The Smears Continue

The ‘smears’ against General Clark continue. The other day, Gen. Hugh Shelton stated he would not vote for Clark. Now, in an obvious smear, Drudge is using Clark’s own words against him:

Democratic presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark offered lavish praise for the Bush Administration and its key players in a speech to Republicans — just two years ago, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal!

During extended remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001, General Clark declared: “And I’m very glad we’ve got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice… people I know very well – our president George W. Bush. We need them there.”

A video of Clark making the comments has surfaced, DRUDGE can reveal.

That ought to play well with the base, which is composed of rabid Bush haters. Then there is this story:

Presidential front-runner Gen. Wesley Clark blew a gasket while attending a conference in California several years ago, throwing a temper tantrum so ugly that it “had to be seen to be believed,” according to one eyewitness.

The account of Clark’s meltdown comes from WABC Radio’s Monica Crowley, who attended the event and personally witnessed the future presidential candidate in full hissy-fit mode.

“At the end of the conference, everybody was sort of leaving the hotel and checking out at the same time,” Crowley told her audience Wednesday night.

“Clark proceeded to throw a fit that had to be seen to be believed – something about how his luggage was being handled,” she explained.

Crowley said Clark was so “abusive, condescending and mean” to the hotel staff that the conference organizer later felt compelled to apologize on his behalf.

The left’s race to embrace their very model of a modern major general is looking funnier and funnier. Do they even vet their candidates? “Look- he’s a general and a democrat- nominate him!” I wonder what shoe will drop today.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






10 replies
  1. 1
    Andrew Lazarus says:

    Two years ago, in this context, is a very long time. In fact, that would be just a few months after Bush took office, when it looked like we still had a surplus, when our Army wasn’t stretched thin across Baghdad, and when two large, ugly skyscrapers graced the lower Manhattan skyline.

    It’s revealing that the Republicans don’t want to take the Democrats on about issues, just temper tantrums, adultery, other distractions. All gotcha, no meat.

    The New Republic has moved its excellent article on hating GWB to a non-subscriber area. You can follow the debate back to the origimal article; it is still in a paid zone if you enter through the main page.

  2. 2
    Karen says:

    I don’t mean to nitpick, Andrew, but Clark doesn’t have any defined positions yet (except that he wants to live in the White House and everything the current occupant says and does is wrong). When he defines these positions (sometime in the next few weeks, according to him), then we can get into the meat of it. In the meantime, listening to what he has said and done is fair game for questions, especially when it is contradictory.

  3. 3
    Kimmitt says:

    There is a reason I haven’t changed my mind based on General Clark’s entrance.

  4. 4
    Dave says:

    John – at the top of the post, I thought Shelton said he would not vote for Clark. You’re saying he said he wouldn’t vote for Bush.

    If I have my facts wrong… well, oops.

  5. 5
    Harry says:

    What issues?

    Taking away the tax cut? Whoa, fuck that.

    Let registered Democrats and Democrat supporters pay an additional stipend to make up for my share of the tax cut if it makes ’em feel better. I don’t mind.

    As far as the war and domestic issues go; these seem to be the Democrats positions: We are not Republicans and whatever the polls say the public is for, we are for, and that is subject to change, of course.

  6. 6
    Kimmitt says:

    See, that would make sense if it applied to:

    Gov. Dean, Sen. Graham, Rep. Kucinich, Amb. Moseley-Braun, Rev. Sharpton, (on the antiwar side), Sen. Edwards, and Joe Lieberman (on the pro-war side), all of whom have been unwavering in their opinions and have presented them forcefully at debates.

    Real live policy debates are taking place in the Democratic primary. People are being given choices as to which candidates’ visions are the most compelling. It’s rather . . . democratic. And refreshing, given the recent political climate.

  7. 7
    Andrew Lazarus says:

    Harry, can you cover our liberal share of the increased National Debt? (If not, shut up.)

  8. 8
    dave says:

    “I wonder what shoe will drop today?”

    Howzabout two members of Bush’s inner circle accused by another member of Bush’s inner circle of committing treason?

    Moronic… brownshirt… fucks.

  9. 9
    Andrew Lazarus says:

    It’s evident that the VRWC is attacking Gen. Clark, accusing him of “lying” and “making things up” when the opposite is true. Limbaugh, Safire, and company will say ANYTHING, and I mean ANYTHING, if it impugns Democratic candidates.

    The details are at Spinsanity.

  10. 10

    The Sharpton Effect

    I’ve been doing alot of thinking about the Democratic Presidential nominees after watching their debate on Thursday. And once again,…

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. The Sharpton Effect

    I’ve been doing alot of thinking about the Democratic Presidential nominees after watching their debate on Thursday. And once again,…

Comments are closed.