Gen. Wesley Clark speaks liberally

Week after week I attend the Tuesday night gathering of the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally, and you’d think occasionally some attractive, thirty-somethingish woman looking for a smart, funny guy with proof-of-concept in the parenting department might sidle up to the bar and start hitting on me… but no. I gotta say, blogging is a lousy way to meet women. On the other hand, it’s apparently a great way to meet four-star generals.

There I was the other night, pint of Manny’s in hand, plotting mischief with a couple of politicos, when who should walk up to us but Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander — and I gotta say, perhaps the most energetically outspoken politician I’ve ever met. Within seconds we’re talking Iran, and Gen. Clark didn’t mince words. President Bush is preparing to take us to war with Iran, and the Democratic Congress, Clark warned, is unprepared to stop him. Don’t get too cocky about 2008, Clark told us. The Republican plan is to use the war, and the patriotic fervor that seems to swell up around every new military adventure, to kick ass next November, branding us Democrats as weak, indecisive and obstructionist… if not out-and-out traitors.

It’s so crazy, it just might work.

I’ve heard smart people describe the notion of war with Iran as “unimaginable,” an assertion disproved by the conversation itself. It is in fact easy to imagine Bush launching a “preemptive” strike on an Iranian nuclear facility, or provoking (or fabricating) a Gulf of Tonkin-like incident that absolutely demands immediate retaliation. And it is equally easy to imagine the American people, moved by fear, rewarding the war party for its aggression, despite the growing national disgust over our quagmire in Iraq.

Coming from me, it is easy to dismiss such warnings as the paranoid ravings of the “far-left” “nutroots.” Which is why it is so important to have these warnings come from men of Gen. Clark’s stature and expertise. As Gen. Clark told the Seattle P-I’s Joel Connelly, the chicken-hawks planning and promoting a war with Iran have learned nothing from their disaster in Iraq:

“They know nothing about war,” Clark declared. “Almost none among them has ever seen a battlefield. They don’t comprehend the blood, the mangled bodies. They’ve never seen severed body parts. And they are so absolutely sure that you can predict the outcome.”

Of course, I suppose Bush-defenders would dismiss Gen. Clark’s words as those of a “phony soldier.” But Democrats would do well to heed his advice, and prepare for the unimaginable.

As RonK points out, Gen. Clark was in Seattle on a book tour, so it’s only courtesy to plug the book: “A Time to Lead.”


  1. 2


    If Clark was running, he’d have my vote, but I think he’s wrong about Iran and the reaction of the American people. I think he believes a lot of the same “conventional wisdom” that also believes that average Americans are more offended by MoveOn than by Rush Limbaugh, and that Americans still trust Republicans on national security. Those days are long gone.

  2. 4

    M spews:

    @ 2, Lee

    I don’t think (well just from the post itself) Gen. Clark says this is how the public will respond. He says this is the GOP plan and not to get too cocky about 2008. That hardly sounds like an absolute prediction of the public’s tolerance and support for more war.

    You have to admit it’s possible…remember all the GOP pres. nom needs is a few extra percentage points to win, especially if its Rudy v HRC.

  3. 5


    If we go to war with Iran, I’m much more worried about Republicans cancelling the 2008 election than winning it.

  4. 6

    Tlazolteotl spews:

    Man, I despise these people.

    For those who don’t know, General Clark has also started an effort to have Rush Limpball’s show taken off of Armed Forces Radio. You can get involved here.

  5. 7

    M spews:

    @5, Lee

    Do you really think they would try to do that (the admin that is)? On what basis?

    I believe they would do it if they could, but I just don’t see how anyone would stand for it.

  6. 8

    My Left Foot spews:

    God (yes you wingnut assholes, we believe too) I hope this man is wrong. He is a stand up guy, honest and his integrity is unassailable. General Clark is not one to speak out of his ass (that is a wingnut trait) and that has me concerned.

    Goldy, you won’t meet many truly great Americans in your life. You have met one now.

  7. 9

    chadt spews:

    Nobody trusts this bunch anymore, except for the 30% or so who will drink the koolade no matter what Bush does, and certainly even those who think Iran needs to be attacked have serious misgivings about the present administration’s ability to do it right.

