Gen. Wesley Clark: Clinton's approach deters a rush to war

[DeepModem Mom]

Manchester (NH) Union Leader: Clinton's approach deters a rush to war
By GEN. WESLEY CLARK

In the back and forth on Iran, one critical issue is being missed: which candidate will create the strategic shift necessary to deal with the challenge of Iran and help end the fighting in the Middle East? I believe that candidate is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Last month, Senator Clinton voted for a non-binding resolution that urges the administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization in order to strengthen our diplomatic hand. And earlier this month, she joined Sen. Jim Webb in co-sponsoring a bill that would prohibit the use of funds for military action in Iran without specific authorization by Congress. Her strong support for congressional leverage and a strong national posture is what is needed to engage Iran.

I have supported Senator Clinton in both these votes. She is committed to ending the unilateralism of the Bush-Cheney administration. She is a strong supporter of direct nuclear talks with Iran because she believes that direct dialogue with our adversaries is a sign of strength and confidence, and a prerequisite to achieving America's goals and objectives.

That is why I am so dismayed and disappointed about political attacks that misrepresent the senator's positions and betray a fundamental misunderstanding about how to conduct effective diplomacy in the 21st century.

In supporting legislation that seeks to exert diplomatic pressure on Iran, Senator Clinton is standing up to the Bush administration, which has recklessly refused to talk to Iran about its clandestine nuclear program. In voting for a non-binding resolution that urges the administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, she is forcing the Bush administration to apply diplomatic pressure. This is the best way to cal attention to the problem, empower US diplomacy, and warn Iran that it must cooperate....

(Wesley K. Clark, the former supreme commander of NATO, is a fellow at the Burkle Center for International Relations at the University of California at Los Angeles and the author of "A Time to Lead: For Duty, Honor, and Country.")

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gen.+Wesley+Clark%3A+Clinton's+approach+deters+a+rush+to+war&articleId=0245c84d-6a83-4f93-af98-faa465770b4e

[geek tragedy]

1. Shorter Wes Clark:

Hillary Clinton is the candidate most likely to give me a cabinet post.

[skipos]

3. Yeah, anyone who supports HRC is only trying to get a cabinet post

including the HRC supporting DUers like saveelemer. :eyes:

HRC is my last choice for the 08 nomination, but guess what? I can admit that there are plenty of people who genuinely support her. Even DU faves like Clark.

[geek tragedy]

4. Does anyone seriously think Clark would be

praising Kyl-Lieberman if Hillary had voted against it or if he weren't in her camp?

Sorry, but his endorsement of Kyl-Lieberman stinks of selling out.

[Jai4WKC08]

23. It's not "selling out" to want a Democrat in the White House

Clinton is going to be our nominee, short of some extreme event that cannot be predicted or anticipated.

Now, whether you believe that or not, Clark has rather obviously decided she's the one he wants and/or expects to get the nomination. It only makes sense that he would offer her every ounce of support he can muster. Especially considering the audience of the VERY right-wing NH paper in which this op/ed appeared.

[Colobo]

5. Hehehehehehe...

[emilyg]

76. K&R

[calimary]

136. Well, I appreciate his perspective on this, or any national-security subject, and

we could do A LOT worse for Defense Secretary.

[Adelante]

205. Nah

Do you really think, if that was what he is looking for, he would need Clinton to get it? Whoever the nominee is will most likely consider Clark for a cabinet post. He's decided she is the best candidate. That's his judgment on the matter. He's got a right to endorse whoever he wants without being assigned ulterior motives with no evidence whatsoever to back up the claim.

[MethuenProgressive]

2. Wes Clark is still the smartest guy in the room.

:kick:

[Sparkly]

6. I'd still like to understand this better

In voting for a non-binding resolution that urges the administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, she is forcing the Bush administration to apply diplomatic pressure. This is the best way to cal attention to the problem, empower US diplomacy, and warn Iran that it must cooperate.

There is nothing in the non-binding Kyl-Lieberman bill that would give President Bush any authority whatsoever to go to war. Sen. Richard Durbin joined Senator Clinton in supporting this legislation and said, "if I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no." Sen. Carl Levin, who, like Senator Durbin, did not vote for the 2002 Iraq resolution, also joined Senator Clinton in supporting this bill.

I haven't heard this explained. How does the resolution force BushCo to apply diplomatic pressure? I understand the second vote, but I still don't understand the rationale for Kyl-Lieberman.

[BootinUp]

7. It increases pressure in a non-military way

There are plenty of signs both Bush and the Iranians were not engaging seriously in negotiations. This revised resolution is a statement from the Senate that Iran is a problem that must be dealt with, but rejected any suggestion of using military instruments to do so. It therefore makes it clear to the Iranian government that pressure (diplomatic and economic) will continue to be applied until they are willing to talk. It makes it clear to Bush that he does not have support to bomb them and he needs to rethink his approach to diplomacy.

[Donna Zen]

8. The state department has already made that call

It's not like we are helping diplomatic efforts by calling people names. And of course there is this little problem brought to us by Juan Cole:

(It is ironic that the US government is currently waging a campaign against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, but is turning southern Iraq over to groups like the Badr Corps, which was trained by . . . the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps.)

The Badr Corps is the proxy army of the Iranian's and we're helping them.

Pelosi said that she would NOT be bringing this resolution to the House. Thankfully someone in congress understands how stupid it is to vote for anything with the words Lieberman and Iran in the title.

[BootinUp]

14. So you don't think

a vote says anything, its just name calling. I'm surprised I have to explain this. If Bush or Iran were unclear on where the Senate stood on the question they now know more about it. No Donna, its not just name calling.

[Donna Zen]

58. Patronize much?

Bush, if you haven't noticed, doesn't care what the congress thinks unless they think what he thinks. Also, since we don't negotiate with terrorists, and since we are at war with "terror", stretching credibility to believe that this resolution which is not coupled with any on-going diplomacy will not produce a productive dialogue without pre-conditions.

A few days ago Wes Clark told a supporter that he was "uneasy" about this resolution. In the past he has said that when george bush used the phrase axis of evil, it was a diplomatic mistake. If the rhetoric was hot before this vote, it is about to boil over.

So how's that diplomatic mission going these days?

I was listening to Bolton on Charlie Rose the other night. Like many of those associated with the bush administration, Bolton declared that diplomatic efforts with Iran had failed. That is who we are dealing with. You try to stopiranwar with the neocons you've got; not the ones you wish you had.

[BootinUp]

66. Your position is a total contradiction

>Bush, if you haven't noticed, doesn't care what the congress thinks unless they think what he thinks.


Is that what you think the resolution was? What Bush wanted? Are you talking about the first version before it was castrated by the Democrats?

>I was listening to Bolton on Charlie Rose the other night. Like many of those associated with the bush administration, Bolton declared that diplomatic efforts with Iran had failed. That is who we are dealing with. You try to stopiranwar with the neocons you've got; not the ones you wish you had.

I didn't know anyone still took Bolton seriously. I thought it was clear that Rice and Gates were working to bring a little sanity to the Whitehouse.

>So how's that diplomatic mission going these days?

Not well, but thats no reason to let Iran think they have allies in the Senate while they are doing the things Clark and the resolution both stated they are doing. At the same time, do not join with the neocons on a discussion of using military instruments. I approve of that message.

[Donna Zen]

82. Of course I'm not talking about the first version

bush got half a loaf. However, that is not the point. What we got is an escalation of rhetoric that now designates with senate approval a group of over 100,000 people, some of whom anyone serious about stoppingiranwar, as terrorists. You think that this is a positive development in a situation that currently negates the use of diplomacy. I don't. I would prefer to talk to people before we bomb them.

Well, news illustrates just this how effective this resolution is:

You have to wonder whether the recent Iran-brokered pact between al-Hakim and Muqtada al-Sadr, plus the new ISCI / Sistani consensus on reining in the US military and ultimately pushing it out altogether are a sign of new Iranian and Iraqi Shiite strategizing about the future. It also seems to me that the constant US drumbeat against Iran may have alarmed the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, which is an Iranian client and which needs Iranian money and support to maintain its political position in Iraq. Iran is therefore working to position ISCI as anti-Occupation over the medium to long run, and as responsible and orderly (thus the pact with Sadr.)

Cool?

Juan Cole

You may get your defense of Senator Clinton's vote, but you won't get any peace. BTW, The Weekly Standard is with you on this.

[BootinUp]

83. What bombs?

Seriously, that is such an over-hyped bunch of nonsense.

This resolution clearly is pressing for diplomacy.

[Donna Zen]

84. Nada

The resolution does not press for diplomacy in any meaningful way, unless we've got a new kind that only uses sticks, sticks, and more sticks. There is no diplomacy. What we do have is terrorists. Did you forget that there is a war on terror? What did you think happens in a war?

Why bombs without talk? Because this resolution negates talk and thus, as stopiranwar points out, without it, we're headed toward bombs.

Do you really think that Joe LIeberman is on the side of peace?

[BootinUp]

85. Lieberman lost. n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

115. Right or wrong, the resolution does NOT negate talk

In fact, it may be just the sort of thing that's needed if/when we get a Democrat in the White House.

As long as Bush is there, it really doesn't matter what this resolution says. He is perfectly able and probably willing to bomb Iran with or without it.

[flpoljunkie]

117. Clark supporter told a supporter in LA that he was still "uneasy" about Kyl-Lieberman...

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13540

"General Clark, I'm fine thank you, but I really have to talk to you about the Kyl-Lieberman resolution--" (oops, where'd that big smile go?) " --it's been causing quite a stir on the blogs sir, and---"

"Yeah. I know..." he says softly resigned.

I rattle on, aware there are people shifting their weight behind me anxious to get their moment with Wes...

"Well there is this perception that you were one day "uneasy" and "uncomfortable" with it and the next day endorsing and supporting Hillary's vote for it-- some say you've done a 180, a flip-flop, after the HuffPo piece and---"

"I know I know. I'm still uneasy about it. I haven't changed my position..."

I excitedly interrupt as if someone told me I'd just won something fabulous. "You are?? You mean you still have 'unease'?"

" Yes--"

At an even higher pitch: "You do? So... you didn't lose your uneasiness for some reason, somehow and change your mind because if you did I was just going to ask you to please clarify if you could just what it was that---"

" No I haven't changed my mind ..."

[Sparkly]

177. I believe he supports her decision to vote for both resolutions.

I also believe he's uneasy with the first one.

And, I don't think he said anything until she voted for the second one, about Chimpy not attacking Iran. Then he said he "supports" her votes.

I don't see this as a big conflict.

[Adelante]

237. My impression

Although unhappy with Kyl-Lieberman on its own, combined with co-sponsorship of the Webb Amendment, he found he could support her on K-L. (Actually, I think he brokered the Webb co-sponsorship, but I can't prove it.)

[BootinUp]

17. Did the State Department

make the call on whether the Senate supported the use of military instruments at this time?

[The Wizard]

86. Liebermann is dangerous

Anything with his name attached should be summarily rejected. Josef Liebermann does not act in America's best interests.

[eridani]

73. Why is Iran a "problem"?

Because it's an independent country in an oil-rich region not yet under the US military bootheel? The point of declaring a part of another country's military to be "terrorists" is what, exactly? If you want to make really really broad generalizations, all military forces are terrorists of a sort, but that's pretty much beside the point.

[Auntie Bush]

Thanks Jim...you explained that better than CLARK. I needed that! nt

[burythehatchet]

200. Yes. That is precisely Joe LIeberman's hidden agenda, peace with Iran

You guys really ought to write for the Onion.

[jmp]

9. It's called pandering.

In order to win favor with the Israeli lobby, Hillary went on record naming the Iranian Republican Guard a terrorist organization. That means that Bush can attack them as part of the ongoing "war on terror" and Democrats won't be able to do a damn thing to stop him because ... he's just going after the "terrorists".

[Texas_Kat]

10. So what was Obama's excuse with s970 in March 2007?

Was that 'pandering' too?

[Clintonista2]

11. No, their excuse for that one is, "he wouldn't have shown up to vote for it anyways"

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

12. and yet that STILL beats the hell out of voting "yes" on it

[Clintonista2]

15. No difference

If he cared so much about this issue, he should have voted.

[AtomicKitten]

18. if you think there is NO DIFFERENCE between a yes vote on this and a nonvote

... :crazy:

The good news for you is that I don't believe for a minute you aren't bright enough to discern that difference. No siree Bob, I think slinging poo is the way you have chosen to try to obfuscate her "yes" vote.

Sling on. Hillary has distinguished herself with her "yes" vote. Again. And you can wrap that in Christmas paper with a big shiny bow and it still would stink.

[Clintonista2]

19. Uh huh. And Obama co-writing a bill identical to kyl-lieberman 6 months ago is totally different

Right? :eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

21. I realize it's tough rationalizing Hillary's vote for war and more war.

You mean the same bill that Hillary co-sponsored with 67 other people?
The same bill that never made it out of committee?

Facts:
Hillary voted yes on the IWR for war.
Hillary voted yes on Kyl-Lieberman for more war.

Actual "yes" votes on war matter, and your speculations on the intentions of others, etc. mean squat. A nonvote doesn't start a war. A "yes" vote does.

[Clintonista2]

24. Please stop deflecting. I've had just about enough deflecting from you for one day

Obama co-writing a bill identical to Kyl-Lieberman 6 months ago is totally different, right?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Clintonista2]

31. Once again, no response to my question

I wouldn't expect anything other than deflection from you. :rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

34. no matter how you frame it

Hillary STILL voted "yes" for war and more war.

Your circuitous argument has you spinning your wheels ...

[Clintonista2]

39. You should have been a starship captain. SHIELDS UP! DEFLECT! DEFLECT! DEFLECT!

NEVER ANSWER A DIRECT QUESTION! :rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

40. ... and Hillary STILL voted "yes" on the IWR and Kyl-Lieberman.

Your circuitous Q&R has been replayed ad infinitum, but you don't like the conclusion, that "your girl" has signed on to war and more war, so you keep spinning your wheels.

And, in the end, Hillary has distinguished herself as being the only candidate to vote "yes" on the IWR * AND * "yes" on Kyl-Lieberman. Brava!

Have a great day. :hi:

[Clintonista2]

94. You've pointed out the obvious several times

I acknowledged she voted yes several times. I asked you if you consider the fact that Obama co-wrote a bill Identical to kyl-lieberman 6 months ago was wrong, you deflected. Have a great day :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

118. Still can't digest her vote without trying to wipe the shame on others?

A bill that never made it out of committee means what exactly? Squat. Actual votes are counted. Not intentions nor speculation on intentions. However, projecting your lame rationalization of your candidate's vote isn't deflecting the truth of the crux of this matter and that is Hillary actually voted yes on it, just like the IWR, carelessly, selfishly with an eye on the next election rather than what's right and best for the country.

[Clintonista2]

127. No, I'm just wondering if you support your candidate enough

To accept that he helped write a bill identical to Kyl-Lieberman.

[AtomicKitten]

129. I accept that that bill never made it out of committee.

Now how does that compare exactly to Hillary's yes vote again?

Your candidate can't win on this issue. She sealed her fate with her yes vote on IWR by following it up with this yes vote.

[Clintonista2]

130. Does that make it ok, though?

For instance, let's say (purely for the sake of debate), that a presidential candidate wrote a bill that stated somethign like "We honour the actions of Adolph Hitler." Does the fact that it doesnt make it out of commitee make it ok?

[AtomicKitten]

131. comparatively, yes

Hillary can't win on this and as a Democrat that may be faced with her as the nominee I'm wondering why you keep pointing it out. In politics, when snafus like this occur, the best thing to do is let it pass. Think about that before you continue on this path that diminishes both candidates.

[Clintonista2]

135. Umm.. Hillary DID win on this

That is not in dispute, outside of the backwards realm of the Obama supporter.

[AtomicKitten]

140. The war-mongering GOP won on this issue, not America, and certainly not Hillary.

Forgive my brief lapse in thinking you might be something other than a sycophant.

[Clintonista2]

142. Keep praying for that war!

As much as a war with Iran would help you politically, it's not going to happen. Sorry to dissapoint.

[AtomicKitten]

145. I'll pray that your candidate doesn't continue to take us down that road.

You do realize, of course, that your rhetoric is beginning to sound exactly like the wingnuts.
But I digress ...

[Clintonista2]

146. Uh huh. I'll bookmark this topic

And in 6 months, when we're not in Iran, I'll send you a PM with a link.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

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

[ShortnFiery]

153. I'm getting The Rush Limbaugh Treatment further down ... they claim that I lie about my military

service as well as censor me. "How Dare You Not Bow Before Our Sainted General Clark. You can't be a veteran and not stand 'in awe' of this beautiful god fearing man. Why, he is speaking the truth as passed down from our creator. All hail Saint Wesley Clark! Death to those who disparage this GREAT MILITARY Man!" :crazy: :scared:

[AtomicKitten]

156. Holy shit! They pulled the "phony soldier" on you?

Jeez, I apologize for their ignorance and bad manners. That is so wrong on a number of levels. I thank you for your service.

I think some people have forgotten what democracy and free speech really mean. I really do. I see so much of the wingnut rhetoric here that I'm beginning to wonder if we should abandon this party sh*t and just let all the candidates duke it out and let the chips fall where they may. I think we'd have a very different America today, eh?

I always thought different opinions were cool. I just don't get this lockstep crap right anymore and I used to be an advocate. Go figure. I probably will vote for the Dem nominee anyway because of the Supreme Court thing, but I would never in a million years try to browbeat people into towing the line. Not now, not anymore. I felt queasy after the IWR, and the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was the last straw. All bets are off now.

[ShortnFiery]

159. Yes, they sure did. However, in their defense ...

I know how to bring out the worst in people who seemingly ADORE Authoritarian Figures such as retired Generals. :shrug: Yes, I did tweak a little too harsh. :blush:

As I did admit below, General (Ret.) Wesley Clark is "an honorable" man. However, since he's delved into politics and has openly endorsed HRC, his comments can not be interpreted as manna from heaven.

Wow, AK, if too many people choose to prop up authority figures to adore and censor those who DARE question their motives ... well, we're in a world of hurt. :(

Even when we disagree ... and we have often, it's always a pleasure to interact with you. Even when we argue, I feel that you value my person - that is a gift you have IMO, with the way you communicate. Best to you AK! :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

163. I'm hoping the light will go on and people will realize -

what an amazing opportunity we have now to move America in a new direction.

Here's hoping for a better tomorrow. Cheers!

[BootinUp]

170. another false charge AK?

You would be smart to question lil ShortnFirey from the obnoxious unfounded claims SF throws around. Nobody impuned SF for taking an anti Iraq war stance so the comparison to Limbaugh is completely off base.

[AtomicKitten]

172. Well, that would mean I had made one before and I haven't.

There are some things in life that are just plain wrong. I taught my kids that. When they crossed the line I told them that I would listen to their explanation but that there was nothing they could say that would make what they did okay. With that understanding, we moved forward.

Every person that has served this country has a damn well-deserved right to to speak their mind and to be respected as a human being AT THE VERY LEAST and honored for their service.

I don't care what S&F said. I really don't. My father taught me this and I remember this lesson so clearly. The line was crossed. How dare anyone impugn her service to this country? There is no excuse for that. I don't give a goddamn what she said. Argue with her points and stop making it personal. What the hell is the matter with people around here?

At some point we have got to differentiate ourselves, at the very least in our behavior, from the freakin' wingnuts.

[BootinUp]

174. Nobody did, a question is not to impugn

SF is an anonymous poster who could make any claim one wishes to make. I don't attack her for her service assuming she is being truthful that is the line that is not to be crossed. The line you propose is a ridiculous construction on the other hand.

[ShortnFiery]

178. Hello? Can I get into the conversation? I'm expressing an opinion. If that opinion

is about a man that you admire, it does not give you the right to take the argument *personal.*

Clark is a human being and others can NOT be faulted to believe that he's a poltico who is spinning for HRC ... defending the indefensible.

That's opinion. Only a person who puts their candidate "on the highest pedestal" can't handle criticism of the HUMAN FRAILTY kind. :shrug:

Opinions are OK about other candidates. I never disrespected YOUR person. You need to stop taking this personal and attacking ME, the poster.

[BootinUp]

183. Sure

Can you tell me how this statement you made: "Yes, you still have *stars* in your eyes." and all the innuendo that my opinion is soley based on Clark being perfect is not a disrespectful attack on my person?

[ShortnFiery]

184. I am suggesting that his authority may have caused you to believe him "infallible" and your behavior

incessant defense of Clark is HELPING to support this thesis. :shrug:

[BootinUp]

185. my incessant defense is somewhat balanced by your incessant

attack no?

I challenge you to quote me where I suggested Clark was infallible. That is the strawman you are using to disrespect me.

[ShortnFiery]

186. Bingo! That's exactly my point. If you REALLY could accept that Clark might harbor HUMAN ulterior

motives, you'd be happy to part company with: We disagree. :shrug:

But you can't admit that he COULD be acting in a politically expedient way - otherwise you wouldn't continue to badger me to the point of rudeness. :(

[BootinUp]

188. I tell you what

Instead of agreeing that you have read me accurately and know what I think, I will just let you have the last word, hows that for parting company with a big we disagree.

[AtomicKitten]

180. keep telling yourself that

It apparently beats behaving decently on these boards. I'm getting pretty tired of your in-defense-of-Hillary jack-booted routine; I believe you are better than that.

There is absolutely no reason why people have to get so goddamn personal around here. It is the antithesis of open debate, and damn if this thread didn't prove out that theory tonight.

[BootinUp]

187. Why should I "tell" myself it, you think I don't believe it?

I am pretty tired of your antics as well. As for getting personal, at least you said "people" instead of pointing it only at me. I agree things shouldn't be argues that way. That doesn't mean I haven't slipped from time to time. I think it has a little to do with human nature.

[ShortnFiery]

189. Well, I can admit in all honesty that this has been a learning experience for me ... I hope also for

yourself. You interpret my resentment of Clark's "assumed" authority and infallibility ... all things that are baggage with an retired general gone politico, with a personal attack against you. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Having lived my entire life in "authoritarian atmospheres" of military bases and, even now, in an community made up of mostly AD and retired officers, I hold little respect for ASSUMED authority.

I don't like all the "passes" Clark scores just because he's a retired General. However, you won't admit that you IMO, FREELY GRANT him those PASSES.

We disagree. Have a good evening. :hi:

[BootinUp]

191. You have no intention of learning

only of sliming anything connected to Clark, you use the tactic of suggesting his supporters are so in awe of him they unable to rationally determine when to agree and disagree with him, and then denying that it was a personal attack.

[ShortnFiery]

196. I'm sorry that you were caught up in this AK.

As I've mentioned in the past, my history with Military Intelligence as well as my work as an addiction counselor to a battalion of infantry troops has keyed me into specific ways that I can bring out the absolute worst in people who tend to admire authority figures.

I'm not above any of this though. In my youth, I adored the Special Forces and even wore my Cammie Jammies to see the first airing of "The Wild Geese." Now I'm really dating myself. :blush: I even had the distinct opportunity to mix with various types of people to include meeting Bo Gritz. However, I came down from that power trip during my early twenties and have not ever looked back.

I had to resign my Regular Army Commission because a case of disillusion with the politics of The Officer Corps and a bad case of a duodenal ulcer demanded that I leave such an austere atmosphere. Yes, I was truly blessed to leave military service without revealing my innate dislike for unchecked/unbridled authority. The horrible experiences I endured as one of the first women through Airborne School as well as one of the first Female Officers in the recently integrated Army has left notable scars on my psyche. No, it's not all pretty and I have my own personal demons whom I must wrestle with on a regular basis.

On a light note though AK, I'll relate the great fun I used to have in the early days of our active duty Army/Marine Corps marriage. I'd love to throw the following out when my husband was bonding with his fellow jarheads: "You know hon, it's really The Army who's IN CHARGE? All the other services, to include Your beloved Corps, are merely The Army's helpers." :wow:

Then I'd just sit back and watch the show as they'd spin out. :rofl: But that was true RIBBING and fun inter-service rivalry - done for amusement.

Truth is, I love the military. My father, brother and myself all served in the active duty Army. Although I had challenging times as a young officer in the 1980s, I regret none of it.

However, I will always be on my guard to NOT, by default, unduly HONOR authority figures who have turned political for one reason or the other. Once retired from active duty, many Generals are valuable advisers to numerous contracting companies here around the beltway, i.e., gray beards. There are a few General Officers whom I admire but most are like any other high ranking person - POLITICAL.

Again, I'm sorry that I pulled you into this silly spat AK. I hope you have a good day. :hi:

[Texas_Kat]

193. Oh I know exactly who she claims to be

She may be a soldier (benefit of the doubt) ... but spewing RW talking points doesn't earn anyone's respect.

See you after Jan 3.

[Name removed]

195. Deleted message

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

[BootinUp]

165. what obnoxious hyperbole

Many times in the past someone like you has claimed Clark supporters are awed by the stars of a General and of course there is no really good reason to support him or listen to his advice.

The thing is the last time I heard much of those kind of attacks against Clark supporters was back 4 years ago. You would think that some of the work he has done since then in helping Democrats win the house in '06 and being on the committee of vote vets, speaking out against Bush's policies, Liebermans Iran rants etc, soliciting supporting for stopiranwar.com would be enough so you could at least acknowledge we don't back an empty suit with 4 stars.

Clark is one of the hardest working people supporting Democrats and a saner foreign policy for this country, I wonder what more he would have to do to have you acknowledge it?

So he decided Hillary was the right person for him to support, you disagree, you charge it is for personal political gain. I think we need someone in the Administration with Clarks knowledge and record of accomplishment. So I sure do hope Hillary listens to his advice and that he has some impact on her decisions. Just like Zinni, Clark spoke out in 2002 warning against unilateral action in Iraq, and that is the reason you were treated a little rough below, because you won't even acknowledge that apparently. You read from some other "book on Clark" than the rest of us and the a whole lot of other Democrats thats for sure.

You attack Clark, McGovern, and anyone else that supports Hillary, no matter their creds or their record. As I said below it is you who are the political animal that spins for Hillary, its just that the product of your spin is negative unreasonable crap against anyone who backs her.

[ShortnFiery]

169. Oh, come on, cease with the self-righteous indignation. Clark is only human.

:eyes:

[BootinUp]

171. Once again, you fall back on I am just awed by Clark.

Other than to disrespect anyone who disagrees with you about Hillary do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion?

[ShortnFiery]

173. No, IMO, you can't give up ... come on, admit that Clark is a mere mortal?

:shrug: No, you don't even realize how much you have to believe in his perfection. :(

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

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

[ShortnFiery]

181. "You are so full of shit." Nice comeback? What's worse is that you don't even realize

that you are seriously intolerant to ANY criticism of the man.

It reminds me of how the right wing "went ballistic" over MoveOn.org questioning the motive of General Petraeus. IMO, there's a number of parallels here.

I suggest that we both take a break and "look within?" ... I'll admit to my personal prejudices of an innate dislike of politicos who may have ulterior motives ... especially when those people are "authority figures" such as ex-general officers .... will you look within?

[Jai4WKC08]

208. LOL -- you don't "criticize"

You just slime.

There's not one argument from you about the specifics of Clark's opinions, words, or behavior. Only wildly unfounded assertions that he's just a smooth talking politico with no integrity.

And not one argument from you about what Jim has said here, only repeated bullshit that he (and all of us) are too smitten by Clark's rank to think rationally.

[Clintonista2]

155. Don't try to deny it...

Oh wait, you dont.

[BootinUp]

20. And the way have chosen to obfiscate it

is to claim it is a ramp to war, I am still waiting to hear even a peep from Republicans that resembles a tom tom let alone a war drum as the result of this resolution. How long till the left admits they are using this for politics?

[AtomicKitten]

22. I'm sorry you don't have a TV.

Because if you did you'd have heard the drumbeat to war on Iran.

[BootinUp]

25. I do, I had one in 2002 as well

Are you kidding me?

[AtomicKitten]

29. did you miss the drum beat to war?

[BootinUp]

32. I do hear one

its in morse code it goes like this

"HILLARY IS A WAR MONGER" stop

"THIS MESSAGE IS BROUGHT TO YOU" stop

"BY HER PRIMARY OPPONENTS" stop

[AtomicKitten]

35. the proof is in the pudding

And you can try to stage and dress those votes til the cows come home, and in the end she still voted for war and more war.

[BootinUp]

36. We are as close to dropping

pudding on Iran as we are bombs at this point. The resolution didn't mention either I note.

[AtomicKitten]

38. We cannot afford to hope her "yes" votes as precursors to war turn out okay ...

[BootinUp]

42. but what about the precursors to pudding wars?

Are you not concerned about those?

[AtomicKitten]

45. I'm lactose and war-intolerant.

But I would definitely support substituting spatulas, melon-ballers, and garlic presses for weapons.

[Clintonista2]

26. The bill was passed what, a month ago? Where are the republicans using this bill as justification

To invade Iran? Links, quotes, examples? Thanks in advance.

[AtomicKitten]

30. some people learned the first time the dog bit them

do the math

[Clintonista2]

33. So they aren't "beating the war drums to Iran" as you said above?

Since they've learned to be quiet about it? Either you contradicted yourself above, or you're wrong about the bill being used as justification to go into Iran. My advice to you, READ the bill, don't just rehash what you hear.

[AtomicKitten]

37. Jimmy Carter has it exactly right.

But then again he's not a sycophant.

[Evergreen Emerald]

46. how does that work?

He is silent on this (as he defines it) such an important vote that it gives the president the power to go to war with Iran-doesn't contest it--remains mute...and then doesn't even bother to show up for it. Complains about it AFTER?

That is some strong leadership alright.

I often wondered about the right--that they would support Bush as he ate babies...are you just as fervent?

[AtomicKitten]

51. So, you want to talk about leadership?

Not much was made of this, but Hillary waited to the last minute for Obama to cast his vote ("no" on funding the war) before she cast hers. Both Dodd and Biden chastised her for this in a debate. That's leadership? She was following Obama's lead.

And, yes, regardless of how you wish to frame Obama's nonvote on Kyl-Lieberman (the vote was not scheduled to be brought to a vote that day and he was campaigning out of state - take it or leave it), HILLARY STILL VOTED YES ON THAT AND ON THE IWR! She's our "yeah war" candidate this election. It's called comparative analysis. Look into it.

I would muster that fervor you are accusing me of with Gore. With Obama, I'm just telling it like it is, much to your chagrin.

[BootinUp]

56. The clear implication of this trip down memory lane

is that she was concerned Obama would make a show vote, a worthless one at that, to attack her in the primary. It looks like she was right to be concerned about that, since Obama will even attack her when he doesn't vote.

[AtomicKitten]

62. Hillary better stick to other issues because this one isn't hers.

She and you cannot win on this issue. Spin it, twist it, fling poo, whatever. Doesn't matter. Because in the end, Hillary's "yes" vote was counted. And you can spin the implications of that vote all you want, but viewed in the context of recent past history as Jimmy Carter eloquently pointed out, it is glaringly apparent what that vote meant and why it should never have been brought to a vote in the first place. It's a dangerous game for Hillary to play in her quest for the White House.

[Evergreen Emerald]

60. but, you are not telling it like it is

you are giving him a pass and allowing him to twist the issue for political gain.

If this was so important why didn't he speak about it? Where was his leadership? He only mentions it when it may help him politically? Is he using the troops for political gain? If it is the vote for war--why was he silent?

And your argument is that Clinton did not vote first? Who voted first? Who submitted their healthcare plan first? This is not kindergarten.

[AtomicKitten]

64. I'm pointing out your faux outrage due to your faulty critical analysis.

No worries, you can always shift the goal posts to keep a disagreement alive, just as you have done, coming at Obama on leadership and then being shocked, shocked I tell you, that there is a valid counterpoint that renders that accusation impotent.

[Evergreen Emerald]

65. why don't you answer my questions? All you are doing is being snarky

Tell me why it is ok that he
1. lied about knowing there was a vote (Biden said they all knew)
2. did not bother to vote
3. kept silent about the importance of the vote
4. only later, in an attempt to gain politically, does he disagree with the amendment
5. uses a vote against Clinton suggesting that it is a vote for war.
6. had created a bill nearly identical previously.

[AtomicKitten]

70. No, I'm putting this debate into proper perspective.

Reid said (the Congressional record has been posted a gazillion times here) the vote was off the table, so Obama was campaigning out of state. When he heard Reid was, in fact, bringing the measure to a vote, he released a statement (also posted here a gazillion times already) stating his opposition to the bill.

Speaking of snarky, you have framed this in that "special" way indigenous to HRC supporters by calling Obama a liar, saying he didn't "bother" to vote, and saying he was silent when he was not. What you are doing is the exact opposite of critical analysis.

And again, in the final analysis, Hillary voted "yes" on this POS bill. Try as you might, you can't erase that, mitigate it, or distract people from the truth, although I have every expectation you and others will continue to spin your wheels on this rather than focusing on something positive that your candidate has to offer. Well, then again, maybe I see your strategy after all ...

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Texas_Kat]

78. What about s970 again?

The language was the same as K/L.... why was it a good idea in March 2007 but not now?

Did Obama forget he cosponsored it? Oh, yeah, he bobbed and weaved by saying the 'preliminary discussion' was what he disagreed with... yeah, does he think we're all stupid?

"Actionable items' -- not the preceding discussion is what counts.... I think you don't have an answer -- cos the one Obama's press guy gave was incomprehensible and incoherent ....

[calteacherguy]

141. So, Durbin's a "yeah war," senator, too? nt

[AtomicKitten]

144. Durbin voted "no" on the IWR.

It was Hillary that punctuated her "yes" vote on the IWR with a "yes" vote on Kyl-Lieberman. And that most certainly does make her our "yeah war" candidate out of the current field with those votes.

[incapsulated]

168. But you are saying one is an extension of the other

But only for Hillary.

That is not logical.

THIS amendment is either "pro-war" or it isn't.

If it is, then Durbin is pro-war, which doesn't really compute, does it?

[AtomicKitten]

176. No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

First of all, I don't fall into the trap of giving a sh*t what other pundits and politicians have to say on issues during elections. Some people act as if the Bible Part II has just issued for crissakes when people who I consider extraneous to the process speak.

I have made no comment about Wes Clark at all in this thread because it's beside the point. I don't agree with him and anybody else that thinks this is fine.

Here are some facts I used in sculpting my view of this issue. Shout out if anything speaks to you:

* The IWR was a blank check for war in that Congress abdicated their war-declaring responsibility to Junior. The administration has also dipped back into the IWR as rationale for many of their misadventures since then and nobody has bothered to correct him.

* The Kyl-Lieberman amendment is reminiscent of the Iraq Liberation Act during the 1990s that was most definitely a precursor for war. It was a step, a foot in the door. Kyl-Lieberman pegs the Iran military as terrorists. It doesn't take a genius to do the math on what's up with this bill. Enough with signing on to GOP war schemes.

This is what I think. I hope that helps.

[BootinUp]

179. "The administration has dipped back into ... IWR....and nobody has

bothered to correct him."

I guess you missed the part where Hillary was the first to go to the Senate floor earlier this year and do exactly that with regard to using the IWR as an authorization to attack Iran. And of course she has signed on to the Webb Amendment to put it into law.

Hope that helps.

[AtomicKitten]

182. but damn if she didn't pony up those "yeah war" votes to woo the GOP base

The problem is she's a goddamn Democrat, or so they say.

[calteacherguy]

190. But Durbin and others think it will give us more diplomatic leverage.

If Iran sees that the U.S. Congress is seriously concerned about the terrorist activities of the IRG, might that help prevent war? If Iran thinks that the Congress isn't concerned, then they might not think that it matters what they do.

Preventing war can be a complicated business, as Durbin and others understand.

[AtomicKitten]

215. And the best way to promote diplomacy is to peg the other party a terrorist?

I don't think so.

[Donna Zen]

43. Two bad bills

don't make a good one. I disagree with Obama's bill too.

[calteacherguy]

68. Why do you think Durbin and Levin voted for it? Same reason?

I don't agree with you, I'm just wondering why you think they voted for it as well.

[incapsulated]

211. Because they are "wooinig the GOP"?

See, it's all evil when it come to Hillary's motivations but no one has a clue why Durbin or Levin signed on and carefully avoid going there.

It's rubbish. I disagreed with this vote but give me a break. The worst it was was Hillary posturing as a tough ass for the campaign or getting Florida votes, it give no one any power to do anything. She will also vote for Webb, so I guess that means she is a pro-peace candidate on that day, right? Because it's all black and white.

[AtomicKitten]

214. Durbin and Levin aren't running for president.

I don't care how they vote or what they say. I care what the candidates do and say.

Both Jimmy Carter and Jim Webb think that Kyl-Liebreman is a dangerous game to play, so there is obviously some discord on this issue. (link to Webb's disgust with Kyl-Lieberman in my sig line)

Maybe it is your thinking that is too black and white?

[robinlynne]

28. I don't understand it either. Never in history has any national army been

labeled terrorist before. How can this lead to negotiation?

[Jai4WKC08]

41. Well, technnically, K/L doesn't label the Iranian national army as terrorist

It labels their Revolutionary Guard as terrorist. And from what I hear from people who should know (and NOT just Republicans who want to go to war with Iran), that's exactly what it is. They are deployed out of country to back up terrorist groups like Hizbollah, and are claimed to be operating in Iraq.

Butcha know, Iran itself has been designated a "state sponsor of terrorism" for a very long time, so I don't really see much difference in whether we call its Army, or some portion of its Army, terrorist too.

[Donna Zen]

48. 80 members of the Iranian parliament

are members of the IRG. Furthermore, many of those members have sided with the Iranian moderates. There are over 100,000 members of this organization, which I don't doubt includes some very bad actors: however, no large organization is monolithic. Senator Clinton, among others, has said that we don't know how power is structured in Iran. Thus, this "name calling" may have cut off some of the very people we will need if we are serious about finding a diplomatic solution.

[Jai4WKC08]

61. The IRG is military unit, not a knitting circle

Or even a political party. Its members do as they are commanded, regardless of whether they are personally "moderate" or not.

[Donna Zen]

75. The IRG is indeed a military organization

Organizations are made up of individuals, and some of those individuals hold political office. The organization also includes individuals who control various businesses worth about 12 billion dollars. Now particular individuals with the IRG are named by the state dept. and sanctioned along with the guard and the entire Iranian state.

Anyone seriously thinking about productive diplomacy with Iran will run into these players. Unfortunately the only thing coming from the US is labeling people terrorists. I thought that talking to people before you bombed them was a good strategy. Guess not.

[Cameron27]

53. I don't think Kyl-Lieberman goes anywhere near

voting for war with Iran in the way the IWR did for Iraq, and you're right about Iran being designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. I don't think that Obama for instance, thought the bill was either crucial, or a blank check for war, or else his position on s970 would have been different, and when voting resumed on Kyl-Lieberman he would have turned his jet around in NH, and dashed back to DC to vote it down...or at least have made a vigorous effort to try.

Personally, I think the bill and the vote were an unnecessary distraction, and should have been voted down for that reason.

/spelling

[Donna Zen]

79. The Iranian National Army is a different branch

The issue is labeling a large force as terrorists. How exactly does that support a change in regional policy, one that promotes dialogue? Name calling is the new diplo-speak. Gotcha.

[Tellurian]

55. The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment was necessary ..

to be in compliance with the original "Iran Non-Proliferation Act" which Obama voted "Y" to.

There needed to be additional legislation to follow within 180 days of passage of the Original ACT.

Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3608308

[acmavm]

13. Wesley, Wesley, Wesley. I am just so damn disappointed in you. I really

expected better.

[Clintonista2]

16. Why? Because he doesn't conform to your preconcieved notion?

Do us all a favor- Go and READ the bill. It has to do with sanctions, not military action.

[high density]

50. The problem is: Bush can't read

And he will take this vote and mangle it any way to support his agenda. Just like he did in regards to Iraq.

[Clintonista2]

95. When can we expect that to happen?

I'm curious, because the bill was passed, what, a month ago? At that time we had DU'ers saying "We're going to bomb Iran ANY MINUTE now because of this bill." Can you point to *just one* example of a Republican pointing to this bill as justification to go into Iran? If we're going into Iran, we're not going because of this bill.

[acmavm]

154. I thought he was more honest and upright than to support corporatist

Hillary and here half-assed plans that really change nothing.

[high density]

49. I feel the same way

I loved him until the Clinton BS started... Now he's sounding just like another fucking politician!

[Imagevision]

44. Hillary or Obama, either way Clark may be a good Sec. of defense...?

[Evergreen Emerald]

47. I trust Clark

as did everyone on DU about a month ago.

[BootinUp]

52. Maybe you should

join his CCN blog site, on second thought, the same crap is being posted there. :eyes:

[Evergreen Emerald]

57. He has been exactly right regarding the Iraq debacle. He is a strong, intelligent

democrat. Who would have made a great president. I trust him and I have trusted his instincts over the years.

[BootinUp]

59. Oops, you misunderstood me, or I was very unclear

I also trust Clark, what I was saying is that many Clarkies have questioned his judgement since the Kyl-Lieberman vote and his continued support of Hillary. I am not one of them.

[Evergreen Emerald]

63. sorry--fixed it.

[calteacherguy]

69. Trust him to what? Say what's politically popular around here?

Nope. That's not the way Clark operates.

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

[Evergreen Emerald]

71. I trust him to tell us what he truly believes

whether it is popular or not.

[Nimrod2005]

54. You are fucking wrong, way wrong General...Oh man, what a disappoitment...nt

[calteacherguy]

67. Excellent article. Thanks for posting! nt

[rucky]

74. Whenever I begin a diplomatic endeavor, I like to start by calling

my adversary a terrorist. It's really the only peaceful way to go about things.

[calteacherguy]

99. The IRG is not Iran, and Iran is not the IRG.

The are a variety of factions in Iran. The IRG is the terrorist faction.

[killbotfactory]

77. We called the military of Iran terrorists.

And by such flimsy standards, the same could apply to our own military. Meanwhile we have a president waging a "war on terror" and who has made it known he wants to find any way possible to attack Iran.

How is this helping diplomacy?

[Cha]

123. It's not...it's just about

a bunch of pretending and enabling bushit ..big business as usual.

[ShortnFiery]

80. It's General (RETIRED) Wesley Clark. He's just another civilian now.

:shrug:

[BootinUp]

81. Its ShortnFiery

just another anonymous internet poster who has a problem showing any respect to Generals retired or not.

[ShortnFiery]

88. Oh, I do show respect to those who earn it - Clark doesn't qualify.

As a former Army Officer, I only have to respect the rank - the person is to be judged for their character. BTW I respect Gen(Ret) Anthony Zinni more than words can say.

But Clark, IMO, has always been a SMOOTH talker, i.e., the quintessential politician - duplicitous beyond belief. Too bad that far too many people pretend that Clark still has his stars. :eyes:

[BootinUp]

89. If your charge had any merit

it might be worth my time to dispute.

[ShortnFiery]

90. Yes, you still have *stars* in your eyes. Perhaps a career in the military

or being the spouse of one who has devoted their time to a military career, makes those of us who live in Military Communities truly see that both Generals and Retired Generals are but mere mortals. ;)

[BootinUp]

91. Another charge that amounts to zip. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

92. In your opinion. IMO, Generals and Retired Generals are not God Almighty.

Gee, I swear some of you folks really want to believe in a hollywood version of a military hero.

The true heroes you'll never see - because they do not become involved with politics or their medals were awarded to them posthumously. :(

[BootinUp]

96. No its your opinion, as you don't know me, or anything about Clark

either apparently.

One more time, your charges are baseless and without merit.

[ShortnFiery]

98. In your opinion. Gee, we can do this all night. You must really adore him?

:rofl:

[BootinUp]

100. Are you old enough

to be posting on this forum? Seriously?

[ShortnFiery]

104. Yes, I do believe that I am. If you want the full meshing of military & politics, General Musarraf

is your man! Get it? Save for Eisenhower (one of a kind) idolizing former military men is not a good idea for the health of our democratic republic. :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

210. Your statement is absurd & posting that photo of General Musarraf is your propaganda

that should make you ashamed of yourself as you express yourself differently in reference to Wes Clark till his endorsement of our last lawfully elected Democratic President's partner, Hillary Clinton.

In fact, you considered Clark good enough to be on a ticket prior to now, thereby making your current thesis for disapproval of "Meshing" the military and politics not the real reason for your Clark Ire.

ShortnFiery (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-03-07 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
44. Gore/Clark! What a wonderful gift to our country :-)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3294950#3298507

ShortnFiery (1000+ posts) Mon Mar-05-07 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Same here!
IMO, Obama is The Genuine Article! When he speaks, I feel a sense of "true hope" for America's future.

If he achieves the Democratic Nomination, I hope Obama asks Clark to be his running mate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3147478&mesg_id=3147521

ShortnFiery (1000+ posts) Sat Mar-03-07 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. General Clark is different than Authoritarian Republicans and Centrist Democrats running
for the The Presidency.

In a family scheme, Republicans want to be "our daddy" who will protect us as *all* costs, i.e., McCain, Romney and Guliani. Our illustrious Centrist Democrats are so busy triangulating, they seem to have a split personality. One minute they try to be mocking the liberals while the next, they are sassing off to our present authoritarian "dimson daddy."

It seems like General Clark is attempting to guide us like a mature and wise "OLDER brother."

His presence is comforting, in that, he wants Americans to have their Freedoms, but also "think matters through" in order to make the thoughtful and correct decisions within the World Community.

He's awesome! I'd be honored to vote for this man of integrity and good character to be our next President of the United States.

IMHO, General Clark is The Genuine Article.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3141971&mesg_id=3143004

In other words, your true distates is with Hillary...and Clark just happens to be a casualty based on his endorsement of her.

However, I would think that reasonable intellectually honest DUers could perhap more wisely choose t disagree with his choice without indicting him in total.....as your propaganda suggests!

SO just because you disagree with Clark's earnest belief that Hillary Clinton is the best prepared at the executive level and would come out the gate knowing what needs to be done and how to do it (which happens to be the reason that many Dem voters are giving her the green light; they don't want incompetence in the WH), as opposed to the candidates running who have no executive or Foreign or national security experience and who would be making rooky mistakes "learning on the job" at a time of dire need for competency and political savy, shouldn't mean that Clark in your eyes has now made you see a rule that simply states.......If one has served in the military, one need not apply for the highest office in the land.

Remember that 12 Presidents were Generals; Eisenhower included.

[ShortnFiery]

217. No, I still think Clark would not be "a bad" running mate, but he is still a political beastie.

Plus the rationale above is so totally absurd, the good General Clark is the ONE who should be ashamed.

OMG, I have changed my mind because General Clark is shamelessly pandering for HRC. Hey! That happens. I was not impressed with him at the onset, but you Clarkies had me half-sold that he was "the real deal."

After a re-evaluation, I think that my ORIGINAL perception of a self-serving Politico, was more spot on.

You see, people's evaluations develop especially with this POISON bill known as Kyle-Lieberman, I'm reevaluating a number of representatives who I initially thought were "the real deal" but are now seemingly GUTLESS or CORRUPT. :shrug:

[Adelante]

220. Ahhhhh

:loveya:

[ShortnFiery]

223. So true, we are not permitted to re-evaluate the motives of Clark, even with the inane prose above.

:eyes:

[Cameron27]

222. Great post!

:toast:

[ShortnFiery]

225. I never denied that he would still be an "ok" VP. Or do you defend his inane arguement above? n/t

[Cameron27]

227. You're smearing a respected general who has

a long record of supporting progressive ideals, who's support of vote vets has given that organization a real voice of opposition to the neocons, someone who's spent a significant part of his time trying to get Democrats elected in 06, and who has been and still is the strongest voice for diplomacy with Iran.

You're smearing him because he chose to endorse Hillary Clinton, and because he's made a statement that you don't like about her vote on Kyl-Lieberman. You're entitled to your opinions, and so am I. My opinion is that your brain is so filled with hate for Hillary Clinton, that you'll slime anyone, anywhere in an effort to attack her.

[ShortnFiery]

228. Oh stop wrapping Clark in the flag and spewing jingoistic nonsense. His prose above STINKS!

What is up with you Clarkies? You go abso-fucking-ballistic if we don't get all "reverent" just because this man is a former general.

Hey, No because with this inane "defense of the indefensible" above, I truly QUESTION that the good General deserves all that much respect.

Please, don't let me stop you as you continue TRY to "defend the indefensible" DEFENSE of The Good General you so greatly admire? :shrug:

[Cameron27]

231. I'll defend Clark's record from your baseless smears

whenever I think it's necessary. I don't think Clinton should have voted yes on Kyl-Lieberman, and I can disagree with Wes Clark without sliming his record. I'm done with your hate and your venom. Post whatever the hell you want.

[ShortnFiery]

232. It's not SMEARS, but merely a person's opinion who does not want us to continue to

adore "all things authoritarian."

I love the military, however, I have a problem when General and Retired General Officers begin to mix it up with politics. Especially, in this "fear-mongering age."

We are a heart-beat away from totalitarian rule and I see all these folks, fellow democrats, IMO, "getting all the warm fuzzies" for an attractive and intelligent former officer. YES. A man who I , at one time considered genuine.

If anything will convince you that General (Ret.) Clark is spinning for HRC, just read through his comments above? I can't believe that your are willing to defend that BUNK?!?

Again, it's my OPINION, and until we lock people up for disrespecting authority figures, my comments stand, as is. :shrug:

Please understand that this goes WAY BEYOND my dislike for HRC. I've lived under martial law in Singapore for six weeks. I see the signs here and I'm taken aback ... well, I'm very concerned. :(

[ShortnFiery]

230. I have to admit that those of you who continue to refer to him as General instead of Retired General

Clark are seriously beginning to creep me out.

Even though you can do that (CALL a retired regular officer by their rank)- it's IMO seriously disturbing precisely because Wesley Clark is in the POLITICAL arena now.

Yes, I'm creeped out because we are inching toward love of "authoritarian rule" JUST to keep us safe, as well as there never will be another General Eisenhower since The Military Industrial Complex now OWNS OUR PENTAGON. :scared:

[ShortnFiery]

226. I'll admit that, for a time, you got me sold on him - but I've delved deeper.

The justification above is that of a self-serving politico.

I deeply regret my past avid promotion of Clark.

The foregoing I can not deny.

Even I can get "caught up" with a smooth talking politco but his narrative above is BUNK. :(

Guilty as Charged. :blush:

[CarolNYC]

106. You know....

It is possible to support Clark and/or respect what he says for other reasons than the fact that he was once a 4 star General. There was a period of time, although perhaps a short one, when you respected him and what he said and had very complimentary things to say about him. Was that because there were "stars" in your eyes at the time or was it someone else using your username here or what?

Disagree with him all you want. Bash him if you must. But this whole bit about people only respecting or supporting him because they are "star struck" or looking for some kind of military hero is total bullshit and you should know that. For me, the hardest thing I had to get past before I could support him was the fact that he'd been in the military at all.

[ShortnFiery]

109. I was open to him for a very short time. But now, I believe my original "take" stands true.

Especially now that he's shilling for HRC, I see his desire for payback as the one true motive.

No, my spine tingles when people get seemingly jingoistically Ga-Ga over a retired general.

No, I think many of you think retired generals can just "glide across the water." :eyes:

That's just SAD. :(

p.s. I resent that you accuse me of having different personas. I'm the SAME person and you know it. Don't you?

[CarolNYC]

111. Well...you know very little about a lot of things apparently...

As do I.

Have a good life, OK?

[ShortnFiery]

112. Back at ya!

Have a good evening. :hi: :-)

[Texas_Kat]

93. Why.... you sound like a certain RW entertainer....

interesting

[ShortnFiery]

97. Oh gee, anybody who doesn't genuflect for "the good general" is a right winger. Got it.

:eyes:

[Texas_Kat]

102. Well, he's proven his worth.... still waiting from some indication

that your opinion is worth more than any run-of-the-mill sidewalk screamer.

We're all quite aware that Clark puts his pants on one leg at a time.... like most humans. But thanks for characterizing those of us who think he's done good deeds for the Democratic party as 'mindless'.

[ShortnFiery]

105. Please, what great humanitarian action is Clark know for? He's bright, attractive & a former General

BFD, they're excellent "gray beard" advisers but I don't hang off of every word they say. This little stunt by General (Ret) Clark is transparent in it's anticipated returns (VP?). :puke: :(

[incapsulated]

107. Oh, please

Like he stopped working for Kerry after Edwards got VP?

You don't know Clark if you think he is some scheming, political hack.

[ShortnFiery]

108. Oh yeah. I'm sorry that our opinions don't mesh, but it's not martial law ...

yet. :eyes:

[incapsulated]

120. Yeah, because I called for your imprisonment

wtf?

[ShortnFiery]

122. Oh, I believe SOME people would have others imprisoned if they could have the power.

:shrug: Let's hope our beloved country never fully incorporates TIPS program? :wow: ;)

[Texas_Kat]

150. Ask Sadako Ogata and Samantha Power

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t23956.html

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

If you are unfamiliar with these 2 recognized humanitarians, perhaps you should research more and mouth off less.

[ShortnFiery]

151. Gee, and if we would have LISTENED to General (Ret.) Zinni instead of the whorish M$M and HRC

then we would not have sacrificed 3829 of our human treasure, much less killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqis. But "come let us adore Clark?"

How dare I challenge the record of the Sainted Politico, one each, General Clark? :eyes:

This reminds me of how the right wing attacked anyone who QUESTIONED General Peaches Betray-Us.

Go Figure? :shrug:

[Jai4WKC08]

110. I guess you don't know much about either the rank or the people

I've said it before. I don't believe you were ever actually in the military. You show too much ignorance of Army people and Army regulations. You don't even seem to know that even retired generals are still generals, as are all Regular Army officers.

Now you say you respect the ball-less General Zinni? The guy who claimed to want Rumsfeld's head, but never had the courage and/or insight to lay the blame on Bush where it belongs? Who even went so far as to say he would have a difficult time supporting Bush for re-election if he didn't fire Rumsfeld, but then when Rumsfeld remained, Zinni said not a single word about it.

Where is Zinni now, by the way? What has he done to help pressure the Bush administration about either Iraq or Iran?

You also don't know squat about Clark, who is a total straight-shooter, who has done more to stop the war, and to keep another war from starting, than Tony Zinni ever even thought of. Clark has busted his ass to get good Democrats in Congress. He has encouraged other retired generals to speak out, and helped organize and fund VoteVets so that they would have to means to do so. And he allowed himself to be the target of every rightwing media hack imaginable in the attempt to expose them for what they truly are.

[ShortnFiery]

116. What? I'm not going to show you my DD 214 but I served four years AD in the 1980s.

I'm sorry that this blunt and brusque *dose of realism* Re: General Officers, AD and retired and their underlying motivations, is "upsetting to you."

As such, I also understand that you would lash out at me.

It's ok, but IMO, your hero has feet of clay.

No, Clark's a basically HONORABLE man, but not the *super-hero* you desperately wish to believe in.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of such bad news. :shrug:

BTW Anthony Zinni, Gen, Ret. WARNED of the cluster f**k in Iraq *before* we invaded. Now that's IMO an American Patriot type of General Officer.

Salon.com Aug. 27, 2002]
Zinni: Iraq war "unwise"

http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/conason/2002/08/27/bush/index.html

The Bush administration's special Mideast envoy, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, denounced the drive to war in Iraq last Saturday during an appearance in Florida. He did so with certainty and a touch of sardonic wit. Somehow, this front-page story hasn't yet penetrated the consciousness of the nation's great newspaper editors. But Zinni's speech at the Economic Club in Tallahassee (just down the street from Jeb's office) powerfully reaffirms the quiet dissent of Colin Powell, who appointed him. His tough remarks about the administration he is currently serving may also suggest that the Mideast envoy feels deep frustration over White House mishandling of Israeli-Palestinian issues. In short, he may be ready to quit.

Zinni made a direct reference to the secretary of state, along with retired generals Schwarzkopf and Scowcroft, and derided the armchair hawks who are promoting "pre-emptive" military action: "It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way, and all the others who have never fired a shot and are hot to go to war see it another way." If I were Dick Cheney or Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz, I might have to take that personally.

Zinni isn't just any general, of course. In addition to his Marine résumé, he's also the former chief of the Army's Central Command, with responsibility for the Mideast region. The quotes in the Tampa Trib reflect a remarkably sensible outlook, but one that is wholly at odds with the president's "axis of evil" mind-set. According to the Trib reporter, he indicated that "more important than Iraq right now are 'the opportunities that exist for the United States to encourage a peaceful transition in Iran where young people are increasingly challenging the power of the Islamic theocracy.'"
[

[jonnyblitz]

126. he sounds like Rush Limbaugh calling you a phoney soldier.

Cult of personality types can't handle criticism very well. I am a 10 year navy vet who has no use for Clark and I don't care if his DU minions believe I am one or not.

[ShortnFiery]

128. Thanks JB.

I used to be idealistic when I was a lowly cadet in R.O.T.C. (yeah yeah - snicker). However, twenty years later, I am less hopeful. I was blessed to work with NCOs who were top notch and appreciated an LT that didn't pretend to "know it all." My highest complements were the times when I was asked, "Are you prior service?"

Yes, I value the military. However, what I loathe is how the military is being misused. :(

My late father used to quip: "Everyday in the Army is like Sunday on the Farm." He was retired (combat engineer) Major, battlefield commissioned in Italy during WWII.

Because my father loved The Army that helped him rise out of the working class, I'm relieved that dad succumbed to Alzheimer's before The Criminal Executive Branch gutted our military services. :(

Thanks again for the back-up jonnyblitz. :hi:

[Jai4WKC08]

132. Wrong on both counts

I'm an Army retiree, and I'm a "she."

I gave specific reasons why Short didn't sound like he'd really been in the service. He didn't answer a one of 'em. Well, so be it. Maybe he wasn't in long enough to understand the system But don't expect me to believe that.

Fwiw, I also remember when I first saw his posts here at DU and iirc, he said he was an Army brat. Now the story changes.

[ShortnFiery]

138. Hey, I'm "a she" too, former Regular Army, LT. In fact there hasn't been a day in my life

when I haven't had a military ID card (daughter dependent, active duty, or wife, Ret., USMC).

Oh, I understand the system alright. However, there's always been a part of my being who resents unbridled arrogance and abuse of power.

The Story has never changed but you are so "in love" with a IMO, DELUSION of "heavenly rank" conveying wisdom that I fear that there is no hope for you. BTW to review: My father was retired, US Army Engineer, I'm a former Army LT and my husband is a retired field grade JARHEAD. Do you need to look up "field grade?"

Your world must be very cold and bitter. That is very sad. :(

p.s. To Clarify: The reason that I was granted a "Regular Army" vice "Reserve" Commission out of College was that I graduated in the upper 5% of my Military Science Class. ;) :hi:

[Jai4WKC08]

207. Who exactly the fuck do you think you are?

You know NOTHING of me, but you feel free to make some absurd assumption that I'm "in love" and have a "delusion of 'heavenly rank'"? WTF?! And all because I agree with Clark on his endorsement of Clinton?

You are one sad little individual.

But tell me, Ms. DMG, maybe: how is it you didn't know that a 4-star General is STILL a 4-star general, even tho he's retired? That's a pretty basic fact that I would guess most junior enlisted know.

[ShortnFiery]

212. Oh yeah, that's right? Regular Army Officers can ID with their rank - BFD.

As a former Regular Army Officer, I have not, one time, insisted on people referring to me as my Active Duty Rank. But hell, just for you, please FEEL FREE to call me L T (Elle Tee)? :shrug:

No, a FOUR STAR General may use the title but he can't go into the Pentagon and lead troops. It's a courtesy. Something that even peon company grade officers know.

No, I'm not sad because I hold no DELUSIONS that some man or woman with pretty ribbons and medals (to include myself) deserves automatic reverence "just because" he's/she's former active duty military.

Again, because I've hit a nerve, I forgive you for lashing out at me personally. :hi: :hug:

[Jai4WKC08]

238. You still don't get it

I'm not talking about the courtesy of a title. Howard Dean is still called Governor, but he isn't one.

Wes Clark IS a general. He still is. Yes, he's retired. He can't go to the Pentagon and command troops -- actually, active duty generals can't do that either -- but he could be called back to command troops. And he would be required to follow the order, whether he wanted to or not.

If you knew much about the military, you'd know that.

Sorry if it creeps you out that we still call him General Clark, but that is his correct title. And it's more than just courtesy... altho anyone with manners values courtesy as well.

