warning to Clarkies – there's a very negative article in the Guardian

[pruner]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1091321,00.html

I don't wanna piss anyone off by posting excerpts (since there's really nothing positive in the article).

I just thought you guys/gals might wanna contact the paper about some of the factual & editorial inaccuracies.

[xultar]

1. Old News, what was it end of September early October...

no biggie
Thanks for the heads up Pruner
T

[Dr Satan]

2. The only inaccuracy I saw

was they labelled him anti-war.
Other than that, the article was very accurate.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

3. like Dean, Clark is only anti-Republican wars

Clark could easier kill these rumors of him being a closet Republicans by a strong populist, anti-corporate campaign. So far, he's chosen to do the Clinton neo-liberal line, and that's why Dean is killing him.

[Bombtrack]

9. what the hell has ever been a republican war?

The closest thing to one was Reagan's latin American programs in which no US troops faught

[annxburns]

4. Clarkies may also want to check out ...

... this positive article in the Guardian (more of a book review)

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/politicsphilosophyandsociety/0,6121,1091064,00.html

And this mongo, five page article to appear tomorrow in the NY times ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/politics/campaigns/23CLAR.html?ex=1070168400&en=9dcee45dd885de2d&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[Tatiana]

30. Fascinating article!

Complicated... General Clark is most definitely a complicated man.

And a genius, too.

[oasis]

44. Rhodes scholar, first in his class at West Point. Not bad.

[FrenchieCat]

33. and also buy the New GQ December Issue....with Uma on the cover..

for $3.50 you get a 7 page spread with color pics....excellent positive article!

titled "GENERAL ELECTRIC"....it's like the best article that I have read about Clark....6 picture spread...getting off an airplane, pics of Gert, pics of him in uniform and one when was at West point.

This article really gets personal with the General. Go buy that December issue with Uma Thurman on the cover.

Here's a little excerpt..."He's not big enough to be a general, He stands about five ten but looks shorter because he's so thightly muscled. A coiled force rather than some big beefy four-star guy. He moves with an athlete's grace, the body always centered, the step light. His hands are graceful also, almost delicate. his voice has that command force but is low-key and congenial. The smile flashes so often you want to swat it at times, but still, the general manages to put people at ease."

But here's the ending paragraph: "They will continue to spin columns asking, does he have what it takes, can he beat President Bush, is he nothing but a resume? Some claim he's just a stalking horse for the Clintons. Some say he's just running to be vice-president. Some say he's a nobody general who will fade once the real Democrats get a good look at him.

Maybe, but I'll tell you what I think. He's running for president, and he is not used to losing. And if he gets the nomination, he'll go up and down this country and beat on President Bush like a drum. He'll do 2,000 yards of swimming every morning; he'll rappel down any cliff he needs to; he will shake off any small-arms fire as if it were a swarm of gnats. And he'll get better at the game each and every day. He hates to lose. And he doesn't run from fights. And even if he's never played the game, he's never a beginner at anything.
Dismissed."

No link...as I typed this here straight from the magazine.
WELCOME ALL TO THE WES WING

[Renew Deal]

49. The NYT article is terrific.

Lots of good information there.

[Bombtrack]

6. he is/was anti-war

Not what it is accepted as anti-war according perhaps to the Kucincih and most of the Dean people, which basically requires someone to against any effort, internationally or not, to disarm Saddam or even acknowledge he was a long term threat

[w4rma]

10. Yes. That's why Dean isn't anti-war. He's anti-Iraq war. (n/t)

[Bertrand]

19. In what way?

after all, he did agree with Bush that if the UN didnt "enforce its resolutions" the US would have to "Disarm" Iraq unilaterally.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html

He gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

[Skwmom]

20. How is Dean anti-Iraq War? When push came to shove

Dean's take on the Iraq War:

He (Dean) gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

http://fordean.org/aa/issues/press_view.asp?ID=398

[Skwmom]

27. Old news and to cite Zogby,

the cheerleader for Dean, who is SO lacking in professional integrity that he has used push polling within his polls shows what a hack job this whole article is.

[FrenchieCat]

41. You mean the old "Flip/Flop" meme?????

Clark: The Anti-War But Pro-War Resolution Candidate

Clark told a reporter on September 17, 2003, the day he declared his candidacy, that had he been in congress on October 11, he "probably would have voted for the resolution" giving the president authorization to go to war. This is being pounced on as an admission by Clark that he backed the war. His former press secretary Mary Jacoby encapsulated what she heard him say: "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

This is absolutely consistent with Clark's testimony to the Armed Services Committee on September 26, 2002:


The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not.The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.


The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in crafting UN engagement. In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force.This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam’s weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action. Yes, there is a risk that inspections would fail to provide the evidence of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam.

In October, when the resolution passed, polls showed American support for using the military to oust Hussein was over 60 percent, but 70 percent believed he should first get UN approval. Clark's statement that he would have supported the resolution to use as leverage for the UN is not inconsistent with the opinion of many at that time, although it's clear Clark would have preferred a resolution that threatened force without directly authorizing it.

The resolution was not a declaration of war. The United States Congress has not declared war since World War II. The resolution authorized the president to act with force if he deemed it necessary but fell far short of a war declaration. When Clark says he would have voted for the resolution but would not have voted for the war, he is saying he would not have voted for a congressional declaration of war and that he opposed the actions taken by the Bush administration under the shelter of the October resolution. These actions contradicted the case the administration made to win congressional support for the resolution, which was advertised as a platform to secure peace not authorize war.

Bush used the leverage argument to convince skeptical lawmakers to support the resolution even if they opposed war. In a September 19 photo-op in the Oval office, a reporter asked whether the resolution would authorize force. Bush responded "That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about. "

According to CBS, Powell reinforced the idea that the resolution was more to secure peace than to actually authorize war by telling lawmakers that "the Bush administration was unlikely to use force except if Iraq continued to refuse to get rid of weapons of mass destruction."

Few doubted Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons. During previous UN inspections, Iraq failed to provide evidence they had been destroyed. The belief that Hussein possessed chemical and biological agents was bolstered by intelligence some now believe was provided by Iraqi double agents posing as defectors. Some, like Hans Blix, now speculate that Hussein may have believed the US would not attack if they were convinced he possessed such lethal weapons. After all, despite North Korea's continued claims that it possessed and would use nuclear weapons, the US declined to act against North Korea.

The day before congress passed the war resolution, Time published Let's Wait to Attack, in which Clark calls for the US to consider public sentiment and expresses strong support only for multi-lateral action with a detailed post-conflict plan and only if the UN cannot resolve US concerns about whether Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons.

Clark never wavered in his belief that Hussein had chemical weapons, and said to Paula Zahn on April 2, 2003, "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this." Clark, however, was a civilian during the buildup to the Iraq war and received the same intelligence provided to the American people--intelligence that we now know was fraught with errors and omissions. What did waver was his faith in the president's stated determination to 'exhaust diplomacy' and work with the UN and US allies on Iraq. He also lacked conviction that the threat from Hussein was imminent enough to justify pre-emptive action, expressed to Global Viewpoint editor Nathan Gardels at the start of the war on March 19.

In an April 4 London Times editorial, Clark crowed at the easy victory. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions." He added "George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt." But remember, any opposition Clark had to the war was not because he disbelieved the case for WMD or harbored doubts that Hussein was a tyrant who deserved to be deposed. His opposition was predicated on the fact that Bush did not do enough to exhaust diplomacy and coordinate with the UN.

Who is surprised that a career military man would rejoice at a successful outcome to the war, which resulted in few casualties for US troops? Indeed, weren't most Americans--even those opposed to the war--relieved that it was so swift and painless (at least to the US)?

However, as evidence surfaces showing that both UK and US intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was hyped and that, as Rumsfeld stated to the Senate Armed Services Committee in July, "The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," many who previously supported the war are now filled with doubt and have questions about whether it was justified. The poor planning for the aftermath of the war and the continued deaths of US servicemen and Iraqi civilians has compounded these doubts.

Clark has never referred to himself as the anti-Iraq-war candidate, although he could have tried to do so to steal Dean's thunder. Instead, he has taken what can only be considered the tougher road. He acknowledges that he most likely would have voted for the resolution but with reservations, a position no different than the one expressed by Kerry and Gephardt and no different than the position held by the majority of Americans back in October 2002.

Whether this should be held against him is for voters to decide, and they can consider General Clark's own words on his sentiments toward war, taken from a September 9, 2002, editorial in USA Today: "Our strategic priorities need to be kept in order: We can best face a possible fight against Iraq if we have strong allies and a weakened al-Qaeda. While we eventually may have to use force against Iraq, we should use our resolve first to empower diplomacy, with war as the last resort."

It is difficult to fault those who supported the resolution as a means to secure cooperation from Hussein when the threat of force from the US was likely responsible for the unprecedented access Hussein gave the UN inspectors this go around. The proverbial 'fly in the ointment' was the Bush team. Before congress passed the resolution, the administration misled congress, America, and the UN into believing the US would allow the inspectors ample time to ferret out the truth concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. With resolution in hand, the administration abandoned their promises and began the push for immediate action against Iraq.

***UPDATE: Clark confirms his position in interview with Associated Press: "Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war," Clark said before a speech at the University of Iowa. "I've gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein." And later, to the Des Moines Register: "I would have voted for a resolution which gave the president leverage to seek a diplomatic, non-military solution to the problem in Iraq. I would have never voted for war," he said. "I'm a soldier. I know what war is like."***

[JailBush]

5. Well, I read the article...

and it pretty much describes the perception I had of Clark based on his appearance on David Letterman - basically a sharp guy, but not quite with it and a little phony in the anti-Bush department.

[retyred]

7. No disrespect but

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks, I needed That!



retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
read the book

[JanMichael]

8. Does this quote kill him as a VP hopeful?

From the posted article:

"Comments made in May 2001 surfaced, showing Clark heaping praise on Bush and his team: 'I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our President George W Bush. We need them there,' he told an Arkansas Republican dinner."

I hope not. Obviously that can be spun to say that it was before the Lil' Dicktator ran amok after the WTC attacks so Clark was unaware of how dangerous these assholes really are...

[roguevalley]

11. I have to laugh at how often old stale news gets trotted out about the

boys. Even Dean.

[JanMichael]

13. Oh it's going to happen whether we like it or not.

Sticking our collective heads in our asses and ignoring easily available information is nuts IMHO.

Once again: I am NOT a Dean OR Clark OR Kucinich partisan, period.

[FrenchieCat]

34. It's ok, cause this is what he really said:

Many have made much about him speaking at a "Republican" Fundraiser. However, when you actually read the speech, you realize that his words are being taken out of context. See for yourself.

on re-reading clark's lincoln day speech:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065

here is the full paragraph of contention:
------------------
You see, in the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect our country from communism. Well guess what, it's over. Communism lost. Now we've got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live. We've got to let them be all they can be. They want what we have. We've got some challenges ahead in that kind of strategy. We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.
----------------------
notice he says he is glad to have them in office for the challenges ahead in EUROPE!

[JanMichael]

39. Well they've fucked up European relations too, no?

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

51. Yep....

But not by May of 2001...that's before 9/11 even! He also said the following in the same speech....remember that he is a consumate diplomat....not one to just hurle insults...cause he does want to be heard...and listened to...which is more effective IMO:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065

two paragraphs up from the maligned "praise" we find this:
------------------------
But we're also extremely vulnerable. Our economy--we're using three times--we've got three times as much foreign investment as we're investing--capital flow--as we're putting out there. They're investing here because they believe in us. We're using energy like it's going out of style. We're using five to eight times as much energy per capita as people in the rest of the world, twice as much as even the Europeans. We're vulnerable to security threats--everything from terrorism to the developing missiles that are--we know rogue states are developing to aim at us.

And so I think we have to have a new strategy, and we have to have a consensus on the strategy, and we have to have a bipartisan consensus, and politics has to stop in America at the water's edge. We've got to reach out, and we've got to find those people in the world and share our values and beliefs--and we've got to reinforce them. We've got to bring them here and let them experience the kind of life that we have. They've got to get an education here. They've got to be able to send their children here. They they've got to go home. And they've got to carry the burdens in their own lands, and to some extent we have to help them.
----------------------------
notice that in the first paragraph clark talks enviromentalism to a republican audience. also note the warning about terrorism pre-9/11.
notice in the second paragraph he talks about bipartisanship, and reaching out to the world community. two traits that he shares spot on with his positions today.

[FrenchieCat]

52. Again more of the speech...what he was saying about Europe

in the next two paragraphs of the speech, after the "praising phrase" that was taken out of context, he further defines the European challenges:
-------------------------
We've got a NATO that's drifting right now. I don't know what's happened to it. But the situation in the Balkans where we've still got thousands of American troops, it's in trouble. It's going downhill on us as we're watching it. Our allies haven't quite picked up the load on that. But our allies say they're going to build a European security and defense program with a rival army to NATO. Well, I think it's a political imperative that they do more for defense, but I think we have to understand that that linkage between the United Sates and Europe, that bond on security, that's in our interest.

Look, in politics they told me--I don't know anything about politics now, I want to make that clear. But they told me--I read, do my reading in Time magazine and so forth. And they said in politics you've always got to protect your base. Well, for the United States, our base is Europe. We've got to be there, and we've got to be engaged in Europe. And that means we've got to take care of NATO, we've got to make sure the Europeans stay in it, and we've got to stay with the problem in the Balkans, even though we don't like it. We will get it resolved, and we'll help bring democracy and Westernization to those countries there.

[seventhson]

12. I sure hope so

You KNOW I believe that Clark is BFEE all the way to the bank.

He was hired by the Stephens Group in Arkansas right after one of the Stephens brothers gave Bush $100,000 (and in the 1980's Stephens had arranged Saudi financing for Shrub's oil ventures in Texas).

He also was in on the airline profiling contracts to keep tracvk of us Terr'ists.

Clark sucks.

This article was too kind IMHO.

[JanMichael]

14. Clark is NOT BFEE!

I've heard about the things you mention but I simply don't buy that he's that corrupted.

Well, let me clear that up: Almost ALL of the major candidates are corrupted, period, it's systemic I suppose. That said not all are BFEE or something just as bad.

I'll vote for Clark, work for his election, if he gets the nomination (Unless of course he is outed as a Martian then I'll have to reconsider my ABB stance).

[FrenchieCat]

43. Seventhson just has gotten

totally desperate....almost despondent!

It's OK Seventhson...you're the other gifts that keeps giving!

just don't exhaust yourself, hear!



Clark & Clinton

[JanMichael]

46. Clinton has an enormous cranium!?

Or is it just hair?

Jesus christ that's a weird photo...

[salin]

47. ?

odd post. Surely you aren't accusing Jan Michael of posing as another Duer? And two Duers who post really different things/perspectives? Please clarify what you are trying to say with this post - as it appears to be coming from far outfield and missing the mark by a mile.

[Bertrand]

18. If Clark should lose, i dont think he would want to be VP

As ive said before, assuming that if Dean beats him, im sure he would probably wait out this election and run in 2008.

[Closer]

15. Don't warn the Clarkies

And for goodness sake, don't NOT post clips so as not to "piss them off" because god only KNOWS, they'd relish in doing it to a Dean supporter.

This is a great piece. And oh so true.


Man, Clark just really FIZZLED. I'm suprised actually. I thought for a while there, he'd give Dean a run for his money. Not anymore, it's looks like SMOOOOOOOTH sailin' from here.

[Rowdyboy]

16. Absolutely, dude...

You guys have it made. Gonna be an easy road from here to Boston...Just put on cruise control and enjoy the ride....Wish I had been as bright as you guys and bet on Dean but I guess I'll start looking for a recipe for crow.

Ya'll enjoy your eight years in the Big House, ya hear...Start measuring for curtains in the Oval Office!

[Skwmom]

31. You know despite your Clark picture

I've noticed you get rather hot when anyone criticizes Dean. I guess it's like the Republican Democrats in Florida.

