Clark and the Lincoln Day Dinner...

[Pepperbelly]

Much has been made of this as well as the quotations from Salon Magazine. While some are immune to any explanation, others are not. This is what Clark said on the matter:

"So when I got out of the military and into business I looked at both parties," Clark explained to the crowd on why he was a Democrat. "I talked to Condoleeza Rice right away. I found out I didn't like her view on foreign policy. She said American troops shouldn't do peacekeeping they should do real fighting. But she is an academic, what does she know? I've been on the front lines. I tried to explain it to her. She let me know she was going to be in charge. And I spoke out on the election campaign on what we are trying to do on behalf of Bosnia and the Balkans and so forth. And when I went home to Arkansas I was in business and I wanted to meet both sides. The Republicans came to me and said 'Hey we would like for you to speak at our Lincoln Day fund-raiser. I said I am not going to be there for Lincoln Day. They said 'General we'll hold Lincoln Day whenever you can get here.' So I did. I spoke to about 450 Republicans there at Embassy Suites. I was non-partisan. I basically praised Republicans for being Republicans. . . . But I knew what the Republican Party was like and I couldn't identify with that party. They are the party that when I was commanding in Kosovo, they were the party led by Tom Delay against our airman who were in the skies over Yugoslavia taking fire from Serb anti-aircraft and this party voted against them. They claimed they weren't. They claimed they were voting against just a policy, but I read what they said. They wanted the policy to fail. They didn't have a vision. They didn't understand what America was about. They put their interest of the party above the interest of the party. I'll never put the interest of the party above the interest of the country."

http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2003/september/9_27clark.shtml

Either you accept his explanation or you do not. But please do not claim that it has not been addressed.

[flamingyouth]

1. Thanks Pepperbelly

Wow, he doesn't exactly sound like the BFEE tool some have painted him as. I appreciate this.

[VolcanoJen]

2. Didn't Clark also refuse Republican efforts to enlist him...

... as an advocate for war against Iraq, right after 9/11? I'll give him lotsa credit for that, alone.

And as far as Delay goes, well, several weeks ago before he was a candidate, Clark did say (in response to DeLay accusing him of being a "Blow-dried Napoleon) "If you take a look at my hair and at Tom DeLay's hair, we'll see who's using a blow dryer."

There aren't too many "Republicans" out there who are willing to pick on Tom DeLay's grooming habits. I kinda dig that about Clark. :-)

Kind of off-topic, but my own pro-Clark website, started long before he announced his intentions, and in an effort to take a swipe at DeLay

www.BlowDriedNapoleon.com

now points to the AmericansForClark website. :-)

Thanks for the quote, Pepperbelly. Clark does echo what many of us feel is the problem with the Republican party, especially when he points out their hypocrisy in relation to the Kosovo action, saying, "They wanted the policy to fail. They didn't have a vision. They didn't understand what America was about. They put their interest of the party above the interest of the party. I'll never put the interest of the party above the interest of the country."

[virtualobserver]

3. why don't you take all of the accusations on in a single post n/t

[Julien Sorel]

4. Because such a post would be as long as this page,

and there'd only be more accusations tomorrow, anyway. Have you seen some of the accusations? They're pretty ugly.

[Pepperbelly]

5. because that is not how serious people operate ...

I will not cede the advantage of fallback positions to the Clark Bashers. If they are going to bash, they are going to have to defend each bash individually.

Scattershot attack is an incredibly old tactic, one that is both disingenious and underhanded.

[VolcanoJen]

7. Dude, you buried the lead!

:-)

Gen. Wesley Clark, told a New Hampshire audience Friday night he had only fired one person in his life. On Saturday he said he wanted to fire a second person: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

When asked at a house party on the Seacoast about what he would do in Iraq if elected president today, he was met with applause when he said, "First of all I would change the Secretary of Defense. Then I would go to the commanders of the ground and go to Iraq myself personally and I would develop an exit strategy that gives us a success and lets us downsize our commitment there."

Anyone care to argue with that? Hell, even if Holy Joe wanted to fire Rumsfeld, I'd surely support his sentiment...

[virtualobserver]

10. You have all these rules on how you answer the attacks on Clark...

If you could refute the entire list, I'm guessing you would.

[Pepperbelly]

12. then you are guessing wrong ...

my computer freezes up on long threads.

And look for more. They are coming. On each and every one of these attacks.

[virtualobserver]

13. hope your dog doesn't eat your homework

your list of reasons and excuses for why it is either unreasonable or impossible to refute on a single post is a wonder to behold.

