Gore/Clark?

[BikeWriter]

Poll question: Gore/Clark?

Clark/Gore or Gore/Clark?

Poll result (101 votes)
Gore/Clark	(73 votes, 72%)	Vote
Clark/Gore	(28 votes, 28%)	Vote

[Dinger]

1. Either Way. Wish I Could Choose Both (nt)

[BikeWriter]

11. Hee hee hee! I know what you mean.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

2. Either one sounds good to me....

n/t

[BikeWriter]

12. I favor Clark, but would stand on my head to see either.

[harlinchi]

3. I'm a Clark guy but that combo would be unbeatable!

I still think Clark would be best for the nation but Gore has placed himself, even while not a candidate, in an enviable position.

[BikeWriter]

13. Yep, no one could touch them.

[amitten]

4. Oh God please....Gore/Clark. They could not lose. n/t

[BikeWriter]

14. I don't believe they could be beaten either.

[Thirtieschild]

5. Either one - please, please, please

[BikeWriter]

16. I feel the same way.

[jobycom]

6. I'm not as sold on Clark as others are.

People have short memories on Clark. He supported the IWR, then later claimed he didn't. A lot of Democrats followed his advice on the IWR, from his speech in August 2002 before the House Armed Services Committee: The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway. http://armedservices.house.gov/comdocs/openingstatement...

And from his comments on October 9th, the day before the House passed the IWR, and two days before the Seante did: Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war. (Stephen Frothingham, “Gen. Clark supports Swett, raises concerns about Iraq,” The Associated Press State & Local Wire 9 Oct. 2002.)

September 19, 2003: "At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question." snip "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position -- on balance, I probably would have voted for it." (Adam Nagourney, “Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War,” The New York Times 19 Sept. 2003: A18)

Same day: "Clark said today that he "probably" would have voted for the congressional resolution last fall authorizing war . . .

Clark said his views on the war resemble those of Democratic Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.), both of whom voted for the war but now question President Bush's stewardship of the Iraqi occupation." (Jim VandeHei, “Clark ‘Probably’ Would Have Backed War; On First Campaign Stop, Democrat Lacks Specifics but Rallies Crowd,” The Washington Post 19 Sept. 2003: A5)

---------------------------------

He was also quoted as praising Bush, before Iraq: "I tremendously admire, and I think we all should, the great work done by our commander-in-chief, our president, George Bush, and the men and women of the United States armed forces."

He voted for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Daddy, and only began voting Democratic in 92, for Bill Clinton, because he thought the Republicans had become extreme and the Democrats "were working mightily to craft a new strategy to take us into a new world. And that's where I found myself."

-------------------------

I don't dislike Clark, and I'll take him at his word that he's always been pro-choice, pro-Affirmative Action, etc (although he sure did vote against those issues a lot), but I'm just not sold on him as a candidate. Too many questions, too many contradictions. Too many candidates who have proven records.

Gore/Someone would be a good ticket. Clinton, Obama, Richardson, maybe even Dodd, have merit for me. I wouldn't hate Clark on the ticket, I just wouldn't prefer it.

[Texas_Kat]

17. Clark has never waivered in his opposition to the Iraq War

On his first day as a candidate, Adam Nagourney (of Judith Miller's NY TIMES) condensed a 3 hour conversation to a single soundbyte. Every one of the 'articles' you cite stems from Nagourney's original piece. Frankly, I wouldn't take Nagourney's interpretation of that 3 hour conversation as accurate since Clark repuditated the story shortly thereafter.

Clark testified AGAINST the IWR in both the House and Senate Armed Services Committee Hearings. Boxer, Wellstone and Kennedy as well as others all quoted Clark as they voted "no" on the IWR. In 2005 the HASC had him return to testify. The Democrats (and some of the Republicans) fell all over themselves apologizing for not listening to him in 2002.

You can believe the evidence, or you can believe Adam Nagourney. Nagourney has a terrible track record.... and not just about Clark.

He regularly takes swipes at all the Democratic candidates -- recently Obama and Edwards -- often using bits and pieces of quotes that distort what actually happened or was said. It's called being "nagournied".

[jobycom]

21. That's just wrong.

First, the quotations I cited were not boiled down from one "3 hour conversation," they came from interviews and speeches over an eight month period, and my citations clearly show that.

And to claim that Clark testified against the IWR is just wrong. On the eve of its passage he said he would encourage Congress to support it, and this claim was not taken from a "3 hour conversation," but from a campaign speech he made on behalf of a Congressional candidate. Months earlier, before the House Armed Services Committee, he called for a such a resolution, as I show in a link, using Clark's own words, not some imaginary condensation of a "3 hour conversation." There is absolutely no way you can claim that speech opposed the IWR. In several conversations after the vote, he claimed he might have voted for it, that it was not a simple question. What he meant, clearly, was that he believed some form of resolution authorizing force was needed as leverage to force Hussein into compliance. And on the eve of the vote, he was still claiming he supported the specific resolution being considered. I suspect that Clark, like most of the others who supported it, would have preferred a better Resolution putting more restrictions on Bush, but to claim Clark opposed the IWR is just wrong. He did exactly that opposite, and this was not taken from a "3 hour conversation."

He also claimed he was against the war, which should prove to everyone that people like Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards did not see themselves as voting for a war, but for leverage to use against Hussein to force him to comply with the agreements to disarm, when they voted for the IWR. That was exceptionally naive, given Bush's history, and given the intentions of those Bush surrounded himself with.

As for the oft-repeated and demonstrably wrong statement that those who voted against the IWR cited Clark's opposition to the IWR, it's just as wrong. Kennedy said long after the vote that "we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time." Kennedy did not claim Clark was opposed to the IWR, or to any possibility of war. Only "at that time." And Clark's words bear this out. He said in editorials and speeches that he was against the rush to war at the time. He also said, in his HASC speech, that a resolution needed to be passed, as nearly unanimous as possible, authorizing or promising to authorize force if Hussein did not comply. (I cited that passage in my post above).

Others who cited Clark, some on the Floor before casting their no vote, said basically the same thing as Kennedy: that Clark's opposition to the war "at that time" caused them to vote no. Levin and Conrad, both of whom supported a resolution authorizing force but both of whom wanted an amendment requiring stronger language to force Bush to go to the UN, quoted Clark, again on the timing of the invasion, and also on Clark's claim that an Iraq war would "super-charge al-Qaeda recruiting"--something many war critics and some supporters were saying.

In short, Clark opposed the rush to war, Clark warned against a war before all diplomatic channels had been exhausted, and Clark understood how impossible a prolonged occupation of Iraq would be. But he did not oppose the IWR, and he did say he would have voted for it, although he said he would not have voted for "war."

Given that his position was basically the same as Clinton's, Edwards's, Kerry's, and several other Dems who voted "yes" on the IWR, and given that Clark's voting record does not reflect a Democratic ideology, I just don't get the love affair with him. I'll listen to him on foreign policy, but he was not some prescient guru before the war--he had the same objections as others, and he had the same solutions as others. Granted, his career meant he should have been taken more seriously than the politicos who were listened to. But he's just not the superman some try to make him into. I have a lot of trouble reconciling a vote for Reagan and Bush I with Democratic principles.

Support him if you want, but be accurate about his positions on the IWR and Iraq.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. Yes, by all means let's be accurate.

Start by revisiting the fact that at the time of the statements quoted by Clark about his position regarding Iraq prior to Congress voting, either no written IWR existed, or later several different versions had been written and were yet pending before Congress. Clark supported AN IWR, but not THE IWR that passed Congress. Clark believed that Congress needed to go on record saying that Iraq's non compliance with several previous UN resolutions was serious, and that as a last resort, Congress would authorize use of force against Iraq if Iraq did not come into compliance. He felt the President needed such a statement of the will of Congress as leverage for negotiations inside the UN.

However Clark also felt that Congress should not abandon it's Constitutional responsibilities regarding declaring war. He never advocated giving Bush a blank check to determin when and if war against Iraq was justified. He always felt that any IWR resolution had to leave withing the jurisdiction of Congress to determin whether a condidition of "last resort" that would justify the use of force against Iraq, including whether or not Iraq at that point posed any imminent threat to the U.S. , had been reached. For that reason Wes Clark supported a Congressional approach that would have returned the question of war against Iraq back before Congress to vote on as a final step prior to launching military actions against Iraq. Clark supported versions of the IWR that made Bush return to Congress for final authorization prior to any attack on Iraq. Versions that required Bush to do so were under active consideration in the weeks and days that directly preceded the vote on the version of the IWR that finally passed. Clark opposed that version.

There has been confusion regarding this because many people are unaware that alternate versions of an IWR, more restrictive of Bush, had been under active consideration at the time. Clark bears some responsibility for that confusion because he did not clearly enough distinguish, in one famously quoted media interview of the time, which version he was referring to when he expressed support for an IWR, but even there his comments, if viewed in full during that interview, clearly indicated what type of resolution he was in favor of, most certainly not a "balank check". At the time of that interview more than one version was still very much pending. Subsequently, when questioned about his verbal intent in that one interview, Clark clarified his comments and made certain that he always opposed the IWR that Congress passed. Any one who now disputes Clark's direct word on this now is in effect calling him a liar.

[BikeWriter]

30. Thank you!

[FrenchieCat]

40. You're wrong, jobycom ....that's who's wrong.

Clark never endorsed a "Blank" check (and he certainly would have never co-sponsored one, so he's not in the same league as Edwards no matter how hard you wish it)- He supported the Levin amendment which throughouly agrees with the quotes of Clark's that you cite. The Levin amendment was a vote to have Bush go to the United Nations, and if he could not get a vote from them, he was to come back to Congress...which essentially echoes the statement of his that you quote, in where he states....."the resolution does not need to authorize force".....

WOODRUFF: How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would pass in terms of what the president is able to do after?

CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.

So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution.
Clark appearing on CNN on 9/16/02
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.ht...

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.h...

----------------------
In reference to the Nagourney piece that you have laid out......don't forget, paragraph 3 of the news article......"General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/dissecti...


As far as prescient, I believe that Clark was more than prescient.....
as detailed in his testimony to congress:

In 2002...

While politicians were busy being "misled" by Bush, Clark was predicting the future.

"The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere."

"we're going to have chaos in that region. We may not get control of all the weapons of mass destruction, technicians, plans, capabilities; in fact, what may happen is that we'll remove a repressive regime and have it replaced with a fundamentalist regime which contributes to the strategic problem rather than helping to solve it."

"Then we're dealing with the longer mid term, the mid term problems. Will Iraq be able to establish a government that holds it together or will it fragment? There are strong factionary forces at work in Iraq and they will continue to be exacerbated by regional tensions in the area. The Shia in the south will be pulled by the Iranians.

"We've encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait. We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an army of God, the mujahaddin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these Holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed Al Qaida.

My French friends constantly remind me that these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy, which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing. There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must."
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/mining_a...

[Colobo]

7. Obama/Clark

[BikeWriter]

15. Who needs Obama, a junior Congressman and state legislator?

[NoPasaran]

8. Gore/Clark

But without the Clark.

[Mark_Pogue]

20. I agree there!!

Bring back Kerry!

A 2008 win for Gore/Kerry would be like redemption!

[Greyskye]

9. Gore/Clark Gore/Clark Clark/?

2008: Gore/Clark
2012: Gore/Clark
2016: Clark/?

Run Al & Wes, Run!

[Labors of Hercules]

10. Gore/Clark is the only possibility here...

1) It is seriously doubtful if Gore would even consider a 3rd Vice Presidential term.
2) If Clark were to serve as VP, he would be on very solid footing for the Presidency after his two terms in an extremely successful Gore/Clark administration.
3) It would be a long shot that Clark would achieve the nomination over Gore. That being said, if they both run strong campaigns and Gore secures the nomination, the momentum they would achieve going into the general election would be incredible!

[BikeWriter]

22. ...setting us up for at least 12 years.

[Labors of Hercules]

25. I'm banking on 16! And perhaps more if Clark's VP is a winner! n/t

[BikeWriter]

46. It could work!

[MasonJar]

18. That would be the greatest ticket we could field in any year.

[Up2Late]

19. But I'd rather have Clark and ???

I think Gore is finished with running for "Higher Office."

[LWolf]

23. Niether.

Kucinich/Boxer
Kucinich/Lee
Gore/Kucinich
Gore/Boxer
Gore/Lee

Or flip the top/bottom, or I could throw in another 10 different combinations.

[Labors of Hercules]

26. Hey Wolf, what's your take on Gore's anti-impeachment, pro-IWR funding stance? n/t

[LWolf]

27. I don't agree with it.

If that's where he stands. I haven't read his comments about it one way or another. Do you have a link?

[Labors of Hercules]

31. Been a lot of talk about it, but this is all I could find:

Although Gore believes Bush violated the law during his presidency, an impeachment effort would be pointless "with barely one and a half years left in his term, and with no appetite whatsoever among the American people," he said.

Looks like again it was taken out of context, but if there's anyone who should know if impeachment is advisable in *'s case it should be Gore, since he's been inimately involved in one impeachment proceeding already, and it would sure as hell be a vindication for him were it to happen.

[LWolf]

32. I don't know about the "no appetite" part.

I'm also more than concerned about what other powers Bush might decide to grant himself during the next 18 months. I'd like to see impeachment go forward for both he and Cheney, for that reason and because I'd like to see them accountable for their crimes.

Too often the wealthy and/or powerful aren't accountable for more, imo, serious crimes than many that paid for by the underclasses.

I like Al Gore. I voted for him in 2000. Not because I agree with him on every issue, but because I thought he was the best man for the job at the time. He is probably the only "mainstream" Democrat I would support in the general election at this time.

[Labors of Hercules]

33. But for AL GORE, of all people, to say impeachment is not a good idea...

It begs the question: Is there anyone, even Bill Clinton or John Kerry, who has a greater personal interest in seeing Bush brought to justice than Al Gore? If anyone has a personal stake in seeing the man impeached, it is he.

I question everything anyone says, always look for the real motives, and if I find them to be pure based on the evidence, then I'm far more inclined to be swayed to their way of thinking. I have done this so many times with Gore, and based on the evidence, have not once found his IMPETUS for making a particular choice to be at fault. I have disagreed with his decisions on occasion, as in the way he handled his 2000 campaign, but never with his reasoning.

[Desertrose]

42. I'm with you, LWolf...I like your choices...

Kucinich being tops for me...

but dang it, I still like Gore, too...


DR

[The Count]

24. Clark/Gore. But I could live with the alternative.

[mcscajun]

29. Either one works for me, but practically speaking, I can't see Gore

taking a back seat to anyone ever again.

[welshTerrier2]

34. question about Clark.

has Clark called for a provision to ensure that no foreign entity, public or private, receives a penny of revenue from Iraqi oil?

in my view, this entire madness in Iraq has all been about "privatizing" (i.e. STEALING) Iraqi oil.

you're either on the right side or the wrong side of that issue. if you're on the wrong side, you're a f^%King IMPERIALIST. if you say nothing, then the F^%King IMPERIALISTS are very, very happy with you. i wouldn't support anyone who hasn't addressed the issue. has Clark?

[Adelante]

35. A clip from something he wrote last year

These principles could include: Iraq would remain whole; oil revenue would go to the Iraqi people based on a formula they determine; the rights and security of individuals must be protected; the United States would have no permanent bases in Iraq; the covert flow of military arms and equipment into Iraq would be halted; and the security needs of all states would be respected.

I had it in my notepad, but I'm not sure what periodical it appeared in and don't seem to have kept the link.

Even in 2003-4 in his campaign, he stressed Iraqi control of oil revenues.

Also, FYI wT2, he said on Alan Colmes radio show last week he would have voted No on the supplemental.

[welshTerrier2]

36. you're too kind ...

you save me all kinds of time and work by the knowledge you have at your fingertips ... thanks so much, WesDem!!

let me emphasize that I would hope Clark, and all Democrats, make this a very prominent part of the national dialog and certainly part of any subsequent, god forbid, Iraq funding. Clark's statement you posted sounds great but I'm a little concerned it left an unfortunate amount of "wiggle room."

everyone has focused on the importance of allocating Iraqi oil revenues based on some formula. i would like to see Clark use the phrase "Iraqi Oil revenues should be for the SOLE BENEFIT OF the Iraqi people based on an allocation formula they determine". The benchmark the Democrats included in the "vetoed" funding bill talked about a fair allocation among the Iraqis but never mentioned the big, fat greedy hand of Big Oil. I hope Clark is a little more explicit in the future but very much appreciate the comment he made if I'm correctly understanding his intent.

finally, voting "NO" on the supplemental is all well and good but what exactly does he believe is still possible in Iraq? put another way, WHY did he vote "No?" It's great to oppose a bill with no restrictions on bush. that's a great place to start. but what restrictions would he have included? I know Clark does not agree with my view that NO PROGRESS is possible in Iraq with the US in occupation and bush in the WH. More than four years and NO PROGRESS. In fact, I think things have gotten much, much worse. I don't know how anyone can support even one more day there. We are condemning our troops and the Iraqi people to the most horrible suffering. Nothing can or will improve in Iraq with the US in occupation. Believing this, how can I condone anything but immediate withdrawal? How can anyone?

To those who don't support immediate withdrawal, it seems to me you're obligated to be able to make the case that progress, perhaps with some form of new strategy, is still possible. Do you believe it is? I've looked at this upside down, sideways, twisted, untwisted and every way possible. My conclusion is always the same. The US cannot bring about progress in Iraq with its military in occupation and bush in the WH. You just can't get there from here. Accordingly, we have to leave ASAP. Am I worried about the aftermath? Of course I am.

[Adelante]

37. God, you're tough

His formula is perfectly clear - revenues are in the complete control of the Iraqis. He's talked about it other times and for as long as I've been paying attention, he's never wavered on Iraqi control of the oil. If some particular piece comes to mind that might expand on that simple point, I will post it for you.

On the supplemental, he endorsed the first version, the vetoed version, but he was not entirely happy with it, either. He talked about three big loopholes in the bill: there would be no withdrawing troops that were fighting al Qaeda, training the Iraqis or guarding the troops fighting al Qaeda and training Iraqis. He predicted there could have been 100,000+ troops still there even with the benchmarks and deadlines. I believe he thought it was not something that would work out in the event and that Congress did not really pin Bush down to much. While I don't know what other restrictions he might have in mind, he did speak about the loopholes, he thought sort of gave away the store. But as you know, he's never thought much of expressed deadlines, as events drive these things. He does want to draw down troops. He does believe there is no military solution anywhere in this, but I believe he is still looking for a political and diplomatic direction to prepare the way out.

[welshTerrier2]

39. just to raise a related issue

i hope all Democrats speak to the issue of the massive Blackwater forces in Iraq. I've seen estimate that there are 126,000 of these mercenary lunatics. that almost doubles the size of the US occupation force. i think it's important to include their numbers in any definition of policy.

i am deeply concerned whenever I see discussions of "residual forces" that, just like in Afghanistan, their real mission will be to guard the oil. i believe bush constantly uses the smokescreen of "we have to stay their because" to build a case of using the US military to protect private oil interests. with someone I trusted in the WH, that would be much less a concern. the reality is, I think that takes me back to the Kennedy administration. I was something of a puppy back in those days.

[Adelante]

41. Ummm

I know he has addressed mercenary forces and he's very disturbed about it. I'll try to remember what and when.

There is a real issue of residual forces in Iraq, which he does see would be necessary while this political/diplomatic effort goes on, which could be a very long time. His proposals call for NATO combined with regional forces in an international "peacemaking" role, which might include I guess military support for Iraqi forces when needed; and probably with American troops nearby, in Kuwait possibly, as leverage. But guarding the oil and borders, maintaining civil security, fighting jihadists, he sees as a function of the Iraqi forces.

[jenmarie]

43. “We need to put that jack back in the box”

Wes Clark said those words on the campaign trail in 2003. He was talking about the outsourcing of some combat operations to private companies.

It hit a cord with me but didn’t get a lot of press. The CorpPress were in “ignore stance” as far as a the Clark campaign was concerned, but more than that, I don’t think they saw a problem with outsourcing any government function. They bought into the whole right wing meme that private enterprise does a better job.

~ snip ~

Wes Clark knows where the bodies are buried at the Pentagon. He has talked in the past about the danger of the Military Industrial Complex and unlike most retired Generals, he refused to work for a defense contractor upon retirement from active service. And of course, he has never been in a position where he’s had to accept political donations from MIC lobbyists…or any other lobbyists for that matter.

He, and he alone has the skills, know-how, guts, and yes Leadership, to change this culture.


Taken from A Time To Lead

[BikeWriter]

47. He may be the one man who can do it. I like Gore with him.

[bigwillq]

38. Gore/Clark (nt)

[ShortnFiery]

44. Gore/Clark! What a wonderful gift to our country :-)

[MrSlayer]

45. I'd take either in a heartbest.

I think Gore/Clark would be more likely and would be a sure winner.