Clark to enter presidential race

deleted duplicate

BTW, who is "everybody?" Deception is at it again.

(Should we treat them to the first month of Dubya's stumbling and mumbling in his campaign?)

Well, I remember vaguely that people said even worse about a former governor, who later became ...

They're just gnashing their teeth in fear Dubya could lose his job, Walter. It's becoming quite possible -- the more they whistle in the dark, the more it echoes.

Lightwizard wrote:

BTW-who is everybody-----excuse me I meant to say "discerning people"-----That would be exclusive of many lefties I know.

Clark murdered innocent Civilians in Kosovo.

The quote from Christina Van Huevel is from "The Nation"( just a little bit to the right of Pravda during Stalinist days).

Actually, I welcome Clark's appearance on the scene.

There were nine dogs in the kennel biting at each other. Now, there will be ten.

It will be interesting to see exactly what some of the other Democratic candidates will say about Clark.

I don' think anybody is so naive to think that Clark will escape being bloodied by the nine.

In the meanwhile, George W. Bush is still gathering up donations to reach an unheard of 250 Million to use in the campaign next year.

We shall see.

From the Bill Clinto show article above:

Mr. Clinton's ties to the Clark campaign have triggered speculation among conservative commentators and Clark's rivals that the former president is encouraging a weak candidate so that he will lose, leaving the field open for Mrs. Clinton to run in 2008.

I personally believe this is the most likely scenario----say what you will about the most infamous scurrilous couple in political history---they are very politically savy. The lying,cheating,stealing senator from NY (or Arkansas or whereever they crawled out from) does not want to risk running against a sitting president so she wants to back someone who doesn't have chance of winning in 2004 leaving 2008 open. Enter Gen Clark.

There are many right wingers I know who are not discerning people.

Oh, Hell. Here he goes, again.


He damn well said in another interview that he probably would have voted for it. He will be murdered in any debate with either Dem candidates, or Bush. He has already flip-flopped more than all the others, and its only been a few days!

After I read all of the glowing comments about Clark, I briefly considered him as a candidate to back, until, that is, I ran into a startling commentary by FAIR.

To those who are unfamiliar with FAIR, the acronym stands for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. If is and has been definitely recognized as a LIBERAL organization( Anyone who can disprove this is invited to do so).

Here is part of what I found on this link:

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

"Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as"Right Call"

"...the various opinions he (Clark) has expressed onthe issue suggest the media's "anti-war" label is incorrect.

Here is what Clark said on CNN 1/21/03-
"I probably wouldnt have made the moves that got us to this point, but just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead,despite the fact that the allies have reservations"

and

CNN 2/5/03

"The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Sadddam Hussein HAS THESE WEAPONS and so, you know, we're going to have to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us...The UN has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States put his credibilty on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."


and

"Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction"

When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?"
Clark was resolute "Absolutely"

1/18/03


When CNN's Zahn 4/2/03 aksed if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded:
" I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this"


After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate-

"Liberation is at hand, Liberation the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions"- London Times column- 4/10/03- written by Clark.


While political reporters might welcome Clark's entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views as "Anti-war" is to render the term meaninless>

end of quotes from FAIR

His opinions, my friend....
are blowin' in the wind.
His opinions are blowin'...in the wind.

A few more tidbits that Gen Clark may not want added to his resume:
TRACING CLARK'S MILITARY MAP
By Jack Kelly
-----------------------------------------------------------



Retired Gen. Wesley Clark has thrown his helmet into the ring. He has improved the Democratic presidential field by entering it, just as he improved the Army by leaving it.

Gen. Clark is a brilliant man, and a brave one. A Rhodes scholar, he was decorated three times for heroism as commander of an armor company in Vietnam.

"Those of us who knew him as a captain thought the country would be shortchanged if he didn't rise to very high rank," said a retired Army colonel who was a student of Wesley Clark's when Gen. Clark taught at West Point.

But Gen. Clark's kindergarten teacher probably noted he doesn't play well with others.

Gen. Clark "is able, though not nearly as able as he thinks, and has tended to put his career ahead of his men to the point of excess," said a defense consultant well acquainted with the Army's senior officers. "He is opportunistic and lacks integrity. He will be an absolute menace if he gets into a position where he can exert influence on the Army because he lacks true vision and is prone to be vindictive."

Gen. Clark "regards each and every one of his subordinates as a potential threat to his career," said an officer who served under him when Gen. Clark commanded a brigade of the 4th Infantry Division in the 1980s. An officer who served under Clark when he commanded the 1st Cavalry Division said he was "the poster child for everything that is wrong with the general officer corps."

Gen. Clark doesn't get along terribly well with superiors or with allies either, which lead to his premature departure as commander of NATO.

Gen. Clark was CINCEUR when the Kosovo war began, and bears much of the responsibility for President Clinton's decision to try to bomb Serb dictator Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo. Gen. Clark argued that after a few days of bombing, Mr. Milosevic would fold his tent and slink away. When the Serbs didn't budge after months of bombing, Gen. Clark lost Mr. Clinton's favor.

As the war dragged on, Gen. Clark advocated the use of ground troops. This put him at loggerheads with Gen. Henry Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and with Gen. Eric Shinseki, chief of staff of the Army, who thought this was a terrible idea. These generals faulted Gen. Clark for getting America into an unnecessary war, and for having done a poor job of preparing for it.

"NATO did not expect a long war," wrote former Clinton national security aide Ivo Daalder. "Worse, it did not even prepare for the possibility."

The conduct of the war drew unprecedented criticism from Gen. Clark's predecessor, Gen. George Joulwan, and a quiet rebellion by subordinate commanders.

"Clark found his control over ongoing operations eroding," wrote retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich. "Rather than the theater commander, he became hardly more than a kibitzer."

What may have triggered Gen. Clark's early departure from NATO was a confrontation with the British general who was to command NATO peacekeepers.

After a Serb surrender had been negotiated with the help of the Russians, Gen. Clark ordered British Lt. Gen. Michael Jackson to parachute troops onto the airport at the Kosovar capital of Pristina, so NATO would hold it before Russian peacekeepers arrived.

Gen. Jackson refused. "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he told Gen. Clark, according to accounts in British newspapers.

Shortly after the confrontation with Gen. Jackson, Gen. Clark was told his tour as CINCEUR would end two months early. Neither Gen. Shelton nor Defense Secretary William Cohen attended his retirement ceremony, a remarkable snub for a four-star general.

Gen. Clark read Mr. Milosevic wrong, helping to provoke the Kosovo war, which he then fought badly. Gen. Clark picked up where he left off in his second career as a television kibitzer of military operations. As an analyst for CNN, Gen. Clark harshly criticized the war plan for Iraq devised by Gen. Tommy Franks, the CENTCOM commander, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Gen. Clark turned out to be completely wrong.

It says something fascinating about the Democratic field that this failed general is the class of it.



<i>Jack Kelly, a syndicated columnist, is a former Marine and Green Beret and a former deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration. He is national security writer for the Pittsburgh (Pa.) Post-Gazette</i>.



-----------------------------------------------------------
This article was mailed from The Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary

Talking about staged propaganda....

Everybody here is adult enough to know that virtually all politicians are obliged to lie if they are to stand a chance at getting elected. Somehow, as the public perception congeals, quite often the lies are left by the wayside. If honesty were the major criterion, we would have nobody to vote for.

I'm adult enough to think that sucks. It's perfectly possible to have an honest election process, without the lies, the spins, the character assassinations. Are we in the 21st century or in nazi Germany here?

Jeezè-s!

Considering the current regime, I would say the latter.

You tell me.