Wesley Clark: The Rolling Stone Interview

[bicentennial_baby]

Some high points:

Q: "Is it disloyal for a retired general to criticize the president during a time of war?"

A: "Look, I'm not going to let Tom DeLay or Dick Cheney or those guys who've never served in uniform take away from the right of men and women who served honorably in this country's armed forces to criticize policy. If soldiers' lives are at stake, the time to criticize the policy is now, not when it's over. I think the height of patriotism is to speak out. Even in wartime in a democracy, you need a democracy. You need people with the courage to stand up and voice their opposition without being labeled unpatriotic. I've always thought that the height of loyalty is to ask questions and help sort things out."

Q: "The president is urging Congress to grant him wider powers to wage war on terrorism at home."

A: "Come on, give us a break. The Patriot Act, all 1,200 pages of it, was passed without any serious congressional discussion. There was no public accountability, and now he wants more? What does he think this country is? We shouldn't do anything with the Patriot Act until it's unwrapped. I'd like to see what violations of privacy it entails, and whether those violations are in any way justified by their preventing terrorism in this country. And we need to do it now before we take another step forward and pay for that."

http://www.rollingstone.com/features/featuregen.asp?pid=1970

[wyldwolf]

1. Great article...

!

[Closer]

5. Wow

You mean you read the article in less than two minutes? :eyes:

Oh wait, you'd read it before, right?

Or did you just want to be first with a "positive" comment?

[wyldwolf]

13. .

[neuvocat]

2. Pretty off the cuff

If he speaks like this throughout his campaign and gets the nod I'll take time off to see the debates.

[Closer]

3. Sure

He says all that now that he's running for President. And AFTER this disastrous war.

I have news for you. He wasn't saying these things before or immediately after the war. He was praising Bush (and gang) and praising the war.


He's an opportunist plain and simple.

[bicentennial_baby]

6. You know what?

You show up on every fucking Clark thread to do this. It reflects poorly on both you and your candidate. I like Dr. Dean, and I will vote for him if he gets the nod. I respect my fellow DUers choices enough to not go on every Dean thread to bash him or them. Do you think you could afford Clark supporters the same respect?

[wyldwolf]

9. If you did the same to Dean threads, this person would show up and whine..

"you're bashing Dean... waaaaa waaaaaa waaaa!"

[diplomats]

15. I was about to say the same thing

You said it better than I could.

[NNN0LHI]

18. What makes you sure that the poster is even a Dean supporter?

Just because a new poster jumps up with a Dean avatar and begins condemning another candidate does not necessarily make that poster actually a Dean supporter. Never rule anything out.

Don

[bicentennial_baby]

19. Indeed

You're entirely correct on that possibility. If that's the case, I would word my response to him/her quite differently. :P

[wyldwolf]

7. Yes he was...

there are loads of CNN transcripts where he criticized the Iraq war and Bush DURING the war.

Check your facts.

[StephNW4Clark]

8. Statement of General Wesley Clark before the House Armed Services Committe

SEPT. 26, 2002

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President’s clear determination to act if the United Nations can’t provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.

But the problem of Iraq is only an element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished, world-wide war against Al Qaeda, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately be won by persuasion as much as by force, when we turn off the Al Qaeda recruiting machine. Some three thousand deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaeda, and as all acknowledge, Al Qaeda has not yet been defeated. Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam’s regime to the Al Qaeda network. And while such linkages may emerge, winning the war against Al Qaeda may well require different actions than ending the weapons programs in Iraq.

The critical issue facing the Unites States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda or efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security problems. In this regard, I would offer the following considerations:

- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

- The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in crafting UN engagement. In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force. This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam’s weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action. Yes, there is a risk that inspections would fail to provide the evidence of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam.

If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear.

Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This includes requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance, and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution. Ideally, international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations, including the UN, NATO, and other regional and Islamic organizations.

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as “preemptive.”

[dolstein]

11. blah

NT

[CJCRANE]

12. CNN dropped Clark as an expert

because he was too critical of the war, I remember reading somewhere, correct me if I'm wrong.

[wyldwolf]

14. Aren't you going to jump back in and defend your shallow statement?

Closer?

[Toucano]

17. And

Your behavior is a beginning to reflect back on your candidate.

[Clark Can WIN]

26. Uh, do you think you are representing Dean very well?

Cuz I myself like the man, I think your bitter hateful additude is destructive to his image.

:spank:

[wyldwolf]

4. And this Q and A...

When you were in the Army, you had a lot of contact with various White House staffs. Did you ever have any dealings with some of the people who now serve in the Bush administration?

When I was a thirty-year-old Army major, I was sent to Washington, where they put me in the Ford White House. This was 1974. Nixon had just resigned. They said, "How would you like to be staff secretary to this executive committee -- it'll have Henry Kissinger," who was then secretary of state; James Schlesinger, the secretary of defense; the director of the CIA and the counsel to the president. Well, for someone who'd just come to Washington, you can imagine how I felt. Pretty impressive, right? What I discovered was that the White House was full of paranoia and suspicion -- a real Watergate mentality. I'd bring something up, and they'd say, "Wes, if you ask a question like that, you can't work here." The reason the White House was that way was not only because of Watergate but because of the two guys in charge: Donald Rumsfeld, who was Gerald Ford's chief of staff, and Dick Cheney, who was his assistant.

Today you've got the same people in there running things, trying to close down access to government. Rumsfeld and Cheney are patriotic men, and I know they are doing the best they can. It's just that I disagree with them. I don't believe that government is made better by secrecy and restraint. It's made better by transparency, by being open and honest. If you're right, you're right. If not, you take your licks.

[dolstein]

10. You gotta love this quote

<<I believe in clean air. They believe in letting power plants modernize without pollution controls. I believe in clean water and preserving wetlands. They believe "shit happens.">>

[wyldwolf]

16. Oh, here is another good one...

You recently announced that you are a Democrat. Was that a hard choice?

I was worried about whether I could be a Democrat. A lot of my friends were Democrats, and it follows that I should be. This is the party that best reflects how I feel about the issues, that best captures my aspirations for mankind. But when you're a military guy, you have to understand that there's always been members of the Democratic Party who don't like the military.

They all seem to be on DU.

[saoirse]

22. I think the difference is this:

Most Democrats aren't against the military, they're against bloated defense budgets and sending our men and women into harm's way when the reasons for doing so are, to put it kindly, highly questionable.

There are some who don't like the military, but most times I think that just reflects a mostly healthy disdain for authority and regimentation. I believe the vast majority of even these people, on mature reflection, appreciate the job our military does. The few angry voices that shout otherwise don't represent me or my party - no matter how much Rove and Limbaugh try to convince people they do.

This is one reason why Clark is such a formidable candidate for us - he instantly neutralizes that argument.

I, for one, think our military is the best in the world - despite Rumsfeld and the other chickenhawks best efforts to stymie them. And even though I oppose the war in Iraq, I'm still grateful to our men and women in uniform who are willing to do such a tough, thankless job.

And if you don't agree, you can kiss my ass. :)

[FubarFly]

20. Excellent interview. Thanks for posting. n/t

[Julien Sorel]

21. I hate his position on Israel.

But I have confidence in his integrity to the point where I think he could be an honest broker, which confidence I don't have in any of the other top-tier candidates save Kerry.

It's a strong interview, though, and will definitely help him.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

28. I Hate It Too

It's too unbalanced. The fact that he is pro-fence also makes me believe he doesn't understand what a monstrosity the fence has morphed into.

You and I may disagree very strongly on certain historical underpinnings and current moral and ethical issues as they relate to Israel/Palestine, but as a firm believer in a two-state solution and a withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, I'm not a big fan of Clark's Israel position here.

DTH

[Clark Can WIN]

30. I still trust him to do a better job

and be more flexible and sensible than *.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

31. On That, We Definitely Agree (eom)

DTH

[diplomats]

23. Thanks for the link

It's a very good interview!

[OKNancy]

24. Required reading

I'm sending this along to all my family ( all Democrats, but uninvolved at the moment)

[Clark Can WIN]

25. Here's one I didn't know about

Wesley Clark in the Rolling Stone. Cool.

[Rowdyboy]

27. Interesting reading....

thanks very much for the link

[one]

29. I love "Rolling Stone"...........

and I'm 53 y/o!!

[xray s]

32. Thanks for the link

Just the kind of thing I've been waiting for.

:thumbsup: