Clark . . . again

[DemDogs]

From Time magazine:
"Clark still applauded the U.S. mission in Afghanistan as he addressed a large audience at Harding University, in Searcy, Arkansas. "I tremendously admire, and I think we all should, the great work done by our commander-in-chief, our president, George Bush," he said in the January 22, 2002 speech."

[efhmc]

1. Totally gross statement but if he's the candidiate, he'll get my support,

time and money.

[mikehiggins]

2. Interesting article

in Time Magazine. It points out that many Democrats have doubts about Clark's sincerity as a Democrat because he was laudatory of them in a speech given in 2001. Now another speech as been reported that was given in January 2002, in which he similarly said the President and the administration were doing a good job in Afghanistan.

Clearly, Clark's obvious inability to read minds and his total failure to foretell the future disqualify him for consideration. Other Democratic candidates, on the other hand, clearly went public in January 2002, five months or so following the destruction of the World Trade Center, with their heartfelt criticism of President Bush and their total opposition to the governments actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

For those of you who need this sort of thing spelled out, I am being sarcastic.

There might be a point to this article but it seems more likely to be just another partisan attack intended to prevent Wes Clark from winning the Democratic nomination.

[dfong63]

20. or knowledge of history, perhaps

Clearly, Clark's obvious inability to read minds and his total failure to foretell the future disqualify him for consideration.

the ability to partially predict the future is a characteristic of intelligent people. smart people foretell the future all the time. Clark's failures in that area are a completely valid point for potential voters to consider. plenty of intelligent people did predict what's happening now in Afghanistan. if Clark didn't, perhaps he's either not intelligent enough to be running, or he's listening to the wrong advice. either way, it doesn't look good.

[leetrisck]

3. Would be nice to see some of the

comments he made about Clinton over the years - if he did - he may not have since he was on active duty.

[Kahuna]

4. Name one Democrat who did not applaud the action in

Afghanistan? Can't think of one? I thought so.

[Cha]

5. I know a lot of Kucinich Supporters who were too

smart to "applaud" bush's actions in Afghanistan.

[goobergunch]

6. Barbara Lee (n/t)

[JohnKleeb]

11. good woman I like her

She and Kucinich if you notice are good friends.

[DemDogs]

8. Name one (other than Lieberman)

who said "I tremendously admire, and I think we all should, the great work done by our commander-in-chief, our president, George Bush". When Lieberman is your only potential company, now THAT'S bad.

[coralrf]

14. DemDogs...

nice try but I doubt it will work. Clark is free to say what he wishes. At that time those were his thoughts. The man can admire anyone he wants. As a General he is likely to always support the commander in chief. In fact the law requires him to.

He is running NOW!!! not THEN!!!. I thought it was the Dems that carped about digging up the past. And by the way DemDogs this quote has been posted at least 6 times..( from all you Drudge readers as that is its origin of late)..and you have jumped right on it too.

Get something substantial on Clark or you will only make a fool of yourself. I doubt you or defemo or Frodo or any of the like will have much effect. Take a look around, Clark is on a roll and he will likely roll right over your hopes.

[DemDogs]

18. Honest question: he wasn't a general in January 2002

This is January 2002 comment. Now, given that, can you answer?

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. Honest reply about then and now

Clark highlighted Bush's role as Commander in Chief when he commented favorably in January 2002. As Commander in Chief Bush then had the overwhelming support of the American people, and in that capacity the support was appropriate. Bush even had my support vis a vis military action in Afghanistan. From what I was able to see at the time, and even now in retrospect, Bush handled that role relatively well. I was even pleasantly surprised that Bush didn't start bombing within days of 9/11. He allowed some time to see if the Taliban could be persuaded to hand Bin Ladin over. Unlike in Iraq the United states was physically attacked by forces directed from within Afghanistan. Training for terrorist strikes against the United States was conducted from camps located there. We succeeded in our immediate objectives, and I supported those objectives. And few would deny that Afghanistan too is better off without the Taliban. I was appalled by their feudal treatment of women just for starters.

By the way I was also pleasantly surprised by all of the public statements and gestures Bush made immediately after 9/11 to not single out Islam as our enemy. He met with American Muslems, he condemmed discrimination against them. My hatred of Bush as President does not blind me to our need in times of crisis to unite as a nation, if necessary even behind an unpopular leader, if that leader is following a course of action that is arguably in the best interests of the nation. We were in real crisis, we had no way of knowing if that first wave of attacks on 9/11 would be followed by a second, and a third.

Clark was effected by 9/11 just like everyone else was. Understandably his foremost area of expertise at the time was military affairs and international relations. Well unlike in Iraq, Bush didn't burn any bridges with our allies over the Afghanistan campaign, in fact he used it to mend relations with Russia, China, and Pakistan. International support for the United Staes was strong throughout that period. France was pro US, Germany was pro US, and the way I see it, so was Clark. While it may prove a problem to some tunnel vision Demmocrats during the primaries who have a revisionist sense of outrage, it is exactly a lifetime of service to America and his non partisan identification with the overall well being of our entire nation that will serve him well in his campaign against Bush for the White House. It is documented that Clark doesn't take cheap partisan shots. He supported Bush when he was right, and he blasts him now when he is wrong, and Clark is quite capable of explaiining the differences.

[Bread and Circus]

19. I don't know if this helps but there are a lot of dems....

who have praised Bush.

Frankly, I think Clark is a little too generous
with his praise. It doesn't make him a bad candidate,
maybe just a little too nice and not partisan enough
for some.

Here are more right wing talking points seeing as how
we are already using so many:

http://www.rnc.org/media/pdfs/dems043001.pdf

See, Clark is not the only Democrat who has praised
Bush.

Even Dean is on record supporting Bush's efforts in
Afghanistan.

[Cocoa]

28. that's a great document from the RNC

especially in light of the current "why do dems hate Bush?" movement.

That doc shows the total dishonesty of the republicans. In 2001, the dems put partisansip aside to work with the new president, and the RNC gives Bush all the credit. In 2003, after the dems correctly hold Bush accountable for HIS failures, after HE abused the dems cooperation, they dishonestly accuse the dems of incivility.

I'm sending that document to the DNC, maybe they can use it.

[DrFunkenstein]

9. Kerry Was Against It

He thought Bush was a punk for using local warlords to fight terrorists, and let Bin Laden off the hook at Tora Bora. I can't wait until he confronts Bush with that at the debates.

[blm]

35. Against Bush's military strategy, not the goal.

But, Clark should have been more in line with Kerry and Gore on their criticisms of Bush at that time. I believe Tora Bora went down about a month before Clark's speech. Maybe he was forbidden from noting the failure there.

[xultar]

7. What are you trying to say?

Give it a rest sweetie. He also got a parking ticket and he may have cooties.
I'm sure if you dig deep enough everyone said something positve about shrub. I happen to think he has a great sense of humor. So am I not worthy enough to be a democrat?

What we should be concentrating on here are ISSUES. What about Clark's policies don't you like? What about his platform warrants discussion? What about his stance on domestic issues? How does he stack up againts Edwards on Gays in the military?

Let's discuss that he was the only person in the Clinton administration that wanted to send Rawanda when they were killing 100s of thousands?

Let's not tear him down let's discuss the issues. Let the repugs tear him down.

[drfemoe]

12. Issues

Issues are important, but it is also important to consider 'character'.

If the candidate can't stand up to a little heat in the primaries, he will never survive the onslaught of the general election.
If you've forgotton about Bill Clinton's nightmare with the 'investigations', even as the duly elected President, you can refer to this reminder .

Although I am not an 'active supporter' for Howard Dean, I have noticed that if a serious person has a question about policy or his past, HQ and the volunteers are very open and responsive.

He's ready for it.

"The Unlikely Rise of Howard Dean"

...“Howard’s got a good message, and people are enthusiastic about him.” Dean has also begun to draw opponents’ attention. The Republican National Committee in January put out a seven-page document snarling that Dean is "an ultra-liberal" and "out of the mainstream." Dean’s response: "I've arrived." ...

"When the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that gay couples were entitled to the same legal rights as heterosexuals, Dean was thrust reluctantly into an ugly battle. This was not his crusade, but he did the right thing and took the heat, receiving hate mail and death threats as he traveled not-so-quaint Vermont talking up the civil unions legislation. (Many lawmakers who courageously voted in favor were defeated in the next election.) “I marched with Howard in a Fourth of July parade,” says State Attorney General William Sorrell, “and people were throwing things and screaming, ‘You fucking cocksucker.’ ” Dean quips that being called “a child molester” and “queer” was great training for a presidential campaign: “Given some of the things the Republicans do, what the right wing does on a national level, I figured now that I had a taste of it, I was ready to run.” ...
..snipped..

[xultar]

10. Dean said the same thing in May 2003

Check this out from another post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=553812

This won't make me turn against Dean if he gets the nomination in 2004.

[gully]

13. He said it with a less 'glowing' characterization of Bush...

IMHO. Many agreed with Shrub, but they didn't praise the 'commander in chief.'

[coralrf]

15. They were not Generals..

that had fought similar wars...

Were they?

[wyldwolf]

16. Gully has made the determination of what level of praise for Bush...

...is acceptable...

Saying "I supported the President" (Dean) is OK. But if the praise is "glowing" (Based on Gully's definition) then it isn't ok.

As always, he sets the bar of what is acceptable as a democrat just above Clark's reach.

[gully]

30. And, you set the bar for what is 'ignored' like Voting for Bush and Reagan

and/or raising $$ for Republicans. And/or refusing to 'admit' you were a Democrat until a month ago.

You know, those pesky details.

[wyldwolf]

31. They are being ignored... BIG TIME!

your theories and hypothesis just don't translate into reality in the real world... for example:

Ever since Clark jumped into the race, Kerry and other leading candidates -- including former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt -- have tried to stall his momentum by repeatedly criticizing his late Democratic conversion. They've pointed out that Clark voted for Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, and that Clark publicly praised the current Bush administration as recently as 2001.

But in interviews over the past week, voters of every political persuasion said over and over that this argument is unlikely to take hold in New Hampshire, where more people are registered as "undeclared" than as either Democrat or Republican. And these independents, who can vote in either party's presidential primary, are likely to flock to the Democratic contest because no one is challenging President Bush for the Republican nomination.

Even voters who identified themselves as Democrats or Republicans said they take pride in their ability to look beyond party lines in this traditionally anti-tax, anti-regulation state, where the motto is "Live Free or Die" and the law doesn't require adults to wear seat belts.

Jack A. Saunders, a Democrat from Holderness, said going after Clark for voting Republican will backfire on candidates like Kerry.

http://www.post-gazette.com/election/20031019independents1019p2.asp

Couple this with the fact that Clark is running first or second in most national polls and there is your proof that this is a non-issue.

[gully]

34. It's not a non issue for me....

And, being Clark has fallen 'recently' in the polls, I'd say others feel the same way.

[wyldwolf]

38. Fortunately for us all, as I have said before, YOU alone matter not...

...in the grand scheme of things.

Funny how you can make a claim about Clark, then after a New Hampsire poll proves you wrong, you try to turn it around as a personal thing - as though your little petty rants makes a difference.

As for your poll point, depends on which polls, right?

Looks as though in all major polls Clark is still in the margin of error.

[democratreformed]

22. Please notice the following portion of the quote posted above...

"I tremendously admire, and I think we all should, the great work ..."

Although many would love to make it appear differently, this quote is praising the "work" done in Afghanistan and NOT George Bush, per se.

As many others have pointed out, the majority of Americans were praising the "work" being done in that country at that time.

Clark's campaign spokesman has said that the General's views began changing (as did mine) and the course the admininstration was taking began to worry him (as they did me) when the Iraq issue came up.

Throw me out of here if you must, but I never thought we had any business going into another country and taking it over for any reason other than being asked for help by one of our allies or responding to a direct undisputable threat. Just because Wesley Clark did not agree with me completely on that issue back in January does not make me not want to support him. It is very doubtful that I will be able to find ANY candidate that I cannot find SOMETHING wrong with.

Also, I have never heard Wesley Clark call himself "the anti-war candidate" or publicly state that he was running his campaign based on being against the Iraq war. That was a label the media chose to give him. He has spoken out against the deception that led to the war. He has spoken out about the direction that our country seems to be headed in. He has repeated the same concerns and arguments over and over.

[Bread and Circus]

26. Actually, Clark said he was not...

"an anti-war candidate". He stated he was
a "pro-success candidate". Your recollection
and assessment is correct.

Frankly none of them, except maybe Kucinich,
are anti-war candidates. That is the farce of
it all. Dean supported every U.S. military
action, from what I have read, up until Iraq 2,
if that tell you anything.

Most of this "who exactly said what and when" is
media spin for ratings because they are often
too stupid to cover a story intentionally. Rather
that call Bush on his shit for ruining the environment
and everything else, they are perpetually playing
the game "gotcha".

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[dsc]

21. This is absurd

There is one, count her one, federally elected Democrat who opposed the war in Afghanistan and that was Barbara Lee. Even your candidate supported this. While I do think he could have been a little less effusive I don't care. Clark deserves better than this and so does Kucinich.

