A VC

Musings of a VC in NYC

« Wes Clark (Continued) | Main | The Future of Tech »

Jeff Jarvis on Clark

Comments (26) | Posted November 26, 2003 in Politics

Comments

Flag Burning. Hmmmm... Well, when our kids pledge allegiance they also mention God, but that doesn't mean they have to worship him.

I think the concept of burning a flag is so powerful *because* we all pledge allegiance to it. It is a symbol of our nation, and those that demonstrate with a flag burning are making a very strong point.

I am a veteran. I was in the Honor Guard and buried other veterans. Nowhere is the flag more respected than a military funeral, and yet, I can not support a ban on flag burning. What kind of message does that send? It seems like the kind of law that tries to force respect and honor onto something, but all it does is instill fear. I know a lot of people would burn a flag if a ban on flag burning passed, and I would support them.

Posted by: Mike Merrill | Nov 26, 2003 11:57:23 AM

This is making politics fun again...
Here I am arguing in public with the guy who had Wes Clark over for coffee (or was it drinks?).
On the flag: Where's the line? In the '60s, some people -- and laws, albeit unconstitutional -- said that wearing the flag in a button or on your bum was desecration tantamount to burning it. So where's the line? I can't burn it but I can, oh, rip it up and spit on it? Who's to set the line? When it is OK to criticize and harshly and when is it not? I'm a 1st Amendment absolutist; we have nothing to fear from free speech, even in flames who use flames.
On Iraq: We can argue, properly, about whether we should have gone in there. But we now do have an obligation to fix things up before we leave. And it is in our enlightened self-interest to fix things up well; the stronger a free Iraq we leave behind, the better for the Iraqis and the Middle East and thus us.
The war we're in isn't by any means just in Iraq. This is a world war and we can't afford to declare it unwinnable.
I also call on my new Iraqi blogging friends to give me a perspective from the ground: They need help and lots of it to rebuild a civil society and I do believe we owe it to them.

Posted by: Jeff Jarvis | Nov 26, 2003 2:32:03 PM

I think if your main reason for going with Clark is his stance on Iraq, then you might as well vote for 'any' of the democrats. Clark very vocally and publicy supported the war, the Bush foreign policy, and the entire Bush team just months before he decided to run for office. Then he changed his tune. In my opinion, that strikes me as someone who isn't very earnest or trustworthy. Not to mention, so far the 'only' thing we hear from Clark that sounds worth anything is his flip flop stance on war in Iraq. Nothing interesting being said about healthcare, taxes, economy, etc. Clark is a front man by monied interests in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY Bush was. So if you support Clark, sheesh, you might as well stick with Bush.

Posted by: Robin | Nov 27, 2003 7:00:38 PM

oh, right, VC... nevermind...

Posted by: Robin | Nov 27, 2003 7:01:01 PM

Clark never, ever, supported the war in Iraq. A side from hours of testimony, he is also on record with both Gen. McCaferty and Chris Matthews privately as having told them he was against the war in Iraq. Besides, it is not logical. Clark consistantly advocated for completing the mission in Afghanistan which he testified would be undermind by Iraq. He also said that Saddam was a problem yes, but Saddam was not an immenent threat. Of all the candidates of the top teir, Clark held the strongest views against the war, although the reason was military and thus often not understand. He is no peacenik.

All of the others have altered their stance over the months. Dean felt we should go to war after 30-60 days of inspections. Compare that to Clark's opinion.

It would take about 200 years to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning. Personal, I think it is a wedge issue that gets dragged out every four years. Take it off the table. Besides, Clark is entitled to his opinion, and that is all it is. Presidents don't sign amendments, that is a legislative process. In this case losing this country is the bigger threat.

Iraq: please go to Clark's website and read the entire proposal, it does not involve a cut-and-run.

Thank you for the kind words about General Clark, he is the real deal, the president we were always promised as kids.

Posted by: Donna | Nov 28, 2003 11:14:51 PM

"pull the hell out"

He has never said we should reduce the number of troops yet. I don't know where you're getting that.

"Clark very vocally and publicy supported the war, the Bush foreign policy"

In Afg. Re: Iraq, he said we should not go there now, and should not give the President a blank check. I heard him say that so many times as a CNN commentator that I can't imagine how there's doubt. So, I'm not sure where that comment comes from. It's solidly the opposite of what happened.

Posted by: compelled to reply | Nov 28, 2003 11:16:56 PM

READING IS FUNDAMENTAL. Clark's record on Iraq is both substantive and consistent. In fact, he was asked to testify on the ramifications of an invasion before the Armed Services Committees in both houses of Congress on September 23 and 26, 2002.

The 9/23/02 hearing was actually quite entertaining. Clark advocated coercive inspections, and the more he urged restraint, the more hostile the Republicans became. Senator Sessions, in particular, grew impatient with Clark's insistence that the administration exhaust all diplomatic options, and asked Clark, "How long are we supposed to wait [before attacking]?" I was certain that I had the right candidate when I read Clark's response:

"I think you need to work through all options. When you're talking about American men and women going and facing the risks we've been talking about this afternoon, and if you're talking to the mothers and the loved ones of those who die in that operation, YOU WANT TO BE SURE YOU'RE USING FORCE AND EXPENDING AMERICAN BLOOD AND LIVES AND TREASURE AS THE ULTIMATE LAST RESORT; not because of a sense of impatience with the arcane ways of international institutions or frustration from the domestic political processes of allies."

When I read posts like Mr. Jarvis', I become more convinced that Democrats will lose to Bush in 2004. Jarvis obviously hasn't bothered to do any homework. Instead, he seems to have based his entire assessment of Clark's foreign policy positions on some clever gotcha reporting and footage of Clark praising the administration. With all due respect, that's the epitome of intellectual laziness.

I urge people to READ--not only Clark's testimony before Congress on September 23 & 26, but also his essays, such as "Let's Wait to Attack", written for Time in October 2002. The important distinction to make is that Clark did consider Hussein a threat, and was not against using force to deal with him. He did not, however, consider him an eminent threat that required an immediate diversion of resources from the war on terrorism.

Finally, do read through the specifics of Clark's policy for rebuilding Iraq. President Bush did--he's already implemented two of Clark's proposals.

Michelle
Alexandria, VA

Posted by: Michelle | Nov 29, 2003 2:34:19 AM

1) On the issue of a constitutional amendment to ban burning the flag: To be totally honest, it is a non-issue. Any effort to amend the Constitution is difficult at best, and to say it is a lengthy process would be an understatement. General Clark gave his opinion in response to a question because it is an issue that the Republicans have used for years in order to discredit Democrats as unpatriotic at best and tratiorous (sp) at worst.

2) On Iraq. General Clark has been against using force there except as a last resort. He bobbled his answer to questions regarding his viewpoint in the early days of his campaign...and he admitted that to Tom Brokaw during the last debate. That is one of the things that I admire about Clark...that when he makes a mistake he admits it...unlike some other candidates currently in the running.

Make it a great day!

Robert Charles Pickering
Lakeland Florida

Posted by: Robert Charles Pickering | Nov 29, 2003 11:46:49 AM

Truth trumps opinion every time.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,524416,00.html

Read it and weep, Clark is a closet republican who voted for Nixon and Reagan and stood behind the Bush adminstrations policies before deciding to run for office himself. Read his own words, they tell the truth of who he is.

Posted by: Robin | Nov 29, 2003 1:49:19 PM

"closet republican"

He tells us these things openly.

He also voted for Clinton and Gore.

If you don't want the votes of anyone who voted for Reagan, it's going to be a rough few decades.

Plus, it might be an issue IF any of the other Democrats had an Iraq plan or Terrorism plan (Not just anti-Bush statements, no matter how right they are). They don't.

I can't imagine what your agenda here is. Somebody posts a nice thoughtful statement on why they come to support Clark, and you rush to post lies about him.

Odds are you're a Republican afraid of a Clark candidacy. If not, you're a Deanie with your head in a sheep, and I urge you to take a fresh look at the field. I had to.

Posted by: compelled to reply | Nov 29, 2003 4:45:51 PM

Flag-burning: don't mistake the symbol for the real thing. If you attempt to protect sacrosanct symbols from casual insult, you will end up obsessively spending all your time and effort on trivia. BTW, it is against the law to use the flag as clothing, tablecloths, etc. I doubt the law has ever been enforces.

On Iraq: it is CLEARLY in America's and the world's enlightened self-interest to relieve massive suffering, remove political and economic parasites from power, and empower productive citizens of oppressed countries. This one happened to be urgent and arguably possible, given the balance of forces and trends in the ME. Forget nattering about not being "the world's policeman"; no man or country is an island any longer. Globalization is more than McDonalds everywhere. It applies to politics, violence, and value systems, too. Get used to it.

Posted by: Brian H | Nov 29, 2003 10:12:44 PM

Dear Compelled to reply,

You said,
"Somebody posts a nice thoughtful statement on why they come to support Clark, and you rush to post lies about him."

The nice thoughful statement wasn't a private love letter, it was a public opinion that was opened up for discussion. It's called public debate. And I didn't post lies, I posted FACTS that are backed up by DIRECT LINKS to the source information. Sounds like you can't handle the truth. By the way, where are "your" facts, to refute my claims? Or are we just supposed to believe in your faith and passion for Clark? You can't deny he supported Bush Jr., and you can't deny he has voted in two major republican presidents. Please refute this with fact, not blind passion for your boss, er, I mean candidate.

Sounds like you are almost 'rabid' in your support of your candidate, thus I must assume you are one of Clark's volunteers. Just because someone disagrees with the nomination of a particular candidate doesn't mean they have an "agenda" or that they are a stealth republican. Jeez, are you really that reactionary and paranoid? Or are you simply trying to derail the REAL debate about Clark's viability as a candidate? Face, Clark doesn't have a chance against Bush because Clark "should" be running on the republican ticket.

My disagreement does not equal conspiracy against any candidate. Nor does it mean I support Dean (funny you assumed 'that'...why not assume Gephardt or Kerry??). Suddenly I'm getting the feeling that I'm posting on an unofficial Clark For President website. Please someone let me know if this is the case and I'll stop posting immediately. Otherwise, know that dissent and debate is part of the political process. If not, turn the COMMENTS option off on this site and let the Clark fundraising begin.

Posted by: Robin | Nov 30, 2003 10:55:42 AM

"I didn't post lies, I posted FACTS that are backed up by DIRECT LINKS"

One link.

"where are "your" facts"

Same link. I'm not sure what putting "your" in quotes is supposed to imply.

"You can't deny he supported Bush Jr.,"

In Afg., and up to that point. Not Iraq. See link. ("...as some administration officials were making the case for war against Iraq, Clark still applauded the U.S. mission in Afghanistan") I don't think it's accurate to portray Afg. and Iraq as the same thing, as I believe you did here:

"I think if your main reason for going with Clark is his stance on Iraq, then you might as well vote for 'any' of the democrats. Clark very vocally and publicy supported the war, the Bush foreign policy, and the entire Bush team just months before he decided to run for office."

I assumed by 'the war' you meant Iraq. If not, I apologize for the confusion and withdraw all my statements regarding you, or your statements.

Otherwise, I do not think your solitary link is any proof (much less sufficient proof) of this.

"and you can't deny he has voted in two major republican presidents. Please refute this with fact"

I did not deny it, will not deny it, and thus, will not refute it.

Again, to recap, he has voted for, supported, and had fundraisers for politicians in both parties. I understand that this is a turnoff to some people. This is not the case for me. If this is your main concern and accusation, I daresay our positions are currently irreconcilable on a forum such as this.

As for my stealth dean/republican comments (regarding your "agenda" -- a terrible choice of words), perhaps I am "reactionary and paranoid". Let me then at least explain why I made them. Dean is the only candidate I have heard say "Clark was a Republican 25 days ago" (Face the Nation), and the only campaign who has repeated this. In addition, I have met Republicans (only 3) who have given money to Dean in an attempt to help the person they believe to be weakest in the general election (mistaken or not) (also, compare again with 0 for other candidates). Again, my personal experience supports this conclusion. I should not have made an accusation to a particular person (you) of being a member of these two groups in public based upon only my personal-sample-size. So, sorry. But I'll continue to think its likely, and now you know it.

"are you simply trying to derail the REAL debate about Clark's viability as a candidate? Face, Clark doesn't have a chance against Bush because Clark "should" be running on the republican ticket."

I welcome such debate. Your own link, however, did not in any way support your claim ("Clark very vocally and publicy supported the war, the Bush foreign policy") and I believe it to be purposefully misleading. As such, I called it a lie.

As for viability, and your claim that he "should" be a republican... All I can say is that it is blindly exclusionary and derisive, which is what I object to so strongly. Again I welcome that challenge on ideas, but your statement is a blanket smear without specificity. It also ignores all of the Clark supporters who are Democrats. Dean and Clark usually poll within the margin of error of each other nationally*.

So again, the single issue you defined clearly I found to be wholly unsubstantiated by your link.

"Just because someone disagrees with the nomination of a particular candidate"

You claim he's unfit to be a Democrat at all. That is far, far different. In my earlier comments I've cited 3 specific statements (2 from you) that I view to be untrue, and why I think so.

Again, my wild "conspiracy" theories do not do justice to the tone of the blog and thread, and am sorry. But I posted, and again, and now again, in response to you because in my view your post is of a similar disservice by claiming to be "FACT" not only what is unsupported, but refuted by your own link.

"I'll stop posting immediately"

I don't know who runs the site, but please don't. Or at least, tell me where to continue this, and I'll stop too, of course. If you have further information ('evidence', as it were) regarding Clark that I failed to consider, I would LIKE to see it. But your Time link is support for action in Afg., not Iraq.

I came to Clark from another Democratic candidate. I'll close the same way I did last time, modified: I urge you to take a fresh look at the field. I had to. And if I missed something, I'll take a fresh look at it again.

--
*
Disclaimer: Polls stink. The point is that there are many Democratic Clark supporters. Given that, the most recent polls listed at http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm are: (I trimmed to

Ipsos-Reid/Cook Political Report Nov. 4-6 & 18-20, 2003. N=527 likely Dem pres primary/caucus voters ntnl.
MoE ± 4.4.
Dean 20 -- Clark 16 -- Gephardt 14 -- Lieberman 12 -- Kerry 10 -- Other/None/Not sure 12

CNN/Time Poll Harris Interactive. Nov. 18-19, 2003. N=644 reg Dem and Ind (lean Dem) ntnl.
Not sure 23 -- Dean 14 -- Clark 12 -- Lieberman 11

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Nov. 18-19, 2003. N=345 reg Dem ntnl.
Dean 18 -- Clark 14 -- Lieberman 10 -- Not sure 25

Some older polls are closer, some are further apart, some are from before Clark entered. Again, Polls stink. The point is simply that there are many Democratic Clark supporters.

Posted by: compelled to reply, | Dec 1, 2003 1:43:37 AM

I just noticed where the 'boss' remark came from. For anyone reading, it's a post by somebody else on another Wes Clark topic on this blog. I am not him. I have never been in the military.

Here's what I should have written as a post instead of defending charges which do not need defending. It cuts to the reason for my support.

While you call it blind faith, I support Wesley Clark because I believe he is uniquely prepared to handle issues both Domestic and Foreign. He has already forged a multilateral institution to create peace and had Head-of-State status. He's already been in executive positions responsible for benefits that are far more extensive than we now provide to our citizens.

I think that experience and commitment is valuable and in line with Democratic principles. I see no other candidate with superior ideas or experience.

It's that simple.

Robin made their point, and I made mine (poorly); so I'm satisfied, and won't clog this blog anymore.

Posted by: compelled to reply | Dec 1, 2003 2:34:40 AM

As for my link, I'm not going to do all your work for you. The quotes that prove he supported Bush's foreign policy are there if you can take your blinders off long enough to actually read the text. Clark flip flopped on Bush, plain and simple. He is inconsistent and lacks credibility.

In fact, decorated generals who know him are telling everyone he is definitely the wrong man for the job. These are people who worked closely with him. But I guess their opinions don't count, right?

"I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart." -General Hugh Shelton

Oh, but I guess highly decorated and honored General Hugh Shelton's experience and opinion don't count for anything. Right? Right...

Give it a rest. Personally, I don't think being a military man makes one qualified to be president. I think it makes one qualified to wage war, send troops into battle, etc. But such military experience has little to do with the subtle intricacies of being president. So, in this case, his experience is negligible.

Admit it, you've already made up your mind to go down fighting with this stinker of a candidate. We get it. Now just empty your life savings into his campaign coffers and spare us the rhetoric. Clark, and your arguments, simply aren't that interesting or forthcoming.

For the record (since you seem to hold conspiracy theories close to your heart) I am not a republican, or a Dean supporter. Unlike you, I'm actually using the debates to form an opinion on candidates for an election that is A YEAR AWAY. You, on the other hand, have already gone into holy war mode and engage in flaming anyone who doesn't love Clark. You are transparent, and, while well-spoken/articulate and NEWLY polite, still rather juvenile in your hero worship of this man. Clark is not the man for the job and the polls already show that few voters are even interested in him.

Posted by: Robin | Dec 1, 2003 6:51:24 AM

"A YEAR AWAY"

Some of us vote in primaries that are 2 months away.

"I guess highly decorated and honored General Hugh Shelton's experience and opinion don't count for anything. Right?"

He won't say what those issues were. Maybe someday he'll expound on them. It would be nice to know what he means.

"I don't think being a military man makes one qualified to be president."

I think it does. The diplomicay he led in is important.

Obviously, we disagree.

"You are transparent"

I was under the impression that was good.

Posted by: compelled to reply, again | Dec 1, 2003 4:11:23 PM

wow. fantastic debate. it might have gotten
uncomfortable for the participants, but i
thoroughly enjoyed reading it, and i thank
everyone for enriching my afternoon.

-anna
former republican campaign manager
current clark fan.

Posted by: anna | Dec 1, 2003 9:11:04 PM

Dear Compelled to reply,

"anna: former republican campaign manager, current Clark fan."

I REST MY CASE! :^)

Posted by: Robin | Dec 1, 2003 9:15:46 PM

Then you will be horrified to learn she isn't alone. I've personally witnessed over a dozen registered (I) and (R) re-register as (D) specifically because of Wesley Clark, but also because they believe Republican leadership has led us astray in diplomacy (Iraq), economics (Jobs, Deficit), and social policy (Every Single Government Program [tm]).

I support Wes Clark not because of who supports him, but because of his ideas. Reading his position papers, editorials, books, and interviews (and I don't mean short-format cable-news interviews) convinced me that he has the experience, positions, and depth of thought able to best help our nation. I asked both Sen. Biden and Wes Clark to run for the Presidency because I believe they are best (and uniquely) suited to implement successful and beneficial policies.

The fact that Independents and Republicans also recognize this is only a very pleasant effect of a true leader. He is able to articulate Democratic values in such a way that convinces others. Your distaste for a candidate that has the ability to do this, frankly, amuses me.

Posted by: compelled to reply | Dec 2, 2003 3:00:39 AM

" I asked both Sen. Biden and Wes Clark to run for the Presidency because I believe they are best (and uniquely) suited to implement successful and beneficial policies."

Ah! The plot thickens. So, oh anonymous commenter, it appears hubris has gotten the best of you as you couldn't help finally revealing a least a little bit about who you are in regards to Clark. None of us here know whether to believe you or not, but based on your last comment, it seems you are saying you are some very prominent person of influence with the access and authority to lodge such a request towards Clark personally.

Well, since this blog is created by a rather high-profile guy with influence, I say you might as well out yourself and tell us who you are. That said, it doesn't really matter anyway. If you really have the influence to personally ask Clark to run for president, then this debate is over because you most likely have 'a lot' of your own money invested in his campaign, so no amount of debate will appeal to your sense or reason or logic. Good luck with the horse you put into the race. Save some cash though, I have a feeling Clark will start getting the "will you run as (fill in blank's) Vice President?" question.

Lastly, if you are who you imply you are....eewwww, creepy. Dude, build a site in honor of Clark, leave us lowly proletariats to our meager machinations. *tap tap* Is this thing on? Is Big Brother watching?

*post script: Biden would actually stand heads and tails over most of the current democratic candidates in my opinion. too bad he's on the sidelines.

Posted by: Robin | Dec 2, 2003 7:27:53 AM

"influence"

Only as a citizen and voter. I wrote them letters, as did thousands of people.

"'a lot' of your own money"

$1.17 for an extra-long clipboard. It's nice to know we've finally gotten to the real issues, though.

Posted by: compelled to reply | Dec 2, 2003 2:37:31 PM

"Only as a citizen and voter. I wrote them letters, as did thousands of people."

yah, whatever you say champ. ;^)

Posted by: Robin | Dec 4, 2003 8:42:05 AM

I have never burned a flag. The day that flag burning becomes illegal, I will burn a flag in protest.

Posted by: flag burning | Dec 4, 2004 6:01:20 PM

Posted by: bafirewalls | Mar 4, 2005 3:17:58 PM

women photos nude pregnant

Posted by: women-photos-nude-pregnant-2174 | Mar 4, 2005 10:45:51 PM

Post a comment

This weblog only allows comments from registered users. To comment, please Sign In.

You are currently signed in as (nobody). Sign Out

Comments:

©Fred Wilson, AVC.com • • Design by UX Hero