Wesley Clark now running for Prez?

[LocutusX]

See http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=102-08202003

 

[Insane3D]

Hmmm...now it get's interesting.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Where's the money?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Where's the money?

From Dean?

As in Dean/Clark 04' I hope.

 

[SuperTool]

I might give some money to Clark once I hear about his views.

 

[Ryan]

Honestly, even as a hardcore republican, I would vote for Clark. He just seems like the right man for the job I feel better knowing that he's finally running. Hopefully he can ramp up his fund raising ASAP

 

[Insane3D]

Clark will also likely be immune to the soft on defense tag the Bush campaign will likely try to label the rest of the democratic candidates with. Also, a lot of what he predicted to happen in Iraq is coming true as the situation in Iraq get's worse.

 

[etech]

I watched Clark on CNN during the war.

He pretty much lost any chance that I would ever vote for him then. His pronouncements for the most part proved to be wrong. He didn't seem to understand what was going on.

I?ll wait to see more of his platform and performance in the debates but he has one large strike against him in my opinion.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: etech
I watched Clark on CNN during the war.

He pretty much lost any chance that I would ever vote for him then. His pronouncements for the most part proved to be wrong. He didn't seem to understand what was going on.
I?ll wait to see more of his platform and performance in the debates but he has one large strike against him in my opinion.

You would be voting for Bush if he wiped his butt with the Constitution and set it on fire. You aint fooling anyone here by claiming Clark lost your vote. He never had it because he's a Democrat.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

etech . . . which pronouncements were wrong?

Newsmax . . . fair and balanced?

Former Supreme NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark described the looming Iraq war as ?inevitable? but ?like elective surgery? during an interview on Meet the Press Sunday. ?This will put us in a colonial position in the Middle East ? a huge change for the United States,? Clark said.

Clark opined that the U.S. should have engaged its NATO allies more definitively in the War on Terrorism ? early on. Once everyone was working together and in harmony on the fight against Al Qaida, the environment would have been right to move the focus to Saddam and perhaps even on to N. Korea.

Clark fears that the U.S. will enter into a conflict still unsure of what the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south will do. He also voiced concern about the containment of the weapons of mass destruction once their guardians the Republican Guards are neutralized.

When asked if the U.S. would retaliate with nuclear weapons if Saddam makes good on his threat to use his own WMD, Clark answered, ?No, there will be no need; we will have rolled over them quickly.?

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
etech . . . which pronouncements were wrong? Newsmax . . . fair and balanced?

Former Supreme NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark described the looming Iraq war as ?inevitable? but ?like elective surgery? during an interview on Meet the Press Sunday. ?This will put us in a colonial position in the Middle East ? a huge change for the United States,? Clark said. Clark opined that the U.S. should have engaged its NATO allies more definitively in the War on Terrorism ? early on. Once everyone was working together and in harmony on the fight against Al Qaida, the environment would have been right to move the focus to Saddam and perhaps even on to N. Korea. Clark fears that the U.S. will enter into a conflict still unsure of what the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south will do. He also voiced concern about the containment of the weapons of mass destruction once their guardians the Republican Guards are neutralized. When asked if the U.S. would retaliate with nuclear weapons if Saddam makes good on his threat to use his own WMD, Clark answered, ?No, there will be no need; we will have rolled over them quickly.?

I'm telling you, this guy is a winner!!!

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
etech . . . which pronouncements were wrong?

Newsmax . . . fair and balanced?

Former Supreme NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark described the looming Iraq war as ?inevitable? but ?like elective surgery? during an interview on Meet the Press Sunday. ?This will put us in a colonial position in the Middle East ? a huge change for the United States,? Clark said.

Clark opined that the U.S. should have engaged its NATO allies more definitively in the War on Terrorism ? early on. Once everyone was working together and in harmony on the fight against Al Qaida, the environment would have been right to move the focus to Saddam and perhaps even on to N. Korea.

