Wes Clark on Face The Nation At 10:30 A M EST

:kick:

Will check it out, even though I really don't like Face the Nation...

Is he going to explain where they are coming from, since Europe won't send any? Draft?

I'm a Dean supporter, but I would vote for Clark in a heartbeat, too.

I'm worried that he will fall into the 'nam trap..."just a few hundred thousand more soldiers and we'll win."

The good news is that Smirk is going DOWN over IraqNam. The bad news is that whoever gets elected after Smirk has to "fix" a giant clusterfuck, or actually many of them, including IraqNam.

cluster fuck that Bush has wrought. It is clear that to simply walk away would be the height of irresponsibility for our nation just as doing this thing itself was the height of irresponsibility.

We will be run out. It's a matter of historical certainty. A dozen invaders have tried to conquer them over the last 4,000 years. NONE have succeeded.

It's just a matter of how many body bags come home before we get kicked out and how many hundreds of billions of our treasury is thrown away.

Count em:

Alexander the Great
Genghis Kahn.
King Richard the Lion Heart
Napolean Bonaparte
The British in the late 19th Century.

Its a matter of their cultural pride that they won't allow infidels to occupy their country.

:shrug:

Without the other stuff of course.

I thought you said it would be irresponsible to "just leave".

My point was that we will "just leave" (i.e. get our asses tossed out) whether its tomorrow or five years from now. The number of dollars spent and body bags will be the only difference between whether we leave now or later.

walk away. In fact, to not repair what we broke would be, IMO, immoral. Fucking Bush, the rat-bastard! :grr:

I know what you are saying. I just don't think the Iraqis will accept any more "help" from us. I think they want all the infidels of all stripes out of their country.

it might be difficult to tell exactly when your theory becomes fact.

I think that Wesley Clark's approach ... multi-lateral, UN administered program with sufficient resources on the table to fix the broken stuff might be the best route. I think we have a moral responsibility to fix what the Idiot-king did if we possibly can.

With Smirk in office there is ZERO chance of actual participation by other countries.

With Clark or Dean or another in office, there is signficant chance of help from others.

Whether that helps or not is the open question.

For all involved, I hope it works. It just doesn't seem likely.

that I grieve for the loss of life and the destruction of the way of life for an entire nation. I despise Bush for what he did and damn, after breaking it, we should fix it if at all possible. We need a new Marshall Plan for them.

Dean is on the record as a favoring a two track solution for Iraq:

-more of a U N presence

and

-more of a U S presence.


I think that's where Clark is. We'll see...

My guess is because he got the idea directly from Clark. :-)

DTH

...we need a regime change here, which will instantly change our diplomacy and standing with other nations. Then we ask, plead with them, for their assistance in exchange for sharing those contracts now being doled off to Halliburton and DynaCorp (companies which should be seized for doing biz with 'the enemy' and being all around smarmy) and actually having a voice. I don't see another way of going about things. Unless Bush plans to do a lil "de-populating" on a massive scale via mininuke or napalm over Baghdad, Kirkuk and Basra, we are dealing with a 'native population' hostile to our 'occupational authority'.

We can all watch ole Wes be afraid to admit he's a Democrat again.

The man who got shot three times in Nam and lost part of his calf is chicken-shit.

N-O-T-

Getting shot does not make one brave. I don't question his patriotism, nor do I question his leadership ability. I question his positions on the issues, which I've been questioning for months. The man is on TV constantly yet won't commit to anything. Join the race already and give us a definitive stance on the issues. An actual platform. In writing. Until then I cannot support him. I *want* him to declare because if his stance on the issues is what Clark supporters THINK it is then he's someone I'll support.

Provide one good reason why this guy hasn't declared his party affiliation. He's handsome, articulate, a tried and true patriot, and not a Bush supporter. Is he a libertarian? a green? a democrat? a republican? Where is his platform? What does he stand for (beyond some vague statements made in a single book or on some pundit's talk show). The only clear positions he has taken are:
1.) pro-choice
2.) Pro affirmative action
3.) Ending of the "Don't ask, Don't tell policy" and embracing gays in the military
4.) Pro-immigration
5.) gun control - leave it to the states

Vague stances:
1.) taxes - basically said we need as much as we need) yeh no shit sherlock.
2.) health care - safety net - ummm what the hell does that mean? is the system in place a sufficient safety net? is a saefty net more privatization? what?
3.) national security and civil liberties - review the patriot act - way to go out on a limb.
4.) environement - against arctic drilling and acknowledges global warming - how about the kyoto accords? how about alternative fuels, how about the clean air act?


