Clark During Pre Invasion & Invasion on CNN????

I couldn't watch CNN, MSNBC or FOX, and now I'm wondering about his performance as one of the "CNN Experts".

Was he critical of Bush? Did he waffle on questions (meaning was he non-commitial on certain questions?)

If what Christiane Amoupour is correct, all at CNN were intimidated to criticize the lying administration. Did he buckle to pressure or stick to his opposition of the invasion?

is that during the War, he was just doing his job as an analyst

cuz I was watching and saying "GO General Clark"!

Can you point to any "strongly opposed" statements he made when he had most of America glued to their sets?

I seem to have missed every single one of them...

It's why God invented Google, my friend...

Check out this article from the Washington Post.

Here are a couple of quotes from just this one article:

<snip>
The Bush administration's mistake in Iraq, says Clark, is one of priorities. "They picked war over law. They picked a unilateralist approach over a multilateral approach. They picked conventional forces over special-operations forces. And they picked Saddam Hussein as a target over Osama bin Laden."
</snip>

<snip>
Clark cites three tests that the administration must meet before going to war. "First, are you sure you won't destroy the international institutions you say you are supporting, and thereby undermine the war against terror? Second, can you win the war quickly and smoothly, avoiding the collateral damage that would make you lose while winning? And third, in the aftermath, can you prevent the growth of al Qaeda and control the weapons of mass destruction that may be hidden?"

If the Bush administration can answer "yes" to all three, then the Iraq war will succeed, Clark says. But he isn't convinced.
</snip>

You're right if you think Clark's no peacenik––he isn't. Like any good General, he realizes that military force is the last phase of any political struggle––a phase that means that diplomacy has failed. And I'm sure he'd have no compunction about sending US troops into battle, so long as it were necessary. He just doesn't like the idea of charging headlong into an avoidable, unnecessary battle that was poorly prepared for.

I believe the question was what did he say on television. Ya know, so that people glued to their tv sets heard and saw him.

I went back and read some of the transcripts from the war. He was, ahem, fair and balanced. It was not his job to be for or against the war, but rather to enlighten the viewers as to what was happening.

Now, as I said in my earlier post, he's not a tree-hugging, patchouli-wearing peacenik. And he never claimed to be. He was opposed to this war because it was, in his words, 'elective surgery.'

Incidentally, there are plenty of good transcript links here.

damn, he sure had that EXACTLY right.

The guy's got a crystal ball! he must be satan's spawn! AIEEEEEE!!!!

Some are gung-ho on war (remember Curtis LeMay?). Others are reluctant about it, because they know what it does. Others just see it as a tool, so want to use it with discretion. Except for the first type, a general will be a better judge of when to go to war than is a chickenhawk like Dubya -- and his entire gang of thugs, for that matter.

But it pisses me off when people make broad statements and then admit they don't know anything about it. If you're posting on this board, you have access to Google. How hard is it to Google 'Clark' 'transcript' 'war' 'position.'

when the information supporting your position that Clark "was opposed to the war" doesn't exist

:)

which is the reason you came up with an article. I have responded to your 'article' below.

If that information is not enough for you, I will be happy to dig up chat room threads by progressives who were very offended at the way these Generals, to include Clark who was specifically mentioned gushed about the war and the dazzling display of fireworks as they oowed and ahhed "the bombs bursting in air". ;)

By the way, I didn't admit "I don't know anything about it", I said I must have missed all those statements you referred to... Sarcasm you know... ;)

On edit: Moi? Too lazy? You Clark supporters really know how to sweet-talk people :)
--------------
What did Clark say on TV? If he was so appalled, why did he waste that sterling opportunity to speak out? Did he once comment on the outpouring of citizen opposition to U.S. plans at home and abroad? Or was it simply irrelevant to someone who was "opposed to the war"?