    The first thing that will happen after an attack on Iran is that gas prices will go through the roof, and that will piss off everybody. Seriously.

    If Bush attacks Iran, there Republicans are DONE. He doesn’t care, of course, but we’ll benefit.

  8. 10

    chadt spews:

    @5 lee

    I was concerned about this a year ago. Not now. The tide has turned, people just won’t put up with it. What’ll the repubs do, call out the Guard?

    Yeah. Sure.

  9. 11


    Do you really think they would try to do that (the admin that is)? On what basis?

    The same basis they’ve used to hold American citizens indefinitely, to eavesdrop on our communications without legal oversight, and to refuse to submit to Congressional subpoenas. They believe that they are above the law.

    I believe they would do it if they could, but I just don’t see how anyone would stand for it.

    The American people won’t stand for it, but I could easily see the Democratic Congress allowing it to happen.

  10. 12


    I hope you’re right. The way September unfolded with Petraeus and how weak the response has been by Democrats whenever the subject involves the “war on terror”, I’ve become very pessimistic. There are a lot of things that one would think we “won’t put up with” that are still happening. I’ve watched the war on drugs devolve to that level of absurdity and have no doubt that the war on terror could do the same. The more 2008 starts looking like a tipping point, the more I’m convinced that the election won’t happen.

  11. 13

    ArtFart spews:

    Dammit, I’ve got to start going to DL again!

    Much as I hate to admit it, I think General Clark may be right. The Bushistas are not only evil but bat-shit crazy, so the’ll probably stick stubbornly to their “great master plan” despite ample evidence that it won’t work.

    Just like Hitler in his bunker when all was obviously lost, still exhorting the German people to battle on.

  12. 14

    M spews:

    Lee @ 11

    I have the same fears as you, but I just don’t see how they can get away with it.

    I believe we will strike Iran within the next 8 months if not sooner.

    Thank you for your thoughts (read: I’m not a troll, was genuinely curious).

  13. 15

    chadt spews:

    @12 Lee

    I waffle between being infuriated at what I perceive to be spinelessness on the part of the people we put back in power, and the hope that they are more politically astute than they are being given credit for.

    It is true, no matter how you slice it, that if you don’t have a big majority, the only dramatic things you can do are potentially suicidal, e.g, not letting the budget or war appropriation out of the house. That would end the war, but everybody remembers what happened in the Vietnam situation. Would it be a replay? I don’t know. We live in a comfortably liberal environment in the metro area, even in the state. I spend a lot of time in Norman, OK (God help me)with tech stuff, and I see what the south is like. It ain’t NUTHIN’ like here, politically.

    Anyway, there’s an upper bound, and canceling elections for the first time in the history of the Republic is way over the top for even most righties. And the intelligent ones (sorry for the oxymoron) certainly don’t want THAT precedent.

  14. 16

    drool spews:

    I wonder what it takes for senior military commanders to resign AND immediately go public with their concerns. They always seem to go quietly.

  15. 18

    Piper Scott spews:

    Hey, how about the new French Prexy, Nicolas Sarkozy, before the UN??? Telling the world that a nuked up Iran is so unacceptable as to make a military response something legitimate to keep on the table.

    We don’t need to invade Iran…the FRENCH will do it, and they’ll probably thwack the Germans into going along.

    The only obstacle are those pesky Russians who sell billions worth of arms to the Ayatollah’s.

    Here’s a clue: No matter who wins in 2008, the geo-political realities remain, and one of them is that Iran will have to be addressed one way or the other, which means, say, President Obama ordering the destruction of Iranian nuke facilities, a naval and air embargo of Iran, and the freezing of Iranian assets throughout the world.

    Remember…JFK was President during the Bay of Pigs, not Ike or Nixon…or LBJ.

    The Piper

  16. 19

    Piper Scott spews:


    Uhm…maybe because they ain’t drinkin’ from the same pitcher of Kool-Aid as you?

    The Piper

  17. 20


    Oh, I definitely know you’re not a troll. I’m not as convinced that we will actually strike Iran directly. I think we’ll end up slowly getting pulled into a conflict through Israel or through some other provocation or incident.

