Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate? Want input on FAIR column pls.

[Myra]

I have a lot of trouble finding info in sources I trust,
but I do have a high opinion of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy
In Reporting). So this Sept 16, 2003 column got my attention.

Can I please get people's flame-free opinions on the source and
the content?

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

Exerpts:

"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.
...
But a review of his statements before, during and after the war reveals that 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).
...
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."

[wtmusic]

1. My question is yours

I don't get it. Anyone?

[FrenchieCat]

2. It's a bunch of Sh*t

that We have answered many times. For you to come in with a column from 9/16/03...wouldn't that give you an idea that this sh*t has already hit the fan and been beat down?

read it.....This is what he said in september of 2002:
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

This is what he said in October of 2002:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

This is what he said in reference to the resolution:
http://www4.fosters.com/election_2002/oct/09/us_2cong_1009a.asp

Retired Gen. Clark supports Swett, raises concerns about Iraq policy
By STEPHEN FROTHINGHAM,Associated Press Writer
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) — Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war.
----------------------
The general said he had no doubt Iraq posed a threat, but questioned whether it was immediate and said the debate about a response has been conducted backward.
"Normally in a debate, you start with a problem and consider possible solutions. Instead, the president has presented us with a solution before the problem has been fully articulated," he said.
"As far as the information we have now shows, there are no nuclear warheads on missiles pointed to America," he said. "You can't wait 10 years to act, but there is time on our side."
He said al-Qaida remains the largest terrorist threat against the United States, and the connection ----between al-Qaida and Iraq is unclear.
------------------------
After endorsing Swett in Nashua, he visited Manchester West High School and reassured history students that the threat of terrorism should be kept in perspective.
-----------------------
He said he shares the concerns he hears from many Americans about whether the country should act against Iraq without United Nations support and about how the United States will deal with Iraq after a successful invasion.
He also met in Portsmouth with the Democratic nominee in the 1st Congressional District, state Sen. Martha Fuller Clark.
A spokesman for Clark said the two were meeting to discuss foreign policy.
-------------------------------------------------
THIS IS WHAT HE HAD TO ENDURE IN THE SPRING WHILE THE WAR WAS GOING ON:Because, for a General, he did come off as being against this war....
As was reported here....on March 28, 2003....THIS WOULD BE SPRING...AND DURING THE WAR......SO EVEN THEN, HIS COMMENTARY WERE CRITICAL...AND HE WAS ROUNDLY CRITICIZED FOR IT.

http://www.spectator.org/article.asp?art_id=2003_3_27_22_49_18
Clark Tanks
By The Prowler
Published 3/28/2003 12:03:00 AM
DEAN-DUMB
So much for the Democrats' hope that retired General Wesley Clark was going to be their Colin Powell. "He's more Benedict Arnold than anything else, if you believe the mail we've been getting here," says the Democratic National Committee staffer who, only a month ago was touting Clark as his party's answer to the military star power aligned with Republicans.

"Any cachet he might have had he's pretty much pissed away on TV," says the staffer.

Since the outbreak of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Clark has been on CNN, bemoaning the Pentagon and Gen. Tommy Franks's strategy in the opening days of taking down Saddam. And while several other senior retired military men have made critical comments about the ongoing fighting -- Ret. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, another former Clinton-era official, has been quick to criticize during his stints on MSNBC --Clark has by far been the most vocal.

"It just looks really bad that he's knocking the troops and the way we're executing this war," says the DNC staffer. "He's taking hits everywhere, on TV, in the newspapers, on talk radio. People are furious at him. We can't fundraise off performances like this.
The only presidential candidate that would probably want to be seen with him is Howard Dean."


Prior to Clark's "tanking" on CNN, the DNC had Clark pegged for political stardom. He'd visited New Hampshire, and had hinted that he was interested in perhaps running for president as a Democrat. Now, the DNC isn't sure what they can do with the man who directed Bill Clinton's military machinations in Kosovo.
---------------------------
However, Clark never claimed of being a pacifist. He was against the way that this war was handled and didn't feel it needed to be fought when it was fought, without allies, and he didn't think there was any eminent dangers. He did think that Saddam was a problem, but not one that would merit war fought unilateraly. So if FAIR has wanted to characterized General Clark needed to go march in a peace rally to make his point.....it wasn't going to happen. furthermore....

