Wes Clark was/is against the war in Iraq?

Hi all,

Is there anything up on the net that proves this? I know that I've read this on the DU, but if I want to back it up in a discussion, I need to point to something. Is his website still up from his Primary run? Did he makes statements on it then?

Sorry for asking...but thanks in advance for any help.

Thanks

Don't get me wrong, I wanted Clark in 04, and his plan doesn't offend me.
But Sweet Jesus, there must be 20 threads a day about democrat X sucks for not supporting immediate withdrawl (Kerry, Lieberman, Warner, etc) and I never read any threads bashing Clark.

FWIW, I am glad there are no Clark bashing threads, I just wish the other dem bashing threads would disappear too.

Wes Clark spoke out against the war from the beginning. He testified in front of the HASC in Sept 2002 against invading Iraq. Full transcript can be found here:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has269000.000/has269000_0f.htm

Richard Perle who also testified that day, in favor of the invasion, summed up his testimony this way:
"(Clark) 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... 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."

In fact, both Senator Kennedy and Senator Wellstone who were wise and/or brave enough to vote against the IWR, cited the General's testimony in explaining their opposition to the invasion.

Wellstone's statement is here: http://www.wellstone.org/archive/article_detail.aspx?itemID=5423&catID=3605

Kennedy's statement (in which he said this regarding Gen Clark "We ignore such wisdom and advice from many of the best of our military at our own peril") is here:
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html
..........

You could find his views on the war in his book Winning Modern Wars, found here:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=ho4GneAASA&isbn=1586482181&TXT=Y&itm=3

This from the NY Times review of the book:

(Clark's) deft review of the battlefield tactics that won Baghdad in less than a month is merely the preface to a bitter, global indictment of George W. Bush. The president and his administration are condemned for recklessly squandering a brilliant military performance on the wrong war at the worst possible time, diverting resources and talent from the pursuit of Al Qaeda, neglecting urgent domestic needs and dissipating the post-9/11 sympathy and support of most of the world. — Max Frankel
............

In a brilliant article by Elizabeth Drew in New York Review of Books, she offers this:

"In a conversation with me, Michael Gordon, the New York Times military reporter, said that he talked to Clark in the months leading up to the war and that "he was consistently skeptical that Iraq presented an urgent threat." And when Clark was working as a nonpartisan CNN analyst, he made it clear privately that he thought the US attack was mistaken. He now calls the administration's deceptive promotion of the war an "outrage.""

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
...........

Gene Lyons had this to say in a Buzzflash interview Oct 2003:

"I do think his concerns are honest. I think his criticisms of Bush are exactly what he believes. One reason that I think that is I have had an opportunity to talk to him in a sort of a semi-private way.

Going all the way back to the summer of 2002, I got a sense of how strong his feelings about Iraq were. Long before it was clear that the administration was really going to sell a war on Iraq, when it was just a kind of a Republican talking point, early in the summer of 2002, Wesley Clark was very strongly opposed to it. He thought it was definitely the wrong move. He conveyed that we'd be opening a Pandora's box that we might never get closed again. And he expressed that feeling to me, in a sort of quasi-public way. It was a Fourth of July party and a lot of journalists were there, and there were people listening to a small group of us talk. There wasn't an audience, there were just several people around. There was no criticism I could make that he didn't sort of see me and raise me in poker terms. Probably because he knew a lot more about it than I did. And his experience is vast, and his concerns were deep.

He was right, too. How long ago was it that you were hearing all this sweeping rhetoric from the Project for a New American Century; that we were going to essentially conquer the south of Asia, contain China, and dominate the Middle East? And the United States was going to stand astride the world like a colossus. And all of a sudden, we invade a crummy, tin-pot, little third-rate dictatorship like Iraq, and we've already got more than we can handle. It's clear we're not going to dominate the world. And the question is, how in the world do we get out of there with our skins intact? And how do we then find a foreign policy that makes more sense?"

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html
.......

And here are some statements he made on CNN during the runup to the war that I don't have links for:

· August 29, 2002: "My perspective would be I'd like to see us slow down the
rush to go after Saddam Hussein unless there's some clear convincing evidence
that we haven't had shared with the public that he's right on the verge of
getting nuclear weapons."

· August 30, 2002: "It seems that this would supercharge the opinion, not
necessarily of the elites in the Arab world, who may bow to the inevitability of
the United States and its power, but the radical groups in the Middle East,
who are looking for reasons and gaining more recruits every time the United
States makes a unilateral move by force. They will gain strength from something
like this. We can well end up in Iraq with thousands of military forces tied
down, and a worse problem in coping with a war on terror here in the United
States or Europe, or elsewhere around the world."

September 16, 2002: Regarding possible Congressional authorization to use
force in Iraq, Clark said, "Don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are
authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations
are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United
States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation?"

September 23, 2002: "When you're talking about American men and women going
and facing the risk we've been talking about this afternoon... you want to be
sure that you're using force and expending American blood and lives in treasure
as the ultimate last
resort. Not because of a sense of impatience with the arcane ways of
international institutions."

September 25, 2002: "If we go in there, this government will be displaced,
and there will be a new government put in place. But what about the humanitarian
issues? What about the economic development? What about the energy? What
about the opening of commerce? What about tariffs? What about taxes? What about
police? What about public order? All those issues, we should be working on now,
because they will help us do a better job of reducing the adverse, potentially
adverse, impact of the war on terror if we have to do what we might have to
do?"
..........

Then there's this interview he gave salon.com in March 2003...This was the interview that introduced me to Gen Clark and made me start thinking about wanting him to run for President:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/index.html?x
........


Now that we're there, he does think that we have to do everything we can to leave with the least possible damage done to Iraq, the region and the rest of the world, but he's never stopped being critical of this Administration. He's for disavowing building permanent bases in Iraq and for an event driven withdrawal of troops, not a timetable for withdrawal.
........

There's this from October 04, 2003:

Wesley Clark Calls for Criminal Investigation of Bush Iraq policy

Presidential hopeful Gen. Wesley Clark said Friday he believes the Bush administration should be investigated for possible criminal wrongdoing in the case it made to the American people that Iraq was an immediate threat, according to the Telegraph. He said an independent counsel should look into the possible manipulation of intelligence. The pre-released text of his speech said, "Nothing could be a more serious violation of public trust than consciously to make a case for war based on false claims. We need to know if we were intentionally deceived. This administration is trying to do something that ought to be politically impossible to do in a democracy, and that is to govern against the will of the majority. That requires twisted facts, silence, secrecy and very poor lighting."

(snip)

Opinion polls show that most Americans already believe that an Indpendent Counsel should be appointed to investigate the White House's leak that the wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson is a CIA undercover operative, which damaged US national security. Perhaps Clark is right that the mandate of the Special Prosecutor should be widened to warmongering fraud

http://www.juancole.com/2003/10/wesley-clark-calls-for-criminal.html
......

He testified again befor ethe HARC with Richard Perle in April of this year and that committee was singing a different tune then.

Audio of the hearing is here:
http://hasc3.house.gov/04-06-05FullComm.asf

A wonderful article about the hearing is here:
http://securingamerica.com/articles/washingtonpost/2005-04-07
..........

And I like this account from Steve Audio at http://steveaudio.blogspot.com/ after he heard Gen Clark speak in Oct:

"He also talked about an Exit Strategy for Iraq, and this troubled me, because he didn't say exactly what I wanted to hear. He said that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, something most Democrats always believed (sorry Peter Beinert, you're just wrong.) That was an idea we all could agree with.

But then he said that we also couldn't leave, and that a timetable was a strategy for failure. He said the withdrawal had to be Event Driven (again, his phrase), and that only upon certain conditions, like a truly self-sufficient Iraqi military, with some hope of maintaining a balance of power between Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds, could we ever start to leave with some certainty that civil war wouldn't erupt.

This bothered me. I wanted instant gratification, an easy way out. I wanted to believe that no more American soldiers or Iraqi civilians would die. I also wanted to believe that we wouldn't watch the Oil Ministry be saved while the Electricity grid was destroyed. And I wanted to believe that the Bush administration wouldn't lie so brazenly about Iraq.

I knew they were lying, I knew the Oil Ministry was the most important target, and I knew General Clark was right.

Time to join the world, time to grow up."
..........

Here are a bunch of articles written by Wes that give some idea of his feelings about the War:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.clark.html
http://securingamerica.com/articles/baltsun/2005-04-13
http://securingamerica.com/articles/washingtonmonthly/2005-05
http://securingamerica.com/articles/wapo/2005-08-26
.............

And here you can find some info on his archived campaign site:
http://www.clark04.com/index.html
This one's his Iraq strategy - http://www.clark04.com/issues/iraqstrategy/
.............

Hopefully, that's enough for you to start with...There's more but I fear this response is already overwhelming.

One more thing, do sign Wes' petition to demand that the Congress demand accountability from the Administration for this mess:
http://www.dccc.org/get_involved/petitions/clarkiraq/index.pl

Thanks! :hi:

98% right thus far.....

I ain't about to doubt him now, that's for damn sure!

"My views on Iraq were very clear. You've heard them expressed on this show many times, Judy. And you yourself know very well how I felt about Iraq. That's the reason I was attacked all through the war by guys like Dick Cheney for being an armchair general, because they knew I was against what they were doing. And they were right. And now we see why everybody should have been against it.
1. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/12/ip.00.html




"There was a hunger in some quarters to go after this fight. It was as though using force was a reward in itself, that, by putting our forces in there and showing our power, we would somehow solve our problems in the international environment. And I think the opposite is the truth. I think you should use force only as a last resort." Wes Clark
http://www.studioglyphic.com/mt/archives/2003/07/general_wesley_1.html






Saturday, October 04, 2003
Wesley Clark Calls for Criminal Investigation of Bush Iraq policy




Clark Says Congress Should Determine Whether Bush's War Decisions Criminal
17-Jan-04
Wesley Clark
AP: "Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark said Thursday it was up to Congress to determine whether President Bush's march to war in Iraq amounted to a criminal offense. Asked if misleading the nation in going to war would be criminal, Clark told reporters, 'I think that's a question Congress needs to ask. I think this Congress needs to investigate precisely' how the United States wound up in a war 'that wasn't connected to the threat of al-Qaida.'"
http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Wesley%20Clark





----
And to this day.....

CLASH OF TITANS DEBATE 2005-
Clark said that joint staff officers told him 10 days after 9/11 that the Bush administration was planning to invade Iraq.

“I said, ‘But why?’ They said, ‘Well, um, we don’t know, but if the only tool you’ve got is a hammer, then every problem has to look like a nail,’” said Clark. “And they proceeded to explain that the administration really didn’t know what to do about the War on Terror, but did want to take apart a regime to show that we were powerful …”

When several audience members cried out, Clark also generated some applause after yelling “Stand up and say it! Let’s hear it! And lets hear you explain it and justify it to the families of those who have suffered the loss!”

On Prisoner Abuse.....Clark jumped in, and the issue escalated. Clark took issue with what he said were memos that came from the White House that basically said that the Geneva Convention didn’t apply.

Clark told his fellow officer that the military that he served in for 34 years “didn’t torture people. It didn’t abuse them. It didn’t punch out prisoners when it captured them.” Clark blamed the guidance from the top for undercutting the armed forces’ training.

“We never had the investigation, but I’ll tell you what, if you believe everything that has happened at Abu Ghraib, and at Guantanamo, and the rest of it, is the responsibility of a colonel or a corporal or a couple of sergeant’s somewhere,” said Clark, “then I’ve got a bridge or two I’d like you to buy!”
http://www.regent.edu/news/clash_titans_debate05.html

Also see....his call on investigation of prisoner abuse!
http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=node/184

AND YESTERDAY IN THE VILLAGE VOICE.....


Please, go to the link at my sig and Sign the petition.....to hold the majority Republican congress accountable. We must pressure them to support an investigation on how we got into this war.