Clark fears that the U.S. will enter into a conflict still unsure of what the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south will do. He also voiced concern about the containment of the weapons of mass destruction once their guardians the Republican Guards are neutralized.

When asked if the U.S. would retaliate with nuclear weapons if Saddam makes good on his threat to use his own WMD, Clark answered, ?No, there will be no need; we will have rolled over them quickly.?

I didn't tape him and it's been a few months. I was reporting my impressions of what he said. Some one else agrees with my analysis though.

Sometimes, Wes Isn?t More

"...
Was Clark?s analysis wrong? He wasn?t as far off the mark as, say, Nancy ?thousands of people killed on both sides? Pelosi, but many of his comments seemed to focus on what had the potential to go wrong, instead of what appeared to be going right.

Clark at times questioned whether the U.S. should have sent in more personnel. Speaking at Presbyterian College in South Carolina on March 25, Clark said, ?What we can't know is how effective air power will be against the first-echelon defense? We might be able to do the job if air power is effective, if we don't have close contact with enemy forces and if the Iraqi will is broken. But those are a lot of big ifs. Why not use it (ground force) if you have it??

He told Cox News Service that a quick victory in Iraq is ?not going to happen? The simple fact is that the liberation didn?t quite occur. They didn't uprise.? In a mid-March interview with Salon.com, Clark said he originally had predicted a war lasting two or three weeks, but ?that was all premised on our having our force there and being ready to go at the outset. Of course we weren't.? Asked why the Pentagon would start the war "if not all the troops were in place, he replied, "I can?t explain it. I can?t defend it; I?ve never seen the plan. This is the decision that was made. It might work out; then again, it might not.?

Clark?s reputation appears to be in better shape than the Republican Guard, but it?s taken some hits.
....
"

Keeping Score

"6) Retired General Wesley Clark. The Democrats had dreamed that retired General Wesley Clark was going to be their Colin Powell. In other words, a respected, retired general that Americans could trust. He likely ended all that with his early CNN analysis that was highly critical of the Pentagon and Gen. Tommy Franks? strategy in the early days of the war. He had no choice but to repent now, but his reputation took a big hit as it looked as if he was not only attacking the plan, but the entire war effort. Add to that the fact that he was absolutely wrong on his assessment, and it may be a bit tougher for him to sniff General Colin Powell?s lofty status.
"

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: etech
I watched Clark on CNN during the war.

He pretty much lost any chance that I would ever vote for him then. His pronouncements for the most part proved to be wrong. He didn't seem to understand what was going on.
I?ll wait to see more of his platform and performance in the debates but he has one large strike against him in my opinion.

You would be voting for Bush if he wiped his butt with the Constitution and set it on fire. You aint fooling anyone here by claiming Clark lost your vote. He never had it because he's a Democrat.

SuperTool, I did not say that Clark lost my vote, I said that he lost any chance that I would ever vote for him. Unlike you I am not a little partisan b!tch that will not vote for someone because of their party affiliation.

If you want to drag the level of debate down on this board with stupid flames such as that than so be it, I can flame as well as any other person when it is necessary. I don't see where it does any good but perhaps that is all that you can do. Tear down, criticize and insult and whine.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: etech
I watched Clark on CNN during the war.

He pretty much lost any chance that I would ever vote for him then. His pronouncements for the most part proved to be wrong. He didn't seem to understand what was going on.
I?ll wait to see more of his platform and performance in the debates but he has one large strike against him in my opinion.

You would be voting for Bush if he wiped his butt with the Constitution and set it on fire. You aint fooling anyone here by claiming Clark lost your vote. He never had it because he's a Democrat.

SuperTool, I did not say that Clark lost my vote, I said that he lost any chance that I would ever vote for him. Unlike you I am not a little partisan b!tch that will not vote for someone because of their party affiliation.

If you want to drag the level of debate down on this board with stupid flames such as that than so be it, I can flame as well as any other person when it is necessary. I don't see where it does any good but perhaps that is all that you can do. Tear down, criticize and insult and whine.

I know, aren't partisans terrible?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: etech
I watched Clark on CNN during the war.

