A Review of Clark's glaring deficiencies on MTP Sunday...

[RichM]

Most of what follows here will be excerpts from the transcript. But to make it easy to follow, I'll summarize the main points here.

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. (Yes, I know he has criticized the SCOTUS decision when specifically asked about it. But someone who truly believed the election was stolen would not have been heaping praise on the thieves, as late as 2002.)

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.

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."

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.)

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.

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

My position is not exactly that Clark was "terrible" on MTP today. Rather, it's that he just doesn't see the Bush team as "bad guys" at all, & his criticism of the Iraq war is a very limited one. He upholds major tenets of US propaganda, such as the idea that "we're only in Iraq to help." He says the Bushies don't have "a strategy for success" in Iraq -- but this very phrase shows he thinks that with some tweaking here & there, the invasion could have been a "success." (In fact, he explicitly says so, in one of the excerpts below.) A success - despite the fact that the war was based on lies, with unstated goals of seizing oil reserves by force, & enriching political cronies!

Below are transcript excerpts; my comments are in red.

===============================

GEN CLARK (near the beginning) ".... Give them staff and let them start forming up the kinds of committees they need to have visibility over and make decisions on what’s being done in Iraq. Give the country back to the Iraqis. 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? This is standard-issue US propaganda; the same exact line was used in Vietnam.)

MR. RUSSERT: ...May be too late. You think we may lose Iraq?
GEN. CLARK: I think it may be too late to strengthen this relationship. Now, let’s talk about Iraq for a second. I think there was a window of opportunity at the end of the military operation to be able to bring the Iraqi people on board. They could have seen a really smooth, effective, impressive U.S. occupation. American soldiers could have been in every village, they could have known the names of the people there, 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.)

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!!)
MR. RUSSERT: Why?
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!)

(Now, talking about intelligence on supposed Iraqi WMD- )
MR. RUSSERT: You said it, the president said it, President Clinton said it, the Germans and the French said it.
GEN. CLARK: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: What happened? Where is it? Was there a colossal intelligence failure?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I think when you look at intelligence, you get indicators. It’s like a sort of gray goo as you look at it. You can’t see through it, exactly, and if you try to touch it, it gets real sticky and you might actually interfere with the information that you’re getting back. So you have to draw inferences from it. The inferences that I had drawn and I last saw the intelligence just before I retired in May of 2000...
(Here, Clark goes off into a longwinded spiel that isn't worth re-copying. He absolutely fails to give a clean direct response to the question. Russert is openly inviting him to lay it all out on the table; Clark can't or won't do it.)

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that President Bush deliberately misled the American people by hyping intelligence in order to invade Iraq?
(Here, Clark fails to scream YES, ABSOLUTELY!)
GEN. CLARK: I think there was an effort to create the best possible case to justify their decision to go after Iraq. I didn’t see it at the time. I heard this comment from the joint staff that we were going to go after Iraq. But as I worked through the evidence and talked to people later on, I realized that at the very beginning—I read it in Bob Woodward’s book—there was discussion of Iraq as an easier target than Afghanistan, discussion of Iraq as, “you could really change the Middle East.” People were saying, “Well, the road to peace in Jerusalem runs through Baghdad.” And so I think it’s exactly what Paul Wolfowitz said in the Vanity Fair piece about six months ago. He said, “The lowest common denominator”—I’m sort of paraphrasing—the way we could get everybody to agree was talk about weapons of mass destruction, but there were many reasons to go after Iraq. Mislead? Well, yes. I mean, I think the information wasn’t there to justify the attack the way it was presented.
(Very disappointing. A blown opportunity. Finally gets to the point after 30 seconds of aimless rambling.)

(later, Russert gives him a 2nd chance at the same question asked earlier about intelligence-- )
MR. RUSSERT: If we have not found the weapons of mass destruction, why isn’t the administration and others all moving as forcefully as possible to find out what happened? Was there a colossal intelligence failure? And should we not know about it?
GEN. CLARK: I think this administration knows what happened. I think this administration recognizes that they took the intelligence, they made the best possible case for it. The intelligence information was always a little shaky. I don’t think they ever had specific locations for where the actual weapons were, because we would have struck them if they had. And I know that Tony Zinni struck those sites back in December of 1998. There was no reason to suspect they’d been reoccupied unless we had it on satellite.
(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.)

MR. RUSSERT: Will we ever find out the truth? What did the CIA know and when did they know it?
GEN. CLARK: I hope we will, but I hope we’ll ask a deeper question than that, because I don’t think this goes simply to the intelligence agencies. I think it goes to the heart of the decision-making process of this administration. I think they owe the American people an explanation. Why, when we were struck by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda—why did we determine to attack Iraq? 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!)It required a new way of thought, new organizations. And this was an administration that was concerned about its image, concerned about reassuring the public, and had a predisposition to believe that somehow it could use military force to clean up the Middle East during this period after the fall of the Soviet Union and before the rise of the “next great power.”
MR. RUSSERT: You went...
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.)

(On Colin Powell -- )
MR. RUSSERT: As I showed in May of 2001, you were talking about the president’s great team. In your speech at the Center for American Progress, you said this. “This was the ‘dream team.’ Remember, Cheney ... Rumsfeld ... Powell ... What did the ‘dream team’ give us? An election-driven, poll-driven, ideologically-driven foreign policy.” Take out Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, do you believe that Colin Powell would ever participate in an election-driven, poll-driven, ideologically-driven foreign policy?
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?)

[xultar]

1. One ? for you, Which candidate are you supporting?

Just an honest, thoughtful, and appropriate question.

[sangh0]

19. I'd love to see an answer to that

.

[La_Serpiente]

2. Geezus

You sure take this seroiusly.

Is this bashing?

Though the Clark supporters never tire of yabbering about the general's "brilliance,"

[xultar]

6. Nope, we don't. Dean is brilliant also...he couldn't have become

a Dr and Govenor if he wasn't. I think Brilliance is a great campaining point for all the Dem candidates cuz the fact that * is as dumb as a rock wasn't played enough in 2000 and look @ what we got for our politeness.

[DemCam]

80. I just shook Clark's hand for the first time this morning.

He also said that Bush is implementing his plan. It was fun and great to see him in person.

[vi5]

3. Who do you support?

I'm pulling an amazing Karnac and have an envelope up to my head with my guess in it.

And none of this "well I like a few candidates". Who is your first choice?

[Hep]

33. I love how

no one judges the merits of a candidate criticism until they know who the poster supports. Be careful, answer wrong and they'll dismiss it on it's face, regardless of its actual merit!

[vi5]

37. Well only because we keep hearing constantly...

How Dean is the only candidate who is attacked visciously and how the poor Dean supporters are so put upon by post that attack their candidate.

So yeah, just as Dean attacking other candidates and then crying foul when other candidates reciprocated, this is the same deal.

[Hep]

58. So what? No, really. SO WHAT?

How Dean is the only candidate who is attacked visciously and how the poor Dean supporters are so put upon by post that attack their candidate.

You wanna be so pissed off at Dean and his supporters that you will readily dismiss anything critical of any candidate if it's posted by a Dean person? Look, no one claims Dean is the only one who is attacked. He's not, it's pobvious. I'd like for you to provide ONE quote from a person here who claims he's the only one who is attacked.

Yes, there are rabid Dean supporters. There are rabid EVERYONE supporters. And those people make bad claims and take things out of context. If you think Dean supporters are the only ones who do it, then you're no better than the people you admonish.

I just think it's odd that you are so ready, willing, and ABLE to discredit a person's opinions just because of who they support, as if it is relevant. Whatever floats your boat.

[vi5]

66. I'm an undecided and I don't have a candidate in the primary..

And at this point I don't plan on it. At all. I am planning on supporting whoever the nominee is, no matter who the nominee is. I will donate my money to that person when they get the nomination, I will slap stickers on my car, register voters and do everything in my power to get them elected. Whether that person is Dean, Clark, Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, or anyone else. Yes ANYONE else.

And I'm tired of EVERY candidate's supporters who focus on attacking the other candidates rather than attacking bush*. And this unbiased observer sees more of that from Dean candidates than anyone else. You want to call that opinion, fine. It is. But since the beginning of all the candidates campaigning I've never seen anything on here like what I've seen from Dean supporters. I'm not going to let that cloud my decision to support Dean or not, but I'm not going to let it slide or pretend it doesn't exist on this board because it does.

[Hep]

99. If You're undecided, you're in the wrong place

This is the LAST place I'd send anyone for reasonable or accurate information on ANY of the candidates.

And I'm tired of EVERY candidate's supporters who focus on attacking the other candidates rather than attacking bush*. And this unbiased observer sees more of that from Dean candidates than anyone else.

Bias or not, I don't see how that is possible. I mean, we could throw names back and forth and embarrass a lot of people. ANd I know that there are some rabid Dean fans, but I would have to say that between Dean, Clark, Kerry, and Kucinich, it's spread pretty evenly. And yeah, it bugs the hell out of me, too.

BTW, if you DO wanna trade names back and forth, we can do it via PM ;)

[FrankBooth]

4. The never-ending assault

On and on and on and on and on ...

[Renew Deal]

14. Does anyone really care?

This is the expected BS. Where are the pictures of Clark from the Spanish Inquisition?

[wtmusic]

18. Except RichM provides reasons

for his BS, you don't for yours. Understand?

[Renew Deal]

26. No comprende

It is all spin. I can spin those a whole other way. The difference is I am not desperate to try to discredit anyone.

[wtmusic]

61. I agree on the tone

No need to get nasty...but to call it BS without backing it up? I'd love to hear your spin. How Clark isn't flat-out wrong about the war being legal.

[Bread and Circus]

104. Exactly, it is a bunch of inane spin....

I think Clark has made reference to PNAC more than
the rest so why is RichM giving him a hard time if
he didn't get specific about it on Sunday.

As far as I know, Clark is the only one to make reference
to PNAC in a major debate.

It seems like Clark has to reach a higher bar than the
rest to satisfy some here.

[Terwilliger]

30. I see you can't challenge his opinions

you just call it "expected BS"

Funny, that's what Republicans think of Dem attacks on Bush too.

[kstewart33]

5. I must have seen a different MTP Sunday

I thought he was solid all the way. Every sentence, every word was not perfect. But the overall impression was that he thinks, actually thinks, before he gives an answer.

He is a very smart man with a lot of character. That may well not be enough in this country, but it's admirable just the same.

[xultar]

8. You didn't u were watching MTP I think the other guy was watching

FAUX News outakes of MTP

[monarch]

7. I thought he did great

I'm Dean supporter and I watched the show (I often don't because I'm usually afraid one of our guys will get blind-sided). He was clearly in command and I thought his best line was something to the effect that "if you lose a job, you lose a piece of yourself."

[xultar]

11. Thanks for being fair Monarch, I like your style. I'd love to

have additional issue and candidate stance discussions with you on other threads. I bet I'd learn alot from you about Dean that I don't know or haven't clued in on.

[wndycty]

9. Should I start a thread complaining about the attacks on Clark or. . .

. . .should I go running to the mods? No actually I will do what I normally do. . .respect the opinions of others even when they attack my candidate.

[xultar]

17. Bingo! Clarkies, Don't sart any threads attacking Dean or any

other candidate. Our candidate has class and respect and we should not deminish his reputation by doing things that would tarnish his image.

When I see an attac thread about Dean or the other candidates If I don't agree with the attack, I say so. If I do agree partially I don't continue the attack I try to take it to a level where we discuss the basic/foundational issues.

I always try to keep these things in focus cuz we may be working with the supporters of another campaign after the nomination. No, need to alienate or burn brideges. Our goal is to take the entire EXECUTIVE BRANCH back next year.

[wtmusic]

10. The war was illegal, period

This has been rehashed a thousand times. When will the lie die?

Although I am not as vituperatively opposed to Clark winning the nomination, I do think his changing views reveal him as a hypocrite and opportunist.

It would be nice if you'd provide a link to the transcript.

[RichM]

29. Here's a link to the transcript -

http://www.msnbc.com/news/994273.asp

[xultar]

34. So which candidate do you support? Asking again....politely.

[RichM]

48. I provided substance for discussion in my post. My bio is not important.

Your question is a rather low-level one, that reflects inability to deal with ideas, or to get beyond candidate horse-races.

[sangh0]

53. Sources and their politics

are relevant. That's why I don't link from FreeRepublic or the WSJ, unless it's to demonstrate a lie.

[xultar]

57. No, you didn't, your stance is absolutely relevant...you could be

a freeper, if you are then I need to know. If you are going to share your OPINION, and that is what you've done. Your BIAS becomes substantive to the discussion.

SO I'll ask again. Politely and with a smile :) What candidate do you support?

Oh by the way I thought we weren't supposed to start a thead in GD with our OPINIONS.

[RichM]

60. Okay, since you asked so nicely --

I support Dennis Kucinich. (I still don't think that's really important in evaluating Clark's positions.) I also am someone who believes that the Democratic Party stinks, for the most part, because of its cowardice & its willingness to move rightwards to appease Republicans. If Kucinich is not the nominee, I will probably vote for a 3rd party candidate. And if Clark is the nominee, I will definitely work against him as hard as I possibly can.

[CWebster]

65. Similar

except I will extend my tolerance to Dean.

[Cocoa]

74. look on the bright side

at least you know Clark is not like Kucinich, thanks to Clark's apparent honesty.

If Clark had come on MTP and pretended to be Kucinich, or Nader, would you have believed him? Would that have made you feel better about Clark?

[1songbird]

82. Foolish men are known by their foolish words

[mitchtv]

117. people like that disgust me

sorry, I have no words except maybe "Bush enabler"

[TacticalPeek]

93. 'work against him as hard as I possibly can'

Since this is electoral politics, wouldn't you agree that logically this would mean supporting and voting for Bush, since a vanity vote for a third party candidate risks letting Clark 'slip' into the WH?

While I can understand a stand on principle, it is too abstruse for me to grok the act of casting one for aWol.

