Yes, but the UAE and Saudi Arabia are friendly nations (well, except for that whole “9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudis” thing, but let’s ignore that — everyone else seems to). Those are oil reserves we can reasonably expect to have some ability to talk about with the parties involved.
Iraq was completely off the table at the time, and there’s no reason to act otherwise unless the task force had the expectation it would be back on the table in the near future.
It was about Middle East reserves, period. Just what was there and who was developing it. That’s why Vietnam was listed as a suitor (unless you think we’re in a conspiracy with them).
No profit in putting to rest one of the single biggest accusations made about this administration’s truthfulness? No profit in putting to rest a scandal that’s involved the outing of a CIA agent for political purposes?
No one’s talking about it, which by your standards means it doesn’t count. Lack of action isn’t evidence. Action such as a left-wing newspaper pubkishing a story vindicatiing Tony Blair is.
This just seems a tedious complaint to me. I don’t like the Patriot Act (for the same reasons that so-called conservatives shouldn’t like it) but it’s not like anyone is being rounded up and tossed in jail for what they say>. I can deal with a little name calling.
I’m not sure if PAD is reading this far down but I really think that Sen. Edwards could beat Pres. Bush. Aside from his Clinton-like optimism, he could very well win NC and possibly TN, which would demand that Bush win a midwestern “blue” state.
If Edwards doesn’t get the nomination, the next best thing would be Kerry/Edwards — that would really put Bush on the defensive.
Dean is just a bad idea. His Hulk Smash temperment aside, I’m not convinced he can really connect with Southern voters or with minorities (the Democratic nominee would probably get most minority votes but you need someone who can really turn out the minority vote, as Gore and Clinton did). Southern Democrats tend to do well with minorities — mostly because they grew up in states that had minorities in them (unlike say Vermont).
No profit in putting to rest one of the single biggest accusations made about this administration’s truthfulness? No profit in putting to rest a scandal that’s involved the outing of a CIA agent for political purposes?
No one’s talking about it, which by your standards means it doesn’t count.
I’m not at all sure what you mean by “by my standards”, though I’m fairly certain I wouldn’t like it.
If by “it doesn’t count” you mean “it doesn’t affect public opinion”, however, I must regrettably concede the point.
Considering that the public appears to have responded with a complete and utter shrug to Valerie Plame’s outing, EPA reports edited to avoid referring to any sort of definite global warming, Wolfowitz’s various admissions of U.S. guilt, the whitewashing of the 9/11 investigation, etc. etc. …
… Well, all I can say is “you win. Heaven help us all.”
TWL
Of course, if Iowa means so little, you can pitch it from the Electoral College, along with 20 other “meaningless” states (New Hampshire immediately springs to mind).
Iowa is a small state. They’ve continued to push their caucus earlier and earlier in the year in order to pump up their influence in the primary process beyond what they would have in the electoral college. In fact, they have a state law that mandates that their caucus occurs before any other state’s primaries.
I have nothing against Iowa. If you read that into my statements, well, then I suggest you take a few courses on reading comprehension. I only pointed out the simple fact that the winner of the Iowa caucus rarely wins his party’s nomination in the end. Ask previous winners like Tom Harkin, Ðìçk Gephart, Bob Dole (1988), etc.
Yes, for a few months every four years, all eyes in politics turn towards Iowa for this meaningless excercise in unscientific democracy. Then reality sets in and the rest of the country votes. But, given the track record, I think we’ll see more and more candidates just skipping Iowa the way that Clark and Leiberman did. It’s ulitmate influence on the primary process is next to zero.
The most powerful ticket the Democrats can produce (at this point) would be Clark/Dean. Karl Rove would be shaking in his socks at that prospect. Clark would be unassailable on multiple fronts (patriotism, war on terror, foreign policy, character) and would appeal to the military vote that helped Bush last time (Bush’s popularity among enlisted men has dropped considerably, Clark could utterly destroy him on that side)
Oh my…Clark is infinitely assailable on these fronts.
Patriotism: just last week Clark was saying Bush was unpatriotic. Need anyone be reminded the slams Repubs got when anyone dared suggest someone was unpatriotic? Now we’ve got Clark doing what Dems constantly said they were too good for.
So you’re suggesting that the Republicans should be allowed to dish it out but not take it? Or are you agreeing that the Republicans are acting reprehensibly and that Clark shouldn’t sink to their level?
Repubs denounced people as unpatriotic to quash dissent (“If you’re not with us, you’re against America!” type of BS). When someone calls Bush unpatriotic because he seems to be turning his back on the principles the nation was founded on, well, although it may still not be a 100% kosher, it is a far more valid accusation that being called a potential traitor simply for disagreeing with our leaders.
War on Terror: He’s flip-flopped so many times on this issue, had the quotes shown to him, and still insists he’s been consistent. Before the war started, he said there were WMDs and we had to get in there. After the war he praised Bush and Blair for standing strong. Now he’s backed off it all.
The War on Terror is not the War on Iraq. To my knowledge and memory, Clark has been consistent on that score. (“Bush is blowing the War on Terror, by not going after the actual terrorists – Bin Laden and Al Qeida.”)
I can’t speak for Clark, but when Powell made his case, I was mostly convinced that Saddam was a true threat (as was a fair amount of my Left-leaning friends). The fact that the administration was gaming the evidence even then . . . . [shakes head is disbelief]
Character: Just off the top of my head, remember all the flak regarding him being contacted by a Washington think-tank…a Canadian think-tank…make that an Isreal think-tank…whatever it was, and all the “confusion” on what happened. And the whole “Dean called me up” “No I didn’t” thing. His own words dámņ him repeatedly. “I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove returned my phone calls.” Then “He never REALLY called me.”
I don’t recall any of this, least of all him confessing being a slighted Republican. An sources you can offer to back this up?
And what’s the deal of Dean calling him up? Was he offering Clark the number two spot? And the think tanks? What kind of think tanks and what were they offering?
Armed Forces Love Him: Oh Dear God no. Remember, he was REMOVED from his positions, blamed for fiascos, and trust me, hated by the average soldier.
You’re right…Clark/Dean is a dream ticket. Bush will have a FIELD day. You think Bush says weird things…Clark and Dean have flubbed in public enough times to make me happy to see Bush debate them.
Was he removed for incompetence (unlikely for a 4-star general) or politics (said something the brass knew was true but was nevertheless unpalatable)? What fiascos his he supposedly responsible for? And why would he be hated by the average soldier? Please elucidate because either I’ve missed a lot of news (unlikely) or your opinions are ill-founded. I never said the armed forces loved him, but I suspect he’d be a big draw for a good deal of them (especially those soldiers and soldiers’ families now caught in Iraq and disillusioned by Bush or those who were offended at Bush wearing an unearned flight suit or those angry at Bush for cutting veteran benefits).
If they’d have a field day, why haven’t any attacks been made against Clark as they have versus virtually every other Democratic frontrunner? And although I have no doubt that Clark and Dean may have occasionally misspoke, I’m sure they have not yet begun to approach the president’s level of brain-stopping gaffes (two books of Bushisms and growing).
If a Democrat is elected this year, that scuttles Hillary’s run in ’08.
Hillary won’t be the first woman president. The Conservative establishment never liked Bill, but they hate Hillary. The first woman president will be a Republican.
That doesn’t follow. Republicans don’t determine who the President will be, the American people at large do. (Although the RNC would unleash the most negative campaign of all history if Hillary ever ran.)
And don’t be so sure that all Republicans would shun a Hillary run. I’ve known a few honest to goodness, salt-of-the-earth Republicans who would have elected Bill to a third term if they could, and, under the belief that behind any sucessful man is a woman telling him what to do, would vote for Hillary in half a heartbeat.
Sasha,
the info on Clark’s odd statements come from a number of sources. The one about how he would have been a Republican if only karl Rove had returned his call came from Howard Fineman at Newsweek.
The dust up over whether it was Dean or Clark who lied about whether or not Clark was offered a VP spot on a Dean ticket was all over the news. try entering DEAN CLARK and VICE PRESIDENT into Google and choose your poison.
The whole “someone called me about 911” tinfoil helmet deal was from MEET THE PRESS
**GEN. CLARK:
I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT:
By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK:
Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, “You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.” I said, “But—I’m willing to say it but what’s your evidence?” And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had—Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn’t talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.**
This guy could end up being the most fun we’ve had with politics since Ross Perot was yapping about his daughter’s wedding being threatened by Ninjas For Bush or whatever.
Clark was dismissed partially…. well, largely because he violated protocol and chain of command and such.
That, and he pìššëd øff the wrong people.
You can do one thing, or the other…. and it’s no big deal. He did both. And the wrong people weren’t bad people, so I’m not on his side.
CJA
Hate to break it to ya noooone can beat George W. Bush sorry. These Dems are pure losers. The worst picks they could possibly get. Glad to see Dean didnt get šhìŧ. It doesn’t pay to be a big mouth. I just sit back and laugh my ášš off everytime Dean opens his mouth…
Kerry has run the state of MA into the ground. Businesses and people are leaving the Bay State in droves but no one seems to mention that little fact. MA has the hightest taxes in the nation and this is the guy who is now the front runner??? I sudder at the mere thought of him beating Bush.
KERRY WILL NOT WIN N.H. I will be very, very surprised if he does and neither will the Al Gore wannabe Howard Dean. N.H. knows what Kerry really is a ‘gold digger’ of the worst kind. If he gets N.H. it’ll be because everyone else sucked.
Um, Kerry is a Senator representing Massachusetts. He has no say in state government there. Y’know, things like taxes, overall business regulations and requirements (well, other than federal pork), etc. that you’re accusing him of being somehow responsible for.
Ironically, per stories in the Boston Globe, Kerry isn’t particularly liked by Massachusetts mayors/legislator types since his office is usually unresponsive when such do try to contact him about local matters.
Changing the topic a bit, I believe that if elected President, Kerry would become the first President ever to have been visually depicted in Doonesbury as other than an icon or tv voice (or however you want to categorize Ron Headrest). Back in the very early days of the strip, Trudeau drew Kerry in a few strips as the returned anti-war vet visiting Yale, er, Walden, and explicitly refered to him by name.
Ironically, per stories in the Boston Globe, Kerry isn’t particularly liked by Massachusetts mayors/legislator types since his office is usually unresponsive when such do try to contact him about local matters.
That might explain partially why he’s running for President. He senses that his days as legislator are numbered.
Michigan Senator Spence Abraham held a similar practice. He’d skip and cancel meetings, fail to return phone calls, and generally alienated his key supporters and constituency. That’s ironic because before he was elected to that position (helped by Michigan Governor John Engler) his role in the Republican Party was teaching candidates to not do what he did later and not act as he did later. He failed to follow his own advice.
Naturally he lost in 2000. He’s now President Bush’s Energy Secretary; Spence’s career has not taken a large dip.
Of course, while not big loss for Spence, he left the seat to Debbie Stabenow. Not only is she a Senator who makes decisions I don’t like, but I’m annoyed that as we have two Democrats in both our Senate seats, Republican constituents are usually ignored when it comes to Senate representation in my State! The other Senator is Carl Levin and by hook or by crook there’s no Earthly way to dislodge that incumbent/fossil until he retires.
It gets worse. Stabenow and Levin are blocking four justices for technical court positions (the so-called “Michigan 4”) because the judges are not as far left-leaning in their beliefs as the Senators. That’s not fair nor is it just.
It’ll be so long….. thanks Spence for condemning us to them.
Kerry may be looking for his promotion largely because the qualifications and expectations are so largely different.
So _who_ thinks I’m an illiterate cretin?
CJA
I’d happily pull the lever for Satan if it turns out he’s the one running against Bush.
Automatically, how to make _me_ take _your_ opinion less seriously.
CJA
if you want to fight me to my last breath I hope you’re extremely young or have Ðìçk Clark-level immortality because I’m not going down for about six or more decades, buster.
CJA
I’d happily pull the lever for Satan if it turns out he’s the one running against Bush.
Automatically, how to make _me_ take _your_ opinion less seriously.
1) Do let’s keep in mind that I’m an atheist. As such, I probably have a somewhat different interpretation of the phrase than you do.
2) What on Earth makes you think I’m after your approval?
if you want to fight me to my last breath I hope you’re extremely young or have Ðìçk Clark-level immortality because I’m not going down for about six or more decades, buster.
1) I don’t recall your name coming up as one of the higher-ups currently holding power. Those are the people I was referring to.
2) Any particular reason you’re responding to comments that are way, way, WAY upthread?
TWL
Republicans don’t determine who the President will be, the American people at large do.
Actually, the electoral college determines who the president will be. Whom the people voted for is considered only a recommendation in most states.
Of course, nowadays, presidential races are decided by the Supreme Court, 🙂
And don’t be so sure that all Republicans would shun a Hillary run. I’ve known a few honest to goodness, salt-of-the-earth Republicans who would have elected Bill to a third term if they could, and, under the belief that behind any sucessful man is a woman telling him what to do, would vote for Hillary in half a heartbeat.
Let’s face it, Hillary is one of the most polarizing figures in American politics today. Many people love her. Many hate the very air she breathes. If she were to run in ’08 (and I’m not convinced yet that she will), it will be one of the most nastiest, dirtiest campaigns ever on both sides.
Right now, I’d say that the people who hate her are far more passionate about it than the people who love her, and are therefore more likely to vote in large numbers. I don’t think she has a chance of becoming president unless she does something to really capture the hearts of people like myself who are more or less ambivalent to her.
I’m annoyed that as we have two Democrats in both our Senate seats, Republican constituents are usually ignored when it comes to Senate representation in my State
You make it sound like you’re more entitled to having your opinions heard than the other side’s opinions. Or that this is something new.
Of course, this is politics in general – Republicans will ignore (and certainly are ignoring) Democrats, and vise versa.
I’m not sure I agree that the first female President is going to be a Republican (though I can come up with a lot of good arguments why it might well work out that way), but I must regrettably second the idea that it’s not going to be Hillary.
Not that I’d mind if she did win, mind you. I like her and would happily vote for her, but I think Den’s right: the reflexively-slam-Hillary group is a lot more vocal (and, I suspect, larger) than the reflexively-support-Hillary group.
I think she’s going to wind up seen historically as a substantial trailblazer who made the first female President’s campaign plausible and successful … but she won’t be the one to get it.
(Of course, if Shrub wins in ’04 and Hillary does run and win in ’08, we have the potential for major dynastic wars. I’m not exactly eager to see the Chelsea Clinton/Jenna Bush matchup in 2020…)
TWL
As a side note —
I’m really pleased that there can even BE a serious conversation about a potential Hillary candidacy. I think it shows significant progress from the days of Pat Schroeder.
Ten years ago I don’t know that I’d have bet on a female President in my lifetime. Now I think there’s a fairly decent shot at it. That’s pretty cool.
TWL
I’m annoyed that as we have two Democrats in both our Senate seats, Republican constituents are usually ignored when it comes to Senate representation in my State
Well, the solution to that is obvious: Get involved in your state GOP and help support candidates who reflect your views.
Or just whine on the internet about how unfair it is that you’re not adequately represented.
I’m not sure I agree that the first female President is going to be a Republican (though I can come up with a lot of good arguments why it might well work out that way),
A lot of people say the same about the first black president, too. It has to do with the fact that blacks and women, particularly those involved in politics, are generally viewed as being further to the left than the average white male voter. Therefore, any woman or black candidate would have to be moderate to conservative politically in order to have enought crossover appeal among white males.
This assumption is insulting to just about everybody. It assumes that black or female candidates will run as the “black” or “female” candidate first and on their positions second. It also assumes that the hated white male needs more incentive to vote for a female or a black candidate.
The fact is, presidential elections are not won by securing one’s base, those voters who walk into the booth and pull the straight party level like zombies can’t be persuaded differently. Presidential elections are won by whoever can capture the 20 percent of moderate swing voters, or what Anne Coulter so wonderfully calls, “idiot voters.”
I guess that’s better than being called a traiter.
Anyway, the first female or black to win the presidency will likely be a moderate politically because the assumptions listed are considered gospel by the political class. Party affiliation will be less of a factor, but I have no doubt that a woman running for president as a democrat will have a harder time of it because the GOP will hang Hillary around her neck like an albatross.
Naturally he lost in 2000. He’s now President Bush’s Energy Secretary; Spence’s career has not taken a large dip.
I think going from being a member of the US Senate, which has not infrequently been described as the greatest job in the world, to being on the outer fringes of the Cabinet, can be fairly described as being a large dip. The dirty little secret about the Cabinet is that once you get past State, Defense, Justice, and Treasury, being a cabinet secretary is just not all that great a job…
Yeah — and it’s not like State is looking like such a great posting these days, either…
TWL
Am I the only one who would love to watch the Redneck Implosion that would result from Billary running against Condi Rice?
Yeah — and it’s not like State is looking like such a great posting these days, either…
But at least you don’t have to repeat your name three times when you call the President about something to jog his memory.
Yeah — and it’s not like State is looking like such a great posting these days, either…
But at least you don’t have to repeat your name three times when you call the President about something to jog his memory.
My, you’re an optimistic one. 🙂 I wouldn’t be at all sure of that m’self…
“Colin WHO?”
TWL
You can hate Bush all you want. You can gripe about Bush all you want. Hëll when he gets re-elected, you can come back here and still gripe. Pìššìņg and moaning about it does no one any good. W. WILL win. Who wants to place their bets now?? If the Dems stick with Kerry, Bush will win by a landslide.
Ironically, per stories in the Boston Globe, Kerry isn’t particularly liked by Massachusetts mayors/legislator types since his office is usually unresponsive when such do try to contact him about local matters.
Local matters??? Hardly. The sate is over taxed, and, who do you think does that???? W. Bush? Hardly. Busnesses are leaving & people are leaving. MA is a welfare state. Kerry & Teddy have made billions here while running it into the ground. Don’t con or snow me. THEY RUN THE DAM STATE.
You’re comments about Kerry not running the show in MASS is so wrong. I LIVE IN THIS STATE. It is a šhìŧhølë RUN BY Teddy & Kerry. Has nothing to do with being local.
I know all dam too well what goes on in MY State. MA is the highest tax rate in country and no one has called Kerry on this issue at all.
(my 2 cents)
If Kerry wins N.H. I’ll eat my hat…
Oh and just for the record, haven’t you noticed that Kerry dreaded going to N.H. and he even dreads MA, cause he knows all dam well he can’t pull it off. People from MA aren’t blind and if people from N.H. are then I’ll be very, very, surprised if Kerry comes out on top that means the Dems are gonna lose the elections. I’m really hope they do. Im tired of the whining already. I know all too well what Kerry is really about…RAISING TAXES.
Well, I lived in Massachusetts most recently from 1992-1996, and as I plan to eventually return I make a point of reading the Globe online. While Kennedy certainly has influence beyond the Senate, Kerry’s influence is pretty limited to Senatorial matters. Put Kerry up against Weld, Finneran, Romney, Bulger, Menino, etc. (past and present governors, mayors, and legislature bigwigs) and Kerry’s got minimal say in the local state matters, and as far as I can tell hasn’t exhibited any particular interest in having any.
And Massachusetts isn’t even near to having the highest tax rates in the US. I currently live in California and have to deal with a 9.3% income tax that cuts in around $38K and a sales tax of around 8.5%, both subtantially higher than I’d pay in Mass.
I’m down on Kerry because he resorted to using some f-cking language in his Rolling Stone article…. I think in order to get attention or seem more relevent or something.
No, it just seemed like an unguarded, honest expression of disgust.
**Politicians have a tendency to change positions, I accept that. However, doing it this early in his supposed political career (not to mention starting a career by aiming for the top spot) is a scary thing. It scares me. That and to start any career by running for the top position stinks of arrogance to me. At least everyone else is a former Governor or a current legislator, and that includes the incumbent.\\
Isn’t that what Eisenhower did (I’ll admit I may be wrong but I don’t recall Ike serving political office first). And the current incumbent’s political experience includes six years as governor in a state where the lt.-goveneror has virtually more power than the governor himself and a President for a father. At least Clark has a fair amount of real world experience under his belt.
And weren’t you one of those guys all gung ho for a Schwarzenegger governorship despite his utter lack of experience?
And the impression I’ve gotten is that many of the people who have worked with him hate his guts, so I don’t know that he will have big appeal among the enlisted men and women.
Unless I hear some more specifics here, I think the idea that so many people hate him should be taken with a grain of salt.
Even President Clinton hates his guts from what I read.
They’ve apparently reconciled. Clinton recently referred to him as “the shining star” of the Democratic Party.
the info on Clark’s odd statements come from a number of sources. The one about how he would have been a Republican if only karl Rove had returned his call came from Howard Fineman at Newsweek.
I did a little digging on this and read the article. I think this response I’ve also found best explains the situation:
On Sept. 22, 2003, Matthew Continetti, an editorial assistant with the Weekly Standard accused Wesley Clark of lying. Specifically, Continetti posted an article at 1:45 PM on the Weekly Standard website entitled “Clark Never Called Karl.” In the first sentence, Continetti states “WHEN WILL Wesley Clark stop telling tall tales?” Continetti cites to a Howard Fineman article that disclosed that Clark told someone “I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.” The Fineman article was entitled “Campaign 2004: Clark’s Charge” and was posted on the MSNBC website apparently destined for the Sept. 29 issue of Newsweek. Continetti then writes that “White House staffers went through the logs to check whether Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove. The general hadn’t. What’s more, Rove says he doesn’t remember ever talking to Clark, either.” From this, Continetti concludes “[t]his isn’t the general’s first whopper.” That is, Continetti accuses Clark of lying about a call to Karl Rove.
However, the Fineman article reveals that Clark stated he was joking about the call. Specifically, the Fineman article stated that “Clark late last week insisted the remark was a ‘humorous tweak.’ The two others said it was anything but. ‘He went into detail about his grievances,’ Holtzman said. ‘Clark wasn’t joking. We were really shocked.’ Therefore, in the Fineman article Clark stated that he was joking and the two others stated that he was serious.
Therefore, the evidence of an absence of phone calls and the Rove denial support Clark’s assertion that the statement was joke.
It is an unfair and also a known, crass trick to use the same evidence that exonerates Clark to accuse him of lying. Specifically, the same evidence about the absence of phone logs and the Rove denial either supports Clark’s assertion the he was joking or supports Continetti’s more attenuated and complex accusation that a third party “thought” Clark was making an intentionally false, serious assertion (i.e., Clark was lying). Therefore, it is fundamentally unfair for Continetti to use evidence to support his attenuated accusation of lying because this denies Clark the same evidence to defend himself. Such a result would only make sense if Clark were presumed beforehand to be guilty as a liar. Indeed, this is nothing but a classic setup, wait for someone to joke about something then call them a liar, then wait until the expected evidence comes in that they were indeed joking so you can still call them a liar.
Beyond the crass trick of calling a joke a lie and then using the evidence of the joke to yell lie, exists the much more serious issue of intentionally lying. Specifically, Continetti intentionally misrepresents his charge by leaving out the fact that Clark said he was joking. Because Continetti was directly responding to the Fineman article, he either knew or should have known that Clark said he was joking. Therefore, Continetti intentionally left out the fact that Clark said he was joking. The statement that Clark was joking was material to Continetti’s charge that Clark was lying, because joking is a defense to the charge of lying as discussed above. Further, a reasonable person would have very likely drawn a materially different conclusion from the article if he had known
both that Continetti accused Clark of a lie but that Clark said he was joking. Therefore, Continetti intentionally and materially misrepresented his article in order to call Clark a liar. That is, Continetti lied himself in order to accuse a wounded and decorated veteran of a foreign war of lying.
The dust up over whether it was Dean or Clark who lied about whether or not Clark was offered a VP spot on a Dean ticket was all over the news. try entering DEAN CLARK and VICE PRESIDENT into Google and choose your poison.
So there’s a difference of opinion of who offered who a VP spot. I really don’t see this as a very big deal. And if you do, I’d like you to please examine W’s State of the Union speech last year and tell me which potential lie is more newsworthy.
The whole “someone called me about 911” tinfoil helmet deal was from MEET THE PRESS
GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, “You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.” I said, “But-I’m willing to say it but what’s your evidence?” And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had-Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn’t talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.
And where is the problem here? It is possible that someone attempted to recruit Clark to push the nonexistent 9/11-Saddam connection. And considering the mounting evidence that the administration was trying to find reasons to invade Iraq from the beginning of the Bush presidency, I’d say it’s very possible.
This guy could end up being the most fun we’ve had with politics since Ross Perot was yapping about his daughter’s wedding being threatened by Ninjas For Bush or whatever.
You must be kidding. Bush has made demonstrably outlandish and exaggerated statements (virtually every single warning that Saddam was developing WMD) and, with his statement about building a moon and Mars base, has shown he’s also living in outer space. 🙂
Sasha, I never said ANY of this was “a big deal”. You wanted to know the sources of these stories, I provided them.
I hope Clark goes far, I really do. He hasn’t had his Howard “YEEEEEEEEEAAAAAHHHH” Dean moment yet and it will be fun when he does (his incredibly snarky comments about John Kerry’s military rank on Larry King came close though).
Unfortunately (for Republican partisians) the Dean Meltdown proves that Democrats are not as eager for party suicide as they had seemed to be just a few weeks earlier. It’ll be a Kerry/Harkin ticket.
Bill,
Thanks for the links. I was just offering my opinion on them.
The New Hampshire debate was pretty interesting. Kerry was probably the best speaker. Clark, although well-spoken, came across very much as not-a-politician, which may or may not be a good thing. I still don’t see or have heard anything from Clark that comes close (IMHO) to identifying him being as loopy as you believe he is.
“Not really caring what happens there, because I’m convinced none of these guys can beat Bush.”
Yeah. I totally agree, Peter.
Mindy
**You make it sound like you’re more entitled to having your opinions heard than the other side’s opinions. Or that this is something new.
Of course, this is politics in general – Republicans will ignore (and certainly are ignoring) Democrats, and vise versa.**
I think it’s a mistake to elect two of any Party to both of your Senate seats.
CJA
Doesn’t that mean that your ideal Senate is always split 50-50? (That assumes only two parties, I suppose.)
I certainly think having a Senate that’s got a big majority one way or the other is a bad idea, as it basically lets them rubber-stamp everything without listening to the minority party … but 50-50? I’m not so sure.
TWL
Fûçk this election šhìŧ. You can vote if you want!
• 
Dean couldn’t even get a majority of the anti-war votes. As for that NYT poll, it was 34% republican respondents and 47% democrat:
http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_01_18_dish_archive.html#107457637391029113
Yes, but the UAE and Saudi Arabia are friendly nations (well, except for that whole “9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudis” thing, but let’s ignore that — everyone else seems to). Those are oil reserves we can reasonably expect to have some ability to talk about with the parties involved.
Iraq was completely off the table at the time, and there’s no reason to act otherwise unless the task force had the expectation it would be back on the table in the near future.
It was about Middle East reserves, period. Just what was there and who was developing it. That’s why Vietnam was listed as a suitor (unless you think we’re in a conspiracy with them).
No profit in putting to rest one of the single biggest accusations made about this administration’s truthfulness? No profit in putting to rest a scandal that’s involved the outing of a CIA agent for political purposes?
No one’s talking about it, which by your standards means it doesn’t count. Lack of action isn’t evidence. Action such as a left-wing newspaper pubkishing a story vindicatiing Tony Blair is.
This just seems a tedious complaint to me. I don’t like the Patriot Act (for the same reasons that so-called conservatives shouldn’t like it) but it’s not like anyone is being rounded up and tossed in jail for what they say>. I can deal with a little name calling.
Free-Speech Zone: The administration quarantines dissent.
I’m not sure if PAD is reading this far down but I really think that Sen. Edwards could beat Pres. Bush. Aside from his Clinton-like optimism, he could very well win NC and possibly TN, which would demand that Bush win a midwestern “blue” state.
If Edwards doesn’t get the nomination, the next best thing would be Kerry/Edwards — that would really put Bush on the defensive.
Dean is just a bad idea. His Hulk Smash temperment aside, I’m not convinced he can really connect with Southern voters or with minorities (the Democratic nominee would probably get most minority votes but you need someone who can really turn out the minority vote, as Gore and Clinton did). Southern Democrats tend to do well with minorities — mostly because they grew up in states that had minorities in them (unlike say Vermont).
No profit in putting to rest one of the single biggest accusations made about this administration’s truthfulness? No profit in putting to rest a scandal that’s involved the outing of a CIA agent for political purposes?
No one’s talking about it, which by your standards means it doesn’t count.
I’m not at all sure what you mean by “by my standards”, though I’m fairly certain I wouldn’t like it.
If by “it doesn’t count” you mean “it doesn’t affect public opinion”, however, I must regrettably concede the point.
Considering that the public appears to have responded with a complete and utter shrug to Valerie Plame’s outing, EPA reports edited to avoid referring to any sort of definite global warming, Wolfowitz’s various admissions of U.S. guilt, the whitewashing of the 9/11 investigation, etc. etc. …
… Well, all I can say is “you win. Heaven help us all.”
TWL
Of course, if Iowa means so little, you can pitch it from the Electoral College, along with 20 other “meaningless” states (New Hampshire immediately springs to mind).
Iowa is a small state. They’ve continued to push their caucus earlier and earlier in the year in order to pump up their influence in the primary process beyond what they would have in the electoral college. In fact, they have a state law that mandates that their caucus occurs before any other state’s primaries.
I have nothing against Iowa. If you read that into my statements, well, then I suggest you take a few courses on reading comprehension. I only pointed out the simple fact that the winner of the Iowa caucus rarely wins his party’s nomination in the end. Ask previous winners like Tom Harkin, Ðìçk Gephart, Bob Dole (1988), etc.
Yes, for a few months every four years, all eyes in politics turn towards Iowa for this meaningless excercise in unscientific democracy. Then reality sets in and the rest of the country votes. But, given the track record, I think we’ll see more and more candidates just skipping Iowa the way that Clark and Leiberman did. It’s ulitmate influence on the primary process is next to zero.
The most powerful ticket the Democrats can produce (at this point) would be Clark/Dean. Karl Rove would be shaking in his socks at that prospect. Clark would be unassailable on multiple fronts (patriotism, war on terror, foreign policy, character) and would appeal to the military vote that helped Bush last time (Bush’s popularity among enlisted men has dropped considerably, Clark could utterly destroy him on that side)
Oh my…Clark is infinitely assailable on these fronts.
Patriotism: just last week Clark was saying Bush was unpatriotic. Need anyone be reminded the slams Repubs got when anyone dared suggest someone was unpatriotic? Now we’ve got Clark doing what Dems constantly said they were too good for.
So you’re suggesting that the Republicans should be allowed to dish it out but not take it? Or are you agreeing that the Republicans are acting reprehensibly and that Clark shouldn’t sink to their level?
Repubs denounced people as unpatriotic to quash dissent (“If you’re not with us, you’re against America!” type of BS). When someone calls Bush unpatriotic because he seems to be turning his back on the principles the nation was founded on, well, although it may still not be a 100% kosher, it is a far more valid accusation that being called a potential traitor simply for disagreeing with our leaders.
War on Terror: He’s flip-flopped so many times on this issue, had the quotes shown to him, and still insists he’s been consistent. Before the war started, he said there were WMDs and we had to get in there. After the war he praised Bush and Blair for standing strong. Now he’s backed off it all.
The War on Terror is not the War on Iraq. To my knowledge and memory, Clark has been consistent on that score. (“Bush is blowing the War on Terror, by not going after the actual terrorists – Bin Laden and Al Qeida.”)
I can’t speak for Clark, but when Powell made his case, I was mostly convinced that Saddam was a true threat (as was a fair amount of my Left-leaning friends). The fact that the administration was gaming the evidence even then . . . . [shakes head is disbelief]
Character: Just off the top of my head, remember all the flak regarding him being contacted by a Washington think-tank…a Canadian think-tank…make that an Isreal think-tank…whatever it was, and all the “confusion” on what happened. And the whole “Dean called me up” “No I didn’t” thing. His own words dámņ him repeatedly. “I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove returned my phone calls.” Then “He never REALLY called me.”
I don’t recall any of this, least of all him confessing being a slighted Republican. An sources you can offer to back this up?
And what’s the deal of Dean calling him up? Was he offering Clark the number two spot? And the think tanks? What kind of think tanks and what were they offering?
Armed Forces Love Him: Oh Dear God no. Remember, he was REMOVED from his positions, blamed for fiascos, and trust me, hated by the average soldier.
You’re right…Clark/Dean is a dream ticket. Bush will have a FIELD day. You think Bush says weird things…Clark and Dean have flubbed in public enough times to make me happy to see Bush debate them.
Was he removed for incompetence (unlikely for a 4-star general) or politics (said something the brass knew was true but was nevertheless unpalatable)? What fiascos his he supposedly responsible for? And why would he be hated by the average soldier? Please elucidate because either I’ve missed a lot of news (unlikely) or your opinions are ill-founded. I never said the armed forces loved him, but I suspect he’d be a big draw for a good deal of them (especially those soldiers and soldiers’ families now caught in Iraq and disillusioned by Bush or those who were offended at Bush wearing an unearned flight suit or those angry at Bush for cutting veteran benefits).
If they’d have a field day, why haven’t any attacks been made against Clark as they have versus virtually every other Democratic frontrunner? And although I have no doubt that Clark and Dean may have occasionally misspoke, I’m sure they have not yet begun to approach the president’s level of brain-stopping gaffes (two books of Bushisms and growing).
If a Democrat is elected this year, that scuttles Hillary’s run in ’08.
Hillary won’t be the first woman president. The Conservative establishment never liked Bill, but they hate Hillary. The first woman president will be a Republican.
That doesn’t follow. Republicans don’t determine who the President will be, the American people at large do. (Although the RNC would unleash the most negative campaign of all history if Hillary ever ran.)
And don’t be so sure that all Republicans would shun a Hillary run. I’ve known a few honest to goodness, salt-of-the-earth Republicans who would have elected Bill to a third term if they could, and, under the belief that behind any sucessful man is a woman telling him what to do, would vote for Hillary in half a heartbeat.
Sasha,
the info on Clark’s odd statements come from a number of sources. The one about how he would have been a Republican if only karl Rove had returned his call came from Howard Fineman at Newsweek.
The dust up over whether it was Dean or Clark who lied about whether or not Clark was offered a VP spot on a Dean ticket was all over the news. try entering DEAN CLARK and VICE PRESIDENT into Google and choose your poison.
The whole “someone called me about 911” tinfoil helmet deal was from MEET THE PRESS
**GEN. CLARK:
I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT:
By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK:
Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, “You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.” I said, “But—I’m willing to say it but what’s your evidence?” And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had—Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn’t talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.**
This guy could end up being the most fun we’ve had with politics since Ross Perot was yapping about his daughter’s wedding being threatened by Ninjas For Bush or whatever.
Clark was dismissed partially…. well, largely because he violated protocol and chain of command and such.
That, and he pìššëd øff the wrong people.
You can do one thing, or the other…. and it’s no big deal. He did both. And the wrong people weren’t bad people, so I’m not on his side.
CJA
Hate to break it to ya noooone can beat George W. Bush sorry. These Dems are pure losers. The worst picks they could possibly get. Glad to see Dean didnt get šhìŧ. It doesn’t pay to be a big mouth. I just sit back and laugh my ášš off everytime Dean opens his mouth…
Kerry has run the state of MA into the ground. Businesses and people are leaving the Bay State in droves but no one seems to mention that little fact. MA has the hightest taxes in the nation and this is the guy who is now the front runner??? I sudder at the mere thought of him beating Bush.
KERRY WILL NOT WIN N.H. I will be very, very surprised if he does and neither will the Al Gore wannabe Howard Dean. N.H. knows what Kerry really is a ‘gold digger’ of the worst kind. If he gets N.H. it’ll be because everyone else sucked.
Um, Kerry is a Senator representing Massachusetts. He has no say in state government there. Y’know, things like taxes, overall business regulations and requirements (well, other than federal pork), etc. that you’re accusing him of being somehow responsible for.
Ironically, per stories in the Boston Globe, Kerry isn’t particularly liked by Massachusetts mayors/legislator types since his office is usually unresponsive when such do try to contact him about local matters.
Changing the topic a bit, I believe that if elected President, Kerry would become the first President ever to have been visually depicted in Doonesbury as other than an icon or tv voice (or however you want to categorize Ron Headrest). Back in the very early days of the strip, Trudeau drew Kerry in a few strips as the returned anti-war vet visiting Yale, er, Walden, and explicitly refered to him by name.
Ironically, per stories in the Boston Globe, Kerry isn’t particularly liked by Massachusetts mayors/legislator types since his office is usually unresponsive when such do try to contact him about local matters.
That might explain partially why he’s running for President. He senses that his days as legislator are numbered.
Michigan Senator Spence Abraham held a similar practice. He’d skip and cancel meetings, fail to return phone calls, and generally alienated his key supporters and constituency. That’s ironic because before he was elected to that position (helped by Michigan Governor John Engler) his role in the Republican Party was teaching candidates to not do what he did later and not act as he did later. He failed to follow his own advice.
Naturally he lost in 2000. He’s now President Bush’s Energy Secretary; Spence’s career has not taken a large dip.
Of course, while not big loss for Spence, he left the seat to Debbie Stabenow. Not only is she a Senator who makes decisions I don’t like, but I’m annoyed that as we have two Democrats in both our Senate seats, Republican constituents are usually ignored when it comes to Senate representation in my State! The other Senator is Carl Levin and by hook or by crook there’s no Earthly way to dislodge that incumbent/fossil until he retires.
It gets worse. Stabenow and Levin are blocking four justices for technical court positions (the so-called “Michigan 4”) because the judges are not as far left-leaning in their beliefs as the Senators. That’s not fair nor is it just.
It’ll be so long….. thanks Spence for condemning us to them.
Kerry may be looking for his promotion largely because the qualifications and expectations are so largely different.
So _who_ thinks I’m an illiterate cretin?
CJA
I’d happily pull the lever for Satan if it turns out he’s the one running against Bush.
Automatically, how to make _me_ take _your_ opinion less seriously.
CJA
if you want to fight me to my last breath I hope you’re extremely young or have Ðìçk Clark-level immortality because I’m not going down for about six or more decades, buster.
CJA
I’d happily pull the lever for Satan if it turns out he’s the one running against Bush.
Automatically, how to make _me_ take _your_ opinion less seriously.
1) Do let’s keep in mind that I’m an atheist. As such, I probably have a somewhat different interpretation of the phrase than you do.
2) What on Earth makes you think I’m after your approval?
if you want to fight me to my last breath I hope you’re extremely young or have Ðìçk Clark-level immortality because I’m not going down for about six or more decades, buster.
1) I don’t recall your name coming up as one of the higher-ups currently holding power. Those are the people I was referring to.
2) Any particular reason you’re responding to comments that are way, way, WAY upthread?
TWL
Republicans don’t determine who the President will be, the American people at large do.
Actually, the electoral college determines who the president will be. Whom the people voted for is considered only a recommendation in most states.
Of course, nowadays, presidential races are decided by the Supreme Court, 🙂
And don’t be so sure that all Republicans would shun a Hillary run. I’ve known a few honest to goodness, salt-of-the-earth Republicans who would have elected Bill to a third term if they could, and, under the belief that behind any sucessful man is a woman telling him what to do, would vote for Hillary in half a heartbeat.
Let’s face it, Hillary is one of the most polarizing figures in American politics today. Many people love her. Many hate the very air she breathes. If she were to run in ’08 (and I’m not convinced yet that she will), it will be one of the most nastiest, dirtiest campaigns ever on both sides.
Right now, I’d say that the people who hate her are far more passionate about it than the people who love her, and are therefore more likely to vote in large numbers. I don’t think she has a chance of becoming president unless she does something to really capture the hearts of people like myself who are more or less ambivalent to her.
I’m annoyed that as we have two Democrats in both our Senate seats, Republican constituents are usually ignored when it comes to Senate representation in my State
You make it sound like you’re more entitled to having your opinions heard than the other side’s opinions. Or that this is something new.
Of course, this is politics in general – Republicans will ignore (and certainly are ignoring) Democrats, and vise versa.
I’m not sure I agree that the first female President is going to be a Republican (though I can come up with a lot of good arguments why it might well work out that way), but I must regrettably second the idea that it’s not going to be Hillary.
Not that I’d mind if she did win, mind you. I like her and would happily vote for her, but I think Den’s right: the reflexively-slam-Hillary group is a lot more vocal (and, I suspect, larger) than the reflexively-support-Hillary group.
I think she’s going to wind up seen historically as a substantial trailblazer who made the first female President’s campaign plausible and successful … but she won’t be the one to get it.
(Of course, if Shrub wins in ’04 and Hillary does run and win in ’08, we have the potential for major dynastic wars. I’m not exactly eager to see the Chelsea Clinton/Jenna Bush matchup in 2020…)
TWL
As a side note —
I’m really pleased that there can even BE a serious conversation about a potential Hillary candidacy. I think it shows significant progress from the days of Pat Schroeder.
Ten years ago I don’t know that I’d have bet on a female President in my lifetime. Now I think there’s a fairly decent shot at it. That’s pretty cool.
TWL
I’m annoyed that as we have two Democrats in both our Senate seats, Republican constituents are usually ignored when it comes to Senate representation in my State
Well, the solution to that is obvious: Get involved in your state GOP and help support candidates who reflect your views.
Or just whine on the internet about how unfair it is that you’re not adequately represented.
I’m not sure I agree that the first female President is going to be a Republican (though I can come up with a lot of good arguments why it might well work out that way),
A lot of people say the same about the first black president, too. It has to do with the fact that blacks and women, particularly those involved in politics, are generally viewed as being further to the left than the average white male voter. Therefore, any woman or black candidate would have to be moderate to conservative politically in order to have enought crossover appeal among white males.
This assumption is insulting to just about everybody. It assumes that black or female candidates will run as the “black” or “female” candidate first and on their positions second. It also assumes that the hated white male needs more incentive to vote for a female or a black candidate.
The fact is, presidential elections are not won by securing one’s base, those voters who walk into the booth and pull the straight party level like zombies can’t be persuaded differently. Presidential elections are won by whoever can capture the 20 percent of moderate swing voters, or what Anne Coulter so wonderfully calls, “idiot voters.”
I guess that’s better than being called a traiter.
Anyway, the first female or black to win the presidency will likely be a moderate politically because the assumptions listed are considered gospel by the political class. Party affiliation will be less of a factor, but I have no doubt that a woman running for president as a democrat will have a harder time of it because the GOP will hang Hillary around her neck like an albatross.
Naturally he lost in 2000. He’s now President Bush’s Energy Secretary; Spence’s career has not taken a large dip.
I think going from being a member of the US Senate, which has not infrequently been described as the greatest job in the world, to being on the outer fringes of the Cabinet, can be fairly described as being a large dip. The dirty little secret about the Cabinet is that once you get past State, Defense, Justice, and Treasury, being a cabinet secretary is just not all that great a job…
Yeah — and it’s not like State is looking like such a great posting these days, either…
TWL
Am I the only one who would love to watch the Redneck Implosion that would result from Billary running against Condi Rice?
Yeah — and it’s not like State is looking like such a great posting these days, either…
But at least you don’t have to repeat your name three times when you call the President about something to jog his memory.
Yeah — and it’s not like State is looking like such a great posting these days, either…
But at least you don’t have to repeat your name three times when you call the President about something to jog his memory.
My, you’re an optimistic one. 🙂 I wouldn’t be at all sure of that m’self…
“Colin WHO?”
TWL
You can hate Bush all you want. You can gripe about Bush all you want. Hëll when he gets re-elected, you can come back here and still gripe. Pìššìņg and moaning about it does no one any good. W. WILL win. Who wants to place their bets now?? If the Dems stick with Kerry, Bush will win by a landslide.
Ironically, per stories in the Boston Globe, Kerry isn’t particularly liked by Massachusetts mayors/legislator types since his office is usually unresponsive when such do try to contact him about local matters.
Local matters??? Hardly. The sate is over taxed, and, who do you think does that???? W. Bush? Hardly. Busnesses are leaving & people are leaving. MA is a welfare state. Kerry & Teddy have made billions here while running it into the ground. Don’t con or snow me. THEY RUN THE DAM STATE.
You’re comments about Kerry not running the show in MASS is so wrong. I LIVE IN THIS STATE. It is a šhìŧhølë RUN BY Teddy & Kerry. Has nothing to do with being local.
I know all dam too well what goes on in MY State. MA is the highest tax rate in country and no one has called Kerry on this issue at all.
(my 2 cents)
If Kerry wins N.H. I’ll eat my hat…
Oh and just for the record, haven’t you noticed that Kerry dreaded going to N.H. and he even dreads MA, cause he knows all dam well he can’t pull it off. People from MA aren’t blind and if people from N.H. are then I’ll be very, very, surprised if Kerry comes out on top that means the Dems are gonna lose the elections. I’m really hope they do. Im tired of the whining already. I know all too well what Kerry is really about…RAISING TAXES.
Well, I lived in Massachusetts most recently from 1992-1996, and as I plan to eventually return I make a point of reading the Globe online. While Kennedy certainly has influence beyond the Senate, Kerry’s influence is pretty limited to Senatorial matters. Put Kerry up against Weld, Finneran, Romney, Bulger, Menino, etc. (past and present governors, mayors, and legislature bigwigs) and Kerry’s got minimal say in the local state matters, and as far as I can tell hasn’t exhibited any particular interest in having any.
And Massachusetts isn’t even near to having the highest tax rates in the US. I currently live in California and have to deal with a 9.3% income tax that cuts in around $38K and a sales tax of around 8.5%, both subtantially higher than I’d pay in Mass.
I’m down on Kerry because he resorted to using some f-cking language in his Rolling Stone article…. I think in order to get attention or seem more relevent or something.
No, it just seemed like an unguarded, honest expression of disgust.
**Politicians have a tendency to change positions, I accept that. However, doing it this early in his supposed political career (not to mention starting a career by aiming for the top spot) is a scary thing. It scares me. That and to start any career by running for the top position stinks of arrogance to me. At least everyone else is a former Governor or a current legislator, and that includes the incumbent.\\
Isn’t that what Eisenhower did (I’ll admit I may be wrong but I don’t recall Ike serving political office first). And the current incumbent’s political experience includes six years as governor in a state where the lt.-goveneror has virtually more power than the governor himself and a President for a father. At least Clark has a fair amount of real world experience under his belt.
And weren’t you one of those guys all gung ho for a Schwarzenegger governorship despite his utter lack of experience?
And the impression I’ve gotten is that many of the people who have worked with him hate his guts, so I don’t know that he will have big appeal among the enlisted men and women.
Unless I hear some more specifics here, I think the idea that so many people hate him should be taken with a grain of salt.
Even President Clinton hates his guts from what I read.
They’ve apparently reconciled. Clinton recently referred to him as “the shining star” of the Democratic Party.
the info on Clark’s odd statements come from a number of sources. The one about how he would have been a Republican if only karl Rove had returned his call came from Howard Fineman at Newsweek.
I did a little digging on this and read the article. I think this response I’ve also found best explains the situation:
On Sept. 22, 2003, Matthew Continetti, an editorial assistant with the Weekly Standard accused Wesley Clark of lying. Specifically, Continetti posted an article at 1:45 PM on the Weekly Standard website entitled “Clark Never Called Karl.” In the first sentence, Continetti states “WHEN WILL Wesley Clark stop telling tall tales?” Continetti cites to a Howard Fineman article that disclosed that Clark told someone “I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.” The Fineman article was entitled “Campaign 2004: Clark’s Charge” and was posted on the MSNBC website apparently destined for the Sept. 29 issue of Newsweek. Continetti then writes that “White House staffers went through the logs to check whether Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove. The general hadn’t. What’s more, Rove says he doesn’t remember ever talking to Clark, either.” From this, Continetti concludes “[t]his isn’t the general’s first whopper.” That is, Continetti accuses Clark of lying about a call to Karl Rove.
However, the Fineman article reveals that Clark stated he was joking about the call. Specifically, the Fineman article stated that “Clark late last week insisted the remark was a ‘humorous tweak.’ The two others said it was anything but. ‘He went into detail about his grievances,’ Holtzman said. ‘Clark wasn’t joking. We were really shocked.’ Therefore, in the Fineman article Clark stated that he was joking and the two others stated that he was serious.
Therefore, the evidence of an absence of phone calls and the Rove denial support Clark’s assertion that the statement was joke.
It is an unfair and also a known, crass trick to use the same evidence that exonerates Clark to accuse him of lying. Specifically, the same evidence about the absence of phone logs and the Rove denial either supports Clark’s assertion the he was joking or supports Continetti’s more attenuated and complex accusation that a third party “thought” Clark was making an intentionally false, serious assertion (i.e., Clark was lying). Therefore, it is fundamentally unfair for Continetti to use evidence to support his attenuated accusation of lying because this denies Clark the same evidence to defend himself. Such a result would only make sense if Clark were presumed beforehand to be guilty as a liar. Indeed, this is nothing but a classic setup, wait for someone to joke about something then call them a liar, then wait until the expected evidence comes in that they were indeed joking so you can still call them a liar.
Beyond the crass trick of calling a joke a lie and then using the evidence of the joke to yell lie, exists the much more serious issue of intentionally lying. Specifically, Continetti intentionally misrepresents his charge by leaving out the fact that Clark said he was joking. Because Continetti was directly responding to the Fineman article, he either knew or should have known that Clark said he was joking. Therefore, Continetti intentionally left out the fact that Clark said he was joking. The statement that Clark was joking was material to Continetti’s charge that Clark was lying, because joking is a defense to the charge of lying as discussed above. Further, a reasonable person would have very likely drawn a materially different conclusion from the article if he had known
both that Continetti accused Clark of a lie but that Clark said he was joking. Therefore, Continetti intentionally and materially misrepresented his article in order to call Clark a liar. That is, Continetti lied himself in order to accuse a wounded and decorated veteran of a foreign war of lying.
The dust up over whether it was Dean or Clark who lied about whether or not Clark was offered a VP spot on a Dean ticket was all over the news. try entering DEAN CLARK and VICE PRESIDENT into Google and choose your poison.
So there’s a difference of opinion of who offered who a VP spot. I really don’t see this as a very big deal. And if you do, I’d like you to please examine W’s State of the Union speech last year and tell me which potential lie is more newsworthy.
The whole “someone called me about 911” tinfoil helmet deal was from MEET THE PRESS
GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, “You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.” I said, “But-I’m willing to say it but what’s your evidence?” And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had-Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn’t talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.
And where is the problem here? It is possible that someone attempted to recruit Clark to push the nonexistent 9/11-Saddam connection. And considering the mounting evidence that the administration was trying to find reasons to invade Iraq from the beginning of the Bush presidency, I’d say it’s very possible.
This guy could end up being the most fun we’ve had with politics since Ross Perot was yapping about his daughter’s wedding being threatened by Ninjas For Bush or whatever.
You must be kidding. Bush has made demonstrably outlandish and exaggerated statements (virtually every single warning that Saddam was developing WMD) and, with his statement about building a moon and Mars base, has shown he’s also living in outer space. 🙂
Sasha, I never said ANY of this was “a big deal”. You wanted to know the sources of these stories, I provided them.
I hope Clark goes far, I really do. He hasn’t had his Howard “YEEEEEEEEEAAAAAHHHH” Dean moment yet and it will be fun when he does (his incredibly snarky comments about John Kerry’s military rank on Larry King came close though).
Unfortunately (for Republican partisians) the Dean Meltdown proves that Democrats are not as eager for party suicide as they had seemed to be just a few weeks earlier. It’ll be a Kerry/Harkin ticket.
Bill,
Thanks for the links. I was just offering my opinion on them.
The New Hampshire debate was pretty interesting. Kerry was probably the best speaker. Clark, although well-spoken, came across very much as not-a-politician, which may or may not be a good thing. I still don’t see or have heard anything from Clark that comes close (IMHO) to identifying him being as loopy as you believe he is.
“Not really caring what happens there, because I’m convinced none of these guys can beat Bush.”
Yeah. I totally agree, Peter.
Mindy
**You make it sound like you’re more entitled to having your opinions heard than the other side’s opinions. Or that this is something new.
Of course, this is politics in general – Republicans will ignore (and certainly are ignoring) Democrats, and vise versa.**
I think it’s a mistake to elect two of any Party to both of your Senate seats.
CJA
Doesn’t that mean that your ideal Senate is always split 50-50? (That assumes only two parties, I suppose.)
I certainly think having a Senate that’s got a big majority one way or the other is a bad idea, as it basically lets them rubber-stamp everything without listening to the minority party … but 50-50? I’m not so sure.
TWL
Fûçk this election šhìŧ. You can vote if you want!
fbgfdhgfhxg