A comment about Wesley Clark and the war

Clark supporters can roast me for this if I am wrong, but I am going to take it as a given that, at a variety of points in the last year, he spoke in support of the Iraq war. There have been plenty of quotes from him to support this. It pretty much seems to be clear-cut.

But it is also clear, now, that he is staunchly against it. He is landing haymakers against this administration about the war, and about 9/11, that many of the other candidates are not.

What strikes me is that his movement from support to dissent mirrors what is happening throughout the American populace today. Politically, he is someone people can relate to, because he has walked the same path about this war that a lot of Americans have. But more importantly, to me, is the genuine development of opinion.

I want a President who can change his/her mind on major, major decisions when the facts clearly show that a change must be made. Clark is not sticking to a position because he held the position six months or a year ago.

More than that, I respect a man or woman who can and will do that. If Clark was just a regular guy, and he once supported the war but now does not, I would shake his hand and thank him for using the brain God gave him. A lot of Americans are doing that, and I won't write them off for their previous opinions any more than I am willing to write Clark off for his.

Just my .02 cents.

roast you for that? It's nothing we all haven't thought at one time or another. But I am really happy that he is hammering shrub on 911; I hope he never stops! He is taking alot of hits in the media for it.

has been that there is some debate about where Clark fell on the issue before.

I really think that some people fear the way he entered the race, and who is supporting him. I can understand why they might feel that way; I guess I have always been a fan, and maybe I'm not objective enough. Believe it or not, I told my husband long before he ever entered the race, that I wished he would run.

I do agree with your assessment; I don't mind at all a leader changing his mind, it's a damn sight better than someone who doggedly sticks with a policy that is not working.

due to growth and more information entering their lives
turn me off. MAJORLY. I agree with you.

is a quality many people can relate to. I think there's an underestimation of the widespread appreciation of this quality. People will feel vindicated that a respected figure shows the same sense of pragmatism and the same recongnition that the world is not black and white. Never before has such a dramatic, pragmatic shift in perception been more evident and warranted, and I too think it's something that can be capitalized upon by the person who can express it eloquently, passionately and in a digestable fashion. Many people might feel this way and yet not be able to express it properly. If Clark can do that for them, he gets mega bonus points.

I am still undecided about who to support for the Democratic nomination. As for Clark, your thesis has been the central question for me, and it does not answer one nagging question I have: As a four-star general, wasn't Clark privy to the same set of facts and intelligence that we on DU had prior to the war? If so, why couldn't he "Use the brain God gave him" then?

This is why I have a hard time supporting anyone who supported the war or the Iraq resolution - I feel that they SHOULD have know exactly what we knew then.

(That said, I will support the eventual Democratic nominee, no matter who.)

He was not in the service at the time, but was a CNN analyst. I don't know the level of data he had on hand. He *did* talk a lot about getting the international community involved. His war-support talk came when it seemed, early on, that it was going to be a cakewalk. After the war was 'done,' he fell into those plans to invade seven other countries, and I think it freaked him out.

General Clark caught wind of the PNAC plans for invading seven countries after the invasion of Afghanistan, not Iraq...

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

I went to the Pentagon nine days after the attacks and called on a man with three stars who used to work for me. He said, "Sir, I have to ask you, have you heard the joke going through the halls?" I said, "No, what is it?" He said, "It goes like this: If Saddam Hussein didn't do 9/11, too bad. He should have, 'cause we're going to get him anyway." He looked at me, and I looked at him, and we both knew that it would be a classic mistake if we did that.

I was relieved when we attacked Afghanistan, but I went back to the Pentagon as that war was going on, and this same guy said to me, "Oh, yes, sir, not only is it Afghanistan. There's a list of countries. We're not that good at fighting terrorists, so we're going after states: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Iran. There's a five-year plan." From that moment on, I couldn't believe anymore that I was just a retired general of the United States Army. I saw something wrong, but I couldn't get anyone to listen, so I started to speak out last September in a vocal way.

If anyone has links to statements from Clark about the PNAC and plans to invade other ME countries before his announcement to run, I would like to see them. I do not understand how he could have made the comments about Blair and Bush after the invasion of Iraq, given his knowledge of the bigger plans of the PNAC.

And CNN seems to be on here all the time since * took over the WH. I thought I heard Clark saying what many here were saying.

but on a few days he waffled.

Clark questioning the "imminent threat" as far back as last September during House and Senate armed services committee meetings. He certainly never seemed in favor of this war. He always spoke of containment with the help of the UN. I have never though he was totally anti-war, just anti- THIS war.

to where Clark said invade Iraq without UN support

I'd like to see them

So far...how 'bout that Fassle decision to "punt to Wesbrook"..snatching defeat from the jaws of the victory lap. Ho-ho-ho...to I'm-So-Smart,Jimmy.:puffpiece:

I'm currently reading "Winning Modern Wars" by Clark, and he describes a meeting with a Pentagon official back in late 2002. At that time, Clark says the official told him there were substantial plans to go into a number of different countries, but Clark doesn't say what countries those were. He then wrote for a few pages about how apprehensive he was at the time.

This, in the timeline of his book, is well before the war, not after.

BTW: The book is good.

this year, that's called "flip flopping" and seems to rate up somewhere with place kicking kittens.

About Clark, at the debate on Sunday, he swore that he opposed the war last year, in the spring, in the summer, on Ground Hog Day and on and on. He gave no room for any evolution of opinion. That's a bit of a minus, imo.

When did he say that?

and there are CNN transcripts of him getting all breathy and faint ovefr the glorious 'victory' back in May.

he was just reacting to a well run battle?

but rolling up a country with absolutely no functioning military isn't really a 'battle.'

Private citizen or Presidential Candidate?

If he was an analyst.... maybe he was analysising facts as they appeared.

it's only fair to back up statements like that with links

First: Hypothesizing voting for IWR != supporting the war. I know this seems counterintuitive, but his statement was not something that can be compressed to a binary 'yes/no' position. Basically, he wanted leverage against Iraq, but didn't feel war was necessary at that juncture.

Second: There's a difference between supporting the war, and supporting the troops. We all know that. From what I recall of the transcripts, he was proud of our military - that's different than being proud of the CIC that put them in that position.

military operation. So?

for me. I absolutely believe that this administration can and has caused people to make major shifts in the way they feel and what they believe in. I like Clark, always thought he seemed like a decent guy but I just wish I felt entirely comfortable with this change. I do respect it but he just makes me uneasy. I agree, I admire his guts coming out with the things he is hitting Bush* with. I say my decisions about him is still out but I remain curious.

'anti-war' candidates. He was against it as it actually was enacted, which makes him essentially anti-war -- or at least, it did in the case of Dean. Here is his testimony in front of the Armed Services Committee in September 02:

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.

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

Read the whole thing. This means a lot more than a conversation on an airplane at 10:00 at night when he said about 4 different things, but only one was reported.

but I can certainly understand that people and and do change their minds about important issues.

I don't see where Clark has really changed his mind. He would have supported a resolution to give the UN and the US some leverage but he would not have supported going to war. Some people want to call that waffling but I can see the distinction. I can also see where he could commend the troups for the job they were doing. He was in Vietnam and he saw the damage that that war did to the troops.

It's interesting to me that Clark seems to be the one candidate other than Graham who is willing to put himself out there and condemn Bush for the failures that lead to 9/11. That doesn't sound like a PNAC plant, or Trojan Horse to me. Consider what a risky move that is politically in light of all the bandwagon patriotism that surfaced after 9/11.

We now have a military man saying that the buck stops at the President's desk. No one else has done that. Other candidates have said that the Iraq war was wrong, that we shouldn't hve gone, but I don't think any of them have nailed Bush on 9/11.

MzPip
:dem:

But so did everyone but Sharpton and Kuncinich. I believe he sincerely wants to get us out of there and can do that job well. If I honestly thought that he would not, or could not, he wouldn't have my support. I simply think he had mixed feelings about the whole thing. I also believe all the other "waffling" candidates sincerely want to get us out of there, as well.