[Selwynn]

108. I think its absolutely important for evaluation Clark's positions...

..to be honest about any bias you might have.

[Blue_Roses]

133. get ready

cause there's no way DK will get the nomination. He flounders around on issues worse than a fish out of water---maybe that's it.

[CWebster]

64. You see, here it is again

"What candidate do you support" It is the Clarkies newest tact, rather than address the content they search for a target or an agenda, to set up a conflict and move the target.

Watch for it.

[Terwilliger]

71. You need to know?

You can't form your own opinions without the acknowledgement of others who think as you do?

And you have the rules wrong...maybe you should read up on them.

By the way...shouldn't your BIAS make one question your response?

[xultar]

62. Here's an opportunity for you to deal with an idea.

Do you believe that a persons politicts however minor bleeds into their thoughts and ideas while conducting a discussion?

Do you believe that the politicts of the officals @ FAUX News determines the direction and slant of their news coverage?

[Bread and Circus]

105. As if Dean never has changing views....

That seems to be his trademark...what does that
make Dean?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. Clark doesn't see the Bush team as "bad guys"

which is exactly why he could win.
Not everyone in America (not even a majority in fact) "hates" Bush- Extremism will not win an election and Clark (and Kerry) knows that.

[wtmusic]

16. Yeah, Bush isn't so bad!

Extremism won't win for anybody. I don't "hate" Bush; as a matter of fact I think I'll vote for him! :eyes:

[Hep]

36. OK, but

I don't want to vote for anyone who doesn't see the Bush admin as being bad guys.

I think Bush is the amiable figurehead of an organized group of intellectual fascists. THey ARE the bad guys. If you're serious about Clark not thinking they're bad guys, I may not be able to vote for him.

[CWebster]

13. Welcome

Good analytical observations, overdue after the pep squad's cheers finally grow faint.

[Mountainman]

15. What a effing waist of time your post is!

If Clark only appealed to the the voters that would agree with you Bush would be Pres for 4 more years.



You can't be such a purist and win the White House!

[RichM]

56. Not a waste of my time at all!

I assure you, I enjoyed doing it. It didn't take long, & I think the dismal quality of responses very much proves my underlying point. There are over 50 responses so far, almost all of them angry -- and NOT A SINGLE ONE even TRIES to deal with any of the points I raised.

[xultar]

59. I'm trying to deal with a point you raised...Which candidate do

you support. Then we can get down to business... I don't see any anger in my posts. It's just you and me havin' a beer in a bar.

Which candidate do you support?

[1songbird]

20. OH PUUUUUUUULEEEEEEEZZZZ

What were you watching? He did talk about the misuse of information and he even said that you can not just look at the CIA. You have to look at how the information was used and who was responsible for misusing it. I was suprised and impressed that he went this far. He alluded to the PNAC's evil strategy without specifically using their name. This is more than many candidates have said. No candidate to date has talked about the PNAC specifically. He was quite on point. Stop hating!

[mmonk]

21. Your deficiencies

mentioned are based on your perceptions which I don't think the public will share.

[CWebster]

22. Now look at what you dog gone done!

RichM, get with the dog gone program!

[annxburns]

24. Whatever happens to Clark ....

... and I have been skeptical about his campaign skills, he kicked ass on MTP. Here is something from the Clark blog ...

AmPol loved Clark's MTP:
http://americanpolitics.com/20031116punditpap.html
(scroll down 2/3 of the way.)
Meet the Press
Wesley Clark sums it up, and exposes Tim as uninformed, biased, an empty
attack poodle: "This president loves to take credit, but he will not
take responsibility.... Did you read the rest of the article, Tim?"
Players: Tim Russert, retired general and Democratic presidential
candidate Wesley Clark
Tim Russert was clearly out to draw some blood from Wesley Clark on this
morning's Meet the Press. Unfortunately for Tim, who seems to relish in
the sport of attacking and demeaning Democrats, Clark -- who seems to
have reviewed Russert's appallingly biased and obnoxious treatment of
Howard Dean a little over a month ago -- not only was firm, relaxed and
in command of so much information it makes one's head spin, but also
brought along a few blunt instruments in his own arsenal, putting the
smackdown on the sniveling Russert on a few occasions.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

23. Thought Clark was great - so did everyone I talked to...

Even my friends who are Dean supporters and also my Republican friends think he did very well.

I think you might have a bit of a "jaundiced" view. My guess is that you must be a very "emotional" supporter of another candidate (Dean, Kerry, Bush, Kucinich, Edwards) and are not capable of being very objective.... You are grasping at some very elusive straws...

[xultar]

31. You've hit the nail on the head...Dean Supporters and Repugs

thought he did well. That translates into BROAD appeal. BROAD appeal is needed to win. Once we accept that fact we'll be much better off.

[Hep]

43. I disagree

broad appeal is important, but not that broad. That is to say, we're not out to get republicans to vote for us. We're out to get Democrats to vote PERIOD.

We need to focus on GOTV, not conservative outreach.

[bhunt70]

73. I disagree.

We need to get as many people as possible to vote for us. Thats how we win. If they are republicans who vote for someone I admire then good for them, it doesnt change my views.

Inclusion is the key to winning, exclusion makes us losers again.

[Hep]

102. Include WHO?

Remember, we got more votes last time, and if you combine greens, we on the left blew Bush out.

Now, I'm all for a broad political perspective, but getting republicans to vote for the D candidate is a waste of time. But allow me to elaborate.

When I went to political Activist training, I was told that you have three groups, Red, Yellow, and Green, ordered in amount of openness to your ideals. Tons and tons of liberal people didn't vote in 2000. They are receptive to our ideals but lazy, disenfranchised, or apathetic. It's a lot easier to get them to go to the polls than it will be to tell people on the right to switch their affiliation. Remember, Republicans are loyal.

I'm not saying we exclude ANYONE. I'm saying we need to focus our efforts in the right direction.

[sangh0]

112. Confederate flag wavers, that's who!

I notice you haven't commented on Dean's pursuit of of a group that you would consider "Red"

[sangh0]

76. "not conservative outreach"?

So who was the "confederate flag" supposed to appeal to, liberals?

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

119. More "Attack the critic, ignore the issue"

from a Dean supporter

[kerry-is-my-prez]

94. uh - weren't you the one who wanted the confederate flag carriers to

vote for us? Are you saying that Republicans are WORSE than Confederate flag carriers? You've got a strange set of values... I'd prefer Republicans to out-and-out racists. Or, if you prefer: "out-and-out insensitive louts who don't care about other's feelings by carrying around a flag that they know damn well insults about 40% of the population."

Sorry - I like Dean (my favorite ticker is Clark/Dean) - but that's where he and I part company... THAT's where I draw the line.

As someone who taught Diversity classes I feel very strongly that if a group of people are hurt by something - you do not insult them by flaunting that something. Whether or not it is a group of Jewish people, blacks, hispanics, women, white men - you just don't decide to celebrate the Nazi flag, the Confederate flag, put Arnold Schwarzenneger posters up in the workplace. If you want to be a jerk go ahead and put it on your car - but realize that by doing so - you are making a statement about yourself: "I'm an insensitive clod who does not care about other's feelings."

