Wesley Clark's Sounding Very Presidential Lately

[Nbadan]

Forget Hillary, gore Al Gore, if Demos want out of the box,
then Wes Clark should be the Demo front-runner in 08

Impressive speech by Clark as he Keynotes Warren Co, Iowa Democratic Dinner. Clark warns that we are at the brink of a dangerous precipice, either we defeat the thugs in Nov and pull back from war with Iran, or the U.S. will face a national security disaster...

"There's about 50,000 people out there aligned with Osama bin Laden. Not one government supports Osama bin Laden. It's NOT World War III. Unless we make it that way. Unless we make it that way.

And that's my greatest concern. If we don't get our Democrats in office, around America and in the Congress in Washington, this administration is going to take us to war with Iran, and try to start a war with a billion people. People of the Islamic faith. There's no reason to do it. In my view. There's a solution to the problem we face."

Clark is deadly serious about the threat to America posed by an unchecked Bush Administration, which is the real reason why he is campaigning for Democrats every day now, day and night, in every corner of our nation. That's what hangs in the balance.

Clark went on to add:

"I say, let's talk with people we don't agree with. We should right now, be talking with the government of Iran, the government of Syria, and I'm talking about face-to-face talks at senior levels of government. Not outsourcing it.

I'd like to tell you this administration was too cowardly to talk with people it doesn't agree with. But of course, that's not true. It's not cowardice. What they still harbor is the intent to attack the governments of Syria and Iran and therefore they block any diplomatic dialog. And the consequence has been that they dump the problem of Iraq on our good men and women in uniform and they force them to try to treat it as a military problem when it is not applicable.

A military solution will not work in Iraq. You've got to have a diplomatic solution, a political solution, and you've got to use your military as leverage.

You can't win it by killing people in Iraq. It's not that kind of a struggle."

Wes Clark always has inside sources. When he says that the Bush Administration is blocking diplomatic dialog with Syria and Iran because their intent is to attack Syria and Iran, Clark has damn good reasons for saying that. Earlier in that same speech Clark had this to say:

"We are at war. We've got 140,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. We've got another 30,000 in Kuwait backing them up. We've got 20,000 troops in Afghanistan. We are stretched flat out.

This talk about "maybe we could put a few more troops over there". It's academic, ladies and gentlemen.

The volunteer army is working as hard as it can work. The families are being stretched and squeezed, and separated and punished about as much as they can be punished. And frankly, if Congress gave us enough money to raise another 100,000 troops, which is what we need, we couldn't get 'em.

We're a country at war. Now I know the President hasn't asked us to sacrifice, in fact, he asked us to go shopping. He cut taxes for wealthy people and he's worried about the price of gasoline because that seems to be the most important thing on his mind to correlate to reelection. But I want to tell you this country is at the precipice of a national security disaster.

Just a disaster."

Securing America

[BIG IRISH]

Rather than give this general a promotion to President of the United States, my advice is that the citizens should discharge him from the campaign immediately.

My primary concern in this article is with the candidacy of Wesley Clark, because he projects the type of image that many Southern Democrats might buy.

Tall, handsome, well-spoken, and with a high-ranking retirement

One of the problems with the current state of politics in America is that most voters only scan the surface. And, on the surface, Wesley Clark looks very good.

Here's what one finds beneath the surface regarding Wesley Clark.

Myth #1: “He is qualified to be president, because he is a Rhodes scholar.”

This statement is an oxymoron, because anyone that graduates the Oxford program named after Cecil Rhodes should be automatically disqualified from any leadership position of any kind within the United States of America.


The essential mission of the Rhodes scholarship program is to plant the seeds of Socialism into otherwise bright young minds.

And, never was the planting of those seeds so successful as when Bill Clinton (another Rhodes scholar) implemented one Communist policy after another during his presidency.

Clinton surrounded himself with people from Little Rock, and Wesley Clark was part of that inner circle.

To think that Wesley Clark will not have at least one Clinton (most likely two) on his Cabinet would be foolish.

Now, given that Bill Clinton shredded much of the American military, what do you think would happen to the military with a Clinton understudy as president?

And, what position do you think that the “honorable” former President Bill “loathing the military” Clinton would occupy in the Cabinet? (Secretary of Defense?! Attorney General??)

