Gen. Wesley Clarke - Democratic Candidate

[RedRed]

Wired:


A creditable candidate against Bush Jnr?

He seems so

only thing is he has surrounded himself in the ex clinton team... may cause him a problem

He was/is an outspoken critic of the strategis goals of the US in the ME....


RedRed

I will get this moved to temp if appropriate.....

[GT98]

I doubt he'll even come close to getting nomiated...no experance what so ever and came into the race awfully late. I bet the only thing he does is facture the democrats even more.....

[Dr Mordrid]

Problems with Gen. Clarke;

1. While supreme NATO commander during the Balkans war he wanted to attack Russian troops that had unexpectedly taken over an airport. A Brit. commander blew the whistle and prevented an international incident.

2. During his stint at Ft. Hood as commendant he released to FBI control tanks, APC's, attack helicopters and troops for use in storming the Branch Davidian compound at Waco.

During this attack over 80 men, women and children died, many of whom were poisoned by the toxic by-products of indindary and tear gas canisters; which include cyanide. The rest were crushed by tanks, hit by auto weapons fire or burned alive.

Contrary to FBI testimony stating that the fire had been started by the Davidians FLIR cameras mounted on the Army helicopters show flash grendades being fired into the compound by tanks and foot troops with the fires starting in the same areas seconds later.

Many legal authorities still contend that this providing of military hardware to the FBI was a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the use of Federal troops against US civilians.

While Bill Clinton and Atty. General Janet Reno gave the order Gen. Clarke released the weaponry for use.

Anyone interested in this incident should watch the Oscar-nominated documentary "Waco: Rules of Engagement"

3. A few weeks ago on Meet the Press Gen. Clarke stated that the White House asked him to confirm that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.

When later pressed on the comment by reporters he changed the story; stating that he had been contacted by a "Canadian middle east think-tank" with White House contacts.

When it came out that there was no such think-tank in Canada the story changed again to become an "overseas think-tank" with no White House contacts

4. Few remember that while he was the supreme NATO commander he did not leave that position of his own accord; he was fired. Reason: going around the chain of command. Instead of going through the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of State he'd go straight to his old friend Bill Clinton. Eventually it got so bad Clinton himself fired Clarke.

5. He's known as an extreme micromanager who was so hated in the Army by both the troops and his fellow officers that it's predicted he'll only get single-digit support from his fellows-in-arms.

A later-day Ike he ain't.

Dr. Mordrid

[RedRed]

I dont know him - its why I asked.... However, for the democrats to stand a hope in hell of beating Bush there seems to me no possible candidate at the moment...

Its not that Bush is particularly strong as a statesman - its just that the Democrats are particularly weak in the 'front man' stakes...

I watched his nomination speach (or whatever its called) in littlerock this afternoon (nipped home for a late lunch) and he sure is an impressive speaker!

RedRed

[Dr Mordrid]

Problem is that the Dems idea of a foreign policy amounts to either neo-isolationism or subjugation to the whims of the UN. Eiher would cause at least 60% of the US populace to vomit.

Dr. Mordrid

[paulcs]

Red Red, here's an article about the announcement from today's New York Times:

Gen. Clark Confirms '04 Run, Joining a Crowded Field
By KIRK SEMPLE
with KATHARINE Q. SEELYE


Gen. Wesley K. Clark, a former top military leader who has never held elected office, announced this afternoon that he would run for president, bringing to 10 the number of candidates vying for the Democratic nomination.

Speaking to a hometown audience at a boys' and girls' club in Little Rock, Ark., General Clark quickly invoked his long military résumé, which includes service as supreme allied commander of NATO. Supporters hope that record will set him apart from other Democratic contenders on the crucial subject of national security and allow him to counter President Bush's political advantage as a wartime commander in chief. Since retiring in 2000, General Clark has been a merchant banker in Little Rock.

"Well, for my family and me, it's been a long journey from Little Rock, from West Point to Vietnam, 34 years in the United States Army, through war in the Balkans, back to Little Rock for business," the 58-year-old general said. "And I'm proud to have made that journey, proud to have served my country in uniform, and proud to be back home today in Little Rock. Now we're talking about a new journey."

He added: "We're under way and moving forward."

General Clark used his speech to attack President Bush on the growing deficit, the loss of nearly three million jobs since 2001, and concerns about national security and the erosion of civil liberties.

"We're going to seek out the facts to search for the causes, to find the solutions," he said. "And in questioning and proposing alternatives, we're going to reach to the very essence of our democracy."

The general, however, offered no specifics about his positions on important domestic and foreign policy issues. He said he planned to reveal "my vision for the economy and a vision for our national security" in a "major speech" in the coming weeks.

The Little Rock event followed General Clark's appearance on several morning television programs and a Webcast in which he declared he had decided to join the field seeking the Democratic nomination for president.

"We're really engaged abroad and at home with threats to American security in a way we haven't been in generations in America," General Clark said this morning on NBC's "Today." "I think I've got the kinds of skills and experiences that are needed to help guide this country into the future."

The general said his professional experiences ranged wider than the military and noted that he had taught economics and worked in the Office of Management and Budget, a White House agency. And though he acknowledged his lack of experience in what he called "elective politics," General Clark said that as a military leader he had acquired "some experience" in other kinds of politics, such as "dealing with diplomacy, with the politics of how to get things done, how to get legislation through Congress."

