|
Rovian talking points, but you're also using the Rovian strategy of cherry-picking quotes out of context.
And personally, I think Common Dreams is about as "fair and balanced" as Faux News (and the far left is every bit as screwy--and totalitarian--as the far right.)
Now, I'm in the process of preparing a long post in response to your claim that Wes Clark favored the invasion of Iraq, but it's not finished yet.
In the meantime, I found this in my Clark Rapid Response file. I don't know who wrote it, but I hope you will take the time to read all of it. It may help you to understand why some of us are puzzled (to say the least) at the elevation of Howard Dean into some sort of uberProgressive standard bearer. (I've bolded some key sentences for added emphasis):
"Now that Dean has been untruthful and claimed that 'Clark was for the war' we have once again to document the actual facts. For those who are interested in facts rather than political rhetoric, here they are:
"Clark fundamentally opposes pre-emptive warfare in the case of non-imminent threats. He opposed the invasion of Iraq because he didn't feel the intelligence on Saddam Hussein's possible WMDs was solid enough to justify diverting resources from Afghanistan before Bin Laden was captured and the Taliban destroyed. He would have supported a resolution that would have taken the case of Iraq's WMDs to the United Nations, but would not have supported a resolution that took us to war.
"When an invasion was clearly the Bush agenda, Clark called for as much international legitimacy and as broad a multinational coalition as possible for the operation. He wrote articles, books, and testified with a handful of other Generals before the Senate and House Armed Services committees (9/26/02) to warn against using force when diplomatic options remained and with the war in Afghanistan still unfinished.
"PRO-War? The illusion of Clark being 'pro-war' began over a gaffe he made in a small group interview on a plane with several reporters the first week of his campaign. During what he thought was an informal chat about the philosophy of pre-emption, Clark said that he "probably" would have voted for a resolution that gave Bush the opportunity to go to war. However, after saying that, he went on to explain why he could also see himself voting against it unless it also contained a clear resolution to take the case back to the United Nations first and not authorize Bush to go directly to war. This pseudo-ambivalence was construed as a 'flip-flop.' Clark said that not shortening his answer was a 'true gaffe,' but has repeatedly pointed out his constant criticism of the Iraq war. It is unfortunate that the false notion of Clark supporting the war has been used for political purposes by candidates like Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman.
"Advising Swett: Another area of criticism cited by those who accuse Clark of supporting the war was that Clark advised House candidate Katrina Swett that voting for the resolution could be used "as a means of reinforcing the current weapons inspections" and as leverage for America to take its case to the United Nations. Although this is the defense of candidates like John Kerry, Clark doubted Saddam Hussein had significant weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat warranting an invasion and occupation. Of all the Presidential candidates, it could be said that Clark's war stance was the most similar to Bob Graham's, who voted against the war (and of course, is no longer running now). It is important also to consider that Swett, who lost, now works for the campaign of Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman.
"Reporting vs. supporting: When Hussein had been successfully ousted (well before his capture), Clark was a writer for the London Times.. He wrote an article praising the skill and speed involved in the operation's success. He was later attacked for inconsistency, but he feels once Americans commit troops, "they should fight to win," and that he will praise "The English, the French, even Republicans" if they do something right. He also praised the capture of Saddam Hussein, but stands by his arguments that the war was unnecessary and hurtful to the true War on Terrorism.
"Democrat Attacks: Despite Clark's clear record on opposing the invasion of Iraq, candidates like Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman pounced on Clark's opening week gaffe. 'Wes Clark has six different stances for the war,' said Lieberman in a Democratic debate. Dean repeatedly said Clark supported the war, and continues to call himself 'the only candidate who opposed the war.' When Bob Graham first corrected Dean on this way back when, Dean's response was that he was the only 'major' candidate who opposed the war. After Graham dropped out, Dean continued to use this claim, to the anger of many supporters of pacifist candidate Dennis Kucinich. Even though Kucinich might not be considered a 'major' candidate, Clark certainly is.
"Howard Dean felt Saddam should be disarmed, multilaterally if we can, unilaterally if we must. He was not 'anti-invasion,' unlike Dennis Kucinich, Bob Graham, Carol Moseley-Braun, Al Sharpton, and Wes Clark. Here is Dean's position on the war before we invaded:
"As I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed, "Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."
"Trusting Bush's judgment: Like Clark, Dean also felt that the President could be trusted to tell the truth on WMD claims, saying "I think we have to trust the President to tell the truth on this," and believed that the President's judgment on the threat of WMDs warranted an invasion, multilaterally if possible, but unilaterally if we must.
"Unlike Clark, Dean supported the Biden-Lugar amendment to the congressional resolution, which was not likely to stop Bush from going to war, according to a comparison by the Congressional research service. It is now widely believed that with Bush being hell bent on invading Iraq, nothing short of a demand for a formal war declaration by Congress would have been strong enough to prevent a pre-emptive strike.
"So to summarize, Dean first believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs that were a threat to national security. He then called for:
Another hoop for Bush to jump through on his rush to war (via Biden-Lugar);
Giving Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm (as of Feb. 6th, 2003) before resorting to military action;
A unilateral invasion 'if the UN chooses not to enforce its own security resolutions;'
He proposed NO alternative coalition (NATO or otherwise), and felt pre-emptive warfare was justified if the UN wouldn't get involved.
"The UN weapons inspections process hadn't been completed before the United States invaded Iraq, but this is an important distinction to make between Dean's stance and the stances of candidates like Dennis Kucinich, former candidate Bob Graham, and Wesley Clark, who opposed the invasion of Iraq unequivocally (in the case of Kucinich and Graham, they voted against it--Clark testified against it).
"To conclude, Dean's stance on this critical issue is far from solid, and this is one of the many reasons opponents of the Iraq war have switched to Clark--because he is the only remaining major candidate who consistently opposed the invasion and the notion of-pre-emptive warfare.
"Whether or not the Iraq war should be a litmus test for the Democratic nominee is subjective, and also a question of strategy in the primary election vs. the general election. In recent polls, a majority of Americans do not care if the nominee was against the war from the start and a small majority support the invasion's link to the war on terror--although the approval ratings go down on the question of whether or not the war was worth the costs.
"It is clear that unlike the primaries, the general election will be about getting results, not proving ideological purity. Clark is another candidate who isn't pinned down by his vote, but this opening-week slip-up undoubtedly cost him in terms of crossover anti-invasion supporters who aren't familiar with all the actions he took in his attempts to persuade the administration not to invade. Like Dean, Clark never had to vote for the resolution, so the full range of his actions and words must be compared for voters to make their final judgment. The record shows that Clark completely rejected the possibility of a unilateral invasion for what he didn't think was an imminent threat."
___________
Sources:
Clark Myths.com Debunk: A pack of beltway reporters announced that General Clark had "flip flopped" on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Digby sets the record straight.
Ian Masters Interview with Elizabeth Drew on the Media Smear Campaign Against Clark 11/02/03 Audio Clip: Renowned journalist Elizabeth Drew explains the smear campaign against Clark, the difference between military reporters and civilian journalists, how Clark was misreported as being "for the war," and theorizes about Clark's chances after seeing him in action.
Judy Woodruff Interview with Elizabeth Drew: Drew defends Clark on CNN. It's just too bad she had to do all the reporting that everyone else passed on.
John Kerry: "Al Gore Backed the 'Wrong' Howard Dean"
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
