First Door on the Left

Yesterday, Wesley Clark said that he probably would have voted for the resolution authorizing George Bush to invade Iraq. Today, it seems, he has changed his mind…

Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark backtracked from a day-old statement that he probably would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, saying Friday he “would never have voted for this war.”

The retired Army general, an opponent of the conflict, surprised supporters when he indicated in an interview with reporters Thursday that he likely would have supported the resolution. On Friday, Clark sought to clarify his comments in an interview with The Associated Press.

“Let’s make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war,” Clark said before a speech at the University of Iowa. “I’ve gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein.”

Clark’s initial remarks left members of his campaign team a bit flummoxed.

Also yesterday, Clark’s campaign staff announced that he would not be participating in the candidates’ debate next Thursday. It seems that has also changed…

They said yes. Then no. Now it’s yes again: Wesley Clark will participate in next week’s Democratic presidential debate after all, his campaign said.

Clark will accept the invitation to next Thursday’s debate via a letter to Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe carried by several members of a draft-Clark group, a senior campaign official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said.

The letter will be delivered Friday, weather permitting, the official said.

On Thursday, Clark aide Barbara Leyton called the Democratic National Committee and said the retired general would participate in the debate and the party’s fund-raising dinner afterward. But other campaign officials said she was wrong; Clark had not decided to attend.

Is this any way to start a presidential campaign? Somebody really needs to step up and take charge here.

Is Wesley Clark a serious candidate for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination? He won’t be if his supporters don’t take his candidacy more seriously than he himself appears to…

WASHINGTON – Wesley Clark’s presidential campaign said he would participate in a Democratic presidential debate Thursday, then quickly backtracked, angering party officials and drawing criticism from his primary rivals.

“I hope I’ll be there,” Clark said after a campaign stop Thursday night in Hollywood, Fla. “I’d like to do it.”

But campaign spokeswoman Holly Johnson said Clark has a contract to give a paid speech in Texas next Thursday at the same time the nine other Democratic candidates plan to debate economic issues in New York.

The campaign is refusing to say who Clark, a retired four-star general who entered the race Wednesday, is supposed to address. Johnson said they are trying to reschedule the speech and have offered several other dates for Clark to fulfill his speaking obligation.

Earlier Thursday, Clark aide Barbara Leyton called the Democratic National Committee and said the retired general would participate in the debate and the party’s fund-raising dinner afterward, said DNC spokeswoman Debra DeShong.

Clark aide Donnie Fowler later said Leyton is one of many people who are working for Clark, but she didn’t have the correct information when she called the party to accept the debate invitation. Fowler, who ran Al Gore’s field operation in 2000, said he doesn’t have a title with the campaign, but officials speaking on a condition of anonymity said he would be its manager.

The debate is the second in a series of six being sponsored by the Democratic National Committee. It will broadcast live on CNBC.

A while back I wrote that there did not appear to be much difference in the platforms of Wesley Clark and Howard Dean. It now appears I was mistaken…

HOLLYWOOD, Fla., Sept. 18 — Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he “probably” would have voted for the congressional resolution last fall authorizing war, as he charged out into the presidential campaign field with vague plans to fix the economy and the situation in Iraq.

Clark said his views on the war resemble those of Democratic Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.), both of whom voted for the war but now question President Bush’s stewardship of the Iraqi occupation. “That having been said, I was against the war as it emerged because there was no reason to start it when we did. We could have waited,” Clark said during a 75-minute session with four reporters.

En route to his first campaign stop as a candidate, a high-energy rally at a local restaurant, Clark said he has few specific policy ideas to offer voters right now and offered a few thoughts that might surprise Democrats flocking to his campaign. As recently as Sunday night, he was unsure if he should run for president, so Clark said voters need to give him time to think things through.

Clark’s statement on the war resolution put him at odds with former Vermont governor Howard Dean, whose stock has soared among Democratic activists in recent months on the strength of his antiwar position. It could make it difficult for Clark to differentiate himself from the other nine candidates in the field on policy, other than by touting his résumé as a former Army general and commander of NATO forces in Kosovo.

In the interview, Clark did not offer any new ideas or solutions for Iraq that other candidates have not already proposed.

By MAX CLELAND

The president of the United States decides to go to war against a nation led by a brutal dictator supported by one-party rule. That dictator has made war on his neighbors. The president decides this is a threat to the United States.

In his campaign for president he gives no indication of wanting to go to war. In fact, he decries the overextension of American military might and says other nations must do more. However, unbeknownst to the American public, the president’s own Pentagon advisers have already cooked up a plan to go to war. All they are looking for is an excuse.

Based on faulty intelligence, cherry-picked information is fed to Congress and the American people. The president goes on national television to make the case for war, using as part of the rationale an incident that never happened. Congress buys the bait — hook, line and sinker — and passes a resolution giving the president the authority to use “all necessary means” to prosecute the war.

The war is started with an air and ground attack. Initially there is optimism. The president says we are winning. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense says we are winning. As a matter of fact, the secretary of defense promises the troops will be home soon.

