4/10/03 Clark-authored article praising Bush, war - what gives?

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

Drudge is linking to this.

Is this genuine?

but you have misinterpreted. That being said Clark has not been as consistent as Dean has.

"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."

I don't know. Maybe in the context of the entire article?

Have you read the whole thing?

An example I like to use is another speech by some old American guy

"Four score and seven years ago...shall not perish from this earth."

Doesn't make much sense unless you read the whole thing.

n/t

that manages to sound pro-war but is actually less straightforward on closer inspection. In particular, look at the sentences right after the one you just quoted:

"And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats."

It is important to remember the context of when and where those comments were written. This was at the very height of the "Victory" euphoria sweeping Britain and America after coalition forces took over Baghdad. That was when Bush was pulling in those huge approval numbers.

Clark wasn't swaying in the wind, he was carefully choosing words that would be listened to in the then prevalent political climate. It is much less difficult to be right on an issue, than it is to actually reach out to those who are not predisposed toward your position, in a way that will get them to actually listen to you and take your concerns seriously. That is an essential element of effective politics and leadership. The actual art of persuasion.

I shall repeat an exchange I had over the very same partial quote which you have repeated here:


Fellow DU'ER writes-

Ahem, perhaps this might have been the appropriately emboldened part:

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skilfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced...

That you find this complimentary to your candidate makes me wonder if we are in the same party.
..................................................................................................................................................................................................
cryingshame (1000+ posts)

Why Pull Out That ONE Paragraph? Why Not Comment On Everything Else?

Pulling one thing out of context is called doing a "hatchet job".
But since you saw fit to pull that out... may I highlight one sentence in what you yourself emphasise.

And especially Mr Blair, who skilfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe.

Wesley Clark says, and I will now post even fewer parts of the piece you yourself emphasise:

Mr Blair, who skilfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally...

Wesley Clark has, in essense, called President Bush an almost irrationally resolute ally.

Are you not familiar with the use of BACK HANDED COMPLIMENTS?
.................................................................................................................................................................................

Dean supported Biden Lugar but he didn't.
Dean wanted unilateral action with faith for the president, but Kerry is wrong for that.

Dean was for the $87 and against it all at the same time.

I thought Clark did something like an 80 on the war, not a 180.

"Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered."

"in the face of so much doubt."

We need to look at the complete picture.

But you are just cherry picking quotes.
He goes on to say:

Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

Here is the entire paragraph.

"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered."

Do all of the hermeneutic engagement you want. Clark was writing about how proud the killer B's should be in the face of their doubtful opponents, who questioned the necessity and wisdom of the war.

"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. "
Sorry, but this is damning to me. I don't understand how the Clark people want to spin this, but the quote stands alone, and in the context of the article.

"This is a great day of pride in the American military, a great day for the Iraqis and a great day for the American people. I think President Bush deserves a day of celebration. We have our policy differences, but we won’t be discussing those today." - Howard Dean, 12/15/03.



It IS possible to applaud a military victory while maintaining policy differences, you know.

Posted in wrong thread. Sorry.

I'll read the article later.

...the article is written by Clark himself just last April. Kinda hard to disavow.

And it's old news. He wrote it as a military analysis of the Iraq war. Now you used Drudges headline, but did you read it? BTW, Clark might be running into the Dean problem. He is not anti-war, but anti this war. He wants to fight Al-Queda.

<snip>
The regime seems to have collapsed — the primary military objective — and with that accomplished, the defense ministers and generals, soldiers and airmen should take pride. American and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.

But no one ever won a war or a battle with a plan. Every soldier knows there are only two kinds of plans: plans that might work and plans that won’t work. The art of war is to take a plan that might work and then drive it to success. This, General Tommy Franks and his team did very well indeed.
<snip>

Now the bills must be paid, amid the hostile image created in many areas by the allied action.
<snip>

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.
<snip>

...and not the cherry-picked quotes :hi:

and it is unambiguously positive about the war effort, acknowleges that there was international opposition, and has not a word about Clark's supposed opposition to the war at the time.


Sheesh.

"This is a great day of pride in the American military, a great day for the Iraqis and a great day for the American people. I think President Bush deserves a day of celebration. We have our policy differences, but we won’t be discussing those today." - Howard Dean, 12/15/03.

It IS possible to applaud a military victory while maintaining policy differences, you know.


As Clark wrote in that article:

"But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed."

"None of that is begun." I think it's obvious what Clark thought of the merits of this military campaign.

It also recognizes the reality that we won a military victory, and if a nation has committed its military to a fight, whether or not you agree with said fight, you had better hope you win, period. The fight was already commited to, so a military guy like Clark IS going to praise the manner in which we won.

What is VERY important to this article is Clark's commitment to the enlisted warfighters, his criticism of the HORRIBLE diplomacy and his assertion that the victory was ONLY military.

He also presents a very realistic view of what our display of military might accomplished in the region. Not being experienced in electoral politics prevented him from condemning the entire affair, but rather, like many of us, saw some good and some bad, and refrained from being strident.

I think the article shows why Clark is a good choice for President, but perhaps a lousy choice for the Democratic Primaries.

Let's see, we spend some $350+ billion a year on military, Iraq, MAYBE 1 billion.

Folks declare we won that war like it was a real nail-biter or something. cracks me up.

Julie

We are not likely to lose any wars Militarily, but we certainly seem to lose them once the fighting stops.

If facts are of interest to anyone, I collected many here:
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2004/1/4/183557/8699
a sample:
reveal."


Articles by Clark from 2002 opposing war in Iraq (#24) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/16/2004 09:21:55 AM EST

Reply

s.
1.      Why we should wait before invading Iraq - OpEd by WKC:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htm
"Our strategic priorities need to be kept in order: We can best face a possible fight against Iraq if we have strong allies and a weakened al-Qaeda. While we eventually may have to use force against Iraq, we should use our resolve first to empower diplomacy, with war as the last resort."
 
2.      CLARK: FIGHTING WITH IRAQ COULD BE OVER IN TWO WEEKS; AMERICA CAN'T BE 'NEW ROME' WITH VOLUNTEER ARMY 10/7/02
http://www.digitalnpq.org/global_services/global%20viewpoint/10-07-02.html
"Another danger is that Iraq could become a battleground of fundamentalists. Under Saddam, the fundamentalists have been the enemy in Iraq. If he is replaced, Iraq could become a wide-open target for the fundamentalists from both Iran and Saudi Arabia, both of which would be preaching anti-Western extremism. There is little our American soldiers can do to prevent this -- it will depend on establishing quickly an effective Iraqi government"
 
3.      Julian Borger in Washington and Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday August 21, 2002
The Guardian
"You can get a strategically decisive result without having to use strategically decisive and destructive military power if you bring in the elements of the international law and the full diplomatic weight of the international community," he said."
 
 
4.      Before Iraq: Strengthen allies, weaken al-Qaeda
By Wesley K. Clark 09/09/02
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htm
 
 
5.      NPQ:  Clark:  Fighting with Iraq could be over in Two Weeks; American Can't be "New Rome" with Volunteer Army Nathan Gardals 10/07/02
http://www.digitalnpq.org/global_services/global%20viewpoint/10-07-02.html
" While we must remain strong, and occasionally take actions to anticipate and eliminate immediate threats to us, we must also recognize that our greater security will be achieved not by killing our opponents and destroying their regimes but by supporting our friends and reinforcing those who share our values."
 
 
1.    The Connection w/Dick Gordon 10/10/02
http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2002/10/20021010_b_main.asp
"The general has a question: Where's NATO? In all the debate over Afghanistan and Iraq, in Congress and at the U.N., there's been very little talk about the alliance that was formed to protect and defend the U.S. and its European allies."
 
 
1.    Retired General Reflects on US Policy toward Iraq by Michael McPhee
October 10, 2002
http://www.umb.edu/news/2002news/reporter/november/iraq.html In comparing the two most recent presidencies, Clark described the Clinton administration as pursuing a foreign policy of engagement and reaching out as opposed to the Bush administration's preemption policy and striking out.
Clark, when asked where the push to invade Iraq was coming from, rejected the idea that it was the military that wanted to go to war. He blamed civilian advisors to President Bush who were pushing in that direction.
If not, stick to Drudge. :shrug:

These are extremely helpful in putting the other article in context.

on CSPAN. You'll figure out foreign policy is not a soundbite.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=116622


DU Moderator