Here are some posts -- from the past hour -- in the Dean website blog. Think they may be of interest:
Quote:I've been checking out other forums (NYTimes, Wash.Post etc.) and the Republicans have gone into full attack mode against Wesley Clark.
His expected candidacy is already having the desired effect of diverting smears and attacks from Dean.
Quote:I was just looking at the latest Gallup Poll numbers again. Look at the candidates support amongst those that always vote:
Always
17- Gep
20- Dean
11- Lieb
14- Kerry
11- Clark
Quote:Just saw the news -- apparently when grilled by reporters for his stance on various issues, Gen. Wesley Clark's response was something along the lines of "I can't really answer those questions right now. I have a lot to learn!"
While I appreciate his honesty (not being facetious -- I really do), it did leave me wondering what all the hoopla is about. How can people get excited over a candidate when even HE doesn't know what he stands for!
And why would someone enter the race without being fairly *clear* on all that going in?
It almost sounds like he's waiting to be "groomed" -- whether by the DLC heavy-hitters or by whatever the polls indicate would be most favorable for him, that makes me very uneasy about him.
And that much more sure (if it was possible to BE more sure) that the BEST man is HOWARD DEAN!
I'd have no problem with Clark as VP, but as president??
Gosh -- call me nutty, but I want someone who knows his own mind! =:-o
Quote:MEDIA ADVISORY:
Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"
September 16, 2003
The possibility that former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark might
enter the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has been
the subject of furious speculation in the media. But while recent
coverage of Clark often claims that he opposed the war with Iraq, the
various opinions he has expressed on the issue suggest the media's
"anti-war" label is inaccurate.
Many media accounts state that Clark, who led the 1999 NATO campaign
against Yugoslavia, was outspoken in his opposition to the invasion of
Iraq. The Boston Globe (9/14/03) noted that Clark is "a former NATO
commander who also happens to have opposed the Iraq war." "Face it: The
only anti-war candidate America is ever going to elect is one who is a
four-star general," wrote Michael Wolff in New York magazine (9/22/03).
Salon.com called Clark a "fervent critic of the war with Iraq" (9/5/03).
To some political reporters, Clark's supposed anti-war stance could spell
trouble for some of the other candidates. According to Newsweek's Howard
Fineman (9/8/03) Clark "is as anti-war as Dean," suggesting that the
general would therefore be a "credible alternative" to a candidate whom
"many Democrats" think "would lead to a disaster." A September 15
Associated Press report claimed that Clark "has been critical of the Iraq
war and Bush's postwar efforts, positions that would put him alongside
announced candidates Howard Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Rep.
Dennis Kucinich of Ohio as the most vocal anti-war candidates." The
Washington Post (9/11/03) reported that Clark and Dean "both opposed the
war in Iraq, and both are generating excitement on the Internet and with
grass-roots activists."
Hearing Clark talking to CNN's Paula Zahn (7/16/03), it would be
understandable to think he was an opponent of the war. "From the
beginning, I have had my doubts about this mission, Paula," he said. "And
I have shared them previously on CNN." But a review of his statements
before, during and after the war reveals that Clark has taken a range of
positions-- from expressing doubts about diplomatic and military
strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. "victory" in a column
declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair
"should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt" (London
Times, 4/10/03).
Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine
(10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a counter-argument
to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time." Before the
war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of
troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.
As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained
on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't 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." As he
later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is
on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're
going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with
us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But
the president of the United States has put his credibility 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."
On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark
seemed remarkably confident of their existence. 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) asked 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," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03).
"Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical
of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean
plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War.
If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four
divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly
made the right call."
Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the
region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a
sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and
Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards
of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair
"should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark
explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom
of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The
way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive,
since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily
silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of
victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall
and down Constitution Avenue."
In another column the next day (London Times, 4/11/03), Clark summed up
the lessons of the war this way: "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the
continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a
single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power,
especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable
today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain
fact."
