Kerry's attack at Clark's military record shows Kerry's lack of integrity

[IndianaGreen]

I thought that Kerry's potshot at Clark's military record yesterday on Chris Matthews's post-debate show was a particular low point in Kerry's pathetic campaign.

Clark only served 7 months in Vietnam, but what Kerry failed to say was that Clark left Vietnam in a stretcher with four life-threatening wounds. I think Kerry has Clark confused with Colin Powell.

Kerry should salvage what little dignity he has left and drop out of the race!

Here is a partial transcript of what Kerry said:

MATTHEWS: There are two men in this campaign who are running who have military background. You’ve got a couple of stars, medals and so does General Clark. Compare you with him.

KERRY: Well I have great respect for General Clark, but he has been a military man all his life. He has been a general.

MATTHEWS: Is he a headquarters guy and you’re a field guy?

KERRY: He has generally been. No, he was in the field at one point, but very little in his career. By and large General Clark has not had the breadth of experience in foreign policy and I think there’s an enormous difference between us. I have spent 35 years-you know when I came back from Vietnam, I stood up and fought against the war. I’ve...

MATTHEWS: Well how did he get a Silver Star if he wasn’t in action?

KERRY: I said he was. I said he had...

MATTHEWS: Right.

KERRY: ... one brief, I believe, tour in the field like that, and then he as a general. Look, I’m not disrespectful of General Clark, but there’s a difference between us in the levels of our experience. There’s also a difference in the values that we fought for through a lifetime. When General Clark was voting for Richard Nixon and voting for Ronald Reagan, I was fighting against both of them. When General Clark was in the military, I was standing up and fighting against Noriega, against the illegal war in Central America.

More...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/997908.asp

[Shakespeare]

1. I'd like to see Kerry do what Clark did in 1995....

....when he rappelled down a 200-foot cliff in hostile territory to attempt to rescue a burning humvie full of colleagues.

Kerry really, really shouldn't go there.

[msanger]

4. did that really happen? n/t

[FrenchieCat]

7. Yes...according to a few books written by others

Although Clark only devoted a paragraph to the incident in his book.

[jumptheshadow]

77. Wait, where the soldiers alive?

Didn't Clark go down to retrieve the bodies of soldiers who had died so they could be buried with honor?

I know somebody will correct me if I'm wrong!

If that version of the story is true, it really shows the contrast between Clark and Bush.

[Barbara917]

74. According to Richard Holbrooke

it really happened.

[Eurobabe]

79. Sarajevo accident

EXCEPT FROM "THE GENERAL" ESQUIRE By Tom Junod August 2003, Volume 140, Issue 2

"Now the team had to travel to Sarajevo. Told that the airport in Sarajevo was too dangerous to fly into, the team decided to drive and asked Milosevic to guarantee its safety on a road held by Bosnian Serbs. Milosevic did not, and so the team wound up taking a fortified Humvee and an armored personnel carrier on a pitched, narrow, winding mountain road notoriously vulnerable to Serb machine-gun fire. Clark and Holbrooke went in the Humvee, the rest in the APC. In his book, the general describes what happened this way: "At the end of the first week we had a tragic accident on Mount Igman, near Sarajevo. were killed when the French armored personnel carrier in which they were riding broke through the shoulder of the road and tumbled several hundred meters down a steep hillside."

It is not until one reads Holbrooke's book, To End a War, that one finds out that after the APC went off the road, Clark grabbed a rope, anchored it to a tree stump, and rappelled down the mountainside after it, despite the gunfire that the explosion of the APC set off, despite the warnings that the mountainside was heavily mined, despite the rain and the mud, and despite Holbrooke yelling that he couldn't go. It is not until one brings the incident up to the general that one finds out that the burning APC had turned into a kiln, and that Clark stayed with it and aided in the extraction of the bodies; it is not until one meets Wesley Clark that one understands the degree to which he held Milosevic accountable.

[FrenchieCat]

2. That was pretty disgusting...

He should not have taken the bite that Matthews fed him. That's part of the art of being a good stateman; you don't take the bait just because it's been handed to you. Too bad for Kerry, cause in the end he only hurt himself.

That's one of the reasons I have such great respect for Clark...cause he stay above the fray at all times. That's why the "praising of Bush" is so funny. When you read the speech, Clark was not praising Bush at all...but because of the class that he has, it was easy for it to appear that way.

[George_Bonanza]

3. Another attack on Clark's Republican past

Negative and distracting, but it's been done by everybody else.

[Pastiche423]

9. Why should his repug past be brought up?

It's true.

[George_Bonanza]

12. It shouldn't be

But candidates need dirt on others, and it's a pretty inviting one. I wish people would leave him alone and stop branding him a Republican-lite, but they do. Everybody has.

[JohnKleeb]

14. I know he's not my candiate but I think he brought up his voting GOP

as an example. It is true though while Clark was in the miltary, Kerry was standing up to Reagan and Co. I prefer Kerry to Clark that said.

[Pastiche423]

17. I disagree

Someone that has led a repug life, then wants to run as a Democrat, who wasn't even a democrat untl a month after he announced that he was running in the Democratic primary and you think it shouldn't be brought up?

I think it should be shouted from rooftops all across our country several times a day.

[George_Bonanza]

18. He was only registered a Democrat a month after

It doesn't mean he couldn't have harboured liberal feelings before.

[Pastiche423]

21. lol!

What utter crap.

[George_Bonanza]

22. Hey I don't know anything about Clark

That's just what I thought

[Pastiche423]

38. Then why did you say

his documented repug history shouldn't be brought up?

[George_Bonanza]

51. Because it's a rehashed attack again and again made by his opponents

[Pastiche423]

58. It-is-the-truth

Every single Democrat should know the truth about him.

[Barbara917]

76. Just as every single Repub should know the truth about Bush

....for some reason the media doesn't feel it is necessary to revisit his drinking, cocaine abusing days. They don't seem interested in where he was when he was AWOL. All that is ancient history, and after all his is born again and did patch up his marital problems. None of that is important.

But! It is of critical importance that Clark voted for Reagan and it is completely irrelevant that he voted for Clinton twice and Gore once. Voting for Reagan is a crime so egregious it cannot be condoned in this lifetime, never mind all the Reagan democrats who gave Reagan the biggest landslide ever. We probably shouldn't let any of them back in the party either and should make sure they never vote Democratic again.

[mmonk]

88. If you're interested in the truth, I'm Santa Claus

He has voted independently (both parties) given the different times. He has voted strictly Dem since Clinton Gore. He (like many in Arkansas) was unaffiliated until he registered Democrat recently. Anyone who is 'such a republican' would not be registering as a dem. He wouldn't be such a critic of the Bush administration. Go peddle that bull to people who don't think and just don't like him.

[TLM]

Sorry I want an OUT OF THE CLOSET democrat to be president.

not someone ashamed of their political stance, or worse yet someone who hid their stance for profit as a defense contractor lobbyist.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Hey Pastiche....

The Democrats asked Clark to run for Governor in 2001 for the 2002 race.....so obviously they, those Democrats, must have had an inkling on his party affiliations...doncha think...

When Clinton says there are 2 stars (count them 1 & 2) in the Democratic Party and he names one as Wes Clark....guess that our last elected Democratic president knows that Clark was a Dem...

so, Pastiche, as much and as thick as your hate is for the most electable candidate......You really need to take a chill pill and relax.

My mother always told me "don't hate".

[Pastiche423]

32. 1st of all

I do not "hate" clark. Don't you dare put words in my mouth!

2nd - Did clark run? No. Why not? Maybe because he isn't a Democrat?