We're talking about the same guy right? The same Clark who played with a model A-10 Tank killer plane, with Miles O'Brien zooming it back and forth over a map of Iraq? The same Clark who talked about this war as if it was a foot-ball game and never once mentioned the soliders who were dying or the contractors who never showed up or the malfunctioning equipment?

Those PX Generals hired by the networks were gushing so much that that it was obscene.


-----------------------------------
Why does this just not sound like someone who was against this war?

He doesn't want to second-guess President Bush on the eve of battle.

"I've told all the Europeans, they need to get on the team," he explains. "It's better to be inside the tent than outside."

<snip>

Clark doesn't doubt that overwhelming U.S. military power would quickly crush Saddam Hussein's relatively weak forces. Indeed, he gave a dazzling briefing for global leaders at the World Economic Forum here this week about how U.S.-led forces will move toward Baghdad.

-------------------

Now back to the task at hand. Since I am quite capable of doing my own research, a most necessary thing to counter the pro-Clark spin here, let's see what I was able to find in a few short minutes:


STEVE RENDALL: I'm going to stress that I'm glad Aaron Brown came on here, and I meant what I said- to face the music. And it just so happens that I have looked at some of the transcripts, and what I see is gross imbalance. Some of the conversations you had with retired General Wesley Clark are downright gushing. I've heard Clark on there saying, 'Don't those troops look great?' Quote, 'Now I'm looking at the troops, they're all in uniform, they've got their gear, they've got their stuff together, you look at those men, they're physically fit, they're ready- that's a great Army'. And a few minutes later you say, 'They are, they are, in many respects, marvelous things to see'.

Contrast that with a few nights ago you had on Daniel Ellsberg, it was one of the rare times we were actually hearing articulate anti-war voices on the television and I'm grateful for that and it's good that you put these voices on.
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/889601/posts

----------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, October 10, 2002

The key issue about Iraq has never been whether we should act if Saddam doesn't comply with U.N. resolutions and disarm. Rather, the problems are how we should act, and when. As for the how, the answer is clear--multilaterally, with friends and allies, with every possible effort to avoid the appearance of yet another Christian and Jewish stab at an Islamic country, with force as a last resort, and with a post-conflict plan in place to assure that the consequences of our action do not supercharge the al-Qaeda recruiting machine. As for the when, let's take the time to plan, organize and do the whole job the right way. This will only take a few more weeks, and it's important. It's not just about winning a war--it's also about winning the peace. (:eyes:)

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/index.html
---------------

September 18, 2001

CLARK: I hope that people will understand that this is a threat to Western civilization, not to the U.S. And it is a threat that cannot be appeased by apologies or changing policies toward Israel. It is derived from fundamental conflicts within Islam itself, and the impoverishment and tragedy that has befallen Afghanistan.

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/09/18/clark.cnna/index.html
----------
Boy am I glad I'm not the only one who remembers this!

Several days after Fox News began accusing anti-war protesters of betraying our troops, yet before that network's Geraldo Rivera got bounced by the 101st Airborne for revealing its movements, a friend called from the East Coast. He began ranting about how the war coverage was being distorted by military analysts - from lucid ABC zombie Tony Cordesman to CNN's politically ambitious General Wesley Clark - who would never talk honestly about U.S. policy. "Watching TV," he growled, "you'd think that everybody in America worked for the Defense Department."
http://www.hempfarm.org/Papers/Soldiers_of_Fortune_500.html

-------------------

Naw. Clark is on board with the rest of them.

Wesley Clark
Saturday September 15, 2001

Our objective should be neither revenge nor retaliation, though we will achieve both. Rather, we must systematically target and destroy the complex network of international terrorism. The aim should be to attack not buildings but people who have masterminded, coordinated, supported and executed these and other attacks. I can hear warnings to us to narrow our objectives because the task is so difficult, warnings there may be failures and actions that can never be acknowledged. But now all must accept at face value the terrorists' unwavering hostility to the US and all that it stands for. There is no room for half-measures in our response.

<snip>

Our methods should rely first on domestic and international law, and the support and active participation of our friends and allies. Evidence must be collected, networks uncovered and a faceless threat given identity. In some cases, astute police work will win the day, here and abroad. In others, international collaboration may be necessary. Special military forces may be called on to operate in states that are uncooperative or unable to control their own territory. In exceptional cases, targets will be developed that may be handled by conventional military strikes.

But this will be mostly arduous, detailed and often covert work to track, detain or engage and take down adversaries, rolling them up cell by cell and headquarters by headquarters. These networks may well have state sponsorship. And here, more intense, visible action, involving not only strikes but also substantial ground action, may be required to gain the surrender of hostile governments or the end of their support for terrorists. But we should not underestimate the overpowering impact of a determined America and its allies in forcing pre-emptive changes in previously uncooperative states.

<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,552315,00.html

You call that being opposed?

HE literally was grinning ear to ear as human beings were killed.
I have it recorded and will convert it to quicktime if that evil son of a bitch comes close to being the nominee.

Bring it on!

not

OK. I guess.

BTW, I cannot recall a single position where WaldenX and I have agreed.

What crap, to try to turn one of the war's strongest and earliest opponents into a supporter of it.

DTH

I like where Clark is on issues now but I do remeber being turned off by him when he was on the air during the war. I would like to see some of what you are talking about.

I watched him a lot and remember only some of what he said, a lot of what he DIDN'T say, and I distinctly remember my impression of him.

He was NOT critical of Bush, and this may come from his inherent (as a high up solider) respect for the "commander in chief" position held--albeit badly--by Bush.

He was cautious pre-war, recommending coalition and UN support, unless my memory is blotto.

He came off as measured, thoughtful, cautious about invasion, cautious about what it's going to cost, cautious about so-called evidence, but did not call on the carpet any of the evidence brought forth by the Bush administration.

Once the war began, he seemeth to me to become "okay, no more criticism now, get behind the CIC, let's get rid of Saddam," at which point I stopped listening to him.

But of all the analysts pre-war, he seemed to me to be the most forthcoming in his opinions, although he did dodge now and then--especially when asked if he would criticize Bush or Powell.

meaning he did not agree that there was no time to get a broader coalition, firm UN support, or a more intense inspection regimen in place. He made it clear that he believed the Bushists were rushing the country into an unnecessary war.

A DU'ers perspective. Domo, domo - means thank you

Because the facts are meaningless in your world.

Which is a popular RW, pro-imperialist little bit of bullshit the right wingers trot out.

I like Clark, but I was disgusted to hear that he did this.

If you look back at the propaganda during McKinley's TR's administration, they used the exact same sort of thing to justify imperialism 100 years ago. I know this is sort of an esoteric criticism, but it is so clearly intentional.

Long before the 2002, I've read books about this sort of propoganda, and, knowing that Rove is such a big fan of the 1890s I knew it was going to come up again. The first time I heard it, it was on Fox, perhaps. They were showing a bunch of officers in a room listening to a presentation by Tommy Franks, perhaps. The camera panned the room and the Fox host said, look at the manly virility in the room, or some such nonsense. Since half the officers in the room were women, I thought to myself that 100 year old pro-imperialism propaganda didn't translate well to the 21st century.

Next time I heard it was with Clark.

This is the kind of propaganda Tweety is trying to express when he acts like the masculinity of Howard Dean is relevant.

Incidentally, the source of this had to with this idea that the late 19th century American was soft and that America needed to become vigorous or it would die. Imperialism (and football) then became a representation of vigor. So, in some mixed up way, imperialism was the cure for American malaise. Then you threw in the racism and the threat to womenhood, and you had yourself a justification for empire and dominion over the savages.

I was surprised to learn he was against the war based on seeing him on MSNBC.

Did anyone else see him during the war? Anyone get it on tape?

Anyone I would consider anti war would have been to sick to there stomach to pull that off. He was all pride and joy. It was a real turn off.


