Take the time to read the NYT article: Clark says Dean was right.

[madaboutharry]

I am so weary of this Clark thing going on here that I am going to check out for awhile. But I did want to add this before I go. The NYT runs with the headline "Clark Says He Would Have Voted For the War."
But that is not what the story reveals. Adam Nagourney, who was at the same interview as the WP reporter, goes with a misleading headline and then goes on to report this:

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.
A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position - on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

And this on Dean's war views: "I think he's right. That in retrospect we should never have gone in there. I didn't want to go in there either. But on the other hand, he wasn't inside the bubbke of those who were exposed to information."

O.K., so what do we learn here? First, Wesley Clark was conflicted and troubled by the war. This is what I heard on CNN. I did not hear the cheerleading Mike Malloy says he heard. Second, and of no less importance, we learn that reporters and the media are indeed the whores that MWO says they are. And third, we learn that Wesley Clark is now learning that the press is not his friend and that he will never be giving the benefit of the doubt. The Clark people need to get this clear by tommorrow morning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/politics/campaigns/19CLAR.html

[Cocoa]

1. "too simple a question"

could he mean that voting for the resolution does not equal supporting the war?

It could also mean that he doesn't want to alienate either Dean or the candidates who voted for the resolution. Maybe he really IS running for V.P.

[carpetbagger]

If Gore were president, resolution would not have = war.

And the same can be said about at least 9 of the 10 people running for president right now. And that's the most important thing. If we win this one, the only wars Bush will be able to decide to fight are the ones against the mesquite and feral hogs on his ranch.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Agreed

I think Clark is reminding me more and more of very
clear thinkers... in other words, he was conflicted as
any real person should be.

Just before the war I listened to CBC interview
with Daniel Ellsberg (of Pentagon Papers fame). He
was asked if he had doubts about his possition, and I
am paraphrasing, (and I found myself nodding). Anybody who
is absolutely sure of something such as war and peace is
being an ideologue, those with a conscience do ask themselves
every so often if they are correct as the evidence unfolds.

I have found myself (especially in the early days when
mass graves were discovered) wondering, did we need to invade?
And I have been against the war from word go after much reading.

Now Clark, what that reveals is that he had the same types
of doubts and for that I can truly respect the man... anybody
conflicted and troubled over that kind of a decision WHO HAS
seen combat, is being honest... and I think that is why most
who have seen combat are conflicted and troubled every time.
We know the horrors (yes I have been under fire) but at times,
it is necessary to go to war.

This time it was an unecesary war and history will prove those
who oposed this to be correct, on the other hand, we are now there.
Hence we do have obligations under international law, and just
cutting and running as the bleeding gets to be too high wil only
lead to more trouble down the road... which means that we were right
we should have never gone in... but as Wolfowitz implied, we are
now in, so cutting and running is truly not a realistic option either.

How we leave and under what circumstances just how bad this will
be anywhere from the medium to long term.

Definitely I can respect the man for being conflicted.. and not
seeing this in black and white terms, as I was as well... and that
level of honesty is refreshing.

[stickdog]

3. Sorry, dude. Clear thinkers don't trust (and hang with) neocon PNACers.

Clear thinkers knew that then.

Clear thinkers know that now.

[disgruntella]

4. clear thinkers don't always think in black and white

That was the point. Lost on black and white thinkers, though.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Sorry

but I think you have no clue.

He hung out with PNACers when in the service of the US Army.

As a member of the General Staff he had no choice.

He served his country for over 30 years, how many Presidents?

Oh and yuo missed what Ellsberg meant, since you also think in
black and white, like the PNAC crew.

[Julien Sorel]

6. What do you know about 'clear thinkers?'

What makes you an expert? 'Clear thinkers' work with the people with whom they are assigned to work. Military officers assigned to liason with the White House do not have the option of saying, 'I'm not going to work with that person; I don't like their policies,' not if they plan on continuing their careers. The PNAC vision that everyone here is so paranoid about wasn't even hatched when Clark was working in the White House, which means he never had anything to do with them, in their present incarnation, any way.

Don't talk about 'clear thinking' until you know how to do it yourself.

[DrFunkenstein]

7. Look Up The Definition of "Retrospect"

How was Dean right? That the threat was not imminent and that Bush rushed us into unnecessary war? The same can be said of Kerry.

But the policy that Clinton laid down still stands:

"Saddam's deception has defeated (UNSCOM's) effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

...

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War."

-Bill Clinton
December 17, 1998

[phegger]

8. Yup, yup and yup

*