Your daily dose of smitten Tweety (interview - fairly lengthy)

[Jackhammer Jesus]

Clark seemed to really impress Tweety during his appearance on Hardball last night. He spoke at length about his thoughts on Iraq, and I think it provides a very clear picture of his position on the war - moreso than the FAIR article. And - by the way - for those of you who read the FAIR article and decided unflinchingly that Clark is not anti-war no matter what he says or does, just try to be a little more open-minded about what he has to say now. I don't expect it to happen, of course, but I can always dream. ;)

Read the interview here: http://www.msnbc.com/news/968594.asp

Edit: Used link instead of posting full interview - thanks ComerPerro

[ComerPerro]

1. You've only been a member for about two weeks

So I think I should tell you that your post might be in violation of DU's rules about copyright.

If you got this from a website, I would reccomend posting the link and then cutting out much of the transcript that you posted.

Thank you for posting this though. I'm not sure what the rules are on the transcript, but I think its probably protected.

Just letting you know!

[ComerPerro]

2. And in response to the posting

I think Clark put together a really good portrait of a very poorly-planned war with intentions of deliberate deception. This kind of fits in well with the concept of PNAC, when he mentions that the administration might have felt that "terrorsits need to respect American power".

[Jackhammer Jesus]

4. Matter of perspective, I suppose

Do you think he agrees with PNAC to some degree? I understand that he's cited some reasons for war that the PNACites would agree with, but he goes on to say that he doesn't agree with them. Here's the quote:

"They were-they’re all conceptual reasons. They’re all things you could debate and discuss about. But when it comes time to use force, and when you are doing it in what was supposed to be a preemptive manner, you really need to raise the bar on the level of evidence that’s required before you move ahead with the invasion and taking down of a country. Not only is it a matter of international law and doing the right thing and America’s posture in the world and our relations that we’ve tried to establish on how to use force and how to prevent nations from using force to settle disputes, for 50 years since World War II, but it’s pragmatic because look what’s happened now that we did go in there. It is the law of unintended consequences."

I can understand the anti-war crowd could be concerned about this because he's saying, theoretically, that pre-emptive war is acceptable, but that he disagrees strongly with how this administration has gone about it. And he realizes, most likely, that if BushCo HAD gone about trying to provide real evidence that would truly justify the war, they wouldn't find it. That's just my opinion, though.

[janekat]

3. Isn't it nice for a change to hear it about one of "ours"

instead of about Bush.

[dfong63]

5. so Clark's position du jour is, anti-war

... but when he wrote that Times article , it was "Bush and Blair can be proud of their resolve".

today, Clark says he is a democrat. but a month ago, he wouldn't say. and two years ago, he was raising money for the repubs.

on other issues, he's pleading for more time to define himself.

OK, Wes, if you need more time, how about coming back in 4-8 years, after having proved yourself by running for senator or governor, and winning.