Madonna has endorsed Wes Clark

[SENDITIN]

Even though this was announced several weeks ago, I think this is what is driving Wes the Flip Floppers' poll numbers. Now if only Sean Penn would get on board, that could push him over the top.

By the way lefties Clark had nothing but praise for the Bush Admin BEFORE the war. And he also answered "ABSOLUTELY" when asked if Sadaam possessed WMD's. Guess he was lying too!!

 

[D2bets]

Love how you righties twist stuff around.

Clark praised the early actions in Afghanistan because it was the right thing to do and early on it was done well. He criticized later diverting our attention and resources from that mission in favor of an elective war that was ill-conceived against a country that was not an imminent threat to us. Period. That is not inconsistent, actually it is quite consistent.

And Clark never said that Saddam "absolutely" possessed WMD's at the time of invasion. Please link to such a quote. That is just false. Clark did say that Saddam was a problem that we needed to deal with, but not the type of imminent threat for which a war was required at that time.

I know it's hard for some feeble right-wing minds to keep two opposing thoughts in their head at the same time (and this includes Joe Lieberman): 1. Saddam was a bad guy 2. The war was bad policy. Gotta get past a soundbite mentality to grasp this.

As for Madonna, she's a smart lady. A good start for her first political endorsement. Bush can have that ditz Britney, I'll take Madonna.

 

[xpanda]

Madonna should stick to music, and if Saddam 'ABSOLUTELY' had WMDs, then why couldn't Powell convince the UN of this fact? Clark doesn't know anymore than Clinton who doesn't know anymore than Bush. Unless and until they are actually found, any such emphatic statements are ridiculous and should be treated as such.

 

[SENDITIN]

R2D2,

Here's some more on the great General who was actually FIRED by your buddy Bill's admin!!

CLARK DOES ABOUT FACE
In "60 Minutes II" Interview, Clark Turns
On Sec. Rumsfeld And Claims He Didn't
See Iraq Question Coming
____________________________________________________________________________________________

CANDIDATE CLARK REWRITES HISTORY
- CHANGES VIEW OF RUMSFELD

When Rumsfeld's Appointment Announced, Clark Praised Him Effusively. NBC'S MATT LAUER: "What's your opinion of Mr. Rumsfeld as secretary of Defense?" CLARK: "Well, I think it's an inspired choice. He's got great experience, he's got great international stature, he knows the issues. He's coming into familiar terrain." (NBC's "Today," 12/29/00)

In May 2001, Said Rumsfeld Part Of "Great Team ... We Need" For Post-Cold War. "in the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect this country from communism. ... Communism lost. We won. Now we got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live. ... 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 ..." (Wesley Clark, Remarks At Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner, Little Rock, AR, 5/11/01)

Now Candidate Clark Says President Should Not Have Appointed Rumsfeld. "f I were president, I wouldn't have appointed Don Rumsfeld. I wouldn't have picked him to be the secretary of defense because I worked around him. I knew what it was and what the system was, and he wasn't up to speed on the way the world had changed since the end of the Cold War." (Wesley Clark On CBS's "60 Minutes II," 11/19/03)

CLARK CONFUSED BY RULES, DIDN'T EXPECT
QUESTION ON IRAQ RESOLUTION

Clark Claims He Didn't Realize Reporters Would Ask His Iraq Stance In First Interview After Announcing His Candidacy. CLARK: "At the time I did this, I made this statement [that I would probably have voted for the Iraq resolution], I was having what I thought was an informal - I wasn't clear whether it was on-the-record or off-the-record - discussion about the philosophy of sort of entering the presidency. And somehow the Iraq question got thrown in." CBS' DAN RATHER: "Well, not 'somehow.' You knew - You knew that was coming." CLARK: "No, I - actually I didn't. ..." (CBS's "60 Minutes II," 11/19/03)

Even Dan Rather Is Skeptical. "Didn't mean to interrupt you. Sorry that I did, but whether it was this is - you've just announced for president. You're having a conversation with reporters. Whether it was intended to be on-the-record or off-the-record or in the background, I think you'll agree, if not, tell me, that on something as important as whether you would have voted to give the president the authorization to support to go to war or not is a situation where your 'yea' should be 'yea,' and your 'nay' should be 'nay?' And that was not the case." (Dan Rather On CBS's "60 Minutes II," 11/19/03)

 

[SENDITIN]

More words from the General,


"It's true that Clark was one of the many wrong-gongers who issued a forecast on the initial fighting. In March, just before the quickest military campaign in history took place, he told a TV audience that a quick victory was "not going to happen." But a month earlier, prior to the start of the war, Clark was urging our allies to join us, saying, "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us ..."

While most of the Dem candidates are focusing on the lack of evidence of weapons of mass destruction, Clark's comments on WMDs seem to stand out like an Arkansas intern with big hair. Before he was a candidate, the retired general stated that Hussein did "have weapons of mass destruction." And when asked whether he was sure of this, he replied, "Absolutely." Clark also indicated that he thought the WMDs would be found because of the existence of "so much intelligence."

When the initial fighting appeared to be over and the statues were falling in Baghdad, Clark joined the victory party saying, "Liberation is at hand." In a piece in the London Times, he wrote a Patton-like passage, saying, "Already the scent of victory is in the air."

Clark praised the military strategy used by the Bush team as "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. ... They certainly made the right call." And he declared that Bush and Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."

 

[xpanda]

On the one hand, I can see someone, anyone, having a changed view of Rumsfeld following the war, but it sounds a bit more like Clark is saying publicly things he doesn't necessarily endorse privately. Well, what else is new? Democracy in its current form(s) is rife with public relations disasters/triumphs that, at the end of the day, go further to have a candidate elected/rejected than his record or platform would allow, if completely scrutinized.

 

[D2bets]

I don't have the time or energy to refute each of the smears but as to the original WMD "absolultey" comment you made, please look at context and at the exact language. This was made well before the war and he said Hussein did "HAVE" WMD's. This does not have to mean that he had them at thw time of the war. Wee all know that he had WMD'S, the question is whether he still had them when we invaded. Clark did not say "absolutely" to that.

In addition, even if someone did say they thought he ha them and even if they did vote for the war I don't think that means they can't change their mind now. They were simply misled by someone they wanted to trust because of his position -- THE PRESIDENT. They can now see that he manipulated and exaggerated the intelligence. Again, I don't believe this is inconsistent.

 

[SENDITIN]

Interesting post D2,

Apparently quoting the General is a "smear". I'm just reporting what he said..I didn't say it HE did! And I like the "We all knew he had WMD's"..I'm going to remember that one. So let's see...he had them...we had no proof he got rid of them...so he should still have them...right???

Ever consider the possibility our intelligence was bad? Ever consider both the House and Senate intelligence committes had the same info? Did they lie too when they voted FOR the war with this info? Did Clinton lie when he had similar info?

Why don't you libs get off the "lie" train and focus on the degradation of the CIA as being a primary cause for the lousy intelligence.

 

[xpanda]

The failure of repeated visits by international weapons inspectors to find WMDs gave legitimacy to the discussion that Hussein had in fact gotten rid of the WMDs ... certainly more legitimacy than to the discussion that Hussein still had them.

Senditin, you seem to be implying that Bush was naively led down a path to war due largely to the failure of the CIA ... while many will concede that the CIA is hardly infallible, do you really believe that Bush had absolutely no other influential 'justifications' for his war? Can you possibly concede that the CIA simply gave him an excuse that he could sell to the public?

Bush's genetic predisposition to egomania, a false sense of moral superiority, and his economic manifesto that leads him (and those like him) to believe that they belong in the history books, were necessary precursors to him believing what he wanted to believe -- that Saddam did in fact have WMDs. I'll even go so far as to suggest that he had a brief moment where, to show his gratitude, he wanted to blow the guy who told him ...

 

[Shotgun]

More quotes from Clark:

In September '02 — when Clark was in what seemed like support-the-war mode — he said the following about Saddam Hussein: "He is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities."