[wtmusic]

3. Chill Frenchie

The question was asked very sincerely and without any baiting.

I don't think posters should have to be acquainted with the history of every debate here on DU. A simple link will do.

[FrenchieCat]

5. I'm just tired of answering the same questions.....

WACO was how many times in the last couple of days?...
then there was General Larry, Curly and Sec. of Def. Moe....
and the Nations Mr. Maitta/Mytie/guy.....who wrote about the "dead" eyes article...the guy from the extreme left magazine who likes dictators and enjoys ethnic cleansing.

Sorry, I'm just a bit pooped right now. Xcuse Me!

[Myra]

9. By all means Frenchie, please do chill.

I searched thru DU before I posted,
and I didn't see this FAIR column discussed.

Perhaps I missed it.
But I also notice you didn't supply a thread to prior
DU discussion in your long long heated response.

Also, I'm looking for sources I *trust*, as I stated.
I'm afraid CNN, which you sourced, doesn't qualify.
(Maybe I'm the only one here who doesn't trust CNN,
real time or archived.)

I'm so sorry if I disrupted your brainwaves.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Clark was also a commentator.....

Who commented on the war in many various forums. So when he was writing in April in the imfamous "Guardian" article....he was only commenting to the actual military maneuvers of the war...not whether it was the right or wrong thing to do...only how it had been carried out....though he still warned them about not being prepared for the aftermath...and that having won the war...they may not be able to keep the peace....

and of course he was exactly correct.

[sandnsea]

4. Objective - Subjective

The ability to make statements about a situation even if you disagree with it. Such as Senator Kerry supporting the 'goal' of disarming Iraq and hoping our troops succeed in their mission, even when he disagreed that a unilateral war in March was the way to do it.

[Pastiche423]

6. Fair.org

is a very reputable source.

As to the content, those are his words and his actions. It is up to you how you feel about them.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Of course Pastiche would say that .......

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20031208&s=fitzgerald

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16650
Iraq, What went wrong....

[Pastiche423]

20. I would say what?

:shrug:

[BootinUp]

28. Fair.org

I have read their stuff for two years, long before I ever heard of Wesley Clark or DU. I greatly appreciate what they try to do in calling the RW media when something is distorted or innacurate. But this piece they wrote shows one thing without a doubt. They are just as good as anyone at taking things out of context.

I challenge anyone to actually read the whole article they reference from after the war, and then make a compelling case that he was for the war in the first place.

[poskonig]

8. It usually depends whether one supports Clark.

Clark supporters will attack the article, Clark haters give it undue significance, while those without strong opinions about Clark tend not to have strong opinions about the article.

FAIR itself is usually a good source of information, and there is nothing in the article above that is not factual. While I cannot interpret the article for you, I do wish Clark would give an explanation for his diverging comments. However, since this is a political primary, I recognize such a desire will remain unfulfilled.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Which diverging comments?????

Please specify...then I can clarify.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Rowdyboy]

12. My God, man! What are you trying to do?

Be reasonable? This is a political discussion board! How dare you talk sense!

[drfemoe]

14. Result of research

After a DU Clark supporter cited the Time article as proof that Clark was "always anti-war", I did some research and came up with the article you post.

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.

He obviously went gung-ho over it for awhile.

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 my view, people are allowed to change their minds. But I certainly cannot go along with an unchallenged assertion that Clark was "always anti-war"... or even that he is now.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Do you have a link for this article

called "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time." that was written Before the war?

Also the article you cite when read in context he is praising the military of it's work, analysing what was done, but also heeding warnings of caution as to what was done and what lays ahead.

ttp://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats

[FrenchieCat]

17. The article also says.....

continued....
The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West.

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.

And there will be more jostling over the substance and timing of new peace initiatives for Israel and the Palestinians. Whatever the brief prewar announcement about the “road map”, this issue is far from settled in Washington, and is unlikely to achieve any real momentum until the threats to Israel’s northern borders are resolved.

[drfemoe]

18. which?

link are you asking about? .. Yes, I found a link for the Time piece Clark wrote. I did not look for the article he was countering, as that was not the subject of my search. If it was in Time, I'm sure I could find the article.

When you say "the article you cite", which article are you referring to? The edit I posted was from the FAIR article posted at the beginning of the thread, which goes on to 'cite' many more articles.

The article YOU cite is also in the FAIR article:

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."

Unless you can be more specific, I don't understand your question or statements.

[slinkerwink]

19. mmm...so far...no response from Frenchie.

;-)

[ozone_man]

24. That's my take.

Clark, anti-war candidate, give me a break. He was a cheer leader for the Iraq war. It seems he would have only changed a few tactical parameters during and before the war. PNAC lite perhaps?

Anyone who votes for Reagan (twice?) should not be running as a democratic candidate (IMO).

[sandnsea]

15. No one was FOR war

As far as I know, every candidate has come out against Bush going to war in March.

What candidates proposed before that as solutions to Iraq ought to be the discussion, in my mind. Every one of them, including Dennis, said Iraq had to be disarmed back in Sept 2002. They all considered him dangerous and a leader who was likely to develop bio/chem/nuclear weapons. So I hope we can put that stupid, they KNEW, crap away.

Dennis proposed ending sanctions and negotiations.

Kerry has been in hearings on Iraq since the mid-nineties, been through the wringer with negotiations, so to speak. He has also been very involved in investigating international money laundering, drug sales, arms sales and how it's all intertwined. He is serious about this problem and wants a strong UN arm to address this problem. That is why he supported confronting Iraq, but not the way Bush ended up doing it.
http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5659.xml

Clark seems to have wanted to move further on terrorism first, then confront Iraq later down the road. But it seems he would have supported confronting Iraq, militarily if necessary, at some point. From what I've read, he has solid plans to address terrorism, as well as rogue nations. He sees them as separate issues, but also recognizes the possibility of rogue nations selling arms to terrorists. He has plans.

Dean, I don't know. He says he was against the war all along.

Edwards and Gephardt, I'm not sure on either. I don't think they were for the war the way Bush has done it either. I'm honestly not sure of their terrorism/foreign policy plans. I guess I'm thinking they would have to have advisors (which is fine) because they haven't been as involved over the years. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

Who has the best plan to protect the country? Who can fix Iraq? Who can create a new era of diplomatic relations; not only in the area of security, but on economic, environmental, health, human rights and other issues important to third world countries as well? That's the debate, not who was for or against this war.

[Myra]

21. "...every candidate has come out against Bush going to war"

"As far as I know, every candidate has come out against Bush going to war in March."

Just a clarification: Sens. Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman,
and Rep. Gephardt, voted to use force in Iraq.

They may be criticizing the war after the fact,
but it's hard to put blood back in veins.

http://www.primarymonitor.com/news/stories2003/101403_dean_v_kerry_2003.shtml

[sandnsea]

22. Everybody did, in one form or other

Except Kucinich. This situation is just not a simple as an up or down vote, though there are those who would like it to be that way.

Other than Dennis, there isn't one candidate who didn't see a situation where war in Iraq might be necessary. Clark thought later, perhaps, after more had been done about al qaeda. Dean supported a war resolution as well. They didn't have to vote.

The question is WHY each one took the position they took, what was their plan to deal with WMD in Iraq, what is their plan to deal with WMD around the world, do they see rogue nations and terrorism as conjoined or separate, what do they see as America's role in reducing terrorism and what are their plans to do that. These are HUGE issues, MASSIVE. They're nuclear issues. To reduce them down to a vote is a campaign ploy and puts the entire world at great risk. This is much, much too important to play politics over. It's pathetic that we have a Democratic candidate willing to do just that.

[Toucano]

34. Small technical distinction.

Congress authorized the president to decide to use force in Iraq. They didn't vote to use force in Iraq. They gave him permission to make the decision, but Bush made that decision.

I agree with you that distinctions such as this don't help the victims, but I still don't blame the Congress for this war. It was Bush's decision to proceed. He's the one responsible.

While I also don't agree that they should have given him permission to make this decision, I think I understand enough about politics to know that if any leading political figure had opposed the war and US forces had been attacked with chemical weapons, or WMD's were used against Israel, then that politician's career would have been over. There was always that possibility because the administration was so selective in it's use of the intelligence.

I know that doesn't seem like an important consideration when we're looking at the terrible loss of life in Iraq. If you consider, however, how Dems are holding on by the skin of their teeth in this country, future electability becomes very important. If we were to lose the ability to filibuster in the Senate, nothing would stop or even slow the administration from furthering their horrible agenda. The Dems like Hillary and Kerry gave George enough rope to hang himself in Iraq. Yes it's ugly, but I think it's true.

At one time, over 70% of Americans approved of the use of force in Iraq, and polls show that roughly half still do. If you think that anyone who changed their mind about the war is tainted, then that includes a substantial portion of the electorate. I don't think it's wise for our candidate to alienate those people. To paraphrase Maya Angelou, "When my mother knew better, she did better." Now let's move forward.

Regarding Clark:

I would not characterize Clark as anti-war. But I would characterize him as anti-this-war, especially at-this-time. He deeply regrets the lack of action in Rwanda, and I believe if another circumstance such as that presents itself, he won't hesitate to use force to stop that slaughter. I don't think any candidate is totally anti-war.

On Meet the Press, Clark had this to say:
MR. RUSSERT: After the war was commenced in April, you did write an article for The London Times and you said, “Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. ... President Bush, Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.”
GEN. CLARK: But, Tim, do you have the rest of the article with you?
MR. RUSSERT: I’ve read...
GEN. CLARK: The rest of the article you should show because what it says is: “You can have your victory parade. You can have the soldiers parade up and down. You can be proud of the fact that you commanded these troops and they crushed this Army, but you must recognize that the job isn’t done. It may be only beginning. You haven’t found the weapons of mass destruction. And you’ve got a long way to go to put anything in place in the postwar.”
I’m writing as a commentator. I’m fair, and I respect the men and women in the armed forces. I love them, I’ve spent my life there, and I’m proud of them. And they did, in their military duties, a fabulous job in following the orders of the commander in chief. I simply wouldn’t have given those orders at that time. Those weren’t the right orders. Diplomacy hadn’t been exhausted, we hadn’t brought our allies on board, and we didn’t have an adequate plan for what would happen next. You cannot go to war in those circumstances and be successful. In Kosovo, we had exhausted diplomacy. We had our allies on board and we had a plan for what we would do when the fighting stopped. It was exactly the opposite situation.

I cannot provide you with the link to the entire article quoted, but you may be able to find it in your library.

Thanks for your consideration.

[mikehiggins]

23. Gee, Myra. Haven't we seen this one before?

I'd suggest you look up some of the other threads (they will undoubtedly be posted soon enough) and look into this issue on your own. I'm frankly surprised that someone who has posted to DU over a thousand times could have avoided them. There will be some, of course, who suggest you are less than candid in your motivations but that's life, isn't it?

And don't forget one salient issue: all that matters is beating Bush.

SOme of us think Clark has a better chance than the other candidates.

Others disagree. The main question remains one of how do we insure that Bush is only a one-term president.

Ripping each other apart is an "old school" tactic that only works to produce an already weakened candidate for the GOP to deal with.

[Myra]

30. Gee Mike, if the FAIR Media Advisory was discussed here, where's the link?

I'd suggest you read my earlier posts in this thread.
I'm frankly surprised that someone who has hundreds of
posts on DU doesn't know to read a member's posts before
going all MEOW on them.

Here's what I posted already, in response to the first
volley from a Clark loyalist. You somehow avoided it:

"I searched thru DU before I posted,
and I didn't see this FAIR column discussed.

Perhaps I missed it.
But I also notice you didn't supply a thread to prior
DU discussion in your long long heated response."

And yet no one posted a link to prior discussion of this
FAIR column on DU, which is the very specific topic
of this thread. You certainly didn't supply a link
to support your claim that we've "seen this one before."

So, clearly I am looking into the issue on my own.
That's how I found a source that I haven't seen referenced
on DU.

"There will be some, of course, who suggest you are less than candid in your motivations but that's life, isn't it?"

Uh, candid in my "motivations"?
"Can I please get people's flame-free opinions on the source and
the content?"
Yeah, ya got me on that one.
I was actually hoping for flame-filled "opinions of the source and the content." And lucky me...

