A Few Thoughts on Kerry from A Clark Supporter

[Justice]

John Kerry is my senator. I am a supporter of Wesley Clark.

I've heard Gert Clark say when people talked about Wes Clark getting into the race -- why not Kerry, Kerry should be the guy, isn't he the one you want? Kerry was in the race, but yet people were unsatisfied with Kerry's performance and wanted someone else. I was one of those people.

I don't dislike John Kerry. I don't think he is an evil person. I think he is a good solid Democratic senator. He has fought for the average person. He wasn't always wealthy. Before he married Teresa in fact, he actually was mentioned as a relatively middle class person, wiht references to struggles over money. I love Teresa. She is one solid dynamite person.

I am very very very unhappy that Kerry supported IWR. I am unhappy because he sat on the committees were intelligence was discussed, yet didn't see what I saw from MA - that the intelligence didn't add up. One of my concerns then was that there was no debate over whether the intelligence was right, and what the plans were to bring in other countries or how the post war phase would be handled. When Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards now express concern about these things -- I say, so why in the hell didn't you stop and take a deep breathe last fall and demand that those issues be resolved BEFORE you frickin vote for IWR?

I am very unhappy that Kerry said we should get over Florida last June. Don't know why he said that. Now he thinks differently.

I am very unhappy about the way in which Kerry treated Wesley Clark in New Hampshire. Between his anti-Clark flyers and his lack of courage to stand next to Clark over Bush's deserter status when on CNN -- he disappointed me.

I worry that John Kerry is not a profile in courage. That his best days of saving people were as a LT in Vietnam. But.....

I don't worry whether he is better than George W Bush*. John Kerry is a BILLION times better than Bush* I would not hesitate for a minute to vote for Kerry if he won the nomination.

I want Wes Clark. In my view, Wes Clark is a profile in courage. He is a leader and a very classy person. I will do all that I can before the nomination to help Clark win -- but I won't trash John Kerry to do it.

However, I cannot stand by and watch people insult John Kerry as if he was a disgrace. That isn't right.

I have also had it up to here (motion neck) with Kerry people gloating. Kerry has warts, just like all the other candidates. The warts are going to come out -- and no matter what you say, they haven't come out yet. You want all of us standing there beside you fighting for Kerry, if he is the nominee. So stop acting like you don't need us -- cuz you do.

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. very true

We will need you just as much as you will need us in the general election.

[KC21304]

2. I really appreciate your post.

But I haven't seen the gloating you are talking about. I may have missed it, but if you go back and see the abuse we took from the Dean people, even up to the day of the Iowa primary, maybe you would see that a little merriment is understandable. I still have not trashed another candidate. I get more upset with their supporters than I should and get into trouble that way, but I can't bring myself to really get mean about another Democrat.

I think you can take most things candidates say and make it sound bad if you are from the opposition. My sense of what Kerry was saying about Florida was that we can't just run on the fact that Bush stole the election. We need to get passed that to beat him.

About IWR, because he was privy to intelligence, he saw MUCH more than we did, and if most of it turned out to be a lie I don't think he can be blamed for that entirely. I can see how Dean and Clark do not want to give him a break on this, but I don't think their hands are entirely clean on this either.

I think Clark is a great person and would love to have him as VP.

[girl gone mad]

5. If you haven't seen it, then you haven't been around..

It's been several days of "it's all over for everyone but Dean, just jump on the bandwagon already, you losers."

[KC21304]

11. I'll show you mine if you will show me yours.

I will show you the horrible things two Dean supporters ( both names beginning with " S ", said about Kerry and his supporters right up to and including the Iowa caucus day, and you can show me the posts calling you losers and such and we will compare. How about that ?

I really can't believe that the Kerry supporters will come out any worse than the Dean people.

[polmaven]

27. Beginning

at about 2PM this afternoon, and continuing to about 3:15, (I had a few interruptions, etc)I purposely did a count here in this room.

I simply went through the threads which had today's date on them, having been started or "kicked" today.

I counted 20 threads started for the sole purpose of bashing John Kerry, started by Dean supporters. I counted 6 threads begun by Kerry supporters which were for the sole purpose of bashing Dean.

Um.....more than 3-1. I'm sorry if you are feeling picked on, but maybe there needs to be less whining and more understanding that, no matter how badly we want something, we don't always win.

[THUNDER HANDS]

6. I've gloated, I admit it

:spank:

[Justice]

17. So Stop Being Part of The Problem

you drive away supporters of other candidates.

How is that helping Kerry?

[krkaufman]

32. Speaking re: Clark and IWR

(first, ABB; Kerry gets my vote from my cold, dead campaign's hands.)

Clark testified before Congress that any resolution should NOT authorize the President to go to war; a resolution should merely indicate support for using force to resolve the situation -- if all other efforts failed. i.e. Give Bush the big stick, but don't give him permission, yet, to use it. Clark also underscored that sanctions had been working to keep Saddam contained and that the priority we should remain focused on was Al Qaeda.

IWR gave Bush the permission, with no requirements for any tangible diplomatic results.

Many other Congressman got the same information as Senator Kerry (Lieberman, Edwards), including General Clark's testimony, yet these Congressmen/women voted *against* IWR. Do you think they would have voted against IWR if there *weren't* some real question as to the evidence being presented -- and the imminent nature of the threat?

It is no coincidence that Sen. Kerry was up for reelection within 30 days of the vote, and that misinformed polling (hmmm..) indicated widespread support for Bush's militaristic approach.

Now read this bit from Sen. Kerry's bio:

he felt compelled to question decisions he believed were being made to protect those in positions of authority in Washington at the expense of the soldiers carrying on the fighting in Vietnam

Actions speak louder than words.

edit: forgot the link to Sen. Kerry's bio

[Jerseycoa]

3. Good post

:kick:

[girl gone mad]

4. I'm disappointed with Kerry..

not just that he told people to get over it, but the way in which he said it.. "crying in your teacups.." Very insulting.

I won't celebrate if Keerry wins the nomination, but I'll have to move on.

Yes, Kerry will be at least marginally better than Bush.

[george_w_snatch]

7. I suggest you frustration is misplaced

I really think it does no one any good to harp on Kerry, Edwards, or even Lieberman (yikes!) about this IWR thing. Slice it any way you like, there is only one person on this planet that is responsible for the Iraq invasion, and that is GWB.

Do you honestly think that if the IWR were not passed, the US would not have invaded Iraq? The IWR was not a 'blank check' as conventional wisdom would have it. It actually was the first document which *requested* the president follow a course of action, and if he did, would have the support of the congress.

Look, we all loathe GWB, and we were all highly suspect of the motives for this war. But you simply have to give the president the benefit of the doubt that he will keep his word if we are to have a republic which is worth a damn. A senator alone simply cannot veto the actions of a president. I think Kerry's explanation for his support of the IWR is satisfactory, and his explanation of how GWB violated the conditions and spirit of the resolution are right on the money.

Let's face it, the IWR was completely in line with the position Clinton took, and it would be incredibly hypocritical for any congressman or senator to support Clinton's actions and statements on Iraq, but not support the IWR. What was not in line with Clinton was the absolute thirst for war that Bush admin has.

Lastly, you simply have to look beyond single-issue hot buttons. That is what THEY want you to focus on, because it distracts you from the multitude of other issues that they are raping you with.

[Justice]

14. Wrong

John Kerry knew that when IWR was passed, we were going to war. We all knew that George was a nut, so let's not pretend any of us had a hope that he would act rationally.

The ONLY hope I had for not going to war was that Tony Blair said he wouldn't go without the second UN resolution. That was my only hope. Tony later became a nut too.

And even IF what you say is true, why do you send someone on their way without asking the questions - what is the plan post war, etc etc. They not only voted for it -- they didn't even have the debate.

The IWR might have been completely in line with the position Clinton took, but after 9/11 the focus and the priorities shifted 180. Seems to me it is you that is buying a sack of goods, not me.

[lurk_no_more]

8. My top two are Clark and Kerry

Supporters of both need to form an alliance to stick together no matter what, It kills me when Kerry attacks Clark and it tears me apart when I have to defend a negative attack by a Kerry supporter.

I won't sling mud at Kerry but I won't stand by and take mud thrown either and I try to defend both when mud gets thrown by others.

IMHO Clark and Kerry are the only two that stand a chance at beating *, voters in both IA and NH hands down, felt the same way as evident by the exit polls.

I want to be ABB, but seriously, if it isn't one of these two, I don't know if I can.


And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[Justice]

15. Thank You For Your Honesty

I appreciate very much what you've said.

[NV1962]

9. Sorry, but I disagree - strongly

Let's first make a necessary distinction between John Kerry, the person, and John Kerry, the politician, and finally, John Kerry, candidate aspiring to beat Bush in November.

I have no problem with the first - he seems likable and personable.

The second is not bad, either - as a Senator he has done a lot of courageous things.

The third is where I have a profound problem. For one, because of his relentless attack mode, which eclipses whatever "positive" message he has. Then, there's the problem that Bush is firmly entrenched, and in my opinion can only be unseated with an outflankment maneouver, by a strong "outsider" (let's bypass how exactly I define "strong" and "outsider" here) who has a credible agenda and profile to weed out the rot in Washington.

Sorry, but I deeply dislike John Kerry, the candidate, and John Kerry, the campaign.

[Justice]

19. I Don't Bifurcate The Candidates

I look at what they have to do to get elected. They all have a theme which may or may not be consistent with their overall record.

As I've said, Kerry has been negative, and that isn't good. His supporters on DU need to email the campaign to tell him that his negativity may cost him active support in the GE -- when he really needs it.

Bush* will throw such crap on the nominee, that the nominee will need every single one of us to work for them in order to win. That is my point. It won't matter whether the nominee is an insider or an outsider.

edited for spelling

[NV1962]

20. I'm not splitting hairs

I'm making a distinction so as to clarify where I see the problem is.

While you're thinking about the negative campaign approach, ask yourself "why?"

My take is because the wrapping hopes to make up in noise what the content lacks in sufficiently broad appeal.

As to your point on Bushco throwing piddle at whoever the candidate is: sure. Now, I don't think a majority of people will primarily vote in response to how Bush responds. They'll vote for the guy they believe offers the best alternative.

The distinction between "insider" and "outsider" isn't merely germane - it's the crucial one that separates the loser from the winner.

[loupe-garou]

10. Thanks for your thoughtful commentary and open mind

I am a Kerry supporter originally from Mass, now living in Upstate NY. The thing I like about Kerry, besides his mostly good voting record is that he is a tough fighter, and a fast learner. I think he really means to reallign this country with the concerns of the people, and I believe his health plan has a better chance of passing a divided congress than the others.

That said, I was also heartbroken when he voted for the war, because I could see that Bush's word has meant nothing all along. And he getting Saddam was probably his only reason for running for President...

I was wondering about the context of the "Get over it" comment- It may have been a statement of strategy from a Senate point of view....Context counts for a lot in my view.

I also like Wes Clark, I just don't think he is politically seasoned....I'm really thinking electability. Dean is totally unelectable, not just because he's sliding- he comes off as a know-it-all.
I hope we are all able to come together under one candidate, because policy-wise, they're all fairly close, and as you say they're a billion times better than Bush!!!! ABB! Good Luck to us all!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. The context of the get over it statement was don't get mad, get even.

It was in the very next sentence in the article but everyone who cites that statement leaves that sentence out.

[Justice]

16. Can You Get Me That Article?

I would like to read that - if he is saying get even, then that would make a big difference to me on that point.

[HFishbine]

18. About that next sentence....

"It isn't going to change. Get over it."

[glarius]

13. Clark is a worldly wise man.....very intelligent and socially conscience

in my opinion....As a Canadian I would welcome ANY Democrat as the new president, but Clark is at the top of my list! The sad thing is that the media has decided to marginalize Clark...He's hardly ever featured in any of CNN's little pieces about the candidates. Just get rid of Bush!....

[HuckleB]

21. An eloquent exposition of the concerns of many.

Thank you.

[deutsey]

22. Amen!

I'm a former Kerry supporter/current Dean supporter, but will vote for Kerry if he's nominated.

You put into words what I'm feeling, especially about the gloating. It's very off-putting and actually diminishes the enthusiasm I would have for him if Kerry should win the nomination.

Perhaps it's unfair, but because of the behavior of a lot Kerry supporters here, I have no desire to go volunteer for Kerry IF he gets the nomination. I'll just show up for him on Election Day.

[mikehiggins]

23. Why is there a question over why so many Dems voted for IWR?

"I say, so why in the hell didn't you stop and take a deep breathe last fall and demand that those issues be resolved BEFORE you frickin vote for IWR?"

Maybe its because I'm 58 and have been involved with politics for a long time but I can tell you just why they voted as they did.

They were scared pantsless that their votes would be used against them in their next election cycle. Bush and the GOP had them on the run and that was as plain as day to anyone who bothered to look at what was going on.

Profiles in courage? Give me a break. Profiles in C.V.A. is more like it. Kerry can claim now to be against it, and Lieberman can claim to be for it, but they mostly all voted for the IWR because they didn't want what happened to Max Cleland to happen to them.

The GOP and friends sent the Democrats a message and most of the professional politicians took that message to heart. Kudos to Dennis for having the balls to stand up and tell Congress the IWR was bullshit. He will always have a Profiles in Courage moment to look back on, even as the media marginalizes him.

It didn't take Al or Howard too much trouble to oppose IWR. It wasn't going to cost them anything and, as Howard found out, you could tap into the anger of millions of Democrats by having the spine to stand up and fight the man.

Clark opposed the war because it made no sense to him as a military man. If he had been in Congress who knows what he would have done. It is a moot question, however, because men like Clark do not run for Congress these days, not if they want to hold onto their sanity.

Leaders don't prosper in Congress. Accommodators and survivors do.

Kerry has been there a long time. He has prospered.

And again we come back to Kissinger's thesis. He claimed the establishment, any establishment, is incapable of recognizing a revolutionary movement as such when it arises. Not to suggest the Bush cabal is anything revolutionary. Rather they represent an entirely different approach to governance than any president before them, and the professional politicians imagined that they would be just like the Reagan or Bush-I or Clinton; politicians who would be happy to play the game because after all, they are all in it together.

Bad mistake.

That's why we figure it's better to run somebody who is not complicit in what happened AND who won't make that same mistake of underestimating the PNAC/neocons, even if they are really nice guys who we can work with. Replacing a bumbler with a bureaucrat isn't going to solve the deficit or any of the other problems.

Some times call for leadership, and 2004 is one of them.

[zulchzulu]

24. Good post...a few things though

It's been bandied about over and over about Kerry's IWR vote. Usually you hear people say he "voted for the war". This is patently false. Kerry voted for the UN to do its job and if needed, have a multinational force disarm Iraq and as a last resort. Bush lied about the intelligence and basically did the opposite of what the IWR was intended.

Clark is on record that he supported the IWR as well that he's against it:

Clark:
"I've been very consistent... I've been against this war from the beginning. I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."
Democratic Debate in Detroit on October 26, 2003

Yet Clark is on record saying this before the Committee On Armed Services at the U.S. House Of Representatives on September 26, 2002:

Clark:
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."

Granted, Clark is in the convenient position of not having his vote cast and on record, but his opinion at the time of the vote is very similar to Dean's, another opportunist who claims he was always against the war.

So claiming that Clark is better than Kerry because of his "opinion" on the IWR is a little shoddy if you ask me.

Additionally, mentioning that Kerry was "only a lieutenant" and therefore has a questionable "profile in courage" is a fairly despicable charge that insults all those who have served but did not stay in the military long enough to be a 4-star general.

When Clark made that remark, someone I know who served in Vietnam who had headed up a grassroots Clark support group immediately left the campaign and is now firmly in Kerry's camp. He was disgusted by Clark's comment.

As for Kerry not bringing up Bush's AWOL status, that is already evident in Kerry's speeches where he mentions that he "knows aircraft carriers for real". Kerry won't be hamheaded and start blabbing like a banshi that Bush was AWOL. He'll make it a point in the campaign when Bush starts trying to denegrade Kerry's Vietnam experience.

Clark is a good man, no doubt. He's just not the full package like Kerry is.

[Justice]

25. Some People Never Learn

I don't blame Kerry for this despicable post. I blame the poster.

You throw up crap about Clark that has been debunked in the name of trying to make Kerry look good. Guess what, it doesn't make you or Kerry look good.

Completely Classless. Also clueless.

[zulchzulu]

26. No, that's not it

I'm pointing out why someone who has a problem with Kerry and supports Clark instead may need to do their homework before they accuse Kerry of being less than courageous, etc.

It's not meant to be offensive towards Clark or those that support him. It's meant to show that maybe there are counter-points to what the poster said.

[Qutzupalotl]

Do your homework.

Richard Perle says Clark was against the invasion. He should know. He was right there listening to Clark's testimony. "He (Clark) wants to wait," was how he put it.

[Justice]

31. You Need To Do Your Homework

First of all - I was the poster! Great research on that one!

Second, I don't think one can isolate the actual vote on IWR from all of the facts and circumstances behind it. Did Kerry vote not for war, but rather as your post suggests, for the UN to do its job and if needed, have a multinational force disarm Iraq and as a last resort.

Let's look at the circumstances -- who among us believed for one second that Bush would do the right thing? Your post suggests that voting for IWR was okay, that things only turned out badly because Bush lied about the intelligence and basically did the opposite of what the IWR was intended.

I knew Bush would lie and go to war at the time the IWR was being proposed. Who among us believed Bush wouldn't go to war once he had the IWR?

On what grounds did John Kerry believe Bush would be trustworthy? Was Kerry was naive to believe that Bush would act like a commander in chief was supposed to act? IMO, it is simply silly to say vote on IWR was okay, it was that Bush behaved badly.

Kerry needs to take responsiblity for his actions on IWR. He has done lots of good things, but he royally screwed up with this one. To deny it is to lie to oneself.

John Kerry also said on CNN in September of 2003 that he would never said anything critical about Wesley Clark, his friend Wesley Clark. I just expected that as a friend, he would make a comment in support of his friend (about Bush's AWOL status), rather than make a comment in support of the man who lied to him about going to war in Iraq (saying anything about Bush's AWOL status was "over the top").

Clark has never denied being Saadam was a threat. No one has ever denied that -- the issue was why IWR, why Spring 2003 - why did we have to go to war with Saadam at this time. That is what Clark says.

You completely take out of context the statements Clark made about lieutenants versus generals. In addition to taking them out of context, you conveniently leave out the fact that Clark apologized for them not once but multiple times. Clark took responsiblity for his statements in a honorable way and apologized. The fact that you forget the apology, but feel the need to bring up the statements indicates either a lack of research or an unwillingness to acknowledge the truth.

Kerry has recently called for a PI investigation into Bush's AWOL status. So he had no trouble pushing it after NH just not before.

You use several very emotionally charged words in a negative fashion against Wesley Clark which do not reflect well on your statements. I'd appreciate some respect for Wesley Clark because he deserves respect -- even if you don't support him as your candidate. I did not use words against John Kerry which were charged and demeaning.

edited for clarification

[Strelnikov_]

30. Here We Go Again

How do we go from:

Dole: "Well General, it looks like you've been demoted to Colonel"

Clark: "With all due respect, he's a lieutenant and I'm a general." <directly followed by Clark saying he admires and respects Kerry>

Followed by Kerry on 60 min.:

"That's the first time I have heard a general be so dismissive of lieutenants, who bleed a lot in wars,"

Followed by Clark's response:

"Asked Saturday about Kerry's statement on "60 Minutes," Clark again said he respected Kerry's military service and had meant no disrespect to lower-ranking members of the military."

To your statement:

"Additionally, mentioning that Kerry was "only a lieutenant" and therefore has a questionable "profile in courage" is a fairly despicable charge that insults all those who have served but did not stay in the military long enough to be a 4-star general."


If anyone is being insulted here it is the General. And I think it is these kind of tactics by the Kerry campaign that provide the "politics as usual" taint the Dean and Clark camps sense.

[mikehiggins]

33. As Ronald Reagan once said

There you go again. Not you personally, of course, but that old tale about Clark's testimony just won't die, will it?

Which is surprising because Richard Perle, a name known to all of us around here thinks that very same testimony, that he listened to in person in the very same room as Clark as Clark gave his point of view, said Clark was obviously against the war. Now isn't it strange that democrats (and CBS and Matt Drudge of course) seem to think what Clark said was in favor of invading Iraq. How could Perle have been so wrong? Well he said the following to the same committee, in the same room, immediately after Clark finished speaking:

PERLE: (in regard to Clark’s testimony) No, I don't believe it and frankly I don't think he made a very convincing case in support of that cliche but it was one of many cliches. At the end of the day when you sought to elicit from him a reconciliation of the view that time is on our side with what he acknowledged to be our ignorance of how far along Saddam Hussein is, he had no explanation. He seems to be preoccupied, and I'm quoting now, with building legitimacy, with exhausting all diplomatic remedies as though we hadn't been through diplomacy for the last decade, and relegating the use of force to a last resort, to building the broadest possible coalition, in short a variety of very amorphous, ephemeral concerns alongside which there's a stark reality and that is that every day that goes by, Saddam Hussein is busy perfecting those weapons of mass destruction that he already has, improving their capabilities, improving the means with which to deliver them and readying himself for a future conflict. So I don't believe that time is on our side and I don't believe that this fuzzy notion that the most important thing is building legitimacy, as if we lack legitimacy now, after all the U.N. resolutions that he's in blatant violation of, I don't believe that that should be the decisive consideration. So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait.

End of Quote.

Now, can you see my puzzlement? The architect of the war, or one of them, claims that Clark's testimony actually opposed the war. Isn't that odd?

And the remark about being a general while Kerry was a lieutenant? I happened to hear that exchange and while I could wish Clark could have been smoother and more polished, it was clear he was reacting to Bob Dole's putdown, not being dismissive to Kerry's experiences or his rank. Clark, after all, had also been a junior officer in Viet Nam and had also been wounded. He knows what that was like but the media, and some democrats, jumped on the statement like they did on Dean's cheer, to smear a candidate that they really seem to hate. And, of course, some democrats joined right in.

And that "profile in courage" thing? Clark never said that. Where did that come from?

Your explanation for Kerry's statement to Begala and Novak that claiming Bush was a deserter was over the top was more remarkable because Terry McCulliffe was just saying on another show that yes, Bush's absenteeism was a legitimate issue now as it had been in 2000. From what Kerry has SAID I think it is very optimistic to think that you will ever hear about it again from Kerry's lips. Actually, you are probably the only person on this planet who can morph what Kerry said about aircraft carriers into an implied jab at Bush's failure to meet his legal obligation to the Air National Guard unit his father had helped him hide in during Viet Nam. There's no beef there, pal. Kerry just doesn't want to offend. Its a Senator thing, y'know?

You know, Zulch, I beginning to think your post wasn't all that fair and balanced after all.

[Justice]

34. The Profile In Courage "Thing" Comes From John F. Kennedy

In his 1957 Pulitzer prize-winning book, Profiles in Courage, Kennedy told the stories of 8 U.S. Senators. "These senators risked their careers, incurring the wrath of constituents or powerful interest groups, by taking principled stands for unpopular positions." Kennedy wrote:

"In whatever arena of life one may meet the challenge of courage, whatever may be the sacrifices he faces if he follows his conscience – the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow men – each man must decide for himself the course he will follow. The stories of past courage can define that ingredient – they can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration. But they cannot supply courage itself. For this, each man must look into his own soul."

Since 1989, the Kennedy Library in MA gives out an annual award to someone -- it is known as the Profile in Courage Award.

From the Kennedy Library Website:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/pica_information.html

"With his book, and throughout his political career, President Kennedy inspired people to follow their conscience and to work for the benefit of their communities, their country, and their world. He believed that each person can make a difference, and that everyone should try. In particular, he wanted to restore a belief in politics as a noble profession and a calling to public service.

The John F. Kennedy Library Foundation created the Profile in Courage Award in 1989 to honor President Kennedy and recognize and celebrate the quality of political courage that he admired most. The Profile in Courage Award seeks to make Americans aware of the conscientious and courageous acts of their public servants, and to encourage elected officials to choose principles over partisanship – to do what is right, rather than what is expedient.

The award is presented annually to a public official or officials at the federal, state or local level whose actions best demonstrate the qualities of political courage described in Profiles in Courage."

Past Recipients Include

Governor Roy Barnes, GA
Governor Beasley, SC
Russell Feingold and John McCain
John Lewis

[LandOLincoln]

35. I'm sorry, but you've cherry-picked two quotes/incidents

that have been debunked time and again.

First, you have taken one paragraph from General Clark's lengthy testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 2002, and ignored the rest of his testimony, in which he made it clear that he opposed this war at this time. You can read his testimony here:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/clark.perle.testimony.pdf

After General Clark left to catch a plane, Richard Perle testified:

No, I don't believe it and frankly I don't think he made a very convincing case in support of that cliche but it was one of many cliches. At the end of the day when you sought to elicit from him a reconciliation of the view that time is on our side with what he acknowledged to be our ignorance of how far along Saddam Hussein is, he had no explanation. He seems to be preoccupied, and I'm quoting now, with building legitimacy, with exhausting all diplomatic remedies as though we hadn't been through diplomacy for the last decade, and relegating the use of force to a last resort, to building the broadest possible coalition, in short a variety of very amorphous, ephemeral concerns alongside which there's a stark reality and that is that every day that goes by, Saddam Hussein is busy perfecting those weapons of mass destruction that he already has, improving their capabilities, improving the means with which to deliver them and readying himself for a future conflict. So I don't believe that time is on our side and I don't believe that this fuzzy notion that the most important thing is building legitimacy, as if we lack legitimacy now, after all the U.N. resolutions that he's in blatant violation of, I don't believe that that should be the decisive consideration. So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait. (Emphasis added.)

The 4-star general vs. the chickenhawk neocon. Who ya gonna believe?

As to Clark "pulling rank" on Kerry, it was in response to childish baiting by Bob Dole, and Clark's meaning was that as a general, especially as a general who was NATO Supreme Allied Commander, he has extensive executive (and diplomatic) experience, while Kerry's experience as a senator is legislative.

Now, can anyone seriously argue that Clark's executive and diplomatic chops don't trump Kerry's legislative experience when it comes to the kind of experience needed for the presidency?

[Justice]

36. Thanks To All Who Have Provided The Correct Story

It is heartening to see so many come to support a great candidate like Clark against false allegations.

[bigtree]

28. The party is lucky to have Gen. Clark on our side.

I will gloat after the convention, whoever the nominee is.

[SPAZtazticman]

29. thank you

well said