Clark Says He "Probably" Would Have Backed War

It's only a matter of time before Howard Dean belittles Clark's military accomplishments, in a similar manner as he did to those of John Kerry.

 

Cool, T_J is already standing up for Clark. Things are looking up. We can all pull together and build a better tomorrow.

 

He is??
Well, it happened. Hell has frozen over.

 

Billie-Bob, I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion. Clark still has a lot of answers to provide voters on his involvement in the following:

1. The Meet the Press lying incident
2. The Russian provocation fiasco
3. Some very questionable/unethical decisions made while leading NATO
4. WACO
5. Selling out to investment banking instead of spending his time on more community-focused endeavors
6. His violent temper
7. How his Jewish ancestry will affect his policy-making in the Middle East peace efforts
8. His private dealings with Hillary Clinton

 

Mmmmm. Private dealings with Hillary Clinton! Mmmmmm. Who can blame the general?

 

I personally have nothing against the Jews at all. I would have no problem electing a Jewish president. However, this will not go over well *at all* in the Middle East. They will hear that he has Jewish ancestors, and it will be over for him. They will not dig deeper to find out more about him, but will stick to the fact that he has Jewish ancestors. This would not be a move in the right direction for American relations over there.

 

this is the best you can do?

hey i dont claim the man is perfect by any stretch, no one is

but you are grasping at straws in this list..

im am positive he has to clearify and deal with much more important and relevant issues than this list

 

So now "the arabs" will help us elect our president? In a tragedy of mis-translation and misunderstanding, we may end up with Ali G. ...

 

I'm still on the fence about Clark, but "probably" backing a war isn't good enough for me. Either you do or you don't.

If he does, he may very well have lost my support.

 

This confirms my earlier theory. Clark is a war-mongering neo-con who fashions himself in the Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld mold

TJ, does this mean that you would consider backing him instead of Bush.

Sounds like your type of guy.

Clark's stemements about the war defintely make me less likely to back him. I'm not going to vote for him. He would be ok for VP. After all Lieberman is a big middle east war guy and he really didn't hurt Gore.
*********
Another Clark pro-war article.

Anti-War Candidate?
What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory
by General Wesley Clark

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.



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

Gen. Wesley Clark
In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people.

Still, the immediate tasks at hand in Iraq cannot obscure the significance of the moment. 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.

Also See:
Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate? Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "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.

Everyone who has ever served knows that battles are won at the bottom — by the men and women looking through the sights, pulling the triggers, loading the cannon and fixing the planes. The generals can lose battles, and they can set the conditions for success — but they can’t win. That’s done by the troops alone. And nothing could have been more revealing than those armored fights in which a handful of US tanks wiped out a score of opposing Iraqi armored vehicles, again and again, and usually without suffering any losses, while in the south, the British troops worked their way through the suburbs of Basra with skills born of sound training and firm discipline, minimizing friendly casualties, civilian losses and destruction.

It’s to the men and women who fought it out on the arid highways, teeming city streets and crowded skies that we owe the greatest gratitude. All volunteers, they risked their lives as free men and women, because they believed in their countries and answered their calls. They left families and friends behind for a mission uncertain. They didn’t do it for the glory or the pittance of combat pay. Sadly, some won’t return — and they, most of all, need to be honored and remembered.

As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.

Now the bills must be paid, amid the hostile image created in many areas by the allied action. Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come — effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns. Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights.

Germany has already swung round from opposition to the war to approval. France will look for a way to bridge the chasm of understanding that has ripped at the EU. Russia will have to craft a new way forward, detouring away, at least temporarily, from the reflexive anti-Americanism which infects the power ministries. And North Korea will shudder, for it has seen on display an even more awesome display of power than it anticipated, and yet it will remain resolute in seeking leverage to assure its own regime’s survival. And what it produces, it sells.

The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West.

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.

And there will be more jostling over the substance and timing of new peace initiatives for Israel and the Palestinians. Whatever the brief prewar announcement about the “road map”, this issue is far from settled in Washington, and is unlikely to achieve any real momentum until the threats to Israel’s northern borders are resolved. And that is an added pressure to lean on Bashir Assad and the ayatollahs in Iran.

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.

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.


link

 

I dont see where anyone can draw the conclusion that Clark thought the war was "the right call" or that he is "war-mongering"

he doesnt address the reasons for the war and if it is a success, he certainly claims "military success" which we ALL thought was a forgone conclusion, there was never a question of if we invaded Iraq would we be successful militarly.

 

Clark Calls Iraq War 'A Major Blunder'
Sat Sep 20, 8:51 AM ET Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=14&u=/ap/20030920/ap_on_el_pr/clark_iraq_4

By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer

IOWA CITY, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark reversed an earlier opinion that he likely would have voted for war in Iraq (news - web sites), telling a cheering college-town crowd the invasion was "a major blunder" he never would have supported.


Clark said his Army career taught him that "the use of force is only a last resort" that wasn't justified in Iraq. "I'm a soldier," he said. "I've laid on the battlefield bleeding."


While the use of force can occasionally be justified, he said, "It's not a way to solve problems and resolve disputes. It's very difficult to change people's minds when you are bombing them and killing them."


Clark sought to blunt a controversy that arose as he opened his campaign. The core is his resume as a retired four-star general with the credibility to challenge President Bush (news - web sites) and oppose the war in Iraq.


Many of his backers expressed surprise when Clark told reporters he probably would have voted to authorize the use of force.


"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," The New York Times quoted Clark as saying Thursday.


He then added, the Times said, "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways, because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position. On balance, I probably would have voted for it."


In a speech Friday to more than 1,000 people jammed into a lecture hall at the University of Iowa and in interviews, Clark underscored his opposition to the war, explaining: "There may be times when you may have to use force, but only as a last resort.


"Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war, never," Clark said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I've gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)."


Clark's initial remarks left members of his campaign team flummoxed.


"That caught me off guard a little. The general has been very critical of the war," said George Bruno, a New Hampshire activist.


Clark launched his bid for the Democratic nomination Tuesday with the type of media attention candidates crave, but early missteps underscore the dangers facing his late-starting campaign.


The former NATO (news - web sites) commander and his campaign staff went back and forth in a single day on whether he will participate in a Democratic debate next week. Creating more confusion were Clark's positive comments on the resolution that authorized the president to use U.S. military force to oust Saddam — remarks that were at odds with his opposition to the war.


Veteran Democrats noted that Clark is in the unusual position of trying to put a major presidential campaign in place and clearly lay out his positions in the glare of the media spotlight. His rivals have had months to hone their message below the political radar.


"If politics were theater, you get to open in New Haven (Conn.)," rather than on Broadway, said veteran Democratic strategist Bill Carrick, who warned of the dangers of "policy on the fly."


The nine other declared Democratic presidential hopefuls have spent the last few months meeting with party activists, getting feedback on various issues and testing their campaign lines.


"I'm sure Howard Dean (news - web sites) has tried a variety of things along the way," said veteran Iowa activist Jeff Link. "By the time people began paying attention, he had it down pretty good."


Iowa casts its votes in four months, giving Clark little time to smooth out the rough edges.

"The question is, is he ready to jump into a huge national campaign that's just a few months away," Link said. "That is a pretty good-sized organization with a lot of moving parts."

In the AP interview, Clark sketched out a checkerboard of positions, saying he would leave in place a tax cut for middle-income Americans and indicating his support for gun-possession rights, although he supports a ban on assault weapons.

 

I don't see what the fuss is about. He said that given what we were told that he might have voted to authorize the President to use force. He also said that were it his call, he would have preferred to go about this action through diplomacy rather than force.

I would have voted for the authorization to use force given the information and "intelligence" we were given before the war, but much of that information has turned out to be untrue, exaggerated, or both.

I have also been consistent in saying that were it my call, I would have used more diplomacy and would have allowed the weapons inspectors to do their jobs. The inspectors found exactly as many WMDs as our military has, at least until the RNC .

 

glynch, you're being silly here. I was disappointed too by Clark's equivocation and awkwardness over the past few days, but calling him a war monger is just way out of line. It's inconsistent with everything we know about him (and that you know about him as well). I'm not at all convinced he's my guy, but he is unimpeachable on issues of military strength and he is, by all accounts, very reluctant to go to war except as a last option. That combination's nothing to sneeze at. Add to that, according to today's Newsweek poll, he's the leading Dem. Don't be so quick to say you definitely won't vote for him. Stick to your principles, of course, but find some solace in the fact that the (now) two frontrunners for the nomination are both guys who've denounced this war. And don't hate. Not yet anyway. There's ever so much more to come.

 

I was definitely glad (relieved?) to hear Clark clarify his stance on the war. I'm not a one-issue voter, but the Iraq war is a pretty good litmus test for me.

But like Batman Jones said, that the two leading Dem candidates are against the war is cause for optimism.

I'm still pulling for a Dean/Clark ticket (I'm not yet convinced Clark can handle the blinding spotlight a Pres. nom brings), but Clark is emerging as a viable candidate himself.

 

I think that there is an important and obvious distinction people who are seeking to bash Clark are failing to make; That of a decision he'd have made given the information given to us by the White House, and that he'd have made had he had the information Bush had access to.


Simply put, what he is saying is that if you what we were told at face value...and many did...then the case to go to war seemed strong; an imminent threat by a tyrant with access to a vast arsenal of WMs who had already helped with the 9-11 attacks and was on the verge of having activated nuclear weapons, if he didn't already.


Of course we now know that this tale told us had nothing whatever to do with the truth, and moreover, we know that the White House knew this at the time. Clark is not saying had he been President he'd have supported the war, merely had he been among those the President decieved. What is war-mongering or two-faced about that? He is admitting to the fact that he is capable of being decieved by the leaders of our government...who isn't?

 

I'm not sure what you want, glynch.

You sound like someone who would have voted for Nadir, figuring that Gore and Bush were two peas in a pod anyway, so what difference does it make?

Turns out that there was a hell of a difference and anyone who's not second guessing their vote for Nadir needs to take the blinders off and look around at the state of the country and the direction it's going in.

I used to be far more "idealistic" than I am now. Maybe you could say I've become more of a realist after voting in presidential elections for over 30 years. That doesn't mean I've lost my idealism... it just means I've come to realize that sometimes you have to compromise your beliefs a bit in order to prevent a greater wrong.

What would be better? Four more years of George Walker Bush, John Ashcroft, Paul Wolfowitz, Condi Rice, Rummy Rumsfeld and their buddies Tom DeLay and friends?

Or someone who is for affirmative action... for choice for women... believes that global warming is occurring and is against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because the energy gains would be marginal... Someone who is against the extreme parts of the Patriot Act and thinks it and the failure to prevent 9/11 should be reviewed... someone who believes, “The tax cuts weren’t fair… the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more... In other words, it’s not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don’t have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and you should—one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country.”

I could go on, glynch, but I don't understand what you want? A perfect world? A perfect candidate? They don't exist.

I want someone who is a Democrat and can beat Bush. I know many Independents and moderate Republicans who would like to see a moderate Democrat with strong credentials for protecting our national security who can beat Bush.

I think Clark is that man and I think he can win if he gets the nomination. You need to examine just what you want most from the Democratic Party. A moderate who can win? Or a candidate who might exist in a perfect world... except that we don't live in a perfect world.


I'll leave it that.



(in a perfect world, I'd have a better quote on Clark's views on taxes. Let's just say he's against Bush's tax cut plan and would recind the cuts going to the wealthiest people and is strongly for balancing the budget... (sigh))

 

Here's two statements from Dean a couple of weks before the conflict on Meet the Press...

"My question is not that we may not have to go into Iraq. We may very well have to go into Iraq. What is the rush? Why can't we take the time to get our allies on board? Why do we have to do everything in a unilateral way? "
...

"My problem is not whether we're going to end up in Iraq or not. Saddam Hussein appears to be doing everything he can to make sure we do go into Iraq. My problem is, it is important to bring in our allies. "

The dichotomy being set up by the Republicans to dampen democratic support for Clark is that there are only two positions on the war... Dean's or Bush's, (and they can't Dean's right, even though he seems to have forgotten the nuance he once articulated). Either for it or against it is way too restrictive given what was known at the time. Remember, the administration's line was "You have to trust us that this is necessary because we know things you don't." Couple this with the notion that most folks thought it was unbelieveable that a President and his men would lie to get the country into war for political purposes and it's no surprise that we have a mishmash of ideas on the start of the war. What's clear is that no serious Dem supported the way the administration went about this or the policies since.

 

My wife just told me she liked Clark the best because he's the only one who's not "butt-freaking-ugly. He's hot."

She was kidding (she's quite active in politics), but image isn't something to dismiss.

Americans *really do* care about image and looks. On some level, do looks make a *big* difference in politics? Should they?