Reply #88: A review of the poster's performance

[theboss]

Clark was still praising Cheney, Perle, Rummy, Condi etc until WELL INTO 2002. Thus, either he had no real problem with the stolen election of 2000, or just didn't find it to be anything to get too worked up about.

-- A lot of people were praising Bush and company well into 2002. Myself included. Granted, I wasn't praising them on the tax cuts or their domestic agenda. But I thought from Sept. 11, 2001 to about mid-2002, they did exactly what any foreign policy team should have done. I agreed with the war in Afghanistan. I felt they sent the right message of strength. Since mid-2002, our foreign policy has been as screwed as our domestic policy.

Clark muffed several big opportunities today to denounce the Iraq war for the oil & power grab that it is, & to directly attack the motives of the war's instigators. Instead, he portrayed US forces as being in Iraq "only to help" -- a major lie, wholly misrepresenting the situation to the US public.

-- No Democrat outside of Kucinich and Sharpton are doing this. And for a good reason. The American people are not angry enough with this Aministration to be anything but terrified of a candidate who screams, "Treason!!!" The tact you are suggesting didn't work for Bob Dornan in '96 and is not going to work today. And the troops themselves are "only to help." I don't think anyone is going to get elected by calling 22-year-old soldiers "occupiers," "terrorists" and "lackies for corporate running dogs."

Though given a whole hour to discuss Iraq, Clark never once mentioned either PNAC or the blatant looting of the US Treasury to shovel billions in reconstruction contracts to GOP crony corporations. Nor did he even once mention the word "oil."

-- This is a tact that the Democrats should take. But carefully. And again only is showing how badly we are screwing up the aftermath of the war.

Though the Clark supporters never tire of yabbering about the general's "brilliance," he is a relatively weak orator, rambling & very slow to the punch. Several times he was lobbed big fat softballs by Russert, and completely blew these juicy opportunities, winding round & round for 30 seconds or so before finally getting to the point -- then delivering the point in a diluted ineffective fashion. (Examples below.)

-- This is really just a matter of opinion. I though Clark did an average job. He looked a little weasly when explaining his comments about the phone call tying Iraq to 9/11 and his comments about the Bushes getting him off CNN. He is clearly still not comfortable in being in the spotlight. Which is not a great sign.

Clark supports the War on Terrorism, which is actually a fraud, simply part of the excuse for projecting US military force into the Caspian basin region. He supports freeing up US soldiers in Iraq, & using them instead to hunt for Osama.

-- Me too. We've been fighting a War on Terror since the first World Trade Center bombing. Clark had a hand in it under Clinton. The question should be "How badly is Bush botching the War on Terror?" The answer is "Quite badly" and Clark is in a great position to say how and to offer solutions.

Clark gave unequivocal praise to Colin Powell, portraying him as an honorable man fighting the good fight.

-- I don't think it would do him much good to pull a Harry Belafonte and call a Powell a "House Negro." Especially since Powell is both more well-known and probably more respected than Clark at this point.