Clark to enter presidential race

deleted duplicate

BTW, who is "everybody?" Deception is at it again.

(Should we treat them to the first month of Dubya's stumbling and mumbling in his campaign?)

Well, I remember vaguely that people said even worse about a former governor, who later became ...

They're just gnashing their teeth in fear Dubya could lose his job, Walter. It's becoming quite possible -- the more they whistle in the dark, the more it echoes.

Is This The Bill Clinton Show?
Is This The Bill Clinton Show?
LITTLE ROCK, Ark., Sept. 19, 2003

After watching from the sidelines for months, former Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor was lured into action by presidential candidate Wesley Clark ?- with a nudge from former President Clinton.

"The president knows General Clark better than I know General Clark, and I just asked what he thought," Kantor recalled. "He said, 'I have a tremendous regard for him.'"

And with that, Kantor joined Clark's campaign as a senior adviser.

By action and association, Mr. Clinton has had a major impact on Clark's first bid for elective office, causing some Democrats to wonder whether the former president's pledge of impartiality may be giving way to his loyalty toward a fellow Arkansan.

There is no proof that Mr. Clinton is pulling the strings in Clark's campaign ?- indeed, most Democrats say they doubt the former president would be so bold.

But some party activists, particularly those lodged in rival campaigns, point to circumstantial evidence suggesting that the impressive list of political heavyweights rallying behind Clark may be a reflection of Mr. Clinton's endearment ?- if not endorsement.

Others say the support is coincidental, a result of so many Clinton allies vowing to remain neutral in this year's election only to get the itch late in the cycle.

Another theory: Clark is the last hope for establishment Democrats who fear the other contenders have stalled while the current front-runner, Howard Dean, would be defeated by President Bush.

"I think for several months now the establishment ?- you know, the guys and girls who believe they're in the loop ?- they've been looking for a horse to ride and they looked at the nine in the race and said, 'All the seats aren't taken,'" said Democratic strategist Donna Brazile.

Regardless of the reasons why, it can't be disputed that Mr. Clinton is casting a long shadow over Clark's campaign.

The former president and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, urged Clark to enter. "He's a smart man, served our country well," Mr. Clinton said in Iowa on Saturday.

Clark's advisers point out that Mr. Clinton has counseled other Democratic candidates, and heaps them all with praise.

Then there's Clark's team, a potent mix of Clinton allies from Arkansas and lieutenants of two Clinton campaigns in the 1990s.

Skip Rutherford, head of the Clinton presidential library, former White House lawyer Bruce Lindsey, former Sen. David Pryor, D-Ark., and the entire Arkansas congressional delegation lined up behind Clark this week.

State Democratic leaders say the word is out that Mr. Clinton favors Clark, but their support is less about the former president than it is about their excitement over another favorite son candidacy.

A close Clinton associate, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the former president is not siding with any candidate. However, he said Mr. Clinton is the most "emotionally invested" with Clark, the candidate with whom he has most in common. The pair has had a casual acquaintance since the 1960s, culminated by the rise and fall of Clark's military career under Mr. Clinton.

Mr. Clinton is walking a fine line between impartiality and sending subtle signals of his support, the official said.

One of those signals came at a recent party in New York, when Mr. Clinton was overheard saying there were two Democratic stars ?- his wife and Clark.

A Washington-based Democratic consultant, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Mr. Clinton spoke glowingly of Clark in a recent conversation and mentioned offhandedly that the former general might need help.

Kantor said Mr. Clinton did not ask him to aid Clark.

"The only connection is we all share the same philosophy and sense of commitment to moving the country forward," Kantor said of Clark and his new team.

Clark's advisers include several other former Clinton administration officials, including Mark Fabiani and Eli Segal.

When Clark convened the first conference call of his campaign, he was joined by several Clinton allies including former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, former White House aide Rahm Emanuel, now a congressman from Illinois, and former Clinton White House press secretary Mike McCurry, participants said.

Emanuel cheered Clark on.

"You have the potential to put the money together," he told the candidate.

Some of the conference callers hedged their support. Podesta, for example, has said he will lend advice to any Democrat to request it.

One participant told Clark that James Carville and Paul Begala, two high-profile Clinton consultants, would be available to advise him. "I've offered to help all the candidates," Begala said in telephone interview.

Mr. Clinton's ties to the Clark campaign have triggered speculation among conservative commentators and Clark's rivals that the former president is encouraging a weak candidate so that he will lose, leaving the field open for Mrs. Clinton to run in 2008.

Most Democrats said that theory seems far-fetched, though Mr. Clinton fueled speculation Thursday when he seemed to hint that Mrs. Clinton could seek the White House this year despite her promise to complete her term.

"That's really a decision for her to make," Mr. Clinton said.

Lightwizard wrote:

BTW-who is everybody-----excuse me I meant to say "discerning people"-----That would be exclusive of many lefties I know.

Clark murdered innocent Civilians in Kosovo.

The quote from Christina Van Huevel is from "The Nation"( just a little bit to the right of Pravda during Stalinist days).

Actually, I welcome Clark's appearance on the scene.

There were nine dogs in the kennel biting at each other. Now, there will be ten.

It will be interesting to see exactly what some of the other Democratic candidates will say about Clark.

I don' think anybody is so naive to think that Clark will escape being bloodied by the nine.

In the meanwhile, George W. Bush is still gathering up donations to reach an unheard of 250 Million to use in the campaign next year.

We shall see.

From the Bill Clinto show article above:

Mr. Clinton's ties to the Clark campaign have triggered speculation among conservative commentators and Clark's rivals that the former president is encouraging a weak candidate so that he will lose, leaving the field open for Mrs. Clinton to run in 2008.

I personally believe this is the most likely scenario----say what you will about the most infamous scurrilous couple in political history---they are very politically savy. The lying,cheating,stealing senator from NY (or Arkansas or whereever they crawled out from) does not want to risk running against a sitting president so she wants to back someone who doesn't have chance of winning in 2004 leaving 2008 open. Enter Gen Clark.

There are many right wingers I know who are not discerning people.

Can you say, waffler? This guy is all over the place with his statements, he needs serious mental attention.

Clark Tells AP He Wouldn't Back Iraq War
Wesley Clark Tells AP He Wouldn't Have Supported War in Iraq, Backtracking on Previous Comment

The Associated Press

IOWA CITY, Iowa Sept. 19 ?-
Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark backtracked from a day-old statement that he probably would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, saying Friday he "would never have voted for this war."

The retired Army general, an opponent of the conflict, surprised supporters when he indicated in an interview with reporters Thursday that he likely would have supported the resolution. On Friday, Clark sought to clarify his comments in an interview with The Associated Press.

"Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war," Clark said before a speech at the University of Iowa. "I've gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein."

Clark's initial remarks left members of his campaign team a bit flummoxed.

"That caught me off guard a little. The general has been very critical of the war," said George Bruno, a New Hampshire activist.

Clark launched his bid for the Democratic nomination on Tuesday with the type of media attention candidates crave, but early missteps underscore the dangers facing his late-starting campaign.

The former NATO commander and his campaign staff went back and forth on whether he will participate in a Democratic debate next week all in a single day. Creating more confusion were Clark's comments on the resolution that gave President Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to oust Saddam, remarks that were at odds with his opposition to the war.

Veteran Democrats pointed out that Clark is in the unusual position of trying to put a major presidential campaign in place and clearly lay out his positions in the glare of the media spotlight. Other candidates have had months to hone their message below the political radar.

"If politics were theater, you get to open in New Haven (Conn.)," rather than on Broadway, said veteran Democratic strategist Bill Carrick, who warned of the dangers of "policy on the fly."

Added Carrick: "Howard Dean has been out there for two years rehearsing his act."

Carrick compared some of the difficulties Clark has faced to the early days of Edward Kennedy's 1980 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, also a late-starting campaign where the Massachusetts senator tended to blurt out comments that reshaped the race. Kennedy predicted, for instance, that he would beat President Carter in Iowa; Carter easily prevailed.

Twenty-five years later those gaffes stick in Carrick's mind. "It completely changed the expectations," he said. "It was all triggered by the late start."

The nine other Democratic candidates also have spent the last few months meeting with Democratic activists across the country, getting feedback on various issues and testing their campaign lines.

"I'm sure Howard Dean has tried a variety of things along the way," said veteran Iowa activist Jeff Link. "By the time people began paying attention, he had it down pretty good."

Iowa casts its votes in four months, giving Clark little time to smooth out the rough edges.

"The question is, is he ready to jump into a huge national campaign that's just a few months away," Link said. "That is a pretty good sized organization with a lot of moving parts."

In the interview, Clark sketched out a checkerboard of positions, saying he would leave in place a tax cut for middle-income Americans and indicating his support for gun rights, although he supports a ban on assault weapons.

Clark said the helter-skelter effort to build his campaign was "like trying to bottle lightning," but he shrugged off the early stumbles.

"It doesn't bother me a bit," he said. "It helps you get the message out across America. When you start late, you need that."

Oh, Hell. Here he goes, again.


He damn well said in another interview that he probably would have voted for it. He will be murdered in any debate with either Dem candidates, or Bush. He has already flip-flopped more than all the others, and its only been a few days!

After I read all of the glowing comments about Clark, I briefly considered him as a candidate to back, until, that is, I ran into a startling commentary by FAIR.

To those who are unfamiliar with FAIR, the acronym stands for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. If is and has been definitely recognized as a LIBERAL organization( Anyone who can disprove this is invited to do so).

Here is part of what I found on this link:

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

"Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as"Right Call"

"...the various opinions he (Clark) has expressed onthe issue suggest the media's "anti-war" label is incorrect.

Here is what Clark said on CNN 1/21/03-
"I probably wouldnt have made the moves that got us to this point, but just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead,despite the fact that the allies have reservations"

and

CNN 2/5/03

"The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Sadddam Hussein HAS THESE WEAPONS and so, you know, we're going to have to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us...The UN has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States put his credibilty on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."


and

"Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction"

When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?"
Clark was resolute "Absolutely"

1/18/03


When CNN's Zahn 4/2/03 aksed if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded:
" I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this"


After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate-

"Liberation is at hand, Liberation the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions"- London Times column- 4/10/03- written by Clark.


While political reporters might welcome Clark's entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views as "Anti-war" is to render the term meaninless>

end of quotes from FAIR

His opinions, my friend....
are blowin' in the wind.
His opinions are blowin'...in the wind.

A few more tidbits that Gen Clark may not want added to his resume:
TRACING CLARK'S MILITARY MAP
By Jack Kelly
-----------------------------------------------------------



Retired Gen. Wesley Clark has thrown his helmet into the ring. He has improved the Democratic presidential field by entering it, just as he improved the Army by leaving it.

Gen. Clark is a brilliant man, and a brave one. A Rhodes scholar, he was decorated three times for heroism as commander of an armor company in Vietnam.

"Those of us who knew him as a captain thought the country would be shortchanged if he didn't rise to very high rank," said a retired Army colonel who was a student of Wesley Clark's when Gen. Clark taught at West Point.

But Gen. Clark's kindergarten teacher probably noted he doesn't play well with others.

Gen. Clark "is able, though not nearly as able as he thinks, and has tended to put his career ahead of his men to the point of excess," said a defense consultant well acquainted with the Army's senior officers. "He is opportunistic and lacks integrity. He will be an absolute menace if he gets into a position where he can exert influence on the Army because he lacks true vision and is prone to be vindictive."

Gen. Clark "regards each and every one of his subordinates as a potential threat to his career," said an officer who served under him when Gen. Clark commanded a brigade of the 4th Infantry Division in the 1980s. An officer who served under Clark when he commanded the 1st Cavalry Division said he was "the poster child for everything that is wrong with the general officer corps."

Gen. Clark doesn't get along terribly well with superiors or with allies either, which lead to his premature departure as commander of NATO.

Gen. Clark was CINCEUR when the Kosovo war began, and bears much of the responsibility for President Clinton's decision to try to bomb Serb dictator Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo. Gen. Clark argued that after a few days of bombing, Mr. Milosevic would fold his tent and slink away. When the Serbs didn't budge after months of bombing, Gen. Clark lost Mr. Clinton's favor.

As the war dragged on, Gen. Clark advocated the use of ground troops. This put him at loggerheads with Gen. Henry Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and with Gen. Eric Shinseki, chief of staff of the Army, who thought this was a terrible idea. These generals faulted Gen. Clark for getting America into an unnecessary war, and for having done a poor job of preparing for it.

"NATO did not expect a long war," wrote former Clinton national security aide Ivo Daalder. "Worse, it did not even prepare for the possibility."

The conduct of the war drew unprecedented criticism from Gen. Clark's predecessor, Gen. George Joulwan, and a quiet rebellion by subordinate commanders.

"Clark found his control over ongoing operations eroding," wrote retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich. "Rather than the theater commander, he became hardly more than a kibitzer."

What may have triggered Gen. Clark's early departure from NATO was a confrontation with the British general who was to command NATO peacekeepers.

After a Serb surrender had been negotiated with the help of the Russians, Gen. Clark ordered British Lt. Gen. Michael Jackson to parachute troops onto the airport at the Kosovar capital of Pristina, so NATO would hold it before Russian peacekeepers arrived.

Gen. Jackson refused. "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he told Gen. Clark, according to accounts in British newspapers.

Shortly after the confrontation with Gen. Jackson, Gen. Clark was told his tour as CINCEUR would end two months early. Neither Gen. Shelton nor Defense Secretary William Cohen attended his retirement ceremony, a remarkable snub for a four-star general.

Gen. Clark read Mr. Milosevic wrong, helping to provoke the Kosovo war, which he then fought badly. Gen. Clark picked up where he left off in his second career as a television kibitzer of military operations. As an analyst for CNN, Gen. Clark harshly criticized the war plan for Iraq devised by Gen. Tommy Franks, the CENTCOM commander, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Gen. Clark turned out to be completely wrong.

It says something fascinating about the Democratic field that this failed general is the class of it.



<i>Jack Kelly, a syndicated columnist, is a former Marine and Green Beret and a former deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration. He is national security writer for the Pittsburgh (Pa.) Post-Gazette</i>.



-----------------------------------------------------------
This article was mailed from The Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary

Talking about staged propaganda....

Everybody here is adult enough to know that virtually all politicians are obliged to lie if they are to stand a chance at getting elected. Somehow, as the public perception congeals, quite often the lies are left by the wayside. If honesty were the major criterion, we would have nobody to vote for.

I'm adult enough to think that sucks. It's perfectly possible to have an honest election process, without the lies, the spins, the character assassinations. Are we in the 21st century or in nazi Germany here?

Jeezè-s!

Considering the current regime, I would say the latter.

You tell me.