William Safire Questions Clinton Motives in Backing Clark

William Safire Questions Clinton Motives in Backing Clark

Re: William Safire: Why have the Clintons anointed Wesley Clark?

For the sake of Democrat solidarity, which is sorely needed today, I think the Clintons are going to have to
answer to this one.
Snippy Safire is making some nasty accusations.
The question is: Are they true?
He HAS to ask these questions, in my opinion.
They're hanging in the air just waiting to be plucked and printed.

You decide. I can't tell you what to believe...I don't know myself.
I'll tell you one thing, though. For the many Howard Dean supporters, it puts the Clintons in a very dismal light.

The Clintons had best speak clearly in response to these allegations...and soon.

By the way, I give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt here.
Safire is almost a complete ass....one example-the obvious bias he has against Dean already:
"As expected, fickle media that had been entranced with Dean (Dr. Lose-the-War) dropped the cranky Vermonter like a cold couch potato and are lionizing Clinton's fellow Arkansan and fellow Rhodes Scholar."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

***UPDATE! THE CLINTONS HAVE SPOKEN!*****
Washington Post: Sen. Clinton Denies Backing Clark

".....Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) yesterday dismissed reports that she and her husband are the agents behind retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark's presidential candidacy, reiterated that she will not run in 2004 and pledged to work for the eventual Democratic nominee, saying the reelection of President Bush would be "an overwhelming setback for this country...."

"....Referring to an account by New York Times columnist William Safire that had sketched out such a scenario, she said, "That's an absurd feat of imagination."

Bush UN Speech Ineffective

I thought it was just me....
Audience Unmoved During Bush's Address at the U.N.

Once again, our President chose to deny reality. He allowed pride and dependence upon his old, worn-out defenses to cause him to fail to LEAD the world toward compromise. He spoke far more of 9-11, the Taliban, AIDS, Hamid Karzai, and child slavery, than he spent on the subject that was at the forefront of every person's mind...Iraq. He failed our troops in Iraq yesterday at the UN. I was utterly disappointed. I can imagine how families of the troops must have felt.

"...Despite good marks from many for his performance, Mr. Bush did not seem to have advanced his administration toward broadening support for a Security Council resolution to expand the United Nations role in Iraq, a step intended to get more foreign troops and more foreign money for rebuilding.
"He gave a very sincere speech, but I don't think there was anything new," said a diplomat here. "The situation in Iraq is getting more difficult every day, and so is the atmosphere at the United Nations....."


Then again, President Chirac showed he was steadfast in his belief, too. He has reality on his side, though.

"....President Jacques Chirac of France, appearing shortly after Mr. Bush at the General Assembly, was no less apologetic opposing the war than Mr. Bush had been in urging it. He called the divisions over the war one of the gravest threats to multilateral institutions like the United Nations in modern times....."