Wes Clark for VP!
By John Amato Thursday Jul 31, 2008 12:00pmI know it's pretty tough now after the Face the Nation garbage, but there's a new site up called Obama/Clark
Wesley Clark is a great man who should be considered.
John Amato’s virtual online magazine…OK, It’s a blog!
©2009 Crooks And Liars
Login or Register to post comments.
Works for me.
Wesley Clark has courage and librul facts to boot.
And Dallas Morning News hates McAyn ads! see http://cabdrollery.blogspot.com
Good, but not great... Solid, but not inspiring... I'm Okay with it... So long as he doesn't go all Chenpowleeza'ovakristol on us...
Anyone but Hillary.
Sounds good to me!
Hmmmm....I could stomach that.
Clark would be a good VP.
But as a running mate he's got "flaws"* He's Catholic, Jewish, Seems to draw the nuts out of the woodwork, has never held any elected office, he's very tied to both Clintons, and he's not a politician.
* I don't have a problem with all of these.
Wesley Clark would be an excellent choice. The man has impeccable credentials, is a man of rock solid integrity, and knows how to smack down the GOP talking points. He has experience in areas where Obama could be considered weak.
and what a stunningly handsome ticket...
I think Clarke wold be a great complement to Obama... Seems a solid VP pick, so much so, that I wonder why he's not being considered more. Is there something about him that people don't like. What is his flaw?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like the fact he sounds like accountability and responsabitly aren't scary terms or something to be avoided...
Ironically, the Dems have too many good possibilities and the Obama campaign has to find the perfect person. Clark adds a lot and Richardson, Biden, Clinton, and a bunch of others are very qualified and have clear strengths. Whoever is chosen, it's imperative that the party unite immediately, to support the ticket.
lj @ 12:
Richardson is reserved for Sec o' State...
lj @ 12:
I was disappointed by Richardson during the Democratic Primaries. He was originally the guy I was rooting for, but he turned out to be a dud. Clark would be a great VP.
i like it four star general so he has executive experience
rhodes scholar....oxford grad...wounded vietnam veteran
like many of the military people at this level he wants o use diplomacy with other countries.
his comments about mccain were taken out of context and spun to a negative. we live in a violent world. a world where resources are a premium.....this guy understands that.
EliteLemming @ 13:
I like that idea.
count me in !
Dr. Britney Hussein Matt @ 16:
tanks...
My vote will be determined by who Obama chooses as VP. Clark or Webb or nothing.
Has Kathleen Sebelius been dropped from the list yet; if so, why?
i personally like biden,clinton,clark and webb
i would take any of them. all of them are smart very capable.
somebody mentioned clark isn't the experienced politician that's a good point.........to me all the above people are tough
and could make mitt romney cry
Dr. Britney Hussein Matt @ 16:
Clark or Webb works for me.
I like General Clark...But this won't happen.
woodrow ny @ 20:
Offends Clinton supporters for some reason... beside excelent Sec o' Interior... maybe HUD...
After Webb bailed out, Zinni and Clark are the two front runner, IMHO. Zinni before Clark, because the right wing will easily be able to hang the same 'effete' sign around Clark's neck that they've already put around Obama's neck. These days it's apparently dangerous to be a Rhodes Scholar.
Zinni's square face and beer gut automatically make him TEFLON to any of those stupid 'effete elitist' tags. In fact, in the world of conservative negative image crafting, a thin, hansom man like Clark automatically sends the Republican smear merchants to the Rolladex to fish out all the 'ponsy flip-flopper,' and 'gender-confused' slogans. On the flipside, a beefy burly guy like Zinni automatically sends them out to look for evidence of wife beating, temper tantrums, and extramarital affairs. But they're going to loose the dogs of smear either way, so you may as well make them WORK for their money by having to craft two different TYPES of negative images. If you pick Clark, they'll just use the same smear tactics for both men, and then take half the week off to go golfing.
But there's no question that Clark is one of the most capable people in the country, and I think he'd make a great secretary of state or secretary of defense.
Now that will be a Celebrity Combo worthy of the Office ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogTas21jZ6M
mash-up ...
If not VP , then sec of defense .
Richardson , sec of state .
Edwards AG
DB@14, same here, every time Richardson opened his mouth to bore us with a captive reading of his resume I hit the mute button. I had no idea he was that dull. Plus it was clear as he quipped and flirted with Clinton he was being a good kitty for a VP slot with her. Soon after, he was batting his eyelashes at Obama.
I used to think he was a more dignified intelligent leader until then.
So far as a website for the possibility of Clark...WTF?
Wes Clark is a war criminal
Webb's a no go... His seat is too important...
Honestly, the Dems lineup could be the closest thing to having a real-life Justice League...Assuming Hillary is kept out of the loop (in my opinion).
Bud @ 19:
Webb already said he wouldn't be interested in VP.
anon @ 30:
What was he convicted of?
I want someone that will be able to win the office in 2016 and 2020.
We need to keep the Repugs away from the WH for as long as possible. I think that Clark would be very capable.
It won't happen so there's no sense giving it much thought.
I'm OK with Wes Clark.
The antidote to McCain's Pudknocker Five Crash Top Gun bullshit.
I would like an Obama-Sebelius ticket, personally.
An Other Greek @ 10:
Honesty, honestly!
