Clark Set to Enter 2004 Presidential Race

Man, I was *really* hoping for a Dean/Clark ticket. That would have been sweet. Now, these guys are gonna hate each other. Sigh.

 

Just for the record, here's the resume of the guy he'd be going up against...

Successful high school cheerleader
Failed law school applicant (rejected)
Failed (and corrupt) businessman
Failed (AWOL) military man (low pilot aptitude test but strings pulled)
Failed youth (drugs and drink)
Failed Baseball owner (a figurehead--and no Sosa)
Failed governor (look at Texas now)
Failed presidential candidate (he lost both in the nation and in FL)
Failed White House occupant (He's driven the economy into the ground, sent hundreds of US servicemen to their deaths unnecessarily, undermined national security, and utterly destroyed America's credibility around the world.)

 

Clark is the real deal.

We'll likely see a Dean/Clark (or vice versa) ticket before it's all over.

Goodnight Dubya, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

 

your ignorance rises to new levels each and everyday..

yeah sure lets just sit back and let thousands of people be murdered in ethnic cleansing, no problem!

 

Probably 'cause it's from counterpunch.org. I'd love to see some other articles about Clark's service, Mango, just from different sites.

If Alex Cockburn told me the sky was blue...well you know the rest.

 

Buck,

You spoiled it.

 

Bammaslamma,

Are you seriously suggesting a general with a checkered past is worse than a draft dodger with a checkered past?

Now if Clark was a drunk until age 40, got into Yale/into Havard/into the National Guard/jobs from family connections, never had much achievement is business, went AWOL from the National Guard for a year, used Cocaine and mar1juana, etc. we might be able to have a talk about which of these true losers would make a better President.

 

ya might be right but what else could we have done given the atmosphere at the time?

Republicans and right-wing types were shouting from the rooftops that we shouldnt be involved at all

 

If you had read my post without your emotional, bleating, knee jerk reply, you would realize that I made two points:

1. regardless of how we felt about the mission (most of the Marines and others felt it was a waste of time), it should have been done properly and actually accomplished something other than us losing a pair of expensive fighter planes, bombing the Chinese embassy and destroying nothing of consequence of the Serbian war machine. If you're going to save a bunch of people from imminent butcher, don't pussyfoot about the issue. Do it, get it done and bring the boys home.

2. We have no business intervening in a civil war, at all. If you had half a brain (which I doubt), you'd realize that the rules of street-fighting apply to war. Who gets beat up the worst? The guy who tries to break up the fight because he takes it from both sides. Neither side wanted us there and yet....we just had to act to prevent "ethnic cleansing." Ridiculous. There can be no peace without victory and as a result, our forces will be in that **** hole forever trying to keep all that little hodge-podge of ethnic groups that hate each other for the most inane reasons. Let them kill each other.

We don't have a vital interest there unlike in the Middle East. I always find it funny that you liberals will always jump to the sound of guns when there is a little bit of human suffering going on somewhere that means nothing to us and no vital American interests involved. But when we have to take care of business about our vital interests such as oil or fighting the Soviets in Nicarauga or Afghanistan, oh no....we can't do that. It's unilateral, it's world domination, it's evil.......Give me a break, you bunch of hypocrites. Either be true pacifists or be hawks. Make up my mind.

Well Maynard, grow a brain....please. I give you permission. And from now on, you must engage your thinking cap before I respond anymore to your emotion-based drivel.

 

Sorry. I guess you were waiting for certain posters of similar ideology to attack the article?

I can't see where Clark's base will come from, the left should hate him for all the "war crimes" committed by NATO in the Balkans, and the right should hate him because he was at the siege in Waco, secretly commanding the whole shebang.

At least that's what counterpunch tells me...

 

Mango was giving us an example of the sort of attack Clark can expect from the far-left. It's not just the Republican Party that will go after him. This is the fight for the Democratic nomination, and those who would like to see a centrist like Clark booted out of the way have come up with this kind of vitriolic nonsense.

I would be willing to bet that Clark expects it, and similar attacks from the equally extreme far-right wing of the Republican Party. (yes, there are moderate, centrist Republicans... they are just marginalized right now by those who have captured the GOP leadership)

This is the site, for those who want to check out the credibility of the smear piece done on Wesley Clark. (thanks, Mango)

http://www.counterpunch.org/clark.html

 

wow, so he also has legitimacy on the Street... (a stretch, but he could definitely parlay this ibanking experience into a positive campaign bullet-point)

on the topic of necessary experience for investment banking: T_J, i'm sure you know from being in investment banking that it is the nerdy analysts and associates that crunch out most of the financial analyses for transactions. as you proceed to the higher tier where the senior vps and managing directors are, the value-added resides in their relationships with various heads of government organizations, industries, and so on. i am sure after reading general clark's bio, you are aware that he might have certain relationships that could be conducive to his employers.

and surely you do not equate full time community service with a high level position at an investment bank? i am sure you are being sarcastic. if so, how clever.

 

Are you people seriously comparing Gen. Clark's and Bush's life achievements?

That's hilarious.

I don't care what party you belong to , if you honestly believe that George Bush is more qualified to be President than either Gen. Wesley Clark or Sen. John Kerry you are either so far to the right you've gone insane like Ann Coulter or you are just madly in love with George W. Bush.

Sure, Howard Dean and him are probably comparable. I would even choose him over Dennis Kucinich or Carol Mosley Braun. But give me a break ! Comparing Clark's and Kerry's accomplishments to George Bush's is like comparing Hakeem Olajuwon to Danny Schayes.

 

Rimrocker, you forgot to mention that he's been a successful profiteer off of the Bush family name (which, in less polite circles, is known as influence peddling), landing any number of corporate directorships and sweetheart deals, including the rangers, by virtue of being George W Bush.

 

I'd demonstrate how much more successful the Kosovo conflict was than Iraq because there were no American fatalities and the enemy was arrested (because that's what democracies do), but I'm still laughing at "Well Maynard, grow a brain...please." I haven't heard that since I was in the third grade. I bet Maynard is still reeling from that nasty, invective blow!

 

But what good was accomplished? Nothing. Not a damned bit of good for all the money we expended. Like I said earlier, if we left, they would start fighting immediately. How succesful is that? And for the record, we never arrested Milosovic, but his own people threw him out. Our intervention had zero to do with that, which makes our losses in treasure and equipment more galling.

 

<a HREF="http://www.hackworth.com/20Apr99.html">Hackworth on Clark (1999)</a>

<a HREF="http://ww2.pstripes.osd.mil/01/feb01/ed021401g.html">Medal Waiver</a>

 

You rock, Mango. They should give you one of those names instead of "Senior Member", something like Minister of Information, and I don't mean that in the Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf sense.

 

Damn Mango....keep hitting them out of the park! Right on target. Good work.