General Wesley Clark - Next US President?

²°°³webkev²°°³

seems too perfect - what do you think ..

http://www.draftclark.com/
http://www.draftclark2004.com/
http://www.digitalclark.com/
http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/
http://www.women4clark.com/
http://www.meetclark.com/faq/


Wesley Clark:

* thirty-four years of service in the United States Army

* first in his 1966 graduating class at West Point

* awarded a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and a Purple Heart,
while serving in Viet Nam

* Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, where he acquired
a Master's Degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics

* graduate of
the National War College,
Command and General Staff College,
Armor Officer Advanced and Basic Courses,
and Ranger and Airborne schools

* Commander at National Training Center (NTC),
Fort Irwin, California,
and with the Battle Command Training Program (BCTP)

* Deputy Chief of Staff for Concepts, Doctrine and Developments,
US Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia

* Chief of the Army's Study Group,
Office of the Chief of Staff of the Army, Washington, DC

* Chief, Plans Integration Division,
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans,
United States Army, Washington, DC

* Special Assistant to the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget

* served as an instructor
and later Assistant Professor of Social Science
at the United States Military Academy

* Director, Strategic Plans and Policy, J5, the Joint Staff

* Commander-in-Chief, United States Southern Command, Panama

* NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe

* presently;
chairman and CEO of Wesley K. Clark & Associates,
a strategic advisory and consulting firm, and
serving on the boards of several private corporations
and non-profit organizations

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

Compare that to Bush:

* draft evader of the worst "daddy got me into the guard" kind

* poppa's rich friends bailed him out of a failed
oil exploration business appropriately called, Arbusto

* Harvard MBA who claimed ignorance upon being cuaght
not filing insider trade documents with the SEC

* as GM of the Texas Rangers, traded Sammy Sosa for a stiff
whose name only the most avid of baseball fans could remember

* personal friend with the unindicted Ken Lay

* practitioner of English vocabulary at the 6th grade level

* a master Texecutioner - with or without due-process

Havelock

Vote Clark
God I hope he gets into the running and doesn't have something in his past that will stop him winning, sounds like just the man the States need.

²°°³webkev²°°³

Yes...


MSNBC

Yahoo News

The Beer Baron

he appears to be not only a Clintonite but one who understands the political and martial better situation than the Buskies.

I didn't mind Clinton- I don't think he was a great man but he certainly was a great president. What the US needs is a leader who tells the world "We care" rather than "you're either with us or against us".

Clinton seemed to care, I'm not so sure he really did care as much- but he seemed to care and wasn't brash and arrogant when it came to foreign policy. He diffused situations, rather than antagonise them. And Clinton's advisors weren't quite the rogues gallery of greedy earth-vampires that Bush has.

Of course, all I see is yet another 2 party system.
In reality it's not exactly Democrats and Republicans as much as Republicans and Republicans Lite.

The Beer Baron

me again.

Yeah, either he's an intellectual humanist (with a strong military background) or he has some really good writers- but what he said on the War on Terror and the War in Iraq I can only but agree.

nick_riviera

I was amazed to read that Michael Moore is backing Clark,although whether this could turn out to be a poisoned chalice or not is another thing

This is great news - he seems like he could be electable,and another 4 years of Bush and his friends would be a disaster,for America and the wider world.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from nick riviera
I was amazed to read that Michael Moore is backing Clark

I enjoy Moore's work - especially Bowling for Columbine but it has to be said, he is erratic - last time around he was having wet dreams about Hilary Clinton running for Pres.

Speaking of which, what are the odds that she would, if she runs, get Presidential nomination from the democrats AND co-opt Clarke as a VP; I read an interesting article in the Express the other day which noted that this might offset her disadvantage as a woman who might be seen as inexperienced in matters of war and since America is, for all intents and purposes at war, whether illegal or otherwise....

