Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?

[dudeness]

Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"

September 16, 2003

The possibility that former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark might enter the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has been the subject of furious speculation in the media. But while recent coverage of Clark often claims that he opposed the war with Iraq, the various opinions he has expressed on the issue suggest the media's "anti-war" label is inaccurate.

Many media accounts state that Clark, who led the 1999 NATO campaign against Yugoslavia, was outspoken in his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. The Boston Globe (9/14/03) noted that Clark is "a former NATO commander who also happens to have opposed the Iraq war." "Face it: The only anti-war candidate America is ever going to elect is one who is a four-star general," wrote Michael Wolff in New York magazine (9/22/03). Salon.com called Clark a "fervent critic of the war with Iraq" (9/5/03).

(snip) read on

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

[Kahuna]

1. FAIR has been wrong about Clark before and they're wrong

again. Do you notice the absense of links and that they have taken remarks out of context? Do you notice they make no differentiation betweens Clark's own views and his punditry as an analyst on the administration's strategy and view?

I urge all Clark supporters and people concerned with this sloppy and slanderous reporting in the name of being FAIR, to contact FAIR and let them know that we expect them to live up to their name and that they should be more thorough and FAIR.

[TacticalPeek]

2. Thanks, but I prefer my lying eyes.

This headline twists the 'right call' quote beyond recognition. Anyone who watched the runup knows Clark opposed the war, along with Zinni and many other senior military, as wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, etc.

[IrateCitizen]

3. Clark's view on the invasion was similar to Dean's

In that it was wrong to go in unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations.

I wouldn't categorize such an answer as being "anti-war", and being opposed to war in general myself, I would hope for something more. Kucinich and Sharpton are still the only two, true "anti-war" candidates.

But given the current climate regarding national security issues, it's an issue that I'm more than willing to bend on -- I find Clark's stance on this issue to be perfectly acceptable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. FYI, Clark's full article from The Times 10th April 2003

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-641193,00.html

by edit: and also the CNN "Let's Wait to Attack"

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/index.html

"President Bush was right to carry the problem of Iraq to the United Nations. And he is right to stay with the diplomatic process, as we seek to sway international opinion to our side. Even if the U.N. is ultimately unable to give us the strong resolution that we seek, the support of friends and allies will be important--as it was in Kosovo--in gaining worldwide credibility for our aims and legitimacy for our actions. Moreover, while we have the time, we must do everything possible to prepare for some unpleasant possibilities. What if Saddam uses his biological arsenal on his own people in southern Iraq? Are we prepared to deal with the ensuing catastrophe alone, or would we not be wiser to help ready international humanitarian and emergency organizations to come in with us? After Saddam's government collapses, are we prepared to maintain order and prevent mayhem? Wouldn't we be wiser to arrange for police support from other nations and international organizations? And if, as a result of conflict, Iraq's economy collapses, wouldn't we like to have international organizations ready to assist in nation building? Afterward, when agencies from the Islamic world enter Iraq to help rebuild, won't we want to inhibit anti-Americanism and anti-Western sentiment by having thought through the many possible humanitarian problems before we are blamed for them?

The answer to all these questions is yes, if we have the time. Well, we do. The key issue about Iraq has never been whether we should act if Saddam doesn't comply with U.N. resolutions and disarm. Rather, the problems are how we should act, and when. As for the how, the answer is clear--multilaterally, with friends and allies, with every possible effort to avoid the appearance of yet another Christian and Jewish stab at an Islamic country, with force as a last resort, and with a post-conflict plan in place to assure that the consequences of our action do not supercharge the al-Qaeda recruiting machine. As for the when, let's take the time to plan, organize and do the whole job the right way. This will only take a few more weeks, and it's important. It's not just about winning a war--it's also about winning the peace."

I'm British, so say I'm a neutral referee: This looks like an eminently defensible (in a US election) commentary to me, with fairly accurate observations about the post-war problems. I'd say it would go down well with a public who were unsure about the war, then supported it (because they always support the troops, I suspect), then felt conned by the "flowers in the streets" stuff. His later comments (I can't find full context for them) come across as "now we're in this position, what's the best thing to do now?" Only the Times article looks a bit too "war was justified".