To: stockman_scott who wrote (782 ) 11/16/2003 2:39:09 AM From: Raymond Duray Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1414 Scott, From the Slate article: Shelton has recently and famously said, in a public forum, that Clark's firing "had to do with integrity and character issues," adding that, for that reason, "Wes won't get my vote." Shelton has since refused to elaborate. Subsequent to this article, it was revealed that Shelton had a hidden agenda. He's working for the John Edwards campaign. So his word can easily be dismissed. But what can quite so easily be dismissed is the lousy analysis that Clark engaged in before and during the early phases of Bush's Folly. Clark should have known that the WMD claims were a lie. He acts as if he did not. From the New Yorker article: newyorker.com Quote: When the Administration began the buildup to war, Clark did not go public with those doubts. He spent much of the war as an expert military commentator on CNN, and writing editorial opinion pieces for various publications. As the liberal media-watchdog group Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting has noted, Clark had reservations about force structure before the war (the oft-heard complaint from military analysts was that Franks didn’t have enough troops for a fight with Saddam), but his reservations seemed to fade as American progress became apparent. Clark said that Saddam “absolutely” had weapons of mass destruction, and added, “I think they will be found. There’s so much intelligence on this.” In an opinion column in the London Times on April 10th, Clark predicted that the American victory would alter the dynamics of the region. “Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights.” Clark praised the Anglo-American alliance, saying that Bush and Blair “should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.” He called for victory parades down the Mall and Constitution Avenue, and, in another column, cheered the spectacular display of coalition force. “American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain’s, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don’t try!” Such public statements, of course, have made Clark vulnerable to charges by his Democratic opponents of irresoluteness on the war. “He took six different positions on whether going to war was the right idea,” Joseph Lieberman complained in the October 26th Democratic debate. Most of us in the anti-war camp here at SI and across the planet knew that Scott Ritter was right. That Hans Blix was right. That el Bareidi(sp?) of the IAEA was right. Saddam Hussein had no nuclear capability. He had only the butt end of remnants of any WMD stockpiles. Why wasn't Clark as smart as me? I won't vote for a man who lies to me, or who isn't as smart as me. Either Clark was a liar, or stupid about the justifications for war. No vote from me for Wesley Clark.