[Hep]

106. Vote for us?

Not all confederate flag wavers are Republicans, especially in the south. And I'm saying that our policies (health care for all, education, etc) should have broad appeal. It doesn't mean that we have to go to Nascar races and evangelize to people on the right (not that all people at nascar races are conservative. I know, I've been to my share of races).

You taught diversity classes and suggest that everyone who flies a confederate flag is racist, or insensitive, or doesn't care about the feelings of others? You may need ADVANCED diversity training.

[sangh0]

113. Avoiding the issue

Earlier you said Dems should NOT go after conservatives. Since it's reasonable to assume that the Confederate flag wavers aren't liberals, why haven't you commented on Dean's pursuit of conservatives?

[treepig]

25. come on people! we finally have a war criminal on our side

and all you can do is dis him?

[DemCam]

77. Can't get anybody to say why?

Why do you define Clark a war criminal?

[treepig]

96. do a google search and you'll find plenty of information

much of it is no doubt suspect (so i'm not going to post any particle post without a bit more research) - however, spend a few minutes (or hours) looking through the returns and you'll probably at least start suspecting that maybe, just maybe, we have a bona-fide progressive/liberal (if you believe clark's campaign rhetoric) war criminal in our camp. and it's about time!!

[SahaleArm]

124. If I google hard enough I can find what I want to hear.

Truth, lies, innuendo, it's all out there wainting for someone to affirm it's existence.

[deminflorida]

27. Well I'll put it to you simply like this....

He wasn't asked but I'll bet you if he was, he'd know how big the U.S. Military is.

:kick:

[Cocoa]

28. I'm glad he gave his views on the legality of the war

What would be the point of him giving the interview if he is not going to give us his views, especially regarding the area he's an expert in?

[billbuckhead]

39. I thought Clark did pretty good.Why isn't Bush held rersponsible for 9-11?

If only Russert would cross examine Cheney or Rumsfeld as vigorously.

[DemCam]

79. His response was excellent here.

That Kosovo was "technically" illegal (because of China and Russia' veto this time...though we had access to Nato and Europe needed to act for humanitarian reasons)...but justtified for humanitarian reasons.

That Iraq was "technically legal" because of the UN resolution...but it wasn't justified because Iraq was not a threat to us or their neighbors at this time.

[Egnever]

32. My only real problem with this interview

Is that it was completely centered on Iraq. I dont have a shred of doubt in me that Clark could handle Iraq better than the pResident has. So a full hour on the subject is a wasted hour for the General IMHO

Its the rest of his policies that I want to hear about. Its like puting kerry on and spending the hour on Vietnam. Whats the point?

Clark could never speak on this subject again and I think the general public would take it as a given that he would have more insight into Iraq than bush. Its the rest of the country that is important when it comes to clark and hardly any of that was addressed what about the economy what about trade what about the environment what about oil dependance what about schools ...the list goes on and on.

I wanted to hear what clark would do in other areas. I take the word General in front of his name to mean he has military experiance. I dont need a whole hour on it.

Having said that I think he did just fine on the military answers. Sure he could have been more agressive in pointing out what a crock it was from the start, but i dont think he did badly at answering the questions put to him. In fact I think he did just fine.

But what a waste of an hour. Is there more to Clark than being a general? That MTP certainly didnt show me anything else. I felt like I was watching a pundit show on Iraq during the lead up to the war all over again.

Clark did fine. Tim screwed the pooch by ignoring all the other issues that he could have asked Clark about.

[Cocoa]

44. I thought that too

I thought it was ok to focus more than normal on Iraq, given the fact that the worst single loss of American soldiers' lives had just happened.

But, you're right, it was a lost opportunity to see another side of Clark, and that was Russert's fault.

[Egnever]

47. You are right

I hadnt really thought about the fact that there was such a huge loss of life in Iraq that day or the day before. It certainly does move Iraq to the top of that days agenda.

I guess that makes it somewhat more understandable.

[Mountainman]

46. No matter how good the Dem candidate is on domestic issues,

if he/she can't convince the voters he/she is better than the Repubs on national security he/she will lose, period, end of discussion.

Any Dem candidate can best the repubs on domestic issues. Clark is the only one who can best them on national security.

[Egnever]

54. Umm I Dissagree with that completely

The Republican record on national secureity is a joke. It wont take much to point out all the flaws in thier aproach and any one of our candidates should have an easy go of it unless they have thier hands tied behind thier back with a vote of support for this war. Even then the bush record on security is so pathetic they can probably overcome it.

Homeland security remains underfunded. Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with terorism. Osama is still at large and making threats. Afghanistan is still a mess. NK is still making noises about nuclear threats. Iran and a bunch of others are trying to arm themselves as fast as they can against us. The EU is talking about pooling thier resources to field and international force to counter ours..... The list goes on and on.

Please feel free to tell me one thing bush is good on as far as national security goes. The only thing I can think of is making us more secure by taking away our civil liberties and the effects of that are questionable especially when all of the abuses of the patriot act can be pointed to.

Far as I can tell bush is a walking time bomb waiting to blow up there is so much wrong with this administration its only a matter of time before it all comes to a head.

[DemCam]

75. Tim asked the question, folks....

Put the heat where it belongs!

[Egnever]

83. Didn't I?

Last sentance is Tim screwed the pooch.

[DemCam]

87. You did indeed...

I was just amking a general commnent on the lament that there wasn't anything but foreign policy and old bashings discussed.

[Bread and Circus]

107. I agree and that's the whole problem of this primary....

it's all about where people stood on the IWR....
something that's already a done deal.

It should be about what we are going to do about the future.

But hey, if the Democratic Party wants to tear itself up
over parsing the IWR, I say let them get what they deserve.

[roughsatori]

35. Clark strikes me as a creepy, vapid, opportunist,

Someone can have an extraordinary IQ and still be a creepy, vapid, opportunist. But, I have to laugh when I read the responses to your thread. Never are the points you make refuted.

They funniest thing from his cheerleaders is when they post about him being "sexy" and "handsome." I guess I just am not attracted to senior citizens with blank stares. Maybe that will change when I get my AARP card.

BTW: if Kerry has "French" hair, let's be fair, Clark has "Republican" hair.

[DemCam]

86. Just met him this morning....

And I can attest to his Democratic smile...his great handshake...and he's handsome as hell.

Sleek...and graceful...like a powerful cat.

[the_real_38]

38. He's toast...

... Russert just slapped him around - when they had that clip of him talking about what a great job Bush and his men were doing in handling the War on Terrorism, he was done. Wesley Clark is a disaster waiting to happen in the General Election - do not vote for this man!

[1songbird]

49. No, Russert was on the

receiving end of a B**** slap. Clark handled the questions very well and put Russert on the spot. You have to remember WHEN Clark said Bush was doing a great job on the war on terrorism. Many people believe that it was the right thing to do in invading Afghanistan. I believed it and I thought they did a good job in Afghanistan until they changed course, stopped looking for Osama, and started in on Iraq. This is when many people jumped off the ship. Militarily they moved through Bagdad well and you can give them credit if you like. They did not have a plan and as such have screwed the pooch this is what Clark is saying and this is the message that America will listen to and accept. I hope many give him their votes because he can win.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1songbird]

69. Furthermore,

Clark has shown that he is a realist not an pessimist. Let them run those little ads of him being congratulatory towards the administration it will backfire on them because it helps to debunk this new theory about Dems being too negative and pessimistic. Clark shows that it's nothing personal, but wrong is wrong and right is right and he calls it as he sees it.

[Stuckinthebush]

40. Hmmm...some good points

However, he is miles better than Bush. I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination.

Who else is with me?

[Hep]

41. What have we learned, kids?

Well, we learned that if the guy on TV isn't your guy, he does a really bad job. If the guy on TV is your guy, he was perfect.

Next lesson: Flip flop or personal growth?

[xultar]

45. That seems about right....except I'm kinda digging Dennis K.

I haven't seen him on TV much but I kinda like him. I don't know why. Maybe cuz he's single and I'm lookin! I also like Kerry and Dean, I respect Dean's anger. Honestly I love Sharpton like everyone else I'd love for him to get Press Secretary for the new Adminstration. That would be a GAS!

As a black female I don't know why I'm not supporting Carol. There is a black female candidate out there waiting to emerge. She may be me. I don't know. I do know that Carol isn't the one.

[democratreformed]

50. Well said!

IMHO

[Cocoa]

63. that's correct

I don't get why a Kucinich supporter wants Clark to pretend to be Kucinich. Why not just vote for the REAL Kucinich?

I'm confused about transvestites the same way.

[SEAburb]

42. that's the problem with giving honest answers while

running for political office. You are bound to piss some one off. Wes you need to learn how to lie, if you want to be president.

[democratreformed]

51. LOL!

I love it! I am so sick and tired of one candidate being bashed for doing just what the public keeps saying they want.

[Rowdyboy]

52. If you intentionally tried to

misrepresent the MTP interview, you couldn't possibly have done a better job. Hats off to the cheapest hatchet job of the week.

[Bombtrack]

55. the beginning of January is well into 2002

that is pure bull.

Clark was better than an candidate has been, including my favored candidates Edwards and Kerry

[oasis]

67. Actually, Clark did quite well.

[mmonk]

70. If Clark has so many deficiencies

then tell me, what loud proud liberal will get the general public to vote for him or her given the general tone of the country?

[CWebster]

72. In other words

Democrats can't win, unless they are Republicans?

Why vote for the Democrats than?

[mmonk]

92. Let me put it this way then

what democrat can win giving the conservative mood of the country and the conservative mood of the press if that democrat is painted as an unpatriotic person that has policies too liberal for America (who can deflect that image most effectively the republicans and press will press to make)?

[CWebster]

101. its like dealing with freepers

There is no getting past square one - they just keep reverting to the same well grooved response: If we are Democrats they will portray us as un-American and un-patriotic so we must emulate Republicans so they can't use that against us.

geezus fucking christ. Will the discourse ever raise a notch?

[mmonk]

109. My point being

Clark is a democrat with democratic ideals. You're making him out to be a republican type and a militaristic warrior ready to conquer when in fact he's a multi-lateralist, socially liberal to moderate, progressive economically, candidate that happens to be a retired four star general. I don't see the deficiencies that you think are so obvious.

[CWebster]

111. That is what he says now

but it is not necessarily in keeping with what he has done and who he has spent a lifetime establishing alliances with.

When he was fired from the pentagon(there goes his military status to those who care about such things) he went to work as a corporate lobbiest, most valued for his connections in the military-industrial complex, it isn't as if he joined a progressive think tank or became a Democratic party activist.

What record or accomplishment provides the foundation for credibility here? It's like jumping on the Schwartzenegger bandwagon.

[mmonk]

116. his retirement was moved

up to satisfy Pentagon politics (because they don't believe in wars for humanitarian reasons and he went above their heads some). One of the first reasons he gave for running is his fear of the direction of this country and the neocon agenda (heard it myself on NPR). But I'm sure you're right. He's a republican war nut:eyes:

[59millionmorons]

78. Desparate are ya

UGH-Keep trying though

[CWebster]

81. So far, Rich, not one substantial rebuttal

On any point.

[theboss]

89. Which is why I am here

See below.

[Tom Rinaldo]

84. On Clark and the Republican Team

When Clark appeared at the Republican Fund raiser in 2001
he was not a politician ,repeat was not a politician. It is true that Clark was never highly partisan throughout his career (you can consider that as an asset or a debit to his canidacy now, depends on how you view and use it). Because he functioned at the upper levels of the military, he literally had both Democrats and Republicans as "his boss"; Presidents of both parties, and bipartisan Congressional committees. Clark is a Constitutional scholar, he frequently cites the Federalist papers in speeches. George Washington is a personal hero of Clark's, partially because he resigned his command of the American Army and established the precedent of civilian control of the military. Throughout his career Clark swore allegience to the Commander and Chief regardless of party.

This by itself does not explain Clark's appearing early in 2001 at a Bush fund raiser, but if you want to be fair, it is an essential starting point for understanding Clark's behavior at that time. So, point number one. Clark did not at that time envision entering partisan politics. He was not "breaking ranks" with his political party. Clark was a private citizen registered as an Independent (as are the majority of voters in Arkansaw) who had voted for Gore and Clinton over the prior 12 years, but previously had supported Republicans.

Clark had previously personally worked with a number of the men who newly President George W. Bush had recently appointed to his national security team, including Dick Cheney who Clark worked with when the Army had assigned him to interface with the White House during the Ford Presidency. Clark directly served under Colin Powell (who you might remember Clinton tapped as a personal envoy to negotiate with the hunta in Haiti after Aristad was ousted). Although Clark had voted for Clinton and Gore, he was not a strong partisan then, as that state of mind was counter productive to the mission he was pledged to uphold in the military. It is obvious from his service that Clark always cared deeply about his country. Upon retiring from the military Clark was a private citizen, but not a typical private citizen. As a retired 4 Star General, Clark had access to the ears of decision makers, some of whom in the new Bush White House Clark knew personally.

In the area of national security few at that time (1999-2001)really expected (I said few, not none) the Bush administration to be so ideologically driven and extremist. Most Democrats were far more concerned about Bush's domestic rather than his foreign policy. People had high hope for Colin Powell as a moderating force as Secretary of State. Most expected Bush the son to be more or less like Bush the elder in foreign policy, the Senior Bush you will remember did go completely through the United Nations in his own dealings with Iraq for example. I believe Clark supported Gore because of Domestic issues, but thought at the time of the fund raiser that the Republican administration could be more or less trusted in foreign affairs.

Thus I see his early appearance at a Bush fund raiser to be first a tip of his hat to former colleagues, but more important, a tactical move to preserve his personal influence to effect policies in the White House, much as he had throughout his career with both Democratic and Republican Presidents. I can understand all of that, since Clark had not yet entered the partisan world of politics, he was using the means easily at hand to ensure that his thoughts and concerns remained heard in the highest circles, and Clark had concerns.