"Ripping each other apart is an "old school" tactic that only works to produce an already weakened candidate for the GOP to deal with."

Pointing people to a progressive news source that is studying
quotes from a major Democratic presidential candidate over time
is old school ripping apart? If the candidates own words rip
them apart, then there's a problem with the candidate.

>And don't forget one salient issue: all that matters is beating Bush.

That may be your one "salient issue." I would like the best candidate
to run against him. That involves actually getting to know
what they said before they were candidates, on the
rather important subject of invading another country

But thank you for posting so that this topic remains visible.
I won't explicitly kick it upward just to keep it visible,
because I think if people are interested in it it'll stay up front.
So the redundant "seen this one before" posts,
which are not backed up by a DU link to the FAIR Media Advisory,
are among the ones keeping the discussion alive.

[Eloriel]

36. Oh, I just love it when the new folks --

-- esp. the super-aggressive Clarkies, since they have such a knack for it -- come in and start telling veteran DUers how to behave. It reflects so WELL on them.

Eloriel

[TLM]

25. Clark is a big war hawk.... always has been.

He was all on about the war back then, about how powerful the US was and how other nations needed to belly up to the bar and get behind Bush. Clark called it liberation and mouthed the WhiteHouse talking points on CNN.

CLark's only real problem witht eh war was the timing. He said he'd have voted for the IWR and encouraged others in congress to do so. Clark is a defense contractor lobbyist who was working to sell private information on you and me and other americans to John Ashcroft for no fly lists.

This guy is nothing but a corporate whore war hawk with a liberal script. His words now directly contradict what he was saying a few months and a few years ago.


Clark has been all over teh map on his position on Iraq, because he has no real position, he simply tells a given audience what he thinks they want to hear.

[democratreformed]

26. Clark was never "anti-war"

I have said this before. The media painted him this way and then misconstrued some comments he made. From the beginning, and consistently, he expressed concerns about going to war. He said the same things he is saying now. He did not believe there was convincing evidence of imminent threat at the time. He made these comments over and over again - before the Senate (?) Armed Services Commitee, in those speeches that people keep picking parts out of to serve their purpose, in articles...

That does not make him "anti-war". What is anti-war anyway? Many people believe that war is sometimes necessary but only after other efforts to resolve disputes have failed. That is what Clark believes.

[democratreformed]

27. To add to this

Why did the media want to portray Clark as "anti-war"? B/C, of course, they were looking for a challenger to the front runner. And, that front runner was largely believed to have gotten there by being "anti-war". Clark disappointed them by running on his ideas to fix the mess. So, they just ignore that aspect. They want to see this big battle between two "anti-war" candidates - not hear about how to fix it.

[Donna Zen]

29. Myra--I confess, I'm just tired

The Fair Article made the rounds more than once, and although it was hard work, has been debunked more than once. Many posters, some who have commented above either don't bother to read the posts, or have developed memories by convenience.

In any event: It is good to remember, that diplomacy is not a sound bite. In the case of whoever put the Fair Article together, I have a sense that it was a basic distrust of all things military. Sorry, but the left has biases too.

Clark has taken a range of positions-- from expressing doubts about diplomatic and military strategies early on

It is within this area that those who do not appreciate the difference between Clark's personal opinion, a Senate testimony, and CNN commentary seek out their the best fodder. Nevertheless, the Senate testimony is a good place to begin. He is very clear that: Yes, Saddam is bad, Yes, he probably has weapons, and Yes, he poses a problem....But not an eminant threat. Clark's position has always been that the Iraq would take away from the Afghanistan. And he did support Afghanistan.

Clark was aware that Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions, and that the UN should be addressing those violations. He could understand "dumping" (his word) the problem on the UN, but not going to war with Iraq.

Part of the misunderstanding on the left comes from thinking that a person who is anti-Iraq war is anti-war. This is not the case.

4. Clark clearly casts himself as the person making policy, not one of the people debating it.

When it comes to foreign policy, Clark is confident -- to the point, as universally noted, of arrogance. I say better this than Dubya or Dean, neither of whom combines his own arrogance with a tendency to know what he's talking about.

