Clark to enter presidential race

He has the misspeaking disease like the *cough*current boys also.

MR. RUSSERT: Hyped by whom?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I...
MR. RUSSERT: The CIA, or the president or vice president? Secretary of Defense, who?
GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, "You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein." I said, "But?-I'm willing to say it but what's your evidence?" And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had?-Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and
didn't talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.

He did make his own correction 3 days later. He *cough* forgot it was a Canadian think tank that called him

To the Editor:

I would like to correct any possible misunderstanding of my remarks on ''Meet the Press,'' quoted in Paul Krugman's July 15 column, about ''people around the White House'' seeking to link Sept. 11 to Saddam Hussein.


I received a call from a Middle East think tank outside the country, asking me to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11. Subsequently, I learned that there was much discussion inside the administration in the days immediately after Sept. 11 trying to use 9/11 to go after Saddam Hussein.

In other words, there were many people, inside and outside the government, who tried to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11.

WESLEY K. CLARK
Little Rock, Ark., July 18, 2003


He said on Fox interview.

"I personally got a call from a fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank who gets inside intelligence information. He called me on 9/11," Clark said.

OK, two things.

First: 'gato, what source do you use? The Yugoslav government, at the time - when Milosevic was still the country's political leader, that is - authored a "black book" on the NATO war, and even that black book could not document more than 800 or 900 victims - in all. So I'm interested in your source for the 2,000.

Second: "failure"? How do you define the failure?

From what I understand, you consider the Iraq war a success, well worth the 7,000 or so civilian casualties so far, because it freed a people from a tyrant, and stopped more mass graves from opening up.

Well, before NATO got involved, Serbian militias and Yugoslav soldiers were undertaking a massive deportation campaign, chasing the 90% Albanian Kosovar majority out of the province, into Albania and Macedonia. The deportations appeared to be accompanied by mass killings and executions. The latter turned out not to be as great in number as was believed at the time, but still, even the later, more modest estimations have the number at some 8,000 - 9,000 Kosovar victims. Ten times as many as the number of people killed by the NATO bombing campaign.

Moreover, the war further weakened Milosevic's position, and a year later he was overthrown by a popular uprising. The Balkans, however ramshackle many of their governments are, now look a lot more stable, peacable and less bothersome than back then. Imagine what would have happened if NATO hadnt intervened, and Milosevic would have been 'rewarded' for his state terror by an ethnically cleansed Kosovo and a resulting, improved standing among Serb 'patriots'. He wouldn't have been overturned as easily, perhaps, and his victory would have further encouraged forces around the region who believe ethnic cleansing is an effective way of increasing their political power. Moreover, the Macedonian conflict would have escalated all the more quickly and fiercely if the tens of thousands of embittered Albanian Kosovar refugees had been forced to stay there.

As for the cowardly from on-high safety of the bombing campaign, I dont much like Clark, and the Pristina Airport scene sure sounds foolhardy enough, but one thing you've got to give him, from what I've seen posted here: he actually urged the deployment of ground troops. It was the NATO governments that didnt dare run the increased risk of casualties.

Dys -- Once again the same little breeze is whispering in our ears! There's probably no one I know less about at this time than Clark but (like Lieberman) there's Just Something that makes me uneasy. Tell you what I guess it is: links to the DNC and the slickness (vs. the greatness) of Willie. I guess the same thing explains my wariness of Hillary...

Don't you find it fascinating?
What I find fascinating is watching the Republicans praise one Democrat candidate while bashing another. Sort of tells you which Democrat the Republicans want to run against Bush. The Republicans apparently fear Wes Clark can beat Bush and Dean can be beaten.

These are the only two Democrat candidates that appear to be in the Republican's spotlight. If we want to beat Bush, we need to pay attention to how the Republicans are reacting. In this election, we need to think about whether or not we support the candidate who most closely represents our aspirations for America---or---the candidate that may not represent all of our ideals, but can beat Bush.