Clark lost faith in the national security policy of the Bush administration fairly soon afterwoods. His increasing doubts and critism are well documented. As a man without a solid base in either political party, it was a difficult decision for him to abandon the inner circle approach to effecting policy in favor of entering the partisan realm where he would start out as a voice in the wilderness with little platform to be heard from. I respect Clark for making that difficult decision. I see it as evidence of the depth of his concerns about the future of our nation and the wrong direction ist is headed in.

I listen to Clark now (I've seen him speak in person twice) and I have absolutely no doubt that he fully understands the danger the current policies of the Bush Presidency has placed our nation in. I have no doubt that he is passionately committed to ending that threat. That's what I care about. I think a broad range of Americans will be able to identify wilh General Clark as a true American patriot and not a shrill political partisan. I think that adds credibility to his opposition to Bush's policies and will help him win broad voter support in the 2004 election. I am not concerned about the Republicans using Clark footage saying good things about the Bush team against him, not in the slightest.

First, it will be old news by then. Second, it will become old news quickly even to those who did not know about it sooner. It is easily turned around. Clark can say he was proud to serve under a number of Presidents of both parties who forged a non partisan US foreign policy based on our traditional strong alliances, and adherence to generally recognized principles of international law. He voted for Gore for his domestic policies but fully expected Bush to maintain the approach to International affairs that had strong bipartisan support, the same as did the overwhelming majority of Americans surveyed at the time, including most who had voted for Gore. Clark (and any Democrat really) can show footage of Bush in the 2000 Presidential debates where Bush went on and on about the United States needing to be humble in our approach to other nations. Clark can (and has) say "I supported the President when he went after the true terrorists in Afghanistan, we all did. It was the right thing to do then, but he didn't finish the job."

He can say the President had the backing of the American people after 9/11, Bush had the backing of the International community, and he squandered all of it away. It is a trajedy and it is true. Bush went ahead with a misquided policy of preemptive war and the "axis of Evil" to the point where he has endangered our security. It is an opening to discussing the disaster of Bush's subsequent foreign policy and the dashing of high hopes once held by many for him.

[TacticalPeek]

85. "he just doesn't see the Bush team as 'bad guys'"

???

Bush should face an inquiry over Iraq war, says general
By David Rennie in Washington
(Filed: 04/10/2003)

General Wesley Clark, the front-runner in the Democratic race for the White House, launched a high-risk attack on American foreign policy yesterday when he said the Bush administration should face an investigation into possible "criminal" conduct in its drive to war.

Gen Clark, who as Nato supreme commander led the war in Kosovo, accused the Bush administration of entering office already determined to attack Iraq, then seizing on the September 11 attacks as justification.

He called for an independent review of what he called the "possible manipulation of intelligence" to convince the American people that war with Iraq was necessary.

snip

"This administration is trying to do something that ought to be politically impossible to do in a democracy, and that is to govern against the will of the majority," he said. "That requires twisted facts, silence, secrecy and very poor lighting."

more
Telegraph 4 Oct 03

-

I thought his was the best MTP performance yet by a dem candidate. So much so that I found myself rewatching part of it on CNBC replay last night. Am I biased toward hearing it as good because I support him? Or do I support him because he says things in a way I like to hear? Either way, it came across as a big plus to me.

Most of your critique seems to be that he does not oppose the Iraq debacle in the way you would prefer, and likewise does not bash the misAdmin with your favored blows. Luckily at this point there are several other candidates I guess you could study (or put forth?) that would come closer to your personal preferences, keeping in mind the need for electability over aWol.

On the Fire/Light dial, his expositive style does swing well to the 'Light' side, which probably leaves some wishing for more bang and heat. For me, I think his method of war in this context is superbly suited to the task we face, which appears to involve nearly evenly sized opposing forces.

And personally, I would advise the main candidates to stay away from PNAC/oil grab/PowellVietNam rhetoric for a variety of reasons, all of which have to do with winning the WH, as opposed to secondary motives.

[RichM]

91. I can hardly believe it!! After 85 or so responses, someone finally tries

to at least discuss the points I raised. I think I'm going to faint.

OK. We're clearly on opposite sides of this, but at least I respect the integrity of your effort, here. It is certainly true that Clark does not oppose Iraq "in the way (I) would prefer." I would not cast this as a matter of personal taste, though. We are talking about a war -- a very serious matter. It makes all the difference in the world, if it is to be portrayed as a relatively minor matter of unfortunate tactical decisions, rather than as a criminal outrage.

I understand the logic of your last sentence about staying away from certain hot-button issues. We are simply on opposite sides of this, however. I think telling the truth about these things is more important than avoiding them. I weight this more heavily than considerations of winning elections -- BUT I also think that telling the whole truth is a winning strategy, & that averting the eyes from them is a losing strategy.

[TacticalPeek]

100. "war -- a very serious matter"

Thus, I consider preventing more unnecessary wars by winning this election to be more important than campaign style. If I were convinced that ANY other candidate had a better chance of deposing aWol than Clark, then that is who I would support. And I shall certainly support the dem nom, since any other action supports Bush, a clearly unpalatable choice.

So we disagree about the value of telling all the 'truth', weighed against telling some of the 'truth' and ousting Shrub. There is not world enough nor time to tell all the truth, which responsibility falls more with writers, historians, etc. anyway.

[RichM]

127. Points well taken. There are 2 theories, then, that one could advance

about Clark. One is that he is just being cagey about what parts of the "truth" he's willing to talk about, because he knows how important defeating Bush really is. Under this theory, one can't hold against him the things he fails to say -- because one believes that he's just being careful not to alienate moderate voters.

The OTHER theory, though, is much less comforting. Under this theory, he's someone who's spent his whole career in the elite cadres of the military. He likes those people; he respects and understands them. He shares many of their values. Thus, while he doesn't want to see the American military put into harm's way unnecessarily, or without a well thought-out plan for "success," his conceptual framework does not include a comprehensive analysis of which economic interests are really motivating a given conflict. He does not even think in terms of the US army being used to commit crimes to benefit a clique of gangsters that has hijacked the government.

Under this more ominous theory, Clark has certain tactical disagreements with the Bush-Cheney-Rummy gang. But he's not completely different from them, either. Thus, the reason he doesn't attack them more ferociously is that he just doesn't find them to be all that bad. He wants to replace them - but not to drastically change course. Rather, he would simply be more "multilateral" and "iron out the excesses." This would lead to no fundamental change at all -- merely to cosmetic changes that do nothing to alter the social forces that made a Bush government possible in the first place.

[theboss]

88. A review of the poster's performance

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.

[returnable]

90. Fair enough

Your main beef seems to be Clark wasn't strong enough in his opposition to the administration's policy in Iraq.

I can see that. There were a couple of times I wished he brought out the sledgehammer, too.

But overall, I think he handled himself well, and far better than any other candidate who has appeared on MTP in recent months.

