Reply #110: My take on your points

[Qutzupalotl]

This is how I see it:
We’re not there to occupy it; we’re only there to help. So let’s give them their country back.”
(OH, we're ONLY THERE TO HELP, eh? Does Clark really believe this?
We as a country want to help. Bush has ulterior motives (oil and power), but a Clark presidency would want to get out quickly. The transcript says:"the first thing you’ve got to do is you’ve got to surrender exclusive U.S. control over this mission." That ends the profit motive. Future contracts on Iraqi resources would be open to competition from other countries.

they could have provided food and water right away. But we didn’t do that...
(Here comes the idea that the invasion could have been a "success," with just a little better planning. In effect, this reduces a grotesque war crime based on blatant lies to a mere matter of unwisely-selected tactics. It decriminalizes the war.)
Agreed. I don't think Clark sees the war as a criminal operation. Even so, it's on Bush's head, not the next president's. Clark is trying to reach mainstream voters. In doing so (should he be the nominee), he'll get most Democrats and a portion of moderate Republicans who don't like what Bush has done--but not Bush's base, of course. To call it a war crime, which it is, will be seen by the center as strident partisanship. It'll also be up to the international criminal court, which Clark will let the U.S. join (I hope), to decide Bush's fate--not necessarily the presidential candidates, though they can call attention to it. So I don't see his lack of anger at the choice to remove Hussein early as a negative. On the contrary, it shows some political savvy. There will be plenty of individual voices calling Bush a war criminal, and they may convert a few people; but a candidate with that message will not be seen by the middle as representing them.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the war in Iraq is legal?
GEN. CLARK: Legal? Well, it’s technically legal, yeah. (WTF?? Of all things to say, he chooses this!!)
I hear you. But according to some, the first Gulf War didn't end--it was a cease-fire. (I don't buy that, BTW.) Clinton bombed when he felt it was necessary. Bush would have had the same authority--the threat of force to make inspections mandatory--but wanted a full-scale invasion.

GEN. CLARK: Well, you have the United Nations Security Council authorization against weapons of mass destruction. Now, the problem is that all of the underpinnings for that, they’re not there. We haven’t found those weapons of mass destruction. I wouldn’t have gone to war at that point. We didn’t have our alliances in shape. We didn’t have a plan for what happened next. We hadn’t exhausted all the diplomatic possibilities. But there was a resolution...
(MAJOR BLUNDER! He calls the war "legal." He mentions the UN resolution against WMD, but doesn't mention that the Security Council refused to authorize the war itself - which was obviously more relevant. Here, he is just helping to bolster Bush's case!)
I see this as an undermining of Bush's case in some respects, except for the war-was-illegal angle--which is better tried in the ICC than by impeachment, given the congressional makeup. He said he wouldn't have gone to war at that point. He's more prudent than Bush, IOW. Several more steps were needed--a coalition, a plan, and the exhaustion of all peaceful alternatives. Clark has said repeatedly that war would be an absolute last resort with him.

(Here, Clark fails to scream YES, ABSOLUTELY!)
We partisans would have loved that, it's true. But it would have a marginalizing effect on his campaign, from a centrist's point of view. I agree his answers could be a lot more concise.

(Very disappointing. A blown opportunity. Finally gets to the point after 30 seconds of aimless rambling.)
I don't see it as that bad. He wasn't prepared with a short sound bite, but he did say they planned to get everybody behind the war by using the WMD issue, and did say--eventually--that Bush misled us.

(Vague & still very slow to the punch. Not crisp. Again, he isn't portraying what happened as the action of criminals; he's advancing no clear theory for what happened. He implies something unkosher happened, but isn't willing to say just what it was.)
Agree, he could definitely be crisper and punchier. But I don't see his lack of calling the President of the United States a criminal as a deal-breaker. He knows the score, he's playing it close to his chest, I think. As the campaign heats up, especially on the final stretch, he could still play that card. But it's his ace. He can only use it once for maximum effect. Use it too much, and he marginalizes his campaign.

Why did we distract ourselves from the war on terror? Why are we spending $150 billion on Iraq?
MR. RUSSERT: What’s the answer?
GEN. CLARK: I think the answer is that it was going to be very difficult to go after al-Qaeda. (A remarkably clumsy & feeble answer!)
I disagree strongly here. I think he nailed Bush with this. We went to Iraq because we were having trouble finding Osama, and there were midterm elections coming, is the implication. I have to hand it to the General on this one.

GEN. CLARK: So I think there were mixed motives on this. But the administration needs to come clean with the American people and not just blame the intelligence community.
(This is a confused sloppy mess. According to Clark, no great crime has been committed. Rather, there is just an implication that things could have been done better. He says things are "a mess," but there is no talk of wrongdoing, no one is specifically to blame, & there is no mention whatever of impure motives. In short, there is a little hint of vague criticism, & nothing more.)
I disagree. "Coming clean" means admit you did something wrong. It paints Bush as a man unwilling to accept the consequences of his actions, always seeking to blame others. A shady implication is all that is required here. He's no Kucinich, he's no Dean, but he'll do for a lot of people.

# GEN. CLARK: I love General Powell, he’s a tremendous guy, and he’s part of that team and he’s worked against it. He’s done his best to be loyal to the commander in chief. That’s the position he accepted. He’s put forth his views. The struggles in this administration are monumental. Some people have said that it’s the greatest split ever...
(This is a crock. Powell is as bad as the rest of the cabal. He sat & lied for an hour to the UN last winter presenting fraudulent "evidence," remember?)
I don't see it as a crock, so maybe we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Despite Powell's Mi Lai past, despite the vial at the U.N., he was "doing his best to be loyal to the commander-in-chief." In other words, Powell's a moderate surrounded by neocon nutcases. I think that's true. Remember that Powell is said to have exploded, "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit!" at one point before the UN presentation. He did his best to vet the information (which still wasn't good enough, LOL). Powell's butted heads with Rummy and others. So of this administration, Powell's not as bad as most. Of course, that's not saying much.

------------
Full disclosure: I like Clark. I've only given money to Dean so far, so I guess I'm undecided. Really, I like all the candidates for one reason or another, but I think Clark is strongest vs. Bush. I will work for whoever the Democratic nominee is. Getting Bush out is my overriding priority.