PNAC vs Clark (pissed about his TPM interview

http://daily.nysun.com/Default/Client.asp?skin=NYSun&Daily=NY
> CLARK EMERGING AS AN OPPONENT OF REAGANISM
>
> Candidate Derides Committee That Crafted Cold War Victory
>
> By IRA STOLL Staff Reporter of the Sun
>
> General Wesley Clark, the late entry into the race for the Democratic nomination for
president, is making what critics called a bizarre,crackpot attack on a small Washington policy
organization and on a citizens group that helped America win the Cold War.
> In a Tuesday interview with Joshua Micah Marshall posted yesterday on the Web site
talkingpointsmemo.com, General Clark gave his evaluation of the Clinton presidency. He said
that the Clinton administration,in an odd replay of the Carter administration, found itself
chained to the Iraqi policy promoted by the Project for a New American Century much the
same way that in the Carter administration some of the same people formed the Committee
on the Present Danger which cut out from the Carter administration the ability to move
forward on SALT II.
> The Project for a New American Century is a Washington-based nonprofit organization
whose chairman is William Kristol and that advocates a Reaganite foreign policy of military
strength and moral clarity. The Committee on the Present Danger was a bipartisan group
created to defeat the Salt II arms control agreement between America and the Soviet Union.
> snip
> It's really a little bit crackpot. I don't think Clinton was really following the PNAC script, Mr.
Kristol told The New York Sun. We called for regime change. Last I looked, Saddam was still
there when Clinton left.
> snip
> A director of the Project for a New American Century, Randy Scheunemann, called General
Clark's comments bizarre.
> The Clinton administration was on the verge of cutting a deal with Saddam, said Mr.
Scheunemann, a former foreign policy aide to Senators Dole and McCain. If they would have
followed the Iraq policy of PNAC, they would have empowered the Iraqi opposition instead of
going around denigrating it."
snip

I've never seen the Sun. This does not make me think well of it.

It's an attempt to create a right wing paper in New York cause we all know there are no RW voices in the media :eyes: BTW, I suuspect it's named after the old New York Sun which was ALSO a reactionary republican paper...

or the NYT for conservatives" they billed themselves. No one reads it.
Funny that the defense is on one hand "why attack a tiny think tank?" and on the other hand "we ended the cold war"

I see them selling, but I've never seen anyone reading it or buying it.

per the editor-in-chief who was on C-Span before the start-up, egged on by Brian Lamm.

Just a way to print right wing garbage and then claim some legitimacy because it appeared in a "newspaper." Guess they milked the Manhattan Institute for all they could get out of it and decided to expand.

He did not want to conquer the world or control all its resources, wow!
I know damn good and well you are not surprised at that, Billy Kristol. The only one dazed and confused is you, a-hole.

I'm certainly very happy to know that Clark is anti-PNAC. And of course the "critics" are the people from PNAC, specificially Kristol. Hopefully they can be neutralized too.

The day after a blog interview comes out -- generating no discernable national controversy -- a weird, rabidly pro-Israel neocon "newspaper" already confirms a "grudge match" between Clark & PNAC complete with quotes from William Kristol and Randy Scheunemann?

Tinfoil time, folks.

http://parsol1789.blogspot.com/2002_04_07_parsol1789_archive.html#75260407

The most recognizable of Mr. Stoll’s bagmen is Michael Steinhardt, the spherically formed retired hedge fund manager famous for chairing the quick-to-capitulate Democratic Leadership Council and launching its affiliated, Bradley Foundation-funded think tank. He’d rather you didn’t know about his work in pursuing a pardon for the disgusting Marc Rich - he doesn’t mention his machinations to secure the pardon in his new autobiography. When the Times ran a softball interview with Denise Rich, Stoll said "the newspaper looks like it is displaying a strange lack of curiosity about the Rich pardon and Denise Rich’s involvement in winning it." If Stoll is to remain consistent, Sun readers can expect a lengthy treatment of Steinhardt’s role in the matter. Were Clinton still in office, Stoll's customers could have witnessed first-hand the operation of an editorial perpetual motion machine, with Steinhardt winning favors for his sickening associates with Sun contributor Bob Tyrrell sniping at the Man From Hope from the opinion page.

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V13/8/tomasky-m.html

Sometime this month -- assuming all the gears are turning according to schedule, on April 16 -- New Yorkers will have walked to their local newsstands and been greeted by a sight the city hasn't seen in more than 50 years: a new daily newspaper. If you think that sounds like some bizarre time warp -- what's next, the Dodgers are coming back? -- well, take a number, because you'll be joining a long line of skeptics. To most observers, the idea of launching a daily in this unforgiving economic climate seems quixotic, or possibly insane. Who would attempt such a thing?

Now throw this into the mix: As if starting a daily newspaper in the only American city that still has three of them weren't enough, two of The New York Sun's 11 key financial angels have also bought two-thirds of The New Republic, at a cost that one of them suggests could approach several million dollars a year in subsidies. For starters, you'd have to conclude that Roger Hertog and Michael Steinhardt are very rich men. And they are. They're two of New York's most successful high-end money managers, and though neither is listed on the Forbes 400, which bottoms out at $600 million, they're probably not far off that pace. There's no fear they'll go broke doing this.

But the question of what they want out of these investments has ramifications that go well beyond two men's bank balances and into the realm of political discourse, in both the nation's capital and its most important city. Why would Steinhardt, a Democrat who essentially seeded and watered the Progressive Policy Institute, the think-tank appendage of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), want to finance a newspaper that will have the Sun's conservative politics? Why would Hertog, a man of the right and chairman of the Manhattan Institute, the prominent conservative think tank, want a piece of the liberal (more than not, anyway) New Republic? Why, aside from the obvious relief of financial stress, would TNR owner Martin Peretz reduce himself to a minority interest in the magazine he's supported for 28 years?

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/6400042.htm

Democratic leaders fighting a squeeze
Caught between party's liberals & GOP
By ERIN EINHORN
eeinhorn@phillynews.com

The centrists of the Democratic Leadership Council are being squeezed.

On one side are the Republicans who keep holding on to power across the country, even managing to recall a sitting Democratic governor in California. And on the other are liberal Democrats, rallying around Howard Dean's presidential candidacy and trying to move the party to the left.

But members of the DLC, meeting in Philadelphia over the weekend and today for the group's annual "conversation," say they're holding their centrist ground. Their "Third Way" or "New Democrat" ideas will reclaim the White House for the Democrats in 2004, they say, as they did for Bill Clinton in his two victories.

The absence of candidates has hardly back-burnered the presidential race. It was still the dominant discussion in the hallways and ballrooms where the group gathered over the weekend. Center-of-the-road names like Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards were bandied about. As was a name that many participants said they were surprised to hear often: that of Gen. Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander. Clark has not declared his candidacy but has said he is considering a run. Supporters say he could go toe-to-toe with Bush on military issues.

are about the best argument against the DLC I've seen, certainly in that little space.

Eloriel

because he was disgusted with Clinton's hard-left turn soon after taking office (his opinion, not mine).

He's also part-owner of the New Republic. And he's been wooing Bill Kristol to join him in creating yet another "third way" movement in politics.

Along with Frank Carlucci, of course.

He's proud of the vote he cast for George Bush in 2000.

William Kristol does not seem to be too infatuated with him.

a fake food fight between allies.

Come ON already.

I buy a conspiracy theory or two, but sometimes a tree is just a stinkin tree! Really!

Does or does not the DLC still support the Iraq invasion as the "right decision"?

Attack always indicates agreement and collussion/

Perhaps the attack by radical left figures against Gen. Clark is really an attempt by his hidden supporters to position him as a centerist, attacked by radical crackpots, and thus enhance his appeal to the people at large: a sort of "Sister Souljha" strategem.

A pro-Clark blog prints Clark quotes denigrating PNAC.

The very next day a pro-PNAC/DLC propaganda rag responds with quotes feigning aghast shock from Kristol and the head of PNAC.

One question. When will this Clark vs. PNAC death match be taking place in a public?

Demonstrate to me the shrill radical opposition to Gen. Clark is not simply a put-up job to enhance his centerist credentials, and distance him from some elements of the left the people of the country largely detest, and that to be effectively linked to in popular perception is a kiss of death for any candidate in a general election.

If it can occur to me, it can occur to any cold-blooded strategist, and be carried out by any cadre possessed of a degree of discipline.

Russia just Lost the Cold war and they it looks we are gonna loose as well. so it is a bloody draw.

The Russians got tired of playing when it became too expensive
to maintain all the Communist colonies, they did not have the
economic power to continue. The collapse of the Soviet Union
was the collapse of the last great colonial empire, except maybe
the USA, which has not collapsed yet, but is working on it.

The effect of European popular resistance to the Pershing deployment, and the great popular support for the Niclear Freeze program.

This demonstration that a great number of people were not too willing to be fought for anymore had, in my view, a great political effect on both sides, enhancing their willingness both to make and to receive practical peace proposals.

He's not a Republican.

He's not a PNACer.

What other crap can be slung in Clark's direction to be seen if it sticks?

once Clark entered the race, but DAAAAAAMN! LOL There are a lot of desperate people out there. :crazy:

Shed light on someone's horrible actions like Clark did on the PNAC and get attacked and have the comments dismissed as simply absurd.

You can always tell when someone has no counter when they just proclaim such charges as baseless, lunacy or whatever and provide no evidence for refutation. Sad.

The more PNAC is exposed the better, IMO.

Julie