Lola, Yes it is; we must all participate in the overthrow of this dangerous administration to man kind, but especially to Americans. This guy and his henchmen have gotten us into a war that should never have started in the first place, and killed over three thousand innocent Iraqi citizens. They're really not just Iraqis, but humans like everybody else on this planet. Most in this country still think these guys did the right thing, but it's up to us to show them that they are wrong. We must reveal all the truths that have surfaced since all the lies were told to the world when this administration took over the most powerful office in the world. We must keep asking the right questions to inform the world that these people have established the wrong agenda for this world. If, for example, Iraq happpened to be the most powerful country in the world, and they treated us like we treated them, how would we react? How would anybody act? If the world community said no to war, but they attacked us anyway, how would we feel? After all, who wouldn't see GWBush as a terrorist?
If General Clark agrees that going into Iraq was correct( See Tartarin's commentary) what does this do to the positions of the two leaders- Dean and Gephardt?
Will their support be eroded when the General says going into Iraq was the right decision?
Late breaking story--Trouble in Paradise
Key Kerry Aide quits campaign
Chris Lehane quit Monday as communications director for Sen. Joh Kerry...Lehane's departure follows persistent reports of tension among Kerry staffers, largely over the issue of how forecfully to confront Dean.
Those blasted internecine struggles. They fight, weaken each other and the enemy( Bush) has lost not a drop of blood.
Italgato, with your increasing requests for documentation, i humbly ask you to document per your above statement "the enemy( Bush) has lost not a drop of blood" specifically that Bush does indeed have blood. I only ask 'cause you know how the rumours fly around on these forums.
dyslexia-
CBS News( which I trust) reported that on August 2nd 2003, President Bush passed a medical exam which included a CBC. Since a CBC is a complete blood count, that means that the doctors at Bethesda drew blood.
The doctors noted that President Bush was in good condition and able to run a mile in seven and a half minutes.
Former President Clinton would have done as well had it not been for his frequent stops at Mc Donald's.
Italgato wrote:They fight, weaken each other and the enemy( Bush) has lost not a drop of blood.
Dyslexia wrote:I humbly ask you to document per your above statement "the enemy( Bush) has lost not a drop of blood" specifically that Bush does indeed have blood.
Italgato wrote:CBS News( which I trust) reported that on August 2nd 2003, President Bush passed a medical exam which included a CBC. Since a CBC is a complete blood count, that means that the doctors at Bethesda drew blood.
Just curious.... which point were you documenting, Italgato, the fact that Bush indeed does have blood, or that Bush hasn't lost a drop of blood?
Seems to me he lost more then a few drops of something that looked like blood to the doctors. Which is the truth, has he lost drops of blood or is that red stuff beet juice?
Don't know if it has been linked to before -- but so relevant:
One Thousand Reasons to Dump George Bush
And they're all spot on.
Ya know, Wolf, with enemies like that, Bush doesn't need freinds.
Butrflynet- In order to get a CBC reading, which the doctors say they obtained, you need to subject BLOOD to various tests.
Andrew Carnegie, who began his working life sweeping-out a Scottish railway station and eventually became the world's richest man, said the recipe for his success was "Always employ those better than yourself".
Using this philosophy, even the most humble, inexperienced and ill-equipped in the land, could become a far better President than Bush - indeed, the finest President in living memory.
Recognising his own limitations was not so bad a beginning for Wesley Clark.
Italgato wrote:Butrflynet- In order to get a CBC reading, which the doctors say they obtained, you need to subject BLOOD to various tests.
Would that not then make the statement "Bush has not lost a drop of blood" a false statement?
Gen. Clark is merely part of the Clinton plan to continue the ferment in the democrat Primary and inhibit the coalescence of action on behalf of any single candidate. Why? Because they have calculated that Bush is not likely to be beaten by any Democrat in the coming election, but they don't want to take the chance that there will be any Democrat incumbent when Hillary makes her run in 2008. (a good indicator is the early endorsement by Rep. Charlie Rangal - a dedicated Clinton flack - of the Clark candidacy.) Happily for them the seven dwarfs plus two (or three) are well able to continue fermenting without focus even without the Clinton help. Meanwhile Bill Clinton takes on those tough assignments preaching Democrat pap to the previously converted in utterly safe venues, and steals attention from the dwarfs with his forthcoming book.
george
To your thesis I say 'pshaw'. Elsewhere, hobitbob wonders how Clinton has evoked such active hatred. It IS a great curiosity, and Didion among many others has wondered about this as well. Your thesis offers up a clue, mayhaps. There is the pretty clear inference that much is happening out of sight, that it is directed and organized by a teenie minority (clinton and the mrs, and perhaps satan), that it is all tricky and disguised as to motive, that Gen Clark is a pawn (unwitting or without spine) as are all others in his team, etc.