[jumptheshadow]

53. I am laughing myself silly here

"Start measuring for curtains in the Oval office."

Rowdyboy, you're cracking me up!

The Guardian article was just stale hash. They could have published that a month ago and it still would have been old.

[wyldwolf]

24. Clark has SOOOO fizzled that...

...in the latest Gallup poll, in a direct run against Bush, Gen. Wesley Clark fares the best among registered voters (Clark 42%, Bush 49%), closely followed by Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (Kerry 41%, Bush 49%).

[QC]

29. Yep--I can think of 7 candidates who would give their right arms

to fizzle like that.

[Bertrand]

17. Ill make sure to warn Dean supporters about negative articles, you know

to help.

[pruner]

21. regardless of what you think…

that was my intent… to help.

If I hadn't posted the article you can be sure someone else that isn't a Clark supporter would've… and quoted the most negative aspects of the article.

the whole thread would've turned into another flame war.

my method has pretty much rendered the article benign.

[Bertrand]

22. no, i agree

I, too, will post negative articles about Dean to render them benign.

[SahaleArm]

26. LOL *nm*

[Skwmom]

23. Don't worry. They'll be PLENTY of negative Dean

articles if he's the nominee (and sadly a lot of those negative articles need do no more than tell the truth). Plus let us not forget the 24 hour around the clock negative Dean press on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc.

I can just hear Woodruff now.

Q: How could the Democrats have picked such a non-viable candidate? JUDY: The Democrats let their hatred of George Bush cloud their judgment.

[pruner]

25. … and you'll undoubtedly be the first one to post them

[SahaleArm]

28. Think of it as reciprocity

:evilgrin:

[RevolutionStartsNow]

32. I can't imagine the anti-Dean people want Bush re-selected

but dontcha think some of them will be secretly hoping for a Bush landslide, just so they can say "I told you so!"? Disgusting.

Do they think that their candidate could generate enough enthusiasm to beat Bush if he can't even get the nomination?

[L.A.dweller]

42. No one and I mean No one

is hoping for a bush landslide so that they can say "i told you so." That statement is disgusting.

[salin]

48. sadly

I have seen sentiments from a couple of supporters of various candidates who have become so ... sold ... that they seem to espouse this very thing. It is part of my concern with the vitriol in these candidate threads - that it will - in the end sow so much dissension that some will begin to support the "even if bush wins... it will be okay... because in the end things will get so bad that people will vote him/them out of office." :( It makes me sad. This type of sentiment has grown over time :( :(

[FrenchieCat]

35. Pruner has been so good to us.....

He's like a gift that's just keeps giving!
WE WELCOME ALL TO THE WES WING

[Zynx]

36. More should be like him.

He is an example for all Democrats.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Zynx]

38. Clark will probably be in to the finish with any luck at all.

The final three will probably be Dean, Clark, and Gephardt.

[DemCam]

40. Soooo yesterday, Guardian...

Perhaps you've been bamboozled by Bush....

Not to worry...all over now. You can get back to your usual selves and understand that you've lost a couple of weeks.

That's what Dubya does best...crete havoc everywhere.

[FrenchieCat]

45. amen! (n/t)

[Julien Sorel]

50. The article is full of factual errors.

Low of funds? He's hardly spent anything, and is expecting to raise at least 12 million dollars this quarter. Where's the money going, if he's bringing it in, hasn't been spending it, but doesn't have any? What staffers are 'drifting away?' Doesn't say. Clark has come across poorly in some of the debates? What are his qualifications to make this statement? This whole thing is a rah rah Deanite piece more than it is negative on Clark: this guy wants you to believe that it's over, that Dean has already won. Harris has written two political 'analysis' pieces for the Guardian now and both were pure Deanite cheerleading; here's the other one:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4730217-102275,00.html

Guys like this are particularly revolting, as they are simply projecting their own biases into their reporting to a degree that we wouldn't do here. He was anti-war, and as far as I can tell, he got hooked on the Deanite Kool-aid as a result of that, and now he's a junkie. He might as well post here for the quality of this article.