Wesley Clark understands something about people that George&Co never will.

[MissMarple]

Bullying other nations, as with people, doesn't work. Brow beating someone often achieves an opposite effect, it creates hostility, defensiveness, and the need for self protection. And as Clark points out, in Iran, it helps the Shia leadership. Condoleeza Rice has disastrous diplomatic skills, as do George, Rumsfeld and Cheney. John Bolton was a tragic choice for American interests in the long run.


"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Directly to Iran. The Iranian state is not unified. There are differences of opinion in Iran, but rather that passing a $75 million Iranian Liberation Act funding proposal, why don't we just talk to the Iranian leadership and see if there's not a way <crosstalk>

George Stephanopoulos: But don't you believe that if they're this intent on developing a nuclear weapon…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think they are intent and the more we press against them, the more difficult it would be for them to change their direction. Iran represents an historic opportunity for the Shias to have leadership in the Islamic world and this nuclear issue is being crystallized in such a way that it's going to make it extremely difficult for them to back off."

http://securingamerica.com/node/692


Clark doesn't get caught up in contorted ideological reasoning. He doesn't talk down to the American people, he expects us to see and understand the truth, and to take some responsibility for our democracy. I think he respects people in a way that the GOP never will be able to do. Whether or not he runs for president, he is a true leader.

[Clark2008]

1. What's bothersome is that the media is so mum about him.

It's like they're scared we might actually pick a smart, television-saavy, thoughful, kind and electable person to run against whomever the wingnuts select.

[MADem]

2. Well, he is a former Republican, which could account for his appeal

The Nixon and Reagan voters have something in common with him.

[OKNancy]

3. He was a registered independent, never a Republican

[Clark2008]

4. He was never a Republican.

And, even if he was, so the fuck what?

What? You don't believe people can change? And, besides, MOST VOTERS in a GENERAL ELECTION vote split tickets. They'll identify with him more.

Geesch. No wonder the Dems can't win general elections. They don't know about the average, all-be-it misinformed, voter. :eyes:

[MissMarple]

5. Clark isn't defined by party politics. He has firm democratic values.

And his point about one party domination goes to both sides of the aisle. Right now, for many Independents, the Dems are the only party that can effect change. And I think it is time for the "misinformed" voters to stop being so uninformed or ideologically self indulgent and face reality.

[MADem]

9. I stand corrected, he was an Independent, as were most voters from his

state. But surely, you can understand why some people look askance at his sincerity, given his enthusiastic praising of Bush at a GOP function in 2001, as well as at another event, as late as 2002:

Soon after Clark emerged as a candidate for the Democratic nomination, the Republican National Committee released a videotape and transcript of a speech Clark had given May 11, 2001 for the Pulaski County Republican Party in Arkansas. Most of Clark ’s address was a nonpartisan discussion of foreign policy, but Clark did say this:

If you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill - people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.

That was four months before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and long before the invasion of Iraq that Clark now criticizes. A few weeks after speaking at the Republican event, Clark also attended the annual dinner of the Arkansas Democratic party in Little Rock, w here the Arkansas Gazette pictured him with Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

After US forces toppled the Taliban government in Afghanistan Clark praised Bush's military leadership in another speech, also captured on videotape, to a university audience in Searcy, Arkansas in a speech on January 22, 2002:

I tremendously admire, and I think we all should, the great work done by our commander-in-chief, our president, George Bush, and the men and women of the United States armed forces.

The material at the link is instructive: http://www.factcheck.org/article97.html

His contradictory comments vis a vis choice also caused some concern during the last campaign.

However, that said, I am NOT suggesting he should not run. I want every candidate who wants to run to get up on the stage and make their case. The more, the merrier.

I've met the General, he is an interesting fellow. Right now, he is not my first choice, but I will keep an open mind and listen to what he has to say.

I certainly don't want anyone shut out of the process, from Clark, to Clinton, to Sharpton. In this respect, I find myself at odds with some people on this forum.

