DraftWesleyClark.com

“Of the four men featured in this picture, who are the two in the middle, wearing each other's hats, and what were their respective roles in the Bosnian conflict? Try not to cheat and look at the properties.
”

“Okay phaed, not solely for profits, but they've been singled out as bad guys in this whole mess. It's a cut and paste, kind of long. I posted one similar once before, who knows what thread it was on:

September 22, 2003, 9:26 a.m.
The Dems’ Enemy
Smearing Halliburton.
The Democrats have discovered the enemy in the ongoing Iraq war. And it is Halliburton.
Nothing quite so angers Democrats about the current situation in Iraq than that Halliburton is making money there. Dennis Kucinich, the out-to-lunch leftist who sounds ever more mainstream given the leftward drift of the rest of the Democratic field, wants the United Nations in Iraq so there will be "no more Halliburton sweetheart deals." Bob Graham huffs, "I will not support a dime to protect the profits of Halliburton in Iraq." John Edwards vows "to stop this president from giving billions of dollars in American taxpayer money to companies like Halliburton in unbid contracts."
The Texas oil-services giant formerly headed by Dick Cheney, who still gets deferred compensation from the firm, has achieved iconic status. Halliburton is the equivalent of Dow, the maker of a key ingredient to napalm, during the Vietnam War — the focus of supposed corporate evil during wartime. It is the equivalent of Mena Airport, the Arkansas site that obsessed anti-Clinton conspiracy theorists during the 1990s — the focus of dark speculation about the mercenary scheming of a U.S. president.
Behind the Democratic outrage is the implicit, and sometimes explicit, charge that Bush waged war in Iraq to fatten the bottom line of one corporation. As the New York Times has put it, Halliburton's Iraq contract "undermines the Bush administration's portrayal of the war as a campaign for disarmament and democracy, not lucre." But to have risked his presidency — not mention American lives — on the war in order to benefit Halliburton, Bush would have to be a psychopath. That the Halliburton charge has become a chief Democratic critique of the war is another sign of the party's descent into unhinged ravings.
As NR's Byron York has reported, it's not really true that the company got its work without competitive bidding. In the 1990s, the military looked for ways to get outside help handling the logistics associated with foreign interventions. It came up with the U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or LOGCAP. The program is a multiyear contract for a corporation to be on call to provide whatever services might be needed quickly.
Halliburton won a competitive bidding process for LOGCAP in 2001. So it was natural to turn to it (actually, to its wholly owned subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root) for prewar planning about handling oil fires in Iraq. "To invite other contractors to compete to perform a highly classified requirement that Kellogg Brown & Root was already under a competitively awarded contract to perform would have been a wasteful duplication of effort," the Army Corps of Engineers commander has written.
Then, in February 2003, the Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton a temporary no-bid contract to implement its classified oil-fire plan. The thinking was it would be absurd to undertake the drawn-out contracting process on the verge of war. If the administration had done that and there had been catastrophic fires, it would now be considered evidence of insufficient postwar planning. And Halliburton was an obvious choice, since it put out 350 oil-well fires in Kuwait after the first Gulf War.
The Clinton administration made the same calculation in its own dealings with Halliburton. The company had won the LOGCAP in 1992, then lost it in 1997. The Clinton administration nonetheless awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to continue its work in the Balkans supporting the U.S. peacekeeping mission there because it made little sense to change midstream. According to Byron York, Al Gore's reinventing-government panel even singled out Halliburton for praise for its military logistics work.
So, did Clinton and Gore involve the United States in the Balkans to benefit Halliburton? That charge makes as much sense as the one that Democrats are hurling at Bush now. Would that they directed more of their outrage at the people in Iraq who want to sabotage the country's oil infrastructure, rather than at the U.S. corporation charged with helping repair it.
-Rich Lowry
(c)2003 King Features Syndicate

Note the last two paragraphs, not as an attempt to bash Clinton, but rather to point out that Halliburton seems to be the best company to call for these kinds of jobs. There's another one, Dyncorp I think it's called, that supplies civilian police services in these rebuilding countries. They've been in Haiti, Bosnia, now Iraq, etc. No one seems to complain about them getting the contracts to provide civilian police advisors/instructors. Of course, to be honest, Dyncorp or whatever they're called may be a subsidiary of Halliburton for all I know, but I think they're a British outfit.”