[Jai4WKC08]

133. So what?

"BTW Anthony Zinni, Gen, Ret. WARNED of the cluster f**k in Iraq *before* we invaded. Now that's IMO an American Patriot type of General Officer.

That's exactly true of Clark. Zinni... not so much.

Zinni is apparently a Republican first and a patriot second. Why else has he never gone the extra step to stand up to the President about the war and his f'd up policies?

As for the rest, it's sort of pitiful that instead of presenting an argument against Clark's endorsement, you choose instead to attack his supporters.

[ShortnFiery]

134. No, Zinni was an excellent M.E. envoy who resigned rather than support this insane invasion.

That's INTEGRITY!

Clark, however, is far more of a political animal. That, IMO, makes him less than laudable and one whose words should NOT be taken on face value.

But hell, continue with your small "admiration of all things Clark" meeting. Nothing I can type would get you to knock down those 'visions of glory' for the retired General, your anointed savior? :eyes:

[BootinUp]

148. You obviously have an agenda against Clark, talk about political animal

you come in here with nothing factually based about Clark in any of your posts yet throw slime at him and expect people to swallow it? I don't need to compare Clark to Zinni or anyone else for you because it would obviously make no difference in your agenda. If you would like to continue sliming Clark like a good left wing radical the least you could do is get some decent material that someone might fall for instead of these lame statements you are dumping on this thread.

[ShortnFiery]

149. "Obviously" you think so. That's fine - Clark is a politico. IMO, he's spinning like a top for HRC.

That's opinion - like yours it's out there for all "to test or dismiss." :shrug:

[incapsulated]

160. Other than edorsing her

And this one statement, care to back that up?

What is "spinning like a top"?

Agreeing with the reasoning if not the method of a candidate you support?

You have never in your life supported a candidate, I assume, that was not perfect in every way?

[ShortnFiery]

162. Now you are insulting my intelligence. "Endorsing HRC" pretty much sums it up. n/t

[incapsulated]

164. Then why bother arguing this?

If endorsing Hillary makes someone so completely worthless in your eyes, why waste everyone's time? Need a hobby?

[ShortnFiery]

167. No, "worthless" is hyperbole. However, now that he's fully endorsing HRC, you can't fault those

of us who suspect an ulterior motive to IMO, Clark's attempt to "defend the indefensible." That Kyle/Lieberman Amendment is POISON and haughtily familiar to our last march toward invasion of another sovereign nation.

We disagree: I believe that Clark is spinning because he wants a position on HRC's cabinet. You think that his motives are purely honorable.

The truth, PERHAPS, lies somewhere in the middle. :shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

192. I don't fault that suspicion ShortnFiery

It goes with the turf and it is both understandable and predictable that some will have it. I think the harsh back and forth gets set off when the emphasis of a critic's post seems to be on attacking Clark rather than on attacking his perceived "spin" which some obviously find unacceptable.

Speaking for myself I disagree with Clinton's vote on this. I can understand and even appreciate aspects of some of the arguments used by herself and others, Clark included, to defend it, but bottom line when all is taken into account I still oppose that vote. Still it happened and I strongly suspect it happened without Clinton consulting Clark on it, and now those who support Clinton for a totality of reasons have to deal with that as they see fit.

When Clark was asked back in January why he had not already declared for President, since he obviously had an interest in running, one of the things he repeatedly said was he knew that the moment he became a declared candidate for President everything he said and did on matters of war and peace would be heard and assessed through narrow political filters. Betweeen then and his endorsement of Hillary Clinton, Clark conferred with some regularity with most if not all of our Presidential candidates on issues of policy - something that he knew would no longer be possible after he became a candidate himself. If anything being an identified candidate supporter is more constrained than being a candidate yourself, because you then take on some responsibility for framing words and acts of someone other than yourself. Yes, that too comes with the political turf.

Presidential politics is a mine field in a war zone and candidates can suffer serious wounds if their opponents succeed in spinning their words and acts in the harshest light possible. To counter that campaigns work overtime to instead spin a candidates words and acts in the most positive light possible. It is how that battle gets fought and a quest for the unfiltered unvarnished truth usually is at least a temporary casualty of it.

You or I can bemoan that dynamic and the negative aspects of it, but it would be naive of either of us to deny it, and it would be politically fatal for a candidate or those who support that candidate to ignore it. On this thread I read comments by some who portray Hillary Clinton as a neocon seeking further war in the middle east, and frankly, that is hogwash. Or said another way, that is a harshly negative "spin" being put on Clinton by some using her vote as material to so be used against her. Less extreme spins are employed by all of the candidates against each other almost all of the time during political campaigns. We could all have a sorrowful laugh replaying and comparing all the ways the 2004 Democratic candidates tried to negatively frame each other, with the inevitable warm and fuzzy display of unity all arrived at after the nomination was secured by Kerry.

I often get a chuckle watching candidate supporters for all of the candidates on DU creatively trying to put the best face possible on a flaw in their candidate, on a gaffe made by their candidate, or for a postition taken by their candidate. When it is done artlessly I find it amusing, because we here have so little to lose by simply admitting yeah, I'm not happy about that. It's not as if the candidate we support will suddenly stop answering our phone calls if we do. When that defense is done skillfully however, honoring an essence of the truth, I am also usually impressed. Committing to electoral politics by definition is an ultimate team sport. You place your money on one horse for a wide host of reasons and then you work hard to keep that horse from getting knocked out of the race for any single reason. When the nominations are settled, most of us here shift into that gear outselves. It is common knowledge that the VP nominee of a major party had damn well be good at spinning for the Presidential candidate when a weakness in that candidate is exposed or that candidate makes a mis step.

So to your main point. I do not see any inherent conflict between spinning for a politician during a political race and having honorable motives. It depends on why it is being done, doesn't it? I will even take that a step further. Even if one were to suppose that Clark thought he might be able to serve the next Administration in a position of real influence that would allow him to make positive contributions to America's future if he first proved himself to be a capable enough supporter of Hillary Clinton, why would that motive be less honorable than the motive of someone to seek the presidency themselves which itself always comes with a need to first convince a host of people with insider political conncections and/or money that one is worthy of their support in order to reach that goal? That is all part of politics in our political system. Why do you suppose RFK Jr is supporting Hillary now, by the way, and do you find him to have dishonorable motives?

For the record though, in Clark's case I think that would be too simplistic a read. I wrote a couple of entries in my own blog exploring the reasons why I thought Clark endorsed Clinton when he did, and I won't repeat them here now. He knows the Clintons well enough to know that they both would make a robust diplomatic effort to head off a war with Iran should Hillary get elected in 2008. In fact I am positive that he thinks Hillary Clinton has better chops and connections to pull that off quickly enough than any of the other Democrats who have a chance to win the nomination. Obviously you may disagree. For reasons that I feel are perfectly sincere and honorable, even if they are open to debate, I believe that Wes Clark believes that Hillary Clinton is best equipped to skillfully take on the full set of responsibilities of being President from day one in office out of those who we have the chance to choose between, and he doesn't think our next President has time to ascend a steep learning curve.

So in politically defending Hillary Clinton now I think Clark is acting consistent with his core beliefs. He believes that if she takes office she will diligently pursue all options for peace with Iran, and so yeah he is countering the real essence of her adversaries spin which implies (even if it doesn't actually spell it out) that Clinton would lead us further down a path to war with Iran if she is elected. Simply put Clark is providing backing to the candidate he supports for a wide set of reasons on an issue that she is currently vulnerable on. I get that and I know that comes with the territory of endorsing a candidate. But I think Clark is doing more than passively backing Clinton here. I think he is actively working to influence her position on Iran. I for one see Clark's hand involved in Clinton's more recent statements since she made that vote. I am glad that she now signed on as a co-sponsor of Webb's resolution. I am glad that she specifically used the words that she as President would support a diplomatic initiative with Iran that included full discussion on all of the issues that currently divide our nations. To me that is more than a mere nuance.

One of my serious peeves with our current plausible Presidential candidates is that none of them have spelled that out before, not even Obama when he said he would be willing to meet with Iran's leaders. I can guess he might feel that way but to my knowledge he never spelled it out in specific words. I think that all of our leading candiates, Hillary Clinton included until now, have skated over that point because they thought they could maximize political milage by letting more hawkish voters believe that their intent in negotiations with Iran was to powerfully deliver America's position and warnings in person to their face, without opening a door to any suggestion that Iran might have legitimate concerns that they wanted to see negotiated also. I think that is a degree of progress. I hope to see more.

So this is all a lot of words to say that I believe that the truth does lie in the middle. I have no problem with anyone who finds fault with Clark over his support of Hillary or his defense of her on this or anything else. Like I said above, I disagree with Hillary's vote. But it is nonesense for anyone to ignore the fact that Wes Clark has already spent years working both inside and outside of the system to prevent another disasterous and avoidable war. I have no anger toward those who now question his tactics, I have problems with those who now question the honorableness of his motives on this.

[ShortnFiery]

194. I don't fault the suspicious Tom Rinaldo either.

:eyes:

My goodness you are long winded! :wow: Therefore, I feel compelled to reiterate my profound distaste for those who continue to place retired General Clark on that pedestal.

Again, Clark is a politico who is hoping for a coveted position on the Clintonian DLC Presidential Cabinet. To NOT consider this "inane spin" of his as highly suspect would be to place blinders on because "the good general" would not ever lie or spin. Well, would he?!?

"I have no anger toward those who now question his tactics, I have problems with those who now question the honorableness of his motives on this."

Did in not repeat multiple times that not unlike Caesar, Clark is an honorable man?. :eyes:

Ladies and gentleman, I rest my case.

[Tom Rinaldo]

197. The sum total of your words on this thread far outstrips mine

With far less substance. And I find your reading skills highly suspect. I've been thought to be distasteful by more seemingly honorable people than you before. See I used that word again. How distasteful. Almost as distasteful as lame references to "pedestals". Bye.

[ShortnFiery]

198. Too funny in a sad way. I would not have had to defend myself or my military service if "Clarkies"

would have decided to agree to disagree.

But alas, "Methinks the Clarkies doth protesth too much." :shrug:

Yes, this *assumed authority and character beyond reproach* freely granted (by some) to former Military Generals brings out "the ugly" in all of us - and it's just plain sad. :(

[Tom Rinaldo]

199. My reply to you was respectful and thoughtful

Unlike yours to me. And your repeated assumption that someone like me goes gaga over Generals is, given how little you obviously know me, frankly childish as well as insulting.

