WHY WE NEED GENERAL CLARK AS PRESIDENT

“A week after Beirut ,we invaded Grenada. Iran was identified as
the culprit.Not soon after, Iraq
started war with Iran. Huge body count.”

“Wag The Dog”

“Here is the bone for all you Bush haters. During the Iraq-Iran war,
Rumsfeld was rumored to give Iraq
Biological weapons.”

“I don't hate Bush, I just want to see him removed from office.”

“I met his father once, I thought he was a nice guy.”

“A POUND OF PREVENTION
by Jonathan Cohn

Candidate: Wesley Clark
Category: Domestic Policy
Grade: A

If you are among that small group of people who actually pay
attention to campaign policy speeches, you may have noticed that the
major candidates (well, most of the major candidates) have put forth
very similar health care initiatives. This is not a coincidence. Each
candidate has the same set of informal policy advisors, culled from
the ranks of former Clinton-Gore officials and prominent research
universities. These policy advisors, in turn, agree on the best way
to increase access to health insurance in the current political
environment: Focus on children first; expand public programs that
cover the poor directly; offer more affluent Americans subsidies
through the tax code, then allow them to buy into the Federal
Employees' insurance plan with its affordable group rates.

Wesley Clark listens to these advisors, too. So if you were hoping
his health care speech yesterday would produce variety, you're out of
luck: He's produced just one more twist on the familiar formula....


...the most novel feature of the Clark plan, though, may be its focus
on improving the quality of health care. All of the candidates have
paid lip service to this notion, but Clark has gotten more specific.
Among other things, Clark would establish a commission to develop
quality treatment guidelines, require all federal programs to abide
by them, and then--in what seems like a pretty aggressive move--
demand that private insurers follow if they want to keep receiving
any tax subsidies.

If Clark ever got to be president and tried to implement such a
scheme, conservatives would howl about all the unnecessary
regulation. But Clark has a pretty good retort: He merely wants to do
for all Americans what the military already does for its soldiers.
The military has been aggressively promoting prevention and quality
care for years, figuring it's better to make sure soldiers don't get
sick rather than treat them once they are. Clark used this language
in his speech on Tuesday: "It seems to me that just as our soldiers
can't do their jobs without adequate health care, our families
shouldn't be expected to do their best jobs without adequate health
care, either." And at least some experts are impressed: "The rhetoric
is stronger than any other candidate I've seen, and it relates to his
personal experience," says one well-respected policy analyst who
advises Democrats. "He really thinks there needs to be much more
emphasis on prevention and quality."”

“Dear Friend,

Happy Halloween! I hope you are enjoying yourself on this lighthearted holiday.

But even as we celebrate, I can't help but recall a recent example of "dressing up" that still galls me. When George W. Bush had the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln -- an aircraft carrier with a full crew onboard -- waste time and money turning circles off of San Diego so he could put a flight suit on for a "photo op," I realized just how far off track this administration has taken us.

In less than three years, George W. Bush has presided over the loss of 3.2 million American jobs, turned a record surplus into a record deficit, and misled this country into a war that will cost us untold amounts of blood and treasure.

This has to stop before more damage is done.

That is why I am running for President of the United States. I have a plan to put Americans back to work, to balance the budget, and to provide affordable health care for 30 million uninsured Americans.

Moreover, I am the only candidate with the leadership and the experience to truly declare "mission accomplished" in Iraq and provide a clear plan for the future of the Iraqi people.”

“Please tell me the April Fools plee for votes will anounce this was all just one big? LOL!”

“LOL, Nigal!”

“...vote Clark in '04!

Taken as a whole, from the REPUTABLE slate.msn.com website

war stories Military analysis.


Err War
The Army buries its mistakes.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Friday, October 31, 2003, at 3:15 PM PT


Back in Soviet times, there was a Russian army general who liked to bellow, "Analysis is for lieutenants and women." This brute-force approach to military matters didn't serve the Soviet Union well in the long run. Unfortunately, the same attitude seems to be creeping into the U.S. Army today.

