Is Saddam's capture a deathblow to Clarks anti-war campaign?

If Clark had his way, Saddam would still be in power. And as we all know, Saddam's capture erases the lies and justification for going to war, or any negative effects the war will have. How does Clark counter this? Isn't it a blow to his credibility? How can Clark claim to be strong on defense if he was against the war, and inevitable capture of the Saddam of Mass Destruction?

did he forget Osama bin laden and Al Qaeda which still operates in Iraq?

This is a great day for the Iraqi people, the US, and the international community.


wasn't he against the war?


Clark will tell the american people that this war was never meant to be fought. wars should not cost 100's of billions of dollars. And Clark saved 1 and a half million people for under 4 billion dollars.

;)

Dean supported a resolution that would have removed Saddam from power.

Therefore we should see a big boost for Dean.

It's not that hard--basic logic, really.

Dean and Clark both criticized Bush for not capturing BOTH Osama and Saddam. Presumably both would agree that the world is safer and better for having captured Saddam, although obviously not safe.

Definitely call me for LSAT help! (If you keep this up, you'll need it)

Clark was against the war, correct?

but would have voted on a resolution to give shrub authorisation after rummy said he knew where 33% of iraq's weapon stocks are..

no WMD, therefore Clark is mighty pissed about abuse of our troups

yesterday.
WTF are you doing? So if Holy Joe doesn't include
Edwards
Braun
Kucinich
Clark
Gep
Kerry
Sharpton

You're gonna drag'em in. WHY DON'T U GO WORK FOR HOLY JOE?

yet, Clark, who is anti-war, get's a pass?

I don't believe the logic, just pointing out that the arguement is bullshit. chill out.

Clark was anti-war. LOL

...Dean went out of his was to characterize himself as the only one who came out from the start against the war, even to the point of being dishonest about some of the other candidates positions, esp. General Clark's. I wonder if now he's going to want some company out there on the anti-war limb he's positioned himself on.

another candidate. You would have done better if you just started a this is a DOOM against the Clark Campaign thread. There are death and destruction threads against Clark as well today.

Don't be so sensitive. It appears that you guys can DISH but you can't TAKE. Toughen up sweetie pie.

kbf was, I think, responding to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=905055

Neither of which is conducive to real debate- but I don't think that's what many supporters of other candidates are looking for today. :-)

was anti-war.

Clark was never branded by the far left as anti-war so the logic doesn't work. If they were going to respond or try to make a point they could have done a better job or found a better source for a point.

was anti-war, so I'm not so sure why you're directing that at me. In fact, while I would vote for him in Nov, one of the problems I have with Clark is his CNN cheerleading of this administration's War for Oil.

I was just pointing out to you that kbf's post was probably a direct response to some jerk supporter of another candidate who couldn't pass up the opportunity to bash one of our candidates. And I don't recall seeing your name on that thread as chiding *that* poster for his thread. :shrug:

Dean brought his back films to his nam exam then went skiing,
Dean has no foreign policy experience, and Dean wants to raise
everyone's taxes.

Clark got shot in Vietnam, Clark has tons of FP XP (and success),
Clark only wants to raise taxes on the rich (those making over
200K/yr).

Yes, Dean was anti-Iraq war...and yes Clark was anti-Iraq war but
Clark makes up for it on background, achievements, putting his life
on the line. Dean has none of that. Sorry, but it's reality.

Why bring a knife to a gun fight? (and yes, Dean is the knife).

Clark brought a criminal to justice, but the spin will be "If Clark had his way, this evil, EEEEEEEEEVIL man would still be in power!"

Like it or not, this is going to be a show-biz election where perception and reality don't often meet.

The word "General" will help deflect a lot of this. Dean will be more easily limned by the likes of Lieberman, Bush, et al.

Dean and Clark have similar positions. It's just that it's easier for Clark to withstand the mudslinging on this issue.

Clark included. There are no WMD's, the attacks on our troops won't stop, and we still haven't found bin Laden. If anything, this will emphasize the fact that Saddam Hussein was a distraction.

An "obsession" is the word Clark has used to describe the whole Sadaam fiasco.

The day is not about OBL it is about Saddam, Dean didn't mention OBL in his statement so does that mean that Dean doesn't care about OBL?

