Clark says his career 'has pointed to' presidency (1 PM EDT announcement)

[Ediacara]

Clark says his career 'has pointed to' presidency
Former NATO commander to kick off campaign today
Wednesday, September 17, 2003 Posted: 9:08 AM EDT (1308 GMT)


LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (CNN) -- Wesley Clark, the former NATO supreme commander, told CNN he will kick off his run for the Democratic presidential nomination with an announcement today.

"This is what my expertise, my leadership experience, my whole career has pointed and prepared me for," Clark said in an interview with CNN's "American Morning" on Wednesday.

"I've had a lot of diplomatic experience. I've done a lot of work with security policy. I think I'm the best person to look at the future of this country and keep us safe."

Clark, 58, becomes the 10th Democrat seeking to unseat President Bush in 2004. He is a West Point graduate, Rhodes scholar and former CNN military analyst who led U.S. and allied forces in NATO's 1999 air war in Kosovo.

More at CNN

[Larkspur]

1. His experience points more to Secretary of Defense, not President

At best a Secretary of State, but I've not been impressed with Colin Powell's talents in that position.

[Kahuna]

2. And the govenor of a lily white, tiny state isn't even..

prepared to be mayor of NYC. So what's your point?

[shcrane]

3. Spoke with my friend who is an Air Force flight surgeon yesterday

This person has practically been a shrill for Bush since 9/11, but is now saying that Clark appears to be the better candidate for 2004. duh

After reading a little about Clark's qualifications and seeing that he has a degree and great understanding of Economics, I'm even more excited about him.

[GinaMaria]

4. Media Advisory From FAIR on Clark

Posted with permission from FAIR

FAIR-L
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

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

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

September 16, 2003

The possibility that former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark might
enter the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has been
the subject of furious speculation in the media. But while recent
coverage of Clark often claims that he opposed the war with Iraq, the
various opinions he has expressed on the issue suggest the media's
"anti-war" label is inaccurate.

Many media accounts state that Clark, who led the 1999 NATO campaign
against Yugoslavia, was outspoken in his opposition to the invasion of
Iraq. The Boston Globe (9/14/03) noted that Clark is "a former NATO
commander who also happens to have opposed the Iraq war." "Face it: The
only anti-war candidate America is ever going to elect is one who is a
four-star general," wrote Michael Wolff in New York magazine (9/22/03).
Salon.com called Clark a "fervent critic of the war with Iraq" (9/5/03).

To some political reporters, Clark's supposed anti-war stance could spell
trouble for some of the other candidates. According to Newsweek's Howard
Fineman (9/8/03) Clark "is as anti-war as Dean," suggesting that the
general would therefore be a "credible alternative" to a candidate whom
"many Democrats" think "would lead to a disaster." A September 15
Associated Press report claimed that Clark "has been critical of the Iraq
war and Bush's postwar efforts, positions that would put him alongside
announced candidates Howard Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Rep.
Dennis Kucinich of Ohio as the most vocal anti-war candidates." The
Washington Post (9/11/03) reported that Clark and Dean "both opposed the
war in Iraq, and both are generating excitement on the Internet and with
grass-roots activists."

Hearing Clark talking to CNN's Paula Zahn (7/16/03), it would be
understandable to think he was an opponent of the war. "From the
beginning, I have had my doubts about this mission, Paula," he said. "And
I have shared them previously on CNN." But a review of his statements
before, during and after the war reveals that Clark has taken a range of
positions-- from expressing doubts about diplomatic and military
strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. "victory" in a column
declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair
"should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt" (London
Times, 4/10/03).

Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine
(10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a counter-argument
to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time." Before the
war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of
troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.

As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained
on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't 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." As he
later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is
on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're
going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with
us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But
the president of the United States has put his credibility 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."

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark
seemed remarkably confident of their existence. 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) asked 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," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03).
"Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical
of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean
plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War.
If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four
divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly
made the right call."

Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the
region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a
sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and
Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards
of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair
"should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark
explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom
of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The
way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive,
since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily
silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of
victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall
and down Constitution Avenue."

In another column the next day (London Times, 4/11/03), Clark summed up
the lessons of the war this way: "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the
continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a
single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power,
especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable
today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain
fact."

Another "plain fact" is this: While political reporters might welcome
Clark's entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views
"anti-war" is to render the term meaningless.

----------
To make a donation to FAIR:
http://www.fair.org/donate.html

Please support FAIR by subscribing to our bimonthly magazine, Extra! For more information, go to: http://www.fair.org/extra/subscribe.html . Or call 1-800-847-3993.

FAIR SHIRTS: Get your "Don't Trust the Corporate Media" shirt today at FAIR's online store:
http://www.merchantamerica.com/fair/

FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit http://www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html .

FAIR's INTERNSHIP PROGRAM: FAIR accepts internship applications for its New York office on a rolling basis. For more information, see: http://www.fair.org/internships.html

Feel free to respond to FAIR ( [e-mail] ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to [e-mail] .

You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org . Our subscriber list is kept confidential.
FAIR
[phone]
http://www.fair.org/
E-mail: [e-mail]

[robbedvoter]

5. Now we celebrate - then we'll deal with your trash propaganda.

[GinaMaria]

6. That's a bit harsh

FAIR has an excellent reputation. I think their point is that there is a media distortion about Clark, not Clark misrepresenting himself. Don't trust the media is the message.

Relax a little.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

8. Incredibly Misleading, UN-FAIR Title...Also Has an Anti-Kosovo Ax to Grind

Just read the title, then read the quote. They try to make it sound like Clark said the WAR was the "right call" when in fact he was talking about one strategy & tactics decision. It's incredibly misleading.

Then just read the old Kosovo articles. FAIR's agenda was obvious, and I personally find their position repulsive in light of what was happening at the time to the Kosovars.

DTH

[Wendec]

10. I'm relaxed

but is there some limit to the number of times the same article can be posted? There were two fairly brutal threads on this yesterday. This is not to diminish the story or the poster/

[Qutzupalotl]

9. Clark was a CNN military analyst.

Of course he would play it middle-of-the-road for that audience. Trusting the intelligence is one thing, rushing to war is another.

[Romberry]

7. Have you read today's version of 'The Note'?

The Note

(Time limited. Content changes daily. Archives are at least a week behind.)

Wes Clark will not blow the current field of 9 (now 10) candidates away.

He has raised no money;

He has no organization in Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early states;

He isn't well known;

He is immensely naive about the rhythms and mechanics of politics;

He has made enemies among both the career and political people at the Pentagon (wait until you read those stories!);

He has no obvious positions on many important (and hot-button) domestic issues;

He exists on videotape at the Republican National Committee saying all sorts of (outrageous to some ears) things about the war;

He is not a world-class public speaker;

He has some of the less attractive traits of Ross Perot;

(and we could go on … .).

More...

I'm not bashing Clark (I actually like the guy) but if you don't think the long knives will come out for him as well as people like Kerry and Dean, you have another thing coming. In fact, the knives are out already. (Clark did himself no favors with Charlie Gibson on ABC this morning either.)

[Selwynn]

11. Anti-War Candidate?

What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory
by General Wesley Clark

"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

Not that I think being for or against the war in Iraq is the end-all be all of a potential candidate. Personally I think a person could articulate a position for support of the Iraqi war that would be reasonable and palatable enough to warrant my attention...

(Digression: one for example that condemns the regime and even believes its forceful removal was necessarily, but remains critical of our unilateral approach rather than mulilateral and patient operation, and one for example, that conditions support for the iraqi war on our actions afterward to create peace, rebuild, provide massive humanitarian assitance of put the life, liberity and happiness of Iraqi people above aims of profit and power - a position that would force anyone holding it to criticize harshly our (in)action post war.)

...so if Clark were to articulate past support for the war in the fashion I just described, that would not turn me off to him. What I am interested in right now however, is straight dope. A lot of people are touting him as the "anti-war candidate with a chance" - a not so subtle jab at Howard Dean. I'm just not sure that is completely true. But more important to me than this is that ultimately, a candidates position on Iraq, while definately important, represents only a tiny fraction of what things matter in a presidential candidate.

I like some of the vague things we know about Clark's stances on other issues, however we as of yet do not have any formal idea of what is geniune platform stands will be on anything. The collections of quotations of Clark's past statments found on draftclark.com do definately help get us started in examining Clark - but its just a start. I am interested and hopeful in Clarks potential, however I think it is a bit naive to completely jump on the bandwagon or treat Clark as though he will be the Messiah of the Democratic party. Even though the people rasining such points have been fairly harshly criticized by Clark supporters here, such people have rasied very valid points about the obstacles Clark faces on the way to nomination or the presidency.

In my opinion, I do not at all see it as a sure thing. And in my opinion, I simply do not have the comfort level with Clark yet to so wrecklessly throw around my absolute and unquestioning support. I want someone else in office besides Bush too, but I guess I disagree with many people who have the sticker that says "anyone but Bush in 2004" - I believe that it is easily possible to trade bad for bad in 2004. I care about wining, but I care more about being right, and for backing a candidate I can truly believe in. When the party makes its nomination, then I will of course get in line. But until then I really, truly, sincerely want to make sure I'm backing the right horse, not just any horse.

In my opinion, I don't believe anyone is yet at a place where they can truly know enough about what Clarks platform will actually be to honestly know what kind of candidate he will be. Past statements given to the press frequently do not equate with the platform the candidate ultimately establishes for an election run. And not only this, but I do admit to have a few concerns about a candidate that may perhaps be even less quaified on domestic economic issues than others in the field during an election cycle with the country is in such disasterous economic shape.

These are just concerns I have, as I struggle to seek out the candidate I can truly and fully support.