You are crossing the line because you mention his name and his record, and should only be talking about her and her record. Very dangerous territory, no comparisons allowed, no research into past statements permitted on other candidates, only on Hillary. Pretty soon others will descend on your post and ask for credentials and inquire about your motivations. If you say you are on Wes Clark's blog, and he supports Hillary Clinton, you will be told that he also supports dissent, and therefore dissenting about the qualifications of another candidate is not correct on his blog.

That's a good summary post geaux!

My only criticism might be the obvious lack of respect you show Senator Obama by repeatedly using lower case "H"s for "His" while referring to Him. You not only reveal your deep partisan bias but you are inferring by doing so that Senator Obama is nothing more than a mere mortal like the rest of us, thereby debasing him to our own desperate and sunken levels of humanity. The more I think about it the more I recognize your little "trick" for just what it is- a blatant scorched earth Clintonian style smearing. And I just had to call you out on it. Shame geaux. Shame on you.

I'm afraid I am going to have to ask you to apologize so that there is no further misunderstanding on this.

Oh yeah, and.... Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

I don't have to apologize to anyone about my dissent. I have a right to dissent on this blog. Heck, I have been a supporter of General Clark since he was a little boy in Little Rock. You know how long ago that was? Well you don't, because you really only know about his life since he graduated from West Point. And you know what? My candidate can beat your candidate any time, any place, in Texas, in Ohio, you just state the place and we will be there. And my dog can chew up your dog and spit him out any time, any place.

Oh, and don't forget that dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

as a zygote. We have radiological x-ray evidence of that per my Mother who does not tell a lie.

Are you calling my Mother a liar, geaux?

Yes, I think you are.

But that does not surprise me. Clintonistas lie like they change their socks. Oops, Socks reference might be too obscure.

So while you were a "little boy" in Little Rock, I was already well into my support of General Clark, and far ahead of you. I was born saluting -- because of General Clark. And he wasn't even General Clark then!

Oh and-- Your dog could never chew up my dog and spit him out. I don't have a dog.

So there.

and your veiled references to socks. Socks does have more experience in the White House than anybody you know or any candidate you support.

And my dog can chew up both your dog and your squaking bird in one bite.

And this is not a personal attack, it is just pointing out differences in how I view socks and birds. I have a right to say these things on this blog because my ancestors were Jewish and so were General Clark's ancestors.

So there, how's that for dissent.

You used to be able to express your opinions on General Clark's site without having to fall into some "lockstep" about socks or candidates.

As for my bird- don't forget she is highly trained by military intelligence to track down any and all persons who threaten her mother and ... deposit certain toxic substances at their residences. This is not a threat. Consider it a warning only.

Oh and I don't know about your family tree... but I'll bet I can find more Jewish names on mine then yours! I even raised my last dog Jewish! And that's the truth.

This place has gotten really sad.

I thought I might be able to come here and just speak my mind freely like the old days. But I guess not.

Sigh.

Dissent is the highest form of blogging.

My next dog will be a hot dog, out of fierce past-life developed loyalty to General Clark, who I can confidently say would be the first to say he loves my new dog. However, with all the bad karma I've developed as a result of being a known Clinton supporter, some jaybird who is reading this blog would likely steal my new hot dog or do something else to it before I could even show it to General Clark.

The horror!

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.

is that the clip from the video he posted is from an interview in 2001 - pre 9-11 (just a minor detail I suppose, but Obama looks quite discernibly younger in that video)

Obama and Rumsfeld (2001)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxPA37n0oOUa and Rumsfeld

Again...pre 9-11

Now, with all due respect...

Clark on Rumsfeld 2001
(click on pre 9-11 video top left column)

and from Factcheck text

[...]Soon after Clark emerged as a candidate for the Democratic nomination, the Republican National Committee released a videotape and transcript of a speech Clark had given May 11, 2001 for the Pulaski County Republican Party in Arkansas. M ost of Clark ’s address was a nonpartisan discussion of foreign policy, but Clark did say this:

Clark: If you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill - people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.

