Clark/Edwards

[tkmorris]

This is for Tiggeroshii. I think this may be the combo he is looking for with his polls.

[tritsofme]

1. Perennial Dem VP Edwards?

I don't think that works.

Edwards can never run as VP again.

[GreenArrow]

19. right. I think you can check Edwards off any proposed ticket

that has him at the bottom. Ain't gonna happen.

[DemDogs]

98. And nix any combo with Clark at the top of Dem ticket

He is the only person to run for the Presidential nomination as a Democrat after doing fundraisers for Republicans. Ick.

[Texas_Kat]

158. Glad you brought that up

A comment about that directly from Wes today in the Brown University Daily Herald:

"Do you think that if you run for president, the 2001 speech you delivered at a Republican Party fundraiser in Pulaski County, Ark., will come back to haunt you?"

Clark: "Why should it? That's just part of the freak show.
If you read that speech, you'll see that what I actually do is criticize the directions of the policies of the (Bush) administration. All I did was put a little honey on it by complimenting Colin Powell and some of the people who were in the administration a couple of months after the administration took office. But I never complimented George Bush."

http://tinyurl.com/ycntkj

Edited to add link

[benny05]

45. Could but not likely to

Not after the last election.

[Radical Activist]

56. One time makes him perennial?

I suspect you have other issues with Edwards.

[EST]

2. As a recent Clark convert, I'll take nearly anything with

Clark at the head of the ticket.

[Ned_Devine]

25. I was going to say the same thing

[rocktivity]

62. Try this on for size, EST

:headbang:
rocknation

[lligrd]

3. I'm a Dean Freak But I Like Clark Too

and I will settle for Edwards. In fact, I'd like Edwards if he hadn't voted for the authorization.

[Bucky]

42. "Dean Freak" -- that is SO not what the marketing department ordered

Hasn't Dean pledged that he wouldn't run for president this time around? I think it was part of his run for DNC chair. Even as a presidential candidate he spent a whole lot of time talking about what was wrong with the party rather than just what in the country needed fixing.

[1932]

4. Hope vs Fear

vs the Republican ticket?

[FrenchieCat]

52. More like Substance vs. hope

[the other one]

5. Edwards should be at the top

Moderate and Conservative dems won't vote for Clark, and Republicans won't vote for any Dem. Thats long odds.

Edwards is the man.

[lligrd]

6. I Think America Might Just Be Willing To Vote For

someone they can trust to say what they mean. No more liars! And no more fools. Unfortunately, Edwards was fooled (or played the political game). Being stupid or playing games is not an excuse that in my book. I do like Edwards but not enough to surrender my Country to him.

[venable]

9. you don't want Edwards for the War vote

yet you do want Clark, who supported the war pretty eloquently as a talking head General.? t

Or did I get this wrong? Seriously, I'm not being snide, I am not sure what you were saying, as you only addressed Edwards, and did so in terms of his war vote.

[Jai4WKC08]

10. Sigh... Clark didn't support the war

Why do you think the WH had him canned from CNN?

[PurityOfEssence]

17. Clark played both sides of the street and is veracity challenged

Please read this. He makes Clinton look like Diogenes.

Somehow Clark is portrayed as consistent on foreign and domestic policy, yet he's consistently played fast and loose with facts out of clumsiness and outright opportunism.

He wasn't called into account, since he wasn't a sitting legislator forced to a roll call, so we'll never know just how he would have voted, but his deliberate distortions are obvious.

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

You've brought forth the accusation, and unless you think this is the Soviet Union and the burden of proof is on the accused, you have a sacred duty to humanity to examine these two references and explain yourself and your pronouncements. Perhaps you've just been suckered and honorably misled; it happens to us all. Your response is awaited.

Clark supporters HATE reading these articles. There's much more. He was for vouchers, then had always been against them and any contrary evidence was met with extreme derision.

As a political scientist friend of mine is fond of saying: "a critic is a eunuch in a whorehouse." Clark didn't have to stand up and cast a vote on the IWR or the Patriot Act, and as he maneuvered for cover to play both sides of the street, not only was he not honest about his true intents, he was jockeying for power and allowing his proxies to lie about his beliefs. The question of moral character is very much open for discussion when regarding this man; he's deliberately lied about his opponents, used nasty distortions, misrepresented his actions and shown himself to be quite suspect. Character matters. What's especially silly is the repeated claim that character is his forte; he has value for the rest of humanity, but clarity, consistency, truthfulness and honor aren't his strong suits.

Yes, this galls you, but if you give a damn about the human race, read those two sites listed above and feel free to take me to task as a result. For one to not examine contrary points of view is either a hypocritical demand to be above reproach or proof of dissembling.

[Pithy Cherub]

28. You have an issue that Clarks words are part of SWORN

testimony. He said no war. Your pretzel like bending of the truth is neither persuasive, defensible, accurate or honest. I don't hate reading fiction - I just choose better reading material than what you speciously present.

You like Edwards. Good for you. Unfortunately, he has ruined any claim to foreign policy expertise because he voted for the war. He has to wear the bloody hairshirt for the rest of his life along with other Democrats. He was a Bush enabler on Iraq. Edwards was aligned with Joe Lieberman for the longest on the war and only had the Grace to own it after he lost the election. Compare and contrast that to a man with four stars, told the truth about Iraq BEFORE it happened, advocated for free speech and is a known resource on national security and foreign policy. You can't and neither can others when rationally reviewing the facts.

On its merits, General Wesley Clark has stood up and said PNAC, IRAQ was a disaster and called Bush out for his failure of leadership earlier and faster than Edwards who was still clinging tightly to the immoral politically expedient vote on Iraq.

Since Truth is not something that seems to be of great importance in the dialogue, I am off to find greener pastures and happily supporting Wesley Clark until he decides whether to run. If not him, then Gore and then Obama. Anybody who championed Iraq, especially with such a careless and thoughtless vote for War, need not be seeking my vote, time or money, especially if telling the Truth is a compromised value.

[venable]

44. You can not say Clark was anti-war, and it's time to get past that

It is silly to say that he was unequivocally anti-war. The evidence is abundant, for both his anti-war stance, and his pro-war stance. You can't just choose one. He said many things, often contradictory.

Some poster says these quotes, his pro-war quotes, are cherry-picked.

Does that mean he didn't say them? No, it means that these were things he said in the midst of many and shifting statements.

If you CAN cherry pick a pro-war stance, one COULD say that speaks even worse of the man, because it means that this anti-war icon is inconsistent. Which means he is not anti-war. He is a changeling.

But you know what: I don't care. Nor should anyone. It is a fact of the left that we do not see the world in black and white, and language sometimes fails to capture the nuances of evolving situations. And so it is with General Clark. He does his best, and it's not bad.

The fact is, though, that we do use language, and to the best of our ability we try to capture the shifting, elusive truths. Keats called it Negative Capability. The Democrats live in this, the Republicans lie about reality and say it is black and white. I prefer the Democrats embrace of the complexity of the world, and Keatsian Negative Capablity. The alternative has gotten us where we are today.

So, I do not blame Clark his vaccillations. I do blame the supporters who act like said vaccillations don't exist.

Get over it. He made many statements in suipport of the war. He made many against the war. Good for him, he's grown clearer and more convinced of the tragedy of this war. He is not alone in this.


On another, maybe related subject: Lordy, this place is negative. Why is there such rancor from Clark supporters towards Edwards. The language is so ugly. The assaults so sanctimonious and superior. One would think Edwards was the devil himself, reading some of these posts. I've got no problem with Clark, but he just doesn't matter as much as this site would indicate. It's like bizarro world here, with lilttle relationship to the real dynamics at play in the country. Why is this? I am genuinely and sincerely and humbly asking: What the hell is going on? Someone please tell me, ideally without trashing Edwards in the process.

Peace.

[FrenchieCat]

54. cherry-pick....as in selecting certain sentences cut off from the rest....

cherry-pick as in quoting out of context, and adding your own context to it.

cherry-pick/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation Informal.

–verb (used with object) 1. to select with great care: You can cherry-pick your own stereo components.
–verb (used without object) 2. (in retail use) to buy only the sale items and ignore the other merchandise.

intransitive verb : to select the best or most desirable
transitive verb : to select as being the best or most desirable; also : to select the best or most desirable from <cherry-picked the art collection>

In reference to your game of innocence.....here's my question: Why is there such rancor from Edwards supporters towards Clark? The language is so ugly, the cherry picking of biased articles so useless; the assaults so sanctimonious and inferior. One would think that Clark supported the war as Edwards did. Reading some of these posts, like yours.....it appears that you are kettle calling the pot black. Spare us! :eyes:

[Pithy Cherub]

57. handwringing and apologizing

is Edwards domain. As much as you would like your false characterization to be true of Clark, does not make it true. Clark was against the war, get over it. Edwards rushed to vote for it. The facts, Dragnet style!

As to your more sincere request, Edwards ambition and politically expedient vote for war is anathema to those of us who were against the concept, idea and thought from its evil beginning. JRE also hid behind a general to attack Clark. It was a huge political mistake on his part as it was found that the charges were once again false. McCaffrey even called Clark a national treasure. Edwards had outsized ambition to his national security qualifications and conducted himself accordingly. Those are some instances for consideration. Character matters.

Clark has embraced bloggers and the netroots from the very beginning and others including Edwards came later, much later. Clark has a wealth of background across multiple platforms that many other candidate supporters would like to appropriate by saying Clark should be their VP. Clark is not going to be anyone's Dick Cheney and he has the creds to stand alone unlike many of the other aspirants.

A tip, next time don't post self righteous comments if understanding and dialogue is what is sought. Otherwise, expect more of the same.

[PurityOfEssence]

68. More Clark prevarication

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

Okay, this is the Washington Times which is controlled by Moon and a blatant right wing rag. Please dispute the facts. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan so beautifully put it: "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

Try this one on for size, as Clark rages that he's being picked on because he's the only candidate the White House fears. The sheer self-congratulatory delusion of this is beyond silly. Not only did he conflate the secular Saddam with the zealots of Al Queda, he uses insinuation and suggestion in place of facts.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/16/clark_says_gop_distorts_his_testimony_on_iraq/

The Iraq War Resolution, voted on less than two weeks before a mid-term election, was one that limited Junior's powers to fighting Iraq and was strongly worded to provide for the exhausting of all inspection and diplomacy before military action. This is no different than Clark's testimony. It is, in fact, an expression of the exact same mechanism, yet they're war-enablers and he's some kind of peaceful sage. That's just ridiculous crap. He is on the record in numerous situations as having said he'd have voted for it and as having suggested to others that they do.

He can say what he can say, but he didn't have to stand up and vote. What's worse is that he denied advise he'd given to others and statements he'd made during the run-up to the nasty political power play this administration did right before an election. His stance is far from clear and he and his most strident supporters play childish games to revise history to their own ends.

This is a pattern. School vouchers and the sitting legislators' votes on the Bush tax cuts were and are similarly distorted to create a consistency which is the antithesis of reality. His fawning public praise for the Bush administration's foreign policy a few months into their ugliness is just another example; this one doesn't even get addressed since it's indefensible.

Yes, there's more. The basic truth is this: he played both sides of the street, denied anything that would besmirch his newfound progressive stripes, and aggressively derided those who had had to be held to account. This is not just "politicking", it's a glaring lack of character. Those who enable this deception are similarly dirty.

[FrenchieCat]

69. You're saying Clark lacks character and calling me dirty? You've got a lot of nerves!

I'll blow your whole argument out of the water, and I'll do it now. :nuke:

First off, Clark did not support the resolution that Edwards CO-SPONSORED and voted for--

Clark made himself clear on television day after day specifically by warning on the issue of the call to war and on warning congress to not give Bush a "BLANK CHECK".

Examples as to what that means--

On August 2, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "We seem to have skipped some steps in the logic of the debate. And, as the American people are brought into this, they're asking these questions." CNN, 8/2/02

On August 29, 2002, Clark said regarding a proposed invasion of Iraq, "Well, taking it to the United Nations doesn't put America's foreign policy into the hands of the French. What you have to do as the United States is you have to get other nations to commit and come in with you, and so you've got to provide the evidence, and the convincing of the French and the French public, and the leadership elite. Look, there's a war fever out there right now in some quarters of some of the leadership elements in this country, apparently, because I keep hearing this sense of urgency and so forth. Where is that coming from? The vice president said that today he doesn't know when they're going to get nuclear weapons. They've been trying to get nuclear weapons for -- for 20 years.So if there's some smoking gun, if there's some really key piece of information that hasn't been shared publicly, maybe they can share it with the French." CNN, 8/29/02

On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, "I think -- but I think that underneath, what you're going to have is you're going to have more boiling in the street. You're going to have deeper anger and you're going to feed the recruitment efforts of Al Qaeda. And this is the key point, I think, that we're at here. The question is what's the greater threat? Three thousand dead in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon underscore the fact that the threat we're facing primarily is Al Qaeda. We have to work the Iraq problem around dealing with Al Qaeda. And the key thing about dealing with Al Qaeda is, we can't win that war alone." CNN, 8/29/02

On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "My perspective would be I'd like to see us slow down the rush to go after Saddam Hussein unless there's some clear convincing evidence that we haven't had shared with the public that he's right on the verge of getting nuclear weapons. CNN, 8/29/02

On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "Going after Iraq right now is at best a diversion, and at worst it risks the possibility of strengthening Al Qaeda and undercutting our coalition at a critical time. So at the strategic level, I think we have to keep our eye on the ball and focus on the number one strategic priority. There are a lot of other concerns as well, but that's the main one." CNN, 8/30/02

On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "It seems that way to me. It seems that this would supercharge the opinion, not necessarily of the elites in the Arab world, who may bow to the inevitability of the United States and its power, but the radical groups in the Middle East, who are looking for reasons and gaining more recruits every time the United States makes a unilateral move by force. They will gain strength from something like this. We can well end up in Iraq with thousands of military forces tied down, and a worse problem in coping with a war on terror here in the United States or Europe, or elsewhere around the world." CNN, 8/30/02

September 16, 2002:
Clark said Congress shouldn't give a "blank check," to Use Force Against Iraq.

On September 16, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization to use force, "Don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation?" CNN 9/16/02

WOODRUFF: How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would pass in terms of what the president is able to do after?

CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.

So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.html

On September 23, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization for the use of force, "When you're talking about American men and women going and facing the risk we've been talking about this afternoon... you want to be sure that you're using force and expending American blood and lives in treasure as the ultimate last resort. Not because of a sense of impatience with the arcane ways of international institutions." Senate Committee on Armed Forces 9/23/02
http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

On October 5, 2002, Clark said, regarding debate on Congressional authorization for war against Iraq, "The way the debate has emerged, it's appeared as though to the American people, at least to many that talk to me, as though the administration jumped to the conclusion that it wanted war first and then the diplomacy has followed." CNN 10/5/02

On January 23, 2003, Clark said, regarding the case the United States had made for war against Iraq to the United Nations, "There are problems with the case that the U.S. is making, because the U.S. hasn't presented publicly the clear, overwhelming sense of urgency to galvanize the world community to immediate military action now."CNN 1/23/03
http://www.clark04.com/faq/iraq.html

-----------
There were some of our prominent leaders who chose to listen to the wise words of Wes Clark, and reacted the better for it!

Here's is Ted Kennedy on Larry King pretty recently....

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."
snip
There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

and Sen. Levin, who showed up with Clark at a WesPAC fundraiser a few months ago....here's what he said on the floor of the Senate BEFORE THE IWR VOTE when he submitted his own resolution THAT WASN'T A BLANK CHECK...:

"General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm

and the late great Sen. Paul Wellstone–
“As General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=2778&catID=298

Here's a recent exchange with Al Franken.....
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, I went to several Senators, including I think a couple who later ran for office, and, for the Presidency. I said, "Don't believe him." (laughs) "He's made up his mind to go to war. Don't give him a blank check."

Al Franken: Mm Hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But they gave him a blank check. I said it on CNN, "You can't give him a blank check." And I said it in the testimony that you have to make sure that there's a resolution. It's got to be a broad resolution so we can go to the United Nations, but it doesn't and shouldn't be a blank check.
http://securingamerica.com/node/932

[Dinger]

124. Your Use Of Paul Wellstone, . . . . Bittersweet, But Mostly Sweet : )

Thank you so much for posting this Frenchie! It really deserves it's own thread.
Frenchie, simply put, . . . . . YOU KICK ASS!!!!!!!!! I salute you!!!!!!!!

:yourock: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :applause: :woohoo:

[FrenchieCat]

71. In reference to the resolutions available besides the one John Edwards co-sponsored,

and the timeline--

Clark has been consistent since 2002 to current and has been all over Bush's ass since he opened his mouth in the world of politics (if you want to get into that foreign policy speech he made as just retired NATO Commander in 2001 to both political parties, I can go there with you after this)....while Edwards went from supporting the war extremely to not supporting the war extremely....all in the 3 years time that it took the polls to turn. You want to talk about "Politicking" and a glaring lack of character. Ask Edwards again, how he came about to realizing his "Mistake" on being "misled"?

So who's dirty?


John Edwards went from this

In September 2002, in the face of growing public skepticism of the Bush administration's calls for an invasion of Iraq, Edwards rushed to their defense in an op-ed article published in the Washington Post. In his commentary, Edwards claimed that Iraq, which had been successfully disarmed several years earlier, was actually "a grave and growing threat," and Congress should therefore "endorse the use of all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." Claiming that U.S. national security "requires" that Congress grant President Bush unprecedented war powers, he further insisted, "We must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action ..."
The Bush administration was so impressed with Edwards' arguments that they posted the article on the State Department website.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3074

to....

The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html

Guess the other 23 Senators who voted NO, and didn't co-sponsor Lieberman's Gem got information that Edwards totally missed! and for that we should now make him President! Now that's something!:eyes:

In an interview after the UNC speech, Edwards finally utters the words he'd assiduously avoided during the last campaign: "I voted for the resolution," he says. "It was a mistake."

"The hard question is, What do you do now? Looking back, it's easy to say that it was wrong and based on false information. Anybody who doesn't admit that isn't honest, and that's the truth." So what now? "I myself feel conflicted about it," Edwards replies. "But we have to find ways--and I don't mean just yanking all the troops tomorrow--but we have to find ways to start bringing our troops home. Our presence there is clearly contributing to the problem." So does he agree with Senator Russ Feingold that Washington should set a withdrawal deadline? "No. Even if we're going to say that internally, that we're gonna have our troops out by X date, there's no reason to announce that to the world. I think that's probably a mistake."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/10/165059/30

=======================
Wes Clark supported the 2002 Levin amendment, not the Lieberman "blank Check" resolution that John Edwards and 16 conservative Dems and Repugs (McCain) Co-Sponsored. The Levin and the Biden/Lugar and the Lieberman amendments were all still being debated on October 9, 2002....when Clark said he would have voted for "A" Resolution...

What Clark was saying 2 days before the IWR VOTE:

USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002, in which Clark wrote:
Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them.

Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem.
http://www.p-fritz.net/p/irc.html

What Clark was saying 1 day before the IWR VOTE:
Clark's op ed on September 10, 2002....One day before the IWR Vote:
In his Op-Ed dated October 10, 2002, "Let's Wait to Attack." Clark states:
In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months.
....there is still time for dialogue before we act.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

What Clark actually said in reference to "a" Resolution on 10/09/02:
http://premium1.fosters.com/2002/election%5F2002/oct/09/us%5F2cong%5F1009a.asp
"Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports "A" congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war. Clark, who led the allied NATO forces in the Kosovo conflict, endorsed Democrat Katrina Swett in the 2nd District race.?

He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for "A" resolution, but only after vigorous debate... The general said he had doubt Iraq posed a threat, and questioned whether it was immediate and said the debate about a response has been conducted backward.

Note that it is the Associated Press who claims Clark supports a resolution that would give Bush authority to use military force, whereas Clark's own words indicate he would only support "A" (key word!) resolution "after vigorous debate." Surely that can be interpreted to mean vigorous debate that would result in changes (otherwise, why debate?) --meaning he did not support the resolution "as was." Considering he had previously testified to the Armed Services Committee that the resolution need not authorize force, we can guess what he might have felt one of those changes should be.
--------
What Clark said on 9/26/02 in his testimony to congress....
Sept. 26, 2002
CLARK: Since then, we've encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait. We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an army of God, the mujahaddin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these Holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed Al Qaida.

My French friends constantly remind me that these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy, which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing.
There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must.
snip

Well, if I could answer and talk about why time is on our side in the near term, first because we have the preponderance of force in this region. There's no question what the outcome of a conflict would be. Saddam Hussein so far as we know does not have nuclear weapons. Even if there was a catastrophic breakdown in the sanctions regime and somehow he got nuclear materials right now, he wouldn't have nuclear weapons in any zable quantity for, at best, a year, maybe two years.

So, we have the time to build up the force, work the diplomacy, achieve the leverage before he can come up with any military alternative that's significant enough ultimately to block us, and so that's why I say time is on our side in the near term. In the long term, no, and we don't know what the long term is. Maybe it's five years. Maybe it's four years. Maybe it's eight years. We don't know.

I would say it would depend on whether we've exhausted all other possibilities and it's difficult. I don't want to draw a line and say, you know, this kind of inspection, if it's 100 inspectors that's enough. I think we've got to have done everything we can do given the time that's available to us before we ask the men and women in uniform, whom you know so well (inaudible).

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/clark.perle.testimony.pdf
-----------

PROOF HERE THAT THE DEBATE WAS STILL GOING ON ON OCTOBER 9, 2002, AND AMENDMENTS WERE STILL BEING VOTED ON:
http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102
EPIC ACTION ALERT- 10/9/02
Don't Let Congress Ratify Bush's Preemption Doctrine

URGENT ACTION ALERT!

Call NOW to stop the President from getting a blank check from Congress and ensure a second vote by Congress before the President can launch a war on Iraq. For the House, urge your Representative to support the Spratt and Lee Amendments. In addition, encourage them to support a “motion to recommit” (see below for more information).

Implore your Senators to support the Levin Amendment. Finally, if the amendments and motion to recommit fail, urge your Representative and Senators to vote against final passage of the President's War Resolution. You can reach your Representative and Senators via the Congressional switchboard at 202-225-3121 or 202-224-3121 or call toll-free 800-839-5276.

Contact Members of Congress at www.congress.org

-----------------------------------
"My views on Iraq were very clear. You've heard them expressed on this show many times, Judy. And you yourself know very well how I felt about Iraq. That's the reason I was attacked all through the war by guys like Dick Cheney for being an armchair general, because they knew I was against what they were doing. And they were right. And now we see why everybody should have been against it.
1. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/12/ip.00.html

Media Silent on Clark's 9/11 Comments
Gen. says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence
6/20/03
But the June 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz that it didn't generate. Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.

Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL."
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842

"There was a hunger in some quarters to go after this fight. It was as though using force was a reward in itself, that, by putting our forces in there and showing our power, we would somehow solve our problems in the international environment. And I think the opposite is the truth. I think you should use force only as a last resort." Wes Clark
http://www.studioglyphic.com/mt/archives/2003/07/general_wesley_1.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/17/sprj.irq.clark.comments/
Ex-NATO commander: Iraq shouldn't be center of war on terror
Sunday, August 17, 2003
attacked the Bush administration Sunday for launching a war with Iraq on "false pretenses" and spreading the military too thin amid the global war on terrorism.

snip
"We've made America more engaged, more vulnerable, more committed less able to respond," he said. "We've lost a tremendous amount of goodwill around the world by our actions and our continuing refusal to bring in international institutions."

He said that if Iraq "is the centerpiece of the war on terror, it shouldn't be."

snip
Clark has called on Congress to investigate allegations that the Bush administration overstated intelligence about Iraq's weapons programs.

Clark also lashed out at House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican.

snip
"The issue is the issues," he said. "What does America stand for? How do we want to behave in the world? What does it take to fulfill America's dreams at home?"

Democrat Clark Blames President Bush
for Sept. 11 Intelligence Failures

Clark, a retired Army general who led NATO forces in Europe, delivered his sharpest critique yet of Bush's foreign policy. As the newest entry in the Democratic presidential race, he echoed many of his rivals arguments for removing Bush from office.

Clark argued that Bush has manipulated facts, stifled dissent, retaliated against detractors, shown disdain for allies and started a war without just cause. He said Bush put Americans at risk by pursuing war in Iraq instead of hunting for Osama bin Laden and other terrorists, pulling a "bait-and-switch" by going after Iraqi President Saddam Hussein instead of al Qaida terrorists.

He called Bush's labeling of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an axis of evil in his January 2002 State of the Union address -- "the single worst formulation in the last half century of American foreign policy."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/103003A.shtml

Saturday, October 04, 2003
Wesley Clark Calls for Criminal Investigation of Bush Iraq policy

beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. So, I thought, this is what they mean when they talk about 'draining the swamp."

"Nothing could be a more serious violation of public trust than consciously to make a case for war based on false claims. We need to know if we were intentionally deceived. This administration is trying to do something that ought to be politically impossible to do in a democracy, and that is to govern against the will of the majority. That requires twisted facts, silence, secrecy and very poor lighting." Wes Clark
http://www.juancole.com/2003/10/wesley-clark-calls-for-criminal.html

http://www.atsnn.com/story/29514.html
Clark Calls for Congressional Investigation on Iraq War
Wesley Clark, saying the "President is more concerned with political security than national security." Clark further contends that Bush has been obsessed with Saddam Hussein since first gaining office, and did not do enough to protect the nation against impending terror attacks.

Full Story

Clark commented on the slow speed of the inquiry begun last summer over who divulged a CIA official's name, with the rapid speed of the O'Neill investigation. "They didn't wait 24 hours in initiating an investigation on Paul O'Neill," Clark said. "They're not concerned about national security. But they're really concerned about political security. I think they've got their priorities upside down."

This is a broadly covered story. You can also look here for additional coverage;
http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2004/january/1_13Clark.shtml
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108236,00.html
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040113_240.html
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/13/news/oneill/

Clark Says Congress Should Determine Whether Bush's War Decisions Criminal
17-Jan-04
Wesley Clark
AP: "Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark said Thursday it was up to Congress to determine whether President Bush's march to war in Iraq amounted to a criminal offense. Asked if misleading the nation in going to war would be criminal, Clark told reporters, 'I think that's a question Congress needs to ask. I think this Congress needs to investigate precisely' how the United States wound up in a war 'that wasn't connected to the threat of al-Qaida.'"
http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Wesley%20Clark

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/16916/
Let the General Lead the Charge
By Robert Scheer
Last week, in calling for an "independent, comprehensive investigation into the administration's handling of the intelligence leading to war in Iraq," Clark raised the key issue facing this president. "Nothing could be a more serious violation of public trust than to consciously make a case for war based on false claims," he said.

And there you have it -- the basic issue that the Democrats must raise in the next election, or it isn't worth having one.

----
And to this day.....

CLASH OF TITANS DEBATE 2005-
Clark said that joint staff officers told him 10 days after 9/11 that the Bush administration was planning to invade Iraq.

“I said, ‘But why?’ They said, ‘Well, um, we don’t know, but if the only tool you’ve got is a hammer, then every problem has to look like a nail,’” said Clark. “And they proceeded to explain that the administration really didn’t know what to do about the War on Terror, but did want to take apart a regime to show that we were powerful …”

When several audience members cried out, Clark also generated some applause after yelling “Stand up and say it! Let’s hear it! And lets hear you explain it and justify it to the families of those who have suffered the loss!”

On Prisoner Abuse.....Clark jumped in, and the issue escalated. Clark took issue with what he said were memos that came from the White House that basically said that the Geneva Convention didn’t apply.

Clark told his fellow officer that the military that he served in for 34 years “didn’t torture people. It didn’t abuse them. It didn’t punch out prisoners when it captured them.” Clark blamed the guidance from the top for undercutting the armed forces’ training.

“We never had the investigation, but I’ll tell you what, if you believe everything that has happened at Abu Ghraib, and at Guantanamo, and the rest of it, is the responsibility of a colonel or a corporal or a couple of sergeant’s somewhere,” said Clark, “then I’ve got a bridge or two I’d like you to buy!”
http://www.regent.edu/news/clash_titans_debate05.html

Also see....his call on investigation of prisoner abuse!
http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=node/184

AND YESTERDAY IN THE VILLAGE VOICE.....

Flashback: Bush's Exit Strategy, Meet Wesley Clark's

General: Make friends, plug borders, get out
November 30th, 2005 10:56 AM

Editor's note:
So President George Bush has a new plan for winning the war, the 35-page "Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq."

And Hillary Clinton may be feeling the need for one, too.

Earlier this fall, General Wesley Clark, a 2004 presidential contender, gave a Washington, D.C. crowd a few pointers for getting U.S. troops out of Iraq.....

Wesley Clark Sketches an Exit Plan for Iraq
Meanwhile, Charles Rangel talks impeachment
by Sarah Ferguson
September 23rd, 2005 10:54 PM
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0549,news,70568,2.html

[venable]

129. The problem, Frenchie,

is that, while you can produce voluminous quotes showing Clark's opposition to the war, you have not once, that I have seen, been able to comment on his produced volume of statements IN SUPPORT OF THE WAR. You and Pithy just dismiss them as coming from a site you don't like, or cherry picked, or some other evasion. Well, unfortunately for you, they are quotes. They are part of the documented history of this conflict. You and the General can not take them back. Accept that your man had a conflicted past with regard to the war. It will be good for you, facing reality like that.

Why am I having this conversation?