“I recognize clark, of course. I don't know the other.”

“Okay, SMW. That's all well and good, but do you think that knowing Halliburton had the contract is any more defensible a position than handing it to them after the fact? I don't know that anyone has claimed that the war was based solely on lining the pockets of the Vice President and his lackeys: only that waging war is profitable to said people.”

“Someone will google it up, but it could be interesting to see who can give the rundown on the picture from memory. I didn't know any of them but Clark either when I found it. The one on the right of Clark (clark's left) is obviously British, judging by the camo pattern on his pants. I don't know if he's that Jackson guy that was in charge of the brit ground forces or what.”

“I have to confess I don't understand completely what you're trying to say with the first part of your post. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but if I understand correctly, you are suggesting that it could be said that Halliburton would either make money from contracts already ino place, or new contracts would be created to benefit Halliburton. Once again, I may have been misleading in saying that some people think the war was solely for Halliburton's benefit, but you have surely heard the arguments that it was all for oil and money making opportunities for Bush/Cheney and friends. My contention is that these contracts were in place before the current administration was even in power. Waging war may be profitable for these people, but to presuppose they were going to get rich before they were even elected (and thereby given the chance to make war) is a huge leap. I understand that you personally may not think the war was entirely a money making venture, but I am arguing on the premise that there are those who do think that.

By the way...this thread has remained on topic for quite some time. I feel kind of bad steering it away from Clark. Maybe we could take this up on a different thread. Or maybe it's a largely dead issue. I have to go to bed right now anyway. I'm due up in about 5 hours.”

“"The company had won the LOGCAP in 1992, then lost it in 1997.........."

It would be interesting to see who beat Hali out for these years. I must claim that I am not as well versed in my big business blood lines like I used to.

The thing that stuck out at me most from that post, was how long Hali and Cheney have been making money of off war. What was the Cheney tenure at Hali?

I also think that this type of stuff wouldn't be a big deal if Cheney didn't have ties to Hali and taking money from them (I don't care what you call it.....it does nothing for yer PR)..”

“I'm not going to take on your argument about Halliburton, mostly because I don't believe that was the administration's motivation for invading Iraq (though it is a nice side benefit), but I do take issue with the writer's contention that there has been a leftward drift in the Democratic field. The most viable candidates at this point appear to be Dean and Clark, both of whom opposed the way the Iraq campaign was initiated but are moderates on most issues. That's hardly a leftward drift, it's a centrist positioning.”

“Yes it is.”

“could give a rat’s ass what party a candidate belongs to. I’d have probably voted for McCain over Gore if he’d gotten the nod. I think the world would be a lot better place now if Powell had run and won, whichever ticket he ran on."
viOliN
09:46:52 PM
09/22/03

My sentiments exactly.

Who gives a #&%!$ whether Clark is Democrat or Republican. At this point, I am listening very closely to what he has to say.

Dean caught my early ear with his views, but I see Clark as much more streamlined and reasonable.

I am going to the Clark in '04 Rally tonight and see what I can do to help his cause.”

“This from an anal cyst draft dodging, only got a job because daddy owned a radio station, piece of #&%!$ lying scumbag. The DNC should sue Rush, George Will, Hannity and all the other scum of the Earth Rove meat puppets.

Wingnut.”

“I just want to nip another stupid misrepresentation in the bud. I’ve read in a number of places what is alleged in this NY Times piece: that Clark said he probably would have voted for the Iraq resolution but then reversed himself and said he would not have voted for the war. He has clarified what he meant – that he would probably voted for the resolution to give Bush more leverage, but opposed unilateral action. There is no inconsistency and I would expect the Times to be at least as well informed as I am. I expect that this one will get more mileage.

On the extremely positive side, the Times article reports the results of a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll
That shows Clark well ahead of the Democratic field and tied with Bush after being in the race for a day. Now I know why Rove is so terrified.”

“Mutt, you're right. that statement wasn't fair to the other anal cysts!”

“So what does Clark believe in? Right after retirement he spoke a a Republican lunch. A week later he was the guest at a Democratic lunch.

Is he a left wing radical like Dean or a conservative Democrat like Carter?”

“Now I understand why StickmanWalking posted that photograph. The guy Clark switched hats with is none other than the notorious Bosnian-Serb war criminal Gen. Ratko Mladic. In his column, Karl Rove’s favorite leak-to-guy, Robert Novak, made a big deal about Clark chumming around with the monster responsible for the Srebrenica mass-killing.

Trouble is, the massacre happened in July 1995 and the photograph was taken in August 1994. Nice try Karl, I’m sure this one will get you far.”

“If Dean were a left wing radical it would be a lot easier to answer bacpac.”

“Thanks Stick. That was an interesting cut and paste, and brought some life to this thread.
First of all, the writer of the article leads us to believe that the main argument against the war in Iraq is Halliburton's contract to rehabilitate the oil supply. False. I would guess this tact is just to redirect people's attention from the main argument against the war, which is that the US was misled into the war in the first place.
However, I think that Halliburton should have been excused from taking on this contract because of its ties to the vice president. I would think this no matter if the administration were Rep, Dem, or Populist. You should be discouraged, (at least), from profitting from war when you are the one waging the war. I'm sure that we could have found another company to take on the contract in Iraq. I would think the vice president would be embarrassed to be so closely allied with Halliburton at a time like this. In essence, I would like to appeal to our better nature as a people because, if it looks bad to us in the US, think of how it looks to the rest of the world? Why give our (the US) detractors the political ammo?
Anyway, thanks again for bringing that up.”

“Now for the “would have been a Republican if Rove had returned my phone call” meme.

The source of this one appears to be Howard Fineman’s piece. His source is Republican Governer Bill Owens and one of his appointees, Marc Holtzman. Clark told Fineman it was a “humorous tweak” but Fineman chose to believe Owens and Holtzman that he was really serious. The Weekly Standard even went so far as to ask White House staffers to check the phone logs to see if Clark had actually called Rove. He hadn’t so now they are calling him a liar for that.

Trouble is, Clark is the one saying he was joking but we’re to believe Rove and Bush pals Owens and Holtzman that he was really serious. They say he made a phone call and Continetti proves he didn’t. Sort of leaves Clark out of the whole fairy tale, but oh well…”

“These guys are really desperate aren't they?”

“If is the most they can come up with about Clark, then I would have to believe he is probably an upstanding person.

But then again, knowing how the military works, I also feel assured he would never have been promoted to General if he had many skeletons in the closet.”

“Maybe he was the only Colonel in the Army who was a Democrat.”

“Even outspoken Colonel Hackworth has changed his poition on Clark.”

“poitionposition”

“I am not jumping on the Clark bandwagon until I hear more from/about him. Just because someone is a general does not a great president make.
I liked Ike. He's from my home state. However, he was less effective as a president than he might have been. He also was mislead by the military/industrial complex and realized it too late, (thus the speech as he was leaving office).
I am also not a big fan of Powell's. He has shown his true colors by capitulating to the Bu#&%!$es. I was really cheering for him while his backbone was still strong, though.
I, too would have given McCain my vote had he run against Gore, though. He had, and has, some real reform-mindedness that we could use. He just got beat by a name and a ton of money.
Speaking of money, GW is going to break his own record and spend money like it's going out of style this campaign. Well, that's what he is good at, spending money. He's a spend and spend conservative.”

“"Maybe he was the only Colonel in the Army who was a Democrat."

bacpac
01:18:55 PM
09/23/03

Yeah,, and maybe pigs really can fly.”

“Trouble is, the massacre happened in July 1995 and the photograph was taken in August 1994.
vIoLiN
12:53:51 PM
09/23/03


Haha, he did omit that part didn't he?! I saw the same basic article somewhere else around the same time I read Novak's piece. Interesting. Although I have to admit, I took the gist of Novak's article to be that Clark insisted on meeting Mladic against the administration's wishes, and then threw in the part about the massacre to spice it up. I wasn't aware that it occurred after the meeting. Oh well, I just thought I'd throw it out there and see what it would bring. Good job fiddler.
I just glazed over the article about Rove and the call logs. I wasn't aware of much more than the headline on that one. Who cares what Clark might have been? He is what he is. I hope he turns out to be a good guy if he wins the election. I also hope Hillary isn't his running mate.”