However, the truth on the ground that the soldiers face in the war is different than the political policy that sent them there. They face increased opposition from a determined enemy. They are surprised by terrorist attacks, village assassinations, increasing casualties and growing anti-American sentiment. They find themselves bogged down in a guerrilla land war, unable to move forward and unable to disengage because there are no allies to turn the war over to.

There is no plan B. There is no exit strategy. Military morale declines. The president’s popularity sinks and the American people are increasingly frustrated by the cost of blood and treasure poured into a never-ending war.

“Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President. Sorry you didn’t go when you had the chance.”

Click on the headline to read the entire article.

NORTH ANDOVER, Mass. — On Wednesday, Democratic front-runner Howard Dean was on John Kerry’s home turf going after both Kerry and President George W. Bush.

NewsCenter 5′s Janet Wu reported that Dean isn’t flinching even with Wesley Clark’s and John Edward’s entries into the race.

“Don’t tell me this president is tough on defense. How come he’s about to let North Korea become a nuclear power? He won’t talk to the president of North Korea because he doesn’t like him. I think it is time to end foreign policy based on the petulance of the president of the United States,” Dean said.

The former Vermont governor slammed Kerry for claiming Dean’s tax policy would cost middle-class families thousands of dollars a year.

“Sen. Kerry unfortunately is using the Bush figures to defend the Bush tax plan. That is a mistake on Sen. Kerry’s part. We can’t have politicians promising health care, special education and a tax cut, too. It’s just not going to happen. I think some truth in budgeting is necessary,” Dean said.

As for Wesley Clark, the four-star general who just entered the Democratic race, Dean said he welcomes another anti-Iraq voice.

“I think he’s going to be helpful to me in the short run because I’ve taken a lot of flak from the four Washington guys who voted for the war. Here we have a four-star general who takes the same position I do on the Iraq War, and this could be helpful, ” said Dean.

Dean was less candid when asked about his recent meetings with Clark.

“I have met with Wes Clark a number of times, that’s how I know him. And I like him, and I think he’s smart. He’ll bring a lot to the Democratic field,” said Dean. “I’m not going to say what we discussed.”

Dean’s planning a major rally at Boston’s Copley Square next week titled “Democracy, Freedom and Action.”

“I’ve not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that,” Donald Rumsfeld said in response to a question about a poll which indicated that nearly 70% of respondents believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. Associated Press, 9/17/03

“No, I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.” — Vice President Dick Cheney in response to a similar question two days earlier on Meet the Press. (9/14/03)

“Who is telling the truth? Our casualties and costs are rising every day, while our reputation and relationships abroad sink further into disrepair. So it is shocking that the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President still cannot agree whether there was a relationship between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and whether or not that was a reason we went to war.

“It is time for this administration to be honest with the American people. Seventy percent of them believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved, and we know — as Secretary Rumsfeld admitted yesterday — that that’s not true.

“Yet Vice President Cheney, with the chance to set the record straight on national television, took a pass on telling the American people the truth, still choosing to imply that such a connection could exist.

“This administration has misled the country from the very beginning on its reasons for the war, the costs of the war, and its plans for the peace. It is time for the truth.”

ADDENDUM: (or, ask and ye shall receive)

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 – disputing an idea held by many Americans.

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties,” the president said. But he also said, “We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11″ attacks.

The president’s comment was in line with a statement Tuesday by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who said he not seen any evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks.

Yet, a new poll found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved. Rumsfeld said, “I’ve not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that.”

The administration has argued that Saddam’s government had close links to al-Qaida, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden that masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks.

On Sunday, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney said that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the “the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11.”

And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC’s “Nightline,” White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said that one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in “a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged.”

In an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in a Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.

“No, I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection,” he replied.

Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said, “We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9-11.”

You have to wonder if the people in this administration will ever stop lying. What exactly is Mr. Cheney’s definition of “financial ties?”

Senate Democrats challenged Vice President Dick Cheney’s recent assertion that he had severed all his ties to his former employer, the Halliburton Company, which has received more than $1 billion in federal contracts to rebuild Iraq’s oil fields and provide services to the military. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey said Mr. Cheney’s current financial disclosure form showed his holding 433,333 Halliburton stock options and continuing to receive deferred compensation.

“If you ask everyday Americans if someone has a financial interest in a company that pays them annual compensation, I am sure the answer would be universally yes,” Mr. Lautenberg said on the Senate floor.

Mr. Lautenberg, joined by the Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, called on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee to hold hearings on the administration’s contracts with Halliburton for Iraq, particularly those that were granted without competitive bidding.

Mr. Cheney said on the NBC program “Meet the Press” on Sunday that he had severed all financial ties to the company where he served as chief executive until 2000. “I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven’t had now for over three years,” he said.

Catherine Martin, Mr. Cheney’s spokeswoman, acknowledged that he would receive about $150,000 a year in deferred compensation from Halliburton through 2005 but said the amount was not tied to the company’s fortunes in any way. The vice president bought an insurance policy to cover the compensation before he took office, Ms. Martin said, guaranteeing him the full amount even if the company went bankrupt.

