|
 Wesley
Clark
 excerpts
from
the Iowa Daily Report
September
24-30,
2003
… “Sen. Clinton Denies Pushing Clark’s Campaign”
– headline posted at noon on washingtonpost.com.
Except from report by Post political ace Dan Balz: “Sen.
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) today denied reports
that she and her husband are the agents behind
retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark's presidential
candidacy, reiterated that she will not run for the
White House in 2004 and said the reelection of
President Bush would be ‘an overwhelming setback for
this country.’ Speaking at a breakfast with
reporters, the former first lady denied the rampant
speculation, particularly in Republican circles,
that she and former President Bill Clinton had
encouraged Clark to run, partly as a stalking horse
for a 2004 candidacy of her own, calling such talk
‘an absurd feat of imagination.’ Clinton
said she and her husband ‘have been supportive of
all the candidates,’ whenever they have sought
advice, but added that neither she nor the former
president will designate a favorite in the race for
the Democratic nomination. ‘We are not
supporting or endorsing any candidate,’ she said.
Instead, she said, she will work actively for
whomever becomes the Democratic nominee to try to
defeat Bush. ‘I am convinced, totally, that four
more years of this administration, unaccountable, no
election at the end, would be an overwhelming
setback for our country and I will do everything I
can to elect whoever emerges from this process.’
During the hour-long interview, Clinton
delivered a blistering critique of Bush's
presidency, accusing the administration of ‘a
shocking failure of leadership’ in Iraq since major
conflict ended, of engaging in ‘happy talk’ about
the economy during a period when job losses have
continued, of the ‘misuse’ of scientific data on the
environment that has put at risk her New York
constituents who live near the site of the Sept. 11,
2001, terrorist attacks. ‘I am just bewildered by
this administration's priorities and values,’
she said. On Iraq, Clinton stood by her vote in
favor of the resolution authorizing Bush to go to
war and carefully distanced herself from recent
charges by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) that
Bush and his advisers had cooked up the war in
August 2002 and had foisted it upon the American
people. ‘Based on what we knew and believed
[about the Iraqi threat], it was merited,’ she said
of the vote to back the war resolution. Clinton
said she had consulted with both Bush and former
Clinton administration officials before the war
about the Iraqi threat and said that U.S.
intelligence ‘from Bush I to Clinton to Bush II was
consistent’ in concluding that there was ‘a
continuing presence of biological and chemical
programs’ in Iraq and that former Iraqi president
Saddam Hussein was continuing to seek to develop a
capacity to produce nuclear weapons. But she said
the failure to find weapons of mass destructions
calls into question the reliability of that
intelligence and presents the country and the
administration with a troubling question, calling it
as important as anything that has come out of the
debate over the last year.”
(9/24/2003)
… “Clark outlines economic incentive plan” –
headline posted on CNN.com this afternoon. Excerpt –
dateline: New York – by CNN’s Rose Arce: “Retired
Gen. Wesley Clark on Wednesday proposed a $100
billion economic incentive plan to be funded from
reductions in parts of President Bush's tax-cut
program that benefit high-income families.
Speaking in Manhattan across the East River from a
plant in Queens where jobs are being cut, Clark
said that ‘fiscal discipline requires not only
reducing the deficit. It requires moving money from
areas where it isn't advancing national goals and
directing it to areas where it is’...’So I will
reduce the tax cuts Mr. Bush gave the richest
households -- those making more than $200,000 a
year’ and use the money for an economic incentive
plan, he said. Clark, who declared his candidacy
for the Democratic nomination last week, outlined
his three-part, two-year plan.
-- A $40 billion fund
would focus on improving homeland security by
investing in infrastructure, such as hospitals, and
training those who are the first to respond in
emergencies. That fund would leave hospitals
better prepared for potential biological and
chemical attacks, provide money to hire more Coast
Guard and customs workers, and secure ports, bridges
and tunnels, Clark said.
-- A $40 billion fund
for states and local governments -- many financially
strapped -- would bolster public education, health
care, local law enforcement and social services, he
said. About $20 billion would help public
colleges keep tuition down and help state and local
governments train workers for new jobs, he said.
Local governments would receive $10 billion to cope
with rising health-care costs, and $10 billion would
help finance local law enforcement programs and
social services.
-- The third proposal would provide $20 billion
for business tax credits and incentives, including
tax credits of $5,000 per every new employee hired
by a company. There would be incentives for
firms to keep manufacturing jobs in the United
States and efforts to make companies more
competitive in the trade markets, Clark said.
The candidate took aim at the president's record
on the economy, saying 3.3 million private-sector
jobs, including 2.5 million manufacturing jobs, had
been lost during Bush's term. Clark said that
unemployment had risen sharply under Bush,
particularly for African-Americans and Hispanics,
and that unemployed workers have been idle for
longer periods of time than in previous years.
‘Three years ago, we were told we were getting a
compassionate conservative,’ he said. ‘What we got
instead were massive tax cuts for the rich,
staggering deficits for the country and the worst
jobs losses since the Great Depression. That's not
compassionate or conservative. It's heartless,
reckless and it's wrong.’” (9/24/2003)
… “Clark Never Called Karl…Wesley
Clark says he would have been a Republican if
Karl Rove had returned his phone calls. White House
phone logs suggest otherwise.” – headline from The
Daily Standard, the Internet version of The Weekly
Standard. Report by editorial assistant Matthew
Continetti: “When will Wesley Clark stop telling
tall tales? In the current issue of Newsweek,
Howard Fineman reports Clark told Colorado
Gov. Bill Owens and University of Denver president
Mark Holtzman that ‘I would have been a Republican
if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.’