---BumbleBeeBoogie

RETURN OF THE REPUBLICAN SLIME MACHINE: Clark fear
Sept. 18, 2003 / 12:54 PM ET
RETURN OF THE REPUBLICAN SLIME MACHINE

How scared are the Republicans of Wesley Clark? You can judge by how dirty their tactics become. Remember Mike Dukakis' alleged history of mental illness? That one had the Republicans working on a rumor circulated by supporters of Lyndon LaRouche. Remember John McCain's out-of-wedlock black child? His breakdown under torture in Vietnam? What about Bill Clinton's out-of-wedlock black child? The gun-running/drug deals and murders he caused at Mena airport in Arkansas? And Al Gore was the serial liar. Yeah, right. Get ready, General.

George Will began it weeks ago. (Here's the original.) Now check out this op-ed by Ralph Peters in Murdoch's New York Post. There's also a cartoon on Page Six, which is not online, that depicts the Democrats in straightjackets. (Meanwhile, my buddy Richard Cohen addresses this issue rather more sensibly this morning, but still edges a little close to the Republican trap for my taste.) Anyway, I sure would like to see Clark kick a little ass on the use of these tactics. Democrats have rolled over for too long.

FINE GREEN WHINES

Speaking of people who need their (metaphorical) butts kicked, but good, Ralph Nader whines, "Old-timers years ago would have wondered what the Mayor means by marketing NYC. Cities were viewed more benignly when they were more livable, more employable at good wages, more replete with public institutions like good libraries, good public transit, good schools, good hospitals and clinics and good recreational facilities in the neighborhoods. New York City is crumbling on these measurements."

Hey Ralph, no one, and I mean no one on the planet, is more responsible for the deterioration in the quality of life of my city than you are, bud. All you had to do was say, "I ran a great race and thanks for your support but this guy Bush is scary. Vote for Al, not me and we'll we what we can get at the bargaining table…." But no, you wanted to elect Bush. And you did. Congrats.

All U.S. cities are struggling under the weight of the president's malign neglect and the costs of his fiscal policies and needless war. And with all the damage you've caused the country, you're worried about Snapple in New York schools. So shut up about my city, fella, and go get some help for that martyr complex of yours. You call yourself a progressive and yet you even tried to defeat Paul Wellstone. Sure, you'll get your millionaire's tax cut, but poor and working people in this city have enough burdens to bear without another hypocritical pro-Bush intervention this time around.

Get lost, Ralph. In fact, check with your buddy Dick Cheney. I hear he knows some really comfy out-of the-way, millionaire-only spots to get loose. And boy does that guy owe you a favor…

(Let the spamming begin.)

ONLY IN AMERICA

The Leader of the Free World tells the truth for once and it's front-page news.

I think I could be talked into an Israel pre-emptive strike here.

Deserting Your National Guard Post Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry: Did you know George W. Bush was a a lieutenant or a captain in the military? It must be true. It's in that Communist SCLM warrior, The New York Times.

Does this sentence make sense? "She makes no sweeping conclusions about the war or Iraq. She's too much a reporter for that."

Alter-Investment advice: Major business opportunity for someone: Corner the market on escort advertising for traveling American businessmen.

If you happen to be taking drugs anyway, try this.

SOUND CHECK

Among the acts/bands I can remember seeing at The Bottom Line include, as best as I can remember: Lou Reed, David Johansen, George Thurogood, John Prine, The Roches, Loudon Wainwright, Southside Johnny, Graham Parker, the Flatanders, Rosanne Cash, Warren Zevon, Emmylou Harris, Buddy and Julie Miller, John Gorka, Joey Ramone, Dr. John, Flo and Eddie, Maria Muldaur, Peter Tosh, Billy Bragg, Cassandra Wilson, Steve Earle, Steve Goodman, McCoy Tyner, Elvin Jones, Stan Getz, David Bromberg, Clark Terry, Tony Bennett, Garland Jeffries, Van Morrison, and lots more. (I was turned away in August 1975 because my fake ID was too fake. The owner, Alan Pepper, later told me, if I had tried to come see the guy with the same ID in '74, I might have had better luck.)

In other words, it is a cultural treasure for the city and the country, and I can't believe NYU is going to let it die. Pepper, who has done as much for music as Ralph Nader has for the cause of right-wing extremism, asks: "Send a note to John Beckman, assistant vice president of the Office of Public Affairs at [email protected] or Lynne Brown, the VP for University Relations and Public Affairs at NYU at [email protected]. Please send us a copy at [email protected]."

