The "BIG" "gaffe" coming the day that he announced on his first day ever into politics was magnified because that is what the media was aimed at doing.....and guess according to you, it worked out for them just fine.
I never did say that Wes Clark was perfect, but he certainly DIDN'T vote for that resolution and then said sorry about it 3 years later after the polls had turned.
To me those who did were the ones who's actions were the irreversable "BIG" gaffes, cause it was not their words....but rather their actions that spoke bigtime.
September 25, 2003
Yes, We Have No Flip-Flop
Posted by Mark Kleiman
Clark was presented with a very tempting opportunity. When asked these questions about the resolution, he could have easily declared his opposition. This would have made for easy pot shots against his congressional rivals and might have instantly swiped a portion of the antiwar left from Howard Dean. Instead, he frankly stated a position that gives him no short-term political advantage. And over the next few months, if he's lucky, this straight-forwardness might make a compelling contrast to the demagoguery of certain candidates from small New England states who are too easily "shocked."
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/wesley_clark_/2003/09/yes_we_have_no_flipflop.php
Clark wasn't FOR the blank check in 2002 meaning the resolution....so whatever he may have said in 2003 really doesn't amount to shit on a stick, unless that's what some wanted to make it be.
and yes, he made a "Gaffe", and so did all of the others.....and in my estimation, his gaffe was miniscule in comparison.
He clarified what he had said the next day, NOT THREE FUCKING YEARS LATER.....and for that they hounded him...sure. They had their orders....and they followed them, like good little media soldiers.
But if you read what he said when it actually counted for the good of our Nation rather than in some one interview on his first day in politics where a "gotcha" was being fished for...then, I'll take and accept what you choose to declare as a "big" gaffe....and I'll say, if that's all it takes to be a bad "politician"....than yes, Clark is possibly too honest to run for office in this country. Maybe it would be best left to have our country ran by some pandering, slicktalking, backstabbing, calculating, insincere but gifted with the no Gaffe "playing it safe" ball-less politician.
However, your other "fact" is wrong...in discussing what has and has not happened in our history. Please note that the last time that we had an election that will resemble 2008 the most was in 1952. We were at war, and there were no incumbents running from either party. That is the year that Eisenhower, a General who had held no previous elected position won the presidency. Maybe Clark is no Eisenhower....but in comparison to the rest of the field, he actually comes the closest without any other coming even close.
------------
WHAT CLARK ACTUALLY SAID.....
On August 2, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq,
"We seem to have skipped some steps in the logic of the debate. And, as the American people are brought into this, they're asking these questions." CNN, 8/2/02
On August 29, 2002, Clark said regarding a proposed invasion of Iraq, "Well,
taking it to the United Nations doesn't put America's foreign policy into the hands of the French. What you have to do as the United States is you have to get other nations to commit and come in with you, and so
you've got to provide the evidence, and the convincing of the French and the French public, and the leadership elite. Look, there's a war fever out there right now in some quarters of some of the leadership elements in this country, apparently, because
I keep hearing this sense of urgency and so forth. Where is that coming from? The vice president said that today he doesn't know when they're going to get nuclear weapons. They've been trying to get nuclear weapons for -- for 20 years.So if there's some smoking gun, if there's some really key piece of information that hasn't been shared publicly, maybe they can share it with the French." CNN, 8/29/02
On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, "I think -- but I think that underneath, what you're going to have is you're going to have more boiling in the street.
You're going to have deeper anger and you're going to feed the recruitment efforts of Al Qaeda. And this is the key point, I think, that we're at here. The question is what's the greater threat? Three thousand dead in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon underscore the fact that the threat we're facing primarily is Al Qaeda. We have to work the Iraq problem around dealing with Al Qaeda. And
the key thing about dealing with Al Qaeda is, we can't win that war alone." CNN, 8/29/02
On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq,
"My perspective would be I'd like to see us slow down the rush to go after Saddam Hussein unless there's some clear convincing evidence that we haven't had shared with the public that he's right on the verge of getting nuclear weapons. CNN, 8/29/02
On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq,
"Going after Iraq right now is at best a diversion, and at worst it risks the possibility of strengthening Al Qaeda and undercutting our coalition at a critical time. So at the strategic level,
I think we have to keep our eye on the ball and focus on the number one strategic priority. There are a lot of other concerns as well, but that's the main one." CNN, 8/30/02
On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "It seems that way to me.
It seems that this would supercharge the opinion, not necessarily of the elites in the Arab world, who may bow to the inevitability of the United States and its power, but the radical groups in the Middle East, who are looking for reasons and gaining more recruits every time the United States makes a unilateral move by force. They will gain strength from something like this. We can well end up in Iraq with thousands of military forces tied down, and a worse problem in coping with a war on terror here in the United States or Europe, or elsewhere around the world." CNN, 8/30/02
September 16, 2002:
Clark said Congress shouldn't give a "blank check," to Use Force Against Iraq.
On September 16, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization to use force,
"Don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation?" CNN 9/16/02
WOODRUFF:
How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would pass in terms of what the president is able to do after?
CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.
So I think the -- what people say is,
don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation. And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent
if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.htmlOn September 23, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization for the use of force,
"When you're talking about American men and women going and facing the risk we've been talking about this afternoon... you want to be sure that you're using force and expending American blood and lives in treasure as the ultimate last resort. Not because of a sense of impatience with the arcane ways of international institutions." Senate Committee on Armed Forces 9/23/02
http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html On October 5, 2002, Clark said, regarding debate on Congressional authorization for war against Iraq,
"The way the debate has emerged, it's appeared as though to the American people, at least to many that talk to me, as though the administration jumped to the conclusion that it wanted war first and then the diplomacy has followed." CNN 10/5/02
On January 23, 2003, Clark said, regarding the case the United States had made for war against Iraq to the United Nations,
"There are problems with the case that the U.S. is making, because the U.S. hasn't presented publicly the clear, overwhelming sense of urgency to galvanize the world community to immediate military action now."CNN 1/23/03
http://www.clark04.com/faq/iraq.html-----------
There were some of our prominent leaders who chose to listen to the wise words of Wes Clark, and reacted the better for it, i.e., no "BIG ASS" Gaffes to apologize for 3 years later! :eyes:
Here's is Ted Kennedy on Larry King pretty recently....
KING: Why did you vote against?
KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.
I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures.
And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...KING:
And that's what moved you?KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.
And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."
snip
There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html and Sen. Levin, who showed up with Clark at a WesPAC fundraiser a few months ago....here's what he said on the floor of the Senate BEFORE THE IWR VOTE when he submitted his own resolution THAT WASN'T A BLANK CHECK...:
"General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block." http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htmand the late great Sen. Paul Wellstone–“As General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=2778&catID=298
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