All of this "are you now or have you ever been" purity test stuff may be a big deal for some during the primaries, but it won't matter in the general election. Most Americans supported the war and don't want to be told that they were idiots for doing so. They just want someone they believe can fix this mess.

Sure I would like it if he just said "I waffled a bit on that issue". I would like it if all of them would be that honest. They won't, because even Democrats sometimes prefer to be lied to than told the truth. It makes them feel better about themselves and their candidate. I don't engage in "candidate projection". I want to win the election.

Although Clark did a good job defending himself, I still remember him supporting the invasion of Iraq, not to mention his rather euphoric article praising Bush & Co after the fall of Baghdad.

We might criticize John Kerry for his nuances on the war, but there are no nuances when it comes to Clark.

I would vote for Kerry before I vote for Clark. At least with Kerry I know that I am getting a candidate with strong liberal bona fides. I can't say the same about Mr. Clark.

You're spot-on about Kerry's liberal bona fides.

That was set in motion?

There is a big difference.

It's like being able to support our men and women in uniform without supporting Junior and his cabal.

Or respecting the Chair and Position of President and the Power invested in it... without respecting Junior personally.

Even those of us among the doomsayers did not foresee how badly things were going to go in Iraq.

Published on Thursday, April 10, 2003 by the Times/UK
Anti-War Candidate?
What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory
by General Wesley Clark

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. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

<snip>

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

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

Bush 'should be proud of his resolve,' and that's 'euphoric' praise? You left out the sober analysis:

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.

It was prescient, restrained criticism, at a time when other people were kissing Bush's ass, and his approval ratings were in the 80%+ range. It sure wasn't 'euphoric' praise of Bush.

was Bush's deception of pretending of going to the UN all the while planning a unilateral invasion of Iraq.

You are spinning worse than a Dervish here. I have more respect for you than that.

Read the entire article, and then say it was 'euphoric' praise of Bush -- the person who posted below me did a much better job of culling the more direct criticism from the article than I did.

Incidentally, the depth of Bush's deception hadn't been revealed at this point. None of these memos had come to light, no leaks; the 'Yellocake' mess hadn't hit, I don't believe -- it was obvious Bush had exaggerated, but the degree was not known at the time he wrote this piece.

The yellow cake story first broke in the British press, without naming Ambassador Wilson's wife. If the war supporters had paid less attention to Colin Powell's UN speech and more attention to the debunking of that speech in the British press, they would have known that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Those that act surprised about Bush's deceptions on Iraq got no one to blame but themselves for buying into the lies.

assertion, that somehow this piece expresses Clark's 'euphoric' support of Bush, and now you're just rambling on using pointless generalities. So much for euphoria.

Of an accomplished Diplomat and Soldier speaking about a military campaign and the commander in chief?

Nice selective editing there Indiana... Here's some more of that Clark piece.... I'm sure you hoped noone would bother reading it since it shows he is NOT praising Junior as much as praising the TROOPS (he praises the troops for about THREE paragraphs) as well as warning about the need to return order and security to Iraq:

"Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped...snip.. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people.

snip

Everyone who has ever served knows that battles are won at the bottom — by the men and women looking through the sights, pulling the triggers, loading the cannon and fixing the planes. The generals can lose battles, and they can set the conditions for success -but they can’t win. That’s done by the troops alone.... snip

It’s to the men and women who fought it out on the arid highways, teeming city streets and crowded skies that we owe the greatest gratitude. All volunteers, they risked their lives as free men and women, because they believed in their countries and answered their calls. They left families and friends behind for a mission uncertain. They didn’t do it for the glory or the pittance of combat pay. Sadly, some won’t return — and they, most of all, need to be honored and remembered.

As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price.... Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. snip

Now the bills must be paid, amid the hostile image created in many areas by the allied action.... snip

snip .... And North Korea will shudder, for it has seen on display an even more awesome display of power than it anticipated,and yet
it will remain resolute in seeking leverage to assure its own regime’s survival. And what it produces, it sells.

The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of
understanding between Islam and the West.

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.

They're the words of someone who associates with whoever is winning.
That is opportunism and is devoid of morality or conviction. He is very smart and knows what's up.

This man will not be our savior from the PNAC and the MIC. He may lower the body count a bit and try to get multilateral support for US polices, a kinder gentler fascism.

We must nominate a better person than this or the planet will die.

or the planet will die.

And even without that apocalyptic spur to effort, it is a good idea to absorb the entire context.

To recap, I believe we agreed on another post that pragmatism=survival. But the important element of the equation is ACTUALLY SURVIVING. And our ecosystem is mutating rapidly now. Hence the apocalyptic admonition.

I understand that you take Clark at his word, he's 'changed his mind' or atleast his willingness to significantly increase his criticism of BushCo foreign policy. Oh yes, he had many criticisms before this summer when he announced he would run. And these criticisms are used to indicate that he has always been critical of the invasion of Iraq as it was carried out. I stress 'as it was carried out.'

I'm only a touring audio engineer who spends a few hours a day online since 11/01 reading about what the hell these criminals in DC are doing. I've been getting a really good idea starting with reading a Wm. Pitt essay called 'Hell to Pay' where he mentioned who FBI deputy director John O'Neill was and how he was thwarted by petro-fascists from fighting terrorism.

Of course, I can understand why the former commander of NATO and an advisor to the White House on the Iraq Occupation wouldn't know what the hell is going on and need to couragously 'change his mind' as things on the ground develop. Why, he's merely a genius general. Without the benefit of being a part-time civilian dilettante like me and thousands of DU-ers. (sarcasm off)

Clark's view of US military dominance as a given framework for the future still stands. I was amazed to read Mr. Pitt writing that he has no problem with US global dominance 'instead of being Poland.'

We are now looking at the result of US dominance, not just unbridled PNAC aspirations. Unchecked absolute military power. Clark shares the same Americentric view of the future.

Does this truly spell a change from today's corporate/imperial agenda to you?

How does downshifting one gear when we are headed towards a wall at 2000mph prevent catastrophe? That is not pragmatic. That is the same self-destruction that we agreed progressives are prone to, n'est-pas?

As brevity is the soul of wit, you do have it, BillyBunter.

And you obviously didn't read the whole piece.

On edit: I suppose the more obvious way to deal with that pesky PNAC crowd is to wag an angry finger at them...
cutting off their funding and exposing the Pentagon Budget to sunlight is too 'pink tutu'

None of the others will do so! If you don't believe me, wait until the BRAC 2005 list is made public by the Pentagon. I can hear the screams from politicians upset at the military bases in their states being targeted for closure.

I can see Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein protesting the closing of Miramar.

He was quoted as saying so. And when asked directly, several other candidates have said they wouldn't cut the pentagon budget. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Kucinich and Clark are the only two who have publicly stated they will.

Is Kucinich the only one who has said he will cut the Pentagon budget? No. Is Clark the only one? No. Are they the only two candidates have said so? Yes. Have any of the others? Not to my knowledge. As a matter of fact, several have said they wouldn't. Dean has stated he would not, if I'm not mistaken. If anyone has any further information, please feel free to correct me.

I do not believe this would involve base closings. Clark calls the Pentagon budget: "the make-want budget." He finds the Air Force toys particularly offensive.

Am I missing something?

It sounds like he's speaking mainly of the military aspects of the mission. Logistics. Execution. And I think it's agreed that the war was fought sucessfully. Post-war is the problem.

He sounds naive and overly polite, to be sure, but if anything, he sounds like someone who really enjoyed the miltary part of his writing assignment, but when it came to talking about politics, he was playing General again (don't rock the boat and show respect for the commanders in chief.)

I've been watching Clark since before buzz about him running got started. I haven't looked that closely at the sundry quote proporting to show he "supported" the war at one point, but I have a very clear recollection of listening to his analysis on CNN about the war.

There have been many instances in which Clark seemed to, logically enough, support the troops or give them praise for doing the job well. But my overall impression of his comments toward the war is that he spoke either critically of the administration's rush to war or neutrally in analyzing how the war was going.

The comments "proving" he supported the war at some point tend to be mostly comments celebrating the downfall of Saddam or accolading the troops--something I, as a very consistant opponent of the war, have done on occasion, too.