[Pithy Cherub]

136. Lying and using lies reflects badly on the poster of the lies.

You keep using the same ones to justify a position based on a perception of reality that is only inhabited by delusions of grandeur about what plain English means. Clark is and was against the war. Your citation of cherry picked evidence reflects low quality research, an inability to expand a repertoire that includes a full scale records reviews and a need to clap your hands and be right and everyone should just accept your flawed and cracked House of mirrors as their truth because you typed it. Move on!

[Tom Rinaldo]

137. venable, there is a profound disagreement between us on this

In fact, as you may recall from other threads on DU over the last few days, I have in fact done exactly what you just claim isn't done, I commented extensively on quotes that you and others have presented that SUPPOSEDLY show that Clark "supported the war". On one thread, that meant my having to write a three part highly detailed response to a single post. I discussed there very specific comments that others have thrown out from Clark, in my opinion, out of context, that were claimed to show that he "supported the war". They do not, as I there explained. One can easily claim that Clark "supported our military" once it was certain that they were being ordered into combat, but that is a very different assertion, and fundamental attempts to confuse those two assertions often lie at the base of many claims that Clark "supported the war".

It can be extremely frustrating venable. After spending well over an hour of my time painstakingly detailing exactly where and how comments that Clark made in an Op-Ed often cited by his detractors as proof that Clark "supported the war", to come read this from you now. I made a thorough review of EXACTLY how "cherry picking" in that Op-Ed occurred. I went the last mile on that for your sake and for the sake of others who read this board, citing specific chapter and verse, comparing how phrases and entire paragraphs that Clark wrote in that Op-Ed that directly contradicted the attempt to label Clark as a war supporter, ones that immediately preceded or followed those that some people repeatedly lift out of context to publish in hit pieces against him, were surgically removed time after time after time. Then I come here this morning and find you describing any concern raised about cherry picking of Clark's words as "an evasion", in the same breath that you accuse Clark supporters of not facing reality.

It's not an evasion venable. If there is any evasion going on it is the failure of some to acknowledge any effort I or anyone else makes to explain why we categorically state that Clark did not support this war. You know how many replies I got to the efforts I made yesterday to do exactly what you say Clark supporters can't or won't do? Zero. Your comment here is as close as anyone has come to discussing the issue that I documented of how Clark's words have been cherry picked by his opponents, and your comment is to dismiss all that as "an evasion". If anything I want to take your closing comment in your post and reflect it back to you. "Why am I having this conversation?"

I accept the point that Benny likes to make about the IWR vote and Clark as valid; when push came to shove Clark did not have to stand on the floor of the United States Senate and cast a physical vote on a IWR resolution, because he was not sitting in Congress. While that is true, it's not exactly something that can be held against Clark as if he was playing hooky from school or something. Given that reality, the closest that a Clark supporter can do then is cite the actual testimony that Wes Clark gave to Congress regarding Iraq, and to cite the statements made by those who did sit in the Senate about how they understood Clark's comments and the effects that those comments had on their own votes, and Clark supporters have documented all of that in painstaking detail. Of course we also give you Clark's own word on the matter, his direct explanation of where he stood regarding the IWR that was passed, and why any confusion arose over that, but obviously that's not good enough, his critics would rather trust what they read in the New York Times.

At root venable, not accepting Clark at his word on this is no different then or better then not accepting Edwards apology for cosponsoring the IWR or his explanations of why he now concedes he got it wrong back then. There are comments that are on the record from him that seemingly contradict himself, stating one one instance that he was not misled into taking his position, and on the other saying that he was. It is the nature of our society that public figures can count on virtually every single one of their spontaneous utterances being recorded by someone. It is an unreachable standard for any human being not to appear to waffle of flip flop on a matter that one's opponents have a strong investment in tripping them up over. God forbid any one of us were ever subject to that treatment.

That is why common sense always needs to prevail. The entire fabric of a politicians public stance on an issue over time has to be the germain consideration, not someone's attempt to produce a gotcha moment by seizing on a flub or an unscripted comment lifted completely out of context. There are indeed voluminous quotes from Wes Clark since the summer of 2002 that show Clark's opposition to the Iraq war. You have that part correct. There are entire speeches that Wes Clark gave on the matter, complete interviews that were conducted with him about it, sworn testimony in front of Congress, fully developed Op-Ed pieces that he published concerning exactly that. However there are not "volumes of Statements" from Clark "IN SUPPORT OF THE WAR". There is the same small collection of snippets from his war commentary on CNN (which I will talk about a little more below) and there are the standard endless recycled quotes CHERRY PICKED OUT OF CONTEXT from one or two Op-Eds that Clark published. That's virtually all of it.

To say that it doesn't matter where charges against Clark about the war came from, to say that it doesn't matter who was compiling a cut and dice compilation of words that Clark used during hundreds of hours of live commentary as a military analyst on CNN, is like saying it doesn't matter who presented the swiftboating case against John Kerry that was used against him when he became our Presidential nominee. The overwhelming majority of the hit pieces against Clark that some still now cite were produced while Wes Clark was a candidate for President and the political motivation to attempt to discredit him was at the highest.

A lot of people confuse (in my opinion very intentionally) Clark's speaking and literal teaching style when he attempts to explain an issue. As an American citizen Clark accepts responsibility for the actions of our government. Like it or not, it's his government. That is Clark's civic philosophy, it is just another facet of his strong sense of accountability. As an American living in a Democracy he believes we all need to fight to make things the way that we want them to be, but also that we are judged by history and the world by the results of American policy and priorities that are in place at any time. We are accountable for them. Accountability is a profound value for Clark. So, if you listen closely, Clark will often say "we" when describing an American initiative in the world. "we are telling the world through these actions that they need to get with us or be left behind", that type of things It's an analysis of how America is being understood by the world, not how the Republican Party is being understood by the world. And that analysis in my opinion is often dead on correct. In my experience Clark's live audience never gets confused by that type of presentation, they get where he is coming from and appreciate his efforts to inform them of where matters stand in the real world and why. Trouble, if there is any, almost always happens on the after market, when an adversary of Clark goes fishing for ammunition to use against him.

During the time that Clark was a CNN commentator he had nothing to do with politics. It wasn't his job to anticipate how a comment spontaneously made by him one day might later be twisted out of context to be used against him by his political opponents. It is the job of a politician in today's society to anticipate exactly that because they dramatically increase their chances of failure if they don't, but Clark WAS NOT a political figure at that time, and the importance of that distinction can not be over emphasized. Below I am going to give you a text book perfect example of the way Clark has sometimes framed a comment that can be intentionally misconstrued by an opponent if that is their intent all along. This comes from a talk I saw Clark give to a Peace and Justice Community Pot luck dinner in New Hampshire. Note how Clark uses the word "We" here. I personally taped this exchange Clark was answering a question from the crowd about North Korea:

"Well you know we have in Washington this theory of the North Korean leader. We believe he's like... um, I'm looking at these young children so I have to be careful how I say this. He's like, shall I say... (Clark looks at one of the kids and asks:) Are you in the 4th grade? You're in the fourth grade right? (Clark looks at another kid and says:) And you're in the? 4th Grade. OK.

He's like a THIRD grader..."

The whole room cracked up. No one was confused by what Clark was saying. He went on from there to totally tear apart the foolishness of that Washington theory about the North Korean leader. He was not saying this was his theory even though he said "we have in Washington this theory". You can not protect yourself from being maliciously misinterpreted if a society will gladly focus on a snippet presented out of context while ignoring a massive body of thoughtful testimony and years of work that contradicts that intentionally misinterpreted snippet.

So regarding Clark's role as a CNN commentator, where it was his job to explain what the United States was doing in the world, not provide a counterpoint to it, and where it was his job to explain American military strength and ability, not to argue passionately against it's use and/or to condemn it's objectives, I will follow this post with another that draws from some of the draft Clark 04 letters that I saved off the web from when they were posted at the time at a draft Clark site. Like the comments of the Senators who watched Clark testify before Congress against rushing to war with Iraq, who credited Clark's arguments with helping them vote against the IWR, I will post some comments from viewers who were watching Clark on CNN, day after day, not just reading a snippet ripped from some live tape a years later out of context. They can describe what they came away with from watching Clark live.

[Tom Rinaldo]

139. Some Draft Clark O4 letters commenting on his war commentary

First let me say that the only reason why I have these letters is because one day toward the end of the Draft Clark phase, I decided to save a cross section of the letters being written to General Clark asking him to run for President to my hard drive. I wanted to email them to a friend to show him the type of response that Clark for President was bringing. All told I saved a few dozen letters that day out of the many thousands that were actually written. So obviously I wasn't intentionally collecting letters with the intent of someday using them to proove that Wes Clark wasn't promoting George Bush's war on Iraq while he was a CNN commentator. Had I somehow been gifted with profetic abilities back then, I would have looked for more letters that more directly refuted the argument that Clark was making pro war comments on CNN. These however are the letters that I do have to provide:

FirstName: Geoffrey
LastName: Gray
City: Laguna Niguel
State: Ca.
Date: 09/14/2003
Time: 12:43 PM
Comments
General Clark, I followed your commentary before during and after our current administration's invasion and occupation of Iraq. I found your views to be well reasoned and thoughtful. I also found your comments to be refreshingly frank and candid and not driven by the convention political thinking, talking point, sound bite, lets look at the polls first mentality that so permeates the leadership of the democratic party. I would support your efforts to secure the nomination for and the presidency of our country. I think you would bring leadership, intellect and experience and an approach outside the traditional political box mentality to the White House.

FirstName: Heather
LastName: Fong
City: Berkeley
State: CA
Date: 09/13/2003
Time: 01:18 PM
Comments
Dear General Clark, I am a liberal Democrat from Berkeley, California but am encouraging you to run for president. Your integrity, courage, intelligence and honesty is an inspiration to an entire spectrum of political perspectives. As a commentator on CNN I watched and listened as you distinguished yourself eloquently from the pack with your nuanced and thoughtful analysis. Though it's early and I haven't made a final decision on whom to support, your presence will add immeasureably to the debate. My knee-jerk friends glare at me skeptically when I say I support your entrance. I say, get to know the man first before making a judgement. I've respected you since Kosovo/Bosnia/Clinton. I respect you even more since Iraq. PLEASE RUN! The country is in desperate need of your voice and experience! Sincerely, Heather Fong Berkeley, California

FirstName: Daniel
LastName: Conrad
City: Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6R 1Z1
State: (I vote absentee in California)
Date: 09/13/2003
Time: 11:02 AM
Comments
Dear General Clark, I am an American living and working in Canada in the film industry. Up here they see the world from a broader point of view. We watch not only the US news but also the CBC and the BBC. The climate is less partisan and less biased. I have seen you on CNN several times as a commentator and once as a potential candidate. In my personal and professional opinion you are by far the most mediagenic and media-savvy candidate in the field. I am also highly impressed by your intelligence, poise, dry sense of humor, clarity of thought and strength of character. I believe that the Kosovo campaign, which you commanded, was the most humane, effective and efficient military operation of modern times. I think your work in NATO demonstrates that you know how to nurture vital alliances. I think the world is entering an extremely dangerous phase of history and that we need a leader who is brilliant, charming and sober. In short, I wholeheartedly support your campaign for the presidency. I pledge to work for you, to sign up my friends, and to help you raise money. There is a large ex-pat community up here. Thank you for running. Daniel Conrad Filmmaker

FirstName: Kathleen
LastName: Mercado
City: Santa Ana
State: CA
Date: 09/12/2003
Time: 12:10 PM
Comments
Dear General Clark: First let me describe to you that I am 36 years old. I am also cynical, disillusioned, and disheartened, by George Bush's performance and by politics in general. However, I have felt a sense of hope about our Country's future since I learned you might make a run. I first saw you speak on CNN, on Newsnight, preceding & into the beginning of the War on Iraq. After about two weeks I said to my husband that I thought you'd make a great president, and that was based soley on what I perceived from newscasts-intelligence, presence, charisma, and also the feeling of respect you seemed to have for the troops. I've since read your book, but I didn't really give any more thought to the possibility that you might actually run for office. The other night I saw you on Bill Mahr's show. I was pleasantly surprised that you are a Democrat, but, more importantly, I was profoundly moved by what you had to say in those 10 minutes or so. It seems to me that we don't listen to each other any more in today's world. I believe in large part we have forgotten how to be humane toward each other. This is a great Country, and we need you to help us return to what made it so. I truly urge you to run. Sincerely, Kathleen Mercado General Clark, America needs you. Please run for president.

FirstName: Barbara
LastName: Koscher
City: Thibodaux
State: La
Date: 09/12/2003
Time: 01:36 AM
Comments
Dear Gen. Clark- Please, please, please run for President ! I have always heard your name during Kosovo, but had never seen you. When the Iraq war began, I was glued to CNN and saw you there. I was so impressed with you and said to myself, 'So, this is the guy !" I must tell you that after trying to listen to other retired generals give their points of view on other networks, none compared to your expertise. I felt calm when you explained what was going on. I could have listened to you talk 24/7. I was intending to vote for Mr. Dean, but if you run for President, you will have my vote, and my family's vote, too. We need someone like you in the White House to get America back to the norm again. I have been a nervous wreck since President Clinton left office. Please run for President !!!! Thank you !

FirstName: Michael
LastName: Coats
City: Valrico
State: FL
Date: 09/12/2003
Time: 04:58 PM
Comments
General Clark, For too many years I have had to go to the polls with no passion for the candidates. After seeing you on a number of news shows, and reading your positions on numerous issues, I think you are the candidate that America has been waiting for. I urge you to run, for the good of our country. We need a man like you who knows patriotism is more than waving a flag or shouting a slogan. It is adhering to the ideals our country was founded on of justice and equality. We have been moving away from those ideals for some time, and especially during the last 2 years. I served on board a nuclear submarine during the 80’s, and would have been proud to have been under the command of a CO like yourself. Once again, I urge

FirstName: john
LastName: mahan
City: Melbourne
State: Fl
Date: 09/15/2003
Time: 05:03 PM
Comments
General Clark, i first saw on you on tv as a commentator after 9-11 attack. You impressed me them as , aperson of high integrity who has the background to be our nations leader. Nothing has changed my mind. I have seen the field and all the options. You alone stick out as the candidate

FirstName: George & Edna
LastName: Langley
City: Birmingham
State: GA
Date: 09/15/2003
Time: 12:08 PM
Comments
Gen. Clark: We do so hope you will announce candidancy. We have been longing for you to enter the race for months and months. One night during the "awe and shock" show we waged, you were on CNN with Aaron Brown. My husband and I sat spellbound as you conversed with Brown. After you finished expressing your thoughts, my husband looked across the room at me and said, "That man needs to be President of our country!" We were so impressed with you that night and have read everything we could about you and your views. Nothing we have read has changed our opinion about you except to just strengthen our impression of you. We have watched with much interest over these past few months as you have consider entering the race. We long to see you do so. We firmly believe that Bush is beatable and that you are the one persn who can do it! Go for it, General Clark! We will do all we can to spread the word and campaign for you. Over these past few months we have already been spreading the word about you to everyone we know--calling you "our man for 2004". Please run. We know you can beat Bush (that is, if Bush and his cronies don't manipulate the voting machines) and give our country back to the American people! Let's charge ahead, Gen. Clark. With appreciation for all you stand for, Edna and George Langley

[venable]

146. good post

you make good arguments.

I would ask you to direct me to the post you referred to where you answered the Clark quotes under discussion, but I won't because I don't think there is any future or purpose in parsing these texts. I take your word for it. And good that you addressed them. Other's haven't. But the fact is, they shouldn't have to. I should have to post them. Democrats, especially progressive Democrats, need, it seems to me, to move on to the great opportunities and obstacles that lay ahead. A bit too much hatred on here, for my taste.

At this point, my only interest is that the 'murderer' charges against Edwards stop. Though I have always been against the war, and wish that he had not made that vote, I do think there are reasons that a good man, a smart man, a moral and thoughtful man, under certain circumstances, would have made that vote.

I believe very strongly in the man, and accept that others don't. I am happy to defend him with reasonable people who don't seem to be coming at him with an emotionally charged hatred.

There are a few posters who will never be Edwards supporters, and I don't want to try to persuade them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

153. This is a good post too.

I don't mind telling you where it was, it was on the thread about "wouldn't it be great if we had a candidate like this" or something like that, but I don't have a strong need to go over it again now either. A lot of what I wrote in the post you responded too here also covers what I wrote there. The part that I feel was most important about my 3 part answer was that it directly responded to what I felt (yeah I get the irony) was a very unfair report by F.A.I.R. concerning Clark, and I think I did a damn good job of showing why that is so, by going through what they wrote line for line. Part three of my reply included stuff that Frenchie pretty much covered below about that by now infamous London Times Op-Ed by Clark.

I really do usually stay off Edwards threads so I'm not sure what the "murderer" charges I guess some throw at Edwards is all about, but I do NOT expect you to enlighten me here. I already assume they are hogwash. Believe me, I have some experience with having a Democrat who you respect being called a "murderer", and I don't blame you in the slightest for reacting strongly to that. Your comments here, both describing your feelings about Edwards, and also describing how you attempt to deal with those who don't like him, are all excellent. I certainly can't find any fault with that attitude, though I suppose folks can always disagree on what constitutes "emotionally charged hatred", but we both know some of that is out there aimed at each and every leading Democrat. Good luck to you with your efforts to honorably defend someone who you believe in.

[venable]

156. thanks

and while I really hope Edwards get the nomination (surprise), I assure you that if Wes Clark gets the nod, nobody will work harder than I will.

I think either would have a good chance in the general election. As would a number of the other presumed candidates, with the notable exception of Hillary.

I just want an honest, smart, progessive person in the Oval Office, to begin the long road back from the ghastly nightmare of the last 6 years. Lordy do we need it. My man is Edwards. Yours is Clark. Good luck to all of us.

[FrenchieCat]

138. The problem venerable is that you don't bother to read the responses that

I post. Responses to your own questions. They are scattered all over this thread and on a couple of others as well. On another thread, you asked a question, I responded, and you have yet to reply there, but you at a later time (after my response there) are here telling me that I haven't provided "enough" to repudiate the smear that you yourself posted about Wes Clark. Playing good cop/bad cop all by yourself is confusing you it appears.

Here's my response from that other thread, where you basically posted an out of context cherry-picked smear article on Wes Clark's stance on the Iraq war....again. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2963924&mesg_id=2989253

It is short of amazing to me that one such as yourself who would support Edwards who clearly supported this war (without question) would demand that the General (who testified under oath against the idea) be made to defend his stance which was so much more informed and honorable than that of the senator from SC. Clearly it appears that Wes Clark is being held by a different standard than John Edwards simply because you support Edwards, no matter how wrong he may have been while you want to cast doubts on the General, who was right all along. Just because John Edwards finally apologized for the wrongheaded notion that he held for so long that War in Iraq was justified till last November (This month being Edwards 1 year anniversary of catching up to everyone else) doesn't make him less wrong back in 2002, 2003, 2004, to Nov 2005. A failed election bid and polls turning can make anyone with further political aspirations contrite. Edwards is leading from the rear via hindsight; not what most should want in presidential judgement.

Although the more informed such as lotsa DUers, the General, 23 senators and 123 Representatives had not been misled....John Edwards was by his own admission. That's the bottomline one ought to be left with (if they read our provided text) from our discussion on Clark vs. Edwards and this war.

and just like Edwards didn't listen then, you're not listening now....so I conclude that Edwards should be your candidate because y'all are just like a hand and glove.

[venable]

143. I don't demand anything of Clark

and I regret Edwards vote.

My persistence has been simply to ask you to respond to the quotes that Clark made.

You say I am smearing Clark. I only offer his own words. I can not smear him with his own words.

And I never called him a murderer, or someone with blood on his hands, as Edwards has been called.

And I suspect you are as disenchanted with my arguments as I am with arguing at all.

I wish Wes well, in the same way I wish Edwards well. I hope they both continue to serve the country.

[FrenchieCat]

147. You say...."My persistence has been simply to ask you to respond to the quotes that Clark made. "

That's been done multiple times. The smear in your post is the fact that you "offer" Clark's own words with a phrase over here, and a sentence over there. As Tom Rinaldo spelled out in his post which I duplicated as a response to you, doing this is being intellectually dishonest.

I could do the same to you based on your very short post. Watch this.

You could have said by cherry-picking....."I am smearing Clark", "Called him a murderer, or someone with blood on his hands".

Using your own words, I still changed what you meant to say to what I decided would better make my case.....and remember, yours was a very short post of minimal words. Now just think what one can do with hundreds of thousands of words over a few years time at their disposal....which is what Clark's views add up to. That's why what you attempted to do with Clark's words amount to nothing more than a smear......one that has been played over and over again.....to the folks in the cheap seats.

[venable]

148. to be honest

I really think your example of editing my words is not at all similar to the quotes selected from Clark. I know that you are just trying to make a point as to how that can occur, but your example doesn't necessarily convince me about Clark's quotes.

Believe me, I know from my own work of several decades, and my own experience, how words can be used, very easily, to say the exact opposite.

When I post quotes from Clark, I do expect, and admit, that there is some context missing...I am not reading the original op ed or interview or speech.

But I do expect that in full sentences, sometimes in groups of consecutive sentences, SOME context can be safely and accurately derived. So, unless he is quoting someone else, or mocking them when he says 'let's have a victory parade', then the statement should be read as his sentiments. Fair?

In any case, I have no interest in condemning Clark. I suspect he is a very good man, and while I think that his pre-war statements are not as conclusive and unequivocal as you do, I respect him and appreciate what contributions he finally did make to the anti-war sentiments, or to the need to take more time deciding what to do.

As I've said many times before, my only interest is that Edwards not be dismissed so brutally and unequivocally. You can understand that I would wish this, given that I believe so strongly in him as a person fit for public service of the highest order.

[FrenchieCat]

150. I think that the example stands. Of course you were not discussing

policy and using a vast number of sentences.....and so, it can't be the same.

However, the London Times article that many Clark Distractors like to refer to was about 14 or 15 full paragraphs (and did you mentioned that you hadn't read it?)....and so in the end, if one is not willing to be intellectually honest enough to read the entire article and keep it in the context in which it was meant (as it was written right after the fall of Bagdad), certainly then one can find some sentences to cut and paste to mean something other than what was intended when digested in its entirety.

Clark wrote that particular piece in April of 2003 days after the fall of Bagdad, and certainly before he had any tangible thoughts of running for President....and therefore his words were not overly calculated and parsed in the manner that a politician's might. Most journalists and columnists, at the point that Clark wrote the article in April of 2003, very shortly after the fall of Bagdad, were bragging up and down the media that Mission had been accomplished; that Bush was brave and bold to have persevered under so much pressure, etc., etc...
{example of such articles... http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030410-25191517.htm , http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030407-usia07.htm , http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030410-whitehouse-2.htm, http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030410-usia13.htm , http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030410-usia09.htm ,

Clark's aim of the said article was not to avoid controversy but rather to further discussion and debate on the issues of the war that he was addressing. Clark, a prolific writer, has a writing style that supercedes partisan politics and that could have been easily twisted because on the one hand he is consistenly supportive of certain aspects of the military, yet on the other hand he is critical of the administrative policies; a complex and delicate mix. In this particular Times article, he asked provocative questions and then gave his answers in a analytic manner that is sophisticated (as the readers of that publication tend to be) and wasn't really meant for those who were not informed about such matters; the business of reading well written complex editorials to provoke out of the box thoughts.

But when read in context, Clark's article was clearly stating ..... Sure, it may appear that we are victorious in Bagdad, but hold on for just a minute now! Maybe it will be said that Bush and Blair stuck to their guns in the face of much opposition, and maybe Baghdad has fallen, but winning this war will take a much more than this one victory. The military can win the battles, but it is the policies that win the war.
(Clark's article in fact was very reminiscent of this one.... http://www.counterpunch.org/grossman04102003.html dated the same day)

Here, he gives full credit to the military for the fall of bagdad....

"It’s to the men and women who fought it out on the arid highways, teeming city streets and crowded skies that we owe the greatest gratitude. All volunteers, they risked their lives as free men and women, because they believed in their countries and answered their calls. They left families and friends behind for a mission uncertain. They didn’t do it for the glory or the pittance of combat pay. Sadly, some won’t return — and they, most of all, need to be honored and remembered."

Here Clark warned about the looting, the mayhem and stated what needed to be done from a strategic point in order to keep Chaos from breaking out. He points out that the Weapons of Mass destructions had not been found, and any goals set by Bush and Blair, i.e., Democracy in Iraq; and stability of the ME hadn't yet happen...and basically stating that some might rejoice, but it would premature cause the shit wasn't over yet (and of course, he was right).

"there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people."

So while other PNAC crowd folks and their Wapo and NYT followers were bragging up and down the media that Mission had been accomplished, Clark's article was one that was clearly was stating .....just a minute now......have your parades if you like, but there is much work to be done before this can be called a victory!

In the following paragraph, he is providing possibilities as to what will occur.....(one happened; the strive by Al-Qaeda to mobilize their recruiting efforts, as well as the lasting humilitation of Iraq....the other options did not).....but does NOT give credit for the policy that got us into Iraq, nor does he paint the future as very rosy....

"The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. "

The following passage found at the end of same article summarizes the main point that Clark was articulating in this article written at a time when many thought that Iraq was a "mission accomplished"....

"But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed."--Wes Clark

The sources that were the first to print sentences from Clark's article out of context, once he was running for President were in fact the extreme right wing. It didn't come out when Clark first got into the race. They relied on "he's a Republican", "he praised Bush!" (again a couple of seconds of video taken out of a 45 minute speech in where he was attempting to sell the importance of NATO to a Republican audience shortly after retiring, then giving the exact same speech to a Democratic audience the next week) and "he would have voted for "a" Resolution" to do the job of bringing down his poll numbers initially. The fact is that Wes Clark surprised them all by polling only a couple of points behind Howard Dean in a Gallup January 13, 2004 poll....just a week before the first primary Iowa contest. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/12/timep.clark.tm/index.html

The Corporate media was very surprised at this because they had really worked in attempts to have him fade away.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/27/poll.democrats/index.html

And so, the assault to stop Clark's gains started energetically anew with the Times article as part and parcel of a hit job stating that Clark supported the war at some point.......not suprisingly first coming from Drudges famous website coincidently posted a story on this on January 15, 2004: http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm which was dissiminated to many conservative publications (why would conservatives cared if Clark had cheered the right call on the Iraq War that they supported during a Democratic primary, days before the first vote? They really didn't care beyond making sure Clark didn't come out of the primaries victorious).
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200401190949.asp
From there the left partisans picked up the ball (extremes meet that the end of the arc) because they had their own agenda.....which also included knocking Clark out of the primaries.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

So the few sentences from that article, along with a couple of other quotes pulled from over here and over there were dissiminated round and round, without nary a one actually providing a link to the sources; the original articles and his original testimony.

That's how politics works and that's what Clark learned, and he certainly paid for the lesson...
But what doesn't work is somehow equating that exercise in politics mudslinging to making it a fact that Wes Clark supported the war; because he didn't....not even for a little bit. period.

[venable]

154. I told you I wasn't going to argue about this

and I'm not. I expect you'll find that annoying, but I don't mean it to be.

I appreciate the research. I read it all.

Please stop the name-calling (ie intellectually dishonest).

[Divine Discontent]

152. who do you like, venable??? oh, pray, do tell?

n/t

[venable]

155. what's the point?

I mean, really.

[Jai4WKC08]

31. We "hate" those articles because they're bullshit

You KNOW they're bullshit, you know they've been proven to be bullshit, but you bring them up again and again.

Look, anybody can do what these two (and boatloads of other anti-Clark) sources have done -- go back in time to cherry-pick from volumes of Clark's written and spoken testimony against the war and wrap it all together to make it sound like something it's not.

But what anyone who wants to know the truth should do is go to ANY source dated from the fall of 2002. Everybody back then knew that Clark was unequivacably against the war. Senators like Wellstone and Kennedy credit Clark with at least some of the reason they voted against the war. Neocons like Perle, Feith and Adelman chastized him endlessly.

People can choose to believe PoE here who claims Clark lied, waffled, and distorted what he said, even tho he doesn't know the man, doesn't know any more about him than what he can read at GOP sites like factcheck or socialist sites like dissidentvoice, and has a partisan interest in smearing Clark's character. Or they can believe people like George McGovern, Michael Moore, Mario Cuomo, Sy Hersh (actually, the list could go on and on) ALL of whom have testified that Clark is one of the most honest and straight-forward men they've ever met.

[venable]

48. so there are people you can find that like Clark

as should be expected, given that he has said many things that are worthy of respect.

But I think it's wrong to act like he never said anything pro-war. He did. Accept that. It's not the worse thing that ever happened to a public figure.

Don't sanctify him. He's just a guy, with a few warts, like all of us.

I think the problem here is that whenever Edwards is praised, Clark supporters jump in and call him a 'murderer' (yes, he's been called that a few times), and that their man had the vision to see past the neo-con vision.

well, the truth is Edwards voted for the IWR, and Clark spokely loudly and often in support of the operation.

They both have moved past this. Thankfully.

Can Clark supporters recognize this and stop pointing at the 'blood on Edwards' hands'? If not, they must point at the same blood on their man's words.

How about a little civility? Just a thought.

[Donna Zen]

55. Accept a lie? Never

Here's the saddest part of what you are assuming. General Clark understood that the Democrats were in a bind, and thus, he was working with Daschle up and until the last minute when Gephardt caved to craft an amendment that would permit Saddam to be dumped in the lap of the UN, but NOT to give him a blank check, to force bush to return to the congress. That is what he told that Lieberman loving Swett to vote for.

Wes Clark was standing up for you, while Edwards was writing an Op Ed for the WaPo to put pressure on the Dems to go to war. The WHouse enjoyed Edwards' words so much they put it on their website.

And now Edwards goes to Israel (pd. by AIPAC) and tells them we can bomb Iran. Iran! Edwards, or as James Ridgeway called him, the smiling hawk.

I have not accused Edwards of having blood on his hands, but I do question his foreign policy judgment.

And btw, do you think that Gene Lyons is a liar? He swears that on July 2, 2002, Clark in public spoke out about a war in Iraq. This is of course different that what General Shelton, Edwards' military adviser, believed. He was all for clean the swamp.

[FrenchieCat]

53. These the only articles you have?

Disident voice? Here's one about John Edwards they wrote titled --I'm sure you'll agree that all in it is true, right?
"Populist Make-Over--Meet John Edwards, the Corporate Man"
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Ireland0129.htm

and here's another one - same publication you soooo rely on!
The Disturbing Words of John Edwards
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Chuckman0802.htm

oooh about this one by the bastion of reliability, Factcheck? http://www.factcheck.org/article100.html

Oh, and let's not forget Commondreams!

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0716-04.htm
by CommonDreams.org
The Disappointing Selection of John Edwards, A Foreign Policy Hawk


Enjoy! :hi:

[Pithy Cherub]

13. Clark advocated NOT going into Iraq

and completing the mission in Afghanistan. Clark denounced it on television and stood up for Michael Moore questioning it as well. That is the essence of political courage in action and immediate, he did not have to ask anybody else what they thought.

The son of a mill worker will have that millstone failed vote around his neck forever. It does not lessen the fact that Clark strategically called the foreign policy misguided and spoke urgently on the national security implications. Clark is vividly and most importantly correctly on the record in the United States Senate where he gave sworn testimony to that effect. It is the newbie senator from North Carolina who chose to ignore the singular General who had won a war in recent history without any loss of American life.

[PurityOfEssence]

21. That's simply not true

(Well, it's true if one addresses it literally and pulls references where he advocated not going into Iraq, but the implication is that he never advocated voting for the Iraq War Resolution. That just ain't so. It isn't so in spades; his maneuverings on the subject were greasy and incompetent.)

Voting for the IWR is not the same as backing an attack. The resolution was premised upon continued inspection and sincere diplomacy; the reactionaries never intended anything other than attacking. Sitting on the fence and saying whatever will please the current audience when dealing with a life-and-death situation like war is a sign of being ethically challenged.

Please read the two references I've cited above. Selective disregard of statements from Clark are either dangerous ignorance or deliberate deception. He's simply not very clean on the subject.

He has an unfortunate history of playing fast and loose with facts, playing both sides of the street and denying his previous actions. These are not characteristics one should want from a leader.

[Pithy Cherub]

23. you yourself posted it IS true. If you stick to the TRUTH

then its all good. Clark said No. Edwards drank every drop of the neocon kool-aid. It was a vote for War. even Edwards has the grace to admit that.

[Sparkly]

39. Wow. Have you read his testimony to the House Armed Services Committee?

It's been over FOUR YEARS now. I can't believe we're still going over these same false characterizations, especially with people as intelligent as you are.

[FrenchieCat]

58. Edwards didn't merrily vote for the war....he fucking co-sponsored the resolution....

So obviously you shouldn't have any trouble with Clark considering he really didn't support going to war......like Edwards did. Since you keep bringing it up, I guess that you "care" about who didn't and did support the war, right?

Here's Edwards supporting the war 1 fucking year after he voted for it....and the sad thing about it, I don't even have to Cherry-pick!

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they're doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren't with us and the Germans and the Russians weren't with us, was he right to say, "We're going anyway"?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein's potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn't get misled.
MATTHEWS: Did you get an honest reading on the intelligence?

EDWARDS: But now we're getting to the second part of your question.

I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there's clear inconsistency between what's been found in Iraq and what we were told.

And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn't just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn't change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

MATTHEWS: Do you feel now that you have evidence in your hands that he was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons?

EDWARDS: No, I wouldn't go that far.

MATTHES: What would you say?

EDWARDS: What I would say is there's a decade long pattern of an effort to get nuclear capability, from the former Soviet Union, trying to get access to scientists...

MATTHEWS: What about Africa?

EDWARDS: ... trying to get-No. I don't think so. At least not from the evidence.

MATTHEWS: Were you misled by the president in the State of the Union address on the argument that Saddam Hussein was trying get uranium from Niger?

EDWARDS: I guess the answer to that is no.

I did not put a lot of stock in that.

MATTHEWS: But you didn't believe-But you weren't misled?

EDWARDS: No, I was not misled because I didn't put a lot of stock in to it begin with.

As I said before, I think what happened here is, for over a decade, there is strong, powerful evidence, which I still believe is true, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to get nuclear capability. Either from North Korea, from the former Soviet Union, getting access to scientists, trying to get access to raw fissile material. I don't-that I don't have any question about.

MATTHEWS: The United States has had a long history of nonintervention, of basically taking the "don't tread on me and if you don't we'll leave you alone." We broke with that tradition for Iraq. What is your standard for breaking with tradition of nonintervention?

EDWARDS: When somebody like Saddam Hussein presents a direct threat to the security of the American people and, in this case, the security of a region of the world that I think is critical.

MATTHEWS: A direct threat to us. What was it? Just to get that down. What is it? Knowing everything you know now, what was the direct threat this guy posed to us here in America?

EDWARDS: You didn't get let me finish. There were two pieces to that. I said both a direct threat to us and a direct threat to a region of the world that is incredibly dangerous.

And I think that with Saddam Hussein, they've got nuclear capability, it would have changed the dynamic in that part of the world entirely. And as a result, would have created a threat to the American people. So that's what I think the threat was.

MATTHEWS: Do you think he ever posed a direct threat...

EDWARDS: Can I say something? You sort of-implicit in that question was that the assumption that I believe that the Bush policy on preemptive strike is correct. I don't.

I don't think we need a new doctrine. I think that we can always act to protect the safety and security of the American people. And I have said repeatedly that Bush-President Bush's approach to foreign policy in general is extraordinarily bad. Dangerous for the American people. He doesn't work with others. He doesn't build coalitions. We were promised...

MATTHEWS: Wait, wait.

EDWARDS: Let me finish. We were promised a coalition on the ground right now. And we were promised a plan for what would occur at this point in this campaign in Iraq. Well, neither of those things have occurred. And as a result, we're seeing what's happening to our young men and women.

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq. I don't think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don't think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don't misunderstand me.

MATTHEWS: Right.

[Pithy Cherub]

61. Have I said how much you are appreciated!

:patriot: Team Wes! :hug:

[FrenchieCat]

65. And this is the guy that the Media is pushing along with Obama and Clinton

for the Presidency?

Lord, help us!

At least Obama had better "instincts"....and Hillary has Bill!

[youthere]

119. FrenchieCat..

I am so turned on by you now. GO WES!

:loveya: :yourock:

[venable]

49. there are many who do not like Clark's war

that you commend for not having any American deaths. The air campaign was not universally celebrated, amongst the American left. I'll just leave it at that.

Clark is a decent man with good experience. He made some unfortunate statements prior to the war, statements which make him very like the Senior Senator from NC at the time.

Both have moved past this. Both made mistakes. Both are human. Neither is superior, in the war issue, to the other.

Neither listened to the one man speaking truth to power: Scott Ritter.

Peace. Please.

[Pithy Cherub]

59. Nope, stop thinking

Edwards has any ridiculous notions of being EQUAL to Clark. Edwards failures are what you as a supporter have to defend - forever. He admitted it - so you need the Grace to accept the fact that your own guy was utterly and totally wrong. Clark was not and gave sworn testimony in front of senators. Too bad Edwards didn't listen as he squandered credibility he didn't have on national security.

Clark did not have to put his apology in an op-ed in the Washington Post, like some did... Wes did what he needed to do as a General and he did it successfully. Sorry you can't say the same for Edwards senate career.c

[FrenchieCat]

63. Don't try to bring Clark down to Edwards level, and then say let bygone be

bygone. That ain't flying with me.

Don't equate the twisting of Clark words by interested 3rd parties and equate that to what John Edwards actually did (without cherry-picking or distortion required)!

List of Co-sponsors of the IWR:

S.J.RES.46 was sponsored by Joe Lieberman (D), with 16 cosponsors: Sen Allard, Wayne - 10/2/2002 Sen Baucus, Max - 10/7/2002 Sen Bayh, Evan - 10/2/2002 Sen Breaux, John B. - 10/9/2002 Sen Bunning, Jim - 10/4/2002 Sen Domenici, Pete V. - 10/2/2002 Sen Edwards, John - 10/3/2002 Sen Helms, Jesse - 10/2/2002 Sen Hutchinson, Tim - 10/2/2002 Sen Johnson, Tim - 10/7/2002 Sen Landrieu, Mary L. - 10/2/2002 Sen McCain, John - 10/2/2002 Sen McConnell, Mitch - 10/2/2002 Sen Miller, Zell - 10/2/2002 Sen Thurmond, Strom - 10/10/2002 Sen Warner, John - 10/2/2002
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Iraq_War_Resolution

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear." John Edwards’ statement on the floor of the senate 9/12/02

"Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East.

Iraq is a grave and growing threat. Hussein has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people.

Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein's arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation."
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm
John Edwards Op Ed in the WAPO dated 9/17/02


Not content with expressing support for Powell’s speech, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina indicated his retroactive support for the Bush administration, saying that he has “long argued that Saddam Hussein is a grave threat and that he must be disarmed. Iraq’s behavior during the past few months has done nothing to change my mind.” Edwards commented, “Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge for the Security Council to act.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/dems-f08.shtml

Washington shouldn't rule out the use of military force against Iran, former US senator John Edwards told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday while on a visit here. He also backed Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's unilateral realignment plan.

Edwards, a Democrat from North Carolina, is considered likely to run for the presidency in 2008, after losing in the 2004 race as John Kerry's running mate.
"We cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons," he declared, endorsing America's current approach of working with the Europeans using diplomatic levers.

But he said the "carrots" on offer have to come with heavy pressure, such as "serious sanctions."
In terms of the "stick" of military strikes, he said, "I would never take any option off the table."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1149572637421&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[venable]

76. I am trying to be decent.

You refuse to acknowlege that your hero said these things.

the difference betwixt you and I:

I admit my man's mistakes. Edwards said those thing. Edwards believed Tenet.

You refuse to accept reality: Clark said the things referenced above. Clark believed Tenet.

Face it, FrenchieCat, he did. You can not take those words back. Cherry picking? Where did the cherries come from? Clarks' mouth. Face it. Don't send back a snide, sanctimonious piece of rudeness. Face it. Your man has faults. No less, in this regard, than Edwards.

I suspect the massive detailing of your response (which I would not deny, it's there in front of me, We Know Edwards Believed Tenet....SO DID CLARK)

I'm not denying it. You, Frenchie, are. We do not live in a faith-based world.

Your attitude, frankly, is so profoundly insecure and hostile, that I now end my part of this 'dialogue' with the admonition: Get over it, whatever 'it' is you've got with Edwards, and don't sanctify Clark, because it's getting really unseemly here.

Peace.

[FrenchieCat]

80. Sure Venable, you "say" that you are trying to be decent, however

you playing victim now is not what you intended with your #9 post, which started the road we are currently going down now......

Let me remind you of what you said, as you may have forgotten:

venable (198 posts) Sun Nov-26-06 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. you don't want Edwards for the War vote
yet you do want Clark, who supported the war pretty eloquently as a talking head General.? t

Or did I get this wrong? Seriously, I'm not being snide, I am not sure what you were saying, as you only addressed Edwards, and did so in terms of his war vote.

Calling Clark a "talking Head General who supported the war" pretty much gets you the response you got from me; I call them "just desserts".

What's odd is that you seem to think that replying with a lot of documented facts is somehow "defensive". Now why would that be? I would prefer that someone counter what I say with facts as opposed to with just their word of condemnation.

You can call me out and attempt to make me look like the bad angry poster attacking poor John Edwards......however, I wasn't planning on responding in this thread until I read your number #9 response.

and in truth, snideness is in the eye of the beholder....and if you think that my energetic and fact based defense of your accusation of General Clark means that I am rude, santimonious, etc.....you can have that opinion, although it doesn't make your opinion so.

The fact that folks reading this thread are able to, based on facts not faith, make their own determination as to where Clark stood back when it counted as opposed to where Edwards stood is all that I require. It ain't about me and you personally, it's about not rewriting history to allow someone with bad judgement about important issues to "slide" into a seat where the biggest prerequisite is exactly that; good and wise judgement.

I actually don't have anything personal against John Edwards the man, but John Edwards the politician is not my idea of who should end up representing me in a Presidential race. I just simply don't believe that he's presidential material regardless of how good he looks on camera and how much he "talks" about poverty (a noble undertaking that I don't disagree with one bit....as I have worked hard on that issue way before Edwards took it on as his "cause").

I realize that Edwards got a great chance of becoming the nominee as the media has made his main competition a polarizing woman and a young Black man with a strange name......but it is also obvious that the media and his supporters prefer to gloss over his lack of insight in an area that is very important to me and quite a few others. I'm not going to just lay back and hop on that wagon, and that's just the way it is. Get over it.

[venable]

93. Once more, I say 'peace'.

I don't feel victimized, as you say. I just don't want to participate in the rancor. I accept blame for part of it.

It seems to me that we are arguing and not listening. I confess I haven't responded well to your points on Edwards, and I must say I don't believe you've responded well to my points on Clark. Both are good men, with human flaws. I needn't reiterate our arguments to prove that. That's the way people are, thank the gods.

I wish Clark well and hope he stays an important part of the debate, and I wish the same for Edwards.

I hope the tone becomes more civil.

[FrenchieCat]

66. Yeah...a lot of Republicans didn't like the Humanitarian war that

nato fought.

And?

John Edwards voted Yes on authorizing military air strikes on Kosovo....

[Clark2008]

12. Apparently you're not on the same planet as I am.

Moderate and conservative Dems are more likely to vote for a military man than some fluffy guy.

[sonroadera]

40. I still think Clark would have beaten Bush the most in 04.

I would have loved to see a 4 star general standing next to awol Bush in the debates.

[Captain Hilts]

85. I think Clark would have wiped the floor with Bush in the debates. nt

[FrenchieCat]

51. Moderates and Conservatives won't vote for Clark because......

Thanks for the additional information currently missing from your proclaimation. What are the odds you will return to clarify with like....sourced evidence? :shrug:

[Eurobabe]

70. Where did you find your statistics for this generalized gem?

Link?

Show me the money.

[dmosh42]

7. Ok on any ticket headed by Clark!

Maybe Clark/Biden would be a real strong combo, with heavy international credentials.

[cosmik debris]

8. I think we need more polls on the 2008 election

We seem to average 4 or 5 a day. That just isn't enough. More polls please!:boring:

[Bucky]

43. ha!

Of course all presidential candidates must come with a prepackaged selection of who their vice presidential running mate will be--just like they do in real life.

[Pithy Cherub]

11. Clark Most Definitively! Clark/who HE wants!

Edwards can be in the cabinet. They are not ideologically aligned and Edwards would not bring NC with him as a guaranteed win. Clark clearly stated that Iraq was a war of choice and not necessary to take America's resources away from Afghanistan. Edwards enabled the Iraq Debacle, wrote the Patriot Act and NCLB. All of which Clark have stated as failed public policies.


Wes Clark would best be paired with some one who has demonstrated leadership skills, intellectual range and curiosity and aligned with his strategic vision in words and deeds as evidenced by their public record.

[benny05]

18. Edwards will carry NC

It has been trending blue and more in his direction. Suggest you check out BlueNC.com

[Pithy Cherub]

22. Just like he did for Kerry!

keep a wishin', and a hopin',...Keep Hope Alive. Not happening, but it makes for a nice pipedream. :)

[benny05]

26. Let go of that one Pithy

He wasn't allowed to campaign in the south. Don't get me started about Kerry's campaign managers, who wrote off the south. Go focus on who won in NC: Heath Shuler. Larry Kissell's race is still under recount. JRE campaigned for both.

[Pithy Cherub]

29. Then don't bring it up again. n/t

[benny05]

32. I didn't

You did. I said he will carry NC in the future. He has strong support amongst Dems there and if nonimated, he will win his state in the general election. But certainly, it will not be enough otherwise.

[Pithy Cherub]

34. you are right, I did.

I am sorry. Um, but I really, really, don't believe he can do it. Heavy military population too - Edwards has no experience.

[benny05]

36. Good luck To Wes

But no one will win the caucus/primary there but Edwards (who won it last time technically, but the primaries were essentially over), and it will depend on his VP pick for the general election. The one thing that you are losing sight of, and this goes for Gore and Kerry, is the advantage they have and Edwards has: being through a national campaign before...and learning from mistakes. Edwards is very popular again in NC.

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. Benny, I really like your style here

I just wanted to say that. I know that a strong case can be made for John Edwards for President, just like a case can be made against that. Same is always true for any potential candidate. You honor your candidate by making an honest good case for him. Regarding Iraq, obviously John Edward's role in the IWR vote and the prelude to that war is not a strength that he brings to the table now for many Democrats. Edwards is on much firmer ground with the apology he gave for that, and he has been a strong critic of how that war has been waged in recent years. No candidate will ever present as perfect. We each have to decide what is a weakness we are willing to look past and what is not.

In many areas John Edwards has been excellent on domestic issues since he ran for President. He keeps improving in that regard from when he served in the U.S. Senate, (and I'm not saying he wasn't good then) and Edwards has become a real leader within our Party for defending the economic needs of the poor and average working Americans. That speaks very well for John Edwards. Edwards can claim some experience that Clark doesn't have, and obviously the opposite is true. It is up to each of us as individuals to rank how important certain experience, or the lack of same, is to us in selecting who we would support for the Democratic nomination. Personally I support Clark over Edwards and it seems the opposite is true for you. However I will support Edwards if he becomes our nominee.

I have watched your restraint and positive energy on this thread and I appreciate it a lot. It will continue to drive most Clark supporters up the wall, myself included, when some attempt to claim that there was not a significant difference in the views that Clark and Edwards held about pending war with Iraq back in 2002, or with the wisdom of Bush's decisions after the IWR vote leading up to and including the actual invasion of Iraq. Objectively that simply is not the truth and I will always resent attempts to "manipulate the data" to suggest the opposite, and I will always rise to dispute that. If some Edwards supporters attempt to promote John Edwards by saying Wes Clark also supported the Iraq invasion, there will always be fights between some Edwards and Clark supporters here over Iraq, and I unfortunately will be part of those.

John Edwards took the right approach with his apology about Iraq and revision of his earlier position. Was that enough to satisfy all of his critics? No it wasn't, but it did satisfy some of them, and that is always the way it is. John Edward's apology for his earlier stance on Iraq didn't "satisfy me" enough to choose him to support for President in the Primaries, and I don't say that simply because I support Wes Clark. I have always given thought to who I would support if Clark doesn't run and right now I would hope Al Gore did if Clark doesn't, and to be honest Iraq is one of my reasons for that. But John Edward's apology does clear the decks for me to work hard for his election in the event that he does become the Democratic nominee, so even with a critic of Edwards over Iraq like myself, that apology does matter to me. And I have no problem at all saying that John Edwards is playing a very important and valuable role in today's Democratic PArty.

[venable]

77. bravo

Tom Rinaldo's tip of the hat to civility is one of the best things I've read here in a while. Civility must be the starting point of all discussion.

[benny05]

82. Thanks Tom

You appear to be one of the few Clark supporters who is more grounded in reason and can articulate it well. As you may have guessed, there is a good reason why I don't criticize Clark (only his supporters who want to hijack any nice threads about Edwards, but this thread is not about Edwards per se) slight negative, and I think this may be where the Clarkies feel defensive and get crabby about (from the many times I keep hearing about with General Skelton), was why General Clark left the Clinton administration in 1999. Frankly, I don't care. Anyone who serves in the executive branch and is an apppointee does so at the pleasure of the President, which means one can be there one day, and gone the next. Whether or not this is executive experience is another matter, but it is credit towards policy making. In General Clark's case, it was more on foreign policy, particularly in Eastern Europe. As far as General Clark never supported the war or supported the war, I've not commented other than to say if he was against it, it's easier to say one is against it when one was not in Congress at the time. That comment applies to Senator Obama and VP Gore as well.

What concerns me are the petty comments about Edwards that emulate what I see on Freeperville, such as he has "good hair". Edwards' appearance is irrelevant, except to say he does possess a tremendous amount of energy to be in the public eye, and having a lot of energy is important for campaigning for others as he was at 160 events in the past 18 months and raising for $8.5 million for the candidates. Of course, what the real underlying current behind the petty remark is more the perception of disingenuity. I do disagree with anyone who says and always will, but partly because I relate to Edwards' background more, as I grew up in a low to lower middle income family, went to public schools, majored in practical areas such as education (Edwards' major was textile management), but going on to graduate school. In Edwards' case, he is a true seeker and excellent advocate for justice, and understands the law very, very well. He enjoys meeting people, and he will meet with all walks of life. This summer, I had heard that Edwards was going to be visiting some old friends near my area, and I asked if I could meet with him for a few minutes. I'm just a blogger, albeit part of the OAC community. We visited for 10 minutes. It was not the first time I had met him, but I wasn't star struck this time as much as reaffirming that his charisma was spiritual. That spiritual nature affected (and still does) me in both heart and mind. His wife and I are acquainted through the OAC blog, and we did meet exactly a month later after I had seen John, albeit it was just a quick hello, a hug, and an autograph of a photo I had brought. I found Elizabeth to be incredibly open, transparent, and warm--even more so than her husband. And when I look at what I want in the White House, it's two very caring people who are self-assured, but caring towards others. Many of our politicans are smart , but what separates Edwards from the rest is his empathetic nature.

So when I see JRE's character being attacked, especially when he has gone to some of the most poverty stricken areas of the planet and in our country to figure out what to do about it, I draw the same conclusion as he does. Poverty causes a lot of ills in this world, which is why we have despots in Africa and the Middle East, crime at home, and dispair in many places. We do live in a dangerous world, with many problems to solve. But I trust him to get the right people in place and to lead by example, bringing hope and inspiration to those who lack those aspects in their lives. I would hope General Clark would be willing to serve as one of them in some capacity, if asked, and vice-versa, as some Clark supporters have indicated.

One last thing. I would support General Clark if he were the nominee, as I would Gore, albeit I would like to meet them personally before making up my mind. I will be seeing Gore next summer, and I hope General Clark will get to Central Illinois where I live. One of my fellow OAC bloggers, Jude Camwell, met General Clark and had very good things to say about him when he came to Upstate NY to campaign for Dan Maffei, that I believe were reposted on Securing America. But I won't support HRC as I do find her motivations disingenuous in wanting to be President. I think she is a good senator for NY, but I do wish she would admit she makes mistakes, just Edwards has said he was wrong. I'm willing to forgive leaders when they say they are wrong as long as they mean it, something that many Kossacks and DU'ers have trouble getting their arms around. I would add though that if I had a family member who had gone to Iraq and came back harmed or dead, I could see what it would be difficult to forgive anyone who voted for the use of force, if necessary. We have to hope our leaders will continue their intelligence gathering before going to war, even when authorized, but in the case of Bush, unilateral sheer force was unnecessary, and thus it was a horrible mistake.

[Tom Rinaldo]

83. You're Welcome. You have great reasons for supporting Edwards

And I agree with you that snide superficial attacks on leading Democrats serve no useful function, whether it is a comment about Edward's hair or Clark's uniform or anything else. I grew up in a working class family in a middle class community so I can relate to your comments. Clark did something similar also, as you probably know. I like that about both Clark and Edwards. Like you with the Edwards, I've had the chance to spend time with both Wes and Gert Clark and I love them both as people. It helps cement one's support to have a personal feel for whom one is supporting.

Peace Progress and Justice to all of us.

[benny05]

89. Suggestion to Tom R and Clarkies

Ask to follow your post by yours and General Clark's example.

[FrenchieCat]

101. suggestion to benny05 and Edwardians

Same advice to Edwardians as you give to Clarkies--

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2986764&mesg_id=2987178

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2986764&mesg_id=2989104

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2986764&mesg_id=2988066

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2986764&mesg_id=2989117

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2986764&mesg_id=2989077

[venable]

107. please stop

let's all act as we would expect our candidates to act.

[Jai4WKC08]

109. Oh certainly

The Edwards fans here are acting EXACTLY as I would expect their candidate to. Except he would pay someone to do it for him.

[benny05]

111. Who would pay what?

Go back to Tom R's and my understanding.

[benny05]

110. Back up...

Tom R and I believe in peace, progress, and justice as we understand each other's positions very well. I'm suggesting that if you follow what Tom R does, which seems to be an model of what General Clark would do as a candidate, your comments would be less caustic, but instead would focus more on the high points of your candidate. Not everyone you quoted in your links is necessarily an Edwards supporter. Once again, you may jumped the shark.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2986764&mesg_id=2988597

[venable]

113. thank you Benny and Tom R

you both reflect well on your candidates.

[Tom Rinaldo]

115. Benny, just to be clear about one thing

It's not fair to ask anyone to act comfortable with something that is legitimately true about a potential candidate that they really and sincerely are not comfortable with. At this stage it is actually the responsibility of individual Democrats to make relative decisions between Democrats as to who they trust and respect the most to support for President. We will be moving into a Primary stage before we will be asked to unite around one candidate for the 2008 Presidential Election.

So to be less abstract, regarding Clark, if someone says to me that they really can't get behind electing someone President who has never held an elected office before, I will most likely present an argument for why that should not be a deal stopper with Wes Clark. But if it really is a deal stopper for them, and not just a cynical exploitation of a perceived weakness of a candidate competing with one they support, I can't expect them to say that it's just fine with them. We can only have a public discussion about why it should or shouldn't matter very much. There's a chance that one of us will convince the other of the rightness of our position, but unlikely at that point, but still it can be instructive for other readers to have that debate. That has to be OK.

All I can ask is that people make an honest effort to not distort facts in their arguments, in this case an example of what I might call a distortion would be to say "Clark has no experience in government." I can't dispute that Clark has never been elected to office, but I can prove that he has experience in Government. If I can prove that Clark has experience in Government, I will later resent it if the same person tries to push that same distortion on another thread that he has none. If instead they focus their discussion on some aspect of getting elected to office that Clark lacks, such as him not being able to show through his record that his vote can't be bought by a major contributer to his election campaign, OK, then the discussion continues. I may say Clark already proved his integrity by not going to work for a major Defense contractor, and so forth. The other guy might say, that's all well and good to make that complex case with me, I'm a political junkie, I can take the time to think that through, but it will be a liability with the general public that Clark never got elected, etc. etc.

If the discussion stays civil and people don't try to mangle objective facts or intentionally distort the truth to cast Clark or the other candidates in a manipulated bad light, then we are simply disagreeing on who we support and why. There's nothing wrong with that. In other words I don't think it would be fair for someone to be accused of bashing Wes Clark because they honestly think his career in the military leaves him unprepared to be a good president. I may passionately disagree with them over that, but it isn't a bash to take that position. Likewise if I or anyone else says that the fact that John Edwards was a co-sponsor of the Patriot Act and the IWR makes me unwilling to support him in the primaries against other Democratic contenders, that by itself isn't a bash of John Edwards either. You are certainly free to explain or defend or minimize those actions, or put them in a broader context, or assert that they no longer are relevant given Edward's current views etc., but I would not be bashing Edwards if I saw that differently than you. Having said that I agree that it probably should be considered a bash of Edwards if I said I don't accept his apology about his IWR vote as sincere, and that he is using pretend concern about the poor for selfish cynical power hungry reasons. THAT would be a bash. Me saying that Edwards doesn't have the experience or track record I want for my preferred Presidential candidate is fair grist for discussion.

I know General Clark believes in honest and open debate of issues, with accurate information made available to all, and I'm sure that John Edwards does also. We can disagree about the merits of the people we support, but my goal is to try to keep the "civil" in "civil discourse", to be honest about my true views, to present the facts as best I understand them, and to be open to admitting I was wrong when evidence is presented that contradicts what I believed was true.

[benny05]

116. We are on the same page, Tom

To be civil, with information we can use to discuss. But most of the Clark supporters are constantly pissed off at Edwards (seldom at Clinton, which I find interesting), and if you notice, JRE supporters are not that critical of Clark, except they feel Clarkies (supporters) are constantly trying to hijack the goodness of Edwards and no one else. I'm suggesting Clarkies observe what you write to support Clark, instead of shooting off the hip, being negative, due to emotions, which are very different from what I see on Securing America.

I see more voices who support Clark of reason and much appreciate what I read there. Seldom does Clark's name though comes up in One America. We have debates on different issues, but not about General Clark at present, and hasn't been for some time.

My suggestion to anyone reading this comment is to visit both Securing America and One America Committee blogs. Both have a lot to offer.

[Pithy Cherub]

117. What a condescending bunch of tripe!

Politics is the art of discussion, hopefully civil, many times not and it is neither your assigned role nor job to be a blog nanny about who should Write, what, according to your rules of civility. If said poster starts Civilly it will end civilly with facts being the coin of the realm.

