I'm watching Wes Clark get interviewed on Democracy Now

[brainshrub]

Here's the link:

http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl

I don't particularly like Gen Clark, but I am impressed at the way he is handling difficult questions from the Democracy Now! reporter. I don't like some of Clark's answers, but he's taking each question on in a level-headed, honest and thoughtful manner. I respect that a lot.

He could have, at any time, brushed aside the reporter. (To be fair, Democracy Now! did sneak up on him.)

After watching this video I now believe that Clark is presidential material.

I'm still going for Dean, but ABB baby!

[Rowdyboy]

1. Good to hear

Glad you're keeping an open mind

[maddezmom]

2. thanks

appreciate the vote of confidence.

[elixir]

3. Interesting statements from Clark on 10/10/02

Check out this editorial by General Clark on 10/10/02. Good clarification of his stance on the war in Iraq.


http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

[Toucano]

4. The contrast to Bush/Cheney

shutting out the press is striking.

But that's true of all the Dems. Clark's LOADED with character and integrity

[not systems]

5. Clark has guts to take an interview like this.

I think he came off very well by taking the hard questions.

[brainshrub]

6. Yes, "character" is the right word.

I liked the character of Gen Clark and how he composed himself. That's just the kind of man I would want to lead this country in the event of an emergency.

I'll bet he wouldn't have hidden in a bunker with his tail between his legs on 9/11.

[girl gone mad]

9. That's what I thought.

If this were Bush or Cheney, the reporter would probably be on his way to Guantanimo Bay.

Yesterday, after his rally, I saw Clark speaking to a woman who was very passionately anti-abortion. He told her flat out he was pro-choice and it was the law of the land. He even went back and talked to her after they were interrupted. I like that he doesn't seem afraid to answer any question and he doesn't just brush people off.

[xultar]

7. Thanks for being objective and taking the time to actually watch

him in the interview.

I am very concerned that people will simply read the headline and not the content and assume that he targeted civilians as a criminal act.

You are right he could have set brushed the guy off. HE didn't. I love General Clark for that.

I'm glad that it didn't change your support for Dean. I am glad that you gave Clark some of your time and listened to what he had to say.

Thanks!
Turra

[Jerseycoa]

8. Thanks, brainshrub

I was pleased he took the time to answer in depth in this time of no time. He did a good job. I hope he and this reporter can do a followup interview on the subject.

[Seldona]

10. Deleted by poster

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

11. Amy Goodman is *very* tough

If Clark can hold his own during an interview with her, he's ahead of most people. She had Clinton screaming bloody murder by the time she was finished with him :)

[brainshrub]

12. Yes. She is a real reporter.

Amy Goodman is one of the few real reporters left on this side of the Atlantic. She's a no-holds-barred-pit-bull of a interviewer.

She had CMB on pins & needles last month! I hope she will get to interview Dean soon.

[IrateCitizen]

15. The interview was actually with Jeremy Scahill...

Not to diminish it by any means, because Scahill did not give him a free pass in any way. Just for the sake of accuracy, that's all. :D

[tishaLA]

13. I find his performance impressive in this

even though I'm biased.

I think it's great that he obviously takes Amnesty International quite seriously and that he has considered the criticisms. I have never been someone who thinks Clark is perfect, but I find his ability to learn and to admit his mistakes valuable.

[cthrumatrix]

14. none of the are perfect....they are sharpening their skillls for the shrub

[Zuni]

16. The Democracy Now people are trying to paint him as a monster

but to me it is clear that none of the actions discussed were his fault except for the Serbian Television Station. I would have bombed it out too, despite the fact that the Serbs had human shields in there. If it was used as a command and control facility, then it was most certainly a legitimate target and the blame for civilian deaths belongs to the Serbs.
Using depleted uranium in Kosovo is not a crime. DU is not nearly as harmful as many try to say, and only a small amount was in fact used there (far less than in the Gulf War). Regular non depleted uranium exists by the tons in every square mile of topsoil on earth. The effect of the depleted uranium would be negligible in Kosovo. (only 30,000 large bullets worth were shot---less uranium than in a square mile of topsoil)
It is obvious the train incident and other actions were pilot errors, not things Clark could control.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Clark doesn't duck issues.

Same thing with Michael Moore's "Bush deserter"comments. Clark hasn't distanced himself from Moore in the slightest, and he hasn't backed off holding Bush accountable for not being prepared for 9/11, no matter how the media tries to spin it as a crazy attack on our poor President. Clark is honest and forthright, and the latter is a word I seldom encounter anymore, especially not while describing a politician.

[IrateCitizen]

20. I disagree on almost every one of your conclusions

First, I don't think that the DemocracyNow! people are necessarily trying to paint him as a monster. It's important to realize that the people associated with DemocracyNow are not only journalists, but also big-time peace activists who are completely shut-out of the mainstream discussion. They have raised issue with Clark's association with the MIC on many occasions. It's a perfectly valid questioning if you are someone who is concerned with spreading peace and social justice.

Secondly, I'm not certain you know what you're talking about re: DU. I'd suggest you check out some of the work that former US Army MAJ Doug Rokke has done on DU -- here's an article for starters: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0722-03.htm. It's nasty stuff, and should be considered abhorrent, IMHO. And the problem with DU is that it is used because it burns hot and can melt armor like butter -- but when it does so, it is released into the atmosphere. All you have to do is be standing downwind of it, breathe in a particle or two of it, and you're basically fucked for life.

I'd like a source for your assertion that topsoil contains "tons" of DU. I've never heard that before, and I'm doubtful.

[mikehiggins]

22. I'm not sure about the dangers of depleted uranium but after the

experiences many of our soldiers had with "Gulf War Syndrome" I think we ought to err on the side of caution.

Certainly there are many other materials that would suit this purpose, even some epoxy/ceramics (I know that sounds crazy but I think that was discussed elsewhere. I just don't have the link and my memory isn't good enough to quote anybody.) that are hard enough to punch through armor.

I suspect the whole DU thing was a "neat idea" to use spent fuel rods and make it look like the nuclear waste problem could be a blessing in disguise. The government is full of crap like that.

As to the interview, could you imagine anyone in this administration OR Franks OR Schwartzkopf OR Colin Powell being as open and forthright as Clark? Not in this lifetime or any other.

[IrateCitizen]

17. I heard it this morning, and was impressed

I thought at the beginning of the Q&A that Clark was going to be very disappointing -- indicated to me by his initial exchange (not verbatim, but close):

JEREMY SCAHILL: "General, is it true that you used depleted uranium munitions during the bombing campaigns in Kosovo? Would you be willing, as President, to denounce the use of those weapons?"

CLARK: "I would do anything and everything within the law to keep the American people safe."

I was rather turned off by this initial exchange. However, as the interview went on, I was impressed by Clark's answers. Not so much because I agreed with the substance of them, but because they showed an old warrior who had come to the realization that war is something that should be avoided at all costs. In short, his answers -- along with the tone in which they were given -- showed a person who managed to come through the military system with his sense of humanity intact, if not actually greatened.

Scahill's interview was not one in which you could give canned responses, and Clark didn't even try. He demonstrated a complete willingness to acknowledge his mistakes and a desire to work toward correcting them. While I didn't necessarily agree with everything he said, I gained a bit of insight into the kind of person he is -- someone worthy of my support.

Not that I'm changing from Kucinich anytime soon, but Clark definitely went up a few pegs in that interview, IMHO.

[Jerseycoa]

21. Thank you, IrateCitizen

It means a lot. :)

[xrepub]

18. standards

The press is unusually tough on Clark. COuld you imagine what the results would be if someone did the same to bush. The general is smart, ang good on his feet. This article is a good one on the deserter

http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=322