Rush said that Gen. Clark supprted war in Iraq....

back in Sept 2001. But I'll be damned if I can find an article anywhere. Does anybody know if this is REALLY the case, of is it ol Rush-bo ranting?

Good....it's about time...

who want to believe it.

Clark was against the war. He has called the war the greatest strategic blunder since WWII.

Think of it this way: Clark is rising, the GOP is afraid of Clark, and they need to sling shit at him. The best they can come up with--and it is a lie--is that he agrees with them!

Baloney.

the focus of the Rove salvos is shifting. I think what the Administration is beginning to see is that they have woefully underestimated the entire crop of candidates.

who has never won an election let alone even run in one before?
There are too many unknowns with Clark. It is potentially dangerous for us to run someone who is completely untested politically.

Some people look great going in to a race and turn out to be really disappointing.

Before he escaped from their lair, he noticed millions of US jobs strewn among the guano.

Just like I figured, it is crap! ;)

Proves that Rush is a liar and the RNC chairman is a liar. Oh and Drudge, but everyone knows that, even his own party.

The only distinction this article successfully highlights is a question whether or not the UN route was fully exhausted. But Clark himself said in the same testimony discussed that "In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there."

I repeat, "in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did".

I am afraid that nominating Clark will only legitimize the Iraq war and Bush, taking away our own biggest issue against the republicans this election.

back in 2001. However, I can't find any evidence to confirm/deny this. Until I do, I will have to consider this crap. ;)

Happy posting. :toast:

www.commondreams.org is a reliable source.

article reprinted here:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."
Wesley Clark, April 10, 2003, London Times

Also see:
http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0916-10.htm
Lots of good information from FAIR here.

My personal editorial regarding all of this:
I remember how Al Gore was depicted as a liar by the media in the 2000 election for the slightest percieved inconsistencies. They are going to kill us on Clark this year. Clark seems to be an opportunist who says whatever is popular on a given day. I do not think he will withstand the scrutiny.

Matt Drudge, Ed Gillespie of the RNC, and the Wall St Journal.

He used Drudge & RNC pts yeterday...

He was ahead of Drudge

Josh Micah Marshall's excellent blog. He has been following this crapola and has tterrific, clear analysis.

www.talkingpointsmemo.com




Oddly enough as I was driving through unknown territories yesterday I was dialing around for a decent station.
Fell upon rush limbaugh's show and decided to listen (have not done so in years) As you say, he was getting into Clark-bashing. My reaction was "Oh kkkarl must have passed out the talking points" :eyes:

BTW, I lasted all of 30 seconds (a record, no doubt) but bailed when he was saying that the Clinton Dealmakers *want* a cruddy Dem candidate that will be creamed thus clearing the way for Hillary in '08 :wtf:

Oxy added that this was just a guess because it was coming from the minds of psychotics therefore impossible for him to really know.:crazy:


Blech:puke:


PS: Oxy's not just nasty and hypocritical; he's really really ugly.

"The haters love Dean.
The liars love Clark."

Think PigMan is projecting much? And what's he
gonna do when the haters/liars join forces?

Bwahahahahahahaha.

thats about it.....*

I listen because I know alot of conservative people who throw alot of liberal critiques at me. When I listen to Rush, I get a leg up on these folks and have ammunition ready to fire back. Turns out, I tend to be more informed on their point of view than they are, so its fun when I can immediately refute them.

I listened to him every day until then. He had me convinced that Gore was an exagerator, that he would say anything to win, that he had no core beliefs, blablabla. I watched Gore at the convention, and realized I'd been slowly being brainwashed. I never believed Rush, but he still wormed his way into my mind.

Stop listening. You know everything you need to know about what neocon's think already. If you want to know their current talking points, just listen to CNN. You will enjoy life more without that formerly fat liar's litany of hatred.

He had a primetime ad on my local NBC station!

It appears by General Clark's statements that he was not ruling out the option of military force against Iraq in the future in the event the weapons inspections were obstructed. Nor is there any evidence that he supported a wholesale military overthrow and takeover of Iraq. At the end of day his positon was consistent, if not quite as crisp and clear as that of Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman: he felt the Bush Administration rushed into war under false pretenses and without international cooperation. I'm sorry if there are too many people who would like to reduce every issue position to for/against, black/white, night/day. The real world of politics simply does not work that way.

The more clips he plays of Clark's statements, the more Clark's prospects rise. Rush seems desperate. Today he compared Clark to characters in Dr. Strangelove, but couldn't figure out which ones. Add to that his obviously forced laughter (at what?), and you see a scared radio broadcaster.

They got nothin'.

this as the "talking point" of the day. Wonder why?? They think that Dean may not be as strong as they first thought? They think Clark might be their strongest opponent now?? Who knows?

NFC championship
4th and 26
Any questions, Rush?

A few days before he went into rehab.

reprinted on Common Dreams.org.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

Original article source here (subscription required):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/login.php?grid=11&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timesonline.co.uk%2Farticle%2F0%2C%2C1072-641193%2C00.html%3Fgavalidate&gareason=login

not an attempt to justify a war. The journalist happens to be a former military leader who can speak with some knowledge about the future problems-- unlike those who pulled off the invasion.

I don't know. This is after the fact, and not an endorsement of the war, just an analysis of how it was done. I cringe when anyone says we should be proud of Bush for sticking to his guns, though.

How do you read it? I don't trust Clark, but this doesn't make it worse for me. I don't oppose him, yet, either.

Clark knows how to play both sides, which in a weird way actually improves my opinion of him. One of my biggest complaints about military leaders in politics is that they are used to giving orders and having people listen, and that's horrible preparation for politics. His ability to spin his message to both sides, to speak to both sides in ways that appeal to both, without necessarily committing to both, is very unmilitary, and a strong positive in politics. But I'd like to know for sure which side he is on, and which side he is playing for the fool...

Nothing journalistic about it.

Regarding Clark's constant flip-flops on the war and other issues (going back to BEFORE he decided to run for President as a Democrat), I am VERY disturbed by it, because it shows someone who has no real core values who will blow with the wind. If Clark gets the nomination, I fully expect him to "flip-flop" right back to being the Republican that he is.

Right now he is running for the Democratic nomination, so it is only logical that he would be talking like a Democrat to get votes from Democrats in the Democratic primaries. Once the nomination is his, expect that to change. As his positions always do.

Apparently Drudge and the RNC (same thing) have taken it down from their respective sites, but that won't keep it from echoing around for months. Years even.

But it's not true.

Josh Marshall has the goods on this. Have a look and arm yourself.

B.t.w., his latest posts defending both Dean and Clark against the latest rightwing smears should be an object lesson to self-professed Dems here too. It is actually possible to defend a candidate who doesn't happen to be the one you most favor against rightwing lies. Those lies damage us ALL in the long run. But don't bother trying to convince anyone over on GD-2004 of that....

The anti-war comments from Clark do NOT "debunk" the pro-war comments he also made. The fact remains that he HAS made all comments in question.

This is exactly the problem with Wes Clark.

Such attempts at "debunking" by showing contradictary comments he made only serve to highlight his inconsistency.

The "contradictory comments" aren't from somewhere else, they are the context surrounding the bits the RNC stooges cherry picked. He makes it quite clear that whereas he believes Saddam is a problem that will have to be dealt with at some point, it was not a priority to do it then and would potentially be a major distraction from the actual target--the "strategic" one as opposed to the operational one, as he puts it--of al Quaida. It is quite clear he thinks Iraq was something that could--and should--have waited until we'd dealt with al Quaida. Years, if necessary.

I don't have a problem with any of that. Saddam was clearly a problem, just not the major, critical one the neocons hyped him up as, and going after him--as Clark says in that testimony--could easily exacerbate our vulnerability to terrorism rather than ameliorate it unless it was done with substantial international cooperation and legitimacy.

That's been his position all along. And I agree with it. Taking out Saddam for the benefit of his own people and the stability of the region was arguably a good goal, but one that was not worth the risk of making things worse. Or the guarantee of making them worse if you went about it unilateraly, on the cheap, with no planning for the aftermath--all of which he warns against here. The way the neocons were shaping up to do it.

You can call that a "pro war" position, but only if you're incapable of thinking in anything but soundbites.

Clark's position(s), whatever they may have been from day to day, are far too ambiguous and nuanced to play in our favor either way in the general election.

You mention thinking in soundbites, which is a very good point. The majority of the voters do think in soundbites, and these are the soundbites they will hear. Not having a strong position means Clark will not be a strong candidate.

Being "luke-warm" on the war does not advance our position that Bush and this war are illegitimate, but also fails to give a particularly strong message on national defense. Nominating Clark will all but concede these issues to the Republicans. What will that leave us with?

From the same transcript, thanks again to TPM:

Schrock: Sure, I would love to know Mr. Perle's, you know, the general said time is on our side. My guess is you do not believe that.

Perle: No, I don't believe it and frankly I don't think made a very convincing case in support of that cliche but it was one of many cliches. At the end of the day when you sought to elicit from him a reconciliation of the view that time is on our side with what he acknowledged to be our ignorance of how far along Saddam Hussein is, he had no explanation.

He seems to be preoccupied, and I'm quoting now, with building legitimacy, with exhausting all diplomatic remedies as though we hadn't been through diplomacy for the last decade, and relegating the use of force to a last resort, to building the broadest possible coalition, in short a variety of very amorphous, ephemeral concerns alongside which there's a stark reality and that is that every day that goes by, Saddam Hussein is busy perfecting those weapons of mass destruction that he already has, improving their capabilities, improving the means with which to deliver them and readying himself for a future conflict.

So I don't believe that time is on our side and I don't believe that this fuzzy notion that the most important thing is building legitimacy, as if we lack legitimacy now, after all the U.N. resolutions that he's in blatant violation of, I don't believe that that should be the decisive consideration. So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait.

I'd say Mr Perle was of the opinion that Clark was anti-war.

on edit: b.t.w., I was just wondering how long it would be before some version of the good old "We Democrats" formulation showed up in one of your posts. Just a private wager I have with myself about the over-stress on the second person plural you sometimes see around here....