And another thing, I don't understand multimillionaires. Wouldn't it be fun for Bruce (or someone) just to shell out a few million and buy TBL and the Stone Pony and keep ?'em going, both for the bands and the fans? It wouldn't be any trouble and the money would not even run the cost of one night's performance a year. Plus, he could just show up and play whenever he felt he needed to. What's the problem here?

Alternotes: I debated William Kristol on WNYC on media bias this morning. I think there are archives. The New Yorker panel this weekend is sold out. I will be speaking at the U of Missouri Journalism School on Tuesday night. And I see that in the current Harper's Gene Lyons thinks What Liberal Media stinks. I don't think it's online, but you will not be surprised to learn that I don't think you're missing much. (The problem seems to be that I am naïve about the power of money, and hence, an apologist for mainstream hacks.)

This Just In: "Let it Be" de-Spectorized, arrives on Nov. 17.

CORRESPONDENTS' CORNER

Most of today's letters are devoted to the question of whether Dean supporters would rather fight than switch. I chose the most cogent and/or thoughtful responses. I got a few nasty ones, I'll admit, merely for posing the question. I am not printing any of these, however, because I find that only encourages the beast. Moreover I didn't think there were really enough of them to be representative.

Name: Mark Armstrong
Hometown: Brooklyn
Hi Eric,
In response to your question about what Deanies are going to do, I offer the following:
We'll continue to donate our time and little bits of our money to the candidate that we believe can beat George Bush. The people supporting Howard Dean don't seem to be the protest voters that turn out for Nader or Kucinich. We're supporting the candidate that we think can really take the fight to Bush and win. A mistaken assumption about the Dean campaign is that supporters don't think we're in this to win, only to do a bit of consciousness raising. Dean supporters are actually a very pragmatic coalition and it drives us nuts to hear the people on our own side pushing this tired unelectable/McGovern argument. We believe we are backing the winner.
Dean's very electable. He's never lost a race for office and he's outperformed and outhustled everyone in this race so far. He'd run a national campaign that was just as exciting. The electoral math is there for Dean. He's a much better candidate and campaigner than Gore and he only needs to add New Hampshire (where he's killing) to Gore's total to win. I think he'll run OK in the South too, especially in Georgia, where his team on the ground is really facile already.
Clark, on the other hand, has never been elected to anything. He says all the right things, but his appeal is mostly to the corporate wing of the party that's trying to cut Dean off at the pass, so I don't see him marshalling the kind of volunteer force or hardcore fan base Dean's working with. (The Bryant Park crew was an amazing group of mostly people who'd never campaigned for anything in their lives.) Dean's core is largely against the type of corporate Democrats that Clark seems to be throwing his lot in with, so I don't see many people switching.
We're in this to the end, but we'd gladly support Wes Clark in the general election. But we'd rather he do that for us.
As always, love your work. Sorry about Warren.

Name: Brian Smith
Hometown: San Francisco
As a Dean supporter I have to admit, I think the notion of a Clark/Dean ticket would be unstoppable.
Clark makes perfect sense as Commander in Chief. Dean can play bulldog on domestic issues (economy, environment, healthcare.) Dean could use experience as VP to become ?'more presidential' and perhaps continue the legacy in 2012. ; )
This ticket would represent the aspirations of both liberal democrats and security-minded moderates/independents. It would be a great choice for about 70 percent of Americans.

And one Clark guy:

