WP: Clark 'Probably' Would Have Backed War

[Carmerian]

Read it here

"Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he "probably" would have voted for the congressional resolution last fall authorizing war, as he charged out into the presidential campaign field with vague plans to fix the economy and the situation in Iraq."

...

"He said he "probably" voted for Richard M. Nixon in 1972 and backed Ronald Reagan. He did not start considering himself a Democrat until 1992, when he backed fellow Arkansan Bill Clinton. "He moved me," Clark said. "I didn't consider it party, I considered I was voting for the man."

...

"Clark said the country "will not function well" with one party controlling the White House and Congress." (Eh? Even totally Dem?)



There's something I find unsettling about this article.

[CMT]

1. I don't like what has been emerging about Clark since he announced

now he says he "probably" would have voted for the Iraqi Resolution!!?? I always considered him anti-war as far as Iraq so that is an eye-opener.

Now he thinks he probably voted for Nixon and Reagan. I've voted in every election since 1982 and I can remember who I voted for in each one (of real importance).

I don't know about Clark, I'm not even sure now I would want him as a VP candidate.

[Carmerian]

3. I've been interested in him for months now

But I've wanted to actually hear his positions before I went ahead and drank the Kook-Aid. I'm glad I did. Still, I'll vote for him if he's on the ticket. He may be some Lieberman-lite, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let * have another term.



Edit : "Kook-Aid" - talk about a Freudian slip ;)

[tridim]

4. I'm getting the same vibe CMT

Not a bash, just an early observation. I'm still watching him closely.

[freethought23]

17. I want to know his exit strategy from Iraq.

Right now, he sounds just like Bush on this issue. He wants to interntionalize the conflict, involve the UN and turn the government over to the Iraqis.
But when?

I favor the French plan: out in a month.

[coralrf]

57. If you dont like what you are seeing...

then Rove has a good plan. What you are seeing is a calibrated attack on Clark. Granted, its difficult to go after a guy like that so you "make him go after himself" with out of context quotes and misinterpretations of his words. You can bet that no Puke will go after Clark heads up they will just do what is going on in DU. Poor DU'ers...puke stealth posters got you beat already. With smarts like that shown on this board, Democrats have no chance.

Clark, seen in honest light is a nightmare for Shrub. So, you will not see him that way. You will be diverted to Dean or someone else that Bush can beat. Rove has said that he would love to run against Dean but has no comment on Clark.

Support Clark.

Support Dean.

Support Kerry.

Support any Democrat but for God’s sake get off the Democrats backs. There is enough GOP weight there already.

edit spelling

[ZoCrowes]

2. Well duh

Clark said the country "will not function well" with one party controlling the White House and Congress." (Eh? Even totally Dem?)


He is right on this. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Republicans are not pure fucking evil (just the Neo-Cons.) One party systems suck.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

26. I would tend to agree

Much as the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 sucked, in some ways it was a good thing, because the Democrats had controlled the House for 40 years, and they had grown a bit too comfortable...old pork barrens ruled the committees, and there was a lot of corruption...I think having the other party come in and clean house was in some ways a necessary thing.

Now I think the Republicans are getting a bit too comfortable...they are rolling back many of the ethics rules they themselves put in place when they took over in 1995, such as the prohibition on lobbyists ordering pizza or other food for staffers working late at night on bills that are important to them.

Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope - The Great Grassroots Campaign

[LightTheMatch]

5. Well, well, well.

There goes the neighborhood.. and he was just getting popular. BUMMER :P

[FlemingsGhost]

6. For a guy who has never held an elected office...

he sure knows how to play the game.

Well, General... you "probably" won't be getting any of my support.

[Orangepeel]

7. I don't care how he voted decades ago

People change. But it kind of concerns me that he doesn't remember. How can you not remember whether or not you voted for Nixon?

[susanna]

11. I could ask the question...

...why would you WANT to remember you voted for Nixon? ;-)

[salin]

13. I am proud to remember and state

that at less than 10 years old, I got in to arguments about Nixon (in favor of McGovern). Have to admit though, it was more a reflection of the House hold. Indeed my republican (moderate/liberal) uncle gave my father our first color tv for dad's 50th - so he could see (and yell at) the Watergate hearings in color.

