Looks to me like Clark directly supports war on Iraq in 10/9/02 quote.

[dkf]

but he is against Bush's preemptive doctrine. Ok. I'm confused again.

http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/october2002/10_09_02.shtml

The former Supreme Commander of NATO, General Wesley Clark, today voiced support for the the much-debated war resolution in Congress and the candidacy of Democrat Katrina Swett, who is attempting to unseat Republican Rep. Charlie Bass in the 2nd district.

snip

Much of the discussion at a well-attended press conference centered on an impending war on Iraq. Clark, a former Rhodes Scholar, tried to point out in historical terms how America may lose its dominant hegemony with the Bush administration’s latest pre-emptive strike doctrine.

"Certainly in certain cases we should go to war before our enemies strike, and I think this situation applies here, but I am not sure we should write it down and publish it as policy," Clark said.

[JackSwift]

1. Whoa! politicsnh.com a member

of the PubliusGroup scoops everyone. Who are these eagle eye-ed reporters and why did the rest of the press, including the local press in NH miss the former NATO commanders speech? Particularly when it is contrary to all his other speeches on the topic. I am confused.

[Julien Sorel]

2. This story is a year old, and says nothing Clark

didn't say elsewhere. The most 'incriminating' thing is the lead, which the reporter, not Clark, wrote. Scoops, like everything else, aren't what they used to be apparently.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Here is the same story, with a truer slant.....notice the different

headline. Didn't your mother always tell you not to believe everything you read??? and by now you should, at least, be leery of the media!!! They do not always tell the story that ocurred. I believe that this story is more accurate, because it quotes the General in total.


http://www4.fosters.com/election_2002/oct/09/us_2cong_1009a.asp

Retired Gen. Clark supports Swett, raises concerns about Iraq policy
By STEPHEN FROTHINGHAM,Associated Press Writer
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) — Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war.
----------------------
The general said he had no doubt Iraq posed a threat, but questioned whether it was immediate and said the debate about a response has been conducted backward.
"Normally in a debate, you start with a problem and consider possible solutions. Instead, the president has presented us with a solution before the problem has been fully articulated," he said.
"As far as the information we have now shows, there are no nuclear warheads on missiles pointed to America," he said. "You can't wait 10 years to act, but there is time on our side."
He said al-Qaida remains the largest terrorist threat against the United States, and the connection ----between al-Qaida and Iraq is unclear.
------------------------
After endorsing Swett in Nashua, he visited Manchester West High School and reassured history students that the threat of terrorism should be kept in perspective.
-----------------------
He said he shares the concerns he hears from many Americans about whether the country should act against Iraq without United Nations support and about how the United States will deal with Iraq after a successful invasion.
He also met in Portsmouth with the Democratic nominee in the 1st Congressional District, state Sen. Martha Fuller Clark.
A spokesman for Clark said the two were meeting to discuss foreign policy.

[Pastiche423]

4. "Didn't your mother always tell you not to believe everything you read???

And I should believe what you wrote, why?

[FrenchieCat]

6. The first story has no quotes.....while the 2nd does....

So I believe the 2nd story more than the first....which is an article based on omission.....

You can believe what you want.....if that helps your case.

My mother also always told me to get a 2nd opinion when going to the doctor...but she said, don't let the nurse to the doctors work.

I always prefer an article in which the person being written about is quoted..........so to me, IMHO, the 2nd article is more accurate....I don't think that the author made his words up......to add things like "Need debate"....etc...

[Pastiche423]

7. What bullshit!

lol!

There have been quotes up the ying yang here at DU that clark said he was for the invasion if Iraq. Here's just one:

"George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced."

And another:

Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air."

GAG!

The scent of victory does not sound like someone that was against the war.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

No, you prefer articles that say what you want them to say. Too bad there is proof of what he has said, eh?

[FrenchieCat]

8. I didn't say he was a pacifist.....Did He?

I have never believed that Clark was anti-war in the same sense as those candidates that call themselves that, Al Sharpton, CMB and Dennis Kucinich. However, as a General and diplomat, Wes Clark did recommend steps to take that he repeats to this day.....When he said he was against it in the FALL....that would have been September 2002. His testimony to the House Arm committee does indeed map out his type of anti-war stance. He was against going to war without the U.N., and NATO, and a large coalition. I believe that he has always felt that Iraq was a diversion to the greater war on Terror, which was the real threat. I also believe, as many others did, that he did not, at that time, believe that the Bush Administration would be as bullish as they were in getting their war on. When I marched in San Francisco in October 2002, February & March 2003, it was not to say....WAR IS BAD....but rather, Give the United Nations a chance.....Be fair to it, and let the Weapons inspections work. I was not saying....I know that Saddam is not a threat at all, and has not weapons at all.
Below is most of what he said....and I have highlighted the points in my mind that relates to your debate here.
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

STATEMENT OF
GENERAL (RETIRED) WESLEY K. CLARK
U.S. ARMY

BEFORE THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SEPTEMBER 26, 2002

snip>
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."
Once initiated, any military operation should aim for the most rapid accomplishment of its operational aims and prompt turnover to follow-on organizations and agencies.
If we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region, and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism. But there are no guarantees. The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere.
I look forward to answering questions and helping the Committee assess the costs and risks of the alternatives before us.

[dkf]

10. I don't like this sentence:

"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."

Why is it that the success of the U.N. in actually disarming Hussein is perceived as a "risk"?

I never wanted to go into Iraq because I always felt it would be an impossible job. Look at the history of Iraq: it is an artificial country with three different groups deliberately thrown together by the British to perpetuate turmoil. It seemed to me that without a strongman type in power, Iraq was a civil war waiting to happen and I did not want us involved in that mess.

I don't like Hussein, and the man was brutal, but I did not feel threatened by him. I feel much more threatened by religious extremists of all stripes.

[FrenchieCat]

9. It was not he that coined the phrase..........but he did take the

critism aimed at him based on his commentating on CNN......and in fact:

Because, for a General, he did come off as being against this war....
As was reported here....on March 28, 2003....THIS WOULD BE SPRING...AND DURING THE WAR......SO EVEN THEN, HIS COMMENTARY WERE CRITICAL...AND HE WAS ROUNDLY CRITICIZED FOR IT.

http://www.spectator.org/article.asp?art_id=2003_3_27_22_49_18
Clark Tanks
By The Prowler
Published 3/28/2003 12:03:00 AM
DEAN-DUMB
So much for the Democrats' hope that retired General Wesley Clark was going to be their Colin Powell. "He's more Benedict Arnold than anything else, if you believe the mail we've been getting here," says the Democratic National Committee staffer who, only a month ago was touting Clark as his party's answer to the military star power aligned with Republicans.

"Any cachet he might have had he's pretty much pissed away on TV," says the staffer.

Since the outbreak of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Clark has been on CNN, bemoaning the Pentagon and Gen. Tommy Franks's strategy in the opening days of taking down Saddam. And while several other senior retired military men have made critical comments about the ongoing fighting -- Ret. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, another former Clinton-era official, has been quick to criticize during his stints on MSNBC --Clark has by far been the most vocal.

"It just looks really bad that he's knocking the troops and the way we're executing this war," says the DNC staffer. "He's taking hits everywhere, on TV, in the newspapers, on talk radio. People are furious at him. We can't fundraise off performances like this.
The only presidential candidate that would probably want to be seen with him is Howard Dean."


Prior to Clark's "tanking" on CNN, the DNC had Clark pegged for political stardom. He'd visited New Hampshire, and had hinted that he was interested in perhaps running for president as a Democrat. Now, the DNC isn't sure what they can do with the man who directed Bill Clinton's military machinations in Kosovo.

[Kahuna]

13. You should take your mother's advice....

Seems you believe everything that you read. Instead of what you have heard Clark say out of his own mouth. The noive!

[Kahuna]

12. Thanks Frenchie. I posted this link below. Before..

I saw that you beat me to it.

:yourock:

[sandnsea]

5. foreign policy is complicated

Dealing with weapons proliferation is complicated. I wish we could all figure out that much.

[Kahuna]

11. And from another story on the same date...

http://www4.fosters.com/election_2002/oct/09/us_2cong_1009a.asp

You see people. The afore provided link is what happens when "reporter" try to interpret what someone says and they pick and choose what they report. From another article on the topic issued on the same day we get (I've been saving this one for a rainy day :evilgrin:)
snip...
He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for the resolution, but only after vigorous debate. The resolution is expected to pass the House overwhelmingly. Swett has said she supports it, as does her opponent, incumbent U.S. Rep. Charles Bass.

The general said he had no doubt Iraq posed a threat, but questioned whether it was immediate and said the debate about a response has been conducted backward.

"Normally in a debate, you start with a problem and consider possible solutions. Instead, the president has presented us with a solution before the problem has been fully articulated," he said.

"As far as the information we have now shows, there are no nuclear warheads on missiles pointed to America," he said. "You can’t wait 10 years to act, but there is time on our side."

He said al-Qaida remains the largest terrorist threat against the United States, and the connection between al-Qaida and Iraq is unclear.

[bearfan454]

14. Clark voted for Nixon and Reagan

Nuff said. I don't want to get in trouble with the mods.

[wyldwolf]

15. He also voted for Clinton/Clinton/Gore...

and here is a nice quote from Michael Moore on the whiney "professional left's" hatred of Clark:

http://www.liberalresurgent.com/mooreclark.mp3

[bearfan454]

17. Good points on the audio.

I still don't know if I trust him. So far it is Dean or Kerry for me.

[wyldwolf]

19. Dean and Kerry weren't anti-Iraq war...

[Mz Pip]

18. Lots of people did

Big wow.

MzPip
:dem:

[wyldwolf]

16. Since Kucinich is/was the only TRUE anti-Iraq war candidate...

...we should all vote for him, right?

Is the Iraqi war resolution the make or break issue for the democratic nominee?

It isn't mine.