Wes Clark - 192 Steps to Disaster Preparedness

  By now, anyone who hasn't lived in a cave these past years knows the critical importance that global climate change will have in trends toward more violent weather patterns and storms of significant risk to our vital National Security.
   Despite best estimates for our ability to counter the climate shifts expected of future decades, implementing sound environmental policy with plans and processes that mitigate this threat, being prepared to deal with the inevitable pending disasters will be of vital concern as we enter the twenty-first century.
   As we look to those who would lead our United States as our next President, it should be obvious to all how important it will be to have someone in the Oval Office that understands not only the risks that we face with these changing environmental conditions, but how to best prepare to face them.

  Please take a moment to review the following interview (And YouTube Video) with Wes Clark about the failures of Katrina response  and some steps involved to prepare ourselves in the future.

 

 

 


Nick Ballasy: With hurricane Katrina. How do you feel about the Bush administration's response? Was it appropriate? Would you have done something totally different? Or..

Wes Clark: Well, there are a lot of things wrong with this and there's plenty of fault finding at every level.

  One of the things that happened, of course, that everybody knows about is the Federal Emergency Management Agency was slipped into the Department of Homeland Security and the focus was on terrorism, not on responding to natural disasters. So that was a distraction.

  Another thing is, a lot of the key people were taken out of the Federal Emergency Management Agency because these were professional people and it became part of the political spoils. They put guys like Michael Brown, I'm sure he's a decent guy, I don't know him personally, but he had no experience for this kind of thing. It wasn't like he was a, you know, big business leader who knew how to make things happen. He was a lawyer. And I like lawyers, but, unless you've run a big organization in a crisis, a disaster like Katrina is a tough.. It's a tough learning experience and he didn't do very well. And by the way, the guy over him, Michael Chertoff, he's another lawyer who's never, you know Federal Prosecuter, but he'd never actually had his hands on the wheel of a big organization. It's about how you communicate, how you task, how you review, how you follow up, how you set suspenses and deadlines. It's a whole lot of things that somebody in the military, for example, I mean, I've learned it throughout a thirty-four year career. I know how to do that kind of thing. James Lee Witt, down there helping the Governor of Louisiana, he learned it. He was a disaster manager in Arkansas before he ran the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

  So there's that problem.

  Then we had a problem in the Pentagon too. We used to support the disasters out of the Pentagon. Let's face it, I mean, the only real resources that can flow around are military resources. Federal Emergency Management Agency doesn't have a fleet of helicopters standing by. It doesn't have a thousand trucks, you know, with food that's all loaded up to run in for every disaster. It tasks the military.

  Now, we used to have something that was inside the Pentagon called the director of military support. It was run by the Secretary of the Army. But, organizational politics got in the way. Nobody could understand why the Army got to do all this disaster relief but the National Military Command Center, with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense, they didn't. So people got jealous of the Secretary of the Army because nominally, he works for the Secretary of Defense, but in the case of a disaster he was working for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. And he was responding to the President. This made the Secretary of Defense feel like, "Uh, maybe I'm like, you know, I'm not needed here". So, you know, any good bureaucratic warrior would tell you that you should take control of everything. So they took control of the domestic support agency, they folded it into the National Military Command Center and then, naturally, what's the National Military Command Center, well, they're fighting two wars. They're fighting a war in Afghanistan and they're fighting a war in Iraq and then you're coming to them and saying "Hey, don't forget that hurricane." "Uh, yeah yeah, we'll get to it right away, ok, and Sir by the way, there's a hurricane coming." "Yeah ok, well can you, The Secretary's got an important meeting, can you come back and see him, you know, in a couple of hours."

  It's not the same kind of responsiveness as if you have the Federal Emergency Management Agency connected directly to it's own response cell in the Pentagon.

  So those were some of the organizational mistakes, and leadership mistakes and.. choices. But when you get right down to it, to make something like this work you have to do a lot of rehearsal. People have to think through the problem. Somebody has to say "Well, gee we're gonna have eighty thousand people with no transportation. Uh, let's see eighty thousand, now, how many per bus? What's our planning figure per bus? Forty. Forty, if you can get a big bus, forty. Ok, so let's see, forty into eighty thousand. You need two thousand buses? Uh, but, uh, what's the readiness rate on buses? Well, like one in ten won't work. And one in ten might break down, how far they gotta go? I dunno, where we gonna put the refugees?". So then you start, you know, trying to work your way backwards through this thing. Turns out you might need three thousand buses, with three thousand five hundred drivers, with extra tanker trucks, refueling stations because, what if it's the middle of the night and the bus is out in the middle of Louisiana, you know, it gets, drove a hundred and fifty miles down, drove a hundred and fifty miles back, it's got a two hundred mile range. It needs more fuel. So somebody has to think of all this, and to plan it. "Ok, what community, you got twenty buses, you got fifty buses, you got a hundred buses but you're three hundred miles away." So, I mean all that had to have been worked out. Where're they gonna meet the buses? What neighborhood? What roads are gonna be flooded? Somebody has to do all that. None of that was done.

  And then, when you ask for the buses, you know you've gotta have a sort of sequence ok. You ask for the buses and then somebody has to call each community. Do you know who to call? Who do you call? School board? Mayor? Chief of Police? Fire Department? "Um, ok but the Mayor's office is closed." Got a home number for the Mayor? And then, how bout the bus driver? How do you get the bus driver at two AM? And what percentage of them no longer have the same phone number that they had when they signed up for work five years ago? You know? Have you ever tried it? So, when you sort of work all through this thing it's like.. It's like doing line dancing. I don't know if.. you ever do line dancing? My wife and I went out one time, this guy says, "Hey you've gotta learn this." He's big into country western music. He says, "You gotta learn this line dancing." My wife got to the ninety second step, and she said, "I quit!" She said, "Any dance that's got ninety-two steps, I'm not doing!" And, to make this kind of stuff work, you gotta go though a hundred and ninety-two steps. And they've gotta be thought out. Somebody's got to be responsible for it, and, as soon as they come back and tell you the, you know, "We tried, we missed ten percent of the buses. Cause we couldn't, you know these were the ones that..". Somebody's got to follow up and say, "Ok, get so and so on the phone, drive from this town to that town. Go to the parking lot for the buses. Get me backup drivers. I want National Guard. Break the padlock. Get into the buses. Start the buses." You know, and, how are you going to do that with people who've never done it before?

  Now, one more thing that's worth talking about on Katrina of course, is, the National Guard leadership. Most of them were in Iraq. Both Mississippi and Louisiana have what they call an enhanced infantry brigade. And this brigade has the command and control apparatus. Usually it's the major, let's call it in technical terms, the maneuver arm for the state. So if you've got heavy lifting to be done, they're going to do it. And they're not the engineers that have bulldozers. They're not the signal corps that has all the wire laying capability. And they're not the aviators that have all the helicopters. But, these are the people that, if you want to organize something, they're the people who do the organization and planning. They were in Iraq. Some of them had already participated in planning for disaster like this. So, somebody would've said, "Oh yeah, the bus problem! Yeah! Ok, remember when we did that in the exercise two years ago? How we.." You know..

  But they weren't there.

YouTube Link..


"On the Issues" with Nick Ballasy - nickballasy.com



Display:


Re: Wes Clark - 192 Steps to Disaster Preparedness (none / 0)

What a great interview!  You can tell he has a lot of experience with logistics in the military.  I really enjoyed the line dancing comments.


by judy from nj on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:53:10 PM EST

Re: Wes Clark - 192 Steps to Disaster Preparedness (none / 0)

This is as close as we will come to getting a new FDR.


by blues on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:37:35 PM EST

Re: Wes Clark - 192 Steps to Disaster Preparedness (none / 0)

Clark does very well in analyzing the government role and organization needed to respond to disasters like Katrina...he explains clearly why and how government is needed.

Not sure if he addresses it later in the interview but the key right now is New Orleans reconstruction which is as big a disaster as Iraq reconstruction with the same corporate bad actors, KBR, Halliburton etc.

New Orleans needs to totally changed, the levees down, the Mississippi delta restored and the New Orleans restored as a 21st century city built to deal with rising sea levels and storms of global warming.


by BrionLutz on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 09:43:27 PM EST

Why do some people prefer Hillary To Wes? (none / 0)

Seriously, what would make someone vote for a Hillary over a Wes Clark? Read the new Huffington Post column by Ariana about Wes Clark telling it like it is with respect to NY money and Iran. You think Hillary would be able to overcome the pressure to do the right thing in the middle east if she becomes the President?


by Pravin on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 10:53:19 AM EST

Re: Why do some people prefer Hillary To Wes? (2.00 / 0)

There's really not much to recommend Clark. He doesn't stand out as a candidate.

He lacks clear positions on issues, isn't very articulate or charismatic.

And then there are the voting questions. It sure looks like Clark voted for Bush Sr and Jr.

I know Clark claims he voted for Clinton and Gore but he's recorded praising both Bush Sr and Bush Jr and supporting their policies.

Specifically Clark supported Bush Jr's Iraq invasion and that is probably most disturbing since that is his area of expertise and he got it wrong.

During 2004 he was not very articulate on the issues or didn't demonstrate he'd given them much thought.

He currently doesn't not have very developed positions which one could reasonably expect from someone running for President for the last four years.


by BrionLutz on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 01:18:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you high?! (none / 0)

Your first points are rubbish.

Clark in no way supported the invasion of Iraq
Clark in no way voted for George Bush Sr or George Bush Jr
Clark is one of the most articulate people to have entered politics in the last 50 years

Clark's positions on taxes to national defense were the positions picked up by Kerry and taken forward during the '04 cycle

I expect more homework from MyDD readers than this!


by westcott on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 01:25:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why do some people prefer Hillary To Wes? (none / 0)

Compare Clark's many media appearances in the last 3 years to Hillary's interviews and I dare you to show me where Hillary has been more articulate. Just go to crooksandliars and check out their archives. I am sure you will find some good Clark clips. Or just google around.

Clark's 2004 run was a rush job. He was not prepared for the public spotlight back then. No doubt about it.

Have you seen Clark on FOX news battling Bill O Reilly or Hannity? Have you seen him on Bill Maher's show? The guy is extremely articulate. He does not talk in vague defensive tones.

Other than the minimum wage fight, Hillary has shown very little leadership. Wes also has done a lot more for many progressive candidates compared to Hillary who is afraid any intense association will mess up her presidential ambitions.

She asked obvious questions about the war only after half the republican party started questioning it too.

The #1 issue is how the next president will deal with the middle east and spend more time on domestic concerns. For you to say Wes Clark has not been clear about this shows that you never watch TV or read progressive blogs other than your own posts.


by Pravin on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 03:53:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lies and the Lying Liars... (none / 0)

I see from your comments elsewhere that you are an Obama supporter who likes to go out of his way to talk on Clark and Edwards info blogs to denigrate them.  

Here's a tip:  A long list of things wrong with a candidate shows you're a little too organized for us not to know that you're a troll.  People who seriously think that Clark voted for the Bushes (he didn't --- he voted for Clinton and Gore)generally have only one or two pieces of misinformation about the candidate.  

Isn't there some other way we can deal with people like this?  I think it's fair to point out true problems about a candidate --- although deliberately going out of your way to talk about highly subjective things like charisma seems inappropriate --- but we're always encountering these people who spread lies.

They spread lies on purpose.  They know they're lies.

Do they think politics is just a game?  

I know that what I hate most about Bush and Republicans on tv is the way they lie.  And no one calls them on it.  

Do these trolls really have goals that have convinced them that lying is more noble and morally right than not lying?


by catherineD on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 03:36:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wes Clark - 192 Steps to Disaster Preparedness (none / 0)

"I expect more homework from MyDD readers than this!"

Yes..it's clear you haven't done your homework on Clark. Your first points are rubbish."

Hmm...let's check the facts

In regard to who he likely voted for and his support for Bush Jr and co. Here's what Clark said  after the 2000 election.

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.


by BrionLutz on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 01:40:36 PM EST

Re: Wes Clark - 192 Steps to Disaster Preparedness (none / 0)

That was 2000. Who the hell cares about that? What we need to see  is a progression in personality and character. Wes Clark has shown steady improvement since the 2004 primary. I would take that over a Hillary who was good in the 1990s, but has not stuck her neck out EVEN ONCE to do the right thing when it came to foreign policy. Whenev4er she made a negative statement, it was long after it became conventional wisdom.

Al GOre selected Lieberman in 2000. In 2004, he didn't even bother to notify him he was endorsing Dean and didn't even bother to make a polite statement in favor of Liberman in 2006. People change for the better or worse.


by Pravin on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 03:57:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes Mr. Lutz.. Homework (none / 0)

http://www.browndailyherald.com/media/st orage/paper472/news/2006/11/28/CampusNew s/Q.A-With.Clark.i.Havent.Said.I.Wont.Ru n.For.President-2509968.shtml?norewrite2 00701052111&sourcedomain=www.brownda ilyherald.com

Do you think that if you run for president, the 2001 speech you delivered at a Republican Party fundraiser in Pulaski County, Ark., will come back to haunt you?
Why should it? That's just part of the freak show. If you read that speech, you'll see that what I actually do is criticize the directions of the policies of the (Bush) administration. All I did was put a little honey on it by complimenting Colin Powell and some of the people who were in the administration a couple of months after the administration took office. But I never complimented George Bush.

---


by westcott on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 09:14:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wes Clark - 192 Steps to Disaster Preparedness (none / 0)

"That was 2000. Who the hell cares about that?"

Sorry...guess you didn't realize Clark was so lavish in his praise of Cheney, Rice, Rumsfled and Bush Jr.

As for who cares, when someone lavishes praise on people and then claims he didn't vote for those "great people" it is kind of suspect.

"Wes Clark has shown steady improvement since the 2004 primary."

Similar to other Republicans like Gordon Smith:

He now opposes Iraq in 2006 but it doesn't really tells us much other than do they know which way the wind blows.

Clark did not oppose his "good friends" Bush Jr and Cheney when they invaded Iraq so it is fair to question his judgment.

Even more so since Clark's claim to credibility is his military experience but that did not prevent him from supporting the Iraq disaster.

You mentioned global warming and New Orleans and on that issue Clark did not articulate the problems before and after Katrina which caused the disaster and which are not being dealt with today.

So on your example, Clark covered 30% of the issue.

Again, that doesn't recommend him as Presidential material.


by BrionLutz on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 08:45:46 PM EST

Re: Wes Clark - 192 Steps to Disaster Preparedness (none / 0)

THe last three years, Clark has worked tirelessly helping progressive causes. If he was borderline in his support, then I would consider his past. But the amount of work he has done and the great job he has done combating opposition spin gives him a pass.

What has Hillary done on those very same issues?

ANd what about Hillary's reckless talk on Iran less than a year ago?


by Pravin on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 09:24:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wes Clark in no way supported the invasion of Iraq (none / 0)

Don't bother posting the London Times piece. That was about not stopping when sandstorms caused possible hesitation in Basra and protraction of operations, that is a military analysis of that situation. Not about the invasion itself.



Mr. Chairman, at the end of World War Two when the United States had a nuclear weapons monopoly and when our gross domestic product was fifty percent of the world's production, President Roosevelt and later President Truman recognized that even with that strength, The United States, by itself, wasn't strong enough, wasn't capable of handling all of the world's problems in assuring peace and security by itself. And so they sought to create an institution which would be better than the defunct League of Nations and they built the United Nations. And President Truman said the method of the United Nations should be that "Right makes might".

We've spent the fifty five, fifty seven years since then trying to develop international institutions that would help strengthen America and help protect our interests as well as the interests of people around the world.But we recognized that a world in which nations are only regulated and guided unilaterally in seeking their self-interest is not a world that's in our best advantage

.So for that reason I think it's very important not only that we've gone to the United Nations, but that we do everything we possibly can do to strengthen the United Nations to stand up to this challenge, to make itself an effective organization, to be able to cope with the challenge of Saddam Hussein's defiance of it's resolutions.

Beyond the issue of The United Nations and the international institutions we seek to live in, I think going to The United Nations has another important, very important, benefit. In the long run, we're going to have to live with the people in the Middle East. They're our neighbors. They're just like us. Many of them have the same hopes and dreams. The more we can do to difuse the perception that America is acting alone, that America is striking out, that America is belligerent, that America is acting without Allies, The more we can do to difuse that, the more we can do to put that in the context of international institutions and the support of the governments in the region, the greater chance we have of reducing the recruiting draw of Al Quaeda; Following through with the successful post-conflict operation in Iraq; Promoting a resolution of the Arab Israeli conflict and promoting peaceful democratization in a number of moderate Arab governments

.So I think the long term consequences, the long term benefits of operating through The United Nations are very high.And finally there's an immediate short term benefit. It'll be very, very useful to us to have Allies. Many nations in that region want us to go throught The United Nations. They'll be empowered by The United Nations Resolution. So I think if we can get that Resolution it's to our near term military advantage and our long term advantage as a nation.

YouTube Link...