Non-existent
1.) Gay marriages
2.) Drug war
3.) prison system run amok
4.) economic policy
5.) Education
6.) Organized Labor
7.) death penalty

Time for Clark to get it in gear. Where does he stand on the issues? What is his political affiliation? What are his solutions to the problems in our country? Will he stand up and declare that the war was WRONG, that Bush is a liar, that we are in the midst of the creation of a coup to create an oligarchy where power rests in the hands of a ruling elite controlled by various business interests and those with imperial aspirations?

Speculation:

1) Declaring as a partisan might damage his prospects of returning to a television or business career. He hasn't made up his mind yet and he wants to keep his options open.

2) He wants to be seen as an objective public servant and elevate himself above the polarization in this country.

holding a non-politician to standards that should apply to politicians.

I put the liklihood of his run at no better than 40/60.

If decides not to run, what he thinks about things outside his expertise is irrelevant. If he decides not to run, his party affilation or preference is nobody's business.

If he decides to run, I expect he will answer all questions. If not, I suspect that he will answer none of them.

What is YOUR position on child support enforcement and the distribution of collections in IV-A cases vs. IV-D cases? Most epople don't have a position on that but if one runs for President, they ought to have a position. And wouldn't coming up with real positions on EVERYTHING take you some time? It would me. Months and months and months. Sound familiar?

I have a position on that one. Child support is for the benifit of the CHILD and the DHHS should keep their sticky fingers off. I think it's a dirty little trick taking money away from children. If recouping expense is a legitimate reason, then why is not all public assistance merely a temporary loan that a person is obligated to pay back?

there are KA-Zillions of issues that most of us have never really even considered.

to invade Iraq was being poushed on him and others, including by Rumsfeld on 9/11/01.

He will give his party affiliation and develop a platform when he gets in the race in a week or two. Whether he is in the race now or in a week makes no difference.

If he doesn't get in the race he is a more effective critic for having not declared. Polls show attacks on Bush's pre-ordained plan to go into Iraq are dismissed as partisan politcs. They are more effective comung from Clark.

Well done.

Clark for joint chief. Not prez.

HE JUST DOESN'T HAVE IT. I THINK HE IS REPUG LITE.

His issue stances are not impressive. He is ashamed to call himself a democrat. IS THIS THE BEST WE CAN DO? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Vote Dean.

when you denigrate the choice others have made, it makes support for your candidate, should he win the nomination, a very bitter pill to swallow. I do not know why so many Dean supporters behave in such a self-defeating fashion.

Or do you want a split party in the general?

:eyes:

That's why. They know their party is over if Wesley Clark decides to run. With hints of endoresments from Pelosi, Daschle, Clinton, Gore, Dean would have a lot of trouble. Also Dean claims to be the only anti-war candidate. That's over if Clark runs.

Not all Dean supporters are scared though. Some see the differences and leave Dean.

so I'll just say Pepperbelly speaks for me.


Build up your own man...


Don't tear down others.....

..that not yet declaring a party affiliation is part of a strategy to look non-political or independent. There are many voters out there who would find this appealing. Clark would take on the appearance of a choice other than politics as usual. He'll align himself with the Democratic Party, but at the same time appeal to independents.

If that's the thinking I think it has some merit. If you think of the voters that have to be swayed one direction or another -- they will make the difference.

Quite honestly most of us here will wind up voting for the democratic nominee no matter.

Just thinking online.

:)

*

and it is working. I have seen some letters to Clark. Ever since that Hannity interview, many of the letters say "I don't care what party you run for." It is working.

"Will he stand up and declare that the war was WRONG, that Bush is a liar"

He's done that. Yoy have also distorted his views in your Vague stances section. Whether by ignorance, or laziness I don't know.

Taxes: Called the Bush tax cuts "vastly unfair and not economically efficient." As I mention below, he's a Keynesian, which means that he will repeal the tax cuts to the upper class and favor targeted tax cuts to the poor and middle class.

