During the debate the other night, Clark got called to account for his changeable views on the Iraq conflict. here's a look at some of his varying positions, taken from the weekly standard. please feel free to ignore the source and concentrate on clark's contradictions: -- Last fall: As Congress debated whether to authorize the use of force against Saddam, Clark, an adviser for New Hampshire congressional candidate Katrina Swett, told the Associated Press that although he had "reservations" about war, he supported the President's proposal. "Certainly in certain cases we should go to war before our enemies strike," Clark said. "And I think this situation applies here, but I am not sure we should write it down and publish [the doctrine of preventive war] as policy." Last winter: As Huel Perkins mentioned during his initial question to Clark, according to a voting guide put out by James Zogby's Arab American Institute, the general said last February that "Saddam Hussein has these weapons, and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this, and the rest of the world has got to get with us." Last spring: After the fall of Baghdad, Clark waxed poetic about the results of Gulf War II: "Liberation is at hand," he wrote in the Times of London. "Liberation--the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions." Later in the same essay, Clark praised the president he's now trying to unseat. "As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt." Not quite a ringing--nor consistent--indictment of Bush foreign policy. And in the fall of 2003: Clark joined the presidential contest last September. Shortly after he announced his candidacy, the general gave a 45-minute talk with a group of reporters. In the course of the discussion, the Washington Post later reported, Clark said he "probably" would have voted to authorize the war if he had been a member of Congress last fall. He added that his views resembled those of Senator John Kerry and Senator Joe Lieberman, both of whom voted to authorize the conflict. Two days later, on September 19, Clark said he "never would have voted for war." But, you see, that doesn't quite mean he would have voted against the Congressional use-of-force authorization. "What I would have voted for," Clark said, "is leverage. Leverage for the United States to avoid a war."
Yeah and has anyone found his position on abortion? It's hard to find and I've yet to see it. Or maybe he's reading the poll numbers first.
I will gladly and happily ignore the Weekly Standard, since it is nothing more than soiled toilet paper. Next.
he sounds more and more like WJC in that regard. he even uses the emphatic closed-fist-w/-thumb-on-top gesture that clinton first cribbed from JFK to emphasize his points.
What he really thinks? Match up the statements with the time they were made. They were in lock-step with what the Bush Administration told us at the time. Last fall: Bush said Iraq was going to strike first, so we had to strike first. Clark agreed. Bush lied about that, but Clark didn't know it at the time. Last winter: Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Clark said since those weapons are a threat, we should attack. Bush lied about that, but Clark didn't know it at the time. Last spring: The war was over, Bush was touting a "liberation" and "celebration," and Clark agreed. Bush lied about that, but Clark didn't know it at the time. And in the fall of 2003: He said he "probably" would have authorized the war (with the available information Bush had given them at the time). How are these changes in attitude? They're consistent all the way around. He was in lock-step with Bush on everything. If anything, Democrats should be calling him out for swallowing whole everything Bush said.
max, these are actual quotes, not just some WS writer's spin. GV, you're saying Clark's positions are all Bush's fault? since you think Bush is an idiot, manipulated by Cheney, wolfowitz, et al, what does that say about clark?
This is one of the disappointing things about the most recent debate. He was asked directly about his changing positions on Iraq and went off on a spiel about Afghanistan and how he supported that war. I was hoping for a straight answer on that issue. If he's going to be competitive in this race, its going to be by being the non-politician of the bunch - standing for accountability and all that. He hasn't lived up to that as of yet, which is really disappointing.
Clark is his own man and makes his own positions. But they mirror EXACTLY what Bush wanted us to believe and with the information out at the time. Clark's statements are consistent with what we were led to believe. That said, I'm very disappointed in Clark's blind acceptance of Bush's announcements and policies, that's for sure. No, Bush isn't an idiot. But I don't think he's worthy of leading the greatest country in the world. At this point, I'd say the same for Clark.
My wife's all for Clark. I'm not sure about anybody... at various times I've liked Dean, Clark, and Kerry. I like some of the things Edwards says, but don't seem him as a viable top of the ticket kind of guy. I've never liked Gephardt, but he is slightly growing on me. Can't stand Lieberman right now. One thing though, I am sure I will be supporting the Democratic nominee with as much time, effort, and money as possible. This is not an election to let the perfect become the enemy of the good. (And I think whoever wins the nomination should make sure they hire Sharpton to be one of the debate coaches. )
I agree. He was late getting in the race, and hasn't really done very good of a job once joined. He will add some nice natl. security credibility as a VP though.
Is it not possible is stance changed from the time we were told that it was a fact that WMD was in Iraqandroll to now?
Is it not possible is stance changed from the time we were told that it was a fact that WMD was in Iraqandroll to now? Yeah, but he needs to explain that. Instead, whenever people asking him about his changing or inconsistent views, he just says "I've always been consistent in my views on this war" and leaves it at that. The problem is that he hasn't. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind - but he's got a credibility issue if he doesn't explain why.