As for the "legality" of the war, I disagree with you there. I think by the UN's charter, the war was, as Clark said, "technically" legal. Misguided, immoral, and wrong, yes. But not illegal.

In fact, I don't even think the United Nations has said the war was illegal.

If you have a link to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

Thanks.

[TacticalPeek]

95. In this MTP interview, Clark says thus sprake Kofi Annan.

[returnable]

97. Kofi Annan called the Kosovo War illegal

:hi:

[returnable]

125. Still waiting, RichM

Do you have a link where the UN calls the Iraq War illegal?

[jpgray]

98. Sure, but who are the voters he's after?

People on the whole don't want to hear that Powell Bush & Co. are evil bastards, they want to hear that the Democratic nominee cordially disagrees with them. :)

The people that want to hear "Powell and Bush are dangerous extremists" are on this board, or they are people who have been paying a good deal of attention to what's going on. Those who don't have a very specific idea or just watch TV news will like Clark's evenhandedness.

It's just political--no one with as much info as Clark undoubtedly has would believe the things he is saying--he's doing it to get votes. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Still, the enigma that is Clark isn't getting revealed to anyone. Being a military establishment guy, and being mysteriously removed as NATO commander are two serious strikes against him. This interview is just political manuevering. Dean already has a monopoly on activists--Clark ahs to go somewhere else.

[Tinoire]

103. Excellent analysis

I watched it last night and thought his performance was dismal and that his answers weren't reassuring at all.

Clark was in favor of the invasion and the war and is now in favor of the occupation. All three things make him anathema to me- this in addition to not believing his recent metamorphosis.

Why did we distract ourselves from the war on terror?

WHAT WAR ON TERROR? The phony one that is being used to strip us of our rights? The phony one being used to justify beefing up Homeland Security's databases so that they can keep tabs on "subversive" citizens? The phony one that will "find" the ever elusive Al-Queda in any country we need to destabilize?

What change will this be from the Bush Administration other than the a little more finesse in how we go about destabilizing and subjugating?

Venezuela is coming soon and Calrk's answers were less than reassuring to me. I refuse to have any part in voting in a Democratic President who thinks the war on terror has any validity and actively worked with the very organizations that feed and justify this war such as the Markle Task Force, the CSIS and the famous NED which was directly involved in the recent coup in Venezuela- a country that is now being set up for a future US operation.

Clark supporters will say that he is out to stop this and I do not doubt that this is their sincere belief; what I doubt is Clark as the lone crusader turning his back on all his friends, his colleagues and those he admires/d so much.

I am honestly waiting for the day where I can be reassured that this is not the case but Sunday's appearance on MTP wasn't it.


http://www.markletaskforce.org/other.html

(October 2003) The oil-rich but politically unstable nation of Venezuela is emerging as a potential hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere, providing assistance to Islamic radicals from the Middle East and other terrorists, say senior U.S. military and intelligence officials. Bush administration aides see this as an unpredictably dangerous mix and are gathering more information about the intentions of a country that sits 1,000 miles south of Florida.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031006/usnews/6venezuela.htm

An article recently appeared in one of the largest U.S. news magazines, an article which will remind well-informed readers of a typical disinformation campaign. The article in question, "Terror Close to Home," by Linda Robinson, appeared in U.S. News and World Report (10/6/03) and claims to have evidence that Venezuela's President, Hugo Chavez, is "flirting with terrorism." The appearance of a baseless article like this, combined with recent statements by Gen. James Hill, head of the Southern Command, that Venezuela's Margarita Island is a haven for Islamic terrorist groups, suggests that the Bush administration is setting the stage for declaring Venezuela a "rogue" state.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=4301

[Qutzupalotl]

110. My take on your points

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.

[Jackhammer Jesus]

120. Couldn't have said it better myself.

But, I'd hardly consider the statement on the legality of the war as bolstering Bush's position, as the original poster suggests, if you read his statements in their entirety, especially the comparison to the war in Kosovo.

"GEN. CLARK: Legal? Well, it’s technically legal, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Why?
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.

...

In other words, if you said that the war in Kosovo was technically illegal, you might also say, “but it was legitimate. It was justified,” because it was an urgent, imminent danger. The case in Iraq was the opposite. It was technically legal, but it wasn’t an imminent danger, it wasn’t an imminent threat, we hadn’t exhausted diplomatic possibilities."

[1songbird]

130. What people forget is that Powell is a lifelong soldier

and he follows the orders of his commander-in-chief. I think the pressure was put on Powell and he did as any soldier would have done he followed orders. Gen. Clark is a lifelong soldier as well and he understands this. I have no problem with Clark having respect for Colin. Clark sounded Presidential to me. Thanks for your summary.:)

[Q]

114. I haven't backed any candidate as of yet...

...because I think it's too damn early. But Rich has done a good job in exposing Clark as a recently-turned-Democrat appeaser of the Right.

- Clark does a wonderful job of throwing 'Democratic' platitudes around...but his past and recent support of those who committed election fraud in 2000 and LIED to take this country to war makes me wonder which side he's really on.

- Put this together with his tortured explanations about why he waited so long to announce his party affiliation and his 'friendship' with the fascists in control of this country...it's not difficult to conclude that he's liitle more than 'plant' for the GOP.

[Jackhammer Jesus]

121. Sure. Forget his position on any of the issues...

he spoke well of Republicans, he must be a GOP plant.

[Q]

126. It's his position on the issues...

...that says he has more in common with the Bush* regime than the Democratic party. That he has nothing bad to say about the Bushies beyond bad war planning in Iraq suggests that he has no plans to talk about the truth: that the Bushies LIED to push this nation to war.

- It's not that he spoke/speaks well of Republicans...it's that he speaks well of Republicans who have committed crimes.

[Jackhammer Jesus]

131. His policies?

In response to your criticism of his stance on the war, he's said, as was mentioned in a post above, that Bush and his administration should face an inquiry into "criminal" conduct leading up to the war, including intelligence manipulation.

So which of his positions put him closer to Bush than the Democratic party?

[Qutzupalotl]

123. I don't understand something.

Why would the GOP plant a candidate who could trounce Bush? Sure, they're devious, but are they so devious that they would put a guy in office, a DINO for the sake of argument, who would just allow all their legislation to pass, and not be criticized? How would that be better than Bush getting four more years?

And what about party image? The Republicans need someone to bash. I can't imagine they would let any Democrat, even a DINO, just sit in office with everyone on their side saying "hands off." And I really can't imagine a guy like Clark going along with that. He's got a clean record, as far as I can tell, of telling the truth. Besides, a Dem who gives the Republicans a few victories is seen as a moderate--hard to hate. They can't allow that to happen.

[joshan361]

118. THIS GUY WAS TRYING TO STIR THE POT!!!

Clark is steamrolling and alot of folks are having a hard time excepting their candidate losing momentum.

[RichardRay]

122. I gave up street fighting 30 years ago....

It was when I realized how many people were more interested in 'feeling good' than in actually getting something done.

