Posted on 09/18/2003 10:09:04 PM PDT by Theodore R.
Why Wesley Clark is dangerous
Posted: September 19, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Gen. Wesley Clark may be the most dangerous person in the presidential race.
More dangerous than Howard Dean? More dangerous than Al Sharpton? More dangerous than Dennis Kucinich?
Yes, more dangerous than any of these men because he could win the Democratic nomination and the presidential election in 2004.
Mark my words: You are going to see a huge shift of support for Clark in the polls. He will become an instant front-runner in the next few days. It's as if the other nine clowns in the race have simply been setting the stage for the anointed one. I wouldn't be surprised.
Clark isn't just dangerous because he can win and replace President Bush. Frankly, I didn't vote for Bush and he has been, overall, an even worse president than I had feared he would be.
But make no mistake: Clark would be much, much worse.
How much worse? Remember Bill Clinton?
Clark has attributes Clinton never had. He is better looking. He has a strong military record that would fool most people into thinking he's a genuine hero and patriot.
And, like Clinton, he will say and do anything he needs to say or do to be elected. Clark is raw ambition personified.
Clark is a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual tax increaser. If you need any more reasons to oppose him actively, consider these:
He nearly started World War III when serving as NATO commander in the unconstitutional, immoral war on Serbia. When the Russians took control of Pristina airport before NATO troops, Clark, at the behest of NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana, ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to take it away from them. Thankfully, his order was disregarded by British Gen. Sir Mike Jackson, who told Clark: "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you."
It was Clark, once again, at the center of the Waco massacre. He was in charge at Fort Hood and was only too happy to cooperate with Attorney General Janet Reno in providing the armor and personnel needed for the military-style assault on the Branch Davidian church.
Clark attended Oxford as a Rhodes scholar with Bill Clinton. But the relationship hardly ended there. It was under Clinton's watch that Clark became a rising star in the military. And once his military career was over, he found a home working for the Stephens Group in Arkansas the same business incubator that fostered the Clintons' rise to power.
Clark's nickname among those who served under him should give you an idea of the extent of his megalomania. He was referred to as "the Supreme Being." Col. David Hackworth called him the "Ultimate Perfumed Prince" and added "he's far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die."
If this isn't enough for you, there's plenty more. But, consider the distinct possibility that he is, in addition to being a serious candidate in his own right, potentially a stalking horse for the other Clinton Hillary.
Can you not imagine Clark-Clinton or Clinton-Clark as the ultimate dream ticket for the Democrats in 2004?
It could happen. We could find our nation back where it was between 1992 and 2000. I have a feeling, because of his utter ruthlessness and predisposition to kill innocent civilians in Serbia and Kosovo, that Clark is potentially even more dangerous than Clinton.
As one of Clinton's enemies, victims and targets, that's a disturbing thought.
What can we do about this threat?
Clark has the ability to fool people. He's said to be charming. He's said to have charisma. He is undoubtedly the pick of the globalists like George Soros, currently raising $75 million to pick the next president. It's time to sound the alarm to alert your friends, your neighbors and your co-workers to the real Wesley Clark.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill and Hill are not running Dubya and Clark are.
Farah didn't vote for Dubya the first time and now seems enamored of Clark.
Farah sucks. Clark sucks. Dubya will crush Clark, because the rats will not vote for Clark. The Iraq war is ripping the rat party in two because the rats don't like hawks.
Clinton Dukakis Mondale Carter McGovern Humphry
Rat warriors have run before but they have not won the nomination in modern times. That is why Vietnam vet Sen John Kerry and Vietnam vet Sen Bob Kerrey got there hats handed to them by a basketball player as the only competition to Gore in 2000. Do you remember Gore and Bradley fighting for votes by promising the most homos in the military? You have to go back to Kennedy's "sexed up" military record to find a successful rat Hawk.
Clark is a joke. He is the flavor of the week that none of the rats has tried yet.
What must be done to complete a great victory Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air.
I may agree with some of what Clark has written here but I will never vote for a rat. The rats will not agree with Clark's already stated opinions and do not think that Dean or Kerry will not inform the rats. The rats will not vote for Clark. Every rat except Lieberman has distanced himself from the Iraq war. There is a reason why they are doing this. It is because they want to win the nomination and unfortunately for Clark he needs to win the nomination before he can run against Dubya in the general election.
That actually could help defeat him. He's indicated through secondary sources that he would be willing to serve as her #2. He would then go down with her ship.
They'll take him over W, that's for sure.
If your point is that they won't nominate him, don't be so sure. They'll nominate whoever they think will get the swing vote. And they do seem to appreciate his sense of presence. Consider this little contribution from an irresolutely anti-military cartoonist:
Your numerous points run over my head, and I must say I don't think you read the article in question.
The article, "Why Wesley Clark is Dangerous?" Farah tries to scare America about the dangers of General Clark's potential candidacy?
Have you heard of a back handed compliment? Farah offers front loaded criticism designed to tell the enemies of Dubya that Clark is a winner, all while he pretends he is not taking sides because he doesn't like Dubya either.
Farah claims Clark can win because of his good looks and "strong military record," all while pointing out the reasons why conservatives should dispair an inevitable Clark nomination.
I'm sorry my points went over your head.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.