Name: Ed Hayden
Hometown: Sacramento
Eric,
We had a pleasant little gathering of the Clark faithful on the steps on the West entrance to the California state capitol today... all 12 of us Gotta start somewhere. Came down from my office on Capitol Mall to meet with a number of other people I never met. A couple of our number got interviewed briefly by sympathetic a TV crew (they only seemed so after the camera was off... then the camera man and reporter seemed to loosen up and talk like they had opinions of their own).
Clark is a decent, experienced, accomplished, intelligent, believable, and Clark candy-bar honest kinda guy. He's the smart (but un-obnoxious) neighbor you ask to help you with your taxes, or who'd you'd want to listen to and follow when a neighborhood emergency happened, or to help figure out your kid's college application.
I know all my veteran pals are kicking it around; Republicans have had a majorty of military and veteran votes for a long, long while. Ask NG/ANG or Reserve families what they think these days; or active duty lifers who give up years overseas... and maybe the worm is turning. David Hackworth is a good barometer of that cauldron if you've a mind to check. Check out the infantryman's letter's home to his sister in the Sacramento/Chico News & Review if you'd like to see how Army life is these days. Sacramento is a favorite location for advertising demographers. Clark could tap into that line of thinking and turn it to something positive.
Clark promised not to speak ill of the other Democratic candidates, and I hope none of the other candidates speak ill of him. They seem to have honored that pledge for the past couple days. Good for them. When you survey the current field, it almost looks like a good Clark Presidential cabinet.... Kerry, Scty of State; Dean, Scty of Health; Lieberman, Scty of Defense; Gephardt, Scty of Labor; Edwards, Scty of Commerce; Brown, Scty of Education; Kucinich, Scty of HUD, and so on.... it is a good fit. The original nine are all good people. No bad apples in there, just no presidential material. Even Rev.Sharpton has a good place, as spokeperson.... he has experience under James Brown, and his humor even amuses Lieberman. He's got better singers that that old fart-bag Rumsfled, or that too-tight-to-fart Fleischer.
A little hope, a little imgination, and a lot of work on the part of pundits and precinct walkers.... and who the hell knows ? Maybe something will change this time.

NYT features an article on Clark ... did not make a good impression on me. Wiggle, wiggle, squirm and turn yet again.

This is what he had to say, respectively, about "why we are in Iraq" and whether or not he had thought it was a good idea.



And about gays in the military:

Trivia from the same article:

That puts me in good company, because I did likewise.

(Actually I was too young to vote for Nixon; Ford was the first President I voted for. I held my nose and voted for Poppy in '88. Clinton is the first--and actually, only--Dem I have ever voted for, because in 00 I was a Nader Trader.)

Missing VITAL ingredients (after all, they were for Bush) would seem to be some tame Supreme Court judges?

Well, John you gotta elected first in order to appoint Justices.

(Except if you're Bush, of course.)

Addressing the SC scenario seriously for a moment, though: it would be most inopportune for the Dim Son to be presented with a Supreme Court vacancy between now and Election Day.

He'd be forced to either alienate his base (which he would never do) or swell the ranks of his already-enlarged opposition with any choice he made.

And since this President has shown no ability to compromise on anything anyway...

I almost hope it happens. Almost.

Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, even as he presented himself as one of the sharpest critics of the war effort in the Democratic presidential race. [..]

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

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

"Mary, help!" he called to his press secretary, Mary Jacoby, at the front of the plane, as he faced questions about Iraq. "Come back and listen to this."

At one point, Ms. Jacoby interrupted the interview, which included four reporters who were traveling on the general's jet, to make certain that General Clark's views on the original Iraq resolution were clear.

"I want to clarify ?- we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."
----------
Just great. A guy running for President, who can't answer questions about his own policies or beliefs. Hope this Mary doesn't stray too far from his side.

This is pathetic. He won' be able to remember his name in a debate.
Wonder if he'll remember he's recently decided to be a democrat.

No doubt, is this guy for real?

Clark 'Probably' Would Have Backed War
On First Campaign Stop, Democrat Lacks Specifics but Rallies Crowd

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 19, 2003; Page A05


HOLLYWOOD, Fla., Sept. 18 -- Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he "probably" would have voted for the congressional resolution last fall authorizing war, as he charged out into the presidential campaign field with vague plans to fix the economy and the situation in Iraq.

Clark said his views on the war resemble those of Democratic Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.), both of whom voted for the war but now question President Bush's stewardship of the Iraqi occupation. "That having been said, I was against the war as it emerged because there was no reason to start it when we did. We could have waited," Clark said during a 75-minute session with four reporters.

En route to his first campaign stop as a candidate, a high-energy rally at a local restaurant, Clark said he has few specific policy ideas to offer voters right now and offered a few thoughts that might surprise Democrats flocking to his campaign. As recently as Sunday night, he was unsure if he should run for president, so Clark said voters need to give him time to think things through.

Clark's statement on the war resolution put him at odds with former Vermont governor Howard Dean, whose stock has soared among Democratic activists in recent months on the strength of his antiwar position. It could make it difficult for Clark to differentiate himself from the other nine candidates in the field on policy, other than by touting his résumé as a former Army general and commander of NATO forces in Kosovo.

In the interview, Clark did not offer any new ideas or solutions for Iraq that other candidates have not already proposed.

A decorated Vietnam War veteran, Clark said that if he were in Congress, he would vote against Bush's request for $87 billion for operations and reconstruction in Iraq unless the president details a specific strategy to eventually withdraw U.S. troops. Clark said he wants more troops in Iraq, but was unsure who best can provide them -- the United States, Iraqis or other countries. . He would consider cutting defense spending if elected, he said.

Clark, relaxed and chatty, portrayed himself as a different kind of Democrat, one without strong partisan impulses. He said he "probably" voted for Richard M. Nixon in 1972 and backed Ronald Reagan. He did not start considering himself a Democrat until 1992, when he backed fellow Arkansan Bill Clinton. "He moved me," Clark said. "I didn't consider it party, I considered I was voting for the man."

Clark said that as recently as last week, the former president and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) both encouraged him to run, as did many of their close friends. He said the former president initially was cool to the idea but warmed to it as the draft-Clark movement grew. Clark said he never discussed running with Sen. Clinton on the same ticket, however. Clark, who discussed the vice presidency with Dean at a recent meeting, said he would not rule out taking the No. 2 slot on a ticket.

Clark said the country "will not function well" with one party controlling the White House and Congress. He sounded a bit like former presidential candidate H. Ross Perot as he talked about focusing on "context" and not specifics and his yearning to work "with people of all sides and all parts of the political spectrum."

But Clark took some shots at Bush, too. He compared Bush to Nixon in abusing his power to bully Congress and U.S. allies. "This is an administration which has moved in a way we have not seen any administration since Nixon to abuse executive authority to scheme, manipulate, intimidate and maneuver," Clark said.

Still, it is domestic issues that often dominate presidential elections, and Clark remains largely undefined in this arena. He may be put to the test next week, when he is likely to participate in a Democratic debate in New York. Clark said he did not watch the last two debates.

He said he supports universal health coverage that includes preventive care and a "freeze" on Bush's tax cuts that have yet to take effect for people earning $150,000 or more.

Clark said he supports a ban on assault weapons and was uncertain of precisely what the Brady gun law does -- and if any changes to it are needed. The law requires background checks and waiting periods for gun purchases.

"I support the Second Amendment. People like firearms, they feel secure with firearms, they should keep their firearms," said Clark, who has been shooting weapons since he was young.

Clark, who said he does not consider homosexuality a sin, said the military needs to reconsider the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gay service members. He suggested the military should consider the "don't ask, don't misbehave" policy the British use. "It depends how you define misbehave. That's what has to be looked at," he said.

While Clark's agenda is a work in progress, he passed one test today: he showed here he could draw a big crowd and rouse them with fiery speech. Clark flew in on a friend's private jet to shake hands here and to rally a large crowd of young and old, all shouting, "We want Clark."

While new to politics, Clark jumped up on a chair and sounded like a seasoned pro as he delivered a lively, if brief, call to arms.

"We are trapped in a jobless economy and an endless occupation" of Iraq, Clark told the crowd. "The simple truth about politics is if you are going to make a difference in the country, you have to have an organization, you have to be able to communicate the message, you have to travel, you have to have the signs, and all of that takes resources. This is America -- we operate on the greenback and I need your help."


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Yeh -



I mean, c'mon people - this "Draft Clark" campaign has been going on for how long? He's been saying he "might" join the race for how long? Couldn't he just have, like, do some reading up during all this time? Some making up his mind? Some thinking about what kind of questions he could be expecting?

Just strikes me as someone who would love to play politician for a while, but hasnt really ever thought much about what he would want to do if he got that chance. That sequence of priorities, kinda. Just a first impression, but a pretty bad one.

nimh
Bill Clinton for his secretary of state.

Can you imagine a debate between Clark and a Bush

You're day dreaming, Brand X.

Two days into his campaign and everybody is asking----how did this joker manage to become a Rhodes Scholar and then more ridiculous how did he rise to the rank of 4star?

Nimh is absolutely correct-----he took several months to announce his candidacy-------he should have known his exact position on the basic issues and exactly how articulate them. Talk about needing a handler----Mary Jacoby can not perform the impossible.

how did this joker get an MBA from Harvard and rise to be president?

By being the subject of an entire book of guffaws and misstatements not to mention outright lies.

BTW, who is "everybody?"