Clark Attacked From Both Parties on Iraq By Paul Schwartzman Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 16, 2004; Page A05 MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 15 -- Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark came under attack Thursday by both Democratic and Republican rivals, who sought to undercut his rise in the polls by seizing on what they say is his history of inconsistent statements about the war in Iraq. But Clark, who is running second to former Vermont governor Howard Dean in New Hampshire polls, denied that his position has changed, and he said the criticism from the GOP only confirmed that his candidacy is growing stronger. "Looks like they've finally figured out that I'm George Bush's greatest threat," said Clark, facing a phalanx of reporters and cameras at the airport here, after flying in from campaigning in South Carolina. Clark's remarks came after the Republican National Committee sent out excerpts of congressional testimony he delivered in 2002 -- testimony that the RNC said contradicted his claim that he always opposed the war in Iraq. The full transcript, however, showed that the RNC was selective in its choice of excerpts: While Clark indicated force might be necessary, he also said it should be a last resort and questioned Bush administration claims that Saddam Hussein had strong ties to al Qaeda. In his congressional testimony, Clark described Hussein as a "threat" who is "actively pursuing nuclear capability." "It has been a decade in the making," Clark told the House Armed Services Committee. "It needs to be dealt with, and the clock is ticking on this." He also said, "The use of force must remain a U.S. option under active consideration." But Clark went on to say: "It should be used as the last resort after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless there is information that indicates that a further delay would represent an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations." Nonetheless, Ed Gillespie, the RNC chairman, cited the testimony as evidence that Clark falsely claims to have opposed the war from the start. "General Clark's random assertions rarely pan out, but he continues to make them and the growing list is unsettling," Gillespie said in a speech in Little Rock. Gillespie went to Clark's home state to criticize all the Democratic candidates, but singled out Clark, whom he said has made "increasingly careless comments about the president." Clark said yesterday that his position remains consistent, saying that while he viewed Hussein as a threat to the United States, he did not regard the danger as "imminent." Instead of invading Iraq, he said President Bush should have gone after Osama bin Laden. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) jumped into the fray, repeating charges that Clark has changed his position. "Why doesn't he just admit when he changed his position and ended up against the war?" Lieberman said on CNBC. "Wes has got to answer the credibility gap now on this most critical of issues to our security and our country." Clark sought to use the attack to frame the election in his terms, saying, "One of the most important things we're going to do in this election is hold Bush accountable for misleading the American people and the Congress, and taking the country to a war that we didn't have to fight."
this is what the election will be about , and clark, if he's to be taken seriously as a candidate by anyone other than bush-haters (and there's not enough to win the election solely with their support), needs to fashion a plausible response as to why he's flip-flopped so often, rather than trying to pretend he hasn't. Bush/Rove will kill him if he sticks to that line. why is it so hard to say "yeah, i initially thought it was a good idea, but in retrospect, looking at the clear lack of planning for post-war,post-saddam Iraq, the continuing lack of WMDs finds, and possible misuse and distortion of intelligence i've concluded the war was a tragic mistake. mr. president how do you respond?" i could at least respect him then, but this "i've been consistent in my opposition from the beginning is just ridiculous...if i can make his case, why can't he do it himself? the man wants to be leader of the free world for god's sake.
Do you have the ability to understand that Clark would have supported the war if it had been sold to the public and the world differently? He clearly states that he would have supported the war if we had gone through the UN process and had the support of the international community. He also stated several very clearly why he did NOT support this war the way it was sold and the way it is being waged. Critical thinking? How about taking off your GOP colored glasses long enough to read the transcript of the article that Drudge hatcheted?
i've read the article, which is why i provided the original link to it. please note that the transcript is not linked to from Drudge's page. Clark supported the war initially and now he said he never did. further, he says now that he's always been consistent in his view. this is patently not true, and he should drop it as a line of attack if he hopes to broaden his base. why is that so difficult to understand? i suspect there are many people who support the removal of saddam but might have questions about the intelligence or the aftermath. clark, dean, and everybody else who angrily scream that they've always been against the war and against unilateral action in general even though those stances have now been clearly contradicted, should start treating the reat of the electorate as adults. why do they persist in appealing only to the angry two-year-old inner-child of the far-left wing of the democratic party. it may work now and help them win the nomination, but it'll seriously marginalize them come november.
It's not like the Iraq war is the only thing he has been inconsistant about.... Clark's staff is working very hard right now trying to figure out what he strongly believes in Here is a quote on the Iraq resolution that Cal Thomas quoted: ‘‘I don’t know if I would have (voted for the resolution) 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.’’ -Wes Clark
Did you actually read the direct quotes of Clark's testimony? It's been repeated here more than once... contradicting what you, the RNC, Rove and friends, Lieberman (who is turning out to be a clown) and others keep saying. Why do you keep repeating it? Why can't you own up to the fact that Drudge lied and his lies are simply being repeated? Is that too difficult for you? basso: why do they persist in appealing only to the angry two-year-old inner-child of the far-left wing of the democratic party. Hey, your true feelings are starting to show, bro.
\ i think my feeling are pretty obvious, and in this case they're based on the whole transcript, not on Drudge. unlike many here, i retain the ability to think for myself. try it, it's refreshing.
This is a great way to ignore reality in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence on tax cuts, Iraq & its nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, global warming, the budget deficit, etc. etc. Just stick your head in the sand and claim to be an independent thinker! My that is refreshing isn't it!!
That's a pretty hilarious thing to say to someone who has been "accused" their whole life of having "a mind of his own", of having his own g**d***ed opinions about everything", and who actually voted foe George McGovern in 1972, even though he didn't like him, because he thought Nixon was a crook. Otherwise I wouldn't have voted for either one. I think you're getting a little overwrought, basso. I thought you were one of the more level-headed conservatives.
i regret i haven't know you your whole life, but it's possible it's my loss. couldn't vote in '72, although i did manage to score an invite to the inaugural ball. i suppose i should have been flattered, i was a lousy dancer at 14!
No, apparently he is hell bent on being a martyr today in this and other threads by standing up to the relentless big mean liberal cyborg machine of conformity that is overrunning the multiverse.
Drudge left this out as well... Perle at the same hearing immediately following Clark... _____________________- SCHROCK: Sure, I would love to know Mr. Perle's, you know, the general said time is on our side. My guess is you do not believe that. PERLE: No, I don't believe it and frankly I don't think he made a very convincing case in support of that cliche but it was one of many cliches. At the end of the day when you sought to elicit from him a reconciliation of the view that time is on our side with what he acknowledged to be our ignorance of how far along Saddam Hussein is, he had no explanation. He 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 alongside which there's a stark reality and that is that every day that goes by, Saddam Hussein is busy perfecting those weapons of mass destruction that he already has, improving their capabilities, improving the means with which to deliver them and readying himself for a future conflict. So I don't believe that time is on our side and I don't believe that this fuzzy notion that the most important thing is building legitimacy, as if we lack legitimacy now, after all the U.N. resolutions that he's in blatant violation of, I don't believe that that should be the decisive consideration. 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.
Let's see... Richard Perle: 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. So, did you read that basso? If you don't believe anything else, do you believe Richard Perle?? (Thanks, rimrocker. you rock!)
Sorry Deckard, I know you've already quoted it, but wow! From Perle! It's just hilarious reading it now, with hindsight. This is worth quoting twice, it shouldn't be overlooked. I wish Clark's team would just get a comprehensive statement out, his position is easily defended. Thanks rim! Awesome find. Curse that Clark! He's just not with the program! He wants to wait, the b*stard! WMD! WMD!
Don't apologize, Nolen. I was flabbergasted when I read that. It's enough to make you wonder if anyone pushing Drudge's bogus BS had actually read the transcript of the hearings. I guess not! Or else, in their arrogance, they assume that they can say anything and the public will buy it and the truth will be buried by the next Michael Jackson headline or the like. What's scary is that they may be right. Nolen, as you said, Clark should be trumpeting this on the network news, Nightline, CNN... you name it. He has to start effectively defending himself from this slander.
My favorite... "He 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..."
First, I think we can all agree that tonight's win was great. Second, this is only tangentially related to the thread, but I found it interesting... From Calpundit... __________________ REALITY vs. FANTASY....I just finished reading Charlie Wilson's War, a terrific book about the covert CIA war against the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s that I'll have more to say about later. For now, though, I just want to share an excerpt from the book that's both timely and enlightening. First some background. Richard Perle is one of the most hawkish neocons around, part of the group that seemed to think that we could waltz into Iraq, be greeted as liberators, and then turn the whole thing over to their favorite exiles within a few months. It's a crazy idea on its face, and it makes you wonder what kind of people could believe something so transparently out of touch with reality. Well, here's a hint: they believe stuff like this because they are out of touch with reality. As you read this anecdote, keep in mind that it's being told by a guy who is a very hardline, hardass anti-communist. His idea of fun is to figure out new and better ways to kill Russians, and at the time this is happening he's in charge of an incredibly creative, brutal, and effective buildup of arms to kill those Russians in ever greater numbers. But even he thinks Perle and his pals are loons. Here's the story: Their idea was to encourage Soviet officers and soldiers to defect to the mujahideen. As [Gust] Avrakotos derisively describes it, "The muj were supposed to set up loudspeakers in the mountains announcing such things as 'Lay down your arms, there is a passage to the West and to freedom.'" Once news of the program made its way through the Red Army, it was argued, there would be a flood of defectors. ....Avrakotos thought [Oliver] North and Perle were "cuckoos of the Far Right"...."What Russian in his right mind would defect to those ****ers all armed to the teeth?" Avrakotos said in frustration. "To begin with, anyone defecting to the Dushman would have to be a crook, a thief, or someone who wanted to get cornholed every day, because nine out of ten prisoners were dead within twenty-four hours and they were always turned into concubines by the mujahideen. I felt so sorry for them I wanted to have them all shot." The meeting went very badly indeed. Gust accused North and Perle of being idiots....Avrakotos thought that would be the end of the...idea, but he greatly underestimated the political power and determination of this group, who went directly to Bill Casey. ....In spite of the angry complaints, Claire George and everyone else on the seventh floor agreed with Avrakotos' position. He says that Director Casey even privately told him, "I think your point is quite valid. What ******* would want to defect to these animals?" But the issue wouldn't go away. Perle, Raymond, and the others continued to insist that the Agency find and send back to the United States the many Russian defectors they seemed to believe...the mujahideen were harboring. They had visions of a great publicity campaign once these men reached America. ....Avrakotos describes what happened next with the kind of pleasure he feels only upon achieving revenge. It had been almost impossible to locate two prisoners, much less two defectors. The CIA found itself in the preposterous position of having to pony up $50,000 to bribe the Afghans to deliver two live ones. "These two guys were basket cases," says Avrakotos. "One had been ****ed so many times he didn't know what was going on. The other was an alcoholic." ....At that point, Avrakotos says, he went to Perle to announce the good news that the Agency had twelve more willing to come over. "I turned the tables on them and demanded they take them all. And they didn't want to....In all I think we brought three or four more over. One guy ended up robbing a 7-Eleven in Vienna, Virgina." How can you trust the judgment of someone who not only proposed an idea like this, but fought long and hard for it in the face of massive ground level evidence that it was absurd? Is it any surprise that someone who thought Russian soldiers would defect if we just set up loudspeakers in the mountains of Afghanistan might also think that governing postwar Iraq would be simple and easy? Remember this the next time you hear Richard Perle say anything. And then give his opinions all the consideration they deserve.
Note that basso has been conspicuously absent since the Perle transcript was posted. Apparantly Perle understood what Clark was saying even if basso and the Bush bobble heads can't.
You should be more charitable Andy. I'm sure all our far right friends are busy taking advantage of the long weekend by doing all they can to honor MLK, Jr.
