DU'ers...please refrain from any examination of Wes Clark.

[sfecap]

After all, he is above reproach, he is the only one who can beat bush, and he is the only one who can save us.

He should not have to answer to any voter on any issue. He simply is the answer. Got it?

And lest you forget...

He's the

formerSUPREMEalliedcommanderwhograduatedfromwestpointandgoshotinvietnamandhesaRhodesScholarandhelookrellyneatinauniformandbushisreallyreallyscaredofhim.

So, straighten up and stop asking questions about Wes. If you need to know something, he'll let you know.

At ease.

[hippiechick]

1. Yup ! I hear ya' !!

:toast:

And by next year's convention, the new Dem rallying cry will be 'baaaaaaaaaaa' ....


:hippie:

[ixion]

2. lol... good one...

I've been wondering about Clark... there's been some articles I've read that have shed some light on sneaking suspicions I've always had about him... that he's a bit on the evil side.

Despite the fact that I always felt his CNN analysis was reasonably fair (but obviously center-to-right), there something about him that gives me the creeps. Not sure what that is yet, and we'll just have to wait and see how things progress.

But the possibilty that he's the PNAC's democrat pawn is not above consideration, IMHO.

[seventhson]

3. It's not the PNAC per se - it's the MPRI - our newest scary set of letters

Try a google on for size - but wear your flak jacket.

[ixion]

6. A rose by any other name

fill in scary acronym here.... it's all the same group, ultimately.

[seventhson]

12. My Bad, Yes it is the same.

except they actually have the generals on the front lines covertly EVERYWHERE (get my drift, wink wink???)

[jonnyblitz]

4. we know. anything short of fawning and gushing is an attack. n/t

[mandyky]

5. I already have the candidate I support, so

I don't need to examine Clark, unless Dean chooses him as a VP running mate.

Even though Clark is leading in the National polls, I think it is more the General thing and the CNN military analyst gig folks are polling on. Remember Lieberman was ahead in those same polls not long ago, and I believe most of that was name recognition.

As I have said many times, and this is my opinion and gut feeling, not a bash, I think Clark is the DLC's "stop Dean" mechanism, but I don't think it will work.

[meegbear]

7. CLARK IS GOD!!

dean is SATAN!!

[renie408]

30. I was starting to figure out that Clark was god

from everything that everybody was saying, but I thought that Dean was the second coming of Christ, so how could he be Satan??

You know, this is why I avoid religion.

[seventhson]

8. I don't know if this will work for you...but try this link for background

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.scarabee.com/article6.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmpri%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN

the transdlation is a little rough, but since our sack of wet mice in America is so inept I thought a forweign story might flush out some facts about those I suspect may be the ones who want Wesley in power. mHe is VERY tight with them in nay case as he was involved in operations WITH them in Latin America and Kosovo/

Read and learn, folks and put on your helmet. This is gonna be a rough ride. MPRI is HUGE and ALL MILITARY. And Off the shelf.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. What part of leading in the Newsweek poll don't you understand?

It's over. The people have chosen. Long live the King.

[seventhson]

10. If our soggy sack of mice say it is so, then....

Clark must be our next president!!!

Move along now. Nothing to see. Vote for Clark and shut up about the MPRI...

[hippiechick]

13. It's Rummy's Wet Dream !

http://www.ciponline.org/colombia/mpri.htm

MPRI, hired by the US Defense Department, has a team of 10 retired US military officers in Bogota to advise the military on strategic and logistical issues. The company has steadfastly declined to comment on their exact number or work.

Administration officials say MPRI personnel are doing precisely what uniformed American soldiers have traditionally done. They say MPRI was hired not because it has any special expertise, but because U.S. Southern Command in Miami, which oversees American military operations in Latin America, cannot spare 14 men to send to Colombia...Nevertheless, U.S.-Colombia policy experts say the use of firms like MPRI is intended primarily to limit the risk of American military casualties there.

Among the most provocative parts of the MPRI mission are plans for MPRI to recommend legislation, statutes and decrees to Colombia regarding a military draft, a professional soldier statute, officer entitlements and health law reforms. "They are using us to carry out American foreign policy," Soyster, the MPRI spokesman, said. "We certainly don't determine foreign policy, but we can be part of the U.S. government executing its foreign policy."

MPRI walked away with $4.3-million, paid largely from the $1.3-billion aid package Congress approved for Colombia last year under Plan Colombia to help fight the drug war. The Pentagon compared Colombia's Ministry of Defense with a broken factory. The job of MPRI was to fix the factory in order to produce a better soldier to fight the drug war. Before MPRI won the one-year contract, it was hired by the Pentagon in fall 1999 to assess the defense ministry. MPRI charged the Pentagon $850,000 for six weeks of work.


.... much, much more ....

:hi: Seventh !!


:hippie:

[seventhson]

16. You're ON it baby! Guess who the Southern Command Commander was?

Who needed MPRI???? Who commanded the Southern Command in charge of all Latin American operations???

In 1996-7???? Yup. You guessed it!

Who USED MPRI in Columbia???

Who signs off on their use??? El Presidente Arbusto does today!!!


NOW I want to hear the defense.

[sfecap]

11. You are correct, sir.

Those 435 people have decided.

It's over...we can all go back to sleep now. :-)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. And here we were getting all bent out of shape and making a fuss.

I feel much better now.

[salin]

15. Please - this is silly

Recognize that we need to filter information. There is disinformation out there and it is coming fast and furious. Within it there are also things to consider.

Thus those who blindly repeat adnasuem attacks after they have been vetted and/or disproven, could be abetting the RNC machine. The Clark supporters warning of this - have reason to do so.

On the other hand, with any candidate that has no 'record' (legislative or executive branch (at local, state etc.) level, information to give insight into how the candidate thinks about policy, who they might appoint to key positions - is legitimate discussion. We should never accept any candidate (as sadly many did last election) on "blind faith".

Where does that leave us?

Try to be reasonable from both ends :

To those posting items that question the General - be aware that there is lots of disinformation and spin going on from those working to keep bush installed;

To those debunking/loyalists - acknowledge that folks really need to get a feel for the General - and that like with all of the candidates there are pluses and minuses just discussing them is not always tantamount to attempting to spread disinformation.

Both camps are right and both are wrong. There is disinformation. And Clark in his hesitancy to declare party has fueled some of the speculation.

Also try to get some perspective - from both ends:

Officers in the military are supposed to be apolitical (though many fail at this) as they are required to serve the CIC regardless of party. Careerists really may, after decades of being apolitical, be very uncomfortable shifting this role. Some statements made by Clark fit this explanation.

On the other hand, given the direction of this country at the hands of extreme radicals who over 20 years have changed public discourse and "beliefs" on things like the economy (so many people now blindly except both supply side economics which was laughed at by economists as unsound for years - til the discourse fully changed; and many people now accept a Randian view of pure free-markets that also, in the past was recognized as completely flawed). It is legitimate to want to know - not just about the General but about any of the candidates - the degree to which these radical perceptions are accepted, and/or are treated with skepticism. Why? Because otherwise those running agencies that set the administrative course for the country may not work to fully counteract the radical policies of this administration that are based on these theories.

In the end - it is very important to let the primaries work their magic. Candidates will be tested in the political context. Issues will rise to importance. And the public (hopefully) will become more engaged. In the end - regardless of who wins the primaries - we have to work together to bring an end to the Bush era. Preferably in a way that brings new public discourse and "truths", and in a way which will denounce the radicalism that has taken over too much of the mainstream.

The more loyalists from any camp, behind any candidate, alienate others from their candidate - the harder it will be to build the kind of grassroots work that is needed to win. We will not win in the media - the media will be more brutal this time around - regardless of the candidate - than it was to Al Gore. We will not win the money race. If bush - as just a 'hopeful' outraised a sitting VP 2:1 (I heard that somewhere but do not know if it is accurate), then he will certainly up that ante to a much greater advantage. A traditional campaign will NOT win - regardless of candidate - against those barriers. WE the PEOPLE will have to be the front line. WE the PEOPLE will have to run with the campaigns at the local level. Thus WE the PEOPLE can not afford to be dismissing each other and each others concerns in such a way that we are in disarray.

[Julien Sorel]

17. While I appreciate a reasoned, thoughtful post,

the cynic in me has to tell you: it's a waste of time. this will be the 'bash Clark' thread of the day. And tomorrow there will be another similar one, and so on, and so on, and so on.

[CWebster]

18. As if there was a darth of them before Clark

finally finished his coy game of flirting with the possibility, while he was just waiting for the opportune moment to position himself.

[Julien Sorel]

20. Yep.

Smart folks position themselves well. Being smart is a good thing. I promise.

[salin]

21. And I will keep stating the same thing

but Kerry got this treatment a long time ago here, and later it was Dean's turn. Now it is Clark's turn. Each time both sides does damage and just pushes the cyclical dynamic further.

X raises Y issue - disinformation demonstrated
A contingent (loyalists) shout it down (rightly so) but while many onlookers get that it is disinfor - the starting point keeps repeating it and a few days later Z comes back and raises the Y issue.

BUT

R raises G issue - genuine discussion point
A contingent (loyalists) shout it down as more disinformation, and many onlookers aren't sure what is what - but grow uncomfortable that they aren't allowed to even consider the points as now it is murky as to what is disinformation and what is not.

Instead of R, A and onlookers all getting involved in discussions of disinformation vs legitimate questions... It turns into flame wars where there are NO discussions.

I think discussions of disinformation and RW tactics is an important thing.

I also think that discussions on issues/areas that make some folks unsure about x or y candidate - being silenced for flaming does no one good. I have seen this dynamic turn onlookers and undecideds off from Kerry, Dean - and now Clark. That is unfortunate.

[Sinistrous]

19. What's the matter, Sweetpea? Aren't folks rolling over for your smears?

Come up with reputable information vis a vis Wes Clark and it will be dicussed. But rehashing the znet nonsense and spouting the lies that seem to fascinate seventhson will result in properly applied scorn and derision.

Your post, by the way was the first strawman I ever saw that was built of pure bullshit.

[sfecap]

22. Ten hut!

I am waiting for the information to be passed to me, SIR!

I can't seem to find it on the Clark website, SIR!

What lies did I tell in my original post, SIR!?

I think the formerSUPREMEaliiedcommander is our saviour, SIR!

(Standing at attention, waiting for my marching orders...)

[Sinistrous]

26. I detect a bit of anti-military fanaticism in your reply.

Why are you so afraid of using real data and good logic in your arguments?

Why do you accuse those who don't have the same prejudices that you do as being authoritarian?

[jonnyblitz]

23. ZNET nonsense?? Wow

Please tell us what sources you approve of for balanced info about CLark. Isn't his website still under construction!?! I guess ZNET is too "fringe leftist" for ya.

[Sinistrous]

24. Just use sources that stand up to scrutiny and analysis

and, yes, znetters, like all fundamentalists, are too wrapped up in their ideology to be relied on for objective information.

[StopTheMorans]

27. his positions are still under construction too;)

"I probably would have voted for the resolution of given a chance"

then the next day "I mean, I wouldn't have voted for it"

[renie408]

31. Uhhh

I could be wrong, but I think this is exactly the kind of post they are satiring.

Why is it when it is about the other guy, it is a legitimate line of inquiry, but when it is about your guy, it is a smear and a pack of lies?

[Sinistrous]

35. When someone repeatedly posts the nonsense

that Gen. Clark was the commandant of an internment camp at Guantanamo Bay, that is a string of lies.

[roughsatori]

33. You just proved the point of the original posters parody NT

[Sinistrous]

36. The problem with characterizing the post as a "parody" is

that it continues a theme favored by the author:

vis: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=393264#393415

Sarcasm, yes. Parody, no.

[wyldwolf]

25. right

:eyes:

[Sinistrous]

28. Nevermind.

n/t

[Padraig18]

29. Flame bait

[roughsatori]

32. If you post a link to anything inconvenient about Clark

You will be called a Leftist-Fringe," or "Lunatic Left." Your linked article will be called "right-wing smear," "anti-American smear," or "left-wing smear." Then you will be told your are working for Rove.

But the favorite of newer DU Clark supporters is epithets. Go to any long Clark thread and look at all the "deleted" posts they leave in their wake.

[DrGonzoLives]

34. This thread is just as idiotic

as the other whiny thread posty in response to this. If you have something intelligent to say about your candidate, say it. Just styop (you and everyone else) these childish attempts at sarcasm.

[Forkboy]

37. Please refrain from starting stupid posts

[seventhson]

38. The fact is that the Clark voices here are extremely intolerant

and the attempts to search out the real information on Clark is difficult.


As Commander of the Southern Command he was tied into the MPRI contracts and military operations off the shelf. These same players were in Kosovo.

I am looking seriously at this information and examining its significance. It truly makes me wonder how much influence this mercenary company has.

I urge people to look this info up and get the word out.

But I do NOT expect the Clark folks here to encourage ANYONE to look into these matters.

As far as Guantanamo and the Southern Command. As head of the Southern Command in 1996-7 Clark would very possibly have been the Commander of operations at Guantanamo as with all the bases in the Southern Command. As posted earlier, he also commanded troops who served at Guantanomo and had responsibilites involving Haitian affairs -- so this idea has NOT been totally debunked at all. The article may have misstated his job title and may even have misunderstood his duties and responsibilites with Guantanamo. But that story is still an open question as far as I am concerned.

Trying to get the FACTS is difficult when one gets flamed trying to discuss or explore them.

If and when I am wrong then I usually accept that and move on. But the evidence now points to a close connection between Clark and the notorious and scary MPRI.