That was four months before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and long before the invasion of Iraq that Clark now criticizes. A few weeks after speaking at the Republican event, Clark also attended the annual dinner of the Arkansas Democratic party in Little Rock, w here the Arkansas Gazette pictured him with Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

After US forces toppled the Taliban government in Afghanistan Clark praised Bush's military leadership in another speech, also captured on videotape, to a university audience in Searcy, Arkansas in a speech on January 22, 2002:

Clark: I tremendously admire, and I think we all should, the great work done by our commander-in-chief, our president, George Bush, and the men and women of the United States armed forces.[...]

http://www.factcheck.org/was_wesley_clark_a_republican.html

With all due repect, in the course of this campaign Larry Johnson's website has lost all credibility when it comes to the opposition candidate, and you do not show a great deal of respect for Wes Clark by persisting in posting noquarter's bullshit here.

no_quarter

"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor."  -- Mark Twain

His whole campaign is based on the "judgment" he showed on Iraq in a speech he made in 2002.

Obama's Hollow "Judgment" and Empty Record
Posted March 2, 2008

Joseph C. Wilson

Barack Obama argues that he deserves the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton doesn't because he possesses superior "judgment," as he calls it, on the key issues we face as a nation. As definitive proof he offers one speech he made in 2002 during a reelection campaign for an Illinois senate seat in the most liberal district in the state, so liberal that no other position would have been viable. When he made that speech, Obama was not privy to the briefings by, among others, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in support of the Authorization of Use of Military Force as a diplomatic tool to push the international community to impose intrusive inspections on Saddam Hussein.

Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 timeframe, he was a minor local official uninvolved in the national debate on the war so we can only judge from his own statements prior to the 2008 campaign. Obama repeated these points in a whole host of interviews prior to announcing his candidacy. On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." And, in 2006, he clearly said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."

I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war and I profoundly resent Obama's distortion of George Bush's folly into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn't there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization. Senator Clinton's position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice.

There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently in voting for the authorization had he been in the Senate at that time. Indeed, he has said as much. The supposed intuitive judgment he exercised in his 2002 speech was nothing more than the pander of a local election campaign, just as his current assertions of superior judgment and scurrilous attacks on Hillary Clinton are a pander to those who now retroactively think the war was a mistake without bothering to acknowledge Senator Clinton's actual position at the time and instead fantasizing that she was nothing but a Bush clone. Obama willfully encourages and plays off this falsehood.

What should we make of Obama's other judgments in foreign affairs? Take Afghanistan, for example. It has been evident for some time that our efforts there are going badly and that cooperation and support from our NATO allies would be helpful. As chairman of the subcommittee on Senate Foreign Relations responsible for NATO and Europe, Obama could have used his lofty position actually to engage the issue and pressure the administration to take some action to improve our chance of success in that conflict against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Of course, that would have involved holding hearings, questioning administration witnesses, and taking a position and offering alternatives. That is what we expect that from senators in a democracy. It is called oversight.

But, instead, Obama, by his own admission, offers the excuse that he has been too busy running for president to do anything substantive, such as direct his staff to organize a single hearing. "Well, first of all," Obama was forced to confess in the Democratic debate in Ohio on February 26, "I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan." To date, his subcommittee has held no policy hearings at all -- none. At the same time that Obama claimed he was too busy campaigning to do anything substantive, racking up one of the worst attendance records in the Senate, Senator Clinton chaired extensive hearings of the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health and attended many others as a member of the Armed Service Committee.

As a consequence of Obama's dereliction of duty on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a feckless administration has had absolutely no oversight as it careens from disaster to disaster in Afghanistan, including the central governments loss of control over 70 percent of the country and yet another bumper crop of opium to fuel the efforts of the Taliban and their terrorist allies. Of course, if you don't hold hearings, conduct oversight, make recommendations or sponsor legislation, then you have no record to explain or defend and you are free to take whatever position is convenient when attacking those who actually did address issues. Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Obama holds forth on Afghanistan, chiding the administration and our allies as though he's a profile in courage and not someone who has abandoned his post in establishing accountability.

On Iran and the question of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the junior senator from Illinois was not quite so clever at avoiding taking a position. He first co-sponsored the "Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which contained explicit language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. He subsequently claimed to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate resolution proposing the same thing. Obama's accountability problem here is that he didn't show up for the vote on that resolution -- a vote that would have put him on record. Then he declined to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the resolution could not be used as authority to take military action. All we have is Obama's rhetoric juxtaposed with his co-sponsorship of a piece of legislation that proposed what he says he opposed.