  18. 21

    Piper Scott spews:

    Please remind yourselves that Gen. Wesley Clark is an employee of Fox News and a friend of Bill O’Reilly.

    So…If you want to see Gen. Clark comment upon events in Iraq, Iran, or the world in general, you must watch Fox News.

    In this area, Comcast Cable channel 48.

    Lest you forget…

    The Piper

  19. 22


    @ 1…

    I guess Clark no longer sees Hillary as part of the congress any more?

    “President Bush is preparing to take us to war with Iran, and the Democratic Congress, Clark warned, is unprepared to stop him.”

    and we still haven’t heard Patty’s “explanation” for her vote.

    Chad (The Left) Shue

  20. 23


    So…If you want to see Gen. Clark comment upon events in Iraq, Iran, or the world in general, you must watch Fox News.

    Huh? Does his contract say he has to remain a mute when he’s not on television? Do you actually think about things before you type them?

    Remember…JFK was President during the Bay of Pigs, not Ike or Nixon…or LBJ.

    Remember…the Soviet Union actually HAD nukes. Iran is not the USSR and is very far from being the level of threat that the USSR was.

    We have absolutely nothing to gain from invading Iran. The danger of them obtaining nukes pales in comparison to the dangers that lie next door in Pakistan, which has nukes and a very unstable leadership situation right now. Responsible leadership would be dealing with that rather than saber rattling with Iran.

  21. 24

    IAFF Fireman spews:

    “former NATO Supreme Allied Commander ”

    You should do some checking into why Gen. Clark was fired from that post.

  22. 25

    rhp6033 spews:

    Seven years ago, I would have scoffed that any American politician would be so crass as to risk the lives of American servicemen and the future of America in some hairbrained foreign war just to perserve their power and the profit’s of well-connected companies. I might have disagreed with Republicans on the basics of governmental theory, but I didn’t doubt their patriotism (well, most of them).

    But with the Bush administration, I’ve reluctantly had to adjust my view. With the current administration, whatever worst-case scenarios or motives I can imagine are probably not as bad as what the Bush administration hopes to accomplish.

    What angers me most is that the credibility of the Bush administration has sunk to such a low level that even a ligitimate threat can’t be seriously considered. since any reports of an imminent attack upon the U.S. have a high probability of being manufactured for political purposes, it would be safer to ignore them (and risk the consequences) than to get ensnared in yet another foreign military adventure just to provide political and economic profit to the Republicans.

    I ran into this once before – a fellow once, in his youth, had lied in court to provide an alabi for his friend. Years later, his wife reported the lie to the police in retaliation for some argument regarding the divorce settlement. He was subsequently convicted of perjury, and given probation. But now he had a small contracting business, and he found that lots of people in the trade weren’t paying him. Every time he tried to sue for payment, he found his testimony was useless in court because of his prior perjury conviction, and he lost more than he won. He had to get out of the business entirely, since he couldn’t enforce the simplest of contracts.

    It’s time we put the Bush administration and their fellow Republicans out of the business of leading our nation also.

  23. 26

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Breaking Political News

    Two items involving the ’08 Senate races:

    1) A judge has DENIED Sen. Larry Craig’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea; and

    2) Sen. Pete Dominici announced he will not run for re-election in ’08 because of health issues (he has a progressive brain disease).

    Let us wish Sen. Dominici well in his retirement (preferably to federal incarceration for his role in the U.S. Attorney scandal — I understand the U.S. Bureau of Prisons has a better health care system than the U.S. Army).

  24. 28

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    “Week after week I attend the Tuesday night gathering of the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally, and you’d think occasionally some attractive, thirty-somethingish woman looking for a smart, funny guy with proof-of-concept in the parenting department might sidle up to the bar and start hitting on me… but no. I gotta say, blogging is a lousy way to meet women.”

    Try making some money. That gets ‘em every time.

  25. 30

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    “fabricating a Gulf of Tonkin-like incident that absolutely demands immediate retaliation”

    Hitler fabricated an “attack” by Poland against Germany as an excuse to invade Poland. I’m just sayin’ …

  26. 31

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Any claims by trollfucks that I’m insinuating Republicans scheme like Nazis are FALSE. I’m not insinuating anything! I’m SAYING it!!!

  27. 33

    EllenG spews:

    Piper, General Clark is no longer a military analyst at Fox, but he now provides his wisdom at MSNBC.

    I’ve followed him since 2003, and as to predictions, he cannot be beat; he’s thoroughly familiar with the territory and players.

    #24 IAFF, General Clark was not FIRED from his position as Supreme Allied Commander; DOD Secretary Cohen (Rep.) didn’t care for his approach to military matters, and saw to it that another General, who was in need of a high post, received the SACEUR post; General Clark stayed on for months. President Clinton was not aware of the change Cohen arranged until it was a fait accompli, and has stated his regrets.

  28. 35

    spyder spews:

    Next week Portland will be part of a
    massive national Homeland Security
    exercise…which, with Hurricane Katrina in mind,
    might be a good thing…but otherwise seems to me
    to be so damned Chicken Little of our

    “According to an internal department briefing of
    next week’s exercise obtained by AP, the Oct.
    15-19 exercise would be “the largest and most
    comprehensive” to date. A dirty bomb will go off
    at a Cabras power plant in Guam; another dirty
    bomb will explode on the Steel Bridge in
    Portland, Ore., impacting major transportation
    systems, and a third dirty bomb will explode at
    the intersection of busy routes 101 and 202 near

  29. 36

    Piper Scott spews:


    Oh? He was 10-days ago when he and Bill O’Reilly spared.

    And what are the head-to-head ratings of MSNBC and Fox News again?

    And your response to @24 is another way of saying, “FIRED!” Besides, it makes poor Bill Clinton out to be a clueless putz with his SecDef skittering about not telling him stuff. When it comes to POTUS and those who work for him, there is no such thing as a fait accompli…If Bill Clinton had such regrets, he should have fired Cohen and reinstated Clark. He ran the store in those days, not Cohen.

    The Piper

  30. 38

    RonK, Seattle spews:

    “We are not going to invade Iran; we are going to bomb Iran” — WKC, reiterated in several venues on this swing.

    For a contrary (but admittedly minority) view within knowledgeable circles, see Steve Clemons case that at very least the decision has not yet been made.

    Footnote: Yes, as per usual, Piper pipes up with most all his facts wrong.

  31. 39

    YIKES spews:

    It seems to me that the fringe lunatic left are so hateful toward Bush that they cannot see the forest because of all the dang trees. Everything is one conspiracy theory about motives after another. Now I’m not here to defend all of Bush’s actions. Far from it.
    But it seems like reasonable people ought to take a step back and take a long hard look at the Iranian threat. The Iranian’s love reading the fringe lunatic lefts uneducated, anger filled diatribes towards Bush. They must feel like you are their comrades.

    I’m with Piper…I’ll bet France & Germany beat us to the punch with Iran.

    It’s a real threat. Bush has certainly done plenty to foster mistrust…he has provided some very poor leadership. But to dismiss this very serious Iranian threat out of hand because Bush is involved is foolish.
    Do you really want Iran to have Nuclear capabilities??
    I don’t.

    Think about it….there is a reason a majority of our elected Representatives in both the House & Senate from both Party’s are thinking hard about their positions.
    Now is a time for unity against a real threat.
    Bush is done in one year. I’m glad!

    To read these comments, you would think Bush is running for a 3rd Term or can somehow stop the elction next year.??!
    That is lunacy…and precisely what America’s enemies love to see.

  32. 40

    IAFF Fireman spews:


    I was deployed under Gen. Clark’s command and I think you need to get your information checked.

  33. 41

    ArtFart spews:

    Lessee…how many senior US military officers have “chosen to resign” in the last few years because they couldn’t stomach following the Crawford Caligula’s orders to put more and more American troops in harm’s way for no good purpose? The revolving doors at the Pentagon seem to have been spinning about as fast as the ones at the Justice Department.

  34. 42

    Don Joe spews:

    IAFF, fuck off! Either provide the information and source it, or shove your innuendo right back up your endo.

  35. 43


    I worked at Boeing for several years. That doesn’t mean that I know the real reasons for what happened with Phil Condit.

    I second Don Joe’s sentiments, either provide some information that’s relevant or stop embarrassing yourself.

  36. 47


    “and you’d think occasionally some attractive, thirty-somethingish woman looking for a smart, funny guy with proof-of-concept in the parenting department might sidle up to the bar and start hitting on me… but no.”

    Why not get a real job, Goldy, and blow-off this self-love thing you’ve got going here?

  37. 48

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    @21 Piper,

    Clark left FOX back in May, near as I can find out. He has appeared regularly on MSNBC–that’s channel 47 locally.

    Watching FOX rots the brain. Read a good book.

  38. 50

    palamedes spews:

    This is strictly gut feeling, but…

    I think there have been two battles going on within the Bush administration regarding Iran. One, obviously, is under what terms we consider taking military action, and who gets to set those terms. Cheney and company want to hold the reins, and they want to take action yesterday. I think the other side to this argument that has been promoted is the idea of a “Second Cold War”, with Sunni Arabs on one side and Shiites on the other, and a demarcation zone forming in the same way that NATO and the Warsaw Pact eventually formed theirs. Part of this is simply acknowledging that our military is on the verge of breaking, and that they need to pull out to the “right” side of this line to rest and refit. Part of it is selling that idea to a crowd that still thinks of whatever they show on the History Channel as grand and glorious mythology rather than watered down history.

    (And there is a possibility that it might work to the extent that how Iran interprets the government-religion relationship, versus how the rest of the Shiite world does so, even in Iraq, even to some extent in Lebanon, differs enough to challenge Iran’s interpretation and thus its legitimacy, and thus it’s standing. (In short, Iraq has the potetntial to be poison for everybody involved there now.))

    I think Cheney has finally been able to get Bush to say the things he wants him to say, but between firing or cowing every major officer in the US military that gets in their way and the abovementioned minority viewpoint, it’s been an effort to get this far. (Keep in mind that, given the recent actions of the Democratic Congress, there has essentially been no actor or actors outside of the Bush Administration that could convince them to stand down or even stop and think a second – why then no military action, say, just before the 2006 elections, with a hyped-up terrorist incident as a prelude to provide justification? (There are rumors that certain military officials are pretending to not receive certain orders, but I don’t buy that just yet.) And you can’t blame it on Israeli hesitation, since they have a PM with virtually nonexistent popularity ratings who still thinks “bellicose” is his middle name.)

    I would review very carefully what Bush has said in the last few weeks about Iran, and to whatever comes out of Cheney’s mouth over the next two weeks. I don’t think this war is a done deal yet, but I think we’ll be getting the excuses for it lined up for the American people, or at least its media puppets, to digest.

    Whether a majority of us will digest it is another story, however. That said, I would ask every reader here – what are you willing to do in response to a war with Iran? What can we do to take down the Bush Administration, or at least make it non-functional, in the coming days and weeks after this war is initiated (if it is initiated)?

    This last point has been nagging at me a lot, and I have a few ideas, but anything we do will have to be measured against this administration’s desire for an excuse to initiate a lockdown of our society in response.

    My two bits…

  39. 51

    Piper Scott spews:


    Actually, according to Media Bistro, it was in June, and it said MSNBC was a Democratic-friendly network. Does that explain why its ratings are lower than Congress’ approval numbers?

    But Gen. Clark did appear on Fox with Bill O’Reilly post-MoveOn ad to discuss that and other issues. And they described their relationship as that of friends.

    I read lots of books. I see where Rick Atkinson has a new one out; I’ll have to pick it up and add it to the stack of “I need to get to that one” that’s been growing for years.

    If you ever want an excellent read, try Tony Horwitz’s “Confederates in the Attic.”

    The Piper

    The Piper

  40. 52

    SeattleJew spews:

    Does the US have the intiaitive or does Iran?

    Who would they rather have as Am Prexy?

    What would the US do if …

    Iran launched an IRBM missile into the indian ocean to demonstrate range and control vis a vis Saudi Arabia?

    Iran closed the straights of Hermuz for say .. a wekk?

    Iran recognized a diisdent regime in the South of Iraq?

    Hezbollah delivered a serous weapon (Anthrax? Dirty bomb?) to Tel Aviv?

    tx to lil Bush, we are inb a weak position. We are weaker during an election. It is not only the Repubs who can figger our how to take advanatge.

    Iran stagesa raid across the nOrthern border to caputure Kurdish “terrorists?”

  41. 53

    IAFF Fireman spews:


    “IAFF, fuck off! Either provide the information and source it, or shove your innuendo right back up your endo.”

    Not sure what exactly an ENDO is, but oh well. Let me ask you this 1 question. Why should I have to post my sources, prior to elleng posting hers? Once again, the liberal hypocrisy strikes again.

    By the way, her post reads almost exactly as the Wikipedia page on General Clark.

    I believe that Gen. Clark is an honorable man who should be revered as an American Patriot and Hero. He served his country admirably and with distinction. But to say that he was not fired, just replaced over a year before his “term” was up and allowed to stay on is at best a level of blind allegiance that would require a willing suspension of disbelief.

  42. 54

    Another TJ spews:

    Let me ask you this 1 question. Why should I have to post my sources, prior to elleng posting hers? Once again, the liberal hypocrisy strikes again.

    The question wasn’t directed at me, but I have the answer. It’s because you made the initial claim in comment #24. If you post your sources, others can evaluate them. After you do that, you can request the sources that contradict yours.

    As it stands now, it appears you were talking out your ass, and you can’t back up your post with documentation. Hence the attempted “hypocrisy” misdirection. If you’ve got the goods, let’s see ‘em.

  43. 56

    SeaBos84 spews:

    ‘smart people’ don’t think the fascists will behave like fascists?

    what is unimaginable is that these fucking idiots call themselves or think of themselves as


    what next … we have to work in a bipartisan manor with RayGun to give corporate welfare to the pigs at defense cuz they wrapped themselves in flags all the while cutting accountability and responsibility to those in charge so they can steal more …

    oh shit! BushII is president!

    how did I confuse 25 years ago with today!


  44. 57

    My Left Foot spews:

    Piper @ 21:

    Not sure where you have been. General Clark is a REGULAR contributor and employee of MSNBC and NBC. He is a frequent guest of Keith Olbermann, the bane of Bill-O’s existence.

  45. 59

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    Piper @ 51:

    “Actually, according to Media Bistro, it was in June…”

    Well, they would be wrong.

    “…and it said MSNBC was a Democratic-friendly network.”

    An idiotic statement telling me all I need to know about ‘Media Bistro’.

    Authors: Try anything by James Lee Burke

  46. 60

    Don Joe spews:


    Let’s start with your statement to which I was replying:

    I was deployed under Gen. Clark’s command and I think you need to get your information checked.

    That’s a bullshit statement. It both claims special knowledge and disputes the substance of what someone else said while providing not a single specific piece of information that would allow anyone to dispute your claims. The correct word for what you did is “smear,” and that’s what earned you the “Fuck you!” response.

    To top it off, your sole substantiation now is a link to an article in The Newyorker wherein the only substantively negative statements about Clark are statements similarly lacking in sufficient detail as to allow for proper rebuttal. Again, the proper word to describe that is “smear.”

    So, a double “Fuck you!” for being twice an asshole: you back up your own smear by citing someone else’s smear.

    That’s not a double standard, by the way, because EllenG at least provided sufficient statements of facts such that a person would be capable of presenting a proper rebuttal.

    As for what an “endo” is, well, that’s the location where your cranium currently resides. If you’re not bright enough to figure out where that is, then, you would leave no other proper diagnosis for your malady than “rectal egoitis,” That’s when the head swells to the point where it gets stuck like a fat Winnie the Pooh in Rabbit’s back door.

  47. 61

    Puddybud spews:

    IAFF Fireman: Don’t you know The New Yorker is a front for Scaife and/or Murdoch?

    Nice article regarding Tommy Franks and Hugh Shelton on Clark’s “integrity and character issues”.

  48. 62

    Don Joe spews:

    Following up to 60, a paraphrase of Owl seems apt: you, sir, are stuck. A wedged brain in a great tightness. In a word, irremovable.

