OK, possible flamebait here, but I gotta growl a bit about Clark

[WilliamPitt]

I said 'Possible flamebait' because I want people to be able to avoid this thread. It might get messy. And yes, I am well aware of the irony of a Kerry supporter criticizing Clark about comments surrounding the war.

It may be that I have not been paying enough attention, but I don't think I've heard Kerry say things like this below. Sure as hell Dean hasn't said them, or Kucinich. Don't know about Edwards or Graham or Gephardt or the rest.

Enough setup? OK.

I was over a friend's house, and happened to flip on the TV. The Fox News Channel was on, and there was Wes Clark being grilled by one of the Murdoch crypto-fascists. The question was something (literally) like this: "General Clark, you've been critical about everything the President has done. Is there anything he's done right in your world?"

Yeah, that "in your world" bit was in there.

Anyway, Clark's response was measured and good, made they crypto-fascist look like a weenie. But then he verged off into the high weeds and 'justified' the war: "It's almost certain Saddam Hussein had these weapons of mass destruction, and is hiding them, or has moved them to another country."

This after the Independent report, after the AP report, after six months of no weapons. I wanted to run my head through the TV screen.

So I ask: Does Clark still believe there are weapons in Iraq, or was he tapdancing for the Fox viewing audience? Neither option is palatable.

(Morosely needed post-note: I will be voting happily for Clark if he gets the nomination.)

[ewagner]

1. When was that interview? n/t

[WilliamPitt]

2. Last night

about, oh, 10:00pm ET.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

13. Clark was on Hannity and Colmes

[kentuck]

3. Just covering his bases if...

they do find WMDs...

[roughsatori]

4. Dose Faux News post transcripts?

I don't want to get in the middle of an internecine flame-war without a back-up from a transcript.

[WilliamPitt]

7. I'm having trouble navigating the site

and I don't know who's show he was on. :(

[RichV]

17. Hannity & Colmes

Last night, about 9:30pm. I saw it too. Wasn't as bothered as Will, apparently. It was just sort of a non-committal recognition that there may yet be WMDs around buried or something somewhere. Whatever the case, he did say immediately that whatever the case they weren't a threat. Hope a transcript is found soon.

[uptohere]

19. don't know about transcripts but I heard it exactly as described

by Pitt and I was pretty amazed myself. Have not followed Clarke the non-candidate much so I was going off the vapor that he was all over being against the war and all.

Pretty odd...

[Paragon]

5. We're soft on defense! We're soft on terrorism!

I buy Republican propaganda hook, line, and sinker!
Bush is too popular!
We need to sell ourselves out to get swing voters!
The military is our friend!
No one but a military man could do better than Bush!
I'm desperate...help me!

[shance]

122. And how long did it take for Clark to admit he was a Democrat?

shades and shades and shades of Colin Powell.....shades and shades of manuevering versus standing on principle.

Im sure Clark is a fine person, but hes tremendously evasive and when you think about it, that is not only pretty manipulative, its cowardly. Let us know what you stand for or quit flirting. Too much teasing in any realm can become anti-climatic - even in politics.

I know cowardice seems a contradiction with military, but then, look at the level of 'courage' coming from Colin Powell.

In the end, especially as far as the White House is concerned,I am not that impressed with past military presidents (other than probably George and Teddy Roosevelt).

Im not sure why people so impressed with individuals who either are conditioned to take orders, or others with more tyrannical tendencies who refuse to listen to others advice or options. In the end, that seems to be the overall level of the leadership skills I have observed coming from the military.

How Democratic are military personnel? It seems to me they in effect are the antithesis of one other.

I could be wrong, but it doesnt seem to me that the military is the prime breeding ground for an individual who is going to lead a Democracy.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. Does Kerry still believe they are there?

(I will vote for Kerry if he gets the nom.)

[WilliamPitt]

8. Don't know

Haven't heard.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. Maybe someone should ask.

Not hearing from any of the pols on this, really. Hmm.

[Raven]

9. You may be a little biased

about WMD's since you went out on a limb about them and have been right so far. But Will, I think it's fair to say that all the candidates except Dean have been fudging all day today.

[WilliamPitt]

11. Could be

Very well could be.

[diplomats]

10. I don't know, Will

perhaps preparing for the release of the Kay report? (Which will be crap, BTW). Frankly, like you I'll happily vote for Kerry, Dean, Gephardt or Clark or whoever gets the nominatin.

[ewagner]

18. True

Innoculating against a surprise WMD attack by Kay and company.

re: Clark on WMDs, I don't like his position. I'm not too big on giving any of the dems a pass on this issue.

I will vote for the nominee...and go ya one better, I'll walk precincts for the nominee.

[Terwilliger]

12. D'OH!!!

"It's almost certain Saddam Hussein had these weapons of mass destruction, and is hiding them, or has moved them to another country."

Well, I HAD respect for him given what he said on Bill Maher, but I don't think I could support him after hearing this. I mean, this is Bush admin propaganda, right?

With Clark's insistence on finding WMD's and Kerry's insistence that Bush is "a good man who is doing good things", the only conclusion I can reach is that Ralph Nader was right.

OnEdit: Also, that had Gore been elevated to power in 2000, we would have had some version of a war on Iraq from his administration

[Cheswick2.0]

36. Gore said he would not have gone to Iraq

I'll take his word ove Ralphs for what he would or would not have done.

[Terwilliger]

127. funny...I'll take Ralph's over Gore's

any day...until I know I can trust Gore again, he can forget it

[DoveTurnedHawk]

60. Hey Ter, Please Watch the Appearance

When it comes up on DigitalClark.com, before making up your mind. My impression strongly differed from Will's, Clark wasn't giving anyone a pass, IMO.

DTH

[Terwilliger]

126. he said there were definitely weapons?

I hope he didn't say that

[w4rma]

117. Al Gore: I would Never Start This War

Al Gore: I would Never Start This War
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=21239

Al Gore has never been a supporter of Iraq war
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3451987&thesection=news&thesubsection=dialogue

[Terwilliger]

128. sorry Rick...I didn't say Bush's war

I said a war against Iraq

and please stop trying to misrepresent Gore

But a Gore supporters' website carries a report that he told a closed symposium in Athens this month: "I would never start this war if I were President."

I'd say that "quote" needed some context.

your novinte website would not load

OnEdit: here's the platform

In Iraq, we are committed to working with our international partners to keep Saddam Hussein boxed in, and we will work to see him out of power. Bill Clinton and Al Gore have stood up to Saddam Hussein time and time again. As President, Al Gore will not hesitate to use America's military might against Iraq when and where it is necessary.

So, it's safe to say that he very may well have initiated some aggression on Iraq.

[Trajan]

14. I hate to think ...

That Clark is simply being politically expedient by accepting the pretense of WMD in Iraq: .....

While it IS absolutely positively TRUE that WMD DID exist in Iraq in the near past (Last 5 years ?? ... ), whether they remain still in Iraq is a moot question: .... even the most cynical may agree that small vestiges of prior programs 'may' still be hidden from view in deep dark places yet uncovered .... but this is still speculation that COULD have been explored further through the UN inspection regime ....

The question of whether they exist now is a completely separate question from whether we were justified in waging war .... which Clark FIRMLY denies is true .....

When and if WMD were purged from Iraq is chronologically relevent, but the lack of real justification by the Bush Administration and its allies are the real problem .... I believe ....

I will still vote for Clark or any other Democrat who may believe that WMD 'may' exist in Iraq, but I resent any of those who saw justification where none existed .....

<Edit: Grammar ..>

[Clark Can WIN]

90. possible WMD but NOT a justification

I believe that is precisely the point he was making. Saddam was contained and we needed to continue to work with the international community to maintain that containment.

He proceeded immediatly to say that Iraq DISTRACTED us AWAY from the war on terrorism. He said today that Iraq is only the centerpiece now in the war on terror because we have made it so. Paraphrasing - we have CREATED a giant terrorist hoover bagless sucking machine in Iraq based on a bunch of lies and innuendo and fear.

I think myself there were probably a couple of WMD's (not the millions purported) laying about somewhere in Iraq, waiting for a new dawn that would never have come. I think Saddam sold them off when it became clear Junior McDumbass was headed in no matter what and God only knows where they are now. The point is, they're not there now and it's now a more dangerous situation for us us and it's our own damn fault. The point is and the point Clark has made repeatedly is this was a war that never should have happened and we, and the world are suffering the consequences for it.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. I heard that.

Was in the car and on the phone last night talking about shrub when the person on the other end said Clark was on Hannity and turned up the sound.

Obviously, I didn't hear everything, but that part did bother me. Wasn't certain if I missed a few words or some nuance there, but he definitely seems to be buying into the WMD story. To what extent, I'm not sure.

He did say the "45 minute" nonsense was crap, didn't he?

[Cocoa]

20. I'm surprised by "almost certain"

not that I would expect Fox to challenge him on this, but did he say why he believes such an unlikely thing so strongly?

[graham67]

21. I believe....

he's said all along that he thought Saddam had some WMD capabilities but that it was never an imminent threat to the US.

[11cents]

23. Yes, he's said this all along!

From the beginning he's said that based on the intelligence info he'd received in the 90's, he'd thought that Hussein had some WMD's. He's also said he thought that most of what hadn't been turned up by the inspectors had been destroyed in the '98 bombing, but it was impossible to be sure. But he nonetheless did not believe there was any imminent threat from Iraq.

[Tinoire]

99. Clark was so on board that he wanted to drag NATO into the fight

Clark faulted Bush for not bringing NATO into the war on "Terrorism" and fighting it under their auspices so that "an attack on the United States was an attack on all its member nations" would be in effect.


September 2002 from the Washington Monthy Article: An Army of One
(Proudly authored by Gen. Wesley Clark himself)

--------------------------
<snip>

The longer the war goes on, the more we are going to need cooperation and support from other nations--not just troops and ships and airplanes, but whole-hearted governmental collaboration. Instead, we seem to be getting less as time goes on. After September 11, the United States gave the United Nations a list of groups and individuals suspected of funding terrorists. European governments responded by freezing their assets. In the spring, the U.S. government provided an updated list with new names. This time, most European governments ignored the list, according to The Wall Street Journal, citing concern that the United States was providing insufficient recourse for those who claim they are innocent.


Last fall, all of Europe understood that the attacks of September 11 had been planned on European soil, that European targets were on the terrorists' lists, and that Europeans by the hundreds died in the World Trade Center. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder braved a no-confidence vote to win approval for German combat troops to be made available for Afghanistan. Even the French, long openly resentful of American power, expressed solidarity with us. Today, that support is being replaced by growing popular anger at the United States. Instead of focusing on the threat of terrorism, Europeans are focusing on the dangers of American hegemony. Their leaders are free to play to these fears because, without NATO involvement, the war is not seen as theirs, but ours. Not a single European election hinges on the success of the war on terrorism. As a consequence, European elected officials simply don't have a personal stake in the outcome.



Some Americans seem to take a certain delight in Europe's outrage. But the fact is that this outrage is undermining our ability to carry out the next stages of the war, including, perhaps, toppling Saddam Hussein. We don't necessarily need Europe's full military support for a war against Saddam. But we need its diplomatic support now and its assistance in the aftermath. Without this support, others will have an excuse for not cooperating. This has already begun to happen. King Abdullah of Jordan recently explained to The Washington Post why his country, which borders Iraq, could not be used as a staging area for a U.S. invasion force: "If it seems America wants to hit Baghdad, that's not what Jordanians think, or the British, the French . . . "

Right Makes Might

It's still not too late to enlist NATO in the fight against terrorism--to handle peacekeeping duties in an increasingly chaotic Afghanistan, to deepen its involvement in the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and to host the harmonization of judicial and law-enforcement activities. If there is to be a military operation against Iraq, then certainly NATO participation should be sought. Involving NATO more directly and deeply would give European leaders a personal political stake in the war. In particular, bringing NATO into an expanded peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan would go a long way toward convincing the Europeans that the United States is serious about stability in post-war Iraq or other post-conflict situations. That NATO framework can be expanded at the military level to encompass countries that do not belong to NATO, just as we did in Bosnia and Kosovo.

In the twilight of World War II we recognized the need for allies. We understood the need to prevent conflict, not just fight it, and we affirmed the idea that we must banish from the world what President Harry Truman, addressing the founding of the United Nations, called "the fundamental philosophy of our enemies, namely, that 'might makes right.'" Truman went on to say that we must "prove by our acts that right makes might." Since September 11, America has been in a similar position: the most powerful nation in the world, but facing a deadly enemy. The United States has the opportunity to use the power of the international institutions it established to triumph over terrorists who threaten not just the United States, but the world. What a tragedy it will be if we walk away from our own efforts, and from 60 years of post-World War II experience, to tackle the problem of terror without using fully the instruments of international law and persuasion that we ourselves created.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.clark.html
---------------------------------------------------
Wesley Clark: Iraq War 'Like Elective Surgery'

Monday, Feb. 17, 2003

Former Supreme NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark described the looming Iraq war as “inevitable” but “like elective surgery” during an interview on Meet the Press Sunday. “This will put us in a colonial position in the Middle East – a huge change for the United States,” Clark said.


<snip>

Clark opined that the U.S. should have engaged its NATO allies more definitively in the War on Terrorism – early on. Once everyone was working together and in harmony on the fight against Al Qaida, the environment would have been right to move the focus to Saddam and perhaps even on to N. Korea.

Clark fears that the U.S. will enter into a conflict still unsure of what the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south will do. He also voiced concern about the containment of the weapons of mass destruction once their guardians the Republican Guards are neutralized.

<snip>

When asked if the U.S. would retaliate with nuclear weapons if Saddam makes good on his threat to use his own WMD, Clark answered, “No, there will be no need; we will have rolled over them quickly.”

As to the inevitability of war, Clark said he could not envision a scenario where the U.S. backs off and continues with the simple containment of Saddam. “It’s too late; war is inevitable.”

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/16/153140.shtml

[E_Zapata]

116. Thank you for these articles and quotes.....

I am worried that Clark might just be the republican's choice for a nominee "in the event bush doesn't work out."

I felt this in my gut from the beginning.

Then I discovered the PNAC org Committee for the Liberation of Iraq - all PNACers and Lieberman and McCain. And a hole host of advisors who seem to have NATO and the Balkans political structures in common. Clark fits so well in that crowd that I was surprised he wasn't an advisor or a chair of the CLI.

Then you have Dean talking up Clark and all, proclaiming that he and Clark have talked a lot and are on the same page on a lot of issues. And Dean suddenly turning rather hawkish against cuba and the middle east (Palestine) and not cutting defense spending.

I think Clark is a plant to make sure the neo-cons have a candidate on both sides of the ballot. All this mystery about what Clark is going to do - he will let us know later in sept. At the end of August, Clark said he would tell us by the dem debate last week. They pushed it out another few weeks. They are playing their cards very carefully.

And now I see these pre-invasion articles by Clark that come closer to PNAC views than any other.

Worried. Very worried.

[Tinoire]

121. Closely check the ties to AEI/PNAC & Homeland Security

starting with The Markle Foundation, The Task Force on National Security in the Information Age, of which Clark is still a member and sister organization to the Brookings Institute... Go through the site and read their documents & studies. http://www.markletaskforce.org/

What is AEI/PNAC's plan? To have the Americans so cowed by terror that we will allow them to wage endless imperialistic wars to protect our "freedom" and to protect us from "terrorists" as they rape and plunder the rest of the world.

Enter an unknown horse running on a platform of domestic security and fighting terrorism. No thank you. The last thing the world needs is yet another general with those priorities.

More googles for your research... "Wesley Clark" + "Jackson Stephens", "Stephens, Inc", Acxiom (Clark sits on the Board of this company which currently is affiliated with Ridge's Homeland security), "Homeland Security", Brookings Institution (also a member) with its ties to AEI/PNAC

"Thus, among the signers who have never before been associated with PNAC, are Robert Asmus, a former deputy secretary of state for Europe; Ivo Daalder, a prominent member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Robert Gelbard, a former U.S. ambassador to Chile and Indonesia; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Dennis Ross, his chief adviser on Palestinian-Israeli negotiations; Walter Slocombe, Clinton's top policy official at the Pentagon; and, most important, James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser who now heads foreign policy studies at the influential Brookings Institution."

http://www.presentdanger.org/commentary/2003/0303pnacletter_body.html
http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-023.html

And just to spare myself the indignant cries from the most virulent Clark Supporters about what a jewel of progressiveness and light Brookings Institution is, read this:
------------------------------
Statement on Post-War Iraq

Although some of us have disagreed with the administration's handling of Iraq policy and others of us have agreed with it, we all join in supporting the military intervention in Iraq. The aim of UNSC Resolution 1441 was to give the Iraqi government a "final opportunity" to comply with all UN resolutions going back 12 years. The Iraqi government has demonstrably not complied. It is now time to act to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.

The removal of the present Iraqi regime from power will lay the foundation for achieving three vital goals: disarming Iraq of all its weapons of mass destruction stocks and production capabilities; establishing a peaceful, stable, democratic government in Iraq; and contributing to the democratic development of the wider Middle East.

<snip>


<snip> Any early fixation on exit strategies and departure deadlines will undercut American credibility and greatly diminish the prospects for success.


The United States military will necessarily bear much of the initial burden of maintaining stability in Iraq, securing its territorial integrity, finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction, and supporting efforts to deliver humanitarian assistance to those most in need. For the next year or more, U.S and coalition troops will have to comprise the bulk of the total international military presence in Iraq. But as the security situation permits, authority should transfer to civilian agencies, and to representatives of the Iraqi people themselves. Much of the long-term security presence, as well as the resources for reconstruction, will have to come from our allies in Europe and elsewhere—suggesting the importance of involving the NATO Alliance and other international institutions early in any planning and implementation of the post-conflict stage.


<snip> The successful disarming, rebuilding, and democratic reform of Iraq can contribute decisively to the democratization of the wider Middle East. This is an objective of overriding strategic importance to the United States, as it is to the rest of the international community—and its achievement will require an investment and commitment commensurate with that. We offer our full support to the President and Congress to accomplish these vitally important goals.

Ronald Asmus Max Boot Frank Carlucci

Eliot Cohen Ivo H. Daalder Thomas Donnelly

Peter Galbraith Jeffrey Gedmin

Robert S. Gelbard Reuel Marc Gerecht

Charles Hill Martin S. Indyk

Bruce P. Jackson Robert Kagan Craig Kennedy

William Kristol Tod Lindberg Will Marshall

Danielle Pletka Dennis Ross Randy Scheunemann

Gary Schmitt Walter Slocombe

James B. Steinberg R. James Woolsey

((Do any of those names sound familiar to you?))


http://www.brookings.edu/fp/research/projects/iraq/postwar.htm



Second Statement on Post-War Iraq

We write in strong support of efforts by Prime Minister Tony Blair to "get America and Europe working again together as partners and not as rivals." <snip>

<snip>

Of particular concern, the effort to rebuild Iraq should strengthen, not weaken transatlantic ties. The most important transatlantic institution is NATO, and the Alliance should assume a prominent role in post-war Iraq. Given NATO's capabilities and expertise, it should become integrally involved as soon as possible in the post-war effort. In particular, NATO should actively support efforts to secure and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and production facilities (a task that should unite the United States, Canada and all European allies committed to peace and non-proliferation), ensure peace and stability are maintained in postwar Iraq, and assist in the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure and the delivery of humanitarian relief. The Atlantic Alliance has pledged to confront the new threats of the 21st century. No current challenge is more important than that of building a peaceful, unified and democratic Iraq without weapons of mass destruction on NATO's own borders.

<snip>
International support and participation in the post-Iraq effort would be much easier to achieve if the UN Security Council were to endorse such efforts. The United States should therefore seek passage of a Security Council resolution that endorses the establishment of a civilian administration in Iraq, authorizes the participation of UN relief and reconstruction agencies, welcomes the deployment of a security and stabilization force by NATO allies, and lifts all economic sanctions imposed following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

Gordon Adams Ronald Asmus

Frank Carlucci Max Boot Eliot Cohen

Ivo H. Daalder James Dobbins Thomas Donnelly

Lee Feinstein Peter Galbraith

Robert S. Gelbard Reuel Marc Gerecht

Philip H. Gordon Charles Hill

Martin S. Indyk Bruce P. Jackson Robert Kagan

Craig Kennedy William Kristol Tod Lindberg

James M. Lindsay Will Marshall Christopher Makins

Joshua Muravchik Michael E. O'Hanlon

Danielle Pletka Dennis Ross

Randy Scheunemann Gary Schmitt

Helmut Sonnenfeldt James B. Steinberg

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/research/projects/iraq/postwar2.htm

By the way, You can find the the same two letters on PNAC's web-site
http://www.newamericancentury.org/lettersstatements.htm What a small world...


Yes they are playing their cards carefully- this is exactly why we're being treated to the hoopla of an orchestrated "draft" movement of a candidate who has no track record we can check, no political experience and no clearly stated positions on the issues.


There's a ton of information out there.

I laid some of this out beginning with post #37 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=279790

and there's some information in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=270701#271711

and some more here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=226326

Also of great interest is the PNAC page on the Balkans to see how all of this, Yugoslavia and the Middle East, all fit in together.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[E_Zapata]

124. thanx again

I hope centrists and liberals will see the light. We don't need a "smart" bush in office - as pres or vp. Exchanging brands of military might doesn't change anything.

And just as you can't be patriotic and criticize a sitting pres during wartime - it is also an american sin to criticize a war hero. Sounds like the same fix.

I suppose the USofA is just geared toward militarism no matter what - if there is a bandwagon for military-minded candidates. The only thing that might be able to change our mentality is to experience a Dresden first hand. That is a shame.

[robbedvoter]

22. Considering everything else he says on Iraq, this is a mere blip

Yesterday, on Pacifica Radio he detailed how he would have gone about Iraq (wait for inspectors - years if necessary), send humanitarian organizations, finnance - treat Iraq like the east European countries - rather than strenhthen Saddam by the whole hostility bit.
Today on NPR (Connections) he detailed his exit strategy - how he's create the conditions for an Iraqi government to function and would cooperate with neighboring countries (rather than PNAC then like W does). He also explained that UN's role is important for legitimacy: Iraq has no control over US decision making but it's represented in the UN.
So, maybe all that race horse attitude fostered my the media is stopping some of us see the valuable stuff candidates bring.

[RichV]

24. Link to thread about Connections interview

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=297360

[Kahuna]

44. It was no blip. This accusation by Will is totally contrived to be

some big deal. Clark said no more or less than he has always said. Will attests that neither Dean or Kerry have stated that Saddam has had WMD or moved them or whatever. How in the world does Will know that? He doesn't. Neither Dean or Kerry would say that Sadam didn't have WMD. Dean says the same thing that Clark says. Basically, whatever Saddam had, he was not a threat to us. And Kerry still insists that Saddam DID have them!

Wills attempt to cast Clark (who WILL shortly enter the race in the same light as Kerry is sooo transparent. Somebody is seriously trippin' at the thought of Clark entering the race. Let's get another whispher campaign going, eh? :eyes:

[WilliamPitt]

101. Speaking of transparent

Your hyper-sensitive overreaction is as clear as window glass. I have said dozens of times on this forum (including in a thread entitled "I LOVE THE CANDIDATE") that Clark will be a strong and very supportable candidate when he jumps in. I've been talking about him very positively in public forums before hundreds of people since late July, and have the videotapes to prove it.

I had a legitimate beef when I saw that Fox segment. Criticizing is not "bashing." Criticizing is not some organized effort to destroy anyone. Your insanely unbalanced defensiveness hurts your candidate very badly with others on this forum. I'd wager that your behavior in this thread has done more damage to your candidate than anything I could ever say or do. Congratulations.

[Kahuna]

102. Your "beef" amounts to nothing. If that's the best you can do..

then you should really save it for another day.

[John_H]

25. c'mon Will. You understand how politics works.

Clark doesn't know any better than we do whether Chimpy is going to plant the weapons or not. He's smart enough to know that if * does plant the weapons, the media will buy it hook line and sinker and that that whoever doubted that there "were" weapons all along will be left out to dry.

No one running for President wants to be in position of having to prove that the president of the us planted weapons. You wouldn't be able to do it and you would be destroyed trying.

He's hedging his bets

[Kahuna]

26. Er Will... Who doesn't believe Sadam had "some" WMD?"

Clark was totally consistent with his stance from day one. Nothing that Sadam might of had was of any threat to us or our allies. You need to rewatch the interview on Digitalclark.com. I'm sure that you will realize that Clark gave absolutely NOTHING to the bushies. He hates 'em as much as you 'n me.

On edit:

After rereading your posts, I think you were definately tripping if you think you heard Clark justify the war in any way. You're no better than the talking heads on TV who report some unsubstantiated bullshit (no transcript to back you up, no exact quotes, quotes taking out of context) and then when the transcript is posted it's too late to retract what you said. The damage is done. Thanks for nothing Will! :puke: Again, I expected better from you.

[WilliamPitt]

34. You said "Had." Clark said "Has."

Present tense. Big difference. You can stuff the rest of your little diatribe. Others saw what I saw. Read the thread.

[Kahuna]

39. Is Sadam dead or alive? If he's alive and there are WMD then..

he HAS them. The fact is you don't know whether he has them or not, neither do I, Dean or Kerry. Nobody but a fool would attest to something they can not prove one way or the other.

The fact remains, Clark opposed going to war with Iraq and hasn't changed his position. In keeping with being intellectually HONEST he is certainly not going to state the Sadam neither does not now or never has had WMD. That would be not only stupid, but political suicide before he even gets started.

This little excersize of yours is very transparent. We've seen it here dozens of times on DU. Snide little attacks on Clark that don't dignify taking the time to type them.

[WilliamPitt]

43. Give me a break

Yes, I have a massive secret agenda and you're just a poor poor victim. Or maybe I have an opinion. Um...

Pathetic pathetic crap.

[Kahuna]

46. Opinion? At least be consistent and honest when you have one.

Is that too much to ask? And hell no. Kahuna ain't nobody's victim. I keep it real. That's all. I don't have to play games and you know it.

[WilliamPitt]

55. Weak

"This little excersize of yours is very transparent. We've seen it here dozens of times on DU. Snide little attacks on Clark that don't dignify taking the time to type them."

Find me one thread, one thread, where I attack Clark. I'll donate $100 to DU in your name right here and now.

[Kahuna]

57. There's a first time for everything, and for you..

this is it. Just go to digitalclark.com, do your homework, then come back and discuss based upon knowledge.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

49. "Snide little attacks on Clark that don't dignify...

...taking the time to type them."

Why do you keep responding then? The only reason I can see that would justify you taking the time to respond is that you're afraid that the negatives about Clark are starting to outweigh the positives.

One more thing...no one but a fool would justify a war on the basis of merely THINKING that another country has WMDs. The fact that no WMDs were used when we invaded tells me that he doesn't have them. The fact that no WMDs have been found to date despite constant searching tells me that they don't exist. In fact, they haven't existed since the UN weapons inspectors certified that they were destroyed by 1995.

Don't bother responding, this little excersize of yours is very transparent.

[Kahuna]

52. Hold it. Get your arguments straight...

<<One more thing...no one but a fool would justify a war on the basis of merely THINKING that another country has WMDs. The fact that no WMDs were used when we invaded tells me that he doesn't have them. The fact that no WMDs have been found to date despite constant searching tells me that they don't exist. In fact, they haven't existed since the UN weapons inspectors certified that they were destroyed by 1995.>>

What's with the above? I didn't justify the war and neither did Clark. Your as late to the dialog and what has been going on as Will is. I know what Clark's position is because I have been following it for a long time. Why should I let somebody misrepresent the candidate that I support? I choose not to. If you don't like it, that's your problem, not mine.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

63. You made the statement that you were fine with Clark waffling on...

...the existence of Iraqi WMDs. You stated my opinion, I stated mine. Does that make you uncomfortable? Too bad.

You also made the following statement:

"In keeping with being intellectually HONEST he is certainly not going to state the Sadam neither does not now or never has had WMD."

If Clark was so opposed to the war against Iraq, how could he possibly waffle on the existence of WMDs in Iraq? If you remember correctly, that was THE original and primary reason for going to war against Iraq.

It's really a simple equation...if you believe WMDs exist, then you support the war against Iraq; if you believe WMDs don't exist, then you're against the war. You can't have it both ways and sit the fence.

So, which is it? Does Clark believe or does he not believe that WMDs currently exist in Iraq? Does Clark believe or not believe that WMDs existed in Iraq just prior to our attack?

[Kahuna]

65. "Waffling????" There is no waffling. You too should...

do some homework before you post about things you do not know. digitalclark.com. Do some homework and then we can discuss based upon knowledge and not ignorance.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

72. Clark is either waffling, or you're simply stating his position...

...incorrectly. Then again, maybe you're both waffling.

Which is it?

By the way, you should know the positions of your candidate well enough to defend them without having to resort to telling another poster to "do some homework". That implies to me that you really don't know your candidate that well and that you should be doing your own homework.

I just noticed...my last post must have rattled you because you forgot one of your nice digital campaign pictures of Mr. Waf...er...Mr. Clark.

[RichV]

73. Eh?

"if you believe WMDs exist, then you support the war against Iraq; if you believe WMDs don't exist, then you're against the war."

Looks like somebody has forgotten about the UN inspectors we forced out of the country before bombing the hell out of it. Remember all those protests and people saying "give them more time"? You're also rejecting diplomacy outright. I was one of those folks who figured they probably did have WMDs but still opposed the invasion and occupation. Thought there were alternative ways to handle this issue. Never dreamed that Iraq would just fold like a house of cards without using WMDs against either our forces or Israel, if not Turkey. Thought Saddam would surely try to escalate the conflict or suck neighboring nations into it. There was also the matter of whether to pursue the war or not given whether the UN or at least NATO decided to offer an endorsement and showed willingness to help ease the burden of costs in blood and money. The choice you offer is a false one. Let's not oversimplify the issue of going into the Iraq war. It's not yet *that* distant a memory.

[TacticalPeek]

87. "simple equation"

"if you believe WMDs exist, then you support the war against Iraq; if you believe WMDs don't exist, then you're against the war"

False Choices = Incorrect Conclusions

[Kahuna]

105. WRONG! That's simplistic thinking. Like isn't as black and white..

white or wrong like you and the conservatives would like it to be.

I always believed that Saddam probably had some while at the same time opposing the war. I, like Wesley Clark could really care less what Saddam did or did not have. The question is, did he pose a threat to us? The answer is no, he did not threaten us or his neighbors. Speaking for myself, I believe that Saddam should have had some WMD for the protection of his own country.

[TacticalPeek]

120. Well, I don't really think I needed a sarcasm bracket for #87, Kahuna.

First, "simple equation" and "if you believe WMDs exist, then you support the war against Iraq; if you believe WMDs don't exist, then you're against the war" were intended (I know) to make up a petard, and second,

"False Choices = Incorrect Conclusions" was intended (I know) as a hoist mechanism. Guess I should have been plainer intended. See my #80 below.

Be cool like Clark, don't rise to Will's bait, unless you've got the angle to snatch it. I'm not sure I really want this to go on, but my Q for Will would be, what is the good and recommended Clark position by Will's lights? And how does it game out? Betcha Clark wins that war game.

Hey, I like Clark and the horse he is riding in on more than you do, anyway. I saw him first. Since Kosovo coverage I have wished he would make a political move. He will win a pivotal national election, with lonnng coattails, and the country and world will be WAY better.

:toast:

[salin]

66. hehe... ironic dig

about the snide little attacks. Interesting that those who engage in this approach are those who cry foul.

[Kahuna]

106. Such as?

Don't waste your time trying to find one by me because you won't find one. If I have a point to make, I make it like a woman. Not like a 5 year old who tries to disguise their true purpose.

[Seneca]

91. Snide?

I read and re-read WillPitt's original post, and found that he went out of his way to be fair and careful (almost caught myself typing "balanced") with his words. I see nothing wrong with him expressing dismay if he heard Clark justify WMD's on some level.

Plus, he said he would vote for him if he got the nod, which is NOT what someone making "snide" remarks would do.

[Kahuna]

107. Will's post is full of it on so many levels.... First he pulls out

one quote out of context. He leaves out the good stuff like Clark asking, "Why are we there in the first place?" Pitt obviously has not been following Clark's myriad TV appearances. If he had, no way would he try to miscontrue what Clark said last night. Clark gave a kick ass interview last night. PERIOD. There was no wavering or waffling. He kicked RW hannity ass.

Then he assumes that Dean and Kerry have never said that Saddam has/had WMD's. I don't know what Dean has said. But I can assure you that he would probably NOT say that Saddam never had WMD. That would just be stupid.

As far as Kerry goes, Will knows darn well that Kerry STILL supports bush. Always has and always will. Yet, he has no "growl" against Kerry. Give me a break. This kind of hypocrasy boils my oil.

[Seneca]

113. I have a question

Just what would constitute a valid criticism of Clark? Is anyone allowed to say anything even mildly critical? Do you come on so hostile to all who may find a flaw or two with the good general?

[Forkboy]

123. yes Kahuna does

[Julien Sorel]

129. Questioning him about substantial issues is fine.

Lack of elective experience? Legitimate concern. Are his political views too far left or right? Legitimate discussion topic. How prepared is he on domestic issues? Ask away. Is he a war criminal? Not as the term is defined, and the evidence on that is quite clear.

Is he a crypto-PNACer, a crypto-Republican, a Rovian agent, a member of the Illuminati, out to divide and destroy the Democratic Party, a tool of the military-industrial complex, did he have his horns and tail surgically removed, does he dance with the devil in the pale moonlight, does he drive an imported car, does he have a secret crush on Bella Abzug -- these are questions that belong in a different forum, not on a forum that purports to discuss important issues.

Every time I see one of these paranoid theories come up, it disgusts and embarrasses me. Kerry, as a member of Skull and Bones, had a secret plan to assassinate Gore. Yep, someone who posts here said that, and someone else chimed in and congratulated them -- without irony -- on their clear thinking. That stuff, the more extreme attacks on Clark, they degrade this forum in my opinion, as well as create an atmosphere of rancor that is not helpful to the purpose of this site.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

47. Had/Has...Isn't That Hair-Splitting?

By definition, pretty much?

Based on his tone and the context of the discussion, I didn't get anywhere near the same impression that you did.

DTH

[WilliamPitt]

67. I don't think so

Had = known history of weapons posession that brought on the UNMOVIC inspections.

Has = the weapons are still there, thus justifying the war from the neo-con perspective.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

71. I Think It's a Question of Degree

I have little doubt that Iraq still had some old, degraded chemical capacity that might still be dangerous. It's also possible that they had a fledgling bioweapons program, based on my understanding of the capabilities.

In my view, they did not have them in anything resembling significant quantities, or any serious way to deliver them, however. Hence Iraq not being a threat, and hence the invasion being wrong. Yet the contention itself is sound, IMO.

That's even assuming it's fair to place so much significance on the distinction of "has/had," especially in a free-flowing interview situation like that. But obviously, YMMV.

DTH

[eleny]

27. I have been a Clark supporter - **but**....

I am now trying to learn more about America's involvement in Yugoslavia since 1989 - and the picture is not pretty. Yugoslavia was making good economic progress for 45 years with some manufacturing and making use of its natural resources. The people had health care and decent benefits. But it was a socialist country whose resources were out of the reach and control of western corporations. It is thought that our goal was to privatize Yugoslavia. The 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act forced the country into separate "democratic" elections in each of the republics in order to be eligible for our financial aid. GHW Bush's policies continued into Clinton's administration.

Clark's involvement is known. He is quoted as asserting that "the aim of the air war was to 'demolish, destroy, devastate, degrade, and ultimately eliminate the essential infrastructure' of Yugoslavia." Please see Michael Parenti's article published on his web site http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html

Although I have been supporting Clark's entry into the presidential race, I have not been able to get the Yugoslavia involvement passed my craw to swallow and accept it. I realize that there were terrible things going on in Yugoslavia by the time he was NATO Supreme Commander. But was the ethnic cleansing going on before our involvement during the Bush administration? I have a lot to learn. And being a progressive at heart, I'm having second thoughts about Wesley Clark.

It's issues like this that make me shrink from the "Anyone but Bush" thinking. I realize how Bush has us in a terrible mess. But I'm not sure what I'd be voting for if I voted for Clark. What corporations or interests support him? Has Clark had an epiphany about Kosovo? I haven't heard this from him. He fully supports his air campaign and wanted to send in ground troops.

I was drawn to supporting Clark because of his obvious charisma and his cogent arguments against the current Bush policies regarding Iraq. I want to learn more about how Clark feels about our stepping into Yugoslavia in the first place. Now, I feel that there's time to study, learn more and make an informed final decision. For me, it's too early for a final decision of where to provide my time and financial support.

[Evanstondem]

30. Clark in Yugoslavia

I'm a Dean supporter, but I don't see any reason to be critical of Clark's role in Yugoslavia (now Serbia).

First, the decision to bomb was not Clark's; his job was to help carry out the policies of the Clinton Administration, not Clark.

Second, I believe it was better to go after the infrastructure of Serbia than to allow Milosevic to continue murdering civilians in Kosovo!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

54. Well, then how about this information on Clark in Yugoslavia?...

Wesley Clark - A War Criminal?
<http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html>

I personally don't like the title of the article, but it certainly raises quite a few questions.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

58. Here You Go Parroting Your Zpub Link

This is the same org that follows the "Clinton body count," right?

:eyes:

DTH

[Media_Lies_Daily]

64. My zpub link?? Who cares where the information comes from...

...if it's factual.

If you have anything other than your infantile reponse to refute what's in that link, let's see it.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

79. IF It's Factual

The problem is, it's not. It's nowhere close. It's a weak hatchet job, one that's been refuted many, many times before, as you well know.

BTW, nice "infantile" personal attack. I'm not going to stoop that low, however.

DTH

[Media_Lies_Daily]

81. You must be correct...all of those links must be lies. LOL.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

83. There's No Shortage of RW and Serb/Milosevic-Apologist Sources

Like that hack Hawckworth, who will stop at nothing to discredit NATO, Clark and Clinton. Sorry you bought into it.

DTH

[OKNancy]

94. What does that mean?

You don't think the whole zpub site if full fo lies about Clinton, Madeline Albright, William Cohen, Chelsea Clinton and others. Go check out their discussion board. They are twice as nasty as the freepers.

[Clark Can WIN]

93. It's factual? Like Clinton is a war criminal and the Clinton body

count is factual? Puuhhhhlease:puke: You know you can reach into a latrine and pull out something brown and gooey and tell me it's a chocolate bar but I still pretty much recognize a shit when I see it.

[Tinoire]

69. ZPub mostly compiled articles from UK Guardian, Fair, Brasschecks, etc...

What a pathetic attempt to discredit the source so that people won't examine the information and weigh it.


:eyes:

[eleny]

78. Right Tinoire

I want to read as much as I can about these issues and then I want to hear what Clark has to say about the entire deal. Our getting involved in Yugoslavia in the first place and how Milosevic turned from being our pal to being the maniac. This is an all too familiar scenario. Was Nader right all along about how the Repubs and the Dems are not different under their skins?

So far, I've bounced from one candidate to another, reading and learning and I'm very disheartened with each one. It's easier to put the blinders on and spend my time reading cozy mystery novels. But once a person puts a foot on the path questing for information, you just can't hop off so easily.

[Tinoire]

88. I applaud u 4 taking the time to sift through. Do not trust the DLC!

That's the only way people are going to be informed in this country.

We won't make any progress until we stop trusting everything the corporate media or other agenda driven organizations tells us.

Big time warning bells went off in my head when I found out the DLC was behind the Draft Clark movement.

“The main theme of the next election is going to be national security,” said Chris Kofinis, a political consultant who attended the DLC gathering and is advising the campaign to draft retired Gen. Wesley Clark as the Democratic candidate.

Dean, he said, “is in a difficult spot. He ran a smart campaign; he has done an incredibly good job. But the way he energized his message was on an antiwar platform. He’s trying slowly to change it. But once you get framed, it’s very difficult to get re-framed. If he wins the nomination can he beat George Bush? As of July 2003 — it’s still early and he can change his message — Howard Dean loses and loses badly.”

http://www.msnbc.com/news/945273.asp

Then you have to scratch your head when you find out the two founding members of the Draft Clark movement are a Republican and a Democrat... Unfortunately, the general elections are the last place I want any bi-partisanship with the Republicans!
-------------

Meeting in Philadelphia to plan strategy for the 2004 elections, members of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council grappled Monday with what one Democratic political consultant here called "their worst nightmare," the possibility that Howard Dean might win their party's presidential nomination. DLC activists said that despite Dean's recent fund-raising successes, his winning the nomination is far from a sure thing.

ON THE ONE HAND, the message from some in the DLC was that Dean still has time to moderate his rhetoric so as to be palatable to centrist Democrats. On the other hand, some of the 650 DLCers taking part in Monday's meeting insisted that Dean's bubble is likely to burst.
DLC member and Wisconsin state legislator Jeff Plale, who is supporting Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut for the nomination, said, "Dean is a novelty." According to Plale, "Once folks start to really understand Howard Dean, his attraction as a candidate will start to fade. By running so far to the left, he's positioning himself outside the mainstream."

<snip>

DLC'S ROLE AS COUNTERWEIGHT
The DLC is the business-friendly group that helped write Bill Clinton's platform in 1992. It serves as a counterweight in Democratic politics to labor unions and interest groups such as the NAACP and the National Organization for Women (NOW).

<snip>

Without identifying any candidate by name, DLC Chairman Sen. Evan Bayh warned, "the Democratic Party is at risk of being taken over by the far left."

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=19159749

This is our one, our BEST ever chance to get a Progressive in office and the DLC will do everything in its power to stop that.

Also, I'm glad more people are seeing the similarities between Iraq and Yugoslavia.

Peace


If you want, you can read the analysis of the Zogby Poll they commissioned here:
www.draftwesleyclark.com/images/analysis.pdf

[DoveTurnedHawk]

82. You're a Fine One to Talk About Pathetic

Parroting sources who have even more of an axe to grind than you do. The agenda in both of your cases is clear, however: to defame a good man in the pursuit of your narrow, politically purist agenda.

DTH

[Tinoire]

92. Ah... Not wanting a guy who wanted to start WW3 is pathetic?

Yeah, I wrote all those articles...

I was the British Commander who refused to start WW3 for Clark

I was the Serb and international reporters who wrote about the obscene manner in which he puverized hospitals and schools, killing innocent civilians as he waged his war as if he was a personal vendetta (that according to Congressional reports) while littering their country with depleted uranium and using cluster bombs.

Yeah, it's all me and not the International papers which refused to whitewash America's imperialist march.

All me... and my little purist agenda...
----------------------

The Russians, who played a crucial role in persuading Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to end the war, had expected to police their own sector of Kosovo, independent of Nato.

<snip>
'Third World War'

General Wesley Clark, Nato's supreme commander, immediately ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport.

<snip>

Moral Combat: Nato at War

But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander.

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you,

" he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

General Jackson tells the BBC: "We were a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command."

<snip>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/671495.stm


Naw, sorry... Some guy who had to be STOPPED by a British General from starting WW3 is not exactly who I want in office.

[Clark Can WIN]

95. I see we're back to the smallest **cking spider in the world again

As I have said before, the smallest **cking spider in the world could weave something as thin as that.

:boring:

[Forkboy]

100. good,factual,well thought out rebuttal

not :eyes:

[Clark Can WIN]

108. It is every bit as good and factual as the original post

It just lacks the wasted effort of incredibly oversized type and reposted meaningless links to right wing democrat hating garbage.

[OKNancy]

96. Janet "Waco" Reno

That is the title of this little piece on zpub

http://www.zpub.com/un/un-jr.html

[RichV]

97. Yuck

And they're selling a book by my Cape Girardeau homeboy, Mr. David Limbaugh. Must be a "fair and balanced" site after all.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

59. Eleny, Clinton Intervened to Stop the Ethnic Cleansing

Clark supported that goal, and wanted to do it right, namely with ground troops. Since Clinton and others tied his hands on that, he had to fight from the air alone.

DTH

[eleny]

76. Dove TH - I want to know

how Clark feels about our intervention into the government and economics of Yugoslavia towards the goal of breaking it up into separate republics. Seems to me that our intervention is what may have led directly to old enmities emerging and the resultant ethnic cleansing.

From interviews with refugees, it was revealed that they were fleeing our air attacks more than from Melosevic. Sounds plausible given the ferocity of that campaign. I'm a registered Dem but am pretty disgusted with what I've read so far about our intervention into Yugoslavia during the 1980s and throughout the 90s. Could the breakup into republics have worked to pit one ethnic group against another and worked to the eventual long term advantage of corporations who wanted to privatize their industries?

Obviously I have more questions than answers and have much more reading to do. I heard one of our local talk show folks here say that when a person gets a degree in history, it's a Bachelor of *Arts not a B of *Science. It takes a lot of research and even more sifting through to come to personal conclusions.

And something is making me hesitate about Clark until I hear him answer toughter questions than "Will you be running for president?" or "What do you think about the administrations policy in Iraq". Compared to our divide and conquer Yugoslavia policy, the questions he's being asked now are not enough for me. I want to know more about how Clark sees the big picture of how our country has functioned in the world and where he would steer our ship of state. Destroying countries and cultures for the corporate bottom line gravely concerns me. Perhaps I'm not really a Dem, philosophically. Unless Kucinich's thinking is closer to my leanings.

All the best,
Eleny

[DoveTurnedHawk]

84. Eleny, the Enmities Were Bursting WAY Before Clark

I don't think the U.S. was a significant factor, here. The conflict truly began in earnest in 1991-92, during Bush Senior's watch.

Here is an unvetted link I found after a brief scan that appears to have some decent timelines and other info:

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~bosnia/doc/history.html

Again, I don't see how anyone can pin this on Clark.

DTH

[eleny]

104. Dove TH, regardless of where this thread has gone...

I was not pinning anything to Clark. But I do conclude that the U.S. was indeed a significant factor in the Yugoslavian civil war. If the country was progressing, albeit slowly, and we forced them to have independent elections in each of its republics as a condition of receiving financial assistance from the U.S. - then it seems to me that we deliberately fractured the nation.

Yes, this was during GHW Bush's administration. I think I also made that point, earlier. Perhaps it was in another thread. So we are in agreement on that. I just don't follow your thinking of how the U.S. could not have been a factor in the Yugoslavioan civil war if we forced them into political fracture as early as 1991.

The issue of Milosevic(sp) feels so familiar, doesn't it? So many of these awful "leaders" were sob's but they were our sob's. Like Saddham, Osama and Noriega.

Now, I'm off to read the url link you provided. Thanks for the dialog.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

112. That's Not "Forcing" Them To Do Anything

we forced them to have independent elections in each of its republics as a condition of receiving financial assistance from the U.S.

I personally disagree with the notion that we're somehow not allowed to attach strings to our grants. If anything, I think we need to attach MORE strings to our grants, particularly our grants to Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan, among others. If they don't like the strings, they don't have to take the money.

I'm glad you're not pinning this on Clark, though. I'd hate for you to get discouraged about an amazing candidate based on false information.

Cheers to you, Eleny!

:toast:

DTH

[eleny]

118. Sorry Dove TH, but....

I can't agree with imposing conditions that evidently resulted in the fracturing of a government that was functioning and not any threat to the U.S. Yes, Yugoslavia was a socialist government. But it was no threat to us unless anyone would view its infant auto industry a threat. I think not. Other things must have been at work. So, I guess we're not in agreement on that point. Perhaps we both have a lot more to learn about our involvement there since 1989. Not too terribly much to expect of us for the sake of good ciitzenship <ggg>.

As for Gen. Clark, he has yet to prove to me that he's amazing. I need to learn much more from him about himself. Following orders may not cut it for me since he chose to be at the highest levels of the military. This seems to fit your cogent thought about choice. Choosing to make a career of accomplishing our government's goals, right or wrong, may not digest well with me.

[KoKo]

28. The few times I heard Clark on Pundit shows during Invasion he was very

pro us being in Iraq and said pretty much what you heard on Faux that he was certain Saddam had WMD...etc.

I've never seen the Wesley Clark-Democrat that his supporter here on DU talk about. I didn't watch alot of CNN during the Invasion and never watch Faux.....so I may have missed other statements that folks who like him heard, which impressed them so they wanted him to run......but I never was impressed with anything I heard from him.....always struck me as a Repug......but that's just my limited experience with him.

I still don't get the big deal about Clark saving the Dem ticket.......just don't......

But, imagine there will be many posts here expressing why he "really" is an anti-war candidate and what you saw isn't really what he meant. :shrug:

[RichV]

31. Not a dedicated Clark supporter

but don't know what you were watching. I never saw him advocate the Iraq invasion on his TV appearances last fall/winter or in the spring. He called Bush unilateralist and was quite critical.

[KoKo]

33. As I said Rich....I didn't see all of his appearances...but I tried to

watch him because some DU'ers kept posting to watch for him. I even asked at the time why what I heard was so different but didn't get an answer that when I watched him ever seemed to be what I heard.

So, not having heard every comment he made.....I can only give my limited view.

[Kahuna]

42. digitalclark.com. We have posted this url hundreds of times

and you know it. You can go there right now and see videos of his tv appearances.

[Pepperbelly]

32. we must have seen different Generals or something because ....

I heard no cheerleading from him.

No value judgements at all.

[diamondsoul]

51. Hmm. Interesting perception.

No flaming or anything, I was just thinking how it was I came to like him as a commentator on the war. He made several statements from the outset about bad strategy, poor planning, how he'd handle things differently, etc. Very carefully phrased comments but statements military people can respect as honest.

[bicentennial_baby]

41. ?

I watched Wesley repeatedly on Aaron Brown's show during the invasion, and at the time I was struck by how NOT pro-war he was, especially compared to the other military types on Faux and MSRNC. I guess perception really does affect how people interpret things, eh?

[graham67]

70. He's supportive of the soldiers in Iraq....

not the reasons we went there. There's a big difference. His job on CNN was to be a military expert commentator, not to be "anti-war". Go look at transcripts from his testimony to the house and senate armed services committees in September of last year. He had very strong opinions about the runup to the war.

[Clark Can WIN]

109. there is a very clear distinction between believing in the

possibility of "some" WMD and believing the Bush snow job that WMD were any justificaton of war. Clark has repeatedly said the war was of choice, not justified.

[AP]

29. Clinton, Sid Blumenthal, and everyone from Clinton's administration

thinks Hussein still had weapons in '98. Did you read The Clinton Wars? Maybe they're all lying to pull the national security rug out from under the Republican's feet, but I doubt it.

Also, if you read The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, I think you'd have to be brain dead if the idea that they might be in Saudi Arabia didn't cross your mind for a second.

[robbedvoter]

35. "Biggest blunder since the cold war" - Clark called Iraq

Unlike your candidate who still stands by his vote for war.
I think you got better since the days you said people were not allowed to draft Gore. Kinda like Arnie accusing Davis of anti-immigrant slur for saying "you have to be able to pronounce the name of your state before running for governor.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

68. Okay, help me understand this...

...is Clark stating that the Cold War was also a "blunder"? Or is he saying that of all of the "blunders" committed since the end of the Cold War, this one is the worst?

If he's talking about "blunders" committed since the fall of the old Soviet Union, my personal vote would go to Poppa Bush's mistake in leaving Saddam in power during Desert Storm. If not for that egregious error, Junior wouldn't have had an excuse for attacking Iraq the second time. I'm amazed that a man of Clark's senior officer background wouldn't understand that simple bit of linkage.

[PATRICK]

37. where you work

And you can sympathize with people who have had to speak and work in the Fox News Network or the Senate. The lies are just overwhelming. Too bad our future numero uno will not get a debugging from too close contact with the bad guys. I hope Dean continues to take advantage of the luxury of not having to dance with the devil.

This is sort of sneaky. Making Clark look a worse hawk than Kerry and by defending Clark I am defending both? Was that intended?

My only complaint is along slightly different lines but on toward the same reservation. Namely, that pushing military credentials we may end upwith an honest candidate who will serve PNAC by plain inertial force. You may end up defeating Bush and still not all of of his disastrous policies which many Democratic leaders have conceded too much. I mean, if terrorism vanished overnight is Clark going to naturally shift his attention to Headstart porgrams and the economy?

That reservation in no way diminishes by support for the eventual nominee.

[tjdee]

38. How is he "justifying" the war?

Even if he DOES believe Saddam has WMD (in your original post you said he said "haD" weapons, which many people think), he was STILL against the war.

So what?

I don't think I've ever heard him justify the war--to my knowledge he's never said it was a good idea, or that we needed to do it, or anything.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[StandWatie]

45. No one wants to go there

even the Bush administration and the right-wing thinktanks are beginning to hint around that even if he destroyed them the big danger would be that given a clean bill of health sanctions would have to be lifted and Hussein might start work on a nuke or something.

At least that is half-ass honest, watching the democrats still cling to these daydreams about what Saddam was doing and how he MUST have moved them somewhere because they are so smart their brain hurts and they KNEW somehow that he had all this crap is disheartening.

[John_H]

50. Upon rereading the scenario, I'm curious

Assume you work for Kerry, Will. How would you have him deal with the WMD issue? Would you have him say, "There were never any WMDs and if some are found, the President of The United States or entities under his contol planted them"?

It sounded to me like the subtext of Clark's statement is, "The President tells me that there were WMDs so I believe him." He puts the onus on the Chimp. He has said numerous times that the war was not justified.

Is there is a satisfactory answer vis a vis aside from the one Clark gave that doesn't "justify" the war.

[WilliamPitt]

53. It's tough

It's ridiculous, as a guy who thinks Kerry is going to get the nod, to stand here and decry about how other candidates speak about the WMD issue. I have no standing right out of the gate. This irked me because of the present-tense commentary about Iraqi WMD posession.

I would not have anyone say "There were never any WMDs" because that is flat nonsense. I'd like Clark or Kerry to get up and say that Bush's characterizaton of the threat was extremely overblown, and it is now clear that there are no longer any WMDs in Iraq.

That would be nice.

[Kahuna]

56. FYI, bud, That's exactly what Clark has been saying. Just admit...

that you haven't been paying attention. Heck, go to digitalclark.com and view the numerous videos where Clark says just that.

[Cush]

62. Clark

He's said that while he thought that somethign was there, it wasn't enough to be considered a direct threat to anyone, let alone the US. He's said that the immediate threat was removed during the 98 airstrikes.

on show he said that for there to be a threat:

1) has to be actual weapons (with evidence to show that the program was still in progress

2) the means to deliver the weapons

3) evidence that they planned to use them in a first strike, or give them to someone who will

[John_H]

74. what would really be nice

and I know this is a tall order--is if the Democratic candidates (in the interests of ensuring that whoever wins the primary can whack chimpy on this issue withou having KKarl dredge up siffering soundbites) and put out exactly that message on WMD in all their appearances, including debates. After all, that is exactly the position of everyone except non-smokin' Joe.

Turn up the heat with a safe, accurate, and unified message,lady and gentlemen --you got him dead to rights!

[Kahuna]

61. And another thing! Why aren't you growling about Kerry?

Kerry is the one who still supports the war on Iraq. You're so piqued that Clark suggested there may have been WMDs, but that wasn't sufficient cause to go to war. But you give Kerry a total pass and still say, he's your man. God, you're making me dizzy. I can't take it anymore.

[Mz Pip]

75. Oh, good grief

Lots of people believed Saddam had WMDs. We gave them to him. I figured he had them but I never thought he was any threat to us. I figured it was more of his needing to maintain his level of thugness in the region.

Honestly, I thought we would find something, but that really wasn't the point. He wasn't a threat to us. Believing that there were or may have been WMDs and being opposed to going into Iraq are NOT mutually exclusive. There MAY be stuff hidden that we haven't found, I just don't know. I kind of doubt it at this point, but it's kind of silly to criticize Clark over that one point. He was opposed to our going into Iraq. He's opposed to the way Bush has handled the whole operation.

MzPip
:dem:

[grasswire]

77. doesn't Clinton still believe there were WMD?

And Gore, too?

[TacticalPeek]

80. I admit to mild surprise when I heard his WMD comment on Faux last night.

Surprised because I seldom see smarter, defter moves than what I think up myself ;-)

These comments came just before a break, but in the same sentence with something to the effect "but there was no urgency to attack, and that's where I split from them".

This is the same sort of strategic play that we got from the Big Dawg about the "16 words". Don't send all your forces down the WMD road on this, because that will only lead to proving negatives and shouting over who shot John. Instead, THEY have sent lots of THEIR forces down that road and its bringing them grief, so don't interfere with their circular firing squad.

Lack of imminent threat is a much stronger legal and moral basis for opposition. They put the WMD lies collar around their own neck and it is still choking just fine. Witness hammity having zero comeback to Clark's remark.

My agreement with Clark is that we don't know for sure how effective the WMD destruction was from Operation Desert Fox in 1998. Hence, don the flameproof suit and advance to the main battle. Leave the side-roads to Shrub and David Kay.

[Julien Sorel]

85. Good job growling at Cark.

Your growls have woken up the underbelly of this place -- the nut job conspiracy theorists.

Maybe we should start growling at Kerry, so the whole Skull and Bones, Kerry-wanted-to-assassinate-Gore crowd can come out and liven things up a bit further. Nothing like intelligent, rational debate to spicen up a message board.

[Kahuna]

130. We don't take the Kerry factor into consideration..

Clarkies have better things to do with their time than to pick apart every waffling comment on Iraq by Kerry. There isn't enough time in the universe to accomplish that anyway.

[ArkDem]

86. You have a friend who watches Fox?

.

[WilliamPitt]

89. I was as surprised as you

Her GOPish friend Denise had been over. I think that's why it was on.

[Avalux]

98. Clark is playing it smart

about the WMDs, or bio/chem agents or whatever it's morphed into. What if he claims the administration will never find any, then some show up? Would be incentive for the administration to make sure they show up, either in Iraq or elsewhere. There may be something in Iraq anyway - highly unlikely but possible. Best to let it go.
The real question was the imminence of danger from Iraq that (mis)led us to war, and I think we all know where Clark stands on that.

[TheBigGuy]

103. I think he could have tap-danced around that better...

...he must really believe it because the tap dance would be to say something that there hasnt been any found or they keep looking or something like that.

But its is pretty clear Saddam did have them at one point in time..after all he did use them against the Kurds and Iran. Hard to say how recently hes' had them.

[neuvocat]

110. Oh lookie here, another imflammatory post.

You don't remember that this was on Hannity and Colmes so its likely you don't entirely remember what was said in the proper context.

Then you overlook how the presence of WMD's is not the same as actually using them against the U.S.

And of course the Clark supporters have to get bashed in the process.

What a load.

[Clark Can WIN]

111. Will Pitt I want to ask you something

Why do you say that Clark 'justified' the war simply because he stated that WMD existed or exist? In the same sentance you site, he goes on to say "where was the immenent threat that justified stopping our work against Al Qaida?"

Do you know of any time or interview when General Clark specifically said this war was justified?

I submit he was not tap dancing as you put it, but that he believes there are or were WMD but also WMD never had a damn thing to do with it ever in the first place.

WMD was just an excuse to harvest some oil and move our middle east base from our "friends" house over to a new backyard that was a little less troublesome. Only turns out Iraq is a big pain in the ass. Turns out, after we busted her door down, she didn't just lift her skirt for us after all. Now Bush and company is stuck with thier pants down and instead of a warm and eager lover they are locked in a room with Lorena Bobbit. Hate it when that happens.

[TacticalPeek]

115. "If you were being raped, would you prefer immediate withdrawal,

or prolonged negotiation?"

Ah, we must be re-fighting the sixties.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

114. Here's where you want to be:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=299591

[E_Zapata]

119. ", or has moved them to another country."

", or has moved them to another country."

This is the part that scares me about Clark. That is PNAC propaganda to set up justification for action against Syria and/or Iran.

Before the invasion - the Rumsfeld and Colin and others kept talking about satellite evidence of movement. Basically - they could watch the borders. You don't think the borders were being watched closely from before the invasion until the present? Of course the US is watching the borders from above.

So - how did evil Saddam slip the WMDs past the US satellites, agents, etc?

This is what Clark said that worries me. A lot.

[frank frankly]

125. Whoever screams HALLIBURTON & ENRON & BBV will win.

Look, I am pretty terrified for democracy and will rally to vote for any democratic nominee. But since we are at Crisis here, and because we have primaries, I am withholding support for a little while.

I feared Dean at first because he went to Yale and I though he may be a Skull & Bones guy. He is my favorite, mostly because I found his words and strength a bright spot in the dark tunnel that was Feb-March 2003.

I fear Clark because he could be like Colin Powell.

I fear Kerry because he was in Skull & Bones, & voted for this war.

I fear Kuccinich very little, and love his work in the House of Reps. I think he has been most outspoken about Halliburton, Enron, & BBV.

But that said, whoever stays on message saying we are in a current crisis because of Halliburton, Enron, & BBV, will win.

We need to hear Halliburton every day. Every speech. Every paragraph when they are on tv. Same for BBV.

WHO'S GONNA DO IT?

[theboss]

131. He knew the intelligence under Clinton

I think Clark is being wise to avoid stepping into a debate that could be an absolute disaster for Democrats. It's unbelievably dangerous to argue that Hussein never had WMDs and was never seeking WMDs.

The question should be: was he enough of a threat for the US to pre-emptively invade? The answer to that question has been proved to be a resounding, Hell No!!

The Clinton/Gore approach to Hussein was not that fundamentally different from the Bush approach to Hussein - right up until the point of "Shock and Awe." Our planes controlled over 2/3 of the country during Clinton's term and we were constantly engaged in low-level hostilities.

So someone who worked for Clinton certainly can't make the case that Hussein was never any kind of threat. If that is the case, what were we doing for eight years?

Clark is - in my opinion - wisely moving into the area that the Administration has left wide open for criticism. And it is an area that can resonate with Middle America. Namely, 1) Bush exaggerated the threat to get the war he desired and 2) Bush started a war with absolutely no plan for the aftermath.

I have a friend - a West Point grad - who is a captain in the Army. He was in Iraq for about eight months. He is right-wing as you can get and said he felt like booing Clinton at commencement. And even he says that the invasion of Iraq is a 4-Point Plan with no Part 4. This is the case Clark is making.

[Tinoire]

132. Good post & question to you

Thank you for bringing this up... It's ludicrous to be so blinded bu rage against Bush and his greed that we forget about the 8 years of daily bombardments under Clinton and Gore. Your friend was right on and everyone in the Military knew this. When Republicans and Greens point fingers at Clinton & the Dems, they have a valid point and it would be wise of us to remain objective enough to stop thinking that everything was peachy keen and clean under Clinton.

Google: Madeleine Albright Sandy Berger OSU Iraq

Clinton was ready to start the war against Hussein. Albright and Berger were sent out on a recon mission to see how much support they would get from the American people....

Answer- none

Clinton declined to start the war

Monica-gate.

Now if all Clark supporters were as clear thinking as you, that would make a big impression on me.

Now... what I would like to hear from you and you alone is- why are you supporting Clark?

[Tinoire]

133. Good post & question to you

Thank you for bringing this up... It's ludicrous to be so blinded bu rage against Bush and his greed that we forget about the 8 years of daily bombardments under Clinton and Gore. Your friend was right on and everyone in the Military knew this. When Republicans and Greens point fingers at Clinton & the Dems, they have a valid point and it would be wise of us to remain objective enough to stop thinking that everything was peachy keen and clean under Clinton.

Google: Madeleine Albright Sandy Berger OSU Iraq

Clinton was ready to start the war against Hussein. Albright and Berger were sent out on a recon mission to see how much support they would get from the American people....

Answer- none

Clinton declined to start the war

Monica-gate.

Now if all Clark supporters were as clear thinking as you, that would make a big impression on me.

Now... what I would like to hear from you and you alone is- why are you supporting Clark?