[Pepperbelly]

16. perhaps to you it is ...

but your perception is hardly my responsibility.

So, do you have anything critical to say about Clark's explanation of the Lincoln Day dinner?

[virtualobserver]

20. I wouldn't say "critical" exactly....

but the quote "So when I got out of the military and into business I looked at both parties," Clark explained to the crowd on why he was a Democrat. "I talked to Condoleeza Rice right away. I found out I didn't like her view on foreign policy"

That statement implies that he still was thinking about which party to join and that his decision was somewhat based on whether he agreed with Condi on Foriegn Policy matters. That he needed to talk to her as part of the process of deciding which party to join is pretty amazing.

Since he retired in June 2000, while I was out there rooting for Gore for the Democratic nomination, Clark hadn't even decided what party he belonged to and he refused to say until just a few days ago which party he had chosen.

This does not mean that he is or was a Republican, but I think that when deciding which party to join is that hard of a call, I don't find it reassuring.

[Pepperbelly]

21. Duh ...

Sorry to be flip but Wesley was apolitical. He voted as a duty of citizenship but he had far too much on his plate to follow it even the way we follow it here.

He was looking at the parties and did not like what he saw in the gop while liking very much what he saw in the Democratic Party. That sounds like a success for the Democratic Party to me. It does not bother me in the least that he was not a party hack or functionary for his entire adult life.

[virtualobserver]

23. I'm sorry but when someone hasn't even put any thought to what party...

he agrees with and three years later he wants to be President.

Not very impressive for such a smart guy.

[Pepperbelly]

26. Did you ever ...

serve in the military?

[virtualobserver]

28. no, but I have plenty of friends who did.

Some were Democrats and some were Republicans. I never met anyone who had no opinion.

[Pepperbelly]

29. Let me share something with you ...

I did my time. 4 years active, 2 yrs active reserves, 2 yrs ready reserves. I did a Med cruise and 4 or 5 WestPacs. I have followed politics all my life, majored in it in college and started volunteering in 1968 for Hubert Humphrey against Nixon.

But when I was in the service, it was a million miles away from me. I didn't even vote in the '76 election. Didn't even occur to me that it was an election year. How weird is that?

And Wesley didn't start out loving politics at an early age. While I was doing politics, at the same age, he was doing swim team and West Point. No reflection at all on him. Just different things that interested us.

Now, if you will, note the difference in political awareness on the front end. And even with me being a political junkie, I didn't even know who was running for President!

It is because I am dumb? I hope not. Did I not have an interest? Of course I did --from an early age. But I didn't even know who was running. Hell, I didn't even realize that it was an election year!

Things are different when you're in. What is important is different. I am sorry if this explanation doesn't please you or even that it might make you think less of Wesley or me but I am just telling the truth.

It really didn't even intrude on my world then. And talk about a disconnect! I was sitting off the coast of Lebanon during the Civil War in 1976 in an amphibious warfare taskforce, set to evacuate diplomats when the shit started. And I knew NOTHING of what was going on. I knew where we were but only because I was one of the ones who navigated. I knew precisely NOTHING of the historical or political ramifications.

Nothing.

[virtualobserver]

31. I can understand that....

I had my own period in which I didn't think about politics.

But Wesley Clark was operating at a very high level in the government and is now wanting to be President.

I have no desire to put Wesley Clark down. I'm just discussing my reaction to his words and actions.

I'm a Dean supporter, but I wanted to feel good about Clark as well.
Now I have concerns.

Clark has a good chance of winning the nomination. Some of the things that Clark has said have sincerely worried me. I don't want to reluctantly support him if he wins. Of course I'll vote for him, since Bush must go, but I want to wholeheartedly support the nominee.

And BTW, while you were a loyal Democrat, I supported Ford, and Reagan twice (refer back to my aforemetioned "didn't think about politics period")
I didn't come to my senses until I read "The triumph of politics" by David Stockman in 1986. That was when I realized that the Republicans were lying about their true intentions and beliefs.

I know because of my own life that someone's opinion can change. I just am unnerved about some of the things that I am reading about Clark, which is why I wanted you to rebut them. I wasn't necessarily convinced that you could rebut, but I wanted you to try, anyway.

[Pepperbelly]

33. I think I have ...

unless there is one of these articles that I missed.

[WillyBrandt]

14. Let me get this straight

Each one of those has been refuted. But someone puts together the whole list, and no normal human being can be bothered to refute the whole thing in toto, for the 200x time--therefore the claims that are false individually are now true together?