    But, hey, stick around. We’ll draw smiley faces on your ass, put a shelf under it, and stick knick-knacks all around it.

  49. 63

    Puddybud spews:

    Hey Don Joe a Geddon:

    Smear: What Media Morons is doing to Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

    Interesting take in a article from the leftist New Yorker.

  50. 64

    Don Joe spews:


    You’ve just earned yourself a “Fuck you,” too. Backing up one smear by citing other smears doesn’t make the original smear smell any better, and I don’t care who’s smear you’re quoting. If someone has “character issues,” then put them on the table, and let’s talk about them. Just flatly saying that someone has “character issues” is bullshit.

  51. 65

    Puddybud spews:

    Hey Don Joe a Geddon:

    From the Internet: “Newsweek magazine’s Howard Fineman reports that in January, 2003, Wesley Clark told associates that, “I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.” Carl Rove is one of President Bush’s top political advisors. Unfortunately for Clark, the White House has logged every call received since G. W. Bush took office in January, 2001. The logs prove that Clark never called Carl Rove.”

    Now that really endears one to Gen. Wesley Clark.

  52. 66

    Don Joe spews:


    What “media morons” are doing is citing specific facts that people can go out and verify for themselves. You know. By checking things like transcripts. Doesn’t matter whether the transcript is someone’s radio program or a phone call about luffa’s and felafels. These are specific facts that can be rebutted.

    Now, that Billo and Comedian Limbaugh keep calling this a smear campaign rather than rebutting the specific facts that have been cited is, itself, a very telling fact.

  53. 67

    Puddybud spews:

    Hey Don Joe a Geddon:

    A quick search of the Internet: A few memorable — even unforgettable — words of Wesley Clark:

    1. “And I’m very glad we’ve got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice… people I know very well — our president George W. Bush. We need them there.”

    2. On President Reagan: “We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan. That’s the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership.”

    3. On President George Bush: “President George Bush had the courage and the vision… and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship.”

    4. American military involvement overseas: “Do you ever ask why it is that these people in these other countries can’t solve their own problems without the United States sending its troops over there? And do you ever ask why it is the Europeans, the people that make the Mercedes and the BMW’s that got so much money can’t put some of that money in their own defense programs and they need us to do their defense for them?”

  54. 71

    Don Joe spews:


    Um…you’ve posted no transcript that provides specific details of any “character issues” lurking on Wesley Clark’s background. So, you earn another “Fuck you,” for weasling about your own smear campaign.

  55. 73

    Don Joe spews:


    Thank you for providing yet another example of exactly what I’m talking about: innuendo without specific facts that might lend themselves to rebuttal.

  56. 74

    Don Joe spews:

    @ 72

    I don’t recall disputing whether or not those were Wesley Clark’s own words. I asked you to construct a coherent argument where those quotes are germane to the point you wish to make.

    So, again, what’s your point? What conclusions should we draw about Wesley Clark’s character based on the statements you quoted?

  57. 76

    Puddybud spews:

    So Clark wanted to attack the Russians in Kosovo over their movement into the airport and that’s not good enough for you?


  58. 77

    Puddybud spews:

    Don Joe a Geddon:

    What British General refused a direct command from Wesley Clark and said: “I won’t start World War III just to get you out of a jam.”

    Integrity issues!

  59. 79

    Don Joe spews:

    Ah, I see. So, Clark pressed for something that turned out, upon further review, to have been a bad idea, and, lo and behold, he backed down from the idea! If this is a character flaw, then, would someone please inflict this character flaw on our current president.

  60. 80

    Puddybud spews:

    I see Wesley Clark was the Director, Strategic Plans and Policy, J5, the Joint Staff (April 1994-June 1996) where he was the staff officer responsible for world-wide politico-military affairs and U.S. military strategic planning. So General Wesley Clark was the world-wide politico-military affairs while the genocide of 800,000 Rwandans occurred?


  61. 83

    Don Joe spews:


    More innuendo lacking any form of detail that would give any insights into Clark’s character. Are you expecting him to have brilliantly solved every problem to have come accross his desk? Is this character falw now that he is something short of Superman?