I've been follwing Clark for a while, and have the same impressions.

Before and during the war, Clark ALWAYS cheered the American side, against the Iraqi side. Clark ONLY criticized Bush and the neo-cons that told Bush what to do.

its called the bandwagon.

I support Kerry.

.

Clark was speaking strictly as a television analyst. He was likely basing his comments and opinions on the lies that we were all fed before the truth (WMDs, Kay Report, strengthening opposition forces, etc.) filtered out. He obviously isn't morally opposed to war, as some of the people who were against this invasion from the beginning seem to be. He just feels this particular action was unjustified. It seems as though he came into some information at some point that led him towards staunchly opposing this war.

It takes a person with strength of character to say, "hey I know I believed this initially, but in light of new information, I now feel this way." If only more Democrats would do the same, we'd probably be a stronger party for it.

Kudos to Kerry too for voting against another blank check for Bush. These people should be encouraged for coming around and taking the correct stance instead of being criticized endlessly.

It is what he was saying a few years ago when the audience was different that scares me.

I keep saying the only liberal thing about Clark is his script. He says all the right things, but so far that's the only thing he's done right. I love what he's been sayign about Bush and 9-11, but I can't help but feel he is just saying what I want to hear.

I simply do not trust the man.

of us are saying things we never thought we would be saying now.

I remember when Bush got selected. I said to my son, "I really hope this all works out, I really do." That was not praise for Bush but a hope that we would all be ok. Why would anyone wish for things to go bad just to spite Bush? Things went bad anyway.

Clark was pretty much non partisan before he left the military. Such is the way of the military. His loyalty was to our country and not to a particular party. Coming from that place, I can see where he would hope for the best and try to work with whatever Administration is in Washington. Why is this considered a bad thing?

Maybe we need someone who does not have a long history of partisanship to end all of the non productive partisanshipthat is going on in Washington today. I don't know if Clark can do it. I don't know if anyone can do it, but Clark seems to be willing to try and that counts a lot to me.

MzPip
:dem:

the stuff he said was at a republican fudraiser AFTER he left the military... in 2001 he was saying that Bush I and Reagan were great leaders.


"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."


"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."



"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."


If that's Clark's idea of great leadership and he really beleives what he was saying... I don't want him to be my leader.

And if he was just bullshitting because the audience was republican... then how can I trust that he's not just spining out a new line of bullshit for a demcoratic audience?

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

as I am with so many things. I agree that people change their minds and that their opinions should shift and grow as they get new facts. (I'm still chuckling softly to myself about the Dean quote from a few weeks ago about how as a doctor he has a theory and when a fact comes along that refutes that theory he throws the theory out while if I rethug has a theory and finds an inconvenient fact they throw out the fact...hee.) Yes, we should afford the people in public life the same opportunity to grow that we have.

However, we also have a right to be leery of recent conversions, especially during election years. Example: everyone on earth thinks I'm a Kucinich supporter. I'm not 100 percent in his camp. Why? Because I can't reconcile myself to his recent pro-choice conversion. It's the same thing. I want to believe (in Dennis and in Clark and in Dean and in all the others) but I'm paranoid enough to worry that it's all just ploys to get elected. And I admit I'm more paranoid about it with Clark than I am with most of the others simply because I don't have a history of his public behaviour and votes and the like to fall back on as a guide to what he'll do.

My husband almost did, though. He was recovering from a serious illness and was flat out on the couch while a lot of this was going on. CNN was on just about all day. When he recovered he went to a new job, where they had CNN on all day. My husband is anti-war, anti-Bush, and distrustful of the military and he liked what Clark had to say to the point of hoping he'd get into the presidential race when the draft movement was in its infancy. Clark wasn't on as a political commentator. He was there to provide expert analysis of the war. He wasn't on as opposition to this administration, either, but did deliver critiques on the areas where he thought they were screwing up.

I don't think he ever changed his mind. I think he had grave doubts, tried to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, since none of this was his call to make, certainly wanted to support the troops and eventually his doubts were more than confirmed as the administration proved that it not only made a bad decision about how, when and why to go to war, but went on to prove that it did so without a real plan other than what was in their collective imaginations (cooperative and grateful Iraqis, etc.)

This is what I am looking at.
http://clark04.com/speeches/008/
And once again, I find so much hollow retoric that it makes my eyes bleed. But through the whole peice, I find nothing even hinting that he opposes the current war on terror, or is against the Iraq war.

The best I could find was focused on three points. (Once again showing us that all good thing comes in threes.)

Point one: eh, he goes off on a tangent, talking about inclusion of imigrents.

Point two: A point I have heard him repeat numerus times. The "I will win internationl support where Bush failed" line. Qoute, "Second, we should be working to strengthen and use international institutions, beginning with the United Nations and NATO. After September 11, we should have immediately gone to the United Nations, developed a legal definition of terrorism - and brought the charges legally against Bin Ladin. The UN was our organization - we helped conceive it, shape its values, and launch it. We're its major contributor. We have to strengthen it and use it."

Uhm, we seem to think that NATO and the UN works for us. He also has it wrong. Qoute, "If we had used NATO to launch the war on terrorism, we would have had the military, moral, political, and financial commitment of 19 nations - including Turkey - determined to make a success of the mission, and determined to defend our actions to their people and the world. This was offered to us, and the Bush Administration refused. Now we turn to NATO anyway, buts it's too little and too late - at least for this team "

Now this is just flat out wrong. The UN and NATO didn't offer the US sqoute. We went in there and bribed and threatend every one in sight. We forced certain persons out, and errected pro-US offichels in there place. We brow beated in veagly worded resolutins, and STILL had to twist end spin them to serve our ends.

Out "coaliton" includes ourselve, Brition, and any other nation who sends us a file clerk. Some of whome are brutal dictators who are far worse than Husane.

It seems to be that Clarks faith in other contries comming to back us for the war in Iraq, may not be well founded. Has he even spoken to any world leaders lately?

However, his "working with the UN" certainly implies that he still intends to prosicute this war.

On to point three. Oh, you guys will love this one.
Qoute, "The third principle is to ensure our armed forces retain the edge over any potential adversary. And they must continue to be modernized to deal with foreseeable contingencies, including the possible need to pre-empt any threat to the United States. "

Bwahahahahahahahhahahahah. Thats the frigen Bush doctran there! Oh come on, this guy is too easy. Do you Clark Cluckers even READ what this guy says? Not to mention the fact that this directly contradicts his "working through the UN" argument.

1. I have no problem with American armed forces being supreme;

2. I don't want to be Poland before the Wermacht (see #1). If a genuine threat presents itself, aka Germany to Poland, I'd like America to be able to address that.

From what I can see. He doesn't believe war is wrong. He just believes THIS one is not justified.

1. I have no problem with American armed forces being supreme;
To bad the rest of the world dosn't seem to see it that way. It's good to be the king, not so good to be the kings slave. And Bush has clearly demonstrated the potechal for abuse for that "supreme army." Even if I am to accept that Clark would use this power wisly, the potechanl for abuse remaines all the same. And if Clark is unwilling to address this, how is he not contiuing to advance, or at best, preserve, the PNAC inisitive?

2. I don't want to be Poland before the Wermacht (see #1). If a genuine threat presents itself, aka Germany to Poland, I'd like America to be able to address that.

Poland is a threat? Hay, I am all for protecting America from all threats, forein and domestic. But they have to be real threats. Not figments of our own imagination. This war on terror is nothing more than political cover to go after the worlds oil supply. Afganistan and now Iraq have substnachal oil holdings, now securied by out vaunted supreme military. But now that Clark is on the seen, sudnly the threat is raal? We are no longer after the oil any more? Or are we only perpetuating the same lie, in front of a donkey backdrop, instead of an elifhant?

Sounds to me like Clark supports the war AND supports the Bush doctren of pre-emption.

