# Wesley Clark **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 9, 2003, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529 "2003-09-09T14:37:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/41 "2003-09-16T18:26:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KoalaBear \* > \*\*Regardless of which of them wins the primary they’ll acknowledge the other as the ideal running mate, and the Democratic ticket for 2004 will be next to impossible for the incumbent administration to beat. \*\* Dean would lose because he’s too vulnerable to characterization as a “leftist”. Most of Bush’s big election ammo is very finely tuned against people just like Dean. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/42 "2003-09-16T18:28:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by David Simmons \* > \*\*Yes, GW Bush certainly proved that you’ve got to have oodles of gravitas to become President. \*\* Hah. Point well taken. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/43 "2003-09-16T18:34:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dogface \* > \*\*If Clark were to run against Bush, he would win. There is no way that Clark will run against Bush, because Clark is a Democrat. There is no way that Clark will get the Democrat candidacy because Clark is not a crackpot or panderer. The extremists and cultists within the Democrat party will ensure that a thoroughly un-electable excuse will be nominated. \*\* As opposed to the nutcases in the Republican party, who brought us our current President? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/44 "2003-09-16T18:34:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kwildcat \* > \*\*I would be interested in any data folks can find on early state results and the eventual nomination - is there precedent for someone winning first two- or three- primaries, but being overtaken down the road for the nomination? \*\* Clinton, you may recall, did not win the 1992 New hampshire primary. He finiashed a respectable second behind Paul Tsongas. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/45 "2003-09-16T18:42:17Z")
Oh yeah, and Clinton was clobbered in Iowa in '92, getting only 2.8 % of Caucus votes. (Native son Tom Harkin won the state.) ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/46 "2003-09-16T18:48:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dogface \* > \*\*The extremists and cultists within the Democrat party will ensure that a thoroughly un-electable excuse will be nominated. \*\* Actually, most of the extremists and cultists in the Democratic Party seem to have lost their power, oh, about eleven years ago when Clinton got nominated. You have apparently confused them with the Republicans. 😉 Say what you may about emoticons, people, but they are what help you separate people like me (wiseasses) from extremists and nutcases. For instance, if **Dogface** were to use one now and then we could determine that he is NOT the dead-serious, unthinking, knee-jerk follower of the most conservative Republican party line that he sometimes comes across as and is instead the thoughtful conservative Republican who just likes to rib Democrats now and then (cuz it’s just so darned fun!) that he normally is. (big, friendly 😃 ) As for Gen Clark’s campaign, I’ve been waiting for him to make his decision for several months. He is not only electable but is a smart cookie and I don’t cringe when I hear him talk. Granted, a Clark presidency would not have the entertainment value of a Sharpton or Kucinich presidency but I sometimes have to sacrifice my perverse pleasures for the common weal. ---
**Author:** ![tomyoung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@tomyoung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomyoung)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/47 "2003-09-16T18:51:17Z")
**Dogface** I asked this question of **Puddleglum** above, but he has not yet responded: are you using Democrat as a slur, as in > [@](#): > > the Democrat candidacy… the Democrat candidate Because that would be pretty sad. Second, we’ve been over your argument, Dogface. The opposition party is more likely to nominate someone who they think is electable when they are out of power, rather than someone who more closely conforms to orthodox principles. The party doesn’t need to pander to the “cultists” to energize the base because Bush, Ashcroft, etc. can do it for them. Or were you not alive in 1992, when we nominated a centrist named Bill Clinton? Third, and I’m inferring here, you seem to think Dean is a moderate who’s easily tarred as a liberal. But this would seem to torpedo the logic of your thinking – specifically, Dean is a prime example of moderate who can energize a liberal base, even in your own mind. So please elaborate if I’m not reading you right. ---
**Author:** ![tomyoung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@tomyoung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomyoung)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/48 "2003-09-16T18:55:42Z")
[BDropzone[/B} wrote: > [@](#): > > Granted, a Clark presidency would not have the entertainment value of a Sharpton or Kucinich presidency but I sometimes have to sacrifice my perverse pleasures for the common weal. Slight hijack: I would love to see Kucinich or Sharpton debate Keyes or Bauer. Any permutation thereof would bring me intense pleasure. Also, I think that if you crossed Kucinich with Bauer you would have Peter Jackson’s Gollum. Seriously, look at the pictures: Bauer is like Smeagol, and Kucinich is like Gollum. Anybody else agree? ---
**Author:** ![shelbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@shelbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shelbo)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/49 "2003-09-16T19:14:05Z")
Moderate Republican checking in. I’ll vote for Clark over Bush. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/50 "2003-09-16T19:58:32Z")
I [said before](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=193490&postid3643549) that I’d go to work for his campaign if he runs. Looks like soon you can consider me washed of all pretense of impartiality. I’ll formally announce that myself if and when they take me. I’ve also said several times that Clark is the guy the hypercons fear the very most [and will attack the hardest](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=190458&postid3578123), and true to form, the [Ministry of Propaganda](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97448,00.html) made certain to drop the H-Bomb in the middle of their take on the pre-nouncement: > [@](#): > > Fox News also has learned that New York Sen. Hillary Clinton will serve as Clark’s campaign co-chairman; numerous other Arkansas-based supporters of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, are also lending a hand in the campaign. As I suspected, this fellow has a strategic plan which could generate quick cash and lots of free exposure. I particularly like the fact that he’s going to box out the irrational Hillary-hating ultra-right wing from the get-go. Frothing contempt means no favors need to be paid once he wins. I expect he’ll be marginally in front by next spring. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/51 "2003-09-16T20:02:38Z")
[CNN: Clark is running](http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/16/elec04.prez.clark/index.html). ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/52 "2003-09-16T20:13:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sofa King \* > \*\*Frothing contempt means no favors need to be paid once he wins. \*\* Brother, you have begun to think like a politico! ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/53 "2003-09-16T20:17:19Z")
I liked this nugget: > [@](#): > > Clark, 58, …has launched a handful of very partisan attacks against Bush; particularly saying the president didn’t effectively build international coalitions in the war on terrorism. That’s a partisan attack? Do any Republicans believe that Bush effectively built an international coalition in the war on terrorism? More importantly, did Clark actually say that, or did he just say that Bush didn’t effectively build a coaltion in the war on Iraq? I’d never read an actual Fox News report before, they seem to be very low on quotes/facts and high on innuendo. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/54 "2003-09-16T20:21:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ShibbOleth \* > \*\*That’s a partisan attack? \*\* That’s practically hate speech, according to the current administration. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/55 "2003-09-16T20:46:14Z")
Hi **ShibbOleth**. Since a certain rock bass has recently been put on the barbecue in this here pond, you might not find another fish which will rise to the bait, so to speak. However, I think that the general party-line argument is that a coalition _was_ created, the so-called [Coalition of the Willing](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm). I think that some of those nations have in fact sent–or are going to send–peacekeeping troops to Iraq. Georgia was mentioned a couple of weeks ago. [Turkey](http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030916-035425-7276r.htm) is getting there, but the nominal Iraqi leadership was balking at the idea of having Turkish troops on Iraqi soil a couple of weeks ago. (I think the Turks were balking somewhat, too, but that appears to have been all fixed up.) I think Japan has pledged some money and humanitarian aid. I suppose it’s up to the individual to decide if negotiation of an occupation deal months _after_ the war ended is “effective” coalition-building. Regarding Clark’s statements, he did [reportedly say recently](http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/15_09_03_d.asp), > [@](#): > > “Everything I said about Iraq has turned out to be correct,” the retired army general averred in a telephone interview several days ago. He rattled off the concerns he voiced before the invasion: Iraq didn’t pose an imminent threat to the United States; it wasn’t directly linked to the war on terrorism; an invasion might make the terrorism problem worse; there wasn’t an international coalition supporting the war; America had other ways to contain Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. > > “This has been a root canal,” Clark says of the Iraq campaign. And he warns that the worst may lie ahead: “You could have a catastrophic unwinding of this at virtually any time.” And he had a few questions of his own: > [@](#): > > “Where was the radio network that could have allowed the US to communicate with the Iraqi people? Where were the thousands of Arab-Americans ready to translate? Where were the trained Iraqi judges? Where was a new, mobile Iraqi police force that could have kept order? Where were the economic-development programs with contractors ready to go?” I suppose the fact that he sure as hell looks as if he is absolutely right doesn’t change the fact that he’s talking crazy partisan talk, because [you’re either with us, or against us](http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/), “us” of course being the United States and its benevolent master, the Republican Party. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/56 "2003-09-16T20:53:23Z")
Hi **ShibbOleth**. Since a certain rock bass has recently been put on the barbecue in this here pond, you might not find another fish which will rise to the bait, so to speak. However, I think that the general party-line argument is that a coalition _was_ created, the so-called [Coalition of the Willing](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm). I think that some of those nations have in fact sent–or are going to send–peacekeeping troops to Iraq. Georgia was mentioned a couple of weeks ago. [Turkey](http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030916-035425-7276r.htm) is getting there, but the nominal Iraqi leadership was balking at the idea of having Turkish troops on Iraqi soil a couple of weeks ago. (I think the Turks were balking somewhat, too, but that appears to have been all fixed up.) I think Japan has pledged some money and humanitarian aid. I suppose it’s up to the individual to decide if negotiation of an occupation deal months _after_ the war ended is “effective” coalition-building. Regarding Clark’s statements, he did [reportedly say recently](http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/15_09_03_d.asp), > [@](#): > > “Everything I said about Iraq has turned out to be correct,” the retired army general averred in a telephone interview several days ago. He rattled off the concerns he voiced before the invasion: Iraq didn’t pose an imminent threat to the United States; it wasn’t directly linked to the war on terrorism; an invasion might make the terrorism problem worse; there wasn’t an international coalition supporting the war; America had other ways to contain Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. > > “This has been a root canal,” Clark says of the Iraq campaign. And he warns that the worst may lie ahead: “You could have a catastrophic unwinding of this at virtually any time.” And he had a few questions of his own: > [@](#): > > “Where was the radio network that could have allowed the US to communicate with the Iraqi people? Where were the thousands of Arab-Americans ready to translate? Where were the trained Iraqi judges? Where was a new, mobile Iraqi police force that could have kept order? Where were the economic-development programs with contractors ready to go?” I suppose the fact that he sure as hell looks as if he is absolutely right doesn’t change the fact that he’s talking crazy partisan talk, because [you’re either with us, or against us](http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/), “us” of course being the United States and its benevolent master, the Republican Party. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/57 "2003-09-16T21:25:56Z")
I am a Republican. Clark is a far better Republican than Bush is. Bush is a caricature of a Republican and a vile, perverse stain upon the Republican party. Any true Republican would support Gen. Clark and vote Deserter Chickenhawk Bush out. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/58 "2003-09-16T21:32:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Fox News also has learned that New York Sen. Hillary Clinton will serve as Clark’s campaign co-chairman; numerous other Arkansas-based supporters of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, are also lending a hand in the campaign. He’s affiliated with Clinton? He must barbecue babies and throw kittens into bark chippers! :rolleyes: Amazing, isn’t it, how what looked like a boring election season has suddenly gotten a _lot_ more interesting in the space of about a month? ---
**Author:** ![tomyoung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@tomyoung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomyoung)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/59 "2003-09-16T22:16:21Z")
Well, it’s certainly nice to see two Republicans come out in favor of Clark. Let’s hope this isn’t his high-water mark. Okay, I’ve been looking for right-wing talking points against Clark, and a few common threads are emerging. The [first](http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208123,00.html) is that he “almost started World War Three,” based on an editorial in the Guardian newspaper. Incidentally, I think this may the first and last time Republicans use an editorial in that paper as a basis for anything. But it can’t just be dismissed; to do that would require knowledge of the Kosovo campaign that I just don’t have. A second, related charge: [war criminal](http://www.fair.org/extra/9907/kosovo-crimes.html). This one’s a bit indirect, as it targets all of NATO and the Clinton administration. This is another interesting cite, this time from [fair.com](http://fair.com), which calls Bush, among other things, a liar regarding his uranium claim. But it does appear that Clark ordered the bombing of a t.v. studio, that, according to him, was a propaganda arm of the Serbian govt. I think this one will be popping up as a great debate sooner or later. A [third charge](http://www.counterpunch.org/waco.html) is that he was an orchestrator of the siege at Waco. This one is utterly loony, noting that even though Clark was not present at Ft. Hood during the siege, the assault " bears characteristics typical of Gen. Wesley Clark." I think it’s pretty clear that whatever materiel Clark gave to the FBI, this was the FBI’s project, and that they bear the blame, for those looking to assign it. Only the rightward fringe will buy into this one. [Here’s an article](http://www.spectator.org/article.asp?art_id=2003_9_15_23_58_37) in the American Spectator. Not unsurprisingly, it’s really more about the evil Clintons, and Clark’s ties to them. Anyway, I like getting a head start on political memes, to see which flourish and which die. I’m hoping that the ‘Bush is a liar’ meme takes root, particularly after that [egregious education lie](http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002165.html) he told yesterday. And **Sofa King** : I’m thinking of going to work for Clark, too. Also, I’m going through his book right now, which is a bit boring, to tell you the truth. I’ll keep my eyes open for his defense of the train and tv studio bombings/airport saber rattling. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/60 "2003-09-17T01:23:24Z")
Don’t forget the fact that Clark is (sort-of) [Jewish, Southern Baptist _and_ Catholic](http://www.primarymonitor.com/news/stories2003/clark031203_2003.shtml). You can talk about wafflers, but this guy’s an unleavened cornbread communion wafer… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529.md?page=4)