Wesley Clark - FAIR says he is pro-war

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Wesley sez- War was right call



Aside from saying he would probably vote for the war, and then 24 hours later, claiming he never would have voted for it, seems Clark's record of statements about the war show a patter of support.



What do you think?



Nick
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 38
    Clarke's beef has always been with how the US government approached the war, how it dealt with the UN, France and Germany, the inspectors, etc., not so much whether the war was right or wrong in itself. I've had the impression that Clarke was hunky-dory with deposing Hussein and how it was done, but the diplomatic fiasco leading up to the war was embarrassing and short-circuited the legitimacy of the US actions.
  • Reply 2 of 38
    Doesn't he know? You're either for us or against us. No complex thought, please. A simple yes or no is what we want.
  • Reply 3 of 38
    What is complex? Flipflopping?



    Quote:

    (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....



    More from MSNBC..



    Quote:

    CLARK SAID HIS views on the war resemble those of Democratic Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.), both of whom voted for the war but now question President Bush?s stewardship of the Iraqi occupation. ?That having been said, I was against the war as it emerged because there was no reason to start it when we did. We could have waited,? Clark said during a 75-minute session with four reporters.



    MSNBC



    Strangely, I haven't heard anyone calling Lieberman or Kerry anti-war. Clark compares his views to theirs.



    Quote:

    Clark, relaxed and chatty, portrayed himself as a different kind of Democrat, one without strong partisan impulses. He said he ?probably? voted for Richard M. Nixon in 1972 and backed Ronald Reagan. He did not start considering himself a Democrat until 1992, when he backed fellow Arkansan Bill Clinton. ?He moved me,? Clark said. ?I didn?t consider it party, I considered I was voting for the man.?



    More...



    Quote:

    ?I support the Second Amendment. People like firearms, they feel secure with firearms, they should keep their firearms,? said Clark, who has been shooting weapons since he was young.

    Clark, who said he does not consider homosexuality a sin, said the military needs to reconsider the ?don?t ask, don?t tell? policy for gay service members. He suggested the military should consider the ?don?t ask, don?t misbehave? policy the British use. ?It depends how you define misbehave. That?s what has to be looked at,? he said.



    I wonder how this will go over with Dean supports. Don't ask is hardly considered a progressive view. It keeps homosexuals in the closet and it seems Clark is fine with that. It also seems that Clark has the dubious distinctionf of, along with Dean, explaining halfway gun control laws. "Urban areas" need lots of gun control according to Dean, but "rural areas" don't need gun control.



    Of course if these were Republican candidates, that would be declared to be implying that urban means black and rural white.



    Of course we can understand this view since the ACLU has informed all of us that minorities can't handle a punch card ballot let alone a gun. (I assure you everyone I know that is black and hispanic is pretty pissed off at the implications associated with their arguments.)



    Clark can claim to have voted for Reagan, support the second amendment and attempt to win the Democratic primary. I wonder how that will really play with far left of the party. I would bet Nader will be getting even more votes.



    Oh and one last bit, even though he claims to be like Lieberman, Kerry and resembles their views, he claims he would never have voted as they did less than 24 hours later.



    Heck no



    Seems like someone trying to obscure his views to me.



    Nick
  • Reply 4 of 38
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    There's a lot in your post trumptman, but it seems unfocused WRT Clark's statements. Can you provide the two quotes that are inconsistent?
  • Reply 5 of 38
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    What is complex? Flipflopping?



    Quote:

    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."



    What is so complicated about this? He believed that Saddam had WMD. He believed that Saddam might pose a threat in the future, but that he posed no immediate threat and that we needed to properly finish the job in Afghanistan first; he described Iraq as "elective surgery." Once the ball was rolling and credibility was on the line, he didn't see much choice but to go forward with the thing as best as possible.



    Clear enough to me. Although, most Americans won't give a shit about any of this anyway so it's a moot point.



    Edit: Formatting
  • Reply 6 of 38
    Oh, and where exactly is Clark quoted as "Cheer[ing] the Iraq War as [the] Right Call"?



    The only place in that article where the words "right call" appear is in the following quote:



    Quote:

    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."



    Anyone who honestly believes that Clark's reference to the appropriateness of a specific military strategy could in any possible way be interpreted as saying that the war itself was the "right call" is a f*cking moron.



    "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting" my ass.
  • Reply 7 of 38
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    So the General was pro-war huh? I wonder where he was getting his information and 'facts' from? Maybe he would have done himself a favor or 12 if he had attended one of those thousands of anti-war rallies, where information, much of which has been proved extraordinarily accurate, was freely available from numerous organizations who showed up to table. That included the now certainty that Iraq's WMD were destroyed before the UN inspections regime got started shortly after Gulf War 1 in 1991. Perhaps Clark should have also listened to former UN inspector Scott Ritter...(who was vilified by the administration, then blacked by the corporate puppet media)...who has also since been proved correct. The war *was* about WMD, wasn't it, yes?.. or are those lying scumbags shifting the goalposts one more time?



    So Clark has a black mark against him for showing some qualified support for BushCorp's treasonous lunacy. I'm still prepared to give him a chance...let's hear him speak and show exactly where he stands *now* on all the issues. He's still the best bet to dump the rogues in 2004.
  • Reply 8 of 38
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Josef K.

    What is so complicated about this?



    It ISN'T complex. He's basically taken two different positions in a span of less than 24 hours. He told the NY Times on Thursday, "... On balance, I probably would have voted for it."



    On Friday he told the AP, "Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war, never..."



    Not sure why he doesn't seem to know his own mind about this. He's had as much time to figure it out as the rest of us.
  • Reply 9 of 38
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    It ISN'T complex. He's basically taken two different positions in a span of less than 24 hours. He told the NY Times on Thursday, "... On balance, I probably would have voted for it."



    On Friday he told the AP, "Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war, never..."



    Not sure why he doesn't seem to know his own mind about this. He's had as much time to figure it out as the rest of us.




    You see, the ellipses means you're lying. We all know it. You know it. So why do it?
  • Reply 10 of 38
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    You see, the ellipses means you're lying. We all know it. You know it. So why do it?



    Screw you. You know NOTHING of the sort and yet you acuse ME of lying? Read for yourself. Idiot.
  • Reply 11 of 38
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    Screw you. You know NOTHING of the sort and yet you acuse ME of lying? Read for yourself. Idiot.



    I think your anger supports my original point. Called on it, you get pissed. Childish. Cut out the elipsis and try again.
  • Reply 12 of 38
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    I think your anger supports my original point. Called on it, you get pissed...



    Golly! You call me a liar and I get angry. Imagine that. Wake the fvck up. Do you have so little integrity that you can't even see the line you've crossed?
  • Reply 13 of 38
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    Golly! You call me a liar and I get angry. Imagine that. Wake the fvck up. Do you have so little integrity that you can't even see the line you've crossed?



    Well, perhaps I could use the term 'disingenuous' instead.
  • Reply 14 of 38
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Well, perhaps I could use the term 'disingenuous' instead.



    Nonono. "Intellectual dishonesty" is the preferred term these days. Didn't you get the memo?



    Cheers

    Scott
  • Reply 15 of 38
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Well, perhaps I could use the term 'disingenuous' instead.



    Time for you to grow up. Clark said two different things. Insulting me doesn't change that.
  • Reply 16 of 38
    Well it does look like he flip-flopped, but I'm going to reserve judgment because 1) I've seen this guy's words twisted already and so I'd like to see the context of what he said and 2) he may have said the wrong thing, but it was his first day as a politician, so I'll give him a break.

  • Reply 17 of 38
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    Screw you. You know NOTHING of the sort and yet you acuse ME of lying? Read for yourself. Idiot.



    The General is indeed... in trouble. First in his class at West Point... and a Democrat. Likes Bill Clinton too... uh,oh... his fate is...sealed....



    Here's how I see it...I do not advocate... anyting in the following...scenario....



    Clark wins the democratic nomination.... He chooses... Hillary Rodham Clinton (to whom the Secret Service will assign the new code name, "Broomrider") to be his Vice President (afterall, she was... Co-President....).



    [...a miracle occurs...] Clark Wins!



    Clark is then found in... Fort Marcy Park... and... a... shadow falls... across the land....



    General Clark, Thank You for your service to the country. Now go home while you still can!



    \



    Aries 1B...
  • Reply 18 of 38
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    It ISN'T complex. He's basically taken two different positions in a span of less than 24 hours. He told the NY Times on Thursday, "... On balance, I probably would have voted for it."



    On Friday he told the AP, "Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war, never..."



    Not sure why he doesn't seem to know his own mind about this. He's had as much time to figure it out as the rest of us.




    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."



    Quote:

    "I would have never voted for war," Clark told Reuters before delivering a foreign policy speech at the University of Iowa. "I'm a soldier. I understand what war's about, but I would have voted for the right kind of leverage for the president to head off war and avoid it."



  • Reply 19 of 38
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    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!)
  • Reply 20 of 38
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Josef K.



    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."




    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. 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.
Sign In or Register to comment.