“i am amazed at how quickly ya'll latch onto this guy. he may be smart(bookwise) but he ain't got it. he chokes under real pressure.

violin, you're delusional if you think he didn't flip flop all over the place. check the sean hannity interview. hannity and colmbes. clark was reduced to ashes....

i hope he gets the nod, it'll be a landslide. he's the most anti-war war guy ever.

americans will trust their national security more to bush than clark....any day of the week”

“The fact that guys like you and Rush are ripping thid due with a total lack of substance lends more cerdibility to his campaign than anything for me.'


Remember, I was in full agreemnet with you during the last election. I wanted Bush over Gore. I knew both were horrible choices, and would have rather had McCain, but that wasn't realistic.

Right now, if Clark runs against Bush, he has my full support. Bush is a total moron, and a puppet for the religious right. Our country can't afford another term from a useless president, administration, and congress. We need to put a stop to the bleeding NOW!

For all those who are politically on the fence this upcoming election, take a look at the ISSUES, ask yourself, what is best for you, your family, and the nation as a whole. In my opinion, Bush and the Republicans have nothing to offer. They have abused thier power much like unions did in the 70's, and we know hwat happened to them.



Facts soon to follow.”

“stop the bleeding? you think clark will stop the bleeding? how will he do that dood? honestly, tell me what you'ver heard from this clown that's been of any substance?


he's flip floped about the war, he's lied about why he bacame a democrat and about the white house calling him asking him to link 9-11 with iraq....geesh man, you sure are an easy customer.


think rationally man. forget religion, and think rationally. what path is the best path?


this guy is clinton with medals on his chest. clinton light. WTF!?!? i really don't get it. what is so great about this guy?

he got fired by clinton. we're STILL in the quagmire of kosovo, that HE led us through.....

tell me , besides a pretty face, what's this guy has said that makes you think he's so great....”

“Strat, although I support your intentions, I have to point out that the "White House calling Clark about September 11" story has been called into serious question. Apparently the call logs at the White House don't show any record of him calling Rove, which can be taken either as proof that he never called Rove with the aim of becoming a Republican, or proof that he lied about Rove not returning his calls. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Wait and see what the real deal is with Clark. It will come out in the wash. Geeze, Hackworth and Liddy, two arguably right wing fellers both agree that Clark's not so bad a guy. I value Hackworth's and a convicted felon's opinion more than Rush's these days.”

“STM, you are one of the most rational guys here, honestly. i heard a audio of clark's remarks on Rove. he's got no clue man. when asked about the war( i heard this audio too) he had t oask his press secretary, mary, what his opinion was.

when asked by sean hannity(i saw this live) he couldnt explain why he said to tim russert(they showed the clip) that the whitehouse had called him on 9-11 and tried to get him(clark) to link 9-11 with iraq.


i'm tellin you, this is all to wierd. some dood announces he is runnning and the next frikkin day he is the front runner of the democratic party, out of 10 people who have been campaigning for months.........WTF!

draft clark? like he didn't know about it? the whole concept is a farse and reeks of el toro cacca.......

just on man's opinion....


i freely admit that i am unfair and imbalanced, mind you”

“I've already exposed all your smears for the lies they are strat. If you saw the clip of the Russert interview, how come you still think he claimed the White House called him and asked him to link Iraq and 9-11? Since you are too lazy to go back and read, here (again) is what General Clark told Russert:

GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.

MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?

GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, “You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.” I said, “But—I’m willing to say it but what’s your evidence?” And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had—Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn’t talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.

Care to explain how you come away saying he claimed that he was called by the White House?


A four star General is the most anti-war guy ever, strat? Can you please try to apply a little critical thought?”

“" honestly, tell me what you'ver heard from this clown that's been of any substance?.........."

Welp, you asked fer it:


On the Issues

“It’s very hard not to think in terms of the welfare of the country, and when you see the country in trouble, in challenge, yes, you’d like to pitch in and help.”

-- General Wesley Clark, Meet The Press 6/14/03


A Distinguished Record of Service
General Wesley Clark has a long and distinguished record of service in the armed forces as both a leader and a force for justice in the military. His innovative social vision led him to tackle, as a base commander in the early 1980s, such complex and then-taboo problems as teenage suicide and spousal abuse in military families. Clark’s innate sense of fairness has led him to embrace Democratic positions on domestic issues.


See where he stands on:

Affirmative Action | The Environment |Gays in the Military | Guns | Health Care and Education | Immigration | National Security, 9/11, and The Patriot Act | Taxes and the Economy | Women’s Issues



Affirmative Action: Clark is a strong proponent and supporter of affirmative action, diversity, and multiculturalism:

“I’m in favor of the principle of affirmative action… what you can’t have is you can’t have a society in which we’re not acknowledging that there is a problem in this society with racial discrimination.” Meet The Press
"I saw first hand the racial prejudice, the civil disobedience, the intolerance… I've often gone back to that experience. It's something I've related to." Waging Modern War by Wesley Clark
Clark was recently one of several former military men to file a pro-affirmative action "friend of the court" brief on behalf of the University of Michigan in their battle against the Bush Administration efforts to dismantle Michigan's admissions policy. Clark said he was "surprised and dismayed" by the president's decision. (Read the consolidated brief (PDF) of retired military leaders (including Wesley Clark) in support of University of Michigan's affirmative action program.)

The Environment: Environmental protections appear to be part of Clark’s overall global and progressive vision for America.

"Human beings do affect the environment and all you have to do is fly along the Andes and look at the disappearing glaciers down there and you recognize that there is something called global warming and it's just getting started as China and India modernize." (source – speech at the Council on Foreign Relations)
"100 years out, the only things we leave behind that will matter are the environment and constitutional legitimacy."
Opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on the grounds that "the gains in terms of US energy independence are relatively marginal" The Diane Rehm Show
Gays in the Military: "But essentially we’ve got a lot of gay people in the armed forces, always have had, always will have. And I think that, you know, we should welcome people that want to serve." Meet The Press

Guns: Clark has implied that gun ownership is primarily a local issue. He also believes that assault weapons should be banned for the general public, stating, "people who like assault weapons they should join the United States Army, we have them." (CNN's Crossfire, 06/25/03)

Health Care and Education: Clark is a strong supporter of a social safety net, including effective and well-supported systems of education and health care:

"I grew up in an armed forces that treated everyone as a valued member of the team. Everyone got healthcare, and the army cared about the education of everyone's family members. It wasn't the attitude that you find in some places, where people are fending for themselves and the safety net doesn't work." (Source: Waging Modern War)

Immigration: "We’re a nation of immigrants. We should be encouraging every person from the Indian Institute of Technology that comes to this country to stay in this country. Become an American citizen. Join with us. Make a great company. Let’s all be wealthy and prosperous and happy together. Immigration has a vital part to play in that process." (Source: New Democrat Network speech)

National Security, 9/11, and The Patriot Act: Clark is wary of trading off individual rights that allow the government to escape accountability. Clark supports a review of the Patriot Act to assess its effectiveness and potential damage to individual rights. He has also called for more accountability surrounding 9/11 so we know what went wrong and how to prevent these attacks in the future.

“I think one of the risks you have in this operation is that you’re giving up some of the essentials of what it is in America to have justice, liberty and the rule of law. I think you’ve got to be very, very careful when you abridge those rights to prosecute the war on terrorists. So I think that needs to be carefully looked at.” Meet The Press
"One of the things about the war on terror that I am disturbed about is that we've essentially suspended habeas corpus. Which is something that's only been done once in American history and then only for a very brief period. When I go back and think about the atmosphere in which the PATRIOT Act was passed, it begs for a reconsideration and review.” (source – Salon.com interview)
“We’ve got a set of hearings that need to be conducted to look at what happened that caused 9/11. That really hasn’t been done yet. You know, a basic principle of military operations is you conduct an after-action review. When the action’s over you bring people together. The commander, the subordinates, the staff members. You ask yourself what happened, why, and how do we fix it the next time? As far as I know, this has never been done about the essential failure at 9/11. Then moving beyond that, it needs to be looked at in terms of the whole intelligence effort and how it’s connected to the policy effort. And these are matters that probably cannot be aired fully in public but I think that the American people and their representatives have to be involved in this. This is essential in terms of the legitimacy and trust in our elected leadership and our way of government.” Meet The Press

Taxes and the Economy: Clark favors a responsible and progressive taxation system that creates jobs and doesn’t put this country into ruinous financial shape with gaping deficits. Clark, who at one point taught economics at West Point, was against Bush’s tax changes because they don’t effectively create jobs, they are unfair, and they imperil our nation’s fiscal health.

“Taxes are something that you want to have as little of as possible, but you need as much revenue as necessary to meet people’s needs for services.” Meet The Press
“[The Bush tax changes] were not efficient in terms of stimulating the kind of demand we need to move the economy back into a recovery mode, a strong recovery and a recovery that provides jobs.” Meet The Press
“The tax cuts weren’t fair… the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. In other words, it’s not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don’t have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and you should—one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country.” Meet The Press
“I mean, you look at the long-run health of the country and the size of the deficit that we’ve incurred and a substantial part of that deficit is result of the tax cuts. You have to ask: “Is this wise, long-run policy?” I think the answer is no.” Meet The Press

Women’s Issues: Clark is a strong supporter of women’s rights. Bluntly stating on CNN's Crossfire "I am pro-choice." He is pro-choice, supporting the rights of women to make these decisions outside of governmental regulation (Source – The American Prospect), and in the early 1980s, he proactively tackled spousal abuse as an army commander with a forward-thinking assessment of the demands of the modern family. (source - War in a Time of Peace, by David Halberstam)








And since you got this far.....

"he got fired by clinton. we're STILL in the quagmire of kosovo, that HE led us through....."

I would believe two things:
1. He was removed some years ago, why are you blaming him for something he's had no control over in years?

and

2. I would think that if the Repubs had such a problem about this, Bush has had more than a couple of years to get out. HOW COME BUSH HASN'T PULLED US OUT? This line of attack only proves that the repubs are concerned about 11/04/04.....”

“i'm tellin you, this is all to wierd. some dood announces he is runnning and the next frikkin day he is the front runner of the democratic party, out of 10 people who have been campaigning for months.........WTF!

stratdewd
01:11:59 AM


Wow, Sept. 10, 2001 - a presidency not more than 6 months old is already plummeting like a dead bird off a building

Sept. 11, 2001 - The man is worshipped like the Pope and takes a 50 point rise in popularity.

Strat, did HE do anything in the 24 hours to warrant the rise or was that the reaction of the country at the time in a sense of rallying around our leader. Hell, it could have been Joe Walsh in the White House and if he said the right words standing on Ground Zero, the country would have been behind him. Things happen in short periods of time, Strat. and it doesn't take suicide hijackings for them to happen...”

“Too bad it wasn't Joe Walsh!”

“Nice piece in this week's Time on the general. It covers his warts, such as they are. It will be interesting to see how he does on the campaign trail. The scrutiny will be intense, perhaps more than he is used to. Then again, he was an Army general. I think he adds an interesting element to the mix, certainly something that wasn't there before with the pack of drones, all of whose resumes are headed by the line: "Not George Bush."

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I still haven't figured out whether anybody stands for anything, particularly Dean, the WaffleMan! Kerry and Lieberman seem to be the only two who have positions to offer, and neither of them does much in the way of moving people to vote for them.

Clark seems to me in a way to be Clinton without the sleaziness, relatively middle of the road when it all settles out.”

“I was trying to figure out why they'd be saying that in the Gore headquarters, then I realized it's GOP headquarters!”

“LOL!”

“It looks to me like Strat's reign of error continues. Strat: I'd like to see you back up what you say with something more than your interpretation of what you say you heard. I don't know enough about Clark to make a decision about him.

He seems like a middle of the road guy. Kerry says that Clark supported Reagan and Nixon. I have to say I honestly don't know if Clark is a flip flopper or a moderate who believes that you should have very very good reasons to not back your president.”

“Mutt: I'd be really interested to see your case for saying that it was Russian diplomacy that won the war in Kosovo.

It looked to me like it was the growing ground assaults and threat of more against Serbians who were pinned down NATO/US air power, in addition to the direct effects of aerial assualt, including the bombing. But I'm willing to look at the possibility that what I saw was misleading.”

“"stop the bleeding? you think clark will stop the bleeding? how will he do that dood? honestly, tell me what you'ver heard from this clown that's been of any substance?"
sratdewd

"i am amazed at how quickly ya'll latch onto this guy. he may be smart(bookwise) but he ain't got it. he chokes under real pressure."
stratdewd

Hackworth says......
"Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and didn’t get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West Point class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts in any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division rifle company and was badly wounded.



Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army’s most distinguished war heroes, says: “Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn’t stop fighting. He stayed on the field till his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned ‘em.”



It took months for Clark to get back in shape. He had the perfect excuse, but he didn’t quit the Army to scale the corporate peaks as so many of our best and brightest did back then. Instead, he took a demoralized company of short-timers at Fort Knox who were suffering from a Vietnam hangover and made them the best on post – a major challenge in 1970 when our Army was teetering on the edge of anarchy. Then he stuck around to become one of the young Turks who forged the Green Machine into the magnificent sword that Norman Schwarzkopf swung so skillfully during Round One of the Gulf War."”

“Mutt: I'd be really interested to see your case for saying that it was Russian diplomacy that won the war in Kosovo

There was definitely a competition of explanations for the end of the war. There were several sources at the time that led me to believe Russian diplomacy was key to gaining permission for NATO troops to enter.

That was years ago, and I no longer have the sources. however, I searched for a comprehensive work on this, but I could only find the following. It's not too bad:


http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/moukas%20paper.pdf”

“Dear Friend,

This is the first time I have been able to speak directly to you - my
earliest supporters. Without your vision and commitment, I would not be
writing you today. And for that, for your support of me and your love
of America, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

I heard your call loud and clear, and I have answered it. As you know,
I am running for President of the United States.

I've committed myself to this cause because, like you, I could not
stand by and watch everything we've fought for, everything our nation
has accomplished and become, unravel before our eyes. I'm running for
President because the American people deserve better than the cynical
and destructive policies of the current administration: the squandering
of our now-lost 'peace dividend', the loss of millions of jobs, the
culture of corporate greed poisoning our economy, the vulnerability of
so many of our children without health coverage..

In the coming weeks and months, we will be working hand-in-hand in what
I believe will be the most important battle of my long career.
Together, we can go all the way and make our dreams of a more perfect
union a reality.

But to do so, I need your help. And I need it right away.

Our campaign desperately needs your financial support. You were one of
the many who made early pledges to make a financial contribution. You
generously pledged to donate. If you haven't already done so,
I am now asking you to honor that pledge, even to double it if you
possibly can.

Click here now to fulfill your pledge: http://clark04.com/donate/20030925/

We have less than 120 days before the first caucuses in Iowa. The other
candidates have been at this for some time and have raised enormous war
chests. President Bush has raised record amounts. But I have you: the
almost 100,000 of you who supported the draft that brought me to this
place.

Our challenge is to raise a citizens' army of contributors, volunteers
and supporters that dwarfs anything seen before in American politics.
I've recruited a first class campaign team and identified the resources
that are essential to our victory: now they need to be supplied and paid
for. We need to get on the ballot in all 50 states, set up phone banks,
get our people into the field, and so much more. And for that I need you.

Please stand with me now. Click here to contribute, and if
possible, to dig deep and give a little more:
http://clark04.com/donate/20030925/

We are at a historic moment in our country's history and you and I have
answered the call to serve. Our nation faces huge challenges. We need
a president who will focus on what will really protect our country -
not unnecessary wars like the one on Iraq. We need a new policy to help
create jobs and restore fiscal discipline. We need an Administration
that brings us together and stands up for choice, civil rights and civil
liberties.

We are the richest and most powerful nation on the face of the earth.
Each of us deserves the opportunity to 'be all that we can be'. I am
convinced that most Americans are yearning to be called to a New
American Patriotism, committed to that purpose. It is well and good
that we aspire to rebuild economies and health care and education
abroad, but if we can do it overseas, we must surely do it here. And
with your help, we will.

Now is the time to act. Click here to get us started. If you haven't
already, fulfill your pledge:
http://clark04.com/donate/20030925/

I am not a politician, and I have never before solicited a campaign
contribution. But I also have never said 'no' to my country.
Together, with passion, straight talk and the courage of our
convictions, you and I can build a movement across our great nation. A
patriotic movement which calls this Administration to account, and
replaces it with one we can be proud of, one that is truly accountable
to the people and ideals it represents.

Please, contribute what you can, and forward this email on to your
friends and neighbors. Ask them to join you in supporting this
campaign.

With your continued support, our movement will build quickly enough to
enable us to reclaim our democracy. And I will take the oath of office
in January of 2004 and lead our nation into an era of New Patriotism, of
service, economic growth, social justice and real security.

The oath of office is one I know well. It is similar to the oath I
swore when I was commissioned from West Point many years ago: to
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Never has it been more
important that all Americans respond to this call. Our freedoms and
prosperity are not won on the battlefield alone; they are won each day,
by how we govern ourselves and how we act in the world.

I intend to ensure that our government reflects the will of the people,
from whom it takes its authority. We are a courageous and optimistic
people who have always risen to the challenge of a better tomorrow.
Together, we can make sure our government is the beacon of hope - here
and abroad - that guarantees our highest hopes prevail.

With deep thanks for your early support, and a firm resolve to
accomplish our mission, I am sincerely,

Wes Clark

PS: Please don't delay. We need your help to mount our campaign and
time lost now will never be recovered. Fulfill your pledge. Contribute even more if you are able. And enlist as many
others as you can in our campaign. I am counting on you.

Click here: http://clark04.com/donate/20030925/


***************************************************************************
** Paid for by CLARK FOR PRESIDENT, Inc. Contributions or gifts to Clark **
** for President are not tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes. **
***************************************************************************”

“He wants my MONEY?!!?


The socialist.”

“Apparently some at the grassroots level are feeling...discarded? The following (long) article says among other things, that even draftwesleyclark.com is scheduled to be dismantled.
Fan Friction-
Hell hath no fury like a Draft Clark enthusiast spurned”

“he was released from duty from kosovo because he's a nut case.

he flip flopped 3 times on his views on iraq.



PLUS he's got no gravitas.....heh heh


how come he's the front runner after 1 day?

(he just announced , treedude)


the dems are so desperate. it's funny to see actually.”

“When does opinion cross the line into slander?”

“From

President Bush’s job rating has dropped to the lowest of his presidency, and he would tie with an unnamed Democratic opponent if the 2004 election were held today, the latest FOX News poll finds.

The combination of growing concerns about Iraq and gloomy views on the economy appear to be reflected in Bush’s declining job performance rating and re-election support.

The national poll of registered voters, conducted September 23-24 by Opinion Dynamics Corporation (search), shows an equal number saying they would vote to re-elect President Bush as saying they would vote for the Democratic nominee (39 percent to 39 percent) if the presidential election were held today, with 15 percent undecided. Three months ago, Bush topped the unnamed Democrat 51 percent to 30 percent (June 2003).

The poll also finds that 50 percent of Americans approve and 40 percent disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president. Early in the president’s term (and prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks), his approval rating stood at 55 percent, which had been his lowest rating before this most recent poll. The president hit his peak job rating to-date, 88 percent approval, following the 9/11 attacks (November 2001).

“The president's job approval has been supported by widespread and bipartisan support of his foreign policy — namely the war on terror and the war in Iraq," comments Opinion Dynamics President John Gorman. "Worries about the economy have been a drag on his ratings virtually from the beginning of the administration. Now with doubt growing about the conduct and cost of foreign policy, there is nothing to support the ratings.”

“Fair... Balanced... Are you sure that was from Fox?”