Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"

[VaLabor]

Okay, this is a bit embarrassing. How does Clark explain all of this flipping and flopping and blowing with the winds? I'm sticking with Dean, thank you...

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

MEDIA ADVISORY:
Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"

September 16, 2003

The possibility that former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark might enter the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has been the subject of furious speculation in the media. But while recent coverage of Clark often claims that he opposed the war with Iraq, the various opinions he has expressed on the issue suggest the media's "anti-war" label is inaccurate.

Many media accounts state that Clark, who led the 1999 NATO campaign against Yugoslavia, was outspoken in his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. The Boston Globe (9/14/03) noted that Clark is "a former NATO commander who also happens to have opposed the Iraq war." "Face it: The only anti-war candidate America is ever going to elect is one who is a four-star general," wrote Michael Wolff in New York magazine (9/22/03). Salon.com called Clark a "fervent critic of the war with Iraq" (9/5/03).

(SNIP)

Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine (10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a counter-argument to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time." Before the war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.

As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." 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.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself -- obviously not "temporarily silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."

(MORE)

ON EDIT: Some bolding.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[VaLabor]

2. Woah there, partner

No need to call me a pinhead, I'm just passing along this media advisory from FAIR, which obviously makes Clark look more than a bit opportunistic with his praise or criticism of the Bush Administration. That is, he doesn't look principled about the war at all. Maybe he's just reacting to changed facts on the ground. But geezus, don't call me a pinhead.

Where are the "infallacies"? I'm not even sure what an infallacy is, unless it's that which is not a fallacy and therefore true...

OH well. If you can't respond to criticism of your candidate civilly, good luck winning.

[Must_B_Free]

3. good luck getting a civil response

not many of those around here.
So clark is a wolf in sheeps clothing? who is surprised

[Prodemsouth]

4. This a dup. thread already another thread.

Read the article- he is calling a right move- tatical not cheering the war. Consider the source, FAIR is a gang of defeatist elitist who want to sit around and whine.

[VaLabor]

5. FAIR is great.

They've been fighting the "liberal media" meme for years, long before many of us had even heard of Rupert Murdoch, exposing the media for its rightwing bias.

I trust them.

"Defeatist elitist" is kind of cute though.

[unfrigginreal]

8. You're being unfair to Fair...

and Fair was being unfair to Clark.

If you're such a big fan of Clark's then you know that he thinks it's HEALTHY for Americans to have differences of opinions AND TO STATE THEM. That doesn't mean that he believes in character assassination such as "defeatest elitist who want to sit around and whine" but that he believes debate is healthy for our society.

That said, I think that the Fair article is stretching a bit to claim that Clark was supportive of the War. I never formed that opinion in all of the times that I saw his appearances.

[sandnsea]

6. Based on this?

What about this on Dean:

February 10, The Times "Look, Saddam has to be disarmed. Everybody has to understand that."

February 20 Salon.com: "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."

Maybe the truth is this whole Iraq war and the related intelligence is just alot more complicated than some people want to realize. The anti-war candidates would be Carol, Al or Dennis. And that's it. At some point, Graham would have authorized a war on Iraq, just not right now.

[DrFunkenstein]

7. FAIR is a Very Reputable Source

I had alot of questions about the nature of Clark's "anti-war" stance. This article clears alot up. Some of these comments go further than even some of the people that voted for the IWR.

<>

[Skwmom]

9. If this is fair and accurate reporting, God help us.

You forgot to highlight this part: As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line...


Clark was right! The credibility of the US was on the line. Why? Because Bush was constantly issuing ultimatums. I remember thinking that Bush should shut his mouth because he was forcing the issue and putting us between a rock and a hard place. We either had to forge ahead or our word meant nothing. Any bully in the world would think we were just bluffing.

As far as the WMD - even Clinton has repeatedly said Iraq had WMD.

There's many other things wrong with this but I need to figure out how to use the darn bold function.

[VaLabor]

11. These are valid points.

I'm not endorsing the article. I find it troubling, and I think FAIR is a reputable source of information and insight. What many of the other quotes make clear, however, is a wishy-washiness that doesn't appeal to me at all. There was a lot of exuberance about the war at first - and Clark seems to have jumped on that bandwagon - until it turned bad again. Dean's position has been consistently critical of the war.

In terms of their commitment to that stance, I have to rank Dean above Clark.

I'm not anti-Clark. I'm just vetting my choices here.

[Lefty48197]

10. The article is a discredited slander

The quote was taken completely out of context. The writer is a slob at best, in pursuit of an agenda, at worst. Don't fall for this poor excuse for journalism.

[burr]

12. Welcome to the DU Induction Ceremony for candidate Clark...

no hubris, please! :smoke:

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