Clark counters this by saying what he always said. Saddy was never a threat. National security is still critical.
Saddy wasn't a terrorist, against us the threat still exists.
Clark is attacking GWB because he isn't attacking the terrorists...OBL.

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As soon as the media is forced to begin reporting the next round of major casualties, we return to the question of why this particular dictator's capture was worth this much continuing cost to us in blood and treasure.

But timing is everything. It seems like sour grapes if any of the candidates say that today. Soon, they will again talk about these things. And we all right to keep asking the same questions we have been asking since the fake phoney lead-up to and war on iraq began.

The same arguments you make could be against Dean.

That never occured to me after wading through dozens of doomsday predictions for Dean's campaign.

You know you aren't supposed to wage a battle of wits with unarmed individuals. :-)

attacking you.

It hurts Dean, at least in the short run.

"The national security issue will be Bush's trump card in the general election. The Dems need a credible voice on national security." That will be the conventional wisdom for the next few weeks.

Dean is the point man of the patrol on the anti-war issue. He's hit. The Saddam capture also douses Gore's endorsement substantially.

Clark anticipated this moment from the beginning (as we all did). We should be thankful this did not happen in October, 2004. Rove ain't happy. The underlying big picture in Iraq is unstable. That is why Bush played it so carefully. He knows he is sitting on a house of cards.

I think Wes Clark has just framed the issue in exactly the right way...once again.

Now the issue becomes...How does the United States deal with the trial of Saddam Hussein?

Do we use the law that is in place to deal with dictators who commit crimes against humanity? and thereby strengthen those institutions?

Or do we take the law into our own hands and try him in secrecy?

Wes Clark's statements focused immediately like a laser on what is now the issue.

.... the premise of this thread has about as much grounding in reality as calling the Department of Defense to ask for a copy of Doctor Dean's military records.

Filed under light powder conditions. Beginner's Trail only.

The war still isn't going so well and they needed a propaganda victory.

supporters use it to Swipe at Clark and the other candidates...

I just wanna get that straight. I don't want there to be any mistakes about where you guys are coming from. I wouldn't wanna think all that ABB bullshit you were spewing after the Gore "nomination of Dean" was just applicable when DEAN WAS RIDIN HIGH!

I'm just one guy.

If this hurts Dean because he was anti-war, doesn't it hurt Clark as well.. since he was, you know, anti-war?

Don't be so sensative.

Clark said he opposed the war because we lacked international support, Saddam was not a threat, and because we didn't do the proper post-war planning. His anti-war stance was fairly well-defined.

...by saying that "only two people vying for the White House can claim to have taken down a dictator and liberated a people from oppression and slaughter and that is me and George Bush, however, in my war, no American soldiers were lost and the war was over in 2-3 mos at a small fraction of the financial cost to the U.S. No other Democrat can go head to head with George Bush on national security the way I can." When Bush is running his ads next year bragging about capturing Saddam, Clark can run his about taking down Slobodan Milosivec and neutralize Bush on his greatest area of strength.

And welcome to DU :hi:

Right on the money in so many ways specific to the General and the bona fides he brings to the poltical battle. Unlike the presumptive, at least at this point, nominee whose own military credibility is, hmmmmm, somewhat lacking shall we say?

... got us Milosevic, saved perhaps 1.5 million people in imminent danger, cost no American lives, and only about $2B (about 1/100th the cost of Bush's mess so far).

Good post, and welcome do DU!

The only thing that matters is what happens now. If the Iraquis throw down their guns and embrace the occuption, it helps Bush. If Bush declares the war over and begins bringing the troops home tomorrow, it helps Bush. If things continue as they are, nothing changes. So we'll just have to wait and see.

Hussein was directing nothing from his hole. No communications equipment was found and no one put up a fight. In fact, the southern Shiites might now be encouraged to join the insurgents, as they won't have as much fear of Saddam returning, should they drive the U.S. out. I don't think there is a head to cut anymore by the U.S. concerning the resistance, making it harder to put down.

You are right. If the fighting dies down, if the Iraqis comply with every demand of the U.S. for a new style of government and society in Iraq, and if the bodybags stop arriving, Bush looks a whole lot better. But if the killing continues until November, Saddam's capture makes very little difference.

One wild card in the whole thing might concern the trial of Saddam Hussein. If he is publicly tried, and if he decides to tell all about his association with Reagan, Rumsfeld, Bush Sr. et al., it could blow up in Bush's face. However, I would expect from this administration a secret trial and the execution of Hussein perhaps just a few weeks from election day. The Bush Administration knows that Saddam is now a political tool for them to use, but may not yet know how to use him.

distraction over the next year from the reality over there. Sort of like the untimate OJ, and that's what I expect. But the truth remains that we went in there for the oil and to establish a base in the region, and that hasn't changed. We'll just have to see if the Saddam show manages to hide the truth. I don't think it will.

Who the HELL knows where you got that impression...

Dean's really the only one who made it his trademark to wear his SUPPOSED oppostion to the Iraq War Resolution on his sleeve.

I say supuposed because he can only CLAIM to have been against voting for it.

He is also the only candidate who has made attacking other candidates about their reaction to the IWR a centerpiece.

But that doesn't stop people from thinking that.

Clark was against the war. Anything that can be used against Dean on this issue can be used against Clark.

HE has attacked every candidate on their positions regarding the IWR.

Dean made the decision to do this... it's his own freaking karma.

And Dean's supporters cheered him EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.

But that's not all his campaign is.

Everyone predicted his support would go away after the statue crumbled. It didn't happen then, and it won't happen this time.

You're too funny, CS.

Cryingshame is right. Clark wasn't against the war. That's pretty clear from his record. He only decided to give that impression once it was so clear that it was so attractive to primary voters and that Dean's posn ion the war was a winning one.

But you knew that.

:evilgrin:

before entering the race and Dean made quite a few inconsistent & inaccurate statements...

but never let Reality get in your way Eloriel.

You mean that Clark really didn't mean what he said in that Salon article in March, 2003:

when he blamed the Bush Administration for not pursuing sanctions more aggressively, particularly Powell's idea of "smart sanctions";

when he said that in all likelihood there would be no beneficial democratic domino effect for the region from a change of government;

when he called the potential occupation of Iraq a "colonial presence";

when he stated the following: "...The most likely outcome is a stuttering instability in the region, intensified repression by some states, marginal moderation in others, and for the region more uncertainty..."

While it's true that in that same article in March, 2003 in Salon, Clark DID say that he knew the people in the Bush administration and that he thought they were basically good people, and he wished them well and wished for success in the actions they were taking, ...he was also blasting their impending ACTIONS concerning the war. A lot of people are hypnotized by these flattering statements Clark made about people he knew during a time when he was in the military and not running for partisan political office. However, they are being dishonest in failing to note the underlying criticism.

What is pretty clear from the "record" is that he was against this war. The quote from his conversation with the reporter cannot be thought of as his record on the issue, while leaving out everything else on, including his testimony before Congress on the matter. If you include everything, not convenient for you i know, you see that he's on "record" as being against the war.

Clark a warmonger.

Everyone here has been so excited that Dean was the Anti-War candidate and Dean himself has attacked everyone on the IWR. Dean has painted his ass into a corner. It's no biggie. It is a non issue. The Dean supporters are making it out to be bigger than it is. You should take your candidate's lead and be happy that he's caught say bring the troops home and let it go.

Yet you are lashing out like a drowning victim. IT looks SAD.

Are you sure he was an anti-war candidate, today?

Clark's statements on the war with Dr. Dean's?

Biden-Lugar, anyone?

Go see Will Pitt for a synopsis.

capture with much more grace... (again according to the pundits) I think it will help Dean in the end however ;)

This is atrocious. The war was wrong and Dean and Clark both knew it. Sadaam was no threat; Bush lies took us there. He is the enemy of our world, not fellow Dems.

Iraq is still a mess. Still a sideshow to the rar on terrorism. Clark still has a plan for Iraq and a plan to get Osama. Try to fixate on someone else, OK. I'm starting to understand your avatar choice here.

I think that the point was that the attack on Dean (from Lieberman) also applies to Clark.

and Clark is my second choice.

I'm not bashing him, it's a reponse to another thread with a similar title.

Note Dennis' rapid about face on the 'leave now' stance he's been pushing.

It does hightlight that there is no need to get a REAL military man in there to 'get things done'.

Death knell ? Probably not, but it will facilitate his current fizzling.