"Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."

[newsguyatl]

"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." -Wesley Clark, CNN, 2/05/03


they did look at the evidence, mr. clark.

and they weren't fooled and hungry for an illegal war.


so why were you?


"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." -Wesley Clark, 4/11/03

i'm sorry, you say you are or aren't a neocon war hawk?


"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." -Wesley Clark, London Times, 4/11/03

yeh, those iraqis underestimated the u-s when they messed with us didn't they...

ask all those maimed and wounded (nevermind the thousands killed), i don't think they asked to "take on" the u-s military.





so i ask you all again -- clark, the anti-war candidate???


try again.

[ShaneGR]

1. Snoooze...... Links???

Sorry, can you provide links to these comments?

[boxster]

2. Keep in mind that

To preface my statements, please know that I like both Clark and Dean a ton, but this is just getting silly.

If you'd bother to read those statements again, you'd likely realize that he's talking within the context of the Bush Administration's plans. Especially the 4/11/03 comments. "if they fail to comply with Washington's concerns". Who do you suppose that refers to? Uh, that would be the Bush Administration. Your second 4/11/03 quote is obviously from the same position and within the context of our current operations in Iraq. And frankly, he's right - no one is likely to take on the US military at this point.

Stating the obvious does not make Clark pro-war.

I know you want to do whatever you can to discredit Clark, and I credit your desire to put Dean in the best light, but you're showing a little taste of desperation here.

[ShaneGR]

3. Two weird things

I'm a Dean and a Clark supporter.

First, if those quotes are even real, I don't see anything in there where Clark says, "I support this war." I see him commenting on it, and stating the obvious from an objective point of view. I don't see any support.

Second, if being 'anti-war' is the judgement we're looking for, then why would Howard Dean say he supported Gulf War 1, Kosovo, Afghanistan. Heck, I think he said he supported just about every war in our history except for Vietnam and Gulf War 2. So, is he 'anti-war'?

[boxster]

15. I agree.

Clark was trying to provide an analysis of our actions in Iraq and how he felt those actions were meant to be interpreted. These aren't his views. They are his impression of the WH's views based on their actions.

[sandnsea]

4. Uhm... commentary?

You know, making objective comments regarding a situation, that's what the man's job was. He's made a few comments that's caused me to raise my eyebrows, but these ain't them.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

5. Yawn

It sure is noisy, you grinding that axe all the time.

You're such a responsible, even-handed journalist.

DTH

[Bertrand]

12. thats funny

i forgot that he claims to be a real journalist.

[retyred]

28. Yes but has he ever claimed

to be a "Fair and Balanced" journalist? I think not!



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
Retyred IN FLA.

[Dr Fate]

6. That's it- criticise Clark/DEMS where Rove cannot!!!

great "strategy"- GO DEMS!!! DUers ROCK!

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

7. Taking quotes out of context and not providing links

exactly the kind of stuff that ruins good discussion. I don't know enough about Clark yet to have formed an opinion of him, but the picture you are trying to paint seems disingenuous.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

8. And This Guy Prides Himself on Being an Honest Journalist

:crazy:

DTH

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. An Honest Journalist

some of his stuff could come out of Der Stryker...

[pansypoo53219]

9. i really like Dean too

But clark is NOT THE ENEMY.
BUSH IS.
we must stand united or we will FAIL TO SAVE CIVILIZATION.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

10. Amen!

Here's to Dean's AWESOME fundraising and his fantastic speech today!

:toast:

DTH

[newsguyatl]

22. nice job dennis

you did about as well on refuting any of these quotes as you did with malloy the other night...


as for links, you guys can google any of these quotes yourself.


and as for all those thin-skinned clark supporters who would support the man even if it were known he were a bush operative (most here on this site), who bash me and claim "he's not a real journalist" i say to you this: i am a fair journalist, but first and foremost, i am a citizen and i will support NO ONE, not a single person, who supported this illegal war. and it's CLEAR your man did. it's irrefutable.



i know an imposter when i see one.


too bad you don't.



CLearly a wAR hawK

[boxster]

29. You did such a nice job of taking those quotes out of context

that we might think you were a Republican!

Seriously, though, you don't seem to grasp the concept (or you're conveniently ignoring it) that those comments were in the context of a larger discussion of Clark's views of the current situation. You seem to fixate on them as if they represent Clark's own beliefs and not just his opinions of the administration's activities and beliefs.

You claim to be a "fair journalist", yet you didn't even bother to review these quotes in the context in which they were given, probably because they were of more use to you out of context. If you want to make the point, provide a real position statement or quote from Clark and not just his interpretations of what Bush is trying to accomplish in Iraq.

[diamondsoul]

11. There is nothing in those quotes

to suggest or prove that General Clark agreed with that point of view.

If your intent was to imply that he did there are a few other quotes I've seen that would have been much more likely to make that a valid question.

More than that, I can and have freely admitted I wasn't absolute in my opposition to the Iraq invasion, so why on earth would I hold it against a former Officer who has been trained to trust superior ranking officials on matters of intelligence? People have brought up things here on DU that make sense to me now, but when the issue first came up I never put them together, and I don't consider myself ignorant or stupid as a general rule.

I can tell you I'm far more inclined to hold such a position against those members of Congress who cast votes in favor of the Iraq war Resolution than I am to hold it against Ret. General Clark. They had access to intelligence and other information he didn't have.

[shance]

13. Theres ALOT in those quotes if they are accurate, which I assume they are

They would essentially reveal an individual who is more concerned with his ascension to a throne than standing for something.


No comparison to the Guv****

[boxster]

14. Again, you have to understand the quotes within the context.

I recall seeing this on CNN, and what Clark was talking about was within the context of the Bush Administration. He was basically saying, "Bush is adamant about doing this, so don't bother putting up a fight. He knows he has the military strength and he's going to use it."

His point was that he was interpreting Bush's use of military strength as a threat (or a promise) to other nations. He was not providing his own views; he was interpreting what the Bush Admin believed based on our actions in Iraq.

[Cocoa]

21. to me they reveal an interesting analysis

That piece in Common Dreams was very interesting to me. It was written the day after Statue Day, and Clark has an interesting take.

He's not anti-war by any means, but he's not in any way like the neocon type of hawk. One thing that stood out was his deep respect for the opposition to the U.S., that is a VERY good sign to me, particularly coming the day after Statue Day, when a lot of the hawks were gloating their asses off.

[CWebster]

17. LINK

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

Eat your heart out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. "Eat Your Heart Out"

Where's the love?

<kisses>

Brian

[IrateCitizen]

18. Anybody with an ounce of intelligence realizes that he's not anti-war

There are only two true anti-war candidates in the race right now: Kucinich and Sharpton. All the rest either advocated the invasion of Iraq, or they were completely willing to go along so long as certain conditions were met.

This isn't a slam against Clark, it's just an attempt to stop a blatant mischaracterization of him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. I Agree 100%

Here's my take and I challenge any poster to disprove it....


Mr.'s Dean, Clark, Kerry, Graham,Lieberman, Edwards, and Gephardt all supported the invasion if it was done under a U N umbrella...

If one opposes the war I don't see how a unjust war becomes just just because the combatants on one side are wearing U N helmets....

* I don't really understand Graham's position... He said * didn't go far enough in the resolution...

[LeahMira]

23. Sort of agreeing...

Mr.'s Dean, Clark, Kerry, Graham,Lieberman, Edwards, and Gephardt all supported the invasion if it was done under a U N umbrella...

Some of these also voted Bush the power to do an invasion, and some were not in a position to vote or else actually voted against.


If one opposes the war I don't see how a unjust war becomes just just because the combatants on one side are wearing U N helmets....

Generally, I agree with the principle that unjust doesn't magically become just. I do think that the U.N. nations would have rather continued inspections. Also, it's possible that the U.N. could have removed Saddam Hussein (didn't they get Milosevic eventually?) and then tried him for crimes against humanity, while at the same time assisting the Iraqi people to form a government more to their liking.

International consensus means a lot and I really do believe that the U.N. could have achieved a better outcome, although it might have taken a while longer to achieve it.

[CWebster]

24. Dean's claim--as with most of the rest of the world -

was the case hadn't been made. Even Kucinich, when pressed, admitted, if the US was under legitimate threat he wouldn't hesitate to use force.

The issue was the entire undertaking was fraudulent, now contrast that with Clark's fawning praise of Bush\Blair's resolve despite the annoying resisters who couldn't be counted upon to tow the line.

This is not all on equal footing.

[newsguyatl]

25. kick

:kick:

[OKNancy]

26. You're afraid aren't you?

You have chosen Dean as your guy and it frightens you to no end that someone else might win.

I have picked the Democratic candidate in every election since 1968.
Clark will be the Democratic candidate in 2004. Count on it.

[retyred]

27. And the beat goes on!

I have read, I understand

I Don't Care!



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
Retyred IN FLA.

[Terwilliger]

30. I'm sorry, this statement doesn't really need a lot on interpretation

"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." -Wesley Clark, 4/11/03

This is April 11th...so Clark is endorsing the action we took, and talking about furthering that agenda.

Now, he may be no different than Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt, or anyone else who basically approved of what happened. I have a problem with all of them.

Unless, of course, PNAC is not an incorrect policy.

[paulk]

31. could you please, in the future, indicate in your header

that your thread is of the candidate bashing variety.

So I don't accidently click on it.

ps - I'm serious. I've taken to avoiding this stuff. I'm sick of this shit.