to our congresspeople and beg them to support the only resolution that should be voted for; the Levin Amendment! http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102

[jenmarie]

154. this thread is a fine example

of the time, energy and information Clarkies bring forth when necessary. From what I've been reading here lately, other candidates supporters would have responded to the OP with cries of being attacked and smeared. In my opinion, the OP WAS a smear because the accusations posted have been dubunked time and again and shown as being cherry-picked and taken out of context. Yet, look at the response of Clarkies on this thread.

I suggest supporters of other candidates take a lesson -- when doubts are raised, questions asked, discrepencies between actions and words pointed out, post your rebuttal reasonably, and include documented sources proving otherwise, instead of merely going on the defensive, crying foul, attacking the poster and not addressing the issues.

Thank you to all the Clarkies on this thread and throughout DU for showing by example of how to defend your candidate (even though he's not yet a candidate).