Sept. 17— Americans may be getting used to the Terminator on the ballot. But can they handle his teenage fans in the voting booth?

Laura Finstad says yes. She works, pays taxes, and has been a political activist for years. And she’s finally won the right to vote in the United States.

Her big accomplishment? Turning 18 last Saturday.

Finstad fumes about the law that made her wait so long and is campaigning for the voting rights of younger teenagers. The teen is gathering signatures for a petition to lower the voting age in suburban Takoma Park, Md.

“Young people have jobs, pay taxes, go to school to learn about government, and know about the issues,” Finstad said. “We think 16 would be a fair age to be able to vote.”

Supporters of lowering the voting age from 18, the national legal standard since the 26th Amendment was ratified 32 years ago, think the time for their issue has come. There’s movement in several states and municipalities to give younger teens the right to vote.

..//..

Typically, youth voting rights supporters in the United States advocate lowering the voting age by a couple of years. They argue that teens often work, and should not be subject to taxation without representation, an American battle cry dating back to Boston Tea Party days.

Also, if teens went to the voting booth at younger ages, they would grow accustomed to casting ballots and more likely become habitual adult voters, advocates argue. Teens’ political involvement would also boost the civic interest, and perhaps voter turnout, of their parents, say supporters of youth voting rights.

Critics of a younger voting age, however, say teens are not ready for democracy, and their participation as voters would not improve the electoral process.

“You’re dealing with people who don’t have any knowledge of or any stake in our democracy,” said Curtis Gans, executive director of the Washington-based Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. “If they’re lucky, they will have had one civics course before 16, and many won’t have that. They’re not parents, not homeowners, not raising children, and they’re not in any responsible jobs.”

Gans argues that younger voters are actually less likely than older citizens to make it to the ballot box on Election Day, so extending the vote to teens younger than 18 would damage already poor voter turnout.

During his seemingly endless Hamlet act about jumping into the presidential race, Wesley Clark has acted as if the country was eagerly waiting for him to put on his red cape and save the Democratic Party.

The reality is that most people have never heard of the guy.

But Democratic insiders sure have, and some believe the retired general could be a significant force when, to no one’s shock, he announces his candidacy today.

I’ve met Clark, and he seems like a smart, engaging, determined and very talkative fellow. I think he made a mistake by granting dozens and dozens of TV interviews in which he was always promising to make up his mind one of these days, and took months to pronounce himself, to no one’s surprise, a Democrat. He should have just decided what to do and then done it.

On the other hand, his leaking of his plans yesterday — first to CNN, where he did analysis duty during the Iraq war — had the effect of upstaging John Edwards’ big announcement (which was itself upstaged by the senator’s decision to break it on Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show”). Every political show led with Clark, who steals some thunder from Kerry (military background), Edwards (a southerner) and Dean (the newest outsider).

While some Dems are salivating for a candidate who can match Bush on the national-security front — more than match him, in fact, since Clark had some stars while Bush served in the National Guard — simply having served as a general doesn’t turn you into Ike.

Clark would be getting in late, and he’s never run for dogcatcher. That means some missteps are practically inevitable.

More important, he’ll be on a shoestring budget while the likes of Dean, Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt have big bucks (which translates into TV ads) and big staffs (which helps you organize in states like Iowa and New Hampshire). Clark might catch fire, but he won’t have the resources to compete in the blizzard of primaries that follow the first two contests.

That doesn’t mean he won’t have an impact on the race, or wind up as someone’s running mate. But the deck is stacked against him.

My first thought on reading that headline was “rescue from what?” We have our candidates. Why do we need another one? What is it exactly that Mr. Clark is bringing to this campaign? From what I’ve been able to gather, his positions on the issues do not differ from those of the other candidates to any great degree.

I do not see him pulling much support away from Governor Dean. John Kerry will be hurt because he will no longer be able to spout “I am the only veteran running.” Other than that, I don’t see the point of his candidacy. I guess the days and months ahead will tell.

by Harley Sorensen

Quiz time. Who is the luckiest man in the world?

No, not the guy who won the Power Ball drawing, and certainly not Ben Affleck (unless the postponement becomes a cancellation). But the answer is easy. The luckiest man in the world is Osama bin Laden.

Like our very own George W. Bush, Osama was born into wealth and never had to support himself. But even without that good luck, the man could have made an easy living for himself by working as a Jesus model. With his handsome Semitic good looks and his dreamy, faraway smile, he was a natural for the job. The Old Masters would have drooled.

But what really makes bin Laden the luckiest man in the world is his surprise ally. When bin Laden ordered the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 (assuming he did), he wanted to do more than kill thousands of infidels. He wanted to change the world, disrupt American society, and destroy an American culture that was slowly overtaking the entire planet.

When bin Laden made his move, there was no way he could have predicted that his greatest ally would be the current American president, the Honorable George W. Bush.

Now, that’s luck!

Click on the headline to read the rest of the article. The last sentence is “The best the lucky bin Laden could possibly hope for is four more years of George W. Bush.” Truer words have never been written.