What Clark was saying about the war BEFORE the war

[newsguyatl]

we all now know he would have voted to give bush the authority to unilaterally attack iraq....

here's what he was saying before the war:

transcript from CNN on february 16, 2003

SOT General Wesley Clark Fmr NATO Commander "...I agree. I don't think there is a viable option for the administration at this point. We're way too far out front in this, and containment, which I've heard a lot of people talk about, it's just not a solution to the problem, it's just a way of temporizing. Can you wait for a month? Sure, you can wait for a month, and you can pick up the allies, and we should do that. But we're going to war unless Saddam Hussein changes. We're not going to give Saddam a victory on this... we still need to go in and get the weapons of mass destruction, the capabilities, the scientists, the labs, the technology. We don't know where all of that stuff is, I don't think. I don't think any single person probably does, at this point. And that means there are still going to have to be American forces in there on the ground to police it up... Not a very formidable force. But in any war, there are always uncertainties. I would expect the attack to go very quickly. I think we'll be very successful. But there will be things we can't predict. What's the nature of the Iraqi opposition? Will they rise up in front of the American forces and get themselves in a fight they can't win with the remnants of the Iraqi forces? Will he succeed in using chem/bioweapons? That will hurt mostly the civilians, but it will be a devastating humanitarian strike. And who's going to be left behind to defend Saddam Hussein in Baghdad? There may be some hardheads in there, but there are also Shi'a in there who are opposed to the regime, so you could have a civil war raging inside Baghdad as the American forces race to close in on it... We've got the momentum, and were we to agree to a year or two years containment of Saddam, unless there's some strategic rationale for that, it's hard to see how it wouldn't be portrayed as a Saddam victory. And we know he's not going to disarm. We know from the evidence that he's going to continue to get these weapons. So even if we found some of the weapons, you'd be left with the problem ultimately of regime change in Baghdad..."


does this sound like an anti-war general to you?

[returnable]

1. "and you can pick up the allies, and we SHOULD do that."

To me, it doesn't sound any different than Dean's stance that he would've endorsed a 60-day mandate and then a UN-backed attack.

And I've never felt the General was "anti-war". That's not the hook for me.

[a_random_joel]

2. Just out of curiosity

Since I read somewhere that you are on the "inside". Is it possible that Clark was attempting to be "objective" as a CNN pundit? That perhaps he did not want to reveal his true position, or perhaps he was still undecided at that point? If his role on CNN was to provide analysis then he would have had to take the same tone as all the other hired gun generals and such were taking. It's not as if anyone else in the media was sticking their neck out on this. I'm not necessarily justifying it, just trying to think it through.

[Terwilliger]

9. how bout "he is a warmonger"

Who goes on television and confuses the American people so no one looks closely at Bush's war and the M/I complex will not be threatened by a populist revolt that slashes the Pentagon.

[a_random_joel]

14. Are you being sarcastic?

I don't see his statments as "warmongering". I see a paid analyst trying to do his job, and still managing to ask some viable questions about the strategy and the consequences. Questions that few of the others were asking.

[Terwilliger]

31. well, that case could be made for all of them

after all, they were all just talking about tactics, right? They were all just assisting our brave soldiers in ending the battle quickly, right? None of them are warmongers?

[a_random_joel]

43. Not exactly

Wes Clark was not using the issue for political traction, as were the others.

[disgruntella]

3. Thanks for telling us what "we all know now"

"we all now know he would have voted to give bush the authority to unilaterally attack iraq...."

I know something you don't know. I read articles, not just the headlines.

[Evil_Dewers]

4. Clark's assessment of a post-war Iraq

http://money.cnn.com/2003/02/05/commentary/column_hays/hays/index.htm

The cost of war Three sobering assessments about the economic ramifications of war with Iraq.
February 6, 2003: 1:11 PM EST
By Kathleen Hays, CNN/Money Contributing Columnist

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Before he got the boot, former White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey said he thought a war with Iraq would cost $100 billion to $200 billion. But he also said the assumed U.S. victory could free up oil (remember, Iraq is second only to Saudi Arabia when it comes to proven oil reserves) which would be good for the U.S. economy.

The administration hasn't seemed eager to talk about how much a war might cost, no doubt in part because it is already proposing tax cuts that will swell the nation's budget deficit. Maybe that's one reason why Larry had to walk the plank.

*snip*

Former presidential hopeful and Senator Gary Hart had some frightening things to say about that possibility in a New York Times magazine piece last week. Hart was appointed in 1998 to President Clinton's Commission on National Security/21st Century, a bipartisan panel given the job of trying to envision the future of national security; the co-head was former Republican senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire.

In its report the commission warned, "Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers." The date of that report? September 15, 1999.

Now Hart is warning that a U.S. war with Iraq will not suppress the threat of a terror attack but instead will actually stimulate it, and, he's worried about how ready the U.S. is to prevent one from happening.

*snip*

'An indefinite stay'
If you're of the mind to dismiss an academic and a Democratic pol as Bush bashers, here's one more authoritative voice. Retired General Wesley Clark in an interview last week was skeptical of analysts who expect a quick victory and a sudden flourish of democracy throughout the Middle East.

"Those predictions are incredibly overoptimistic," he said. "What we have to be prepared for is an indefinite stay in Iraq, at least 100,000 people there for the first year or two, several billion dollars a month in costs, continuing frictions and problems politically as a result of this, some casualties on a monthly basis coming out as Arab sentiment rises, and a deepening resentment of Americans from this war. "

*snip*

[vi5]

5. His stance is just as hypothetical as Deans....

Neither one had to actually back up their rhetoric with an honest to goodness actual vote. So what's the point?

[joeybee12]

6. I don't know if you can say it's the same as Dean's...

...Dean was VERY critical leading right up to our illegal terrorist attack on a sovreign nation.

Clark appears to have bought into Dumbo's lies.

I mean, come on, for most of us watching the build-up closely, we puked at Powell's speech before the UN--you knew they were lying! How come we're so smart and a four (or is it five) star general talks about removing weapons of mass destruction that we knew didn't exist! Why didn't he see through this also?

I'm still looking closely at Clark, and if he gets the nom, I will fully support him.

BUT this is not an issue you Clark supporters are going to be able to simply gloss over. He ain't had his coronation yet!

[vi5]

11. I'm not a Clark supporter. I'm a Dean supporter...

But I've never swooned over his Iraq stance. Not because I dont' agree with it but because it seems ridiculous for me to be enamored of a non-existent vote. There are 300 million people in the country. Only a few hundred people actually were in the position to cast a vote for or against this war. So saying what all the toher 299,999,500 people would or wouldn't have done in that situation is meaningless.

[Terwilliger]

8. Gore couldn't cast a vote

yet he spoke against Bush's policies

[Terwilliger]

7. Oh yeah, Wes...what wonderful evidence

There aint no such animal!

Wesley Clark is NOT a good candidate

[roughsatori]

10. Kick NT

[Bertrand]

12. Hey, newsguyatl with another negative clark post

Be sure to make another fuss when clark supporters comment on your streak of anti-clark propaganda.

Its amazing how linear some people are her. Clark is referring to the valid argument that because Bush had the wardrums beating so loud, he painted himself in a corner that he liked because he couldnt back down from his rhetoric since it would harm the US, as a Nation-State, in its dealing with other countries in the future. He made this observation mid-feb at the height of tension, and he was right. Why didnt you post the Question that he responded to? Im sure it would give a better context of the argument, but i think youre not in the business of looking at things fairly, just to prop up your candidate through tearing others down.


As for the WMD, he holds the same position as those who have access to classified information that Saddam Possessed and was trying to aquire WMD, so unless you can back up the charge that Clark was lying, your argument is with intelligence.

[newsguyatl]

13. as clinton always says

"just the facts."



no bashing here...



until 2 days ago, i, too, liked and respected clark.



don't be mad at me, be mad at your candidate.

[Bertrand]

15. "just the facts"

wrong. Your selectively quoting the general to build the impression of him being pro-iraq war.

[newsguyatl]

16. selectively quoting?

your post is ignorant...

how is taking an entire chunk of sound from an interview selectively quoting?


selectively quoting, just so you know, would have been where i take sentences and splice them together, which i very well could have done... you would have been REALLY unhappy then.

and please know, this is just what i came across early today... there are tons of tape that i can (and probably will) go through...


will i selectively quote? absolutely not.


will i select his comments about the war? you bet.


edit: spelling

[Bertrand]

22. by definition

you are putting artificial barriers on what a quote is. If you posted an entire article of what clark said, you are still selectivly quoting him because you are taking a specific portion of clark on the record and posting it. That said, as ive said before, clark is evaluating the situation from what he percieves as to be best for the US. He is correct in pointing out that because of all of the buildup, Bush had to invade to save US face because the alternatives would appear to other nation-states as it backing down to the pressure of the EU, etc. Whether you disagree with this, fine, but he is right.

[wtmusic]

17. Spot on

Sure Clark couldn't vote. Who cares? He is stating his position; his position is clearly pro-war.

'But we're going to war unless Saddam Hussein changes. We're not going to give Saddam a victory on this.' He says 'you CAN wait a month', not you 'MUST' wait a month. He is favoring unilateral action, he supports breaking the UN charter to invade a sovereign nation, he is a war pig. End of story.

[lazarus]

19. You left something out

"Sure, you can wait for a month, and you can pick up the allies, and we should do that."

I'm not fully in anyone's camp yet, but these attacks are getting to be too much. A war pig?

He's not favouring anything. He's acknowledging that Bush is going to go to war, regardless. He's capable of objectively looking at the facts and making an analysis, since that was his job.

[CWebster]

20. His job...

He participated in the fraud--in perpetrating the fraud by lending it credibility in the eyes of the observer.

[wtmusic]

21. 'Acknowledging'?

'He's not favouring anything'? Come off it. He says, 'We're not going to give Saddam Hussein a victory on this.' That is just as much opinion as it is fact.

'We still need to go in and get the weapons of mass destruction'. OK, so maybe he was fooled like all the other fools who fell for the administration's hard line. Why is he not now raising hell for being lied to?

I take it all back...he's a namby-pamby war pig.

[Bertrand]

23. it depends on what your definition of what pro-war is

uh-oh, clinton soundbyte? Maybe, but the black-and-white crowd might be turned off by this so look away.

If you mean anti-invasion under all scenerios, youre not going to find an anti-war candidate out of the 10, including kucinich. Clark was a strong advocate of using multilateral pressure to stop Hussein from what he perceived as a continuation of WMD proliferation under the faulty intelligence that everyone recieved by the CIA, etc. and armed conflict as being the final extension of that diplomacy. Clark is correctly pointing out that Bush, strategically in the interest of the US as a nation-state, HAD to invade because of his erronious buildup to war. Unfortunatly, Bush pushed the issue to a point that to back down wasnt an option anymore.

[wtmusic]

27. Wrong

You never have to invade. The courageous, correct solution would have been to wait for a UN mandate (which most likely would not have come).

[Bertrand]

38. I agree with you

The courageous, correct solution would have been to wait for a UN mandate (which most likely would not have come).

Totally correct from an ideological perspective, but if that were the decision, after the buildup to war both domestically and abroad, other nations would percieve the US to have capitulated to pressure from the other govts and at home. Because of the Neocon Lie machine that built up the war, This couldnt have been an option for the US as a nation-state because that would then signal to the EU, Russia, China, etc. That they defeated the US and should now gang together to continue to defeat the US. There is a difference between on the defence and trying to stop the US and being on the offensive.

Remember, im talking strategically from the US perspective, not my ideological beliefs. Personally, i would prefer to the abolition of States toward a more localized form of government, but that isnt going to happen any soon.

[CWebster]

18. There is going to be a mess to clean up

when Bush is finally trounced. A leader trained to seek military solutions, whose entire life is entrenched in the military-industrial complex--with little experience in governing or diplomacy on other levels is not in an ideal position to extract us from military-industrial quagmires.

[wtmusic]

29. Agree...we have a predecessor and his name is Colin Powell

Powell was a shining light in a very non-partisan way. Although his domestic issue stances are wild cards, in many ways he was the only voice of reason in this lunatic admin. That is, until he started taking orders again...

I have no doubt that Clark would be in office a matter of minutes before he started toeing the line with the MI complex that has been his bread and butter for thirty years.

[HFishbine]

24. Hey Newsguy

What was that big story you told us to watch for one afternoon about a month ago. It never came. You said it had been pulled. Did it ever air?

[newsguyatl]

25. woohoo!!!!!

GOOD ONE HFISHBINE!!!! trying to discredit me, eh??


you're gettin desparate huh? can't defend clark's words, so you attack me... very militaristic (not to mention immature) like so many other clark supporters here...


by the way, that wasn't A BIG STORY that day, it was a good piece of journalism that was gonna air (concerning the california recall) that i wanted DUers to enjoy... it got killed out last minute by 2 live pressers that aired that day last minute... if you don't work in the business, you wouldn't understand any of this, much less good journalism...



so what now big guy? what are you gonna attack now?



your post is PATHETIC!


i would tell you what to do with it, but i don't want this post deleted... but i send my THOUGHTS of you your way...

[HFishbine]

26. Guy

Dude, I wasn't attacking you. I've been "on your side" on numerous posts. I was asking a legitimate question about something that peaked our curiosity then just disappeared. I didn't attack you, I asked you a question. If I had wanted to attack you, I would have offered an opinion about you or your mysterious post.

I'm not interested in defending Clark, he's not my guy. I just wanted to know, and still do since you haven't really told us, what was the story (Yes, you told us at the time that it was going to be about the recall) and did it ever air? That's all. No defense of Clark, no attack on you, just wondering.

[disgruntella]

28. Man, nice overreaction to a sincere question!

Would you like that egg on your face scrambled or fried hard?

[newsguyatl]

34. this wasn't a sincere

question... it was a pathetic and sorry attempt to discredit me.


others have tried the tactic here in recent threads...



what clark's war hawkness and a post of mine a month or two ago on the california recall have in common beats me... you call that sincere?


bite me

[disgruntella]

37. <chomp>

[HFishbine]

41. Oaky

Let me make it real plain for you. The Clark post and my question have nothing in common.

Because they don't you are going to use that as an excuse to dodge the question. Fine. It was a sincere question void of any attempt to question your integrity -- your replies have managed to do just that however. Congratulations.

Your reluctance to tell us what the great recall story was about is puzzling to me. Is there perhaps something about further explaination that would be embarrasing, or are we just unworthy? Maybe there is some legitimate explaination. Any direct answer though would be more credible than your wild finger-pointing and avoidance.

FWIW, I still share your concern about the militerisation of national policy. Too bad anymore of your "head up" posts will be taken with a large dose of salt.

[wtmusic]

30. chill

[CWebster]

35. Understandable confusion

A couple of Clarkies were really grilling him a few days back when he asked a question about something he read about Clark.

[opstachuck]

32. is this the one that was supposed to be...

very good for Dean supporters? i think the title was 'i'm sworn to secrecy'. if so, i thought it was supposed to come out in october if i remember correctly and wasn't the message from just last week? i'm a little curious too.

[newsguyatl]

39. no, the two have nothing in common

these are separate...


but alas, i'm sure folks will try to discredit me with THAT one, too...


but oh, the vindication will be oh so sweet.

[HFishbine]

42. No

The "big story comming in October" was what prompted me to remember another "big story coming" post from about a month ago. On that one, newsguy had us glued to CNN for what was going to be a new angle on the recall election. The story never aired. Newsguy explained why it wasn't but we never heard what the story was or if it did eventually air.

[newsguyatl]

44. you're just simply incorrect.

what you're doing is called "selective memory."

no more.

[HFishbine]

45. Well, that's clear

and as legitmate as "you're just simply disembling."

Of course, you could correct my recollection or even tell us what the story was you had us all hyped up about. But once again, you find it compelling to turn the attention away from the question and onto the questioner. Why?

[cmd]

33. It sounds like an analysis of the conditions of the day

On February 15 I was freezing my behind off in a small Ohio town doing what I could to stop the war. Had you asked me on that day to analize what I thought was going to happen, I would have given you a similar answer. Bush had already dug us in to a position that was nearly impossible to reverse. Clark was giving his analysis of what he thought was going to happen. That's what he was being paid to do.

[disgruntella]

36. i think you're probably right

And for a change, I'm not being a smartass. Honestly. :)

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

40. US becoming a colonial power: Wesley Clark Feb 17 2003

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=37738538

US becoming a colonial power: Wesley Clark

PTI MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2003 09:08:56 AM

WASHINGTON: The United States is well on its way to becoming a colonial power if President George W Bush does go ahead with plans to attack Iraq, a former Nato supreme commander said on Sunday.

General Wesley Clark, a former Nato supreme commander and a potential Democratic candidate for president, told a Meet the Press programme on NBC that Saddam Hussein was "finished" and having gone so far, the US could not change its plans to remove him.

"We are at a turning point in America's history. We are about to embark on an operation that is going to put us in a colonial position in the Middle East following Britain."

It is a huge change for the American people and what this country stands for, he said.

The Bush administration, he said, has not respected its allies and that is why it finds itself without the support of many Nato allies and even in those countries prepared to support the US, public opinion is against the war. Iraq, could have been contained without war, he said.

Clark also warned against a civil war in Iraq after the present regime is removed because of the ethnic and religious divisions in the country--Kurds in the north, Shiites who constitute the majority in the country, and Sunnis who now wield power.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. Where's The Love?

NT

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.