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Speaking of which, what are the odds that she would, if she runs, get Presidential nomination from the democrats AND co-opt Clarke as a VP;

I'd be more inclined to imagine the opposite - that Clarke could co-opt her as VP....but I don't think either option would work.

jc

Manach

I don't think he is an ideal choice.
I remember Clark from the Kosova "Conflict", he ordered in British NATO troops to stop Russians capturing a strategic airport.
The Brits told him essentially sod-off, that they are not starting WWIII at his behest.

bloggs

Don't know much about him, but I assume he has an IQ of more than 50, (thus more intelligent than Bush) so that has to be only a good thing.

²°°³webkev²°°³

watch him annouce live in 5 minutes

http://www.websoapbox.com/media/clark-announcement.ram

sovtek

Clark wasn't so much against the war in Iraq as much as how it was carried out. He's running on a platform as if he was anti-war IIRC. Something that is a bit disingenuous
While anything is better than Bush, some statements in the former mentioned article allude to arrogant foreign policy.
He aint exactly pristine when it comes to commanding over Yugoslavia either (as if thats possible when it comes to bombing people).

sovtek

Originally posted by nick_riviera
I was amazed to read that Michael Moore is backing Clark,although whether this could turn out to be a poisoned chalice or not is another thing

ummmm...from that article...

"This is not an endorsement. For me, it's too early for that. "


Not exactly backing me thinks...complimenting...yes

The Beer Baron

If he walks the walk like he talks the talk then he might be, (having such an impressive military pedegree as he has) the only man capable of sorting out the mess GW made in Iraq- providing the US is, of course, legitimatly commited to doing so.

Well at least he's one potential Democratic candidate, who has the credentials to openly and fully critisise the Bush regime without much fear of being branded un patriotic.

mm

Typedef

How the hell could Bush a diserter ever play his trump card (security) against a.... General, who it just happens was the former supreme commander of NATO?

Choice Bush Deserter versus Clark General, awarded numerous medals for military service, former commander of NATO, etc.

I think this guy has much more potential to aust Bush then Dean, since he appeals to security concious voters, while scooping all the left wing votes the Democrats get.

His main problem would be a third candidate on the extreme left, not Bush.

TomF

Here's an interesting article on what General Wesley Clarke's old boss thinks of him. From what I've been reading, the Clintonistas are supporting Clarke hoping he will get the Democratic Party's presidential nomination next summer, then get defeated (a certainty in their view, apparently) and then leave the way open for Hillary Clinton to run for the U.S. Presidency in 2008 after George W. Bush has served his maximum two terms. The thinking is that the Clintons and their hangers-on want no Democrat to be strong-enough in 2004 to win against Bush. Is this Machiavellian or what?! I don't think anyone who watched Bill and Hillary Clinton in action sees them as anything but supremely self-interested and devious.

Oh yeah, the article. It is at:
http://www.losaltosonline.com/articles/2003/09/23/news/community/news01.txt

"What do you think of General Wesley Clark and would you support him as a presidential candidate," was the question put to him by moderator Dick Henning, assuming that all military men stood in support of each other. General Shelton took a drink of water and Henning said, "I noticed you took a drink on that one!"

"That question makes me wish it were vodka," said Shelton. "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."

²°°³webkev²°°³

I dont take take comments seriously by Generals praising Bush's reckless behaviour.. somehow I feel there just mesmorized by the weapons

In order to deal with the ongoing danger, the United States must "continue to go after terrorists," he said. "Bush has maintained the pressure and earned kudos in spite of the criticism."

The draft-dodging cocaine-sniffinf alcohloic DUI sociopathic liar "President" (and I use the term very lightly) who was AWOL during the Vietnam War will never stand up to the credentials of a real hero

For the facts.... http://www.veteransforclark2004.us/

TomF

Here's an excerpt from a recent column by Mark Steyn that paints Gen. Clarke's chances small to non-existent.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-09-27&id=3549

"One can never predict the future with complete confidence, and these are uncertain times. Bush could well be beaten by a combination of events and the right opponent. Even so, whatever happens, the 44th President will not be Wesley Clark.

Why’s that? First and foremost, Wes is a Friend Of Bill, as in Clinton. Bill gets through FOBs at an enormous rate and even those who don’t wind up dead, in jail or drowning in legal bills rarely prosper. As has been noted in this space many times, the Clintons’ Democratic party is great for the Clintons, disastrous for the Democratic party. From Arkansas, Bill went on to Washington; his successor as governor, Jim Guy Tucker, went on to jail. His party lost control of Congress, but Bill got re-elected. He survived the impeachment trial, but his vice-president lost the White House. He bequeathed a New York senate seat to his wife, but the Clinton flack he installed at the Democratic National Committee led the party to defeat in just about every competitive senate race last November.

Anyone spot the pattern here? If Bill and Hill were to demand a constitutional amendment to lower the age qualification so that Chelsea could run for President, I’d put better odds on that than Clark’s chances of success. In last year’s election, despite the usual media gushing about his ‘rock-star charisma’ enthusing his party, you could pretty much correlate the Democrats’ worst results with Bill’s travel schedule during the campaign. Unless Wes Clark marries Bill in a Vermont civil union and takes his husband’s name, he’s got a one-way ticket on the same oblivion express as Al and Jim Guy. If I were a Democrat, my main priority for the party would be to get the car keys back from Bill Clinton."

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bloggs

Originally posted by daveirl
Wesley Clark is a strong canditate on some issues, but has no policy at all on others. Howard Dean has more funding and has strong policy on all areas, but has no National Security experience which at 'a time of war' is a big disadvantage. So if you put both candidates together you get an extremely strong team.

Now the question is who is Pres and who is VP, and I reckon we'll have to wait and see, I still think Dean will be Pres but Clark is looking stronger by the day

I expect the Republican party using their fiends in Fox News to spread lies or rubbish about Clark when things hot up.

Havelock

What America needs is for someone to hack all TV Broadcasts at primetime and relay one simple message. Don't Vote Bush, he is making America bankrupt, devided and hated internationally. Vote Clark and Dean.

TomF

Just spotted this at:
http://www.drudgereport.com/clark.htm
What's going on here? Has our esteemed General done a 180?

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

A video of Clark making the comments has surfaced, DRUDGE can reveal.

MORE

Clark praised Reagan for improving the military:

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

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

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

Clark on American military involvement overseas:

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

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

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

parasite

just saw fox news making good use of that video, well that was predictable

Geromino

I do not know if some of the forumites here have any idea how to elect a President in the US., but Gen Clark will first need to win the Democratic primary. If not, then this is all a educational exercise. He is going to have to answer for his support of Ronald Reagan and Bush Senior and junior. Established Democrats like Lieberman, Gephardt, Braun, Sharpton, Graham, Kucinich, and John Kerry are going to eat him alive when the primaries start in Feb on this issue. He also will feel the heat from Dean, when he starts losing ground in the polls, for his actions in Bosnia. Dean considers himself totally anti-war, no questions asked. Ralph Nader is the x-factor in the democratic race. In case some of you are interested, Ralph Nader dislikes Dean more than Bush. He may be the x-factor in the Democratic primary. If Gen Clark makes statements that would try to appease all aspects of Democratic and independent voters, this may be his downfall for the simple reason he may not be believable to the voters. If the independent voters think is just blowing smoke to get elected, then they will go with a more established candidate they know what he/she stands for, even if they disagree with the candidate on some or most issues.

However, to win the presidency is to win the middle. Dean would be too far left for most independent voters, especially if he gets his way in reversing all tax cuts. Bush may lose support from his own party. it is going to be an interesting election process like it was

This is a good site for those who wish to know more about how we elect a president and who ALL is running. Despite what you have heard or read, you will see quite a number of candidates from various parties, including the Democrats and Republicans. along with the Green, Independent, Libertarian, and Natural Law. Click on parties at the top and you will see a more complete list of all political parties registered in the US.
http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm