Clark on whether he'd have voted on the IWR and Dean's response

[w4rma]

Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War
…
General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"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."
…
"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

General Clark said he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — than that of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has been the leading antiwar candidate in the race.

Still, asked about Dr. Dean's criticism of the war, General Clark responded: "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 bubble of those who were exposed to the information."
…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/politics/campaigns/19CLAR.html

Clark Explains Statement on Authorization for Iraq War
…
"I never would have voted for war," he said here this afternoon in an interview and in response to a question after a lecture at the University of Iowa. "What I would have voted for is leverage. Leverage for the United States to avoid a war. That's what we needed to avoid a war."

Speaking about the resolution on Thursday, General Clark said, "At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question."

He then added: "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."
…
About Iraq, he said "There was never an imminent threat," and called the war "a major blunder."

"We're not the sort of `you're with us or against' kind of people," he said.

"We're a come-and-join-with-us kind of people," he told a crowd of 1,000 in the main lounge of the Iowa Memorial Union. "Americans know in their hearts that you don't make our country safer by erecting walls to keep others out. You make us safer by building bridges to reach out.

"We also have to recognize that force should be used only as a last resort, when all other means have failed."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/20/politics/campaigns/20CLAR.html

…
"I was shocked" by General Clark's initial comment on the resolution, Dr. Dean, former governor of Vermont, said in an interview as he flew from a rally in Boston to a series of fund-raisers in New York. "I was even more shocked that he switched the next day."

"He still has to clarify his position," the candidate added.
…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/24/politics/campaigns/24DEAN.html

[JohnKleeb]

1. umm general Clark

"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 bubble of those who were exposed to the information."

My man Dennis Kucinich was in the "bubble" and he voted against it. I can see why many Dean supporters lately I have noticed are being iffy about Clark. Ive always been as have some of my fellow Kucinich supporter. BTW good for all those who opposed the war resolution.

[WaterDog]

2. Thanks w4rma

for posting this. It's much clearer now.

Uh-sort of.

I still like Clark--for VP. If I give him the benefit of the doubt, he sounds like he's trying to be ultra honest (and very unclear) about how complex this issue was. If I don't give him the benefit of the doubt...well...

[Pastiche423]

3. Yep, clear as mud

One of the most obvious things I have learned about clark, is that the man doesn't appear able to make a decision and stick w/it.

[WillyBrandt]

4. General, If you want to impress members of DU

stop expressing complicated thoughts. Soundbytes. Quick. Snappy. Something that the simple and the intellectually dishonest can hug and love.

[w4rma]

6. I'm a DUer

and I'm impressed by straight, clear, well-thought-out and to-the-point answers. An answer that the intelectually honest can point to, agree or disagree with and know for sure where that person stands and will most likely stand in the future.

[regnaD kciN]

10. It has nothing to do with complicated thoughts...

He was asked a simple question: would he have supported the resolution if he had had to vote on it? He expressed that he would have preferred a requirement to go back to Congress for war authorization (as would I), but, nonetheless, he said that he would have voted for the resolution as written.

To me, that makes him no different than the Democrats (Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman, as well as non-candidates like HRC and Maria Cantwell) who got excoriated on this board for their vote.

Whether he flip-flopped later is immaterial, except for making him look bad to those who weren't bothered by his initial opinion. My problem lies in his first response.

[depakid]

5. Clark supporters should be prepared for more surprises and blunders

General Clark, for all his education and military experience, lacks articulated positions on so many issues that he's going to have trouble fielding questions and dealing in specifics with areas outside his expertise. That's not a rub on Clark- that's a given for anyone in his position. If I were a Clark supporter, I would keep my expectations fairly low for Thursday night.

As to Dean's statement, it's much ado about nothing. So he said he was shocked. Big deal. I wasn't (see above) but I got a very angry e-mail yesterday from a friend of mine who basically accused me of being suckered and/or lying to her. My response was:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Actually, I've heard Clark talk pretty extensively on Iraq, and he's as anti-war as any of the other major candidates and probably pretty close to Dean. He's waffling on whether he would have voted for the original authorization- I've heard him say on the record that he wouldn't have- but of course, all the others who actually voted did vote for it (except for Kucinich, who we both like but dosn't stand a chance).

I think Clark's having trouble getting adjusted to being pinned down and grilled- as a 4 star General and NATO Supreme Commander, you DO the grillin and the pinnnin!

So (as I predicted) he's having a rough go of dealing with the press and doing campaign appearances. Dean's been doing this kind of thing for 15 years, so he's a lot more accustomed to it- and he has a seasoned, extremely well organized campaign staff to prep him, which is another thing Clark lacks.

Let's see how Clark does at the debates in NY on Thursday. Should be interesting. Let's also hope Dean has some fresh material- I'm tired of his stump speech, which he used at the last debate. Most of us have heard it too many times, don't you think? Plus, Dean does a lot better on these forum style debates when he more or less ad libs, because he thinks so well on his feet and he has that "family doctor" sort of presence.

It's one thing to do the firey speech in front of 5,000 at the PSU Urban Center- that KICKS ASS. But for these, especially now that Clark's on the same stage, he really just needs to be the rational, honest and genuine guy that he is- people are really craving that now. One thing you'll have to admit about Clark, though, is that he just exudes a sort of quite, calm, confidence. I guess it remains to be seen how honest and genuine he comes across.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

[Julien Sorel]

7. -----------------------

One thing you'll have to admit about Clark, though, is that he just exudes a sort of quite, calm, confidence. I guess it remains to be seen how honest and genuine he comes across.

It's called 'command presence' in the military. Some people are born with it, and some aren't. Some develop it, as I think Clark did. It helps in the corporate world as well, as long as it isn't too strong.

At any rate, I suspect he has learned that he's basically under permanent cross examination by a hostile attorney now, and under those circumstances, unless you know the reason the question was asked, and have a good answer, you just shut up. I understand he did just that today when he unveiled his economic plan. As long as he sticks to that, and keeps refining his stump speech, he'll be OK. Most people seem more than willing to cut him some slack.

[depakid]

8. Unfortunately, Gen. Clark really doen't have that option

He can't just shut up, and he can't expect to get by with too many yes or no answers. He needs well developed stock answers and detailed position papers, which at this late point in the game he doesn't have. Whether he has enough time left to get them together given this years front loaded primary/caucus season, I don't know. There's one hell of a lot of material to master, and I'm not sure even a Rhodes scholar can handle that much cramming.

Command presence- I remember that word now. Has a nice ring to it, eh?

[IndianaGreen]

14. Clark is no longer wearing those four stars on his collar

which is what puts the "presence" into command presence.

[Adjoran]

9. It matters little

what the bottom line of a long and complicated exchange was. Voters remember positions. You are FOR, or AGAINST, or you are wishy-washy. In most elections, it is better to be thought wrong on an issue than wishy-washy.

I don't like the "sound-bite" campaigning any more than most do, but in an age of 15 second clips on television, it has unfortunately become a necessity to reduce a message to a few easily-understood words. Even the cable networks won't give a candidate unlimited time to discourse on (admittedly) complex issues.

The all-time master of this was a Republican who lived long before the electronic age, Calvin Coolidge.

A woman seated next to Coolidge at a banquet turned to him and said, "When I said I'd be sitting next to you, my friend bet me I couldn't get you to say three words to me. What do you think of that?"

Coolidge replied, "You lose."

Once his wife had a cold and didn't accompany him to church. When he came home, she asked, "What did the preacher speak about?"

"Sin," Coolidge replied.

"Oh, and what did he say about it?" his wife asked.

"He was against it," Coolidge said.

[althecat]

11. Wishy washy and easily led....

"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

****

As in, I find it hard to think for myself, exactly.

[Wonk]

13. "If that's the way the winds are blowing don't let it be said that

I don't also blow!" - Mayor Joe Quimby, Simpsons

;-)

[stickdog]

12. Someone needs to tell this man to

STOP COPYING KERRY!