Is there a Clark thread?

[al j]

Wesley Clark? Yeah, he's catching up with Dean, but is that just evidence of the latter's declining popularity? I'd like to know more about him. Also I'm wondering why his performance in Kosovo isn't getting more press. I assume it's because the GOP is spending all of its energy on Dean right now, so will more attention turn to Clark as his campaign gains more momentum? The New Hampshire primary should be interesting.

[GoodSpeak]

Oh...I think Clark has a long way to go before we can call it "catching up."

Dean and Kerry are the top two at this point in most polls.



He still needs to out do Edwards yet.

[Gordon B]

If the revelations in today's Drudge Report are all verified as true, Clark's candidacy may be doomed.

[Paul B]

Very little that Drudge has to say could ever be called a "revelation."

Unfortunately, cheap tabloid news, devoid of journalistic ethics and moral fiber, still manages to fascinate the unwashed masses.

Bye-ya.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Paul B
Unfortunately, cheap tabloid news, devoid of journalistic ethics and moral fiber, still manages to fascinate the unwashed masses.

Yes and, if true, what Drudge claims the good general said will be supported by transcripts from sworn testimony before Congress in September 2002. That's a little better than rumor mongering, don't you think?

[Monte Smith]

Drudge presents an official response from the Lieberman campaign. Looks like this story is being confirmed:

For Immediate Release
Contact: Jano Cabrera
Thursday, January 15, 2004

LIEBERMAN STATEMENT ON CLARK IRAQ TESTIMONY

MANCHESTER, NH -- Joe Lieberman issued the following statement in response to the Drudge Report's discovery of congressional testimony from September 2002 in which Wes Clark made the case for war in Iraq. The report provides evidence directly contradicting Clark's repeated claims that he has been "very consistent" on the war "from the very beginning."

Statement by Joe Lieberman

"Yesterday, Wesley Clark attacked me for pointing out his multiple positions on the war in Iraq. It is no longer credible for Wesley Clark to assert that he has always had only one position on the war - being against it. His own testimony before Congress shows otherwise.

"He may think it is 'old-style politics' to point this out, but the only thing old here is a candidate not leveling with the American people. If we want to begin anew and replace George Bush, we need to level with the American people, which is what I have done in this campaign and throughout my career. You may not always agree with me but you will always know where I stand."

#

Yesterday on Good Morning America, Host Charlie Gibson told Wes Clark that "Joe Lieberman [is] saying Wes Clark had six different positions on the war."

Clark responded, "Well, has he ever named the six different positions, Charlie? I meant that's just -- that's old-style politics. You can go back to my record. I've even been on your show - while I couldn't t when I was on CNN. But, I was consistently against this since the guys from the Pentagon told me two weeks after 9/11 we were attacking Iraq. It didn't make any sense to me. And I have been very, very consistent on this. This was a war we didn't have to fight. It was an elective war. I have said it at almost every opportunity."

END

[moneyp]

Hell, I posted an article from FAIR when Clark announced his candidacy showing that he supported the war on multiple occasions.

[Monte Smith]

You did, Mone. I recall it.

So this is Chris A.'s preferred candidate, as at least he told Rita on another thread. I'm sure Chris will change his mind once he is made aware of the painful facts. Clark is an opportunist who was for the war up until he decided to be a Democrat peace candidate. It's not like he changed his mind because the facts on the ground changed: Clark maintains that he never held the views he is on record expressing.

Who will forget that the day he announced his candidacy he said he "probably" would have voted for the war. This was changed the very next day to "never" have voted for the war.

[al j]

Well I'll be. Michael Moore (yeah, that one) just gave Clark his official endorsement. What does Moore have against the good general to sabotage his campaign like that?

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Joe Christmas
Well I'll be. Michael Moore (yeah, that one) just gave Clark his official endorsement. What does Moore have against the good general to sabotage his campaign like that?

Absolutely right, Joe. I am waiting for Kofi Annan and Dominique de Villepin to issue their endorsements.

[Gordon B]

If Kerry scores an upset in Iowa, Dean wins New Hampshire, and either Clark or Edwards wins South Carolina, the possibility of a brokered convention becomes much more than remote. Most of the Democratic primaries are no longer winner take all. Brian asked in another thread for my views on the electoral college if the votes were proportional. Well, the Democratic Party nomination process is at least partly along those lines. Let the games begin!

[Chris D]

If you read the FULL transcript of what Clark said to Congress, he's consistent throughout.

Drudge quoted out of context.

Check for yourself:
Clark's testimony

[Paul B]

Drudge quoted out of context.

That should come as no surprise.

Bye-ya.

[Uli]

Thanks, Chris. I assumed so yesterday after reading Monte's post.

[Monte Smith]

It should be pointed out that Salon, too, has only published a portion of General Clark's remarks. But they and other media, including Drudge, are now offering a link to the entire 65 page transcript from the House Committee on Armed Services. I've read through that just now quickly and in my judgement General Clark does not have a problem with this politically. Or shouldn't have. While his opinion here is robust and more hawkish than his recent statements on the campaign trail, it is quite clear that what he supported in Sept 2002 was a unilateralism only of last resort. He'd have far preferred cooperative UN action or action in conjunction with NATO. I'd give him a pass on this, and in that regard Drudge got the story wrong. That's why I said I don't believe everything I see on his site until it has been independently verified.

[al j]

so what ratio does the latest polls make of Clarkians to Dean-a-lings?

[walto]

And has Lieberman apologized?

[Monte Smith]

Lieberman is still right about Clark's multiple positions on the war. If this Sept 2002 testimony were the only thing Clark has ever said, Lieberman would owe him an apology. But the guy has been all over the map on the issue.

[Uli]

It sure does not come as a surprise to me that Monte would dig Liebermann's negative comments.

But what I don't understand is that he would want to make honesty an election issue.

His guy has been consistantly lying.