Interesting to say the least BT....
"Dean & Clark -- a Republican dream?"
"For some Republicans, Howard Dean's supremacy among Democratic presidential aspirants -- $10 million expected to be raised in the July-September
quarter; a 21-point lead in New Hampshire -- causes merriment. They think a Dean nomination, featuring opposition to the war, enthusiasm for higher
taxes and approbation for same-sex civil unions, would mean four more years of what Dean considers the Bush-Ashcroft Terror."
"Gen. Chutzpah: Wes Clark wasnt prescient about his own war"
"Call him "Gen. Chutzpah." General Wesley Clark is riding high on what is universally considered his prescience about the current Iraq war. Going
unremarked is his utter lack of prescience about his own war, in Kosovo in 1999. Back then, Clark thought he had Slobodan Milosevic figured out, and
that the mere threat of NATO bombing and perhaps a day or two of the real thing would bring him to the negotiating table and force him to be
reasonable. When this turned out not to be the case, Clark had no Plan B, because President Clinton had ruled..."
"Wes Clark: The new McClellan?"
The Washington Times ^ | 10 September 2003
"On the Fox News Hannity & Combs Show of August 21st, General Wesley Clark said the President Bush removed Saddam Hussein under false pretenses.
The General should know something about false pretenses, as he was the NATO military commander in 1999, during the military intervention in Kosovo.
This operation, during our recent co-presidency, was designed to save Muslim Kosovo from a rabid Serbian leader. It was hyped by a media campaign that
charged ethnic cleansing, but found little evidence of mass murder (unlike the killing fields of Iraq). The propaganda campaign included faked
photos supposedly taken of starving concentration camp inmates (in contrast to Saddams torture pens). However, the conflict did produce a mass of
refugees, and Clark deserves credit for handling this problem. Clark also said on August 21st that he had told the Clintons Secretary of State,
Madeleine Albright, that more damage is being done in Yugoslavia, than Iraq. Yet, on December 16th, 1998, Gore had said...If you allow someone like
Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons?...He used poison
gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people. Yet, Clark found
the situation in Yugoslavia a greater threat than Iraq.
As noted, Milosevic had no weapons of mass destruction, and didnt threaten to use those weapons to control the worlds greatest oil resources--and
therefore effect millions of jobs and the economies of the civilized world. He didnt attempt to assassinate a former US president, or pay bounties to
the families of suicide bombers. He didnt train terrorists, nor provide a safe haven for them. Saddam Hussein did all of the above, but apparently
Wes Clark never noticed--he considered poor little Serbia a bigger threat than Iraq. So, under Clarks astute leadership, we bombed: a hospital for
the mentally ill; a passenger train; a convoy of tractors and carts loaded with refugees--and Bill Clintons strategic partners at the Chinese
Embassy. We also lost an F-117 stealth fighter under mysterious circumstances (some of the parts for which have probably long since been delivered to
Clintons strategic partners); and, we could not fly our Apache helicopters due to inadequate crew training. But we succeeded in helping the Kosovo
Liberation Army (KLA), an Islamic military force financed by drug money and allied with Osama bin Laden. These same forces are now poised to launch an
invasion of Albania. And regarding refugees, It has gone without notice that our action in Iraq, unlike Kosovo, produced few. This is due to careful
planning under the leadership of a serious and less flamboyant commander, and the efficiency of our bombing--which left civilian neighborhoods,
hospitals, passenger trains, and the Chinese Embassy intact. Iraqis have also chosen to remain in occupied Iraq.
Clark deserves praise for his service and personal valor in the chaotic and disastrously mismanaged Vietnam War. However, while commanding our forces
in Panama in 1996-1997, he failed to alert the country and the congress to the implications of the US leaving the strategic waterway unprotected, with
Panama mostly defenseless and a narco-financed Marxist insurgency active in neighboring Colombia. The Chinese communists quickly filled the strategic
void, and now control key services in Panama, creating a national security dilemma which is still unaddressed. Regardless, Clarks candidacy is
probably a Clintonian move to give military and national security cover to Hillary or some other left wing candidate that could select Clark as a
running mate in 2004. By putting Clark on the ballot for vice-president, the Democrats can claim they are for a strong America. One national magazine
that normally tilts left is all ready on the bandwagon, declaring Clarks...military and national security credentials cant be questioned. Oh,
Possible "Dumb and Dumber?"
Or is it that if anything is "dumb and dumber," it is the voting sheeple who elected B. J. Clinton twice and almost elected Gore!?
Dean+Clark would make a formidable pair. Clark could easily fool the Southern conservative Democrats. If Clark wins a couple of southern states, the
going gets tough for us. Personally, The country will never elect an ultra left liberal democrat. Clark is neither a fiscal nor social conservative.
He's pro-choice, wants to end the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, he believes the country was founded on the notion of progressive taxation, and
if he's prepared to support or join Dean's team I'm assuming he's in favor of socialized medicine too. There is not one conservative (or even
centrist) position amongs these two clowns. They are left wing loonies and have no chance of being elected in my opinion.....sad cause something needs
to be done about Bush.
Clark will shortly discover that he hasn't a clue about running for president. And he has no experience in or taste for all the drudgery of
campaigning in primaries.
He'll probably hold out for a bit and then endorse Dean and accept an early VP slot. Mostly, he'll just wait to see if Dean can eliminate some of
his flipflopping and polish his act, especially since CNN and Clinton both fired Clark for being incompetent.
I still don't believe those nine are the real candidates...they don't "debate", they try their best merely to bash Bush...to soften the opposition
for the "real" candidate. It could just be too skeptical of the Libs knack for deception.
Clark has no political substance; will the Dems be able to distinguish him from any other CNN armchair General? The man already is back peddling on
comments he made to the effect that the White House told him to link 9/11 attack to Iraq/Hussein. To me, this trips him up before he even makes it
to the starting gate
guess he thought he could just say some slander and not get called on it.
Well, this could be a sign that their "connections" couldn't arrange an "accident" for Dean...or perhaps they believe Dean will truly lose in a
landslide to Bush and they're counting on Dems coming out in droves to "save" their party in '08. Sure she lies, but the Clintons also pay close
attention to polls and with the economy ignoring the Dems pleas to lay low...they realize the timing is not there for ANY Dem to sneak in.
I dunno, to be honest....this could all be a boon or a hinderance....I guess it all depends on how you want to view this. Best wishes and may the
best party win.....a nation is counting on just that.
[Edited on 12-9-2003 by Seekerof]