I guess, I don't see it that way. I see it like if I were telling my future teenage daughter "I don't think you should have sex. I forbid you to have sex, but if you do have sex, use a condom."
True, he's got to play the game. Right now being anti-war is the thing to say to win the primaries. If he gets to the general election he can move to the middle by saying he would have supported the war under different circumstances. It will be tricky to pull off, but we'll see.
I agree also that Bush made mistakes on the way to war. He shouldn't have based it on WMDs and questionable assertions about Al Qaeda. The strategic and security reasons for going to Iraq were good enough without those exaggerations, so I still support the move.
not quite sure what i did to deserve your approbation. i posted the article w/o commentary, so you're criticism is directed at...what, exactly? you're own projections of what my motives were/are?
clarkis on record as saying he was against the war now, last week, last month, and last year. no matter how you try and interpret his testimony, this is a clear contradiction, and worthy of "debate" in this forum, not name calling.
clarkis on record as saying he was against the war now, last week, last month, and last year. no matter how you try and interpret his testimony, this is a clear contradiction, and worthy of "debate" in this forum, not name calling. He was against the war at all times, "the war" being this particular war run the way the administration ran it. That's not the same as being against going to war with Iraq though. There's no contradiction there, although he's doing a terrible job of clearly stating that.
Actually, it's not. Clark's admittedly murky stance on the war was never ever "against the war" in the simple terms that you frame it in. He's on record as being against the WAY this war was waged, (based on trumped up doctored intel, unilaterally, on the cheap, etc.) but it's not as clear cut as you make it sound, for which he bears some of the blame. But if it's so clear a contradiction, then why did Drudgy boy get so creative with his editing, other than the fact that he's a hack who whores himself out to the right 24/7? Hell, this happened as a matter of public record nearly 4 freaking months ago, but Drudge ("Sidney Blumenthal is a wife beater--oh wait no he's not, I'm sorry, please don't sue me Mr. Blumenthal!") runs it as a "**World Exclusive**" , last time I checked, 4 month old transcripts on www.house.gov were public record.
Via Josh Marshall... ___________ So imagine that. The same day Drudge has his 'world exclusive' with ridiculously distorted clips of Wes Clark's September 2002 congressional testimony on Iraq, RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie is in Little Rock giving a speech about Clark and he's using the same testimony to riff on. What a coincidence they were both using google on the same day with the same idea, right? Amazing. And then, according to KnightRidder, it turns out that Drudge didn't even play the smear straight. To quote the KnightRidder ... Clark's congressional testimony was further distorted Thursday by cyber-gossip columnist Matt Drudge, who quoted selected portions of Clark's testimony and added sentences that don't appear in the transcript on his Web site Thursday. Drudge didn't respond to an e-mail request for comment. Oh what a tangled web ...
Good find RR. What a dirty little sack of crap Matt ("I like to out people on my website to embarrass them but 'I go to gay bars and go on dates with men but am not gay '") Drudge is.
Bye Bye Joe... don't let the door hit you. _____________ LIEBERMAN STATEMENT ON CLARK IRAQ TESTIMONY Drudge: Clark made the case for war against Iraq 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."
The larger question, which is only implied by Marshall, is why do you find Drudge and Gillespie working off the same talking points at this particular time? If I were a betting man, which I am, I would bet that the WH is having to go to Depends over the recent rise by Clark and the eroding of Dean's numbers. That's not to say that Dean can't win and beat Bush, but I think Clark scares them more and hence, the attacks today. We'll see if they continue.
You're probably right, and I wouldn't discount unwitting involvement from other Democratic campaign staffs as well, I got this fundraising email from Clark 04 today:
Well, Lieberman was certainly witless... but with the Drudge/Gillespie tandem, this has all the marks of a GOP hit.
Lieberman is just Republican lite, anyway. Wesley Clark, well, in a way, he has a lot of Republican in him, it's true. But it's the sort of Republican I can deal with. I always hated the term "compassionate conservative," because, as Clark pointed out, if conservatives were so compassionate, why would you have to tack on that adjective in the first place? The thing is, part of the reason that Dean is the front-runner is that Rove wants Dean to be the Democratic nominee. They think that being angry and thin-skinned won't carry you far. To which I say, This could be true; but be careful what you ask for. Bush does not want to run against Wesley Clark. Clark will destroy him on the only issue that Bush can erroneously claim as his own: national security and defense. The economy? Better; but the only reason the unemployment rate isn't higher is because people have given up looking or have had to settle for jobs far below their experience. If Clark will have the guts to get up there and actually counter all the ads Bush's team will throw at him---supposedly flip-flopping on the issues (when, in fact, he only advocated this war given the auspices of the international community)---and if he will actually speak to a national audience about all the sleight-of-hand Rove perpetrates while we're fixed on the terrorist issue (rolling back all regulations, placing key lobbyists in Cabinet posts to destroy the areas of the environment they're supposed to protect----I'm not making this up), then....no, Clark is not the man that Bush wants to run against. Even fixing the vote with ChoicePoint voting machines designed to purge felons-who-aren't-felons (see also, Florida, 2000) might not save George in November. I have to believe it. If George Bush gets another 4 years, this country is in serious trouble.
I'm using my first vote ever for Clark. So far anyway. Things can change alot until November but he just seems like the best guy for the job from everything I've seen and read.
Oh, come on. Your motives for posting this "world exclusive" are transparent. You're not fooling anybody. You immediately follow the above "how could you make projections about my motives" with another post clearly stating your stance that everybody here, conservative and libral, already knew. You totally get kudos for your level-headed reporting in the Powell thread in my book though, btw.
sorry, dis approation, but jeez, what whiney little children some of you are. i appreciate it, but when was the last tiime a liberal poster created a thread that looks critically at any stance taken by Dean, Clark, Kerry, et al? this lack demonstrates a serious paucity of critical thinking on the part of most of those on the left. instead, the response to serious questions is name calling and denial. Clark has directly contradicted himself here, that's worthy of debate, and not antics that would embarass my 19 month old daughter. rocketman, nyrocket, cheetah, you too nolen, you disappoint me. to paraphrase joe biden from last night's jon stewart show, "snarkiness and anger are no substitute for policy or reasoned arguement."
