Dean criticizes Clark, calls him Republican

[Freddie Stubbs]

By KEVIN LANDRIGAN
Telegraph Staff
Published: Thursday, Jan. 15, 2004

NASHUA - Glancing in the rearview mirror Wednesday, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean fired back at a surging Wesley Clark, saying the retired general’s flirtation with the Bush White House disqualifies him as a potential Democratic nominee.

Dean’s criticism came as one poll found his lead over Clark had been sliced to single digits and before heading back to Iowa to try to pull out a tight caucus test in that key state Monday night.

“Look, I think General Clark is a good guy, but I truly think he is a Republican. Harry Truman said if you are running a Republican against a Republican, the Republican will always win,’’ he told more than 400 voters at a town-hall-style meeting at Rivier College.

Clark became a Democrat last October, three years after retiring from a 34-year career with the U.S. Army that ended with a four-star general rank and the role of supreme allied commander in Europe during the war against Kosovo.

more: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73159553595523&Avis=NS&Dato=20040115&Kategori=NEWS08&Lopenr=201150346&Ref=AR

[DoveTurnedHawk]

1. Michael Moore Is Devoting the Next Weeks of His Life To Supporting Clark

He will make this attack look ridiculous -- which is only appropriate, because it IS ridiculous.

DTH

[Hep]

4. Maybe

Moore still has the dark cloud of 2000 hanging over his head.

[mandyky]

10. Moore backed Nader last go around

and so did I, and I like MM, I just disagree with his choice this time. And I agree with Dean - to a degree - at the time Clark announced he wasn't a registered Dem, and I am not sure I can get past that and the fact he had voted for Nixon and Reagan.

[Forkboy]

26. The votes for Nixon and Raygun dont bother me

The praising of Bush,Perle etc sure does though.

[JVS]

14. You realize that Moore is not a Democrat, right?

[cprise]

24. Still can't support a Democrat, eh?

What an interesting soap opera.

[edzontar]

28. Moore is a great guy in many respects--but his Dem creds

Are less than secure.

He opposed Gore, for example, in 2000.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

37. Dem Creds, Maybe, But Liberal Creds?

They're pretty unimpeachable. Moreover, if it's Dem creds Clark needs, he also has a slew of die-hard Dems coming to NH to campaign for him this week and next, including a TON of Clinton guys. :-)

DTH

[returnable]

50. So did Molly Ivins...

...and Dean supporters still welcomed her endorsement. As well they should.

Like Ivins, Moore's "credentials" go way beyond simple partisan politics.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

62. What a class act...

n/t

[jsw_81]

68. It's not at all ridiculous

Wesley Clark, while speaking at a Republican fundraiser in 2001, praised Reagan, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for their "great" leadership and said that they had restored honor to the presidency. But once Clark realized that he wanted to be president, he suddenly becomes a Democrat and starts attacking Bush? Something's wrong here. Have you ever read the story about the Trojan horse?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

69. Fair Minded People Can Actually Praise Republicans and Still Be Liberal

It's like having Republican friends, all it takes is a little detachment and a refusal to allow base partisanship to control one's life.

Clark has a solid history of liberal values, from affirmative action to abortion to the environment. He is no Trojan Horse. Do you really think Bill Clinton and Michael Moore could back a man (whether informally or formally) who they were unsure of?

DTH

[sandnsea]

2. Harkin said Vermont isn't a Democratic state

So how did Howard win? Isn't this a pot/kettle situation?

[jmaier]

3. To be more accurate

Wes Clark was a registered independent who voted Republican based upon national security issues prior to voting Clinton/Clinton/Gore.

On the other hand, this is the sort of attack that I like to see. Outside of some hardcore partisans it won't resonate much and when you consider the numbers of indepedents and even democrats who might have voted Republican at some time in the past, it's almost an endorsement.

[Dookus]

6. Yes, this one baffles me, too

He voted Republican in three elections in which those republicans won in landslides or at least with a solid margin.

We will NEED some percentage of those voters this year. No Democrat can win by only getting the votes of registered Democrats. The math just doesn't support that possibility.

Believe it or not, a lot of people who voted for Reagan also voted for Clinton. A lot of voters are not idealogically driven, and simply vote for the guy who they feel can do the job. We'll need their votes.

[Leilani]

47. I Agree

These sort of attacks are silly...

I thinkDems should worry about expanding their base, rather than driving people away.