"I've dealt with lawmakers on both sides of the house, he said. "I've dealt with members of the executive branch for years. And so you do have a lot of experience, in addition to the diplomatic experience that I've had in both South America and Latin America and in Europe."

The wild-card aspect of a Clark candidacy will probably shake up the already volatile nine-candidate field, but no one quite knows how.

"Obviously, he creates a new kind of excitement," said Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic strategist and pollster. "If he succeeds, it will be because he surprises people by being credible and having depth and passion on domestic issues. But it is also possible that he disappears into oblivion. He could be flat, he could be terrible with the base, he could not have the common touch."

Some have speculated that his entry into the race is only to position himself for vice president.

General Clark joins a contest in which candidates have scoured the country for money and support for two years, dividing the pool of Democratic donors and fund-raisers. How much a late-comer can siphon off is an open question. General Clark has no hard cash yet, though supporters have pledged at least $1.5 million. By contrast, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts has $16 million.

But in a short period, with no formal campaign structure, General Clark has attracted experienced political professionals to his side, many from the camps of former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore.

He has even earned a stamp of approval from Mr. Clinton himself, who said recently that the Democratic Party had "two stars": his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and General Clark.

General Clark has also won a potentially valuable endorsement from Representative Charles B. Rangel, the dean of New York's House delegation and a leading black official.

"I want to win," Mr. Rangel said on Tuesday. "All we need is an intelligent person who can enter the debate on an equal playing field."

With General Clark, he said, "President Bush won't be wearing any more flight uniforms on the campaign."

The fact that he has never been on the campaign trail means that no one, least of all his rivals, has any idea what to expect.

"We'll see whether there's a constituency in the Democratic Party for General Clark," said Jim Jordan, campaign manager for Senator Kerry. "He's obviously impressive. But a career military man with no domestic experience would be an exceptionally unusual profile for Democrats to choose."

General Clark's own quickly assembled team sees him as a dynamic executive with the unquestioned stature to challenge President Bush as commander in chief at a time of international turmoil. He has opposed the war in Iraq and has been a steady critic of the handling of the occupation. His aides also expect his candidacy to inject excitement, even glamour, into the race.

General Clark enters the race as polls show President Bush increasingly vulnerable, especially on foreign affairs. But they also show that Americans are most concerned about the economy, an area in which General Clark has no experience.

Paul

[rylan]

He is too conservative compared to the other candidates to get the nomination. Remember that the democrats who vote in primaries are mostly the farthest left wing, hence all of the candidates have been running over each other to get as left as possible, and the worst of them all (Dean) is in the lead.

How about this for an idea... He is positioning himself to be the pick as VP. He has some serious military experience, which is something the Dems have been lacking for decades. Now for an even scarier thought, I have a feeling this may be the prelude to Hillary Clinton getting in the race. She'll hop in after a month or so, and take Clarke as her VP to try to moderate herself and be more attractive to the southern vote. Talk about scary.

[Dr Mordrid]

Hillary will sabotage any nominee this year so the Presidency will be open for her run in 2008. If any other Dem wins this year she'll have to wait 'til 2012.

I don't think she'll risk a run in 2004 against Bush since his numbers in one-on-one polls vs. any Dem show him winning anywhere from 60-40 to 55-45 percent, and this includes Hillary.

Problem for her is that in either 2008 or 2012 the Democratic party may have gone through a nasty split. I see signs of this coming, especially in the south and mountain states, because of huge differences between their mainstream and ultra-liberal wings.

Dr. Mordrid

[Admiral]

Problem for her is that in either 2008 or 2012 the Democratic party may have gone through a nasty split. I see signs of this coming, especially in the south and mountain states, because of huge differences between their mainstream and ultra-liberal wings.

Usually here (and in the rest of Europe) that ends with a break away and the birth of another party. What exactly happens in the US when there's a major split ?

[MultimediaMan]

It usually means the party is going to stay in the minority until it rebuilds it's platform.

The Republicans suffered through the late 50's to mid 60's with just that...they were fractured ideologically. It wasn't until 1968 that they got their act together.

This countries' current political system very much favors a two party system, a far cry from what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind.

[Brian Ellis]

Just like Cyprus; with a voting-age population of, say, ~450,000, there are 449,999 political parties.

[cjolley]

Originally posted by Dr Mordrid

During this attack over 80 men, women and children died, many of whom were poisoned by the toxic by-products of indindary and tear gas canisters; which include cyanide. The rest were crushed by tanks, hit by auto weapons fire or burned alive.

Contrary to FBI testimony stating that the fire had been started by the Davidians FLIR cameras mounted on the Army helicopters show flash grendades being fired into the compound by tanks and foot troops with the fires starting in the same areas seconds later.

This kind of BS is what lead to the bombing of my city.
A bomb I heard the detonation of.
A bomb that killed two small children on our block who used to play in our yard.
A bomb my wife saved an SSA coworker from by asking her to go to the back of the building to get a file.
A bomb I was a redcross vounteer in the aftermath of.
A bomb that blew the doors in on the school our nephew who lived with us went to.

Go f*ck yourself ass*hole.
chuck