New York Times' Disappointing Clark Article

Clark's Military Record Offers Campaign Clues

It repeats the "World War 3" meme without noting that Jackson and Clark sent troops to Pristina several days later, which didn't start off WW3. It's more a story of Jackson's stubborness than Clark's foolhardiness, but will we see a correction? The Times calls this "Clark at his worst". Well, thank God that's as bad as it gets. If seen in context, Clark's decision was based on White House policy and was later shown to not be as volitile as Jackson hyped it to be. It must be gratifying to Jackson that his unfounded remark is still an albatross around Clark's neck.

It also refuses to understand Clark's position on the Iraqi war. He would have voted for the Iraqi war resolution as leverage for a UN-based solution, but consistently opposed Bush's unilateral and ill-planned use of that resolution. There, was that so hard, guys?