It should shock no one that a general (or a presidential contender) is a bit vain. But General Clark seems to sort of abuse the privilege. There's stuff like, "If I'd been president, I would have had Osama bin Laden by this time." And his arrogance is clumsy. For example, in a television interview, when he was acknowledging a previous "bobble," he said, "I don't want to give any excuses for this. A Rhodes scholar is not ever supposed to make a mistake."

Uh, did you know he was a Rhodes scholar? Now you do!

.

 

[D2bets]

There's no question that Saddam was a problem. But nothing Clark said indicated that he thought he thought he posed an imminent threat to us which required an immediate attack. Again, I know it's challenging, but some pople need to learn to keep opposing thoughts in their head at once. 1. Saddam was a bad guy. 2. The war was bad policy. But I guess such narrow thinking should be expected from the "you're for us or against us" crowd.

Naturally Clark can't really say for sure he'd have Bin Laden but Clark outlined a plan for him that Bush has not put his weight behind. Turning our resouces toward Iraq quite likely did allow OBL to slip thru our hands.

As for being a Rhodes Scholar, of course I knew that, I thought everyone knew that...and also that he graduated first in his class at West Point.

 

[SENDITIN]

The Scholar Strikes Again!!

The story of Wesley Clark's "imaginary friend" has been oft-told. As recounted in this Weekly Standard piece by Matthew Continetti, "In June, [Clark] told Tim Russert that he had received a phone call on September 11, 2002, from 'people around the White House' urging him to publicly link Saddam Hussein to the attacks. Only after his accusation was picked up by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman did Clark go on the record and say that no one had called him from the White House. He now says he received a call from a 'man from a Middle East think tank in Canada, the man who's the brother of a very close friend of mine in Belgium.'" In Continetti's telling, the caller may not have been imaginary after all -- "someone who more or less fits that bill did call Clark and discussed possible connections between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, [but] the call took place after September 11, wasn't in any way sinister, and in any case certainly didn't come from the White House." Anyway, you get the idea. As one of our readers put, Clark seems "a bit off."

 

[SENDITIN]

The Scholar Once again,

The important Democrats eager to run retired Gen. Wesley Clark for president might exercise due diligence about a military career that was nearly terminated before he got his fourth star and then came to a premature end. The trouble with the general is pointed out by a bizarre incident in Bosnia nearly a decade ago. Clark was a three-star (lieutenant general) who directed strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington. On Aug. 26, 1994, in the northern Bosnian city of Banja Luka, he met and exchanged gifts with the notorious Bosnian Serb commander and indicted war criminal, Gen. Ratko Mladic. The meeting took place against the State Department's wishes and may have contributed to Clark's failure to be promoted until political pressure intervened. The shocking photo of Mladic and Clark wearing each other's military caps was distributed throughout Europe. . .

 

[D2bets]

Send, these myths have all been debunked and though I would like to I just don't have the energy to refute them 1-by-1 (esp given that I am typing w/one finger as I recently broke my left arm). Better yet, go to www.clarkmyths.com

 

[jimbutorac]

D2,

Nice job. Admire your perserverance and resource. Gonna start payin' to have you handicap the election for me soon.

If/when Kerry bows out, I'm on the Wesley Clark train.

 

[D2bets]

Mud, my prediction is Gephardt and Kerry will both drop out shortly after NH after neither makes the top 3 there. Clark will continue to rise in the polls in NH pre-Iowa and will close the gap on Dean w/i the margin of error. Dean will get a bounce out of Iowa and the attacks wil focus on Clark in the wk before NH. Howver, he will finish a strong 2nd losing to Dean by just 4-6 points with 25-30%of the vote. He will make all the leadlines. Lieberman finishes 3rd so he soldiers on and Edwards will drop out after finishing 3rd in SC. Clark wins AZ, OKLA and SC and finishes strong 2nd in NM and ND. Lieberman drops out after the Feb. 10 primaries and it will be a one-on-one Dean v. Clark Feb. 10-March 10 and it will be close....i'll leave it at that.

There's your FREE analysis.