Obama's gyrations on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are not the actions of one imbued with superior intuitive judgment, but rather the machinations of a political opportunist looking to avoid having his fingerprints on any issue that might be controversial, and require real judgment, while preserving his freedom to bludgeon his adversary for actually taking positions as elected office demands. It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable.

I unsubscribed to HuffPo long ago, so I depend on people with stronger stomachs than I have to bring the worthwhile tidbits to CCN. :)

I happen to hold Ambassador Wilson in very high esteem. Anyone who would single-handedly take on GWB and his NeoCon band of thieves deserves enormous respect. So having the privilege of reading his opinion on this subject really holds a lot of weight with me.

I can just imagine how this piece went over at HuffPo.....HA!

floating around just under the surface unfortunately. To clarify, I mean unfortunate in the sense that it exists, not merely that the media isn't bothering to dig - Of course, they haven't even pretended to bother about that for years. The erm Fox connection here bothers me a lot. It just feels like a giant set-up. I really, really, really don't want to be hearing about this stuff in Sept/Oct non-stop like it is a surprise, you know. 

Bamboozling the American electorate again

Fox News, Obama Bound By Brotherly Love  Marisa Guthrie

Barack Obama and Me

If it's only about ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. -- Robin Morgan

You are, no doubt, a sterling Wes Clark supporter.

"...We cannot lead by example unless we are sustained by good leadership. Nothing is more important." Wes Clark

your hat your ass your shoes on it

All of the information I posted above re: General Clark is information that I used to defend him in 2004 over at that "orange place" (now so defiled on these pages) against smear attacks by people who operate like no_quarter sees fit to operate in 2008. Wes doesn't lower himself to campaign for Hillary by your methods.

You are in no way qualified to challenge my support of Wes Clark.

"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor."  -- Mark Twain

you are so kind. What did I say that was not complimentary?
Can't win for losing. I accept your apology.

"...We cannot lead by example unless we are sustained by good leadership. Nothing is more important." Wes Clark

28 Flag rank officers judge Hilary to be the better national security candidate.

Obama judges himself the better national security candidate.

One expert's judgment can sometimes be wrong. Your reference to Wes's mistaken judgment re: Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice is a good example of that.

However, how is it possible that Obama's judgment of who is better on national security trumps that of Wes Clark and 27 other Generals and Admirals?

Particularly when Obama was so wrong about Rummie and virtually the entire rest of the Bush administration.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.

And I would also interject:

One does not have to only associate bad with Rumsfeld after 2001, oh no, some of us know what kind of guy he is way before that. For instance Rumsfeld's gift bearing, joyful meeting with Saddam Hussein back in the 1980's comes to mind.

Also, one could quote from Wes Clark himself, his own early experience with Rumsfeld, the General knew early on what kind of guy he (Rumsfeld) was/is.

"I want all the White House fellows out. Leave the room."
It was in impersonal announcement, and I looked around the Cabinet Room. I was seated against the wall, waiting for President Gerald R. Ford to come in, and so far as I could tell, I was the only White House fellow among the dozen or so backbenchers. I got up and walked out.
This was Donald Rumsfeld's White House decorum.

With Rumsfeld as White House chief of staff and Dick Cheney as his deputy, the White House could be a rough place: secret memos, winks, nods, and a conspiratorial air seemed to perpetuate all the worst reported tendencies of the Nixon White House. As one senior staffer told me, "Wes, the West Wing of the White House is the only place on the world where, if you were about to fall on your face, everyone around would back up and give you room so you'd hit very hard!" (A Time to Lead, Wesley K. Clark, 2007, p.110)

for giving the viewer credit too - when the piece opens with Obama referring to:

"Soon to be Secretary Rumsfeld"

You'd have to have been under a big old rock for a long time not to figure that timing out. Kind of hard to miss.

missed that.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.

:)

"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion

I feel like I just peeked behind the curtain and discovered that "the great and powerful Wizard of Oz" was really just a human being like all the rest of us.

n/t

singing lalalalalala

:(

"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion

I met Gen. McPeak during the Kerry campaign, and found him to be an orifice on the dorsal part of the lower torso. And he never liked Gen. Clark.