I certainly don't believe that Wes Clark is everything I might want him to be; but then, unless someone decides to elect me president I'm going to disagree with ANYONE who does get elected. So, missteps aside, Clark is a top choice for me. Dean could be, too. Or Kerry, or Gephardt, or .....

None of them walk on the water - all of them are better choices than Bush. To stomp off in anger and self-righteousness to a third-party candidate and help re-elect Bush is a _far_ more criminal choice than anything I've seen or heard from any of the candidates.

If incremental improvement is all I can get, I'll take it....

[FrenchieCat]

128. Just jealous....

just like the pentagon brass.....

Jealous that Clark did such an outstanding job on MTP!!!!
Na na na na na na!

http://americanpolitics.com/20031116punditpap.html
(scroll down 2/3 of the way.)
Meet the Press
Wesley Clark sums it up, and exposes Tim as uninformed, biased, an empty
attack poodle: "This president loves to take credit, but he will not
take responsibility.... Did you read the rest of the article, Tim?"
Players: Tim Russert, retired general and Democratic presidential
candidate Wesley Clark
Tim Russert was clearly out to draw some blood from Wesley Clark on this
morning's Meet the Press. Unfortunately for Tim, who seems to relish in
the sport of attacking and demeaning Democrats, Clark -- who seems to
have reviewed Russert's appallingly biased and obnoxious treatment of
Howard Dean a little over a month ago -- not only was firm, relaxed and
in command of so much information it makes one's head spin, but also
brought along a few blunt instruments in his own arsenal, putting the
smackdown on the sniveling Russert on a few occasions.

read more analysis on Clark on MTP by clicking on link
--------------------

and clark also did a good job smacking down fox this morning
He just doesn't smack Dems...... like other Dems I have observed!
http://www.foxnews.com/access/video.html

"The difference between me and the chicken-hawks... is that I've been there!"
Wesley Clark

[Aidoneus]

132. do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

"Jealous that Clark did such an outstanding job on MTP!!!!
Na na na na na na!"

Wow, how could Rich ever respond to such brilliance.. :eyes:

[LoneStarLiberal]

129. It's Easy to Understand

It's easy to understand your dislike of Clark. I'm a Clark supporter from way back and even I can understand it.

Why?

Because I feel equally as vile about Howard Dean as you do about Wes Clark.

I love differences of opinion! It's the most wonderful American thing that we can all appreciate on a daily basis and yet take for granted on the same daily basis.

[thebgrkng]

134. A review of this hapless review

Lets hit these critiques one at a time...

CLARK: ...We’re not there to occupy it; we’re only there to help. So let’s give them their country back.”
RICHM: (OH, we're ONLY THERE TO HELP, eh? Does Clark really believe this? This is standard-issue US propaganda; the same exact line was used in Vietnam.)
ME:Ummm...we can't be there to occupy them and we should be trying to help. I have no doubt that is how Clark sees it. That is the message we should be giving to the Iraqis and it should be followed through with actions to prove our intentions. I know Clark did not think we needed to put Iraq on our plate, but now that its there, he knows we have to make the best of it. And the best of it is assurances to the Iraqis that we are there to help, and actions (of which he says what we should be doing) to reinforce those beliefs.

RUSSERT: ...May be too late. You think we may lose Iraq?
CLARK: I think it may be too late to strengthen this relationship. Now, let’s talk about Iraq for a second. I think there was a window of opportunity at the end of the military operation to be able to bring the Iraqi people on board. They could have seen a really smooth, effective, impressive U.S. occupation. American soldiers could have been in every village, they could have known the names of the people there, they could have provided food and water right away. But we didn’t do that...
RICHM:(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.)
ME:Everything you wrote is a gross mischaracterization of what was said. This was part of Clark answering whether we could lose Iraq. And now that we are there we need to be successful in Iraq. He says, and is spot on in my opinion, that after we invaded (like the invasion or not) there was a short window where we could have really impressed the Iraqis and gotten them behind us. We screwed that up and are now paying for it in the hearts and minds of the average Iraqi.

RUSSERT: Do you believe the war in Iraq is legal?
CLARK: Legal? Well, it’s technically legal, yeah.
RICHM:(WTF?? Of all things to say, he chooses this!!)
ME:I must have missed the memo that this is an illegal war. The US has points to argue. So do countries arguing against us. But just because you side with the illegal-war side does not make it so. International law is flakey, and the strongest countries get to write the rules. Clark goes on to say he does not consider this a legitimate war, which is the real point.

RUSSERT: Why?
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...
RICHM:(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!)
ME:This is why he said technically legal... He said we had a resolution. We did and, like it or not, it was vague enough for wiggle room on both sides. His entire arguement was that this was a war done wrong. There might be technical legality to it, but it WAS illigetimate.

RUSSERT: What happened? Where is it? Was there a colossal intelligence failure?
CLARK: Well, I think when you look at intelligence, you get indicators. It’s like a sort of gray goo as you look at it. You can’t see through it, exactly, and if you try to touch it, it gets real sticky and you might actually interfere with the information that you’re getting back. So you have to draw inferences from it. The inferences that I had drawn and I last saw the intelligence just before I retired in May of 2000...
RICHM:(Here, Clark goes off into a longwinded spiel that isn't worth re-copying. He absolutely fails to give a clean direct response to the question. Russert is openly inviting him to lay it all out on the table; Clark can't or won't do it.)
ME:Clark explains that intelligence is nebulus and he feels the admin cherry picked what they wanted. He def got his point across. There is no coherent criticism here so i'll leave this one be.

whew...this is tiring...gonna shorten up the format for the lame ones...

RICHM:(Very disappointing. A blown opportunity. Finally gets to the point after 30 seconds of aimless rambling.)
ME:I think Clark is concerned with the word mislead. This is *my take* but I think Clark thinks Bush is doing what bush thinks is right. He disagrees with what bush thinks and has said so repeatedly. But I think clark thinks bush was trying to convince people to want what bush wanted.

im gonna skip some lame ones...sorry

RUSSERT: As I showed in May of 2001, you were talking about the president’s great team. In your speech at the Center for American Progress, you said this. “This was the ‘dream team.’ Remember, Cheney ... Rumsfeld ... Powell ... What did the ‘dream team’ give us? An election-driven, poll-driven, ideologically-driven foreign policy.” Take out Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, do you believe that Colin Powell would ever participate in an election-driven, poll-driven, ideologically-driven foreign policy?
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...
RICHM:(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?)
ME:I could not disagree more. I think Powell is great. I think he sticks it out in the admin because he feels he can help be a check on the neo-cons. He does work for bush and when bush makes a decision he has to go with it. But i really really feel that Powell thinks its paramount to being in the circle to help make those decisions. He is a great American and it saddens me to see him get dragged down in the mud with this admin cause he is trying to fight for what is right. You just have to look at his actions when he still worked to change policy when everyone else was on vacation this august. To lump him with everyone else is ignorant.

Hope this gets read...and i apologize for any spelling mistakes.
TheBgrKng

[Qutzupalotl]

135. Thanks for your comments, TheBgrKng.

And welcome to DU!