What?

What the list lacks in truth it makes up in volume.

[virtualobserver]

15. it they are so easy to refute

why have I seen approximately 5000 posts telling me that they have been refuted and one post refuting one narrow criticism.

If it is so damn easy to refute, just do it.

[WillyBrandt]

6. Thank you so much for posting this

There is so much bile and nonsense posted against Clark it's unbelievable. The tactics seem to be at least two:

(1) Repetition equals veracity. Maybe they're Leninists and think that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

(2) After a claim has been rebutted about a thousand times, post it one more time. After 10 minutes, when nobody can be bothered to refute it again, kick the message with the following:

"THE CLARKIES CANT REFUTE THIS IT MUST BE TRUE HOW CAN WE ELECT THIS DINO?!?!"

[wyldwolf]

8. Well, I guess that is the problem some have with Clark...

I'll never put the interest of the party above the interest of the country.

Those on the far left and the far right always put ideology before country.

[andym]

9. A reasonable explanation

Hi,
This sounds reasonable to me. I want to hear more about his ideas,
not this constant party membership/ secret agent nonsense.

Andy

[Justice]

11. Thanks for this Post

Very good to have Clark's statement on this point so we have a balanced view.

[Pepperbelly]

17. a kick so the bashers have a chance to respond...

:kick:

[TreasonousBastard]

18. Thanks, and...

I'm up in the air about how to respond to these attacks. Most seem to be simply disruptive, but the constant repetition will take its toll. And some are genuinely looking for answers.

The same is true of all the other candidates, of course.

Perhaps one webpage or post with a full refutation to point to wouldn't be such a bd idea.

[Pepperbelly]

19. I am keeping track ...

on notepad of each of the links on these refutations I have posted today.

[EagleEye]

22. SO he truly has been Dem for about two weeks?

[Pepperbelly]

24. so ...

do you have anything specific to say about his explanation? If so, please enunciate clearly so we can address your concerns.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

25. General puts this one to bed tucks it in kisess it guhnight.

"I was non-partisan. I basically praised Republicans for being Republicans."

Let me see if it can get through General bashers
thick skull: He didn't praise them because he agree
with them about anything, he praised them because
they were Republicans.

Haven't you ever praised Democrats just because they
were Democrats.

Haven't you ever praised Republicans just because
they were Republicans?

He already said when
he went there to talk he disagreed with them. Like Rice.
He disagreed with her, but he went there and praised her
because she was a Republican, NOT because he agreed with
her.

Can General say it any clear than that?!?

What is it take for Clark haters camp to see he is a
nice courteous diplomat guy that says nice things about
all sorts of people. It does not mean he likes them or
he means what he says, he is being nice and acting
like a diplomat General, that is something nobody hear knows
about because NOBODY here is a DIPLOMAT GENERAL that has
to give speeches sometimes to people he disagrees with but
can still praise because they're Republicans.

To Recapp:

1. DISAGREED.
2. Went there.
3. Talked.
4. Praised
5. But DISAGREED.
6. Praised FOR BEING REPUBLICANS.
7. NOT PRAISED because he AGREED because he DIDN"T.
7. Tuck it in kiss it guhnight.
8. Turn off light.
9. Close door.
10. Walk down hall.
11. Check on other bash General things that been put to bed.
12. Go watch Jay.
13. Fall asleep in easy chair.

[noiretextatique]

27. as usual, you are both insightful...and hilarious

:thumbsup: i have nothing to add.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

30. I disagree but I praise you for being what you are

not because I agree. Because I don't.

[salin]

32. great - another thread - with a slight twist

that fits with a bunch of other threads on this topic.

I appreciate your point - but could you make it on one of the existing threads?

Or is no discussion besides Clark or Dean allowed in GD anymore? Because the net effect of starting a thread that fits with several existing threads and that will result in a mirror Dean thread is pushing ALL substantive ISSUE topics off of the front page. Within minutes.

Sorry but this is frustrating.

*this is todays pat response to the proliferation of identical threads that has shut down all other conversations among people, on issues, that are about beating BUSH, fighting back against BUsh policies, but devoid of clark or dean.* If ya'll can spam the forum - then I can spam your threads.

[RandomUser]

34. Just wait till tomorrow

The circus will start all over again on DU as if you hadn't posted this. I don't know if everyone reads every thread, but it's starting to seem like some candidate bashers are trying to spam the boards instead of discussing the issues. This is a welcomed ray of light. Just kick this thread up each time they flood the screen with more bashing threads started on this issue.