SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Wesley Clark -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (510)10/3/2003 10:51:54 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 1414
 
Bush should face an inquiry over Iraq war, says general

telegraph.co.uk

By David Rennie in Washington

(Filed: October 4, 2003)

General Wesley Clark, the front-runner in the Democratic race for the White House, launched a high-risk attack on American foreign policy yesterday when he said the Bush administration should face an investigation into possible "criminal" conduct in its drive to war.

Gen Clark, who as Nato supreme commander led the war in Kosovo, accused the Bush administration of entering office already determined to attack Iraq, then seizing on the September 11 attacks as justification.


He called for an independent review of what he called the "possible manipulation of intelligence" to convince the American people that war with Iraq was necessary.

"Nothing could be a more serious violation of public trust than consciously to make a case for war based on false claims," he was due to say in a speech last night. "We need to know if we were intentionally deceived.

"This administration is trying to do something that ought to be politically impossible to do in a democracy, and that is to govern against the will of the majority," he said. "That requires twisted facts, silence, secrecy and very poor lighting."

Though a political novice, Gen Clark has surged to the front of the crowded pack of Democrats vying to challenge President George W Bush next year, less than three weeks after entering the contest.

Amid complaints that his views on the Iraq war have been vague and contradictory, Gen Clark threw caution to the wind yesterday.

He is playing a high-stakes strategy, attacking the Bush administration directly on national security and defence, using his military credentials to back up some of the gravest accusations levelled against the current government.

In a book due for publication later this month, Gen Clark will accuse the Bush administration of having a five year plan to attack nations across the Muslim world.

In Winning Modern Wars, Gen Clark records a conversation with a "senior military staff officer" he met at the Pentagon in November 2001, at the height of the Afghan campaign.

America was headed next for war with Iraq, Gen Clark says the unnamed officer told him.

"But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. So, I thought, this is what they mean when they talk about 'draining the swamp'," Gen Clark writes.

He has argued that America is wrongly ignoring Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as terrorist sponsors and called for the war on al-Qa'eda to be pursued through United Nations resolutions and an international tribunal for prosecuting terrorists.

His personal pitch, the tough-as-nails former warrior with a strong liberal streak on social issues, has some of the party's wealthiest and most powerful backers swooning, as they dream of neutralising Mr Bush's status as a victorious commander-in-chief.

Gen Clark recently returned from a fund-raising trip to Hollywood, where he was feted by producers and actors not normally noted for their love of the uniformed military.

Republicans have made much of his history of backing away from serious allegations when challenged for chapter and verse details.

Recently he accused the White House of trying to have him sacked as a cable television commentator because of his opposition to the Iraq war strategy.

Curiously, Gen Clark, a registered independent, has yet to join the Democratic Party formally and has come under fire from rival candidates for his business ties to Republican lobbyists and his admission that, as a younger man, he voted for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

But at a meeting of the Democratic National Committee in Washington yesterday, Gen Clark began by declaring his support for abortion rights, the environment, racially based "affirmative action", public education, universal health care and trade unions.

"And if that ain't a Democrat, then I must be at the wrong meeting," he said to applause.



To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (510)10/5/2003 11:15:29 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 1414
 
Clark may prove that 'centrist' is not a dirty word

_________________________________

By Bronwyn Lance Chester
VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Posted on Sat, Oct. 04, 2003

In the now-classic political manual "Hardball," author and inside-the-Beltway veteran Chris Matthews advises candidates with problems to "hang a lantern on them."

A savvy candidate will brandish, rather than hide, an aspect of his background that might render him vulnerable. Think Ronald Reagan's age ("I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience") or Jimmy Carter's roots and vocation (Southern peanut farmer, Washington outsider).

Diehard Democrats and gloating Republicans think retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark has two problems.

First, he's a Johnny-come-lately Democrat. His catapult to the top of the polls and his besting of Bush in several potential matchups don't sit well with some longtime party loyalists.

Clark stole the thunder of several fellow Democrats who believed niche assets could be parlayed into front-runner status. With Clark in the game, John Kerry is no longer the only war hero, John Edwards the only Southerner and Joseph Lieberman the only centrist.

And second, Clark committed party heresy by publicly praising the Bush administration in May 2001, and by voting for - gasp! - Reagan back in the 1980s.

Speaking at a Little Rock dinner two years ago, Clark said, "I'm very glad we've got the great team in office. Men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney our president, George W. Bush. We need them there."

Predictably, Clark has been assailed by rivals, most notably Lieberman, for both transgressions.

But the whip-smart Clark has taken a page out of the "Hardball" playbook. Rather than parsing his past Republican support or pretending that he's been a yellow-dog Democrat all along, Clark has touted his vote for Reagan and played centrism to his advantage, saying, "I was going to be either a very, very lonely Republican or I was going to be a very happy Democrat and you know what, I'm going to bring a lot of other new Democrats into the party."

If Clark can make it to the general election, he may be right.

Party officials, journalists and other campaign camp followers, who tally political statistics with the fervency of baseball fans, need to wake up. Between dropping off dry cleaning and picking up kids from soccer practice, most Americans could give a rat's patootie whether Clark once supported an incredibly popular Republican president. We are not a nation of party loyalists.

Numbers bear this out. According to Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, only about 37 percent of the electorate strongly identify as Democrats or Republicans. The majority's vote could be up for grabs.

To middle America, unnerved by political polarization, "centrist" is not a dirty word; it's a welcome return to sanity. Says Stephen Medvic, professor of government at Franklin & Marshall College, "The notion that someone isn't a diehard partisan, a lot of Americans will like that aspect of Clark's candidacy."

But while Clark may do well in New Hampshire, a state that routinely picks mavericks, his first task must be to appeal to party activists who make up the Democratic nominating electorate.

The Democratic Party, too, should hang a lantern on its problem. Other than the carpetbagger Clark, few of its candidates have much more than fringe appeal.

Even the much ballyhooed Howard Dean doesn't poll well in the South or upper Midwest, critical regions for national Democratic success. And Clark appeals to NASCAR men, who have fled the Democratic Party in droves since the Reagan era.

Democratic activists need to honestly ask themselves: Which candidates is electable and has the most crossover appeal? While they may be peeved at Clark's lack of party credentials, many party faithful also want to back a winner.

If Clark continues to paint himself as the man who can stand up to Bush - the real issue of 2004 - and can bring in independents and moderate Republicans, he could garner a large enough share of Democratic delegates to become a force to be reckoned with at the convention.

The silver-haired ex-general's real problems may be a lack of cash and his too-close association with the bevy of Clintonites now running his campaign.

But to Americans sick to death of right and left wings, a candidate's past party crossovers and centrist bent are more assets than problems.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronwyn Lance Chester is a columnist for The Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk.

tallahassee.com



To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (510)10/5/2003 11:49:45 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1414
 
There's a new site for debunking the lies and distortions being bandied about by various enemies of Wes Clark. Don't miss clarkmyths.com