Also interesting Clark is talking nice after O threw him under the bus while he was backing Clinton just 3-4 weeks ago. I thought at the time O was taking out his best chesspiece.
Loyalties come mighty cheap these days, don't they.
Still, Clark is valuable and the rethugs can't do a THING to him.
What gives? The biggest story of the day is about an anthrax scientist offing himself, thus nullifying the hysteria this country was put into after 9/11 that it was perpetrated by some Muslim terrorist using resources from Iraq, and not a freaking peep. Yet, all this gossip about possible VP and whether McCain is a celebrity or not? C'mon.
General_Rennenkampf @ 38:
I love Sebilius... She is my gov... Not the greatest speaker though... Excellent at calling it like it is, and handling disasters though... thus my previous endorsement @ 25...
Check out C-Span 1 now, John 'Kermit thee Frog' Lott...hilarious
I want Clark for VP, but he got Deaned
anon @ 30:
anon the flasher.
richard @ 36:
That's why they call you dick... *snark*
biff diggerence @ 37:
A military man or 8 years of McSame. Count me in. The Founding Fathers would agree, especially this year.
Dr. Britney Hussein Matt @ 34:
He was convicted of NOT being a pacifist, I guess.
I also forgot to mention that Wes Clark used to teach Economics at West Point, and Zinni has a degree in Economics. So, once you start combining national defense credentials with economic credentials, how can you go wrong?
McCain on Letterman implying an Iraqi connection to the anthrax attacks
last time around I got a little Wesly Clark wiplash. it seems to me that the guy just came out of right field TOO fast, you know? of course his voice raised against the war was a fine voice to have, I just never really got that it meant he should be PRESIDENT, you know?
even now, I'll admit I admire the guy a lot. I thought the way he answered Bob Schiffer's question was terrific and the way he handled the fake-o "outrage" really seems to me the way these things should be handled. I GET why people like the guy. Hell, last time around somebody from Pacifica Radio asked him a VERY pointed question about how he managed the NATO troops in Somalia. I'll be damned if Clark didn't answer the question completely, thoughtfully, respectfully. he's a different sort of politician, I'll give him that.
Still, I would strongly refer boosters to Matt Taibbi's profile of him in "Spanking the Donkey". I know Taibbi rubs some people the wrong way but I think that book was perhaps the single great artifact of that campaign and that the chapter on Clark really does ring a bell.
in "an evening with Kevin Reynold", KR quotes somebody who worked for the artist currently known as Prince. "well, you've got to understand, he's been living in 'Prince World' for a long time now" I think Clark has been living in a similar place. yeah, he's refreshing in a lot of ways. you either think a military commander is a good thing in that line of work or you don't. personally, I don't.
crazytown @ 40:
i don't believe obama really tossed him under de bus....
it was a strategy.....the response to clark comment(s) were oblique at best
Saint Augustine @ 39:
A bit metrosexual but acceptable.
EliteLemming @ 42:
Not to mention a Dem governor in a Red State. She should appeal to the Clinton camp, unless they want to bitch that it's not Hillary, and so shoot down the idea of any woman VP. Considering the floods, tornadoes, and the regions recovering from the hurricanes, Sebelius, with her record as a disaster-handler would make an excellent choice.
I agree w/Amato on Clark. That would be a great ticket. But the dream ticket, Obama/Clinton, would be unbeatable, and that's what has rightwingers quakeing in their knickers.
anon @ 30:
His actions in the former Yugoslavia were quite tame considering the Serbs had no way to fight back whatsoever.
the DLC would love clark to be the veep.
i think clark has done a tremendous job posturing and creating an image of himself, but the reality of his views and judgment is definitely in serious question.
i would not support this choice in the slightest and there are some clark statements (and events) that might come back to haunt him...
who's kevin reynolds?
sorry "an evening with kevin smith"
sigh.
Clark doesn't look bad in swimming trunks either. LOL
I liked Clarke in '04. Thought at the time he would be best choice to get us out of Iraq.
Wouldn't be a bad choice now.
Clark works for me but Gov. Kaine is probably a better electoral choice.
mudkitty @ 53:
give me clark,biden,clinton or webb
all of them are smart and take no bullshxt but it would't surprise me if none of these people get the nod
General_Rennenkampf @ 52:
Agreed... she should appeal to the Clinton camp, but the MSM says that would be offensive... "why not Hillary"... and while we are a reds state when it comes to Washington politics... We elect a lot of Dems to state office... I love her and respect her, but she wouldn't be a strong national campaigner at this point... IMO...
General_Rennenkampf @ 52:
I'm on with you guys.
mudkitty @ 53:
Yeah, but at what cost... Our government is cannibalistic enough as it is...
EliteLemming @ 61:
Damn shame, then. I'm for her, at any rate. An Obama Presidency would need a good set of advisors, particularly after the last 8 years.
Obama/Clark would be an AWESOME ticket! They've got my vote!
General_Rennenkampf @ 64:
Hey... I am sayin' she's gotta spot on the roster...
Obama could do worse than this. Clark has a decent public profile.
ok, of all the potentials, he's the least like a lemming, other than Jim Webb.
it totally strengthens the ticket for defense and international face of the US.
Just my $.02
Clark has always been near the top of my list of Veeps. Unlike many other Dems, he didn't back down at all from the Bob Scheiffer windstorm. Probably because he was right. It may be an unpleasant truth, but it's true.
Anyway, during the general, it's the veeps role to land the hard shots. He certainly has the ability to do that. We've seen over the last few election cycles what happens when we always pick the "safe" Democrats. I like the fact that Clark is willing to speak his mind, and then stand by what he said. It may take some getting used to by a lot of Dems, but you'll learn to like it.
I guess it all comes down to how his personality works with Obama's.
In addition, Clark would not produce a spontaneous erection at the mention of "Mossad", as his predecessor has.
BaScOmBe hearts Lara Logan and Rachel Maddow @ 68:
ooooooh..... here's yur knife back....
EliteLemming @ 66:
I do hope that he picks her. If he doesn't, he'd best pick somebody else who's good at administration, and can counterbalance the Right's accusations of inexperience.
If he were the pick, after two terms with Obama, Clark would be 72 years old and perhaps too old to run for president. We would be where the repubs are now, starting from scratch looking for a candidate.
EliteLemming @ 25:
Offensive because she is not as qualified as Clinton. Obama supporters seem to gravitate to her to try and prove a point that it's not that Hillary lost because she was a woman, just he wrong woman. The sad part is Sebelius won't get it either because she's a woman and you can't have a black man and a woman on the same ticket. It would only work had it been Hilary with him. Whether you want to except it or not Hillary would have brought in the votes.
Amen. Best guy for the job by a long shot. Can't believe some of the names they are floating instead.
pissed off patricia @ 72:
BS... There's no rule says a veep must succeeed...
BaScOmBe hearts Lara Logan and Rachel Maddow @ 68:
Good points.
Also, the reich-wingers would absolutely implode with Clark on the ticket.
"ok, of all the potentials, he’s the least like a lemming, other than Jim Webb."
My problem with Webb is that he is at heart a very conservative guy. The GOP just got too crazy for him. He's to the left of Ollie North, at least. But I think he's more effective as a moderate senator from a redneck state.
"I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations.... The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with." --wesley clark, 2003
this is the person people think would be a good match for obama? really?
i could add a lot more fuel to this fire, if need be.
if you think clinton was a good president, i would imagine you'd like clark. not me. again, the DLC could ask nothing more, except maybe harold ford.
Bud @ 74:
Give it up... Blacks aren't the largest minority... Women are... Which goes to your point... BUT... Kathleen is an executive...
Clark's "Osama Bin Karadzic" is tried in Hague as we speak. Where is McBush's villain? "I will chase Osama to the gates of hell, but not Pakistan." -- John McCain. Nuff said.
EliteLemming @ 80:
Wrong. Give it up....there are more women in the United States than men.
I continue to be amazed at how many liberals and apparently even progressives are so enamoured with Wesley Clark. The site that supports him as VP says that he has been against the Iraq war since day one. That is not true. He was one of the experts that was trotted out to scare us into believing that Iraq had WMD and he is on the record encouraging democrats from his state to vote for the act that gave Bush the authority to launch the war. As Jeremy Scahill said on Democracy Now: "As for general Wesley Clark’s position on Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, he told CNN last January, “He, (meaning Saddam Hussein) does have weapons of mass destruction.” When Clark was asked if he could say that categorically, he responded absolutely." Also, while Bosnia certainly wasn't the nightmare that Iraq was it was not the humanitarian endevour that Clinton supporters claim. In fact it illustrates the fall back position of the war mongers before 9/11. Since we no longer have the commies we will launch wars for "humanitarian" reasons. Chomsky has pointed out how genocide was used as an excuse for the US and UN to assert control over the region.
Dr. Britney Hussein Matt @ 82:
DUH... dats what I said... They are still considered a minority...
woodrow ny @ 62:
Sebelius all the way. I do not believe there are that many people in the "Clinton camp" who are really behind this whole Clinton-or-no-other-woman. The idea itself is completely sexist and demeaning to women. Shouldn't a job be decided on a resume and not gender? Well, outside of Richardson, Gov.Sebelius has one of the better resume's of anyone running; as does Gov. Janet Napolitano, ftr. PUMA is nothing but Limpbah's operation chaos by a different name.
Sebelius also, as Insurance Commisioner, did what Hillary couldn't and beat back the insurance companies.
On Meet the Press, Obama made it clear that he is not looking to merely fill holes(though a Gov would be an asset of advice) in his resume or pick a VP solely to bring in a region/demographic; such types of picks failed both Gore and Lieberman. Rather Obama said he is looking for someone he can trust, and work close and well with, someone who has long since shared his vision, ideals, and ethics. Sebelius has been one of Obama's biggest supporters since before Super Tuesday.
Obama/Sebelius 08!
Sorry but I see this Clark talk as just another way of the "Clinton camp" to get there hands in on Obama's administration. No thanks.
Oh and, Lincoln Chafee for my wildcard pick. B.Obama/Lincoln C. 08!
Dr. Britney Hussein Matt @ 82:
Female persons, percent, 2006 50.7%
Black persons, percent, 2006 12.8%
EliteLemming @ 84:
By who?
Just watch The Brooklyn Connection to see just how "great" he was. Best way to keep me from voting is to put that war criminal on the ticket!
mudkitty @ 53:
I think you are mistaking praying and yearning for quaking. If Clinton was selected as VP the right could open up the warehouses of BS they had stored up to use assuming that she would be the presidential nominee and that they put on hold once it became clear that Obama was offering a real challenge. Cigars, whitewater, sniper fire, travelgate, Vince Foster, ... I'm not saying I believe in any of this stuff just that they would have a field day talking about it and distracting the public from the real issues. I'm also curios do you really think that Obama would pick her after the RFK comment and after the way she compared him unfavorably to McCain?
This ticket would really be a dream come true for Senator Obama. I believe that he would be able to accomplish everything with General Clark.
My first thought is to allow Obama to choose who ever he wishes for VP, because he has to be comfortable with the person. He defiantly has the right to make this important decision, but to me, this Wes Clark would be a very good choice.
I like most all the Senators, we are told are being considered, but I just think it would not be wise to take any of them from their critical post at this time. We need to add even more if we can to make sure that he is able to govern this country as he will really need to do, after we get rid of these sorry ass republicans.
Blanket statment: Sebilius vs. Clark
Who do you think it would be best put to speack us out of a falty war and raise support for Aphganistan? Clark or Sebilius?
Who, If Sec o' Int or Sec o' HUD, who bests bring those org.s into line and respond to problems inherent with their tasks? Sebilius or Clark?
MikeD @ 83:
eggggzzzactly
more clark quotes:
"Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." </em
hmm, how'd that play out wes?
and, this one:
"The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."
sounds like a cheney-ite with that one.
then there's this...
"All of us at Ram Venture Holdings Corporation are honored to have General Clark on our Board. We can not think of another person who encompasses the level of leadership and experience that General Clark brings to our company," said John Lewis, Chairman and CEO of Ram Venture Holdings Corporation.
Ram Venture Holdings Corporation, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Natgear LLC, that markets under the Natural Gear label, owns the copyrights on several unique open-faced camouflage patterns that are substantially different from the dominant patterns in the camouflage market today. Success of the Natural Gear pattern in the market place is evidenced in the number and quality of licensees who are using the Natural Gear pattern on their products. To date, more than 100 such licenses have been signed by suppliers with wide distribution markets, including a major national retailer.
The last thing we need is for a flamethrower like Stoller to be calling any shots. That is if we really want to get Obama elected.
Look I wasn't trying to get into semantics but women are still consisdered a minority... most especially by women... hang me if you want to...
Wes Clark is not a great man. Please! Study up on the history of the Yugoslavia conflict and you will see that his actions are that of a lying war criminal of the Bush/Cheney variety. Its time to stop hyping people because they have an image that supports your cause or politics. We cannot seek justice for the crimes of the Bush administration, which is necessary if we truly to abhor its actions and their concequences, by supporting men who were the precursors to these crimes. Let's not forget the despicable role the media played in the mid-90's to hype NATO's involvement in the destruction of Yugoslavia. Nor shall we forget to horrendous crimes committed by NATO forces under Clark's command. Please, don't let this man's actions slip down the memory hole because he might help the ticket.
General_Rennenkampf @ 54:
Hahah! Nice try. The people in Kosovo might disagree with you about the serbian paramilitary being just a group of unarmed hippy pacifists, and the serbian army being a bunch of keystone cops. So Clark is guilty of killing kittens by dropping bombs on the helpless little Serbs, is he? What did they have to fight back with? How about an army, a para-military, tanks, snipers, and (above all) a thick forrest to hide in. A quagmire that Clark could have easily been dragged in to if he were as dumb as...say...Donald Rumsfeld. But he was too smart for that.
Clark goes down in history as the last american general to win a flat-out decisive and final victory using air power alone, and without a single american casualty. He also goes down in history as doing this while holding a genuine international coalition together that included Russians who were actually on the side of the Serbs. In the aftermath of the Nato victory, which halted the Serbian GENOCIDE, Clark and Holbrooke cobbled together a genuine U.N. peacekeeping force to stabilize an ethnic powder keg that is at least as volatile as Iraq.
The sad truth is that Clark did his job so well that nobody even noticed. If he'd bungled it, and accidentally bombed a school full or kids, or a foreign embassy, or sent in ground troops to get captured by Serbs, and dragged around in front of TV cameras, it could have easily turned into a disaster. But he managed to avoid all that. He did his job so well that everybody thought it must have been EASY! (That's usually the problem with doing a job very well. Your critics think you were just lucky.)
That's the way generals and politicians are SUPPOSED to work in a FUNCTIONAL government. Not this faux Byzantine Empire that we've got now. What did Clark get for his success? Screwed by the Pentagon, and Clinton's enemies who thought Clark was more loyal to Clinton than he was to the Pentagon. His loyalty to Bill Clinton cost him dearly with the Army, and essentially burned his bridges to the Repbublican party. Then he was screwed again by the Democratic party when they didn't even pick him as VP candidate in 2004, which they SHOULD have.
At this point I think the Democratic party almost OWES Clark the VP slot, seeing as he was the first high profile general to jump (visibly) to the Democrats, and give them military street cred, which they didn't have before.
If the Republicans are going to attack him on anything, it's probably going to be on the grounds that he's not a 'real' Democrat. That he just jumped to the Democratic party because he's an opportunist. So, just be prepared for that one. The Republicans will attack him for being a disingenuous opportunist.
EliteLemming @ 94:
I wouldn't hang you. I just don't see it. I have never considered women to be a minority. But, I'm not in your shoes, so perhaps it's a matter of perspective.
Dr. Britney Hussein Matt @ 34:
We could indict people in our government for war crimes as far back as the Eisenhower administration.
Where do you begin, where do you stop.
This from Glenn Greenwald.
The anthrax attacks were an inside the US government job.
This story needs to grow legs. When it does those legs will wrap around John McCain, Joe Lieberman and the rest of the Bush crime organisation.
Wesley Clark, above all else, brings exellence to the ticket. Both he and Obama would arguably be the most intelligent President and Vice President America has had since....
Anyone?
If Joe Biden was a southerner or from a swing state he'd make the most sense for VP, but he's from Delaware. Brian Schweitzer would be the most audacious.
Dr. Britney Hussein Matt @ 97:
No, no I am speaking of treatment in society... lower wages, etc.... not as a physical number... Being man, may make me defensive...
I think I'd rather he end up as Secretary of State.
Clark is respected as a scholar and a warrior, a rare combination in the military. Plus, if he can handle the political animal that is the Pentagon, the rest of DC should be easy in comparison.
Incidentally, Wesley Clark is who both Hillary and John Edwards would have picked. I'm convinced of that. There is absolutely no reason why Obama shouldn't pick him.
Pericles @ 96:
while clark is NOT deemed a war criminal, i think Human Rights Watch might differ a bit of your account and the efficacy of using air power in and around civilian populations
some of HRW's findings:
NATO forces--
· conducted air attacks using cluster bombs near populated areas;
· attacked targets of questionable military legitimacy, including Serb Radio and Television, heating plants, and bridges;
· did not take adequate precautions in warning civilians of attacks;
· took insufficient precautions identifying the presence of civilians when attacking convoys and mobile targets; and
· caused excessive civilian casualties by not taking sufficient measures to verify that military targets did not have concentrations of civilians (such as at Korisa).
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200.htm
there are so many good choices for obama, clark is not one of them
Samson- @ 104:
I agree.
A great pick!
Another centrist democrat with a dash of war hawk. Apparently the point is to try to stay 1 degree left of McCain and still be the least worst choice.
I'm starting to believe the notion that if voting changed anything it would be illegal.
MikeD @ 89:
Yeah, but all that Vince Foster bs is sooooo 1998. My gut's read on the zeitgeist is that even the Kool-Aid snorting 28-percenters don't even like to admit they believe it, because they know they're going to get laughed at behind their backs for the political flat-earthers that they are. Just my $0.02...
Humm....Wesley Clark works for me.
pissed off patricia @ 73:
Not if John Edwards is Attorney General. If Obama doesn't pick either Brian Schweitzer or Hillary Clinton and he serves two terms, Edwards is my pick for 2016.
Pericles @ 96:
The Serbian army had no effective air resistance against an army designed to fight the Red Army, not a bunch of assclowns like the Yugoslavs. Clark did a lot of good, but keeping the Balkans under control hasn't been possible for the Romans, the House of Habsburg, the House of Osman, or for Yugoslavia.
Regardless, Sebelius is a better choice for VP, Clark would make a good SecDef.
eman @ 95:
Go for it! :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War
Please explain what would have been the outcome of the Kosovo conflic if NATO hadn't intervened. My guess is either a) half a million dead ethnic Albanians burried in mass graves, or b)a bloody civil war that would have lasted ten years, created millions of refugees, hundreds of thousands of casualties, and eventually ended up in an independent Kosovo as a failed state that became a training ground and safe haven for islamic terrorists.
As for Clark's role in the intervention, he did more than any general in history to avoid civilian casualties. Up to and including bombing buildings at night, to make sure nobody (or only a few people) would be there. It also included hacking in to Swiss bank accounts and deleting the secret 'getaway' funds of the Serbian leaders if they didn't capitulate.
You have to admit, kicking enemy leaders in the wallet shows a lot of creativity in trying to find ways to win wars WITHOUT killing people.
Pericles @ 111:
So why did Bill Clinton intervene in Yugoslavia and not in the Congo War of the same time? I'll give you a hint: look at the skin color of perps and vics in Yugoslavia, and then do the same in the Congo.
PorridgeGun @ 109:
What do you think of his baby mama, Rielle Hunter? Would she be a proper First whore?
mojogoober @ 106:
Yup...if Obama actually represented any threat of change to the Oiligarchy/pollutcracy, he'd be dead or in jail by now.
Obama/Clark, I like it. Hillary, not so much.
I’m starting to believe the notion that if voting changed anything it would be illegal.
If Obama actually represented a threat of change to the Oilgarchy/pollutocracy, he'd be dead or in prison today...
sorry bout the doop
Samson- @ 104:
NATO forces--
conducted air attacks using cluster bombs near populated areas;
· attacked targets of questionable military legitimacy, including Serb Radio and Television, heating plants, and bridges;
· did not take adequate precautions in warning civilians of attacks;
· took insufficient precautions identifying the presence of civilians when attacking convoys and mobile targets; and
· caused excessive civilian casualties by not taking sufficient measures to verify that military targets did not have concentrations of civilians (such as at Korisa).
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200.htm
On that list, I'll give you the cluster bombs as the biggest transgression. As for bombing the governmental, non-military targets like the TV stations, that was deliberate, and was an effort to avoid casualties by decapitating the government's propaganda machine which was fueling the war. Bombing the power plants and bridges was designed to make the people in Belgrade UNCOMFORTABLE enough that they might think about halting GENOCIDE in Kosovo. I'm as pacifist as the next guy, but even I don't think the act of making people uncomfortable is an excessively draconian way of halting GENOCIDE. As for the other points, they sound nice, but in a war they are unworkable.
I hate war as much as anybody, but once you've found yourself in one, for whatever reason, I still stand by my claim that Clark did more to avoid unnecessary casualties (on all sides) than any general in history.
As for winning this election, we have to face some other facts. Obama is weak on national security, and if you don't think the Republicans will throw that at him like an atomic bomb, you're dreaming in technicolor. Giving him TINKERBEL as a running mate is not going to help in that department. If you're actually interested in winning this election, instead of handing the White House to the Republicans again, who will not only commit more REAL war crimes, but also cover up the ones committed by the Bush administration, then you have to think about somebody like Wes Clark for the VP spot.
Despite his credentials, Clark is a snore fest and would most likely be a drag on the ticket.
He's already proven he has neither the skills nor the stomach required for a rough and tumble political campaign, and in this election cycle, a resume alone just won't cut it. Obama needs to pick someone comfortable with political boxing -- a political street fighter. This is going to be an ugly, slug fest. Clark is no way prepared for that task. Besides, there are many out there who still suspect Clark to be a "trojan" for Hillary 2012.
General_Rennenkampf @ 112:
I'm not going to defend that, and neither would Clinton. In fact, Clinton is the first one to admit that not intervining in Rwanda to stop the genocide (and actually BLOCKING the U.N. resolution to LABEL it genocide, which would have forced an intervention under the U.N. CHARTER!) was the biggest foreign policy mistake of his administration. He even said later on that 5000 Marines with rifles could have easily stopped 100 000 thugs, armed only with machetes, and saved 800 000 lives.
In fact, most observers are convinced that it was Clinton's miserable failure to stop the genocide in Rwanda that stiffened his back to finally intervene and stop the genocide in Kosovo. The other thing the U.S. never gets credit for was that most of the lives that were saved in Kosovo were Muslims. That's right...the U.S. bombed Christians to save Muslims. Does anybody remember that?
Along with maybe Joe Biden, Wes Clark would clearly be the best VP Choice.
OBAMA/CLARK '!!
Pericles @ 118:
On that list, I'll give you the cluster bombs as the biggest transgression. As for bombing the governmental, non-military targets like the TV stations, that was deliberate, and was an effort to avoid casualties by decapitating the government's propaganda machine which was fueling the war. Bombing the power plants and bridges was designed to make the people in Belgrade UNCOMFORTABLE enough that they might think about halting GENOCIDE in Kosovo. I'm as pacifist as the next guy, but even I don't think the act of making people uncomfortable is an excessively draconian way of halting GENOCIDE. As for the other points, they sound nice, but in a war they are unworkable.
I hate war as much as anybody, but once you've found yourself in one, for whatever reason, I still stand by my claim that Clark did more to avoid unnecessary casualties (on all sides) than any general in history.
As for winning this election, we have to face some other facts. Obama is weak on national security, and if you don't think the Republicans will throw that at him like an atomic bomb, you're dreaming in technicolor. Giving him TINKERBEL as a running mate is not going to help in that department. If you're actually interested in winning this election, instead of handing the White House to the Republicans again, who will not only commit more REAL war crimes, but also cover up the ones committed by the Bush administration, then you have to think about somebody like Wes Clark for the VP spot.
Let's not forget what's coming. As we all know, history tends to repeat itself (according to Keith Olbermann):
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/27/keith-olbermann-updates-the-nex...
Jeffrey Lamkin @ 121:
I agree. Some people roll their eyes when Biden's name is mentioned, but his foreign policy experience is without peer. He's consistent, competent, well-spoken, highly experienced and ready to be president if need be.
Clark is a man of quiet character has the most military experience of any presidential contender since Eisenhower. The guy is just very impressive. I get the sense whenever he speaks that his affable, humble exterior hides a spine of steel.
I still wish he would pick him. That comment about mcCain did nothing except get Fox News to shit itself. And that alone is worth a slot on the ticket. =)
Wes Clark would be a great choice for vp!! He's a sharp guy, well spoken, calm, level headed, military experience, executive experience, handsome, etc. I've watched him take on the Fox News clowns, and he does a great job. Make Biden Secretary of State.
I don't care what Clark did or didn't do in the Balkans. I care that he may not be viable for president in 2012 because he'll be over 70.
Obama's veep pick will have exactly zero effect on this election (unless he or she pulls an Eagleton). It's all about Obama. McCain doesn't even matter, really. He's just the guy folks will vote for if they decide they don't like Obama.
So that means all this stuff about adding military cred, gravitas, Clinton connections, etc. is superfluous.
What it also means is that Obama is free to take a long view and pick someone he can hand the reins off to in 2012. Not just someone who could step in and take over if something awful happens, but someone who can run and win a national campaign. I'd like to see him pick someone in their 40s or 50s, who is a good campaigner and maybe on the cusp of being a strong national figure.
Gov. Kaine and Sen. Bayh are the two on the supposed short list who are the right age, but I have severe doubts about their campaign skills on top of a 2012 ticket.
I really like Rep. Wexler -- and as a bonus he just might help put some oomph in the ground game in Florida this year. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be on the radar.
Rep. Emanual is from Illinois and can't be picked because the prez and veep have to come from different states.
So, among the possibles, my vote goes to Gov. Napolitano. She's 50, has a solid record and a national reputation, can handle herself on the campaign trail and, bonus, could put pressure on McCain in Arizona this year.
rbloom @ 126:
At this point I'm less worried about the VP candidate pulling a Thomas Eagleton than pulling a Dan Quayle.
As for the other point about Obama picking somebody that can be groomed to take over for him in 2016, I agree, but I don't think he has the luxury of doing that right now. He's perceived as being long on charisma, and possibly on brains (which hopefully isn't a liability anymore), but short on experience. Especially national security experience. If he's going to stand any chance of winning the election he has to pick a VP with more gravity than a collapsed neutron star, and less baggage than Brigit Bardot packing for a vacation in Cap d'Agde. Wes Clark, or somebody like him, fills that bill. I don't think Janet Napolitano does. Most governors (with the exception of Bill Richardson) fall short on international diplomacy and national security credentials, which also happen to be Obama's weaknesses. He's fine on domestic issues, marginal on international diplomacy (but getting better every minute), but still weak on national security. I wish it could be ignored, but it can't. The Republicans are going to whip it until there's nothing left of it.
However, if he can actually GET elected, he has more options. Once he's served four years, and has built up his own credibility on those issues, he can actually SWITCH VP candidates to somebody that the party wants to groom for 2016. I know it doesn't happen very often, but it's a tactic we should think about using more often. If you've got a younger lightweight in the presidential slot, pick a heavyweight for the VP slot for the first term only, just to win the election. Any president, even one as inept as George Bush, picks up gravitas and credibility after one term, leaving he/she the luxury of grooming a new VP for the job the next time. I don't know why this tactic is never used in the U.S. It's fairly common, and almost always successful in other countries. People also say that if George H.W. Bush had dumped Dan Quayle in his second term, and picked somebody with more 'conservative' credentials he would have won in '92. I think that's true.
Never saw it was a debacle. It appeared as such only because the right-wing garbage speakers made it seem like a debacle, by repeating their lie enough times to make it seem it was inappropriate.
You guys really have a problem with military and really treat those people as holier than thou.
The greatest single achievements in my country was the banning of military courts. Since when one gets judged by his peers, they are always more complacent. They are just people and should be judged by a public court like everyone else.
The last case at our military tribunal concerned a military (Pirson) involved in an ugly divorce who murdered his two kids by drowning to take revenge on his civilian wife. (short presentation of the case : he was a professional diver and had crashed his car in a river, while taking his kids on a ride for no reason and no clear destination. He had removed all his keys from the key of his cars, had left his mobile and money at home, had his window prepared for easy opening, etc... But as an elite diver , unable to rescue his kids from the car, well evidence showed he didn't even attempt anything to "save" them from the car...)
Needles to say he walked free.
And don't tell me it would have been different in the USA, I have watched many judicial cases, and must say I have much more faith in our judicial system than it the American, even worse the military American courts.
Anyway, McSame and his stand-in says things that are really offensive and totally stupid, but it hardly gets any press. Once mentioned and its over, while democrats say sound things and those comments are manipulated and repeated over and over to make it seem like a disgrace.
Do you have to be a foreigner, not blinded by devotion for the military-industrial-complex, that being a wild party goer /girl chaser and a low-middle rank soldier, just a pilot, getting shot and imprisoned and tortured for years doesn't make your more fit to understand all the strategical, sociological, economical and geopolitical aspects of winning or even waging a war than a college educated guy with a deep understanding of geopolitics ????
The only thing that McSame experience should make him, is more inclined 1) against ALL forms of torture, 2) against illegal wars on a defenseless and innocant population or 3) more steadfast about principles and not give in because of political convenience (I mean you stood through torture, you could take criticism).
We all know how bad he flipflopped an all those issues, so actually I'm wondering if anything of McCains experience is relevant at all, since he seems to missing the point of all things life should have taught him.
And stop treating military as hollier than thou . That attitude is true except when they involve military democrats, its funny no? I mean Clarck, Murtha's cut and run, Kerry the poser and fake hero.
Remember me again, who where those draft dodgers or sons of privilege in the Texas National guards escaping 'Nam? But who can be criticized in no way?
PorridgeGun @ 109:
I agree with the last part. Aside from Clark, I think John Edwards is a possible election win as a VP, and it would also leave him young enough to run in 2016.
All he needs to say on experience is, "Look, I'll have more experience in government and foreign affairs going in than three of the guys on Mount Rushmore, or the guy you want to put up there, Ronald Reagan." Meanwhile, governors (and I like Richardson for VP, too, for several reasons, but he doesn't seem to be in the mix) have good experience with the economy, and that's where it's going to be at this year, I believe.
I've also thought about switching veep in mid-stream, and that could be viable. I think the sitting VP would have to take himself or herself out of it, though, rather than be shown the door which could be pretty awkward. And you never know what the situation will be in four years. (Also, I don't think Quayle cost HW the election in '92 -- Bill Clinton and maybe Ross Perot had more to do with that.) But, yeah, that could work.
And hey, thank you for graciously reading 2016 when I mistakenly wrote 2012. Someday I'll wake up and realize what year I'm in, although it'll probably depress me.
rbloom @ 130:
Whoops. That was for Pericles 127.
I mentioned I wanted Hagel yesterday.
Should have mentioned Wes Clark as my second choice.
Pericles @ 120:
Last I checked, the Democratic Republic of the Congo/Zaire/WTFever the people in Kinshasha dub it this week, was not Rwanda. The DRC was at war in Clinton's term, well into the events of Yugoslavia, and he did jack shit to stop it.
General Wesley Clark would be a fine choice, except being "second in line" worries me a little, but he is a man with a good head on his shoulder. The last general we trusted in was some 50+ years ago, and he was the last true republican that had his nation closest to his heart.
However, there are better choices. I would LOVE to see John Edwards on the ticket. I would also go for Richardson as a good choice. These are men that have been closely scrutinized by the public already, and they share many of Obama's positions. I believe General Wesley Clark does as well.
PLEASE don't take another good Democratic Senator away from us. We are losing you already, Senator Obama. We need to strong voices of Senators Clinton, Dodd and Biden right where they are. They can do more good in the Senate than back seat to the president.
General Clark is a good choice, but there are better choices for our nation.
Wes Clark as VP & McCain's supposed advantage re military expertise and national security gets whittled down to size.
I guess as long as he doesn't dig up Dan Quayle or another lieberman-nut-case
I really don't care for a military man being "a heart beat away". We're close enough to the military dictatorship Eisenhower warned us about already.
I still say (especially after the assassinations of JFK, JFK Jr., and Bobby) that Caroline Kennedy should declare herself as the best candidate just like Cheney did with Bush.
And if you don't believe John-John was MURDERED, watch this:
http://video.google.com/videop.....7908405974
She's an attorney, she's brilliant and all the Hillary whiners would get a chick on the ticket. I'd like to see her there representing her father, her uncle, her brother and the American People who were politically short-changed by their assassinations.
Ask yourselves this question: Who do you trust? It's already bad enough for me knowing Brezenski is one of Obama's chief foreign policy advisers.
Obama/Kennedy sounds a whole lot better to me.
Clark for Sec. of Defense. Richardson for Sec. of State. Edwards for Atty Gen. I do not have a choice for VP. Maybe Feingold (although he we would be torn apart as too liberal). What a joke our media has become.
General_Rennenkampf @ 133:
Sorry, I guess I just naturally assume that whenever people bring up Clinton's habit of stopping genocide against white people, but not against black or brown people, they're referring to Rwanda. But yes, the DRC war II is another example that I'm not going to try to defend. It's actually an even better example, given that 1. it was a spin off of the Rwanda genocide, 2. Clinton had already expressed regret about not intervening in Rwanda, and 3. the intervetnion in Kosovo was already underway. So, it would have been a good chance to redeem himself on Rwanda, but, as far as I know, he didn't.
To those of you earlier talking about Kathleen Sebelius earlier and claiming she won't be the chosen running mate for one reason or another need to look a little closer. Not only is she an executive, but she has attended the Bilderberg meeting for two years running. She was one of only two U.S. governors invited this year. Of course she will be the running mate. Edwards became Kerry's running mate after Edwards had attended Bilderberg. Hell, Bill Clinton became president after attending the Bilderberg conference. That's the real vetting process.
Clark would make a great VP. That's probably why the RNC preemptively smeared him.
I would very much like to finally get to vote for General Wes Clark for something, dawgonnit. Obama/Clark - Be still my beating heart.
Pericles @ 129:
We all know how much he brought to Kerry's campaign. *rolls eyes*
I think this thread is a great litmus test that Clark is one of the best, if not the best, choice for VP.
His record is pretty much spotless, he has an impressive resume that really belittles the "warrior" persona of John McSame, one that itself is wholly without merit, with the exception he survived captivity. And deserves a nations thanks and support.
But for President? Get the fuck outta here.
Hulk @ 134:
I gotta go with Clark, otherwise, I agree. completely.
Wow - this fantasy elections shit is fun. Like an earache.
No one stays calmer and more composed, while annihilating wing-nut idiots and their talking points, than Wesley Clark. He is McCain and the GOP's worse nightmare.
Plus, he is a REAL and intelligent war hero. Not a plane crashing, entitled dumb-ass like McStupid. This is a no-brainer! Former NATO Supreme Commander, first in his class, versus #494 out of 499. And what draft dodging chickenhawk would the wing-nuts get to oppose him on McStupid's ticket?
NoGWBpolicyleftinplace @ 147:
Exactly.
General Wesley would be one of the best choices Barack Obama could make. I like him and Joe Biden the best. Not only does Gen. Clark have unquestionable military experience, but he's also earned a degree economics. He's rational and supports negotiations be dropping bombs. His record speaks for itself.
General Clark gets a two thumbs up from me.
Great choice. As a matter of fact, I can't even think of a better choice. Kaine is a great guy and has an impeccable record, but the Republicans are having a field day with Obama's lack of experience, add Kaine to the ticket and you have even more inexperience with WWIII looming in the not too distant future. They will shred them to pieces. Biden is a good politician but it looks too status quo, Bayh just doesn't appeal to me in any way.
But Clark? Wow. It is an excellent choice especially with the predicament we are in in the Middle East, plus cleaning up the Bush crimes. The Repugnants can't touch him. A BRILLIANT move on Obama's part if he accepts him.
Their handsomeness together may even appeal to some of those low I.Q. red state voters in the south.
Login or Register to post comments.