Two pieces of evidence shine all too glaringly: 1) an official, unclassified, and highly critical report on the U.S. Army's inefficient-to-shoddy intelligence practices in Iraq and Afghanistan, written by the Center for Army Lessons Learned in Ft. Leavenworth, Kan.; and 2) the removal of this report from the center's Web site, after the Washington Post published a story summarizing its contents.

The report and its suppression make clear that, in pre-war training, combat deployment, and after-action assessments, the Army hierarchy in the field and the political hierarchy in Washington devote woefully scant resources to analysis of what they're doing—and that they hold the analysts themselves in contempt, sometimes lethally so.

Administration officials and their critics agree that better intelligence is needed to deal with the guerrilla war that's escalating daily in Iraq. So the release, late last month, of the "lessons-learned" report (which you can still read on the globalsecurity.org Web site) certainly dealt a shock. Some key findings:

The 69 U.S. tactical human-intelligence (HUMINT) teams in Iraq were expected to produce at least 120 "information intelligence reports" a day, but they've been putting out, on average, just 30—"not because of the lack of activity but because of the lack of guidance and focus" from their superiors.
Most of these superiors are junior military intelligence officers who "did not appear to be prepared for tactical assignments." Even captains "lacked advanced analytical capabilities."
HUMINT databases were stored on separate computer systems, many of them loaded with incompatible software, none of them connected in such a way that the data could be shared. As the report dryly puts it, "Connectivity between the terminals was non-existent, and had an adverse effect on HUMINT mission capability."
Other phrases that pop up repeatedly in the report: "very little to no analytical skills," "lacked the foundations of collective management," "junior officers who had no formal training," "information overflow," "no internal analysis capability," "lack of competent interpreters," "no ability to analyze the information," and so forth.


The report also finds that HUMINT personnel were (and, one Pentagon official tells me, still are) often ordered to take part in four-man units that kick down doors and raid buildings. The report notes that it's a bad idea to use spies in this way: "THTs [tactical HUMINT teams] rely on the rapport they generate with the local population and their ability to collect information. Putting them on a door-kicker team ruins that rapport."

But here comes the killer (literally). The report adds, in wryly understated parentheses, that when HUMINT agents were assigned with a door-kicker team, "they were usually the #2 man, who statistically is the person who gets shot." (Italics added.)

In other words, intelligence-gathering and intelligence-analysis teams are held in such low esteem that they're supplied with mismatched computer systems, they're manned by junior officers (or more senior officers who've received little training), they're assigned to risky raid operations that have nothing to do with their missions, and, as if to place an exclamation point on their dispensability, they're put in the raid-team's most dangerous slot.

Why is this happening? Certainly no one in a position of authority explicitly wants to put spies at greater risk or to withhold resources from those who analyze the information that spies gather. A likely explanation is simply that the incentives—the systems of rewards and penalties that govern modern military life—are geared elsewhere.

Careers tend to be advanced on the battlefield or in the chain of big-ticket weapons procurement—not in the shadows of conflict or under the green eyeshade of "support analysis."

The Army has long been dominated by armor and artillery, and decisions about its budgets, missions, and priorities tend to be made by officers who rose through the ranks during the Cold War as commanders of armored divisions. A shift has begun to take place, as high-tech munitions and surveillance systems come into the arsenal, and as "rogue regimes" and terrorists replace the Soviet Union and China as the leading threats—but, at least as it affects military institutions, this shift is still in its early phase. (One tangible sign of a shift is the recent appointment of Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, a former Special Forces commander, as the Army's chief of staff; but even he can push through reforms only so far in the short run.)

