The Reason the IWR is Important

[Clarkie1]

On Larry King on CNN, Senator Kennedy said his vote against the Iraq War Resolution was his most important vote in the United States Senate.

"In your life?" King asked.

"Absolutely" Kennedy answered.

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."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

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://www.awesclarkdemocrat.com/2006/04/iwr_ted_kennedys_vote_of_his_l.htm

STATEMENT OF
GENERAL (RETIRED) WESLEY K. CLARK
U.S. ARMY
BEFORE THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 26, 2002

"The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force"

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 2, 2002

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

That's the only sentence that matters. A blank check, pure and simple.

[mike_c]

1. K&R-- great post-- Kennedy was right from the beginning....

In all the debates after the fact about the motives of the dems who voted for that monstrous piece of legislation-- a baldfaced authorization to commit the ultimate war crime, a war of aggression-- we tend to overlook the folks who had the courage and conviction to stand up and say "No." Any argument that justifies the actions of those who voted for the IWR backfires against the legislators who stood firm against it.

[DrFunkenstein]

2. Clark's IWR Position in the Memory Hole?

I agree with you that the IWR vote was a tragedy, and - according to GOP plans - it threw the whole primaries into a whirlwind, bringing forward candidates that shouldn't have been there and sidetracking far better candidates for a long time.

As for Clark, I think there are three sentences in the NYTimes that come immediately to mind:

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

[xkenx]

4. You are taking Clark out of context. Read his HASC testimony, then come back and

tell us what part you don't understand. Not only did Ted Kennedy say that Wes Clark's input was one big reason he voted no, but Clark was on record, in sworn testimony before both Senate and House Armed services committees in Sept. 2002. He advocated restraint, work with U.N., more inspections, coalition-building, war only as a last resort. He counseled Dems. to vote no to any IWR as it was being formulated by Bush. At these same committees, neocon Richard Perle blasted Clark for his timidity, and Clark came under harsh questioning from Rethugs on the committees. Clark stood his ground and repeated the reasons for restraint. This can be viewed on You Tube. Both Clark and Perle were back at those committees in the past year or so, and even Rethugs were crediting Clark for being right and Perle wrong. Here is the opening statement by Clark to HASC on 9-26-02, right off HASC website.
(In fact, upon re-reading this, I'm reminded of the pointed remarks about not allowing Saddam Hussein to distract us from going after Al Qaeda.
How prescient of Clark!) Note how, in the beginning, Clark shows how tough he is and knows what a bad guy Saddam was, then proceeds to outline how to contain him without preemtive war. Brilliant strategy from a master!

STATEMENT OF
GENERAL (RETIRED) WESLEY K. CLARK
U.S. ARMY
BEFORE THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SEPTEMBER 26, 2002

Mr. Chairman, Representative Skelton, Distinguished Members of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. This is a Committee that has been strongly supportive of the men and women in uniform, and I want to thank you personally for the assistance and support that you gave me, and have given so many others.

In October 1994, Saddam Hussein moved several Republican Guards divisions back into the attack positions just north of the Kuwaiti border, the same attack positions that had been occupied just prior to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. It was a foolish and to our minds unexpected and threatening move. We quickly deployed additional military forces to the region, preparing to enter a full-fledged battle against Iraq to defend Kuwait, and we also went to the United Nations. After a few tense days Saddam backed off, the divisions were removed, and we acted through the United Nations to further tighten the no-fly zone and regulate Iraqi troop movements.

But it was a signal warning about Saddam Hussein: he is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. Were he to acquire such capabilities, we and our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks. Saddam might use such weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his neighbors, he might threaten American forces in the region, he might strike directly against Israel, or Israel, weighing the possibilities of nuclear blackmail or aggression, might feel compelled to strike Iraq first.

Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required. But what makes the situation relatively more dangerous today is that the UN weapons inspectors, who provided some assistance in impeding his development programs, have been absent from Iraq for over four years. And the sanctions regime, designed to restrict his access to weapons materials and the resources needed to procure them, has continuously eroded. At some point, it may become possible for Saddam to acquire the fissionable materials or uranium ore that he needs. And therefore, Iraq is not a problem that can be indefinitely postponed.

In addition, Saddam Hussein’s current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law.

Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President’s clear determination to act if the United Nations can’t provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.

But the problem of Iraq is only an element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished, world-wide war against Al Qaeda, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately be won by persuasion as much as by force, when we turn off the Al Qaeda recruiting machine. Some three thousand deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaeda, and as all acknowledge, Al Qaeda has not yet been defeated. Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam’s regime to the Al Qaeda network. And while such linkages may emerge, winning the war against Al Qaeda may well require different actions than ending the weapons programs in Iraq.

The critical issue facing the Unites States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda or efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security problems. In this regard, I would offer the following considerations:

- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

- The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in crafting UN engagement. In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force. This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam’s weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action. Yes, there is a risk that inspections would fail to provide the evidence of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam.

If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear.

Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This includes requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance, and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution. Ideally, international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations, including the UN, NATO, and other regional and Islamic organizations.

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as “preemptive.”

Once initiated, any military operation should aim for the most rapid accomplishment of its operational aims and prompt turnover to follow-on organizations and agencies.

If we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region, and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism. But there are no guarantees. The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere.

I look forward to answering questions and helping the Committee assess the costs and risks of the alternatives before us.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Armed Services Committee
2120 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

[DrFunkenstein]

5. This is Pretty Much Kerry's Iraq Speech at the Time

He advocated restraint, work with U.N., more inspections, coalition-building, war only as a last resort.

I see nothing here different than what Kerry and Edwards believed, nor do I see anything that would shown him as a better commander-in-chief. In fact, of all the candidates, I was most impressed by Kerry's suggestion that the war on terrorism would ultimately be won by improving the quality of life in Middle East.

Ok, actually I was most impressed by Kucinich, but...

The point is that Clark publicly held the same position as the others, except he wasn't required to actually vote.

That is not a dealbreaker for me, because I have no interest in that sort of "gotcha" politics. I'd rather examine what each candidate would actually do in the executive branch before casting my judgement on their assets.

[MH1]

6. What part of Clark's saying that he probably would have voted for it

is "out of context"?

Are you saying that he never said he probably would have voted for the IWR? Did the NYT misquote him? If so, did he call for a correction?

[xkenx]

7. Clark repeatedly said he'd vote for a PROPERLY WORDED IWR,

along the lines of Carl Levin's proposal, not the one Bush rammed through.

[MH1]

8. He said in September 2003 he would prob'ly have voted for "the" IWR.

From the link Dr Funkenstein gave:

At one point, Ms. Jacoby interrupted the interview, which included four reporters who were traveling on the general's jet, to make certain that General Clark's views on the original Iraq resolution were clear.

"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

General Clark said he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — than that of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has been the leading antiwar candidate in the race.

To be clear, I'm with the other posters here who aren't going to base their consideration of a politician on simply whether they voted for IWR or not (or whether they said they would have or not). There's a lot more that needs to go into that assessment, and as Wes Clark was saying here, that vote was a tough call.

I just get tired of the continued efforts of some to put Clark squarely on their chosen side of it, when it's certain that he wasn't there at the time.

I haven't forgotten about the comment about "tamping down come home fever" though. What is Clark's current position on keeping our troops in Iraq? Does he support escalation, withdrawal, or keeping troop levels the same?

[FrenchieCat]

15. I just think that it helps John Kerry to have him and Wes Clark both having voted for the IWR......

and unfortunately, only Kerry voted for it.

I have always said that I understood why John Kerry's voted as he did on this......and in fact I believe that John Kerry actually didn't want to vote Yes on that Resolution....but he already had a NO vote on the first Gulf War, and in order to neutralize that which would be a drawback in his race for the presidency after 9/11, I believe that this is why he voted Yes. He was not in fear for his seat, he didn't trust Bush, and he certainly didn't believe that Hussein was even near having Nuclear weaposn.....so why would he, of all people, voted for the Blank check resolution? Why don't you answer that....instead of making a supposition as to something that didn't happen.

It is impossible to prove a negative, but not impossible to prove why something did happen.

[emulatorloo]

28. WES CLARK WAS NOT A SENATOR, SO HE DIDN'T HAVE TO VOTE

this puts him in the position that he can say anything he wants to say about how he "might" have voted.

This rehashing of IWR vote is tiresome. Wes Clark is a great Democrat and a great American.

So are some Democrats who foolishly voted for IWR.