1. I have no problem with American armed forces being supreme;

To bad the rest of the world dosn't seem to see it that way. It's good to be the king, not so good to be the kings slave. And Bush has clearly demonstrated the potechal for abuse for that "supreme army." Even if I am to accept that Clark would use this power wisly, the potechanl for abuse remaines all the same. And if Clark is unwilling to address this, how is he not contiuing to advance, or at best, preserve, the PNAC inisitive?

How would you present an alternative to the potential for abuse? Are you volunteering America to become a militarily weak nation? History shows how unwise this is. Wisdon and strength combined are a potent force for good. Weakness gets rolled, period. I disagree with your perspective.

2. I don't want to be Poland before the Wermacht (see #1). If a genuine threat presents itself, aka Germany to Poland, I'd like America to be able to address that.

Poland is a threat? Hay, I am all for protecting America from all threats, forein and domestic. But they have to be real threats. Not figments of our own imagination. This war on terror is nothing more than political cover to go after the worlds oil supply. Afganistan and now Iraq have substnachal oil holdings, now securied by out vaunted supreme military. But now that Clark is on the seen, sudnly the threat is raal? We are no longer after the oil any more? Or are we only perpetuating the same lie, in front of a donkey backdrop, instead of an elifhant?

No, Poland is not a threat. Do some research on the history of WWII. Germany invaded Poland using modern military tools - tanks and infantry - and Poland had to defend itself with men on horseback using swords. I don't want to be Poland. Nor do I want America to be what it is. See above.

Sounds to me like Clark supports the war AND supports the Bush doctren of pre-emption.

I disagree with your interpretation.

How would you present an alternative to the potential for abuse? Are you volunteering America to become a militarily weak nation?

Oh, nice shiny straw man there. I said, nor implied no such thing, but it came right out of your key board none the less.

History shows how unwise this is. Wisdon and strength combined are a potent force for good. Weakness gets rolled, period. I disagree with your perspective.

Indeed, you seem to be having trouble with any one else's perspective, save that of America. The rest of the wold's perspective is vary much irreverent here. We need a superior military just in case they feel the need to make their perspective known.

Strength comes in many forms. And while Clark would chose to focus on military strength, he would do so at the expense of another. The strength that comes from our American ideals that ironically, Clark lionizes in the same speech. What of the values of being a nation of laws? What about the values of all men being created equal. That goes for terrorists! What of all men being equal within the eyes of the law. No man being above it, and no man below it. What of being considered innocent until proven guilty? "Where civil discourse is made impossible, violent revolution is made inevitable."

I hear a lot of "we are at war" rhetoric, but absolutely no understanding of the enemy, other than de-humanizing platitudes of "they hate us" or "they are out to kill us." We treat them like skum, or worse, and then dare act surprised when they lash back.

I hear a lot of folks say that "They are not justified in doing what they did on September 11th!" But how in the world would we even know that? Do don't consider the Arabs to be human, let alone even consider the thought that they just MIGHT have a litigate grievance.

Rather than ask the question, and take a good long hard look into ourselves and our foreign policy, we have decided that it is less painful to drop booms on civilians and helpless armed forces, with out any mercy or sympathy what so ever. And that is the coward's way out. I do not see Clark asking these hard questions, so where is this courage that you see in him?

An old saying. The biggest cowered can usually be found welding the biggest stick.

I am NOT advocating that we should become a weak nation. But it is becoming increasingly apparent that our "superior military" is for our defense, but to preserve our cowardice as a nation.

No, Poland is not a threat. Do some research on the history of WWII. Germany invaded Poland using modern military tools - tanks and infantry - and Poland had to defend itself with men on horseback using swords. I don't want to be Poland. Nor do I want America to be what it is.

And isn't it ironic that we are now the ones with the advance technology, but it is now our enemy who hides in caves. But on the off chance that they do manage to fight back, its with weapons WE sold them. I don't suppose it has ever accrued to you that the best way for us to secure the piece, is not give megalomaniac weapons of mass destruction, and CIA training?

After reading the parts you chose to bold, I can't see how you arrived at your conclusion that Clark's words is merely the "Bush doctrine."

1) Clark is a multilateralist, not a unilateralist.

2) In the Iowa townhall meeting, Clark marks a distinction between preemptive war and preventive war. He states that the Iraq war was not a preemptive war, but a preventive one. In my opinion, any president who has specific intelligence of an imminent attack in the next 24hrs, and chooses not to take preemptive action, should be impeached for failing his country. Clark rightly stated that the president has a duty to act preemptively, but not preventively. I believe 99% of Americans would support a preemptive war, under Clark's definition. Iraq does not fall under Clark's definition of a preemptive war.

Just because Bush says it was preemptive doesn't make it so. Bush conflated the two definitions in order to muddy the waters and get Americans to support a preventive war. Thus, when examining Clark's statements regarding preemptive war, you should do so with this distinction of definitions in mind. Clark's view is nuanced.

And I believe when this distinction between preemptive and preventive war is made to the American public, they will see exactly how they were mislead by Bush. It wasn't just the faulty intelligence, but the (perhaps deliberately) faulty logic of the Bush administration in conflating preemptive war with preventive war.

1) Clark is a multilateralist, not a unilateralist.
Care to explain to me what a "multilateralist" happens to be? Or is it I suspect yet another code word that we are a member of a community of nations, so long as they do as we, the leader of the free world, tells them to do.

The reason why Bush hasn't been able to win UN support is because they object under no uncertain terms against the war in Iraq. Clark calling himself a multi-what-it, doesn't mean the world leaders have changed their mind on this.

2) In the Iowa townhall meeting, Clark marks a distinction between preemptive war and preventive war. He states that the Iraq war was not a preemptive war, but a preventive one. In my opinion, any president who has specific intelligence of an imminent attack in the next 24hrs, and chooses not to take preemptive action, should be impeached for failing his country. Clark rightly stated that the president has a duty to act preemptively, but not preventively. I believe 99% of Americans would support a preemptive war, under Clark's definition. Iraq does not fall under Clark's definition of a preemptive war.


Clark and I quote here. - The third principle is to ensure our armed forces retain the edge over any potential adversary. And they must continue to be modernized to deal with foreseeable contingencies, including the possible need to pre-empt any threat to the United States.

He did NOT say "preventive" yesterday when he gave this speech, apparently. But this is splitting hairs in the worst order. A preventive war is a logical impossibility. How do you prevent a war, with a war! And it's STILL wrong! Sadam was no where near the capacity to threaten the people in his own country. (Remember the little thing called the "no-fly zone?") let alone threaten the US. There were no weapons of mass destruction. So why is he apologizing for Bush for launching a war on false pretense? And pre-emptive and preventive are the same dam thing. So once again, we find Clark hiding behind semantics, taking grate pains to not say way he means, and never meaning what he says.

1) Clark prefers to leverage our alliances rather than go it alone when we needn't. If you read his books, you'll see that this theme is examined. The reason the UN didn't support the war was partly a diplomatic failure on the part of the Bush administration.

2) Please see the explanation of preventive/preemptive from Clark's own mouth in the Iowa townhall meeting. I think that might clear up the confusion. It sounded eminently logical and commonsense.

Clark and I quote here. - The third principle is to ensure our armed forces retain the edge over any potential adversary. And they must continue to be modernized to deal with foreseeable contingencies, including the possible need to pre-empt any threat to the United States.

So? This is perfectly in line, given his definition of preemption, which is different from the Bush definition. And I see nothing wrong with it unless you've not understood the distinction of definitions.

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

You say bribe, threaten, coerce, and force, like these were bad things. How do imagine concensus is achieved in any politicized context? It is not done, Sir, through moral uprightness and persuasion, absent the above mix of sweets and the whip.

There is only one possible corrective for U.S. military predominance, and that is for some other power or group of powers to construct, at their own cost, a comparable military establishment. It would be, perhaps, within the power of the European Union, in alliance with Russia, to do this. But until this is done, the military predominance of the United States will remain a fact of life in this world. For better or worse, Sir, power is used.

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

Pre-emptive warfare has a well-understood meaning to any student of military history.

Preventive warfare is Bush's doctrine, which amounts to a shoddy excuse for imperialism.

Please do keep up your "enjoyable bout of outrage," though, as it is quite amusing to watch.

DTH

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

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

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

Clark who is "wisly" pushing for pre-emptive warfare, while Bush has in fact been pushing "prevenitive" ware fare all this time?

Oh yay, now that is a stack of balony. Sirusly, I do not think your talking points printed out on 3x5 cards were ever ment to be shuffled.

You might want to edit your own post. Regardless, despite your apparent lack of understanding, the public record is clear, as is my own position.

DTH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uhm, we seem to think that NATO and the UN works for us. He also has it wrong. Qoute, "If we had used NATO to launch the war on terrorism, we would have had the military, moral, political, and financial commitment of 19 nations - including Turkey - determined to make a success of the mission, and determined to defend our actions to their people and the world. This was offered to us, and the Bush Administration refused. Now we turn to NATO anyway, buts it's too little and too late - at least for this team "

Clark is referring to Afghanistan in this quote, not Iraq. And we could have used NATO with the backing of the UN at that point. NATO had voted on article 5, if one member is attacked, it is an attack on all members. Again, by using a multinational approach, the outcome becomes one of multinational benefit. Of course, since this was resource driven in many ways, the bushco regime was not buying.

Does that make sense? The US needs to defend itself against Afghanistan? And kill how many civilians? With how much illegal DU weapons? And how many cluster bombs? After spending the 70s creating, arming and training the mujahadeen, only to be fighting the same people. Just like Iraq?

I don't think it is as clear cut as you make it sound (at a variety of points he spoke in favor of the war).

Throughout the build-up to the War Clark is on the record consistently (again, again, again, again, again, and again) speaking out against the march to war with Iraq. I think when certain comments were made he was just trying to deal with the hand he was dealt (and I believe he alluded to this in one of his interviews). After shipping all of our troops and equipment overseas, I remember Bush constantly issuing ultimatums to Iraq and thinking, God now we have to take out Saddam because if we don't we will have lost all credibility in threatening the use of force in future situations (which would be devastating to say the least). Clark is a thinker - who actually considers the long-term affects (wow, what a novel concept). ON EDIT: This is from the fair article: As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us..

Then there is the article where Clark refers to the "Liberation" of Iraq, the comment Crowley hit him with in the debates. I purchased and read the whole article. This was the time when many citizens of Iraq where dancing in the streets in gleeful celebration. Major military action was already complete. Clark said this reminded him of the liberation in Bosnia. However, he voices concerns throughout the article (again, again, again, and again) and offers Bush his advice. I believe he praised Bush in this article because he was trying to get him to heed his advice (which is why I think he accepted the opportunity to speak at that one republican fundraiser -he complimented them then proceeded to tell them what he really thought). Why do you think Clark was so successful as the head of Nato? EDIT: I'd also like to add that after seeing the celebrations in the streets of Iraq I got the impression in reading the article that maybe Clark thought it was the right thing to do after all (though he strenously cautioned that it could end up going really bad if things weren't handled properly. As hard as it is for some people to believe, Clark as a military man is actually a humanitarian who likes to liberate oppressed people (he wanted to go into Rawanda to stop that butchery).

As far as the whole Swett deal he said he said he would vote for the resolution but only after vigorous debate and he had very serious reservations about the direction we were taking. Personally, I think Swett may have wanted to vote for the resolution for political cover, Clark was there to help her in her campaign, and really didn't want to go on record opposing her decision. Otherwise he would not have put such a "strong qualifier" on his recommendation. In addition, Clark is on record stating that he would have voted for a resolution that was worded in such a way that it only gave Bush leverage in his dealings, not to give him carte blanche to do whatever he darn well pleased.

With that said, what about Howard Dean? Has he always been so anti- war?

"He (Dean) gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice." http://fordean.org/aa/issues/press_view.asp?ID=398

He also comments on Bush in the same article: “He (Dean) does credit Bush for being "popular because he knows who he is, and he speaks unambiguously about his message." “

The icing on the cake, Dean puts up on his blog an article about how Dean was so all knowing he foresaw the mess we would end up with after going into Iraq. It seems to me he was only repeating the concerns voiced by Clark (again, again, again, and again) and other people who knew enough about the situation to make an assessment.

and perhaps i am being puritanical here..but i believe political beliefs come from life experiences and exposures..i would be uncomfortable with a president that needs for a war to go badly wrong to adjust his opinion of whether that war was a valid excursion..

I strongly disagree with Lieberman on many issues, but I have to admit that when it comes to the war in Iraq, Lieberman has been very consistent. Lieberman supported toppling Saddam, whether or not he had WMD. Lieberman has been very consistent about that. He has also faulted Bush for the postwar chaos in Iraq.

I think that Lieberman is wrong on all counts, but at least he deserves credit for not waffling as some of the other prowar Democrats have done, or to shift blame to someone else as Bush has done!

To win this election, the Democratic Party nominee is going to have to appeal successfully to a great many people who did initially support the invasion of Iraq. It will not be enough simply to point to the mistakes of the current regime: people by and large perceive Republicans as more competent to deal with matters of national security. It is a question of brand loyalty, that has been built up over many years, since 1972 at least.

Gen. Clark, by virtue his profession, and his success at war-fighting, is in possession of a valuable credential to challenge this brand identification, which our enemies are counting on to carry them over their calamatous performance in Iraq. Whether he actually supported the war or not initially is immaterial: the same sort of arguments opponents of Gen. Clark make here will be available to our enemies during the election, and will probably be used, as it is standard procedure to try and accuse an opponent of "flip-flop" whenever possible.

But every occassion for such accusation is an opportunity to say in reply, like you, the voters, I changed my mind, as I became acquainted with the lies told to sell the war, and the incompetence with which it has been carried out, by political hacks who should never have been near the direction of our country's armed forces. Coming from a figure with Gen. Clark's acknowledged expertise, this will provide a powerful validation for the ordinary voter's doubts in the matter, and a point of identification with the candidate.

He was even praising shrub well into 2002. He is just in the show to disrupt Dean or any other canidate that might rise up. The Clintons sent him in as a disruptor to make sure that none would win in 04. If things went really bad then hillary could enter late as pres/vise pres. All to set up for an 08 run.

I know you think I need to go to politics 101 with you Will but its all the Clinton plan. Clark was praising the shrub administration well into 2002 and then the Clintons backed his going into the frey.

But another Clark speech recorded by videotape suggests that his hope wasn't snuffed out too quickly. Eight months later, even as some administration officials were making the case for war against Iraq, Clark still applauded the U.S. mission in Afghanistan as he addressed a large audience at Harding University, in Searcy, Arkansas. "I tremendously admire, and I think we all should, the great work done by our commander-in-chief, our president, George Bush," he said in the January 22, 2002 speech. The university provided TIME a videotape of his remarks.

Clark is not a dem and thats all I will say.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,524416,00.html

thats all I will say.

I hope your purity keeps you warm at night after people like you chase so many people out of the party that Bush wins in a walk.

--

MICHAEL MOORE, ON GENERAL WESLEY CLARK

And then people say, well (in a mocking voice): "But Mike, but Mike, he voted for Reagan, Clark voted for Reagan!"

Yeah? So? So did most of America! You know? Do you wanna win? I mean, the only way you win, you see, is if you get most of America on your side. And if someone who voted for Reagan now says, "I'm joining your team, I don't believe in that any more," we have to open up our arms! This is why people don't like the left! This is why people don't like liberals! You know?

(In a mocking voice): "No, no, no, no, no, he, he voted for Reagan, no, no, not pure, not pure, don't like him, no, no!"

That's why nobody wants to join our side, we're so, like, up on our high horse! You know? What do you say to working class America, there's all these people who voted for Reagan, that now realize, they were duped! They were had! They're worse off now after 20 years of Republicanism!

You know? You, what do you say (in a mocking voice): "Nope, can't come to our side, you voted for Reagan!"

Jeez! I mean, come on, folks! You know? I don't know.

(In a mocking voice): "He was the Butcher of Kosovo!" That's the other one. (In a mocking voice): "He was the Butcher…Clark was the butcher of Kosovo!"

I've heard, I've heard an alternate version of the story, that was in the New York Times and the Washington Post last week. About why he was fired. Because he was trying to stop the genocide in Kosovo, in a way that would cost, even, that would cost, that would result in fewer civilian losses. I'd like to hear the story, I don't know, I mean, I'm just saying, I don't know, that's why I'm waiting to see, you know, what's being said here. I'd like to know.

But I'll tell you this much, folks. We're not fighting the Kosovo war right now. Don't let the professional left drag you into an argument that is a sideshow. We are fighting the Iraq war right now, that's the war we've gotta stop, and that's the war he says he will stop! That's the war he says he'll tell the American people the truth about how Bush has fought an immoral war! And that's what we need, we need that on our side.

www.liberalresurgent.com/mooreclark.mp3

DTH

I hope your purity keeps you warm at night after people like you chase so many people out of the party that Bush wins in a walk.

This is called the "appeal to fear" ad hommanum. Trying to make you afrade of what might happen if we chose not to back Clark. It is exactly the same sort of stratigy Perl uses to push Bush's America. Yet another glaring simularity between the two.

You're right, I fully admit that I am absolutely fucking petrified by the idea of Bush winning another term. Most rational Democrats I know are as well.

I frankly don't give a shit if the previous poster supports Clark or not. Based on the ignorant "content" the previous poster wrote, I'm skeptical of that ever happening. But that won't stop me from pointing out how ridiculous "purity police" people are. They're so ridiculous that even liberal icon Michael Moore disavows them and mocks them mercilessly.

Clark appeals to optimism, hope and the New American Patriotism. He has no negativity about him.

I, however, make no such claims to altruism, and am certainly not afraid to mix it up with people who say stupid things.

DTH

Fear is the beginning of wisdom in political questions, and the idea that people ought not look to the possible consequences of their decisions for some guidance in making them is risible.

The truth is that an insistence on radical purity is a formula for certain defeat at the polls. There is good ground for belief this does not worry unduly some who do insist on such purity, and that such purity is more important to them than electoral success. A thoroughgoing Leninist would have no difficulty describing such as provacatuers in fascist pay, and there is no doubt that "objectively" they serve reactionary interests, not left and progressive ones.

LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

Fear :scared: is the beginning of wisdom in political questions,

Oh, this is so rich. Magistrate is trying to be pensive. I am going to have to book mark this, just for the comedic value.

and the idea that people ought not look to the possible consequences of their decisions for some guidance in making them is risible.

Oh yay? Now many wise cowered do you know? I would have to guess three.

The truth is that an insistence on radical purity is a formula for certain defeat at the polls.

Hello! CLARK is a frigin PNACER! When its coming from the toilet, purity has nothing to do with it. :hurts:

There is good ground for belief this does not worry unduly some who do insist on such purity, and that such purity is more important to them than electoral success. A thoroughgoing Leninist would have no difficulty describing such as provacatuers in fascist pay, and there is no doubt that "objectively" they serve reactionary interests, not left and progressive ones.

Oh yay man. I dig, I dig. :smoke: I suddenly have a craving for a capicheno from a reading house.

"It is wrong to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."

What world are you from? Is your tinfoil hat on too tight?

BTW, I LOVE your criteria for ignoring people. You say if they have "inflexible biaes" you ignore them. I guess that really means:

They don't agree with me and say things that prove me wrong, so I'm shoving my fingers in my ears and going, "la la la la la la I'm not listenting!"

Gods, you accuse Clark of being Bush in disguise when you use the same debate tactics of Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh!

You don't present evidence to back up your facts, you spin so fast that you are probably sick by now, you ridicule people and say, "If you don't agree with me you are with Bush", and generally repeat LIES that have been disproven numerous times. I know that you won't read what I have to say anyway, but I think that the truth about you needs to be exposed for the REST of DU to see.

It's really quite amusing. I must confess, I'm rather fond of it; I haven't had a target that easy in weeks. ;-) Although it is kind of like clubbing baby seals, so I do feel a little bit badly.

Nah...actually I really don't. ;-)

DTH

It's like shooting fish in a barrel with a 12 gauge! He's probably going to accuse you of being biased and ignore you now though lol.

What a tragedy THAT will be ;).

Running towards a brick wall at only 20mph instead of 200mph is definitely an improvement. Wouldn't turn it down if it wound up being the only choice available. No-sir-ee-bob.

Listen - I don't mind when a politician changes his/her mind about an issue based on more information. That's human. We've all done it. The doubts that I have about Clark are based more on his timing. It just smacks of opportunism to me. Has he suddenly become enlightened about the Iraq War, or is he striking while the iron is hot? I honestly don't know, yet my doubts remain.

Before I get jumped on by his supporters, I have similar misgivings about Howard Dean. He's (I refuse to say "waffled") recanted past positions regarding retirement age & Medicare, among others. Does he believe that he was wrong before? Who the hell knows?

Kerry? I'm still pissed about him allowing himself to be railroaded in fear into voting for the war and the Patriot Act. Aside from those two major sticking points, I've always loved the guy.

I think the primary is going to be a race between these three guys. Sorry, Kucinichinos (hey, nobody else has coined a phrase for you guys :D), but I don't think Dennis has a chance in the current political climate. I'll happily cast my vote for any of our candidates, but each of them presents problems for me.

This shit ain't easy, friends. I guess that's the point of my rambling post. I'd run for president myself, but I tell too many dirty jokes in public.

supported the Iraq war. He reported on it from a military point of view, but I don't remember him interjecting any personal opinions on it. He was still the military advisor at CNN when the we went into Afghanistan. He clearly supported that war, but then I think most Americans did.

I have never believed that Clark was anti-war in the same sense as those candidates that call themselves that. 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 our debate here.

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.
Thecritical 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 aperiod 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.

Here is what was reported on October 9, 2002.
At the time, senators were still attempting to amend the resolution. Senator Graham's amendement that Clark supported was defeated....but on October 9, the final form of the resolution was still not totally known. Also note that Clark was still consistent to his statement to the House Arm Committee:

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.

of the type of "anti-War" camp Wes Clark was in, and how the so-called "flip-flop" on Iraq occurred. It deserves careful reading. Again, I see no inconsistency......from his stance in 2002.
The Boston Globe September 24, 2003

Clark versus Clark

By Scot Lehigh

Retired General Wesley Clark parachuted into the presidential race last week – and promptly commenced a debate with himself about whether he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force in Iraq. Yes, he probably would have, the newly minted candidate said on Thursday. No, he would never have voted for this war, the retreating general declared on Friday.

Add to that confusion an Associated Press story from last October
that indirectly quotes Clark saying he supported the resolution. Plus an April 10 column in The Times of London, after Baghdad had fallen, in which Clark wrote: "President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."

So where, really, did Clark stand? I heard the former supreme Allied commander in Europe speak at the University of Massachusetts at Boston on Oct. 10, 2002 the day Congress passed the resolution, then interviewed him afterward.

The issue of Clark's stand on the resolution never came up (fie on
this columnist!), but a review of his comments suggests the General's initial assessment that he would have supported it was more on point than his subsequent claim to the contrary. To be sure, Clark was hardly a hawk. In his University of Massachusetts-Boston speech, he bemoaned the Bush administration's disdain for multilateralism, saying it had clearly hurt US standing in the world.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

N/T

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.

knows pumping Clark is the way to take the foam off the Dean wave.

Not to detract from the true core of your statement. But in the Dean/Clark opposition, if that is what we are really stuck with, I'll take the guy who was (more) right on this issue in the first place.

The ability to change your mind can be indicative of either

a) a growing, active intelligence

b) a weasly opportunism

I'm sure the mind-changes among most people evince both. There's no teling if Clark's is a or b, and each of the two of us is biased to report it one way or the other. (Though I once again give maximum props to Gen. Clark for speaking out on 9/11 yesterday.)

I still love ya, Bill, fused earring and all. Had lots to write to you, or to respond to you from other threads - about the fatal flaws of the Noble Clinton, about the Kosovo war and other matters - but it's always one thing after the next...

Later and take care!

because he has walked the same path about this war that a lot of Americans have. But more importantly, to me, is the genuine development of opinion."

All well and good if who we want to elect is just a "regular guy" who follows the winds of fortune based on popular opinion.

On the other hand, if you are looking to elect a leader, and not a follower...

And that is what this whole litmus test on the candidates position on Iraq represents. Their political acumen, courage and common sense while everyone else was swept up by a blinding media blitz of going after Saddam and his imminent threat.

Even you knew better, Pitt.

and the previous time it was about Kerry, IIRC.

By all means, support whoever you like. But please don't rationalize your decision:

I want a President who can change his/her mind on major, major decisions when the facts clearly show that a change must be made. Clark is not sticking to a position because he held the position six months or a year ago.


Clark has been all over the board. That you acknowledge. What you're rationalizing (lying to yourself about) is that there's a principled -- as opposed to self-serving -- reason for it.

Like I said: support him if you like, but please don't feed the intellectual dishonesty of his supporters on this subject. And give a thought to your own credibility as an increasigly read and respected author -- it will suffer greatly if you continue with such shoddy intellectual gymnastics.

Eloriel

sigh

(in my best impression of Scotty) Captain, we have been struck by a torpedo amidship just below the water line! We're taking on water fast!

This was my point just the other day, on affirmative action.

:eyes:

DTH

I think there is something about that and not throwing stones...

Read my post again. It's NOT the flip-flopping I'm pointing out, and in fact it's not even about Clark. The post is about Will's disingenuous reasons for backing Clark -- making up a rationalizatio FOR the flip-flopping. And it was addressed to Will, btw, whom I bet got it, or at least he has the wherewithall to actually get it.

Eloriel

Read my post again. It's NOT the flip-flopping I'm pointing out,

And yet you did that exact thing.

and in fact it's not even about Clark.

Funny, you talk about him quite a bit, for not being about Clark!

The post is about Will's disingenuous reasons for backing Clark --

I rate Will's intellectual honesty about ten times higher than yours, Eloriel, especially considering how BB and I caught you in -- shall we say, misstatements -- in the not-too-distant past.

making up a rationalizatio FOR the flip-flopping.

Considering how there was no flip-flop, I don't see much need for rationalization, although if Will wants to take his own theory and advance it one step further, good on him.

And it was addressed to Will, btw, whom I bet got it, or at least he has the wherewithall to actually get it.

If you want a private conversation with Will, I advise PM.

DTH

...but to make these statements about Clark and not recognize the same "problems" (?) with Dean is hypocrisy.

from these Clark circle jerks.

It gets the boys all riled up, and they're in here pounding their tom-toms and tootin' their horns and puffing their chests out and slapping each other on the back and hootin' and fussin', so tickled that you graced their boys only thread with a passing promise of future visits. ;-)

..her boy did.

I knew moms like that growing up!

I disagree with your premise, but in any case my post to Will was not about the flip-flopping but his rationalization of ANYthing (in this case Clark's flip flopping). Rationalization = intellectual dishonesty. I think Will can do better than that. Supporting Clark is okay by me, but Will is too fine a thinker (on his better days) to take that tawdry path to why he supports Clark, or why he shouldn't pay any attention to an unflattering truth about him.

I just hold Will to a much higher standard than most DUers. And, as I said, I worry about how the twisted thinking he's engaging in will affect his reputation, credibility and, ultimately, his writing.

Eloriel

I just hold Will to a much higher standard than most DUers. And, as I said, I worry about how the twisted thinking he's engaging in will affect his reputation, credibility and, ultimately, his writing.

Without a doubt.

Your definition of 'twisted thinking' must be a sight best left unseen.

And many of them have stated so. The picture you paint of Clark supporters as being gung-ho military macho boys is inaccurate. Frenchie and many other Clark supporters have stated that they're female, and minority females in many cases.

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I choose to ascribe such character assassination of Clark supporters as being out of ignorance and not malicious smear. I do hope I'm right.

Clark spoke as an analyst - a tactician. He could be against the war yet still speak positively of the military's performance in it.

He wasn't paid by CNN to be a political analyst. It wasn't his job to speak of the moral and political implications of the Iraq war.

I agree some of his early statements on it appears to contradict each other, but I'd like to refer back to some of his earliest comments on it...

September 2002

If there is to be a military operation against Iraq, then certainly NATO participation should be sought...

From Oct. 9, 2002:

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.

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

These comments and sentiments are quite similar to those of Howard Dean.

in the protest against the war. That was Ramsey Clark....not Wes Clark.

Wes Clark was against this war, but in a diplomatic manner....he saw what happened to Scott Ritter....nuff said.

because he knows he can't win the primary with a Pro-War stance. I don't think we'll know unless he wins the nomination.

On affirmative action, medicare, social security, NAFTA, and arguably even the war.

In any event, I disagree with Will's thesis that Clark changed his position; IMO, his position has been consistent, albeit occasionally expressed in a muddled and unclear way at times. That is to be expected when a person has spoken and written at such length on the topic, as General Clark has.

DTH

Dennis has been against this war from Day One.

Although even Kucinich, who I believe is a principled man, can be accused of flip-flopping on abortion.

DTH

I think I can put it succinctly,
as Anchorman in Network said, and
echoed by Governor Dean: "He's mad
as hell, and he's not going to take it anymore."
Basically something inside him snapped, when he realized
where this country was going.

I think he went from being non-partisan, to a critic
of the unilateral strategy that led to the Iraq war,
(with some approval of the battleground tactics, and our
"victory" once the battle actually began) to deeply disillusioned about
what had happenned and what might happen.

From another thread I wrote:


I think Clark as intelligent as he is, is also
a bit naive in the 50ish sort of way: he seems to
want to think well of people and his country,
and being used to thinking in a non-partisan way,
it probably was difficult for him to imagine
that the President would act in a manner that did
not benefit the country, but rather the President's
political agenda.

I think it was his own sense that something was terribly wrong
with the way foreign policy was being conducted that
led him to seek the Presidency.

His understanding is growing, as he begins to connect
the dots. Being privy to some of the unilaterist grandiose ideas that
some military planners embraced at the Pentagon, and now
realizing that this set of ideas is actually being implemented,
logically lead him to question the President in ways that most
citizens, and especially ex-military brass would never do. And being
intelligent, he may now see the outline of what is happenning
as clearly as anyone.

This is a very good thing for our country, because this will
resonate with Americans who might not otherwise come to these
conclusions themselves.

Clark gave a speech on 10/28/03 on New American Strategies for Security and Peace. I copy excerpts with my comments in reply here:

What this man says and the way he says it is fabulous. Mostly. The first half of the speech indicting BushCo is great. Then he gets to his vision of continued US hegemony, pre-emptive tactics etc. expressed as "a more enlightened American interest."

>snip<

"Going forward, we'll need new labels and new ideas."
Hmm. To succeed where BushCo failed?

He mentions the NATO Kosovo campaign of 1999:
"During the Kosovo campaign, Tony Blair paid me an unannounced visit at NATO headquarters. He said: "I just want to ask one single question: Are we going to win?" I assured him we would win. He answered: "Good. Because every government in Western Europe depends on the successful outcome of this operation."

Hmmm. Just who was being rescued with that campaign? NATO or Kosovo?
Interesting question. (Comments, The Magistrate? DoveTurnedHawk? BillyBunter? I do value and enjoy your postings on Clark.)

"If we had used NATO to launch the war on terrorism, we would have had the military, moral, political, and financial commitment of 19 nations - including Turkey - determined to make a success of the mission, and determined to defend our actions to their people and the world."

Hmmm. We could've gotten more support for these illegal wars and a better PR image?!!? Sounds like a more efficient imperialism to me.

"It's obvious to me the limits of achieving our world-wide aims by relying exclusively on the military."

>snip<

"This is why I'm running for President - to bring back the core ideals of our democracy - to use them to guide our foreign policy... These ideals have made us great. They can make us greater. They can make us safer and more prosperous. In the end, they will ensure that America is admired for her moral authority -- not just feared for her military might. In this era, we cannot be safe without both."

Hmm. Sounds like 'if we play nice with others, we'll get what we want. But we'll damn sure get what we want, just with more diplomacy before the bombs are dropped.'

Clark continues to express the best of my hopes and the worst of my fears at the same time. We'd probably fare better domestically under his presidency but I would still not want to be in US bombsites.

Soft power....how do we deal with rogue or failed states? Read: Benjamin Barber. Clark has said on occassion that we should increase foreign aid to match military budget dollar for dollar. Clinton has been attacked by the reichwing for advocating much the same approach. Build schools and hospitals not bombs. Barber puts forth the policy that until people have a voice in their government, their only recourse will be to violence; therefore, it is in our best interests, and theirs as well, to adopt a policy of which encourages democracy and human rights, thus, starving terrorists and dictators of their feast off the poor.

Does advising the Congress, as he did in the testimony, to support a resolution to go to the United Nations equal being in support of the war? That is the question...

Reading Clark’s statement, one should pay particular attention to his articulated stance that there were other options: inspections, coercive inspections, and containment. He also speaks to the extensive time available to the US before taking any action. Why war? Why now? Moreover, Clark advises the Congress about the nature of such a resolution and the necessity of keeping it narrow and focused on the WMD outcome without allowing an automatic trigger for war.

Throughout the long winter push for war, there was always the question as to whether Blair and Bush needed a second resolution before going to war. The British obviously thought so as did many other countries. Remember, this is a war without a UN stamp of approval, thus the resolution that Clark refers to, that the Congress voted for, while probably weasle-worded, did not allow for the invasion of Iraq. Kerry, to his credit, did try for better wording.

The resolution in question was twisted by the regime to grant them cover. Many here would blame the duped rather than the true villains in this case.

And another thing:

Bushco had already begun the military build up prior to the resolution; in fact, the US and Britain had already begun “softening” targets with daily bombing in Iraq. The war had already begun...I learned that when I was fact-checking Will Pitt’s book during that summer. The “threat” was on the table before diplomacy. This is a very important part of the discussion that continuously is overlooked, because once a nation threatens, something has to happen. (I don’t give a shit about saving face, but apparently nations do.)

People were screaming about this...why not go to the UN? And so they did. What an opportunity to screw over some Dems. Rove’s wet dream.

War, an anecdotal:

Once when Clark was on some bs show with Barry McCafferty they backtracked to the days before the Iraq invasions. They alluded to their differences with McCafferty stating a pro-war position as opposed to Clark’s anti-war position. Last week, Tweety Matthews also referenced pre-war discussions that took place between he and Clark. Again, Clark and Tweety both alluded to being against the war.

In conclusion, I find nothing waffly about Clark’s being in favor of taking a resolution to the UN, understanding that there were several ways to approach Saddam, desiring international support for any decision, and believing that war was not the answer. Why that is that so difficult; perhaps that diplomacy is not a sound-bite.

Diplomacy is not a sound bite....

And Wes Clark is a diplomat...

All that talk of praising Bush in May 2001...but if one reads the actual speech, his compliments are only entres to his message to the administration...and it ain't one that the Bushco would have normally chosen to listened to.....

I emphasize to each to take the time to read this speech because it certainly helped me understand that this man can effectively get his point across very clearly without drawing blood...and isn't that what being anti-war is all about?


http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065
two paragraphs up from the maligned "praise" we find this:
------------------------
But we're also extremely vulnerable. Our economy--we're using three times--we've got three times as much foreign investment as we're investing--capital flow--as we're putting out there. They're investing here because they believe in us. We're using energy like it's going out of style. We're using five to eight times as much energy per capita as people in the rest of the world, twice as much as even the Europeans. We're vulnerable to security threats--everything from terrorism to the developing missiles that are--we know rogue states are developing to aim at us.

And so I think we have to have a new strategy, and we have to have a consensus on the strategy, and we have to have a bipartisan consensus, and politics has to stop in America at the water's edge. We've got to reach out, and we've got to find those people in the world and share our values and
beliefs--and we've got to reinforce them. We've got to bring them here and let them experience the kind of life that we have. They've got to get an education here. They've got to be able to send their children here. They
they've got to go home. And they've got to carry the burdens in their own lands, and to some extent we have to help them.
----------------------------
notice that in the first paragraph clark talks enviromentalism to a republican audience. also note the warning about terrorism pre-9/11 as this was May 2001. Also
notice in the second paragraph he talks about partisanship, and reachingout to the world community. two traits that he shares spot on with his positions today.

here is the full paragraph of contention:
------------------
You see, in the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect our country from communism. Well guess what, it's over. Communism lost. Now we've got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live. We've got to let them be all they can be. They want what we have. We've got some challenges ahead in that kind of strategy. We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've
got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.
----------------------
notice he says he is glad to have them in office for the challenges ahead in EUROPE! obviously they have failed in holding europe to our cause. also notice how the core of his new american patriotism is taking shape with
the "be all you can be" remark.

in the next two paragraphs he further defines the european challenges:
-------------------------
We've got a NATO that's drifting right now. I don't know what's happened to it. But the situation in the Balkans where we've still got thousands of American troops, it's in trouble. It's going downhill on us as we're watching it. Our allies haven't quite picked up the load on that. But our allies say they're going to build a European security and defense program with a rival army to NATO. Well, I think it's a political imperative that
they do more for defense, but I think we have to understand that that linkage between the United Sates and Europe, that bond on security, that's in our interest.
Look, in politics they told me--I don't know anything about politics now, I want to make that clear. But they told me--I read, do my reading in Time magazine and so forth. And they said in politics you've always got to
protect your base. Well, for the United States, our base is Europe. We've got to be there, and we've got to be engaged in Europe. And that means we've got to take care of NATO, we've got to make sure the Europeans stay in it,
and we've got to stay with the problem in the Balkans, even though we don't like it. We will get it resolved, and we'll help bring democracy and Westernization to those countries there.

I advocate for life-long learning.

You read those statements, including the Congressional hearing documents, and then you come here to find posts about how "Clark obviously supported the war....flip-flop....waffle." What I see is a consistent plea for internationalism. Not exactly the path the regime followed at the UN. The only mind changing that Clark had to actualize was admitting to the degree of criminal behavior committed by the junta. Interesting that he warned them about terrorist in the Spring of 2001, and even more interesting that all of those pointing fingers fail to point that out.

Without TV, I didn't see Clark during the official war, am having to vet him (pun intended) from his statements as a candidate and look backwards in time.
You've offered some very useful data.

controversial talking points from controversial Dem candidates, issues which are being ignored by mainstream media.

Yet when Clark starts talking about these issues (BBV, PNAC, 9-11 security failures, Bush wrecking the economy) all of a sudden it actually gets air time in mainstream media, and Clark is praized for sticking out his neck.

?

"(BBV, PNAC, 9-11 security failures, Bush wrecking the economy)"

I mean, those are real issues, right? So does one candidate have exclusive domain over them?

You'll have to do better than that.

the point is (as i think i already made clear) that when other candidates talk about these issues, it is mostly being ignored - which is odd because as you say, these are real issues. While when Clark talks about these same issues, the media do pay attention and praize him for it.
Don't you think that is odd?

More importantly, doesn't Will Pitt think it is odd?

Take each issue you feel Clark has "stolen" from other candidates and show where these other candidates said it first.

As for the media, Clark gets that attention because a Bush/Clark match-up would be the most intriguing for them to cover.

for a while now....they are closing their eyes and predicting that he will fade away....

Only Big Boy Media (Jim lehrer and Print) is covering this. Fluffy Cable tripletts are not emphasizing 9/11 comments at all......The New American Patriotism theme is keeping them from dogging him.....so they ignore him instead. Although he leads in Q poll after Hillary, they are still insisting that he's a flash in the pan and pushing Dean......

Make it so Judy, make it so Britt, make it so Wolf, make it so novak and Capital gang, make it so McLaughlin........

Everyone makes mistakes--and at least Clark was wise enough to realize that bush was leading us down the wrong road.

The General has always been against the War in Iraq. He was however all for the war in Afghanistan.