He pretty much lost any chance that I would ever vote for him then. His pronouncements for the most part proved to be wrong. He didn't seem to understand what was going on.
I?ll wait to see more of his platform and performance in the debates but he has one large strike against him in my opinion.

You would be voting for Bush if he wiped his butt with the Constitution and set it on fire. You aint fooling anyone here by claiming Clark lost your vote. He never had it because he's a Democrat.

SuperTool, I did not say that Clark lost my vote, I said that he lost any chance that I would ever vote for him. Unlike you I am not a little partisan b!tch that will not vote for someone because of their party affiliation.

If you want to drag the level of debate down on this board with stupid flames such as that than so be it, I can flame as well as any other person when it is necessary. I don't see where it does any good but perhaps that is all that you can do. Tear down, criticize and insult and whine.

I know, aren't partisans terrible?

blind partisans and trolls both suck. Thanks for your contribution there moonie.

 

[Moonbeam]

Always glad to help.

 

[SuperTool]

Whatever. I know Clark must be weeping that he lost the infinitesimal chance that you might vote for him. It's such a tremendous setback.

 

[Regs]

I would highly consider voting for Wesley Clark. I think he has a better grip on foreign affairs then anyone in Bush's cabinet. Even the highly over rated Colin Powell.

Wesley Clark was in command of thousands of mans lives. He did a good enough job that he became a 4 star general for his leadership and retained the rank of the high commander of NATO forces. At that position, he was not just some gun-hoe military strategist, but he played a very high role in the political game.

If you want to compare résumé's for both Wesley and Bush JR, Wesley would get the job in a heart beat. Wesley seems very well balanced and very well in touch with his values.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Damn this thread is old.

would highly consider voting for Wesley Clark. I think he has a better grip on foreign affairs then anyone in Bush's cabinet. Even the highly over rated Colin Powell.

I wouldn't dis' Colin. How often do Presidents intentionally piss off most of the world? Jesus would have a hard time with diplomacy in the Bush administration.

 

[spaceman]

Demolition Man for prez.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Damn this thread is old.

would highly consider voting for Wesley Clark. I think he has a better grip on foreign affairs then anyone in Bush's cabinet. Even the highly over rated Colin Powell.

I wouldn't dis' Colin. How often do Presidents intentionally piss off most of the world? Jesus would have a hard time with diplomacy in the Bush administration.

No offense to Bush of course, I understand the difficulty of his position. I just lost faith in him being the right man for the job. I voted Bush over Gore and I still have no regret about that. I think Gore would be doing the same thing as Bush JR given the circumstances.

At this point in time however, I think Wesley is the perfect man for the job. He can bring a lot more dignity back into the Oval office. Considering how volatile North Korea is getting, I can picture Wesley better talking them down then Bush Jr.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I disagree . . . I think there is no right man for this job . . . b/c the job is impossible. The PNAC makes sense as a theory but in practice it's pure BS. Do you really think the Sec of State in the next Bush admin (Wolfowitz or Rice) will do a better job?

 

[Moonbeam]

I voted Bush over Gore and I still have no regret about that.
---------------------------------
Why not shoot Clark in the back. Judgment like yours is a curse on the man.

 

[burnedout]

Democrats nervously eye Wesley Clark

"Clark, 58, has a resume that unnerves potential rivals ? Arkansas-raised, Rhodes scholar, first in his 1966 class at West Point, White House fellow, head of the U.S. Southern Command and NATO (news - web sites) commander during the 1999 campaign in Kosovo.

A White House bid by him would grab the political spotlight and undercut the strengths of several in the nine-way Democratic race.

"Certainly he's going to have an impact in the race, and I think he would be a good candidate," presidential hopeful Howard Dean (news - web sites) told The Associated Press in an interview Friday. "

.... film at 10.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I heard Clark on NPR today and he seemed mighty durn good. Of course I got suckered by Bush, so fool me once...


Have to do some more research, but so far what he said seems fairly consistent with past behaviors.