And so, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has made great advances in its ability to fight and maneuver with speed and precision on the battlefield—but it's not very good at building the peace, or ensuring security, afterward. In fact, it's regressed at this art. In World War II, the U.S. Army had an enormous civil-affairs department, which started planning for the postwar occupation of Germany in 1942—three years before the war ended. Today, the U.S. Army has almost no civil-affairs branch—"peacekeeping" is not rewarded, in budgets or promotions—and so, in Gulf War II, there was, stunningly, no planning for postwar occupation at all.

Similarly, the Army has done much to incorporate the new high-tech weapons and sensors into its arsenal, but, as the lessons-learned report reveals, it has done little to incorporate them into its training programs, support budgets, or promotional practices—in short, its system of incentives, of rewards and penalties.

The Army will feel no great pressure to change this system as long as the Pentagon and the White House keep critical reports such as this one out of the public eye. The suppression of this report is but a piece of a broad administration policy that views secrecy as a default mode. After the Post published an excerpt of the Center for Army Lessons Learned report, the Army shut down the center's entire Web site. (It has since come back on, but the report was deleted.) The Pentagon recently removed from all public sites the membership list of its advisory Defense Science Board. The official reason is to protect the members from possible terrorist attacks. But this is nonsense. Surely the upper echelon of actual Pentagon officials would be more likely targets, but their names are public. (A more likely, if cynical motive, is to keep secret the board's corporate affiliations; Richard Perle, after all, was forced to step down as chairman—but not resign from the board—after press reports revealed financial conflicts of interest.)

This is too bad for many reasons. Even high-ranking administration officials are realizing that their policies—both for the occupation of Iraq and for the war on terrorism—are floundering. Donald Rumsfeld's leaked memo, earlier this month, was a cri de coeur for fresh ideas. But nothing fresh can flow if they keep circling the wagons, shutting down Web sites, cutting off criticism, and disdaining analysis.”

“Do you know the difference between General Clark and Clinton?



The general knows how to control his privates."”

“"Wesley Clark is being coached by former President Clinton. I believe this is the first time a general is being advised by a pot-smoking draft dodger."

—David Letterman”

“Yeah, this guy's got hios head on right...

Clark Campaigns at Light Speed

NEW CASTLE, New Hampshire -- Wesley Clark: Rhodes scholar, four-star general, NATO commander, futurist?

During a whirlwind campaign swing Saturday through New Hampshire, Clark, the newest Democratic presidential candidate, gave supporters one of the first glimpses into his views on technology.

Story Tools

Story Images
Click thumbnails for full-size image:



See also
Draft-Clark Posse Feels Left Out
Clark's Run: Net Made Him Do It
Will Clark Dodge the Draft?
Picture Yourself in Politics
Today's Top 5 Stories
Time-Travel Spammer Strikes Back
Miramax Chief: Gimme the Tapes
New Virus Dresses Up as E-Mail
Web Search for Everyone Else
China Locks Up Net Dissident
"We need a vision of how we're going to move humanity ahead, and then we need to harness science to do it," Clark told a group of about 50 people in New Castle attending a house party -- a tradition in New Hampshire presidential politics that enables well-connected voters to get an up-close look at candidates.

Then the 58-year-old Arkansas native, who retired from the military three years ago, dropped something of a bombshell on the gathering.

"I still believe in e=mc², but I can't believe that in all of human history, we'll never ever be able to go beyond the speed of light to reach where we want to go," said Clark. "I happen to believe that mankind can do it.

"I've argued with physicists about it, I've argued with best friends about it. I just have to believe it. It's my only faith-based initiative." Clark's comment prompted laughter and applause from the gathering.

Gary Melnick, a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said Clark's faith in the possibility of faster-than-light, or FTL, travel was "probably based more on his imagination than on physics."

While Clark's belief may stem from his knowledge of sophisticated military projects, there's no evidence to suggest that humans can exceed the speed of light, said Melnick. In fact, considerable evidence posits that FTL travel is impossible, he said.

"Even if Clark becomes president, I doubt it would be within his powers to repeal the powers of physics," said Melnick, whose research has focused on interstellar clouds and the formation of stars and planets.

Einstein's theory of special relativity says that time slows down as an object approaches the speed of light. Some scientists say that FTL travel therefore implies time travel, or being able to travel to the future or the past.

Clark's comment about FTL travel came at the end of a long answer to a question about his views of NASA and the U.S. space program. Clark said he supports the agency and believes "America needs a dream and a space program."

But Clark said the nation must prioritize its technological goals and take a pragmatic approach to focusing its scientific resources and talent.

"Some goals may take a lifetime to reach," he said. "We need to set those goals now. We need to rededicate ourselves to science, engineering and technology in this country."

Clark used his visit to New Hampshire -- which will hold the nation's first primary election in January -- to demonstrate that he hasn't forgotten the cyberspace activists who cajoled him into running in the first place, as well as to introduce voters to his views on a range of subjects.

"You have changed American politics, with the power of the Internet, modern communications and committed people who care," Clark told a handful of supporters Saturday at the Draft Clark movement's New Hampshire headquarters in Dover.”

“That's great, Nigal!

Have they broke that sound barrier yet? I hear it can't be done, no way, no how!”

“I also heard that they say that if you sail too far west, you'll fall off the planet, cause ya know, it's like flat and all....

oooohh and my buddy was telling me the other day that if you throw a witch in the water and she doesn't float, she really wasn't a witch at all. GO FIGURE!

And on the radio today, some guy was talking about how bad our weather and how the harvest was so poor, so we had to make sure that we all brought extra gifts tomorrow to Demeter's alter. He said that the Gods did not seem pleased with us latley...

And I just heard that it's true that the sky is blue because of the reflection of the Sun off of the Oceans.



hahahahahahahaa!”

“"Have they broke that sound barrier yet? I hear it can't be done, no way, no how!"

Hell, Artex does this with his A$$!”

“clark's a fart-smeller...”

“LOL, Nigal! Man! That was good!”

“For those who are down for some change, I give you the Wireside Chat:

16:56:29 A: General Clark - Hello, this is Wes Clark. I would like to welcome all of you to our Wireside chat. We have already gotten hundreds and hundreds of questions, and I will answer as many of them as I can. I apologize in advance if I don't get to all of them.
16:57:05 Q: W. Hobbs - Waldorf, MD - Most people don't like plastic politicians, what makes you the real deal?
16:58:29 A: General Clark - Well, i am not a politician. I am someone who speaks his mind - I've never been a yes man, and I am just an American who's worried about his country. You can check out my record and see that I really did things, not just talked about them.
16:58:47 Q: Jim Gardner - Oak Park, Ventura County, CA - What would your plan be for Iraq today and when you become President?
17:02:46 A: General Clark - Jim, the first thing we need to do is get the UN or another international organization in charge of the political development in the country and take the US out of that positiion. And we need to dissolve the Coalition authority - it's like an occupation to the Iraqis - and let them govern themselves as best they can while we are providing them the time to create a real constituition.
17:03:07 A: General Clark - Now, we still have to help with the economic developments, but we can do that better if we let Halliburton go home to Houston and instead funnel the resources in through international agencies. And we have to speed up efforts to let the Iraqis take over the security responsiblities there, too. We'll still need US troops for some time, but more and more should be done by the Iraqis themselves.
17:04:10 Q: John Salmon - Philadelphia, PA - The President says the econmy is improving, but we have lost about a million jobs per year since 2001. What will you do to bring back the low unemployment of the Clinton era?
17:05:04 A: General Clark - John, I have issued my plan to create jobs. I would spend $100 billion over trhe next two years to create jobs...we'd put $40 billion into homeland security type jopbs, we'd give $40 billion back to the states to replace revenues they lost because of the tax cuts, and we would provide $20 billion for employment tax credits. It will work, and it will create jobs
17:05:56 Q: Prescott Wurlitzer - Fox Point WI - If we can spend an additional 87 bn on Iraq why can't we have a healthcare system that covers everyone as in all industrialized countries?
17:08:00 A: General Clark - Prescott, good question. First, I am against giving George W thazt $87 billion as a blank check...we have to pay something but a lot of it could be loaned, and we could get more for our money if we didn't put it all through Halliburton.
17:08:10 A: General Clark - As far as Health Care, go to my web site and look at my health carre plan...we're proposing to spend almost $700 billion over ten years to improve access, value and affordability for health care in America...we'll guarantee health care coverage for all children, and make it accessible to all Americans.
17:08:25 Q: Anonymous - - What is your favorite book?
17:09:28 A: General Clark - I like to read..so I read a lot of books...... I read Pat Conroy's book this syear, My Losing Season - I always like his writing - but I read everything. espercially biographies. And I go to church every Sunday, so of course I read the Bible a lot.
17:09:39 Q: Cate in NJ - New Jersey - EDUCATION General Clark, would you find a way to fully fund the No Child Left Behind act or would you abandon the act and seek other solutions?
17:12:37 A: General Clark - Cate, I think we need to put more resources into public education. The NCLB Act is $7-8 billion short, and we'd find a way to fund it, especuially the titles on teachers, but I really don't like the idea of teaching the test, so we'll have to enhance the standards of accountability beyond the kind of standardized testing that the act envisions....
17:12:46 A: General Clark - And we really have to do more even than the act provides to empower teachers in the classroom...they are the most important leaders in America.
17:13:12 Q: Mike Moore - Mission, TX - What are your thoughts regarding the massive cuts the present administration has made in the VA system?
17:13:44 A: General Clark - Mike, I am against those cuts. I believe we owe our veterans, we made a laot of promises, and when I am President, I intend to keep them.
17:15:21 Q: Brian Loken - Mitchell, SD - Your military experience has served you well, so you'd be much more prepared than others to answer this question What three things would you take with you on a deserted island?
17:15:55 A: General Clark - Brian, well, if this is about survivor, my adviuce is, don't do it. It is a lot less fun than it looks...But seriously, always keep communications, and water...if you have that, then you can manage almost anything...Maybe a knife would be the third thing.
17:17:10 Q: Kathy - Phoenix - Will you be bringing up the award of all the contracts for restoring Iraq to BushCheney companies?
17:17:28 A: General Clark - Yes, I will, Kathy. I have been mentiioning this whenever I talk about Iraq. THose contracts are simply too biug to have been noncompetitive.
17:20:15 Q: Andy Ashton - Saratoga Springs, NY - I am concerned that the Democratic candidates' messages are becoming indistinguishable. What is your message and how do you plan to set it apart from the other candidates?
17:20:23 A: General Clark - Andy, most of us do think a lot alike, so don't worry too much about the messages....just worry about the candidates. Ask, who do you want to lead the country? Who would do the best job? Look at our records and what we have done, and what we will stand for...
17:20:34 A: General Clark - but you know, most of us are concerned that the Administration is on the warpath against ordinary people, favors big corporations and the wealthy, is out to harm public education, and so on...the only major difference is probably on Iraq. I was and am against going in there, but now that we are there, we have to do our best to be successful.
17:22:27 Q: Joanna Eldridge - Wellesley, MA - As President, you have the responsibility to appoint judges, please describe what you would look for in a judicial nominee.
17:23:12 A: General Clark - Joanna, I would not use a litmus test, but I would look for mena nad women who would approach each case with an effort to discover the facts in an impartial way, would consult and respect judicial precedent and would uuphold the Constitution. I am against judges who try to advance ideological agendas on the bench.
17:23:40 Q: Dean Soukeras - New York - What can we do to stop the proliferation of WMD?
17:26:12 A: General Clark - Dean, it is probably impossible to totally stop it...but we can slow it down. We have been doing this for years, by using treaties, inspections, and controls on classified information and certain types of research activities.
17:26:27 A: General Clark - We need to be especially watchful about Russias WMD stockpiles - the so-called loose-nuc problem...and the Russians also had the most advanced biowarfare efforts. They are still a problem. As for North Korea and Iran, we need to talk to the first and work to get the UN and IAEA in on the second.
17:27:45 Q: Crystal - Dallas - I'm curious how you burn all that Cheetos. So here's my question. What's a typical swimming workout for you these days what's the distance you cover and roughly how long it takes you to complete?
17:28:36 A: General Clark - Crysta, I try to swim 2000 yards each morning, it normally takes a little over a half hour, depending on my workout.... I usually warm up for 400 yards, and then do several different "quality " sets, like 10x100 and so forth. My pulse usually gets up to about 180 beats per minute, and so that uses up a lot of energy. Thanks for asking.
17:30:03 Q: P. Morris - Denver, CO - As President, would you consider repealing the USA Patriot Act?
17:30:59 A: General Clark - Dear P, I would suspend those portions that endanger our privacy and open the full Act for legislative and public review. We have to determine what it's been used for and what damage it has done. The we can ask whether we really need these measures to protect us.
17:33:50 Q: E. Blackaby - Walla Walla, Wa - Is having a miitary career rather than a political career as positive or a negative for your campaign?
17:34:03 A: General Clark - E, I should ask you that. For me it is a positive, and I am very proud of my service in the Army. We did a lot of good for a lot of people, but it is really up to the voters. Probably some people might be hesitant because I am a general, but when they get to know me, they may change their mind. This is what democracy is all about.
17:34:22 A: General Clark - Thanks you all for participating. Hope you'll be at the meet-ups tonight.




GET DOWN!!!”

“"According to a new Newsweek poll, after a few days after entering the race, General Wesley Clark is already the Democratic frontrunner, according to the polls if the race were held today Clark and Bush would be a virtual dead heat. In a related story Bush announced he is calling Clark out of retirement and sending him to Iraq."
—Jay Leno”

“Will the Real Wesley Clark Please Stand Up?
By JAY AMBROSE
Sep 24, 2003, 05:29
Email this article
Printer friendly page
Wesley Clark doesn't seem to have much of an idea of what he thinks about health care, jobs, education or any other domestic issue, and there's therefore a major question about his presidential candidacy. Why is he running?
One answer was that he had his position on the war in Iraq figured out. After publication of a New York Times story about his remarks on a campaign plane, the assumption becomes problematic. He seemed uncertain whether he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing a U.S. invasion.

"I don't know if I would have or not," the Times quotes him as musing. "I've said it both ways, because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position. On balance, I probably would have voted for it."

As the interview on the plane proceeded, he called on his press secretary, who was in the front of the plane. "Mary, help!"

She seems to have had the response he was seeking. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution," she is quoted as saying by way of rescue, and he is pleased.

"Right. Exactly."”

“Nigal being against him is the best endorsement possible.

Seriously – I know there are many Republicans disillusioned with Dubya. Please consider supporting General Clark in 2004. You can go back to old habits once the neocons are no longer in a position to harm us.”

“Oh yeah… beautiful cut & paste Nigal - hypocrite!”

“Well, take from that what you will, I myself will never vote for anyone running for office that has changed his mind. Nope, no way.....are you listening? Am I talking Hispanicly to you? Are we in agreeance? People who change there mind SUCK!

Only vote for the ones who are robots.....that's it....robots....well.....and the Spiders from Mars...but that's it...really...well, maybe Shirley Temple too, but enough!”

““You can go back to old habits once the neocons are no longer in a position to harm us."

Beautiful display of your political ignorance Viola. Name me one single neocon in the Bush administration. Just one. They have been conservatives from the start. A neocon is someone who was a liberal but is now a conservative. You just love the catchphrase don't ya?


"Oh yeah… beautiful cut & paste Nigal - hypocrite!"

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander - shlthead!”

“Forgive me for not having the time to do my own research but where does this guy stand enviromentally?

This will likely be my first ever Democratic vote...”

“Name me one single neocon in the Bush administration. Just one. They have been conservatives from the start.


You're joking right?”

“"Well, take from that what you will, I myself will never vote for anyone running for office that has changed his mind. Nope, no way.....are you listening? Am I talking Hispanicly to you? Are we in agreeance? People who change there mind SUCK!"

I have no problem with having differing opinions from a person's past statements but when ya gotta call your handlers into the room to answer where ya stand on an issue, something's wrong.”

“Wes hasn't come out offically with his plan just yet. This is from his old draftwesleyclark.com website. I'll look on my yahoo group site for more info when I gets into work:

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”

“"You're joking right?"

No. When was Bush a liberal and when did he change?”

“And Regan never had Mommy call the Pychic or called her into the room with people were being mean to him.

The problem is that he's NOT a politician, so please forgive him if he doesn't have his cheat sheet with him. I would think that everyone here would know that what comes outta there mouth is very important this time of year. I'd rather call someone in than phcuk something up. It just shows he wants to get people involved in the decision making process......



......OK, maybe that went a little far, but this is just wishful thinking and grasping at straws. Too bad this is the best ya got. I'm sure if we look back, Bush Part Deux and Co is good for at least 10 flip flops. I wanna know WHERE ARE THE HOOKER AND COKE STORIES??”

“I thought you asked me to name a neoconservative in the Bush administration, Nigal. Now you’ve changed the subject to Bush himself. He has been heavily influenced by neocons in his administration like:
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
Douglas Feith
David Wurmser
Elliot Abrams
Richard Armitage
John Bolton
Paula Dobriansky
Zalmay Khalilzad
Donald Rumsfeld”

“Nigal is right, kinda. Maybe back about 20 or so years ago, but Neocon are now a term to describe Ultra rightwing values...



Neocon 101

Some basic questions answered.

What do neoconservatives believe?
"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.

Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.

What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?
The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.

Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.

What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?

Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored détente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s.

Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.

How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy?

Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.

But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill.

Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI – the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.

What does a neoconservative dream world look like?

Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.

Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary.”

“"......OK, maybe that went a little far, but this is just wishful thinking and grasping at straws."

Let me get this right, one of the reasons he is being ballyhooed about as a candidate is the fact he’s a Rhoads Scholar. Wouldn’t a fart smeller, er, smart feller like that already know what his platform is? I’m not so blind to think Bush is some kind of genius but dang, your views and platform are basics. It’s like someone asking me what I think about abortion and giving the answer, “Hang on a second. Let me call my friend and ask him.”.”

“When were those people liberals Violin? It's no big stretch to post a list but what about background proof they have shifted from left to right?

Face it, it's just a cool sounding lable.”

“"but dang, your views and platform are basics..........."

Yep, they sure are, however, I don't care if you're the smartest person on the Earth, you flub one comment and it coudl bring the whole thing down. Look at Dean. He should've stepped out and asked fer help before he said "Rebel Flag" callout. Clark hasn't been in the race and isn't polished, yet. I have a feeling that this will be a non issue.

BTW - where did that stroy come from any ways? I didn't see a tag to it. Sorry if I missed it.”

“http://chblue.com/artman/publish/article_3111.shtml

Sorry about that. I've seen it floated around in other places too. I’m not too good about citing my cut and pastes here because I’m posting totally satirical here because I don’t give two flying figs about or for Clark. Not that I’m trolling ya…but it is hard to resist yanking the zealot’s chain. LOL! Don’t worry, I’ll let ya slug me in the arm for free on our next hike! 8P”

“I wasn't calling ya out, Nigie Poo. I was interested in seeing where it came from. Believe me, I don't take anything personaly, really, I would concider it an honor if you trolled me!”

“MSNBC Poll


Which Democrat do you think will win the party's nomination?
* 11817 responses
Wes Clark
36%
Howard Dean
46%
John Edwards
1%
Dick Gephardt
5%
John Kerry
5%
Dennis Kucinich
1%
Joe Lieberman
2%
Carol Mosley-Braun
1%
Al Sharpton
3%


Wes has gathered steamed in this poll since yesterday, where he only held a 28 % point.”

“"Howard Dean
46%"

Good gawd! That's scarey chit right there! I guess I should hope for Dean because the election would be like The Hulk beating up my little sister.”

“Never fear, Nigal....once the others drop out, Wes will pick up anodder 19 points there fer ya! LoL!”

“White House Puts Limits on Queries From Democrats

By Dana Milbank

The Bush White House, irritated by pesky questions from
congressional Democrats about how the administration is using taxpayer
money, has developed an efficient solution: It will not entertain any
more questions from opposition lawmakers.

The decision -- one that Democrats and scholars said is highly unusual
-- was announced in an e-mail sent Wednesday to the staff of the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees. House committee Democrats had
just asked for information about how much the White House spent making
and installing the "Mission Accomplished" banner for President Bush's
May 1 speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

The director of the White House Office of Administration, Timothy A.
Campen, sent an e-mail titled "congressional questions" to majority and
minority staff on the House and Senate Appropriations panels.
Expressing "the need to add a bit of structure to the Q&A process," he
wrote: "Given the increase in the number and types of requests we are
beginning to receive from the House and Senate, and in deference to the
various committee chairmen and our desire to better coordinate these
requests, I am asking that all requests for information and materials
be coordinated through the committee chairmen and be put in writing
from the committee."

He said this would limit "duplicate requests" and help answer
questions "in a timely fashion."

It would also do another thing: prevent Democrats from getting
questions answered without the blessing of the GOP committee chairmen.

"It's saying we're not going to allow the opposition party to ask
questions about the way we use tax money," said R. Scott Lilly,
Democratic staff director for the House committee. "As far as I know,
this is without modern precedent."

Norman Ornstein, a congressional specialist at the American Enterprise
Institute, agreed. "I have not heard of anything like that happening
before," he said. "This is obviously an excuse to avoid providing
information about some of the things the Democrats are asking for."

Campen's e-mail wording suggests the policy may extend to other
inquiries about the functioning of the Executive Office of the
President, but the immediate targets were the spending committees. For
years, those panels had a strong bipartisan tradition in which the
majority party generally joined the minority in tough oversight of the
administration.

Brookings Institution government scholar Thomas Mann said the
Democrats have little ability to challenge the decision. "This is just
one of many instances where Republicans have a legal basis for what
they're doing, but it violates long-standing norms," he said. All the
Democrats can do, he said, "is carp."

The White House said it is in discussions to reach an amicable
compromise. "There have been staff-level discussions about ways to
better coordinate requests from Congress," said spokeswoman Ashley
Snee. "It was not the intent to suggest minority members should not ask
questions without the consent of the majority."”

“"W" stands for, "Where are the WMD's?".”

“"Under John Kerry's 'plan,' Saddam would still be in power, the
French would still be selling him the 68mm missiles used in the
attack on Paul Wolfowitz's Baghdad hotel last week, and there
would still be Iraqis being fed feet-first into the industrial
shredders. Or have I missed something?" --Mark Steyn”

“It's looking more and more like Dean has it just about wrapped up. He'll do too.”

“Why is that?”

“Union endorsements.”

“I sure do hope that either clark or dean has the other as VP candidate.”

“Would either be willing to take the VP slot? I guess we'll see at the convention.

One has to have such a tremendous ego to even consider running for President, it can be difficult to take the Number Two spot.”