I didn't like Reagan when he was elected (I was a college freshman and was thinking for myself by then), and got to see their policies up close in DC in his second term.

If he wasn't an extremely well educated man, and an economist to boot, these comments might not bother me. But I am an economist's daughter (dad was Keynesian in training - with John Kenneth Galbraith sitting on this committee). When Milton Freidman's ideas started taking hold - I had enough economic understanding to know that it was only part of the equation and made little sense in the long term and on the macro scale. I have (and will continue to try) to be open to Clark. But to think that I was more aware - before finishing college and not studying economics - that the economic program of Reagan was unsound (and potentially dangerous to the longterm economy) - than a well educated economics professor who was a Rhodes Scholar - it does disturb me. His knowledge and understanding should have been greater than the general public (due to his education and teaching work), and he should have thus been a bit more skeptical of Reagan.

[PartyPooper]

22. I kinda remember him recently saying how he supported the president

as a military man...always. This is very understandable (but, not entirely excusable). Let's face it, many in the military are Republicans. Fortunately, some come to see the light...eventually! I'm sure Clark voted for Nixon. UGH! But, If Clark is on the ticket I will vote for him.

:-)

[GreenGreenLimaBean]

40. I think he was in Vietnam at the time

and also was wounded. So maybe he has an excuse for not
remembering. I was in the military at age 19 and voted for
Reagan. What the fuck does a 19 year old know, especially
when the only thing I knew about the election was Reagan was
going to give the military a raise at the time.

If you are dropping support based on this one issue, then I
would have to say to are acting like a freeper.

[RandomKoolzip]

8. Funny how all this stuff is coming out after his announcement. Just a

few days ago, people round these parts were talking like Clark was walking on water but was hesitant to proclaim himself the messiah. Hell, he looked good to me too. But now.... Clearly, we are not dealing with a true liberal in Clark. He voted for Reagan??!!? Jesus, some things I cannot forgive.

My money is STILL on Dean....

[roughsatori]

10. Probably Nixon and Reagan!!!!!!!

I don't understand how Liberals or Progressives could not feel shame about promoting this man as a Democratic candidate.

[Sean Reynolds]

9. Yikes.

I'm not going to fault him on the Nixon/Reagan vote (people change their minds). But the Iraq vote? C'mon Clark, you should know better.

[PartyPooper]

12. Because people like Clark voted for Reagan, we're stuck with *!

If Reagan hadn't won the first term, well, we wouldn't have had the misfortune of having George I on the ballot in 1988. And, George II would never have even become governor...much less pResident-select.

Another DU'er said awhile back that GHWB was very sneaky and evil trying to get on the ticket with Reagan at the first go-round. Apparently, there were several high-level meetings at this hotel. GB was hustled in and out of Reagan's suite several times. It seems that GB basically blackmailed the Reagan people...if he wasn't second banana on the ticket...well, he was going to release some damaging information about Ronnie. So, he got on the ticket. Surprise, surprise!

Anyway, I know other people who voted for Reagan, too. Of course, I didn't. But, it just goes to show you have to vote democratic always!

:dem:

[KittyWampus]

14. How About Posting The Entire Quote???

Clark went on to say "I was against the war as it emerged because there was no reason to start it when
we did. We could have waited."

There was NO WAY anyone could have known whether the UN weapons inspectors would have come up
empty handed without the process being finished.

By the way, this is a hypothetical scenario... Clark didn't HAVE to vote and neither did Dean so there is no
way of knowing whether either of these men would have supported the resolution.

That Dean supporters give him credit for words uttered with no action to back them up is ridiculous
considering he is as much as a politician (and a moderate DLC one at that) as any of the other Dem
candidates.

Excepting Dennis K.

[Evanstondem]

16. At Least Dean Was Speaking Out

What "action" would you have liked Dean to take? If none, why shouldn't we give him credit for speaking out against the war and encouraging others to do so?

[pschoeb]

27. But he said he would have voted for the Iraq war resolution

"There was NO WAY anyone could have known whether the UN weapons inspectors would have come up empty handed without the process being finished."

Actually there were many people who had quite reasonable evidence that Saddam had no WMD. In fact there were already rumblings by several countries in 1998 to start to ease and stop sanctions on Iraq because there looked to be no credible evidence of anymore WMD. The US was the main country in indefinatly keeping the sanctions regime in place, essentially stating it would continue until Saddam was out of power(yes even under Clinton this was said).

Also the last UN resolution against Iraq only allowed force to be used if Iraq was found to be not cooperating with the inspectors, not if WMD were found.

The question is what does Clark mean by "we could have waited". Does he mean, we could have waited until we were prepared better, but unltimatly we would have had to go in. Or does he mean that we should have used the peacefull means, which were already working and no war might have been neccesary at all. The important question for me is wether he felt that Saddam would ultimatly have to be removed by a war regardless of inspectors findings. If he thinks that's true then I have issues.

I am still undecided on a candidate

Patrick Schoeb

[KittyWampus]

42. You Are Right, Of Course

It is a question of what Clark meant by "we could have waited". Absolutely can't argue with that. :)

That's what the debates are all about!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

15. Points for Honesty, But Not Very Savvy

And the Washington Post takes full advantage. Sigh.

DTH

[baby_bear]

18. Here's more from the NYTimes

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/politics/campaigns/19CLAR.html

<snip>
On both the question of the initial authorization and the latest request for financing, General Clark said he was conflicted. He offered the case on both sides of the argument, as he appeared to struggle to stake out positions on issues that have bedeviled four members of Congress who supported the war and are now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

Moving to fill in the blanks of his candidacy a day after he announced for president, General Clark also said that he had been a Republican who had turned Democratic after listening to the early campaign appeals of a fellow Arkansan, Bill Clinton.

Indeed, after caustically comparing the actions of the Bush administration to what he described as the abuses of Richard M. Nixon, he said that he voted for Mr. Nixon in 1972. He also said he had voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984.
</snip>


I think he is a perfect Democratic Leadership Council candidate, which I reject out of hand.

Even if the Big Guy endorses him. It doesn't work anymore. We need to get back to our liberal -- proudly liberal -- base.

I'd like to hear from Eugene McCarthy about now.

s_m

[DoveTurnedHawk]

19. This Is a Little Better

It's obvious he's conflicted about the actual war resolution. The Washington Post article was much harder for me to swallow, this adds some better context.

Still not thrilled, though.

DTH

[IndianaGreen]

20. Okay, so Clark is ambivalent about the war

What about his exit strategy to get us out of Iraq?

Does Clark support the PNAC agenda, as Lieberman and tne neocons obviously do?

These are questions that Clark will have to answer in a debate, and as we as seen with how badly Kerry has done with the nuances in his message, Clark can ill afford to appear ambivalent about the war TODAY.

Clark just jumped into the fray, a little stumble now and then is expected. Plus Clark is not a politician, and has yet to learn the art of lying as many of our politicians have.

While I believe that Clark needs to clarify his current views on the war in Iraq, I also think that people will respond positively to someone that honestly says the following as quoted by the NY Times:

General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/politics/campaigns/19CLAR.html

[DoveTurnedHawk]

21. I Agree, IG

Lots to think about, and lots to learn.

DTH

[brodie]

23. Not the best news, but . . .

"Even if the Big Guy endorses him."

I wonder if clinton has made public comments to how he would have voted on the resolution. We know Hillary voted Aye. Similar question about Gore. I suspect that Bill and Al would have expressed themselves more or less in line with Clark -- support but with that important proviso of Bush having to come back again.

Unfortunately, that little caveat will be a footnote as it plays in the media to many of the antiwar Dems, including soft Dean supporters.

"It doesn't work anymore. We need to get back to our liberal -- proudly liberal -- base.
I'd like to hear from Eugene McCarthy about now"

Well, apparently sometime in the 70s, Gene morphed into a cranky conservative Indy -- who supported Reagan in 1980.

Read a few of his latest books -- he's anything but a liberal.

[RamboLiberal]

24. I'm not happy about this comment but he is at least honest

It does drop him a notch in my view, and since I was torn between Dean and Clark I'll continue my financial support of Dean - may send Clark a small donation.

I'm still thinking he'd be a great VP candidate to Dean, and if Dean doesn't win the Dem nod then maybe to whomever does (if Clark doesn't win it).

Looks like from the article Clark would consider.

Clark, who discussed the vice presidency with Dean at a recent meeting, said he would not rule out taking the No. 2 slot on a ticket.

On edit the NYT says he's not interested in VP slot. Geesh who's right.

He also said he had no interest in being vice president.

"If you're concerned about national security affairs," he said, "then the right place for the person who wants to be commander in chief is to be the commander in chief."

Well if he loses to another Dem maybe he'd consider which is what I hope.

As far as voting for Reagan and Nixon - it was a different time. As I mentioned on another thread I may have voted for Reagan for reelection. I really can't remember.

If Clark voted for Nixon's reelection - well that's a bad vote. But look we all can change. In the conservative atmosphere of coming from West Point and in the military this kind of vote wouldn't be that surprising to me.

I'd still vote for Clark over AWOL. And I still want the best candidate(s) on the Dem ticket that can beat AWOL.

I can put some of my own ideology aside for that goal.

[Selwynn]

25. Points to how little we actually know about Clark

This has been a good thread. Why? Because many of the comments have been pretty even-handed. I think it is a mistake to treat Clark or any other candidate as the Messiah of the country right now. But I also think it would be a mistake to rip any candiate to shreds quite yet. I find it hardest to take my own advice with Joe, but I'll try.

There are a lot of things about Clark that concern me. First of all, I have been concerned that he is simply a puppet figure. What I mean but that is, I've been worried that the DLC would be saying something like "we need a body that makes us look good on security and any body will do." I've been worried that political strategist get so wrapped up in a game that they look for candidates that are all flash and no substance.

I've also been worried about Clark from the standpoint of his lack of background in politics. This is the majors - one slip up means we don't have a Democratic president. Elections are won and lost on misplaced "sighs." I'm very scared that any worth Clark has as a candidate will be completely lost in naive mistakes. That interview he gave, should have never been given -- any novice political operative would be rolling over in their grave. Reading the account from multiple sources, Clark still comes off as utterly green. I appreciate the honesty in acknowledging uncertainty in his own position, but I'm also cold enough to know that your enemies will easily paint that kind if naivety as ineptitude.

And finally, because so little is really truly known about Clarks actual substantial positions, I've been worried that in reality, Clark wasn't much of a Democrat. Again this ties in with my first concern that Clark was more of a body than a substantial Democrat, whose biggest winning point ends up looking like a gimmick - that he is a strong military leader who knows security. Worse still, I worry that if the party takes the strategy of trying to keep the focus on security and not the encomy/domestic issues, we'll end up losing. Bush is no doubt counting on using all of his resources to keep the focus on terrorism, to keep americans afraid, and turn attention away from problems at home. We need to agressively and tirelessly keep bringing the disaster that is the current domestic wasteland to the forefront of debate. Clark may look better than Bush on security, but if that's all he's got, I believe he will get beat by his own mistake making in the fact of a powerful, perahaps the most powerful ever, political machine.

I deplore what Bush has done to America, and grieve over his stands on just about everything - but I also refuse to underestimate his power. Bush has infinate money, he has an complete infastructure of ruthless, cunning tacticians, he has connections to every dimesion of power in American through the Bush "family's" corporate ties - he is dripping with that kind of power. He is an idiot, but honestly sometimes I think that plays right into the hands of Republicans, as Democrats constantly and forever underestimate him. Sometimes I almost wonder if the Republicans don't love having an idiot as their public face, because it allows the GENUIS at work behind the scenes to be taken for granted.

The Bush adminstration has pushed more radical and extreme legislation through in the last four years than any other administration that I can remember. The last four years have been years of massive, massive change, all for the worse. But you don't get that done by being a regime of bumbling idiots. You get that done by having a figure head that looks non-threatening and hard to take seriously, while doing the dirty work behind the scenes. The biggest fear I have right now is that the party with underestimate our opponent. So many times I hear Democrats so happy at the newfound vulnerabilities in the Bush regime that they feel a democratic victory is nearly a mortal lock. I do not believe that. I honestly believe we are, and will continue to be the underdogs in 2004. In order for us to win, we need to have a candidate that is as cunning and (forgive me) ruthless as the opposition. I am worried about Clark for all the reasons I mentioned above.

I am also worried about Dean, becuase I believe he is also a candidate that would be exceptionally easy to pick apart, prone to political gaffs, and easy to paint into extreme and unpopluar corners (opposition talking points: he wants to raise all your taxes - not usually a winning strategy in the middle of a horrible economy. Even if you have to do it, you don't campaign on it! See for reference: Dukakis, Mondale and every other Democratic nominee who lost horribly to a Republican.)

You might want to say, "well Mr. Negative, how do you think we win?" My honest answer is, I don't know. I don't think Dean would beat Bush. I don't think Clark would beat Bush either, and sadly, I like all our other choices less. So I don't have a lot of optimistic things to say. I'm really worried. Basically, I think our chances of winning have to do with the Bush regime continuing to fall apart, and fall apart so badly that literally anyone could win. I think the bush regime is going to have to so brutally collapse that any one of the current democratic candidates could win the election. In short, if we win, right now I believe it will be because Bush beats himself.

For once, can I please not get flammed for given a thoughtful (at least I tried to be thoughtful anyway) list of my concerns. I hope I'm wrong, and if you think I'm wrong, tell me how in the spirit of diologue worthy of statemanship. I'd like to be encouraged, I'm interested in different points of view. If someone really things things look a whole lot brighter for Democrats right now, please tell me why..

Sel

[jab105]

28. No flaming here...

good and thoughtful post...

I was one who thought he was a gift from heaven also...but not thrilled about what I read here...

My personal favorite has always been Edwards, but I've supported Dean because I feel so strongly that the Iraq war was wrong...Dean has made so many mistakes recently, I've become quite discouraged....

I thought Clark felt the same as I did about the war, which is why I was happy about his candidacy, if he didn't, thats a problem for me (in the primary that is, not in the general...in the general, I'll vote anybody but Bush)...but, if he's DLC, I dont like him...and if he's DLC, then the progressives aren't going to get behind him like we need them to in order to actually win...

blah, feel like shit today anyways, this doesnt help...

[ozone_man]

30. Being truthful is what will get Dean elected.

"I am also worried about Dean, becuase I believe he is also a candidate that would be exceptionally easy to pick apart, prone to political gaffs, and easy to paint into extreme and unpopluar corners (opposition talking points: he wants to raise all your taxes - not usually a winning strategy in the middle of a horrible economy. Even if you have to do it, you don't campaign on it! See for reference: Dukakis, Mondale and every other Democratic nominee who lost horribly to a Republican.)"

He may make some gaffs, but he is not afraid to speak the truth. This will get him elected in a period when people will be fed up with Washington politicians. Regarding the tax cuts that favor the wealthy, he is offerring health care instead.

Regarding Clark, I think he would be better for a cabinet position, or maybe VP, but this uncertainty of his Iraq war stance bothers me.

[Selwynn]

31. The truth has never gotten anyone elected

...and it never will. And it doesn't matter if tax cuts "favor" the wealthy, the majority of all Americans got some kind of tax cut, even if it was a joke of a tax cut. By being for repealing all tax cuts, Dean becomes the man who wants to raise YOUR taxes, you out of work for nine months person, raise YOUR taxes you single mother, raise YOUR taxes you person barely making it in this enconomic climate. That may not be true, but that's how it will play. You know Dukakis told the truth too. In fact, that was probably the primary reason he lost.

Politics is about telling lies. The difference between their kind of politics and our is that after we get done lying to win, we try to do the RIGHT things, while after they get done lying to win they try to do the WRONG things. Let's not over-glamorize it. :)

[ozone_man]

60. Partly true of course, but there are degrees of lies,

even in the Democratic party. Dean is able to make an anti-war stance and talk about health care, when not many others have dared. I respect this. He is a politican, not a god, and so has to play the lie game like all politicians. His brand is just straighter than all of the others.

I think we're approaching an extreme point here in our country's history. People will come to their senses in the next election to save it from the disaster that would follow, if Bush gets in another term. Difficult times call for strong measures and may need taxes to pay our deficits or health care as Dean proposes. Today I heard him say that $87B would be required to start a program (hint). Throw it out the window in Iraq or put it to use creating a health care system, take your pick.

[ikojo]

41. Selwynn...I agree with you on the Dem

prospects for 2004. The Bush machine is very adept politically. The reason they are coming out with the fact that Hussein was not connected with the events of 9/11/01 is because they want to take that away as a campaign issue.

Karl Rove is very, very good at what he does. Much better than James Carville was and he was pretty good but not Rovian that's for sure. For Rove EVERY decision is a political decision and he has a long term vision for the country (not a good one in my opinion but a vision nonetheless). He would like permanent Republican rule. Every Bush appearance is staged. Remember when Bush was at a factory in South St Louis earlier this year? Bush stood in front of some boxes and instead of the Made in China labels that were originally on the boxes Bush's handlers affixed Made in the USA stickers to make it appear that the items in the boxes were made in the good ole US of A.
He was caught but you hear little of the deception involved. Again, had that been Clinton's team that duped people like that the Repugs would have been all over him and the Dems.

[dennis4868]

43. Karl Rove is very, very good at what he does. Much better than..."

Remember, Carville got a nobody from the state of Arkansas elected and Rove got a Bush Selected....Plus, Rove is a cheat, liar and a criminal!

[Trajan]

29. "Probably" ...

in all fairness: ... Kerry, Liebermann and EVERY other Democrat who voted for the IWR were sold a bill of goods by this lying PNAC administration , who jiggered the Intelligence Estimate by cajoling and threatening the CIA/DIA authors .... They used the OSP to develop alternative scenarios (based on some 'solid' Straussian fantasy development ... ) ... and forced the intelligence community to accept the views of the OSP ....

"WHO do you believe ? ... ME ?, or your lying eyes ???? ..... "

Given that fact: ... I think ALL Democrats who voted FOR IWR were hoodwinked, like Enron hoodwinked the citizens of California, who are STILL stuck with the fraudulently priced energy contracts .....

The country was ENRONIZED by the Bush administration as well in regard to the FACTS about Iraq and the push to war .....

We cannot fault men who are intentionally deceived by those in a position of trust .....

I believe, given what was passed off as 'fact' by the WH, .... that Clark WOULD have agreed to sign off on the IWR .....

The proper question would be "Mr Clark ? .. given what you NOW know of the evidence used to make the case for war in Iraq, would you have voted for the IWR as it was written ? .... " ....

I dont think he would vote for the IWR now, given what is now known about the shaky case FOR war .... and these comments do not alter this stance ...

[UserNamesAreFree]

32. Seems a bit of a cop-out

to say he just announced, so he'll be shaky on his positions. 1) He should have had these positions whether or not he was a canidate and 2)Any ironing out should have been done BEFORE he announced. This guy acts like his own canidacy surprises him. Not impressive.

[tsipple]

33. PLENTY of Candidates Opposed to Iraq Resolution

I believe those candidates (in alphabetical order) are:

Braun
Dean
Graham
Kucinich
Sharpton

Pro Iraq War Resolution candidates:

Clark
Edwards
Gephardt
Kerry
Lieberman

In other words, HALF the Democratic field was opposed to the Iraq Resolution. So it should be easy to find a Democratic candidate to support in the primaries and caucuses.

[Selwynn]

34. Half the Democratic field are also un-electable...

[tsipple]

36. Different Halves

You'll have to mix and match from both lists to come up with the electable half. (And I think it's more than half, actually.)

[MostlyBlackCat2]

35. Common Dreams has a list

of other actions taken and statements made by Clark which also paint him as a hawk:

http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0918-05.htm

I was disappointed to discover this, and fear that the media has already painted him as a moderate, and he will get the nomination in spite of his record. I bought it for a while, too.

<bangs head on keyboard>

[Neutrino]

37. That's it, he's toast. Take his "good-lookin geezer" looks

back to his rocking chair. We have enough war-loonies in the WH as
it is.

[thebeaglehaslanded]

38. He is a military man foremost.

There's no reason to believe he wouldn't have acted towards Iraq the very way Chimpy did. Invade, then talk about it later. It's what the military is trained to do. Why do people expect military careerists to be doves? It's against all they've been trained for.

As for his voting record, regardless of whom he voted for, he's a johnny-come-lately Democrat, and I'm not totally convinced that his conversion is any more than opportunism.

The man's a lightweight politician, and Chimpy has already demonstrated how that can cause havoc in the world.

Anyone but Clark!

[Sideways]

39. Shit I have this sick feeling Clark is being shilled to be *s new VP

The Repigs are throwing Cheney to the wolves and why is that? Bush is now tanking in his only area of "expertise er um popularity" that being national security as the war in Iraq is an abject abysmal failure and the WH is scrambling to stop the dam from bursting so they have to put plan B in place!

Could that plan be inticing Clark to run with Bush? Will they dump Unka Dick and bring in Clark? The war time fuck up would be bolstered by a military man at his side. If they can do this * will garner a lot of support from Dems who love Clark even while loathing *. Sounds like a Rovian strategy to me. They can sell this to Clark on many levels:

"Hey Wes look man if you come in as *s VP you can hold your nose for four years but run in 2008 as the incumbent VP. That is a strong position of power. Plus you don't have to fret about all the primaries and fund raising because we have that covered. And no worries about being exposed in debates or horrors the possibility of losing the nomination to_____. Come on Wes doesn't this sound sweet?"

Clark coming into the race at this late date, now announcing support for the war, and The WH desperate attempts to sound well sound have me really feeling quirky about Clark.

Call me Reynolds (as in wrap) but I think something quite snarky is in the works with Clark.

BTW I saw Gene Lyons on MSNBC talking about Clark. When in fucking Gawd has MSNBC had Gene on to talk about anyone? Clinton's boy you know, but now he is credible enough to talk about Clark? In a positive position. HMMMMM.

[Selwynn]

45. That's interesting and frightening (nt)

(nt)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

50. Not to Mention Completely Ridiculous

Clark is not going to run as a Republican or accept an invitation from Shrub to be his vice-president.

DTH

[komplex]

44. Times Change

Cut the Crap, the pre-1992 GOP is much different from the GOP of today. So let's give the guy some slack. If he supported Bush in 2000 then we can complain.

And the Iraq war issue is complicated. Bosina was a war that was fought strictly for humanatarian issues, even then the United States had to drag the Europeans kicking and screaming into cleaning up their own backyard. So let's remember the proper place for the Europeans & the UN, they like Republicans are quite comfortable with inequality and dictators.

The threat of war did get Saddam to open the nation up to inspectors, there is no denying that.

If the War Resolution didn't pass, would Saddam have let the inspections begin again? Probably is an honest and right answer.

The disaster that we are walking into now is just the result of the Incompetence of the Bush Administration.

[lordwhorfin]

46. The end is very probably nigh

Here’s my current prediction. Think of it what you like. I will revise as the year advances.

Actually, I think a Clark run and/or nomination will be the stuff of far-right dreams. The core of the anti-military/industrial complex and anti-globo progressive movements are going to eat up smears on Clark with spoons. Clark will soon be fending off baby-killer attacks from all sides. Since these folks are essential to the resurgence of political opposition in the US (regardless of what others think), the lock on power that Bush has on Washington will remain unbroken. Many progressives (not just Greens, but also left Democrats, populists, Wellstone club types) are going to repudiate anyone who has served in the Cold-war military at Clark’s level. Clark doesn’t have the name recognition or reputation of an Eisenhower, and he certainly doesn’t have the style or flair of the 19th century officers who ran (and mostly lost) for President. Clark may pick up some swing voters, but probably not enough to defeat Bush, as he will alienate the progressives in the party base who dislike his military record, let alone the folks on the left in the US who understand Chalmers Johnson’s critique of American foreign policy.

The aversion to Clark will penetrate into the Democratic Party far more deeply than just into the ‘Green’ layers to the environmental and economic left. The Kucinich campaign and the Mosley-Braun campaign, which both command some support, will be unlikely endorse Clark, or a ticket on which he comes to rest as VP. Much as I personally like Howard Dean, his insurgency is exactly like that of McGovern’s direct mail campaign, and even if it carries him to the nomination, he will lose massively in the general election. He has no support outside the converted, and will gain little, especially as the other candidates chip at him. Bush and Rove will have no trouble destroying Dean in the media circus that will follow his nomination.

The rest of the Democratic field is too weak to catch the imagination, I fear. Gephardt and Kerry are compromised by a host of factors, Edwards by his youth and his ties to the DLC. A vicious, mud-filled primary season, fueled by the GOP and designed to permanently alienate progressive voters from any major party, will likely end with a Dean, Kerry or Gephardt nomination. I don’t think Clark can get it, but he might bleed enough support from Dean to put one of the others in. Any of those three will suffer an ignominious defeat at the hands of Bush, since they cannot stitch together coalitions.