"By lumping the two together - Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein, it's also possible that we will have incentivized Saddam Hussein, now, as a last ditch defense, to do what he wouldn't have done before, which is 'Go find me the nearest members of Al Quaeda, here - take this sack and do something with it'. So it's not clear which way this cuts right now but at some point we are going to have to deal with Saddam Hussein. We are going to have to work against the weapons of mass destruction not only there but also in the case of Iran."...

YouTube Link...



"I would hope that we will go through the established mechanisms and use NATO and the concensus engine of NATO in an effective way to help us get a grip on the War on Terror to an extent we haven't done yet and also to help us deal with the problem of Iraq. If we do that, of course, whenever you work with Allies, and they sign up to it, they want assurances from you about what you're going to do, what you're going to bomb, how soon you're going to do this. And it is dificult, time-consuming, and in some cases restraining. But I think, as General Shali made clear, the advantages are so overwhelming that we really need to pursue that route in this case"

YouTube Link...



"There are those who say that if we go into Iraq it will send a very strong message to those nations that are playing both sides. Countries like, for example, Yemen, where we've had some dificulty gaining access and it may send the kind of message to Yemen that says 'We're going to get rid of Al Quaeda right now. Turn 'em all over and invite the Americans in'. On the other hand if we go in unilaterally, or without the full weight of international organizations behind us - If we go in with a very sparce number of Allies - If we go in without an effective information operation that takes us through the [operation] and explains the motives and purposes in very clear aims and the ability to deal with the humanitarian and post-conflict situation - we're liable to supercharge recruiting for Al Quaeda"

YouTube Link...



Senator Jeff Sessions: Ultimately, aren't we at a point where we're going to have to either quit and go home or take action?

Wesley Clark: Well I don't know that we're at that point right now Senator. I think it's...

Senator Jeff Sessions: (loudy) Well how much much longer do you think we need to wait?!

Wesley Clark: I think its clear that you have to look ahead and see. I think you need to work through all options. When you're talking about American men and women going and facing the risk we've been talking about this afternoon, and if you're talking to the mothers and the loved ones of those who die in that operation, you want to be sure that you're using force and expending American blood and lives and treasure as the ultimate last resort. Not because of a sense of impatience with the arcane ways of international institutions or frustration from the domestic political processes of Allies. And so, I'm not on the inside of those negotiations. I can't tell you how much furthur they are. But I do know from my experience in working in Europe and inside NATO that it takes a lot of diferent twists sometimes diplomatically to get the outcome you want.

YouTube Link...



Wesley Clark: I think that the last phrase in there is a very, very sweeping phrasiology. Because it's not only international peace and security in Iraq, it's the region. I realize that's why that's in there but I think that we will gain power with this resolution and we'll gain effectiveness in our military operation and in our public diplomacy the more tightly we focus our efforts on the specific objectives that we seek. So region is one of those terms.. Is it.. Are we going to restore peace and security in, between the Palestinians and the Israelis by this phrasiology? What exactly does it mean and so therefore what I would prefer to see is something like...

Senator John Warner: If I could came back because my time has run long, but, you remember, Congress passes this in October, they're going home. They're scattered to 50 states and portions of the world.

YouTube Link...



"I would hope that before we would use force as authorized here we would have exhausted all other means. If there's a way of incorporating that in the Resolution I think it makes the Resolution stronger, not weaker"

YouTube Link...



"Unless there's information that we're not being presented that says we have to take this action 'Right now' to go in and disrupt Saddam Hussein. 'We can't wait a week.', 'We can't wait four weeks.' or whatever, then, it seems to me that we should use the time available to build up our legitimacy, And that's why I'm advocating intrusive inspections."

YouTube Link...


by plant on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 09:24:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lutz, what about Hillary clips from that time (none / 0)

Do you think Lutz can dig up clips of Hillary around that time where she was more progressive on such an important issue? Forget progressive. How about just p[lain common sense?


by Pravin on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 09:29:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wes Clark - 192 Steps to Disaster Preparedness (none / 0)

1. Clark didn't oppose Iraq war.

2. Clark lavished praise on Bush Jr and co in 2000.

3. Clark was doing Republican fundraisers in 2001.

"Don't bother posting the London Times piece."

As you saw, Clark did not oppose his "good friends" and the "great team" of Bush Jr,Rice, Rumsfeld and Cheney in their Iraq war.

That he was lavishing praise on them certainly makes his claim he voted against them suspect.

"Do you think that if you run for president, the 2001 speech you delivered at a Republican Party fundraiser in Pulaski County, Ark., will come back to haunt you?"

As you note above, the fact that Clark was doing Republican fund raisers also makes his statements even more suspect.


by BrionLutz on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 12:25:38 AM EST

You're high (none / 0)

Do your homework Mr Wingnut.

He did one fundraiser. In Palaski County Arkansas, where he's from. He worked with Powell and Cheney in the Ford Administration when he worked at OMB. He's a nice guy and that was a local local local.

Get over it. Or don't. Entirely up to you.

But keep the bs garbage to yourself after time and time again proven false. Amazing.. 5 years and you have one quote from one fundraiser and one quote from a London newspaper.

Get over it. Or don't. Entirely up to.


by westcott on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 12:51:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But.. Answer me this (none / 0)

Why would such info be released by the RNC?

The Republican National Committee on Friday circulated a transcript and videotape of Clark's May 11, 2001, speech before the Pulaski County Republican Party.

Anyways, you have homework to do. I won't hold you up.


by westcott on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 12:58:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wes Clark - 192 Steps to Disaster Preparedness (none / 0)

"Why would such info be released by the RNC? The Republican National Committee on Friday circulated a transcript and videotape of Clark's May 11, 2001, speech before the Pulaski County Republican Party."

Released?  Clark's being the main speaker at a Republican fund raiser in 2001, praising his "good friends" Cheney, Bush Jr, Rice and Rumsfeld is public record.


by BrionLutz on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 01:26:25 AM EST

Where's the rest of it? (none / 0)

I've always wanted to see the whole thing. Since it's public record and you know all things. Post it.


by westcott on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 04:19:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wes Clark - 192 Steps to Disaster Preparedness (none / 0)

"I've always wanted to see the whole thing."

So you've been blindly supporting Clark, not knowing he was heaping praise on Bush Jr, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld right after the 2000 election (in which he now claims he voted for Gore) and doing Republican fund raisers in 2001 in support of Bush Jr. in 2001.

"Since it's public record and you know all things. Post it."

And you can't even do a simple Google search to turn up the full text of Republican Wesley Clark's speech at the Republican fund raiser.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id= 110004065


by BrionLutz on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 11:09:13 AM EST

Re: Wes Clark - 192 Steps to Disaster Preparedness (none / 0)

And Hillary hasn't made postive comments about REpublicans and supported neocon policy actively for 4 years?


by Pravin on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 07:52:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wes Clark - 192 Steps to Disaster Preparedness (none / 0)

"And Hillary hasn't made postive comments about REpublicans and supported neocon policy actively for 4 years?"

Clark's praise for Bush Jr, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and O'Neil as a "great team" and "what the nation needs" after the 2000 election.

Clark's doing Republican fundraisers for Bush Jr in 2001.

Republican McCain is better than Republican Wesley


by BrionLutz on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 10:22:21 PM EST

Re: Wes Clark - 192 Steps to Disaster Preparedness (none / 0)

You avoided the question. What has Hillary done better than Wes when it came to talking about the Iraq war or possible strikes against Iran?

Bill pals along with Bush Sr. Bill endorsed Joe Lieberman with Hillary's blessing according to a couple of accounts. . Lieberman is the same guy who has tried to blackmail the other democrats with his deciding vote. Wes Clark has tirelessly stumped for various progressive candidates over the last few years. Hillary has done some work in that regard, but not to any significant extent.

Once again, the #1 issue is iraq. What has Hillary done in this area? Don't bring up old crap about Wes. Hillary CLinton was a republican as a teen. So what????


by Pravin on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 12:41:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wes Clark - 192 Steps to Disaster Preparedness (none / 0)

"You avoided the question."

It's your question...feel free to go find the answer to it.

I backed up my quotes that had Wesley Clark praising Bush Jr, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld as a "great team" and how much American "needed" them in 2000...after an election in which he later claimed he voted for Gore.

I also provided the full text link of Clark's speech at a Republican fund raiser in 2001.

So Clark doesn't seem like a good Democratic candidate, he didn't oppose Iraq war, lavished praise on Bush Jr, Cheney et al and was a fund raiser for them up to 2001.

Democrats can do better than nominating a Republican like Clark.


by BrionLutz on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 02:47:09 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.