Myth #2: “He is qualified to be president, because he is a retired general.” This is a trickier myth to unravel, because I do believe that military leadership experience is usually a qualifier for political leadership. But, there are definitely exceptions.

It seems that, when looking into the background of General Clark, there are two types of quotes available.

One type is a quote from people that adore him; the other is a quote from people that despise him.

Something else to consider is the source of the comments. Positive comments are often made by people that have never been in the military, and who key in on the “snapshot” quotes (from his military record) put out by the Clark campaign.

(Of course, one of the most glowing quotes came from Alexander “I’m in charge” Haig. So, it is a bit suspect in my mind.)

Negative comments are often made by people that were also career military; and, in some cases, have had to live with the effects of some of Clark's orders. (And, the Secretary of Defense that fired Clark said, “…the ax, as such, when it fell spoke for itself.”)


It will be hard to recover from a man of Col. Hackworth’s caliber calling Clark “The Ultimate Perfumed Prince”. And, the tone of “Reporting for duty: Wesley Clark” seems to be as much anti-“Dubya” as it is pro-Clark. \

Serious accusations that Clark may have approved the specific bombing of civilian targets seem to overlooked by the same liberal media that has given Clark so much exposure.

I know that exposure on network TV can make even a bad officer look good. It would appear that one immoral campaign led to another. (And, it is not a recovery to state, “Belgrade was bombed on both Easters.”)

Myth # 3: “Clark is qualified to be president, because he is bipartisan.”

There is an old saying, “If you don’t stand for something, then you’ll fall for anything.” I think this saying best sums up the “bipartisan” quality of Wesley Clark.

I view Clark’s version of “bipartisan” as someone that will go “all over the map” to reach the ultimate goal. And, just what is Clark’s ultimate goal? Go back to the fact that he is a Rhodes scholar, and the ultimate goal of Cecil Rhodes: a global Socialist government, ruled by graduates of his program.

Members of the Rhodes fellowship see themselves as a separate class of people, destined to rule over us common folk.

Clark was born a Jew, raised as a Baptist, and became a Catholic.


He has heaped praise on Republicans for years, but is running for president as a Democrat.

Other than the dedication to world Socialism that undergirds the Rhodes program, what does Wesley Clark really stand for? Is he a true “bipartisan” negotiator; or, is he simply an “unhinged” power-grabber?

Is he a commanding presence on the political battlefield, or a puppet of the Clintonista machine?


http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...vach020704.htm

FUTHURMORE:
General Wesley Clark was involved in the siege and final assault near Waco, Texas that killed, by a combination of toxic gas and fire, at least 82 people including some three dozen women, children and infants.

As outlandish as this claim may seem, it's a reasonable conclusion that can be drawn by any fair minded person who takes the time to examine the evidence.

Further, there is substantial evidence that, Clark, in addition to acting as a tactical consultant, may, in fact, have been the prime architect and commander of the entire ing operation.

If this is true, why is it important? It represents a clear violation of US law.

The military is banned from involvement in the enforcement of US civil law except under certain carefully defined cir stances. The incident at Waco did not come even close to legally qualifying.


Second, it casts light on some of the more outrageous tactics used in the war against Yugoslavia, in particular the bombing attacks on Yugoslavian news media, essential life support services, and on civilians, the latter which were sometimes, but not always, described as "accidents."

I send my retirement check to Hillary before I'd vote for the ASS HOLEi

and the following is a good reason for not voting for clark, if you can't find any others:

I?ll Be Voting For Wesley Clark by Michael Moore

Many of you have written to me in the past months asking, "Who are you going to vote for this year?"

I have decided to cast my vote in the primary for Wesley Clark. That's right, a peacenik is voting for a general. What a country!


http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/me...ate=2004-01-14

[Ocotillo]

Secretary of State in a Warner/Feingold adminstration?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Rather than give this general a promotion to President of the United States, my advice is that the citizens should discharge him from the campaign immediately.

My primary concern in this article is with the candidacy of Wesley Clark, because he projects the type of image that many Southern Democrats might buy.