As Congressional redistricting favors Republicans across the nation, the Republicans will increase their Senate majority by a minimum of 3 seats and perhaps by as many as 8. In the House, I suspect that the Republicans will gain 6-9 seats as well, erasing their 1998 and 2000 losses. Thus Bush will emerge from 2004 with a ‘mandate’ and a big majority in Congress. What happens then is pure speculation, but the appointment of very radical rightwing jurists and the remapping of the American legal system to wipe out the 20th century are very likely.

There is an ‘out’ here. It’s this: that the Bushies implode, hence the need to revise as we go.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

51. "Far-Right" Dreams?

Maybe that's why the far-right is trashing him, almost as much as the far-left. Makes sense to me!

DTH

[lordwhorfin]

53. That's the point

He's going to be used by the far-right as a wedge issue in the Democratic party.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

54. Only If We LET Them

Don't fall for the RW bait.

DTH

[lordwhorfin]

55. You could read my whole post

I'm not 'falling' for anything. I'm simply saying that I don't think that left Dems, Wellstone Club types, will switch from Dean to Clark, if they even go for Dean initially (not a guarantee in my opinion).

it's an observation that's rapidly being borne out all around me in California. Is it smart politics? No. Are these folks 'falling' for RW lies? To a degree, yes, but they are quite receptive to them because they are inclined to distrust Clark and dislike aspects of his record no matter what.

I, on the other hand, will vote for any Dem, even Holy Joe. This isn't about me. This is about what I'm seeing on the ground in California.

[genius]

47. At least he's more honest than Dean. Clark was against the war

but he is willing to admit that he might have been fooled into believe that the resolutions was a leveraging tool and not a war tool.

Dean supported the war but wanted a postponement to give the U.N. a chance to join in.

[Selwynn]

48. If you actually read the article...

You'll see that Clark acknowledges wanting excatly what you accuse Dean of wanting.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

52. I Agree, Clark and Dean's Positions Are VERY Similar Here

Although the whore media spins it otherwise.

Dean is much better at getting his spin out there, and I respect him for it.

DTH

[sharkey377]

49. To the disaffected

To the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, just some thoughts!

If you want to remain on the fringe, protesting this and that, hating the opposition, but never ever changing anything then give the nomination to Mr. Dean. The candidate who following the first Tuesday in November 2004 will be a footnote in the history written about that national election, nothing more than a warm memory in the minds of his supporters and campaign workers.

If you wish to elect a Democrate to replace our current President, and make a change in the direction of the country then you must support with not only your words, but your efforts, and finacial assets a centerist candidate who will appear to be looking after the National interests of this country and will be strong in defense of her. A candidate who espouses a belief in the Democratic Party Principals and will swing the helm of this ship of state to the left gradually and not hard left rudder in the first week of an administration which will never be.

If you enjoy being in the minority, in the party out of power, standing on the side lines watching this ship of state in the control of republicans, then nominate Mr. Howard Dean. Then for the following four years you will watch as the increased majority of republicans in the Senate approve the Bush nominees to the Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court while you remain here at this bulletin board gripping, bitching, complaining, and feeling sick to your stomachs about the election that "got away"

Just my thoughts thanks Sharkey...........

[Copperred]

56. Is Clark....a mole?

Everyone who is wondering who is Wesley Clark...should read this:

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen09182003.html

After much thought, the best ticket is DEAN/KUCINICH. End of story. These civilian men are American through and through and will do what is RIGHT for America first.

We can't have people who are loyal to other non U.S. interests at this turning point in history or people who allow themselves to be surrounded by those who are loyal to non U.S. interests....10 2 1....if we don't get the right leaders in office this time...this IS the last brew ha ha...

[coralrf]

58. There is nothing that you find unsettling...

in that article. It has been fractionated by you to give Clark the appearance of being "wishy washy". That was exactly the tactic used against Kerry another Veteran. Your game: put words like "probably" in quotes in order to make them seem unsuitable when in fact there is nothing else Clark could have said as he was NOT IN THE SENATE at the time of that vote.

I believe that you enjoy this article immensely and have "used" it for your real purpose.

[mpsteve]

59. It doesn't matter

Clark can win and he is honest...

End of story

VOTE FOR CLARK!!!