    I do have to admire your persistence at the plate, Puddy, but you’re really going to habe to give up any dreams of behing the next Barry Bonds of the blog commenting world–and that’s even if you decide to load up on steroids.

  62. 84

    Don Joe spews:


    Nice change of subject there, sport. I take that to mean you’re throwing in the towel on the general debate we’ve had on Clark’s “character issues.”

  63. 85

    Don Joe spews:


    The official line is that he was removed from the post to make way for Joe Ralston. The rest is speculation, and, even there, the speculation doesn’t stend up under scrutiny. If it really was because people thought that to have been a fatally bad idea, don’t you think that would have been on the record?

  64. 86

    Donnageddon spews:

    My good friend PuddyBud says repeatedly:

    “Don Joe A Geddon”

    I feel flattered. Don Joe is much more articulate and resourceful than I.

    But if it keeps PuddyBud confused, I am happy.

    PuddyBuddy is such a waste of a mind.

  65. 87



    ‘4. American military involvement overseas: “Do you ever ask why it is that these people in these other countries can’t solve their own problems without the United States sending its troops over there? And do you ever ask why it is the Europeans, the people that make the Mercedes and the BMW’s that got so much money can’t put some of that money in their own defense programs and they need us to do their defense for them?” ‘

    Now that’s a wonderful idea! We can start by closing down the Middle Eastern adventure(s), then the European show, then Korea, Japan, and everywhere else. The US ain’t the world’s police force. Once we’ve got out of this mindset that we need to involve ourselves militarily with every other country, we’ll be better off. Then we can think of stopping our participation in the United Nations. That body really doesn’t care much for us anyway. Why not let them go their own way without us?

  66. 88

    Puddybud spews:

    #86: Hey I flushed out Dull Knife #2.

    No Donnageddon he posted in a similar sing-song style as you did. How are you? Nice to see you in pixels. Have you improved from being dumb as spent uranium?

  67. 89

    Puddybud spews:

    Don Joe: The British General has been back-up and verified. Rant like a fourth grade whiner all you want but de factz are de factz!

  68. 90

    Puddybud spews:

    Don Joe: Speculation? Over what? He tried to have WW III started by firing on the Russians in Kosovo. Verified and validated.

    Keep drinking the Clark kool-aid.

    This continual support against the Wesley Clark facts reminds me of the Richard Clarke rants. Remember Richard Clarke? Your pals here on ‘Wipes every so often deliver the lie about Bush ordering out the Bin Ladens’ when Clarke under sworn testimony said he did it alone. This is the same mantra you are taking with Wesley Clark!

  69. 91

    Don Joe spews:


    Pay attention: I never disputed the facts surrounding the incident with the Russian Army. I dispute the speculation that this is the reason that Clark was “fired”.

    Dang, but you’re having some reading comprehension problems this morning. What’s the matter, not enough coffee?

  70. 92

    Puddybud spews:

    Don Joe: That was the reason he was fired but you are blind to it. Read more on the subject. When it reached the high levels he was removed for the other guy to stay in active ranks.

    The other reason was political cover for Wes Clark so he didn’t get removed in disgrace. He was a well liked person ( I understand he still is) for most of his military career (you don’t make 4 star general unless people like you) so they hid this incident!

    Man you are dense as spent uranium!

  71. 93

    Puddybud spews:

    Tell me Don Joe: Where is this incident found in the liberal MSM? No where. It was Wesley being trumpeted by the Clintons and then people started researching his background and military acumen since he decided to rest on his laurels as they say.

  72. 95

    Donnageddon spews:

    Don Joe, I learned a long time ago that discussing a topic with PuddyBud is like talkiing to a 5 year old with right wing talking points Tourette’s syndrome.

    Not worth the time.

  73. 96

    Puddybud spews:

    Donnageddon: Wow what a pleasing comment! Tourette’s syndrome? Now that’s a really phony comment from a person (man) who masqueraded as a woman for almost six months when they first appeared on ASSWipes!

  74. 97

    Donnageddon spews:

    “masqueraded as a woman for almost six months”

    Huh? When?

    Be specific and provide evidence.

    Or just make up some crap like you always do.