Unfortunately for Clark, the White House has logged
every incoming phone call since the beginning of the
Bush administration in January 2001. At the request
of The Daily Standard, White House staffers went
through the logs to check whether Clark had ever
called White House political adviser Karl Rove. The
general hadn't. What's more, Rove says he
doesn't remember ever talking to Clark,
either. This isn't the general's first whopper.
Last June, the latest Democratic candidate for
president implied that he ‘got a call’ on 9/11 from
‘people around the White House’ asking the general
to publicly link Saddam Hussein to the attacks on
the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Last August,
Clark told a Phoenix radio station that ‘The
White House actually back in February apparently
tried to get me knocked off CNN and they wanted to
do this because they were afraid that I would raise
issues with their conduct of the war.’ Like his
other two statements, Clark's latest tale bears
little resemblance to reality. While it turns
out Clark did receive a call ‘on either Sept.
12 or Sept. 13,’ the call wasn't from the White
House. It was from Israeli-Canadian Middle East
expert Thomas Hecht, who told the Toronto Star that
he called to invite Clark to give a speech in
Canada. As for Clark's accusation that the White
House tried to have him fired from CNN -- well, the
general admits he has no proof. ‘I've only
heard rumors about it,’ he said. Skeptics of
Clark's candidacy argue that the general's
political inexperience makes him an unknown in the
primary race. Was Clark's latest slip simply
proof of his political naivete? Did he not recognize
that his words would be taken seriously? And
what does it say about Clark that he would
have declared himself a Republican if only he had a
chance to chat with Karl Rove? Clark may yet
make a serious contender for the Democratic
nomination. But if he keeps spinning yarns, he'll
end up as the H. Ross Perot of the Democratic party.”
(9/24/2003)
… Clark begins second week as a wannabe
after mixed reviews during the first week.
Headline from today’s Union Leader: “Clark’s
first weeks excites, concerns Democrats” Excerpt
from report by AP political campaign ace Ron
Fournier: “Wesley Clark's week-old campaign is
off to a slow start, staggered by miscues but still
drawing crowds of dreamy Democrats who hope the
retired general can defeat a wartime president. His
impact on the 2004 race was immediate. The
little-known Clark vaulted to the top of national
polls, underscoring President Bush's vulnerabilities
and the desire by some Democrats to find a four-star
alternative to what they say is an uninspiring
original cast. Despite the high national rating,
Democrats said Tuesday they would give Clark
poor or incomplete grades for his first week. Until
he fleshes out his views on the Iraq war -- not to
mention domestic policies - activists in Iowa, New
Hampshire, South Carolina and other early voting
states told The Associated Press they can't be sure
whether their hopes in Clark were misplaced.
‘On the upside, there has certainly been a lot of
interest generated in him,’ said Phil Roeder, former
spokesman for the Iowa Democratic Party who now runs
the political operation for a Des Moines law firm.
‘The downside is when you have somebody who is a
highly experienced leader in the military but every
bit a rookie when it comes to electoral politics,
you are going to hit some bumps in the road and make
some mistakes along the way,’ Roeder said. Clark
stumbled from the start. The day before he
entered the race, the Arkansan acknowledged that he
had much to learn about domestic policy. His
announcement address was brief, lacked substance and
left some Democrats wondering why he didn't say
more. On the first full day of his campaign,
Clark's aides said he would attend this Thursday's
presidential debate. Then they said no. Then they
said yes. The candidate himself surprised
anti-war supporters by saying he probably would have
voted for the Bush-backed Iraq resolution. Reversing
course a day later, Clark said, ‘I would
never have voted for this war.’” (9/24/2003)
… The two faces of Wesley Clark: Is he a
certifiable wannabe or, as Counterpunch.org
suggests, a “war criminal?” In yesterday’s “Best
of the Web Today” on OpinionJournal.com – under the
subhead: “Is Clark Winning?” – James Taranto
reported: “The press has been trumpeting a new
CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll showing Wesley Clark
beating President Bush, 49% to 46%. But a look at
the poll results makes us suspicious. For one thing,
it is a survey of ‘1,003 National Adults’--not
registered voters or likely voters. Casting a
net this wide tends to oversample Democratic voters,
and sure enough, 480, or just under 48%, of those
who answered the poll describe themselves as
Democrats or ‘Democrat-leaners.’ That's just a
percentage point less than the 49% Clark
gets. What's more, only 52% of those polled have an
opinion of Clark (39% favorable, 13%
unfavorable), so this is almost the equivalent of a
poll pitting Bush against an ‘unnamed Democrat.’
Will Clark wear well when Americans -- or, for that
matter, Democrats -- get to know him? There's
another possible problem for Clark, should he get
the nomination: He is not liked on the lunatic
fringes of the left. For example, this
Counterpunch.org piece calls him a ‘major war
criminal.’ The lunatic left is a tiny sliver of the
electorate; we're talking about the kind of people
who thought Bill Clinton should have been impeached
for bombing that aspirin factory in Sudan. But as
Ralph Nader showed in 2000, a small segment of the
electorate can make a difference in a close race.
These people may be able to stomach Howard Dean, but
with Nader apparently ready to run again, it seems
unlikely they'd hold their noses and vote for Clark.”
(9/24/2003)
… “Clark in Spotlight as Democratic Candidates
Debate…Candidates Argue Over Tax Cuts, Medicare
and Job Losses” -- headline from washingtonpost.com.
Excerpt from Ron Fournier’s coverage of the NYC Dem
debate: “Retired Gen. Wesley Clark presented his
credentials as a Democrat on Thursday with a biting
attack on President Bush, then joined nine
presidential rivals in a mix-it-up debate over tax
cuts, Medicare and the job-shedding economy.
Bush is ‘a man who recklessly cut taxes, who
recklessly took us into war in Iraq,’ said the
newcomer to the race and his party, confronted with
favorable comments he made about the Republican
president as recently as 2001. For the most part,
Clark's rivals avoided criticizing him throughout
the two-hour debate -- but not so one another.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts seemed eager
for combat early, criticizing former Vermont Gov.
Howard Dean for favoring a repeal of all of
Bush's tax cuts to finance health care expansion and
other programs. It is ‘absolutely wrong’ to propose
eliminating all cuts, said Kerry, who favors
scaling back tax cuts for the wealthy while
maintaining them for lower and middle income
Americans. Dean, ahead of his fellow New
Englander in the latest poll in advance of the New
Hampshire primary, picked up that challenge quickly.
‘This is exactly why the budget is so far out of
balance. Washington politicians promising
everything,’ he said. ‘We cannot win as
Democrats’ that way, he chastised Kerry.
‘Tell the truth,’ he prodded the Massachusetts
senator. Dean said that among the candidates,
only he and Sen. Bob Graham of Florida -- also a
former governor -- had ever balanced budgets.
With Graham's campaign in financial trouble,
that remark amounted to an appeal to the Floridian's
supporters to give his own economic credentials a
look. Still later, Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri
saw an opening to attack Dean. He assailed the
former governor for having criticized Medicare in
the past, and said he had agreed with ‘the very plan
that Newt Gingrich wanted to pass, which was a $270
billion cut" in the program that provides health
care to seniors.’ At the time, Gephardt said,
he was the Democratic leader in the House, leading
the fight against plans promoted by the former
Speaker and champion of the GOP revolution in
Congress. Referring to Dean's
self-description as the candidate of the Democratic
wing of the Democratic party, Gephardt said,
‘I think you're just winging it.’…’That is flat-out
false and I'm ashamed you would compare me with Newt
Gingrich,’ Dean said in response. ‘Nobody
up here deserves to be compared to Newt Gingrich’...We
need to remember that the enemy here is George Bush,
not each other.’ Kerry returned to the
same issue moments later, saying he wanted to come
to Gephardt's defense. ‘I didn't hear him say
he was like Newt Gingrich. I heard him say he stood
with Newt Gingrich when we were struggling to hold
onto Medicare,’ he said. The event at Pace
University was the latest in a series of debates
sponsored by the Democratic Party, and billed in
advance as a clash over economic issues.”
(9/25/2003)
… “Wes Won’t Get My Vote” – subhead from
yesterday’s “The Best of the Web Today” on
OpinionJournal.com (Wall Street Journal). Coverage
by “Web” columnist James Taranto: “Hugh Shelton,
who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the
time of the Sept. 11 attacks, has some harsh words
for a fellow former general. The Los Altos
(Calif.) Town Crier reports on Shelton's appearance
at a local college: ‘What do you think of General
Wesley Clark and would you support him as a
presidential candidate,’ was the question put to him
by moderator Dick Henning, assuming that all
military men stood in support of each other. General
Shelton took a drink of water and Henning said, ‘I
noticed you took a drink on that one!’…’That
question makes me wish it were vodka,’ said Shelton.
‘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. I'm not
going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat.
I'll just say Wes won't get my vote.’”
… Greg Pierce on
InsidePolitics/WashingtonTimes.com: “Straight,
no chaser”… Excerpts: “Retired Gen. Henry H.
Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, says Democratic presidential candidate
Wesley Clark was recalled from his NATO
command after the Bosnian war because of
"integrity and character issues." Mr. Shelton
said he would not vote for Mr. Clark. Mr.
Shelton's remarks came at a forum in Los Altos,
Calif., earlier this month. They were reported by
Joan Garvin of the Town Crier, the local newspaper.
"What do you think of General Wesley Clark
and would you support him as a presidential
candidate?" the forum moderator, Dick Henning, asked
the general. Mr. Shelton hesitated, taking a
drink of water, which led the moderator to
remark, "I noticed you took a drink on that one."
Mr. Shelton replied: "That question makes me
wish it were vodka. 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. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican
or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my
vote." (9/25/2003)
… Boston Globe
writer Joanna Weiss: “Clark sees new kind
of combat” … Excerpts: “In the week and a day
since he entered the presidential race, retired Army
General Wesley K. Clark has found himself in
the center of the whirlwind. Heading into
a debate today that will be an early test of his
candidacy, he's got an instant lead in two
national polls, instant attention from the media,
and instant scrutiny from his rivals. Today's
Democratic forum in New York will focus on
economics, but Clark's nine opponents may be poised
to fixate on Clark's perceived weaknesses:
his evolving position on the war in Iraq and
his credentials as a Democrat, after telling
reporters last week that he voted for President
Reagan. And yesterday, as Clark called for
significant cuts in President Bush's tax cuts to
fund a $100 billion plan that would create jobs and
boost homeland security, his campaign had to address
a public snipe from retired Army General
H. Hugh Shelton, who was chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff when Clark headed
NATO forces in Kosovo. Shelton told a
group in California this month that he wouldn't
support Clark for president because of concerns
about his "integrity and character." But the
Shelton flap is only one of the high-profile
volleys that Clark has faced since he
launched his late-entry candidacy last week.
Conservatives have focused on Clark's connection
to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York,
who denied yesterday that she was setting up
Clark to run as her vice president and called
such rumors "an absurd feat of imagination." And the
press has focused on Clark's morphing position on
the congressional resolution to authorize war in
Iraq. After saying last week that he probably would
have supported the resolution with certain caveats,
Clark later said he never would have voted to
support the war. That wasn't a "rookie mistake,"
said Marc Landy, a political science
professor at Boston College. If Clark was
contemplating a run for months, Landy said, he
should have had a ready answer. Likewise, Landy
said, Clark should have considered that stalwart
Democrats might react badly to the fact that he has
voted for Republicans and presented a story of
personal conversion to explain his changing
politics. Some of Clark's rivals have already
focused on the issue: Yesterday, Senator John F.
Kerry told reporters that "while he was voting
for Richard Nixon and for Ronald Reagan,
I was fighting against their policies.” (9/25/2003)
…
OnPolitics writer Terry M.
Teal gives yet another view on the Clark Candidacy
in today’s Washington Post online. Headline: “The
General Takes the Field” … Excerpts: “As
speculation built about whether retired Army Gen.
Wesley K. Clark would enter the Democratic
presidential contest, the conventional wisdom
was that it might be too late to raise the kind of
money and build the kind of national network a
candidate needs to be competitive in an increasingly
front-loaded nominating process. But it has
become apparent that money and resources won't be
the only significant challenge he faces. Unlike
candidates who announced their intentions to
"explore" a presidential candidacy last winter or
spring, Clark doesn't have the luxury of being
ignored until he refines his message, because he is
entering the race when the public is beginning to
pay attention and media coverage is intense. That
has its good and bad points. The good: An
avalanche of media attention helped propel Clark to
the front of the Democratic pack. The bad: An
avalanche of media attention helped expose Clark's
apparent lack of preparation -- a vulnerability
that some of his opponents will seek to exploit at
tonight's debate in New York… Privately,
Clark's opponents are thrilled that his entry into
the race just happens to come right before tonight's
debate on the economy, sponsored by the
Wall Street Journal and CNBC. The
expectation from some of the camps is that
Clark's crash course in Economy 101 will do little
to shield his relative lack of experience on
domestic policy. Clark has already had a
well-documented stumble as he flip-flopped in the
debate over Iraq - an area that is supposed
to be his strength. "This debate is going to be
very important," said a Lieberman campaign
official. "Democratic primary voters list the
economy as the most important issue. It is one of
Bush's biggest vulnerabilities and Clark's weakest
point as well as Lieberman's strongest point."
Clark adviser Michael Frisby said his
candidate poses something that the others lack --
leadership. "The thing about Clark that
the other candidates will soon recognize is that he
is incredibly bright," Frisby said. "The parallels
to Clinton are tremendous in that they are both
brilliant. Clark is that kind of smart.”
(9/25/2003)
… OpinionJournal.com (Wall Street Journal) raises
questions about what The General was doing at a GOP
Lincoln Day dinner just two years ago? Editorial
excerpt: “If you're an active Republican, there's
a good chance you've attended a Lincoln Day dinner,
a staple on GOP community calendars. So it is in
Little Rock, Arkansas, where the Pulaski County
Republican Party invited hometown hero Wesley Clark
to address its members on May 11, 2001. Anyone
wondering where the Democratic candidate for
President stands on a range of issues is sure to
find the speech illuminating. Lincoln Day dinners
are partisan political events, and it was entirely
in keeping with the spirit of the evening for the
keynote speaker to voice his admiration of
Republican leaders. In Mr. Clark's words,
Ronald Reagan was ‘truly a great American leader,’
who ‘helped our country win the Cold War.’ His
successor, George Bush, demonstrated ‘courage’ and
‘vision’ in postwar Europe, exercising ‘tremendous
leadership and statesmanship.’ The general also
sang the praises of the current GOP leadership in
Washington: ‘I'm very glad we've got the great team
in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick
Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I
know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We
need them there, because we've got some tough
challenges ahead in Europe.’ The speech also
provides a look at the general's thinking on the
foreign-policy and national-security challenges
facing the country. Mr. Clark offered ‘a small
prediction’ that by the time his book came out ‘it
may be World War III.’ He expressed the view
that ‘we're going to be active; we're going to be
forward engaged. But if you look around the world,
there's a lot of work to be done.’ Mr. Clark
was asked about those remarks at yesterday's
Democratic debate, and he replied that the country
had made ‘an incredible journey’ since September
2001 and that Mr. Bush had ‘recklessly cut taxes’
and recklessly took us into Iraq.’ We'd say the
retired general has made a rather astonishing
journey himself, and the public will have to judge
the sincerity of his conversion.” (Iowa Pres
Watch Note: Also see related coverage in today’s
report on Clark’s Arkansas appearance from
the DRUDGE REPORT.) (9/26/2003)
… Dem Debate Analysis: Headline from today’s
The Union Leader – “Clark avoids specifics”
Excerpt from report by AP’s Ron Fournier: “Right
from the start, Wesley Clark bluntly acknowledged
his political inexperience -- then cited it in
dodging specifics and fending off criticism in his
first presidential debate. ‘If I've learned one
thing in my nine days in politics,’ the retired Army
general said with a smile, ‘you better be careful
with hypothetical questions.’ That's how he avoided
the issue of financing the reconstruction of Iraq.