Tall, handsome, well-spoken, and with a high-ranking retirement

One of the problems with the current state of politics in America is that most voters only scan the surface. And, on the surface, Wesley Clark looks very good.

Here's what one finds beneath the surface regarding Wesley Clark.

Myth #1: “He is qualified to be president, because he is a Rhodes scholar.”

This statement is an oxymoron, because anyone that graduates the Oxford program named after Cecil Rhodes should be automatically disqualified from any leadership position of any kind within the United States of America.


The essential mission of the Rhodes scholarship program is to plant the seeds of Socialism into otherwise bright young minds.

And, never was the planting of those seeds so successful as when Bill Clinton (another Rhodes scholar) implemented one Communist policy after another during his presidency.

Clinton surrounded himself with people from Little Rock, and Wesley Clark was part of that inner circle.

To think that Wesley Clark will not have at least one Clinton (most likely two) on his Cabinet would be foolish.

Now, given that Bill Clinton shredded much of the American military, what do you think would happen to the military with a Clinton understudy as president?

And, what position do you think that the “honorable” former President Bill “loathing the military” Clinton would occupy in the Cabinet? (Secretary of Defense?! Attorney General??)

Myth #2: “He is qualified to be president, because he is a retired general.” This is a trickier myth to unravel, because I do believe that military leadership experience is usually a qualifier for political leadership. But, there are definitely exceptions.

It seems that, when looking into the background of General Clark, there are two types of quotes available.

One type is a quote from people that adore him; the other is a quote from people that despise him.

Something else to consider is the source of the comments. Positive comments are often made by people that have never been in the military, and who key in on the “snapshot” quotes (from his military record) put out by the Clark campaign.

(Of course, one of the most glowing quotes came from Alexander “I’m in charge” Haig. So, it is a bit suspect in my mind.)

Negative comments are often made by people that were also career military; and, in some cases, have had to live with the effects of some of Clark's orders. (And, the Secretary of Defense that fired Clark said, “…the ax, as such, when it fell spoke for itself.”)


It will be hard to recover from a man of Col. Hackworth’s caliber calling Clark “The Ultimate Perfumed Prince”. And, the tone of “Reporting for duty: Wesley Clark” seems to be as much anti-“Dubya” as it is pro-Clark. \

Serious accusations that Clark may have approved the specific bombing of civilian targets seem to overlooked by the same liberal media that has given Clark so much exposure.

I know that exposure on network TV can make even a bad officer look good. It would appear that one immoral campaign led to another. (And, it is not a recovery to state, “Belgrade was bombed on both Easters.”)

Myth # 3: “Clark is qualified to be president, because he is bipartisan.”

There is an old saying, “If you don’t stand for something, then you’ll fall for anything.” I think this saying best sums up the “bipartisan” quality of Wesley Clark.

I view Clark’s version of “bipartisan” as someone that will go “all over the map” to reach the ultimate goal. And, just what is Clark’s ultimate goal? Go back to the fact that he is a Rhodes scholar, and the ultimate goal of Cecil Rhodes: a global Socialist government, ruled by graduates of his program.

Members of the Rhodes fellowship see themselves as a separate class of people, destined to rule over us common folk.

Clark was born a Jew, raised as a Baptist, and became a Catholic.


He has heaped praise on Republicans for years, but is running for president as a Democrat.

Other than the dedication to world Socialism that undergirds the Rhodes program, what does Wesley Clark really stand for? Is he a true “bipartisan” negotiator; or, is he simply an “unhinged” power-grabber?

Is he a commanding presence on the political battlefield, or a puppet of the Clintonista machine?


http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...vach020704.htm

FUTHURMORE:
General Wesley Clark was involved in the siege and final assault near Waco, Texas that killed, by a combination of toxic gas and fire, at least 82 people including some three dozen women, children and infants.

As outlandish as this claim may seem, it's a reasonable conclusion that can be drawn by any fair minded person who takes the time to examine the evidence.

Further, there is substantial evidence that, Clark, in addition to acting as a tactical consultant, may, in fact, have been the prime architect and commander of the entire ing operation.

If this is true, why is it important? It represents a clear violation of US law.

The military is banned from involvement in the enforcement of US civil law except under certain carefully defined cir stances. The incident at Waco did not come even close to legally qualifying.


