Why The Reagan remarks struck a nerve with everyone who lived those times

(got tired to wait). So, I have no great love for the thing - nor do I agree with the over the top part of his statement.
That being said, Kos still represents the voices of a lot of democrats - who are not all going to lockstep. By cutting this off, kerry shows that he's rather silence his base than confront his attackers. Last guy who did that was Al Gore. And while he did win, he wasn't supported during the coup by the people he ignored. I suggest mr Kerry use his repeated times off to reflect whose side he is on.
I don't remember Wes Clark denouncing Michael Moore when the AWOL issue was thrown at him.

"As he prepared to leave office last January, Mr. Berger met
with his successor,
Condoleezza Rice, and gave her a fatalistic warning.
According to both of them, he said that terrorism -- and
particularly Mr. bin Laden's
brand of it -- would consume far more of her time than she had
ever imagined.
A month later, with the administration still getting organized,
Mr. Tenet, whom
President Bush had asked to stay on at the C.I.A., warned the
Senate Intelligence
Committee that Mr. bin Laden and Al Qaeda remained "the most
immediate and
serious threat" to security.
But until Sept. 11, the people at the top levels of the new
Bush administration, if
anything, may have been less preoccupied by terrorism than the
Clinton aides
before them.
At the C.I.A., according to former Clinton administration
officials, Mr. Tenet's
actions did not match his words. For example, one intelligence
official said, the
C.I.A. station in Pakistan remained understaffed and
underfinanced, though the
C.I.A. denied that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/30/national/30TERR.html?pagewanted=1

Clark's position on the Iraq war resolution was the most progressive one. Like Byrd and Kennedy, he was mindful of the requirement for checks and balances - having Congress having an authority on declaring war.
Here's what Byrd and Kennedy tried::
:
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030131/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_4
>
> Two senior Democratic senators, Robert Byrd
> of West Virginia and Ted Kennedy of
> Massachusetts, this week proposed separate
> bills on the matter. Byrd's would require President
> Bush (news - web sites) to seek a fresh vote
> in the U.N. Security Council before attacking Iraq;
> Kennedy's would require new votes in
> Congress before doing so.
Here's what Clark pleaded for in his September deposition to Congress:
I think it's wise to narrow the resolution that was submitted. I think it will be more effective and more useful and I think it's more in keeping with the checks and balances that are the hallmark of the American government if that resolution is narrowed.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm

Here's what the rest of the senators did (from the same article)
>
> But the chance of approval for either
> measure is slim, given GOP control of the Senate and a
> lack of enthusiasm from Democratic
> congressional leaders.
>
> The bills aren't supported by any of the
> four Democratic members of Congress running for
> president:* Sens. John Kerry of
> Massachusetts, Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) of
> Connecticut and John Edwards of North
> Carolina*, and Rep. Richard Gephardt (news, bio,
> voting record) of Missouri.

Howard Dean endorsed Biden Lugar which was also lax on checks and balances limiting only the scope (WND as opposed to regime change)
This is important to be stressed since these days Kerry tries to equate his position toi Clark.
    If so, why did anti-war Wellstone quoted Clark's arguments in his speech?
But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
Paul Wellstone
http://www.wellstoneaction.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=1865&catID=298

"All I was saying is that it would be naïve to say that there weren't any contacts," he said. "But that's a far cry from saying there was any connection between the events of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein."

So, my question is: why the deception? Why are the readers of the NYT treated to the interpretation of "another campaign" shrouding up the truth?
    Everyone who watched Clark for the past 3 years or read his book knows his stand on this. The fact that Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror is a central reason of Clark's opposition to Bush, one of the reasons he is running.
     Why would anyone distort that?
I mean, I do understand desperate candidates feeling hearing Clark's footsteps, but why the New York Times?

       A New Yorker who will never again buy a copy of your publication until you correct your facts.

September 14, 2001
http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/33681
By DAVID GRAM The Associated Press

MONTPELIER -- Gov. Howard Dean's call for a "re-evaluation" of some of America's civil liberties following this week's terrorist attacks was criticised Thursday by a Vermont Law School professor.

"Good God," Vermont Law School Professor Michael Mello said when read the remarks Dean made at a Wednesday news conference. "It's terribly irresponsible for the leader of our state to be saying stuff like that right now."

At the same time, Clark was writing this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4257771-103677,00.html

> Decisive force
>
> We must target and destroy the terrorist network. There is no room for
> half measures
> Special report: terrorism in the US
>
> Wesley Clark
> Saturday September 15, 2001
> The Guardian
>
> America is indeed at war. The attacks in New York and Washington have
> raised the dangers posed by international terrorism to a new level. But
> despite the awful familiarity of the devastation, an effective US
> response is likely to be something unfamiliar.
>
> For the US, the weapons of this war should be information, law
> enforcement and, rarely, active military force. The coalition that will
> form around the US and its Nato allies should agree on its intent, but
> not trumpet its plans. No vast military deployments should be
> anticipated. But urgent measures should be taken behind the scenes
> because the populations and economic structures of western nations will
> be at risk.

To sum up: one is "reevaluating" our civil rights with Ashcroftian aplomb. The other is proposing coalitions, intelligence cooperation rather than war