Please may I direct you to Hofstadter's wonderful and deservedly celebrated essay "The Paranoid Style of American Politics" (google will deliver it to you free of charge, though somehow, Clinton will probably get cash out of the transaction).
pps ... that's the royal 'we' up there. I'm the only one who really missed you, but I'm the one who counts.
Two exceptional pieces from the recent New York Review of Books. Italgato...time to roll up the sleeves and do some serious study - we can talk again when it becomes apparent you have 1) bothered to read, and 2) taken the time to read and ponder with some care.
Quote:As near as one can tell, the Bush administration launched its war against Iraq for three broad reasons:
1. Weapons of Mass Destruction: To disarm Iraq of its alleged chemical and biological weapons and eliminate its nuclear program.
2. National Security: To remove Iraq as a threat to American dominance of the Persian gulf and to Israel, and make it America's central ally and base in the region, replacing an increasingly unstable and Islamicist Saudi Arabia, from which American troops could be withdrawn.[6]
3. Regional Transformation: To make Iraq an example of Arab democracy as the first step in "the transformation of the Middle East" which, in the words of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, "is the only guarantee that it will no longer produce ideologies of hatred that lead men to fly airplanes into buildings in New York and Washington."[7]
Nearly six months after the war was launched, these three rationales for America's first preemptive war have been stood on their heads.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16577
And this piece, on the history of CIA activities in Iran and how those activities can be seen to have resulted in the WTC disaster.
Quote:This year is the fiftieth anniversary of the coup that deposed Mossadegh and the forces allied with him struggling to create a democracy in Iran. The coup set the Shah on a course that was to end so ignobly for him and the United States twenty-six years later. According to Stephen Kinzer in his book All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror,
It is not far-fetched to draw a line from Operation Ajax [the CIA's code name for the coup] through the Shah's repressive regime and the Islamic Revolution to the fireballs that engulfed the World Trade Center in New York.
Kinzer also says that the coup against Mossadegh, the first time that the CIA had brought about a change of regime, emboldened the US to overthrow Guatemala's Jacobo Arbenz,
and set off a sequence of events in that country that led to civil war and hundreds of thousands of violent deaths. Later, the CIA set out to kill or depose foreign leaders from Cuba and Chile to the Congo and Vietnam. Each of these operations had profound effects that reverberate to this day. Some produced immense misery and suffering and turned whole regions of the world bitterly against the United States.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16554
hobitbob wrote:It is truly impressive how Clinton so caprtured the hearts and mids of the Republicans, becasue he hasn't the same hold over the rest of us. Even the ones who have more than two functioning neurons to rub together (can conservatives rub neurons together wthout sin?) like Sofia and Timber are captivated by him. All sarcasm aside, this phenomenon is one I have never understood. I am really curious, guys...why is he so fascinating to you? I'm not playing "gotcha," I really, really wish to understand.
One thing you apparently don't understand is the difference between preconception and reality (a trait not atypical of liberals
) ... I can't speak for Sophia, but I'd be surprised to discover I've mentioned him more than a dozen or so times in something over 4000 posts here ... which would work out to a few thousandths of a percent, by my reckoning. Easy enough to verify, if you care to; just do a wordsearch and tie it to my membername as author. I haven't taken the effort to check either way, but I would venture that you've mentioned him more frequently than have I, particularly as considered on a statistical basis. I could be wrong. It matters little to me, but you might find the exersize entertaining, and perhaps even gain yourself the opportunity to expose my error. Enjoy.
Then you are unusual compared to others of your species. Why is he such a powerful influence on them?
