Clark: a disappointment on Meet the Press

[Printer70]

Where does Clark stand on abortion? One day, it's no restrictions. Today, it's a "difficult question". A week earlier he took a more nuanced position but today he couldn't even say where he stood when asked point blank by Russert. You get this legalese, nonsense that attempts to win people over by employing a vague non-answer. People don't want that- they want straight talk.

And on Bush being a deserter- take a stand, General. Desertion is punishable by death. If you don't believe it, say so. People (Moore) are free to say what they wish, but you are free to do the responsible thing and say it was an untrue charge. Then, use that credibility to spotlight Bush's spotty record, which may not be desertion, but raises questions about his character. That's political jujitsu.

As a politician, Clark is not a man of convictions. He doesn't seem to know what he stands for and believes in. One day, he's pro-war, the next day he's not. One day he's 100% pro-choice, the next day he accepts more restrictions but won't define what they are. His political views seem fed to him by a pollster and spin doctor.
--

Edit: Reaction from Brokaw during the roundtable on Meet the Press that summed it up:

BROKAW: Tim, I am struck by--I mean, you know, this is welcome to the NFL time for these guys. Running for president is very difficult. You just had a guest on here, General Wesley Clark, who has been struggling as well with a consistent message. And those two issues that you talked to him about, abortion and the president as a deserter--he was struggling for answers on that. And my guess is that a lot of people are looking at it and saying, "Well, tell us what you really believe here."

[Bunny]

1. First of all, the question by Russert was:

Do you believe that life begins at conception? The question was NOT: where do you stand on abortion? Wes responded that it was a difficult question because everyone had their own idea about when life begins. He said he was 100% in favor of a woman's right to reproductive choice, and said that it was a human rights issue. That seems about as clear as can be to me.

So please, don't put words in the general's mouth. At least get the questions and answers straight. :eyes:

[MoonRiver]

2. Exactly right.

Clark has been totally clear that he's pro-choice. Case closed.

[Printer70]

6. LOL- stance on abortion depends on where you believe

...conception begins. Sorry, Clark failed the truth test. Take a stand and defend it. Don't take two or three different stands. Weeks ago, Clark said life “begins with the mother’s decision.” That is an extreme position and so he's backing off on it. Have some maple syrup with that waffling, general.

[maxr4clark]

25. Nope

Where one stands on abortion policy does not depend on when life starts. The people of this country have many different views of that question, which is ultimately a religious question. The philosopher John Rawls points out, correctly, that in a democracy, we must respect each other's right to disagree on questions of world view and religion.

There is an abortion policy that does that: it is the pro-choice policy. People who don't believe abortion is consistent with their world view should be allowed to choose not to have them. People who do believe abortion is consistent with their world view should be allowed to choose to have them. Our country has had a long debate on the issues surrounding abortion, and has not come to a consensus despite passionate argument by reasonable people on all sides. We need to agree to disagree; that is what Clark has done.

Religious questions are a matter of individual responsibility, not the responsibility of the legislature. The Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence both affirm that belief; if you don't like it, move to a country that supports your religious position.

[Printer70]

57. Good luck selling that to the electorate

Clark realizes his stance of life begins with the "choice of the mother" was too extreme. Why do you think he's backtracking now?

First he told a NH newspaper no limits until birth.

Now Clark is backtracking saying "he supports abortion as modified by the Supreme Court's 1992 Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision. The case allowed states to enact reasonable limits on abortion such as informed consent and parental involvement laws."

I guess he now supports some limits. Which is it?

[LandOLincoln]

65. He did not say he supported elective abortion up to the point of birth.

The Manchester Union Leader put those words in his mouth, and incorrectly.

Besides, and for what seems to be the millionth time, There is no such thing as elective abortion up to the point of birth.

[Kathleen04]

29. Stance on abortion does NOT necessarily

depend on where you believe life begins. People can have their own personal convictions yet believe others deserve to make their own choice, which is what Clark was trying to emphasize. Getting into a debate on where life begins is counter-productive, because it doesn't matter when Clark believes life begins, it matters what he believes the law should uphold and he will uphold choice.

[maxr4clark]

47. Clark and Rawls defended again! eom

[bearfartinthewoods]

44. except for the article posted where he's quoted as favoring

restictions on late term abortions.

[maddezmom]

3. could you provide links to all your charges?

thanks :)

[Printer70]

7. Read transcript on Meet the Press site

When it's released.

[maddezmom]

26. LOL

thanks for all your help :)

[Printer70]

52. I guess a few clicks are too hard?

I'd love to do your work for you, but YOU missed the show. You snooze, you lose. Sorry! :7

[Bunny]

56. No, YOU lose.

If you're going to make accusations, YOU need to provide the backup. We don't have to go looking for it. That's SOP here at DU, in case you didn't know. So, why don't you go ahead and post the MTP transcript? Could it be that the transcript will not match your accusations? Hmmmm...

[WillyBrandt]

4. This thread: a disappointment on DU

What a worthless post. Funny how Michael Moore seems to feel better about Clark's response--notice how the AWOL thing has remained in media play?--than a Clark opponent does.

[Printer70]

13. Clark is made to look like a fool over the charge

Russert kept exposing Clark as wishy-washy on the charge- neither defending it nor distancing himself from it. Having supporters make irresponsible statements on your behalf afford a leader the opportunity to take responsibility. Obviously, that's not down Clark's alley. Then afterwards, Broder and Brokaw both exposed Clark over it - saying he didn't give straight answers. Step up and take responsibility Clark. These poll-driven answers make you look indecisive and weak.

[maxr4clark]

31. you can take Brokaw and Broder's word for it if you want, but

they're both Republicans.

I prefer to think for myself.

[Printer70]

Broder is definitely not a republican

Who knows about Brokaw.

[maxr4clark]

49. Brokaw has me convinced he is.

As for Broder, maybe it is a case of mistaken identity, but the woman I am thinking of is definitely a Red. She was the mediator of the first debate I saw, the one who kept interrupting Clark to say "could you give me details on that?" in a format where he was given 45 sec to respond in the first place. Horrible woman.

[hope42mro]

48. Poll-driven answers? You must explain...

How are Clark's answers "poll-driven"? And if they are, how is what he's saying different than other candidates? In your opinion, which candidate's answers are not "poll-driven"?

Please explain.

[Printer70]

50. Absence of Conviction

Poll-driven candidates change their positions as convenient. Example: Clark said he'd probably vote for the IWR. Then, all of a sudden, a few days later he was against that resolution. Why? Probably because Clark had to be educated by his people that pro-IWR would not play in the Dem primaries. It's the same w/abortion- he realized that his extreme position would not play in the southern primaries.

[hope42mro]

60. Not so

Clark never said he would vote for the IWR. He said he would put his support behind Bush if Bush decided to go through the UN, which he didn't. Clark has stated many times that he would never have supported the war that eventually occurred, a unilateral war, a war started BEFORE all diplomatic options were exhausted. He was always against the Resolution because it would give Bush complete decision-making authority (which, by the way, is illegal according to the Constitution, but hey, we're Dems and we already know that).

Oh, and you still haven't answered my question about "Which candidate doesn't have pol-driven answers?"

[snippy]

58. Bush supporters like this thread.

[adamrsilva]

5. Since when do Generals know anything?

Generals don't run for domestic issues (though I believe Clark is sincere in his liberalness), they run to be the commander-in-chief. His strength will be in the war on terror and that's why he is running.

[jmaier]

10. Generals can be equally informed citizens

for Pete's sake. A general with a long history of command has wrestled with more executive handling of rubber on the ramp domestic issues than any successful legislator will in a 40 year career.

The general = domestic idiot theme is misinformed.

[Printer70]

18. Clark appears as if he's never given any thought to domestic...

issues. We don't need another war-monger (esp. since Clark supported war in Iraq). We need someone who'll attend to health care and education- when you hear Clark on these issues, it's obvious he's never had an original thought on these subjects. All his talking points and "policy documents" on his site are not the result of decades of contemplation as a congressman or governor- they are the product of his staff and spin doctors.

[maxr4clark]

51. Open your mind and come back after visiting www.clark04.com

The man you're describing is not Wes Clark.

[Printer70]

54. Max, this is all boilerplate

None of it came from Clark. Other candidates have decades as congressmen or governors where they've wrestled with the issues in detail. When they speak extemporaneously on these domestic matters, it shows. With Clark, he fumbles and flip-flops. It's clear it's all new to him. I'm sure he has a great website that a lot of staffers put a great deal of time into.

[hope42mro]

53. I request your qualifications ....

for discerning between Clark's policy statements and policies made from "decades of contemplation as a congressman or governor."
I'm just asking because your accusations are quite harsh, and frankly they're easier to make than support. So let's hear it, which statements of Clark's are "products of his staff and spin doctors"?

[HootieMcBoob]

61. absolutely everything you've just said

is not supported by facts. if you're not going to vote for Clark then don't vote for him. If you support another candidate that's fine vote for him. But don't go around spouting republican talking points to put down one of our candidates.

:puke:

[maxr4clark]

8. if you want to find reasons to dislike a candidate, you will.

He said he's pro-choice. Russert tried to trap him into making a statement on something that doesn't matter to him, or to me: which definition of life should be used to put restrictions on abortion. He avoided the trap.

Regarding Bush and deserting, he took a stand. He doesn't care; that isn't his job to figure out. You don't like his stand, but he took one. He also took a stand on Michael Moore as his supporter: he supports Moore's right to free speech. You wanted him to choose A or B; he went outside the box-shaped trap and told the truth, which was C. I don't need to know whether he does or doesn't think Bush is a deserter to decide whether he will be a good President; do you?

What isn't of conviction is the press. He has been 100% consistent on whether he was for the Iraq War; he was not. The media has reported his view incorrectly many times. You can find a bunch of his statements on the issue on this site. And if you think factcheck.org shows he was flip-flopping, check again; they've updated their information.

[windansea]

9. sounds like you're talking about Kerry

Today, it's a "difficult question". A week earlier he took a more nuanced position but today he couldn't even say where he stood when asked point blank by Russert. You get this legalese, nonsense that attempts to win people over by employing a vague non-answer. People don't want that- they want straight talk.

[blm]

55. I believe he's talking about Clark. But, you knew that.

So, why........just seems odd.

[hope42mro]

62. "Straight Talk" allows people to categorize you

Just look at Kucinich. We all love the guy because what he says is the truth, we all nod our heads and dream that America would me so progressive as to elect him president. But America never would. So we must nominate people who agree with Kucinich yet can say what he says in more ambiguous terms, so that Republicans can't categorize them into "Baby-killing liberal", or "Tax and Spend Democrat" or "Saddam Sympathizers." Categorizing is so easy for the media pundits that it can corner a candidate and kill his real message. So what does the candidate do, he stays as slippery as the pundit. Don't worry all the Dems are good guys, and once they get into the white house the Bills they pass or veto, the judges they nominate, all of that will speak louder than "legalese" answers.

[ReynoldsWrap]

11. I don't see Clark...

being any less a "man of convictions" than anyone else. He obviously knows what he stands for, his only major downfall is sometimes he has trouble communicating it...especially in a way that doesn't make the spin-doctors salivate.

The abortion thing doesn't bother me. He said he's pro-choice. Thats about as far as my interest goes. The president wouldn't be the one to illegalize abortion, the Supreme Court would... If he says he's pro-choice, then I assume his choices for Supreme Court justices would share the view. Beyond that, I'm not concerned.

I think its best he doesn't go either way on the desertion comment. If he hasn't looked into it, then he shouldn't paint himself into a corner where he stands on the issue. Beyond that, as Clark himself said, I haven't heard a single person, beyond DUers and the talking heads, even bring it up so far. I'd say save the AWOL issue for the GE, anyway.

If someone talks about something enough, especially in different capacities (Retired General, CNN Expert, Presidential Candidate), eventually the 'other side' will have more than enough ammunition to bury the guy.

[fabius]

12. Russert is an idiot. "Gotcha" questions are his forte.

Don't go by this. Clark is not my first choice but the recent press meme of "Clark is stumbling" I think is just BS.

They are going to do it to any or all of our candidates that gets ahead. Watch out:

Dean "Too angry"

Clark - "Not a real Democrat"

Kerry - "New England elite snob"

Edwards - "trial lawyers pulling the strings"

Lieberman - "?" I think they like him. But Bushie would whip him.

Kucinich - "Too liberal"

Sharpton - "Too divisive" well maybe right on that one. But so is Chimpy.

Look folks, they are going to do this to ALL our candidates. Expect it. And prepare your barrages of letters to editor and emails to ombudsman.

[Toot]

24. That's why I'm happy Dean didn't waste his time on MTP this morning.

[UGABrother]

35. You're absolutely right

No candidate will please all the democrats all the time, but in my opinion we've got an incredibly strong field this season. In fact the field is so strong that the slightest stumble or quote taken out of context is making people right off candidates. The "waffling" charge in particular could probably be leveled against everybody if you dug deep enough. The important thing is, will your candidate lead the country in the direction you want, veto the bills you want vetoed, etc.., not whether everything they've ever said on public record seems 100% consistent.

[Bonobo]

14. Weak post.

[Printer70]

20. Clark appears weak...

...when he refuses to give a straight answer. Tell the truth, general. We can take it.

[gulliver]

15. Which MTP did you watch? Obviously not today's.

Your take is warped.

[Printer70]

22. Address the issues

General has flipped on the war and abortion. His refusal to agree or disavow himself of Moore's charge is more irresponsibility. He just seems like a fish out of water in the political world- casting vague non-answers to placate the uninitiated.

[windansea]

30. let's see...Kerry has flipped on

IWR
PA
NCLB

his yes votes are all bushes fault...

[Printer70]

Who said anything about Kerry?

He's not even my first choice. But I think this is telling- lash out rather than address the serious concerns about Clark's inability to talk straight on a lot of these issues.

[Cheswick2.0]

70. So where is your Kerry avatar?

You used to support Kerry. Have you switched to Clark?

[JI7]

74. he is a DEAN supporter

he never supported kerry

[gulliver]

38. You raise no issues. It's warped gobbledy gook.

Buh-bye.

[Printer70]

40. Hear no Evil

Suit yourself.

[snyttri]

16. Clark has courageously avoided dismissing Moore; unlike other

candidates like Kerry who have felt free to call Moore's comment "over the top". Clark should be lauded for courage, while Kerry has earned Bush suck up points on this issue.

[wyldwolf]

17. Clark: a triumph on Meet the Press

Despite the best efforts of sad spinsters, the record stands as stated.

Home run!

[pinkpops]

19. This was a setup and Clark knew it was coming

but he needs air time. So he played their silly game, said Bush's AWOL status is not important, used his time to stress his views on things that are - especially since he's not getting any such questions from the people attending his rallies. This is an issue manufactured for some affect by the press. On abortion, if you are pro-choice, what does it matter what you believe about when life begins? It's not your choice, it is somebody elses. Once again, the response was predictible. The question was asked as a slam. Why? Who knows, besides the general slide of journalism.

[lovedems]

21. That's funny, when I saw Clark on MTP I heard him say

he was pro-choice and that a womans right to chose was a liberty under the constitution. I remember hearing him say that a decision like that is best made by a woman and her faith, family, and doctor.

Why does he have to take a stand on bu$h being a deserter? That is up to bu$h.

[barbaraann]

23. Russert was a disappointment. Clark was great.

Oh, wait, my opinion of Russert was already so low I wasn't disappointed. And Clark was SUPER great!

Also, Bush's military record doesn't "raise questions about his character." He has no character and his military record reflects that.

You need to edit the GOP talking points out of your post.

[kentuck]

27. I wasn't disappointed....

and I've been a Kerry supporter up to now.

[paulk]

28. I thought Clark on MTP was pretty good

I feel your assessment of Clark as a politician and human, being based on viewing one television show, is a bit over the top. I'm sure any perceived bias on your part here is inadvertent.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. As far as I can tell you have never not been disappointed by Clark

You seem to be very consistent with your posts. Here is my report of Clark on Meet The Press, and I think he was great.

It was his best TV interview format performance. So often we just say so and so was great, that it loses meaning. This was the best I've seen Clark do. I will give credit to Russet too, he was on good behavior. I guess I disagree with some other posters about that, and I will comment more about Russet below. Clark came across as serious, fluent, sincere, and solid, with the emphasis on solid. Clark was at ease at all times. I was most impressed at how much mastery Clark showed of the political art of turning a question answer into the statement that you want to make. When done poorly it is obvious and clumsy, Clark was nailing it during this interview, and Russet let him speak. At the end of a comment Russet sometimes returned to a point, if he felt Clark slipped past it, which was fair. Clark pulled if off because he did answer Russet's question each time, quickly and efficiently, and then gracefully moved on to what Clark felt was important.

Clark turned Russet's first question about the Moore statement into a discussion about what is important to the voters. Essentially he did that each time the question was rephrased. The way Clark did it was by saying he is concerned about the future, not the past. He said as he has traveled across New Hampshire no voter has asked him about Michael Moore's comments. They talk about the loss of jobs, about health care issues.

Clark shifted easily into talking about his own background, having to move in with his grandparents when his father died and they moved back South. Never having much. Spending most of his time in the military making less than 50 Thousand a year, having to decide if they could afford to get a car repair that month. He talked about parents worrying about paying for braces for their kids teeth, etc. Clark spun into and out of his progressive income tax plan and what it would mean for working families, and he gave specifics. And he did all of that while giving answers to Russet's questions about the Moore statement. The fact that Clark moved so seamlessly into broader policy issues did, I will admit, have something to do with why Russet reframed the question a few times,

The key is Clark never came across as being evasive, instead he was gently dismissive of it as a real issue of concern to voters in New Hampshire now. He oozed confidence, no sense of squirming through an uncomfortable trap. The points Clark made regarding Moore's comments were simple and clear. Clark did say that he himself wouldn't have made that exact characterization, but Clark did not bite on the Moore is insulting the President or Presidency bit, or that Moore was out of bounds in any way, and Clark repeated that he hadn't looked into any of the facts involved. He framed it as a free speech issue without disavowing the content. Clark said he doesn't screen his supporters for what they will might at a rally. He said he saw Moore's comment as an expression of Moore's dissent. Further, and to me this was very important and telling about Clark's character, loyalty and convictions, Clark directly praised Michael Moore within one of his answers, saying that Moore has said a number of important things and made real contributions to America.

Clark was at his populist best when he said an era is over in America, where the assumption can be sold that if you give rich people more money somehow that will translate into more jobs for average Americans. It doesn't. He said the Bush tax agenda has been exposed and discredited. They aren't putting America back to work but he will. After keeping America safe, jobs is his highest priority.

Russet confronted Clark with past statements about promising not to let another incident like 9/11 happen again, and said how can you guarantee it? Clark said he did not offer any guarantees, of course there are no guarantees about anything of this sort. Clark very effectively laid out that scenario whereby Bush took office being warned about the danger of terrorists, but then proceeded to concentrate on a national missile defense system instead. having made no plans to deal with terrorism. Clark said that is failed leadership. Bush did not do everything he could to keep America safe, but that he, Clark, would. Clark said Bush has to be held responsible for his failings in that critical period. Further Clark again explained that while he was glad Hussein was out of power, there were other ways to deal with Hussein at the time other than launching that invasion the way Bush did. No immanent threat. Took our focus off of Bin Laden, who is still out there plotting against America. Regarding the "promise no more incidents like 9/11" " "gotcha" attempt, I think Clark did well.

The only way I think Clark could improve would be to specifically say, "perhaps my comments were not clear enough at the time, and left the impression that I was promising the impossible. Let me make this clear. Under my Administration there will be no more "incidents" of our nation being ill prepared to face and defend against a real threat to our safety, because the President of the United States was uninformed, inattentive, or predisposed for ideological reasons to look elsewhere for a threat, rather than focus on the one that all knowledgeable sources presented as most credible and immanent. That is my promise. It is not only possible for our President to make that guarantee, it is essential that he honor it, and I will." I really think that is the point Clark is making. Mostly it got across, and Clark KEPT THE HEAT ON BUSH for 9/11.

At one point Clark commented on how the Bush Administration cooked the intelligence to fit their ideological and political agenda. Russet said that was a serious charge, and could Clark back it, AND CLARK COULD! He was masterful in that segment, citing an intentionally leaked highly classified memo that the Bush administration used to buttress their claim of a link between Hussein and Bin Ladin link. Clark pointed out that it is standard national security policy to never comment on a leaked classified National Security document, for national security reasons. Doing so can compromise sources and methods used to gather intelligence, and it is not done, but the Bush Administration hyped the contents after they were "leaked". Very powerful stuff.

Clark was confronted with Kerry campaign negative flyers against Clark, and negative emails from Kerry's campaign sent out to the media over this weekend, about Clark's alleged Republican lobbying and cashing in on his military career. Clark firmly stuck to the high road. He said nothing negative about Kerry. Clark quickly ran down an overview of his own career and the breadth of his experiences, including his work in the private sector after leaving the military, and framed his private sector experience rounding out his career and better preparing him for the Presidency. He did not act or sound defensive. Clark did not dwell on it because he wanted to talk about the issues, and for a change, he was not letting his limited air time be dominated by responding to attacks made against him.

Clark was also asked about the need for all the candidates to secure some Primary victories by Feb. 3rd. Clark agreed that victories were needed, and he would get them, but did not quite nail himself to Feb. 3rd though he did cite his strength in a number of states voting on Feb. 3rd and after. Clark went out of his way to praise his grass roots volunteer movement and the commitment so many have made to his effort, both in New Hampshire and around the country. Clark fielded his "Republican past" one more time, this in the context of his older votes for some Republican Presidents, and he handled it smoothly, saying his vision of the Democratic party was one that was welcoming in disaffected Americans of various political leanings, to turn around our country form the crisis we are in, and he can reach those people. He said people grow, nimbly implying that he had certainly grown over the years since Nixon.

That's about it. Remember Clark did not have a full hour this time. He did a remarkable job of responding to all the hits out against him, while keeping his cool, and making his points. A remarkable performance all in all. One more time I will state. Clark has shown huge courage to stand his ground and not disavow Moore, despite wilting fire being directed against him. By doing so Clark keeps the issue of Bush's war record in the realm of public debate, where it will remain as long as Clark remains a viable candidate for the Democratic nomination, because they will keep going at him regarding it, I am sure of that. If Clark goes down, the issue most likely will go down with him, because it will then be seen as a big reason why Clark lost support, Kerry's comments made sure of that. On that basis alone I will say, if you are still wavering between candidates to back, and consider Clark among those worthy of your support, he has clearly earned it with this one. If we don't reward him for this stand, who will? This wouldn't be a bad time to donate money to his campaign either.

[maddezmom]

33. thanks Tom

a quick review with the search function will tell you most things you need to know about a poster, huh? :)

[Printer70]

37. Another Gaffe on Clark's part: "No guarantee"

When Clark says "We are not going to have one of these incidents" that's a guarantee.

Webster's dictionary- Guarantee: an assurance for the fulfillment of a condition.

Let me repeat- "We are not going to have one of these incidents"

Now he denies he made any assurances. Sorry general, English is working against you.

[bicentennial_baby]

43. The Columbia Journalism Review disagrees with you

Fact Check
What Did Clark Say?
On January 8th Gen. Wesley Clark met with the Concord Monitor's editorial board. The following day the paper ran an editorial in the paper with the headline, "Clark's Guarantee," quoting the candidate: "If I'm president of the United States, I'm going to take care of the American people. We are not going to have one of these incidents." Clark clarified his position later that day, stating "Nobody can guarantee anything in life but it's clear that we can do much more to prevent an attack on the American homeland."

This incident prompted a heated exchange of words between Gen. Clark and John DiStaso of the New Hampshire Union Leader in last night's Democratic Presidential debate. DiStaso asked Clark, "General Clark, earlier this month you said that if elected, there will be no more 9/11s in the United States. Then you scaled back, saying no one can guarantee anything in life. Some might say that leaves a little bit of an air of inconsistency in your positions. What exactly at this point are you guaranteeing along those lines?"

Clark began his response, "What I'm saying is I believe President Bush must be held accountable," and continued by arguing that the Bush administration did not do everything it could to prevent 9/11, needlessly took us to war with Iraq, and that his top priority as President would be to make America safe.

DiStaso's original question accurately mirrored Clark's statements from January 8th and 9th. However, DiStaso blurred fact and fiction in his follow-up question to Clark's original answer: "General, a top priority -- sure, that's everyone's top priority. That's a far cry, some might say, from a guarantee. So..." At this point Clark interrupted DiStaso. "I never used the word 'guarantee.' I never said that, John."

And Clark's right he never did say "guarantee." As you read above, the Concord Monitor editorial board inserted the word "guarantee" with its headline on January 9th.

Thus, there is no excuse for any of this morning's papers to make it seem as if "guarantee" had actually flowed from Clark's mouth. Yet today's Boston Globe reports that "One panelist asked Clark what he meant when he said this month that if he were president, he would guarantee no more terrorist attacks." The Globe goes on to give a brief summary of the facts, but the damage is already done by inserting DiStaso's innuendo into the record.

Whether or not you think the statement "We are not going to have one of these incidents" is synonymous with a "guarantee" is your opinion. But what is not opinion, is whether or not Clark in his initial promise ever used the word "guarantee." He didn't.

http://campaigndesk.org/

[Printer70]

46. Bad Spin- CJR or otherwise

You can make a threat without using the word "threat". You can make a guarantee without using the word "guarantee". He made future assurances without qualification. Sorry, General- own up to your words.

[barbaraann]

45. I think what he is saying is "no more LIHOPs."

9-11 was easily preventable and would not have happened with a President who was upholding his oath of office.

[pinkpops]

39. excellent

[robbedvoter]

34. Kate Michelman from naral is pleased with his position, so am I

"We are good to go with Clark" she said. Nice try.

[tishaLA]

59. Is that official now?

I really hope it is. It would be great support (and lots of names and money).

[hope42mro]

36. Russert aimed for sound bites, Clark wouldn't comply

I watched this mornings MTP and I think Clark was fine. Yeah, so he's not as experienced as other politicians in delivering bumper sticker responses. That's because he's a thoughtful person and knows many issues in politics are very complicated. Take for instance his response to the abortion question: he stated that in America there is a myriad of beliefs on that issue so you have to approach it delicately; He said quite clearly "I am pro-choice." He also believes that the decision to abort should be up to the woman and her doctor, not the government. So that's pretty clear to me. If you're still confused I invite you to visit his website and read what he's written on the issue.

[WillyBrandt]

41. When have you ever not been disappointed by Gen. Clark?

Could you point us to specific posts of yours in which you have said positive things about the general?

If not, then it is not news that you are disappointed by his MTP performance; rather, just confirmation of a pattern.

It is fine that you do not like the good General, but it's not particularly meaningful to the larger board.

[Piperay]

67. That is what

I would like to know too. :argh:

[JasonDeter]

42. When did people start caring what reporters or newscasters thought?

Isn't that a recent phenomena?

[Democrats unite]

63. Why do you constantly try to keep a black cloud over Deans head?

By the tripe you post not willing to back it up, Dean would be ashamed & for good reason! When you want to play with the big dogs, It help if you happen to be one. Move along little puppy.

[zulchzulu]

64. I thought Clark did OK on Meet The Russert

Nothing to sway me towards his candidacy, but he was OK.

At least he was on a few shows today, unlike some certain candidate that was told by his handlers that he shouldn't be on any shows due to the possibility of gaffing it up and declined generous interviews.

Wesley at least has some walnuts in his pants.

On the Moore/Deserter thing, who cares. It was a Mooreism. That's part of the territory when you get Mike to endorse you.

[overground1]

66. great post. Clark is 2-faced, says whatever people want to hear

according to the NEWSWEEK article. That nails Clark exactly right. He just wants the power our presidency offers, and he's willing to say ANYTHING to get it. He is dangerous.

[in_cog_ni_to]

69. The Newsweek piece was a crock of

dog doo!

He was Supreme Allied Commander and had the AUTHORITY to go to heads of state...and YES, that includes Clintion. Cohen and Shelton are just pissed off that Clinton and Albright agreed with Clark.


Although this is an incomplete discussion done hurriedly to respond to a specific questioner, the key facts are nevertheless addressed.  First, it is well-documented that after seeing what happened in Rwanda, General Clark willingly took a risk to see that something was done to stop Milosevic and prevent ethnic slaughter in Kosovo.  Secretary of State Madeleine Albright agreed with General Clark and was really also a  driving force behind pushing for action in Kosovo.  So this wasn't just General Clark out on his own but there was a conflict of interest between the State Department and the Department of Defense and the Pentagon, perhaps not unlike the rumored clashes of Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld.  There were others also pushing for action who were not at the State or Defense departments.

Despite the fact that Clark had worked with the State Department at the Dayton Peace Accords and although General Clark also represented European interests as head of NATO and was not necessarily under Cohen's chain of command there, Cohen and Shelton blocked his access to the White House in an effort to unfairly control him.  Others felt differently about Clark's right to talk to the White House.  James Steinberg, then the deputy national security adviser, said the White House would not have allowed Clark to conduct an end-run around the Pentagon. "I did not think he was being insubordinate," Steinberg said. But "people who knew him understood that when he felt strongly, he wanted to let people know. . . . My perspective was that there was value in his giving his ground-truth."

It was not unusual for CinCs to have to try and work around the Defense Department and the Pentagon to get things done.  Dana Priest discussed this in an interview about her book The Mission, saying that they risked having their hands slapped if caught . But the difference seems to be in the fact that General Clark was less willing to play the pentagon/defense department games.  General Shalikashvili, who appointed General Clark to NATO, has hinted at this without saying it outright.  Said Shalikashvili, "The chiefs "might have felt that Wes pushed them too far."

That Shalikashvili hint, although cryptic, no doubt comes from someone who really knows what was going on.  There are other possible specific mentions of actions by General Clark that showed his refusal to play the game the way the Pentagon and Defense Department wanted, but this hint tells the real story.  It is interesting that one of Clark's harshest critics during the conflict, soldier activist David Hackworth, has since retracted his criticisms of General Clark and confirmed General Clark's thesis in Waging Modern War that depicted Shelton and Cohen as timid and overly concerned with domestic politics in the face of a concerted campaign of ethnic cleansing. Publishing a book that was in part critical of Cohen and Shelton was General Clark's effort at self-vindication after they retired him early even though he won the war, but it no doubt did little to ease the ruffled feathers that had led to the early retirement.

Since his initial comments General Shelton has refused to give specifics of why General Clark's integrity was questioned.  This has led some to question Shelton's integrity rather than General Clark's.  Dana Priest, who interviewed General Clark for her book The Mission, questioned the actions of Cohen and Shelton after General Clark was retired early, pointing out that they admitted they released the news to the press within an hour of telling General Clark to prevent him from being able to undo what they had done.  Sidney Blumenthal confirms that the way they went about it meant that their work could not be undone.  Blumenthal also plainly states that President Clinton realized he had been deceived by them and was furious when he realized their early retirement of General Clark could not be undone. Part of the deception involved the lie that General Clark had to be retired early to make a place for General Ralston.

After seeing the lies they told and the sneaky way they went about assuring the early retirement, it seems reasonable to assume that they wanted rid of General Clark but that the reasons for getting rid of him were ones that were not defensible to President Clinton. Incidentally, President Clinton has recently made clear his feelings about General Clark's integrity and Hugh Shelton's smear tactics by sending a fax to the Hague to rebut the Shelton smears when Milosevic tried to use them to impeach General Clark's testimony.

Lying to indefensibly get rid someone and releasing the news quickly so that the act could not be undone does not sound like the actions of someone who would have the unmitigated gall to question the integrity of the mistreated person.  But evidently Shelton has no shame.  I frequently disagree with William Saletan, but I think he called this one correctly:

A wise friend once told me you can learn more about somebody from what he says about others than from what others say about him. Given what I've heard so far from Clark and Shelton, if I had to vote for one of them based on integrity and character, I'd go with Clark. Samantha Power, A problem from Hell:"He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6340-2003Dec16_2.htmlAlbright, in an interview, said "it was very clear to me that the Pentagon did not want to move on this issue. . . . Wes and I thought it was worth doing." A former Albright aide said Clark's credentials lent critical ballast to Albright's advocacy, providing cover for Clinton and White House officials who were loath to stand up to unified military opposition on any issue.http://slate.msn.com/id/2091194/#ContinueArticle

In fact, however, Clinton may have been distracted somewhat, but Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was not. Albright was a fiery supporter of military intervention in the Balkans (many have written of the famous meeting where she appalled the reticent chiefs by saying, "What good are all these fine troops you keep telling us about if we can't use them?"). Albright was the prime mover; many observers at the time--supporters and critics alike--called it "Madeleine's war." And her prime collaborator, Richard Holbrooke, Clinton's envoy to Bosnia, also enjoyed direct access to the president. http://slate.msn.com/id/2091194/#ContinueArticle

Thousands of Bosnians were dying in a war that U.S. military power could have ended. Hundreds of thousands of Rwandans had recently been massacred in a civil war to which neither the United States nor the United Nations raised a finger, much less a fighter plane, in protest. Many of those pushing for intervention--and they included not just Clark but some of the most liberal, customarily antiwar politicians and columnists--wanted above all to avert another massacre. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6340-2003Dec16_2.html

Cohen did not speak to him until the seventh day of the war, when several U.S. soldiers at Yugoslavia's border were taken hostage. "The relationship had already soured by then," Clark said. He said that his antagonists in Washington blocked him from speaking with President Bill Clinton once during 11 weeks of combat. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6340-2003Dec16_2.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6340-2003Dec16_2.html

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East while Clark commanded NATO, said, "There is always a tension between the CINCs and the service chiefs. The CINCs see the need for intervention, engagement, while the services control the resources and see this as a distraction."  http://www.state.gov/s/p/of/proc/tr/3719.htm

They each told me stories having to creep around the Pentagon to meet with State Department and getting their hands slapped when they were discovered. They all felt like they were at the end of a tether line, out on the edges of an empire, and that too often no one at the Pentagon cared about what they were discovering. They each felt disappointed with their chain of command, especially Secretary Cohen, who seemed to them to want to talk only to coordinate the next upcoming news conference. They believed that the Pentagon had become far too reactive to the day's news reports.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6340-2003Dec16_2.htmlBut Clark's personal style evidently caused the policy dispute to boil over into a personal clash, according to former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman John M. Shalikashvili, who appointed Clark to the NATO job over the objections of the Army leadership. Clark "is a guy who by temperament is more likely to operate on the edge of the system," Shalikashvili said. The chiefs "might have felt that Wes pushed them too far."   http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738

Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign when I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a "Perfumed Prince." Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was wrong - the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen, U.S. SecDef at the time.   Wednesday, August 4, 1999
Clark's Exit Was Leaked Deliberately, Official Says
by Dana Priest
The Washington PostWASHINGTON - One mystery solved. Why was Gen. Wesley Clark's early removal from his post as NATO's top commander leaked within an hour after Clark himself was informed of Defense Secretary William Cohen's decision last week? Answer: Because Cohen's staff wanted to prevent Clark, who had led the NATO military campaign against Yugoslavia and was known to like his job, from working behind the scenes to undo the decision, according to a senior Pentagon official.   The Clinton Wars" by Sidney Blumenthal, senior advsier to President Clinton:
 
(page 651):  "...At the Pentagon, a graceless note was struck in July, however, when General Clark was summarily retired early as SACEUR. But if it was held against Clark that he was a political general, it was a mistaken impression. Clark had in fact put his strategic concerns above politics and above his career. Clark was called at night and informed of the Pentagon's decision without being given any recourse. He instantly received a call from a Washington Post reporter, who had been tipped off by the Secretary of Defense's office, to confirm the story. When the President learned what had happened, he was furious -- "I'd like to kill somebody," he told me -- but there was nothing to be done. Clark's enforced early retirement from the European post was a fait accompli. Secretary Cohen and General Shelton had considered Clark insubordinate. Clinton awarded Clark the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the British gave him an honorary knighthood. But the Pentagon's treatment of Clark left a sour taste amid the triumph..."  Why Wesley Clark Got the Ax at NATO
The general exposed the gap between pretended "combat readiness" and refusal to accept war's risks
By: EDWARD N. LUTTWAK
Published in the LA Times August 6, 1999So why was Clark fired? The official answer is that he wasn't fired at all, but merely asked to accommodate his successor at NATO, Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, by stepping aside a bit early. That is all very plausible except that any four-star general can be parked in a special assignment while awaiting a new command. Because Ralston is especially well-liked, nobody would have objected to the exception.  http://slate.msn.com/id/2089014/

[funky_bug]

72. Power? He wants power?

This is a man who had dedicated his entire life to serving his country. This is a Rhodes Scholar with an intellect not afforded the average person, who could have gone on to any number of lucrative careers and made far far far more than the mediocre wage of a soldier. This is a man who made sacrifices, defied the Clinton administration to save the lives of 1.5 million Albanians who could NOT elect him to anything or pay him a dime. This is a man who made over 1 million dollars last year in speaking engagements, but has decided to put that source of income down in order to pick up the mantel of servitude once more.

In the last three years, we have seen a president abusing his power. Clark wants to beat him, and wants a new leadership for America. He could have stayed in retirement, instead he opened his distinguished career to public scrutiny in order to make a difference, and serve his country again.

If you think this is about power, then you need to de-program your brain. Bush is about power. Wes is about service.

[kaitykaity]

68. I think Pundit Pap's analysis of Clark's MTP appearance

is a little bit more accurate than anything
here.

http://americanpolitics.com/20040125punditpap.html

Russert then tried to hang Clark for having voted for Nixon and Reagan -- and because he was a lobbyist for a security company. Oh, brother -- what next? Russert claimed that there was a BIG discussion about Clark and abortion. He asked, if you can believe it, if Clark believes that life begins at conception (a right-to-life "litmus test" of a question if there ever was one). Clark said he is pro-choice -- and told Russert that this is something people must consider for themselves.

Russert continued to pressure him and then had the gall to say, "You can understand that some people think that life begins as conception!"

Russert just may be the most pathetic excuse for a journalist or an entertainer in the history of television journalism. He tries to pull the wool over the public's eyes -- including those of his bosses -- and should be dismissed from his position as host of Meet the Press post haste.

Of course, ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND had bought the very first commercial on MTP. ADM is one of Russert's biggest sponsors. ADM collects tax credits and gas tax rebates for its Big Ethanol Giveaway Program -- a payback to the tune of $1.5 billion dollars of YOUR tax money.

Think about it.

[shoopnyc123]

76. I'll admit...

Clark is a little thrown, with all of the garbage he has been dealing with; I still believe that he is a quick and astute study, with a slow burn.

[Meldread]

71. One of the reasons I'm uncomfortable about Clark...

One of the reasons I'm uncomfortable about Clark is because he is a novice Politician. This is his first real campaign. He is my second choice, but the more I see him in 'hot water' so to speak the more I question it.

I gave him a close look when he first came onto the stage, even though I was already a committed Dean supporter. I like Clark. However, there is a lot at stake here in this election. The little bit of heat he's feeling now is nothing compared to what it will be if he gets the nomination.

I would feel much better about Clark had he actually had political experience. No, I am not questioning his leadership -- that cannot be questioned. I am questioning his ability to be a politician. IMO Edwards is the most clever politician but this comes from his days as a trial lawyer -- you can see it clearly. I think Edwards has the potential to outshine Clinton in his political savviness.

However, the reason I support Dean... well there are many reasons. One of them is because Howard Dean has been under pressure before. Granted it was nothing like it is now. There are bigger things at stake, there are more people breathing down your neck. He decided to sign the Civil Unions bill on an election year, even though he didn't have to. It was extremely unpopular and despite this he still won the election. Howard Dean is a different type of politician. He's not as savvy as Edwards but he has a totally different approach -- one that I think appeals to more people, including myself. He gives off the type of image that he's your typical guy. He's the guy you'd invite into your home, sit back in your living room watching a foot ball game with while drinking beer. He just gives off that "down to earth" feeling. Edwards preaches it, but really doesn't give off that feeling. (It's about attitude and personality.)

Bush has a similar personality to Dean, but Dean's is much more appealing. How many people in 2000 said that Bush reminded them of the average Joe? That they could identify with him more? This means *A LOT* to people. Combine that with Howard Dean's straight talk approach and you have a combination for success -- one that's going to kill Bush in the image department. (And we all know that's all Bush has got going for him -- his image. With out that he is totally naked to our attacks.)

That is a strength of Howard Dean -- he won't back down from confrontation. That is something many people say they like about Bush. Howard Dean gives off the same vibe, and for the most part we know it's true.

I personally think the Bush Administration is afraid to go up against Dean more so than any other candidate. Not just for the reasons I listed above, but for many more. They might have said they want to go against Howard Dean -- but it's nothing more than their amateur attempt at reverse psychology. Howard Dean is a Democratic version of John McCain to Bush. He's a straight talker, at times gets himself into trouble because of his bluntness, and is running as a Washington Outsider. Not only that but ironically enough McCain was really the first major candidate to explore internet campaigning. Howard Dean has widely surpassed the expectation, however.

In addition to his McCain like personality, he is able to convey energy, life, and inspiration into those who listen to him. That's a very scary thing for Bush -- an energetic and mobilized electorate... that is ready to give him the boot.

Anyway, I've rambled on and my original point has completely been lost. Go figure.

[Lauren2882]

73. I am pro-choice and I believe life begins at conception.

... If I were running for office, I don't think I should have to answer to that second question. It's irrelevant to how I would govern. Same goes for Clark.

[flaminbats]

75. welcome to politics...time to pick your poison!

try listening to shrub...

First he said his tax cuts would not lead to deficit spending, now he says half-trillion dollar deficits don't really hurt anything!

Then he says he is against intrusive government, now he thinks government intrusion is part of our security.

He said No Child Left Behind would help our education system, now he says it's the teachers' and schools' fault if they start losing funding thanks to these tests.

He said he would govern as a "Compassionate Conservative", but instead we got a "Tyrannic Terrorist".

He promised to be a uniter, but instead we got a conqueror.

None of these candidates will always tell the entire truth, but that is because they are all politicians IE. born liers. Don't expect one lier to be more honest than another, just look for the one who shall do the least amount of harm to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

[Shanty Oilish]

77. Transcript up now, here---

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/4028066/

Enjoy.