Divided we Fall....again.

Some have wanted to say that Clark was "for" the war....or at least that he said he would have voted for the resolution.

But this is the story here on that....

Wes Clark supported the Levin amendment, not the Lieberman "blank Check" amendment that John Edwards Co-Sponsored. The Levin and the Biden/Lugar and the Lieberman amendments were all still being debated on October 9, 2002....when Clark said he would have voted for "a" Resolution...

What Clark was saying 2 days before the IWR VOTE:

USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002, in which Clark wrote:
Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them.

Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem.
http://www.p-fritz.net/p/irc.html

What Clark was saying 1 day before the IWR VOTE:
Clark's op ed on September 10, 2002....One day before the IWR Vote:
In his Op-Ed dated October 10, 2002, "Let's Wait to Attack." Clark states:
In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months.
....there is still time for dialogue before we act.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

What Clark actually said in reference to "a" Resolution on 10/09/02:
http://premium1.fosters.com/2002/election%5F2002/oct/09/us%5F2cong%5F1009a.asp
"Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports A congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war. Clark, who led the allied NATO forces in the Kosovo conflict, endorsed Democrat Katrina Swett in the 2nd District race.?

He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for a resolution, but only after vigorous debate... The general said he had doubt Iraq posed a threat, and questioned whether it was immediate and said the debate about a response has been conducted backward.

Note that it is the Associated Press who claims Clark supports a resolution that would give Bush authority to use military force, whereas Clark's own words indicate he would only support "A" (key word!) resolution "after vigorous debate." Surely that can be interpreted to mean vigorous debate that would result in changes (otherwise, why debate?) --meaning he did not support the resolution "as was." Considering he had previously testified to the Armed Services Committee that the resolution need not authorize force, we can guess what he might have felt one of those changes should be.
--------
What Clark said on 9/26/02 in his testimony to congress....
Sept. 26, 2002
CLARK: Since then, we've encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait. We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an army of God, the mujahaddin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these Holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed Al Qaida.

My French friends constantly remind me that these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy, which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing.
There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must.
snip

Well, if I could answer and talk about why time is on our side in the near term, first because we have the preponderance of force in this region. There's no question what the outcome of a conflict would be. Saddam Hussein so far as we know does not have nuclear weapons. Even if there was a catastrophic breakdown in the sanctions regime and somehow he got nuclear materials right now, he wouldn't have nuclear weapons in any zable quantity for, at best, a year, maybe two years.

So, we have the time to build up the force, work the diplomacy, achieve the leverage before he can come up with any military alternative that's significant enough ultimately to block us, and so that's why I say time is on our side in the near term. In the long term, no, and we don't know what the long term is. Maybe it's five years. Maybe it's four years. Maybe it's eight years. We don't know.

I would say it would depend on whether we've exhausted all other possibilities and it's difficult. I don't want to draw a line and say, you know, this kind of inspection, if it's 100 inspectors that's enough. I think we've got to have done everything we can do given the time that's available to us before we ask the men and women in uniform, whom you know so well (inaudible).

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/clark.perle.testimony.pdf


-----------

PROOF HERE THAT THE DEBATE WAS STILL GOING ON ON OCTOBER 9, 2002, AND AMENDMENTS WERE STILL BEING VOTED ON:
http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102
EPIC ACTION ALERT- 10/9/02
Don't Let Congress Ratify Bush's Preemption Doctrine

URGENT ACTION ALERT!

Call NOW to stop the President from getting a blank check from Congress and ensure a second vote by Congress before the President can launch a war on Iraq. For the House, urge your Representative to support the Spratt and Lee Amendments. In addition, encourage them to support a “motion to recommit” (see below for more information).

Implore your Senators to support the Levin Amendment. Finally, if the amendments and motion to recommit fail, urge your Representative and Senators to vote against final passage of the President's War Resolution. You can reach your Representative and Senators via the Congressional switchboard at 202-225-3121 or 202-224-3121 or call toll-free 800-839-5276.

Contact Members of Congress at www.congress.org