Second, it casts light on some of the more outrageous tactics used in the war against Yugoslavia, in particular the bombing attacks on Yugoslavian news media, essential life support services, and on civilians, the latter which were sometimes, but not always, described as "accidents."

I send my retirement check to Hillary before I'd vote for the ASS HOLEi

and the following is a good reason for not voting for clark, if you can't find any others:

I?ll Be Voting For Wesley Clark by Michael Moore

Many of you have written to me in the past months asking, "Who are you going to vote for this year?"

I have decided to cast my vote in the primary for Wesley Clark. That's right, a peacenik is voting for a general. What a country!


http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/me...ate=2004-01-14

Why not just save us some time and type Democrats are bad and Republicans are good.

[101A]

The leadership of Iran denies the holocaust.

The leadership of Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map.

The leadership of Iran has stated that they would be willing to sacrifice half or their population to make Israel go away.

The leadership of Iran took the podium two weeks ago at the U.N....and well, you know what he said.

The leader of Iran closed his speach by praying for something to happen which would necessarily entail the destruction of our nation.

We should not negotiate with these people; you cannot reason with the unreasonable.

Although many people suggest that it is the goal of the Bush administration, I have not heard anyone at the White House suggest we ought to go to war with Iran. (Straw Man argument on Clarks Part).

Clark does, however, sound like a presidential candidate. He is pandering to his fringe base.

[clambake]

You don't have to be qualified to president anymore. , people land positions that their not qualified for everyday. Some of them at least get up to speed after time. They may not provide any groundbreaking progress, but at least their not the root cause of anything catastrophic. Bush has never got up to speed and never will. He couldn't prevent catastrophy BECAUSE he created it. You can't lie to try to make a point valid. It doesn't work.
Bush is probably an ok guy at a ballgame or for a round of golf, but that's it. He's just not qualified and noone around him is either. Would a dem be any better? I don't know, but it couldn't be worse.
What is Rumsfeld doing? Is he competeing with Bush to be the dumbest leader in American history? He won't listen to anyone but himself. Are these the only people on earth that don't see that Iraq is a miserable failure? Mission Accomplished is a perfect example of their incompetence. They will never ease in to their positions.
Rice? Are you kidding me? Her amount of stature isn't even on the chart. Does anybody really think anyone listen's to her? She makes a surprise visit to Baghdad? What for? So they can take pictures of a meaningless moment for the history books? So she can build up her frequent flier miles?
The dems are no better, but they couldn't be worse. Now with this Foley thing, it's like a kids soccer match. The pages are the kids standing on the sidelines because the grownups are on the field fighting each other. Now it's not even about the kids anymore.

It's time for one of those limited nuclear exchange scenerios. Someone, anyone, launches a missle, and then we launch a missle. I don't care what we hit as long they hit DC. Get rid of all of them and start over. So go ahead Yoni and turn me in.

[Zunni]

It will be hard to recover from a man of Col. Hackworth’s caliber calling Clark “The Ultimate Perfumed Prince”.

Was he in his hotel room in Saigon with hookers radioing orders to his troops at the time? Hackworth was a disgrace to the uniform.

[ObiwanGinobili]

nothing posted here makes me feel ill of Wesley Clark.

[RandomGuy]

Clark is bad and would make a horrible president.

A military solution will not work in Iraq. You've got to have a diplomatic solution, a political solution, and you've got to use your military as leverage.

This is exactly what the war on terror needs, instead of the one-dimensional failure that has been losing the war on terror.

It is also exactly what the NIE says needs to happen.

[RandomGuy]

The leadership of Iran denies the holocaust.

The leadership of Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map.

The leadership of Iran has stated that they would be willing to sacrifice half or their population to make Israel go away.

The leadership of Iran took the podium two weeks ago at the U.N....and well, you know what he said.

The leader of Iran closed his speach by praying for something to happen which would necessarily entail the destruction of our nation.

We should not negotiate with these people; you cannot reason with the unreasonable.

Although many people suggest that it is the goal of the Bush administration, I have not heard anyone at the White House suggest we ought to go to war with Iran. (Straw Man argument on Clarks Part).

