Clark to enter presidential race

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

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.

"Mary, helphis 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?"