In case you missed it: Clark today "He would never have voted for the war"

[RevolutionStartsNow]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20030919-1405-clark-iraq.html

I hate to start another Clark thread, they are everywhere, but this is confusing.

I saw a lot of people piling on Clark yesterday when he said he "probably" would've voted for the war -- are they now climbing off his back and back on his bandwagon?

Is the press just setting him up, or is he misspeaking?

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. A little of both

A tad of political naivete when it comes to the press
and the press setting him up, as they have done with Dean a
couple times. (meet the Press interview)

[StephNW4Clark]

2. It was a hypothetical question that was asked

A reporter asked him, if he were in Congress when that vote was taken, what does he think we would have done?

And he said, based on how the country was feeling and the fact that Congress had confidence in the intelligence Bush presented, would have voted for a resolution that would have given the president the leverage to go to the UN and say, "I have the authorization to go to war" BUT the resolution would have contained the CRITICAL clause: Congress has the final say whether or not to declare war.

In other words, give the President a bargaining chip for the UN. But not the gun.

[joeybee12]

3. He's go to realize that rambling, thoughtful (or not) answers are bad!

The media wants simple answers, simple statements. Anything that is not 100% clear they go nuts.

Example--Dumbo is too stupid to have any doubts about all the bad choices he's made--the press calls that character.

[tsipple]

4. Well, He Made a Mistake...

...And probably even a very big one, letting himself be caught ambiguous on the big life-or-death issue of our time.

But let's cut him some slack, OK?

[ModerateMiddle]

10. The problem is

that wasn't what the vote was on. The Dems tried to make the resolution tighter, but got blindsided by some of their own.

[Bread and Circus]

22. I think that is what he meant....

and I think your explanation is great. I couldn't
have said it better.

[DJcairo]

5. Clark is finished, it's too bad because I liked the guy

I mean come on. He says a differnet thing every day. Which is it?
And

He voted for Nixon and Reagan.

Yikes, As Dems we owe it to ourselves not to nominate a sellout

Geez, come on guys. Just as we were starting to get some backbone. Talk about double speak. I'd rather we had Lieberman than this mess.

[MrPeepers]

6. And really...

the man has never run for political office before. He has no policy-making experiance. He has no experiance with economics, no experiance with social issues, no experiance in dealing with Congress. Clark just isn't qualified. He could make a good potential VP, though, I must admit.

Peepers

[Code_Name_D]

30. Or, he could be just another sell out.

Just like Powel.
Just like "Arnold"

The lack of a record can conseal more than it reveals.

[clar]

9. You

need to work on your ability to interact with others with a modicum of civility. Really.

[JI7]

11. clark is not finished

maybe he has to clear up what he said. but he is not finished. and he is not a sellout. i prefer to hear what he has to say about issues that matter rather than go through crap about who he voted for decades ago. same thing with john kerry and when people bring up some group he belonged to in college.

[Bread and Circus]

23. Does this mean finished?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969441.asp

[disgruntella]

7. Here's one perspective on the "waffle"

(and would you like some syrup with that ;))

Just posted in a thread near you, but it applies to this situation.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0303.html#091903912pm

[tsipple]

8. All Due Respect to Marshall...

...He's all wet.

There was one vote in play in the Senate. You get to choose: yea or nay. Dean picked nay. Kerry (and some other candidates) picked yea, and now (apparently) Clark would have done the same. Or maybe not.

That's the question. How did you vote, or how would you have voted? And, yes, JMM, that's simple. It's also what the Constitution demands.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

13. Actually

Dean picked nay.

Dean, like Clark, had the luxury of being able to Monday-morning quarterback without being put on the spot by constituents, about half of whom at the time supported the war.

After a brief fumble by Clark, both guys now say they would have voted no. That's all well and good. But in my mind, the two best on this issue were Graham and Kucinich, because they REALLY DID vote no on the war, after weighing all of the difficult pressures and issues at the time.

DTH

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. Umm, Dean didn't pick yea or nay

Dean isn't a member of Congress and he didn't vote on any Congressional resolutions. Yes, he said he supported Biden-Lugar and said he opposed the resolution that was passed.

But just like Clark, it's nothing but hypothetical.

This whole controversy, just like the anger directed at Kerry for his vote, is just indicative of the general dumbing-down of political discourse in this country, where anything that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker and can be explained in terms a fifth-grader can understand is viewed as 'waffling'.

I think Marshall has it exactly right:

"The idea seems to be that there are really only two positions on the war, the Dean position and the Bush position.

Either you were against the war from the beginning, against even threatening force under any and all circumstances, soup-to-nuts, or you were for it, more or less under the same range of conceivable circumstances. If you have a position that falls between these two monochromatic options, you're indecisive, a waffler or a trimmer. "
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0303.html#091903912pm

The really funny thing about this is that the perceived position of Dean isn't even his real position. Dean was in favor of Biden-Lugar and said he believed Bush about the WMD's. So he wasn't actually all-out against the war either.

[Fabio]

27. Here here.

[Fabio]

17. I'd just add

that picking yea on the IWR and saying you would have voted nea, but not being in a position of responsibility...are two very different things.

I am not talking down the personal risk Gov Dean took, but all those in Congress are charged with a duty to protect the country...and while the benefit of hindsight doesn't make the choice look better...the benefit of hindsight should not be a factor in evaluating candidates, IMHO

[Edmundo]

12. Do you want to get more confused?

MEDIA ADVISORY:
Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"

September 16, 2003

The possibility that former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark might enter the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has been the subject of furious speculation in the media. But while recent coverage of Clark often claims that he opposed the war with Iraq, the various opinions he has expressed on the issue suggest the media's "anti-war" label is inaccurate.

Full article:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

[seamarq]

14. Regardless, Clark is leading in latest Newsweek poll

Clark’s Fast Start
In a new Newsweek poll, the general takes an early lead among Democrats while Bush’s ratings continue to slide

CLARK WON SUPPORT from 14 percent registered Democrats and democratic leaners, outpacing former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (12 percent), Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman (12 percent), Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (10 percent) and Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt (8 percent).

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969441.asp?0cv=KB10

[Edmundo]

16. Wow, that was quick!

No wonder the Dean supporters are so eagerly trying to disqualify Clark...

I still hold my reservations for Clark but I think he is our best bet againt the chimp. Let's see what he says about the issues.

From reading his "100 year vision" (http://www.clark04.com/vision.php) looks very promising.

[renie408]

18. I respectfully disagree

For me, after the last three years, trust is a big issue. Clark has been running less than a week and there have already been several BIG trust issues brought up. And then there is the problem with not being able to make the debates, stuff like that. Has he managed to clear up his calendar so that he can attend the debates? I have been away from the computer for the last couple of days, so I am 36 hours out of the loop.

I don't think that Clark is our best bet against the Chimp. Obviously, I think that Edwards is, but after that, I would prefer someone who has won an election and who has NOT spent the majority of their lives in the very distinct and separate world of the career military. I think that Kerry has as much to offer or more than Clark on foriegn affairs and Kerry is a proven politician. My pick after Edwards would be Kerry. Everyone keep saying that Clark is strong on foreign affairs, but there is a difference between war and foreign affairs.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. Agree or disagree with him,

but Kerry is remarkably consistent in his positions over the course of years. I like what Edwards has to say and he is certainly someone who I could enthusiastically support, I just think as a freshman Senator he is setting his sights too high.

[renie408]

20. You get that I like Kerry, right?

That 'agree or disagree' thing wasn't for me, right?

As for Edwards' 'experience', is going for President after the same amount of time being a governer less of a setting of sights too high? How much time is considered the right amount of time spent inside the beltway? And personally, I am not sure that I want a career politician this time around, either. Talking about Edwards 'lack of experience' is ridiculous. He has proven himself every day he has been in office in the Judiciary committee and elsewhere. He has a detailed plan for turning the country around. He comports himself beautifully everywhere he goes, answers every question put to him eloquently and well and has managed to run without gouging his fellow Democrats thus far.

He is experienced enough for me and I bet he will be experienced enough for plenty of people. If that's the best you can do, you need to start thinking about your choice.

[Edmundo]

25. I agree about Kerry...

..he has more to offer than Clark. In fact I would be very pleased to see Kerry win the nomination.

I'm not 100% with Clark and I'm not making any donations because I want to see what he has to say. I want more substance and the fact that he has no time for debates also bothers me. Right now I like the fact that he has just joined in as a candidate as a democrat and is already a threat to Bush. I want to give Clark a chance instead of disqualifying him like most Dean people are doing here.

Right now we can only assume who is stronger on foreign affairs. Perception is what is getting one of these candidates in the White House. As of now the vague perception that will influence swing voters is that Dean is weak on foreign affairs. Republicans will keep repeating that until November of 2004. They wouldn't be able to do the same to Kerry or Clark.

I just want to see the most electable democrat win the nomination. I want Bush out! :-)

[Edmundo]

26. Clark Will Participate in Campaign Debate

You can cross this out of you "anti-Clark" list.

Clark Will Participate in Campaign Debate
Fri Sep 19, 8:36 AM ET

By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer

They said yes. Then no. Now it's yes again: Wesley Clark will participate in next week's Democratic presidential debate after all, his campaign said...


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030919/ap_on_el_pr/clark_debate_8

[renie408]

28. Good

I think it is important that he start putting forth his policy plans as soon as possible. Perhaps it will clear up some things.

Then again, after his stunning lack of clarity on every other issue I have heard him address so far, maybe not.

[renie408]

21. Flavor of the Week

[MoonRiver]

24. My own dear spouse was pro-war until the WMD scam was exposed.

I never for a minute believed the * lies, but I also think * knew about 9/11 and let it happen (which my husband still thinks is an off the wall position). What I'm trying to say is that many very well educated and informed Democrats fell for the Iraq hoax. Clark, and even Kerry, might have been among them. I don't really think hypothetical statements about what one might or might not have done under certain circumstances and with a particular set of "facts" to consider, is relevant. More important is how Clark proposes to fix all the disasters stemming from this hideous administration.

[renie408]

29. I don't mind if Clark was pro-war

I don't like that he cannot apparently make up his mind whether he was pro-war or not. He wrote articles that were pro-war (anti-bad timing), was on CNN for weeks and never said anything anti-war, and yet now he says he wouldn't have voted for the IWR. He has also in the past said that he firmly believed that there was WMD in Iraq. Since the vote on the IWR was BEFORE we knew that there was no WMD and since he has previously stated that he firmly believed it was there and since he has previously stated that he might have voted for the IWR, I have to consider his latest statement a political convenience.