Disgusted that fellow Deanies claim that Clark was for the war!

[unfrigginreal]

What a bunch of bullshit...they're trying to make Clark look like the rest of the Dems that supported the war!

Fuck Mike Malloy, for his lies, and to my fellow Deniacs, don't listen to the fringies that claim that Clark was for the war. He wasn't, and he's ready to take on the Bush Administration for their mistakes!

I'm probably upsetting fellow partisans with this post, but fuck it, Clark is an honorable and decent man, for now I'll keep supporting Dean but Wes Clark is running a very close second!

[Sweetpea]

1. The War litmus test is really starting to get on my nerves....

[RichM]

6. It isn't a "litmus test," little pea. If you were wrong on the war, you

were way wrong on the biggest issue of our time.

Calling it a "litmus test" is like Condi calling Bush's SOTU lie "just 16 little words."

[Bertrand]

16. little pea?

eom

[DeaconBlues]

9. No kidding

All the Democratic candidates are peaceniks compared to Bush, and will be improvements over the current warmonger-in-chief (yes, even Lieberman). I think this is what's important.

[RichM]

2. You're a little late. Look at the thread about the WP article -- ol' Wes

said he would have voted for the war, and that his views are like those of Lieberman and Kerry.

So, you may as well pipe down now.

[KittyWampus]

10. You Are Misrepresenting What He Said

And editing the quote.

He has been relentlessly bashing Junior.

Wesley Clark did NOT VOTE and the question was hypothetical just as it is with DEAN!

There is no way of knowing how either man would have voted. And to take either at their word without benefit of actions is absurd.

I shall look forward to the debates and listening to Clark elucidate his positions.

It's curious how the W.Post comes out with this quote today though....

It's sure had its intended effect of driving yet another wedge between the Left.

[Carmerian]

3. I'm guessing

...you haven't read this Washington Post article?

[Eloriel]

8. Oh yeah. Sheesh! I forgot that one. n/t

.

[illini]

4. Hey im a "Deanian" and I dont hold that view at all !!

Everyone needs to keep their eye on the prize and not on who gets it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Eloriel]

5. Well, please, prove us wrong.

Here's basically what you have to counter:

FAIR and Nation articles -- not Anti-War
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/091803A.shtml

Clark's own words
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

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

Eloriel

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[unfrigginreal]

14. I'm sooo Wrong... just look we have...

unbiased opinions from truthout, commondreams and fair! Who could argue with that?

Thanks for setting me straight.

[Eloriel]

24. Oh, his own words don't work for you?

Interesting. No bias there.

Eloriel

[mistertrickster]

26. I don't know why we expect a General to be anti-war . . .

That Common Dreams article looked pretty damn pro-invasion to me, dudes and dudettes, and thanks for the post Eloriel.

Anyway, I'll support ANY democratic candidate against the * worst * president * ever *, so I'm definitely going with our guy no matter what.

But if somebody's trying to make the case that GENERAL Clark was against taking out SH et al., they got a tall order there . . .

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Tell you what,

Like I told Malloy over E-Mail, I have time for hte General
to actually start talking about his platform and tell us what
he thinks... that said, read the WP article, here you go on it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32450-2003Sep18.html

This is his own words.

As with the rest of th Candidates, I ask yuo to review the man
(and that goes for all)

I am willing to give Clark the benefit of the doubt.

So far what I have heard at the debates, well I like Dean
and Kucinich and Sharpton gets the price for bets one liners.

So I am waiting for that. But do check that article... it is in
his own words... so maybe deanies (not for the right reasons) are
right... but I need one or two more articles and
things like taht since we all know our press.

[IndianaGreen]

11. How about the NY Times, bud?

This is a legitimate issue, and not one of those Clark bashing nonsense we saw earlier today in DU. As one that has savaged Kerry for his waffling on his prowar vote, I have to wonder if Clark is ambivalent about the war despite evidence that we were lied to by Bush and Blair.

Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Sept. 18 — 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.

<snip>

General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"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."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/politics/campaigns/19CLAR.html

[Nashyra]

17. At least he's honest

easy for Dean to say he was against the vote when he never had to make the political choice. I've given credit to Dean about being outspoken about the war just as all the candidates that have spoken out about the war, but to be critical of others when you were not in their postitions is advantageous and not particularly honest. Clark had the courage to say what he thought he would do given the circumstances although he did say their should have been more oversight. Kuchinch is the only candidate that should be able to speak out about the vote because he had to make the hard choice and he chose no.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

20. Agreed on That (eom)

DTH

[DoveTurnedHawk]

19. I Agree, It Is a Legitimate Issue, and a Troubling One

I still support Clark, let's get that out of the way right now.

But it's definitely troubling to see him take such an uncertain position, after appearing so strongly anti-war earlier. Aside from the substantive issue itself, it also displays a certain lack of political savviness, IMO.

I hope he comes around soon.

DTH

[unfrigginreal]

21. I don't give a shit about the news releases...

If you asked General Wesley Clark, today, whether or not he supported the action on Iraq, what do you think that the answer would be?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

25. Also a Good Point

Man, I am in a funk tonight.

I NEED SOME MORE KOOL-AID! BRING ME SOME MORE KOOL-AID!

:evilgrin:

DTH

[Terwilliger]

12. uh....HELLLLLLOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

If he was warmongering for CNN (who wrote "D-CNN"?) he was assisting in the war. I seem to remember a vibrant discussion at DU about the whore media, and what they did to give Bush what he wanted.

What did he say about the protests....anybody know? Was he against the principle of the war, or the initiator of the war?

It's a legitimate question.

[KittyWampus]

15. Commentary Is Different Than WARMONGERING

It's not even a subtle difference....

[MisterP]

13. I'm fond of Malloy, Dean, and am a "fringie"

and I think Clark was being more ambivalent than supportive.

[sugarcookie]

18. If it makes you feel better

I hear Randi Rhodes like him alot.

[madfloridian]

22. I just read an article on the Google front page news.

I agree about the bashing on both sides.

[sfecap]

23. Well, at first glance it doesn't seem to be bullshit.

Clarks position pre attack seems to be a matter of question right now, with reports indicating that he may very well have supported the attack, and now he is simply hopping on the "it was a bad idea" bandwagon. Having said that, it is evident that he has said a number of things and it all needs to be sorted out in a cogent record. I have no doubt that that will be revealed in a short time. He is going to be very closely examined by all side for various reasons and agendas.

I am much more concerned with his statements regarding his friendship with Cheney, Rummy, Pearle, Wolfowitz and Feith. That is a very disturbing item. Clark has also sat on the boards or been associated with very conservative think tanks, That is also a concern. If he is neocn lite, I want nothing to do with him.

The bottom line is that the jury is out on Wes, and we really don't know what his "offical" positions are. We have generalities, we have speculation. We have a guy who is undeniably intelligent, well spoken, accomplished, and reletively (politicaly speaking), unknown. He's about to get tested in a very tough arena.

Frankly, I think Clark is simply the DLC's anti Dean candidate. They will spin him as the ONLY antidote to bush, and attept to frighten Democrats by saying that the ONLY issue is National Defense in 2004. It's using the culture of fear to get their guy in.

If Clark didn't have four stars, nobody at the DLC would give him the time of day. Time will tell if he has the mettle to get out and campaign. A resume is nice, but it is a far cry from getting a voter to cast that vote for him.

He should be examined closely, and with the same fairness that Dean and the others have received.

[IndianaGreen]

27. All the points you raised are valid issues, the thing to remember is...

that Clark is not a war criminal, but Tommy Franks is!

While it is true that the US used DU munitions in the former Yugoslavia, it is also true that Storming Norman Schwartzkoff used then during the Gulf War. The military will use whatever weapons you put in their hands. The decision to have, or not to have DU munitions or land mines in the US arsenal, is a political decision.

[Eloriel]

31. We also have his own words from April of this year

Clark's own words
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

Or is that somehow not official enough for you? I assume you haven't read it, in which case you should.

Eloriel

[sfecap]

32. Eloriel, why did you post this reply to me?

:-)

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Regarding those staements

I have yet to see them correctly sourced.

If they are... that is a matter of concern... to a point.

Hear me out, (no I am not pro Clark, just understand the
culture he is coming from)

It comes down to this... Good leadership comes to
praising in public, (and those statements are pretty
neutral from a military point of view), and kicking ass in
private... or reaming assess.

In a sense he is basically being very poliitically neutral
regarding the gang, as he would have to if he was still
wearing the uniform...

That alone would raise some, not many, just some red flags.
It could also be a way of saying, you know what... I respect
them, but I will not necessarily work with them.

In other words, we still need to give the man time to either tie
a nice noose around his neck, aka get enough rope, or tie
the noose to hang the gang with.

It is way too early to have knee jerk reactions just because
the man wore a uniform... and the record for generals in the WH
is actually mixed, quite mixed in fact. So give him a week or
two and at least two debates... and some more time to come
clean with the media, as it were. He will and we shall see.

As is I have done the same with the rest of the candidates and
right now my personal favorires are Dean (yes i like him a lot)
Kucinich, who sorely needs to take PR lessons from Dean... and
for the all time award of one liners in any debate, Reverend
Sharpton (even if he is not electable, he is still very funny at
times)

[stickdog]

28. I agree. Dean supporters should just let the fine General

do the talking on this one.

Far be it from me to point out that he seems to be talking himself into his own quagmire.

[unfrigginreal]

29. Maybe you're right...

I'll wait for a definitive answer.

[Pastiche423]

30. We should allow clark...

to do just that, as I truly believe he will. Hell, after only two days, he's well on his way towards that quagmire.

[Eloriel]

33. Haha. Ain't that the truth

Actually, I'm not at all happy to have learned what I've learned about Clark tonight -- I mean in addition to his "probably would've voted" and Perle, Wolfowitz, etc. comments. I didn't start out anything but uncomfortable about him for some reason. Now I know why.

Eloriel