Many have admitted it was a mistake.

Others have not, and those are the ones that concern me.

At anyrate the bottom line is that THIS IS GEORGE BUSH'S WAR.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Wes Clark doesn't believe that a military solution is what will bring

our troops home realistically nor will it help Iraqis in Iraq solve their civil war at this point nor is it the panacea to stability in the ME.

Clark considers the calling for troops drawdown without anyone sitting at a table with the involved parties to be empty positioning.

Since Bush is in charge, and unless funding is cut off, timetables of Troop withdrawals may be good slogans for politicians, but won't really offer the best solution nor a solution that will happen.

Clark believes in negotiating our way out, and so the number of troops would be a negotiable issue. If an agreement was reached that we cut our troop levels down to 1/2 in 3 months...as long as it is not a Washington based timeline, but rather one achieved via agreement with the parties who are either fighting factions or regional neighbors with interest in what happens in Iraq and real reputated US and European diplomats who understand what's actually going on the ground. In turn there could be a cease fire demanded by the U.S. or and militia disarmement, etc... in exchange for troop drawdown or/and the training of troops in a mutually agreed area, etc...

The Civil war won't end just because we go....cause the civil war is not about US as much as it is about much more complex issues although our incompetent presence is what allowed the Civil war to escalate it won't just stop cause we go real quick..... So in essence, Wes Clark most likely believes that arguments about troop levels are a false choice for those trapped in the box of conventional thinking.

[Clarkie1]

10. Precisely. nt

[Texas_Kat]

14. Adam Nagourney is ALWAYS 'out of context"

or didn't you know?

[FrenchieCat]

26. Did you forget this part in the same article.....

Quote....

"General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading." Paragraph 4.

So I wonder exactly when and how Wes Clark expressed this? Maybe it was a little more exacting than was being portrayed...although he definitely must have said words to the affect that "it should have a provision requiring Bush to return to Congress BEFORE invading".

And of course we have this great bit of "journalism" from Nagourney.....

"The general's remarks in a free-rolling 90-minute airborne interview suggested the extent of the adjustment he faces in becoming a presidential candidate."

Let's see...."suggested the extent of the adjustment"...why? He used to give press conferences all of the time while NATO Commander. Why would a 90 minute interview "suggest" adjustements? Was he chocking? Was he just acting like he wasn't feeling well and it all seem very difficult to him? Or is this a subjective remark that doesn't really say much of anything...other than the interview was 1 1/2 hours long.

Maybe that was the problem. Maybe Clark said a whole lot of things in that 90 minutes, and considering how short the article was....maybe the aim was not to get Clark's real views on things.....but to get enough quotes that could be strung together in a way to discredit Clark. Is that even possible, or is the media a paragon of virtue these days, with absolutely no agenda?

Mr. Nagourney, Journalist extraordinary goes on....

"Mary, help!" he called to his press secretary, Mary Jacoby, at the front of the plane, as he faced questions about Iraq. "Come back and listen to this."

At one point, Ms. Jacoby interrupted the interview, which included four reporters who were traveling on the general's jet, to make certain that General Clark's views on the original Iraq resolution were clear.

"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

So now a General is calling for help from a press secretary :eyes: And how was that really done? Was Clark kidding? was anything else said apart from Help Mary? Did Wes just scream it out in desperation like a child in a position that he couldn't control or did he do it with intellectual concern? I don't know...cause we weren't there...but that is certainly the "impression" that Nagourney provides us in imagery....isn't it?

Then he write...

"at one point the Press secretary "interupts" the interview.

When was this? As soon as Wes Clark "cried" for her help...or was she sitting there for a good 15 minutes and decided to interject something...cause, er..she's like the press Secretary...so I guess that would be part of her job....to participate somewhat!

And what did she say again?.....oh yeah...that the resolution that Clark would have voted for was "the" resolution that called for leverage for a U.N. based solution.....and what did the general answer to that according to the article?......"right?" "exactly?".

Did he only say that, or did he say some other things in that 90 minute interview between those two words.......? How long was Mary there after she came running to "rescue" the 4 star General to the end of the interview? Was it that she came running in the first 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60? We don't really know, do we?

Again, my point is that we just weren't there.....and considering the media we have, I'd rather think that the media had more to do with how this all played out than you want to think.

Considering that you support the candidate with the "Botched Joke" and others support the "candidate who Screams".....I think you know where I'm coming from.

I believe Clark when he said that he supported the Levin resolution and would not have voted for the blank check.

You should believe Adam Nagourney of the New York Times....and if this comes back to haunt you when Journalism "Gotcha" is dissing your candidate of choice.....don't look over at where I am....cause I won't see you.

[Tactical Progressive]

3. I believe Wes Clark would have supported the IWR

had he been on the hook to vote on it.

Based on everything I saw and heard back then. And no, that doesn't mean that Wes supported Bush invading Iraq, any more than it means that from any of the other Democratic Senators that were against invading Iraq at the time, but voted for the IWR to give Bush the authority to play that hand against Saddam.

I'm even more sure of it after a discussion I just had with a fellow Clarker that has a strong need to believe that Wes would have been against the IWR, during which it became even clearer that he wouldn't have. He eventually bailed on the discussion because there is simply no supporting evidence of it.

Now we have DrFunkenstein in post number 2 here, pretty much sealing it.

You started this thread I'm guessing to do exactly what the other poster was trying to do: to proclaim Wes as being on the 'right' side of the IWR vote, and instead have been judoed to the mat in two posts. Don't feel bad, it's not your fault. Wes simply wasn't where you want him to have been. For me that means little, because my support of Wes Clark is alot stronger than whether he would have voted for the IWR or not, though many others appear to need to have that reassurance to fully support their candidate in good conscience. My conscience is good with the reality of who Wes Clark, or any of the other Democrats, are already.

To the screamers here on DU, the IWR is everything. To more reasonable politicos here, it is just one, albeit important, vote among many. To me, it means nothing. That the rest of you supposedly politically savvy DU'ers don't realize what an utter sham the IWR was, is surprising me more and more, and not in a good way.

BTW, my opinion of what Wes Clark was doing on all of those talk shows in late 2002 where he argued against invading Iraq, was simply that - trying to send a message to the BushCo administration not to rush into invading Iraq, not trying to convince people not to vote for the IWR. JMO, but either way you shouldn't be trying to force an anti-IWR pin onto Clark's chest where it doesn't fit, and instead appreciate that he was trying to get people in power not to invade Iraq unless it became absolutely necessary. His efforts have enough honor in and of themselves without trying to pretend he would have voted against the IWR.

[Clarkie1]

9. I will not pretend that Clark would have voted for the IWR

that passed. He clearly would not have, were he in Congress.

There were many versions of the "IWR" floating around Congress at the time. The key is that Clark would not have voted for a resolution that authorized the use of force...a "blank check," as he called it. That is crystal-clear from his Congressional testimony.

"The resolution need not at this time authorize the use of force."

It is also clear from Senator Kennedy's statements that Clark was a key figure in convincing him to vote against the IWR that passed.

So, unless you belive both Clark and Kennedy are liars, any reasonable person must come to the conclusion, based on the evidence, that Clark was against authorizing the use of force.

[DrFunkenstein]

12. Either Clark and Kennedy Are Liars, Or Everything I Say is True

This is hardly a legitimate argument. In fact, it's a classic logical fallacy (btw, using the phrase "any reasonable person must come to the conclusion" is usually a dead giveaway).

Look, I'm not looking to impugn either the Senator or the former Supreme Commander. I'm just trying to suggest that there are better ways of advocating the candidacy of Wesley Clark, who is an outstanding citizen of the United States with proven leadership skills.

I am very much open to hearing about his potential bid, but trying to purge everyone that fell on the wrong side of the fence in trying to hold Saddam accountable while keeping Bush in check just isn't going to cut it for me. There are way, way too many factors in determining who would be the best leader of the Party and the country.

[Texas_Kat]

16. Clark supported the Levin amendment

not the IWR in the version that passed without the Levin amendment attached.

So said Senator Levin at the WesPAC meeting in 2005. I'd trust Wellstone and Kennedy and Levin (who have all said the same thing about Wes Clark) rather than Adam Nagourney (buddies with Judith MIller of the NY Times) who condensed a 90 minute discussion into a 15+ word sentence.

I don't think John Kerry said that the troops are stupid either, and I don't think that Dr. Dean screams uncontrollably, but that's what the media want to manipulate you into believing.

[LittleClarkie]

29. Kerry preferred the Levins amendment too

Just didn't get to vote for that one.

I support both, and I agree with someone above that these are good men, and the whole discussion is tiresome.

[Clarkie1]

20. I didn't say everything.

If Clark would have voted for the IWR that passed, then yes, Clark and Kennedy must be liars.

[Tactical Progressive]

17. You apparently think Wes Clark has no problem lying about major issues

I just don't believe that about him.

Posts 2 and 8 spell it out with crystal clarity in Clark's own words. The fact that you refuse to believe the direct words coming out of Wes Clark's mouth isn't going to change that reality. Obviously you have such formidable hangups about the IWR that you'd rather disrespect Clark's own statements, and fabricate a counter-reality in which I think both Wes Clark and Ted Kennedy are lying, than face up to reality. Sorry, you are the one who thinks Wes Clark is lying and none of your concocted evasions are going to solve your problem. The reality is in black and white.

Like other Clark supporters here on DU that need to believe that he would have voted against the IWR, and continue to do so against his own words, you appear willing to infer where you want him to have stood over what he himself says, just to reconcile your need for him to have been someone who would have voted against the IWR.

I'm afraid I'm far more respectful of the real Wes Clark than you are. I have no need to make him into something he most explicitly wasn't, just so my conscience can support him. You do, which isn't respect for the real person.

Might I suggest that you begin to think differently about the IWR than you do? If you do respect Wes Clark at all - the real Wes Clark, not the one you want him to be - then take the fact that he would have supported the IWR to heart, and try to understand why.

I have no problem admiring Wes Clark without an IWR opposition vote. Maybe you should spend some time learning why that is OK.

[Clarkie1]

18. I disagree with you the Clark would have supported the IWR that passed.

Can you at least admit you may be wrong? You are twisting the evidence to fit your own convoluted opinion.

I could never support or respect a candidate that had "no trouble lying about major issues," and I can't respect anyone who could respect such a candidate.

[Tactical Progressive]

23. Except that he said he did

So you are wrong.

And it isn't Clark that is lying, that's the point. It is you that is lying to yourself about Clark so you can have him be who you want him to be. And you're wrong about who you want him to be, too.

That's all right out of Wes Clark's mouth. I'm not the one who needs to twist anything to make my case. See posts 2 and 8.

[FrenchieCat]

27. Actually that is not what he said he did....

Clark said that his words were taken out of context......so you are the one calling Wes Clark a liar....but yet you say he isn't lying! If you think those three sentences were the only things coming out of Wes Clark's mouth, that is what is wrong.

The article does say that....

Clark would advise Congress to support the authorization of war BUT that he thought it should have had a provision for Bush to return to Congress!

Quote....
"General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading." Paragraph 4.

he definitely must have said words to the affect that "it should have a provision requiring Bush to return to Congress BEFORE invading". right?

So that sounds like the Levin one to me like Clark and Clarkies have maintained.

[Clarkie1]

30. Alright, now you've gone too far.

If you you think that I'm going to continue a conversation with someone who tells me I'm lying to myself simply because I have a difference of opinion based on factual evidence, then you are neither tactical nor progressive.

If you want to be respected for your opinions, then learn to respect others.

You are on ignore.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. As for how Clark would've voted on the IWR, I think it's impossible to tell

Clark wasn't a politician at the time, he was a retired General. Politicians make decisions differently than those who aren't in politics and even if he makes statements about it, they are only statements.

One thing is certain, though. Clark's testimony before the committee was spot on.

[FrenchieCat]

13. And helped get more Senators to vote against the IWR......

and that's really the only position that he was in.

He worked trying to get enough senators to vote for the "Levin" admendment right to the wire. That's why Ted Kennedy stated that they started out with 8 senators and ended up with 23 to vote no, and had they had more time, they could have gotten more......in fact, according to Ted Kennedy, perhaps enough to make a difference.

I don't believe that Wes Clark would have voted for the Blank Check resolution cause that's what he said...and if he admitted to having voted for Nixon and Reagan when he didn't truly have to (no lie detector test would have been administered), then I believe him on his word, period.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. True, but Senator Clark wouldn't necessarily be the same as Retired General Clark

Clark might be an entirely different person if he had served in Congress. Thus I think speculating how he would have voted can only be hypothetical.

[FrenchieCat]

21. I agree.....

He cannot be what he wasn't, and so that I will agree with.

[Tactical Progressive]

22. I have no problem believing that Wes helped convince some to vote against the IWR

And yet it still doesn't mean that he would have voted against the IWR.
And especially when in his own words he said he would have voted for the IWR, it doesn't mean that at all.

How is it possible to explain this to those who insist that Wes Clark would have done the opposite of what he said he would have? What does it take for some Clark supporters to take Wes Clark at his word? I'm a huge supporter of Wes Clark and I have no need to twist words around to prove that Clark would have voted against the IWR just so I could support him. Yet so many here have exactly that need. The problem is that the IWR vote has become some kind of morality litmus test on DU and Clark supporters have bought into the utterly ridiculous nature of that construct and now have to have Wes be someone who would have voted against it. I respect and support Wes Clark with his admission that he would have voted FOR the IWR. I respect and support the real man, not some pretend version that I need him to have been. That pretense, that denial of his very words, is not respect.

Try to understand some reality here.

Wes Clark was against invading Iraq precipitously. Wes Clark was for continuing inspections. Wes Clark was for UN involvement. Wes Clark was against giving Bush a 'blank check' to invade Iraq.

Every Senate Democrat was against invading Iraq precipitously. Every Senate Democrat was for continuing inspections. Every Senate Democrat was for UN involvement. Every Senate Democrat was against giving Bush a 'blank check' to invade Iraq.

They all believed in those things and yet:
1 - half of the Dem Senate voted for giving Bush IWR authority
2 - Wes Clark said he would have voted to give Bush IWR authority

So, no matter how much you want to make their positions on those factors to be the same as a vote against the IWR, in PROVEABLE REALITY, they are in fact DIFFERENT THINGS. I don't know how much clearer than REALITY you need things to be.

Try this. Think of it like in your life, in your job. You argue with your boss on the new major project that this shouldn't be done at all and that should be done differently and another thing entirely should be done instead. You are adamant. He even agrees, then says that's the way those things are going to be regardless of what you or I want - Are you on the team or off? WTF kind of choice is that? It's a choice you have to make.

Why is it so difficult for some to see the circumstances of the vote on the IWR in such a fashion? Partly because of the sham the IWR has become, on DU, like some kind of morality test on whether to yes-or-no go and kill a hundred thousand people tomorrow. That absurd notion couldn't be farther from the truth, but in all its ridiculousness it is becoming some kind of 'conventional wisdom' of the loudmouth liberal contingent. It's kind of funny, ironic I guess, that the thing it seems most similar to, is the word 'traitor' that the right-wing corporate media was making liberals run from back when this all started. Kind of an absurd blowback, sweeping up Clarkies in its path.

Get a grip. The IWR was meaningless, and Clark's aquiescence to it, as well as Kerry's and Hillary's and every other Dem's, is no shame at all, no more than Max Cleland was really pro-Osama just because loudmouth righties said so. Deal with what Clark said he would have done, and deal with the bullshit of the IWR as some kind of moral litmus test. Deal with reality, fellow Clarkies, instead of trying to balance two unrealities to try make it all come out OK.

I'll even let you in on a little secret. I'm proud of the Dems who voted for the IWR. It was the harder choice to make and the right thing to do. That's for another post.

For now, just start appreciating Wes Clark for what he did, and not for what you wish he had done. Begin by taking Wes at his word and stop lying about that to make yourselves feel better. Then tell any loudmouth prick that says an IWR vote was immoral and a disqualifier of anything, to shove their baseless sanctimony up their asses and that Wes Clark did more than any of them, in fact more than all of them put together, to try to get this country not to invade Iraq as we did, as futile as the effort ultimately turned out to be. IOW deal with reality and stand up to the bullshit the way Wes always does. He'd be proud.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Well if you want to believe that Clark said that he would have

voted for the IWR, you certainly are free to.....cause I didn't hear him say that.

What I heard was a back and forth in that article- and then a few hours later he further clearified his stance....and after that, all of the interviews he held he repeated that he would not have voted for that resolution nor war.

So you can believe Wes Clark has lied about all that he has said after that one article was printed. I don't.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question, I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it.

Clark issued this statement shortly thereafter:
Gen. Clark Says He Would Have Voted No on Iraq War
by Kay Henderson
IOWA CITY - Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark said on Friday he would never have voted for war in Iraq, 24 hours after he told reporters he probably would have supported the Congressional resolution authorizing the United States to invade.

The retired four-star Army general and former NATO commander, who entered the 2004 White House race this week with no experience in elected politics, said his comments had been taken out of context.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-10.htm

So do you believe Clark when he said his comments were taken out of context or not? If not, then he's a liar in your book.

He also said....

"Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war," Clark said before a speech at the University of Iowa. "I've gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein." And later, to the Des Moines Register: "I would have voted for a resolution which gave the president leverage to seek a diplomatic, non-military solution to the problem in Iraq. I would have never voted for war," he said. "I'm a soldier. I know what war is like."***

I would have voted for a resolution that took the problem to the United Nations. I would not have voted for a resolution that would have taken us to war. It's that simple," he said. "The Congress made a mistake in giving George Bush an open-ended resolution that enabled him to go to war without coming back to the Congress."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/elec04.prez.democrats.debate/index.html

Too smart and honest to be a good candidate?
Posted by Mark Kleiman
Digby <*> reviews some Congressional testimony by Wesley Clark from late 2002 <*> and finds it both coherent (though he doesn't agree with it) and consistent with Clark's later statements.

It was a given by then that we were going in to Iraq; the only question was whether we were going in as a lonesome cowboy or as part of a posse. Clark strongly preferred the "posse" option and thought it was available, so he wouldn't have voted for the "cowboy" option and would have tried to craft a resolution pushing for multilaterialism.

I think that the United States always has the option of acting unilaterally. But I'd say in this case it's a question of what's the sense of urgency here, and how soon would we need to act unilaterally? And so I think it's very important that we recognize that so far as any of the information has been presented, as General Hoar said, there is nothing that indicates that in the immediate, next hours, next days, that there's going to be nuclear-tipped missiles put on launch pads to go against our forces or our allies in the region. And so I think there is, based on all of the evidence available, sufficient time to work through the diplomacy of this.
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/wesley_clark_/2003/10/too_smart_and_honest_to_be_a_good_candidate.php

last week, 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

I do believe that Clark did support "a" resolution....but that it was the Levin option that he supported (which would have forced a 2nd vote after a UN vote), and this is based on what Clark said.....
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/the_iraq_war_resolution_did_cl.html

10/09/02: Don't Let Congress Ratify Bush Preemption Doctrine UPDATE
UPDATE: Senate
If Sen. Daschle and Senate Democratic leaders cannot come to an agreement on the rules for debate by the end of today, then a cloture vote is likely. Cloture is a method of limiting debate or ending a filibuster in the Senate which takes at least 60 Senators. If a cloture vote carries, then it will deny Senators like Sen. Robert Byrd from filibustering. Thirty hours of floor debate is expected in the Senate, making an actual vote likely on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

The BUSH-LIEBERMAN WAR RESOLUTION is the Senate version of the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution.

The BIDEN-LUGAR AMENDMENT would authorize the use of force only to disarm Saddam Hussein, not depose him.

The LEVIN AMENDMENT, introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), would curtail the broad powers provided by the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution by requiring the President to first secure a UN Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq.
It would require a second vote in the Senate pending action or inaction by the UN Security Council.

Senators should be urged to vote for the only resolution that would mandate a 2nd vote be taken before the President can launch a war against Iraq. Thus, implore your Senators to vote YES to the Levin Amendment and vote NO to the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution – S.J.Res.46.
Don’t give up! To resist is to win!
Send Free Faxes to Congress from True Majority
http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102

So in other words, it is not Wes Clark supporters making contortions....it is that we believe Wes Clark at his word. That doesn't meant that the IWR has to be a lithmus test for anyone, except for those who choose to (and that is their business). I don't. However, I will not vote for anyone who supported this war and rationalized it as being the right thing to do. That is out for me. That's why I was able to support John Kerry; cause I don't believe he wanted to vote for the war as he spoke in the same way that Clark spoke of it at the time. However, others wrote OPeds and long articles and co-sponsored that resolution and justified that it was perfectly acceptable....and even a year later said that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. That, I have a problem with.