[venable]

127. Pithy, how can the phrase 'hopefully civil'

follow the phrase 'condescending bunch of tripe', and have any meaning?

Tom R and Benny disagree, they stand up for their disagreements, but they are are civil. I am interested in joining their conversations. I'm sure you won't miss me in yours.

[Pithy Cherub]

133. You keep pushing the envelope

and not being in a discussion with you is no loss. As long as what you post remains truthful and factual you'll be ok. Next time any one writes tripe, I'll call it tripe especially when they are saying what Clarkies could do while bemoaning a loss of civility. Bullshit dressed up as civility gets called. Honor defended always. If one's words bely their actions it makes them no less a hypocrite of the first rank.

[Tom Rinaldo]

118. Benny we all have our own blinders about what we notice

I tend to notice when some Edwards supporters seem to have a very selective axe to grind with Clark and Clark only. Trust me, I notice that all the time. I'm sure you notice the opposite, we don't need to fight over that, I'll accept that you do. A good first step for all of us to take is to accept on good faith that each "side" in this dance has legitimate grievances that they can either choose to nurse or let go of. The wrong way to make progress here is to start by me saying something like, "I'm sure Clark and Edwards supporters can coexist peacefully if Edwards supporters would pay closer attention to what you write and how to support Edwards, rather than shooting off the hip".

A fresh start means just that, not let's resume the Soccer game but, unlike us, you guys are playing with a yellow card.

[benny05]

120. Tom, I'd be interested in the number of times JRE supporters

Have attempted to hijack a positive thread for Clark as opposed to the other way around. Go look. I had thought we had sorted this out, but I will say I think you are mistaken in JRE supporters' axe to grind about General Clark. It is not with General Clark. General Clark's resume or his issues are not a big deal to Edwards supporters; it is his more than ardent supporters' comments which appear to be rabid at times, as I have discussed. General Clark has been on Fox News, a very conservative news channel, many times to give analysis. I'm not crazy about Fox News, but certainly, it is an outlet for General Clark to express his views, and a tactical move to reach out to potential indies.

I can only speak for me, but I've noticed that concerns are with Senator Kerry's campaign managers in how they handled the 2004 campaign. Not with KerryCrats or with Senator Kerry. JRE has said it will be challenging to run against his friend recently on Tim Russert's program last weekend.

[Tom Rinaldo]

122. Consistent with my sincerely stated view

I don't think it would be productive to go down that path right now Benny. If this becomes a competition to prove who acts worse and why, and I really advise against it which is why I decline your invitation right now, I know where to go looking for ammunition. However that is exactly what I think will not be helpful. I can hardly think of a worse diversion of all of our time than a mutual witch hunt through the past looking for gotcha moments.

[benny05]

123. Thanks

But I think my argument holds up...Edwards supporters are tired of tirades of Clarkies on Edwards. As the campaigns go on, we want to see why to support one candidate as oppposed to tearing one down. I do not believe for one minute that any criticisms towards General Clark are necessarily those for Edwards, and vice-versa. But if you disagree that most Clarkies on the DU are on the defensive as opposed to the offensive, I have to be in that corner to disagree with you.

[Tom Rinaldo]

125. You may not think so Benny, in fact I'm sure you don't

But I have long shown restraint in NOT putting together a collection of links to what seemed very much to me like a pattern of repeated anti-Clark agitating by several strongly identified Edwards supporters on numerous Clark subject threads on DU. And yes I know that anti-Clark sentiments are not the exclusive domain of Edwards supporters, and yes I know that most Edwards supporters don't engage in that, and also that many Edwards supporters like Clark a great deal, so I don't need to be reminded of that.

Probably, before now, the strongest thing that held me back from commenting directly on that pattern of behavior that I was noticing, was my determination not to be hypocritical. I have commented on numerous occasions in the past here that an ongoing campaign that constantly attacked one group of candidate supporters on DU, often in pretty extreme and vicious language, should have no place on DU, where we should be discussing issues, not each other. That's one lesson I learned from the Primary wars from 2004, and I have tried to the best of my ability and patience to avoid falling into that trap ever since. And resorting to a type of tokenism to excuse that behavior just doesn't cut it.

It doesn't undo the intrinsic nastiness of repeated negative group profiling to fire away with all guns blazing at a sub set of DU participants in often vile terms and sweeping generalized stark condemnations, and then say; "Of course I'm not talking about all supporters of so and so, just the #*>#*X# extremist ones that plague DU like a cloud of locusts. My motivation in making these observations is beyond reproach, and my objectivity can not be challenged because, after all, some of my best friends are supporters of that candidate. It's only all the total scum that grouped around him here that I'm talking about now".

OK, that was a minor parody of a dynamic that I find disturbing on DU, but some who engage in that behavior come damn close to making that an accurate description of their behavior. Others do character assassination with a velvet glove over their fist. More like: "Isn't it sad that some supporters of a certain candidate see a need to engage in this indefensible childish behavior that I might expect from Freeper thugs, but not from honorable members of this community..."

So you see, I have strong feelings about the behavior of certain people with a shared agenda on DU also, and twice I graciously avoided even touching on any of this in response to your comments, suggesting instead that we put aside the ledgers where such tallies are kept. But you insist on assigning one sided blame, and act moralistic about it in the process, as if constant criticism of "Clarkies" is as natural and innocent as breathing, and can't possibly be contributing to any of the tensions that exist on this board, or the way it spills over into discussions here. I'm sorry, but that simply isn't the way human nature works. You don't get a free pass to keep slamming one group of people because in your opinion that group of people deserves to be slammed, and then say, why is peace so difficult to obtain around here?

I know from past experience not to expect any Edwards supporter to take the above comments to heart. Instead I expect multiple posts explaining to me how, yes indeed, extremist Clark supporters on DU deserve to be harshly attacked as a group for all their terrible behavior. It is Clark supporters, and only Clark supporters, who sink to such terrible lows. If the past pattern holds, those comments will then be followed by even more self righteous attacks on the terrible behavior of extremist Clark supporters. Should that in fact happen I want no part of getting sucked into that ugliness. I will not participate further in prolonging a state of rivalry.

If I am wrong I will be most pleasently surprised, but in either case I repeat, no good can come from continuing down this road. I've already made my best effort on this thread to build bridges and sooth tensions. Don't expect me also to pleasantly act like a doormat for the sake of good will. What I can do, what I will do, is try to hold to the standard of debate that I tried to lay out above.

[venable]

130. I think it is wise

and gracious to not bring up ledgers. That way lies recriminations only. It seems that what you and Benny are doing is trying to start from scratch.

I just want to say Bravo, and hopefully Edwards and Clark supporters can stay off the other man's threads, or, if so, join them with some composure.

You're right about the 'velvet gloves'. Language can sting in many different ways.

Without sounding too namby-pamby, I'm more interested in common ground, or disagreements with some repose. There are a couple of posters that I just won't deal with anymore, one of whom posted on this section of the thread, and that's too bad. Or maybe it doesn't matter.

[Catchawave]

131. Thank you for your civility venable !

I think you were on the receiving end of some undeserved smackdowns on this thread, thanks for rising above that. :toast:

[Tom Rinaldo]

132. I very much appreciate these comments venable. n/t

[benny05]

142. And tonight you lead another Clark Lovefest

Try finding a JRE supporter trying to hijack it. You won't.

[Tom Rinaldo]

144. Why this snarky tone Benny?

"lead a Clark lovefest". I welcome anyone to go to that thread, which does nothing other than provide direct quotes from a media interview with Clark where he is asked about his intentions for 2008, and decide for themselves if your spin here on what I did by posting it was to "lead another Clark lovefest". I even ANTICIPATED that someone, maybe not you, but someone would say something snarky about "another Clark thread", and voila! I said in a brief preface that it would be silly to not admit that Clark's current thoughts about running in 2008 are of general interest to many DU readers. My own comments on that thread were, I think you would admit, minimal until someone posted a link to an anti-Clark hit site on it. If you call that "leading a Clark lovefest", that is your right, but I think you are only sounding bitter by doing so.

[benny05]

145. It's not snarky

It's an observation that I was trying to point out, and you said in an earlier message that you disagreed with me about JRE supporters and what they say about Clark. You said you saw many links in which JRE supporters attacked Clark on different threads. I'm pointing out that you may be mistaken, along with other Clarkies. We don't get on the Clark lovefests (which are fine, that's what the DU can offer here, but with your full-blown blog, I'm not comprehendng why Clarkies blog here and not at the Securing America site more often) and criticize General Clark or his supporters when they post on them because it's not productive or wise for that matter.

I'm pointing out a consistency that when there are some threads relatively positive about JRE, the Clarkies attack them. You are asking for more evidence, and I'm gathering it, but I was busy teaching today.

[Tom Rinaldo]

151. No Benny, I never asked you for any evidence

You say here: "You are asking for more evidence, and I'm gathering it, but I was busy teaching today."

Not once did I ask you for more evidence, go back and review what I said if you don't believe me. You were the one who asked me for evidence, remember. I said that I was willing to accept and believe that you notice what you notice, and that I notice what I notice, that we probably are keyed in to notice different things. I made a conscious point of not challanging your observations, you are the one who challanged me to document proof and I declined because I thought it best not to go there for reasons that I explained above.

So go about gathering evidence to support whatever you think it is so important to support, but don't claim that I asked you to do it. I said I wanted no part in that on either "side".

Here is a non candidate supporter centric observation that I will share with you, take it or leave it. There are over 95,000 members of Democratic Underground, lots of potential for any one of us to find one or more of DU's members who we find quite difficult to take for any number of reasons. Now I've heard some supporters of Edwards here claim that there are too few active Edwards supporters on DU for Clark supporters to even worry about how they act, but there are so many more Clark supporters (yada yada) yet Clark supporters won't give Edwards supporters room to enjoy their own positive threads (yada yada). Has it ever occurred to you that if there are so many more Clark supporters on DU, as evidenced by candidate polls or whatever, that there is a greater statistical liklihood that one or more Clark supporters will show up on any given debate thread than would Edwards supporters?

Not only that, even if we were to agree in an abstract sense that there will always be posters on DU who have a bug up their ass against one or more Democrats and as a result will never shut up about it, that if there are 5 times as many Clark supporters on DU than Edwards supporters, it could be statistically expected that there are five times as many Clark supporters as Edwards supporters on DU also who will have a bug up their ass about one or more Democrats. I am intentionally not defining what "bug up ass" means here because it would be a diversion from my point to get into a case by case debate about appropriate and inappropriate posting, we kind of already did a lot of that up thread. No, I am just saying let's assume that the shoe "bug up ass" fits some people. If Lieberman supporters are rare on DU, it follows that one will rarely find a Lieberman supporter here who qualifies for "bug up ass" status.

Now I can list a good core of openly identified Edwards supporters who rather regularly show up on Clark threads and often cast dispersions on Clark, or sharply question claims that Clark supoprters make about Clark on those threads, often with no intent at real open dialog in my opinion. They do so, again in my opinion, with differing degrees of civility and sincerity. That could be because each one is their own person, and each one has different passions and priorities and ways of going about making their feelings known. If I made such a list of names, and you did to, it would not be unexpected if there were more "problem people" (in your opinion) on your list than there would be on mine, because self identified Clark supporters are significantly more numerous on DU than are self identified Edwards supporters. I think it proves nothing, but it is worse than that. Thinking along those lines lifts disputes away from the individual conflict level and moves toward "gang conflict" instead. Your gang, my gang, their gang.

So if I tell you that I find that Edwards supporters are over represented, given their base line numbers at DU, among the Clark critics on Clark threads, you can chose to believe me or not, but you know what, I don't care all of that much one way or another who an individual who, again in my opinion, unfairly attacks Clark supports personally. They are all individuals that I have issues with, some mild, some severe. If someone insists on falsely repeating that Clark used to be a Republican, my response is to take them on because of the lie, not because they personally support John Edwards, or John Kerry, or Al Gore, or anyone else. It's all the same when you get down to it, an individual acting disruptive by spreading lies. My response is to debunk the lie. And if I can prove that that individual continually repeats the same lie, than I also debunk that individual, but who they happen to support is irrelevent at that point. From my perspective I treat them as a disrupter, not as a member of some rival gang. I feel confident that I can more than hold my own in a battle of ideas and arguments, and that's how I choose to view it.

[benny05]

160. I'm not the one to convince here anymore

Today's Quinnapac poll doesn't even include Clark. My guy is not number 1, but he is ahead of Clinton. Why General Clark is left off polls is beyond me, but seems to me that General Clark will need to work to get beyond the Netroots and back to the stage.

[Tom Rinaldo]

161. No argument with you there Benny

I think we are early in the procrss of watching that unfold, but it will pick up steam more quicly soon if Clark decides to run, which he will decide on soon. I think it's pretty obvious that Edwards plans to run unless his wife has a health relapse (and I pray for her continued total recovery). Meanwhile some of us are continuing to give heat back in response when a firm like Quinnapac continues to pull that shit. They won't be able to get away with it so easily if Clark makes an actual announcement.

[benny05]

162. Speaking of Elizabeth Edwards

She is live blogging at BlueNC right now. http://www.bluenc.com

[Texas_Kat]

157. Don't feel bad Tom

A similar post at dKos currently has 319 replies.... only a few negatives and those are known supporters of other candidates.

I think your post here at DU was quite restrained.

[guidod]

14. I say no to Clark, but

would like to see Edwards/Obama ticket.

[Clarkie1]

15. I'd be happy with that but I like Clark/Obama better. nt

[Pithy Cherub]

16. Me too!

They at least have the same value and belief system. I chose not to vote in the poll.

[1932]

20. I doubt Clark and Obama agree on WalMart.

I could be wrong, but, teaming up with the man (who teamed up with Edwards, incidentally) who is attacking the employment practices at WalMart might put Clark in an awkward position in Arkansas.

I'll google Clark and WalMart right now and see what I come up with.

[Pithy Cherub]

24. Obama is a much better choice

than Edwards, but its not my choice. It would be Clark's and whoever he selected would be fine by me. My preference is for someone intrinsically in touch with Clark's value system and with a proven ability to speak up and out on issues attached to national security when it matters.

[benny05]

46. Would Clark have supported Condi Rices' Nom? n/t

[FrenchieCat]

67. Don't know, but here's what he said back in 2003.....

Gen. Wesley Clark, told a New Hampshire audience Friday night he had only fired one person in his life. On Saturday he said he wanted to fire a second person: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

When asked at a house party on the Seacoast about what he would do in Iraq if elected president today, he was met with applause when he said, "First of all I would change the Secretary of Defense. Then I would go to the commanders of the ground and go to Iraq myself personally and I would develop an exit strategy that gives us a success and lets us downsize our commitment there."

Besides Rumsfeld, Clark also criticized Bush's National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice for her views of the world and then U.S. House Majority Leader Tom Delay, also a Republican, for his vote on a measure involving Kosovo.

In Washington Saturday, Clark said Americans are embarrassed by Bush.

Speaking after an event in Washington at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's annual conference, Clark, 58, told reporters that the American people are "really embarrassed" by the administration's leadership.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/09/29/628/98541

[Imagevision]

149. Obama- Obama -Obama- Obama -Obama- Obama -Obama!!!!!!

Notice repugs almost never mention the Obama name, don't even want Dems to consider the more serious threat!!

[Clarkie1]

41. Clark strongly supports labor unions, so I don't see a problem from that angle. nt

[benny05]

47. Except...

if he is only supporting what's currently available now. What about Hotel Workers' Rising, what about Wake-up Wal-Mart?

[Texas_Kat]

60. Clarkies started the movement to call Walmart to task

Seems like we're quite an active bunch. Nice of JRE to get around to noticing the movement.

[FrenchieCat]

64. You'll come up with this.....

along with two other Wake Up Wal-Mart activists, emerged from the youthful enthusiasm of the Howard Dean presidential campaign, which used the Internet creatively and made activists of people who'd never before believed in the political process. (Another member of the Wake Up Wal-Mart team comes from the Draft Wesley Clark campaign, the Internet-based group that raised large sums of money for Clark before he'd even agreed to run in the 2004 presidential campaign.)
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/08/02/walmart/index.html


Now the union has recruited strategists from the 2004 Howard Dean and Wesley Clark campaigns, and they are mounting a crusade that goes beyond the usual union tactics, such as the boycott or shareholder resolution expressing disapproval of a company’s policies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8333653/

WakeUpWalMart.com is run by Paul Blank, political director for Howard Dean's 2004 Democratic presidential campaign, and Chris Kofinis, a former political professor who helped draft retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark into the same race.

Their campaign has all the markings of the Dean and Clark insurgencies _ a snappy Web site, volunteer action lists and an issues-based grass-roots campaign.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/23/AR2006042300384_pf.html

[1932]

78. Two former Dean workers, a former Cal State prof Clarkie, and a Republican

and they're working with Edwards and Obama.

But what does Clark say about WalMart?

[FrenchieCat]

81. Edwards and Obama are working with them......cause they, the Dean workers

and the Clarkie backer are the ones who layed the groundwork. Getting onboard with an issue already brought to the fore by others does not a leader make.

Clark has made himself clear on trade and Unions......which speaks about Walmart included.

[Clark2008]

97. Not much

Clark has no dealings with Wal-mart - other than he may have shopped there once or twice (there is a Wally World down the street from his house).

Actually, most of his staff started Wake Up Wal-mart - so I guess you were barking up the wrong tree. :rofl:

BACKFIRE.

[1932]

103. ...and I'm still waiting for the Pelosi quote

so I shouldn't expect a cite for the "most of his staff" claim, which I'll add to my ever-lengthening list of citations I'd like to see in support of your claims.

[Auntie Bush]

50. Love that picture of Clark! Hubba! Hubba!

His intelligence is only matched by his looks.
Looks Presidential doesn't he?

[Moloch]

27. Edwards is a loser.

He couldn't even beat dick cheney in a debate. Enough with these "I was for the war, before I was against it" Democrats.

We need fresh blood.

Edwards lost his home state.

[CalebHayes]

33. I'm sorry... thats crap.

The Presidential election in 2004 was Bush v Kerry. Not Edwards. Presidential elections are not about the VP nominee.

[benny05]

35. Exactly n/t

[MrSlayer]

30. Not my first choice for running mate but I'd still vote for the ticket.

I'd rather see Clark run with someone else but it were to be Edwards I'd accept it and vote for it. Clark being the President is the most important thing.

[Jai4WKC08]

37. I voted yes because

I would support Clark/anybody without reservation. But I do so secure in the knowledge that it could NEVER ever happen. Thank God.

[bigwillq]

38. The Edwards part is fine by me

I like Clark but I don't know if I want him as president.

A cabinet member for sure.

[Digit]

159. Here's my take....

I have seen how persuasive Edwards is with the public, so I think he has the better chance of winning.
Of course I like his message which is timely and sorely needed, but I am considering the public. You know, some of those people you wonder how they managed to get a driver's license. They look at IMAGE only and don't care a whit about the message, or even bother to read a newspaper.
Hell, I have NEIGHBORS like that. They voted for Bush because Laura was a LIBRARIAN!
The packaging matters...that is all I am saying. Of course I believe Edwards is an excellent candidate to boot.

So, Clark has some great experience, but I don't think he can gather the public support. We need someone like him in office though, so I recommend a Cabinet position.

Gore is another matter. I think he can do best in leading the country the way in combating Global Warming as he has said he intends to do. If it looks like we are in trouble leading into the primaries, I would expect Gore to come forth and I would totally support HIM then.

[njdemocrat106]

72. I would like Clark/Warner personally, but I like Edwards too

I'll probably vote for the Dem candidates no matter what (unless for some strange reason Zell Miller was the nominee), but I think Wes Clark and Mark Warner could pull it off.

[dmosh42]

79. I like that combo!

I hadn't thought of that combination. I was searching for someone who can think 'outside the box' like Clark. Yes, that's a fit! I'll call Wes and see what he thinks.

[Norrin Radd]

73. Clark/Clark.

Clone him.

[nebula]

75. Clark/Edwards sounds good to me

Would definitely not want Edwards at the head of any ticket, especially since he voted in favor of the war.

The MSM and Repubs could easily and would portray him as a flip-flopper. Edwards was for the war before he was against it.

[lojasmo]

84. Edwards will be at the top of the next ticket, IMO.

Though I don't like it.

[FrenchieCat]

86. Agreed that this is where the PR media is leading us to.....

The choices provided by our dear Corporate "concerned" media are a polarizing Mrs.Clinton who's not Bill, an intelligent very young charismatic Black man with the an arab sounding middle and last name or the Good looking youthful white guy with the proper family and the "poor" populist rethoric. I'll admit that it looks like the White Guy's got a good chance by virtue of default, considering the choices pre-determined by the CW sages. Added bonus, Edwards' been to Bildenberg and AIPAC and wowed them both.

I will say that if I am forced in choosing from the Media generated candidates, I'll go with Obama. He appears to have the best judgement suited for the office regardless of his shortcomings....

[Pithy Cherub]

87. Actually Obama is about to blow up the media narrative

in all of the pre-behind closed doors primaries of media oxygen and its narrative of HRC triumphalism, Obama's erosion into Edwards populism. Obama touches every demographic with the exception potentially of veterans. the fundraising narrative is about to be blown wide open as the new small donor and big donor (hugely untapped) African American money will be touted as well as the O factor, Oprah not Obama. Then Obama next destroys the primary map as it relates to drawing crowds in Iowa where my sources in Iowa are saying HUGE crowds. Obama then has to see who would jump ship from existing campaigns to work with him, they are lining up around the block to assist him. Even Tweety mentioned last week that the vermin Lehane has been hired by a certain senator who spent $30 mil to do oppo research... That belies fright from the Clinton Camp. You have Durbin sending out email to start a draft-Obama movement right in Clinton's birth state. So every single pre-fabricated narrative starring Edwards just got run over by the Obama bus and in many ways he will invigorate the casual voter and the press is fascinated at the spectacular train wreck this makes of HRC's candidacy as well as Bayh, Vilsack, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, and to a much lesser degree Gore. Clark has some natural advantages and could pull it off if he gets vets and pulls from other constituencies and demographics. Don't lose heart yet, but it is really going to be threading the needle politically. It comes down to Clark and any others collecting $20,000,000 in the next 6 months. That's the other primary that will be watched avidly by the nattering nabobs of media negativity.

:popcorn:

on edit: I'll ride the Obama bus with you only if OUR guy, Wes:loveya: opts out.

[FrenchieCat]

88. Roger.....loud and clear.....

Over and out. ;)

[lojasmo]

128. What Obama "shortcomings" do you speak of?

By 2008 he'll have 12 years of legislative experience. I'm no fanboi, but he's looking pretty strong. He drew BIG numbers here in SE minnesota....a pretty conservative area of a conservative district....and his message is GOOD.

[Adelante]

90. Clark/Whoever He Wants

If that were ever Edwards, I guess I'd be voting Clark/Edwards, but it would be Clark's choice not mine.

[Sparkly]

95. I'm with you, WesDem.

:hi:

[Adelante]

140. Hey, Sparkly

:hi:

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[IA_Seth]

92. Blah blah bl-freakin-ah...

Ok, so when/where was Clark a Republican? When did he 'switch sides'?

Clark is and has always been a liberal couched in centric thought. He is pro-choice, pro-diplomacy, anti-war, supports and promotes labor, and on and on...

But you know that, you just want to paint the picture that makes you feel good. Carry on then, but if you get bored why don't you swing on over to securingamerica.com and do a little research.

[venable]

96. walked like a duck, at least

http://www.factcheck.org/article97.html

[Clark2008]

99. Um - many Democrats voted for Reagan - so the fuck what?

We elected a president we thought was a compassionate conservative. Instead we got neither conservatism or compassion. We got a man who recklessly cut taxes. We got a man who recklessly took us into war with Iraq.

I was never partisan in the military. I served under Democratic presidents, I served under Republican presidents. But as I looked at this country and looked which way we were headed, I knew that I needed to speak out. And when I needed to speak out, there was only party to come to.

I am pro-choice, I am pro-affirmative action, I'm pro-environment, pro-health. I believe the United States should engage with allies. We should be a good player in the international community. And we should use force only as a last resort. That's why I'm proud to be a Democrat.

[venable]

106. Agreed

many did. Clark was one. No big deal. I agree. I just posted this in reaction to the enflamed denial that Clark had anything Republican about him. I agree he was not ever registered. And he voted along with many Democrats. Not trying to make a point here, just trying to counter the hagiography.

[Jai4WKC08]

108. That's not true

Isn't it amazing how some people like to reword things to justify their bullshit lies?

You didn't post in reaction to an "enflamed denial that Clark had anything Republican about him." The post you replied to said Clark was never a Republican. And he never EVER was. Even you GOP-originated bullshit factcheck report doesn't dare go so far as to claim he was.

[Auntie Bush]

163. Is that you Holy Joe?

Are you till around spreading those doubts in the minds of the undecided... while we are here trying to pick out our best Democratic leaders? :shrug: Comments like those regarding Clark's a Rethug is old contaminated, infested horse shit and needs to be buried ...not spread.

[FrenchieCat]

100. Factcheck.org is not your friend, just like many others that you

keep quoting. Factcheck.org is Cheney's friend.

Question? Did john Edwards vote for Nixon?

I'll give you your answer when you want it.

[venable]

104. But Frenchie, is fact check wrong here?

If so, please show me where it is wrong.

And the question is not whether Edwards did. The question on the table is whether Clark did. Personally, I think that this does not indict Clark. At all. It was a different time. His switching to Dem was good and much appreciated. And, yes, he was never registered Republican. But why does it all have to be so black and white...ie acting like he was never, in any way (like voting) a Republican. I personally think this is a non-issue. I don't think less of Clark for those votes. I mainly admire that he made the switch.

[Jai4WKC08]

112. What is wrong is the spin you're putting on it

And the out-right lie that DemDogs turned it into up-thread.

There are a number of facts wrong in the report, and some of it is taken way out of context. It's sloppy work. You find that a lot from factcheck.org. They are not reliable as an organization, altho some of thier reporters are better than others.

But what you and DemDogs are trying to make it sound like Clark switched from Repub to Democrat and that's just not the truth. He was an independent. It would be even more accurate to call him non-partisan, or apolitical, but of course you can't register vote as either of those. Most military officers were at one time (Eisenhower and Marshall were both proud of the fact they didn't even vote), and it's really the way it ought to be still.

[venable]

114. Yes, he was a registered Independent

Agreed. It's a matter of record. but what spin did I put on it? I'm just saying that he voted Republican. That's not spin. That's an observation. And it's not the only observation i made in that post, some of which admired him his political change, and especially registering Democratic.

Spin would be to say that those votes make him unequivocally a Republican. I didn't say that. I only say that ONE way that you can identify someone's political affiliation is by noting for whom they vote. That's not the only way, and it's not a foolproof way.

Mainly I would say it's a non-issue. I don't care if Clark voted Republican a hundred times. I care who he is now. But it is disingenuous for some posters, not you I believe, to take humbrage at someone calling him a former Republican, which though not technically true, is certainly suggested, you have to admit, by his earlier voting pattern. He did vote that way. No big deal. And no humbrage required or justified.

Anyway, I appreciate the more civil tone of these last exchanges. I apologize for my earlier tone if it caused the heat to rise.

[Jai4WKC08]

121. As one of those Republicans used to say

There you go again.

First of all, DemDogs specifically called Clark a Republican and you climbed on his bandwagon, even defending him here, so expect to share some of the same reaction.

Second, don't try to weasel out of what you actually did say. You would have us let you frame the entire question by talking about how he has "changed," that he "walked like a duck," that's it somehow wrong to deny that he had "anything Republican about him." I don't believe for a second that you don't know exactly how most Democratic activists react to just that sort of language.

The simple fact is that voting for two Republicans is not ANYthing like being a Republican, not even close. It is never justified to call Clark a former Republican by how he voted in a couple races, because frankly (and listen closely because this is important), you have NO idea how else he voted over that entire period of time. He could have voted straight Democrat for every other office on the ballot -- and knowing a little about both his family history and Arkansas politics, I suspect strongly that he did.

Finally, no, he wasn't "registered independent." That's one of the things the factcheck folks get wrong. In Arkansas, you could not register by party, or no party, until 1996.

[venable]

126. mind your language Frenchie, and think a little

and don't go calling people weasel, because they will quit talking to you, and you won't learn anything, and you really do need to do some learning.

What you call weasel is someone trying to raise the tone. Believe me, I won't make that mistake with you again.

your tone is unpleasant and superior, and you have nor reason to feel superior, believe me.

if you say voting for two republicans is not "ANYthing" (your emphasis) like being a republican, you are either not too smart, or you're being disingenuous. It is, of course "SOMEthing" like being a Republican, even if it's not actually being one. Do you really not understand this? Something is wrong here.

Tried nice, and that didn't work. I'm really tired of this. Get a grip.

[FrenchieCat]

134. You are not responding to my post.....so I'm not sure why my name

is in the title.

You started the negativity in this thread in terms of posting smears with your #9 accusation. Now you lecture others as to how they should respond.

[venable]

141. oops

sorry. I didn't look closely. Come to think of it, it didn't sound like you when I read the post, so I should have looked more closely. apologies.

[Sparkly]

94. Oh for cryin' out loud.

:eyes:

If you don't see it now, you never will.

[FrenchieCat]

102. Opportunist is relative.

[venable]

105. Agreed

FrenchieCat - we agree on something. That's good. Let's build on it.

[Mass]

135. No- Not because of Clark, though.