I confess, Clark is worrying me!

[Classical_Liberal]

He has made some antiwar noise, but he has flip-flopped on whether he would have voted for it. I want someone who knew Bush was liar even back then. I did. Maybe ordinary Americans, watching faux news, didn't realize Bush was spreading lies, but insiders should be much better versed.

Also many his backers are by and large people who counseled the dems to vote for the war. I am worried he is a bet hedger for neocon sympathizers in the DLC, so they won't lose their jobs for their bad advise.

I want them to lose their jobs for their bad advice to Dems. Is Clark going to send his supporters packing? I think not.

I think Washington needs new blood. I am sticking with Dean.

[mddemo]

1. me too

Ill stick with Deano baby, I am not a supporter of Clark in any way.

[diplomats]

2. Classical_Liberal

see Josh Marshall's take on Clark's Iraq position. You may not agree, but I like the way he explains it.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com

[Classical_Liberal]

5. I repeat, I want someone who doesn't trust Bush

Informed people shouldn't have trusted Bush and they did.

[diplomats]

8. Did you read my link?

Like I said, you may not agree. But it's there for your perusal.

[Classical_Liberal]

9. I read it in LBN earlier.

Marshall also doesn't think Kerry is a waffler. He is. He voted for the resolution, because he trusted Bush. Dean wouldn't have done that. Clark has said one thing one day and another the next. Many of his staff were in favor of the resolution so I am not surprised actually. I want people in Washington to have better judgement than Faux News.

[diplomats]

13. I guess the Iraq thing doesn't bother me

But I can see where you're coming from. :)

[Cha]

3. I'm Glad you're "sticking with Dean"... There was never Any

doubt for me..but I'm still paying attention to what Clark is saying and trying to get a handle on it.

Because before all this ..I had No idea!

Time is going to be the big factor in this.

[Upfront]

11. Sticking

with Dean also.

[midnitemoleman]

4. Yes I agree

It seems that every person in Washington had no clue Bush and Co.
would turn out to be liers. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed and I knew it every inch of the way, so how can all these U.S. leaders be cought in the dark? You know someone other than Bush is bull sh!ting us.

[unfrigginreal]

6. You're right CL....

He pretty much had me cornered until he started showing signs of being handled by the elitists in the party...it's such a shame too, he could have been on equal footing with Dean and we would have had a great ticket in the making during the primaries. I'm not sure at this point that he'll even be considered credible for #2 on the ticket.

[tjdee]

21. Handled by the elites?

Bill Clinton likes him!
Oh no!
Some Clintonites work for Clark! Oh no! Clinton's magical penis must have threatened them!

Don't the "elites" get to have opinions like everyone else? Why shouldn't they help the man they like? Doesn't this kind of favoritism happen in *every* line of work?

Does that mean that their favorite (and this is ALL speculation) is somehow flawed or 'less than'?

I think too many people here give the DLC much more attention than they deserve.

[ima_sinnic]

7. after hearing Clark's speech in Iowa last night I am very pleased

with Clark.

I too suspected him of being a neocon plant, and of waffling on the war. But he is very visionary, and definitely a peacemaker. He actually seemed almost as radical as Kucinich in many ways--believe it or not. He seems much less a Democrat than simply a human being, working for the good not only of Americans but everybody in the world. I feel confident that the rest of the world's leaders would willingly work with him, and he does emphasize the need for cooperation in an effort to neutralize terrorists. He pointed out, correctly, as I did, that Bush had the opportunity to unite the world after 9/11 and just plain blew it. I'm still sticking with Dean because of the way he is revolutionizing the political process but if Clark does get the nomination I will gladly vote for him. He would make an excellent Secretary of State or VP if not prez.

This is my impression so far. Of course we have not heard from him on domestic issues but I think he will bring the same vision, humility, and generosity to that arena also.

[AmeriCanadian]

27. Me too, furthermore ...

... Dean is viewed as "too" liberal by mainstream America; that's where your vote comes from. Clark on the other hand appears to moderate the nation security issue that a lot of your countrymen are afaid Dean will abandon completely.

[MoonAndSun]

10. Dean is still my main man, with Kerry in my #2 position,

I will wait and see how Clark does in the debates before I can make any kind of decision on his candidacy.

[LouKYDem]

14. Sticking with Dean but...

I'm sticking with Dean, but now, for me at least, my #2 person has actually been replaced with Clark. Kerry is still #3 though!

[CMT]

12. well now he says that he wouldn't have voted for it

so it is a flip-flop and he no doubt will be questioned on this at the debate next week. I, frankly, am troubled to a lesser extent by his voting for Reagan (twice) and Nixon. Yes, I know there were lots of "Reagan Dems" but an educated man of the world should have seen through Reagan's act and how little he knew especially on world affairs. Not only that but Reagan's racist comments about "welfare queens" and such. I'm sorry it does bother me.

[unfrigginreal]

15. Although I don't hesitate to embarass myself...

I'll give you some of my hidden embarrassing moments...I voted for Reagan. Yes it was the worst vote that I ever made but it's fact...and today, I can't see any of these guys as President other than Dean!

I can't hold Wes's voting record against him...as a matter of fact, I don't give a damned about his voting record...I just want to know how he plans to change the policies for the USA.

[southern democrat]

16. Don't worry too much

just don't vote for him.Thats what the election process is all about.The simple fact about the resoloution is he did not vote for it.He did not have an oppertunity to vote for or agianst.His only bad judgement here is answering and giving an opinoin on how he would have voted if he would had the oppertunity to vote for or agianst it.Without knowing the exact wording of the resouloution at the time he could not say one way or the other.But it looks like the Democrats are simplified like Limbaugh and O'reilly.Mr Clark yes or no how would you have voted? Do you trust Bush?Yes or No?People it's not that simple.Clark has been following orders from presidents for a long time.I don't fault him if he gave Bush the benefit of the doubt.This doesn't paint him as pro-war.If any thing it paints him as subornate.You can hold that agianst him but I don't.There was no high ranking military that was adamitly agianst the war.I read about Swartzkopf was not for it but he wasn't adamit.And after it started he was not critical.Lets face it Clark was torn.His instincts knew were there could have been a case for war.But he knew Bush was presenting the case wrong and planning wrong.They were not building a coalition and this is what worried Clark the most.We can ask what he would have done then.But how could anyone but president Bush really answer that question.If there was a case,he was the one with the intellegence.Now at the point were at now ,hind sigiht is 20/20.It was the wrong decision.But the reality is people who were agianst it before it started were not sure how it would be now and the people who were for it were not sure how it would be now.And the thing I did hear Clark say repeatedly was how the outcome was unpredictable.I also believe it is unfair to hold it agianst Clark or any other American for wanting the mission to be successfull.

[Classical_Liberal]

17. We don't want a subordinate

We want a leader. No informed person should have trusted Bush. I don't want my leaders guided by the instincts of faux news. Hindsight says that was wrong, so that proves Dean to be a person of foresight and good judgement. It shows him to be ahead of the pack.

[KittyWampus]

18. How Did Dean Show Foresight?

Talk is cheap when you don't hold office and noone has ever heard of you.

Dean did not vote on the Iraq Resolution and to give him credit for SAYING he wouldn't have is LUDICROUS!

Why doesn't Dean want to cut Pentagon spending as Dennis K. suggested?

The Pentagon lost over 3 TRILLION dollars over the last 3 years. Our GNP is 10 trillion... what the heck happened to all that wealth?

Is this showing good judgement... being unwilling to look corruption at the Pentagon in the face?

Clark, on the other hand WOULD cut the Pentagon Budget to fund health care.

[southern democrat]

20. Thats where you are different tha me

I respect being subornate.In times of national crisis you have little choice.Do I think Bush is leader you can trust,no I don't.But could you imagine the anarchy if people were not somewhat subornate in times of crisis.I belive the protesters are patroits and they did a great thing for this nation.I won't go as far as to say they were completely right about every aspect of the war.But by and large they were right about most of it.I want to have a president I can trust.And if trust him or her that doesn't mean you will trust them.But after we elect them it's their judgment,they may not have time to build a coliation or make the case to the American people.When 9/11 happened and if the predident knew that plane was going into that building on purpose to kill innocent people.A decision would to be made.There would be no time for colitions and making the case to the American people.A decision would have to be made.There would be no right or wrong decision,just a tough heart wrenching decision.And if that decision had to be made,which I pray it never does.I feel confident that Wesley Clark will do his very best to do the right thing.And who ever would be in that position.Weather it is Bush,Dean,Kerry,Edwards or anybody,they would have to have subornates to carry out the order.

[Classical_Liberal]

25. If the founders thought our congress should be subordinate

they wouldn't have given them a right and indeed the responsiblity to vote on War.

[charlie]

28. What in the world

does 911 have to do with Iraq? Of course there was plenty of time to muster a coalition, Dubya didn't do it because he knew he couldn't. His "case" was a shifting melange of lies because he had no case. 911 gave Bush an opportunity to invade Iraq, it didn't compel him to do it.

[DrBB]

19. Then I invite you to respond to Dean's Iraq "flip flop"

...and specifically Josh Marshall's analysis of same:

But on this point Dean's position has evolved too. In that same Face the Nation interview, when asked whether there were conditions under which he might favor war, Dean said ...

My question is not that we may not have to go into Iraq. We may very well have to go into Iraq. What is the rush? Why can't we take the time to get our allies on board? Why do we have to do everything in a unilateral way?

My problem is not whether we're going to end up in Iraq or not. Saddam Hussein appears to be doing everything he can to make sure we do go into Iraq. My problem is, it is important to bring in our allies.

Now, my point is not to say that Dean was some sort of war-hawk. Clearly, he was no friend of the president's policy. But then neither was John Kerry, and certainly not Wes Clark. So let's drop this idea that support for war under some circumstances and not others is some sort of waffling or dodge. Because if it is, then Dean isn't in the clear either.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

[retyred]

22. Yes

Everyone not A Clark supporter:





CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
Retyred IN FLA.

[Art_from_Ark]

23. I don't trust him

For the following reasons:

1) He waffles on simple matters such as, would he have supported the Iraq Resolution? Well, as a retired general, he should damn well have had an opinion about the matter, but he's been flip-flopping about it like a fish in a frying pan.

2) He only "realized" he was a Democrat a week ago, no doubt after having an epiphany about his votes for Nixon and Reagan. And has he ever mentioned who his choice was between Dukakis and Bu$h Sr.?

3) He has had absolutely NO experience as a civilian leader.

4) He had the perfect chance last year both to gain experience as a civilian leader and to declare his affiliation with the Democratic Party. How? There was a "Draft Clark" movement in Arkansas to get Clark entered in the race for governor against Republican Mike Huckabee. Clark turned down both the chance to run, and the chance to announce he was a Democrat. What was he afraid of? Now he's waltzing around saying yes, yes, he is a Democrat. What happened between last year and now?

5) Being a Pentagon insider is also a little unsettling. A Clark supporter and fellow Arkansan thought that this would help Clark to "clean up" the Pentagon, but I am of the opposite opinion-- after all, business insiders like Bu$h and Cheney have done absolutely nothing to clean up corporate fraud. And Eisenhower, deesspite his warning about the "military-industrial complex" in his Farewell Address, appears to have done nothing to stop it while he actually had the chance.

[Flying_Pig]

24. That about sums it up Art. ...My biggest fear of him, are any ties he

may have to AIPAC, the Likud, and hence the PNAC bunch. These neocon bastards are the sourge of the planet, and responsible for most of the horrible things our nation is dealing with right now, and I will support no one with any connection, or who supports them, in any way. Period.

[Kahuna]

26. My take. I've heard Clark say 50 times he wouldn't have..

supported it. Then suddenly a reversal, one time. I'm confused, I admit. I would like to hear a clarification on this "gaffe" which he corrected the following day, from Clark's own lips.

Why isn't the media reporting that Clark stated hundreds of times during interviews which are available to the media, that he would not have supported the IWR? Clark created this problem so I can't blame the press. But I do find their coverage somewhat disengenuous.