Health Care: This is a crucial part of his economic platform. He thinks the Federal gov't has to do much to offset health care costs so as to encourage larger payrolls. He thinks everyone should have coverage--and, no, that doesn't mean privatization.

National security and civil liberties: Reviewing the PATRIOT Act is big. There's no other way to put it. And he thinks the Constitution is one of the only 2 long-term policy areas that have relevance when viewed through a truly long term perspective.

Environment: This is a big issue for him--he sees it as one of the only 2 issues that are relevant from a 100-year persepctive (the other being the Constitution), which he thinks must be accounted for when planning policy. He's a big time supporter of alternative energy. Heck, he's the chairman of Wavecrest, a company devoted to developing alternative energy tech. He also would have renegotiated and tried to ratify Kyoto rather than rejecting it.

"Non-existent":

Economic Policy: He is a Keynesian with a preference for growth first, then balanced budgets. He would maintain spending as well as maintain lower class and maybe some middle class tax cuts to stimulate demand, and he's OK with running short-term, moderate deficits, as long as they can be smoothed out in the long run. He sees funding health care and education as constitutive of economic policy, even in the short to medium term, since health care costs create a massive barrier to taking on new employment, and the contribution of education is obvious.

Education: Teachers are the linchpin of the educational system. Thinks that there should be a federal effort to treat teachers as leaders and to reward them commensurately. Compares this effort to professionalizing and improving military NCOs (a very apt comparison, in my mind). Disagrees that school/student testing will achieve much, although could see it being useful as. Basically, Clark favors more funding and positive rather than negative reinforcement of teachers and schools.

Death Penalty: ? This is barely even a federal issue. I think there's, what, one Fed excution every 5 years or so?

More passionate.....


More animated.....


Bob Scheiffer -"I take it you're running as a Democrat."


Wes Clark -"Thank You"

multi-lateral UN operation operation to end with Iraqi self government with sufficient resources on the table to fix what was ruined.

No evidence of Saddam connection with 9/11. Rumsfeld wanting Saddam implicated for 9/11 on 9/11. Phone call was from Candadian Think Tank.

Why are you being coy? Life changing decision that has to be decided carefully. Will announce decision in a week or so because decision has not yet been made.

It's like an professional athelete deciding to retire.


It's a life altering decision not to be made hastily.


You are making an irrevocable decision.


That being said he's sounds like he's going to run.

I think today he laid out his reasons for waiting so long quite well too.

It left me with the feeling he may not run, though. As if it's really still up in the air--I don't know what is going to change in two weeks for him to make this decision. It strikes me that he himself wants to run, but is being adult in considering the consequences of such a run to his family, his other work, etc.

Don't those reasons sound real similar to what I've been posting for the last month?

:D

I don't know what's going to change in 1 to 2 weeks. It reminds me of when Alby Gore said he was going to decide in the next 1 to 2 weeks...and then right after SNL said he wasn't going to run.

Makes me nervous, and I'm not nearly as invested as a lot of Clark supporters (prolly cause Edwards is still my main guy). I'll be terribly disappointed if he doesn't run, like a lot of people I guess. Again, as with Gore. But if he decides not to, them's the breaks, as they say.

Your insight has been great, and you've also been very civil considering the way some people just post hysterical and ridiculous knee jerk reactions about Wesley.

I put the chances at no better than 40/60.

:shrug:

Just the way I see it.

I think you're about right. Something about the way he laid it out today...

<immature whining>
Why are he and Gore doing this to us!!! Waaaahhhhh!
</immature whining>

And I would fully support him. I think that Edwards is more qualified to be President- based on the fact that we know where he stands on all the issues and he has an excellent platform. And he has experience as a Democratic Senator. I'd rather see Clark in the VP spot next to Edwards, but he's very impressive, well-spoken, and a winner.

I thought he might have edged a little toward not running. (I hope I am wrong.) In addition to his family he also mentioned the impact of the run on his business associates and the armed forces.

Does anybody have any thoughts on what he meant when he talked about his candidacy having an impact on the armed forces?

But he didn't do it. I am not sure if the problem in Iraq is the military's fault. Bush and friends threw them in there.

I don't think those responses were to telegraph a decision one way or the other. Those responses were in response to the charge that he is being "coy." I wouldn't read more into it than that.

I really think that if he has already decided that he won't run he would say so. The Democratic party has been pressuring him to get involved. I think the Democrats want Clark in for plan "B." So that if their golden boys, Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman falter, Clark could save the nomination for the "moderates."

On another note; notice how he responded to the lingering questions about his MTP statements on 9/11 and the administration. He has already looked at the transcript and KNOWS exactly what he said so they cannot play, "gotcha" with him. A lot of people got the wrong impression from that appearance. But if you read the transcript he did not say that "on 9/11 somebody from the white house..." How many other candidates would have the forethought to do a simple thing like checking the transcript before writing a letter to the NYTs or making a television appearance?

and at this point, I would put the chances at no more than 40/60.

At this point, it is between Wesley and his immediate family because they are the ones who will have to live with the decision.

Clark has been clear for most of the summer that he would announce a decision around Labor Day. I saw nothing today, and have heard nothing recently, that would indicate that he's not getting in. As far as his family, his son's been pushing for a run for at least several months. I think the comments today about getting his associates on board indicates that his family's probably made a final decision. My impression is that Clark didn't consider running for president until mid-2002. Some folks from here and elsewhere might remember that I used to bring up retired Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy as a person who could really shake American politics up on behalf of the democrats. I think Clark planned until some point in 2002 to continue his business career. So he's certainly gotten his hands into a fair number of projects, that he's probably trying to disentangle. He's stepped down from some of it, but if he's going to announce, it would be pretty tacky for Wavecrest, and some of the other folks he works with, to find out he's leaving by watching TV.

Short answer, sounds like the family's on board, and he's making the final rounds with his associates before a public announcement in early September, the time frame he put out months ago.

his wife is skeptical.

As a family, they have moved many times in the past and finally, he is retired, they bought a home in their home town, he's making money on top of his retirement without a terrible amount of bother and they can relax and enjoy.

Or, they can move into a fishbowl that could well last the rest of their lives.

I'm dying of curiosity!

DTH

he and his wife are finally at a point where they can settle down and enjoy after a long life of yearly moves, long seperations, and hostile fire. They are doing well financially, settled into a new home, and in a place to kick back.

I expect there were promises made about 'after i retire.' Of course, I could be wrong about that but ... I don't think I am. She may well come around but I do not think that the train has left the station by any means.

I just don't think that a decision has been reached between them.

will be the same. He will be competing for the ant-war vote as well as the others.

Does he sit out the political campaign or endorse somebody?

Does he show up at the Dean rally or with Kerry on the aircraft carrier? I don't think so but it would be great theater.

GOD I want this man to run! This was a great appearance, but I'm really afraid he's going to bow out.

DWC is putting another major push together tomorrow, they're releasing a poll and (I believe) the second part of their election analysis, as well as a second commercial.

LET'S DRAFT THE GENERAL!

DTH

He understands the need for people who can communicate with the Iraqis.



I see the same strategy unfolding in Iraq that I saw in Viet Nam. Remember vietnamization?

But I doubt that it will.

they fired all the interpreters who were homosexual - which, apparentally, they disproportionally were. Thereby gutting the corp.

....to being a Democrat, the blitzkrieg begins from the Rovian forces. They are drooling with venom, waiting for that moment.

Why shouldn't he hold that off as long as possible, this far out in time? It seems like wise strategy.

Get name recognition before the assault begins. Smart, smart, smart.

because he's planning to run for president. Ouch! That hurts........NOT! If that's all they have they're in pretty sore shape.

... is that he is definitely being "coy" about the Democrat question.

If, in the next two weeks, Clark announces his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, however, will it really even matter that he took so long to say it? Will we continue to tear him down after the fact? That remains to be seen.

In the meantime, I wish he would just...

Say it!! SAY IT!!!!! :-)

it's like this: he has not reached a decision about running and if he decides not to run, it's really no one's business.

Do you know what it takes to be a Democrat in Arkansas?

"I put the chances at no better than 40/60"

C'mon, Pepper. I've got the rest of the day and night to get through.

Can't you give us 50/50? If even he doesn't know yet, and there's two possible outcomes, that's 50/50 right?

The universe rarely happens the way I think it should.

Fifty/fifty at least helps with the perseverance. A little.