[diamondsoul]

37. Small point of contention-

Kucinich never supported military action in Afghanistan to my knowledge. If you've seen something or have a link to something that shows he did, I'd like to see it.

The vote was never specifically about Afghanistan. The question was purely whether the attacks on Sept. 11th were sufficient grounds for military action. At the time of the vote, the details about who was responsible were still sketchy, and there was speculation that it might have been a Government as opposed to individuals or terrorist organizations. Those who voted in favor of that resolution did so on the belief that another Government launching such an attack on US soil warranted a military response in self-defense.

[dsc]

39. I think it would be up to you to say he didn't support it

I have literally never seen that interpretation put on that resolution and one wonders why anyone, including Lee, would have voted against it. I think that resolution is generally taken as a go ahead for the Afghan military assult. At this point he should directly have to argue otherwise.

[eddieNH]

23. Lieberman praised B*sh, too

“America’s great military strength, including particularly the precision air attack and special forces capabilities built up by President Clinton during the 1990s, and commanded so well by President Bush over the past year, has been stunningly impressive in this war to date.

— Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., Jan 14, 2002, Georgetown University lecture

“Our actions under President Bush’s strong leadership since September 11th have gone a long way toward forestalling this new iron curtain.”

— Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., Jan 14, 2002, Georgetown University lecture

“I strongly support President Bush's appointment of Governor Tom Ridge as Director of Homeland Security. The fact that Governor Ridge has President Bush's ear will make a very difficult job easier.”

— Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., Jan 15, 2002, University of Oklahoma

[RevolutionStartsNow]

24. Eek!

It's worse if you imagine him saying it

[sandnsea]

25. 4 mos. after 9/11

People either deliberately forget what the country was like at that time, or are knee-jerk anti-U.S. to begin with. Do any of you have a clue that it would be impossible for a Democrat to get elected if he'd been bashing Bush 4 months after 9/11???

[robbedvoter]

27. My letter to Time:

About Face -
Date:
Sun, 19 Oct 2003 05:41:52 -0400
Time <[e-mail]>
Stop the Presses! Wesley Clark supported Bush after 9.11! Read all about
it!
I'll defy you to find me ANYONE who after 9.11 didn't have kind
words towards Bush (except maybe the great Barbara Lee). As it is,
everyone gave him a second chance to "grow in his role" - and we know
how that went. (I'd be curious if Time was, is against that war, by the
way)
No candidate - not even Kuchinich - voted against that war.
Here's Dean's statement:
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the elimination of the
Taliban. I thought that group was a clear and present danger to the
United States, and I supported what the President did.
Howard Dean
May 22, 2003
Al Gore, who was cheated of his victory by Bush had a speech after 9.11
saying: "He is my commander in Chief" . There are other kind words in
there as well.
At least we know for a fact what Wesley Clark would have done if he
were commander in Chief on 9.11. We know because he wrote 3 days after
9.11:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4257771-103677,00.html
(originally published in Washington Post) As you see, he wouldn't have
invaded any country.
This so called news reveal to me one thing: you are singling out
Wesley Clark for something the whole country said and did at the time .
It only tells me he is the candidate you REALLY, REALLY don't want
facing Bush.
--
The non-news attack on Clark here:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,524416,00.html

[DemDogs]

29. The problem is that you are watching GWB TV ads

when you are watching these Clark tapes. Then we have to explain what he was talking about or when he was talking about it? I don't agree with Clark but these tapes are not the reason. But you have to admit he is making Rove's job a lot easier.

[Karate_do_Rhokokyu]

32. What did you expect???

Its politics. Unfortunately there are few candidates that will really lay Bush out for who he really is. Because in order to even get in a position to run for president, you have to brown-nose the current one. Because if Clark or anyone lets on that they are REALLY going to go after Bush early, it gives too early a warning to the Bush Administration.

Gore, who really won the election (read "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy"), didn't want to really Lay into Bush, because, and I quote "He felt he would be fighting an unarmed man". And Gore didn't want to look like a jerk, because the results might have made Gore look like a hot shot or a bully. If Dean or Clark get the Nomination I think then they will take Bush(Arbusto) and tear him a new one.

Its Politics you have to be a suck-up and a wheeler dealer to be president. All politicians, both Republican and Democrat have done something, questionable or illegal, and there is an unwritten rule in politics. I know everything you have done, and you know everything I have done. Now if we play nice, I wont spin it and make you a political laughing-stock.

[gasperc]

36. Gore applauded Bush's action

enough said, but since then it's been a cluster fuck so that's that