Perhaps you didn't notice that there was only one vote. It was a vote that gave the president the authority to go to war. Whatever else was going on or whatever else you or Clark think the admin should have done, the authority to go to war was still the authority to go to war.
The hair to split is this:
The resolution was authorizing the president to use force if needed. There is a distinct difference between that and granting the president to bomb the hell out of whomever he wants whenever he wants.
Of course, it seems that he understood it to mean the latter. We shall see how that works out once the election gets underway.
Maybe he is. Maybe he isn't. I don't know. He kind of screwed up his first impression with a lot of people but Clinton's first impression wasn't all that hot too. So maybe he'll be okay.
What I really think is that Clark will help Dean more than anybody. Dean was peaking WAY too soon. This shifts the spotlight for a little while. Clark will get the hazing that Dean would have recieved instead. Dean's will come later.
It's quite obvious that Clark distinguishes between "voting for war" and "voting to give the president leverage" for political/diplomatic purposes. Clark isn't alone on that distinction, either. Other democrats who voted for the resolution have also stated similar caveats about their support.
Perhaps you hadn't noticed that the resolution in question was not a declaration of war. It was simply a resolution providing Bush with the authorization to use military force if necessary. Clark has explained that he supported giving Bush the kind of leverage he needed for negotiating with the security council and for putting diplomatic pressure on Saddam. This doesn't mean he would have "voted for war."
I understand what you are getting at Josef, but it really sounds like bad Monday morning quarterbacking to me. He basically expresses agreement with the position of Kerry and Lieberman while claiming he wouldn't vote as they did and instead would vote like Kucinich.
So we have to believe he is firm but not a passivist and would have acted and voted perfectly under all scenarios.
That always sounds easy to explain after the fact and it helps that the General isn't a Senator.
However from the statements I read in those articles, it just really sounds like he would have gone along like Kerry and others. Kerry probably thought he was pretty smart at the time. If the WOMD were found he can say he voted with the president, and focus the election on domestic issues.
I really don't see any statements that show Clark would have done any differently. He most strident anti-war statements were clearly made several months AFTER the war had ended and peace keeping/nation building begun. (Which I don't necessarily agree with in case you hadn't noticed)
What a marvelous move for Clark. While most of the nation thinks he's "anti-war" pertaining to the Iraq situation, some disaffected males like trumptman can vote for him given this new exercise in fact twisting.
Bravo, trumptman! It's good to see you on our side these days.
(Aside: The point of the news release was to show that Clark was remarkably un-anti-war compared to true anti-war candidates like Kucinich. While Clark has taken a range of opinions, Kucinich has remained firmly in opposition. So it's not surprising that trumptman would bulldoze over any semblance of a distinction. Anti-war? Pro-war?
Cue Tom Hanks: "There's no middle ground in politics!"
Cue George W. Bush: "You're either with us or against us!"
Good! Clark is both now!)
Wow Shawn, you've gone from incorrigible to incoherent.
As for joining your side. If Clark, a man who supported Nixon, Reagan, the DLC centrist Clinton, and the war is now your side, then the left is pretty much gone in my opinion.
Anyone else ready to predict a mass defection to the Greens?
The resolution was authorizing the president to use force if needed. There is a distinct difference between that and granting the president to bomb the hell out of whomever he wants whenever he wants.
Of course, it seems that he understood it to mean the latter. We shall see how that works out once the election gets underway.
Cheers
Scott
I could be wrong because I haven't read the actual resolution, but when I watched the CBC/Foxnews Democratic Debate, the candidates chiding Lieberman and Kerry described it as an open ended resolution for war.
How can you say that FAIR "said" Clark is "pro-war?" Explain that one.
Geesh you really don't have any tactics left aside from calling people liars.
What gave me that impression? Oh I don't know..maybe the title of the article from FAIR.org to start...
Quote:
Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"
How about this one...
Quote:
On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."
Lastly we have this one...
Quote:
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."
So I'm a liar if you suspect the source, and I'm a liar with your sources. (Fair.org and CNN.com) It seems that your definition of liar is anyone that disagrees with you.
You have been such a supporter of Dean Shawn. I would bet FAIR is as well. A Nixon/Reagan supporter has the ability to knock Dean, a true anti-war supporter out of the race. You should be happy that others are showing the lack of consistency in his record.
Come on Shawn think about it. Even with the military there, he wanted a larger force. Do you think Clark is the best man to slow or decrease military spending? He voted for Reagan and Bill Clintont/DLC candidates gave away the last election by having Nader and the Greens defect.
Don't jerk that knee so much, you might hurt something.
I understand what you are getting at Josef, but it really sounds like bad Monday morning quarterbacking to me. He basically expresses agreement with the position of Kerry and Lieberman while claiming he wouldn't vote as they did and instead would vote like Kucinich.
I don't think he has suggested that he would vote like Kucinich. He has made it clear that he saw the necessity of the war resolution as a diplomatic tool and he would probably have voted for it with such intent. I know it's not as crystal-clear of a distinction as Clark's critics would like to demand it to be, but I think it's quite reasonable and the "flip-flop" spin is overblown.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I really don't see any statements that show Clark would have done any differently. He most strident anti-war statements were clearly made several months AFTER the war had ended and peace keeping/nation building begun. (Which I don't necessarily agree with in case you hadn't noticed)
I can't really agree with this. He was calling the war "elective surgery" right back at the beginning and saying that he personally would not have supported the push to war had he been in charge. He had plenty of praise for the actual military campaign itself, but that's quite a whole different ball of wax. As things unfolded, and the administration's apparent lack of adequate planning for post-war Iraq became evident, Clark stepped up the criticism. I think that Clark's position has actually been very much in line with that of most Americans. Support for the war has dropped off significantly with the rising costs (in dollars and in lives) and I think that, all things considered, Clark's position will resonate quite well with the American people.
Perhaps you didn't notice that there was only one vote. It was a vote that gave the president the authority to go to war. Whatever else was going on or whatever else you or Clark think the admin should have done, the authority to go to war was still the authority to go to war. You can talk about various motives for casting such a vote, if you want. Kerry has tried to split this hair too. Problem is: once the authority was given, it was given. The Congressional authorization didn't say anything about any subsequent votes on the matter. Everybody knew what the vote was about, what it's possible implications were.
Well, you're telling us nothing here that we don't already know. You're simply refusing to accept that a vote for a resolution which expands the president's authority to include the use military force if required isn't necessarily a vote for war, regardless of what the "possible implications were."
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
I assume even those who voted against it still wanted Saddam to comply with the UN's resolutions. They just didn't want to give the president the authority to go to war. They knew what the bill was about too.
Again, this is not helpful. Expecting Saddam to cooperate required a threat of force. Voting down the resolution would have decreased that threat and, consequently, would have decreased the likelihood of cooperation as well. Life is complicated like that. There will always be some give and take; it's not a black and white world.
When the shit comes down, I think it's fair to say that Clark has maintained a reasonably consistent line on the whole Iraq situation from the beginning, and that his detractors are simply picking apart a few extemporaneous statements he has made in a rather desperate attempt to smear him.
When the shit comes down, I think it's fair to say that Clark has maintained a reasonably consistent line on the whole Iraq situation from the beginning, and that his detractors are simply picking apart a few extemporaneous statements he has made in a rather desperate attempt to smear him.
Calling this a smear is desperation. What he said to the NY Times on Thursday was inconsistent with what he said on Friday. That's why it got so much coverage. I think it'll blow over but not before some his supporters soil themselves first.
Geesh you really don't have any tactics left aside from calling people liars.
What gave me that impression? Oh I don't know..maybe the title of the article from FAIR.org to start...
How about this one...
Lastly we have this one...
So I'm a liar if you suspect the source, and I'm a liar with your sources. (Fair.org and CNN.com) It seems that your definition of liar is anyone that disagrees with you.
You have been such a supporter of Dean Shawn. I would bet FAIR is as well. A Nixon/Reagan supporter has the ability to knock Dean, a true anti-war supporter out of the race. You should be happy that others are showing the lack of consistency in his record.
Come on Shawn think about it. Even with the military there, he wanted a larger force. Do you think Clark is the best man to slow or decrease military spending? He voted for Reagan and Bill Clintont/DLC candidates gave away the last election by having Nader and the Greens defect.
Don't jerk that knee so much, you might hurt something.
Nick
You're never going to learn.
Nowhere in the news release does FAIR explicitly say that "Wesley Clark is Pro-War." Instead, the title of this thread should read "Wesley Clark- Trumptman says he is Pro-War." It is clearly the impression you got from the article as opposed to what FAIR actually said.
"Oh, FAIR says Clark is not really an anti-war candidate. HE MUST BE PRO-WAR."
Calling this a smear is desperation. What he said to the NY Times on Thursday was inconsistent with what he said on Friday. That's why it got so much coverage.
Well, if you say so. I've already explained that, in my opinion, Clark's comments were reasonable and undeserving of the exaggerated criticism they've received. I can't say that I feel all too particularly desperate in saying any of this.
When Bush claims to have watched on television when the first plane hit the tower on the morning of 9/11, I know that he means he saw the footage of the smoldering building, and not that he actually saw the plane hitting the tower since that footage didn't surface until later. I think the people going after him for that were being partisan and dishonest.
When Dean justified the Israeli missile strikes on Hamas leaders with the "soldiers" metaphor, I understood his message and I think the people going after him for that were being partisan and dishonest.
When Clark tries to explain how supporting the war resolution and supporting the war itself are two different things, and his explanation is entirely congruent with all of his other public statements from the past year, I think the people going after him for this are being partisan and dishonest.
You know what? No offense to any of you personally, BUT... I am so God-damned tired of everyone (media included) gauging presidential hopefuls based strictly on the their stance with respect to Iraq.
EVERYONE knows now we probably acted hastily, EVERYONE knows war is a messy business (bad things are going to materialize no matter how it gets started), and EVERYONE knows there are many things we could have done differently. So what?
How about we start addressing the things that are critical right here at home: business and economic reform, health insurance reform, public education, higher education (costs), immigration issues, etc.
Any candidate who focuses on the war with respect to debating Bush is going to fall right into their hands. Debate him on something he cannot even *appear* to speak intelligently about, not something he's been answering questions about for months on end...
... I can almost see the hand-writing on the walls already. If Bush squeeks by on the basis of military and foreign policy debate, we're all going to be responsible for the next four years. Not just retards in southern Florida. Write your candidates, write your Congressional reps, let them know you're interested in more than Iraq and that you want Bush to be put on the spot with more than just Iraq.
When Clark tries to explain how supporting the war resolution and supporting the war itself are two different things...
In a different world where he got to draw up a different resolution, this could be argued. I hope he's not so naive as to not have been acutely aware what the passage on that resolution meant. The threat of force is an empty gesture, if you don't allow for the possibility it might actually be used. It would have been better for it to not have been passed, if our intention was only to threaten but not even consider following through on those threats.
Quote:
... and his explanation is entirely congruent with all of his other public statements from the past year, I think the people going after him for this are being partisan and dishonest.
Clark's comments this week drew fire because he's now in the limelight but as the FAIR article shows, on Iraq Clark...
Quote:
... has taken a range of positions - from expressing doubts about diplomatic and military strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. "victory" in a column declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt" (London Times, 4/10/03).
Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine (10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a counter-argument to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time." Before the war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.
As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."
On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."
After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation - the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."
Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself - obviously not "temporarily silent" - in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."
In another column the next day (London Times, 4/11/03), Clark summed up the lessons of the war this way: "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."
In a different world where he got to draw up a different resolution, this could be argued. I hope he's not so naive as to not have been acutely aware what the passage on that resolution meant. The threat of force is an empty gesture, if you don't allow for the possibility it might actually be used. It would have been better for it to not have been passed, if our intention was only to threaten but not even consider following through on those threats.
Yes, well, I can see that you are either unable or unwilling to understand what I'm saying and I really haven't the patience to carry on in this manner. I've stated my opinion, make of it what you will.
Ok, one more thing. I saw where you highlighted the bit about "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."
First of all, it's dumb to say that Clark isn't "temporarily silent" here, and must therefore not be an opponent of the war. By "silent," he obviously means that they've been silenced in their criticism, not that they aren't conducting interviews. Do you see Clark criticizing the war in that passage? No...ironically, the FAIR article is trying to demonstrate exactly the opposite, in fact.
And here are a couple of examples of Clark referring to war supporters in the third person:
"Those who favor this attack now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel." - Guardian 8/20/2002
"This is the real intelligence battle and the stakes could not be higher, for failure to find the weapons could prove to be a crushing blow to the proponents of the war" - Times of London 4/9/2003
I think Clark just communicates this way to appear balanced and impartial in his role as an analyst.
Comments
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Perhaps you didn't notice that there was only one vote. It was a vote that gave the president the authority to go to war. Whatever else was going on or whatever else you or Clark think the admin should have done, the authority to go to war was still the authority to go to war.
The hair to split is this:
The resolution was authorizing the president to use force if needed. There is a distinct difference between that and granting the president to bomb the hell out of whomever he wants whenever he wants.
Of course, it seems that he understood it to mean the latter. We shall see how that works out once the election gets underway.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Aries 1B
The General is indeed... in trouble...
Maybe he is. Maybe he isn't. I don't know. He kind of screwed up his first impression with a lot of people but Clinton's first impression wasn't all that hot too. So maybe he'll be okay.
What I really think is that Clark will help Dean more than anybody. Dean was peaking WAY too soon. This shifts the spotlight for a little while. Clark will get the hazing that Dean would have recieved instead. Dean's will come later.
Originally posted by Josef K.
It's quite obvious that Clark distinguishes between "voting for war" and "voting to give the president leverage" for political/diplomatic purposes. Clark isn't alone on that distinction, either. Other democrats who voted for the resolution have also stated similar caveats about their support.
Perhaps you hadn't noticed that the resolution in question was not a declaration of war. It was simply a resolution providing Bush with the authorization to use military force if necessary. Clark has explained that he supported giving Bush the kind of leverage he needed for negotiating with the security council and for putting diplomatic pressure on Saddam. This doesn't mean he would have "voted for war."
I understand what you are getting at Josef, but it really sounds like bad Monday morning quarterbacking to me. He basically expresses agreement with the position of Kerry and Lieberman while claiming he wouldn't vote as they did and instead would vote like Kucinich.
So we have to believe he is firm but not a passivist and would have acted and voted perfectly under all scenarios.
That always sounds easy to explain after the fact and it helps that the General isn't a Senator.
However from the statements I read in those articles, it just really sounds like he would have gone along like Kerry and others. Kerry probably thought he was pretty smart at the time. If the WOMD were found he can say he voted with the president, and focus the election on domestic issues.
I really don't see any statements that show Clark would have done any differently. He most strident anti-war statements were clearly made several months AFTER the war had ended and peace keeping/nation building begun. (Which I don't necessarily agree with in case you hadn't noticed)
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Oh good!
What a marvelous move for Clark. While most of the nation thinks he's "anti-war" pertaining to the Iraq situation, some disaffected males like trumptman can vote for him given this new exercise in fact twisting.
Bravo, trumptman! It's good to see you on our side these days.
(Aside: The point of the news release was to show that Clark was remarkably un-anti-war compared to true anti-war candidates like Kucinich. While Clark has taken a range of opinions, Kucinich has remained firmly in opposition. So it's not surprising that trumptman would bulldoze over any semblance of a distinction. Anti-war? Pro-war?
Cue Tom Hanks: "There's no middle ground in politics!"
Cue George W. Bush: "You're either with us or against us!"
Good! Clark is both now!)
Wow Shawn, you've gone from incorrigible to incoherent.
As for joining your side. If Clark, a man who supported Nixon, Reagan, the DLC centrist Clinton, and the war is now your side, then the left is pretty much gone in my opinion.
Anyone else ready to predict a mass defection to the Greens?
Nick
Originally posted by midwinter
The hair to split is this:
The resolution was authorizing the president to use force if needed. There is a distinct difference between that and granting the president to bomb the hell out of whomever he wants whenever he wants.
Of course, it seems that he understood it to mean the latter. We shall see how that works out once the election gets underway.
Cheers
Scott
I could be wrong because I haven't read the actual resolution, but when I watched the CBC/Foxnews Democratic Debate, the candidates chiding Lieberman and Kerry described it as an open ended resolution for war.
Nick
How can you say that FAIR "said" Clark is "pro-war?" Explain that one.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
You have no integrity.
How can you say that FAIR "said" Clark is "pro-war?" Explain that one.
Geesh you really don't have any tactics left aside from calling people liars.
What gave me that impression? Oh I don't know..maybe the title of the article from FAIR.org to start...
Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"
How about this one...
On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."
Lastly we have this one...
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."
So I'm a liar if you suspect the source, and I'm a liar with your sources. (Fair.org and CNN.com) It seems that your definition of liar is anyone that disagrees with you.
You have been such a supporter of Dean Shawn. I would bet FAIR is as well. A Nixon/Reagan supporter has the ability to knock Dean, a true anti-war supporter out of the race. You should be happy that others are showing the lack of consistency in his record.
Come on Shawn think about it. Even with the military there, he wanted a larger force. Do you think Clark is the best man to slow or decrease military spending? He voted for Reagan and Bill Clintont/DLC candidates gave away the last election by having Nader and the Greens defect.
Don't jerk that knee so much, you might hurt something.
Nick
Clark: 14%
Dean: 12
Lieberman: 12
Kerry: 10
The rest under 10%.
[edit]
There's a debate this Thursday that I think will be an important event for Clark.
And BTW, I think it's a good thing that he's not getting a honeymoon.
Originally posted by trumptman
I understand what you are getting at Josef, but it really sounds like bad Monday morning quarterbacking to me. He basically expresses agreement with the position of Kerry and Lieberman while claiming he wouldn't vote as they did and instead would vote like Kucinich.
I don't think he has suggested that he would vote like Kucinich. He has made it clear that he saw the necessity of the war resolution as a diplomatic tool and he would probably have voted for it with such intent. I know it's not as crystal-clear of a distinction as Clark's critics would like to demand it to be, but I think it's quite reasonable and the "flip-flop" spin is overblown.
Originally posted by trumptman
I really don't see any statements that show Clark would have done any differently. He most strident anti-war statements were clearly made several months AFTER the war had ended and peace keeping/nation building begun. (Which I don't necessarily agree with in case you hadn't noticed)
I can't really agree with this. He was calling the war "elective surgery" right back at the beginning and saying that he personally would not have supported the push to war had he been in charge. He had plenty of praise for the actual military campaign itself, but that's quite a whole different ball of wax. As things unfolded, and the administration's apparent lack of adequate planning for post-war Iraq became evident, Clark stepped up the criticism. I think that Clark's position has actually been very much in line with that of most Americans. Support for the war has dropped off significantly with the rising costs (in dollars and in lives) and I think that, all things considered, Clark's position will resonate quite well with the American people.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Perhaps you didn't notice that there was only one vote. It was a vote that gave the president the authority to go to war. Whatever else was going on or whatever else you or Clark think the admin should have done, the authority to go to war was still the authority to go to war. You can talk about various motives for casting such a vote, if you want. Kerry has tried to split this hair too. Problem is: once the authority was given, it was given. The Congressional authorization didn't say anything about any subsequent votes on the matter. Everybody knew what the vote was about, what it's possible implications were.
Well, you're telling us nothing here that we don't already know. You're simply refusing to accept that a vote for a resolution which expands the president's authority to include the use military force if required isn't necessarily a vote for war, regardless of what the "possible implications were."
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
I assume even those who voted against it still wanted Saddam to comply with the UN's resolutions. They just didn't want to give the president the authority to go to war. They knew what the bill was about too.
Again, this is not helpful. Expecting Saddam to cooperate required a threat of force. Voting down the resolution would have decreased that threat and, consequently, would have decreased the likelihood of cooperation as well. Life is complicated like that. There will always be some give and take; it's not a black and white world.
When the shit comes down, I think it's fair to say that Clark has maintained a reasonably consistent line on the whole Iraq situation from the beginning, and that his detractors are simply picking apart a few extemporaneous statements he has made in a rather desperate attempt to smear him.
Originally posted by Josef K.
When the shit comes down, I think it's fair to say that Clark has maintained a reasonably consistent line on the whole Iraq situation from the beginning, and that his detractors are simply picking apart a few extemporaneous statements he has made in a rather desperate attempt to smear him.
Calling this a smear is desperation. What he said to the NY Times on Thursday was inconsistent with what he said on Friday. That's why it got so much coverage. I think it'll blow over but not before some his supporters soil themselves first.
Originally posted by trumptman
Geesh you really don't have any tactics left aside from calling people liars.
What gave me that impression? Oh I don't know..maybe the title of the article from FAIR.org to start...
How about this one...
Lastly we have this one...
So I'm a liar if you suspect the source, and I'm a liar with your sources. (Fair.org and CNN.com) It seems that your definition of liar is anyone that disagrees with you.
You have been such a supporter of Dean Shawn. I would bet FAIR is as well. A Nixon/Reagan supporter has the ability to knock Dean, a true anti-war supporter out of the race. You should be happy that others are showing the lack of consistency in his record.
Come on Shawn think about it. Even with the military there, he wanted a larger force. Do you think Clark is the best man to slow or decrease military spending? He voted for Reagan and Bill Clintont/DLC candidates gave away the last election by having Nader and the Greens defect.
Don't jerk that knee so much, you might hurt something.
Nick
You're never going to learn.
