Reply #72: WOW! That's a frist... actual answers instead of personal attacks.

[TLM]

"1) How we judge who is a Democrat. If you asked me, "What is more important, having the party affiliation to provide instant legitimacy or living and conducting one's life by the principles and values of the Democratic Party?" I would say "The latter option." And that is why Clark is a Democrat. Because before he was ever in the media spotlight, he wrote an affirmative action brief and he and his wife worked to improve healthcare and education for the troops that were under his command. Because while in the army he received recognition from the Audobon Society for protection of a species of tortiose and a species of woodpecker. Because he has always and consistently urged a multilateral approach to foreign policy."

I disagree, first that saying you're a democrat when you're registered independant is dishonest and misleading. Saying you've registered as a dem, when you have not is also.

Second I do not agree that Cark has lived a life consistent with democratic values. Bombing hospitals, using DU rounds in civilian centers, and bombing journalists... not democratic values.

PRaising Bush I and II and reagan and Rummy at repuke fundraisers is not the actions of a democratic individual. Clark dishonestly claims he became a dem in 92 because of Clinton, yet here we are 12 years later and he's still not registered as a democrat? And in 2001 he was shilling for republicans.



"2) He was non-party affiliated for most of his life. We've explained this again and again. Military, esp. those high in rank, cannot declare party affiliation.


That is false, military can declare party affiliation, they just can't speak out on political issues. Are you seriously claiming that soldiers and officers are not allowed to be registered republicans or democrats?


"3) Politics end at the water's edge. Working abroad for American interests gives Clark a different perspective than domestic politicians. America is represented by its government officials, and whether or not we like them, we should want them to do well because it affects how America is perceived and treated in the world. Quote from General Clark. "I hadn't voted for them - I voted for Al Gore - but I wanted them to succeed for the good of America," he said, "but a lot's changed since May 2001."


Sorry but this is a bullshit argument... we should all want Bush to do well because when he looks good america looks good?

Sorry no, I don't buy it. That doesn't excuse Clark's shilling for republicans and lobbying for Henry Kissinger.



"And interestingly enough, leading Senate Democrats said similar praise during the confirmation hearings of each of those people nominated. Lieberman, Kennedy, Biden, Torricelli all participated in the confirmation process. Is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to think that no one could possibly know it would turn out so badly?"

Your argumetn seems to have drifted here. Are you talking about the war... I hope not because a hell of a lot of people knew it would turn out badly, and were saying so from the start.


"4) Clark's "lies": He did not say he was a registered Dem; it was a campaign official who made that mistake."


Seems like a pretty big mistake for the campaign spokesperson to not even know if the candidate is registered in the party where he is seeking the nomination. And Clark told a CNN reporter he was registering Dem, and that has not happened.



"The Iraq resolution is not as simple as you make it out to be - Clark was saying use the resolution as leverage to prod the UN into a diplomatic solution, but let Congress have the last say in the declaration of war."

He said he would vote for it and he said he wouldn't have voted for it... he's riding the fence on the issue.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030922-105420-9821r...

Since entering the race, Mr. Clark has made a series of gaffes.
He waffled last week over whether he would have voted for the resolution to launch war against Iraq. Eventually, he settled on saying, "I don't know whether I would have or not. I've said it both ways."

Mr. Clark also confused some supporters over the depth of his Democratic credentials. After voting for Republicans Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan for president, Mr. Clark said he became a Democrat listening to Mr. Clinton's early presidential campaign speeches. Then, it was revealed, he spoke at a Republican Party fund-raiser in 2001 and was registered as an independent.
Telephone messages left with Mr. Clark's campaign office in Arkansas were not returned.




"5) "Lack of honesty": What has he flat-out lied about? Or are the "lies" the media snipping out quotes and inserting them into stories without proper context?"

Well counter punch has some great examples of how he lied about mission objectives and damage in Kosovo. However i was talking about the fact his campaign spokeperson lied and said he was registered dem when he was not, and the fact Clark says he was against the war when several statements he made before the war show that not to be accurate.


Also, while you made an effert to answer my questions without attacks on Dean or me for darign to ask... you've not answered the big question. Why is CLark being given a pass on things, that if any other candidate did, they'd be roundly attacked?