The swiftboating of Clark has already begun....

[ourbluenation]

Go this in an email that's been circulating the internets...

> His ego is the reason why he was fired from his NATO post because he thought he could circumvent his superiors.

> HIs military collegues speak very poorly of him. He made some extremely poor decisions in Kosovo and Serbia and had his superiors have to override him and his subordinates disregarded his orders they were so bad.

> He was passionately for the war... oh, but that was RIGHT BEFORE he decided to become the Dem nominee.... so he became passionately anti-war all of the sudden? Okay I guess if you want Kerry-lite.

> He thanked God that Bush and his admin were in the White House... until he announce his candidacy and then said they were bad leaders.

> When called out on his party affiliation and when he first "became" a Dem, he floundered. He was a registered Republican until shortly before he decided to become a candidate. (Ehem... he voted for Nixon and Reagan... twice... and Daddy Bush). He even admitted that he would still be a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his phone calls (whcih Rover did not and it pissed Clark off)

> He's a proponent of late term abortions.

> He's a liar... he first said that said that he received a call directly from the White House admitting that they hyped the issue about the WMD's to garner support. Then he said it was another group that told him about that, then it became some "informant" from Canada that told him when he was caught in the lie. Liar liar pants on fire.

> Too many holes can be punched in anything that he says he believes in... by his own words.

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. Change your spelling to "Clark" while you can still edit it. n/t

[ourbluenation]

2. damn - there...fixed it. thx

coffee...not enough yet.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

3. It's "Clark", please edit for spelling before too late.

Also this is a good example of where ANY Dem candidate will be "Swiftboated". A good lesson for those who would bash Kerry for being a bad candidate... he definitely made some mistakes, but if you think there is an "opposition" candidate who would NOT get this treatment, you are living in dreamland.

Heck they even do this to those who oppose WITHIN their own party, witness with McCain.

[spanone]

4. A 'proponent' of late term abortions? You gotta be kidding.

I don't think anyone is an abortion proponent. Especially late-term. Maybe a proponent of CHOICE.

[immoderate]

48. Let's see...voted Republican but promotes abortions, hmm...

anything wrong with that picture?

--IMM

[Mojorabbit]

5. I did hear some bad things about him

during the kosovo thing from military friends and that he had to be brought in line. I just can't remember exactly what they were. I don't expect everyone to be perfect though.

[Clark2008]

9. Really now.

I heard things from my former Army husband who served under him in Bosnia, but what he says is that Clark was the best damned commander ever.

The only people who needed to be brought "in line" where those civilian commanders - namely that Republican Def Sec of Clinton's.

[sandnsea]

12. Exhibit A Clarkies

The real problem isn't what they say.

(Nothing personal Mojorabbbit, I know you have a right to your opinions.)

[Jai4WKC08]

50. As a retired military member who blogs alot

I've run into a handful of veterans of the Kosovo war who had "issues" with the way Clark ran the operation. Nothing NEAR as many as the vets who thought he was a great commander.

Almost to a man (no women), those who didn't like him were Air Force personnel who didn't like the way the targetting was done. Mostly, they just couldn't see the bigger picture of either

1) how it necessary to keep NATO in the process, which made it very difficult to get targets approved, required submitting targets that weren't very good just to get the important ones accepted, and tended to prefer tactical targets over strategic ones for which the Air Force is better suited; and

2) how the Pentagon was requiring the use of high-altitude bombing only, so as to limit the risk to allied casualties (which you might think the pilots and crews would prefer, but they don't).

But I have NEVER EVER heard anyone complain about how Clark took care of his troops, or that he didn't do everything he could to get them and their families all the support they needed.

It's not unusal for more junior military personnel to misunderstand the contraints placed at the highest levels. We all tend to see "the battlefield" (and by that, I mean whatever might be going on, even in peacetime) from our own limited perspectives and it usually takes years of working in higher headquarters to see what the senior commanders and staff have to put up with, and what they have to put the best face on that they can.

[Doctor Panacea]

91. Yes

Very well stated, Jai4.

There is always some grousing when you have a lot of people involved.

Of course, I am sure that all the troops in Iraq JUST LOVE the way the Chimp is conducting the war in Iraq. :sarcasm:

[Mr_Spock]

99. Exactly. How are people who complain about Iraq leadership treated?

Exactly. RW morons are hypocrites of the first degree.

[msgadget]

157. Would it help to highlight how their habit of savaging war heroes?

Highlight the disregard this administration shows our soldiers and veterans and the disrespect the republicans have shown their own veterans who disagree with a non-vet president. Shame 'em - quickly and continuously.

[Jai4WKC08]

168. Yes, that's one tactic we can use

It's been tried to some limited extent. James Webb (Reagan's Sec of the Navy, who's contemplating a run for the Senate as a Democrat in VA) wrote an editorial in one of the big papers, WaPo or NYT (I forget) and mentioned what they did to Max Cleland and John Kerry, and what the Bushies did to John McCain. But he didn't attack anything about Bush or Cheney or any of the other chickenhawks. Too political for that, I guess, wanting to remain electable in a reddish state.

As I understand it, one of the reasons for the Band of Brothers 2006 organization, and the IAVA (which used to be Operation Truth) is idea that if all the vets stand together, defend each other, it will be harder for these swiftboat tactics to stick. I know they all recognize the attacks are inevitable. But I don't know that they're prepared to actually do anything about it yet, since they're all really just getting started.

The e-mail in the OP is pretty much brand new, as far as I know. So I don't know who outside a few DUers know about it. But it's out there circulating. Someone posted it, word for word, in (of all places) an ABC message board about the TV show "The Bachelor."

[Mr_Spock]

98. "I did hear some things"

On DU, we don't do the "I heard" rumor mongering.

You either have something to say, or...

[skipos]

105. Clark should have been on the 2004 ticket.

If we want to take on the "dems are weak on terror" BS, he is the best one to do it.

[Hissyspit]

109. self-delete

[Hissyspit]

110. Which general was it who said about Clark?:

"I wouldn't trust him and that's all I'm going to say about it."

That is the WORST and MOST COWARDLY kind of character assassination! And coming from a supposed "officer and gentleman," too. Pathetic. I wish I could remember who it was.

[Stinky The Clown]

116. I **think** that was Hugh Shelton, after he retired and was working for

Edwards.

[Hissyspit]

119. Yes, you're right. Thanks, husb. Here's the quote:

When at a forum in September, retired Gen. Hugh Shelton was asked if he would support retired Gen. Wesley Clark for president, Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, quickly took a drink of water. "That question makes me wish it were vodka," Shelton said. "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."

Now that's some real character and integrity, Gen. Shelton. Good going.

[FrenchieCat]

122. and here's the debunk

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=321522&mesg_id=323167

[Hissyspit]

147. Thanks, Frenchie. n/t

[NCarolinawoman]

174. Shelton later admitted it was all about "politics".

He admitted it after Milosevic asked him to be a witness for the defense in his trial at the Haigue. Wes Clark was testifying against Milosevic at the time, so this ended up being one big embarrassment for Shelton.

[Jai4WKC08]

177. Just to be precise

And to give the thread a kick ;)

Milosevic DID use Shelton's remarks against Clark's integrity in his own defense before the war crimes tribunal. Bill Clinton then provided a statement to the court that attested to Clark's character, backed up his account of events, and assured the judges that there was never an integrity issue behind Clark's removal from command.

But the prosecutor felt compelled to go to the source and asked Shelton to explain what he'd meant, inviting him to either testify or provide an additional statement. Shelton refused, and told her, "It was just politics."

[napi21]

6. Every candidate MUST be prepared for this kind of treatment

and be very QUICK to respond! The Pubs found put that this stuff works! It will never stop until we can find an effective way to rebutt all the accusations, with clear concise statements!

NO MORE wussy long explainations like "I voted for it before I voted against it" stuff. Should be short and firm, like "Final vote was NO!"

[annabanana]

23. WE must be first out of the box..

Or we spend all our time saying I do NOT beat my wife. (But our ammo will be the truth..)

[JackintheGreen]

7. His Ego?!? That's funny!

> His ego is the reason why he was fired from his NATO post because he thought he could circumvent his superiors.

I thank god everyday that * has no superiors to circumvent. Hallelujah! that his agenda has no obstacles to overcome.

Niot common sense
Not business acumen
Not the law
Not god
Not men
Not a moral compass

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

106. About all this hype against him, isn't it funny how many people had to

have been wrong in his getting into West Point, rising through the ranks to become a 4 star general, and Nato Commander?

I'm sure his daddy musta been a graduate of West Point and gotten him in. Oh no, wait. Not true.

Well then he had a bunch of people paying for his promotions of rank. Oh no wait. Not true.

Yea, I'm sure he's a Republican. His policy stands are so conservative. Oh no wait, his stands are mostly rather liberal.

IOW, the whole attack thing is so preposterous considering his stature and accomplishments!!

Eh?

[JackintheGreen]

164. Apologies

I was unclear in my sarcasm. What I meant was that it is funny that Bushies are criticising Clark for his ego when they are little more than a quacking flock of Boris and Natashas to *'s Fearless Leader egoism.

As for Clark, certainly I agree with you. But, seriously, sensitive much?

Best,
Jack

[noahmijo]

8. He was NEVER passionate for the war

Remember Fox News before and the administration tried to pay him off to drum up support and his response was along the lines of give me a good reason to support this war and I will, but untill then I haven't heard a good reason to support this war.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. It is a sign of fearful respect that they are worried about Clark now

Really, he holds no office, it is only February of 2006, and they already feel a need to be doing this to Clark. That speaks volumes.

Hear this fellow DUers, and take heed. The Anti Clark spin machine is already in high gear. They aren't doing this to Harry Reid or even Nancy Pelosi. They aren't doing this to Russ Feingold or even Dennis Kucinich. They are doing this to Wes Clark because he worries them, he is the guy who can fracture the National Security spell that they use to hold captive so many voters whose economic self interests the Republican party routinely sells out.

Clark supporters on DU and elsewhere are well aware of their lies. Ask us questions and we will show you how to debunk them. Never buy these smears hook line and sinker. They are counting on people who are not that aware of Clark's real life story and positions to accept their swiftboat tailored version. We have been watching this growing for several weeks now.

[ourbluenation]

13. That was my take also - somebody is threatened.

Notice the tactic, a familiar one, they attack their opponants strongest points. In this case his military background.

[PatGund]

35. Reason....

The right wing *wants* Hillary Clinton, plain and simple. They have spent so long vilifing Sen. Clinton and poisoning the well that they NEED her to run because she can be beaten. Why do you think the RW have already painted Sen. Clinton as the Dem. nominee.

Gen. Clark scares the crap out of them because they know they can't beat him. Too much appeal to the left, the moderates, and moderate GOP voters as well.

[Strelnikov_]

87. Same Game Plan From 04. Stop Him In The Dem Primary Process

Therefore, they smear Clark as a fake Demo, loose cannon, etc. They are not about to trot out the 'he voted Rethug' meme in the general election.

They know that if Clark breaks out into the General election, they will have to quadruple the fundy staffing of Diebold machines.

Guess I can understand it, since it worked in 04.

[Maru Kitteh]

125. Yes, it worked quite well for them the last time - some here were quite

happy to do their bidding. I was pretty new and mostly posted under my DH screen name then but didn't some slimeball come here JUST for the sole purpose of stirring the pot and spreading LIES about Clark?

[More Than A Feeling]

132. This Feingold supporter isn't interested in Wes Clark smears

not now, not ever. He and Clark will have it out, and the most popular will win. Straight up, on the issues, personal appeal, and fair readings of the candidates' histories, not lies.

[Tom Rinaldo]

136. Exactly as it should be

I hope that one or the other will win because I think they are our best choices, though there are a couple of other Democrats who I also would gladly work for. Beyond that there are very few Democrats who I won't at least grudgingly support in order to defeat the Republicans next time.

[me b zola]

143. This Feingold supporter feels the same way

:kick:

[nolabels]

170. Clark / Feingold in 08, punch my clock for that one

http://www.watir.org/res/mil_indust_complex.htm

[CTyankee]

156. You are so right!

They gotta be worried.

What do you think accounts for the growing concern among the repubs? Do you think they are doing some secret polling among fellow repubs as to who will be their most formidable opponent in 2008? I'd love to know what they are hearing!

[Tom Rinaldo]

161. They'll deal with the problem right in front of them first but

if it also proves useful for them in 2008, all the better. I think the "polling group" they are responding to are FOX viewers, who increasingly are warming up to Wes Clark and finding him to be a straight talking sense making authority on National Security issues. This is an immediate problem to the Republicans that has implications now, while they are steering American toward another war in addition to the current one that they already botched; that has implications for 2006, with Clark now starting to heavily campaign for Democrats in Red States and Districts around the country (including a group of Afghan and Iraq War Vets running as Democrats); and finally has implications for 2008, should Clark emerge as a leading Democratic Challenger.

[FightingIrish]

11. With the weak list of tainted potential Republican candidates

their strategy is to try to pick our candidate. Watch the media to be very active in getting an unelectable Democratic ticket.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Late term abortions - now there's a ringer

These people are just so transparent it is almost funny.

Thanks for sharing this. I'll be on the lookout for this from my fundie friends.

[Kagemusha]

15. The characterizations are rather harsh but...

That stuff in the first 4 entries? That's pretty unassailable stuff. That stuff's correct. People who look at the Kosovo debacle with rose glasses are mistaken. Sorry, that's just the plain truth.

However, I have nothing against him coming to see the Bush administration as having made its own horrible strategic mistakes, systemic ones, not judgment calls under a short time frame in the field handling an unwieldy political alliance. I mean, bottom line is, I may not think Clark is a great military genius, but damn if he didn't handle the political job well while in uniform. With the situation, with NATO, that actually helped. Let's call him a nation's coach (as in, player's coach). There are worse things to be.

Let me also put it this way to make it clear: the judgments above concerning his military role were formed prior to the 2000 election. They were not invented just now to attack Clark. They are sincerely held beliefs by many people.

On the other hand, I don't much care. Saint MacArthur was fired for fudging the chain of command too.

Edit: Just to make this nice and clear, I think he'd probably make a better political leader than a military commander. I also don't think it's the people under him who were complaining. I don't think even Republicans claim otherwise. So his overlings, if we can use such a word, didn't like him. Presidents don't have overlings. So why would that issue be relevant?

[KittyWampus]

19. The first four are nonsense, please educate yourself:

1. He was NOT fired from his NATO post. He NEVER "circumvented" his superiors because as SACEUR he was on par with HEADS OF STATE. He was forced into early retirement against Clinton's wishes by being stabbed in the back by NeoConservatives.

2. Only one military collegue (sic)spoke against him publically and that general didn't have the integrity to explain what he meant. He won the war with no loss of American life... and had to do so using only air power even though he preferred to use ground troops. The POLITICAL leadership tied Clark's hands behind his back and refused the use of ground troops which would have prevented much loss of civilian life. Noone EVER overrode Clark's decisions.

3. Clark testified to Congress against the Iraq Invasion and appeared there as COUNTERPOINT to NeoCon Perle who spoke in favor of it. Clark considered Iraq "A" threat but not "THE" threat that demanded America's immediate attention.

4. Clark gave a speech where he essentially lambasted the NeoCon foreign policy... but diplomatically began the speech with some faint and polite praise of the POTUS.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. They aren't unassailable at all, but I take your comment in good faith

So I am in no way attacking your comments or the spirit in which they were given. The ego charge is nonsense. Everyone at the upper levels of any major enterprise has a healthy ego or they would have been crushed long ago. Anyone with an outsized ego does not make it to the positions Clark held in the Army, it is too easy to be sabotaged along the way, not to mention that the military plays for keeps, they have to. People have to trust each other with their very lives. War is the ultimate "Team Sport" and I say that only to make a point, War is certainly no sport. If you can not work well enough within a team in the military you can not survive, literally and figuratively. There are clashes of ego in the military just like there are everywhere else, but the Republican spin attempt is to pin an "abnormal" tag on Clark.

Clark has head of state status during the Kosovo campaign as NATO Supreme Commander. He met directly with European Heads of State as part of his prescribed duties. He held a complex role and did it admirably. Part of the complexity was the resultant dual chain of command. Clark functioned as both diplomat and military leader and was obligated to report diplomatic developments to the Presidents staff and the State Department even while he functioned within the Defense Department chain of command. There were stresses involved and Cohen was not a Clark allie though the previous Secretary of Defense was.

As to supposed opinions of superiors and coworkers, where there's smoke there is not always fire, not when there is a smoke machine sitting behind a curtain off stage. There are many positive testimonials to Clark's effectiveness. They will be trotted out by his friends, rest assured. Think I'll post this and start another post to continue.

[EST]

40. Might wanna change "proscribed" to "prescribed."

"He met directly with European Heads of State as part of his proscribed duties."

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. Done. Thanks n/t

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

127. Love that analogy

War is the ultimate "Team Sport" and I say that only to make a point, War is certainly no sport. If you can not work well enough within a team in the military you can not survive, literally and figuratively. There are clashes of ego in the military just like there are everywhere else, but the Republican spin attempt is to pin an "abnormal" tag on Clark.

Great way of explaining it Tom. Even though I'm usuallly averse to sport/war analogies. But this one works. There's no way someone rises up through the military ranks who's out of control and incapable of following orders.

OTOH the fact that, when the stakes were so high, Clark was prepared to speak his mind to superiors recommends him to me. He's already explained that after Rwanda and Bosnia he promised himself he'd never sit idly by and let genocide occur. I think that's a good thing. Not a liability.

Dems have to remember also that Clark was, unfortunately, dealing with a Repub Sec Defense and the Pentagon brass (like Shelton) always seems to lean right. That's what makes Clark such a rare gem. The Dem Sec of State, Madeline Albright, doesn't have the same criticisms of Clark as Cohen and Shelton have. And I prefer her judgement any day to the views of a couple of right-wingers

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. I see others joined in.

The "he was passionately for the war" lie is the easiest to debunk, but only if people are willing to read more than three sentences. We have commentary from Gene Lyon dating back to the Summer of 2002 that Clark was sharing his concern over the pending PNAC plans to invade Iraq and other mid east nations, and tons of commentary and transcripts of congressional testimony by Clark arguing that events DID NOT support invading Iraq. The Right hit men and a few leftist parrots like to pull three sentences Clark wrote after the Iraq invasion in a London OP-ED piece out of context to make him look like a war supporter. All it takes to blow that out of the water is to quote the very next two sentences from that same piece that they always conveniently leave out. Clark was only acknowledging that readers were proud that British and American forces were successful in deposing Hussein. It was his hook to connect with his intended readers during a month when everyone was happy that the invasion didn't bring massive British and American casualties and that Hussein was out of power. Then Clark started ticking off all of the serious problems that lay ahead, at a time when no one was mentioning any, and he was right in every case.

Clark never thanked God for Bush, he said he was glad talented people were part of Bush's Administration and he he wished them well in undertaking their new responsibilities not long after they were all confirmed by Congress. If you go back through the Congressional testimony, virtually every leading Democrat in the Senate made similar statements about the very same people Clark refereed to. It is the gracious side of politics that Bush has been so hard at work destroying, but this was shortly after he was elected promising to be a unifier not a divider, and politics still had some of that civility.

[Texas_Kat]

45. Based on the performance of Bush's "Michael Browns"

Maybe Clark was grateful that Bush hadn't installed another "arabian horse show" flack as head of DoD.

It's possible that Clark knew more than we did about who was being considered.

As much as I dislike Rumsfeld .......... it could've been much worse. Hell, Bush could've installed Harriet Myers.

[Hissyspit]

112. Do you have a link for the London Op-Ed piece? n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

133. Yes

Here you are. Clark's enemies always make sure to cut their quoting before the last sentence in the first paragraph. One hit piece I know introduced the cut down quote by describing Clark as "Drunk on victory", and I saw more like that. If you read the whole OP-ED it is obvious that Clark was actually rather sober. Remember, this was in the heyday of "Mission Accomplished". Damn few mainstream voices were voicing any caution or concerns about Iraq:
http://www.seanrobins.com/national/other_2004/clark_2003_04_10.htm

[norml]

144. "Kosovo debacle"? Would that be the zero US combat fatalities suffered

in Kosovo, or the zero US combat fatalities suffered in all of the former nation of Yugoslavia that's the debacle?

Could the debacle be that regime change was achieved at a very low financial cost?

Or could it be that the war criminals of the former Yugoslavia were successfully tried in the Hague, rather than being tried at some Judge Ito like show trial, such as what Saddam's getting?

Could it be that we had a real coalition that held together going into the former Yugoslavia, rather than just us, Britain, and a coalition of the dwindling that causes you to characterize Kosovo as a debacle?

How about the quality of life and the quality of public safety in the former Yugoslavia verses the quality of those things in Iraq?

Is the debacle in Kosovo that it's too quiet, too safe, has too high of a standard of living when compared to Iraq or even for that matter to Afghanistan?

I guess the debacle must be that things turned out so well in the former Yugoslavia that hardly anyone here notices that there was a war.

I guess you need to preside over a series of real disasters to be known as a great wartime leader.

[Totally Committed]

16. If you can't convince them with the truth...

baffle them with bullsh*t... These people never learn. What a shameful way to show the respect and fear they have to have that he might actually be gaonong momentum.

These people attack what they fear. Apparently, they fear Wes.

Has anyone noticed the number of low-post newbies here attacking him in the last few days? That ALternate SOTU Address he gave must've gotten under someboady's skin...

TC

[ComerPerro]

17. Yet Republicans never seem bothered by Bush's numerous lies

and flip flops.

Odd, isn't it?

[Benfea]

76. That's perfectly consistent with conservative "logic"

I mean, these are the same people who have argued in two separate wars that the war strategy should be to "bomb them until they like us."

[joefree1]

18. The repukes will spew their propaganda over any Dem candidate

The question is what will we do in response? I say get aggressive and do pre and post smackdowns. No wimps in '06 and '08. Bring it on.

[ourbluenation]

21. and get pro-active - It appears to me George Allen is the golden boy

right now. Lets give them a taste of their own meds and swiftboat his ass.

[FrenchieCat]

61. here's one on Allen.....

George Allen wears a WIG.

HE IS BALD, AND HE IS HIDING IT....

George Allen is a "Girley Man"

spread it cause it is true!

I will be writing to newspapers saying exactly this.

One down.....

who's next on your list of Golden GOP folks?

[FrenchieCat]

67. Ok....so I'm on the case!

George Allen......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2439047

[Joey Liberal]

22. Swift Boating by the repukes will never go away

Swift Boating is a tactic that the repukes will continue using. Sad, but true.

[Quixote1818]

24. LOL!! Poor decisions in Kosovo and Serbia??? Compare his record

to those handling the Iraq war!!!

Clark didn't lose Any Americans and we won. Those handling the Iraq war which Clark was against from the beginning have made one mistake after another.

These guys are funny!

[joefree1]

25. 911 lie debunked

> He's a liar... he first said that said that he received a call directly from the White House admitting that they hyped the issue about the WMD's to garner support. Then he said it was another group that told him about that, then it became some "informant" from Canada that told him when he was caught in the lie. Liar liar pants on fire.

Contrary to what you have may have read in the mainstream media, General Clark never claimed to have received a call from the White House asking him to link September 11 to Iraq.

The story really began rolling when the Weekly Standard ran back to back pieces attacking Clark with what they obviously hoped to make the standard narrative about the General. The August 25 issue of the magazine accuses Clark of putting forth "three versions" of a story that he received a call at his home the afternoon of September 11, 2001, urging him to say on CNN that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were connected to Iraq. The charge is repeated in a story in the magazine's September 1-8 issue.

Before deconstructing the Standard's spin, it is worth noting that the substance of the story, that Bush administration officials were hard at work trying to establish just such a connection within hours of the attacks, is true. As reported by ABC news, "barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq - even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks."

More debunking here:
http://www.u-wes-a.com/myths.html

[Clark2008]

26. Point by point refutation

> His ego is the reason why he was fired from his NATO post because he thought he could circumvent his superiors.

TRUTH: He was relieved two months early of his command because Republican Def. Sec. Bill Cohen wanted to open a position for one of his Republican crony generals. Clinton thought this was routine operating procedure, but upon finding out it wasn't after signing the relieve order, he got extremely angry. He ended up awarding Clark the Presidential Medal of Honor.

> HIs military collegues speak very poorly of him. He made some extremely poor decisions in Kosovo and Serbia and had his superiors have to override him and his subordinates disregarded his orders they were so bad.

TRUTH: Many of his military collegues worked for him during his campaign. His decisions in Kosovo and Serbia resulted in a shortened 72-day war with no loss of allied life. His only "poor" decision was trusting a Republican Def. Sec. under Clinton who was angered that Clark talked Madeline Albright and Clinton into supporting a war that stopped the genocide of Serbian Muslims but brought forth no oil.

> He was passionately for the war... oh, but that was RIGHT BEFORE he decided to become the Dem nominee.... so he became passionately anti-war all of the sudden? Okay I guess if you want Kerry-lite.

TRUTH: He testified before the House Armed Services Committee that going to war in Iraq was unnecessary because Saddam was contained and because the Army was stretched too thin from his Afghanistan missions.

> He thanked God that Bush and his admin were in the White House... until he announce his candidacy and then said they were bad leaders.

TRUTH: This faint praise was issued months before 9/11 when all the country wanted to believe that it hadn't just elected the worst leaders ever. He was a new businessman in the Little Rock community and spoke to both Republican and Democratic fundraisers there in order to meet business people.

> When called out on his party affiliation and when he first "became" a Dem, he floundered. He was a registered Republican until shortly before he decided to become a candidate. (Ehem... he voted for Nixon and Reagan... twice... and Daddy Bush). He even admitted that he would still be a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his phone calls (whcih Rover did not and it pissed Clark off)

TRUTH: As an Army commander, he was a registered independent. While admitting he voted for Nixon and Reagan (and it's never been proven he voted for George H.W. Bush), he said he saw the light and voted for Clinton, Gore and Kerry. He was never required in Arkansas to register with a party, which is the case in many Southern states, to vote in a primary. The crap about that he was be a Republican if Karl Rove had called him was a JOKE, said in a snarky manner. White House records also indicate that Wesley Clark never once called the sorry son of a bitch.

> He's a proponent of late term abortions.

TRUTH: No one is a proponent of abortion. Wesley Clark is pro-choice.

> He's a liar... he first said that said that he received a call directly from the White House admitting that they hyped the issue about the WMD's to garner support. Then he said it was another group that told him about that, then it became some "informant" from Canada that told him when he was caught in the lie. Liar liar pants on fire.

TRUTH: The person who made this phone call to Clark was Israeli-Canadian Middle East expert Thomas Hecht. In his original statement, Clark did not say he got a call from the White House. Clark said from the very beginning that his call was from people connected to "Middle East think tanks," but that all kinds of people were trying to connect Saddam to 9/11, including the White House and people around it.

> Too many holes can be punched in anything that he says he believes in... by his own words.

TRUTH: He scares the bejeezus out of Republicans, so they'll say anything to knock him down a peg.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Don't you mean "refutation". Not to quibble.

[Clark2008]

30. No - the email sender needs to revoke this shit.

But, refutation would work, too.

:P

I'll change it to make you happy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. No offense meant.

As one who occasionally bungles the wording, believe it or not, I was trying to be helpful.

[Clark2008]

33. And I was teasing you.

My anger over that email has made my wording meter drop significantly. I didn't even word some of the refutations well, but I still got the point across.

[joefree1]

29. Good stuff Clark2008

Is there a link to this debunking. I'm becoming a big Fan of Clark.

[Clark2008]

32. Try these:

http://www.u-wes-a.com/myths.html

http://clarklies.blogspot.com/

[Dr Fate]

51. Thanks- I want Clark to make a strong showing in the primaries.

I like Kerry for '08- but dont want to see any Repukes smearing DEMS with this nonsense.

I want to see Kerry, Clark , Gore & Edwards in the primaries- all those killer choices will make DEMS look like a party of bad-asses...

I think a Kerry/Clark ticket in '04 would have been unstoppable.

I think Clark needs to be on the '08 ticket regardless of who wins the nom.

Best of luck to you!!!

[wildbilln864]

70. No more skull & bones...

No to John Kerry! He had his chance and blew it!He should have called the Bush league out on their BS but he chose not to. Sometimes I woneder if he wasn't there to loose in the first place.


Wes Clark gets my vote for PRESIDENT, not VP.
Not yet sure who'd be his running mate yet.

[Tom Rinaldo]

75. I want Clark too as you know

but I hope we can keep this thread clean from arguments about who are the good, bad, and indifferent Democrats. It could become a diversion, and I really am hoping we can figure out exactly who is backing this smear campaign and put our heads together to figure out how to expose it, for Clark and all Democrats. We can start early too!

[CTyankee]

158. Tom, I am saving much of this thread

so I can fire off a LTTE when I see these lies surface, whether in other ltte's or an editorial in my local newspaper. I feel very strongly about shooting down this stuff. We should learn from the Kerry swiftboating.

I write pretty good letters. They get published and at least one got a republican really mad at me and he wrote an LTTE blasting me by name! I love it when I can just smell the blood I've drawn!

Please let me know if you'd like me to be part of the letter writing for Clark. You can pm me about details or contacts . I am in New Haven, CT.

[Dr Fate]

77. No more Area 51 or Bigfoot either!

When is Kerry going to "come clean" on his involvement in the Shakespeare/Bacon controversy- that is what *I* want to know.

But seriously- Clark rocks- no need to tear down Kerry to build him up.

[Adelante]

81. Feh

Senator Kerry is an honorable man. Let's not Swiftboat him in this thread, please.

[karynnj]

90. Thank you, wesdem

Ironic that someone would try this on a thread that is looking at the serious issue that the RW will attempt to swiftboat ANY Democrat they see as a threat. I wish that all of DU would take to heart two things.

1) The RW has honed the swiftboating practice to a science. What Kerry faced was well beyond anything seen before. Part of their practice is to start these things in emails and boards, further add fuel on hate radio (and they control an amazing amount of the radio spectrum), move to cable where the lies are repeated by people of greater perceived respectability and then into mainstream newspapers and network tv where the claim and denial are given equal treatment.

2) No one will reject their candidate of choice based on RW innuendo - it would be nice if before the 2008 primary, everyone took a deep breath, stepped back and looked at all the Democratic candidates and realyzed that they all had more in common with each other than differences. Additionally, all (or at least most *) of the candidates in 2004 are people who have a history of accomplishments, intelligence and are men (or women) of good character. * Much as I love to hear him, I have problem's with Sharpton's past.

Accurately contrasting the positions of candidates or explaining what is good about your candidate is not only more positive, but might be more likely to help your candidate. Also remember that in 2004, 2 of the best surrogates Kerry had were Clark and Dean. Diminishing Dean, Clark, Kerry,or Edwards in the primaries ultimately made the Democrats less viable. If Kerry loses the nomination in 2008 (or he opts to run for Senate instead) he would be an awesome surrogate. He has a history of standing up quickly and well for others - being the first to come to the defense of Clealand, McCain, and Kerrey.

[Adelante]

97. Any time

This is about Democrats, not about who is or isn't running in 2008, although that will come. This is just the first early planting, as you say, karynnj.

[karynnj]

102. As a heads up, while driving

I heard one of the RW people, using a Clark quote, obviously taken out of context that was similar to the Kerry comment being taken out of context - on the FACT that our soldiers are sometimes generating ill will (or hatred) by their presence on search and destroy missions. (It goes without saying that Clark and Kerry care far more about the soldiers than either the RW big mouth or the President.)

I couldn't catch who the RW lunatic was. (At night, if I drive in certain areas in NJ I pick up an Indiana RW station when tuned to Air America out of NYC (about 40 miles away!). )

[Adelante]

108. A reference to Hannity & Colmes show 1/31/06

From Clark's website:

http://securingamerica.com/node/573

There's video there, too, if you want to watch it.

-snip

Alan Colmes: One of the things he said, tonight he said “we're on the offensive in Iraq with a clear plan for victory” but I didn't hear…again, I didn't hear what the plan was.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, it's not. When you use phrases like offensive. You know, we're not going to go down, I hope we've gotten over the sort of kicking in the doors and roughing up the women that some people said that we did some of over there…

<Unidentified>: You think we did that?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I have heard some soldiers say that some of that was done and I think that's really disturbing.

Hannity: If you heard that and you don't have any evidence, should you be repeating something like that, General?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I have heard our soldiers say that so I've been told that by our soldiers.

Hannity: Without any proof, though, do you think you should be repeating that about our soldiers?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: When a guy tells me something like that…I didn't say that was our policies, but I know that some of that did happen. So, what I'm telling you is <crosstalk>

Hannity: It seems irresponsible, General.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It's not irresponsible. What's irresponsible is to use big broad phrases like “offensive” when, in fact, what we need to be doing in Iraq is getting a political solution. All of our generals will tell you that and so will the politicians.

Hannity: We, we are. Nobody thought that we'd go from a dictatorship to, ah, the sovereignty that's emerging or to the constitution or to the elections with all those purple fingers or the masses of people that went out to vote the way that they did. Nobody thought that was possible but we're not going to win on Iraq.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: What I want to say one thing. You know, I love the men and women in uniform. I honor what they're doing in Iraq. But, it's not going to be won militarily…no matter what we do. It could be lost militarily.

Hannity: So we can't win this war? So you're like Howard Dean. You don't think we're going to win the war?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We have to win it politically. <crosstalk>

Hannity: I think we win it both ways.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We have to talk the military power and use it to get political advantage in Iraq.

Hannity: So those elections didn't impress you.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, the elections gave us an opening but now what the elections showed is that the people who were Shia voted for the extremists and the people who are Sunnis voted for the Sunnis and…<crosstalk>

Hannity: General, I hear a lot of Howard Dean and John Kerry in you. Howard Dean said we can't win the war, in a lot of ways…<crosstalk>

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Let me just ask you this. Let me just ask you this. <crosstalk>

Hannity: No, no, let me just finish my question. You can't win it. And you're saying you have to win it politically, ah, John Kerry said that, you know, our troops were terrorizing women and children in the dark of night, now you're repeating that. <crosstalk> I'm surprised, I really am.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sean, you know, first of all listen. I don't take guidance from…this is not political for me. I spent my lifetime in uniform. <crosstalk>

Hannity: I appreciate it.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I've studied these situations. I've talked to people all the time. I very carefully follow these events, so this is my judgment as a strategist. It has nothing to do with politics. <crosstalk>

Hannity: I would

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It's not about ambition and it's not about partisanship.

Hannity: I understand that.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But I'll tell you this. This country has to understand and respect others. <crosstalk> It cannot just go in and bulldoze countries. <crosstalk>

Hannity: If anybody would have told you that Saddam would be out of power, his sons would be dead, we would have had multiple elections, a constitution would be written, you have the Kurds and the Sunnis and the Shia all seemingly beginning to come together in a way here and as Joe Lieberman pointed out it's really just a small fraction opposing this, I don't think anybody would have predicted it and you seem to take no good out of this at all and I'm shocked.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, actually you know, I predicted the invasion would be over in three weeks. I said we didn't have enough forces to really do the job afterwards. If you read my book I said I thought we'd handle this and we'd be out of here by now so I'm surprised at how poorly it's gone considering the overwhelming American preponderance of power but I think that our troops shouldn't be blamed for that. I think that our troops have done a great job. I think it comes to faulty policies.

[Crunchy Frog]

183. Photographic evidence of our soldiers "generating ill will".

[Jai4WKC08]

65. ACK!! Not "RELIEVED" Clark was never "relieved"

A relief from command has a very specific meaning in the military. Clark was not relieved, pure and simple. Please, never ever ever use that term. Most civilians may not no the difference, but if it gets into military or most veterans' hands, it will be misunderstood.

[Clark2008]

123. OK... what do you call it.

Because I'm civilian and didn't know.

[Adelante]

124. She always yells when she sees that

She yells at me, too :pals:

[Jai4WKC08]

163. It wouldn't be wrong to say he was fired

WKC has called it that himself. Did so in his first book if I recall. Or you can just say he was removed from command.

In either case, I prefer to include that it was only two months early from a 36-month tour. Not really a big thing in itself. But it was a slap in the face because he was expecting to be extended for another year or more. That's what had happend to most SACEURs in the past, and WKC had just won a war. It would have made sense to leave him there to work the post-war issues.

'Course, the other thing is the way he was fired.

First off, it was announced some nine months before it took effect (Does anybody think that if there were really an integrity issue, they wouldn't have gotten rid of him ASAP? Especially when they were looking for any excuse? Ask the TRADOC commander who was fired recently for being critical of the Iraq war... probably no accident that he had been a Clark protege back at Ft Hood TX... but I digress). Remember what WKC said about Shinseki, who remained as Army Chief of Staff for almost a year after his replacement was announced--they do it undercut the commander's authority. Subordinates know the guy's on the way out, they know who the new guy is, and they just sort of blow off much of what the old guy might try to accomplish, since they know he won't be around to see whether it happens. They focus on trying to anticipate what the new guy is gonna want. In Clark's case, there was the additional factor that all the NATO heads of state and MoDs knew what was going on and that the Pentagon was sending a message that they no longer had faith in him.

Second, they leaked it to the media before they told WKC about it. That's where he heard it from first. Kind of like finding out a loved one has been killed by seeing it on the news. And then both Cohen and Shelton refused to take his calls. That's not only grossly insulting, it's unforgivable in a strictly operational sense--the guy was in charge of what was essentially still a war zone. Were they trying to say that that nothing he had to say, even about the mission or the troops, was worth hearing? They did it that way because 1) they didn't want Clinton to be able to reverse their action, and 2) because they are gutless assholes who were unwilling to "face" Clark, even over the phone.

But anyway... back to "the word" I was yelling about (sorry...)

When a commander is relieved, it is an act of reprimand or punishment, either for misconduct, dereliction of duty, or gross negligence. It is not done lightly at any level. And the commander involved leaves in total disgrace. There is no change of command ceremony, no awards, no retirement ceremony, no honors. Wes Clark got all of that and then some.

And Cohen, as you probably know, said all the pretty words about Clark's superlative job performance, and that his being removed was only a personnel management decision so that Joe Ralston could be moved into the job before the time limit on his VJCS assignment ran out. All nice and proper... except it wasn't to those in the know, and Clark has always been very up-front about it.

[bleever]

103. Nice job, Clark2008.

I think somebody is scared, and it's somebody high up.

:thumbsup:

[joefree1]

27. "Clark is a Repulican" lie debunked

Clark is not nor has he ever been a Republican. He has, however, supported the Democratic Party apparatus, and been one of the sharpest critics of Republican foreign policy, the failed leadership of George Bush and Tom Delay. Clark campaigned in 2002 for Democrats Katrina Swett, Max Cleland, and Tom Lantos, he voted in the Arkansas primary as a Democrat, and gave money to Democratic Senatorial candidate Erskin Bowles. Prior to this time, he served in the military for 34 years, a non-partisan institution that explicitly frowns upon partisan political involvement. Registered as an independent, Clark nevertheless voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and Gore in 2000. His criticisms of the war in Iraq have been coherent, prescient, and devastatingly effective, and Clark was the most public defender of Michael Moore's passionate dissent at the Oscars.

http://www.u-wes-a.com/myth5.html

Wow, some of these lies are really out there. Standard repuke propaganda swill.

[Sparkly]

34. Interesting that they see a need to do this...

Wonder what they're afraid of? :shrug:

[stepnw1f]

36. The GOP Has Nothing but Lies

That's what makes them soley Republicans rather than Americans first.

[tjwash]

38. Thomas Jefferson did the exact same thing to John Adams.

That's how long this sort of thing has been around.

[KyuzoGator]

39. Where are the citations of sources?

Oh, I forgot...Republicans are chronically full of horseshit. My bad.

[Adelante]

41. ourbluenation, thank you for bringing this to DU's attention

Can I ask how you received it and is there any hope of tracking it down some way? Circulating the Internet, where? Do you know?

As Tom mentioned, this has been developing for weeks. A winger site in Canada. Rush Limbaugh. A fresh crop of retread blogging showing up on Google searches. A multitude of new posters here at DU and most likely other liberal discussion sites. And now this email.

This campaign is organized and early.

[dogman]

44. They didn't have to go far to come up with this BS.

It's a recycle of what they attempted in '03. The saddest part of that in my mind is how willing some on the left were to pick up and spread these lies. They were lazy and felt the groundwork had been done for them. It is also interesting to follow how much of this originated in the UK and is brought in from outside of the US. It reminds me of how the WH spin was taken to the UK and back to support the Iraq War. Tories are Tories are Tories. Whether in the UK, US, or Canada.

[Adelante]

47. Yeah, same shit

But I would like to know who is circulating this email if we can find out.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. Can I ask people to bookmark this thread?

And please report back if you find other evidence of an attempted "below the radar" campaign to discredit Wesley Clark? This is more than background static. Some of us think they are "testing" attack approaches to use against him later while trying to land some below the belt blows against him in the process.

This can be useful to us even beyond efforts to defend Clark. We can use this to connect some dots regarding the Republican noise machine. Some good work on that has already been done, tracing sources and connecting web sites to right wing players and watching how disinformation is passed up the food chain.

Be aware that they are not hesitant to feed disinformation through leftist identified sources if they think it will hurt a target that they want to destroy. I am NOT saying that leftist critiques are inherently misinformation. They are often the best source of truth in this world, but that is precisely why Right wing operatives like to mimic them, or feed selective misinformation to them through third parties if they think a Democratic opponent is vulnerable from the left. Just look at their campaign to prop up Nader in 2004.

Virtually any Democrat who is trying to win a National office will be vulnerable to one or more attacks from the left because they need to make one or more concessions to the moderate center in order to be viable. I repeat, I am NOT saying that the left is a tool of the right. We need the left to stake out a clear progressive vision and hold Democrats accountable. What I look for though are instances where the exact same misinformation is being spread through allegedly leftist sources at the same time it is being used by the Right in their own circles. The key here is "misinformation". When we can track identical lies across a spectrum of sources we are peeling away the shroud from a sophisticated operation.

[OzarkDem]

137. Lots of trolls tonight

Going after Gore and Clark. Who's next?

[Tom Rinaldo]

141. We need to compare notes sometimes

I don't always read Gore threads. I already know I really like Gore and could easily support him though he is not my first choice, so often I stay out of Gore threads so as to not get in the way of those who really want Gore to run in 2008. But if you find any evidence of an orchestrated effort to smear Gore, let some Clark supporters know. I mostly mean the type stuff that extends beyond periodic troll infestations.

[CTyankee]

162. Bolster our friends in the media

I am sure our Air America friends will get behind us. We'll have Stephanie, Al, Randi etc to count on for eager support or at least to refute the swiftboating.

But we can't rely just on our liberal media friends, there aren't enough of them. We need to have some contacts to win over people in the corporate media. Shame them, ask them what happened to their high journalistic standards, tell them how irrelevant their genuflecting to power really is, get to some of them (some are hopeless I would agree), at least the ones we used to think were our friends, bug them or flatter them. We just have to do it, IMHO.

[blm]

184. You're being diplomatic - I'LL say it - the right uses faux lefties to

stir up ill will against targeted Dems.

They've been doing it for decades and the internet has made their job easier. Unfortunately, even the average Democrat can fall for this trap.

[Tom Rinaldo]

185. LOL. Yup. faux lefties, and some who fall for it aid and abet

Rightists can't directly influencing most Democrats, so whenever possible they launder their lies through perceived liberal/leftist sources.

[Ksec]

46. Grrrrrrr. This REALLY pisses me off.

We must fight fire with fire. If they insist on playing smear politics (that has little to do with facts) then so must we.

Did anyone hear that McCain had a gay relationship with Guiliani?

I heard that. Lets put out a mass email /

[jen4clark]

49. LOL!! Ksec, I DID hear that!!

This kind of pisses me off, too, but it's so transparent. They DO NOT want Clark to be someone they'll have to contend with. Their WHOLE agenda is based on the whopper that Repubs are better at National Security - at being the big protective daddy that will keep us safe - and if Clark decides to run, well, that pretty much destroys that angle for them.

The worst part is that the Corporate Press will carry their water so we'll be pretty much on our own on the debunk end... just as the Swiftboaters slamming Kerry were given unending coverage on the Corporate Cable 24/7 so-called News Shows with scant (if any) coverage of the truth, which is that they were/are LIARS. I wouldn't be surprised, if we do get to the source of this email, that the very same slimey cretins are behind it...

[Ksec]

54. Yep, the plan is to ruin his reputation before the country has

a chance to look at the man and his life. Ruin him first, then you can look at him through tainted eyes that will never take him seriously. Make him into some phoney who cant be trusted. Hey, if his whole career is a lie, then how can the man be anything but a fraud. . Grrrrrrrrr. This really irritates me. Nevermind facts. Lets just make up some shit made up by some whackjob.

Lets do the same. Maybe the only way to stop this stuff is to use it on their star candidates. If they know it can come back on their guys maybe they would fear using the swiftboat tactics theyve become so good at..

[FrenchieCat]

52. Clark messes up the GOP "how to win an election in 06 & 08" primer

In reference to both the 2006 and the 2008 upcoming election, Wes Clark upsets the vision that the GOP are attempting to make real......and Clark is one big barrier in the way of their TRUMP CARD usage of NATIONAL DEFENSE whenever they need it to win elections. They want to discredit Wes Clark, cause with him around, the “TERRA ALERT” “OSAMA BIN LADEN TAPES”“ IRAN, IRAN, IRAN” tricks don’t work so well.

The day truth broke out
2/4/2006
snip
At first glance, making the Democrats seem soft on "terrorist surveillance" looks like another winner for the GOP. For Democrats to explain that they don't oppose all eavesdropping but object to the way it was done is a two-step answer that's too complicated. It would be better to argue that Bush's NSA program has been a failure because it has threatened civil liberties and violated the law without doing anything to catch Osama bin Laden.

This would fit with the Democrats' idea of fighting fear with failure - Bush's failure. New polls show his approval ratings in the low 40s, with strong majorities believing he has failed on every score except keeping the country safe. To confront the security issue, Wesley Clark is chairing a PAC to help the nine Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans running for Congress as Democrats (versus one as a Republican). The idea is to adopt the Rovean strategy of attacking your opponent's strength.
.....
(from Newsweek opinion page
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060204/1051493.asp

http://quigleyblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/wes-clarks-worl...
Wes Clark’s World and Bush’s
2/1/06
snip
General Clark is old school. He lives by the rules, but he also lives by a code of honor. It pervades every utterance and every act. I heard him speak a number of times in the New Hampshire primary and I think it frightened people. And what I thought that meant was this: We admire men like that. But we are not yet ready to turn to a man of honor. Our failure is not yet great enough.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/30/17455/5250
1/31/06
Wes Clark Endorses transition to Single-Payer Health Insurance

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/30/221916/857 1/30/06
Wesley Clark on Iran: "We Need to Talk"

http://www.politicaldogfight.com/dogfight04/2006/01/wes...
Wes Clark's REAL State of the Union Speech
The following is the complete text of Wes Clark's speech at The New America Foundation Conference on 1/30/06. While one line about 'single payer' has gotten all the play there is much more that this brilliant thinker said in that speech.

http://brouhaha.blogs.com/brouhaha/2006/01/a_state_of_t...
The Real State of the Union 2006
Wes Clark gave us a speech yesterday to the New America Foundation, entitled "The Real State of the Union 2006." It is a speech to be proud of, with a realistic assessment of the problems we face and the forward-looking solutions to those problems. It is an approach that seeks to unite us as Americans once again to rally around a shared purpose: to be worthy of our shared heritage of freedom; to live up to the responsibility of world leadership; to restore the Beacon of Hope that America represents to the world, a beacon which has lately grown dimmer.

Please take a moment and read Clark's speech, and remember a time when you were proud of what America stood for in the world. It isn't too late. That time can be brought back again. We only have to be willing to make it happen.

1/31/06
http://www.progressivelyceum.com/?p=272

1/31/06
http://hootathought.blogspot.com/2006/01/in-military-pa...
Military Parlance
Clark, retired military citizen now and perhaps politician later, was eager to point out not only our casualness but our lack of desire as a country to compete regarding all things of importance. Domestic issues were tackled as much as foreign affairs. A point encompassing the speech was the fact that we are all humans on this earth and should be treated accordingly. He stressed that whether across the street or across the oceans, people should receive respect and diplomatic candour while disagreeing over disagreements.
snip
And, as a citizen who is not under the thumb of others, he said what was on his mind.

Clark fucks their stuff up....and they don't like it!

[Adelante]

55. "Clark fucks their stuff up....and they don't like it!"

Eggs-zactly!

[Glimmer of Hope]

53. On several occasions during the primaries, I heard RW pundits

say Clark is a "weirdo" or a "wacko" without any basis. I wonder how that started?

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. Anyone have the Gene Lyon interview handy to post?

It speaks directly to this. If no one else can put their hands on it easily I will search for it. I have it somewhere.

[FrenchieCat]

57. It's called.....making shit up!

But you don't have to take my word......here's Gene Lyons on this exact subject back in 2003....

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

BUZZFLASH: You're probably one of the most well-informed journalists on how attack politics play themselves out with a culpable media, based on your extensive research and writing on the Clintons. How do you think the right wing is going to go after Clark? What can he expect? What advice would you give Clark and the people who are working for him?

LYONS: Well, the outlines of it are already evident. They're saying he's too tightly wrapped, which is kind of akin to what they tried to do with John McCain. They're saying he's a zealot and tends to become unhinged. They're suggesting he's crazed with ambition.

I wrote in a column a couple of weeks ago that one of their lines of attack would be to portray him as sort of General Jack D. Ripper, who was the megalomaniacal general in Dr. Strangelove who was so concerned with his precious bodily fluids. And that's what I think they will try to do. They might go all the way to the edge of suggesting some kind of mental illness. I don't think he's very vulnerable to that sort of smear.

Clark gave a very interesting quote that I used in a column in a profile in Esquire. He said the whole question about running against George W. Bush boils down to how much pain can you take. So I think he has some idea of what's coming. I think he has some idea that it will be shrill, it will come from that side of the spectrum, and it will be harsh. I think they're going to try to portray him as a crackpot and as wildly ambitious, and therefore dangerous. The right-wing will definitely label him an opportunist and say he's switching parties simply to become President and he's power-mad.

[wildbilln864]

83. Here too, more swiftboating before the 04 election...

We should be prepared for anything...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9522

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. Posted to wrong spot. See below. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

96. That's an excellent sample of the genre.

It's interesting to note the undercurrent of anti-semitism in it directed at both John Kerry and Wes Clark. This little gem is also rather amusing :

General Wesley Clark speaks fluent Russian and could become the first American President to do so. Why he has not boasted of this in campaigning for Leftist Democratic support is a mystery.

Interesting how the far right takes it as almost axiomatic that Democrats are practically card carrying communists.

[Tom Rinaldo]

129. More veiled hate "siding with Muslim Kosovars against Serbian Christians"

Almost invariably, all the hit pieces done on Clark related to the Kosovo War stress that the Serbians were Christians. That theme never plays prominently anywhere else.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

62. I remember them saying that Clark thought time travel was possible

They completely misquoted him when he said that travel faster than the speed of light might be possible. He never talked about time travel.

Despite that fact, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Jay Leno, and David Letterman made fun of Clark during the campaign for alleging that he was interested in time travel.

http://www.presidentialufo.com/time_travel.htm

[FrenchieCat]

63. I Remember that as well....

Which is why I, personally, will be providing all of the "corporate" pundits etal, with what they need not to be able to say...."I just didn't know".

They will have the documentation.....so IF and when they LIE, they will have to come up with another excuse.

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. Here is a good example from last time around

A vicious attack on Clark coming from a source that one would not suspect was part of a take down campaign, but it played the Rove script note for note.

How is this for a Header? Could it get more blatant?

From the Black Commentator:

"Wesley Clark. Dishonest to the Core and Probably Nuts"

Pretty much says it all.

I de-constructed the piece at the time, teasing apart the strands of lies that were woven through it by using clumsy edits and Alice in the Looking Glass inverted logic. His argument had a veneer of lucidity, but disintegrated if directly challenged which of course no one could do because there was no place for anyone to reply.

It was the exact right wing promoted script about Clark. This guy even used the very sentences from the London Op-ED that I mentioned above, conveniently cut off right before Clark slammed the truth home to his readers.

Edited for spelling

[Initech]

58. They really dont have any shame in doing this, do they?

:nuke:

[Acebass]

59. Been there

Why is that the first thing they go for, they try and take a mans pride away from him...I've been a victim myself, and it's disgraceful...
No veteran should allow that no matter what your politics...

[Adelante]

60. Thank you for posting, Acebass

I'm sorry to hear it happened to you.

[Acebass]

72. It's something that everyone who served takes pride in!

No matter what your service was, and for someone to break that trust, that soverienty, that comradry that exists between veterans it's, well I can't put it in words, but just to say that a veterans service should be sacred and offlimits...

[Adelante]

88. Thank you for your service

:patriot:

[Crunchy Frog]

64. Wow, one little speech that appears on C-SPAN

and the little Pubbies are all atwitter. Well, I'm quite proud of the fact that I'm supporting a guy who can give the Pukes a case of the vapors just by delivering a single speech.

FWIF, I've noticed an aweful lot of brand new posters lately whose main interest in being here seems to be engaging in out of the blue attacks on Clark. Quite fascinating to see that it's coinciding with an organized email smear.

[sundancekid]

104. then there's the inoculation he's accrued by taking them head on at faux!

[wishlist]

66. If it looks like he has a chance, they will round up anti-Clark military

If he becomes a serious contender we can be sure they will get together a group of high ranking military people who will be given plenty of media exposure to discredit him as they did with Kerry. Seems like I recall they did drag out one General who spoke against him in 2004.

[Tom Rinaldo]

68. The people who spoke out against him backed down when confronted

or tried to slip away under cover of darkness. It was pathetic really, but from a Republican point of view it was effective, because all they needed to do at that point was inject some doubt about Clark into the public debate. Comparatively few people had much knowledge of Clark at that point. As the new face in the arena Clark was generating Buzz and they had to squelch it. From that point on the Media noise machine made Clark answer the same "did you stop beating your wife?" type questions at every opportunity, including during the debates. It was one way to prevent Clark from delivering his own message. "Ooops, time's up, sorry General Clark"

[FrenchieCat]

69. It won't work as well as it did the last time......

Lord knows they tried. But the only general with nasty things to say crawled back into the woodworks...so the only one that would keep standing would be that Ratmole.....Senator Robert Dole!

It was what one would call a "whisper" campaign against Wes Clark as soon as the General decided to run. Whisper campaigns is what the GOP does best, in particular to anyone that threatens their monopoly on "patriotism" and if they have not other "material". The problem was that one General Shelton uttered his smear against General Clark, but he was never willing to elaborate on what exactly he meant. Further, as hard as "they" tried, "they" couldn't find any other high ranking generals to back up Shelton's comments.

General Colin Powell on CNN - 9/28/03: "I've known Wes Clark for 20 years. He's one of the most gifted soldiers that I have ever had work for me. And beyond that, I really feel it's appropriate for me to recuse myself from any further comment now that he is a political candidate."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/28/le.00.html

Major General George Pickett on the whispers...."No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point , which puts him in the super-smart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor."
'All this book leanin' is unbecoming for an officer. The yankees got all the smart ones, and look where it got them."
http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/008539.html

4 Star General McCaffrey:
"(He-Clark) is probably the most intelligent officer I ever served with," McCaffrey said. "(He has) great integrity, sound judgment and great kindness in dealing with people. He is a public servant of exceptional character and skill."


Admiral John Dalton, Former Secretary of the Navy, in a 2004 OP Ed--
"Wesley Clark is uniquely qualified to lead the nation - Today, America faces two fundamental challenges at home and abroad: keeping our country safe in a dangerous world, and restoring fiscal responsibility and prosperity for the working families of our nation. We must choose a President with experience and depth both for the domestic economy and the international arena. "

Maj. General Robert Scales responding to Shelton's insinuation while being interviewed by Fox News' Britt Hume: "Well, first of all, they are whispered. You know, Brit, Wes Clark led a 19-nation coalition, he fought a war and he won it. If you are a general in war and you have to command such a disparate organization, there are times when you have got to be hard and you've got to be decisive. I mean no one complains about Jack Welch (search) running the best…being the best CEO in the country and he was tough. But I've known Wes for 40 years; he's also a passionate, committed, empathetic individual."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97689,00.html

General Schwarkopf on CNBC News questioned about the whisper campaign....
BORGER: All right, General, I'm going to switch gears on you just for one last question, because we've been watching all of the Democrats react to the news of Saddam Hussein's capture. You made a little bit of news on our show on November 6th when you said of General Wesley Clark that he was not going to get your vote, that was for certain, because General Hugh Shelton had said that he was not a man of character and integrity. And you said, quote, "If that's the case, he's not the right man for president as far as I'm concerned." Have you changed your mind?
SCHWARZKOPF: Well, again, 'if that's the case' was a very, very important statement. You know, I don't know to this date--there's never been any attempt to explore with Hugh Shelton what he meant by that.
....I don't know what lack of character caused Hugh Shelton to say that, I don't know what lack of integrity caused Hugh Shelton to say that, and I'd like to hear more about it. And basically I just don't think that that's been addressed that much. And obviously to a lot of people that's not an issue at all."
http://ann.forclark.com/story/2004/1/8/191653/0022

The fizzling whisper campaign was brought to a halt when General Shelton was called on the carpet by Hague prosecutors who were trying Milosovic. Milosovic repeated what Gen. Shelton had whispered about General Clark, after Clark testified against Milosovic. Unfortunately for General Gossip, he had to call his unfortunate comments assailing Wes Clark's character "just politics".
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/presidence4.htm#LA%20Meetup%20with%20Wes%20II
Read these for further insight:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

If you follow the "Commander in Chief" series on television, note that the Vice Presidential character Warren Keaton is was patterned very closely after Wes Clark. In the series, the 4 star general who won the last sucessful US war without any American casualties. It is noted that this character, very much like Wes Clark, is said to not have a duplitious bone in his body. I know it is Teevee, but then political reality are not much more than "fabricated" in DC, as series are in Hollywood.


Here's the brass standing UP FOR WES CLARK.....

MAJ. GEN. ROBERT SCALES: SCALES: I've known Wes for 40 years; he's also a passionate, committed, empathetic individual. So, soldiers in wartime have to lead soldiers into battle and the lives of men and women are at stake. And sometimes that requires a degree of flintiness that you don't need in other professions.

HUME: What about those who suggest that his character reflects a kind of unbridled ambition that puts his career above all things, fair?

SCALES: No. No. Unfair. Again, like I say I've known him all my adult life. He is an individual who is committed to a higher calling. I mean he's got three holes in him and a Silver Star from Vietnam. He has a…the word patriot only partially describes his commitment to public service. And for as long as I've known him, he's always looked, you know, beyond himself and he's been committed to serving the nation. And I think what you are seeing happen here recently is an example of that.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97689,00.html


Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army's most distinguished war heroes, says: "Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn't stop fighting. He stayed on the field 'til his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned 'em."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738


General Barry McCaffrey :"(He) is probably the most intelligent officer I ever served with," McCaffrey said. "(He has) great integrity, sound judgment and great kindness in dealing with people. He is a public servant of exceptional character and skill."

McCaffrey told the Washington Post: "This is no insult to army culture ... but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1047429,00.html
"I have watched him at close range for 35 years, in which I have looked at the allegation, and I found it totally unsupported," said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who taught with Clark at West Point in the 1970s. "That's not to say he isn't ambitious and quick. He is probably among the top five most talented I've met in my life. I think he is a national treasure who has a lot to offer the country."
McCaffrey acknowledges that Clark was not the most popular four-star general among the Army leadership. "This is no insult to Army culture, a culture I love and admire," McCaffrey said, "but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good-looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture. He was not one of the good old boys."
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html


Defense Secretary William Perry: who as deputy defense secretary first encountered Clark in 1994 when he was a three-star on the Joint Staff. "I was enormously impressed by him," said Perry, a legendary Pentagon technologist who served as defense secretary under Clinton.

Perry was so impressed, in fact, that with Clark facing retirement unless a four-star job could be found for him, Perry overrode the Army and insisted that Clark be appointed commander of the U.S. Southern Command, one of the military's powerful regional commanders in chief, or CINCs. "I was never sorry for that appointment," Perry said.
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html

Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs overrode the Army once again and made sure Clark became Supreme Allied Commander Europe, traditionally the most powerful CINC, with command of all U.S. and NATO forces on the continent.
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html

Col. Douglas Macgregor: There is this aspect of his character: He is loyal to people he knows are capable and competent," Macgregor said. "As for his peers, it's a function of jealousy and envy, and it's a case of misunderstanding. Gen. Clark is an intense person, he's passionate, and certainly the military is suspicious of people who are intense and passionate. He is a complex man who does not lend himself to simplistic formulations. But he is very competent, and devoted to the country."
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html

Col. David Hackworth: I'm impressed. He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes national security tick – and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts him in the supersmart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor.
Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and didn't get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West Point class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts in any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division rifle company and was badly wounded.
He doesn't suffer fools easily and wouldn't have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he's ripped into during the past three decades.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738

Andrew Young: "I asked a whole lot of my friends who were generals and colonels and majors, who served over General Clark and under General Clark and every last one of them said to me that this is a good man, and if he were leading our nation they would be proud. son of the South capable of making a dangerous world a safer place for everybody. A man we are going to make the next president of the United States."
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/asp/FullConv.asp?forumId=F100000035&lastConvSeq=9789

[wishlist]

71. Good- I am relieved to read so many supportive statements- n/t,

[robbedvoter]

179. Thanks Frenchie for compiling this. We'll need it daily.

[Acebass]

73. Not if we don't let em!

we can use these discussion boards to right a lot of wrongs we just have watch what info we use and verify, verify, verify!

[Auntie Bush]

130. You mean dear old Sheldon (sp?)

[NCarolinawoman]

74. I received a letter from a moderate Republican in Ohio today.

She was a dear friend who I had hadn't contacted since '02. Last week, among other things, I told her of my admiration for Wes Clark. She told me she had seen him being interviewed several times lately (my feeling is that it had to be Faux). She described him as coming across as distinguished and highly intelligent and would be keeping an eye on him for '08.

Also last week, I talked to another person here in North Carolina, who voted straight Democrat, except in the Presidential election. (we have a LOT of people here in N.C. who do that). I told her about my grassroots involvement in Democratic politics and she told me she is planning on voting for McCain in '08. She was shocked when I told her that most grassroots Democrats in N.C. do not support Hillary. She said all the polls say that Hillary will be the Dem candidate. I said, "not necessarily, although she has the most money". I mentioned Wes Clark, and she said she had seen him interviewed a lot lately (IT HAS TO BE FOX AGAIN). She said she really liked him a lot and could vote for him, but since he was "Wes Point" he would be too honorable to "get down and dirty" which is what you need to do to get through the primaries, let alone the General Election." But she said she always liked to hear what he had to say.

My point to all this is that Wes is getting through to some of these Fox viewers. That combined with his "Real State of the Union". speech has the Karl Rove crowd worried. Not necessarily that he would be a candidate in 08, but he is OUT there NOW attacking "W" and he has the credibility to be believed by many of thes viewers. I am sure that is why Hannity tried to ambush him this week; an ambush obviously coordinated with Rush Limbaugh. Building up to '06, they are certainly trying to swiftboat him.

I am still thinking of that Memo that was leaked from the Whitehouse in '03 (by Rchard Clarke?) that "Wes Clark had to be neutralized because they didn't want him out there throwing fastballs at Republicans."

[wiley]

78. Some Democrat doing groundwork for an 08 run?

There is nothing here that I have not heard one, especially a specific one, or more contenders for the 04 Democratic nomination say or e-mail to their supporters. I argued for many, many months with other candidates' supporters during the primaries about these exact "charges". They have been refuted, and are ridiculous.

Exactly who was this e-mail from?

While were drudging up crap, how about this one: http://www.sportsmenforkerry.com/edwards.htm

Was this ever refuted?

Maybe this time around the Dems will learn to attack before being framed, and learn not to use such tactics on each other.

[Tom Rinaldo]

80. Was that a Republican Front?

Obviously we already had our ticket selected at that point. Things got ugly between some Democrats before and during the Primaries, but I don't think that is what we are dealing with here now, though some Democrats are always seemingly all too willing to pick up a smear and use it against another Democrat when it is convenient.

[wiley]

84. It's actually a collaboration

between the Swift Boat people and some other RW hate groups. I found it when doing a background search on a congressperson. That's the way they do it. It's all one big clan. The American public is almost completely dead to the truth they have been so abused by the media, lying Republican leaders and marketing of products.

[ken-in-seattle]

89. what's to refute?

I am from NC, about the same age as Edwards, and grew up about 20 miles away from him. I would probably answer the same way.

I quit hunting at about 14 after moving to Bowhunting since I saw very little point in turning beer into pee with an assortment of uncles and other rednecks day after day while waiting for a deer to cross the road.

I also figured out I would rather eat beef and going to the Winn-Dixie was much easier than slaughtering a cow.

Fish? I have caught a few and raked clams along the coast and spent a few drunken nights on windy piers. But I don't think I have been fishing in 30 years.

Politically, I don't support Edwards but some of the things people complain about him for are just normal life for that area.

People who are bad at math often think they are saving money when they fish, hunt or buy lottery tickets.

[wiley]

134. The whole site

I used the Edwards section as an example. He sounds like a real freak,right? No, actually kind of like a polictician who got older and doesn't hunt rabbits and smear their blood over his body anymore - if he ever did. The fact that this site existed and was not refuted just shows that we have lots of work to do. It's not a question of saying to yourself, Hey, that's stupid shit, I'm just going to ignore it. Some butthead tells another butthead and then the unrefuted becomes reality just because we've intellectualized the whole thing as just too stupid to refute.

As soon as Kerry was attacked by the Swift Boat liars, he should have gone apeshit on them. The whole party should have. The Repukes don't care if what they are doing is stupid or lies. They know the more they spread lies and drama, the likelier they are to become truths to some people. And they always have a ready sound bite for the media to whip up nothing into an issue. Politics is not a laid back sport. Sorry that's what this country has become but all of us lying back and being cool is no longer an option. Unless we just want to keep losing elections and our country to lying, selfish, corrupt fanatics.