After reading the depth and intensity with which Clark has thought about foreign strategy, I realize why his position on the Iraq resolution looks like a waffle but isn't. For the last decade or more, he's clearly been thinking, "Where and how would I fight if I were in charge?" not "Which position would I take if someone asked my opinion?" So he doesn't care what resolution Congress should have passed (and, if he could be more honest than he can be, would probably point out that Congressional resolutions have never prevented a modern president from starting a war). He probably thinks that Congress should give presidents lots of discretion and that presidents should know how the hell to use it. And given that discretion, he wouldn't have fought in Iraq because there was no immediate threat.

http://www.ospolitics.org/usa/archives/2003/11/26/how_i_beca.php

Again, diplomacy is not a sound bite. Clark thought we should be moving to strengthen our alliances, create a seamless system of international law enforcement relating to terrorism, and stay in Afghanistan. I believe he cites a ten year window for worrying about Saddam.

I will say, that of all of the top teir candidates including Dean, Clark has been the most consistant in his opposition.

NEXT UP: The London Times

This is the same article that came up two weeks ago on MTP with Russert. Clark called him out with "can you put up the rest of the article."

Fair did what Russert tried to do, and actually what an entire thread on DU tried to do. The opening lines were written for a foreign consumption by an American General in April after the forces had entered Baghdad. Clark opens with a congradulatory tone, and also commends the work of the troops.

He then launches into a series of doubts. What about insurgents, what about the peace, what about security, and actually presages all of what has happened to date. Clark saw very clearly what the lack of a plan would lead to.

Clark has always been able to see the big picture. Various bio's refer to this way of thinking--or gift if you will. And he is quite brilliant, that is not some adjective that his supporters just toss out for show. If you take the time to read the entire article, unlike Tim Russert, you will see that is the usually Wes piece. Open with a compliment...make your points...remind everyone that it is the troops victory...he calls the plan to take Baghdad a "might work" plan. That was not a compliment.

Again when critiqueing this article, it is important to remember the rules of writing: who is your audience, what is your purpose.

So hate if you must, carry on that Clark waffles, but if you really read the article as being intended for a foreign audience by an American General meant to comment on the fall of Baghdad, you might find yourself to be a more assute reader than the lesser minds at Fair.

BTW, most of these threads are never commented on by the people who post them. The same bashers show up, and I am not such a fool as to believe that they will ever read a word I write. Their interest is to hate Clark. Fine. Go for it, if it makes you feel good. I answer, not because I want to, but because I really hate propaganda. I have never posted in a Dean thread, a Kerry thread, or an Edwards thread. I've never started a thread at DU.

[Myra]

31. I know Donna Zen; these are exhausing times

>BTW, most of these threads are never commented on by the
>people who post them. The same bashers show up, and I am
>not such a fool as to believe that they will ever read a
>word I write. Their interest is to hate Clark. Fine. Go for it,
>if it makes you feel good. I answer, not because I want to, but
>because I really hate propaganda. I have never posted in a Dean
>thread, a Kerry thread, or an Edwards thread. I've never started a
>thread at DU.

I read what you write Donna! All the way to the end.
'Cause I really appreciate the fact that you're analyzing
the content of the FAIR column, rather than just attacking
the poster (moi).

I know it's impossible to decide what's propaganda
and what's genuine discussion, particularly in an online
forum. We don't know each other. I could be anybody.
And I have no doubt there are trolls here of every variety.
And I have no doubt some are here to discredit candidates.
And there are smears of candidates, Clark included, all over
the web.

Here's an example IMO.
I keep reading on the web how (the unfortunately named)
British General Michael Jackson refused to help then NATO
commander General Clark to take over the Pristina airport
from the Russians. Jackson is widly quoted as retorting
"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you."
And that quote is frequently used to discredit Clark.
But I think Clark is the one who originally reported the
episode in one of his books. So he was being very candid
about the controversy, and seems to have supplied a quote that
is now used against him in what I think are smears (propaganda).

But, for what it's worth I'll tell you, I don't "hate" General Clark.
I've donated to his campaign twice, and to the Kucinich
campaign, and I'm considering Dean but I need my money more than
he does. General Clark has been in my top three all along
(which you'll see if you're bored enough to read my recent posts).