It's also important for House & Sen races.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

63. I know a bunch of Republicans who are voting Dem this year - don't think

they'd like to be talked about like they're scum. Of course, this could send them over to the Clark camp...

[democratreformed]

19. Once again, to be even more accurate:

Arkansans were NOT given the option of choosing a party affiliation until two years ago. Someone on another thread pointed out that 97% of Arkansans are registered independents. It is my belief that when the registration changed so that party affiliation could be chose, voters who had registered prior to that were listed as Independent by default. I don't know that b/c I haven't checked mine but have been meaning to. I am probably currently listed as Independent b/c I registered about 20 years ago. The first time I voted, the people who work at my polling place simply asked "Democrat or Republican" and gave the Democrat ballot after I answered. After that, they never even asked any more b/c they know me.

Also, check this link: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=97

[edzontar]

35. To be more precise, Clark voted for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush no. 1

I voted for McGovern, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis.

Whose votes were better ones?

[Leilani]

49. I voted for Nixon & Reagan

Times have changed, the parties have changed. & I have changed.

According to your standards, should I be allowed to vote Dem now?

[benburch]

5. A "Goldwater Republican" like Clark (if he is)

Would be 1000X better than Bush!!!

While I will NOT vote for Clark in the primary, if he is nominated, he is my man!

I will vote for Dennis Kucinich in the Primary because he is a true Democrat and is the best man for the job.

-Ben

[Hep]

7. He would be republican had rove returned his calls, right?

Got I hate that statement. It's not true. I know he was joking. But since misrepresentation is the order of the day, I thought I'd throw it out there.

[cprise]

31. And the praise for Bush Co. was a joke too?

You're kidding yourself.

[Hep]

36. That's a whole nother horse

n/t

[Democrats unite]

8. No matter how many times this gets posted...

It is not going to change my mind on voting for Clark.

[MoonRiver]

16. Me either. Clark is the genuine thing. He WAS an Indy, which I like.

That's what I was before Theft 2000. Rational people can see through all this smearing of a good and decent man, who possesses true liberal values and policies.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[_Jumper_]

11. Let's compare their positions

;)

[Larkspur]

32. Dean has a proven record as a Democrat and Clark has none

Dean wins the Democratic comparison hands down.

[_Jumper_]

12. Let's compare their positions

;)

[Frederic Bastiat]

15. I don't care

As long as Clark gets Bush* out of office.

[corporatewhore]

13. i dont think deans one to talk given his record as gov

[stickdog]

17. I'd defend Dean, but it's against the new CU rules. (nt)

[CWebster]

18. Correction:

"Clark became a Democrat last October, three years after retiring from a 34-year career with the U.S. Army ..."

Clark was relieved of duty.

And, Dean is correct and sooner later he is typically proven right.

[OKNancy]

21. Actually he was relieved of his NATO command

and not his position in the Army. Clark opted to retire three months early. And, of course, most people know that he was relieved of the NATO job because the Republicans dislike him. THat is a good thing.

[CWebster]

33. Yes of course

that is why he was fired under Clinton.

[OKNancy]

43. One decision that Clinton deeply regrets

and most people know that.

[in_cog_ni_to]

59. He was "retired" by republicans.

The entire thing was done behind Clinton's back. Shelton is a Republican....who hates Clark. That IS a good thing.

[Tinoire]

45. He was relieved early 4 signing off on a fraudulent post-Kosovo war report

and because the officers around/under him were reporting that his judgement was questionable. Don't forget that there was at least one US officer who also refused to follow his order to go confront the Russians at the Pristina air-field.

Another reason for the early relief was that Clark kept disobeying & circumventing the Army Chain of Command, after being specifically told to stop it, to get Clinton to give in to Clark's desire to use ground troops.

--
<snip>

As NATO bombing reached more densely populated civilian areas of Serbia, such as Belgrade, Serbian civilian casualties increased, especially when weapons such as cluster bombs had been used. Many Serbs rallied under Milosevic (including previously opposing democratic activists). The stability in the region deteriorated as the various neighboring regions started to feel the strain of the mass exodus of people -- which also hasn't helped peace for the long run.

In the first month of bombing alone, there has been more destruction by NATO than by the Nazi German occupation of 1941 to 1944 in Yugoslavia.

However, as this report from NewsWeek reveals, about 11 months after the bombing stopped, most of the claims of surgical military strikes were wrong and raises questions about what was bombed (civilian targets):

"According to a suppressed Air Force report obtained by NEWSWEEK, the number of targets verifiably destroyed was a tiny fraction of those claimed: 14 tanks, not 120; 18 armored personnel carriers, not 220; 20 artillery pieces, not 450. Out of the 744 "confirmed" strikes by NATO pilots during the war, the Air Force investigators, who spent weeks combing Kosovo by helicopter and by foot, found evidence of just 58." -- From "The Kosovo Cover-up" by John Barry And Evan Thomas, May 15, 2000.

<snip>

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Kosovo/Bombing.asp

--

It was acclaimed as the most successful air campaign ever. "A turning point in the history of warfare," wrote the noted military historian John Keegan, proof positive that "a war can be won by airpower alone." At a press conference last June, after Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic agreed to pull his Army from Kosovo at the end of a 78-day aerial bombardment that had not cost the life of a single NATO soldier or airman, Defense Secretary William Cohen declared, "We severely crippled the military forces in Kosovo by destroying more than 50 percent of the artillery and one third of the armored vehicles." Displaying colorful charts, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Henry Shelton claimed that NATO's air forces had killed "around 120 tanks," "about 220 armored personnel carriers" and "up to 450 artillery and mortar pieces." An antiseptic war, fought by pilots flying safely three miles high. It seems almost too good to be true—and it was. In fact—as some critics suspected at the time—the air campaign against the Serb military in Kosovo was largely ineffective. NATO bombs plowed up some fields, blew up hundreds of cars, trucks and decoys, and barely dented Serb artillery and armor. According to a suppressed Air Force report obtained by NEWSWEEK, the number of targets verifiably destroyed was a tiny fraction of those claimed: 14 tanks, not 120; 18 armored personnel carriers, not 220; 20 artillery pieces, not 450. Out of the 744 "confirmed" strikes by NATO pilots during the war, the Air Force investigators, who spent weeks combing Kosovo by helicopter and by foot, found evidence of just 58.

The team found dozens of burnt-out cars, buses and trucks—but very few tanks. When General Clark heard this unwelcome news, he ordered the team out of their helicopters: "Goddammit, drive to each one of those places. Walk the terrain." The team grubbed about in bomb craters, where more than once they were showered with garbage the local villagers were throwing into these impromptu rubbish pits. At the beginning of August, MEAT returned to Air Force headquarters at Ramstein air base in Germany with 2,600 photographs. They briefed Gen. Walter Begert, the Air Force deputy commander in Europe. "What do you mean we didn't hit tanks?" Begert demanded. Clark had the same reaction. "This can't be," he said. "I don't believe it." Clark insisted that the Serbs had hidden their damaged equipment and that the team hadn't looked hard enough. Not so, he was told. A 50-ton tank can't be dragged away without leaving raw gouges in the earth, which the team had not seen.

The Air Force was ordered to prepare a new report. In a month, Brig. Gen. John Corley was able to turn around a survey that pleased Clark. It showed that NATO had successfully struck 93 tanks, close to the 120 claimed by General Shelton at the end of the war, and 153 armored personnel carriers, not far off the 220 touted by Shelton. Corley's team did not do any new field research. Rather, they looked for any support for the pilots' claims. "The methodology is rock solid," said Corley, who strongly denied any attempt to obfuscate. "Smoke and mirrors" is more like it, according to a senior officer at NATO headquarters who examined the data. For more than half of the hits declared by Corley to be "validated kills," there was only one piece of evidence—usually, a blurred cockpit video or a flash detected by a spy satellite. But satellites usually can't discern whether a bomb hits anything when it explodes.

The Corley report was greeted with quiet disbelief outside the Air Force. NATO sources say that Clark's deputy, British Gen. Sir Rupert Smith, and his chief of staff, German Gen. Dieter Stockmann, both privately cautioned Clark not to accept Corley's numbers. The U.S. intelligence community was also doubtful. The CIA puts far more credence in a November get-together of U.S. and British intelligence experts, which determined that the Yugoslav Army after the war was only marginally smaller than it had been before. "Nobody is very keen to talk about this topic," a CIA official told NEWSWEEK.

Lately, the Defense Department has tried to fudge. In January Defense Secretary Cohen and General Shelton put their names to a formal After-Action Report to Congress on the Kosovo war. The 194-page report was so devoid of hard data that Pentagon officials jokingly called it "fiber-free." The report did include Corley's chart showing that NATO killed 93 tanks. But the text included a caveat: "the assessment provides no data on what proportion of total mobile targets were hit or the level of damage inflicted." Translation, according to a senior Pentagon official: "Here's the Air Force chart. We don't think it means anything." In its most recent report extolling the triumph of the air war, even the Air Force stopped using data from the Corley report.

http://mujweb.atlas.cz/www/kutija/nw000515.htm

These are the types of issues that Shelton touched upon. Signing off on a fraudulent report for a war you pushed and sending it off to your superiors for their briefing to Congress. This is what gets you relieved in the military- no one gets relieved because Republicans don't like them or vice-versa. It's a non-partisan military remember? Besides, why would Republicans have pushed to get Clark out when he so cleverly hid that he wasn't one of them until September 2003?

[MoonRiver]

22. Clark was Independent before joining the Dem Party.

What's wrong with that?

Clark was relieved of duty because he wouldn't march in lock-step with the military-industrial establishment. Clark believed that human beings are worth more than machines. His "superiors" didn't see any advantage to the US in stopping ongoing genocide, and fought him on waging war against Milosovic. Clark's only option was to defy them and appeal to the Commander in Chief. It worked. I bet Clark would never exchange all the people he saved from slaughter for another few years in the military and blessings from the Army establishment.

[Toucano]

20. Finally puts to rest

the Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean ticket speculation.

No longer even a remote possibility.

[OKNancy]

23. Zell Miller is a life long Democrat

I'll take Clark, thank you. He's been voting for Democrats for fourteen years.

He's also pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-labor, pro-education, wants to cut the defense budget, and believes reason should guide a President, not religion....and he came right out and stated he was a liberal. Oh, and the Republicans HATE him.

[Forkboy]

30. Now that might be the best argument against this charge

If Miller can be called a Dem I guess anyone can :)

[citizen snips]

34. Then why is he voteing for Bush?

n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

57. What are you talking about?

[Tinoire]

25. My respect for Dean just keeps growing

He made another comment this week that was right on target. You can see the New Yorker coming right through!


"Now my opponents are trying to stop me," Dean says in a TV ad running in New Hampshire. "Remember, they are not trying to stop me -- they are trying to stop you."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-dean22.html

They sure are. Trying to stop the people's movement before this becomes the People's Democracy of America what with all the uncontrolled voters pushing the Dean machine.

Still not a huge fan of Dean's but I am a huge fan of the movement because it will take a movement like that to change things.
Dean, not the beloved labrador that gets my love but the pit-bull in the front yard to keep the intruders away.

[mzmolly]

40. I expect the other candidates to follow suit, they always do

;) Cept DK, he has had his own concerns about the General and has voiced them on occassion.

[Tinoire]

48. Interesting you mention Kucinich because I just found this 5 minutes ago

and it did my heart GOOD! I am trying to find the congressional briefings about the Yugoslavia war- I have a feeling they must be a very interesting read!~ Peace
---

<snip>

Rep. Dennis Kucinich had accused NATO of having a military campaign that deliberately targeted civilians. He pointed out that rather than confront the military forces of Yugoslavia, NATO seemed to be going after ordinary people and the civilian infrastructure -- bridges, power plants, water systems, roads and telecommunications centers.
Yugoslav troops were targeted in one distinct case -- on June 7, after Yugoslavia had accepted a peace agreement. According to press accounts, between 800 and 1,200 Serb soldiers were massing in a field, apparently to prepare for a withdrawal from the area, when a B-52 bomber dropped cluster bombs, killing most of them. One NATO official told the Washington Post, "This hit must have really stunned them. There’s no doubt that the Serbs suffered enormous causalities. They were absolutely pulverized." It sounded like a massacre.

General Clark’s War

The decision to use cluster bombs was made by the American NATO commander, General Wesley Clark, who strongly supported the military operation from the start. Indeed, he may have been one of the only top Pentagon officials to do so.

During an appearance on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal program, veteran New York Times correspondent David Binder was asked who in the Clinton Administration was pushing American involvement in Kosovo. He named Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Ambassador to the U.N.-designee Richard Holbrooke, and a few others. Asked who in the Pentagon opposed it, he replied, "Virtually the entire Pentagon except for Wesley Clark."

http://www.usasurvival.org/nato_&_nwo.html

[Dover]

27. Dean is not the only one voicing concerns about Clark

Moyer's brought up the subject of Clark's affiliations in his last show on NOW in an interview with Charles Lewis, author of The book THE BUYING OF THE PRESIDENT, and founder of the Center for Public Integrity. --

MOYERS: You report that when General Wesley Clark retired from the military, he earned over $800,000 lobbying former pals and peers for airline and homeland security contracts and that he didn't tell us that when he appeared on CNN as a commentator on the war on terrorism. Why would a man do that, thinking he's going to run for President? Because that's bound to be harmful when it is ultimately disclosed?

LEWIS: Well, that's sort of what I thought. It's the first time I know of a major Presidential candidate running who's also currently a lobbyist. When he announced, September 17th, he was still registered in Washington as a lobbyist.

MOYERS: Yet the new Governor of Mississippi, Haley Barber, was one of the most successful lobbyists in the history of Washington.

LEWIS: Well, we're getting a new phenomenon now, the new shamelessness where people don't care any more. It used to be that a lobbyist ran, people would laugh him out of the room, and it would be unacceptable. Now you have a guy who just got elected Governor of Mississippi and we have a Presidential candidate who not only was a lobbyist, but he was a commentator objectively commentating on the war while he was trying to get homeland security and defense contracts and meeting with the Vice President among others.


http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript302_full.html

---

CLARK

..snip...........Two weeks after declaring his intention to run for
president, Clark was still registered to represent a high tech contractor,
Acxiom Corporation, giving him the rare distinction of seeking the White
House while registered as a lobbyist. Shortly after Clark announced his
candidacy, a company spokesman said the general no longer lobbied for
Acxiom, but, according to the Senate Office of Public Records, Clark had not
filed any termination papers.

Clark has been lobbying for the firm since January 2, 2002; Acxiom has paid
more than $830,000 for Clark to advance its agenda and meet with government
officials. Clark also serves on the company's board of directors.

According to federal disclosure records, Clark lobbied directly on
"information transfers, airline security and homeland security issues," for
Acxiom, which sought funding to do controversial informational background
checks on passengers for airlines. Privacy advocates have criticized the
program, called the Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System II,
because of concerns that the data collected would be an overly invasive
violation of individuals' rights to privacy. The public outcry has been so
strong that there is a bi-partisan effort to create more oversight for the
program to protect privacy interests if CAPPS II is implemented.

Clark lobbied the Department of Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency,
and the Department of Transportation for the company. Clark also reported,
on his lobbyist disclosure forms, that he promoted Acxiom to the Senate and
the executive office of the president. According an Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette report, he even met personally with Vice President Richard
Cheney.

He also made a pitch for the kind of tracking that the company's wares can
perform while acting as a commentator on CNN. On January 6, 2002, four days
after filing as a lobbyist for Acxiom, Clark told an interviewer, in
response to worries that private planes could be used for terrorist attacks,
"We've been worried about general aviation security for some time. The
aircraft need to be secured, the airfields need to be secured, and obviously
we're going to also have to go through and do a better job of screening who
could fly aircraft, who the private pilots are, who owns these aircraft. So
it's going to be another major effort."

Naturally, he did not reveal to CNN's viewers that the company he lobbied
for had a substantial stake in this issue.

http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=12

[Killarney]

29. The last time Clark voted Republican was 1988.

I don't care what anyone voted in 1988. I care about how the candidates feel now. I care about who can show Bush the door. And Clark is my man.

This quote is from Michael Moore:
"Why expend energy on the past when we have such grave danger facing us in the present and in the near future? I don't feel bad nor do I care that Clark -- or anyone -- voted for Reagan over 20 years ago. Let's face it, the vast majority of Americans voted for Reagan -- and I want every single one of them to be WELCOMED into our tent this year. The message to these voters -- and many of them are from the working class -- should not be, "You voted for Reagan? Well, to hell with you!" Every time you attack Clark for that, that is the message you are sending to all the people who at one time liked Reagan. If they have now changed their minds (just as Kucinich has done by going from anti-choice to pro-choice, and Dean has done by wanting to cut Medicare to now not wanting to cut it) – and if Clark has become a liberal Democrat, is that not something to cheer?"

[Tatiana]

38. Clark must have missed his Republican memos

Pro-choice.

Supporter of affirmative action.

Plan to increase taxes on the rich.

Supporter of civil unions.

Believes military force should only be used as a last resort only after all diplomatic means have been exhausted.

Yep. He's a Republican, all right!

[Larkspur]

55. No, he got the RNC memo

lie to the Dems about being a Dem. Remember, 2 weeks after he jumped into the Dem Prez race, Clark was still listed as a lobbyist for a firm that reprsented the military industrial complex. They don't want Dean elected President because he'll start cleaining house.

[OhioStateProgressive]

39. that is kinda sad, really

I can smell a Republican from at least a great distance away, and I smell it from Dean just as much as I smell it from Clark...they both are at the least Moderates, and at the most, right leaning Democrats...I suppose there is nothing wrong with it, but I think it was foolish for Dean to state it like that

[Jerseycoa]

70. Not "foolish"

He stated it purposefully and knowing it is not true.

[_Jumper_]

41. This is sad

Dean is fading in Iowa and NH and instead of talking about why he would make the best president he is resorting to making inaccurate attacks on other candidates.

[Tinoire]

51. Not an inaccurate attack - it's a necessary truth and it takes guts to do

what he just did. Thank you Dean. Dean, Kucinich and Sharpton are fighting the DLC. My hat is off to all three and I am beginning to admire Dean and agreeing with his supporters that he is the pit-bull we need to start wresting our powers back from the MIC. Dean may not be the one to do it- but he will be a good start just by stopping their clock so that, if someone like Kucinich doesn't win this election, the ground will be paved for him to get it next time.

Going against the MIC- we need pit-bulls and Dean/Trippi fit the bill.

Dean is speaking for more than himself with that comment.

"Remember, they are not trying to stop me -- they are trying to stop you." (Howard Dean) http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-dean22.html

And no, I am still not a Dean supporter. Just calling it like I see it.

[_Jumper_]

42. This is sad

Dean is fading in Iowa and NH and instead of talking about why he would make the best president he is resorting to making inaccurate attacks on other candidates.

[mbali]

44. Didn't Dean also call Bush a moderate?

So much for his skill at political labeling.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

46. He Did Indeed, and I Agree With You (eom)

DTH

[OKNancy]

52. The Republican Myth

From www.clarkmyths.com

Mods: I e-mailed the author and have permission to post the entire passage.

Myth 5: Shortly after Howard Dean asked General Clark to be his running mate, Mr. Dean said Wesley Clark was a "Republican." The facts tell a different tale.


The old joke about the Democratic Party is that our party often organizes itself as a circular firing squad. Indeed, it seems as if Democrats lose out on a broader agenda too often because of internal bickering. I am dismayed, therefore, that the individual carrying the mantle of honesty and straight talk this primary season, Howard Dean, is in fact dishonestly spreading fear and false allegations about General Clark, a man wounded in the service of his country, whose perseverance and integrity stopped a genocide and whose personal principles have engaged progressive social policy his whole life.

Howard Dean, after attempting to recruit Clark as his VP pick, claimed on Face the Nation that Clark was a Republican, and that Clark was a proponent of the war in Iraq. ''He was a Republican until 25 days ago,'' Dean commented. "I assumed he was a Democrat all along," Dean said. He continued, "I had assumed he was always against the war. It's not like he misled me. I just never asked him the questions." Both of these charges are simply untrue. Clark is not nor has he ever been a Republican. He has, however, supported the Democratic Party apparatus, and been one of the sharpest critics of Republican foreign policy, the failed leadership of George Bush and Tom Delay. Clark campaigned in 2002 for Democrats Katrina Swett, Max Cleland, and Tom Lantos, he voted in the Arkansas primary as a Democrat, and gave money to Democratic Senatorial candidate Erskin Bowles. Prior to this time, he served in the military for 34 years, a non-partisan institution that explicitly frowns upon partisan political involvement. Registered as an independent, Clark nevertheless voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and Gore in 2000. His criticisms of the war in Iraq have been coherent, prescient, and devastatingly effective, and Clark was the most public defender of Michael Moore's passionate dissent at the Oscars.

Before Clark entered the race, Clark was actually an informal advisor to Dean's campaign. Indeed, Dean said about Clark: "His thinking has helped me enormously," he said in August. "Our views are strikingly similar on a lot of issues, including Iraq." Does this sound like someone who "never asked him the questions" about Iraq? No. And do Clark's positions on issues - pro-choice, in favor of a strong progressive tax system, multilateralism, teacher empowerment, pro-environment and alternative energy, and anti-tax cut - sound Republican? Of course not.

What gives Dean's charges, dishonest as they may be, credence, is that Clark spoke at both Democratic and Republican fundraisers in early 2001, and that he praised Bush's team in May, 2001, before 9/11 and before the aggressively unilateralist direction of this administration had taken shape. The path of Clark's return to the Democratic fold is illustrative, as it's the path most of America will understand, and will follow, in 2004.

Clark joined the Democratic Party earlier this year, after a gradual and sharpening disagreement with the direction of Bush's foreign and domestic policy team. The reason he did not join earlier, though, is because Clark himself was unceremoniously betrayed by Democratic administration officials after 34 years in the military and a stunning success in Kosovo, a military victory achieved despite tremendous internal opposition in the Pentagon and no American casualties. One month after this Balkan victory, Secretary of Defense William Cohen had Clark fired, and General Hugh Shelton leaked his firing to the press one hour after Clark himself was told. President Clinton disclaimed responsibility, and Clark retired, stunned, elegantly remaining silent on his ouster even though he had delivered the most important foreign policy success of Clinton's Presidency. (General Shelton has continued to this day to make vague accusations about Clark's character.) After the crude manner in which he was treated by the Democratic political leadership in the White House, Clark returned to civilian life and began to explore partisan politics and a business career. The Democratic Party suggested he run for Governor of Arkansas, the Republicans suggested he run for Congress.

This was a dark time for Clark. His principles had always been progressive. In his career, his actions have expressed a broad appreciation for social justice. In the early 80s as an army commander, he went beyond enforcing shiny shoes and clean barracks and addressed such incipient social problems as spousal abuse and teenage suicide in military families. He fought for preventative health care and empowerment of teachers, and reformed the entire model for instituting accountability in the armed forces. His exploration of the Republican Party, therefore, did not go well. In his own words, he said that after becoming discouraged, after trying to speak out and not being heard by the Republican Party, he came back, depressed, to Arkansas. He was sorting through the belongings of his biological father - Benjamin Kanne - and came across a small card which read "Delegate - Democratic National Convention".

Clark, as near to emotionalism as he allows, said "I knew then what I had to do, I had come home." And he is home. He campaigned for Democrats in 2002, he has criticized the Republican agenda, and he has presented a clear alternative, which Governor Dean, despite his angry tone of defiance, has not. This is likely why Howard Dean wanted Wesley Clark for his Vice Presidential choice
Indeed, the real story here is Clark's unmatched integrity and vision for a nation founded on public service and shared burdens, shared risks, and shared rewards, and his choice of the Democratic Party as that vehicle which best represents those ideals. This choice stands in stark contrast to Howard Dean, who, despite rhetoric of principled honesty, picks principles as they become politically convenient. In the early 1990s, before he represented the 'Democratic wing of the Democratic Party', Dean allied with Newt Gingrich in outspoken opposition to a strong Medicare and Social Security programs. Prior to the war in Iraq, Dean spoke about how Saddam Hussein probably had weapons of mass destruction, while after the war, he claimed he was the only Democrat not 'fooled' by Bush's claims that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, while it distresses all of us to countenance negativity on a fellow party member, Dean's attacks only serve to highlight Dean's own record of dishonest hypocrisy.

To those who claim Clark is late to the Democratic Party, that is undeniably true. But Clark is not new to public service, and he is not new to the principles of the Democratic Party. Indeed, there is nothing that represents Democratic Party principles and human rights more than stopping a genocide. Nothing. One could play the horserace game, and point out that General Clark is our best chance to take back the White House. More than that, Clark is our chance to take back our country and elect Democratic leaders on every level. Do not let rumors and scurrilous self-serving political gamesmanship prevent us from electing the greatest President we may well see in our lifetimes.

[democratreformed]

54. Fact Check

Please see: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=97

for their answer to "Was Wesley Clark a Republican?"

[mmonk]

53. Clark is making his positions

in town meetings, on his website, in his books. He voted republican years ago and has been voting dem in recent years leading up to this run and his registration. He didn't register republican. Hopefully people will listen to him and let him make his case and not those wishing to do his campaign harm. Hopefully they will make their decisions on Clark's positions on the issues and see the rest for what it is.

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. Dean has a whole lot of "Thems" in his Us vs. Them Equation.

That is the quality about Dean that has increasingly bothered me. That plus a creeping suspicion that his criteria as to who qualifies as a "them" seems to shift a bit too easily to adjust to changing political needs.

When his campaign began I experienced it as a real breath of fresh air. Looking back I realize that the "them" Dean spoke of at the time was inevitably the Bush Administration. Of course he contrasted his determination to go right at Bush with the less forceful position taken by some other leading Democrats of the time, and that was fair, and I agreed with him. But he increasingly started shifting to rhetoric more like his Washington "cockroaches" comment, and subtly his quest to "Take Back Our Country" began appearing more and more like a planned rescue from Democratic kidnappers, almost crowding out the attention paid to his continuing strong repudiation of Bush.

I was proud of Dean's early and forceful opposition to the Iraq war, and that too was fair to contrast against more nuanced hesitation by some other Democrats. But then it became a black white divide again. Dean was anti-war, and most everyone else was pro-war. In many cases the record simply does not support such a sharp division. Dean showed better leadership than some others, and that is important. He better forsaw the consequences of certain actiona, and that is very important. But Dean pushed that envelope much further, far into the stark us vs. them territorial divide.

Dean began running against "the Republican Wing" of the Democratic Party, so I am not surprised when I now hear him running against the "Republican" Wesley Clark. Clark is a man Dean once spoke very highly of, but Clark is an opponent now, so he is part of the "them".

When it is convenient, Dean makes allowances. Gore has a long and solid record of DLC membership, yet Dean courted Gore aggressively for his support. Gore's 2000 campaign is considered by many Democrats as the ultimate recent getting rolled by Republicans fiasco, given that we had just had 8 years of Peace and Prosperity and we should have trounced Bush, Supreme Court not withstanding. Dean has no harsh words for that particular Washington insider however, and he openly embraced and praises Senator Harkin who voted for the very same Iraq resolution in the very same Congress as the Democrats he blasts for doing exactly that.

Yes, Dean gets attacked and he has to defend himself when it happens. What concerns me is the manner in which he chooses to go on the offensive. I know Dean is campaigning in a hard fought contest, and politics is no tea party, but Dean is leaving some significant scars that had better heal quickly if he becomes our nominee, or even if he doesn't. That is easier said than done.

[returnable]

58. As usual...

...your eloquence is a welcome sight on this board :toast:

:kick:

[Bread and Circus]

66. Tom's post is spot on, I couldn't agree more.

[Kahuna]

60. Right again, Tom. Dean's message is divisive. He attacks..

everyone that doesn't agree with him. Not good.

[4StarWes]

61. At least he's not a socialist

[Woodstock]

64. Dean shouldn't have said this

I'm a Dean supporter but I'm totally against him saying this.

[andym]

65. Mistake

The time to attack other Democrats was early. The less politically astute people who are now tuning in, tend to be more turned off by attacks than the more politically aware activists who tend to find them more acceptable.

[NV1962]

67. A capital sin of omission

(Please read as if it were written with tongue in cheek.)

There's a nasty problem with this snippet from that article:

Clark became a Democrat last October, three years after retiring from a 34-year career with the U.S. Army that ended with a four-star general rank and the role of supreme allied commander in Europe during the war against Kosovo.

It omits Clark's party affiliation prior to becoming a Democrat.

And that affiliation is (drum roll) undeclared.

As mandated by tradition and common sense, active members of the armed forces don't wear their political color on their sleeve. Something that is made very clear to West Point cadets: after all, officers are supposed to carry out the US government's policy, regardless of the party to whom the President belongs. That doesn't mean that they can't vote, however.

This doctrine is a practical extension of a Constitutional tenet: civilian control over the military. If you're interested in that angle, there's an interesting brief historic overview here.

This type of attempts at suggesting, directly or indirectly, that Clark is an ex Republican who switched just before announcing his candidacy actually prompts another question: what Democratic value exactly is served by knowingly and falsely equaling past exercises of the Constitutional right to vote with present Republican party affiliation?

Other recommended reading material for Howard Dean's campaign management is this dose of reality (it's a PDF document.) Instead of slamming Clark on an unsubstantiated insinuation, they should be silently appreciative of an outstanding Democratic exception, who has an excellent chance of delivering national security as a Democratic stronghold, as it was in the past until the years of Kennedy.

Maybe I should simplify even further to prove my point: it isn't exactly a compelling proposition for the Dean campaign to run with the slogan: "Vote for me! I'm not Republican!" It's a proposition that only political professionals can dream up!

Since I have read a little bit on Howard Dean's campaign proposals, I know that there is more than enough decent "own" Dean campaign material around to promote, instead of getting mired in ghost busting. That was really just a movie, you know.