CNN: Gen. Wesley Clark: Iraq war based on 'misjudgment'

[wndycty]

For those who did not see the interview last night here is snip from the the transcript.

Gen. Wesley Clark: Iraq war based on 'misjudgment'

Thursday, August 14, 2003 Posted: 11:06 AM EDT (1506 GMT)
-snip-
BROWN: OK. ... Let's talk about a couple of issues here. Do you believe that a Democratic candidate, yourself or someone else, can use the situation in Iraq, both before, during, and after the war, to his or her political advantage?

CLARK: Well, I'm not thinking in those terms, Aaron. I'm thinking in terms of what's right for the United States. And one of the principles that we operate on in this country is that leaders are held accountable. The simple truth is that we went into Iraq on the basis of some intuition, some fear, and some exaggerated rhetoric and some very, very scanty evidence.

We found a situation that wasn't at all what was predicted. We're in there now, we're committed, we need to do our best. But that's a classic presidential-level misjudgment. And I think the voters have to be aware of that. And they have to appreciate it.

And if democracy means something, then that will be reflected in the ballot box.

BROWN: What was the misjudgment? If there was an exaggeration of the threat, what was the misjudgment?

CLARK: First of all, the idea that this was going to solve the war on terror. The president said this is the centerpiece of the war on terror. Seems to me that the only terrorists we're finding there are the ones who have come back in to attack us since we arrived.

There was a misjudgment about what would happen afterward. The idea that we would go in, be welcomed as liberators. They'd quickly move to the ballot boxes, we'd bring our troops home, out before the heat wave hit.

That didn't happen either. There have been a whole series of issues associated with this campaign, starting from why we went into Iraq, to how we dealt with our allies, to how we prepared for the aftermath, that are very, very troublesome.

BROWN: But just briefly, if you were a candidate, you would not walk away from those issues?

CLARK: I think those issues are at the very center of what America stands for, and what America's future will be.
-snip-

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/14/cnna.clark/

[wtmusic]

1. However...

is the war justified even if there were WMD's? No. Clark misses the point.

[Devil Dog Dem]

2. No he doesn't

Its called hoisting them on their own petard.

The Busheviks said the war would be a cakewalk, etc. It wasn't. They are wrong and Clark is right to point out that they haven't lived up to their own rhetoric, that they lied, etc.

No need right now to debate anything else.

[wtmusic]

5. No need to debate

about the fact that the UN Charter requires an "armed attack" for aggression without UNSC approval?

The war is illegal with or without WMD's. The reason it isn't a cakewalk is the whole world, including Iraqis, knows the crux of the matter has nothing to do with any possible outcome for the US.

Clark says, "I'm thinking in terms of what's right for the US."

How about someone who thinks about what's right for the world?

[tameszu]

3. Whaaaa?

Where does Clark say above that the one reason the war was unjustified is because of WMDs?

I don't think Clark is the one missing the point here.

I would also point out that Clark's reasons for opposing the war are rather similar to Dean's position--they differ a bit more (although not radically) on what the U.S. should do next in Iraq; Clark has an advantage here because his experience lets him define his plan more concretely, whereas Dean is focused more on fleshing out domestic issues.

[Trajan]

7. Internecine warfare ....

I am somewhat saddened by the sniping amongst supporters for specific democratic candidates .... I know its primary season and such: ... but CANT we keep our eyes on the prize ? ...

Cutting down Clark doesnt help Dean: .... it helps Georgie Boy ....

[wtmusic]

9. No sniping

Clark would be a wonderful candidate but...

I get frustrated at the apparent acceptance of the idea that had WMD's been found, we would have been justified in casting aside international law and killing 20K Iraqis so that we might sleep better at night.

[tameszu]

17. May I respectfully submit that you don't understand Clark's position

He did not say above that the war would have been justified had the U.S. found WMDs. What he says is that the decision to go to war unilaterally was based on a series of misjudgements--namely, that the threat was so grave that the rest of the world community was wrong in restraining the United States' allegedly sovereign right to engage in a preemptive war. Clark rejects both the Bush Admin's description of the nature of the threat as well as the Bush Admin's description of American sovereignty.

I think that is clear from the above, when he says: "There have been a whole series of issues associated with this campaign, starting from why we went into Iraq, to how we dealt with our allies, to how we prepared for the aftermath, that are very, very troublesome."

He is clearly not pinning the legitimacy of the war on WMDs.

Finally, to put this in the context of Clark's overall position on international law and legitimacy, let me present another http://www.women4clark.com/foreign.htm">quote:

"What I learned during my time in Europe was that the strongest force in the world is an idea whose time has come. In Europe, and in much of the rest of the world, freedom, human rights, international law, and the opportunity to 'be all you can be' are those ideas today. For the most part, these are our own American values. And they are ideas whose formulation and dissemination owe much to American example and leadership in the past. Because we live and extol these values, the United States enjoys a solid ethical basis for its power, a supportive community of like-minded nations and international institutions, and a moral force that extends our influence. Preserving these ideas and projecting our values should therefore be ranked among the most important American interests.

(SNIP)

To carry out our responsibilities around the world, strong multilateral relationships are critical; the United States cannot always 'go it alone'.

Shared risks, shared burdens, shared benefits -- it's not only a good motto for NATO, it's also a good prescription for America's role in the world.

Achieving success will be easier the more that American actions can be drawn from the legitimacy of the United Nations and American direction ratified by other states and multinational authorities.

The United States has the opportunity to use the power of the international institutions it established to triumph over terrorists who threaten not just the United States, but the world. What a tragedy it will be if we walk away from our own efforts, and from 60 years of post-World War II experience, to tackle the problem of terror without using fully the instruments of international law and persuasion that we ourselves created.

rather than presenting the international community with a problem and asking its assistance in helping to resolve it, the United States government effectively presented the solution and asked for countries to agree with its views."

[wtmusic]

37. I understand his position better now--thanks! n/t

[Kahuna]

33. Clark said loooooooooog ago.. Iraq was never a threat to us..

This was before there were no WMDs found. He's no Johnny come lately. He's been at the forefront of speaking out about a war that diverts our attention from our real enemies. If you had paid attention to the part where he mentions how we have found more terrorists since invading Iraq, you would realize this.

Clark is a gentleman. When a question is asked of him, he doesn't meander all over the place the way career politicians do. He answers the specific question. You have to really learn how to pay attention to him. He's very clear. But you have to listen closely. You will be the one who will have to determine the context of how he answers. Whether he's answering as an analyst or as a citizen.

[lindashaw]

10. Exactly, Trajan!

[graham67]

13. I think....

Clark's whole point has been (from as far back as Sept.2002) that there was no imminent threat from Iraq and war was unjustified.

[Kahuna]

32. What???????? YOU miss the point.

try this for more information on Clark and a file of his media interviews...

http://www.digitalclark.com

[HFishbine]

4. "a classic presidential-level misjudgment"

Clark is telling it like it is.

[Sophree]

6. All he would have to do to infuriate *

during a debate would be to utter those words- "a classic Presidential-level misjudgment"

In other words, a mistake. And chimpy does not make mistakes, right? Right?

[Ekaterina]

11. mopping the floor

Clark would mop the floor with George in an open debate. THAT would be an event worthy of prime time......George being asked unscripted unrehearsed questions by someone with some cajones (i.e. NOT Hannity et al).....jeesh, we wouldn't even NEED Clark or Dean or anyone there to make that watchable.
As for all the dickering about who has the best candidate la la la....remember every prez needs a VP and a Cabinet.....there could be some pretty unbeatable combinations if you think about it......primary objective is to ditch the flock of felons and freakazoids before we end up with Wolfowitz as Sec of State (how bizarro is THAT thought??) and perhaps Newt can be the ambassador to the UN.......ick.

[Sophree]

20. scary

"Wolfowitz as Sec of State (how bizarro is THAT thought??) and perhaps Newt can be the ambassador to the UN.......ick."

:scared:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Misjudgement? Nah, they judged right.

BushWarCorp judged that making Iraq into an "imminent threat" and attacking it would boost the fratboy emperor's poll numbers despite the failing economy, etc. They "judged" correctly. The only thing propping up the puppet is the flagwaving, "support our troops, crapola over the war.

Having said that, I still applaud Clark for his words. At least he's talking about the emperors new clothes. More than can be said about some of the Dem apologists.

[Poiuyt]

19. Don't forget the oil

How can BushCheney get the Iraqi oil if we don't invade. No misjudgement there!

I would love to hear Clark address the PNAC issue.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Didn't forget - it's so bloody obvious.

PNAC - I'd like to see any of the candidates address it. Hell, I'd like to see the media address it.

[ewagner]

12. The gambit

What I think Clark did very successfully last night was demanding that Dubya be held accountable for his "serious misjudgements" as opposed to his "lies".

Mr & Mrs Middle America will recoil in horror over smeone calling Bush a liar but they may feel quite differently about holding him accountable for "presidential misjudgements".

Clever gambit.

[poskonig]

27. I agree.

People would rather have an competent liar than an incompetent honest man.

[DrBB]

14. Interesting hints about a Clark candidacy

...which is obviously the subtext.

BROWN: But just briefly, if you were a candidate, you would not walk away from those issues?
CLARK: I think those issues are at the very center of what America stands for, and what America's future will be.

Not a declaration, but he certainly doesn't go out of his way to disavow the implication....

[wndycty]

15. Another hint. . .

. . .have you noticed Clark has press availablity whenever we Clark activists do something. The Friday before the meetup, he is on Crossfire, the TV ad is released and he is on CNN and GMA. THINK ABOUT IT!

[Kahuna]

34. He's running. He all but let the cat out of the bag last night....

There is no reason for him to inconvenience himself doing all of these shows that specifically want to talk about him running just to announce later that he won't. If he would do something like that, he's not the man I think he is.

[RichM]

16. This "interview" stunk (admittedly, far more Brown's fault than Clark's)

They gave the whole thing about 5 minutes. Of this, almost all was Brown haranguing Clark about whether Clark was running; & Clark responding with his usual coyness.

As to the segment you posted above: there's a huge difference between Clark saying the Iraq war was a "misjudgement," and saying it was a plan based on intentional lies about WMD & Al Qaeda, conjured up to seize control of the oil reserves, & hand out tens of billions of "reconstruction contracts" to Bush cronies like Bechtel & Halliburton. It was also a war crime & profound violation of every international norm.

To call Clark's comments an understatement is itself a huge understatement.

[tameszu]

18. Heh...that sounds almost like faint praise...

still with the intention to damn, of course, but praise nonetheless. Could Clark be coyly working his charm on you and breaking through that tough exterior, Rich? :loveya:

[wndycty]

21. RichM you might was well just put your name on a post. . .

. . .and not post a message. Once we see your name we know the post is anti-Clark.

[tameszu]

25. No, I think Rich is coming around!

If you read his post carefully, you can see that Rich is having a harder and harder time concealing his crush! It started with him poking Clark every chance he got, just like boys do to girls in grade school, but now he's having a hard time not revealing his affection.

Our boy Wes is nothing if not a charmer.

[graham67]

22. It was posted in further up in this thread....

Anger doesn't play well with Mr & Mrs Midwestern. I guarantee he's as angry as we are. He's been critical of the "march to war" since at least September of last year when he testified before the house armed services committee with 3 other retired generals. Nobody freaking listened to them. But if you're looking for him to scream "LIAR!" from the mountaintops it just isn't going to happen. Not yet anyway. Give it some time...the people who haven't been paying attention are starting to listen.

[Trajan]

23. Some call it ....

Wise polity .....

[MidwestTransplant]

24. The media loves Clark

Aaron Brown loves Clark. Tweety, on his morning show last sunday, said "I hope that guy runs, I really like him." In talking about Governors having more success running for president (Cokie Roberts)said with a smirk that Generals fair well too.

On Edit: It was Cokie Roberts who "said with a smerk"

[graham67]

26. Forgive my ignorance....

but I'm dying to ask because I see it all over this board. Who is "Tweety"?

[Trajan]

28. Chris Matthews ....

Of the infamous 'Hardball' .... is Tweety ....

[graham67]

29. Ah, ok....

Thanks! :-)

[Kahuna]

35. Get out! It's true that when you stop and think about it...

we have had generals as presidents before. Heck! Our first president and the father of our country was a general.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Aaron Brown and CNN are to journalism

what Tom Clancy and Harold Robbins are to literature.

It seems that all the "anchor persons" there have given up reporting in favor of uniformly pearly white teeth and dyed hair. Not to mention the incredible ability of most of the female anchors to sound like a cross between a duck and Shirley Temple (aged 5).

[Kahuna]

36. Did you hear Clark say that money won't be a problem? AND

That he's received overwhelming support from people all over the country supporting his run.

I wouldn't be surprised if ol' Clark doesn't pull a Clinton. I wouldn't be surprised if Clark has all his ducks in a row. That's what a smart person would do. Trust me. On the day he announces in a couple of weeks :D , he'll already have his financial support and advisors lined up. Heck! I wouldn't be surprise if Clinton himself is Clark's main advisor. Or maybe even Al Gore.

[ewagner]

39. re:all his ducks in a row...

I think that's why he hasn't announce yet. he hasn't finished planning his campaign.

Like all good generals, he will have the logistics worked out in fine detail before the first shot is fired AND have contingency plans for contingency plans for contingency plans.

Crimminy. What would it be like to have a president thinking like that?

[Kahuna]

40. Absolutely. He hasn't been on television every other day for the past

few months for nothing. He's a smart cookie. He's been doing a feasibility study and getting his organization together. Anybody who doesn't think Clark is a pragmatic planner just isn't paying attention.

[TacticalPeek]

38. If you're looking for a winning presidential candidate...

who campaigns on dragging aWol and his gang of thieves to the dock at The Hague, or getting restitution from Halliburton and Bechtel, hold not thy breath.

[Kahuna]

41. True Peak. No one is going to say it. But, there are only two candidates..

who I believe will have bushco investigated (hopefully by Attorney General Gore) and held accountable are Clark and Graham. Coincidentially, they are my two guys. Can I pick them or what? :7