General Wesley Clark, 4/10/2003, On Iraq

[Hoppin_Mad]

London Times , April 10, Clark article after the fall of Baghdad:

"Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad ?

Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. . . .

Liberation is at hand. Liberation—the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. . . .

Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come—effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns.

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. . . . But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven't yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed."



http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0339/schanberg.php

[mike_c]

1. this is the scariest line....

surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come—effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns.

It amazes me that things have become so bad in this country that democrats would regard this view favorably.

edit: spelling

[Dookus]

2. And from the same article:

CNN, January 21, 2003: Anchor Leon Harris says to Clark that it has been "widely talked about that you want to be president" and asks him to pretend he is president for the purpose of discussion.

Harris: "You're being ambushed in the UN Security Council. Support there is waning. . . . What is the next step? What do you do now?"

Clark: "Well, Leon, if I had been in that position , 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."


and

CNN, July 16, Clark talks with Paula Zahn:

Zahn: "You are considering a run for president. If you were president tonight, what would you be doing differently that would make these U.S. troops feel any more secure in this very dangerous environment?"

Clark: " . . . Paula, we have got to recognize the truth about this mission. We're in there without the kind of legitimacy we need. We need top cover. We need top cover from the UN. And we need to get other international-based forces in with us to help carry the burden that we're shouldering almost alone in Iraq."

Zahn: " . . . how much of what you shared with us tonight is colored by the fact that you could be running for president of the United States down the road?"

Clark: "Well, actually, I'll be very honest with you. None if it is colored by that. . . . From the beginning, I have had my doubts about this mission, Paula. . . . I never could connect the dots between the fact that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy and had aspirations for weapons of mass destruction with the urgency of putting U.S. troops in there in that mission. There was a hunger in some quarters to go after this fight. It was as though using force was a reward in itself, that by putting our forces in there and showing our power, we would somehow solve our problems in the international environment. And I think the opposite is the truth. I think you should use force only as a last resort."

[mike_c]

3. so you don't find the statements...

Liberation—the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. . . . Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come— effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns.

and

I think you should use force only as a last resort.

somewhat difficult to reconcile? I certainly do!

[Hoppin_Mad]

8. Was he AGAINST the war when he WROTE those words ?

" Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad ? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. . . . Liberation is at hand. Liberation—the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. . . . Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come—effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns."

The above was WRITTEN by Wes Clark

Are those the words of someone OPPOSED to the war in Iraq ?

[Mattforclark]

13. They are the words

of people who hate murderous dictatorships everywhere. I wrote very similar things upon the liberation of Baghdad, and I was fully against the war.

[Hoppin_Mad]

24. Hmm - I thought the 'liberation' was a sham as it happened -eom-

[Tinoire]

37. The Liberation of Iraq? The only thing that got liberated was the oil

The Iraqi people don't seem very joyful about all this "democracy".

On edit. But oh well, what's a little human misery when there are billions to be made and SUVs to run?

[BootinUp]

41. You didn't see

ANY celebration by the Iraqis?

As a citizen of one of the democratic countries in the world, even I was happy to see that. It doesn't mean I changed my mind about the wrongness of the war. Its like when the repugs or RW's ask Dean or Clark or any Democrat if they would rather we put Sadaam back in power. Of course the answer is no.

[Trajan]

25. We cannot deny ...

That the Iraqis DID become liberated from a totalitarian regime when Saddam's house of cards toppled ....

That mere fact could be cause to 'sing the praises of freedom', by those with such a voice ....

This doesnt mean one MUST also admire the means of such a liberation ... Clark clearly doesnt admire the US case for war ....

Again: fallacy parading as argument .... as is so typical here lately ...

[Hoppin_Mad]

32. The attack invasion and occupation of a soveriegn nation is not liberation

No matter how you want to spin it. Yeah Saddam was an evil fuck. So evil that Cheney lobbied to have the embargo against Iraq lifted in 2000. So evil BECAUSE the Necons armed him thinking he would be useful against Iran who the Neocons SECRETLY armed with 2100 missles during Iran Contra.

The hoards of Neocon apologists here are making me sick.

It almost as if DU has become Free Republic Lite.

[rogerhall]

34. I agree - but ...

Liberation is liberation.

Ask my Iraqi co-workers if Saddam's absence is a good thing ('cause they will tell you it is). There is no spin in their hearts.

I'm sure we agree that Bush still lied, Cheney is still an asshole, and Neocons still suck. I still would rather we hadn't invaded Iraq, regardless of my associates' opinions.

But freedom is always a good thing, and millions of Iraqis are (hopefully) headed that way. It could still blow up and turn in the biggest shithole on the planet (say - Afghan west).

But there is nothing neocon about the appreciation of freedom.

None here is saying that we should attack Syria next. None here is saying we should send troops to the Saudi border. None here is saying that the Iraqi war will be nothing but a glorious victory and that American force is the best way to treat the world. None is saying that we have a right to consistantly low oil prices.

Because *those* are the neocon positions.

[dfong63]

17. there's a wise old saying...

Clark: "Well, Leon, if I had been in that position , 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."

there's a wise old saying just for times like this:

No matter how far you have gone down the wrong road, TURN BACK.

[BootinUp]

43. I think you forget

What an ASS Bush made of himself and all of us leading up to that quote. Backing down at that point would only have egged on the terrorists and dicatorships.

The point for turning back was before we said you have 30 days or two weeks or whatever it was. If we didn't follow through then we would have lost any leverage to issue that kind of threat again. And let me say this, even if using the military is a last resort, it is foolish to remove it as an option.

[rogerhall]

21. These quotes are six months and a war apart

In Januarary, most of us non-tin-foil-hat folks thought that there may well be some very dangerous amount of WMD in Iraq. Remember, that was why 'we' (the Bush administration and the USA fait accompli) were pushing the issue.

Powell held up his little vial of baby powder and spake our doom.

The smoking gun was to be a mushroom cloud.

Now, if you are a hard-line partisan, maybe none of that ever phased you. I admit, it scared me a little. I wasn't ready for 'pre-emptive' bullshit, but I did think it was time for the UN to make Saddam come clean.

Personally, I had strong doubts that everything they said was accurate. I believed the report that Saddam was unlikely to pass these weapons along to someone who might later challenge his own authority. But I was sure that at least something was there ... like the yellow cake. Or anthrax. Or something! Dammit.

Then ...

Six months later, we had invaded the country, found nothing, listened to the neo-cons say 1) we are not invading anyone else, and 2) Syria, we are going to eat your lunch. All of the sudden, we are there for liberation.

Saddam was *the* asshole of the region. When I thought he was an asshole with WMD, I was hesitant to be too critical of threatening Saddam. I never thought we would do this without our allies. Even Clark pointed out in January that he never would have treated our allies that way.

So ...

Normal Americans had doubts, but tried to give the POTUS the respect due the office and the benefit of what we thought were thousands of operatives and analysts. When I say normal Americans, I include those Arkansans I know that voted for Clinton twice and then turned around and voted for Bush (the bastards) AND the ones that voted for Gore 'cause we like to bash Texans.

Bush lied. Not Clark. This is Bush's shite. Stop trying to pretend Clark had anything to with making any of these decisions. When he said "I never could connect the dots between the fact that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy and had aspirations for weapons of mass destruction with the urgency of putting U.S. troops in there in that mission", he was echoing the statement "Well, Leon, if I had been in that position , I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point."

Clark is an honest man trying to deal with the world just like you and I (again, unless you are a tin-foil hat or hard-line no-amount-of-reasoning-will-ever-change-my-mind-about-anything type).

Get over this neocon crap. In fact, Clark has been ridiculed for exposing the 'neo'-neocon plan to march thru the Arab world - a plan which was originally created during the Bush '41 term as a policy recommendation.

Bush '41 really pissed 'em off when he stopped short of Baghdad, remember?

[Forkboy]

4. Not crazy about the choice of words

but there's really nothing there to bitch about,imo.

Also,see Dookus' post.That's just as telling of Clark's view on the war.

[Skwmom]

5. Selective quoting once again from the London Times Article.

I purchased and read the ENTIRE article (which I will post from later when I can access my other computer). This does not reflect very well on the Democratic party (or left leaning news sources) when they engage in such distortion of a person's actual record. What have I learned this primary season (NEVER trust any news source including those which are supposed to be left leaning).

[Mattforclark]

7. Yep, this is JUST AS BAD as FAUX NEWS

Lies. Lying Liars.

[Hoppin_Mad]

10. Wesley Clark WROTE those words !

You can't wish them away !

[Skwmom]

14. Selective quoting to distort

someone's position is "intellectually dishonest" (heck it's just plain dishonest) and harms the credibility of anyone engaging in such practices. Once your credibility is shot (anything you say or write even if it is valid) becomes suspect.

[Hoppin_Mad]

19. Actually - I included the whole passage

Including the part at the end which made him seem a little more palatable. I could have easily left that part out, as many partisans here on DU do, but I wanted to play fair.

[Skwmom]

31. I've read the entire article

If this is an example of playing fair, we as a party are in real trouble.

[dfong63]

20. Hoppin_Mad didn't distort anything

Selective quoting to distort someone's position is "intellectually dishonest" (heck it's just plain dishonest) and harms the credibility of anyone engaging in such practices. Once your credibility is shot (anything you say or write even if it is valid) becomes suspect.

Hoppin_Mad didn't distort anything. and it's intellectually dishonest of you to imply that s/he did.

[slinkerwink]

39. there are no distortions in this post---just Clark's actual words....

hard to swallow, eh?

[Skwmom]

12. I've begun to wonder if

the left news sources engaging in such practices helped fuel the development of such news sources as Faux News. I'm pretty fed up and disgusted with many of the so-called left-leaning news sources (sources which I really respected prior to this primary election).

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

9. "Surely you people must be better than this."

I wonder the same thing about both Dean and Clark supporters.Plenty of smear attempts to please both groups here on DU.

[Mattforclark]

15. True

I am sad to say that I have seen some of the same from Clark supporters.

[Clark Campaigner]

11. Yep

I agree completely.

[Hoppin_Mad]

16. Welcome to DU "Clark Campaigner" - Do you speak for the campaign ? -eom-

[POed_Ex_Repub]

18. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Clark Campaigner]

23. Thank you!

I'm just here to remind everyone to keep the eye on the prize

and...

[NV1962]

22. Welcome aboard!

Enjoy & prepare for rough weather ahead. ;)

[Printer70]

26. "Liberation" ?

The Administration called this a war of liberation, referring to people and not oil. Apparently Clark believes them. Clark would be an improvement from what BushCo how? Clark said himself that we ought to go in unilaterally:

--
CNN, January 21, 2003: Anchor Leon Harris says to Clark that it has been "widely talked about that you want to be president" and asks him to pretend he is president for the purpose of discussion.

Harris: "You're being ambushed in the UN Security Council. Support there is waning. . . . What is the next step? What do you do now?"

Clark: "Well, Leon, if I had been in that position , 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."

Harris: "You mean move ahead unilaterally?"

Clark: "With whatever coalition we can establish."

[Crunchy Frog]

27. This again...

How many times has this been posted before, and how many more times will it be posted again.:eyes:

[rogerhall]

28. Here is why these statements proves Clark is the man.

"Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad ?

Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. . . .


Sounds about right to me. Against the war, yes. Against Iraqi or East German freedom, no. Pissed about the lies, yes. Pissed about the end of political executions, no.


Liberation is at hand. Liberation—the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. . . .


Is it really so hard for ya'll to understand that the removal of Saddam will ultimately go a long way towards improving the relationship between the American *people* and at least a majority of the Iraqi *people*?

I know two Iraqi nationals (co-workers), and they were pretty doubtful until that statue fell. Now, they walk on clouds. There were many Iraqis walking the streets of Baghdad with smiles. It doesn't mean the war was the best path, and Clark never said it was.

Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come—effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns.

Right. Kinda like how Lybia and Iran are making moves towards open resolution.

It isn't a matter of viewing it favorably. It is a matter of fact. Hey - Bush still lied. The war was still unneccessary. But the US forces can and did kick ass, and the world did notice. Clark was sane and right when you and I were angry as hell.

Many Gulf States will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express.

Well, 3 out of 4 aint bad ... but the fat lady aint entirely sang yet either.

:}

[mike_c]

29. "But the US forces can and did kick ass, and the world did notice."

On that note I'm off to bed. I don't know what to say. I'm not particularly impressed about our national ability to "kick ass" and Wes Clark's apparent pride in it.

[rogerhall]

30. Dude, from your icon I can tell we have much in common.

Probably more than is different, since we are both on the DU.

But what is a military for, if not to 'kick ass'?

I'd rather see us do a lot less kicking ... say none. That would suit me fine.

But if you really have no pride whatsoever in your fellow citizens' service or your country's technological superiority, I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from after all.

Can we agree to this?

Let's don't go to war. If we find ourselves at war, let's win.

[BootinUp]

33. Other articles Clark has written on Iraq

http://clark04.com/articles/

Theres plenty to read at the link above. It really would be better not take him out of context. Clark makes no bones about being happy that the invasion he opposed, went quickly and with minimal loss of life all things considered. And he will compliment the troops and the military when called for performing their jobs.

Even as he talks about the positive aspects of the successful invasion he warns about the future of this action he opposed.

Go ahead, read up on it, It surely will be more enlightening than reading snippets used for political smear tactics.

[rogerhall]

35. Yeah! -eom-

[BootinUp]

36. Here's the Whole Article London Times 4/10/03

The article is hardly all praise. See below

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm


snip...

As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.

Now the bills must be paid, amid the hostile image created in many areas by the allied action. Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come — effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns. 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.


snip....

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.

[rogerhall]

38. Eggs-cellent -eom-

[Tinoire]

40. More witty liberal repartee

George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt." (London Times column 4/10/03)


"The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact." (London Times, 4/11/03)

Bring 'em on boys!

[BootinUp]

42. I call it

Honest commentary and biting as well. Its the kind of article only someone blessed with brains and guts can write. I suppose you believe that nothing good at all resulted from the successful invasion, so by that assumed position, we should restore Sadaam to power as soon as possible?

[Tinoire]

46. To justify anything about that obscene invasion is to justify Bush

Nothing good ever, ever comes from evil. When we have suidice bombers in the US fighting us with the only means they have, then we can all sit back and admire the brain and guts splattered all over the walls.

We invaded a sovereign nation. We pulverized a soveriegn nation for 13 years. We murdered over 500,000 Iraqi children, countless adults, starved and terrorized millions for 13 years leaving our genetic markers for all the world to see yet people like Clark would have you think there's Little Risk in NATO's Depleted Uranium Weapons

Blood? Yes! Guts? That's for damn sure! But it's not Clark's. If Clark were a true Progressive military General, I would be PROUD to vote for him because there are some but he is not one of them.

[BootinUp]

48. So you answered: Yes

Restore Sadaam immediately. Good luck with whatever candidate you run on that policy.

And just so my point was clear, we are talking about an article written after the invasion, which essentially acknowledges that Sadaam was deposed, via a highly successful invasion plan, and yet clearly pointed out the authors disagreement with the justification for war.

yep

[bowens43]

44. Obviously a man who believes that a military solution

to a political problem is not only a correct solution but a beautiful solution. A man who has no qualms about the murder of tens of thousands of civilians if it puts fear into those he perceives as the enemy. This is one scary SOB.

[BootinUp]

45. No qualms?

Thats right, spread your vile smears, ignore the information that clearly debunks that statement.

[NV1962]

47. *Philippica alert*

What a gem.

And this, being said about a man who passionately, angrily tried -- with everything in his possibilities -- to move his government to intervene in Rwanda, where hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered. A tragedy of genocidal proposrtions that left the government unmoved. And that of Brittain, as it was deemed to be "not exacty in our back yard."

And when he had the opportunity to deliver a practical and tactically clean operation (remember, zero American KIA's - measure that up to the alternative, currently sitting in the WH) he did it, at great personal cost (remember, he got dismissed as SACEUR.)

What ridiculous grandstanding, this accusing him of "having no qualms about the murder of tens of thousands of civilians if it puts fear into those he perceives as the enemy." The sheer mendacity of that statement reeks rather of a calculated attempt to sell a preferred alternative in the current squatter of the White House prevailing in the next elections, as a cheap and safe excuse to proffer ineffectual but grandstanding protest from an otherwise marginal pulpit.

Yeah, that's what the country (and those in the world who have no recourse) really needs: a saloon savior, to butter the real butcher in the WH. How refreshing. Thanks for that unexpected bout of otherwise unsettling candor. Now I'm really switched to Wesley Clark's election - with a vengeance.

He'll prove to be general enough to know that force is only a last resort to control conflict, man enough to know that leaving genocide to the perverse idols of fringe elitists is an intolerable legacy, and plenty of President to lead the country through peace and prosperity to a better future for our children.

Acts, not words make Wesley Clark an extraordinary President - get ready for the Wes Wing.

[GOPBasher]

49. He was a reporter.

He wasn't supposed to be political. Contrary to what they think at Faux, you really shouldn't use your position as a news reporter to push an agenda.