Which Side Is Clark On?

comment | Posted September 25, 2003

Which Side Is Clark On?
by John Nichols

The media shorthand for retired Gen. Wesley Clark's much-anticipated presidential candidacy made him the "antiwar warrior," a military man fully aware of the folly of George Bush's Iraq war. But Clark rewrote the shorthand in the first hours of his campaign with a series of pronouncements that suggested he had completely misread the grassroots enthusiasm for his candidacy. Asked whether he would have voted for the October 2002 Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, Clark replied, "At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question." It certainly wasn't a simple question for Clark. A day later, he was still struggling with it, telling a reporter in Iowa, "Let's make one thing real clear--I would never have voted for this war, never." He then proceeded to say, "I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein." So, while Clark would never have voted for war, he would have voted for the resolution Bush used as his authorization to launch the war. For good measure, Clark explained that he had "a very consistent record on this."


http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031013&s=nichols

Hmmmm...let's read that quote again:

"Let's make one thing real clear--I would never have voted for this war, never." He then proceeded to say, "I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein."

Now let's look at Wesley's own words. In an interview on MTP, 6/15/03, prior to his announcement to run for President Wes said:

(snip)

MR. RUSSERT: Can we have true security in Iraq as long as Saddam Hussein stays unknown?

GEN. CLARK: No. No. I was one of those before the war who said, “Don’t focus on Saddam Hussein. Go in there, take over the government and you’ll take care of things.” About halfway through when I saw the strength of the Fedayeen, then I realized that this was personal, and if we didn’t focus on Saddam Hussein, we didn’t eliminate the head of the government, that we wouldn’t create the sense of security that’s necessary to move ahead. So I think getting Saddam Hussein is very important.

Geez...contradict much?

:yourock:

Clark is on Clark's side.

for America nd the world. That's the reason Clark chose to run. In his view, Dean did not have what it would take to get Bush out of the White House.

I know Dean has made much of not voting for the resolution for war. But he also didn't vote against it because he was Governor. So I'm curious, what did Dean say when people were voting for the resolution? Did he make any strong statements against the war when it was unpopular to do so? This isn't rhetorical, I really would like to track down some quotes, since I always hear he took this firm stand, but I've never actually heard what it is he said back when we were building for War. I know that Clark spoke up and was very critical as a CNN analyst before anyone else did, and was wondering if Dean did, too, or if he's just using the fact that he wasn't in Congress to make it appear he did.

"Defending American Values - Protecting America's Interests"
Foreign Policy Address
Drake University
February 17, 2003

(snip)

The Bush Administration's policies at home and abroad are reckless and just plain wrong.

We can do better.

But better stewardship at home is not the only reason I am running for President. There is a second reason, and that is what I wanted to talk to you about today.

Our country needs to have national security policies that protect the interests of the American people. To do that, those policies must keep us safe and well defended against the myriad threats we face. But they cannot succeed unless they also reflect the kind of people we are, the values we share, the hopes we have, and the ideals that hold us together as a nation.

I am worried that many of the policies the Bush Administration is pursuing today do not provide the best means of defending our interests, and do not reflect the fundamental values of our people.

In saying this, I am respectful of the pressures our leaders face. Safeguarding our national security in this era is a very complex challenge, to which there are no easy answers. The President deserves praise for rallying the spirits of our people after September 11 and for some of the measures he and others in his Administration have taken since. I know they are sincere, and that they want what is best for our country and the world.

But I would not be doing my job as a citizen if I did not state my own conviction about where I believe we could do better.

The stakes are so high, this is not a time for holding back or sheepishly going along with the herd.

I believe that the President too often employs a reckless, go-it-alone approach that drives us away from some of our longest-standing and most important allies, when what we need is to pull the world community together in common action against the imminent threat of terrorism.

I believe that the President undercuts our long-term national security interests and the established international order when he seeks to replace decades of bipartisan consensus on the use of American force with a new doctrine justifying preemptive attacks against other nation states - not because of their current action or imminent threat, but to preempt a threat that could arise in the future.

I believe that the President must do more on the most important front in the war on terrorism - our home front - through strengthened and well-funded first responders and effective security measures that go beyond calls to purchase plastic sheeting and duct tape.

And I firmly believe that the President is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time, when our energy and our resources should be marshaled for the greatest threats we face. Yes, Saddam Hussein is evil. But Osama bin Laden is also evil, and he has attacked the United States, and he is preparing now to attack us again.

What happened to the war against al Qaeda?

Why has this Administration taken us so far off track?

I believe it is my patriotic duty to urge a different path to protecting America's security: To focus on al Qaeda, which is an imminent threat, and to use our resources to improve and strengthen the security and safety of our home front and our people while working with the other nations of the world to contain Saddam Hussein.

Had I been a member of the Senate, I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the President to use unilateral force against Iraq - unlike others in that body now seeking the presidency.

I do not believe the President should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict without the case having first been made to Congress and the American people for why this war is necessary, and without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations.

That the President was given open-ended authority to go to war in Iraq resulted from a failure of too many in my party in Washington who were worried about political positioning for the presidential election.

To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests.

Nor has the Administration prepared sufficiently for the possible retaliatory attacks on our home front that even the President's CIA Director has stated are likely to occur. It has always been important, before going to war, for our troops to be well-trained, well-equipped, and well-protected. In this new era, it is as important that our people on the home front also be well-protected.

The Administration has not explained how a lasting peace, and lasting security, will be achieved in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is toppled.

And the Administration has approached the United Nations more as an afterthought than as the international institution created to deal with precisely such a situation as we face in Iraq. From the outset, the Administration has seemed oblivious to the simple fact that it clearly would be in our interests for any war with Iraq to occur with UN authorization and cooperation and not without it.

The Administration's reckless bluster with our allies over Iraq has caused what could be lasting friction in important relationships and has injured our standing in the world community. When rhetoric by subordinates in the Administration alienates our long-standing allies, it should be met with reprimand and not condoned by the President.

I agree with President Bush - he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is.

He is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver.

He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War.

He has murdered dissidents, and refused to comply with his obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions.

And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb.

Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country.

So I want to be clear.

Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given.

The questions are: how - when - under what circumstances - and by whom he is to be disarmed.

The Administration thinks the right answers to those questions are war, now, regardless of the circumstances, and with most if not all the fighting done by Americans.

I, for one, am not ready to abandon the search for better answers.

(more)

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5606&JServSessionIdr006=n1631feqr1.app196a&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1321

thats why, to the media he is an ultraliberal, antiwar mcGovern clone.

LOL! :P

...Clark is all things to all people. He'll get Republicans to vote for him because they'll be reassured by his support of Saint Reagan. He'll get Democrats to vote for him because, um, because his official policy papers were written by Democratic advisors. He'll get Southerners to vote for him because he's from the South. Northerners will vote for him because they won't have any other choice. Oh, and don't forget, he's a general. Now if they can just get him a role in an action film before the elections, every vote will be belonging to him.

a very good analysis! this is why he can win...and FYI he's already starred in an action role...his whole life

.

for the complement!!!:loveya:

to see a safer, better America that is engaged with other countries, not giving mandates to them, to try and bring positive change to the world?

I Sure hope so, and would it not be nice to see everyone like this?

a lot to work on as far my leadership abilities are concerned. :-)

Zzzzzzzz.

is what this looks like. Posting articles from September and that Nation hit piece.

I've got an idea. If you live in a primary state, vote and campaign for your guy.

is a highly respected progressive journalist who writes for one of the most prestigious progressive publications. But hey, if it isn't your frame of reference...

I suppose is that my frame of reference is not liberal enough for your liking. I love the smell of purity in the morning.

I have no problem with Nichols, per se, it's just that this question has been hashed and re-hashed. The point of the origional post is for retribution for negative Dean posts, not to open up a disscussion of Clark's Iraq stance. It's very clear what his stance is now.

The fact is that Clark is pro war. Always has been, always will be. Just like his neocon buddies.

a bit of an opportunist IMO.

Clark was very critical of the Iraq War, just as much if not more so than Dean. Anyone who saw Clark as a CNN analyst has no question about this. If you don't want Clark as the nominee, fine, but don't go around making stuff up. He said we'd be caught up in exactly the quagmaire we've found ourselves in. It was his problems with the war more than anything that motivated him to get into this race.

Clark had strategic problems with the way Bush was approaching it, but when all was said and down his on record with his congrats to Bush and Blair. Clark never really addressed the validity of the entire enterprise and it has subsequently been revealed that he would've voted to support Bush--no matter how much he tries to deny it now. You may dismiss it as old news, or avoid it, or deny it, or mock unconsciousness about it or sleep through it--anything that works to avoid it, but it doesn't make the reality go away....unless you want to be the kind of citizen that constantly makes excuses for, or rationalizes lies for, or refuses to believe the flaws in your political saviors.

that just won't fade into the horizon, goshdarnit.

when there aren't 10 anti-Dean threads 24/7 started by somebody from the Clark camp . Both sides do it. Give me a break. :eyes:

Dean keeps getting busted for doing the same things he and some of his supporters accuse Bush of, so all Dean supporters can do is pull out old (sometimes really old) pieces on Clark that have already been posted on DU and discussed over and over.

Desperate.
Sad.

Really kind of embarassing for other Dean supporters.



Howard Dean suffers from the mysterious affliction
of foot in mouth disease...

Your post is very old and deals with the gaffe Clark made on one of his first interviews upon entering the race. This is old news.

The 2nd quote - he's referring to going into Afghanistan.

As opposed to hypotheticals, however, and post-war quotes, Dean actually supported a pre-war Iraq War Resolution that would give the decision for war TOTALLY IN GEORGE BUSH'S HANDS. Hmmmm. Contradiction there to his now famous claim that he was totally against the IW from the start of the discussions?

But we don't want to get into attacking, do we? For the most part, the General avoids that.

As well as his letter to Jim Jeffords requesting his aid in blocking overtime pay.

Weren't we condemning a republican plan to do that same thing a few months back?

MR. RUSSERT: Can we have true security in Iraq as long as Saddam Hussein stays unknown?

GEN. CLARK: No. No. I was one of those before the war who said, “Don’t focus on Saddam Hussein. Go in there, take over the government and you’ll take care of things.” About halfway through when I saw the strength of the Fedayeen, then I realized that this was personal, and if we didn’t focus on Saddam Hussein, we didn’t eliminate the head of the government, that we wouldn’t create the sense of security that’s necessary to move ahead. So I think getting Saddam Hussein is very important.


I see nothing there about Afghanistan. He is talking about Iraq.

...and keeps getting busted for doing the same things he and some of his supporters accuse Bush of, all Dean supporters can do is pull out old (sometimes really old) pieces on Clark that have already been posted on DU and discussed over and over.

Desperate.
Sad.

Really kind of embarassing for other Dean supporters.



Howard Dean suffers from the mysterious affliction
of foot in mouth disease...

Really kind of embarassing for all Americans.

Really kind of offensive to African Americans and REAL religious people.

"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."

"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

"I would have been a Republican,if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls."

Poor Wesley. The repubs dissed him. And he could have been Cheney's replacement...

Joe Lieberman's got nothin' on Wesley.

Former governor Philip H. Hoff served three terms in the 1960s, and is regarded as the grand old man of liberal Democratic politics here. His support for Dean comes leavened with skepticism... "As governor, he fell under the sway of business interests." Hoff said.

For Vermonters who have seen Howard Dean up close and personal for the last eleven years as our governor, there's something darkly comical about watching the national media refer to him as the "liberal" in the race for the Democratic nomination for president. With few exceptions in the 11-plus years he held the state's top job, Dean was a conservative Democrat at best. And many in Vermont, particularly environmentalists, see Dean as just another Republican in Democrat's clothing.

Dean became Vermont's accidental governor in 1991 after Governor Richard Snelling died of a heart attack while swimming in his pool. Dean, the lieutenant governor at the time, took the state's political reins and immediately followed through with his promise not to offend the Snelling Republicans who occupied the executive branch. And Dean carried on with his right-leaning centrism for the next eleven, long years.

When you come up with a video of Dean speaking at republican fundraisers, praising the * team, let me know.

When you come up with a quote from Dean referring to Wolfowitz, Pearle, Feith, and the other neocons as "colleauges" that he'd work with again, let me know.

Until then, I know who is a Democrat and who isn't.

nice sfecap!

Dean - who walks, talks, and governs like a republican.

Dean, who wanted Vermont to rival Bermuda for corporate tax shelters.

Dean, who decried campaigns run on god, guns, and gays - then suddenly found god.

Dean, who criticized Cheney's secret energy meetings but has those of his own.

Dean, who sealed some of his governor's records for an unprecidented 10 years.

Dean, who critizied Bush's tax breaks, but gave Vermont corporations much the same type of tax breaks.

Dean, rated A+ by the NRA

Dean, who approved sending nuclear waste to a poor hispanic town

Dean, seen by Vermont environmentalists as just another Republican in Democrat's clothing.

Dean, who promised not to offend the Snelling Republicans who occupied the executive branch in Vermont.

If you removed the name "Howard Dean" from that list, you'd swear the man was a Republican.

Recipe for Clark detractors:

Take one old article that has already been posted and debunked countless times.

Add a cup of smugness and self righteousness to it.

Post it again and hope a bunch of newbies see it before someone who knows better comes along and debunks it again, thereby embarassing Clark detractor.

Rove's so proud he has a tear in his eye.

wow
i'm sure we havent discussed this one before
and i've never heard the candidate himself stomp this issue at any of the debates
gosh. i guess i should consider switching.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

When it's your candidate who is contradicting himself.

The truth sucks, huh?

of course there IS no explaining this, its as defensable as his conversion to the left side of the political world.

Funny how the faithful can just make themselves blind to unpleasant aspects of their chosen.

direct quote of Clark saying he would have voted for the resolution. Nickols' problem is that he quoted the article, not Clark.

The issue is not with Nickols piece, it is with the original interview that Nickols is quoting. The reporter there did not accurately give Clark's statement. His misrepresentation was a very LIBERAL cut and past were Clark was going through the different sides of the problem. He would have wanted to give leverage to the President, but not a blank check. He did not think that Saddam was a problem that needed to be dealt with at that time. We was contained and not an immanent threat.

Clark has always thought that the real target was and continues to be Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network.

The biggest problem with Nickols article is that once again a negative spin on a Democrat is take whole hog as an issue, without question as to the source. The press as a whole becomes the tool of the right when this happens. It happens to Clark, Dean, every other candidate, and every issue that the right wants to address.

and desperate. Yes, the truth does hurt.

"If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

(Feb. 2003)

- Howard Dean



Only One who opposed the war?
looks like he actually helped it!!
what a flip flopper
at least Clark knows that force is only used as a last resort

campaign IF he gets the nomination. I live in Nevada and I am going to help out in New Hampshire because I feel that strongly about Clark. I also feel that strongly about ABB, but it will take alot for me to campaign and work for a Dean candidacy in the GE if I have to put up with some of the less intelligent people that are his advocates. ANY Dem candidate needs all the help they will be able to get to beat * and the post's here should reflect that sentiment, that does not preclude posting positive articles about your candidate but why does it have to always include something old and negative on the other candidates. This only helps *

and the U.N. refused to act on that information in 30 to 60 days. They never proved that there were any WMDs or that Iraq was a threat to the U.S.

I think it is pretty clear, at least in my mind that Clark was rooting for the Iraq war up until the time when things went sour. I seem to recall that his only criticisms during the period that he was an analyst for CNN were that he might do things differently. The Nation is a pretty good left wing source, but we need to dig deeper still to find out more about Clark, how he just materializes as a Democrat with such a long history of voting for Republicans and commending them. I think he is a neocon trying to put on a good show as a Democrat.

The record shows Dean thought Saddam had WMDs and supported taking him out...

"I don't want Saddam to stay in power with control over those weapons of mass destruction. I want him to be disarmed."

"Every day that goes by, we destroy more of Saddam's weapons or the inspectors do."

"I think Iraq is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons." link

Russert: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if (Saddam) didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president.

* Pro-Choice
* Pro-Affirmative Action
* Pro-Health Care
* Pro-Gay Rights/Civil Unions
* Pro-Gun Control
* Pro-Environmental Standards
* Pro-Renewable Energy
* Pro-Education
* Supports a Progressive Income Tax
* Opposes the arrests and raids of medical MARIJUANA users

obviously he's the enemy. lol

Why would someone who is pro-choice, respects the environment, homosexuals, et cetera, vote for Reagan? I don't get it.

Straight Dem in 2002 - and work for dem candidates in 2002.

Michael Moore on Wesley Clark

http://www.liberalresurgent.com/mooreclark.mp3

Really puts the whiney far "professional" left in their place.

Come'on. This guy has degrees in economics, philosophy, and political science.

What sent him over to the Democratic side? Welfare deform? The WTO?

MANY MANY educated dems voted Reagan.

Do you not want their votes in 2004?

(hint: without them, we lose.)

The Gore + Nader voters beat Bush by a few million. I'm worried about turning out *Democrats*. If we could have gotten 50,000 Democrats off their asses in 2002, we'd have the Senate today.

We don't need to turn the party over to the pentagon to win elections.

... we do not have the numbers in 2004 to defeat Bush without attracting swing voters, independent voters, and especially "Reagan democrats."

To think otherwise is self deception.

You believe we can win be being more conservative. I believe it is a matter of mobilizing voters, raising money, doing the footwork -- y'know, the meat'and'potatoes Chicago-style stuff we've been doing here for decades. The Democrats own fucking Illinois; I'd like to see them own the country.

In my experience -- we ran a pro-life conservative downstate Democrat in 1998 -- Glenn Poshard, for the Governorship and got our asses kicked bad by a corrupt Republican. In 2002, Dick Durbin, in contrast, a liberal Democrat who opposed the war, won decisively for the Senate. Blagojevich also ran a tough, liberal campaign against the Republican incumbent and we spanked him out with authority.

I'm sick of the Bushlite strategy where we lube up like Daschle; we've been doing it for a decade nationally and have nothing to show for it. At least during the Mondale and McGovern years we had both houses of congress.

I never said win be being more conservative.

I said we can't win with the numbers we have now.

By your equation, we have to have every vote we got in 2000.

Presently, we don't have those in our corner.

Much of it is name recognition. Gore was down 10-15 pts at this time and did quite well once the general election picked up.

If you are really concerned about Reagan Democrats, support Lieberman or Gephardt, who campaign closer to them ideologically.

Check the polls yourself.

As for your Gore reference, surely you're not basing your argument on "what ifs" and what was.

I'm concerned with not alienating democratic voters or those who would vote democratic.

My emphasis is on turnout and money. Clark, with public financing, won't even have the cash to defend himself. The active approach of Dean has destroyed seasoned political pros like Kerry and Gephardt. One can't be passive and always react to the polls; if we did that, we'd still be an asterisk instead of the frontrunner. In addition, historical trends and events are relevant.

I believe we have a difference conceptually about how to win campaigns. My approach works in Illinois, it is working with Dean, and is the approach I want in the general election.

We do not have the numbers to defeat Bush now - this moment - if we only rely on far left dems (who may or may not vote for the dem candidate) and greens ((who may or may not vote for the dem candidate)

clark gives either side a chance to do the right thing. he's fair like that...
(or at least he used to be)
but, he doesnt want to see america fail.

"But I do know Colin Powell and Paul O’Neill and Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. I wished them well. I wish they could have led this country well. I don’t want to see America fail."

his choice came about after a thorough review of his beliefs and values. He then aligned himself with the party that matched those.

people change. Al Gore used to be anti-choice as did DK.
In fact Al Gore, in 1988 ran as a war hawk...that's why I didn't vote for him. He was called a Scoop Jackson Democrat.

sfecap's back with his file of old, discredited Clark-bashing articles, just in case anybody forgot to bookmark them last time.

:eyes:

Here's one more bookmark for ya... http://www.clarkmyths.com/

but, alas, I'm not a mod or an admin and don't make those decisions.

But if it walks and talks like intentional flamebaiting...

You'll note most of the posts are from Dean supporters saying YEAH! WHAT HE SAID!

Let them have their fun, these old discredited articles are all they've got, and jumping into the pile-on makes them feel better about it, I guess. :shrug:

misrepresent and cycle an attack against another candidate FOREVER.

This is Fair and Balanced :eyes:

The truth, even scarier.

Ths truth about the twisting are much much scarier

RW sources, outrageous theories...It's for the greater good...

now I'm back with my origional choice John Kerry. That's for today, anyway.Who knows what tomorrow brings?

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.


Not only is this flamebait, it is old flamebait.


DU Moderator