Clark Calls Iraq War 'A Major Blunder'

[_NorCal_D_]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=14&u=/ap/20030920/ap_on_el_pr/clark_iraq_4

<snip>

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."

Perhaps this will convince a number of DUers that Clark is no Republican operative.

[sspiderjohn]

1. No disagreement here -- Clark can beat Bush hands-down in Nov

And he's my man.

[CMT]

2. whic h is it?

one day he says he "probably" would have voted for the Iraqi war resolution. The next day he says he "never" would have. Maybe the Kerry campaign was correct when their campaign manager said that the General's "blue ribbon experts had to get together to decide what the General's position was."

[coralrf]

27. CMT...

Did he do that? Did he say probably one day and no THE NEXT DAY.....or did you just spin that point like a damn republican?

Let me answer..HE DID NOT. In fact he could not have as there never was a vote "to go to war". There was a resolution to hold Bush to exhausting all diplomatic efforts prior to the use of hostilities. He was required to seek UN approval and use all diplomatic channels. That is what the resolution said. Read the damn thing. Bush did not do that. He reneged.

Clark said he would have probably supported that resolution to control Bush. He then said he thought the war a blunder that he would not have supported. It is clear that he did not waffle as he was speaking of two different things.

Why do the DU’ers do Rove’s work for him?

[Donna Zen]

32. Please read Josh Marshall

Marshall has carefully presented the big picture here. The conclusion of this entry is very important IMHO.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

But what about what Dean said on Face The Nation a couple weeks before the war resolution vote, when asked what the president would have to do to prove that there was an immediate threat justifying war ...

I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.

More important, what about this whole issue of conditional or contingent support for war?

[IndianaGreen]

3. No, but it does convince me that Clark can waffle alongside the best

One cannot say today about the war in Iraq that the invasion was "a major blunder" he never would have supported, while on Friday he was telling reporters from the NY Times and Washington Post that he would have voted, and/or advised others to vote, for the Iraq War resolution.

I am more concerned that Clark is a Trojan Horse for the Beltway bandits of the DLC, and that Clark may be a stool pidgeon for Al From, as evidenced in the following Newsweek interview in which From is asked about Clark:

Now that Wesley Clark is in the race, could he be the person who can beat George Bush?

I think we’ll find out in the next four or five months. Wes Clark is a very, very talented guy. He’s done stuff with the DLC. He’s a very, very smart guy. But he’s not ever gone through anything like a political campaign. The question for Wes Clark is, when he gets into a very different world, how is he going to do? I don’t think we know the answer to that. But he clearly has expertise in military affairs and foreign policy, which is something that is important to the Democratic Party. I’ve talked to him a little bit about domestic policy. He seems to have a pretty good grasp of issues.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/968206.asp?0cv=KB20

[joeybee12]

5. Please note the use of the word "reverse" in the first sentence of the...

...story. I'm just pointing this out. The media will swarm all over another such gaffe. He's got to be more careful.

[bahrbearian]

12. Hind sights 20/20

[rook1]

16. Not more careful

...first thing he needs to do is tell the truth and then we can go from there.....I am sick and tired of politicians lying about everything...and that goes for both sides...

[Sonoma]

35. yES , THEY WILL

Good pick-up on the line of thought.

[newyawker99]

38. Hi Sonoma!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[SixDegrees]

36. The conservative media already has swarmed

all over the story. And they've alleged that Gen. Clark had to "beg" for his last star, that he and President Clinton didn't even get along. There's no end to the right's capacity to smear people.

[Donna Zen]

23. IndianaGreen

I addressed this in a long post to you in another thread...I'm sorry I don't know where I put it...Anyway, I hope that you run into it. In the meanwhile, I'll poke around.

[Donna Zen]

24. Found it

(repost from a quickly dropping thread)

I'm not sure how much of Clark's foreign policy you are familiar with, but the position he took did not confuse Josh Marshall and I found it in line with Clark's ideas.
"Nations use diplomacy as a means to advance their interests." Clark believes that war is a failure of diplomacy and therefore diplomacy must engage the highest levels of government with "greater emphasis." The military element in all of this is passive leverage, the hidden stick, that should not be mentioned. "Once the threat surfaces, however, nations or alliances are committed. ...Inevitably, sacrificing credibility carries long-term consequences far greater than the immediate issue, whatever it is. And both sides in the dispute are affected---those who have received the threat as well as those who have issued it." (There have certainly been some damning Clark quotes thrown around these threads, but without a massive understanding of international policy, they are just that damning. Now think back to when he tells Russert: bush has drawn his sword...war is inevitable...It is that the leverage had gone public and bush was raving about Saddam and nukes...It was obvious the entire regime game was in motion and out of control.)

In October, Bush had already put the stick on the table...he was moving troops into place. The IWR was an attempt to work with the UN to use leverage to move the position of Saddam. And it did work, the inspectors were in. Clark says we should have used the window to increase inspectors and most of all, to flood Iraq with NGO's. Instead, bushco wouldn't take "yes" for an answer. The regime insisted on war, which is where he loses Clark who would not have voted for war. Leverage, yes. War, no. We had essentially won the debate and could have been at this very moment, in some alternate bush-free universe, seeing the fruits of the labors of the international community of NGO's coupled with the prospect of continuing and indefinate inspections to eventually defang Saddam and strengthen the Iraqi people.

Oooops...back in this world...we wouldn't have seized the oil or power. Sorry. My bad. So we went from "no diplomacy" to "all stick" with only the briefest flurry produced at the UN with the res. Without the res. we would have just gone all stick, although I believe the res was always a trap set for Dems. It is easy for us to sit back and say "vote no" (my position) but in real world politics things have different elements. The Iraq war stretches far beyond this moment and into the peace of the future. Clark understands this better than anyone, and knows that this country is now no longer trusted. It is important that we get that back.

[Pepperbelly]

28. I disagree with your post for a number of reasons but ...

perhaps chief among them is what I believe to be a fundamental mis-interpreation of what happened. I understand the reasoning of those who took umbarage at his remarks but I believe that the anger is baseless.

If you give his words a careful reading, as I am sure you have, apply this paradigm rathr than a politician's paradigm: what he was doing was choosing not to take shots at the other candidates for what he thought had been a hard decision to make. He just isn't tooled to take cheap shots. He seemed to me to be trying to epathize with the other candidates rather than criticizing them.

I could be wrong but I really believe that a fundamental decency was at the bottom of it rather than an intention to misrepresent his position.

[J B]

4. Obviously what Clark MEANT...

Is that a vote for the Iraq resolution WAS NOT a vote for the war that was fought as authorized by that resolution.

It's not an inconsistent position. It's just one that is meant for suckers.

It's not like it was unclear how Bush was going to use that resolution, whatever Kerry says he voted for later... and whatever Clark says he would have voted. You vote up and down for what is presented to you, not what you wish it to be.

[joeybee12]

6. What he said and what he meant doesn't matter!

I'm willing to overlook the gaffe, but you have to understand any gaffe and the media smells blood--they'll be all over him. He can't get away with simply meaning something--he has to be very clear.

The rules have changed now that he's a candidate and the sooner he gets up to speed the better off he'll be.

[Julien Sorel]

7. I agree with you,

but the guy is going to make mistakes. One of his biggest strengths is the ability to think on his feet -- excepting Sharpton, he's the only person in the field who can do that. The downside is that he's going to make gaffes, until he sharpens his message up. I think this was the biggest mistake he could have made, and it was more one of form instead of substance, and he's obviously learned. He's the smartest guy out there, and I think he's going to learn in a hurry how this game is played -- I just hope it's fast enough.

[joeybee12]

13. Yes, but Clark is under more scrutiny right now..

...his announcement garnered a lot of media attention--in fact, the media is acting right now that other 9 don't exist.

They're trying to get a handle on Clark--just like they did with Gore and Dumbo. They labeled Gore a liar, and Dumbo an idiot. Any evidence to the contrary will be ignored.

If Clark makes a few mistakes the first week, it's all over. They'll say he's not ready for prime time. He could be flawless forever after that but everything the media says about him will be colored by their perception that he makes gaffes. On the other hand, if he has a stellar first week, gaffes in the future will be ignored. It's a double-edged sword, it stinks, but there's no getting around it.

I cannot stress how crucial the first week is for him--I just hope the people in his campaign realize this!

[Julien Sorel]

14. Again, we agree on almost everything.

But I'm not so sure two weeks is make-or-break. There are still a lot of people out there who aren't paying attention. Moreover, and this is important, all candidates are going to have their perceived flaws (remember 'Slick Willie?'). I would prefer Clark's be that he's too new to politics, than that he was dumb, or soft on defense, or too liberal, or one of the meta-flaws that have led to crushing defeats for Democrats in the past.

[joeybee12]

15. You;re right about people not paying attention now,

however, once they start, if the press has labeled Clark this or that, they will use it ad nasueum so that the coverage of him when people are paying attention will be the same, whether it be good or bad.

The media are lazy sacks of crap.

Wish it could be otherwise, but they've alsways been that way, and always will be. They just have more outlets now to view and vent thier stupidity, and therefore are much more dangerous.

[JPace]

25. "But I'm not so sure two weeks is make-or-break"

I agree, and Clark is on a learning curve but he
is a sharp and fast learner. AWOL is looking far
more vulnerable than we could have imagined six
months ago. The economy, the environment and now
his foreign policy is a failure. He is almost
bankrupt on strong positions to run on. People are
tired of being afraid even if they haven't quite
put that feeling into words yet. They want to feel
safe and they want to have hope, you can only
live on fear for the short term and then it gets
dull and old. Clark can make people feel safer
than AWOL...and he will do it without being a
bully to the world. Clark will be forgiven a few
descrepancies, compared to AWOL he looks solid,
rational, and authentic. Put him in front of a
flag with his medals and compare that to AWOL
who is after all a military fake.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. At this point

I don't give a shit what any of them did yesterday. As long as they do not have a direct connection to the BCF, I will vote for that person.

I'm glad I don't have to be held word for word for anything I might have said or done in the last 30 years. I would much rather have a person who is willing to consider new information and change their mind for president, than what we've got right now. A lot of people will be coming forward in the next few months who supported W because he was president, who will be changing their minds. We need to be a little more forgiving of someone's past transgressions. You don't get to be a four star general without getting some blood on your hands along the way. That doesn't mean you can't be a good leader.

BTW: What's Clark's stand on universal health care? What does he plan to do about the mess W has left everything? This is much more important than whether or not he did his job for the last 30 years, at least he had a job.

[Eloriel]

8. Hasn't convinced me

OTOH, I don't think he's a REpug operative. I DO think he's being used by those who do NOT want to hand over power to the people (as Dean's campaign threatens to do). I think it's entirely likely he's being used -- a useful fool, as the saying goes.

Edit: And oh -- has he got it right yet? Is THIS is final answer?

Eloriel

[Julien Sorel]

11. How does Dean represent 'handing over power to the people?'

[VolcanoJen]

22. The ever-excellent Josh Marshall summed it up thusly:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Excerpt:

Is simplism the new integrity? I guess it is.

According to the prevailing chatter, Wes Clark has been waffling on his position on the war. CBS said as much: "Clark Waffles On War."

Frankly, I don't think I've ever heard anything quite so stupid.

The idea seems to be that there are really only two positions on the war, the Dean position and the Bush position.

<snip>

Republicans and a number of Democrats who support a certain candidate have teamed up -- made common cause, really -- to argue that it's not possible to have voted to authorize the president to use force and then to criticize the circumstances and manner in which he chose to do so. The supposed flip-flop isn't one at all. What he's saying is that he probably would have voted to give the president the power to use force but never would have voted for the war he actually ended up waging. (We'll discuss in a later post why there's nothing necessarily contradictory about this.)

[bluestateguy]

9. What my strategy would be

Clark should denounce the war as much as possible. That will put to rest any of the few ambiguous statements he made in the past.

[Pastiche423]

17. This is getting confusing

Is this the orgasmic Wesley "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Clark, or the Clark that has done a 180 because someone (Help Mary!) told him he was suppose to be anti-Iraq war?

Put me in the DLC Trojan Horse camp.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

18. So which battlefield did Clark lay on bleeding?

anyone up on his bio? :shrug:

[Julien Sorel]

19. Vietnam.

Purple Heart and Silver Star. Shot 4 times, but continued directing the company he led during an ambush.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

20. DAMN! Sounds like he'd be Kerry's 1st VP choice

damn. that could give Kerry the 50 state sweep....although Edwards not running again in the Senate would make him the most logical 1st pick for Kerry.

[Julien Sorel]

21. Babe Ruth did not bat leadoff.

:evilgrin:

And that is the last pro-Clark bit of jingoism I think I'll allow myself for a while. :-)

[PurityOfEssence]

31. I know virtually nothing about sports, but do rookies bat clean-up?

Politics is hard. It's like that line in "Carlito's Way" (a vastly underrated picture) where Sean Penn (a lawyer) is revelling in his having someone murdered. Carlito (Pacino) says something to the effect of: "No, you don't understand; now you a gangsta, and you too old to learn."

Smart people are often their own worst enemies.

[Julien Sorel]

33. It depends on the 'rookie.'

Smart people are often their own worst enemies.

Unlike dumb people? Or people who mindlessly repeat phrases in place of learning to think for themselves?

[sungkathak]

26. A tool to weaken Howard Dean

I think W. Clark is a tool used by insider group to weaken Howard Dean. This insider group controls US ploitics. They have a road map to control Islamic countries. They need more war in Mid-east. Bush is their favorite. To make sure their road map can be carried out, they make Lieberman their favourable candidate in Democratic Party. So either Party wins, their foreign policy will remain unchanged. But American people realize the war policy is not for the interest of US. They go for Howard Dean whom opposes the war. As Howard Dean leads over other Candidates, the group worried and use such tactic to divert Dean's support. At last make their favorite win the primary.

[Pepperbelly]

29. A bit worried, eh?

You should be. Clark already polls ahead of the field and does better against Whistle-ass than any other candidate. And his numbers will improve.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

30. that's par for the course for any fresh face

just wait for the shine to come off and the negatives to go up. I remember Perot enjoying this kind of Messiah status too.

[VolcanoJen]

34. One problem with the Perot comparison, though...

Ross Perot was an independent, while Wesley Clark is now a major party candidate. For that alone, he'll be taken more seriously, criticized more roundly and will likely not be dismissed as an eccentric who could not win in the general election.

I think it's a far more serious ballgame for Clark than it was for Perot.

[Norton]

37. Perot QUIT!

He sabotaged his own campaign with his choice of Stockdale. He could've won that election had he made a "real" choice for VP. I still think he's a bastard for dragging that poor old man through that. I think Perot realized he'd have to work really hard for not much cash as President and ran like Hell. Having said that, he did single-handedly ruin G Bush Sr.!!! HAHA!!!!!!!!!

[saskatoon]

39. Sung comments

I think his comments deserves some replies,they open up some lines of thought.

[IndianaGreen]

40. Clark is pulling the wool over our eyes, his own words convict him!

Please take notice of Clark's silence regarding the legality of the Iraq war in an article he wrote in April 2003. Take note of how Clark, as he did in during the bombing of Yugoslavia, remains unconcerned about civilian bombing victims.

While Kerry is criticized for waffling on the war in Iraq, no one has ever accused Kerry of being desensitized to civilian casualties. I fear that Clark has a cavalier attitude about civilian casualties as Human Rights Watch pointed out in its report on the NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo.

Clark's silence about the legality of the invasion of Iraq is DEAFENING!

Also take notice of Clark's glee as he speaks of other countries being invaded and bombed. If this man is not a PNAC supporter, I don't know who is.

Published on Thursday, April 10, 2003 by the Times/UK
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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm