Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clark's Iraq Position: Let's Discuss It !!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 09:19 AM
Original message
Clark's Iraq Position: Let's Discuss It !!
I received an email today from www.CommonDreams.org ... they sent the following link to an article about Clark's "anti-war" position on Iraq ... however, at the end of the extracts from this article, i've included extracts from Clark's interview with Salon that was conducted 4 days after the Iraq invasion began ... that interview paints a very different picture of Clark's views ... the insights he showed in that interview about his predictions for post-war Iraq were dead on the money ...

For those who want to get past the "pro-war" and "anti-war" labels, what do you think of Clark's position on Iraq ??

Common Dreams source: http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0916-10.htm


<snip>

Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us...

<snip>

After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air."

<snip>

Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained.

<snip>



Salon interview source: http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003812


<snip>

Salon: What, if anything, would you have done differently in the current crisis?

Clark: Well, I would have said that at the outset we should have built a stronger legal framework on the whole war on terror and then worked to bring NATO into it so we had the NATO nations engaged more actively for the war on terror. And that in turn would have led naturally into the work against Iraq.

<snip>

Salon: So you think the case has been made well then?

Clark: I believe it could have been made. Although the element of urgency was always missing.

Salon: You've referred to the campaign against Iraq as "elective surgery"; I imagine that means that you support disarming Saddam in principle, just not with the same urgency the Bush administration feels.

Clark: My view on it was and has been that at some point you're going to need to take actions to deal with the problem of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. But those actions didn't have to necessarily be military and they didn't have to be now. It's the administration that chose to do this set of actions at this time. And the reason they've had problems persuading people of the necessity for doing it has been because they couldn't address the urgency.

<snip>

Clark: I think the importance of working with allies is going to become self-evident in the aftermath of this operation. We're not going to be able to maintain stability in the Middle East, support the reconstruction of post-Saddam Iraq, deal with the challenges of North Korea, continue this struggle against terrorism, and face the problem of Iran alone and still return to prosperity in this country. It's bigger than what we can do.

<snip>

Salon: So you don't share the president's optimism that this is going to be the first Middle Eastern country in a sort of democracy domino effect?

Clark: I think that's possible, but I wouldn't say that's the most likely outcome. The most likely outcome is a stuttering instability in the region, intensified repression by some states, marginal moderation in others, and for the region more uncertainty ... that's the most likely outcome.

<snip>

Salon: Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ...

Clark: I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues.

<snip>

When I go back and think about the atmosphere in which the PATRIOT Act was passed, it begs for a reconsideration and review. And it should be done. Law enforcement agencies will always chafe at any restriction whatsoever when they're in the business of trying to get their job done. But in practice we've always balanced the need for law enforcement with our own protection of our constitutional rights and that's a balance that will need to be reviewed.

<snip>

Clark: Well, as I told you, I don't think the president built the case and developed the coalition. I've always been concerned -- and you know from my writing -- that there wasn't evidence to justify the urgency to justify moving against Saddam Hussein right now. Rather than presenting the international community with a problem and asking its assistance in helping to resolve it, the United States government effectively presented the solution and asked for countries to agree with its views. And too many didn't.

<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
soothsayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. Eww, is he a pnac creep too??
Rubs shoulders with perle and wolfy and that horrible crowd and LIKES 'em...!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
2. He 'likes' Rummy, Wolfowitz, Cheney! He calls them old colleagues!
He's chummy with the whole PNAC gang! Perle & Feith, too! OMG!

And his criticism of the Iraq invasion is limited purely to pragmatic difficulties -- that it's "bigger than what we can do" & that it was "elective surgery," not a war of necessity. This is the "Anti-war Lite" position; there is no element of principled opposition to the Iraq war. In fact, he sounds generally approving in principle: if we'd had the allies along & a stronger legal framework, this "would have led naturally into the work against Iraq." :puke:

Not a word, meanwhile, about the oil, PNAC, the non-existent WMD, or the geostrategic motivation for the war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Clark opposed the war, whether you want to call it "lite" or not
and he was clear about that. And he remains clear about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. There's a big difference between Clark's position, & a principled antiwar
position -- "whether you want to recognize it or not." :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. There is a big difference between a principled anti-war position
and rigid, dogmatic pacifism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. There is a big difference between what you just wrote, and
something that has the faintest connection to the serious evaluation of Clark's actual positions on the war.**


** Which was, I believe, the point being discussed in the thread.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. What is serious about evaluating Clark's position through
a rigid anti-war template? It seems to me you're distorting the central fact that he was on record before the war as being opposed to it. How is his anti-war position any less principled than yours or mine?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. OK, I'll tell you how. My position is that no country has a right to
make "pre-emptive war." I also maintain that the entire US war effort was based on fraud & deliberate lies; that the plans for seizing Iraq were laid 10 years ago; that the US action violated the principles set forth at Nuremberg ("conspiracy to wage aggressive war"); that the real US motive was military control of an oil-rich region plus various associated geostrategic advantages, plus the intent to shovel huge contracts to Bush political cronies. I thus feel that the US action was criminal in every sense of the term, & that the perpetrators should be charged with international war crimes.

Clark is not willing to say any of that. In fact, his April 10 article for the London Times shows -- in HIS OWN WORDS -- that he was getting very excited about the "victory."

PS - your use of the phrase "rigid anti-war template" is ridiculous. Not only would you be completely unable to justify it in regard to MY positions, you're just reaching for an upscale word like "template" to cover over the shallowness & lack of foundation of your accusation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. RichM, I share with you every belief in your first paragraph
I am also appalled by some of the quotes attributed to Clark just before the war and just after it. And I apologize for using the phrase "rigid pacifist template."

But I do recall distinctly Clark taking the clear position that the war in Iraq was not necessary on Meet the Press within weeks of the invasion. And on the basis of what I remember him saying and his other more recent quotes, he's made clear enough to me that he was not in favor of the way the war was prepared for or carried out. That doesn't mean I'm going to support him. I'd like to know more about the damning quotes FAIR is circulating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. May I Ask Which Candidate You're Supporting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Kucinich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I Like DK
I like his supporters alot, especially John Kleeb...

I'll vote for any Dem that emerges victorious from the primaries...

Voting Democratic is a matter of religion with me...


One messy detail... DK is not going to win the nomination... I'm willing to look at scenarioes where he can win...

Please show me one....





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. rigid, dogmatic pacifism
well, in the interest of keeping the discussion on a somewhat higher plain, would you acknowledge that Clark opposed the war primarily for "pragmatic, tactical reasons" ??

the point RichM made is valid ... Clark stated that he did not "see the urgency" to go to war when we did ... but he seemed to also indicate that the war was probably necessary ...

these positions are neither "good" nor "bad" ... we either agree with them or we don't ... but Clark did not say he opposed this invasion because no imminent threat was present ... he merely said that the "timing of the war" was pre-mature because there was no imminent threat ... he said we could have used the time to strengthen our position ...

his argument seems more "tactical" than principled ... and we really should put to rest the idea that there's necessarily anything wrong with taking a principled stand ... i, for one, would like to see the standard of self-defense, i.e. the standard of imminent threat, be fully endorsed by all presidential candidates ... to ignore this critical principle sets a standard for war that is both immoral and damaging to the US role in the world ...

"imminent threat" is not some type of vague, naive, impractical, idealistic concept ... it should form the foundation of our policy on warfare ... if Clark dismisses this standard, and the quotes provided seem to suggest he applies this standard only as a matter of battlefield practicality, than i feel comfortable disagreeing with him on this issue ... i hope that he clarifies his position on the war over the next week or two ... i'd like to hear more from him ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. How do you read "necessity" in Clark's position on war in Iraq?
He called it "elective" which is exactly the opposite of "necessary." And how do you read a dismissal of "imminent threat" as a criterion in this:


Clark: My view on it was and has been that at some point you're going to need to take actions to deal with the problem of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. But those actions didn't have to necessarily be military and they didn't have to be now. It's the administration that chose to do this set of actions at this time. And the reason they've had problems persuading people of the necessity for doing it has been because they couldn't address the urgency.


What is the problem with this statement? Where is the evidence of lack of the very principle you're referring to?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
25. Oh for cripe's sake!
He is a general that was ordered to step down two months before his time was up. He has yet to come clean about the reason to the public. (He says he doesn't know why and hasn't asked?) Oh yeah, he's "clear" alright. :eyes:

He's as much anti-war as I am pro-war. Rigid, dogmatic pacifism? What the hell does THAT mean? He can't play soldier any more, so he critizes the way the war was executed.

A man that has devoted his entire adult life to the military suddenly does a 180 on war? Only because it would look better on his presidential resume.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. With all due respect, Pastiche423,
Clark's having chosen to make a career in the military is not per se sufficient to condemn him. His words and deeds, on the other hand, are. And I confess, after looking more closely at some of his comments praising Bush and Blair, for example, to being more troubled about him than I was when the day began.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
27. Yes. He should have bashed Rummie and the rest of the crew.
Then he would have had a snowball's chance in hell of convincing them to handle the post war debacle in the right manner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Uh...
Why would he be convincing them of anything? He's no longer in the service.

He likes them.

He would like to work w/them again.

They are the lowest form of scum in our country today.

Why assoicate him w/them now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StopTheMorans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
3. I don't like those "liberation"
comments. They seem short-sighted (specifically "the other ME nations will jump on board").
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
angka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
4. who the fuck
wants to get past the 'pro-war' and 'anti-war' labels?

oh, yeah, that would be supporters of 'pro-war' candidates. feeling a little uncomfortable these days, aren't they?

with the administration putting an ever more desperate spin on its disastrous policies, Democrats who colluded with them are starting to sweat.

THE TIME HAS COME FOR THE PRO-WAR DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES TO STEP ASIDE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. labels
who the fuck wants to get past the 'pro-war' and 'anti-war' labels?

oh, yeah, that would be supporters of 'pro-war' candidates. feeling a little uncomfortable these days, aren't they?


i, for one, would like to get past the use of labels ... your statement that those who do "would be supporters of 'pro-war' candidates. feeling a little uncomfortable these days, aren't they?" is a demonstration of shallow thinking and inaccurate labelling ...

let me assure you, that i have argued long and hard on DU that "candidates who supported bush's iraq invasion" should never receive our support until they acknowledge that the invasion was unjustified ... i have no problem with your statement that those who continue to support the validity of the invasion, and this includes Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt and Edwards should get the hell out if they continue to refuse to renounce the position they did, and still are, taking ...

so, even though i deplore the use of labels as lazy thinking, i assure you i am neither a supporter of a "pro-war candidate" nor am i "feeling a little uncomfortable these days" ... your characterization of my position is based on absolutely nothing ... and it's wrong ...

i would argue even further that it is foolish to view most of those who voted for the Iraq resolution as "pro-war" ... or for that matter, to label those who opposed the resolution as "anti-war" ... would you argue that Dean is anti-war? He supported the Gulf War and also supported the war in Afghanistan ...

the problem with labels is that they paint with too broad a brush ... they fail to analyze policy decisions on a case-by-case basis ... it's lazy thinking plain and simple ... i'm confident you can offer more in this discussion about Clark's views than just a vigorous support of the use of labels ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
angka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. well that's the four i'm talking about, so...
and whatever multi-paragraph opinion you may have, i for one am perfectly comfortable with the use of 'labels' in the process of holding leaders accountable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bertrand Donating Member (764 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
6. is there some way to consolidate the anti-_____ posts
because im sure im not the only one getting sick of replying to the same articles repeatedly being posted by people who dont check out the immediate history of these boards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
8. General Clark says:
"Already the scent of victory is in the air"

What the hell has he been sniffing? Don't smell like no victory to me or, I would imagine, our soldiers in Iraq. This is the guy so many here are wanting to be the Prez? Ya' gotta be kidding....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
14. I fear that Clark's nuances are ...
far too subtle for many who inhabit this board. Black. White. es. No. Pro-war. Anti-war.

It is as though actual thought process confuses the labelers and slogan-shouters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disgruntella Donating Member (983 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. yes, and don't forget...
guilt by association

"He worked with that guy and didn't call him an evil SOB in an interview? They must be in cahoots!"

I don't like the PNAC crowd either, but people are a little quick to jump on that link IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftwingnut Donating Member (843 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. clark is not an "outsider"
this notion that he's outside of washington is a joke...he's not from Little Rock any more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disgruntella Donating Member (983 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. i never said he was an outsider.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dfong63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #14
26. a man who relies on such subtle "nuances",
Edited on Thu Sep-18-03 02:39 PM by dfong63
... that require so much attention from the spin doctors to explain away, is not going to be elected. a strong candidate knows his/her audience and expresses himself in language that is easy to understand.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. When Clark gave those interviews and wrote those articles
Edited on Thu Sep-18-03 02:59 PM by Skwmom
he wasn't trying to get elected. I think he was was as diplomatically as possible trying to get the other side to heed his advice and concerns on Iraq.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
28. But Pepperbelly,the smart one,is here to show us the light
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kang Donating Member (254 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-18-03 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
32. Clark's position on Iraq is the same as mine
Edited on Thu Sep-18-03 03:31 PM by kang
What is so hard to understand about Clark's position on Iraq? He thought Hussein's regime was a problem (not to mention an incredibly oppressive regime) that the US would need to bring down at some point, BUT he thought the imminent threat didn't exist to go ahead and harm int'l relations to the degree that they did.

HOWEVER, once the Bush admin. committed to "disarming" Iraq and we went in, Clark was proud of the military servicemen and women who fought bravely and, in the end, we did topple a dictator who committed genocide and terrorized his own people. That's the victory he's referring to. One can think that the whole thing was unnecessary and handled improperly, but that some real tangible good did result. Even to this day, the future of Iraq hangs in the balance. Can't we focus on what we do now about the situation?

As for the comments about Perle, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, Clark's worked with them and wouldn't necessarily bad mouth them publicly. Although I would have preferred it that he didn't say that, I'm not looking for perfection here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 04:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC