Posted on 11/29/2007 9:23:03 AM PST by Kaslin
Hillary Clinton has been working closely with decorated anti-war retired Gen. Wesley Clark on foreign policy, fueling rumors he could be vice-president on a “Clinton-Clark” ticket in 2008.
In recent months Clark has joined Clinton several times on the campaign trail, has been publishing a number of profile-raising editorials, and is making a substantial effort to keep his slick PAC website updated with his media schedule. He also promotes email campaigns that solicit names and contact information, as he did in his recent push to remove Rush Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio.
Clinton’s 2002 vote to authorize President Bush to use force in Iraq has haunted her, but having a former military general as a running mate could boost her foreign policy credentials on the campaign trail. In 1999, Clark led efforts to remove Slobodan Milosevic during the Kosovo War as the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and has been an outspoken critic of the Iraq war.
Clark also has presidential campaign experience, as he unsuccessfully ran for president in 2004. Like Clinton’s husband Bill, Clark is also originally from Arkansas, which could help Clinton’s standing in southern states.
Independent of his work with Clinton, Clark is positioning himself as an authority who could stave off a future war with Iran planned by President Bush. Two weeks before he endorsed Clinton for president, Clark released his memoir “Time to Lead” in which he claims a “senior general” told him after 9/11 that the Bush administration planned to bring regime change in seven Middle Eastern countries, which include Iraq and Iran, by 2006. The other five countries allegedly included in this plan were Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Iran.
So, are the rumors true? Is Clark preparing to jump on a 2008 ticket with Clinton?
Here’s a look at how they’ve been working together over the past few months.
September 4: Releases his memoir “A Time to Lead” that claims the Bush Administration plotted regime change in seven Middle Eastern countries after 9/11.
September 9: Writes in The Independent that the “The US should take a lead in talking to Iran – now.” This is a position he modifies later after Clinton rules out negotiations with Iran in a televised Democratic debate.
September 16: Formally endorses Clinton for president.
September 16: Defends Clinton on CNN when Wolf Blitzer asks if she was right to say in a televised Democratic presidential debate that she would not engage in talks with Iran.
Clark says, “Senator Clinton is exactly right. You don't go to these summit meetings at the head of state level without knowing what's going to happen there. You always have some deliverables when you have a meeting like that. You don't run out as president of the United States and start shaking hands with people and say, “Gee, what can we talk about?’ These things are worked intensively behind the scenes because each one of these meetings carries consequences. And you want to make sure you get the right consequences.”
September 16: Publishes an op-ed in the Washington Post titled “The Next War” that suggests the U.S. will take military action against Iran.
September 18: Holds a conference call with liberal blogs like MyDD and TalkLeft.
September 19: Attends a New York town hall fundraising event with Clinton
September 19: Appears on the Daily Show with John Stewart
September 20: Appears with Clinton at a New York fundraiser
September 27: Launches an email campaign to get conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh’s program removed from Armed Forces Radio through his “Help Democrats” website.
On October 12 Paul Greenburg, editorial director of the Clark’s home state’s Arkansas Democrat*Gazette, calls this effort “sad.”
October 14: Publishes an op-ed in the influential New Hampshire Union Leader titled “Clinton's approach deters a rush to war” that defends Clinton’s vote in favor of a non-binding resolution sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I.-Conn.) to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization.
October 15-16: Campaigns with Clinton in Iowa.
Mid-October: Clinton sends a mailer to Iowa activists in which Clark defends her vote to authorize Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.
October 16: Delivers a lecture at the University of Arkansas’ Clinton School of Public Service and the Arkansas Committee on Foreign Relations.
October 26: Appears on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Mahr”
October 30: Blogs at Daily Kos and defends Clinton’s vote to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as foreign terrorist organization, but says the U.S. should also talk to Iran. Clark wrote, “Use sanctions against their terrorist elements as a way of underscoring our purpose, but talk, and talk without pre-conditions to explore their interests, understand their motives, and seek some common interests.”
October 31: The New York Observer reported Clark fires up the crowd for Clinton at the MSNBC debate. Journalist Jason Horowitz’s article says: “In front of the dozens of Hillary volunteers, Wesley Clark stood on top of a short white stepstool in a dark suit yelling into a bullhorn. ‘And she’s got a secret weapon,’ said the retired general and Clinton supporter. ‘Hillary is a great person. She’s warm. I like her. Don’t you like her?”
October 31: Campaigns with Clinton in New Hampshire.
November 8: Finishes his three-part series in Fortune magazine about the “nature of power.”
November 15: Writes an op-ed for the Financial Times urging Turkey not to invade Iraqi Kurdistan.
November 19: Makes a “surprise” appearance with Clinton at an unscheduled campaign stop at a diner in Des Moines, Iowa. They both ordered fruit bowls. Later that day a writer on the liberal MyDD.com declares Clinton-Clark would be his “dream ticket.
signs I will have to move
Which Warner? The young one or the old fart?
Warner is running for Senate in VA.
He dropped out of the Presidential race on grounds he needed to “spend more time with his family.” IOW, skeletons that preclude seeking high office had been found.
Who do you suppose found them?
Well we now know who the weakest spineless nobody is
I suppose Warner is a loser for us either way. If he runs for the Senate they are almost sure to gain that VA seat. If he runs for VP then the Dems are likely to win VA and we can hardly afford to lose those EV’s, which have gone GOP since 1968. Pretty sad.
Clark came across as such a flip flopper and loser in ‘04 I think maybe he will hurt Hillary.
Yeah, Richardson or some other subservient political dwarf who won't overshadow her majestic persona.
.
I wish to state that I have never previously alleged that clark has a long “bi” history
Poof / Poof
Aren’t Hillary and Clark two of the myriad Dems who only found out they were part Jewish in their fifties? I know Hillary is only by marriage but still the question arises,” Would they keep a Kosher White House?”
Holy crap. The a$$hole that tried to start World War III in Serbia/Kosovo is going to have a shot at VP??
IF true, then that’s two faggot generals Hillary has on her side. Clark and Kerr.
I can just see it now. Hillary’s all GAY army.
There they go, marching by, SWISH,SWISH,SWISH,SWISH.
Here they are fighting the enemy, “OH BABY, GIMME THAT MISSILE ONE MORE TIME!”
Two robots for the price of one? With Soros pulling the strings and Bill called upon to explain why the messes they make are not really messes, just your imagination?
Beauty! Two nut jobs on the same ticket. Yes. Some other choices for VP I suggest is Kerry or Al - both excellent alternative choices for hilderbeast.
Aren’t we beginning to see a PATTERN here with Hillary’s followers (staff, VP choice, political appointees, etc)
They have to be GLBT, have a criminal history or of making criminal decisions, and be short one can of a six-pack.
I have a hunch that Joe Biden is a very strong possibility......
At the last debate, they were almost throwing kisses to each other accross the stage.
Until his “posse comitatus” for the Branch Dividians comes out.
The report of the Iraq Study Group is widely seen as a formal confirmation of US failure in Iraq.-------------------
What the surge would do, however, is put more American troops in harm’s way, further undercut US forces’ morale, and risk further alienation of elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops are on the streets; we saw this when the brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad last summer. And even if the increased troop presence initially intimidates or frustrates the contending militias, it won’t be long before they find ways to work around the obstacles to movement and neighbourhood searches, if they are still intent on pursuing the conflict. All of this is not much of an endorsement for a troop surge that will impose real pain on the already overstretched US forces.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.