On uniforms: I hate it when Naval Officers don't wear V-neck T-shirts under their open-collar shirts. I got a new CO on my ship who made all the officers go V-neck, saying, "Officers and gentlemen don't display their underwear." I've worn nothing but V-necks ever since.

I wonder if the regs have changed since the early 70s, 'cause on JAG and every place else I've seen, those undershirts are sticking out everywhere.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

I hated that movie and walked out in the middle of it. As a former stutterer myself, I found the humor at the expense of a stutterer sick and insensitive beyond belief.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

And I hope you found a way to let go of the hatred.

Well, I didn't ask for the money back. You pays your money, you takes your choice.

I hope the movie-makers learned something about the sensitivities of certain groups of people. After all, nobody makes Steppin' Fetchit movies anymore. I don't want to see any more laugh-at-a-stutterer movies, either.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

this morning. Helped keep me from throwing said computer through the office window and into the street, to be run over multiple times by unsuspecting passersby.

(needless to say, had a sucky weekend replacing a dying hard drive. I'm better now, lol)

"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

Flag Officers Endorse Obama

...of the same title, based on this book?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Days_of_Pompeii

That would be a possible parallel:

The 1935 RKO film The Last Days of Pompeii, with Preston Foster and Basil Rathbone, carried a disclaimer that, although the scenes of Vesuvius erupting had been inspired by the novel, the movie did not use its plot or characters.

Sorry, Gordon, but you just keep stepping on your own metaphorical foot, lately; and I'm much too fond of you to let you off easy on the least witty of your recently somewhat obscure witticisms.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14919#comment-287655

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

...tendencies. Otherwise, why would I stick around the CCN?

My wife says I mix up analogies and metaphors, plus when I use them it is often a stretch to understand the point.

So, if you get your jollies by correcting my "metaphorical foot." have at it old-buddy. It feels good.

I think we all have masochistic tendencies here

Something in common!

does one wear on their metaphorical feet?

These are the kinds of questions that can drive one mad...

Perhaps that's why I sometimes still pay attention.... :)

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

a "metaphorical foot massage" would feel even better!

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

I've come to the conclusion that the flag officers wo have endorsed Obama are McPeak and his legions of CRICKETS.

Do I hear crickets when I ask Obama/Clarkies what high ranking members of the military have endorsed Obama?

YES I DO!!!

remember the military about 15 senior flag officers as signator4ies with about 15 career diplomats as signatories writing a letter of protest to George Bush;

it was unprecedented in US history as far as I know ( fact check ); the fighting Dems2006 organizing and running for Congress unprecedented ( fact check ); well now we have

not panic but - RETIRED empowered military - working together to influence politics OPENLY not behind closed doors again unprecedented.......

it is a new American phenomenon; maybe since inside the military has become a branch of American Christian (evangelical) some Constitutional loyal officers think this is the time to speak

now or forever hold their peace; "following O's organizers motto - 'respect,empower,include' they want some respect, they want to be empowered, they want to be included in politics - - Hillary isn't that hot

really she is not;

synthetic environment They have to lie. A lot. They have to feign outrage, and actual concern for their fellow Americans.

Sending a clear signal to his voters:

"I am confident I will get her votes if I'm the nominee," Obama stressed. "It's not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee."

-------------------------------------
Sending a clear signal to her husband's voters:

"Could you see yourself working to support Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination?"

Michelle Obama: "I'd have to think about that...."

Republicans however are welcome.

didn't expect to get a hug from you MsLA for my P.O.V.

synthetic environment They have to lie. A lot. They have to feign outrage, and actual concern for their fellow Americans.

unrelated to candidates, and available anytime

(((( early bird )))))

synthetic environment They have to lie. A lot. They have to feign outrage, and actual concern for their fellow Americans.

I grew up the absolute opposite of a military brat- as a hippie brat- with a pretty war torn family, basically destroyed by Vietnam. So I'm not one to worship the warlike. But I found all of these articles pretty interesting about how military culture intersects with things political. Esp. the first one. 

Challenging the Generals

Army Career Behind Him, General Speaks Out on Iraq

Generals opposing Iraq war break with military tradition