The smear tactics used agains Al Gore in 2000 have come out in force against Wesley Clark this year, especially in the last eight days. Various people on the right have tried to paint him as arrogant, unprincipled, inconsistent, and paranoid. By taking quotes out of context and using Reagan's famous "there you go again" line they are trying, perhaps successfully, to create mistaken impressions of Clark's character that they hope people will simply accept as common knowledge. Mark Kleiman has done an excellent job of responding to each attack as it occurs. He patiently and concisely gives the context and demonstrates how the "evidence" does not support the charge. Anyone who buys into these character assasinations should refer to Kleiman's convenient Wesley Clark thread. Kleiman is great at providing links to the accusation and supposive evidence as well as to the (rather weak) responses to his arguments. Glenn Reynolds would say any position more subtle than "war bad" or "war good" is too complicated making Clark a slippery fellow who is "hard to pin down". Of course Reynolds might also have you discount Kleiman's analysis because Kleiman wants Bush defeated. I would suggest readers judge Kleiman's analysis on its own merits. Here is a brief chronological overview of the attacks in the past week or so and Kleiman's responses.
Testimony on Iraq (1/15) Drudge claimed Clark made the case for war in Iraq in testimony before Congress in Sept 2002. Steve at Southern Appeal says "so long" to Clark. "Stick a fork in him." It was easily shown that Drudge's quotes were pieced together out of context to completley alter Clark's views. Here is Kleiman's response about the testimony. Ironically, on the 13th of Jan Kleiman had used the same testimony to set to rest charges that Clark was inconsistent on the Iraq/al-Qadea connnection. Kleiman also followed up when CNN and the RNC tried to run with this charge.
London Times (1/16) Unable to defend his cherry-picking, Drudge links to Common Dreams (a left wing site) and their reprint of an April 2003 op-ed Clark wrote for the London Times in which he has some kind words for Bush and our troops on them taking Baghdad. A number of people jump on this as evidence that Clark is an unprincipled liar when he says was opposed to the war in Iraq. This issue just won't seem to die. The Times op-ed was referred to often at the time Clark announced he would run. Most recently it got brought up in last night's debate and Andrew Sullivan says Clark's response in the debate shows he's "toast". I thought Clark's debate answer was perfect. Once troops were on the ground we needed to take Baghdad quickly and Clark praised the quick action. The op-ed was mostly about the steps that needed to be taken next and Bush did not follow through on this advice. Here is Kleiman's initial response about the op-ed. This is followed by an explanation of why Clark can't simply be classified as a Hawk or a Dove. Kleiman then examines why people have such a hard time with views that defy simple calssifications. Finally Kleiman responds to Steve Sach's counterarguments.
Michael Moore (1/17) Some think a Moore endorsement in itself is enough reason not to vote for Clark. Mostly, though, the criticism has come because Clark has not repudiated Moore's comments at the endorsement that Bush was a deserter. Instead Clark has simply said those are Moore's accusations. He doesn't know all the details of the charge, but nor does he care about Bush's troubles concerning his National Guard Duty. Interestingly Kleiman was one of the first to criticize Clark for this. The issue has gotten continued play because it got raised again at the debate last night and once again and Clark repeated what he said last week. Kleiman, having leared more details about the crime of desertion, now concludes that while Moore might be wrong as a technical matter, the issue is not clear-cut. The charge is not reckless and Clark handled the question well at the debate.
The Lieutenant and the General (1/18) The most recent accusation is that Clark is arrogant and he has been belittlling Kerry's service record. Tacitus spreads this smear with gusto. Of course, the comments were taken out of context. Clark was not challenging Kerry's heroism. He was only contrasting their military experience for those that asked what Clark brought to a candidacy that Kerry didn't. Here is Kleiman with the full story.
Kleiman, sadly, gets it wrong. Four things ought to be done:
First, watch the events in question and see Clark's body language. The man is lashing out, and he means to.
Second, ask military or ex-military acquaintances what they think of Clark's rhetoric. In my experience, nine of ten will agree that he is issuing a thinly-coded rank-pulling put-down of Kerry and Kerry's record.
Third, ask the John Kerry campaign, which has seized upon this behavior as a calculated insult from Clark.
Finally, apply Occam's razor and ask yourself what the simplest explanation here is. If Clark's statements are so content-neutral, then why do they require the level of parsing (and yes, context-stripping) that Kleiman must bring to them?
Lots of effort here and elsewhere to defending Clark, I see. Best of luck to you. I wish I could say he'll validate your efforts.
Posted by: Tacitus | January 26, 2004 at 06:35 AM
Yes, I've heard from Unlearned Hand and others that if you actually watch the tape on CNN you don't get the same impression. I can only judge by the transcript.
From what I can tell, Clark still has a lot of support among veterans. How Kerry's camp spins things is not exactly the best way to judge the situation.
I think Kleiman's explanation is the simplest. Why would Clark want to put down most of the military? He's built his campaing around a theme of patriotism and supporting our troops. He has also based a large part of his campaign on being the only candidate with a lot of executive experience and dealing with other nations in building alliances. It is important, therefore, for him to distinguish between his role in the military and Kerry's.
Posted by: Galois | January 26, 2004 at 08:40 AM