The Style Contest: Nashville Paper Has It Down to Clark and Edwards

Nashville Scene (link good until Oct. 8)

So now there are 10. To our knowledge, none is gay, but the Democratic Party presidential lineup has just about every other facet of identity politics covered.

You've got the black preacher, Midwestern union man, old South pol, new South trial lawyer, Vermont liberal, Jew, former mayor in over his head, woman, affected Massachusetts millionaire and, in the last few weeks, an army general who parachuted into the race at the behest of the party's increasingly freaked-out conservative wing, which was getting its collective shorts in a wad at the prospect of all of the above.

Meet Wesley Clark, who adds a certain "wholeness" to the spectacle. If some view his campaign as yet more chaos, the truth is that Clark satiates the need for Democratic conservatives to stake their claim too. And it's not just the party's conservative wing. It's the realists, too, who have been growing ever more uneasy with the prospect of frontrunner Howard Dean going up against George Bush and getting his head punched in like a pumpkin.

Much of politics is about theory, democracy and doing good for people, but it often comes down to whether you feel comfortable taking your candidate to a Rotary Club meeting in your tiny hometown in Alabama and not having your friends laugh at you. Be honest, people: Does anyone think Howard Dean has a prayer with voters in Demopolis, Ala.? Would John Kerry not get completely laughed out of the city limits of Hattiesburg, Miss., with his painfully ponderous language? Would the wooden Dick Gephardt have his audiences screaming for more in South Carolina? And as he wound up his speech in the second hour, would those still awake clap for Lieberman, whose campaign speeches are nothing short of painful to watch? Need we even mention Dennis Kucinich? No Democrat can win without at least some support from America's conservative outposts. And few of the current crop of candidates have much of what it takes to appeal to them.
A critical part of America loves George Bush because he puts his cowboy boots on one at a time. He's got what Reagan had: a muscular sense of both himself and America. It helps, of course, to be a Republican in trying to exemplify toughness, but it's absolutely imperative that a Democrat have it because everyone assumes that he won't. Bill Clinton, the man who could be many things to many people, at least exuded--and delivered on--a sense of virility. Nobody doubted that he was really a man.

And so, in the style contest that is much of politics, we now have a military man, who was a Rhodes scholar and who supports both affirmative action and a woman's right to choose. Then there's that thing about being a hero, fighting wars for our country. Democrats being people who love to eat their own, it remains to be seen whether Clark can make up for his late entrance into the race. But mark our words, ladies and gentlemen: Only two Democrats have a shot.

John Edwards of North Carolina has a certain advantage simply because of the electoral math of being from the South. He's also a solid speaker, if a bit slick.

Then there's Clark. Sorry, Deanites, but we think all else is hopeless.

Having grown up in Demopolis, Alabama, I'd have to say that Dean might have a little hope there. The entire state may fall into the Red slot, but there's a Blue swatch right through the middle of Alabama, and Demopolis is right in the middle of it.

Of course, Clark would do better by far, but I'm sure there are a couple of Deaniacs running loose in the Vine and Olive colony...

Clark's NED Ties Under Fire

Smirking Chimp Thread, Post #15 > Democratic Underground Thread

The raging debate is over the NED's role in the Venezuelan crisis early in the Bush Administration. Clark is still listed on the board of directors and he was elected to the board in January 2001, according to this NED press release. Who did the electing? I don't know yet.

The NED does its own grants, but it also favors four different organizations as grantees.

NED also has a special relationship with four U.S. grantees that represent the building blocks of a democratic society. Commonly referred to as the "core grantees," these organizations are: The American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS – commonly called the Solidarity Center), the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), the International Republican Institute (IRI), and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI). NED gives grants to these groups, for programs that promote pluralism and free and fair elections (IRI and NDI), free markets and economic reforms (CIPE), and independent trade unions (ACILS). Each of these four grantees receives an equal portion of NED’s grant budget – and each program is carefully developed with NED program staff and approved by NED’s board of directors, just like any other grantee.

Who are NED's grantees?

The IRI and the NDI are essentially arms of the the Republican Party and Democratic Party respectively. ACILS has the same relationship with the AFL-CIO. These three organizations were part of the quadrupling of NED grantVenezuelanualan organizations in 2001, the year of the coup.

While the endowment's expressed goal is to promote democracy around the world, the State Department's human rights bureau is examining whether one or more recipients of the money may have actively plotted against Mr. Chavez. The bureau has put a $1 million grant to the endowment on hold pending that review, an official said.

"We wanted to make certain that U.S. government resources were not going to underwrite the unconstitutional overthrow of the government of Venezuela," said the official, who occupmid-leveldlevel job in the department and asked not to be identified. The deputy spokesman for the State Department, Philip Reeker, said he was unaware of the proposed grant.

Of particular concern is $154,377 given by the endowment to the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, the international arm of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., to assist the main Venezuelan labor union in advancing labor rights.

The Venezuelan union, the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers, led the work stoppages that galvanized the opposition to Mr. Chavez. The union's leader, Carlos Ortega, worked closely with Pedro Carmona Estanga, the businessman who briefly took over from Mr. Chavez, in challenging the government.

The endowment also provided significant resources to the foreign policy wings of the Republican and Democratic parties for work in Venezuela, which sponsored trips to Washington by Chavez's critics.

The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs was given a $210,500 grant to promote the accountability of local government. The International Republican Institute, which has an office in Venezuela, received a grant of $339,998 for political party building. On April 12, the day of the takeover, the group hailed Mr. Chavez's ouster. "The Venezuelan people rose up to defend democracy in their country," the institute's president, George A. Folsom, said in a stVenezuelansenezuelans were provoked into action as a result of systematic repression by the government of Hugo Chavez."

U.S. Bankrolling Is Under Scrutiny for Ties to Chavez Ouster

What a nice sticky wicket of a situation this is. But I'm thinking that Clark's position on the NED board isn't the automatic black eye that some people at DU are claiming it to be. The board is directly involved in the grant process, but these sub-granters are then responsible for distributing it to the final recipients. Since the labor unions and the major political parties are three of the four main grantees (the fourth grantee is the foreign policy arm of the US Chamber of Commerce), I'd imagine the board to be a check and balance on these four main groups, with political appointees from each party in evidence on the board. The closest analogy I'd risk is the post-WW2 administration of Germany under the auspices of France, Britain, the United States and Soviet Russia, which was no model of harmonious relationship.

What we have here is a pile of money coming out of the government. Four groups with differing objectives (some having closer connections with each other than others) get the lion's share of the money and the board determines how that money is divided up.

The AFL-CIO appears to have its behind covered. Although its money went to the CTV, a labor union with close ties to the parties Chavez displaced and a major part of the failed coup, the money appears to have been spent the way it was intended to be spent.

For some observers, the most troubling grant was that to the IRI [the GOP arm], because of its apparently false claims about the institution's work and its director's strong support for Chavez' ouster. The grant amount for the IRI, which has an office in Caracas, more than sextupled from $50,000 in 2000 to $339,998 in 2001.

In an April 12 facsimile sent to news media, IRI President George A. Folsom rejoiced over Chavez' removal from power. "The Venezuelan people rose up to defend democracy in their country," he wrote. "Venezuelans were provoked into action as a result of systematic repression by the government of Hugo Chavez."

Fanning the concerns about how the IRI may have utilized its NED funds are doubts regarding the accuracy of its reporting on activities in Venezuela. According to the organization's website, it has several times collaborated with a Venezuelan partner organization called the Youth Participation Foundation (FPJ). Indeed, working with the FPJ was the primary purpose of the IRI's $50,000 year 2000 grant. But dozens of Venezuelan politicians, activists, and nongovernmental organization (NGO) representatives interviewed for this story--including several who have worked with the IRI--had never heard of the FPJ.

According to the IRI's Caracas office, the FPJ ceased to exist "several years ago." According to the IRI website, prior to the 1998 elections the FPJ arranged a pair of youth forums featuring major presidential candidates. But neither the candidates nor the television station supposedly involved had any record or memory of such events.

The US NED in Venezuela, emphasis added

So the GOP was responsible for almost half of NED's funding increase to Venezuelan organizations in 2001.

Since Clark had last served in the Clinton administration, and stepped into the board on January 2001 after voting for Gore in November 2000, my hunch is that he was on the Democratic side of the agenda even then. We'd have to know exactly what role he played in the funding of the Venezuelan grants, what he and other board members were told the money was for, and whether this resembled the actual way the money was used.

And so it's far too early to imagine him with his hands around Hugo Chavez's neck.

UPDATE: major typos corrected.

Get Your War On

One New Cartoon

But it's a keeper...

TPM Interview With Clark

Talking Points Memo

Since I'm the only Clark-friendly blogger that hasn't linked to it yet...

TPM has also written a defense of Clark's analogy between Clinton's hands being tied on Iraq and Carter's being tied on SALT II.

RNC on Democratic Candidates: One Stop Shopping

Calpundit > John Hawkins > GOP.com

Calpundit linked to a right wing take on Rush and Oxycontin. I happened to scroll down and find this: the Republican National Committee has its very own smear page on the Democratic candidates. Clark isn't listed yet, so an update is due. It's a good resource to see what they think is worth slamming the candidates with. As John Hawkings points out, though, Lieberman's campaign is busy running shotgun for the Republicans:

I don't usually post the material that I receive from RNC Research, but this quote they sent out from a Joe Lieberman aide about John Kerry getting an endorsement from Gary Hart was too good to pass up...

"I am glad that Michael Dukakis' Lt. Governor is getting endorsed by Gary Hart. He should roll-out McGovern and Mondale while he is at it. 'People who never became President for Kerry.'"

That's positively "Coulteresque"! Ya gotta love it...

Thanks a lot, Joe. You're really making us proud out here.

Intimigate - Treason? - Logic of the Leak - Novak One of the Six? - Mike Spann's Father

From Common Dreams and the Center for American Progress, via Interesting Times:

INTIMIGATE

The recent story of the Bush Administration leaking classified information in an effort to defame a WMD report is just the latest in a well-established pattern. A look at the historical record shows that the Bush Administration has summarily fired, intimidated and defamed anyone who has had the courage to tell the truth about Iraq. In fact, the Iraq policymakers who have remained in the White House are largely those who parsed and distorted intelligence and misled the American people.

The Wilson leak is just the latest and most egregious step in this pattern of bullying. The one page report is a must read, must print, and must distribute.

Can the Wilson leak be legitimately described as treason? From what I have heard so far, the answer is no on a technicality. Yes, someone blew the cover of a CIA agent who was involved in the search for WMD. This act is easily understood as giving aid and comfort to the enemy in real time. But each overt act of treason must be witnessed by two or more. There are six or seven alleged overt acts here, and only the journalist (who is bound by the ethics of confidentiality) and the perpetrator (who can take the Fifth) are party to each one. Since the "two witnesses" rule to each overt act is constitutionally mandated, there will be no official charge of treason in this matter, according to the evidence that is now before the people. It doesn't matter that six or seven people can witness to an overt act of their own (if they break confidentiality). No one can verify their particular act.

The Washington Post shows why several different scenarios of leak motivation don't work. They mention some buzz about the leakers not knowing that Wilson's wife was undercover, which would hurt the intimidation theory, if they truly didn't know, which I don't buy yet. But they do mention the nepotism meme, and that's the real jewel, I believe. Their main objective was getting this viewpoint out to the Mighty Right-Wing Wurlitzer, the way they've been funnelling information and spin all along. How did the Weekly Standard get Rove's phone records to slam Clark? The White House is actively feeding the rightwing scandal machine Bush supporters built to destroy Clinton, and this time they got stone cold busted, with felony charges hanging over their heads.

Along that line, here's an interesting twist to the story:

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

Novak: The CIA Leak, emphasis added

Pay attention. Novak's in an interview, gets the scoop, calls another official who says, "Oh, you know about it." My first thought on this statement was what Novak means us to get: that the official is recognizing that Novak knows about the CIA agent. I'd considered that to be a possible defense against the felony charge on this leak - the official ensuring that Novak's not getting this information from him or her. Why, then, wouldn't the official say, "Oh, you know about her?" Why wouldn't the official say "her" anyway, since Novak is asking about a person?

But what if Novak wasn't one of the six reporters that the leak was being fed to? Then the second official's statement makes sense; you know about it - the leak. I'm betting Novak wandered into this information, creating the distinct possiblity that three White House officials are involved in this scandal, one who called the six, one who recieved all confirmation calls, and the one that gave Novak the scoop. Scooter Davis is the likely candidate for the first one, the Rove office is the area to look in the second, and Novak's source? How about Ari?

Further news: Jimmy Spann, the father of Mike Spann, believes Mike's status as an undercover agent was released before his family could prepare for any fallout. He has this to say about Intimigate. Got it at Eschaton.

Incredible Rush/Rush Job

Any other "rush" figures of speech out there? Rush hour, rush to judgment...

If Rush isn't a pill popper, he picked the wrong week to quit. Yes, I know, it's the New York Daily News and the National Enquirer. But here's Rush's statement on the matter:

I am unaware of any investigation by any authority involving me. No government representative has contacted me directly or indirectly. If my assistance is required, I will, of course, cooperate fully.

RushLimbaugh.com

That would be more convincing if he had led that statement with, "I am not now and have never been addicted to pain killers." And then he could have finished that last sentence with, "...for I have nothing to hide."

But he didn't.

New Comments Host - All Comments Lost

Had to change comment dealy things - the one I had kept having problems, so I've signed up with Haloscan.

Fire away!

Plamegate Rundown: WSJ's "Kerfuffle", Novak Keeps Backpedalling

Opinion Journal (rr)

The political goals must be paramount here because the substance of the story is so flimsy. The law against revealing the names of covert CIA agents was passed in 1982 as a reaction against leaks by Philip Agee and other hard-left types whose goal was to undermine CIA operations around the world. This case is all about a policy dispute over Iraq. The first "outing" here was the one Mr. Wilson did to himself by writing an op-ed in July for the New York Times.

An avowed opponent of war with Iraq, Mr. Wilson was somehow hired as a consultant by the CIA to investigate a claim made by British intelligence about yellowcake uranium sought in Niger by Iraqi agents. Though we assume he signed the routine CIA confidentiality agreement, Mr. Wilson blew his own cover to denounce the war and attack the Bush Administration for lying. Never mind that the British still stand by their intelligence, and that the CIA's own October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, since partly declassified, lent some credence to the evidence.

This is the context in which Mr. Novak was told that Mr. Wilson had been hired at the recommendation of his wife, a CIA employee. This is hardly blowing a state secret but is something the public had a right to know. When an intelligence operative essentially claims that a U.S. President sent American soldiers off to die for a lie, certainly that operative's own motives and history ought to be on the table. In any event, Mrs. Wilson was not an agent in the field but is ensconced at Langley headquarters. It remains far from clear that any law was violated.

How many facts are distorted in these three paragraphs? Let's find out:

• Wilson outed himself first: it wasn't a felony to do so, and exposing his wife was.
• This is hardly blowing a state secret: Well, that's what it was exactly.
• ...Mrs. Wilson was not an agent in the field but is ensconced at Langley headquarters: This proves that her identity as a CIA agent wasn't classified?
• It remains far from clear that any law was violated: Her classified identity was given to a reporter, which is a FELONY. The law has clearly been violated - her identity was classified and is now blown.

We'll keep saying it until you get it: Someone in the Bush administration burned this classified asset in America's war on terror. The WSJ calls this felony act a kerfuffle, a mini-tempest, flimsy, a scandal-ette, a minor and well-known story, a scandal game, and a pseudo-story. Most telling is this sentence: The real intelligence scandal is how an open opponent of the U.S. war on terror such as Mr. Wilson was allowed to become one of that policy's investigators. Let's forget for a moment that handing vetting procedures to a responsible opponent of your policy used to be considered objectivity. This is the very justification given by Novak's first SAO for blowing Wilson's wife's cover:

Wilson said in an Sept. 29 interview that a reporter had told him that the leaker said, "The real issue is Wilson and his wife."

Washington Post

Conservative pundits are trying to reinforce the "official spin" now that the deed has recieved full exposure. "They had it coming," says those who try to provide cover for these felons, "and there's more where that came from, too." This intellectual thuggery is beneath contempt.

Novak continues his attempts to throttle down the scandal he unleashed. He overstates Clifford May's claims of being told about Mrs. Wilson - while Clifford reports that he inferred her CIA identity was common knowledge, while Novak says he said baldly that it was. Novak still ignores that the revelation of his CIA status was a felony. It doesn't matter who called who - the important thing is the transmission of a particular piece of information. It doesn't matter that Novak feels it wasn't a planned leak - when six other journalist are getting calls from two top White House officials, there was a planned leak happening that Novak wandered into. It doesn't matter that "Valerie Plame" was a name already out there in the public domain - the felony consists of connecting "undercover CIA agent" to that name.

It also doesn't make Novak look too good to realize that he knew he could be causing difficulties for the Wilsons in the future, but ran with her name anyway.

WTF? New Hampshire Marked for Infiltration and Liberation?

The Guardian

'Free staters' pick New Hampshire to liberate for sex, guns and drugs
Fringe activists hope to infiltrate vote and set up a breakaway minimalist government

Joanna Walters in New York
Wednesday October 1, 2003
The Guardian

A libertarian movement promoting "minimalist government", the free market, drugs, prostitution and gun ownership plans to infiltrate New Hampshire to create a breakaway American regime, its leaders will announce today.

The Free State Project, which has supporters in the UK and worldwide, will reveal today at a meeting in New York that its members have voted for the small but highly-symbolic north-eastern state as its target to win power.

Project chiefs will now try to persuade 20,000 people to move to New Hampshire and sway the electorate towards blocking federal "nanny" laws and social restrictions.

Guys, let's save some of the medical marijuana for the glacoma patients, please.

Third Suspected Gitmo Collaborator Arrested

ABC News

Romans 1:1-17 - Commentary

Declared to be Son of God: The Harper Collins Study Bible says that the salutation probably quotes a confession that viewed Jesus as installed in the office of Son of God when raised from the dead. I don't understand why he would do that - his position is that God's Son emptied himself (Phil 2:6-11) to become Jesus. Even the passage states that the gospel concerns God's Son who was then declared to be so by the resurrection.

Perhaps the implication is that this was the position of Peter. In Acts 2:36, Peter is quoted as saying God made the crucified Jesus Lord and Messiah. By stating his own position in a way that blends with the supposed Roman (Petrine) view, Paul would be showing his ability to ignore doctrinal differences in the interest of peace. However, there's no hint of this idea in the Petrine letters, which were products of the Petrine community in the early church. There is, however, this statement: Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, so that he may exalt you in due time. (1 Pet 5:6) This might mark a victory of Pauline thought in the Petrine community, but I prefer to see Paul's salutation as his own forceful statement of his theme: Jewish-Gentile relations.

Paul's position is this: Jesus, so Jewish that he's descended from King David, was declared to be the Son of God by being raised from the dead. Now he's called me to preach his gospel to the Gentiles, and you to be saints. Implied in this is a push to work out what God has wrought. God has done this thing, Paul tells his audience, and are we going to resist it?

Paul was officially out of the business of kicking against the spurs of God. He had seized on the real tie between both Jewish and Gentile Christians; all had undergone a crisis of conversion. Christianity was a religion of immigrants. Each new member had cultural baggage that they were bringing to the mix, but all had confronted the meme of Jesus Anointed and submitted to it.

Wouldn't it be better, thinks Paul, to be mutually encouraged by each other's faith? (:12) This would be the true spiritual gift (:11) that each Christian gives to and receives from all others. Everybody who trusts in the gospel has a hand on the ball of faith - all commune in God's righteousness. They are called to be saints - set apart.

And so Paul isn't ashamed of the gospel. Romans 1:16 is a ruggedly built meme, set up admirably in the preceding text. The gospel is God's power because the gospel reveals God's righteousness. He exalted Jesus in his humility to inspire faith that he will do the same for the faithful. This saving faith is meant to be shared among the saints.

Paul carefully acknowledges that the Jewish Christians were first at the table, because it's true. But his and also to the Greek zinger echoes the classical delineation of the world by Greek scholars in verse 14. The Greeks themselves have their own cultural prejudices against barbarians, just like the Jewish Christians against their Gentile counterparts. The wise will always have their prejudices against the foolish. But everyone who has faith has something to give the community of believers.

Poor Man Covers RightWing Spin on Plame Affair

Shorter Right-Wing Punditry's Reaction to the Valerie Plame Affair: An Internal Dialogue

Go and read. LOL...

CNN Whoring for Bush on Plame Scandal

Novak says administration didn't name CIA operative

Two points:

• Novak says the "senior administration officials" didn't call him; he initiated the conversations.
• Novak says that the SAOs didn't actually name Valerie Plame, they simply said that it was Wilson's wife who was a CIA agent. Novak then called the CIA and got the name.

Or he picked up the phone book. The fact remains - Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA agent and "two senior administration officials" disclosed this information to Novak. It doesn't matter in the least that they never said her name - they disclosed her identity as a CIA agent. How many wives does Ambassador Wilson have? One.

Thank you, CN "Liberal media, my big hairy feet" N, for going to the mat for Novak, who's grovelling before his sources right now. Quit trying to cloud the issue.

UPDATE: Talking Points Memo shows that Novak's story has changed.

Wesley Clark Like George McClellan? Rush Hangs Himself in Comparison

Rush Limbaugh's Wesley McClellan

Rush Limbaugh's recent op/ed in the Wall Street Journal tries to draw an unflattering portrait of Wesley Clark by comparing him to General George McClellan, the Civil War general who was relieved of his command by an exasperated President and later challenged that President in the subsequent election.

Already you can see the problem here. Clark was relieved of his NATO command, but not at the hands of an exasperated Clinton. He ran afoul of Defence Secretary Cohen and General Hugh Stanton, who manuveured the snub of Clark. Clark then didn't challenge Clinton, as the parallel requires, but is now challenging the next president, George W. Bush.

So he's like McClellan, and not like McClellan. Let's look at some major points of Rush's comparison between the two and introduce another subject for the sake of true comparison: the record of George W. Bush himself.

'

Category	McClellan	Clark	Bush	Rush	The Verdict
College?	West Point	West Point	Yale	Dropped out of Southeasten Missouri State University	No advantage, except over Rush
Place in Class	2nd	1st	Unknown; grades poor enough that both Yale and University of Texas refused him entrance to master's program	N/A	Advantage: Clark
Master's Degree?	None; taught military engineering at West Point	Oxford University; master's in philosophy, politics and economics	Harvard Business School; MBA	N/A	Advantage: Clark
Wars Engaged In	Mexican, Civil War (relieved of command)	Vietnam, Bosnian (fought to victory)	Terror (ongoing)	Rush avoided service with a 1-B (later 4-F) classification due to a pilondial cyst	Advantage: Clark
Military Medals	Undetermined; likely some	Five Defense Distinguished Service Medals, two Army Distinguished Service Medals, the Silver Star, four Legion of Merit Awards, two Bronze Star Medals and the Purple Heart.	Undetermined; likely none	N/A	Advantage: At this point, decidedly Clark
Military career setbacks	Relieved of command (Civil War) after numerous clashes with Lincoln for not using his troops to gain victory in Civil War (factor which won the war after his removal)	Relieved of command (NATO) after numerous clashes with Cohen and Shelton for seeking to use ground troops in Bosnia victory (factor which won the war before his removal)	Suspended from piloting after failure to complete annual physical which may have required a drug test	N/A	McClellan was wrong, Clark was right, Bush wasn't there, and neither was Rush; Advantage: Clark
Highest Promotion in Rank	3 Star General	4 Star General	1st Lieutenant	N/A	Advantage: Clark

As you can see, Clark has it over both McClellan and Bush in these categories. However, if you had to pick which of these three men were most alike, I'd have to say that it's Clark and McClellan. Somehow, I don't think that's such a bad thing as it's being hyped to be.

Rush's performance speaks for itself.

Rush also brings up an number of other memes in contention to be the meme that finally Gored Clark. Here's another table to deal with them.

Meme Name	Meme Text	Rush's Charge	Refutation	Like McClellan?
Using Ground Troops in Bosnia	Clark was wrong to want ground troops in Bosnia	Liberal "Refutation" of Indecisive Like McClellan	The credible threat of ground troops in Bosnia is what finally broke Milosevic's will.	McClellan was relieved of command for not pressing his advantages in victory: UNLIKE - Rush is wrong
Pristina Airport	Clark was reckless and almost caused a "disastrous...outcome"	See above.	Clark was implementing Washington policy. The Russians were severely compromised in supply lines. In later days NATO forces would surround Pristina Airport with no disastrous outcome.	See above: UNLIKE - Rush is wrong.
Flip-Flop on Iraq War	First he said he would vote for the Iraq war resolution, then he said he wouldn't	Indecisive like McClellan	Clark has consistently stated that his support of the IWR was intended for leverage in a UN-based solution, not the war that Bush eventually fought	Indecisive like McClellan? UNLIKE - Rush is wrong
Flip-Flop on Debate	One day he said he wouldn't attend a debate, then he eventually did	Indecisive like McClellan	THIS IS TRUE! Rush got one right...but it's a goofy one to be right about. Clark had been scheduled to speak the night of the debate. He got out of the gig to go to the debate. He wanted to go to the debate, and did.	Can't find any citation of McClellan waffling on debating opponents or not: INCONCLUSIVE
Clark-Rove	When Rove rebuffed him, he decided to become a Democratic candidate.	Big Ego	Clark voted for Clinton twice and Gore once; his offer to help the Bush Administration was immediately following the 9/11 attacks in a spirit of bipartisanship	McClellan was a Democrat who served under a Republican president: LIKE - but Rush is wrong. McClellan's nickname "Little Napoleon" was from military victories, not ego. Both McClellan and Clark can serve bipartisanly, the mark of a disciplined ego
9/11 Hype Call	Claimed White House hyped Iraq connection to 9/11, spoke of call to his house, later claimed that call from "a fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank"	Something ODD about Clark	Clark broadened his claim of hype so as to tell of the call from # after 9/11, never claimed it came from White House	McClellan's frequent statement about having no intention of being a dictator has no relevance to this event: UNLIKE - Rush is wrong

There are an number of flattering parallels between Wesley Clark and George McClellan. But General Clark is definitely the superior officer, all around, and both send George W. Bush packing to where Rush is hiding out.

All in all, it looks like Rush should stick to radio. Whenever he writes his words down, the outright lies become apparent to all intelligent people.

Race-Based Bake Sale Causes Near-Riot

CNN.com, via Top 10 Conservative Idiots

Are these the best and brightest of the upcoming conservative minds? This is what happens if you only listen to Rush and watch Fox News...

Felons, Felons, Every One: Those Who Give Aid and Comfort to Felons...

US CODE TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 1, Sec. 1., Sec. 4., via Atrios

Sec. 4. - Misprision of felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

High crimes. This isn't lying about consentual sex, folks. This is striking a blow against national security, and then covering it up. This is an utter disgrace.

Already the Scent of Victory Is In The Air

Rush on Clark

You can even hear him deliver this spit-flying rant, if you click on the link. Man, these guys hate Clark!

So they've taken somebody that's got a good outer appearance, somebody that makes them look like something they're not, in this case, a decorated military man. (They know they have trouble finding one of their own legitimately.) And now they're trying to put words in this man's mouth. I mean it's a Stepford candidate. That's exactly what he is. He's a Stepford candidate, and it's the Clintons that are animating him and putting words in his mouth, and the things that this guy is saying, if he had a brain at all, he wouldn't allow this to happen.

And the party of George W. Bush knows from sockpuppets.

One other point. General Clark, he was in charge of overseeing U.S. military operations in Rwanda. Did you know this? Yes, my friends, it was General Clark in charge of overseeing U.S. military operations in Rwanda when UN peacekeepers were prevented from intervening in the slaughter of nearly one million Rwandans in 1994. Remember that genocide over there that Bill ClintonÂ…"Yeah, yeah, I apologize for that, I'm sorry I didn't get moving on that a little bit sooner." And reportedly Wesley Clark along with Madeleine Albright, urged Clinton not to use military force to stop the genocide. Wesley Clark, Madeleine Albright: "Don't use military force to stop this." Now Wesley Clark poses as a man concerned about civil rights and bigotry.

Clark's record on Rwanda:

For those concerned about Clark's behavior in Kosovo, I again recommend you read Samantha Power's Pulitzer prizewinning book, "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide." Power details many of the controversial issues raised above. In conclusion she notes, "As high as the death toll turned out to be, it was far lower than if NATO had not acted at all. After years of avoiding confrontation, the United States and its allies likely saved hundreds of thousands of lives... The man who contributed more than any other single individual to Milosevic's battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark."

A preceding chapter in the book deals with Rwanda. There is a good summary of this topic available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/09/power.htm. (An accompanying interview with Power is available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2002-03-14.htm.) The article is long and complex - don't tackle it unless you are really interested. Clark's name is mentioned near the end of the section titled, "The Pentagon Chop." The significance for us is that Lieutenant General Clark was the director of strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon at the time. As the genocide was occurring, the Pentagon knew very little about the Hutu and Tutsis. As Power notes, Clark "frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda." However, the Pentagon had little concern. Clark did. Clark cared. He attempted to get some sort of assistance for those already working in Rwanda, but nobody above him was interested.(No wonder he was unpopular with some of the Pentagon brass, harrassing them about such strategically irrelevant issues as genocide!)

Vicki's comment, two-thirds down

In Rush's world, trying to get America to do something about the 1994 Rwandan massacre is the definition of urging Clinton not to do anything.

The lies are so transparent and so furious...Clark is their worst nightmare. Guess what, fellas? We're wise to your deceit. We're not letting it happen again.

Operation Frog March: The Bush Administration Jumps the Shark

Washington Post

As noted at Calpundit:

Let's recap:

• This involves two top White House officials.
• They systematically called six different journalists.
• Only Robert Novak went with the story. (Which, by the way, actually speaks pretty well of the rest of the Washington press corps.)
• There are a whole bunch of people, including Mike Allen and Dana Priest, who know who the White House officials are.

Which leads to my questions:

Who will these "two top White House officials" take down with them?

Can Bush pardon them without junking his 2004 hopes forever?

If Rove's our main suspect, whose's the other one? Novak's column appeared on July 14, which was Ari Fleischer's last day. And it was Ari's job to deal with the press. What an interesting way, then, to look at Ari's last press briefing - which began and ended with references to the growing yellowcake scandal:

MR. FLEISCHER: And with that, I'm happy to take your questions. Helen.

Q Ari, does the President stand by all the statements he made in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq to the American people?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think you've heard what the President has said about the State of the Union remarks, about whether Iraq did or did not seek uranium from Africa. Other than that, of course the President does. (snip)

Q Ari, how do you want to be remembered by the press?

MR. FLEISCHER: Fondly.

Q I want to say, on behalf of the press corps, thank you for all you do for us, thank you for the long hours, the red-eyes we'll miss, and thank you for the times you advocated on behalf of open access behind the scenes. And if you will stick around, we have a little something for you. We've received assurances that it's not yellow cake. (Laughter.) But that doesn't prove that it's not yellow cake. (Laughter.)

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, if it is, I'm sure we'll find it. (Laughter.)

I reckon we will, Ari. I reckon we will.