Wesley Clark Again...

disneycrazed139

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2001
Messages
1,319
Finally...a candidate that will win against Bush--one that has what it takes. See what you all think!
Retired General, #1 in his class at West Point, Rhodes scholar at Oxford, degress in economics, politics, and philosophy...intelligent, has what it takes....
 
I was lucky enough to meet him at "The Truman Day" dinner in Knoxville on 9/13/03. He gave an awe-inspiring speech. He is truly an amazing person who will get my vote in the primary and, hopefully, the election.
 
I am in the Princeton, NJ area and there have been quite a few local gatherings in support of him--pretty much every weekend for which my father-in-law is very much involved in. It's important to make people aware of what a great candidate this guy is. At this time, there are still many people that have not heard of him...but his name is going to grow in the coming weeks. I hope he is ready to participate in the upcoming debate.

I think he is going to knock everyone's socks off!
 
I haven't heard much about him yet... don't really have time to follow current events much, unfortunately. I like Howard Dean, but I sort of doubt he'll get nominated.

Heck, I'd vote for Bullwinkle if it'd get Dubya out of office.:rolleyes:
 

I'm not familiar with Mr. Clark, but I have to admit that I was taken back for a second when I thought of the last Rhodes Scholar President. ;)
 
Originally posted by JDY
I was lucky enough to meet him at "The Truman Day" dinner in Knoxville on 9/13/03. He gave an awe-inspiring speech. He is truly an amazing person who will get my vote in the primary and, hopefully, the election.

Just curious as to why would you would vote for him for president when he has no political experience?
 
GWB 04 mmmm k....None else, no otha, tha #1 Stunna. He will not lose...ever.
 
Ya gotta love a candidate who has a solid stand on his convictions and has a solid platform for voters. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: While I agree he could be formidable, right now all he as going for him is the appearance of hawkisness, (although he appears to be runnng away from that). With his whole life relvoving around military experience, I gotta wonder how much domestic policy insight he has.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004037

commenting on

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32450-2003Sep18.html


Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he "probably" would have voted for the congressional resolution last fall authorizing war, as he charged out into the presidential campaign field with vague plans to fix the economy and the situation in Iraq.


Clark said his views on the war resemble those of Democratic Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.), both of whom voted for the war but now question President Bush's stewardship of the Iraqi occupation. "That having been said, I was against the war as it emerged because there was no reason to start it when we did. We could have waited," Clark said during a 75-minute session with four reporters.

En route to his first campaign stop as a candidate, a high-energy rally at a local restaurant, Clark said he has few specific policy ideas to offer voters right now and offered a few thoughts that might surprise Democrats flocking to his campaign. As recently as Sunday night, he was unsureif he should run for president, so Clark said voters need to give him time to think things through. . . .

In the interview, Clark did not offer any new ideas or solutions for Iraq that other candidates have not already proposed. . . . Clark said he wants more troops in Iraq, but was unsure who best can provide them--the United States, Iraqis or other countries. He would consider cutting defense spending if elected, he said. . . . He said he "probably" voted for Richard M. Nixon in 1972 and backed Ronald Reagan. . . .

He sounded a bit like former presidential candidate H. Ross Perot as he talked about focusing on "context" and not specifics and his yearning to work "with people of all sides and all parts of the political spectrum." . . .

Still, it is domestic issues that often dominate presidential elections, and Clark remains largely undefined in this arena. He may be put to the test next week, when he is likely to participate in a Democratic debate in New York. Clark said he did not watch the last two debates. . . .

Clark said he supports a ban on assault weapons and was uncertain of precisely what the Brady gun law does--and if any changes to it are needed. . . .

Clark, who said he does not consider homosexuality a sin, said the military needs to reconsider the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gay service members. He suggested the military should consider the "don't ask, don't misbehave" policy the British use. "It depends how you define misbehave. That's what has to be looked at," he said.

So...the guy throws his hat in the ring but yet he himself wasn't quite sure why and wants the voters to give him time to figure out why we should vote for him?

So, why should we vote for him when he doesn't even know why?
 
I'm certainly interested in checking out General Clark along with a few of the other candidates. I hope that he'll make his views clear as time goes on.
 
Just curious as to why would you would vote for him for president when he has no political experience?

I think that being NATO Supreme Allied Commander, holding a Master’s Degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and being licensed as an investment banker make him more than qualified to bring us back from financial ruin, win the war on terrorism, and renew the foreign goodwill we've lost.

Plus, having no political experience lessens the possibility that he is corrupt. It also shows that he is in this for the good of the nation - he's not a career politician.

http://www.clark04.com/about.php
 
I think that being NATO Supreme Allied Commander, , holding a Master’s Degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and being licensed as an investment banker make him more than qualified to bring us back from financial ruin, win the war on terrorism, and renew the foreign goodwill we've lost.

*insert puke smiley here*

Sorry, I had it inside brackets and it was showing up as a tag. ;)
 
And what? That already makes him better qualified than Bush. So he wasn't a governor, big deal. He also has no DUI's and wasn't AWOL during Vietnam.

And if not Clark - then Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, and Leiberman all have loads of political experience.

Anyone is better than W....
 
Originally posted by JDY
And what? That already makes him better qualified than Bush. So he wasn't a governor, big deal. He also has no DUI's and wasn't AWOL during Vietnam.

And if not Clark - then Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, and Leiberman all have loads of political experience.

Anyone is better than W....

Do a little more background research on Clark. If half the things I've read are true, he's not the man you may think he is.

Maybe you could clarify why anyone is better than GWB?

P.S. Bush was in the National Guard and was not AWOL from Vietnam. There is some question as to whether or not he skipped some training. The answer to that (to me) is still unclear.
 
I don't know. If you think about what it is like on a military base it is like a microcosm cross-section of the US, folks from all sorts of walks of life, all sorts of backgrounds. Not only do you have the "military" things going on, but you have schools and education, family services, etc. It is pretty complex - I think that being the NATO commander of Europe would be a job that would require a lot of administrative ability. There are a lot of people who think that the government would benefit with leaders who have good administrative skills rather than are career politicians, politics as usual insiders. But I'm also sure that no one would get to the point in their career that General Clark has without making some detractors along the way (just like no one would make it to governor without detractors). But he does seem a stark contrast to Bush - top in the class at west point + rhodes scholar vs. cheer leader with mediocre grades at yale; served in Viet Nam, purple heart, etc., vs. didn't show up for air national guard duty in Al.; general vs. governor. It is interesting to think about who would be better able to get us out of Iraq. There are people who love bush who are going to scramble hard to discredit Gen. Clark in any way they can because he is probably the most serious threat to the home team.
 
Originally posted by d-r
There are people who love bush who are going to scramble hard to discredit Gen. Clark in any way they can because he is probably the most serious threat to the home team.

Have you done any searches for Clark?

If not, try looking at some.

There is a huge difference between the characterization of Clark vs. Bush.

Most of the things I read from Clarks critics, while certainly negative, have not stooped to the levels of hate and disgust that some of Bush critics (haters) have.
 
Doesn't say something about our political system when a person with no political experience, no stance on issues, and no announced platform can announce he is running and immediately become the front runner?:rolleyes:
 












Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE


New Posts





DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top Bottom