He also pleaded ignorance on health care policy –
‘I don't have a complete package’ -- and stepped
around questions about home mortgages and other
issues while nine other Democratic hopefuls gave the
newcomer a pass. ‘Wesley Clark escaped the venom
of the rest of the candidates,’ said Dan
Glickman, former Democratic congressman from Kansas
and now director of the Institute of Politics at
Harvard's Kennedy School. ‘I don't know if they're
nervous about him or if his poll numbers are so high
they're afraid to attack him.’ Only twice was
Clark's name mentioned by a rival, once by New York
activist Al Sharpton who welcomed him to the
debate…and the Democratic Party. Glickman said
he's not sure what to make of the hands-off
approach: ‘Maybe they believe they've got to take
down Howard Dean first before going after
Clark.’ Dean is the former Vermont
governor and campaign front-runner who fended off
attacks from Reps. Dick Gephardt of Missouri
and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio as well as Sens.
John Kerry of Massachusetts and John
Edwards of North Carolina. ‘The real debate
was between Dean and Kerry and Gephardt, the rest
were placeholders,’ said Democratic strategist Jim
Duffy. That could help Clark, who's not
in a bad place; he shares the lead in national polls
and has gained ground in key states. Clark is also a
slippery foe, because he has no political record to
flyspeck while Dean's five terms as governor and two
years on the campaign trail give critics a treasure
trove of material. ‘He did fine,’ Dean said of
Clark after the debate. Having second thoughts,
Dean spun back around and told reporters:
‘I'm a little worried. I had no idea he has said all
those nice things about the president.’ Dean has
the most to lose if Clark's Internet-driven campaign
takes root. Yet he let his rival off the hook when
Clark tried to explain his past support for
Presidents Nixon, Reagan and Bush. Clark didn't hide
from the fact that he hasn't been around long.”
(9/26/2003)
DRUDGE REPORT headline: “General Clark praised
Condi, Powell, Rumsfeld and Bush: ‘We Need Them
There’” Excerpt: “Democratic presidential
hopeful General Wesley Clark offered lavish praise
for the Bush Administration and its key players in a
speech to Republicans -- just two years ago, the
DRUDGE REPORT can reveal! During extended remarks
delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day
Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001,
General Clark declared: ‘And I'm very glad
we've got the great team in office, men like Colin
Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza
Rice...people I know very well -- our president
George W. Bush. We need them there.’ A video of
Clark making the comments has surfaced,
DRUDGE can reveal. Clark praised Reagan for
improving the military: ‘We were really helped
when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember
non-commissioned officers who were going to retire
and they re-enlisted because they believed in
President Reagan.’ Clark continued:
‘That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He
helped our country win the Cold War. He put it
behind us in a way no one ever believed would be
possible. He was truly a great American leader.
And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him,
respected him, and tremendously admired him for his
great leadership.’ Clark on President George
Bush: ‘President George Bush had the courage and
the vision...and we will always be grateful to
President George Bush for that tremendous leadership
and statesmanship.’ Clark on American military
involvement overseas: ‘Do you ever ask why it is
that these people in these other countries can't
solve their own problems without the United States
sending its troops over there? And do you ever ask
why it is the Europeans, the people that make the
Mercedes and the BMW's that got so much money can't
put some of that money in their own defense programs
and they need us to do their defense for them?’…‘And
I'll tell you what I've learned from Europe is that
are a lot of people out in the world who really,
really love and admire the United States. Don't you
ever believe it when you hear foreign leaders making
nasty comments about us. That's them playing to
their domestic politics as they misread it. Because
when you talk to the people out there, they love us.
They love our values. They love what we stand for in
the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights.’ (9/26/2003)
Gen. Wesley Clark added his name to Dean’s
and Kerry’s as he told a New Hampshire
audience Friday night he had only fired one person
in his life. On Saturday he said he wanted to fire a
second person: Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld. When asked at a house party on the
Seacoast about what he would do in Iraq if
elected president today, he was met with applause
when he said, "First of all I would change the
Secretary of Defense. Then I would go to the
commanders of the ground and go to Iraq myself
personally and I would develop an exit strategy that
gives us a success and lets us downsize our
commitment there." Besides Rumsfeld, Clark also
criticized Bush's National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice for her views of the world and
then U.S. House Majority Leader Tom Delay,
also a Republican, for his vote on a measure
involving Kosovo. (9/28/2003)
While campaigning in New Hampshire, Clark
laid out a vision of a “new patriotism,” that
he said must include a lot more than mere flag
waving, being grounded in the freedom to criticize.
“In a democracy we’re founded on dialogue,” Clark
said. “We’re founded on discussion, we’re founded on
disagreement, and even dissension.
And it’s not
wrong — it’s the highest form of patriotism — to
speak out and let your voices be heard across this
land.” (9/28/2003)
Just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks,
Clark sought out dozens of government and
industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp.,
a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses
and a wide array of personal details about nearly
every adult in the United States and their
households, according to interviews and documents.
Clark, a Democrat who declared himself a
presidential candidate 10 days ago, joined
Acxiom’s board of directors in December 2001. He
earned $300,000 from Acxiom last year
and was set to receive $150,000, plus
potential commissions, this year, according to
financial disclosure records. He owns several
thousand shares of Acxiom stock worth more than
$67,000. Clark’s consulting role at
Acxiom puts him near the center of a national
debate over expanded government authority to use
personal data and surveillance technology to fight
the war on terrorism and protect homeland security.
In a measure of the intensity of that debate,
Congress this week cut funding to the Defense
Department’s Information Awareness Office, a
research project run by retired Adm. John M.
Poindexter, after the office proposed a global data
surveillance system to identify terrorists before
they attack. (9/28/2003)
…
FoxNews online AP story, “Clark:
Military Man Turned Businessman”. Excerpts: “When
two Russian immigrants and their American financial
backer needed marketing help for their innovative
electric motor, they turned to a merchant banker at
one of the nation's largest investment houses --
retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark.
The meeting at the
Washington office of Stephens Inc. in late 2001
proved fortuitous for both Clark, the former supreme
commander of NATO, and the principals in
WaveCrest Laboratories, at the time a small
research and development company in Dulles, Va.
"They hit it off pretty much right away," said
WaveCrest spokesman Tom McMahon. Clark signed on
as a consultant to the company. In little more
than a year, he was chairman of the company's newly
created board of directors, a position he intends to
keep as he campaigns for the Democratic nomination
for president. The company's first product -- a
bicycle powered by the new electric propulsion
system -- will begin rolling off the assembly lines
in November, and the Pentagon's Special
Operations Command already has purchased
prototypes. Clark "has been helpful to our
company in putting them in touch with the right
people both inside the military and in the
commercial sector and in promoting our technology to
them," he said. "He knew the military structure so
well he would counsel them who to contact."
Clark's relationship with WaveCrest is just one
example of how he has parlayed his 35 years of
military experience into a budding business career
in the three years since retiring from the Army as a
four-star general. He serves on the boards of at
least four other companies, worked as a military
consultant for Cable News Network and started his
own consulting firm in his hometown of Little Rock,
Ark. Mark Fabiani, a spokesman for Clark's
presidential campaign, declined to answer questions
about Clark's business activities. He said
campaign officials are working to compile detailed
information that will document the candidate's
business dealings. Clark's entry into the
business world was facilitated by the Stephens
Group, the parent company of a privately held family
financial giant in Little Rock that operates one of
the largest investment banks off Wall Street. The
influential company has been on the periphery of
several Washington political scandals in the past
three decades, from the resignation of former
President Jimmy Carter's budget director in 1977 to
the campaign fund-raising investigations of the
mid-1990s. Clark joined the Stephens Group as
a managing director for merchant banking in
mid-2001. That December, Acxiom Inc., a
Little Rock data analysis company, signed a $300,000
contract with Stephens to obtain Clark's help in
lobbying the government for homeland security
business. Clark joined Acxiom's board at the same
time, and after leaving Stephens earlier this year,
he signed another $150,000 consulting agreement with
the company. That contract was terminated
when he announced for president, according to Acxiom,
but he remains a paid board member. A privacy
group filed a complaint with the Federal Trade
Commission against Acxiom and JetBlue
Airways Corp., which has acknowledged that, in
violation of its own privacy policy, it had given
information from about 5 million passenger records
to a Defense Department contractor. Acxiom provided
additional demographic information to the
contractor, which produced a study, "Homeland
Security: Airline Passenger Risk Assessment," that
was purported to help the government improve
military base security. One of Clark's Democratic
rivals, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, said
Sunday that Clark should explain his service on
Acxiom's board given the privacy concerns he has
raised about some post-Sept. 11 anti-terrorism laws.
At the Stephens Group, Clark's role "was primarily
that of evaluating and looking for investment
opportunities in the technology and defense areas,"
said Frank Thomas, a spokesman for the investment
house, In that capacity, Clark worked directly for
Jackson Stephens, the billionaire chairman of the
company; his son, Warren Stephens, the company's
president; and other Stephens family members and
senior company executives, according to Thomas. It
was Jackson Stephens who helped Bert Lance dispose
of his stock in the National Bank of Georgia after
Lance was forced to resign as Carter's budget
director in 1977. Stephens also was a business
partner with Indonesian tycoon Mochtar Riady and his
son, James Riady. The Riadys owned The Lippo Group,
which was a key player in the investigation into
allegations of illegal foreign campaign
contributions during the 1996 election. It was the
Washington office of the Stephens Group that John
Huang, a former Lippo executive, used in 1996 to
make numerous phone calls while working at the
Commerce Department, where he had access to U.S.
intelligence. Huang, the Democratic Party's chief
Asian-American fund-raiser, pleaded guilty in 1999
to violating campaign finance laws. Stephens
officials will not say what companies or investment
opportunities Clark identified or evaluated for the
Stephens family. But Thomas said Clark joined the
company after the family became interested in
exploring investment opportunities in the defense,
aerospace and technology sectors. Not long after
Clark joined the Stephens Group, the founders of
WaveCrest -- Alexander Pyntikov, Boris Maslov and
Allen Andersson -- learned of his new assignment and
came calling to pitch their transportation
technology. "The word had gotten around town that he
was there and people started knocking on his door,
which is what our founders did," said McMahon. "He
immediately saw the technological promise for both
inside and outside the military." (9/29/2003)
…
Des Moines Register article by Thomas
Beaumont, “Democrats to grill Clark at Fort
Dodge forum” Excerpts: “Democratic presidential
candidate Wesley Clark's fledgling candidacy, long
on resume and short on policy positions, will face
its first grilling from issue-hungry Iowans next
month. Iowa Democratic activists, known for their
probing inquiry of candidates on the full range of
issues, will have a chance to quiz the former NATO
commander when Clark attends an issue forum in Fort
Dodge on Oct. 6. Clark has impressed some Iowa
Democrats on the strength of his resume: first in
his class at the U.S. Military Academy at West
Point, Rhodes scholar, four-star general and
commander who led NATO forces in Kosovo in 1998. But
Marion Democrat John Miller said he needs to know a
lot more about Clark before he considers backing him
in the lead-off precinct caucuses Jan. 19. "Just
because he was a general doesn't buy it for me. I
mean, I'm interested in a lot of things besides
that," said Miller, a 60-year-old retired salesman.
"Our economy here at home is the most important
thing. Without a strong economy, we'll destroy
ourselves." By agreeing to participate in "Hear
it from the Heartland," the series of Democratic
candidate forums hosted by Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin,
Clark can expect more than an hour of questions on a
range of topics when he takes the stage at Iowa
Central Community College on Oct. 6. Although
Democratic activists in Iowa, like Miller, say a
candidate's positions will determine whom they will
eventually support, some political observers say
Democrats may be willing to sacrifice absolute
clarity on issues for a candidate who can beat
President Bush. "At the end of the day, it's
oftentimes who you like and who you think has the
best chance of winning," Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack [D]said.
"And that may be driven by personality. It may be
driven by policy. It may be driven by a combination
of those two” … “He had an economic plan that
calls for eliminating tax cuts for wealthy Americans
and re-funneling that resource into job creation,"
said Vilsack, who has been neutral in the campaign
to date. "I don't know the details, but that's a
fairly politically astute move." Democrats drawn
to Clark are supporting him because of his career
hallmarks and public personality, with hopes they
will be enough to topple Bush, Princeton University
political science professor Fred Greenstein said.
"He's come in without seeming to do a lot of issue
homework," Greenstein said. "I would guess that what
you're seeing is someone who has said, 'I can do
this,' a little bit like Ross Perot, but presumably
with much higher credentials." Perot, a Texas
billionaire with no political pedigree, ran
third-party presidential campaigns in 1992 and 1996.
(9/29/2003)
…
Washington Post writer Dan Balz for
OnPolitics article: “Clark's Bid Prompts Some
Dean Supporters to Reconsider” Excerpts: “DOVER,
N.H., Sept. 27 -- New Hampshire Democrat Larry
Taylor was leaning toward supporting former Vermont
governor Howard Dean for president until he turned
out on a damp Friday night at New England College in
Henniker, N.H., to see retired Army Gen. Wesley K.
Clark. By the time Clark had finished his town hall
meeting, Taylor was ready to change his allegiance.
"I think Clark can win," Taylor said. "I don't
think Dean can win. I think Dean's going to be
pegged as too liberal. He doesn't have the kind of
military background and some of the strength that
Clark seems to have." Whatever else Clark's late
entry into the battle for the Democratic
presidential nomination has done, it has forced the
issue of electability back to the top of the
agenda for many Democratic and independent voters.
Peter Lehmen and his wife, Theresa, of Keene, N.H.,
attended Clark's town hall meeting late Friday.
Lehmen has given money to Dean and credits the
scrappy Vermonter with having the courage to take on
Bush and start a dialogue among the Democrats that
has shaped both the tone and the substance of the
debate. "He was talking about things that other
people were afraid to talk about," Lehmen said.
Lately, however, both Lehmens have begun to question
whether Dean is the best Democrat to beat Bush.
Peter said he finds Dean inconsistent in some of
his views. Theresa said Dean is "coming
across as a little more abrasive" and appears to let
his ego get in his way. Clark, she said,
impressed her as someone who could successfully
negotiate with foreign leaders. "He certainly
presented himself in a very diplomatic but forceful
way that I would call presidential," she said.
"Clark puts a positive spin on things. Dean is
very forceful, he's very dramatic and I agree with
what he says. But sometimes he's trying to find a
negative too much. I think this gentleman thinks
more intently than Dean does. Dean tends to shoot
from the hip a bit much,” said another now Clark
supporter. A registered independent who usually
votes Democratic, said, "I'm looking for a
security blanket for our country, and I don't think
any of them [the other Democrats] represent it, but
Wesley Clark does." Ann Milne of Auburn, N.H.,
supported Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.)
against Bush in the 2000 GOP primary here, but she
is looking at Clark and a vote in the Democratic
primary. Asked about Dean and Kerry, she said, "I
agree with everything they say. However, I just
don't think they can prevail in the general
election." …"I'm still sorting it out, quite
frankly," said Mary-Chris Duncan of Bradford, N.H.,
who said she has been leaning toward Dean but is
undecided. "As a Democrat, I want someone who I
think is going to be electable, someone who can beat
George Bush. I'm going to be pragmatic when it comes
down to voting." (9/29/2003)
… Des
Moines Register article by Lynn Okamoto, “Vilsack
questions Clark loyalty -- The governor inquires
about the presidential candidate's devotion to party
principles and 'Democraticness.'” Excerpts: “Gov.
Tom Vilsack questioned Gen. Wesley Clark's
allegiance to the Democratic Party during an
interview Monday on national television,
stepping up criticism that has plagued the retired
general for the past week. "People in Iowa do not
know much about him. I think they are concerned
about his Democraticness," Vilsack said on CNN. "One
of the questions that Iowans are asking about
General Clark is whether or not he even voted for
Vice President Gore in the 2000 election."
Neither Vilsack nor CNN's Judy Woodruff could
answer that question during the live TV interview.
Kym Spell, a spokeswoman for the Clark campaign,
said Clark did vote for Al Gore in 2000, despite not
registering as a Democrat until a few weeks ago. The
vote came a year before Clark left the military.
"When he was in the military, you serve the
commander in chief and you're nonpartisan," Spell
said. "When he became a regular citizen, he . . .
decided that he was either going to be a lonely
Republican or a happy Democrat." She said in
Arkansas, people aren't required to register as a
Democrat or Republican because the state has open
primaries. Clark has faced a barrage of questions
about his party affiliation since announcing his
candidacy for president. Vilsack said party
affiliation matters to Iowa caucus-goers, who endure
several hours in a gym, church basement or
neighbor's living room arguing about politics.
Iowa is home to the nation's first-in-the-nation
presidential caucuses Jan. 19. "People want to
know what a person's background is," he said. "They
want to know how consistent they've been with
Democratic principles." (9/30/2003)
…Wesley Clark’s new book, “Winning Modern Wars,” is a
searing critique of the Bush administration.
OnPolitics gives a report, written by
Washington Post staff writer Bradley Graham
headlined, “Clark Wants More Foreign Aid, New
Department to Handle It.” Excerpts: “A new book
by Wesley K. Clark, the retired Army general
running for president, calls for a major
expansion in U.S. foreign assistance programs and
establishment of a Department of International
Assistance to manage the initiative. "Focusing
our humanitarian and developmental efforts through a
single, responsible department will help us bring
the same kind of sustained attention to alleviating
deprivation, misery, ethnic conflict and poverty
that we have brought to the problem of warfare,"
Clark writes. In a searing critique, Clark
accuses the Bush administration of carrying out a
wrenching turn in U.S. foreign policy away from
traditional American principles. He cites what
he says has been an overemphasis on unilateralism
and overreliance on the U.S. military to pursue
the notion of "a new American empire." Clark
argues for adoption of "a more collaborative,
collegiate" U.S. strategy marked by renewed
cooperation with such international organizations as
the United Nations and NATO and backed by
substantial economic and political development aid.
But Clark puts no price tag on this proposed
boost in aid and provides few specifics about how
the United States should proceed. He focuses
more on articulating problems than detailing
solutions. Release of the book, titled "Winning
Modern Wars" and shipped to stores last week,
coincides with Clark's entrance this month into the
race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
(9/30/2003)
…
Washington Times online article written by
Ralph Z. Hallow, “Clark looking better
than Hillary ticket”. Excerpts: “Former
President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham
Clinton may have created a force behind Wesley Clark
that they will not be able to stop, political
advisers from both parties told The Washington Times.
"The Clark thing has already spun out of
control," said Republican campaign consultant
Bob Heckman. Those who spoke with The Times say
Mr. Clark's presidential candidacy was endorsed to
further the ambitions of Mrs. Clinton and claimed to
see evidence that Mr. Clark got into the Democratic
presidential race with at least an implicit
understanding that he would settle for running as
the senator's vice-presidential candidate, if and
when she is ready to get into the race. "He could
become a very credible candidate, and forget
whatever plan the Clintons had for him," Mr.
Heckman said. "There isn't a politician I ever met
who doesn't think he deserves to be where he is."
California-based Democratic strategist Gail Kaufman
agreed. "It took Clark so long to get in the
race, and then he shoots to the top of the heap.
Now, if you're the Clintons, how ... do you get him
to quit?" She noted that the
soldier-turned-politician got into the contest with
the public blessing of Mr. Clinton and with former
top Clinton aides on his campaign team. Already
top Clinton fund-raisers in New York are raising
contributions for the former NATO command leader.
Meanwhile, a recent Gallup-USA Today poll shows
Mr. Clark, a retired four-star general from the
Clintons' home state of Arkansas, narrowly leading
President Bush and ahead of the other nine
Democratic nomination contenders, even though
Mr. Clark had entered the Democratic contest less
than two weeks ago. Some political observers see in
the poll results evidence that Mr. Clark is
advancing Mrs. Clinton's interests by showing that
none of the other Democratic candidates has much
support and that perhaps only Mrs. Clinton offers
the hope of beating President Bush next year, said
former Reagan White House Political Director Frank
J. Donatelli. Mr. Donatelli said Mr. Clark's
entrance may have proved to the Clintons that none
of the nine previous candidates had the deep support
needed to beat Mr. Bush. "[I]n getting Clark to
run, Bill Clinton could have had in mind creating an
acceptable vice president to run with Hillary," said
Mr. Donatelli. "Whether Clark will have that in mind
is something else. "Even more pointed an
indicator is the new Gallup poll, which for the
first time shows signs of some vulnerability for
President Bush. And if she gets into the race, they
have concluded she has real chance to win in 2004 —
though I still think Bush has the edge." Clark
would make the perfect running mate for Hillary — he
has all the national security credentials she
doesn't have," said Joe Cerrell, a California
Democratic campaign consultant. But Mr. Cerrell
said he could see Mr. Clark rebelling against any
prior agreement and saying, "Why are you telling me
I should get out. I'm the one leading in the polls."
As for Mrs. Clinton's entering the race, Republican
presidential campaign adviser Charley Black said if
the senator wants to enter the race, she will have
to start campaigning now in order to build an
organization and a war chest. Most agree that
Mrs. Clinton, with her husband's help, would be the
only candidate with a chance of competing with Mr.
Bush in fund raising — even if she starts late.
But Mr. Black thinks it's almost too late for Mrs.
Clinton to start. Mrs. Kaufman disagreed. "How long
does Hillary have?" Mrs. Kaufman asked. "With her
notoriety, name ID and political apparatus, I think
she can wait till after Iowa," Mrs. Kaufman joked,
referring to the first Democratic caucus in January.
"Actually, I think she could wait awhile and still
get in," Mrs. Kaufman said. "The only people she
is going to anger are the other candidates. The
voters don't obviously care — I mean, if Clark can
jump in and immediately be ahead of the others." Mr.
Cerrell agreed that "it's not too late for her to
run. She's better known nationally at this stage
than her husband was when he ran against [the elder]
Bush." (9/30/2003)
 September
1-15, 2003
September
16-23, 2003
September
24-30, 2003
Clark
main page
top
of page
|