[karynnj]

93. Look at the WHOLE site this was a RW site

look at the bottom and see the other topics - they question Kerry's Vietnam service This is a site that was obviously set up to lure in sportsmen who were on the fence or for K/E. (disclaimer: in the time period that Clark was in the race I was interested in Dean or Kerry and hoped they wouldn't knock each other out contending for the same base. I thought Clark was interesting when he first came out, but after reading more I was immensely impressed by Kerry's 30 plus years as a voice of what I saw as truth.

[FreedomAngel82]

82. Of course they cite nothing they claim

[Tom Rinaldo]

86. But I repeat. What is interesting is the timing.

Clark holds no office and isn't running for anything for at least two years. I expected the swiftboating back in 2004 (before we had that name for it), and I expected it in 2007, but they are starting on Clark REALLY early this time.

[NCarolinawoman]

92. I believe that Rove feels that Wes is getting through to Fox viewers.

(see my previous post). It's about the '06 race with all the fighting Vet Dems, for whom he will most likely be campaigning. This all started last week, after Clark's speech, with Hannity and Limbaugh leading the chickenhawk charge.

It will be interesting to watch future appearances on Fox. I believe there is one tomorrow at 11:40 am EST. The morning and afternoon talking heads are usually fairly respectful in their interviews.

[Adelante]

101. Yes, the timing is right about Fox

He's clearly getting through to Fox voters. I see more and more of similar stories told by Democrats about Republican neighbors, friends, relatives, who are saying they watch General Clark on Fox and like what they are hearing from him. And with the Hannity spot, when Wes talked about soldiers breaking down doors and threatening women, related to Kerry, and said this is what he is hearing from soldiers in Iraq, I saw, along with Limbaugh's screed, an outburst of right wing blogging in a furious rage with Fox for having Wes as a commentator.

[texanshatingbush]

94. Now is standard operating procedure

for the Repugs. The Dems must realize the Repug will continue to swiftboat anyone they feel threatens them. I realize it may be a real step out for the party, but the Dems had better develop a repeatable, presentable format to debunk repug swiftboat attacks as they occur, now rather then flail about as we approach November.

[peekaloo]

95. Why not just one big blanket statement.

Everybody lied about their military careers, past political affiliations, sexual peccadilloes and drug use except Bu$h.

I loathe these bastards.

[mvd]

100. Clark has plenty of time to debunk it

I know he also won't tolerate it.

[FrenchieCat]

107. Like I said before.....it's all about 2006.....and taking away credibility

To confront the security issue, Wesley Clark is chairing a PAC to help the nine Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans running for Congress as Democrats (versus one as a Republican). The idea is to adopt the Rovean strategy of attacking your opponent's strength.
.....
(from Newsweek's opinion page)
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060204/1051493.a...

I just hope that the Dem party will "help" Wes Clark a bit more this time around. Last time, because it was during the primary, most mainly feasted on false facts to bolster whom they supported. 2006 is important to all of us.....and 2008 ain't gonna be here for a while longer!

[Glimmer of Hope]

111. Yes - If Dems are smart they will embrace him instead of snubbing him

because they perceive him to be an "outsider." He is a great asset to the party and he should be front and center. Thanks for all your posts.. They remind me why I support him so much.

[Adelante]

113. It's ALL about 2006

As I said upthread, this is about the Democratic Party, not who is or isn't running in 2008. It's about IAVA PAC and returning soldiers who have the temerity to run for Congress as Democrats showing the Republicans up for the chickenhawks they are! It's about Wes running through California rallying Dems to "Take Back the House" and Texas last week stumping for a Democratic candidate for Governor of George Bush's own state. It's about a 4-star General turning their VERY OWN PATRIOTIC VOTERS in the Fox News viewing audience to vote Dem in this year's elections, simply by telling the truth, that this administration has killed their kids when they didn't have to die and turned some of them into torturers. This administration cannot let this pass, they have to Swiftboat Wes, and we have to do what we have to do, back him to the hilt, and the Democratic Party has to do its part. I want them talking about this, all of them, on every Sunday news show. I want the other potential 2008 candidates to put it on the back burner and stand up.

[Sparkly]

114. The thing is, this email seems directly aimed at Democrats.

Saying he was a registered Republican, thanked God for Bush, and was pro-war is not only about smearing his credibility and sincerity ("flip-flopper" attempt), but also seems to be pointed at Democrats, not Republicans. I imagine if I got an email saying Lincoln Chafee voted with liberal Democrats 99.9% of the time, thanked God for Howard Dean, and wrote/said things against BushCo's war, I'd think more of him. (Whether or not such things are TRUE is a different matter.)

So it's hard to know whether this is coming from Republicans or Democrats, but it seems aimed at a potential primary.

[Adelante]

115. That's always possible, Sparkly

But given everything else going on, the Canada Free Press articles, the right wing blog eruption, Rush Limbaugh's attack piece, and now this email, all at one time, I believe it's the Repugs. It's their dance card, for one thing. But confusing voters on Wes, voters who are wavering in their votes for 2006, seems the more likely aim. It works down the road, too, if Wes runs, but making Wes out to be a liar and a phoney, destroying his credibility as the Democrats are pulling together a national security strategy, with which he is very much involved and identified, can pull wavering Repug voters back into their column, because once again, the Dems can't be trusted, so why would they be trustworthy on the issue that concerns them most?

[Sparkly]

118. Hm, all good points.

I missed the other articles you mentioned -- obviously I haven't been paying enough attention! :(

I see your points.

In any case, much as they've tried to marginalize and trivialize him, they still see him as a threat -- which is a good sign! (No matter who "they" are!) :hi:

[Adelante]

120. Well, don't be a stranger, hon

:D

[Sparkly]

135. I know, I know....!

I've been so out of the loop. :( But hopefully, the fact that I didn't know about the smears you mentioned may mean few other people noticed them, either.

I suspect he's swaying some people through his appearances on Fox (which are so awesome, and show how he's sharpening his tools!) and that's getting the rightwing nervous.

Your points about the '06 elections make total sense, and I hadn't thought of that before.

2008 is getting closer every day, too -- and I think everyone knows that General Clark's real hurdle is in the primaries, not the general. SO many informed liberals online are totally onboard, as we know; but I think there's an early attempt to recycle old smears already to turn Democrats away from him.

If he does run again, they'll pull all sorts of new quotes out of context, from his articles and Fox commentary, and twist them -- the usual "can't be trusted" (as they did with Gore and Kerry) but also, painting him as a Republican to Democrats, and if he gets the nomination, painting him as a radical lefty to Republicans....

And that is the BEST problem we could have -- a liberal Democrat they have to fight on both fronts, because he is so on-track to us, and so persuasive to Republicans and independents... There is no one line they can use. They will trip over their feet trying to attack him.

And, this is a man studied and skilled in the art of warfare -- he will fight back skillfully!

Anyway, I'll try to get more on the ball soon!! :hug:

[Nevernose]

131. They're aiming at the middle

They know they've already got the right and they're not going to get the left.

Also, in the mistaken belief that I am far more moderate than I really am, I get a fairly large number of these forwarded to me from Republican friends and colleagues. Not so much after my 2004 potentially violent nervous breakdown :), but enough to know what's up.

We may have the good blogs and most of the independent media, but the thing the RW seems to truly excel at is whisper campaigns via email, RW radio, and Fox News innuendo.

[Jai4WKC08]

152. It could be targeted at Dems, but still come from Repubs

A lot of the lies designed to discredit Clark in the '04 primaries originated from the GOP, but designed to alienate liberal/progressive Dems. Of course, some of the other candidates and their supporters picked them up because they were useful, but most didn't start there.

The easiest way for the GOP to keep the Democratic veterans out of office is to knock them out in the primaries first. I think the Repubs are trying to discredit Clark so that some of the vets will feel they need to run away from his support and endorsement if they want to win their primaries, where in most cases they are challenged by more left-wing (or for other reasons easier to beat) opponents. Campaiging without Clark will hurt their fund-raising capability and ability to draw crowds to any rally that would have included Clark.

I think the GOP is also looking toward hurting Clark in the '08 primaries as well. One does not preclude the other. But in both cases, the target is Democratic voters, so you see an e-mail like this one.

Could it be from someone on the left? Yeah, it could, but I'd bet money it isn't. We Democrats, even those who don't like Clark or the idea of veterans running on some sort of slate, have enough problems on which to focus without trying to slander Wes Clark.

[lukasahero]

166. Took the words right out of my mouth. eom

[democrank]

117. The morans ought to

spend less time swiftboating Clark and more time filling out their enlistment papers.

Wes Clark can take care of himself when it comes to these smears. If he needs help, many of us will be there for him. Glad to see the Rethugs a little worried. They should be.

[FrenchieCat]

121. More on why the Switfboating has begun.....

because of the Money being raised for the 2006 Congressional Democratic Veteran candidates....

Iraq And Afghanistan Vets PAC Raises $25k in One Week!
High-profile board members announced as well

NEW YORK – In just one week, a new PAC led by an Iraq Veteran and dedicated to electing Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans to Congress has raised $25,000, with most contributions coming on-line. Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America PAC (IAVA PAC – www.iavapac.org) also announced that former President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Leslie H. Gelb and Iraq Veteran and best-selling author Nathaniel Fick were joining the PAC’s board, which is being led by retired General Wesley Clark.

“The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans movement is on the march,” said Executive Director and Iraq Combat Veteran Jon Soltz. “Everyone told us we were nuts to expect $25,000 in one week, but we proved to them that the cause of putting Iraq and Afghanistan vets in office has wide appeal.”

“I am pleased to welcome Les Gelb and Nate Fick to our growing Board of Advisors,” he continued. “Les Gelb is one of the most, if not the most, respected minds in the area of foreign policy, and I look forward to consulting with him and learning from him. Nate Fick, like me, has been through this war. He has the ability to lay out the challenges we face in Iraq, as well as the solutions, in a very clear and understandable way. I am proud to have served with him, and proud to have him as an advisor.”
http://www.iavapac.org/press/020306release.html

[chief_b]

126. In ref to the Clark swiftboating....

You nailed that one right on the head. He's been a great LETDOWN!

[FrenchieCat]

128. Please Chief 2 posts......

Give us some of your valuable insight :sarcasm: ....with repudiable sources, of course! :eyes:

I'll hold my welcome until I see your reply.

[OzarkDem]

138. Welcome to DU

[Adelante]

149. Welcome to DU, chief_b

:freak:

[DanCa]

139. The Republicans fear the General that's why the smears and slander.

You know I still can't believe that "self proclaimed" adults would resort to smears and lies about this man. Of course this is the same bunch that smeared Max Cleland a triple amputee for chris sake. Why people believe this nonsense is beyond me.

[javadu]

140. Just Adding My 2 Cents

A lot of people have already shared similar sentiments. However, this is a message we need to make clear. Swiftboating is going to happen regardless of the nominee. I am supporting Clark, although I will support the dem nominee --- whoever that is.

What has turned my stomach in recent years is that democrats are pussies. Maybe I am just giving in to the nonstop rightwing propoganda machine. However, it is time to fight back against this shit and bending over and spreading for it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

142. It is hard for someone who is not running for office

to directly respond to an underground email campaign against him. It's not the type of thing that Clark, for example, can call a Press Conference on and expect to have covered, but when a swarmy reporter pulls shit like this on him, he always quickly and forcefully responds. If Clark were a candidate now he would would have a greater degree of exposure and could create his own platform to speak out from, if need be, more easily. We have to make progressive media aware of what is going on when good Democrats start getting swiftboated through "whisper campaigns", and we have to call the mainstream media on it when the next stage invariable happens and they start reporting on it as if it were legitimate news.

Meanwhile, stay alert!

[javadu]

145. OK --- So Here is What We Do

Let the swiftboating of McCain begin. Bush has already laid a groundwork for that. How about Gulianni? Didn't he live with some gay men for a time? Did Jeb have an affair with Cruella?

Does anyone else hate who they have become because of the right? I do, but I am not going to let a few sensabilities keep me from saving my country. Stop whining like pussies and start pushing back!!!

[MrSlayer]

146. Let em try. Clark will fuck them up.

He won't sit by and let these assholes push him around. The General is a fighter.

[Imagevision]

148. Clark voted for Nixon, Reagan twice and Bush Sr./ when did he realize

he was a Democrat...?

[Adelante]

150. When did you realize?

You could disable your profile that way...?

[Strelnikov_]

153. See Folks. It's Already Working n/t

[LWolf]

151. So this email came from the swiftboat vets? n/t

[ourbluenation]

154. No. It came from a freeper, which could be the same thing...eom

[LWolf]

155. Well, they certainly share the same agenda, if not the same impact. n/t

[LSK]

159. notice that there are NO SOURCES

ALL BULLSHIT UNTIL ITS PROVEN.

[whazzup dog]

160. I've heard these charges from the left and the right

Apparently our own like to swiftboat each other.

[lukasahero]

169. Ding ding ding!

Someday maybe we'll learn that's a big part of our problem. We've got the circular firing squad routine down to an art form, don't we?

[Jai4WKC08]

165. E-mails like this are an electronic "whisper campaign"

I've been listening to the CDs of Al Franken's book, The Truth (with Jokes). It's unabridged, Franken reads it himself, adds sound effects and audio clips, and does his own impressions of Bush, Kerry, Cheney and others. Informative and entertaining.

But anyway... Franken writes/talks about Karl Rove's history of managing campaigns in Alabama, before he got to the national level. One thing Rove did was use Univ of Alabama Law School students to initiate a "whisper campaign" against the Democratic opponent. The advantage being that the students come from all over the state, they take the rumors home with them, and pretty soon, it seems like they're not rumors at all but just "common knowledge" statewide. And always attacking the Democrat's greatest strength, making it seem like a liability. In the case that Franken documents, the Dem had been an advocate for children. So the whisper campaign turned him into a pedaphile.

These spam/e-mail slurs are sort of a modern-day "whisper campaign" that reach nationally. And they have plenty of little GOP-bots perfectly willing to pass the e-mails along to all their friends and co-workers, some of whom will pass them along to others who may not be lock-step Repubs, or even conservative at all. And since most people don't follow politics and don't know much of anything about the person being attacked, they tend to accept as fact whatever they read first. And it's all so much easier than having to actually meet with people and answer questions or explain accusations.

This e-mail is about Clark, but the problem isn't. I predict we're gonna see a lot of this sort of thing, against any Democrat who seems to pose any sort of threat to Republican power. So Gore may be next, or Feingold, Warner... or anyone at all. It's just too cheap and easy, and by the time the target even finds out what's happening, the message has spread to potentially millions of voters.

Question is, what do we do about them? What can we do?

We need to expose the tactic somehow. Not just in the liberal blogoshere, but somehow in the mainstream corporate media. I don't know if the latter is possible, but we need to try. Not gonna do much good if someone writes a book in 2009 about how it was done in 2006 and 2008.

But I think we also need some sort of centralized data bank, some sort of Rapid Reaction website for ALL Democrats, where we collect these things and provide the facts so recipients can send them back to all addressees, and "demand" they pass them back up the chain. The hard-core Repubs won't do it, but some of the others might. At least embarrass the senders for having passed such filth along. Maybe they'll think twice the next time.

It's something we could, and should, all work together on, regardless of who is the target.

We might also think about how to fight fire with fire.

[Tom Rinaldo]

167. Great post Jai

That's why I asked folks to bookmark this thread above, so we have a starting point for gathering leads, but it needs to go way beyond what we can accomplish with one DU thread.

My only hard line regarding fighting fire with fire, I personally insist on truth. I don't want us to ever stoop so low as to make stuff up or twist the truth back against itself so that it might as well be a lie. Anything I would ever consider passing on to anyone I would want to be able to defend the accuracy of face to face, if it ever came to that.

[Jai4WKC08]

172. I agree that we need to stick to the truth

And I know Clark does too. "No dirty tricks," he said, just th'other nite in CA.

But as Harry Truman replied once when some said, "Give 'em Hell, Harry": I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.

There's enough about the Repubs that is true, that can be backed up with detailed facts, that none of us need be ashamed of having to defend.

It's all in the packaging. What we don't want to do is send out anything that gets bogged down in wonkish explanations that will put people to sleep or lead them to just hit the delete button. Whateve goes out needs to be written as inflamatory, even outrageous, maybe humorous, but most of all, easy to read and understand. The Truth (with Nukes).

And it's not like we have to put all our eggs in one basket. Someone up-thread suggested exposing this vry tactic of attacking veterans. There could be e-mail exposes tied to specific issues. Or some that go after specific Repubs, both those who are looking to run in 2008 and those who, like Clark, are trying to influence 2006. What's cheap and easy for them can be cheap and easy for us too. And the ones that are the best written will have the longest legs; the ones that aren't won't go very far but won't necessarily hurt anybody. Like in Darwinian theory, where one survival mechanism for a species is to produce many off-spring to increase the odds that a few will survive.

What we can't do is just stick to left of center websites like DU and Kos and whine about what the Repubs are up to.

[Tom Rinaldo]

175. Nomination for first Dem email:

Chickenhawks Against Vets.

List the whole bunch, and show how they all avoided service and/or combat, and then say: "So why are men like these always attacking Vets who actually FOUGHT FOR our nation, men like Max Cleland, John Kerry, and Wes Clark?"

[Jai4WKC08]

181. Good start

I think the subject should be, "Why are these men attacking veterans?" That should get even Repubs to open the e-mail.

Short bullets about Cleland, Kerry, Clark, Murtha and any others we can think of (but not too obscure). Hell, throw McCain in there too. Lots of indies and moderate Repubs like him (bleech), and the idea is to expose the tactic.

For each one,
What they said:
The real story:

etc.

Keep each bullet point very brief, but as extremely worded as possible.

Then a list of the easily recognized chickenhawks and, for those of the right age in Vietnam, how they got out of serving. The ones in power and the ones coming up. For the younger ones, maybe something brief about what age they were in the first Gulf War.

Wrap it up with some bold statement summarizing, saying only a coward belittles the deeds of heroes. Bold, large font.

Then ask, "Which veteran is next? Will it be your son or daugher. The kid down the street with the prothetic legs? The one who didn't come home at all?"

Maybe some photos would be good too.

[blm]

171. They targeted all the likely candidates and started Jan.21, 2005. They had

a jump on Clark and anyone who ran in 2004.

Our ONLY focus right now has to be exposing the GOP control of the broadcast media BEFORE this crap takes root there in 2007.

[Tom Rinaldo]

173. I don't disagree about the broadcast media but

like Jai said, this is the other prong of their attack. This is the "whisper campaign" gone electric. This is the handbills slipped under windshield wipers in church parking lots, only via email. Up thread Jai noted that this very same attack, word for word cut and pasted from an email with the > symbols still intact, showed up on an ABC message board thread devoted to the TV show "The Bachelor".

[blm]

176. I am well aware of it - It's how they handled McCain in South Carolina.

What I am saying is when they start a storyline against Dems this stuff takes root all over in small ways and then when it has its national network of fervent believers and spreaders, they're ready to move it up to broadcast media - starting with Cspan and call in radio shows.

The first crap I saw about Kerry was in 2001 - RW boards set up to pretend they were lefties, complaining about his work in Vietnam to normalize relations. They also fronted a group devoted to wintersoldier, also seemingly from the left, and all it did was take potshots at Kerry - turned out to be a site linked to O'Neill - and this was a couple years before swiftliars.

[Tom Rinaldo]

186. You are VERY well aware of it.

That is exactly how it works, and thank you for your efforts in monitoring it.

[ourbluenation]

180. fight fire with fire is right! whisper campaign George Allen NOW!

I really think he's going to be their guy in 08. From their own playbook - take his strengths and destroy them. Don't know enough about the man to know his strengths...

[Jai4WKC08]

182. Does he have any?

Seriously, I don't know much about Allen, other than he does seem to be a potential front-runner and a favorite of InHanitie (mispelled on purpose so not easily searched).

Allen must have something the Repubs like, to have beat Warner in 2000. I'm not sure who had the most money... Repubs usually do, but Warner was not without resources.

Isn't Allen sort of a darling of the religious right? Maybe there's something there. According to Wikipedia, he's a Presbyterian. Don't know which sect, but there's probably something that church has done that could be tied to him (whether he personally supported it or not--afterall, he didn't change churches in protest, did he?). Something the fundamentalists wouldn't like.

Also, a quick google turned up a website of the "Traditional Values Coalition," which attacks Allen for supporting the homosexual "agenda." Maybe that could be passed along.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1705

Another track. Allen is the son of the famous football coach (GA Sr). Maybe there's a story about why he never made it in that field. Did he try? Did daddy try to help him but he just couldn't cut it?

He must have been a fairly well-liked governor, to get elected to the senate from the job. There must be something in his record there that has some stink to it.

I'm just throwing out ideas. There may be better ones. All it takes is imagination, a little research, and some good ol' fashion righteous indignation.

[Jai4WKC08]

187. Here's an idea for an "issue" related EWC*

*Electronic Whisper Campaign

Subject: American Taliban
Text would include a list of the most outrageous quotes from the most radical wingnuts, the ones who are well known, or at least recognizable, to most Americans, whether they follow politics or not.

I found a nice list at Stephanie Miller's blog just this morning. I'm sure it could be improved upon. See http://www.stephaniemiller.com/index.php?option=com_ezmoblog&ezmoblogaction=http://www.stephaniemiller.com/blog/post.php?/1 Please take a look and see what you think.

A little background on where I got this idea. Sorry I can't remember the details better, but they're not really important.

I happened to be listening to C-SPAN a week or so ago, right before the Alito hearings, when they carried some event, I forget what it was called, but it was a big rally for anti-choice movement. Bush even called in to address the gathering. The usual bullshit. But what I was most struck by was the opening "prayer" that was given by some preacher I've never heard of before. The man was a raving, slobbering lunatic.

Now, I've been around Repubs and other conservatives most of my life, within my own family, among my military co-workers, on-line. And I truly believe that a large majority of them would have been horrified to be identified with this guy.

I'm not suggesting we use him in an e-mail. He is, to most people, a complete unknown and could be dismissed as irrelevant by the people we want to reach. But there are some big names, who most people recognize as representing the GOP and administration in at least some respects, who are every bit as radical and who on occassions expose their lunacy but the mainstream media either gives it short shrift or ignores it altogether. Those are the people whose message we need to make "normal" people aware of.

[robbedvoter]

178. Fair, the Nation were accomplices in 2003 - e-mails as he announced

You could find the same lies on extreme right&left about him (the hats, Kosovo)
We have all articles about the NATO shit.