Democratic candidate (Clark) seeks to clarify comments on Iraq resolution

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/09/19/national1705EDT0659.DTL&type=printable

Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark backtracked from a day-old statement that he probably would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, saying Friday he "would never have voted for this war."

The retired Army general, an opponent of the conflict, surprised supporters when he indicated in an interview with reporters Thursday that he likely would have supported the resolution. On Friday, Clark sought to clarify his comments in an interview with The Associated Press.

"Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war," Clark said before a speech at the University of Iowa. "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."

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

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

[joeybee12]

1. He better watch it...

...he's learning that now he's a candidate the rules have changed--he's under more scrutiny, especially since there's been such media attention simply to the fact that he's running.

[Vermont Deanie]

2. Tricky Clarkie

We won't let you fool us Clark.

[Catch22Dem]

5. Welcome to DU

I already don't care much for ya :)

[paulk]

10. now that's adding a lot to the discussion

"vermont deanie"

"vote dean for the future"


you wouldn't be biased would you?

if you want to candidate bash, go over to general discussion.

[MGKrebs]

3. Yikes. Welcome to the spotlight, General.

One would expect a General to be a bit more, uh, composed, under pressure.

Note to Wes: Get some handlers. Get some coffee. Stay up late getting your message straightened out. You're not my guy, but we're all on the same team (I hope). Make us proud.

[shockingelk]

12. haven't read full statement

but yesterday, he answered a question about whether he would have voted for the authorization in Oct 2002. WP reported he said he '"probably" would have voted for the congressional resolution last fall authorizing war. and also, "I was against the war as it emerged because there was no reason to start it when we did. We could have waited."

Today the AP reports he "would never have voted for this war."

Neither are transcripts of a conversation ... in Oct 2002, the "intelligence" was Iraq had WMD up the ying-yang and was "this close" from becoming a nuclear nation. In March 2003, Iraq had been inspected up the ying-yang (no US claim panned out) ... and in Oct 2002, it was reasonable to believe that the President wouldn't break our treaty with the UN.

I really see no contradiction ... would be interesting to hear the words around his quotes that were reported.

[davidinalameda]

4. how long are his critics going to harp on this

let's see-from now until the end of time?

how many issues has Dean changed his position on?

[joeybee12]

6. Hey, nobody's harping on it...

...I'm just suprrised that Wes seems not to be prepared for this scrutiny. It's only going to get worse.

And please note that it wasn't fellow Dems pointing out the inconsistency, it was the media on their own--he has to be more careful.

[Speck Tater]

7. This is good military strategy

A good offense is the best defense, and fearing that the press might try to shoot him in the foot, General Clark has shown cunning and resourcefulness by going on the offensive and shooting himself in the foot before they got the chance. You have to admit, that was the last thing they expected, so he sure is maintaining the element of surprise on his side.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

8. LOL!

I have to admit, that was funny. :D

DTH

[moondust]

9. He may be too complex

for the 70% of Murcans who think Saddam was behind 9/11.

[LastDemInIdaho]

11. He'll still make a fine VP for Hillary

I have a fin on it.

[Catch22Dem]

13. Puhleeeeese...you're losin' a fin

[LastDemInIdaho]

14. Shhhhhhhhhhhh

I have a tenor on Dean getting the nod :-)

[Mechatanketra]

15. I'm getting REAL TIRED of this.

If you voted (or would have voted) to authorize force against Iraq, you were (or would have been) voting for war. Clark's comments in combination amount to "I never would have voted for war, unless I was fooled by the White House, which would in fact have been the case."

I'm also getting tired of the smug brand of apologism which holds that the White House's case was so clever and so convincing that nobody can be held accountable for supporting it -- which is effectively saying that those who didn't support the war were somehow either mentally or morally deficient even though they were right all along. Are we through the looking glass yet?

These are the facts: If you believed Iraq was an imminent threat, you were wrong (pre-war UN inspections, the course of the war itself, and post-war American inspections all have proven this). If you believed Bush would only use his authorization to attack Iraq with UN approval if the resolution didn't explicitly require it, you were wrong (because, hey, check it out). If you supported the Iraq resolution, you either believed Iraq was an imminent threat (in which case you were wrong), believed Iraq might be a threat and that Bush would use that authority responsibly (in which case you were still wrong), or you wish to abandon the Nuremberg principle that wars of aggression are wrong (in which case I have no polite adjective for you). Those of us against the war all along told you all along that Iraq couldn't have been a threat and that Bush would use any excuse to go to war if Congress let him -- and we were right.

And now I get to hear people (even someone like William Pitt, who should ****ing know better) holding this mind-boggling position that those of us who were saying this all along and have been proven right are the ones somehow lacking in either judgement or humanity.

:grr:

[Justice]

16. Thanks for Doing Rove's Job For Him; Now Who'll Do Yours??

I've shared my thoughts here, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=373516

Many Americans are just not ready to accept the real Bush Doctrine = The Guy Lies. Frankly, Graham is ONLY one running who voted against the resolution, who said no then and is saying no now. He goes as far as anyone has gone in saying there was a coverup - and he can't even get Floridians (who supposedly support him across party lines and voted for him for Governor and Senator!!). WAKE UP!!!!!

We need a candidate who can articulate the vision for the reconstruction and the exit strategy - and repair our relationship with the rest of world. You choose who you think that person is - and then let's talk about what they have to say - I think Dean, Kerry, Clark and Edwards could all potentially be that guy.

If you don't think these stories are being planted to twist and discredit Clark, frankly you are a moron. If you doubt me, explain this - people like "Catholic" conservative Sean Hannity support Arnold for governor in a race that will be decided in 3 weeks. They don't care that he has no policies, that he doesn't have answers, that he is unable to attend a unscripted debate and he has all that women/drug stuff in his past/current life. They simply don't care. I heard Sean say he likes Arnold because Arnold could be making $33 million on a movie - yet he choses to give that up and be governor. Right.

The same people are appalled, shocked, perplexed, puzzled and amused that Wesley Clark does not perfectly articulate his soundbites on day 2 and 3 of his campaign for president when the election is in November 2004.