Still, that doesn't mean I plan to turn off my brain
and blindly follow any candidate. It's early in the campaign
season, and I want to know who these people are.
That's all there is to it.
In the years since coup2k, yeah, I think we've understandably
grown exhausted. But I am going to continue to investigate
candidates and issues, and share info I think is significant,
and if it pisses off anyone here then I can't help that.

I posted the FAIR info because I'm impressed by them, based on
a limited amount of exposure, and because I searched DU and
didn't see prior discussion of it. A few people in this thread
have stated that it was discussed here, but no one ever produces
the thread(s). That's fine; that's not the hot issue.

I just want to discuss the candidates past and platforms, and
then decide who to support. My favorite candidate may or may not
make it to the general election.

And if people are tired of a topic they find repetitive,
it's really quite simple. They can *ignore it*.
It becomes a lead thread and sinks fast.

>In any event: It is good to remember, that diplomacy is not a
>sound bite. In the case of whoever put the Fair Article together,
>I have a sense that it was a basic distrust of all things
>military. Sorry, but the left has biases too.

Yeah, I think it's very hard for any progressive (and I believe
FAIR is a progressive site) to trust a military man. I theoretically
think military officers should be among those I'd consider for
president. But if it's a high ranking officer (like General Clark)
they likely had to do things that progressives will find difficult
to accept. That issue is really bigger in scope than just Clark.

Anyway, thanks for your post, quotes, and sources.
They were helpful.

[dsc]

32. As was quite rudely pointed out to you

this article has been discussed before, but like you, I can't often find specific threads in searches of this forum. I think it is a function of the huge number of threads here. This article isn't one of FAIR's best efforts. Several of the quotes are quite out of context, though the April Guardian stuff isn't. That is what he needs to explain more fully.

[durutti]

33. FAIR tells the truth.

And they're not afraid to step on anyone's toes. That's why so many Democrats don't like them.

[HuckleB]

35. They've always appeared to be quite straight forward and honest,

in my experience. Sure, they do offer opinion, but they don't seem to twist the facts (or omit others) in order to support that opinion. That said, no source is foolproof. Everyone makes errors now and then.

[Myra]

37. I looked at your post dralston & agree that Clark's words were distorted.

>I cannot provide you with the link to the entire article quoted,
>but you may be able to find it in your library.

Thanks dralston. The info you posted is helping to fill in the gaps.
The 4/10 London Times column is the only complete article
I've been able to find online (so far) out of the ones FAIR quoted.
It's at:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

I gotta say that after reading the entire column I agree with General Clark's
reply to Russert that what was quoted on MTP is out of context.
And since Russert is basically quoting an abbreviated version of the FAIR
advisory (link given in earlier post), I think FAIR was pretty...unfair.

FAIR describes Clark's tone as "exuberant."
But I don't agree.
The tone of Clark's remarks was ironic.
He was using "victory" rhetoric to build a bigger point -
that it would be premature to claim "victory" and that
the stated goals of the invasion hadn't yet been achieved.
FAIR never acknowledged that irony or the many warnings Clark went
on to issue.

Two examples from the opening paragraph:

"Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad?"
(Russert)
&
"Already the scent of victory is in the air."
(FAIR)
The very next sentence, *excluded* by FAIR, is
"Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph."

The next paragraph, *excluded* by both Russert and FAIR starts with:

"In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured.
Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad..."

He then goes on and issues some pretty sobering warnings:

-"Then there’s the matter of returning order and security.
The looting has to be stopped.
The institutions of order have been shattered."
...
-"The real questions revolve around two issues:
the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli
dispute. And these questions are still quite open."
...
-"And more tough questions remain to be answered.
...
-"Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed."
...
And then in the final paragraph he returns to irony to drive home his point that
the work is not done:

"Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue —
but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats."

Here's FAIR's version of the final paragraph:
"Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home:
"Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue.""

Um, leaving out his final phrases grossly distorts his conclusion.

The General did say some things that left him wide open to criticism,
and that I still find pretty sickening. In particular this:
"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair..."
And there are other things I wish he'd said.

But overall I'd have to acknowledge that both Russert and FAIR
took quotes wildly out of context. I'm quite amazed (with FAIR)
and disgusted (with both).

If anyone can find the entire text of the other columns referenced
by FAIR, I'd love to see them.