Wesley Clark

Originally posted by Creepy
i just watched the "CNBC/Wall Street Journal Democratic Candidates Debate " on MSNBC...anyone else see it?

here is MSNBC's spin on it...

Clark remains above fray in debate

NEW YORK, Sept. 25 � Retired Army four-star Gen. Wesley Clark showed up for Thursday�s two-hour televised debate on CNBC, but could anyone recall anything thought-provoking he had said � or was that beside the point? Clark undoubtedly proved that he is well within the mainstream of Democratic rhetoric � and perhaps that was his intent, to reassure party activists that he�d be a solid consensus candidate

so NOBODY watched the democrat debate on the tele?

[Edited on 27-9-2003 by Creepy]

Yeah...I watched it.
Clark went virtually unscathed through the whole debacle....till today....

THURSDAY, Sept. 25, 2003, 4:08 p.m.
MEMO TO DEMS: YOU'VE GOT A PROBLEM HERE


"I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote." -- General Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when asked about Wesley Clark�s candidacy.

What�s that all about? Can we expect reporters to ask the general about those �integrity� and �character� issues?

***

And then there are Clark�s own comments. This afternoon, the Drudge Report carries these nuggets from the Democrats� new golden boy:


�During extended remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001, General Clark declared: "And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill - people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."


�Clark on President George Bush: "President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship.�

AND ON RONALD REAGAN:
�Clark praised Reagan for improving the military:

"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

Clark continued: "That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."

Clark on American military involvement overseas:

"Do you ever ask why it is that these people in these other countries can't solve their own problems without the United States sending its troops over there? And do you ever ask why it is the Europeans, the people that make the Mercedes and the BMW's that got so much money can't put some of that money in their own defense programs and they need us to do their defense for them?"

"And I'll tell you what I've learned from Europe is that are a lot of people out in the world who really, really love and admire the United States. Don't you ever believe it when you hear foreign leaders making nasty comments about us. That's them playing to their domestic politics as they misread it. Because when you talk to the people out there, they love us. They love our values. They love what we stand for in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

***
All of this is causing more than a little consternation on the left. Even though Clark is being cast as the �anti-war� general, the left-wing media group FAIR compiles some interesting Clarl quotes, indicating that his position on the war has been less than consistent:

�� 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."

�Another "plain fact" is this: While political reporters might welcome Clark's entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views "anti-war" is to render the term meaningless.
**

And, finally, the Union Leader from Manchster New Hampshire carried this quote from Clark who was campaigning for Democratic congressional candidate Katrina Swett just last fall:
�Clark, who supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, said if Swett were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for the resolution, but only after vigorous debate.� (Union Leader, October 10, 2002)


The man is being called the "King of Wobble Weebles"....



regards
seekerof

...Clark has zero political exp. and will be eaten alive as an novice. His mouth will write checks he can't cash.

His entry only muddies an already diluted Dem field. All said, he has as much chance as being reckognized as a candidate as the other nine....I really don't see the hoopla over his "candidacy". I think he will get a great book deal out of "How I ran and dropped out of the Presidential race."

Wait a second...


It's a sign of GOOD leadership to be able to praise someone from the opposite party. Jabbing Clark because he has said good things about Reagan is unfair... Just as digging at a Republican for saying good things about JFK or FDR is unfair.

For the record, Eisenhower WAS A DEMOCRAT up until it came time to declare his candidacy. In fact, as a teenager, he was the president of the Young Democrats club in his home town in Kansas.

And, so what if Shelton has dissed him. Shelton also assembled an outdated army in the post cold war era... while Clark won a major military campaign without losing a single man in combat.

Again, Clark is being attacked because he is superior to his competitors.

Bush can't even read a teleprompter... let alone realize the difference between different muslim sects. He needs to be replaced ASAP. Clark is the best existing candidate.

Originally posted by mOjOm

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams

The fact that so much mud is being thrown at Clark so early is a sure sign that Bush is seriously afraid of him.

Notice how Republican operators haven't even bothered to trash the likes of Howard Dean and Sharpton... Simply because they know that they are no real threat.

Clark, however, is a serious threat to Bush. He cancels any 'war leader' advantage Bush may have had and brings the race back to the raw talents of the contestants... in which case, I have to admit, Clark is obviously smarter (and more deserving of the presidency) than Bush.

I'm not saying this as a Democratic activist... in fact, Colonel calls me a 'Repugnant'... but I am upset that a serious contender like Clark is getting smeared so early.

I agree. Just as the mainstream media is used to brainwash the masses toward a paid conclusion. This tactic also works as an advantage for those who know the media is bought off and used against us. I have not read too much about him and what I have read has been equally good and bad. He is intelligent, and very capable within military tactics and experienced and yet opposed to War as he admits that those who have been in battle do not like it. Something our "Bring it on" military minded Pres. knows nothing about since he snuck out with the help of Daddy's money. I am nervous about militant minded Pres. being elected, but he seems to be a real leader of men other than a warmongering destroyer of men. He also speaks quick and confident when asked questions and his views so far seem to be what we need.

