Two articles on Clark and former colleagues

[kang]

For those that keep wondering about why whispers keep coming up that Clark wasn't liked by his Pentagon comrades, here's two Washington Post articles about that. I'm a Clark supporter, but I figured that this is pretty relevant. However, please do note Gen. McCaffrey's quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21814-2003Sep16.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27039-2003Sep17.html

[kang]

1. Michael Moore's letter to Clark and another article

on the history of generals running for president in the US.

I figure the more info, the better people can form a judgement of a candidate.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/09/17/moore_clark/index.html

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088303/

[DoveTurnedHawk]

2. Much of This Cites Cowardly, Anonymous Bullshit

I'll be more interested if and when anyone goes on the record. Until then, it's just scurillous rumor-mongering and slandering.

No offense to you, just unhappy with some of the tripe that passes for reporting with some columnists.

DTH

[kang]

3. Understood, but I think it's best to deal with this issue now

If the new angle of attack on Clark is "he's aloof and abrasive" in addition to his domestic policy inexperience, then we shouldn't be afraid to talk about it. I personally don't find it surprising that an incredibly ambitious and driven person wasn't liked very much in the Pentagon. Especially since he jumped other generals in line for the Southern Command and the NATO position. But I think Gen. McCaffrey's comment I think was dead on.

Here's another one on how many Congress members think Clark will have a positive impact on the party's image (just by running that is).

http://salon.com/politics/wire/2003/09/18/clark_image/index.html