Clark does, however, sound like a presidential candidate. He is pandering to his fringe base.

The obvious solution is to change the leadership of Iran.

How do you do that?

By embracing them. Their people hate them, but they effectively use an easily hated Bush to play off against.

Think outside the box, take that away, and they will have no villian for their play except themselves. It frames the debate in that country to a method of OUR choosing, not the nutbags in charge.

[RandomGuy]

Michael Moore likes Clark, he must be bad.

If Michael Moore says the sky is blue, does that make it NOT blue?

Nope.

If Michale Moore likes chocolate ice cream does that make it less yummy?

These are common sense things that actually demonstrate the real problem with mindless ad hominem.

Your hatred of Michael Moore leads you to logically flawed decisions.

[RandomGuy]

Myth #4:

Big Irish makes decisions based on logic and reasoning, rather than moronic emotional impulses that have little to do with reality.

[Burly_Man]

Reporting for duty: Wesley Clark
September 23, 2003

With Wesley Clark joining the Democratic presidential candidates, there are enough eager bodies pointed toward the White House to make up a rifle squad. This bunch of wannabes could make things increasingly hot for Dubya – as long as they don't blow each other away with friendly fire.

Since Clark tossed his steel pot into the inferno, I've been constantly asked, "Hack, what do you think of the general?"

For the record, I never served with Clark. But after spending three hours interviewing the man for Maxim's November issue, I'm impressed. He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes national security tick – and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts him in the supersmart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor.

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 'til 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 Norman Schwarzkopf swung so skillfully during Round One of the Gulf War.

I asked Clark why he didn't turn in his bloody soldier suit for Armani and the big civvy dough that was definitely his for the asking.

His response: "I wanted to serve my country."

He says he now wants to lead America out of the darkness, shorten what promises to be the longest and nastiest war in our history and restore our eroding prestige around the world.

For sure, he'll be strong on defense. But with his high moral standards and because he knows where and how the game's played, there will probably be zero tolerance for either Pentagon porking or two-bit shenanigans.

No doubt he's made his share of enemies. He doesn't suffer fools easily and wouldn't have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he's ripped into during the past three decades.

Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign when I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a "Perfumed Prince." Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was wrong – the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen, U.S. SecDef at the time.

At the interview, Clark came along without the standard platoon of handlers and treated the little folks who poured the coffee and served the bacon and eggs with exactly the same respect and consideration he gave the biggies in the dining room like my colleague Larry King and Bob Tisch, the Regency Hotel's owner. An appealing common touch.

But if he wins the election, don't expect an Andrew Jackson field-soldier type. Clark's an intellectual, and his military career is more like Ike's – that of a staff guy and a brilliant high-level commander. Can he make tough decisions? Bet on it. Just like Ike did during his eight hard but prosperous years as president.


Col. David H. Hackworth, author of his new best-selling "Steel My Soldiers' Hearts," "Price of Honor" and "About Face," has seen duty or reported as a sailor, soldier and military correspondent in nearly a dozen wars and conflicts – from the end of World War II to the recent fights against international terrorism.

Reporting for Duty

[BIG IRISH]

Was he in his hotel room in Saigon with hookers radioing orders to his troops at the time? Hackworth was a disgrace to the uniform.

Yes he was and you need to find out why they called on him.
Disgrace to the Uniform, not a chance.

Burly Man
Thank You. I did not realize Hack had changed his position on Clark, hoever,
It will be hard to recover from a man of Col. Hackworth’s caliber calling Clark “The Ultimate Perfumed Prince”. And, the tone of “Reporting for duty: Wesley Clark” seems to be as much anti-“Dubya” as it is pro-Clark. \


ClamBake

It's time for one of those limited nuclear exchange scenerios. Someone, anyone, launches a missle, and then we launch a missle. I don't care what we hit as long they hit DC.

Get rid of all of them and start over.... .

Don't want to shake anybody up but AMEN

but be careful what you ask for in the case of Clark.

I want Col Powell to run, but I'm afraid he is just to dam smart to run..





[QUOTE] 01Snake
RG
From the looks of some of your posts, it doesn't appear that the Mr. Intellectual thing is working out to good for you outside of Internet Land
[/UNQUOTE]