Tough News Day For The General

From the NY Times:

Clark Says He Has Plan for Iraq, but Will Not Offer Details

By Edward Wyatt

NASHUA, N.H., Dec. 4 — Gen. Wesley K. Clark assured a crowd at a college campus here on Thursday that he had a strategy to secure Iraq and bring American soldiers home, criticizing the Bush administration for not producing a timeline to withdraw troops.

But General Clark later refused to specify when he would bring troops home or how many more soldiers might be needed to stabilize Iraq.

"I'm not going to produce a political answer that doesn't have the basis underneath it to be justified," General Clark, who is retired from the Army, said in a contentious exchange with reporters after a town hall meeting at Daniel Webster College. "That's not right. So don't ask me to do it. You know, you say, How long will we be there? Let me go over there and look at it and talk to the people and I'll work that."

He said: "You say, Exactly how many troops do you need? It depends what the mission is. I need to see all the facts."

It was a day on which the Clark campaign sought to contrast the military and foreign policy expertise of the candidate, a former NATO supreme allied commander, with that of President Bush. General Clark said that Mr. Bush had "instituted the most arrogant, unctuous foreign policy in this country's history."

"When I go to Iraq, it won't be to deliver turkey," he said, referring to the president's surprise visit to Baghdad on Thanksgiving Day.

General Clark had previously praised President Bush for visiting the troops. But on Thursday, he said that if he were to make such a trip as president, "I'll actually be going over there to have consultations with the people that are there."...

First, the Steely Eyed General's basic position is logical, defensible, and reeks of BS. His message: with the resources of the Executive Branch at my disposal, I would develop a plan, which Bush has failed to do. Well, fine. However, this amounts to saying, my plan for fixing Iraq is to get elected and develop a plan, which is somewhat different from the "I have a stragegy, where is Bush's timetable?" rhetoric described in the opening paragraph.

Who's right? Who cares? My point is, given his late start, the General needs to mimic John McCain's Straight Talk Express of 2000, and let an adoring media carry him to exposure and victory. This story describes a "contentious exchange with reporters", and gives the impression that Clark is on the "Straight Down the Tubes" Express.

As a bonus, the now-contentious reporter describes Clark's pandering, deceptive flip-flop on the burning issue of Bush and the Baghdad turkey. The General praised the trip earlier, and is now criticizing it? And even casual news readers know that Bush met with senior US and Iraqi officials while over there, so what's up with "I'll actually be going over there to have consultations with the people that are there."?

Not good. Fortunately, this was buried in the want-ads on page A34, so maybe no one will notice.

MORE: Kinder, gentler coverage from the AP.

UPDATE: Mickey has an interesting slant on what happens after the surging Clark passes the fading Kerry in New Hampshire polls:

Dean, Clark, Hope for Sparks: The more I think about it, a turning point in the Democratic presidential campaign has to come with the first N.H. poll showing Clark ahead of Kerry and in second place. It could come any day now. Clark's only three points behind in one poll and only two in another. .... 2) The #1 versus #2, Dean versus Clark match up will get lots of play in the press because Clark's strengths are Dean's weaknesses, yielding a story line that is simple and compelling: "Peacenik McGgovern II versus Electable Military Man. Which will the Democrats Choose?" ... 3) Clark will get a lot of favorable treatment in this new round of coverage--in part because the press feels guilty about giving Dean (as The Note notes) a relatively easy time so far, in part because the press wants a close race.

Hmm. But the NY Times hates Clark, as does the New Yorker. Physicists eagerly await the impending collision of press biases, and hope to gain new insight into matter/anti-matter/does it matter.

Comments

[Alex Parker]

I dunno, yesterday's turkey story was buried on page A33, and it caused a big ruckus with the right.

Hmmmm...as long as he didn't say "secret plan," maybe its OK. On the other hand, William Safire recently said that Nixon never actually used those exact words, and assured us that he had won bets on that.

[TM]

Good point. I was thinking about mentioning a secret plan - if only a few different neurons had flickered, you could have pounced. Or won a bet.

[John Thacker]

Clark is even luckier that he wasn't quoted in the New York Times saying that he would have had a "final solution" to the Mideast peace problem, like President Carter recently was.

Certain phrases should be avoided when talking about the Middle East.

[Paul Barba]

In response to Gen. Clark's comments. He said: "You say, Exactly how many troops do you need? It depends what the mission is. I need to see all the facts."

If he doesn't yet have all the facts, how can he citicize Bush's policies? How can he claim we are going in the wrong direction if he hasn't analyzed what is really going on there.....Sounds like spin to me

[Emma]

Clark is running the poorest campaign since Al Gore. Pretty much the whole shebang comes down to this: I can whip George's butt on the Iraq issue. Wouldn't you think that the argument would be pretty well established by this point, if that's the whole campaign. The press will give him a walk on insignficant issues like gay marriage if he has a plan on Iraq. Failing that, it's not unreasonable to ask whether the man has any plans about anything or even a plan to get some plans anytime soon.

Which is why, of course, Dennis Kucinich is in such a strong position. Forget Clark: DK is your insurgent!

[TM]

We're OK for DK! Cuckoo for Kucinich!

But actually, Ms. Emma articulates the General's problem nicely - if he can't convince the press of his credibility on Iraq, why even show up?

[Forbes]

Clark says W needs a plan with a timeline-- Hillary says it needs to be more flexible and open ended. Go figure, maybe Bush is doing it right after all!

[Alex Parker]

Clark is so much the right candidate on paper, it's tough to understand why it doesn't come out in practice. I still think he is the only Democrat who can fulfil Mickey Kaus's Pedro Martinez metaphor.

I'm still holding out faith that his campaign get its act together. Maybe his staff is busy compiling a plan, which, when unveiled, will be so astoundingly good that Bush just concedes before the primary is even over.

For what it's worth, I don't think that any of the other Democrats have coherent plans. Dean has been amazingly flip-floppy on this, calling for increased American involvement one day and then a complete American pull-out the next. Why oh why were these the best guys to pick?

[sym]

It's funny how in situations like this, you should always give a few random details and say that's your plan. Noone in the press will analyze any details anyways. Bloggers might fisk, but noone cares what they think ;).
Just don't say "I have no plan." Telling the press a moronic plan is way better than telling the press nothing.

[Emma]

"For what it's worth, I don't think that any of the other Democrats have coherent plans."

To be fair, I haven't heard a decent plan from anyone. The current plan couldn't be called coherent, either. And in the case of some of the Dems--Dean mainly--access to intel isn't anywhere near what it would need to be to have a final plan. We can't reasonably expect a Dem to know what to do in clear detail.

But I know--this blog isn't the best one to foist off my Democratic apologies. Never mind, I will anyway.

[mitchell freedman]

Meanwhile, the polls around various primary states show Clark in the lead or surging. Too much inside baseball going on. Clark has a narrative that is tough to take down by a reporter without the reporter looking unAmerican.

Don't think the Republicans don't know that. That's why they may be leaving Clark alone, hoping the Dem activists who are pushing Dean, Kucinich, Kerry, Gep, and Edwards will do the job for them.

And yes, Nixon never said he had a secret plan. However, when an election campaign reporter used that phrase in a question, Nixon not only never challenged it--he also kept saying on the trail that he didn't want to reveal his plan until after he was elected. Safire may win a bet on the most narrow terms, but not overall. See the Mazo (and another co-author) book on Nixon. Mazo was sympathetic to Nixon, too, I should add in case any Safire fans want to flame here...

[em]

Clark knows what he he wants to accomplish in Iraq and he knows in overall terms how he wants to get there. But when you ask a 4 star General if he has a plan, well he thinks your expecting him to whip out a fully articulated, detailed, hundred or thousand page battle plan. Of course you can't expect him to work out such an in depth battle plan at this stage of the game, without access to current, precise numbers of the resources on the ground and their condition.

But what the press means when it asks for a plan is what Clark calls a strategy. His strategy, or general overall plan if you will, is fully articulated on his website at http://www.clark04.com/issues/iraqstrategy