Can someone (sans flambe) explain this Clark anti-war flap?

[WilliamPitt]

truthout is running the two Clark stories that have come out contravening the media play-up that he is an 'anti-war' candidate. I would not have run the stories, for a couple of reasons that I am hoping y'all can either correct me on or prove my point.

1. I stopped watching CNN a long time ago, and have also been on the road throughout the whole Clark breakout. Ergo, my impression was that Clark is not 'anti-war' (he's a freakin' general) but was not at all wild about this Iraq war. Is that a correct impression or not?

2. Because of that, I fear that it has been the media, and not Clark, that has been playing him as an 'anti-war' candidate...much the same way alot of the media has Dean being an 'ultra-liberal' in contravention of the facts. Yes or no?

3. Ergo, those stories bashing Clark (FAIR and 'High Noon', both here: http://truthout.org/docs_03/091803A.shtml ) about not being the anti-war candidate he says he is are actually taking the media line on clark to bash Clark, and not actually bashing Clark with a correct overview of his own perspective. Make sense?

Where am I on this?

[tjdee]

1. I think you're right. Anti-war and anti-IRAQ war have become interchangeab

le, apparently.

[dsc]

2. I see your point on the second article

but not on the first. It seems to be directed at his opinions of this war. And their April quotes seem pretty devestating in that regard.

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."

This is pretty hard to reconsile with opposition to the war. Especially if he is going to be compared with Dean and Kucinich.

[maggrwaggr]

22. Yeah, that article is pretty damning.

I feel kind of a deep, slow disappointment coming on about Clark after reading that article.

Almost like I wished I hadn't read it. :)

But there it is. There's no denying it.

[angka]

97. it's all about who we want to actually be president

when clark writes about the 'smell of victory' in baghdad in april, i begin to realize what it would mean to have a modern general as president. sorry, but this is not going to fly with me.

All Democratic candidates who voted for or otherwise abetted this irresponsible Iraq war should step aside, so as to clearly delineate the choice for Americans at the polls in 2004.

[Pepperbelly]

30. the problem is that the FAIR article ...

took statements totally out of context.

For example, after reading the smear job that FAIR did, you would never know that Clark criticized the war's basis in the same article:

"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."

Clark's concern, as always, is the soldier. The guys who salute and then do what they have to do. I am with him on that:

"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."

In addition, he casts serious doubts about the intentions of the Administration:

"But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns."

FAIR should be ashamed.

edited to add link to entire article quoted:

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

[dsc]

32. actually it was truth out not fair who was linked here

but that is why I used seem. I don't think the press can be trusted so I like original sources. Usually both fair and truthout do good work. So does Tom Paine yet all three have done bad jobs, the first two on Clark and the last on Dean. It goes to show that original sources are a good thing.

[maggrwaggr]

33. I didn't know about that. I only read the commondreams article

which has it in full of course.

All this being said, the man is about a gazillion times better than BUSH!!!

If he gets the nomination he's got my support and my vote.

[Zuni]

64. exactly

He might not be in the same league as Kucinich or Sharpton, but the fact is he has very nuanced and often long statements with a lot of qualifiers. FAIR can do a hatchet job rather easily and show things taken out of context.

[Code_Name_D]

36. How can you smear some one with their own words?

Don't tell me that he was "taken out of context." Them are Karl Rove talking points.

[Pepperbelly]

39. read the entire article ...

and then say that.

I can take your very post and twist it to say whatever I want. FAIR did it in such a way ... ie leaving off the very NEXT sentence or the one preceding it, that did not require elipsises. But they twisted it nonetheless.

I linked to the original article. Read it for yourself and notice the indictments of the war rationale, the consequences, and his suspicion regarding what the Administration is actually up to.

Or do those parts not interest you?

[Code_Name_D]

49. I have already read the whole thing, sir.

And I AM saying just that. Keep up with me here.

I can take your very post and twist it to say whatever I want. FAIR did it in such a way ... ie leaving off the very NEXT sentence or the one preceding it, that did not require elipsises. But they twisted it nonetheless.

Than by all means do so. You have declind to thus far, so I am begining to think that you can NOT do this. If FAIR has taken Clarks words out of context, it then falls opon you to provide the correct context. You have not done this.

I linked to the original article. Read it for yourself and notice the indictments of the war rationale, the consequences, and his suspicion regarding what the Administration is actually up to.

What indigtments? His critisesm is weak at best. But these critisesm are little more than disclamers to wave away the questions already posed by the anti-war croud. And when the "mission was acomplished" Clark was up with the repugs waving the flag while the rest of us was waiting for the other sheo to drop.

Your argument thus far is less than impresive. You will have to do better.

[Pepperbelly]

83. Why?

When you so easily dismiss what was said saying "More! More!", it clearly does no good to provide specifics which I have already done.

Even more clearly, arguing with you about this will certainly not change your mind. Who is it that you support?

[Code_Name_D]

88. ... says the one without a leg to stand on.

Are you going to defend your position, or just contiue to call me names?

[dsc]

40. Pretty darn easily

Here is a good example.

Real quote: "I condemn Apartheid.

Fake quote: "I comend Apartheid." Here I chaged a letter and boy what a difference. Evidently they cut Clarks words pretty well.

[Misinformed01]

3. DU Hysterics

Gee. That's new.

On edit: I don't mean you; I mean the hysterical DUers. There are some here that write like they should be on hormone replacement therapy, or prozac.... and now they are flipping on Clark.

[SilasSoule]

4. Hi Will

:hi:

I had a blast hangin with you guys in Austin.

I think the truly honorable Miliary Generals are anti-war, that war should always be a last resort when all else fails. THere should not be a quick connect to label Clark a war hawk because of his military employment.

However in the Context of Clark being an anti-war candidate, I believe this is taken to mean specifially the WAR In IRAQ, in that way the right wing is using his opposition to the war to discount and deride as they did to anyone who didn't bow down in approval for the war.


Will, this is Silas Soule:

[WilliamPitt]

6. Cool

I was thinking about writing a book about him, because of your story.

[SilasSoule]

13. Will, here a few links:

A truly forgotten hero in U.S. History.


http://afroamhistory.about.com/library/prm/blsilassoule1.htm


http://www.donvasicek.com/projects.html

This guy is a Writer/Filmmaker/Author whose done an extensive study on The Sand Creek massacre.
The Sand Creek Massacre: A Lesson From American History a comprehensive study into the prelude...... of the Sand Creek Massacre.

[WilliamPitt]

14. Thanks!

[tom_paine]

29. Goddamned, that's agreat monniker

I like your Mr. Soule very much. He stood his ground and did the right thing again and again.

We can only hope to emulate his courage and morality...

[KCDem]

93. thanks!

Interesting story and a great guy.

:hi:

[graham67]

5. Will....

Clark has always said that war is absolutely the last resort, when all else (diplomacy) fails. He's pro-troops, not pro war.

on edit:

In the case of Gulf War 2.0, he's said that US failed diplomatically.

[WilliamPitt]

7. Yeah, but dig post #2 above

Tough.

[graham67]

9. Reading it now....

:)

[grasswire]

10. Rovian chaos theory

They want to create conflicting theories about Clark while they make their own brand stick to him. I would trust what he says from now on to be his positions, not what people say he has said.

[graham67]

17. Victory Fever?

I didn't click the links...this is the Times of London article, right?

I dunno about victory fever, it sounds to me like a public thumbs up to the troops. Right or wrong, they did perform their duties brilliantly and took down the government and the army of a country in three weeks. Again, right or wrong, its pretty damned impressive.

I've been watching Wesley Clark since September of last year while he was testifying before the house and senate armed services committees. I always had the impression that he had some very serious reservations about the imminent threat by Iraq, the planning of the war, and the exit strategy (which as we all know was non-existant). I watched him every night throughout the "major combat operations", and he was dead on on nearly everything he predicted. I didn't see any flip-flopping.

[Donna Zen]

24. A careful reading

of the entire article points out Clark's many doubts about the direction of the whole thing.

Remember in April things were relatively quiet and he is referring to what is the troops entering and Saddam coming down. He saves the praise for the troops. Cautions that it ain't over til it's over.

Clark thought it was an "elective war" in the first place.

The tape on digitalclark of an interview with some x general and Bill Press clearly refers back to conversations that Clark and X had before the war where they disagreed about the need for the adventure.

[Zuni]

65. He was definetly not pro-=war

He wasn't trying to sell it on the air.
He seemed pretty skeptical to me.

[sfecap]

8. Good question(s), Will...

I am trying to find any statements by Clark that would indicate his opposition to the Iraq attack prior to it occuring. So far, no luck, but in another thread I got a link to a Salon article that might be something...

[DrBB]

11. Pre-War he was more against it than at the height of "Victory"

He seems to have gotten swept up in the Victory Fever, and now has returned to the much more skeptical position he was in during the lead up to the war. I think it's not to his credit that he got carried away in the piece that's getting quoted so much. But here's what he was saying in February:

US becoming a colonial power: Wesley Clark
<snip>
"We are at a turning point in America's history. We are about to embark on an operation that is going to put us in a colonial position in the Middle East following Britain."
 
It is a huge change for the American people and what this country stands for, he said.
 
The Bush administration, he said, has not respected its allies and that is why it finds itself without the support of many Nato allies and even in those countries prepared to support the US, public opinion is against the war. Iraq, could have been contained without war, he said.
Clark also warned against a civil war in Iraq after the present regime is removed because of the ethnic and religious divisions in the country--Kurds in the north, Shiites who constitute the majority in the country, and Sunnis who now wield power.
</snip>
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=37738538

Fairly harsh, and fairly prophetic, and much closer to what he's saying now.

[Zuni]

66. Great points--this article is a must read

I even got swept up in 'liberation fever' for a few days in April.
I was skeptical before and very, very skeptical now, but for a few days in April I doubted my positions.

[blm]

12. Conflicting statements...

not much different than the conflicting statements that Dean (antiwar?) has made from Sept. 2002 through May on Iraq.

[dsc]

15. Please cite one quote by Dean

that is substantially similar to what I quoted in post 2. And to be clear substantively similar means the quote should do at least one of the following:

a) praise the liberation of Iraq (or some term that is a similar to liberation)

b) praise the strategy of using such few troops (similar to right call)

or

c) praise the silencing (temporary) of opponets of the war.

What I quoted did all three. I am asking for one. And again I want quotes which do one of those three things. You claimed this: "(Clark's) statments (are)not much different than the conflicting statements that Dean (antiwar?) has made from Sept. 2002 through May on Iraq.

I would think that the lack of a statment doing at least one of what Clark's does here would be a significant difference and qualify as being much different. So again I want that citation.

[blm]

25. I'm addressing how antiwar they both are.

and whether they made conflicting statements.

I wasn't responding to your specific post, dsc. I know that is hard for you to believe, but try.

Dean was on record saying he supported the Biden-Lugar version of the IWR. That would have had the same REASONS for going to war as the IWR. The REASONS never changed, although some of the guidelines varied.

Dean was on record in his statement of March 17, that he was "never in doubt of the necessity" to remove the weapons of mass destruction. Yet he also says now that he was the only one who never believed about the WMDs. That's conflicting.

>>>>>
Tonight, for better or worse, America is at war.  Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field.  Those of us who, over the past 6 months, have expressed deep concerns about this President’s management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction. 
>>>>>

[dsc]

28. Words have meaning blm

even when you wish to pretend they don't. You said that Clark's conflicting statements, which BTW I pulled from the link in the original post, were "not much different" from Dean's. You didn't say their positions were similar, that they were similarly mislabled, you said the statements were similar. You need to back up what you say. I know for people who bash Dean that is a high standard but that is the one I will hold you to. You said the statements were similar. Now back that up. The fact you responded to Will's post and not mine is wholly irrelevant. I pulled those statements directly, and without any alteration at all, from the article he linked and about which he is plainly speaking. The only sensible meaning of what you typed is that the statements in that article were "not much different" from Dean's. So again prove that.

[blm]

98. Get a grip, dsc....my post was not about YOUR post.

Can you understand that?

I said that Clark had some conflicting statements about the Iraq war, not unlike the FACT that Dean has conflicting statements about the Iraq war.

Did you EVER try applying your hyper-critical eye to DEAN'S statements? NO. He's only running for president. Who cares if he screws up? Who cares if the RNC will run 200 million dollars worth of ads SHOWING his conflicting statements?

Better to spend your time MISINTERPRETING my posts.

[dsc]

102. Then what were you talking about?

I am sick of this crap every time I call you on this type of stuff. You make a post, about an article which is linked, saying Dean and Clark said things which were not much different. I then, take some of what is in that article, the one which Will linked, and ask what Dean said which was not much different than what is in the article. It isn't my fault that you either don't know what you said or can't admit what you said. You constantly change your story and then have the audacity to get irate when you are caught. My guess is you hadn't even read the article and thus had no clue what you were talking about. Why can't you just admit that?

[carpetbagger]

16. I think you're on the right track, and, hey, 666 posts.

I don't think the question what to do about Iraq can be answered in a yes/no manner. Kerry, Clark, Dean, Daschle, and others have taken a licking from our side about their war stance. However, about the only thing that can be said regarding the war is that Bush played his cards pretty poorly.

I reasonable president, when faced with the spectre of defiance of the 1991 treaty, and a fear of a program to develop nuclear weapons or delivery systems for biochemical weapons, would have threatened Iraq. They would have gone to the UN. They probably would have asked for a use-of-force resolution.

Then they would have continued the heat on the forced inspections with a limited and sustainable buildup, airstrikes to blow up whatever couldn't be gotten into, and continued political and diplomatic pressure. If casus belli could be established, it would probably be a decent idea to cordon off southern Iraq much like we did in Iraqi Kurdistan. We would have had much of the international community with us on this, the burden would have been shared, and the threat contained effectively. We would have been able to make steps towards boxing in Hussein, and if necessary, we could have taken him out after shoring up a real coalition, and only after finishing the job in Afghanistan.

So I don't blame the guys who would ponder some form of action. I don't even blame the Senate democrats. The blame belongs with one guy. George Bush.

[Donna Zen]

18. Don't worry...an April hit piece from the right

http://www.nationalreview.com/geraghty/geraghty041703.asp

“Television coverage of the war in Iraq has resulted in a publicity windfall for Clark,” writes Paul Barton of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Scripps Howard News Service columnist Lisa Hoffman calls Clark one of the war’s “winners,” adding he “scores with weeks of national face time as a CNN analyst.” Knight Ridder’s Glenn Garvin writes that Clark’s “willingness to criticize U.S. military strategy has won him enemies in the White House and fans on Internet message boards.”

so the rightwing saw Clark as critical.

the first piece is full of diplo-speak...and was looking at what was happening on the ground while carefully voicing "what ifs"

The second piece has been completely debunked by Stirling Newberry...I'll look around because I posted it here somewhere.

[Skwmom]

19. I am in the process of putting something together.

So that I can post it on the board everytime this comes up and distibute it at my clark meet-up. I read some Times articles today that I downloaded late last night and based on my initial review the Fair Article is misleading.

[Crewleader]

20. Welcome Home William

I posted earlier today after listening to General Clark, I really
lihttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=354161&mesg_id=354426&page=ke him and here's my post:

Watching CNN, CrossFire and even MSNBC all were trying to put negative comments about Clark being the 10th candidate, why is the other nine not any good? Trying to make a wedge among the group, and having some poll too like Bush is 10 points ahead of them all.
You know these polls on these stations...:puke:

[Pepperbelly]

21. stuff pulled out of context from a 4/10/03 column in the London Times.

It is disappointing to me that so many DUers are being so disingenuous in their selective quotations and lack of context. As a matter of fact, the dishonesty is becoming unbearable, at least for Democrats to be doing this kind of smear.

[dsc]

23. Excuse me

I posted the entirety of what was quoted in the original link. I didn't edit it at all. If you want to blame someone blame Truth Out. It should be noted I used the word seem in my post and the fact I had no idea what the original quotes were is why I did. But again hit the link and you will see I took everything the article did.

[Pepperbelly]

26. i didn't even read your post so ...

it would be difficult for it to be aimed at you. Perhaps you missed some of the fun and games that some players have been up to in here today.

[dsc]

31. I take it I have

my first post on this was post 2 in this thread. I had seen some of the he voted for Reagan threads but not these.

[maggrwaggr]

27. dude, you just don't want to see what's in the article

Who's being dishonest? Be honest with yourself and you'll see Clark was coming buckets over the outcome of the war.

Sure, he was being careful to point out that the job wasn't completely over.

But you can't mistake his enthusiasm for the war itself.

Don't get me wrong, I like Clark. I'm very disappointed after reading this article.

[Pepperbelly]

34. dude ...

perhaps you should go to the original source rather than falling for a smear. If you are actually curious about the truth of the matter, you could try reading what Clark actually wrote rather than the characterizations of it FAIR used in its smear.

Are you up for it? Wesley's prose is quite dense and it will take concentration because he does not write "down" to his audience so you will actually have to follow the thing through to see what is meant. Or, you can look at the reply I made above to dsc. Either way, here is a link to what Clark actually wrote:


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

[Eloriel]

42. JESUS H. CHRIST -- you can't spin that!!

The whole tone of it is trimphalism over the victory with some cautions about what yet needs to be done:

Still, the immediate tasks at hand in Iraq cannot obscure the significance of the moment. The regime seems to have collapsed — the primary military objective — and with that accomplished, the defense ministers and generals, soldiers and airmen should take pride. American and Brits, working together, produced 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.

and:

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.


Anti-war, my ass.

Actually, that validates what my own perceptions and memory re as I watched him on TV lo those many months. His primary concerns pre-war were troop strength and other concerns that some of the other retired generals were leaking, tho he MAY have voiced concerns about the WMD (don't remember). However, once the war started he stifled himself and was pretty much pro-war, tho not as rabidly as some.

AFAIC, that he's being promoted as some kind of anti-war candidate makes me absolutely sure SOMEONE is trying to stop Dean.

Here's what else I want to know: what connection, if any, does Clark have with Jackson Stephens (or is it Stevens?) I also want to know what the business he owns/owned is. And who he worked for as an investment banker (or whatever that was).

And what I'd ReALLY like to know is why DUers are falling all over themselves for someone they really don't know all that much about -- but I'll leave that question alone for now.

Eloriel

[Code_Name_D]

46. And now his military credenchals are called into question.

American and Brits, working together, produced 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.

We NOW know this to not be the case. Troop forces in Iraq are wofuly lacking, and are bairly able to hold their ground, let along bring stability to the area. Why do you think W has come a crawllen to the UN to send more troops.

Clark was eather echoing the Rumsfeld talking points, or was incompetent. Other Genrals, some of them SERVING at the time knew this was false.

[lazarus]

84. um, that doesn't scan at all

The invasion was successful. Therefore, the right decision was made as far as how many troops to use for the invasion.

The occupation is a whole different subject.

[Code_Name_D]

87. That is an example of a pro war position.

Saying that the Iraq invasion was the right call, is a lot like saing the Nazi invasion of Poland was the right call, but Nromandy was "another story."

[Amanda]

54. AFAIC

The fact that he's being promoted as some kind of anti-war candidate makes me wonder if someone from the Dean camp is helping to push the propaganda. Or perhaps just a few thousand worried supporters who see someone who might actually beat Bush.

I like Dean just fine, but let's get real. Military is going to be everything in this next election. Someone with actual military experience takes all.

[Pepperbelly]

85. whatever, Eloriel ...

I remember you howling with indignation when Dean's words re: SS were tossed back in his face and you worked very hard to create a distinction without a difference. For example, in the very snippet you used, you neglected to mention the very next sentence.

If this is how it will be, then expect exactly the same for your candidate. Hopefully though, it will be with more honesty than that demonstrated by the Clark-haters.

[Zuni]

67. think of it this way

he is a patriot, and for a few days in April it seemed that the victory was real, Iraqis were dancing in the streets and reality set in.
He was probably happy that it might turn out OK. I was hoping it would, and I felt a real surge of optimism around the same time. Since then, everything has gone downhill.

[Code_Name_D]

43. Explane to me how this was taken out of context?

"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."

Aprintly, you must be working from another defoniton of "liberation" that I am not familer with.

[dfong63]

50. your claim is dishonest

nothing was "pulled out of context" from that times article. all the spin doctoring in the world can't change the meaning of Clark's own words, cheerleading for the "great victory" and congratulating Bush and Blair for their "resolve". when he should have been condemning the warmongers for their duplicity.

if you insist that the excerpt was "out of context", then how do you explain the fact that commondreams ran the FULL ARTICLE with the headline, "Anti-war candidate?" obviously commondreams felt that the article AS A WHOLE called into question Clark's anti-war credentials. so no, more "context" didn't change the meaning of the excerpt. and your continual accusations of "dishonesty" only prove your own.

hint 1, just because you would like to overlook some of the man's own words, doesn't mean they were taken out of context.

hint 2, just because Clark has made conflicting statements doesn't mean it is "dishonest" to quote one of them.

if you want to vote for Clark, go ahead. but don't try to sell him as an "anti-war" candidate, because he ain't. and don't go around accusing people of dishonesty just because they quoted Clark saying things you find difficult to explain.

[Pepperbelly]

86. dfong ...

I hardly think that one of the worst offenders in picking sentences out of context should be the one to lecture anyone about honesty. But I have grown to expect no more from you guys.

[Code_Name_D]

35. Remember the looking glass.

In a world controlled by the "liberal biased media" its important to remember that what you see, is not all that their, and that their is a lot more that you don't see, that can most defiantly hurt you.

And Clark is a good case in point. For months, supporters have been sing his praises as if he was the second coming of Clinton. But this praise has been very light on any meaningful substance. Thus far, Clarks anti war stance can be summed up as thus, "he is anti-war." The only thing that seems to be going for Clark is the fact that he is a General, again, very little on any meaningful substance. DUers are quite clearly of such flowery sound bites. But at best, I suspect that most were suspicious of Clark because he had that smell about him that no one could put their finger on.

Well, some one has put their finger on it. FAIR, and now Trouthout. These sights are not well given to "smear campaigns" and have earned a large degree of credibility. Never the less, the Clark supporters are running around like chickens with their heads cut off, screaming "smear campaign, smear campaign" while engaging in disrupter activity here on the DU. One would be most wise to be suspicious of Clark with these observations.

Wise, because we know and have expected just such a tactic from the GOP. Tin hat thinking has it that the PNAC cabal is well aware that Bush is weak, and getting weaker by the day. At the other end is Dean's seeming invincibility against normal GOP smear campaigns. The writing must be on the wall for the GOP. But the folks who truly fear Dean, is the DLC because Dean will chaise away the few corporate donators that they have been able to court thus far with the rise of King Gorge. The DLC is so desperate to hang on to these donators, that they supported the war, and chose to attack their voting base as "Activists."

Thus, the GOP and the DLC want the same thing. They want another Clinton. Some one who looks like he is a liberal, walks like a liberal, and talks like a liberal, but who is still a servant to the corporations feeding of the government largess.

Leabermen is so darn conservative that folks don't even believe him when he says he is a Democrat. Gepheardt chose to stand with the President in the rose garden, so we know where his loyalties lay. Kerry is still convinced they will find WMD any day now. These DLC golden boys are not just falling behind in polls, but are being booed off the stage in some cases.

So the powers that be MAY (can't say for sure, but this is my suspicion) have decided that they need and anti-war shill, rather than a pro-war shill. To back this up is the "liberal biased media" suddenly giving a clean mike to an anti-war candidate, even while the real anti war candidates such as Dean and Denise K (I can't spell his last name) barley gets a mention.

If this media is giving Clark a free ride, their ain't a flag big enough, or red enough for that one. Something is up.

[Pepperbelly]

38. holy shit ...

read my post above to dsc and see exactly how FAIR smeared Clark in the piece. They lowered their reputation in my opinion by stooping to that sort of crud.

[Code_Name_D]

41. And what "crud" would that be?

Care to be more spisific, or are you just going to stand that and whine?

[Eloriel]

48. You are exactly right -- and I tumbled to it after reading

Will Pitt's thread about Clark -- more specifically reading Clark's own words re the war published in April.

As I posted to that thread: anyone who calls Clark anti-war is just trying to make him look like a more attractive alternative to Dean (which is laughable on its face, actually). Those aren't people who have OUR best interets at heart, IMO. They're are the ones who don't want The People to have their power back, and elected officials to go unbought.

Hell, Dean is proving that corporate money --- and even public financing -- are unnecessary. Dean is proving that he who stands up and speaks the truth WINS hearts and minds and very loyal followers. Dean has become the most dangerous man in America, which is why I fear for him so much. For now they're trying a decoy. When the decoy fails, it gets dangerous for Dean -- ESP. if we get a leg up on the voting machine problem.

It's especially telling that the Clintons are pushing him. But then I'm sure even the Clintons don't want to lose the power they have.

Eloriel

[Code_Name_D]

55. To beat Bush, or not to beat Bush, that is the question.

We have two camps of thinking here. One camp is "any one but Bush," arguing that Bush must be defeated at all costs, and that our selection of the Democratic candidate should be measured only by their ability to beat Bush in the general election. This gives rise to "centrists" and trying to appeal to "Ragan Democrats" or "McKaine Democrats" as some are calling them now. They would argue that we have to compromise in order to win at any and all costs.

But the other camp is far more expansive in its scope of the problem. Here, Bush is seen only as a figure head, and recognized to be disposable by the powers behind him should a worst case scenario hit. To paint it like this, Bush is behind the podium taking the tomatoes, even as the real thieves are braking into the lock box. But the real issue isn't Bush, but PNAC and the pro-corpritization of American government. The truly pressing issues isn't gay marriage, or really even the Iraq war, but things such as constitutional protections, the national deficit and debt, the two tired system of justice that protects corporations from the people, and copy right laws that insurers that some one owns lock stock and barrel that song bouncing around inside your head, even though they didn't write, sing, or perform it.

It is THESE issues that Nader was referring to when he said "their is no difference between Republicans and Democrats." In that vain, just "beating Bush" isn't enough, any may even leave us worse off if the person who beats Bush is still a friend to the corporations. I would remind every one that Clinton beat Herbert Walker Bush, and yet here we still are, being dragged into Fascism eight years later. Clinton was nothing more than a place keeper for the real agenda at work here, keeping the oval office warm, for a real Republican.

[Tinoire]

59. Whoa! Excellent. You hit the nail on the head!

But the other camp is far more expansive in its scope of the problem. Here, Bush is seen only as a figure head, and recognized to be disposable by the powers behind him should a worst case scenario hit. To paint it like this, Bush is behind the podium taking the tomatoes, even as the real thieves are braking into the lock box. But the real issue isn't Bush, but PNAC and the pro-corpritization of American government. The truly pressing issues isn't gay marriage, or really even the Iraq war, but things such as constitutional protections, the national deficit and debt, the two tired system of justice that protects corporations from the people, and copy right laws that insurers that some one owns lock stock and barrel that song bouncing around inside your head, even though they didn't write, sing, or perform it.

[Donna Zen]

62. How do you know

anyone who calls Clark anti-war is just trying to make him look like a more attractive alternative to Dean

many people want someone who has a clear understanding of the concepts and course of diplomatic relationships necessary for dealing with 1) the current situation when faced with conflicting pressures 2) the authority to back down a knuckledragging divided congress who is very much in the pay of those you fear.

Also, some of us believe that Clark's belief in strong international institutions and diplomacy just might be okay.

Dean is proving that corporate money --- and even public financing -- are unnecessary

there will be plenty to go around...and Dean is attending many large fund raisers even at this stage. Few Dems will be granted the easy money, but it will be there. The money flow is more about defeating Dems within their districts providing them with well heeled opposition.

I'm sure even the Clintons don't want to lose the power they have.


Why is that the only possible conclusion? There are certainly a vast number of others for the Clinton's behavior.

Hell, the Clintons might even have known Clark for years and have a very good understanding, certainly better than mine, of who this man is. Maybe they even know him better than you.

Or the Clintons know enough about national politics to see that the danger of losing big. Dean may well weather the Rove machine...good...but doubtful. Too many soft spots. Now I have contributed to Dean in the past, but even without Clinton's insight which I do not claim to have, past and current observations of America signal an unwillingness of this country to buy "peace" candidates, a bias in the South, Midwest, and Mid Atlantic states against Northeastern candidates. Those states have no reason to behave this way, but there it is. They may even be tempted by that most common of human instincts to stay with the devil they know.

[Pastiche423]

52. Excellent post, Code_Name_D!

[Tinoire]

61. Here's some more information re Clark and the DLC

<snip>

But members of the DLC, meeting in Philadelphia over the weekend and today for the group's annual "conversation," say they're holding their centrist ground. Their "Third Way" or "New Democrat" ideas will reclaim the White House for the Democrats in 2004, they say, as they did for Bill Clinton in his two victories.

<snip>

Despite the political focus, however, the declared Democratic presidential candidates were asked to stay away.

<snip>

The absence of candidates has hardly back-burnered the presidential race. It was still the dominant discussion in the hallways and ballrooms where the group gathered over the weekend. Center-of-the-road names like Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards were bandied about. As was a name that many participants said they were surprised to hear often: that of Gen. Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander. Clark has not declared his candidacy but has said he is considering a run. Supporters say he could go toe-to-toe with Bush on military issues.

<snip>
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/6400042.htm

Another article about this same meeting in Philly:

Centrist Dems weigh Dean dilemma

“The main theme of the next election is going to be national security,” said Chris Kofinis, a political consultant who attended the DLC gathering and is advising the campaign to draft retired Gen. Wesley Clark as the Democratic candidate.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/945273.asp?cp1=1

Dr. Chris Kofinis' (the DLC consultant mentioned above) PDF Analysis of Zogby Poll Commissioned by DraftWesleyClark.com

Pictures from the New Democrats' Annual Meeting (Photos here)

If you want to listen the 2 hour speech (followed by DLC Q & A) he gave at the New Democrat Network Annual Meeting in DC: (Lieberman & Graham were also present) http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/kdrive/c04061703_newdemocrat.rm

Excerpt, if you don't have 2 hours to listen, here: http://manatt.net/clark.ram

The tight relationship between the NDN and the DLC:

DLC AND NDN
Two acronyms that junkies know and that Democratic candidates hear in their sleep. The Democratic Leadership Council, chaired these days by Sen. Evan Bayh and run for 17 years by its founding director, Al From, is the spawning ground of moderate “Third Way” thinking in the party. Bill Clinton was chairman when he launched his own presidential bid in 1991. The New Democratic Network is the DLC’s overtly political cousin, run by an operative named Simon Rosenberg. It doles out cash to candidates and, increasingly, supports independent spending efforts.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/834591.asp?0bl=-0&cp1=1

More about the NDN:

Centrist Democrats launch new agenda
By Hans Nichols

The centrist New Democratic Network (NDN) unveiled a new six-point agenda yesterday that it says can serve as a blueprint for making the Democratic Party the governing force in American politics for the next generation.

<snip>

Several announced and potential Democratic presidential candidates addressed the gathering at a Capitol Hill hotel, including Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Bob Graham (Fla.), as well as retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark. Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) addressed the convention by phone, and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean sent a video greeting.

<snip>

Rosenberg explained in the interview that the network’s revamped agenda and new strategy are the beginning steps of “a 10- to 45-year” plan to elect centrist Democrats to local, state and federal offices.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/061803/centrist.aspx

----
About the NDN


The New Democrat Network (NDN) is one of the nation’s most influential political organizations.
NDN promotes a new generation of leaders who advocate economic growth and fiscal responsibility, strong American leadership in world affairs and world markets, a smaller, smarter government, and a progressive approach to social issues that respects family, faith, and community.

<snip>

NDN is led by NDN President Simon Rosenberg, with advice from NDN's Advisory Board, a group of leading New Democratic thinkers and strategists. NDN’s Advisory Board includes former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joseph J. Andrew, pollster and Latino electorate expert Sergio Bendixen, former Army Secretary Louis Caldera, former Member of Congress and Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Vic Fazio, former Member of Congress and Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council Dave McCurdy, former White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry, former White House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty, and former Federal Trade Commissioner and White House Cabinet Secretary Christine A. Varney.
------------------------------

b]Who founded the NDN?

The NDN was founded in 1996 by Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the DLC. "NDN acts as a political venture capital fund," a special type of political action committee among political action committees. NDN raises PAC money from many sectors, which they then distribute to their top federal candidates -- Lucas received $10,000 from them. NDN also provides a mechanism for fat-cats to donate directly to candidates without worrying about all those pesky Election Commission limits. Clinton campaign aide, Simon Rosenberg, is now NDN's President. Joe Lieberman is chairman.

The DLC does the same thing, actually. But, by forming the NDN, the DLC contribute more than twice as much to favored candidates.

[Zuni]

70. He is trying to build a base of supporters

All the Dems would be wise to get as many supporters as possible.

[Code_Name_D]

76. Elections are not won with supporters, but by appealing to voters.

The DLC's main strategy revolves around something commonly called "retail politics" that is you find out what the people want, then sell to the polling data. This is the stated reason while the DLC supported the Iraq War resolution. Because they had convinced themselves that any one who opposed the war in Iraq, would be committing political suicide. Especially as the 2002 congressional election was mer weeks away when the vote came to the floor.

You first find a candidate that your corporate donors can get behind, after all, they are going to pay lots of money for that candidate. And that of course means having an "open ear" to corporate and special interest issues. You then spend a portion of that money on polling data, and the rest on buying TV adds in "battle ground" districts to sell your Democratic just like you would sell a bar of soap, hence the name.

The problem with this strategy is that it doesn't work. The polling results from the 2002 elections proved this. When you try to sell your candidate, people just tune you out like they do all commercials. So you then have to spend more money on more adds for less results, making you more dependents on those corporate donations.

The "centrist" or "moderate" is nothing more than a voter profile build on the largest common denominator. And there is a saying that when seeking the largest common denominator, be prepared to divide by zero. To put it another way, the centrist position, isn't any kind of position at all, other than what the polls tell you that the people want to hear.

Of course, DLC apologist usually like to role out Clintion's two victories, and the fact that Gore "technically" won the election. But Clinton had the advantage of more corporate donations, because at the time, corrections were more likely to play both sides of the fence. But now the DLC is started for cash because the Democrats have been thoroughly ousted of power by the Republicans. And it's getting worse. Redistricting saw the Dems take heavy hits as many districts were openly gerrymandered into Republican's favor. Even after the fact, such as in Texas and Colorado, the GOP is revisiting redistricting and illegally forcing new maps even MORE heavily drawn out in their favor. If the Killer D's in Texas fails to turn around the redistricting, than we will lose up to 5 seats in the house, just by redistricting. Dems are no longer able to deliver on the corporate agenda, even if they wanted to. So the corps are donating directly to the party in power.

If Clark is given to DLC strategy, than he has hitched his wagon to a sinking ship. If this is Clark's strategy, than he will find his money vary restricted, limiting his ability to get his message out. A message that will be limited to sound bites and photo ops in order for it to be TV-compatible. You also will only see them in a few area. Districts that are securely Republican, or security Democrat will be "written off" and this means his message will be tailored the battle ground areas, the centrists.

[Toby109]

37. I really don't know, Will

but I am sick and tired of having the right set our agenda for us. If Bush is so strong on defense(which I don't buy in the least), attack him where he is weakest. And, of course, like his father, he doesn't have a clue about domestic issues.

I really thought that, at a time like this, only a Kerry/McCain ticket would wake Americans out of their slumber and realize that this is an unusual point in American history. That crossing party lines was the only way to preserve it. Same old, same old. Shit. I hate being wrong.

I know this is off-topic but I had to get it out. Thanks.

[Donna Zen]

44. interview with Russert before the war

MR. RUSSERT: There is an article in The Washington Post today, General. It says that part of the reason that France and Russia and Germany and others are giving the United States such a hard time about Iraq is they disagree on the views but also it’s a payback for the heavy-handed and bullying tactics of the last two years of the Bush foreign policy. Do you agree with that?



GEN. CLARK: I do agree with that. I think that’s exactly what they’ve seen and felt in Europe from this administration. It’s an administration which really hasn’t respected our allies. And, frankly, there are a lot of differences and perspectives with our allies in Europe.

One thing I learned in the Kosovo campaign is that if you’re going to have allies, the unfortunate thing is they have their own opinions. And if you really want allies, you got to listen to their opinions, you’ve got to take them seriously, you’ve got to work with their issues. Every one of our allied leaders is an elected leader, at least in Europe. And that means they have domestic politics and political factors at home and economic factors at home that influence their opinions. And those have to be respected just like we would expect them to respect us for our political system in the United States.

If we deal with our allies on a basis of respect, if we give them the opportunity and the evidence and the arguments and the analysis that’s needed to help shape their public opinions, then we can expect them to go along with us.

MR. RUSSERT: You have written extensively about Iraq: an article in Time, Let’s Wait to Attack; an interview with The Washington Post, A General’s Doubts. I want to go through some of your points. This is how The Post characterized it: “Clark fears that the new dangers generated by a war in Iraq might outweigh any gains from disarming Saddam Hussein. Clark cites three tests that the administration must meet before going to war. ...Are you sure you won’t destroy the international institutions you say you are supporting, and thereby undermine the war against terror?” Are we destroying the institutions we are supporting?

GEN. CLARK: Well, we’re shaking really strongly right now. We’ve put both NATO and the U.N. on the block here and demanded they support us. So as we’re moving ahead here, we’ve got to be careful and not just use brute force against these institutions. We’ve got to provide the arguments, the analysis, the evidence, the time, the sense of responsibility. We’ve got to allow opinion to come along to our side on this....

MR. RUSSERT: As you look at this situation now, should the inspectors be allowed more time? Should we hold back going to war with Saddam Hussein?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I think we should right now, simply because we want to get our allies on board.

I don’t have any confidence that the inspectors are going to find anything. This stuff is extremely well- hidden. Some of it’s probably in Syria, as well. And it’s unlikely the inspectors will ever find the so-called smoking gun on this. But if it makes our allies more able to go to their publics and justify their support of our operation, then I think that’s important. And remember, it’s not just France and Germany. There’s a lot of public opinion all through Europe, even in those states that have already signed up for the United States, where the publics just aren’t convinced about the need to do this. We shouldn’t allow an artificial deadline of the weather to affect the more significant, more important decisions about when to start the operation.

MR. RUSSERT: Can you keep 200,000 American troops poised at the ready for months in that part of the world?

GEN. CLARK: Well, maybe not for months, but for another month. I mean, they’re not even there yet in most cases. So I think, you know, we need to—and I can understand why Condoleezza Rice is pushing the urgency of the diplomacy because you can’t not push it. But on the other hand, we’ve got to recognize, objectively speaking, another month is probably what we need.

MR. RUSSERT: In your book, “Waging Modern War,” from 2001, you wrote this, “Nations use diplomacy as a means to advance their interests. But when the interests are significant enough, when dialogue, negotiation, and compromise can’t gain traction, and when nations believe their military advantage is sufficient, they will again employ ‘threat’ to provide additional leverage. Once the threat surfaces, however, nations or alliances are committed. Following through to preserve credibility becomes a matter of vital interest.”

Has the president drawn the sword where he can no longer back down?

GEN. CLARK: I think that’s right. I can’t quite imagine that he could create a scenario in which it would be OK to just implement an enhanced so-called containment regime with inspectors on the ground; not with all the troops there, not with the determination. Because what you’re really going against here is not the presence of the weapons; it’s the intent of Saddam Hussein and his regime to continue to develop these weapons. So you’re in exactly the situation we were in in former Yugoslavia in the 1990s with UNPROFOR. You would put forces on the ground, they’d be blue-hatted, they’d be doing inspections, but they’d be working against the strategic intent of the power on the ground. Conflict would be inevitable. So I think we can all debate alternative strategies and theories and, yes, maybe containment was possible a year or so ago. Now it’s too late. Saddam Hussein has to understand his day is over.

MR. RUSSERT: War is inevitable.

GEN. CLARK: I think war is inevitable.

MR. RUSSERT: What should the administration have done differently? What other strategy could they have embarked on a year ago where we’d have a different result today?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I think you have to go back really—let’s start with 9/11; 3,000 dead in this country underscore the deadly threat of al-Qaeda. Somehow, we got that tied in with Iraq. From the beginning, people were saying Iraq must have been behind it. Well, they weren’t behind it. Why not? Have focused exclusively on al-Qaeda, said, “Here’s our target, set Iraq aside, strengthen containment. OK. We don’t want them dealing with terrorists. They’re a potential proliferant.” But then so is Iran. They actually have a more active terrorist network. They also have weapons of mass destruction, and then here’s North Korea that even has nuclear weapons, and they do sell.

So you have three potential major proliferants, and then you have al-Qaeda. Why not focus on al-Qaeda and then work that very intensively, work it diplomatically? Go into the United Nations and start with indicting Osama bin Laden as a war criminal. That way, you can use international legitimacy and pressure against some of these so-called coalition partners like Syria and others that are sort of sitting on the fence and playing both sides. And then go to NATO. Take NATO and multifunctionalize it. Say to NATO, “Look, you used to be a military alliance. That was appropriate for the Soviet threat. But now, you know, terrorism’s much more complex. We’ve got to harmonize our laws, got to have a standard definition of what is terrorism, got to know what are the elements of proving terrorism is a crime, got to standardize our rules of evidence. If we give you a wiretap and we say, ‘This guy is guilty of conspiring to blow up the Eiffel Tower,’ we don’t want you to say that’s not admissible in your court.”

And so we could have used NATO that way. We could have brought our allies into it in a much more constructive, powerful way, so that when it comes time for a French election or a German election, the issue isn’t about America. It’s about how that country is doing in its war on terror. This is what we did during the Kosovo campaign by using NATO. As Prime Minister Blair told me during our one-on-one meeting on the 20th of April, ’99, he said, “The future of every government in Western Europe depends on the successful outcome of the campaign that NATO is waging against Slobodan Milosevic.”

But, you know, that’s not what’s happened in Europe today. Somehow, we’ve become divided from Europe. So I would have focused on al-Qaeda. I would have used the United Nations and NATO against al-Qaeda. Then I would have drawn NATO into it. Then when it comes time to work against Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea, you’ve got a strong, committed group of allies. As long as the United States stands with Europe, we can move the world. When we become at odds across the Atlantic, everything becomes more difficult.

[WilliamPitt]

45. Link?

[w4rma]

68. link

http://www.draftclark.com/archives/002404.shtml

[Donna Zen]

73. I'm still looking

n/t

[Eloriel]

51. Thanks very much, Donna

Not exactly anti-war and esp. not anti-THIS-war by any definition I'd recognize.

Now I'm remembering that Fineman article from -- yesterday?? Wherein he talked about how eager everyone was to find the anti-Dean. Clark IS a plant, whether he knows it or not is another story all together.

Eloriel

[Amanda]

56. And again

When did Clark ever call himself "anti-war"? Would you Dean people stop shoving this anti-war crap on everyone? It's as bad as Rove and Rumsfeld convincing everyone that criticizing the President is a treasonable offence.

I really do respect Dean, but the more I'm around his supporters the more I question him as a candidate. Some of you are flat-out bullies who attack anyone you view as a threat. I hope you're a little more open-minded when the primaries roll around - if your guy doesn't stop waffling on the issues, you may end up voting for someone else in '04.

Here's another article from Clark re: Iraq, also from the UK Times but from July.

http://www.americansforclark.com/times.php

His tone is a bit more critical than it was immediately following the capture of Baghdad, but is it "anti-war"? Hardly. The tone is very much like his other articles: anti-'we don't have a plan to get out of this war'. It is very pro-US troops. And also very "let's get some supporters so we can finish this thing and get out".

So does the Dean camp pay you people to smear anyone who presents a threat to him? Be honest now.

[Code_Name_D]

57. What makes you think this is comming from the Dean camp?

I am not even away Dean has spoken on this yet. And I suspect is probably trying to peice this together as is the rest of us.

Unless you have some spisifc qoutes from Dean attacking Clark...

As for Clark being anti-war, this was the meidea painting him. To my knowlage, I am not aware of Clark saying one thing or the other, but my knowlage here is imcomplet. But if Clark is NOT anti war, he needs to be front and center to set the mediea straite. This he clearly is NOT doing. In fact, Clark seems to be incuraging the label.

[John_H]

47. I sense a pidegeonholing of Clark

as a disloyal, librul, fluffy dove by the media. They think the wartime Prez schtick will win the day. I bet they're wrong.

[Donna Zen]

53. Stirling vs the nation

BTW, I know Pristina enough to know that the Nation piece was, for whatever reason, a hack job using charged and incorrect language. Stirling who includes info about Jackson (as a set up and prehaps unfairly hacking at that General) clearly has been forced by endless allegations to learn even more. Nevertheless, once I understood the command structure of NATO and had read about 300 pages of background, I came away satisfied that the story was not an issue. What was an issue was the complicated nature of the situation coupled with the internet's tendency to buy into the worst without all the facts. Not one poster who has ever started a thread devoted to Pristina has ever read a word I've written. How do I know this? Because they post the same think everyday. Stirling even skips over the outer environment which includes a whole piece of swirl provided by Moscow and Albright.
_________snip_______

So the questions raised by the smear pieces have been answered - Clark believed in allies at the time, and he believed in the chain of command, and he followed that chain of command. He believes in Allies now as well. Clark continued to rely on Sir Mike Jackson, sending him to negotiate face to face with Serbian commanders. Jackson continued on to be KFOR commander. Clearly, the two men, for whatever their differences over the Pristina airfield, did not decide the other was an unreliable colleague, and did not attempt to undercut or undermine the other's authority. It was a difference of tactical decision - Clark supported by his commanders and by Solana, Jackson by his superiors. The working out was not based on a larger decision about later negotiations, but over the working relationship between the US and the UK.

After all, if Clark's plan had been unacceptable, Solana could have simply withdrawn the "ACTORD", or Washington could have. Clearly both wanted the option in play in the negotiations, or one phone call could have stopped everything cold.






He had guidance for me. "I am recommending you move to Pristna airport as soon as possible," he (NATO Secretary General Javier Solana) said.

"Javier, I just want to be certain that you are comfortable that I have the authority to order this," I asked to be clear.

"Yes, of course you do. You have ACTORD," he said emphatically.

So I had NATO support, but I knew there was much more to be done before an operation like this could be executed.





Let's be clear who we are talking about here - Javier Solana was the Socialist former Foreign Minister of Spain, who had opposed his country's entry into NATO, and who, as Secretary General, had the authority to order Clark to do this. It was Jackson, and later the British, who decided against it. The plan eventually adopted, to block airspace and the roads was Clark's, not "Washington's". On the 11th of June Solana ordered air exercises over Kosovo as a way of making it clear to the Russians that NATO was not merely folding its tent and going home. In his statements Solana emphasized that "all military options remain open". So, on the record, Clark had the backing of NATO to implement the ACTORD of 12 June.

The Serbs and Russians cooperated to bring the Russian forces in, and Milosevic progressively filed away at the legal framework of the "Military Technical Agreement" - first from NATO lead, then to KFOR, then trying to replace this with "UN". The Russian tanks had "KFOR" painted on them before there was, in fact, a KFOR, for them to be part of. The hawkish assessment of The Russia Journal indicates the wire Clark was walking at the time - between those who saw it as an "empire building move", and those who wanted to do nothing. By keeping Clark's option in play, Cohen had a lever to move Gutherie on the matter, along the lines of: "Well, if you don't want to do anything, I'll just call up Wes and tell him to move in the choppers. You can field the questions as to why your commander couldn't do anything about it."

And this, not some hysterical accusations and hypotheticals, is the reality of the situation. NATO made a decision, but being an alliance of unanimous consensus, one of its key members refused. And since that member was the one providing the forces, its refusal carried that day. This is how the alliance works, and Clark is clearly, in his interview, comfortable with it.

http://www.theclarksphere.com/archives/000347.html#000347

[proud patriot]

58. IMHO

Clark did an admiral(sp?) job of being impartial durring the
lead up and durring the war on CNN .

I neither think he was pro or anti ...He was very factual
about military tactics and such .

[DoveTurnedHawk]

60. Hi Will, Please Read This

This is a Clark anti-war piece from OCTOBER 10, 2002:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

Additionally, please look at the "FAIR" article. The title alone, claiming that Clark said the Iraq invasion was the "right call" is INCREDIBLY misleading. If you read the actual quote, Clark was NOT talking about the invasion, but rather the strategy & tactics point that based on the American dominance, waiting an additional month for reinforcements was not necessary. FAIR's argument is akin to saying that if you believe Rommel was a talented general, you are somehow supporting Nazi Germany.

I have many other cites. Please let me know if you need anything else.

DTH

"The highest calling of the armed forces is not to wage war, but to prevent war." -- General Wesley K. Clark

[Zuni]

63. I think your perceptions are accurate

Clark is a military man, and not a pacifist but was very skeptical about Iraq and the Bush team.

It is more the GOP guys on FOX and talk radio that label him. Clark is remarkably nuanced in his statements.

[Skwmom]

69. Fair has damaged their reputation by publishing this article.

After reading this article and then looking at the referenced articles I'll look at anything else they publish in an entirely new light.

They should change their name. The article is not fair or balanced and falls far below the standard for journalistic integrity.

[w4rma]

71. Here is an editorial written by General Wesley Clark, April 10, 2003

What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory
…
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.

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

[Donna Zen]

90. Tip

...read diplo-speak very carefully

Example:

especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally,

again:

irrationally resolute ally

The piece is loaded with backhanded complements.

[Skwmom]

94. I picked up on that bankhanded compliment after I read the article

a couple of times.

IMHO, to really get a feel for what Clark is saying you should read it very closely and more than once (of course you might be much quicker than me and pick up all the nuances on the first read).

[moondust]

72. Possible setup.

If the Rovian media can successfully brand Clark an "anti-war" candidate in the public mind now they can later bring up past Clark quotes which are not really anti-war and spin him as wishy-washy, liar, opportunist, etc., etc. in hopes of peeling away his support.

[Generic Other]

74. Clark sounded more rational, more sane when the entire country

was in the frenzy of war fever. Remember how the networks splashed the showy logos "America at War" and all the flags and freedom fries hysteria?

Then we'd see Clark sounding calm, cool, collected being able to point to the big map and actually identify what country he was looking at. He seemed more in command of his senses than anyone else on the airwaves or in the White House. Now that might not be saying much, but that was my observation at the time.

He would make a good candidate. Or even a running mate.

I can see him being courted by others (especially Dean or Kerry).

I wish they ALL were running the country already!

[Skwmom]

75. Can someone please tell me how to bold text.

So that I can post about the 4/10 article.

[w4rma]

77. Bold: [b]…[/b], Italics: [i]…[/i] (n/t)

[Code_Name_D]

78. Here is how.

[B] For bold text [/B]
[I] For italics [/B]

You will find more formating tips with the HTML lookup table,
provided with your post window.  But you will find threads on
HTML tricks in the meeting room.

[Skwmom]

80. Thank you both so much.

eom

[OrdinaryTa]

95. Correction

The closing tag for italics isn't the same as the one that closes bolding.

[Code_Name_D]

96. Wow

I learn something new every day. :P

[rman]

79. can someone explain why * isn't calling Clark unpatriotic?

as they do with everyone else who is opposing the war?
odd ain't it.

[Skwmom]

81. IMHO, after reading several Clark articles,

I believe they are written with a lot of diplomacy because he is trying to persuade Bush, Blair and Co.to take certain actions. From a pragmatic standpoint, you can't expect someone to heed your advice and concerns if you are bashing them.

The problem with this type of writing is it is filled with nuances and is very susceptible to someone taking selective quotes and using them to paint a false impression of what the author is actually stating.

As far as the Fair article, I want to review what I've written about it when I'm awake to make sure my comments make sense.

[w4rma]

82. I think FAIR did a good job, but came to a different conclusion that I did

…
Another "plain fact" is this: While political reporters might welcome Clark's entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views "anti-war" is to render the term meaningless.
http://truthout.org/docs_03/091803A.shtml

FAIR brought the facts together and really built a very good timeline on Gen. Clark's thoughts about the changing situation. I'm not as strict on using an anti-war label as the FAIR author is. From what I could tell, Gen. Clark tried to do all he could to keep us out, up until the point where he no longer thought that anything anyone did would stop Bush from following through.

Is Gen. Clark a dove? No. He's an owl. Gov. Dean is also an owl. Neither are pacificsts or doves. Neither will hesitate to use military force when they feel it's neccessary.

I do consider Gen. Clark to be anti-Iraq war. He was consistantly against invading leading up to the point that I think he felt was the point of no return. After that and up until it was obvious that the occupation was failing, I think Gen. Clark self-censored himself for whatever reason.

For contrast, Dean wrote this editorial on April 17, 2003:
Bush: It's Not Just His Doctrine That's Wrong by Howard Dean
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0417-07.htm

And posted this blog entry on April 10, 2003:
DEAN PRESENTS SEVEN POINT PLAN FOR IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000359.html

[Donna Zen]

91. OWL

.....or a Cincinnatus?

We have had 10 generals as Presidents, that's out of 43. Even Grant is getting a new look, it seems he stopped the plans for raiding many Native Am. Tribes/ethnic cleansing. I would like to read the new book on Grant and see what I think, so that is second hand info really, but from a very reliable source.

Nearly dying on a battlefied might just have a very sobering effect.

[Skwmom]

92. I haven't read Clarks articles doing the build-up to the war

but based on what I've read so far I can't see anything in the Dean article that Clark would disagree with.

In regards to your statement "I do consider Gen. Clark to be anti-Iraq war. He was consistantly against invading leading up to the point that I think he felt was the point of no return. After that and up until it was obvious that the occupation was failing, I think Gen. Clark self-censored himself for whatever reason." The author of the Fair article describes this shift as follows "As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way."

IMHO I think Clark is a pragmatic person who works with the hand he is dealt and who is flexible enough to switch his strategy as circumstances arise because he gets the big picture.

The Fair article quotes Clark as follwing: 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): 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."

Bush was constantly issuing ultimatums. I kept hoping that Bush would shut up - 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.

[CWebster]

89. most likely

Clark's team is trying to get cover on both stances. Something that Kerry had trouble pulling off because of his vote on the record.

[Forkboy]

99. "sans flambe"....silly rabbit

:)

[TreasonousBastard]

100. I don't think we can parse the current articles and quotes...

properly. Too many things are happening too fast right now. I think we have to take everything happening in an historical perspective.

Some generals have been war-mongering warriors, but they are not all Pattons. Cincinnatus, Lee, Grant, Sherman, Eisenhower... all did their jobs well, but understood all too well not only the necessity of some wars, but that the glory of victory is a sham and that the war itself was a failure of other means to find a solution. They understood the horrors of war in a way that no one who has not ordered troops into battle can understand. They understood that war is ultimately a crapshoot-- that the war can be lost, and that even victory carries with it heavy burdens. They knew the true costs of war, and how those costs were so rarely justified.

My personal impression of Clark, and it is only my impression, is that he follows this mold. I can easily see him, as a professional soldier, appreciating the quick victory of the initial invasion, but I can also see him wondering why we had to take those missteps that led to the inevitability of the invasion. I can also see him having problems with the lack of exit plans and the confusion over just what to do after the invasion was successful.

I would hope that Clark, like Eisenhower, understands that strength is important, but that strength is to be used to avoid war and encourage the peace and prosperity of all. Strength is not an end in itself, but a means to an end.

[realFedUp]

101. I thought the Fair column was fair

just quoted him in various news articles, interviews.
He isn't anti-war naturally and he was not gung-ho for
invading Iraq. Dean isn't anti-war either...he supported
Desert Storm and invading Afghanistan.