Haliburton? Clark at the Hague?

overshadowed, obliterated. Coincidence? Me thinks not.

the media will seek Clark's opinion on this. Best place he could be is in the Hague when he answers the questions on Saddam's capture.

Also it positions Clark as the strongest opponent to Bush. As Clark is strongest in the area of Foreign relations and war on terror/Iraq.

To put anyone weak on these issues at this point would be crazy.

This is a stark reminder about who we need as a nominee. Democrats, and other Americans will want to hear what Clark's insights are on this.

What can Howard Dean have to say, and who cares? Go down the list of candidates? Who do you want to hear from today?

Hague!.....

You just wondered how the Bush Administration would want to suppress this.

the fact that Clark is at the Hague testifying against a captured dictator will parallel well with this story.

The media will want to know where Clark would trie Saddam.

Clark has been strenghened for the Nomination with this one. As we will want our strongest Dem in reference to the War on Terror/Foreign relations to go up against an even stronger Bush.

It will also give Clark a great opportunity to emphazise that he supports the international criminal court, the US fully participating in international law, and having Saddam tried at the ICC (stated in last weeks hardball interview). I find it odd that this happend the day Clark begins to testify especially since the Bush adminstration forced Clark to be the first closed testimony at the ICC in history and withheld the right to edit the transcript. I think the Rove machine was trying to take the "I actually put a dictator behind bars with the sacntion of the international community" card away from clark. They still fear him. Let that be a lesson to all us Dems.... who are the Bushies affraid of? You know the answer.

Either way, this is a bad day for international dictators. Lets hope this doesn't secure one at home.

Jason

with Chris Matthews... Dean didn't know whether Osama should be tried here or the Hague...

Do you have the exact quotes of the two answers. They really point out the difference between our candidates. Rational internationalism vs vitroilic american superiority complex. I will look for it too.

MATTHEWS: Who should try Osama bin Laden if we catch him? We or the World Court?

DEAN: I don't think it makes a lot of difference. I'm happy...

MATTHEWS: But who would you like to, if you were president of the United States, would
you insist on us trying him, since he was involved in blowing up the World Trade Center, or
would you let The Hague do it?

DEAN: You know, the truth is it doesn'y make a lot of difference to me as long as he is
brought to justice. I think that's the critical part of that.

MATTHEWS: How about Saddam Hussein? Should we try him in criminal and execute him...

DEAN: Again, we are allowing the Bosnian war criminals to be tried at The International
Court in The Hague. That suits me fine. As long as they're brought to justice and tried, and
so far we haven't had to have that discussion because the president has not been able to
find either one of them.

MATTHEWS: General, do you think Osama bin Laden, if we catch him, when we
catch him, should be tried here at the U.S. or in the Hague, the international court?
CLARK: I would like to see him tried in the Hague, and I tell you why. I think it's
very important for U.S. legitimacy and for building other support in the war on terror for
trying them in the Hague,e under international law with an international group of
justices, bringing witnesses from other nations. Remember, 80 other nations lost citizens
in that strike on the World Trade Center. It was a crime against humanity, and he needs
to be tried in international court.
MATTHEWS: Well, 3,000 Americans were killed here. Do you believe he should be
held exempt from capital punishment, because if you send him to Hague he will be. They
don't have capital punishment at the Hague.
CLARK: I think that's a separate issue. I think that's a separate issues.
MATTHEWS: No, it's a key issue, because the sentencing limitation, they do not
execute people at the Hague.
CLARK: I think that you can adequately punish Osama bin Laden, and you've got to
look beyond simple retribution against an individual. You have to look at what's in the
long-term security interest in the security in America and you have to look at how we
handle the war on terror from here on out.
MATTHEWS: But doesn't life in Holland beat life in a cave?
CLARK: Not in a Dutch prison. Chris, they're under water, they're damp, they're
cold, they're really miserable.

That was kinda sickening

I'd like to hea rhte Bush Admin take on it too. I hate to limit what I wuill listen to by what I want to hear.

seems very obvious.

commended! I think this will cause the focus to narrow onto a plan for success in Iraq and that will only strengthen Wesley Clark's platform as his focus has always been on success in Iraq rather than the singular issue of the capture of Saddam.

With the General currently at the Hague, it also spotlights how Saddam will be tried, with international involvement or US unilateral action.

by the self righteous. As he said: "I told you so" is not a policy.
Suddenly, my theory about the significance of earlier positions on war becomes clear to all again:
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/11/20/7034/0480

Let's take a deep breath. Now let's go out there and pick the best candidate to take on AWOL.

eom