Clark's remarks in Salon, oft quoted at DU

[Pepperbelly]

As usual, the Clark bashers are always quite selective in the comments they choose to share from Clark. Of course, as usual, there is much that they do not tell you. This excerpt is what they almost always quote:

"I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues."

I will take a closer look at that in a moment. First though, here is the part that follows that they leave out, Wesley speaking in Academic-speak about Bush:

"I disagreed with them on some specific aspects. I would not have gone after the war on terror exactly as did and I laid that out in the . But I also know there's no single best plan. You have to pick a plan that might work and make it work. That means you've got to avoid the plans with the fatal flaws. This administration came into office predisposed to use American troops for war fighting and to realign American foreign policy so it focused on a more robust, more realistic view of the world than the supposedly idealistic view of the previous administration.

But the views that President Bush espoused recently at the American Enterprise Institute, if his predecessor had espoused that view he'd have been hooted off the stage, laughed at, accused of being incredibly idealistic about the hard-nosed practical politics of the Middle East. So this is an administration that's moving in a certain direction, and now that that's the direction they've picked they've got to make it work. Like everybody else, I hope they'll be successful. It's too important; we can't afford to fail."

Now, what does this mean?

First, he disagreed with their choices in dealing with terrorism. In his estimation, Bush did not pick a plan without 'fatal flaws.' He also clearly views their supposed 'pragmatic' view with disdain. Remember, he was not a politician at the time and is not the kind of person to take cheap shots at others. In Wesley-speak, this is a solid condemnation of the plan.

Then, horror of horrors, he expressed a hope that since Bush selected this direction, that it works. Imagine that! An American hoping that the policy chosen by the government is not the cluster-fuck that he fears that it is. IOW, he would rather see the nation successful than to be proven right in his criticism.

What would Clark have done differently? First, he notes:

"But is there anything you would do differently?

You should go back to my article -- what I've said is international cooperation, harmonization of laws, and so forth. One of the things about the war on terror that I am disturbed about is that we've essentially suspended habeas corpus. Which is something that's only been done once in American history and then only for a very brief period.

When I go back and think about the atmosphere in which the PATRIOT Act was passed, it begs for a reconsideration and review. And it should be done. Law enforcement agencies will always chafe at any restriction whatsoever when they're in the business of trying to get their job done. But in practice we've always balanced the need for law enforcement with our own protection of our constitutional rights and that's a balance that will need to be reviewed."

Yep, he sure sounds like a wild-eyed PNACer in that one, doesn't he?

Now, as far his words of praise for PNAC, perhaps damnation by faint praise is a concept beyond some but not all of us. If you read what he said, basically he said that he liked them and had worked with them off and on for a long time. He even noted that Feith and Pearle had advocated for the Bosnian Muslems during the Dayton negotiations.

Yep, he's a real apologist for these guys. And what did he say of Wolfie: "Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years." What an endorsement!

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark

[kiahzero]

1. Nice

Good post

[bpilgrim]

2. i like what he is saying there

thanks for sharing

peace

[The Magistrate]

40. We May Have Found Another Point Of Agreement, Old Friend

Gen. Clark spoke like a diplomat, something to endear anyone to me....

[Pepperbelly]

41. I loved his comment on Wolfie.

A masterpiece of backhanded compliment: "Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years."

Now, that is the way you do that.

[Girlfriday]

3. Good job, Pepperbelly!

[jumptheshadow]

4. And let's not forget

If Clark ever is president, the diplomatic skills that enable him to find kind words for other leaders will be a great improvement over George W. Bush's arrogant and intractable approach to diplomacy.

[Shanty Oilish]

5. Wesley-speak? We need a special language known by Initiates?

"Academic-speak," "Wesley-speak."

Yeah, and Reagan was a truly great American leader.

You forgot to translate "We need to review..." which means, "We need to raise a finger to the wind and determine what people want to hear."

