The New York Times’ Michael Shear has a piece today (5/19/11) reminding readers that presidential candidates often have early stumbles of the sort that Newt Gingrich has been having. He recalls several examples, most of which don’t really offer much hope for Gingrich. One is Wesley Clark’s brief 2004 campaign:
In 2004, General Clark’s campaign was premised on his military credentials and his critique of President George W. Bush and the Iraq War. So when the general said, within days of announcing, that he might have voted to authorize the Iraq War, it was a big deal.
That’s not exactly how it happened.
FAIR played a pretty prominent role in this story, pointing out in a press release (9/16/03) that Clark’s supposed anti-war credentials were mostly a fiction. The media chatter at the time was that Clark was strongly opposed to the Iraq War, which in the corporate media’s worldview was a serious problem for him. But as FAIR pointed out, Clark was hardly a critic of the war:
On the question of Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN‘s Miles O’Brien that Saddam Hussein “does have weapons of mass destruction.” When O’Brien asked, “And you could say that categorically?” Clark was resolute: “Absolutely” (1/18/03). When CNN‘s Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: “I think they will be found. There’s so much intelligence on this.”
After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. “Liberation is at hand. Liberation–the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions,” Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). “Already the scent of victory is in the air.” Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of “a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.”
After the FAIR release started circulating, reporters asked Clark about his position on the war. And that’s what caused him the trouble–he was unable to live up to the storyline that much of the media were pushing.
Yes they need to be sure that the press and the politician are synchronized to not get it wrong between them. Sloppy.
Many people had to eat crow on the Iraq War, and even today just a few weeks ago, Condaleeza Rice was interviewed by Lawrence O’Donnel, she still insisted that Sadam had been an immediate threat at the time and she still thought that Sadam had ties with Al Qaeda, the problem is, he was a threat according to her assesment of him in ’91, not in 2003, he was for the reasons she gave for the ’91 Gulf War to expell Iraq from Kuwait and that was why he had to be taken down in 2003. She never admitted that there were no WMDs, but she thinks the right action was taken. She really sounded confusing and unable to see the world 8 years since the initial invasion of Iraq by US forces, in 2011.
Truly astounding the bubble these tprtyRethugnut right wing nuttery nutjobs live in, a conservative echo chamber where the only factchecking done is by each other, the proof they give is what is contained in the echo chamber, and nothing gets in, stubborn things like truth and reality, you know, facts of existence will never darken the door of the FOX rightwing noise propaganda machine and its numerous conservative 90% talk radio outlets, along with the Koch brother funding of conservative NON-thinktanks and the political organization money laundering PACs, SuperPACs that buy the elections for the wealthy and the corporate welfare queens. And how to defeat them in an election if money is all important? How can we “buy” the election?
To get an idea of what the Democrats are up against, as far as funding campaigns goes, just two right wing donors the Koch brothers have between them $45 billion dollars; if they were to spend $1 dollar every second of every day(annual spending would be $31.45 million dollars, or $604.8 thousand dollars per week), they would go broke in 1,422 years!!!! If they spent $10.00 dollars every second, they would go broke in 143 years, longer than any human could live. And this accounts for just two donors, imagine a few hedge fund managers chipping in to the Rethugnut cause.
I loved the way you lumped all factions not liberal as nut jobs.I also love the intimation that the right has some sort of mass funding as if you have not noticed Obama’s war chest.
As far as Iraq- the reason for the war is already a ,part of history.To be mulled over and monday morning quarterbacked for eternity.A luxury not afforded Bush after 911. Also missing(and always missing)is Saddams role. Never will the left even mention his part in this war.He is in effect out of the equation.But just as the right can not have it both ways neither can the left. History will not forget the words and deeds of men like Chaimberlain and Churchill, Roosevelt and Truman.But people on the whole… do. Their reality is the world they are handed. And who can say the Iraqi world handed to Iraqis by Bush( without Saddam)- is not better off?So the left wishes to paint the treasure of American blood lost as a waste of monumental stupidity.Future Iraqis may see it as a solemn gift of the highest order.A gift of freedom.Only those who already posses it and take it for granted are so one sided as to see only the one argument.
Michael e’s reply is loaded with wishful thinking. I have heard no quotations from Iraqi
citizens that support his contentions.
Prior to the war Saddam was killing 1500 Iraqis per week.Torture chambers….etc.How many Iraqis died last week due to our troops I don’t know.Im sure someone died though there is no listing today.A friend of mine rotated back last week.He said the duty was fine.Calm and on the whole peaceful.Productive and rewording.He went to a wedding the day before he left of an Iraqi.Loved it.He said the streets were overflowing with weddings.He also two days before had a soccer game with Iraqi youngsters.Bout 20 kids and a whole load of GIs(We lost).Peace and a newborn Democratic system are wonderful things.
I can see why Michael E says elsewhere that he has subscribed to FAIR for years. It’s not because he supports anything FAIR stands for, it’s to spout Rovist hasbara and bog discussion down to a Faux News level.
If countervailing evidence exists, I look forward to reading it.