Nowhere in the news release does FAIR explicitly say that "Wesley Clark is Pro-War." Instead, the title of this thread should read "Wesley Clark- Trumptman says he is Pro-War." It is clearly the impression you got from the article as opposed to what FAIR actually said.
"Oh, FAIR says Clark is not really an anti-war candidate. HE MUST BE PRO-WAR."
Like I said, you have no integrity.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Calling this a smear is desperation. What he said to the NY Times on Thursday was inconsistent with what he said on Friday. That's why it got so much coverage.
Well, if you say so. I've already explained that, in my opinion, Clark's comments were reasonable and undeserving of the exaggerated criticism they've received. I can't say that I feel all too particularly desperate in saying any of this.
When Bush claims to have watched on television when the first plane hit the tower on the morning of 9/11, I know that he means he saw the footage of the smoldering building, and not that he actually saw the plane hitting the tower since that footage didn't surface until later. I think the people going after him for that were being partisan and dishonest.
When Dean justified the Israeli missile strikes on Hamas leaders with the "soldiers" metaphor, I understood his message and I think the people going after him for that were being partisan and dishonest.
When Clark tries to explain how supporting the war resolution and supporting the war itself are two different things, and his explanation is entirely congruent with all of his other public statements from the past year, I think the people going after him for this are being partisan and dishonest.
Josh Marshall
EVERYONE knows now we probably acted hastily, EVERYONE knows war is a messy business (bad things are going to materialize no matter how it gets started), and EVERYONE knows there are many things we could have done differently. So what?
How about we start addressing the things that are critical right here at home: business and economic reform, health insurance reform, public education, higher education (costs), immigration issues, etc.
Any candidate who focuses on the war with respect to debating Bush is going to fall right into their hands. Debate him on something he cannot even *appear* to speak intelligently about, not something he's been answering questions about for months on end...
... I can almost see the hand-writing on the walls already. If Bush squeeks by on the basis of military and foreign policy debate, we're all going to be responsible for the next four years. Not just retards in southern Florida. Write your candidates, write your Congressional reps, let them know you're interested in more than Iraq and that you want Bush to be put on the spot with more than just Iraq.
Originally posted by Josef K.
When Clark tries to explain how supporting the war resolution and supporting the war itself are two different things...
In a different world where he got to draw up a different resolution, this could be argued. I hope he's not so naive as to not have been acutely aware what the passage on that resolution meant. The threat of force is an empty gesture, if you don't allow for the possibility it might actually be used. It would have been better for it to not have been passed, if our intention was only to threaten but not even consider following through on those threats.
... and his explanation is entirely congruent with all of his other public statements from the past year, I think the people going after him for this are being partisan and dishonest.
Clark's comments this week drew fire because he's now in the limelight but as the FAIR article shows, on Iraq Clark...
... has taken a range of positions - from expressing doubts about diplomatic and military strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. "victory" in a column declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt" (London Times, 4/10/03).
Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine (10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a counter-argument to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time." Before the war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.
As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."
On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."
After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation - the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."
Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself - obviously not "temporarily silent" - in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."
In another column the next day (London Times, 4/11/03), Clark summed up the lessons of the war this way: "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."
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
In a different world where he got to draw up a different resolution, this could be argued. I hope he's not so naive as to not have been acutely aware what the passage on that resolution meant. The threat of force is an empty gesture, if you don't allow for the possibility it might actually be used. It would have been better for it to not have been passed, if our intention was only to threaten but not even consider following through on those threats.
Yes, well, I can see that you are either unable or unwilling to understand what I'm saying and I really haven't the patience to carry on in this manner. I've stated my opinion, make of it what you will.
Bonsoir, mes enfants.
First of all, it's dumb to say that Clark isn't "temporarily silent" here, and must therefore not be an opponent of the war. By "silent," he obviously means that they've been silenced in their criticism, not that they aren't conducting interviews. Do you see Clark criticizing the war in that passage? No...ironically, the FAIR article is trying to demonstrate exactly the opposite, in fact.
And here are a couple of examples of Clark referring to war supporters in the third person:
"Those who favor this attack now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel." - Guardian 8/20/2002
"This is the real intelligence battle and the stakes could not be higher, for failure to find the weapons could prove to be a crushing blow to the proponents of the war" - Times of London 4/9/2003
I think Clark just communicates this way to appear balanced and impartial in his role as an analyst.
And with that, I'll bugger off...