And he didn't just say he'd known Wolfowitz for many years. He said, including Wolfowitz, "So I like these people a lot."

I don't like those people a lot and you're asking me to trust someone who says he does. Sorry, can't do that. Clark has no political record, just words. Fairly recent words saying he endorses the Bush team. Very recent words saying he's a Democrat now.

IMO he's only out to become a truly great American leader like Ronald Reagan. You cannot prove otherwise, you can regurgitate his words---and interpret them in the special language of the initiated.

Words are all we've got on the man, and most of them aren't good.

[Pepperbelly]

6. I guess that he should just ...

talk like an asshole.

Whatever, draftcaroline.

[GordonForDean]

8. Insults

Uncalled for, Peperbelly. You undermine your cause.

[Pepperbelly]

9. how so?

He speaks graciously of other people. Should he instead talk like an asshole to them?

[Code_Name_D]

13. He speakes graciouslyof the PNAC cabal.

Exactly how deep is his opposition, if he heaps prases upon them?

[Pepperbelly]

14. Heaps praise?

Where?

I posted the words. Where is the praise? Hint: not in what he said.

[Code_Name_D]

21. Your words.

He speaks graciously of other people. Should he instead talk like an asshole to them?

Clearly, you do not even expect Clark to be critical of the Bush administration. I am forced to wonder what the debates will be like? Aprintly, do you doun't even think Clark SHOULD be critical of Bush.

[Pepperbelly]

34. what world do you live in?

If one were to talk to people in real life like the blowhards in here talk, they would do so through swollen lips and broken teeth. There is absolutely no reason for adults to act like beligerant butts.

He will criticize Bush and will do so in a way that will resonate with the American people, not in a way that will resonate with blowhards.

[dfong63]

17. he should talk more graciously of dems than of repubs

[Pepperbelly]

19. he talks graciously about everyone ...

Gee ...

I reiterate: should he name-call the gops? Should he name-call the other Dems? Should he name-call foreign heads of state?

He gave the Democrats the ultimate praise. He joined US in our battle against these fuckers. And he is a formidable ally to have.

[Code_Name_D]

22. My point of fight #10.

Ten: Withhold your "respect and admiration" from those who act without honor or integrity.

Clearly, Clark is not prepared to do this. So how is he figting the Republicns again? Killing them with kindness maybe?

[DrBB]

26. See post #23. n/t

[Pepperbelly]

27. i don't think that your ...

points of whatever are either the law of the land, necessarily of any value at all or something that anyone outside of yourself lives by.

Just my opinion.

[Code_Name_D]

30. You miss my point?

How is it that that you are under the impresion that Clark can beat Bush, is he will always speak eliquently of him? That is republican light? Will Clark pull a Gore and agree with every thing Bush sayes on a telivised debate?

[Pepperbelly]

35. no, you are absolutely wrong about this ...

Bill Clinton won TWO national elections and although critical of his opponents when it was called for, was never harsh or hectoring. To do that is to lose.

[ronzo]

10. I think the reference was directed towards a certain Texan...

that was my take.

[Justice]

33. Talked About Patriot Act At Town Meeting

At the NH town meeting, Clark said more about what he'd do with the Patriot Act. First, no Patriot Act II. Second, he would lay out the provisions of the Patriot Act and line up every instance where the government took action pursuant to a particular provision. If they hadn't used a provision, he would look at repealing it - if a provision had been used, he'd see whether the same right of the government was already in another law.

His point was we don't need the Patriot Act.

How much more do you need to hear?

[GordonForDean]

7. Original Message

Sorry, I don't buy it. I have a long-time friend who is Republican and worked at DOD as a political appointee under Bush I. Cheney was Sec. Def. then. He disliked Cheney, said he was petty and did not respect anyone. He was very upset when Shrub picked him as VP

For Clark to say "I like all the people who are there" shows a serious lack of judgement.

[Pepperbelly]

11. ok ...

but I disagree.

I don't think I have ever said anything about a collegue or a former collegue in public except that I liked them. To do anything else would be ... ill-mannered.

[DrBB]

23. Pepperbelly--consider this

I'm with you in thinking that this is one of the anti-Clark crew's least convincing lines of attack: "He says nice things about the other guys, personally! Says he 'likes' 'em 'n' stuff!" But he isn't saying nice things about their policies. And in fact such collegiality and politeness on the superficial level is not just a matter of niceness, it's a rhetorical strategy of good debaters that is designed to lend weight to one's criticisms.

Consider: One of the chief lines of attack currently being developed by the RWing echo machine is that critics of Shrump are "Bush haters." I think Marshall did a column recently summarizing a number of reichpundits who were advancing this theme. The idea being that then all negative comments about the admin can be dismissed as coming from some kind of visceral anti-Chimp feeling rather than rational analysis. "The current crop of Dems are just Bush haters!" Playing the emotions, trying to capitalize on the Chimp's "likeability" (something I've never grasped, yet which polls continue to show is a real factor).

I note that Clark's mild-mannered approach to the Republicans on a personal level has rendered him immune to this particular flanking maneuver. It also makes it easier for disaffected Republicans to become cross-over voters.

(As an aside, I note that Dean's ability to attract such Republicans has been touted as a strength--which indeed it IS, in my view. And I can't quite manage the mental gymnastics necessary to regard it as a strength for Dr Dean and evidence of nefarious crypto-Republicanism for Clark.)

[Pepperbelly]

28. good analysis ...

Wesley might well know a bit more about how to advocate effectively than some of the bomb throwers might want to admit.

Bush's likablility? Whew ... I don't get that one either.

[Code_Name_D]

31. My response.

I'm with you in thinking that this is one of the anti-Clark crew's least convincing lines of attack: "He says nice things about the other guys, personally! Says he 'likes' 'em 'n' stuff!" But he isn't saying nice things about their policies. And in fact such collegiality and politeness on the superficial level is not just a matter of niceness, it's a rhetorical strategy of good debaters that is designed to lend weight to one's criticisms.

Then tell me (rhetorical question), do you think that Skin heads, modern Neo-Nazis, and the "Fifth Ricke" are critical of Adolph Hitler's polices? Perhaps you think that "the great minds of the south" were in fact expressing opposition to slavery, even as they waxed poetically and patiently to its favor?

Where as you say "collegiality and politeness" takes place "on the superficial level," than the whole debate is founded strictly on the superficial. The following dialog may as well be a noting more than a hollowed script.

My point with the rhetorical question is that words have meaning. Especially when one dose not has a voting record to be measured. If Clarks own words can be trusted because it is superficial, than why is he running for president?

Consider: One of the chief lines of attack currently being developed by the RWing echo machine is that critics of Shrump are "Bush haters." I think Marshall did a column recently summarizing a number of reichpundits who were advancing this theme. The idea being that then all negative comments about the admin can be dismissed as coming from some kind of visceral anti-Chimp feeling rather than rational analysis. "The current crop of Dems are just Bush haters!" Playing the emotions, trying to capitalize on the Chimp's "likeability" (something I've never grasped, yet which polls continue to show is a real factor).

But this is a two edged sword. Currently, many persons to have expressed critical question about Clark, or has posted information possibly damaging to his campaign, has been labeled as "Clark bashers" and to be accused of being servants of the RW smear machine. Such accusation made by Clark Supporters, reflects poorly upon Clark's campaign.

Also beware that every one, who is critical of Clark, is not necessarily speaking out of malice. A well reasoned argument against Clark will stand, regardless of who tries to shout it down. But claming malice of the critic expresses weakness on the part of the defender.

I note that Clark's mild-mannered approach to the Republicans on a personal level has rendered him immune to this particular flanking maneuver. It also makes it easier for disaffected Republicans to become cross-over voters.

Ridiculous. Clintion's DOG was attacked on a political level. If you think that Clark is immune to GOP smears, than you are in for a rude awakening, should he get the nomination. Nothing is so damaging from the right wing smear machine, as when they are proven to be correct. Clark no more holds a monopoly on the truth than the Republicans do.

[Bread and Circus]

38. and this is an illogical...

garbage post.

[Bread and Circus]

36. I think that is a really good point....

nice post.

[retyred]

16. Because your Republican friend doesn't like someone,

anybody that does shows a serious lack of judgement? Isn't this the right wing thought process? bush hates France so everyone must hate France or they show a serious lack of judgement.

Having a Republican friend dictate who you should look to for credibility shows a serious lack of judgement IMHO.



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
Retyred IN FLA.

[Clark Can WIN]

32. Welcome to DU Gordon!

I would just point out that in the course of Clarks military career he has had to work with not just American but scores of world leaders of all political leanings.

Now, my experience is not nearly so pertinent to world history but I have had to work with alot of very enthusiastic republicans. I have liked many of them greatly while disagreeing completely with their world view.

Perhaps a POTUS who knows how to get along with people on both sides of the aisle while promoting a progressive democratic agenda could be a good thing.

[dkf]

12. The point is that Clark says he knew all these guys for a long time.

So shouldn't he have known that recommending a vote for the resolution was okaying a vote for the war? Didn't he know them well enough to know that the IWR was a vote for WAR?

His claiming to know these guys makes it even more frustrating that he wanted to join the Bush team. Just think, if they had said yes, he wouldn't even be running for President today. He would have been part of this cabal defending the whole mess.

Now he says he was betrayed/let down. Well whatever. I never even met these guys and I knew them better than Clark did.

[Pepperbelly]

15. Where did he reccomend ...

a yes vote on the IWR?

When did he want to join the Bush team? Please give me this info so I can take a hard look at it. A link would be nice if you have one but if you do not, a quotation will do.

The country is what has been let down and that is what he clearly says in every source I can find. The only thing that the bashers can find to counter it are out-of-context smear jobs.

If you have something else, please let me know because so far, most of the bashers have been AWOL on these specific threads.

[salin]

18. great - another thread - with a slight twist

that fits with a bunch of other threads on this topic.

I appreciate your point - but could you make it on one of the existing threads?

Or is no discussion besides Clark or Dean allowed in GD anymore? Because the net effect of starting a thread that fits with several existing threads and that will result in a mirror Dean thread is pushing ALL substantive ISSUE topics off of the front page. Within minutes.

Sorry but this is frustrating.

*this is todays pat response to the proliferation of identical threads that has shut down all other conversations among people, on issues, that are about beating BUSH, fighting back against BUsh policies, but devoid of clark or dean.* If ya'll can spam the forum - then I can spam your threads.

[Pepperbelly]

20. I hope, friend salin, that ...

ultimately this should lead to less spam. That is my intention. I am creating some depositories of discussion that people who are new can be directed toward for these attacks which are clearly going to keep coming up.

[DrBB]

25. I think it's a worthy effort P, and I would ask

...that at some point you'll post an array of links to the other threads you've initiated on the various anti-Clark slurs. You're doing a real service today.

[Pepperbelly]

29. I want some ...

more to handle while I'm on a roll and already got about everybody that can be, pissed off at me.

[salin]

37. I hope you are right... I fear instead it sets precedence.

imagine six more months... each day just like today. No real discussion. Just candidate fights. Meanwhile Congress passes that much more awful stuff - and we are so busy fighting that we don't even notice.

[Clark Can WIN]

39. I hope it will reduce spam too

But most of the "usual suspects" do not show up when you call them out do they? Of these destructive and monotonous repeat spammers only the few who have a total inability absorb or utilize logic in discussion remain.

[Clark Can WIN]

24. Pepperbelly - HOW DARE YOU

continue to clutter up this board with TRUTH and HONESTY????


HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MIND?????

[The Magistrate]

42. Worth Maintaining Towards The Top, This