3rd - Clinton = DLC No more needs to be said.

And your last sentence makes no sense at all.

[The Magistrate]

64. You Do Not Like President Clinton, Mr. Pastiche?

That sounds rather Republican, eh?

To win this election, we are going to need votes from people who have voted in previous elections for Republican candidates. Reagan, by the way, voted for President Roosevelt, and the Democratic Party courted Gen. Eisenhower rather earnestly: neither thing seems much to have bothered Republicans.

Politics, Sir, is won by addition, not subtraction.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Eloriel]

65. Not liking Clinton

is also a LIBERAL viewpoint. One I happen to share.

Eloriel

[Skwmom]

83. If your're such a liberal, how can you support a

Rockerfeller Republican like Dean?

[Bread and Circus]

71. Clinton has done more for our country than your pathetic...

ramblings ever will...

Clinton was a fine President. Bashing Clinton is the job
of the GOP, not Dems.

[IndianaGreen]

85. Clinton signed DOMA

Many of us tolerated Clinton despite his cavorting to special interests, his surrender on GLBT rights, and his bold faced lies to the American people and to a federal judge.

The Left always had a love-hate relationship with Clinton. Big Dog is like having a scoundrel for a brother, who can also be quite disarming and does kind things for you and your parents.

Bush is so bad that he makes Warren Harding look good!

[Bread and Circus]

70. Your statement is repugnant and typical trash talk...

not worthy of a good President.

[Barbara917]

75. People can bring up what they want.

His voting history is about as relevant to the here and now as the fact that Reagan used to be a Democrat......

[Bread and Circus]

69. I see you take after Kerry in terms of deception....playing

the "Republican" card. If someone's besting you, just
infer they are/were a Republican, it sure beats having to
deal with the issue at hand.

[salin]

126. I don't follow....

how the comment downplaying Clark's service record in Vietnam... has anything to do with his "republican past". I must be missing something.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. I saw that yesterday

and thought it made Kerry look foolish. I agree, that remark exposed a lack of integrity. Yesterday was a bad day for Kerry. First we had his relentless attacks on Dean and then he moved on to the General. Not a smart move.

[bicentennial_baby]

6. Oh snap!

Bad Senator Kerry, bad

:spank:

That just ain't right. :thumbsdown:

[WilliamPitt]

8. Total bullshit

Clark stayed in Operations so he didn't turn into a Pentagon 'headquarters guy.'

Man. Clark is freaking me out lately with his deregulation boner, but this is craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaap.

[unfrigginreal]

10. Kerry's a posturing buffoon that...

believes in using Republican tactics to undermine his Democratic opponents. Mr. "get over it" should take his own advice, in this instance, and gracefully exit the stage.

[HazMat]

11. wow, you people have completely lost it

You simply hate a great liberal Democrat and great American like John Kerry for no reason other than he's not as much of a extreme pacifist as you are.

No where did Kerry criticize Clark on his military experience -- Matthews was pushing that angle. Kerry was focusing on his overall non-military experience... the 30+ years that Kerry has.

But if you want to go with Matthews' angle.. go with that :eyes:

ps. Clark is my second choice.

[JohnKleeb]

13. Kerry I think has it right in this excerpt I will show you

I think he's right in this respect: "When General Clark was in the military, I was standing up and fighting against Noriega, against the illegal war in Central America."
I like Kerry honestly, he's my 2nd pick.

[IndianaGreen]

19. "fighting against Noriega"? Did Kerry support the US invasion on Panama?

The US invasion of Panama was a more serious violation of international law than Junior's invasion of Iraq!

What about the Panamian civilians we murdered during the invasion, Kerry? Or are they just brown people with as little value as the Vietnamese?

Panama: "Operation Just Cause" - The Human Cost of the US Invasion

At least 300 Panamanian civilians died due to the invasion, a toll more than 100 higher than that reported earlier this year by U.S. military commanders. This figure represents a conservative estimate of the number of civilian deaths which we have been able to verify from all sources.

The official U.S. total of 314 Panamanian military deaths could not be supported by reliable evidence. Belatedly, the U.S. government has acknowledged the determination by PHR that only approximately fifty Panamanian military were killed in the invasion.

Neither Panamanian nor U.S. governments provided a careful accounting of non-lethal injuries. PHR determined that at least 3,000 Panamanian civilians received physical injuries sufficiently serious to require emergency treatment at hospitals or the U.S. military's field medical units during the invasion and its violent aftermath.

Relief efforts were inadequate to meet the basic needs of thousands of civilians made homeless by the invasion. The United States took responsibility for support of no more than 3,000 of the estimated 15,000 displaced persons.

http://www.phrusa.org/research/health_effects/humojc.html

[sangh0]

94. Changing the subject?

Kerry gave an honest response comparing his experience, including his non-military experience, to Clark's. You may not like what he did, or agree with his positions, but complaining about his Panama position is NOT relevant to the false charge you bring against him in your initial post.

Regardless of Kerry's position on Panama, what Kerry said was NOT an attack or belittlement of Clark's experience. It is merely Kerry arguing that his own experience handling matters of foriegn policy exceeds Clark's experience.

[IndianaGreen]

123. Kerry's "experience" consists of supporting US imperialism and aggression

The invasion of Grenada under Reagan, Panama under the elder Bush, and now Iraq under Junior, were crimes against humanity and were carried out under false pretenses.

I suspect that Kerry is as much of an imperialist as Feinstein and Biden are.

The Kerry that is running for Prez is not the same John Kerry that opposed the Vietnam War!

[sangh0]

127. By avoiding the issue you brought up, you show the weakness of you post

You started the thread attacking Kerry for attacking Clark. I proved that Kerry didn't attack Clark, and instead of defending your initial assertion (because you can't) you try to distract from the weakness of your initial posts with a critique of Kerry's experience.

If you won't defend your own assertion, don't expect anyone else to do so.

[mmonk]

137. Clark's war record is not second to Kerry's

so its not a very honest assessment by Kerry.

[sangh0]

138. Huh?

Kerry didn't say his "war record" is better than Clarks. Have you even read the interview?

[mmonk]

146. Yes I did

"No, he was in the field at one point, but very little in his career".

[sangh0]

Obviously, you didn't

Kerry says nothing in the quote you supplied to compare his "war record" to Clarks. Kerry spoke of how long Clark was in the field, but does not say his own "war record" is better than Clarks.

[sangh0]

151. Obviously, you didn't

Kerry says nothing in the quote you supplied to compare his "war record" to Clarks. Kerry spoke of how long Clark was in the field, but does not say his own "war record" is better than Clarks.

[unfrigginreal]

24. I'll tell you what I think that we've lost

is the trust that we put into these elected liberal Democrats to stand up for the things our party is supposed to be about. To stand up against unwarranted wars of aggression. To stand up against Right-Wing fringers that are nominated to cabinet positions. To stand up against wealth redistribution to the upper class.

That charade in the Senate yesterday was just the latest outrage. And for Kerry, after all of his grandstanding over medicare in the last debate, to not cast a vote is disgusting.

Also ,if opposing the latest Iraq War makes one an extreme pacifist in the eyes of some Democrats then this country is even more screwed up than I thought.

[HazMat]

33. just the fact that you're complaining about Kerry's Medicare

vote invalidates you're entire position against Kerry.

Kerry's non Medicare vote is a non issue.

He was there.. he voted for the filibuster.. you people will make an issue out of anything he does because you dislike the fact that he took a moderate position on Iraq -- one held by Bill Clinton and the majority of Americans -- one that is realistic while yours is not -- and you will see that in the upcoming election when Dean gets crushed.

[IndianaGreen]

41. There are no "moderate" positions on Iraq

You are either with Bush, by supporting the invasion and subsequent colonial occupation, or you are against Bush by supporting the Iraqi people right of self-determination.

[DrFunkenstein]

53. In Your Black & White Scheme, Kerry Would Be Against

Thanks for the vote of confidence!

[sangh0]

96. Karl Rove thanks you

for limiting the options and polarizing the debate.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

97. Saddam supported the Iraqi people's right of self-determination?

I must have missed that one.... but that is what you are saying.

[JI7]

15. wasn't he talking about clark's NON military record ?

i believe kerry was bringing up clark's non military experience. his point being that he himself has experience in the military and in the civilian areas such as senate.

[Karmadillo]

20. Please, no facts. The purpose of the thread is to express ritual

outrage against John "I'm not a demon, but I play one at Democratic Underground" Kerry.

[Jerseycoa]

29. It was military

The offending line was something like, "Oh, well, Clark wasn't in the field..." It was a cheap shot and he shouldn't have taken it. It made Kerry smaller in my eyes, anyway.

[sangh0]

95. Get it straight!

Kerry said "No, he was in the field at one point, but very little in his career." not "Oh, well, Clark wasn't in the field..."

It's in the 1st post for Heaven's sake.

[TacticalPeek]

134. But that isn't straight.

He was "in the field" at several points and for much of his career: SACEUR, Southern Command, KFOR, et al., all hotbeds of foreign policy at work. He walked jungle trails at "one point" (let's go ahead and say it: in the Nam), true.

But its sufficient to say that Kerry spoke to diminish Clark's image or qualifications or whatever, and favorably contrast same with Kerry's qualifications, etc. And, of course, that is a thing candidates can and will do. But his clumsy response to Tweety's clueless improv about HQ vs "field(?)" was ham-handed and completely lacked finesse. If he would do the left-handed dozens with Clark, and not marginalize himself, he must do much better than the "I respect General Clark but . . . (transparent pitch)" method.

[sangh0]

142. Now you're spinning

I responded to someone who falsely claimed that Kerry said "Oh, well, Clark wasn't in the field..."

Kerry said "No, he was in the field at one point, but very little in his career." not "Oh, well, Clark wasn't in the field..."

That's 100% accurate, so I don't know what you're talking about.

[TacticalPeek]

149. Spinning? Moi?

What I meant to convey was that the Kerry line you quote is 100% inaccurate in it's two allegations:

Kerry said "No, he was in the field at one point" - In fact, he was in the field at several points (besides Nam): in Europe as NATO Supreme Allied Commander, CINC of US European Command, KFOR, CINC of the United States Southern Command, Panama, etc. "In the field", IIRC, is not limited to "in a slit trench". When you are running overseas commands, or deploying KFOR, etc., that is also "in the field", which Clark was at several points (not one) in his career. (At other points he was at the Pentagon, the WH, running the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin, etc., i.e., not "in the field".)



Kerry said ". . . but very little in his career." - There are many facets to his military career, and the 'career highlights' link at his site lists some of them, including copious praise from fellow officers, etc., that must make him blush. But a fair reading would conclude that a significant portion (not 'very little') of his career was spent "in the field" at the duties mentioned above.

That's all. And I don't blame Kerry for fighting, as fight he must. I just think it was a poor performance he probably wishes he could do over, just as Clark has sometimes stepped in it with similar wishes. And Kerry here deserves some heat for a poor swipe, just as Clark sometimes has taken heat for a quick remark.

[sangh0]

154. Non-responsive

What I meant to convey was that the Kerry line you quote is 100% inaccurate in it's two allegations:

Fine, but don't you think it's a bit inappropriate to insert that opinion in the middle of a discussion between two people who are discussing what was actually said, and not what it meant?

There's a whole thread here for people to argue about what it meant, and how accurate it is. Why interrupt a related, but different, discussion?

Kerry said "No, he was in the field at one point" - In fact, he was in the field at several points

"at one point" is an accurate description which does not deny that Clark was in the field at other additional points. Furthermore, Kerry does allude to those when he says "but very little in his career" (I'm going by memory here)

Kerry said ". . . but very little in his career." - There are many facets to his military career, and the 'career highlights' link at his site lists some of them, including copious praise from fellow officers, etc., that must make him blush. But a fair reading would conclude that a significant portion (not 'very little') of his career was spent "in the field" at the duties mentioned above.

That's opinion. "very little", "must make him blush", etc are opinions. My opinion is that Kerry is allowed to have his opinions. While your opinion is different, I think your description of it as "100% inaccurate" is as inaccurate as Kerry's "very little"

I just think it was a poor performance he probably wishes he could do over

I would agree, but it's hard to plan for unplanned events. All of the media is out to get the Dems, and if you read that interview again, it's obvious that Matthews was trying to trap Kerry. It's also obvious that even if it wasn't entirely accurate, it's not an attack on Clark.

[sfecap]

16. Kerry: 2 Purple Hearts....

Three days recovery.

Then shipped home.

I don't think he wants to go there.

[IndianaGreen]

23. "3 days recovery"?

What did Kerry get, a couple of bandaids?

I agree, Kerry is dancing around Pandora's box.

[DrFunkenstein]

28. Sfecap, You Have No Credibility After Such Lies

Tell me this doesn't impress you.

Kerry said he was appalled that the Navy's ''free fire zone'' policy put civilians at such high risk. So, Kerry and several dozen fellow skippers and officers traveled to Saigon to complain about the policy in an extraordinary meeting with Zumwalt and the overall commander of the war, General Creighton W. Abrams Jr. ''We were fighting the free fire policy very, very hard, to the point that many of the members were refusing to carry out orders on some of their missions, to the point where crews were starting to mutiny, to say, `I would not go back in the rivers again,''' Kerry recalled.

But Kerry went back in the rivers. Indeed, it was after this meeting that he began his most deadly round of combat. Within days of the Saigon meeting, he joined a five-man crew on swift boat No. 94 on a series of missions in which he won the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, and two of his three Purple Hearts. Starting in late January 1969, this crew completed 18 missions over an intense and dangerous 48 days, almost all of them in the dense jungles of the Mekong Delta.

The most intense action came during an extraordinary eight days of more than 10 firefights, remembered by Kerry's crew as the "days of hell."

This exhausting and harrowing week was only the beginning for Kerry.

...

A couple of weeks later, a mine detonated near Kerry's boat, wounding Kerry in the right arm, according to the citation written by Zumwalt. Guerrillas started firing on the boats from the shoreline. Kerry then realized that he had lost overboard a Green Beret who is identified only as "Rassman."

"The man was receiving sniper fire from both banks," according to Kerry's Bronze Star citation from that day. "Lt. Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain, with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man aboard. Lt. Kerry then directed his boat to return and assist the other damaged craft and towed the boat to safety. Lt. Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the US Naval Service," Zumwalt's citation said.

Kerry had been wounded three times and received three Purple Hearts. Asked about the severity of the wounds, Kerry said that one of them cost him about two days of service, and that the other two did not interrupt his duty. "Walking wounded," as Kerry put it. A shrapnel wound in his left arm gave Kerry pain for years.

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml

[sfecap]

37. What doesn't impress me is Kerry's attacks.

"Asked about the severity of the wounds, Kerry said that one of them cost him about two days of service, and that the other two did not interrupt his duty."

I'm sorry...did I lie? His wounds cost him two days of service. They coundn't have ben very severe....but make for good copy.

The whole Viet Nam thing is simply bullshit.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sfecap]

60. Oh...it was three PH's....

You're right, my mistake.

Are those the same ones he claimed he threw over the fence? LOL.


Wait...he didn't, did he?

Let's compare Clark's wounds to Kerry's boo boo's.

Kerry is a pussy.

And a liar.

[w4rma]

73. :( (n/t)

[DrFunkenstein]

165. "Kerry Is A Pussy And A Liar"

Although you have posted on numerous occasions about Kerry's war record, now you are saying you "mistakenly" forgot that your smear was completely false.

You have no idea how much respect we all have for you.

[Jerseycoa]

39. Well this is not the point

Nobody's saying Kerry doesn't have an illustrious military record. He just didn't need to put Clark's down. It wasn't necessary. Kerry's VVAW stand impressed me more than anything. That took guts.

[DrFunkenstein]

52. No, Actually Somebody IS Saying That About Kerry

And Kerry wasn't calling Clark's experiences insignificant in the least. In fact, the opposite. He was pointing out that after his time on the field, Clark continued to be a military man, while Kerry led VVAW. He was saying that their lives took very different paths, and that he feels that his path had a greater breadth of experience. I agree with that.

[mmonk]

113. I think Clark's breadth of experiences

is quite extensive. So is his training and administrative experiences. He has discussed many ranges of issues with world leaders. I would put it up with anyone who has ever run for president.

[robbedvoter]

119. Did you read the transcript in the thread opener?

Anyway, Boston Globe editorial has the audacity to post this (furthering Kerry):

Peter Canellos -
. . . John F. Kerry and General Wesley K. Clark, lived this ambiguity. Clark, the professional soldier, suffered serious injuries just weeks into his field duty, received a Silver Star, and went on to a storied, three-decade rise through the military command staff. His early wound insulated him from the deeper horrors of the war. Clark's views on war are complex, based largely on his leadership of the Kosovo war, but with only the distant shadow of his long-ago service in Vietnam. . . .
I guess the one who died got REALLY insulated from the horros of the war...
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2003/11/25/vietnam_era_divisions_echo_in _new_campaign/

[DrFunkenstein]

164. Link Not Working, But This Is Not Kerry's Words

And this doesn't reflect what Kerry is saying in the transcript I read.

[TLM]

147. You have it backwards... it was 3 purple hearts and 2 days recovery.

He got those in 4 months time... 2 hearts for injuries so minor he had NO DOWN TIME AT ALL and one heart for a cut on his arm from shrapnil that had him not fit for duty for two days.

Then he transfered out of combat.

[jpgray]

25. Nothing better to do tonight, then? bashy-bash bash, ahoy (nt)

[FrenchieCat]

36. Kerry should have thought about it ....

before swallowing Mattew's bait! Clark had to have an entire year of rehabilitation to learn to use his hand and to walk again.

[TacticalPeek]

27. Dear John,

1. Get your facts straight.

2. Never attack again without a clear and achievable goal.

3. Don't be surprised when you see me holding my nose in the voting booth if you make it to next Nov.


Solidarity yours,

TP

p. s. :thumbsdown:

[retyred]

30. Hey! If you're going to go down

Go down in flames!



retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
read the book

[sandnsea]

31. The military thing was a correction, not a slam

Kerry was simply stating the fact that Clark has been a military man his whole life. Matthews threw in that headquarters thing and Kerry said yes... then added the field stuff in order to give him his due... and then, but very little in his career, which is true. And then tried to come back to the point of what he wanted to talk about which was their differences. They both were briefly actually in the field, they were both injured, one just got it worse than the other. I really don't think that's a contest. And I don't think that was any point Kerry was trying to make.

Now the part about what Clark was doing in the 70's you can take any way you want. I like Clark alot, but I'd sure rather have a proven liberal in office. We haven't had any progressive reform since LBJ. That's what this country is really hungry for, seems to me.

[DrFunkenstein]

34. Honestly, Tell Me Where The Attack Is

This seems to me an entirely respectful laying out of differences between their two very different experiences. At no time does he belittle Clark's experiences. You could stretch it and say that Kerry really means "insignificant" when he is saying "brief," but it runs against everything else being said here.


MATTHEWS: There are two men in this campaign who are running who have military background. You’ve got a couple of stars, medals and so does General Clark. Compare you with him.

KERRY: Well I have great respect for General Clark, but he has been a military man all his life. He has been a general.

MATTHEWS: Is he a headquarters guy and you’re a field guy?

KERRY: He has generally been. No, he was in the field at one point, but very little in his career. By and large General Clark has not had the breadth of experience in foreign policy and I think there’s an enormous difference between us. I have spent 35 years-you know when I came back from Vietnam, I stood up and fought against the war. I’ve...

MATTHEWS: Well how did he get a Silver Star if he wasn’t in action?

KERRY: I said he was. I said he had...

MATTHEWS: Right.

KERRY: ... one brief, I believe, tour in the field like that, and then he as a general. Look, I’m not disrespectful of General Clark, but there’s a difference between us in the levels of our experience. There’s also a difference in the values that we fought for through a lifetime. When General Clark was voting for Richard Nixon and voting for Ronald Reagan, I was fighting against both of them. When General Clark was in the military, I was standing up and fighting against Noriega, against the illegal war in Central America.

More...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/997908.asp

[FrenchieCat]

47. But saying he has had no

Foreign policy experience was incorrect....I consider the Dayton Peace accord to have everything to do with Foreign Policy...


April 1, 1997, Tuesday
FOREIGN DESK
CLINTON PICKS ARMY GENERAL TO HEAD NATO

By PHILIP SHENON (NYT)
WASHINGTON, March 31 -- An Army general who helped broker the 1995 peace settlement in Bosnia was nominated today by President Clinton to take command of NATO and all American forces in Europe.

Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who is now the commander of American forces operating in most of Latin America, would assume the European post in July after Senate confirmation and would lead NATO at a time of historic shifts in the Western military alliance

General Clark also has an intimate knowledge of the situation in Bosnia, where American-led NATO peacekeeping troops have been stationed since December 1995. He was the senior military officer on the American delegation that forced the combatants in Bosnia to the bargaining table in Dayton, Ohio, and hammered out the peace agreement.

The NATO post would bring General Clark's involvement in the Bosnian peace process full circle, since he would be expected to oversee the American military withdrawal from Bosnia. The Pentagon has insisted that the American participation in the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia will end next June no matter what the consequences.

''Apart from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, NATO is the most important uniformed assignment we've got,'' a senior Pentagon official said. ''Wes Clark has the soldierly skills and the diplomatic skills that make him right for NATO.''

[JI7]

50. i don't think he said that

i don't believe he said clark has "NO" foreign policy experience.

[TacticalPeek]

55. "breadth of experience in foreign policy"

Just going by what I read, I honestly think it looks like Wes has more foreign policy experience than John.

SACEUR, Southern Command, Dayton, KFOR . . .

[JI7]

57. well

yeah, that's still not saying he has NO foreign policy experience. and he certainly wasn't attacking his military record.

[IndianaGreen]

49. Clark has Kerry beat on non-military experiences

While Kerry was giving speeches from the comfort of the Senate chamber, Clark was doing substantive things, including being in the frontline of the War on Drugs and the Dayton Peace Accord:

In the 1990s, Clark headed the U.S. Southern Command, based in Panama, where he oversaw U.S. security policy in Latin America.

He also served as the senior U.S. military member of the team that put together the 1995 Dayton, Ohio, peace accord, giving him an inside look at the tumultuous Balkans region.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/candidates/clark.html

[DrFunkenstein]

166. You Have No Idea What You Are Talking About (And The Pics To Prove It)

Not exactly the comfort of his Senate seat.

<>

John Kerry prepares to board a plane at Washington's National Airport on April 18, 1985, for the first leg of his trip to Nicaragua. He and other lawmakers visited the country on a fact-finding mission.

<>

John Kerry inspects a US Army-issued pistol during a visit to the army museum in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. While in the country, he also visited two sites where it was reported that missing American soldiers had been spotted but not uncovered.

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062003.shtml

[Myra]

56. I don't see an attack either

I see a pol candidate answering a question in a professional
way (based on the above quote; I didn't see the interview), and
promoting himself as the better candidate...of course.

What the hell is the deal with all these bizarre
Kerry attacks today?! Imagine how he'd be savaged
if he actually did something bad.

[JI7]

59. the interview was great

based on what i heard from others. and these people only saw it as kerry playing up his own record when asked to compare him to clark. and he has said this many times, including in front of clark.

[Myra]

62. Well, I wish I'd been able to see it for myself

From this quote it looks like Kerry handled himself well
in delineating his own record from his opponent's.

[Avalux]

35. Kerry's a wannabee

he only wishes he'd done what Clark has. He doesn't have a leg to stand on - Senate elite; no backbone. Go ahead and say I'm wrong - he's done the "cool" thing all his life and he's not worthy to be president.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cally]

40. IG..Are you supporting Clark, too

Wow. I'm amazed at myself. I hope you are because I see him as a candidate that because of his credentials can accomplish a liberal agenda. Not as much as I want, but more than most can.

[IndianaGreen]

43. I support all the antiwar candidates, and that includes Clark

It will be a disaster for the Democrats to nominate a prowar candidate in 2004.

[Avalux]

48. Thanks for saying that

because Clark was against the Iraq war - despite what others may want us to believe.

[Dr Satan]

86. guess again

Clark is not anti-war. He is not even anti-this-war.
And you are right, it will be a disaster to nominate Clark.

[Monte Carlo]

118. You do realize that Clark is a _General_?

Because I don't know how anti-war a 4-star General can be.

[IndianaGreen]

124. No one hates war more than the soldier

Douglas MacArthur (1880-1964), address to congress, 19 April 1951:

"I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a method of settling international disputes."

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969), speech, Ottawa, Canada, 10 January 1946:

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, and its stupidity."

George C. Marshall:

Credited with reorganizing the American military program because of his assertion that the country was not ready for war, Marshall was called upon to advise in two presidential Cabinets. Said TIME in naming him its Man of the Year for 1943: "He is regarded as the man, more than any other, who could be said to have armed the Republic as he oversaw the growth of the US Army personnel from under 200,000 to over 8 million.

What is paradoxical is the fact that General Marshall hates war. The secret is that American democracy is the stuff Marshall is made of. Hired by the US people to do a job, he was as good, as ruthless, as tough, as the job requires. There his ambitions stop. 'He has only one interest,' said one of his intimates, 'to win this damned war as quick as he can, with the fewest lives lost and money expended, and get the hell down to Leesburg, Va., and enjoy life.'"

George Washington (1732-1799), letter to David Humphreys, 25 July 1785:

"My first wish is to see this plague to mankind (war) banished from off the Earth, and the sons and daughters of this world employed in more pleasing and innocent amusements than in preparing implements and exercising them for the destruction of mankind."

http://www.roadtopeace.org/history/human_history/War/human_history_war.html

[Monte Carlo]

125. But they sure aren't above it.

I'm certain that Wesley Clark hates war just as much as these quoted people did, but if and when he is elected President, you can be certain there will be numerous occasions when he will give the order to make war, and given his experience and expertise, that he will be intimately involved in its planning. I just don't see a 4-star general being any more anti-war than say, John Kerry.

[IndianaGreen]

128. Clark won't get a woody when he sends troops into combat as Bush does

Clark will also be more restrained and prudent in the exercise of the nation's military power. Clark's extensive experience dealing with Europe is a strong plus in his resume.

[Monte Carlo]

135. I'm sure that Clark doesn't...

... just as I'm sure that Kerry doesn't. They've both seen war up close and personal, they've seen both their friends and enemies shot and mutilated. They must have seen the utter futility of war. But none of that means we just discard war entirely because we want to, as this is still a slightly-mad planet we live on, and I'm sure that a 4-star general can imagine a need for war.

Please, do not get me wrong. Kerry's IWR vote threw me for a loop for a while, and both Clark and Dean have impressed me. But the association I cannot make is between Kerry and Bush's support of the IWR and their reasoning behind it. Kerry has been vocal about removing Saddam and keeping him on a tight leash for years, Bush started caring about his evil just in time for election season.

[Lurking Dem]

141. Red Letter Day

I agree with IG!!! :toast:

Have one on me, IG!

[salin]

129. Several people I have known

have grown more 'conservative' (as in cautious and skeptical, not as in neocon) after becoming Military Officers. Seems that the concept of "war as last resort...." (esp after diplomacy) really sinks in with some. In this case diplomacy wasn't tried - it was 'staged' and done so poorly ala the weapons inspectors that were being discredited two days after they entered the country (december 02) by this administration.

You could be correct if antiwar = pacifist; but the two things are different, some are anti iraq war based on the notion of "just war", others are anti iraq war based on pacificism.

[Monte Carlo]

140. I don't think that our Generals are stupid tough or crazy brave...

... or any other high-level officers. My uncle Gary was a 2nd grade colonel in the Army, and he doesn't seem like a warmonger to me, ya know what I mean? But they are not pacifists, no, but the term "anti-war" seems just as absolute as "pro-war" to me.

[Avalux]

44. BINGO!

That's it! One of the things I like about Clark is that he's a liberal in stealth - because of his background he can get away with pushing our agenda. It's brilliant.

[Pastiche423]

45. What liberal credentials?

[sendero]

102. pay attention....

.... he's saying that nobody with liberal cred can get any airtime, it has to come from someone outside the liberal establishment.

Pay attention to what gets on the air (tv) and tell me that's not true.

[pansypoo53219]

42. he is

flailing. and as an also ran, he should shut up for the good of the party.

[AP]

46. Now a candidate can't compare and contrast himself with another candidate

by citing facts? And we play into Matthews's idiotic baiting too?

Give me a break.

[AntiCoup2K4]

61. Kerry's become a real asshole

Taking a swipe at Clark like this while at the same time sending Max Cleland out to call Dean a "draft dodger". Face it John Boy, you're losing it, big time. And I don't mean just the campaign.

Go home Kerry. take a vacation, regain your sanity, and keep your Senate seat so Gov Romulon doesn't appoint a fascist to take your place.

[Tatiana]

63. Well, he's distinguishing himself from Clark.

I think he's making the assertion that while both candidates have served honorably in the military, Clark chose to remain in the military, while Kerry established himself as a leader in the civilian sector.

Like several comments made by Clark, he could have said it better, worded it better, but I get the point Kerry was trying to make. It's a valid one. Do we want to trust someone who's spent the majority of his adult life in the military, or do we want someone who served in the military, but has spent a significant part of his adult life as a civilian?

I still like Clark, but Kerry makes a good point.

[FredScuttle]

66. How about...

I want to trust a guy who didn't disregard all his years and experience in the Senate "fighting for us" and vote for this godamn war.

[Bread and Circus]

72. I think you have to trust a person based on how they act....

and Kerry has acted less than honorably this campaign.

He's down on my list as well. Actually, I think I would be
pleased to vote for Clark, CMB, Sharpton and Kucinich -- that's about
it. The rest have lied to me continually during this campaign
and I am tired of it.

[IndianaGreen]

84. Kerry was deceitful

He made a fuzz about Clark's "brief" stint in Vietnam (the normal tour was 12 months, BTW), while purposedly failing to mention that Clark was seriously wounded in battle.

Kerry was deceitful.

[JI7]

90. only

if you think "brief" is a bad thing. they weren't debating whether clark had served though. kerry was trying to highlight his own record. perhaps it was a poor choice of words. but the argument never had to do with whether clark served or was wounded, as is being done in a few other posts on this thread about kerry. the argument was about what they did in their careers, kerry going off into the non military areas, with clark pursuing a longer military career and becoming a general.

[FrenchieCat]

131. Clark was in Vietnam for 7 months....

7 months out of 12 ain't Brief when you're brought back on a stretcher......is my point.

[sangh0]

99. You're being deceitful

This is what Kerry said about Clark's service in VN:

"MATTHEWS: Well how did he get a Silver Star if he wasn’t in action?

KERRY: I said he was. I said he had...

MATTHEWS: Right.

KERRY: ... one brief, I believe, tour in the field like that, and then he as a general. Look, I’m not disrespectful of General Clark, but there’s a difference between us in the levels of our experience. There’s also a difference in the values that we fought for through a lifetime. When General Clark was voting for Richard Nixon and voting for Ronald Reagan, I was fighting against both of them. When General Clark was in the military, I was standing up and fighting against Noriega, against the illegal war in Central America. "

In case the interruption made it hard for you to understand what was said, I'll put it together for you:

"I said he had one brief, I believe, tour in the field"

"Brief" is an accurate description of Clarks tour and that statement contains no disparaging content.

[JI7]

104. although

<"Brief" is an accurate description of Clarks tour and that statement contains no disparaging content.>

it does say something about those who think it was disparaging. why do they think it is disparaging ? is it because they themselves view it as such. the person claimed kerry never mentioned the extent of clark's wounds. but kerry never claimed clark's military record was in dispute in the first place as is being made on this thread by someone else. the issue was never one of whether clark served or not. for kerry he was making a point of his own record after he left the military which differs from clark which was all true.

[sangh0]

105. It most certainly does

say something about the complainers. So does the complaint that Kerry didn't speak about Clarks' wounds. It's not Kerry's job to promote Clark.

[blm]

133. He was not. You're being hyperbolic to bash Kerry.

And you know EXACTLY what you're doing.

[HoosierClarkie]

132. There is no point except sour grapes and republican undertone.

Quote from boston globe article: "The company medic thought I had a sucking chest wound because of all the blood on the ground...Clark said. He is trying to get me to stay still and talking, whereas all I can do is use my command voice, so that is what I did. Clark's silver star citation says that Clark, although painfully wounded, immediately directed his men on a counterassault of the enemy position. With complete disreguard for his personal safety."

Isn't the underlying premise to Kerry's attack a question of who is more patriotic. Sounds like a Republican stance to me! Clark was basically a mayor of a large town in the Army. He was responsible for men, women, and children.

Just a thought.

[fujiyama]

67. The way I see it

is that Kerry shouldn't have taken the bait when it comes to the whole "field experience" thing. His comment about Clark having only "brief" field experience was especially foolish, considering Clark was wounded in Vietnam.

I don't find anything offensive however in him stating his differences with Clark with respect to political experience and activism. Kerry definetely has Clark beat there, in the sense that Kerry has led a long, distinguished career in public service that he should indeed be proud of. It is also alright to distinguish this carrer with Clark's, which has been primarily in the military.

However, I do find his bringing up Clark's vote record somewhat pointless. The fact is people change. Nixon's last election was in 1972. That's thirty years ago! Reagan's last election was in '84, but even that is almost two decades ago. One thing that is important to remember is that Reagan himself was a New Deal Democrat. He supported FDR. By the time he was governor of CA, no one could claim he was a New Deal liberal.

I can't imagine Clark supporting Nixon or Reagan now, and I'm not going to question his opposition to Bush.

I like both of these guys. They both have amazing careers serving their nation, which is more than Bush has ever done.

Kerry could have distinguished himself from Clark in different ways. I was annoyed by Lieberman and Dean when they questioned Clark's opposition to Bush and am just as annoyed by Kerry doing the same thing. In that way, I must give Clark a lot of credit, for not resorting to petty attacks on other democrats. Maybe he's been sensitive about the smearing by Shelton and others and doesn't want to act the same way. If so, good for him. It's Bush we're after, not other democrats.

[Bread and Circus]

68. This is lame, Kerry is a real lame duck -- especially considering

Clark also seems to compliment him when he can.

[Eurobabe]

78. Kerry doesn't read much, the incident--

EXCEPT FROM "THE GENERAL" ESQUIRE By Tom Junod August 2003, Volume 140, Issue 2

"Now the team had to travel to Sarajevo. Told that the airport in Sarajevo was too dangerous to fly into, the team decided to drive and asked Milosevic to guarantee its safety on a road held by Bosnian Serbs. Milosevic did not, and so the team wound up taking a fortified Humvee and an armored personnel carrier on a pitched, narrow, winding mountain road notoriously vulnerable to Serb machine-gun fire. Clark and Holbrooke went in the Humvee, the rest in the APC. In his book, the general describes what happened this way: "At the end of the first week we had a tragic accident on Mount Igman, near Sarajevo. were killed when the French armored personnel carrier in which they were riding broke through the shoulder of the road and tumbled several hundred meters down a steep hillside."

It is not until one reads Holbrooke's book, To End a War, that one finds out that after the APC went off the road, Clark grabbed a rope, anchored it to a tree stump, and rappelled down the mountainside after it, despite the gunfire that the explosion of the APC set off, despite the warnings that the mountainside was heavily mined, despite the rain and the mud, and despite Holbrooke yelling that he couldn't go. It is not until one brings the incident up to the general that one finds out that the burning APC had turned into a kiln, and that Clark stayed with it and aided in the extraction of the bodies; it is not until one meets Wesley Clark that one understands the degree to which he held Milosevic accountable.

[joanski01]

80. I think that when Georgie

bushie* declares martial law, General Clark will be a good one to lead our revolution.

[JNelson6563]

81. so does this mean all the Kerry people and

Clark people will cannabalize each other now?

I can barely stand to scroll the subject lines of this thread. Let's just all kill each other now and save the Rethugs the trouble of starting up their re-education centers. Oy!

Julie

[KaraokeKarlton]

82. Kerry is a fool

He said this: "Look, I’m not disrespectful of General Clark, but there’s a difference between us in the levels of our experience."

That is true, that there is a difference between them in the levels of their experience. Clark has both more military experience and more foreign policy experience. Kerry doesn't have the kind of hands on military and foreign policy experience that Clark does. I can't believe that he is trying to imply that he is somehow more experienced in this area than Clark is. Kerry is becoming "that guy" of this election. You all know who "that guy" is...he's at the bar when you go out. He's the one acting so stupid that you say "Oh my God, LOOK at THAT guy!" That guy will do anything to get some attention, but he doesn't impress anyone. Kerry needs to just drop out.

[phillybri]

87. That's not an attack....

He's stating a difference, not criticizing Clark's service.

Stop doing the GOP's work for them!!!

:dem:

[CWebster]

89. Does what our Military- Industrial Complex has wrought in Iraq

make you proud?

Then why do you adhere to military images as the guideline to follow as the measure of patriotism? This trend is very worrisome and people just unthinkingly adopt it. Since when does defining patriotism or eligibility to serve in government become exclusively military experience?

In this morning's local paper I read a letter from a woman defending her anti-war views by listing the military service of the men in her family as evidence that she was patriotic.

My forebearers fought in the Revolution and that is the only struggle I would boast of in my family's military history. My father returned from Korea disgusted with the US military and all they represented as a bullying, arrogant and culturally ignorant force in the world. he would have no military recognition on his grave.

If only more experienced men, like Kerry, would speak out against the horror of war, as he once did, the country could once again be a beacon for the higher puposes of world peace and human rights.

[JI7]

92. don't you think ?

there is a difference between recalling times when one served in the military with friends and worked together (including outside of combat), than if someone were to brag about how many people they shot and killed ? and senator kerry has done a lot to help with human rights. in fact in the above transcript kerry's point was about the things he has done to prevent or oppose the MIC. it had nothing to do with whether clark served or was wounded and therefore a patriot or whatever.

[robbedvoter]

107. Riiight! Skying in Aspen should be the sole requirement!

I really don't think you guys should touch this one.

[Hep]

111. Huh?

Can you frame your mindless insults more clearly, please? I didn't get the joke.

I enjoyed skiing in aspen, BTW. It used to be a really nice town. Nothing like what it is today.

[Hep]

91. Does anyone actually get the point? ANYONE?

Someone explain to me exactly how serving in combat in vietnam translates to foreign policy experience.

People talk about Dean's mouth getting him into trouble. But Kerry will stop at nothing. There is no bridge he won't burn. No insult or bullshit comparison he won't attempt to use for his own gain.

His stock goes down every day. IF his goal is to make me not vote for him at all, he's doing a great job.

[JI7]

93. actually

if you see what he says, he says he has experience because of things he did AFTER leaving the military not just because of combat. and there is nothing wrong with saying the difference between the two military guys was one continued in the military and the other in a different area such as the senate and the things he did there. that isn't a put down. should dean not bring up how he is the only one who has been governor ? or john edwards on how he was brought up. it's used to highlight their own background and differentiate from other candidates.

[Hep]

98. OIC

if you see what he says, he says he has experience because of things he did AFTER leaving the military not just because of combat.

So being against the war is foreign policy experience? Fighting against Reagan and the unjust war in Central America? Well damn, I've been fighting against the war in IRaq and fighting against George Bush, so I guess I too have a broad range of foreign policy experience.

Kerry out of one face touts his military experience and out of the other face says, "When General Clark was in the military, I was standing up and fighting against Noriega, against the illegal war in Central America." Two distinct faces.


And look, you may be a Kerry fan, and therefore give him leeway in his comments. But based on how he and his supporters here jump on everything that Dean says, I call BULLSHIT. He's not simply pointing out differences. He's saying that he has more or better foreign policy experience than Clark. I quote, "By and large General Clark has not had the breadth of experience in foreign policy and I think there’s an enormous difference between us." But he never explains how his experience is better. All he says is that he went against Reagan and Nixon and the war in C.A. He doesn't say how that gives him more experience.

It's BS through and through.

[sangh0]

100. You do have foreign policy experience

We all do. However, even in your Dean-mania, you still can recognize that there are varying levels of foreign policy experience? Do you suppose the people who have access to national intel reports and who sit on the Congressional committees that deal with foriegn policy might have more experience than you or I?

[JI7]

101. that's a different issue

whether kerry has more foreign policy experience is a different issue. the point being made in the original post to this thread was kerry attacked clark's military record when that was not the case. what he said about reagan and nixon etc was all true. maybe you don't think that means he has more foreign policy experience. maybe others do. but that wasn't what the original post was referring to. and using his position in the senate to go after reagan is part of his public record. what he listed to back up his claims of having more foreign policy experience are all true. though whether those things mean he does have more experience is a matter of opinion.

[Hep]

109. No it isn't

whether kerry has more foreign policy experience is a different issue.

How can you say that? It was the focus of his comment! I posted a direct quote from his interview with Matthews. How on earth can that be a different issue?


the point being made in the original post to this thread was kerry attacked clark's military record when that was not the case.

Not the case? This is incredible. We're back to defining an attack. Months ago when it was Dean, any criticism, no matter how true or valid it was, it was an attack. Now that the others have begun to play, the definition of an attack has become much more strict. As a Dean supporter I granted the premise that all criticism or difference pointing out was attack. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, I guess we have to redefine everything again. Whatever.

Kerry didn't explain for one moment how his record reflects more foreign policy experience. It's a shame.

[JI7]

112. because

yes, the actual interview was about kerry saying he has more foreign policy experience. the person who started the thread didn't argue with that, they claimed kerry attacked clark on his military record.

<As a Dean supporter I granted the premise that all criticism or difference pointing out was attack. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, I guess we have to redefine everything again. Whatever.>

ok, then the "attack" as you view it was on the foreign policy issue and not on clark's military record as the poster claimed.


<Kerry didn't explain for one moment how his record reflects more foreign policy experience. It's a shame. >

understand, it was a short interview with chris matthews. he got in a few things he did as senator such as going after reagan (iran contra). of course these things aren't all he did but you can't expect much from these interviews.

and i'm not going to argue with you on whether kerry has more foreign policy experience. if you don't think he does, then that's that.i have no problem with that. i personally think kerry should just talk about what specific experiences are rather than say he has more experience in that area, but that was the question being asked when they asked for difference between two military men.

[Hep]

114. Can we agree that coming up with subject lines sucks sometimes?

ok, then the "attack" as you view it was on the foreign policy issue and not on clark's military record as the poster claimed.

But the "attack" (I think the quotes are appropriate) that Kerry made was basically that Clark stayed in the military. I mean, it's a pretty grey area.

You're right, it was a short interview. And there wasn't a lot of opportunity for elaboration. But Kerry got in what he wanted to, which was that he thinks he's better than Clark on foreign policy. And true or not, I don't know. I've never seen a truly compelling argument for what GIVES a person foreign policy experience.

I went to Peru for two weeks as a missionary. I learned a lot about the political climate and the oppressive nature of martial law. But I don't think I have foreign policy experience, you know? I think good foreign policy is more important than whether one was in combat or in the military. If your platform is strong, it's strong. I think most of our candidate have strong foreign policies.

[JI7]

115. not just that

it wasn't just the subject line, it was the point being made by the poster. and that's what i was responding to.

and kerry saying clark stayed in the military and he went into other areas was in response to a question about the two military guys. it's just a fact and an answer to a question. when kucinich ,edwards, gephardt, talk about their upbringing which helps them with understanding certain things is that an attack on other candidates who had it easier when it comes to money ? i guess if you view ANY points of differences being made as an attack then you do, but i don't see that. and i agree a strong foreign policy is better than just serving in combat. but i know when candidates speak of these things they aren't just a military guy, or grew up poor, or just a doctor. would howard dean vote for bill frist ? or kucinich for nixon ? or kerry for bob dole ? and the same for their supporters ? most likely, no.

[Hep]

117. I mean ME having to come up with subject lines every time I post, its hard

I never did view any criticism as an attack. It's just that several months ago when people were complaining about Dean's criticism, I asked, "Is every criticism an attack regardless of how valid?" and I was told, "yes".

[returnable]

103. Wait a minute! Kerry was in 'Nam?

I hadn't heard that :hi:

[JNelson6563]

136. haha Good one!

:-)

[mrgorth]

106. Disagree

I think Kerry was focusing on his senate experience fighting things like Iran/Contra. I think it just came out wrong but Kerry has a point. Problem is Clark sounds way better than Kerry right now.

[Hep]

110. Who doesn't sound better than Kerry right now?

Trying to force a yes or no answer on an incredibly complex issue, he looked like a mean spirited, desperate loser.

[robbedvoter]

116. The reaction of someone who was THERE:

General Clark has no field time! Best Of Blogs? · Add to my Hotlist
By cris
Posted to cris's weblog (Firsthand Accounts) on Mon Nov 24th, 2003 at 07:04:51 PM EST
I was eating my daily rations of Chef Boyardee spaghetti, while I was watching the post debates (single guy.)  Kerry was being interviewed, when he said that General Clark did not have much field time!  I almost choked!  General Clark is a ranger and a Armor Officer.  He lived in the field!  People please review "About Wesley Clark."  You will see that he has extensive field time. 

Cris Hernandez, Chief Warrant Officer (ret)
http://cris.forclark.com/story/2003/11/24/19451/695
(read this guy's blog!!!)

[Hep]

121. As a military man

What do you think Kerry knows about burning bridges?

[TacticalPeek]

145. "Kerry is hearing combat boot footsteps in N. H."

Heh heh heh.

That's an interesting blog; thanks for the coat-tail pull.

:)

[mitchum]

120. Uh, it's an attack on Clark's lack of Congressional experience...

but you already know that

[Monte Carlo]

122. This is making a mountain ouf of a molehill.

You'll see several times Kerry praising Clark and his military record in that transcript. He makes a small comment about the differences in their service records, and everybody flips. Everybody seems to automatically believe the worst about Kerry and his intentions.

IndianaGreen, you strike me as someone unwilling to take the bad along with the good. You want lily-white when there are only shades of grey, and it just isn't available.

[blm]

130. IG, try READING. This is about lack of LEGISLATIVE experience, not a knock

on his military experience as you can tell from when Kerry ANSWERED Matthews' questions.

Disingenuous at best, IG.

[FrenchieCat]

150. The problem with Kerry....

is that no where in his comment does he really say "legislative experience". Furthermore, his experience his not "more" than General Clark's on either the military nor the diplomatic front, nor the foreign policy front.

Clark and Kerry are not running for Senate, they are running for the position of "Commander-in-Chief", and in looking for the best person to be "Commander-in-Chief":

The fact that Clark has been the SAUCER says a lot. Not only has CLARK FOUGHT IN A WAR, PLANNED A WAR, CONDUCTED A WAR, WON A WAR (without one casualty), FACED AND NEGOTIATED WITH A DICTATOR FACE TO FACE, NEGOTIATED PEACE, AND FOUGHT THE PENTAGON THE ENTIRE TIME WHICH COST HIM HIS CAREER,

But CLARK ALSO HAS ONE OTHER THING THAT KERRY DOES NOT.

IT CALLED THE "Q" FACTOR.

NUFF SAID!

[Hep]

152. Wow, Clark's done so many war related things

it makes you wonder what kind of peacetime president he would be.

*shudder*

[FrenchieCat]

155. Yes....

and Clark negotiated peace too....less than I can say for any other candidate.....

Pluuueaaase.....I guess we've got to get a "peace" before someone can be a PEACETIME President.......DUH!!!!!!

[Hep]

156. We don't have to bother having a peace

Let's just hire someone who fights wars all the time!

I'm not bashing clark. It's more the way your nearly jingoistic promotion of him struck me. I like Clark a lot and will have no trouble voting for him AND campaigning for him if he wins the nomination.

[FrenchieCat]

157. It was not a promotion of Clark...

I just gave you the facts....whether you want to look at them cockeyed is your choice.

Clark has more qualifications than the other candidates to be Commander-in-Chief...and that's all there is to it.

We are not running for Mayor of San Francisco (pop. 750,000+ and very diverse)here!

If you don't think that we are at war now...then the parallel universe you live in must be a great utopia. Good for you!

Clark is a heavyweight contender and most of the others are lightweights (exclude Kerry) when it comes to matters of War and peace.

You want a lightweight at the elm, then vote for one....at the end you'll end up with lightweight Bush anyway and a f*cked up world. Of course, it's your choice.

[Hep]

159. Looking cockeyed?

Be true to yourself! Take responsibility! ;)

You capped all of the letters, you SHOUTED it to blm! And you just call that stating a fact? What would it have to look like in order to be a promotion of him? Lemme guess:

Not only has CLARK FOUGHT IN A WAR, PLANNED A WAR, CONDUCTED A WAR, WON A WAR (without one casualty), FACED AND NEGOTIATED WITH A DICTATOR FACE TO FACE, NEGOTIATED PEACE, AND FOUGHT THE PENTAGON THE ENTIRE TIME WHICH COST HIM HIS CAREER,

Now I'm just picking at ya. Let's not make this into something it isn't! :)

[FrenchieCat]

160. ok.....

:loveya:

NO PROBLEM!

:loveya:

"IT'S THE DEMOCRACY AND YOUR WAR, STUPID!"
A REAL MILITARY HERO TELLS A GENUINE INTELLIGENCE FAILURE

[Hep]

161. LOL

Well stated!

[blm]

153. Frenchie, I'm not a Clark Basher. Kerry distinguishing himself from Clark

is fair game. It's the way Matthews posed the question that Kerry answered that set up the differentiation.

Kerry has every right to acknowledge the battles he was waging against Nixon, Reagan and Bush. Hell, most Democrats are completely ignorant to the fact that it was Kerry's investigations that uncovered BCCI, IranContra and CIA drugrunning.

Those were SERIOUS fights.

[Hep]

158. She really isn't bashing clark

She has her bashing targets selected already. No, she just doesn't think Kerry can do any wrong in this primary. Only that other guy is capable of clumsily stating things. If Kerry said it he meant it. Kerry meant it when he said of Bill Weld, "this guy takes more vacations than the people on welfare".

[TLM]

139. Kerry is a jerk who takes every cheap shot he can find...

But I have to say most of that crap was Matthews trying to draw some attack on Clark out of Kerry, and Kerry just wasn't sharp enough to catch on and avoid it, or he was too cowardly to call Matthews out on what he was trying to do.

[sangh0]

143. unlike you

with that extremely principled name-calling.

[Monte Carlo]

144. What attack?

I see that same transcript, and it says that Kerry said he respected Clark and his record, several times. I don't see what he's doing besides running for President and making a distinction between his record and that of Clark.

[Cocoa]

148. Tweety thanks you

you have interpreted Kerry's words exactly as Tweety wants you to, instead of the way Kerry meant them, if you would just read them and think for yourself.

Next we'll be reading about how Clark is "wishy-washy" on gay marriage, based on Tweety's badgering interview.

[Nazgul35]

162. why cant all these Kerry and Clark supporters...

tone it down!!!!

You are destroying the tranquility of the DU board!!!!

:silly:

Wow..this is a first...usually a thread this filled with you suck..no you suck...has the name Dean attached to it....

I'm not really sure what I am supposed to be doing....

:evilgrin:

So it begins...I guess...the jockeying for position to be the anti-Dean candidate led inevitably to this.....how much sooner before Edwards joins the fray?

This is really sad all the way around...

:evilfrown:

[semass]

163. I think I can finally say I've had it!

I'm ABD and that includes the November election even if Dean is (God forbid) the nominee.

[David Zephyr]

167. Good Grief. What is Kerry Doing?

IndianaGreen, I am sorry to have to read this here about Senator Kerry. I had no idea about the interview and his gratuitous comments regarding Clark's service in Vietnam.

I wish I'd never read this, but now I have.

This is really, really sad.

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I think you are probably right in that John should now consider dropping out of the race.

Kerry's points about standing up to Nixon and all are valid and he was right in pointing out that contrast.

But the attempt to diminish Clark's service in Vietnam is really shabby.

Unbelievable. And very sad.