[ShortnFiery]

202. With respect, I considered your reply as calculated "smoke screen" to confuse the issues.

Again, you expect me to trust General (Ret.) Clark on blind faith that his motives are honorable. However, the sheer audacity of his inane arguments clearly attempting to "defending the indefensible" ... well, to say the least, suggests otherwise. :(

Perhaps that's why I've enjoyed many more successes as an addiction counselor than that of a diplomatic young LT giving station briefings to dignitaries. :eyes:

I understand and can even somewhat empathize that you are profoundly upset with my brusque mannerism of "cutting to the chase." There's no argument that I'm ON POINT. However, getting to the heart of the matter quickly, IMO, helps to put aside all the obfuscating bullshit that is used to ENABLE insincere and deceptive behaviors of our "illustrious politcos." :shrug:

Good day. :-)

[Tom Rinaldo]

203. Who you choose to trust and why is your business

and of course the same holds for me. I don't expect anything from you S&F other than basic honesty in your stated opinions. Civility is always appreciated but never to be expected on political bulletin boards. Your brusque mannerisms do not upset me though your false assertions about my own motivations do. You have a right to your opinion of me or anyone else, but the fact that you hold it does not necessarily make it true.

I literally am out of time now for further discussion which is just as well since you have posted I think three times to me now without seriously engaging in any of the points that I made in my first post to you. That is why I made that reference about your reading skills. I met your "chase" but you kept chasing right past it. Perhaps that is inevitable because you have a profoundly different perception of Wes Clark than I do. But I have as much grounds to conclude that it is you pushing Clark down a hole that explains our different perceptions as you do to pin that on me putting him on a pedastal. If you want to agree to disagree on that we can leave it there. If you don't I must leave it there for now anyway as I am leaving on a work trip.

[ShortnFiery]

204. Then it's a deal. :-) I hope you enjoy your trip.

OUT here. :hi:

[Jai4WKC08]

209. "Not unlike Caesar"

Now there's some fine irony.

It was Brutus who was called honorable, and all while Antony was really calling him a lying, ambitious backstabber (literally). Sort of what you're doing to Clark.


But assuming your story is true (it changes so often, it's hard to tell), I can understand why you couldn't hack it as a woman in the 1980s military.

With such black and white certainly as in you, "Clark is a politico who is hoping for a coveted position on the Clintonian DLC Presidential Cabinet," it sort of surprises me you could make it anywhere.

Face it, you don't know what Clark's motives are. You have no evidence at all that his motives aren't exactly what he has said they are. At best, you can't accept that people might disagree with no ulterior motives at all. At worst, you're just making up shit to smear someone you've decided you don't like... this week.

If Kyl-Liebermann is so obviously wrong ("poison" I think you said?), then how come Durbin, Levin and some 20+ other Democrats, many of whom voted against the IWR, voted for it? Tell me, are they evil or stupid or beholden to the DLC or fishing for some position in a Clinton cabinet?

[ShortnFiery]

213. You need to let go of all that anger and hatred. Yes, Kyle-Lieberman is poison.

And no, you can NOT "discipline me" for considering your hero, Wesley Clark, a politico whose primary interest is self-serving.

Damn if it's still America, The Beautiful. You may HATE my opinion, but you can not shout it down or stifle it.

God Bless Free Speech - even when we despise and/or disagree with the message. ;)

Or would you have me arrested for speaking disparagingly of a retired General Officer?

Truth is, I wonder ... perhaps you would? :(

[Jai4WKC08]

239. WTF?

I never said ANYthing about disciplining you or anyone else.

Putting quotes around something ("discipline me") that was never said is tantamount to a lie. Or it shows you're off your meds. :crazy:

You really are losing it.

[ShortnFiery]

224. "They are ALL honorable men." Was that lost on you? n/t

[LittleClarkie]

236. I'm pretty sure they get to keep their title, even in retirement

And he's still more versed than many of us on these issues. His point of view is good to have, even if no everyone agrees.

[flpoljunkie]

87. I think the point here is that Hillary felt she had to bring out the "big guns" to defend this vote.

[calteacherguy]

101. For Obama, there is no defense.

Being that he didn't even bother to vote, he ought to just keep his mouth shut on this issue.

[flpoljunkie]

113. Apparently you missed or are purposely ignoring this post from the other day...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3592288&mesg_id=3594044

obamian (56 posts) Tue Oct-09-07 06:06 PM

Response to Reply #57

88. Quote from Senate Transcript

This is what Reid said the night before the bill:

Mr. REID. Mr. Chairman, there will be no more votes tonight. We have tried to work something out on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and the Biden amendment. We have been unable to do that.

We have been very close a few times, but we have just been informed that Senator Biden will not have a vote anytime in the near future. There will not be a vote on the other one anytime in the near future. We hope tonight will bring more clearness on the issue.”

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r110:S25SE7-0035

Obama publicly announced at the time of the vote that he was opposed to the bill. All the presidential candidates in congress have been missing votes. Obama can't be blamed for missing a vote that he was told wouldn't occur.

[calteacherguy]

124. Link to the public announcement at time of vote, please. nt

[Cameron27]

216. But Biden said that's incorrect, or incomplete,

and they were notified that the senate was resuming the vote. Even if Obama didn't get the notification though, if he considered that Kyl-Lieberman was critical and was meant to be a blank check or a vote for war, then he should have climbed back on his plane and returned to DC. He was in NH, not a long flight on a private jet.

[AtomicKitten]

219. ... or maybe what Biden says is incorrect or incomplete.

It's interesting to see where people come down on these issues.

Suffice to say, this discussion is constructed of strawmen being burned down in faux outrage at Obama missing a vote even though he released a statement clearly indicating his view on it, and particularly in light of the fact that Hillary was the ONLY candidate to vote yes on it.

It appears to me the Clintons are calling in some favors in helping smooth this over. That is the most telling thing of all.

[Cameron27]

229. Maybe Biden is incorrect,

I thought I made that clear in my post. I never said Clinton was right on Kyl-Lieberman, but I've always said it was modified to the point where it can't legitimately be considered a vote for war. If Obama's thinks this vote was so grave that he's going to attack her for it, damn right he should have made every effort to get his ass back to DC from NH to cast his no vote.

[AtomicKitten]

233. you are trying to defuse his right speak

The vote lost by some 50+ votes. Do you really think they didn't know how that would play out beforehand when the vote was ultimately called? That's a huge disparity to have any doubt.

Obama is entitled to speak out on this issue. You are trying to shut him down by saying since he didn't vote, he can't opine. That's bullshit, plain and simple.

Perhaps you might want to examine why your obvious-to-us-now candidate of choice voted yes on it. That seems to be the burning question, but HRC supporters would rather attack Obama for not voting and for having the audacity to speak out. Sorry to see you've boarded that bus.

[Cameron27]

235. Obama is entitled to speak,

he's even entitled to attack, but he's also a politician who isn't above being questioned himself. And I'm not on anyone's bus, I'm sorry that you would even think that. Hillary isn't the devil and Obama's no saint, and everything's weighed and calculated by all of them during this primary. Yes votes, no votes and absent votes and even attacks on yes votes.

[incapsulated]

103. Exactly

Clark would not have voted for this and expressed his unease with the whole thing after he learned of it. But she has a General with foreign policy experience endorsing her so basically, he is eating shit for her on this, because she is taking more heat than expected for it.

Really, we all do that for candidates we support when we have to put a positive spin on something stupid assed they do.

As a old Clarkie, it pains me, not because I think the vote is the evil of the world and akin to IWR, but because he will get the shit.

This vote doesn't do anything, really. It's nothing more than a statement, one that was toned down and she is going to vote in support of Webb which will buffer her from accusations that this was some call for military action. Which it was not, in fact. It was just unnecessary and ultimately, to me, stupid. But she did it for political reasons. But I have no belief that the Clintons want to melt down the middle east.

[AtomicKitten]

119. it speaks volumes

[sandnsea]

114. He proposed the IWR

so it's no surprise to me that he'd support Hillary on this Iran vote. You don't get to be a General without knowing how to play politics.

[incapsulated]

121. He did no such thing

Enough with this shit, already.

[calteacherguy]

125. What? LOL! nt

[Cameron27]

147. No he did not.

[illinoisprogressive]

137. more Koolaid, Wesley?

[calteacherguy]

139. Explain Durbin's vote to me. nt

[Cameron27]

143. Well she won't say that Durbin drank the kool aid

since he's predicting an Obama win. :eyes:

[illinoisprogressive]

157. Trying to use Durbin for cover for the fact that Hillary is gop neocon won't work

[incapsulated]

158. Trying to ignore Durbin

So you can slam Hillary for the same exact vote doesn't work either.

[AtomicKitten]

161. hey

Speaking of neocons, check upthread where Lirwin2 says I'm praying for war with Iran to benefit Obama politically. That sounds like something that would come out of Sean Hannity's retarded mouth. Wow. Here on DU.

[incapsulated]

166. Sadly, I believe it without reading it, lol

This place is getting very tiring, I tell ya.

I won't even bother to ask how war with Iran benefits Obama. These "arguments" are so insanely illogical, I don't know how to respond half the time.

[burythehatchet]

201. Today, I un-subscribe to WesPac

[SaveElmer]

206. Thank you General...nt

[jenmito]

218. I thought votevets.org was against the Liberman/Kyl bill...

I REALLY respect Clark and I'd love him to be Obama's VP. But saying he supports Hillary's vote FOR Lieberman's bill doesn't seem consistent with everything he's been saying about NOT ramping up steps to war with Iran. This bill certainly doesn't HELP diplomatic efforts with Iran. :shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

221. of course it doesn't help with diplomatic efforts

And I respect General Clark immensely, but I really believe the Clintons are calling in favors in helping smooth this over. Some of the statements in her defense on this vote are in stark contrast to prior positions.

They say all is fair in love and politics, but that gets sticky on issues of war.

[jenmito]

234. That's for sure...

And I agree with you. I could've sworn I even heard HIM speak out against this before the vote was taken. He's obviously going to support her votes since he already endorsed her. I wish he wouldn't have supported her in this vote which does nothing but bring us closer to war, which Lieberman WANTS.