We saw what Clark's response would be. He was castigated by the MSM in the 04 campaign for his refusal to denounce Michael Moore - even after aambushed by Peter Jennings of ABC in one of the debates:
Clark has defended Dean in the face of derogatory comments by elected Democrats and defended Cindy Sheehan, Jack Murtha and Dick Durbin to Bill O'Leilly.
I'm sorry the Edwards campaign has this crap to deal with, but it's not going to be the last time it happens. For the sake of our country, let's hope he's learned abit about standing up from Wes Clark.
Clark's mission during the 06 cycle was to elect Dems to Congress and to the Senate. Even when they weren't given a 'shot' by more cautious and 'mainstream' Democrats.
Ask Jim Webb, ask Ned Lamont, ask Jon Tester and Charlie Brown. Ask Eric Massa, John Murtha and Patrick Murphy and the entire cadre of Fighting Dems. HE was out there every day defending them against the rightwing Swiftboat machine.
Ask Jon Stoltz of VoteVets. Clark (who is deeply involved in VoteVets efforts) will give you a full and complete answer.
I think a lot of it WAS about Iran. Clark had to know the AIPAC thing was going on the night before.
I've come to suspect it was intended to be a reminder to at least 2 of the 'already announced' candidates that our men and women are not toy soldiers and to take a hard-line right-wing stand on Iran may commit us to regional war.
Go back and read his speech again with that in mind.
ABC reporter quoting Chris Lehane? You gotta be kidding!
Isn't Lehane working for Hillary yet?
BTW, I think she'll have to go with someone like Bayh. Ever since they went overseas together, he's been standing behind her shoulder at every opportunity.
Clark's a bit too outspoken for Hill. She didn't take his advice in the run-up to the IWR vote -- though I'm reminded by watching the re-runs of the Senate Debate from 2002 on Cspan last week that Boxer, Kennedy and Wellstone quoted Clark repeatedly to justify their 'no' votes. I doubt Clark would be 'compliant' enough not to speak up when (note "when" not "if") she would make another such disasterous decision.
FWIW, BlueState is run by a Hillary supporter. It's the Hillary camp's 'meme of the week'.
To answer Drew's #1. Clark understands the drawbacks of even a 'limited' military option. Others (including Edwards) don't seem to understand it.
Fox news Interview 2/5/06
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well that's the problem with the military option, Eric. It's that once we take action, Ahmedinejad probably becomes stronger domestically. There's no assurance that you can get regime change and the historical record of countries that have been bombed suggests that when you bomb a country, normally people rally around the leader. In this case, it would be most unfortunate, but it could happen.
And after we had set back their nuclear program by taking out a number of sites, there's no reason to think that AQ Khan in Pakistan and his cohort couldn't provide them the additional information, that some other nation might not have an incentive to smuggle in highly enriched uranium.
They could be back where we started much sooner than if they rebuilt the program entirely on their own. So that's the risk of the military option - leaving an embittered, angered Iran which is determined to seek revenge and get it.
Independents and Republicans don't think like Democrats. For the most part, if they can find a 'competent" candidate, against the war and not identifiable as being in Bush's back pocket, they're likely to vote for him.
The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.
What does he need to 'teach America" exactly? And why was he saying it to the right-wing Israeli crowd? and why has he refused to post his own speech on his own website? Did he think we wouldn't notice?
Edwards doesn't have a good track record on matters of war and peace. When given an opportunity in 2002 to follow Wes Clark's advice before the Senate, he took Bush's advice instead.
In watching the Senate debate over the IWR again a couple of days ago, I was reminded that Boxer and Wellstone and Kennedy quoted Clark as they voted "no" in 2002.
If they'd have listened to him then (we had a Senate majority, albeit a small one) it's possible that we wouldn't be in Iraq today.
Anyone who thinks Edwards, Obama and Clark have the same position on Iran doesnt' understand Clark's position at all and is just mouthing the words.
It was a way for him to gather email addresses from forwards. Just like the cynical "oops, someone let the cat out of the bag" statement about his announcement tomorrow. Hell, he's been announcing it for more than a week. (Gotta make sure the photogs are all there to see him lift a shovel.)
Cynical and calculating...
There are politicians who are manipulators and people in politics who are leaders. I'll leave it completely up to you whether you swallow the Smilin' Johnny photo-op in NOLA and buy his 'I care about poor people' persona.
retired Gen. Wesley Clark, 14.2;
Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, 12.2;
Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, 11.1;
former Sen. John Edwards, 10.4;
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, 5.3;
former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, 4.9;
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, 4.9;
Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, 3;
Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, 2.8.
The WSJ didn't report the Margin of error, but I suspect it was + or -5%