[spacefreak]

From Campaign 2004: Clark's Charge

This guy changes his mind and ideals on a daily basis.

Regardless, the Rove statement is quite awkward.

[voodoo]

Ugh that is one embarrassing quote. This guy looks like quite the popularist. Regardless there isn't much difference between Dems and Reps.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Ugh that is one embarrassing quote. This guy looks like quite the popularist. Regardless there isn't much difference between Dems and Reps.

There is a world of difference.

Oh yeah...turns out the White House logs every call. Clark never called Karl Rove - not once. And why would he call Rove to begin with? More appropriate would have been Powell, Rice, even Andy Card.

[Spliffdaddy]

that makes sense.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Oh yeah...turns out the White House logs every call. Clark never called Karl Rove - not once. And why would he call Rove to begin with? More appropriate would have been Powell, Rice, even Andy Card.

This is really funny. The article you cite says the following:

After Al Qaeda attacked America, retired Gen. Wes Clark thought the Bush administration would invite him to join its team. After all, he’d been NATO commander, he knew how to build military coalitions and the investment firm he now worked for had strong Bush ties. But when GOP friends inquired, they were told: forget it.

Note the last part: "But when GOP friends inquired, they were told: forget it." GOP friends inquired. Clark didn't call Rove. And the article also says

WORD WAS THAT Karl Rove, the president’s political mastermind, had blocked the idea.

Of course it would be silly to call Rove about such matters. What's even sillier is that Rove has any power over such matters, but he apparently does.

You know, it's kinda nice to see the right-wing smear machine back in action. With as much power as they've had with the president and Congress, they haven't had much to do. Now with a threat (Clark is leading Bush in the polls, and half the country hasn't even heard of him yet), they've got a job to do! Good for them!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by BRussell:

You know, it's kinda nice to see the right-wing smear machine back in action.

So now a Newsweek cover story becomes a vast 'right wing' conspiracy merely for detailing a bizarre Clark quote!

Heh heh! Time for more election season nuttiness!

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
So now a Newsweek cover story becomes a vast 'right wing' conspiracy merely for detailing a bizarre Clark quote!

Don't kid yourself.

How the GOP will attack Wesley Clark. (Oops, too late—it's already happening (scroll down to 9/17 posts).)

Another good laugh: "By beaming General Clark’s face into America’s psyche 24 hours a day like a never-ending Clark infomercial, this media conglomerate’s [AOL/TW] CNN arm clearly aimed to make the 58-year-old boy raised in Little Rock, Arkansas, its next liberal puppet in the White House."

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

LOL! So it' official then?

Newsweek is part of the 'vast right wing conspiracy'?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
So now a Newsweek cover story becomes a vast 'right wing' conspiracy merely for detailing a bizarre Clark quote!

Heh heh! Time for more election season nuttiness!

Nah, not the Newsweek story. I'm mixing up this thread and the other Clark thread where we've been talking about how the conservative blogs and magazine websites have been skewering Clark every day over these little quotes, repeating each other's interpretations of the facts and not correcting them as other news reports show their flaws.

Check out Bill Safire's next-to-last column, one of George Will's columns, the WSJ, and virtually every day for the last week on andrewsullivan.com and the Weekly Standard. It's really quite amazing how it's bounced around.

[edit]I don't have a problem with the Newsweek story, which indicated that Clark said his statement about Rove was a joke (how could it not be?). I do have a problem with the Standard or some other right-wing site saying "AHA, we've looked through the phone records, and it turns out Clark never called Rove! He's a liar, just like Gore!" When in reality the story itself says Clark had GOP friends inquire for him rather than him making the call himself. Then the "fact" that Clark lied about calling Rove bounces around the right-wing sites forever and is never corrected.

[dreilly1]

I don't understand how anyone can take this notion seriously. Clark is well-known to be a Friend Of Bill. I suspect he'd sooner chop his right arm off then become a Republican.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
LOL! So it' official then?

Newsweek is part of the 'vast right wing conspiracy'?

I don't think Newsweek was the point. I think the point was that Republicans seem to be putting a surprising amount of energy into discrediting Clark, whether it's deserved or not, and not just in Newsweek. The left does the same to Bush - what's different is that the right seems to perceive Clark as a much greater threat than any of the other candidates.

If Clark were a Republican, many of the same people criticizing him now would be defending him, and many of the same people defending him now would be criticizing him, on the very same points. Politics.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
I don't understand how anyone can take this notion seriously. Clark is well-known to be a Friend Of Bill. I suspect he'd sooner chop his right arm off then become a Republican.

Take this seriously then...

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU SEPT 25, 2003 16:05:37 ET XXXXX
GENERAL CLARK PRAISED CONDI, POWELL, RUMSFELD AND BUSH: 'WE NEED THEM THERE'

**World Exclusive**

Democratic presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark offered lavish praise for the Bush Administration and its key players in a speech to Republicans -- just two years ago, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal!

During extended remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001, General Clark declared: "And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."

A video of Clark making the comments has surfaced, DRUDGE can reveal.

MORE

Clark praised Reagan for improving the military:
"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan." Clark continued: "That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."

Clark on President George Bush:
"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

Clark on American military involvement overseas:
"Do you ever ask why it is that these people in these other countries can't solve their own problems without the United States sending its troops over there? And do you ever ask why it is the Europeans, the people that make the Mercedes and the BMW's that got so much money can't put some of that money in their own defense programs and they need us to do their defense for them?"

"And I'll tell you what I've learned from Europe is that are a lot of people out in the world who really, really love and admire the United States. Don't you ever believe it when you hear foreign leaders making nasty comments about us. That's them playing to their domestic politics as they misread it. Because when you talk to the people out there, they love us. They love our values. They love what we stand for in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

Impacting...

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Democratic presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark offered lavish praise for the Bush Administration and its key players in a speech to Republicans -- just two years ago

Just two years ago, the Bush administration hadn't mounted an ill-planned and shakily-justified invasion of a foreign country.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Just two years ago, the Bush administration hadn't mounted an ill-planned and shakily-justified invasion of a foreign country.

Invasion was well-planned (see: war results), and removal of Saddam was justified on many grounds, unless you support Saddam's brutal, murderous regime (see: mass graves), thievery (see: over 150 lavish palace compounds), and constant defiance of UN mandates (see: 18 resolutions disobeyed over 12 years).

As for Clark, just 2 years ago, he was begging the Bush Admin for a high-profile, post-9/11 post. Hence, the title and subject of the thread.

This thread is about Wesley Clark. If you want to bash Bush, there are plenty of other threads to do so, Arianna.

[WinsOBoogi]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
As for Clark, just 2 years ago, he was begging the Bush Admin for a high-profile, post-9/11 post.

As you republicans like to use to justify everything, the "world has changed."

Remember, Clark made these remarks when Bush was still a "compassionate conservative," which we now know is total bullshit. I call it "passionate extremists."

Point is, however, that Clark matches up to the ideals of the Democratic Party, not to mention the fact that he didn't support the war.

Clark is a democrat, and if he wins the primaries, he'll beat Bush. You'll just have to get over that when that time comes.

And we'll take Colin Powell, too...maybe once when one of his army buddies takes office.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by WinsOBoogi:
Clark matches up to the ideals of the Democratic Party.

And what ideals are those? Every 'stance' Clark has taken, he has reversed himself.

If you want to beat Bush, which seems to be the primary motivation behind the majority of your views, Lieberman's going to be the one to do it. He's the last bastion of sensibility in the Democratic Party.

But can he win the primary?

Radical leftists like Dean, Kerry, and television military analysts like Wes Clark don't fare well in general presidential elections.

Now if you throw Hillary Clinton in the mix, we now have the Oprah/Madonna school of publicity working. Add a CNN personality as a vice presidential candidate, and you might have something.

Someone at some point needs to dump the Clintons. They have destroyed the Democratic Party. The Clintons will do anything to win, that's for sure, but the Party no longer has a moral soul, or a common cause. Today's Democratic party just sits and responds to the ways the Republicans choose to solve problems, all without proposing a solution of it's own. The Dems talking points memos - dictated by Clinton and published/distributed by McAuliffe - are notorious for their personal destruction directives. Example sound-bites are even included.

Lieberman is your big hope if you want to run a worthy candidate who will do a successful job in office.

[WinsOBoogi]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Radical leftists like Dean, Kerry, and television military analysts like Wes Clark don't fare well in general presidential elections.
...The Clintons will do anything to win, that's for sure, but the Party no longer has a moral soul, or a common cause.

Your worst post ever.

Firstly, Dean is not a radical leftist. Especially not to the degree that Bush is a radical conservative. Dean is liberal on some issues...but what? Anti-Iraqi War is not radical. Gay Union is not radical. The man's being a democrat.

Secondly, it's not Clinton that destroyed the Demcoratic Party. It was the Republicans. "You're not a patriot if you don't do this.." What kind of Karl Rove bullshit is that?

Clinton is a brilliant man, and you cannot say that the Clintons won't do anything to win without making an exactly equal statement on Bush (I don't want to start with the 2000 elections...don't make me go there.)

Clark has said outrightly that he believes in a woman's right to choose. He believe in equal rights. He believes in healthcare. He embraces the standard Democratic Party platform. The man's a Democrat.

Bush is vunerable. He's especially vunerable on the economy, and the only way he'll win in any economic issue is by stating that a democrat will "raise taxes in a recession," if they wish to be fiscally conservative and repeal portions of the taxcut.

Bush is vunerable on Iraq. Iraq isn't getting any better, and there's not going to be stability for a long, long time. More people oppose the war than ever, and most people agree that Bush was being dishonest and keeping back information (especially since he just admitted that there were no 9/11 links to Iraq).

Now, think of it this way: You've got a president who's going to have a failed war (or, at least you can "give me" the idea that more people will disagree wit hthe war next year than they currently do). Here comes a 4-star general who led a highly successful campaign in Kosovo (which became the model for modern warfare). He critiques the failed war, and his points make sense. he tells the country how we can be more safe.

It's a viable scenario, and it's a scenario that Bush would lose.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by WinsOBoogi:
Firstly, Dean is not a radical leftist. Especially not to the degree that Bush is a radical conservative. Dean is liberal on some issues...but what? Anti-Iraqi War is not radical. Gay Union is not radical. The man's being a democrat.

Dean is more left than any of the other major candidates. When one is deemed more left than John Kerry, the adjective 'radical' could be used.

Secondly, it's not Clinton that destroyed the Demcoratic Party. It was the Republicans. "You're not a patriot if you don't do this.." What kind of Karl Rove bullshit is that?

The only charges anyone has made that refer to an opponent as unpatriotic came from Dean in a scathing attack on Bush and Ashcroft. He called them 'unpatriotic'.

No one is questioning the left's patriotism. It's their judgement that is being questioned. Good job reciting McAuliffe's talking points from April.

Clinton is a brilliant man, and you cannot say that the Clintons won't do anything to win without making an exactly equal statement on Bush (I don't want to start with the 2000 elections...don't make me go there.)

Clark has said outrightly that he believes in a woman's right to choose. He believe in equal rights. He believes in healthcare. He embraces the standard Democratic Party platform. The man's a Democrat.

Clinton IS brilliant, but he still hurts the Democratic Party. Democratic representation in government has steadily gone down since he took office. Year-by-year, more Republicans get elected than Democrats. Over a 10 year period, this is a significant change.

As for Clark, there is nothing in his background, other than some cushy promotions given to him by Clinton, that make him as qualified as the other major Democratic candidates. Has he run a state? Has he represented a constituency? Has he worked a budget before? How is he going to create jobs? What I do read and hear by his former coworkers is that the man is a loose cannon, and that his rabid temper causes him to make rash and ridiculous decisions.

Bush is vunerable on Iraq. Iraq isn't getting any better, and there's not going to be stability for a long, long time. More people oppose the war than ever, and most people agree that Bush was being dishonest and keeping back information (especially since he just admitted that there were no 9/11 links to Iraq).

Iraq is quite stable. In a state the size of California, primarily an area about the size of LA County is deemed 'unstable'. Liberals are still combing through Bush quotes, looking for a line where Bush said Saddam and 9/11 were intertwined. Nothing. Same w/ an imminent threat quote. The closest the liberals can come up with was Bush saying we must "confront this threat before it becomes imminent".

Now, think of it this way: You've got a president who's going to have a failed war (or, at least you can "give me" the idea that more people will disagree wit hthe war next year than they currently do). Here comes a 4-star general who led a highly successful campaign in Kosovo (which became the model for modern warfare). He critiques the failed war, and his points make sense. he tells the country how we can be more safe.

He was removed from this post following erratic behavior (ie- fired) in Kosovo. As a general, have you wondered why NO other military men came out in praise of Clark? Now Powell on the other hand, nothing but kudos all around.

You need to realize that the nation is not liberal. There are liberals, conservatives, and a chunk of people somewhere inbetween. Quite often, these are the people who decide residential elections. And it is with this in mind that I say Lieberman is the Party's best hope. He can command a large chunk of those tweeners. Dean will have trouble attracting these people.

I love how you refer to the war as failed. It's nowhere near failed, and when compared historically, no reconstruction has even moved smoother or faster.

But it needs to be failed for the Democrats to have a chance, that's why liberals go to such extremes to classify the war and reconstruction as failed.

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
From Campaign 2004: Clark's Charge

This guy changes his mind and ideals on a daily basis.

Regardless, the Rove statement is quite awkward.

Wesley Clark voted for Nixon and Reagan.

Hmmmm........

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
Wesley Clark voted for Nixon and Reagan.

Exactly my point.

[clarkgoble]

Clark might be the best alternative to Bush because he is the only Republican alternative that isn't filled with overly zealous neo-Cons. <grin>

Seriously though, the one thing I worry about with Clark is how beholden he'll have to be to the left wing of his party. (Much like the problems Bush has with his right wing)