[Jai4WKC08]

16. Dean and Kerry also praised Bush after the Taliban fell

As I recall, most leading Democrats did. Almost everyone supported going after Osama in Afghanistan.

Rove was out to take down Clark as soon as he announced. It was the GOP who released the tape of the Pulaski County GOP dinner. If there's any recording of what he said to the Democratic Party event, it has never surfaced, but I suspect he was as complimentary of Democrats. He had just retired from the military, wasn't in politics, and was trying to rejoin the Little Rock community.

One story you left out was given to Newsweek by two Repubs who said Clark had called the White House for a job after 9/11, even tho the White House switchboard later had to admit there was no record of such a call. Of course, the story was printed as gospel, without further investigation.

Then there was the cut & paste of Clark's 2002 HASC testimony where over 2000 words were skipped over to make it sound like he had supported invading Iraq. RNC chair Gillespie actually disseminated that one.

In addition to gunning for Clark, it is GOP bread and butter that all military officers are naturally Republicans. It's nonsense of course, but it keeps the sheeple believing they are "strong on defense," no matter how incompetent their actions or how badly they abuse and neglect the troops.

[jen4clark]

17. From the same FactCheck

link:

And when asked about his praise for Bush and his credentials as a Democrat, Clark said this at his first candidate debate on September 25, 2003:

We elected a president we thought was a compassionate conservative. Instead we got neither conservatism or compassion. We got a man who recklessly cut taxes. We got a man who recklessly took us into war with Iraq.

I was never partisan in the military. I served under Democratic presidents, I served under Republican presidents. But as I looked at this country and looked which way we were headed, I knew that I needed to speak out. And when I needed to speak out, there was only party to come to.

I am pro-choice, I am pro-affirmative action, I'm pro-environment, pro-health. I believe the United States should engage with allies. We should be a good player in the international community. And we should use force only as a last resort. That's why I'm proud to be a Democrat.

[Skwmom]

21. Clark was trying to give them advice on foreign policy. I guess

he should have just ripped into them at the beginning of his speech. I'm sure that would have increased his chances of getting them to listen to what he had to say.

When dealing with egos, complimenting before giving advice greatly enhances your chances of getting someone to listen to you. It's called using tact and diplomacy.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. Context counts. What do you think of this quote?

Not long before the Arkansas event which you pulled your selected quote from. Al Gore made this comment:

"President-elect Bush inherits a nation whose citizens will be ready to assist him in the conduct of his large responsibilities.

I personally will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans -- I particularly urge all who stood with us to unite behind our next president. This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done."

The latter was from Gore's final concession speech, after the Supreme Court spoke. The problem with Cherry picking political quotes (Cheney picking is what I call it) is that they lose all context, and the loss of that context is almost always a deliberate act meant to cast the person being quoted in the worst possible political light. It is dishonest and a part of politics I would hope we would not use among and between Democrats. From the tone of the snippet from Clark that you used, one might think that he went on to deliver a rousing partisan speech, pointing out how only Republicans can save America and such crap, but in reality, although Clark was at a Republican event (and he later spoke at a Democratic event as you noted), what you quoted from was only a gracious introductory nod to the men and women of a new Administration taking office. Those same men and women had also been praised by Democrats in the Senate during their confirmation hearings just weeks before. Clark then went on to deliver a strong bipartisan based appeal for the type of U.S. foreign policy that the Clinton Administration had embraced.

Likewise with your second quote. I'll give you a second Gore quote. So what? I know what Gore meant at the time, I don't look askance at his sincerity:

Gore backs Bush in war against terrorism
September 29, 2001 Posted: 11:59 PM EDT (0359 GMT)

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Saying the country is more united than ever, former Vice-President Al Gore Saturday pledged his allegiance to the man he conceded victory to last year in one of the closest presidential elections in American history.

"George W. Bush is my commander in chief," Gore said during the keynote speech at the Iowa Democratic Party's 2001 Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner

Gore, sporting the greying beard he grew while vacationing in Europe earlier this year, commended Bush on his leadership in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

"We are united behind our president George W. Bush, behind our country, behind the effort to seek justice not revenge, to make sure this can never, ever happen again, and to make sure that we have the strongest unity in America that we have ever had," Gore said."
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/ret.gore.speech/

Do you know why this is such a silly political game? Because we don't have to guess where Wes Clark stands vis a vis George Bush. We've seen Wes Clark take on this administration repeatedly now for three years, strong and hard. Maybe, just maybe, quotes out of context of the sort you just recycled for the 28th upteenth million time on Democratic Underground had some purpose back when Clark was initially entering the Presidential race in 2003, when less was known about Clark, when Clark didn't have a track record of campaigning for Democrats all across the nation, of fighting to elect John Kerry over Bush, of raising money tirelessly for Democrats all across America.

I look askance at the sincerity of those who are still posting this crap against Clark now while claiming to think well of him.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. Oh, so even if that were true, which it ISN'T,

is it forbidden for the Democratic Party to accept converts? If your first vote at age 18 is for a Republican, and you later change your philosophy and decide you want to be a Democrat, must the party reject you forver because once you were a Republican?

In any event Clark was never a Republican; he was a registered independent. Yes; he voted for Reagan, as most military people did. But he also voted for Clinton twice and Gore once. In my book that makes him a Democrat, NOW, which is the only time frame that matters.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. And Carter encouraged Clark to run for President before he announced

Carter was among the Democratic Party leaders who called Clark in Little Rock before Clark made his decision whether to enter the race, to encourage General Clark to run in 2004. One might think that Jimmy Carter, the man Reagan defeated, would be the one to hold that against Clark if anyone would, but the opposite is true.

[MADem]

29. Look, I find it curious that everyone is getting so upset so soon

If you read what I wrote, I said two things--that I stood corrected on the party affiliation point, and SOME might have issues with some of his stances.

I have no dog in this fight yet. I am waiting until the run-up to the primaries to decide if I want to work for a particular candidate. If I am not entranced with any one, I will work GOTV exclusively, watch the debates closely, and save my fire and shoeleather for the winning candidate, and work for that individual up to the general elections.

[vikegirl]

22. self delete

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Nixon voters like George McGovern, right?

You do know of course that George McGovern endorsed Wesley Clark for President in 2004, don't you? So did several other political veterans of those stormy political years, like strong environmentalist former Senator Gaylord Nelson the founder of Earth Day in 1970. And civil rights leader Andrew Young, former close associate of Martin Luther King Jr. and Clinton's ambassador to the U.N. Are these the type of Nixon voters you think can relate to Wes Clark?

And given a choice, would you rather that former Nixon voters voted Democratic or Republican in 2008?

[Auntie Bush]

7. I agree! Why else are the Media talking HC 24/7?

Tweety only has eyes for Hillery. He wants her to run so the Media can have an exciting election filed with hostility between the parties and he's doing everything in his power to get a chance to trash the Clinton's again and again. They are such good media fodder and good for business.
The media know if they hype Clark and let the people get to know him ...the primaries and the election would be boring. There would be no good horse race. Clark will run away at the start and never look back at their runny little noses.

[election_2004]

12. That's because they want HILLARY

And Clark would also be very likely to pick a female running mate (someone other than Hillary), who could potentially become our first woman president in 2016.

[Mythsaje]

6. He's absolutely right...

which illustrates what I've always said about Dubya's stupid "Axis of Evil" statement about Iran...he gave them ammunition to use to help elect their hardliners in a country that was in the early days of a democratic revolution.

BUSH sabotaged them...out of stupidity, malice, or to further some ideological agenda, I don't know.

I wish I did know.

[AX10]

8. He is correct, 100%

[tocqueville]

10. has anybody read the whole interview ?

Dubai ports : nothing clear : "you cannot wall off America"


Iraq : "Getting involved was a big mistake. Pulling troops out and announcing a timeline, right now, when we haven't set the conditions on the ground to do this would be a big mistake.

George Stephanopoulos: Even a gradual reduction down to about 100,000?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Maybe we can reduce forces, but right now we shouldn't be focused on the troop strength. Right now we're at the decisive point of what's going to determine the future of Iraq. It's the politics inside Iraq. What we have to do is to get the Sunni leadership into the government and the constitution has to be modified so there can't be a carve up of Iraq into a Shia-dominated Iranian buffer state in the south, a Kurdish controlled area in the North and leaving the Sunnis on the outside.

George Stephanopoulos: That seems to be the President's policy right now.

......................................................


"We have got to use all of our leverage to get responsible Sunni leaders into this government. Whether that means moving the Prime Minister Jaafari out, whether it means playing the card of Arab Shiism against Persian Shiism, whether it means <crosstalk>

George Stephanopoulos: What does that mean?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: threatening to move against the Shiite militias, whether it means using Muqtada al-Sadr. There are a lot of different political forces. One of the things that's happened to us, George, is this debate - largely because of the administration in the way it's been portrayed, it's always about the military. What's happening in Iraq is not about the military. It's about who controls the country and what the future policies of Iraq will be."

...........................................................

Politics at home....


I think when you look at this country, right now, we need a 2-party system that works, we need Congress to do its job, we need real investigation of some of the abuses of authority that are apparently going on at the Executive branch, we need <crosstalk>

George Stephanopoulos: Like what?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We need to really get to the bottom of the Abramoff scandal, we should have a special prosecutor appointed for that, we really need a congressional investigation of the whole business of the NSA wiretapping and how far that goes, there's been a lot of squirreling around the edges; we've never completed the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had - the evidence seems pretty clear to me, I've seen that for a long time. I think Americans are best served by a strong 2-party system and that's been out of whack and what I can do in 2006 is try to help the right Democrats get into office and that's what I'm going to do.


????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

is that a program ?

[wiley]

13. I actually watched the interview several times

He was spot on on every issue. As for a "program", do you no any media outlet where someone can outline their "program' for anything?

[tocqueville]

14. as an outsider I am not convinced...

- He couldn't give a clear answer on the ports. Personally I don't understand why just SECURITY of the ports in any country can be turned to another country ? It has nothing to do with trade. Why not sell nuclear plants security to Russia, and airport security to Saudi Arabia ? the "cannot be isolated" argument is hollow.

- Iraq : basically his plan is to FORCE Sunnis back into government and to go after Shiites militias. Besides the fact that it's pretty "unconstitutional" from an Iraqui point of view, it's doomed to fail. If the US want to turn EVERYBODY against them in Iraq the best is to go after the Shiites...

- Iran : OK a positive point

- Home : go after corruption (who wouldn't), having a functioning 2 party system (!!!!!!!???? much could be said about that) and nothing about econonomy, medications, environment etc... He could at least have mentioned some big issues.

I don't think that this kind of "program" is very convincing, at least for me. And adding more direct intervention in Iraq is not going to work, probably make things worse. That was very disappointing from a NATO strategist.

[Jai4WKC08]

18. You missed his point(s)

What you have to remember is that Clark's total focus is on 2006 right now.

On the ports, Clark was framing the issue to emphasize the Bush failure on port security. Repub congress critters are gonna be running on, "I stood up to the president to keep our ports in American hands." Clark is trying to remind people, and set it up for Democratic candidates to remind people, that the Repub Congress has refused to do its job on holding Bush and his Homeland Security Dept accountable for not having done anything about port security overall.

About the 2 party system, Clark is trying to convince Repubs and indies that it's a bad thing to have Congress and the White House both in Repub hands. He knows Dems are gonna vote for Democratic candidates. Duh. And double-duh if you think he wouldn't LOVE to have a Democratic Congress if he were president. Be real. But for a lot of swing voters, the corruption, rubber-stamping, and loss of checks and balances is the best and maybe only argument for voting against their incumbents.

As for Iraq, his plan isn't to "force Sunnis back into government," but to force Shi'a to allow them back into government. In fact, to force Shi'a to make sure they have to be part of the govt. If you honestly have a problem with that, you don't understand the dynamics of what's happening in Iraq.

I don't know how you expected him to talk about health care, the economy, environment. He wasn't asking the questions and it was only a 12 minute interview. About all he could have done in that amount of time is interject, "Oh by the way, health care, a strong economy, and a clean environment are good." Each one of those could (and should) consume the whole hour. And ya know, for most people, Iraq, Iran and the ports ARE "big issues," even tho the others obviously are too.

I was just glad he was able to turn the inevitable "are you running in 2008" question into discussion what is to me MOST important issue, and that's the trouble our democracy is in.

[MissMarple]

20. Thanks, Jai. Clark leans heavily toward the diplomatic process and

the democratic process.

The chicken hawks just jumped right into the the military option in 2002 and were in way over their heads. I was about to post something on the ports debacle, but you were here ahead of me. I think Clark gives a outline of the problem and how we can begin to address it. I don't think Stephanopoulos got it. He is not opposed to HC's legislation, out of hand. But he does understand that this issue needs a national, as well as a congressional, discussion. We were all blind sided by this and are not all up to speed about the complexity of the global business community. Using American naivete for political gain is what the GOP is doing, and Hillary's legislative effort follows them down the aisle. and Clark doesn't do that. He is looking at the reality, not the misperceptions of many Americans. Americans need to be treated like adults, not fearful hysterics hiding under the bed covers.

"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, when we go through the legislative process, there's going to be some hearings. We really need to take this apart. Homeland security has not received the emphasis and attention it needs and, in particular, port security hasn't. There've been any number of initiatives, there's money that's been laid out, but it hasn't been pulled together. So, I think we need to look through the issue of ownership, the issue of control, the issue of regulation, the issue of how we relate to the ports overseas. All of that needs to be on the table, and then find our way through it. <crosstalk>

George Stephanopoulos: But you just said that we can't wall off America so

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We cannot wall off America.

George Stephanopoulos: We can't wall off America so that means that you wouldn't prohibit foreign investment in these kinds of operations, doesn't it?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think you've got to recognize that it's a very complicated place out there, economically. You know, even labeling who is an American to own it, it's not a single American individual, it's an American company, can it have foreign ownership in an American company? Can it be an international company with headquarters abroad but majority US ownership? It gets pretty complicated. What we need to be focusing on is how the ports are regulated and how we're dealing with the ports abroad. It's much more important. <crosstalk>"

[wiley]

23. What country are you from?

I'm interested if you feel that your leaders are pursuing a program that you can or did vote for?

[Adelante]

15. Uh, that's an interview

"This Week" is a program.

[Burning Water]

11. Clarks' my candidate. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

24. That's why I respect Wes Clark so much...cause he ain't just gonna

tell you what you want to hear if that's not what you need to hear. He's about making sure we aren't out there confused.....like the politicians want us to be.

In reference to the Port Deal, The Dems still aren't making it about Lack of Port Safety under Bush like they should....

Hope they play back this interview so that they understand the strategy a bit better...cause 2006 elections are almost here!

[MissMarple]

30. Port security and another thing (of many) that slipped under the radar...

the electric grid. Remember the outages across the the northeast? Why do I doubt that is on the fast track to prevent entire cities and regions from losing power? Eisenhower was concerned about our interstate transportation system, combine the deterioration of that with widespread loss of electrical power and we have a national security nightmare just waiting terrorist opportunism.

Please correct me if I've missed that little development.

[Totally Committed]

28. What Wes understands about EVERYTHING that the Bush administration doesn't

could fill a library. He is the absolute only true alternative to the stupidity and shortsightedness of the Bushies. He sees miles down the road, understands and sees all the alternatives and reprocussions of them, and speaks with intelligence AND simplicity to all of them. This country, her Constitution, and her people need Wes Clark in the White House. I sincerely believe that.

TC

[riona]

31. wouldn't it be great

to have an intelligent president - one who studied the facts before making crucial decisions? i'd vote for wes clark in a minute.