Checking my referrer logs, I just discovered I'm the second google result returned for "Wesley Clark Howard Dean" (or vice versa). Meet the Press today was talking quite seriously about the Clark campaign as it appears Washington insiders are almost sure his hat is going into the ring.

Further, I just learned from the Wesley Clark blog that apparently the Dean and Clark camps are already talking to each other. Great news to me (though I think Clark is the more electable president than Dean). These two in combination, I believe, are set to roll over Bush. Here's the key:

* Push for the UN takeover of operations in Iraq
* Make an issue out of the current state of affairs in Afghanistan
* Huge deficts / Fiscal irresponsibility of the tax cuts (burdens put on state's budgets)

By Gary at 02:27 PM in World | Comments (7)  

Buy your Howard Dean and Wesley Clark merchandise from my site. I think they would be the winning team against the Bushies! Thanks for the blog!

Posted by: Neil at September 11, 2003 02:10 AM

Before anyone goes around tooting Clark's horn, they should take a serious look at his miltary record in the Balkans and Panama. The attached link & article should shine some much needed light on his 'valor'

http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?bid=7

On the Fox News Hannity & Colmes Show of August 21st, General Wesley Clark said the President
Bush removed Saddam Hussein "under false pretenses". The General should know something about
false pretenses, as he was the NATO military commander in 1999, during the military intervention
in Kosovo. This operation, during our recent co-presidency, was designed to save Muslim Kosovo
from a rabid Serbian leader. It was hyped by a media campaign that charged "ethnic cleansing",
but found little evidence of mass murder (unlike the killing fields of Iraq). The propaganda
campaign included faked photos supposedly taken of starving concentration camp inmates (in
contrast to Saddam's torture pens). However, the conflict did produce a mass of refugees, and
Clark deserves credit for handling this problem. Clark also said on August 21st that he had told
the Clintons' Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, that "more damage is being done in
Yugoslavia, than Iraq". Yet, on December 16th, 1998, Gore had said..."If you allow someone like
Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, how many people is
he going to kill with such weapons?...He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction
against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people". Yet,
Clark found the situation in Yugoslavia a greater threat than Iraq.

As noted, Milosevic had no weapons of mass destruction, and didn't threaten to use those weapons
to control the world's greatest oil resources--and therefore affect millions of jobs and the
economies of the civilized world. He didn't attempt to assassinate a former US president, or pay
bounties to the families of suicide bombers. He didn't train terrorists, nor provide a safe
haven for them. Saddam Hussein did all of the above, but apparently Wes Clark never noticed--he
considered poor little Serbia a bigger threat than Iraq. So, under Clark's astute leadership, we
bombed: a hospital for the mentally ill; a passenger train; a convoy of tractors and carts
loaded with refugees--and Bill Clinton's "strategic partners" at the Chinese Embassy. We also
lost an F-117 stealth fighter under mysterious circumstances (some of the parts for which have
probably long since been delivered to Clinton's strategic partners); and, we could not fly our
Apache helicopters due to inadequate crew training. But we succeeded in helping the Kosovo
Liberation Army (KLA), an Islamic military force financed by drug money and allied with Osama
bin Laden. These same forces are now poised to launch an invasion of Albania. And regarding
refugees, It has gone without notice that our action in Iraq, unlike Kosovo, produced few. This
is due to careful planning under the leadership of a serious and less flamboyant commander, and
the efficiency of our bombing-- which left civilian neighborhoods, hospitals, passenger trains,
and the Chinese Embassy intact. Iraqis have also chosen to remain in "occupied" Iraq.

Clark deserves praise for his service and personal valor in the chaotic and disastrously
mismanaged Vietnam War. However, while commanding our forces in Panama in 1996-1997, he failed
to alert the country and the congress to the implications of the US leaving the strategic
waterway unprotected, with Panama mostly defenseless and a narco-financed Marxist insurgency
active in neighboring Colombia. The Chinese communists quickly filled the strategic void, and
now control key services in Panama, creating a national security dilemma which is still
unaddressed. Regardless, Clark's candidacy is probably a Clintonian move to give military and
national security "cover" to Hillary, or Howard Dean--who discussed the vice-presidency with
Clark in a September 6th/7th meeting, according to the Washington Post. By putting Clark on the
ballot Democrats can claim they are for a strong America. One national magazine that normally
tilts left is all ready on the bandwagon, declaring Clark's..."military and national security
credentials can't be questioned". Oh, really?

----------
Fielder is a retired army officer with 40-years experience in U.S. intelligence. Email comments
to Mr. Fielder at

Posted by: Sean Diego at September 15, 2003 12:34 PM

The analysis above is flawed. We went into Iraq under the pretense of WMD. Since not finding those, we have done a PR u-turn and begun emphasizing the freedom of the Iraqi people. On the other hand, the Yugoslovia situation was never about WMD. Ever. It was always about removing a brutal dictator who committed massive crimes against humanity (proven) and who was destabalizing Europe.

I cannot really comment on Panama as I am unfamiliar with this situation. What I do know is that we all make mistakes and as long as those are made in good faith, then there is room for acceptance. The bottom line is Clark is a somebody that can beat Bush --- and this is all that matters. Domestically, economically and environmentally, Bush is a dangerous failure.

Posted by: Gary at September 15, 2003 06:18 PM

Mr. Fiedler,

First who actually if they were a 40 year vet of the intellegence community would say so. Everyone I have ever met in the field apart from the ones who sit behind a desk and read copy keep their minds to themselves and do not seek the limelight.

Second, George Bush ducked out of Vietnam because his Dad got him a pass. Clark got a purple heart, and a silver star for fighting in combat. He is a 4 star general...not a perfect man but at least he did not get a nice job in Texas and then never show up for his service like Mr. Bush.

Third, Clinton haters like yourself loose the plot when you blame everything on the Past-President...or the co-president as you call him. I mean what the heck! You would say poverty, crime, drugs, sex before marriage, aids everything was Clinton's fault if you could.

Fear is not the answer Mr. Fiedler. Fear is just what the Republicans and a lot of The Democrats have to offer. That is why the rest of us just don't take part...and your party seems to win....because Republicans can scare the blank out of you better than the Democrats.

Fourth, Your take on Kosovo is flawed. I think Nato went in because it was the 50th anniversary of the treaty and they did not want a land war in Europe going on while the parties were happening. The europeans should have taken the lead on this but were to weak to do anything. That means that we had to come in again and clean it up. Clark at least did this in a way that worked...in Iraq we have not seem any end in sight and as one of my best friends died in combat after the war was over I would say guys like you don't understand what it means to send in people to die...like John my best friend for no reason.

Posted by: Mr. Fiedler is an Idiot at October 31, 2003 09:29 AM

I know it sounds crazy but I like it when Fox news distorts the facts. I think it is providing us with a reason to say the truth so passionately.

We believe we are all alone, and they have the money, which gives them everyones ear. A growing number of us realize that Fox distorts, but still many are buying it. I think the truth is that the democratic party is the more fiscally conservative. There seems to be no end to the liberal spending of the republicans especially when it comes to the military.

However, it does scare me that we too often allow our News organizations (and presidents) to lie to us without question. Fox news can call itself fair and balanced and at the same time be one sided. Where is the truth?

It's here, but we have to earn it, by looking for it. Don't believe everything you hear on Fox news. I think Fox news may be a "Clintonian move".

Posted by: John at January 6, 2004 07:08 PM

Absolutely agreed. Mr. Fiedler would do well to read accounts of Serb paramilitary atrocities in Croatia, and mostly Bosnia before he can join in on the debate over Kosovo.

Posted by: Patrick at January 15, 2004 12:09 PM

Howard Dean and Wesley Clark are definitely the combination that I would
like to see in the White House. Howard mumbles a bit, but he is definitely the
man to get the economy back on track. He
manages budgets the way they ought to be
managed. And Wesley Clark should get us
back in the good graces of the World
Community. I'm guessing we need Wesley
in the #1 spot because of his personal
presentation--more "Presidential" in his
bearing. Although, I think Howard would
make a wonderful President, too. Both of
them--a good combination!

Posted by: Jane Ford at February 4, 2004 12:19 PM