I think this explains his excitement:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

analysis of combat operations and tactics with opinion. Are you referring to CNN's coverage of the initial battles at Umm Qasr?

Jay

The way I watched him do. I was shocked to learn later he was "against the war". He seemed to buy the whole WMAD lie as well.

military operations before and during the war. I guess he should have just quit. Oh well, what’s one less voice of dissent? Maybe CNN should have had hired Oliver North away from FAUX.

Jay


-EDITED FOR SPELLING

It was disgusting the way he was so excited by the war. I am sure some its will turn up here on DU. I think everyone should see it.

He did nothing to show dissent; in fact he supported the Bush WOMAD lie and came across very pro invasion.


Someone asked on another thread if someone was praising the military success of operation Barbarossa would that make him a NAZI?

Well if it happened during the invasion of Russia and that person was a commentator for the German press then yes that makes him at least a NAZI cheerleader.

If you really oppose an illegal act of war I fail to see how you can applaud the results on national TV during the act.

Kind of like speaking out against a potential rape and then complementing the rapist on his big penis.

I guess we just differ on his demeanor.

Jay

To let everyone decide for themselves. As for me he was way too into it to get my support.

Jay

Glad to see you have no problem with dictating what others should or should not do...

Weren't you excited about the war?
I know I was... as was EVERYONE here at DU. There are different manifestations of excitement....

Here is the definition of "Excitement":

1. disturbance usually in protest
2. something that agitates and arouses; "he looked forward to the excitements of the day"
3. the feeling of lively and cheerful joy; "he could hardly conceal his excitement when she agreed"
4. the state of being emotionally aroused and worked up; "his face was flushed with excitement and
his hands trembled"; "he tried to calm those who were in a state of extreme inflammation"

To say that Clark felt "lively and cheerful joy", especially since he's SEEN and EXPERIENCED war, is ludicrous!

that others did. And, I don't think CNN would have hired him if he was AGAINST the Invasion......

Otherwise why would Amanpour have said that CNN had a policy about supressing coverage? :shrug:

And that is the kind of thinking that got us here.

I never thought of him grinning or remotely giddy about anyone dying, what a bunch of crap. He will benefit all the candidates.

Just not anti war. He was smiling and giddy at how big our military's penis is.

It was a reall turn off. I am sure as the race goes on the video will make the rounds so other people will have a chance to look at it and decide how anti war he really was/is.


FAIR has already brought attention to it. It won't be long until it becomes an issue.

of my first views of Clark. He looked quiet and intense. He answered the questions intelligently and explained things clearly. I didn't see him being improper in tone or presentation. That is why he stuck in my mind. He wasn't a cheerleader like some others seemed to be.

More than a few have remembered the coverage as I do. It deserves a closer look at least, right?

I think being a commentator was a bad idea anyway.

Like I said why cheer the rapist on his technique?

Going into reviewing the footage he already has that going against him.

If you're drowning and someone throws you a life ring, you've got no business complaining if it isn't your favorite color. Barring the likes of Coulter, Stalin, bin Laden, or Cuthulu, anyone would be better than Shrub. The finer points of policy can be argued over later when the White House isn't occupied by a madman who is hellbent on creating a global catastrophy.

We have the power to elect a person who can truly lead us to better times. Accept no exceptions.

In times of severe need, idealism must give way to pragmatism.

The only important question to be asked about any candidate is 'can he raise enough money and popular support to defeat Chimpy.' Nothing else matters for the very simple reason that if Chimpy is recrowned, there won't be much of a country left to save in 2008.

We have the power to elect a person who can truly lead us to better times. Accept no exceptions


Hallelujah, brother! Praise the Howard!

He might not have been as radical as some here but he was spot on. I remember thinking the first time I saw him "who is that guy, he's making sense." I was shocked. He's not as far left as I would like BUT he is left enuf and he can get elected.

Unless of course, we destroy him from within.