So as of now, he is certainly the best choice! In fact when compared to Dubya, he has my vote for sure unless there is some divine intervention or voting fraud. The latter which is much more probable unfortunately.

DON'T VOTE FOR CLARK!
HE is telling the people what they want to hear. Hitler did the same thing.
Clark almost started WWW111, read up about it. He was the one that organized the NATO forces and was the General in charge of the Bosnia War. Thats some power! Bush couldn't do that one. That was the first time since WWW11! He was nicknamed "The Supreme Being " by the men under his command.
Waco is another story. He wouldn't hesitate to kill Americans.

He will bomb North Korea and has said it in the past.

He's a real smooth talker, he will manipulate and knows what he's doing. He is doing just that.

Wesley Clarks real father was Jewish he died when Wesley was a small child.

Wesley converted to being a Roman Catholic. He still is Jewish a person can't change there ROOTS. Michael Jackon has tried.

Now is not the time to elect a Jewish President, this would light the fuse of the terrorists.

Clark Kent turns into:

From Zogby:
Dem Rivals Attack 'Pro-Bush' Wesley
Democratic 2004 presidential candidate Wesley Clark yesterday took flak from his rivals after the revelation that the retired general was effusively praising President Bush and his "great team" just two years ago. Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) accused Clark of joining the Democratic Party for "political convenience, not conviction" a day after Clark escaped largely unscathed from his first debate with his nine Democratic rivals.

www.zogby.com...

It seems WC has some 'splainin to do. Maybe he is the Centrist all have been awaiting...??

[Edited on 28-9-2003 by macmasterflex]

Wesley Clark comes from a long line of Rabbis.

www.clevelandjewishnews.com...

[Edited on 9/28/2003 by Katie]

Well isn't this interesting posting.

Anti-Semitic fearmongering about a not-even candidate, followed by an invisible non-post from the short-lived macmasterflex.

This seems to have got off the rails somewhat and maybe should have been in the Mudpit for a start?

Rather short lived than living for futility....

macmasterflex

No-one can read your posts, not even by pushing the Reply button, because this Topic has got too long.

It is falling on deaf ears!

If you wish to be channelled, send me a U2U and I will post here on your behalf, if there is something you have a burning desire to add to the Wesley Clark topic - otherwise you might have to try another day!

I am tending to think the current admin fears Clark will be part of their undoing as well, but really in the scheme of things the quality of opposition candidates may not amount to a big deal in determining the fate of the no-good Bush/PNAC criminals.

[Edited on 28-9-2003 by MaskedAvatar]

Hey MA, can u hear me now????

Big T!

Long time no post.

I am glad you are the quiet macmasterflex (whatever one of those is) and that macmasterflex is not some evil entity.

What's your excuse this time, and what were you going to say about Wesley Clark?

Welcome back.

..well my well-argued friend, MMF was an aberration of a past life experience...sort of.

I have been more socially active lately and to be honest, just needed to pare down my use of high blood pressure medicine....

Uh, Clark. Well, he seems confused as to his gender, uh, political orientation. This I think must be focused before he becomes a true threat to GWB The Great.

OMG It was the Rabbis that had a SAY in the death (murder) of Jesus Christ.

Warning, I listened to Clark as long as I could stand day before yesterday. It was a "Town Hall meeting" somewhere. There was no difference between him and any other socialist I've heard, steep progressive tax and all.

Is Clark a Rabbi????



Is GWB in fear??

It is time for me to leave again I see....................takes two Nitro tablets under tongue...

General W. Clark...democratic presidential hopeful...

It seems the Advisors/ Strategists within the NWO & ILLUMINATI...have been doing their homework....

consider this:
in effort to counter-balance the Bush 'imperative'-

in some circles, the Wheeler Weather Cycle, is a resource & strategic gold mine. this Wheeler Weather Cycle, reflects human activity & traits that prevail as a result of climatic variations. Search at: www.rexresearch.com...

the WWC, posits that 'we' are now entering a 'warm-wet cycle'...and past characteristics of the cycle exhibited: -->quote-->-->-->(...in the extreme; dictatorships, tyrannical governments emerge- accompanied by major wars- birth rates drop, fall of economic conditions can lead to aristocratic & elitism dominance in social/cultural arenas...)

the 'handlers' of Bush & Clark...and Clinton by his 'introduction' of Clark into the fray...Is a Guarantee that the NWO/Illuminati will have a represenative from their camp in the White House come 2004...

Bush, transfigured into a benevolent crusader, warrior, conqueror.
Clark, seeking to siphon off from the Bush (transformed)model...also seeking to recall the 'less chaotic' Eisenhower years and all that went with 1950s living.
(sans segregation)
Clinton, doing his pay-backs to the NWO/Illuminati that elevated him to prominence...and getting some residual acclaim as an spinoff.
%%expect Kissinger & Carvelle to once again put in their 2 cents,,,for Clark..

('they' realize that the touchy-feeley-I feel-your-pain,
liberalism is yesterdays' news...hence the Clark meets Bush challenge...for dominance)

me, i'm for who/what needs to be done....for sanity & balance to be restored on planet earth.

-you gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette- eh?