There's been a lot of criticism of Wesley Clark lately. Rita, for example, has a pretty good blast at his recent debate performance.
While I have no idea what I think of Wesley Clark yet, I will point out a few things people forget:
1) All this stuff about weak debating skills and occasional incoherence and not having firm positions on many issues was the same stuff they were saying about George W. Bush at this time in 1999.
2) All this stuff about weak debating skills, as well as frequent outbursts of incoherence, and a lack of firm convictions on most issues, was what they said about Eisenhower all throughout his candidacy--and throughout all 8 years of his Presidency.
There were times when Eisenhower was so incoherent that no one could figure out exactly what he'd said, or even what he'd meant to say. He was far more incoherent than George W. Bush, and far more often. Some even accused him of doing it on purpose just to avoid tough questions. But people loved the guy anyway, and by most historical accounts he was a surprisingly effective President.
Does all that mean Clark's gonna be our next President? No, of course not. I merely point out that the primaries are still months away, and that successful candidates have overcome being shaky and incoherent and wishy-washy, especially this early in the game.
(By the way, "stupid" was also a charge Eisenhower's critics loved to level at him. Sound familiar?)
They always say that crap about Republicans, so it really means nothing. But when they say it about Democrats it's a really bad sign.
Absolutely correct. Who would not prefer an honest man who commits verbal fluffs [incidentally, I think "misunderestimated" is a marvelous neologism that deserves to become part of the language] to a glib, polished liar of the sort that used to be played beautifully by the late George Sanders?
The thing about Clark is not his occasional inability to say, or perhaps even know, what he thinks. But when he flatly states that the WH pressured him on 9/11 to implicate Saddam, that is a whopper. So is his claim that they tried to get him bounced from CNN.
Verbal gaffes can be overcome - if you are so illustrious that it doesn't matter (Eisenhower) or if you are committed to a certain body of principles you wont retreat from (GW Bush); Clark is neither illustrious, nor has he yet set out a body of principles he'll defend to the end.
He has some time yet to do this, but it speaks volumes that he wasn't immediately able to lay out at least a couple core beliefs on the day he announced. What does General Clark stand for? If someone can answer this question, then they are a better man than I, because I'm lost as to what a President Clark would for sure do, or not do.
What happens when someone like Clark is so clearly bereft of political principles is that it becomes obvious that there is only one thing he is interested in, power. The analogue to Clinton is becoming too clear.
Now obviously power is the major interest of politicians of all kinds, else they would not be in the game. But the most dangerous man is the one who is interested in nothing but power.
The man ordered a subordinate to militarily recover a Kosovan airport occupied by Russian troops, and he refers to President Bush as reckless? That shows such a complete lack of perspective it should disqualify him from sitting on a school board.
I think it says volumes about Democrats that his poll numbers are so high. Certainly a great many people don't know all the particulars. What that says is that they are willing to vote for someone they don't know anything about. Those that know the issues are even more damned.
Frankly, I think Clark's chances are in the ballpark of Kucinich's. He has zero to offer except militarily, and that incident will kill him if he ever makes the race close enough that an opponent (D or R) uses it.
The only way a Democrat is going to win is on domestic issues, where Clark has nothing to run on.
Someone said of Eisenhower, that he proved the country could get along without a President for at least eight years. Actually, I think that was his leadership style. If you have Montgomery and Patton working for you, letting others take the credit is a good style.
As to Eisenhower, there is direct evidence that he sometimes used confusion deliberately. One of his advisors (Hughes?) tells of a discussion before a press conference in which they were wondering how to handle one of those questions that will embarrass you, no matter what you say. Eisenhower told them not to worry. If it came up, he would just confuse them. It did, and he did. And the reporters were completely unaware they had been snookered.
I am no fan of Gen Clark, but, I think one point has to be made, i.e. that guy has to be respected for his actions as a young man in Vietman, where even though greviously wounded, he refused to be evacuated, and continued to lead his soldiers in a very hairy firefight - I think he was awarded a SilverStar with a V device for that.
Sid,
As a student of history, especially military history, I've found that military officers take two views of combat, once they've been in it:
1. Realise that death is part of the job and move on.
2. Get really horrified by the death and thus become tactically and strategically timid.
I'm not 100% sure which catagory Clark falls in, because even a timid strategist can occasionally get aggressive (like Bragg in Tennesee) and the aggressive strategist can have moments when he loses it (MacArthur in the days immediately following the start of the World War Two); on balance, though, I'd have to say timid - its admirable that he care's greatly for the lives of our men and women in uniform, but a military is, in the end, built to kill and suffer casualties in the killing.
John Van Laer alleged above that Clark "flatly states that the WH pressured him on 9/11 to implicate Saddam."
This probably refers to a Meet the Press inteview in June. Since then, many have misinterpreted Clark's comments, some intentionally, and some by believing what others said about what Clark said.
The transcript is here: http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/927000.asp and the relevant quote is this:
GEN. CLARK: ...There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, “You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.” I said, “But—I’m willing to say it but what’s your evidence?” And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had—Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn’t talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.
Please reconsider your interpretation of what Clark said, and assess -- in the true liberal tradition -- how the combination of indirect source(s) and your pre-existing attitudes may have influenced that interpretation.