Gen. Clark Says He Would Have Voted No on Iraq War

[coda]

Gen. Clark Says He Would Have Voted No on Iraq War
37 minutes ago Add U.S. National - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Kay Henderson

IOWA CITY (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark said on Friday he would never have voted for war in Iraq (news - web sites), 24 hours after he told reporters he probably would have supported the Congressional resolution authorizing the United States to invade.

Reuters Photo

AP Photo
Slideshow: Wesley Clark Enters Presidential Race


The retired four-star Army general and former NATO (news - web sites) 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.


They were at odds with his public opposition to the war and caught some of his supporters off guard.


"I would have never voted for war," Clark told Reuters before delivering a foreign policy speech at the University of Iowa. "I'm a soldier. I understand what war's about, but I would have voted for the right kind of leverage for the president to head off war and avoid it."



......

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030919/us_nm/politics_clark_dc&cid=1896&ncid=1480

[Unknown Known]

1. Could the media have made a mistake???

Gee, why would the media do this to Clark? I can't imagine why?

:think:

[Trajan]

8. Its up to us to weed out the chaff ....

EVERY person who approved of the War because of the FALSE intelligence information offered by the Criminal-in-chief did so while being lied too by the PNAC bunch.....

Perhaps Clark 'may' have also 'approved' of the IWR as well, if he had received the same BOGUS info peddled by the AEI government of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz ... not to mention Perle, Shulsky and Feith ....

A reasonable man COULD come to the reasonable conclusion to make a just war against a madman with WMD ..... IF it were actually true ....

Problem is: .. it wasnt .. it was a lie .... Kerry and Liebermann and any other congressperson who voted for IWR based on 'sex'ed up' intelligence can hardly be held completely accountable ... they had NO reason to believe, based on previous recent experience, that the information would be so wrong .....

ONLY under a Bush regime could it be so wrong ... apparently ...

[Skittles]

21. Pulled

while I pull my head out. :(

[ozone_man]

23. I don't agree. Kerry, Lieberman and Clinton should have questioned

the data presented. I was not fooled by the fake data presented by Colin Powell, etc., and I'm sure many others (most at DU) were not fooled as well. You would have to be pretty naive to trust Bush on this matter. Both my senators voted against the war. Senator Kennedy voted against it, but Kerry voted for it. Maybe time for regime change and get rid of Kerry.

[Trajan]

25. For those of us out here ....

Outside of the walls of government, we have the benefit of doubt, ... and we have the time and patience to weed through the media sources to find the 'nuggets of truth' hidden within ....

Yet: Those in congress who rely on the so called 'Intelligence Estimate' have RARELY had to doubt its basic premises: ... it was something that was NOT politicized as a matter of course, since to allow this would be to deny our own government the TRUTH regarding issues of supreme governmental importance ....

Hence the smell of ROT coming from the WH lately, who have seen their own politicization of intelligence turn their dream of world domination into a nightmare of unsteady reaction ....

If one acts on the basis of lies then one CANNOT succeed : because the outcome of events dont rely on platitudes offered to a TV camera, but are molded by the FACTS on the ground ..... No matter HOW loudly Cheney declares the Iraqis will welcome americans with flowers and candy and block parties and stuff ... the FACTS on the ground deny that assertion .... and so it goes with the other falsehoods .....

In any case: ... the congress was fed a litany of lies by an organization whom they had come to expect would be free of such manipulation .... THEY were duped .... just as millions of americans were duped ....

Was I duped ? .. HELL no ! ..... were you duped ? ...... not on yer life .... But MANY citizens were fooled by these lies ....

You and I, sitting on our arses, dont have the direct responsibility of maintaining the integrity of our borders and the safety of its citizens .... We have it easy .... They, on the other hand, have to obtain intelligence from SOMEWHERE .... and the Intelligence Estimate had always been reliable in the past ..... There was NEVER a reason to suspect it had been jimmied ...

Until the BFEE/AEI/PNAC/OSP got their greasy fingers on it ..... that is ....

No: ... I wont criticize any congressperson who voted for the IWR IF they did so in the belief that the intelligence was honest ....

I personally would have NEVER voted for IWR, I thought that the UN regimen was effective ..... but IF the lies offered about Iraq were somehow true, IE if he DID have such weapons at the ready: Biological, chemical and/or nuclear, then a reasonable person COULD conclude that a war of pre-emption against such a radical regime who presented a probability of wreaking extreme and imminent destruction amongst his neighbors formed a case for justifiable war .....

NOT that I agree with that conclusion, but that a REASONABLE person could come to that conclusion .....

It all comes down to the reliability of our intelligence, and why what Bush and Cheney have done by politicizing our intelligence organs have made it more infinitely difficult to follow the correct path ... they have destroyed the trust that existed between congress and Intelligence, and destroyed our status in the world ...

IF the intelligence was honest: then Kerry would NOT have voted as he did ..... Hell: even Liebermann would have given pause .....

It is unfortunate that some of our own party leaders get cut more slack from the opposition than they do from their own here ......

Oh well ... I dont control the world ....

[coda]

32. Sometimes people like Senator Clinton paint themselves in corner.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently
no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September
11, 2001.

-- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

[tabasco]

2. He made it clear as CNN consultant

That he considered the war a mistake.

[KoKo]

3. Well, whitch is it......Yes or No...NYT's says he said yes to reporter..

then he says no........this isn't Tim Russert or Tweety asking this is a Dem grassroots who wants to know where in the Hell he's coming from! Why did he run if he can't get his views straight!

He votes for Nixon, Reagan and probably Poppy I and get's awakened after hearing Clinton's Campaign Speeeches? This guy is a Rhodes Scholar and a Professor FGS! He knows perfectly well what he believes.....what is going on that his sponsors and Draft Clark Campaign people didn't get this "buttoned up." He's going to make the Dem party look like fools for running him.

You can't have this much conflict in just a 24 hour news cycle....They should have been on top of this.

Either they know what their Candidate believes or they dont!... You don't just encourage someone to run and then have confliting statements in a the same newscycle and then figure if he "doesn't fly" then you throw him to the Liions.

What's wrong here?????? Bad Campaign Strategists, Bad Announcement Time, Bad EVERYTHING....

This shouldn't have been sloppy like this!

Here's link to what he said about Iraq Invasion to NYT's Reporter:

http://www.nytimes.com/ads/SBD-300x400.html

[MidwestTransplant]

4. Here's his point...

Voting for the resolution and voting for the war are different. Didn't the resoultion just give the Pres. authority to act. In fact, wasn't the resolution passed before the last go around at the UN? So somebody who voted in favor of the resolution wasn't necessarily in favor of the war. Clark talked about giving the President leverage and that's what it did. The problem for him is that in the soundbite world, the media doesn't have time to understand his point. So his only mistake was making a reasoned point rather than flip flopping.

[coda]

5. I agree. It looks flip-flopish to those who only view sound bites.

Unfortunately there are lots of those.

[southern democrat]

10. Why ask him how he would have voted anyway?

He was in no position to vote on this issue.His mistake was answering the question in the first place.Without knowing the intellegence and knowing the exact wording of the resoloution,he shouldn't have answered the question.He's a novice politican,the handlers will work on this.Hopefully they will soon enough.I think he may have fell victim of his own wanting to be candid answering questions to the media.While candid straight forward answers are welcome by the general public.The press is a different story.There looking for news.And if enough is said they can make good news bad or vise versa

[Eloriel]

6. Oh, I see -- perhaps you should share that talking point

with your candidate. Sounds like he could use it.

Eloriel

[kodi]

15. Oh, I see - - you dont wish candid straight forward answers by candidates

sounds like your candidate is following your wishes a bit too on the age when full benefits should kick in for SS.

[tsipple]

9. Salon Had Similar Meme

Re: Clark and his stance on the Iraq Resolution. Wasn't just the New York Times, and wasn't just a fluke apparently.

[tsipple]

7. Three Words: STAY ON MESSAGE

Clark needs some work here, but let's cut him some slack, OK?

[PurityOfEssence]

11. three more: DECIDE ON MESSAGE

He may be a soldier, but he's in a different kind of fight right now, and he is to be accorded no particular privilege or deference to rank even if he is the presumed front-runner or number two.

He is responsible for the actions of his forces, and he needs to get it together now. Did he repudiate the previous statement quickly? What the fuck is THIS all about? THIS is important.

[Sterling]

12. He's talking out both sides of his mouth.

It did not work for Kerry why would this help Clark? It is a little insulting. It's like he thinks we can't read or something or that he can just do a Jehdi mind trick on us or something.

"You did not hear me say I would vote for the war"

or

"Voting for the War and voting for the bill that allowed the war is not the same thing. These are not the droids you are looking for".

[DoveTurnedHawk]

13. Glad To See You're Such a Defender of the Whore Media

He was taken out-of-context, and yes, he was more than a little jumbled yesterday.

But his statement today is much more consistent with his stance all along.

Sorry you don't believe that; I and many others will, however.

DTH

[PurityOfEssence]

17. Let's see how he tidies it up

This is a good dry run for the kind of crap dished out in politics every day. Things don't just "go away" (well, unless you're a Republican) and whether they're fair or not, a consistent stance needs to be taken.

Look at the crap Edwards got for not hammering Dean the first time on the "only candidate to speak about race in front of white audiences". If one doesn't respond to horseshit quickly, it sticks, and allowing it to do so is a question of effectiveness.

Clark can't have it both ways. If he's selling himself as a crackerjack leader who can mobilize energies and make decisions effectively, he needs to do that. He needs to do that more than the others because he's unproven in the realm of politics (a VASTLY different dynamic than the military or even the diplomatic politics of NATO) and he needs to step lively and correctly. The way he's entered the race has already been a little untoward, so missteps aren't some kind of a gentle privilege to the newcomer; being a newcomer is the problem, so he'll be judged harsher than others.

The war is THE hot button issue of them all. If he can't get it together to vigorously dispute the media when they get it wrong, then of what use is he to anyone? He'll get eaten alive, both here and abroad. Timidity is not a virtue, and it's a ludicrous trait in a General, for Zeus' sake. This isn't a question of being on the right or wrong side of an issue, this is incompetence of communication.

Maybe this will be a great moment where he sets the record straight in a very real way and carves out a place for himself as a leader. Regardless, this is his mess, and the press can't be blamed; they've been amply proven to be biased swine of the first order, so expecting fairplay or a honeymoon is beyond naivete. We'll see.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

18. I Have No Quarrel With Anything You Just Said

Good post.

DTH

[Sterling]

19. I don't see how the whore media controls what Clark says.

Unless he is a robot and is controled remotely from an undisclosed location?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

22. It's All About Context

And I'm still waiting on you giving me one single example relating to your scurrilous accusation that I've made right-wing posts here. Because until you do, it's just a weak hit-and-run effort.

DTH

[DoveTurnedHawk]

29. Typical, Weak Post-and-Run

I thought so.

DTH

[tsipple]

16. Even Better

Well put. Well put.

[Democat]

14. The media is on the attack

Clark is getting the Gray Davis treatment.

Imagine if it was Arnold of Bush, they wouldn't be spinning like they are.

[iowa_democrat]

20. I was at Clark's speech

I don't know what sound bytes will make the news, but I was at the Student Union for Clark's speech, and I think he handled the question really well. I'll have to paraphrase here, but he said something to the effect of

"I would not have voted for the war. I've seen what war can do, I've lain wounded on the battlefield and seen fisrthand what it does to men, war is always the last resort"

God, I want this man to debate b*sh.

I am an undecided, and have been to many events and evaluated all the candidates. (hey, it is something to do in Iowa in the fall) I thought Clark was VERY impressive. I want to see more of him. He drew huge crowds today in Iowa City. The coffee shop where he had a Meet & Greet this morning was totally overwhelmed. At the Student Union, they had a huge room reserved (the main hall of the facility), and it was overflowing, definitly SRO. Met a friend who drove over from Des Moines (2hrs) to see Clark. Very enthusiastic crowd, he was interrupted several times with standing O's. He is not a great speaker, but given time will develop. It was billed as a foreign policy speech, and had been arranged 6 months ago. The Law School Dean introducing him said he'd never seen an event change so much in 48 hours.

Just my perspective.



Steve
(Johnson County Iowa)

[newyawker99]

36. Hi iowa_democrat!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[truthisfreedom]

24. this is one subject where fortunately, he can afford to make this mistake

because he's been so steadfastly against the war for so long. it's not a real flip-flop... it was one interview where he strayed from his position against an unjust, unrealistic, badly-planned war and thought about what it might be like to have to decide... to have to actually vote, surrounded by your peers, at that very moment...

look carefully at his response (when he said yes yesterday) and you'll see that he qualified it.

[Judi Lynn]

26. Here's an additional story on Clark's speech

Last Updated: 10:33 pm, Friday, September 19th, 2003

Clark fills lecture hall in first Iowa appearance
By Ed Tibbetts

.
IOWA CITY — Retired Gen. Wesley Clark urged a greater embrace of the United Nations in a speech here Friday that afforded a host of contrasts between the 10th candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination and President Bush.
.
Meanwhile, Clark also moved Friday to control damage that arose from remarks he made the day before on a campaign flight when the candidate said he “probably” would have voted for the congressional resolution last year that authorized the use of force in Iraq.

Clark, the former commander of NATO, has been a severe critic of the war, a stand that ignited much of the support for his candidacy.
.
His appearance here has been anticipated for months, and his speech at the lecture hall drew more than 1,000 people, some left standing in the aisles. The speech was said to be nonpolitical, but Clark, on a number of fronts, contrasted himself with the president, not only the handling of the Iraqi war but also the general tenor of the way the country is dealing with foreign countries. He also took a stab at some domestic issues such as Republican tax cuts. (snip/...)

http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=1017992&t=Nation+%2F+World&c=26,1017992

[Vikingking66]

27. someone explain this to me

Were the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the AP lying or distorting his words, or did Clark flip-flop?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

28. Combination of Distortion, Lack of Context, and a Muddled Clark

It was a 90-minute interview, I'm sure he just had a momentary lapse. But the papers were also typically whorish about it.

DTH

[truthisfreedom]

31. let's look at this realistically! Clark was POINTING OUT bush*'s LIES.

here's a typical article about Clark saying on thursday that he "probably" would have voted for the war, and why. he also qualified it by saying he would have "sought assurances that the president would consult with Congress again before taking action." Clark was trying to make the point that when the president leans on you for support, it's difficult to say no... he was being an apologist for the way the dems caved into bush for that vote, and saying (silently) that bush put improper pressure on and manipulated the people in congress. read the first sentence carefully... see the words "When the president... makes the linkages"? he's saying that he would have been fooled by bush's lies just like anyone else in congress. THAT'S ALL HE'S SAYING.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/09/19/clark_says_he_probably_would_have_voted_for_war/

<snip>
"On balance, I probably would have voted for it," Clark said. "The simple truth is this: When the president of the United States comes to you and makes the linkages and lays the power of the office on you, and you're in a crisis, the balance of the judgment probably goes to the president of the United States."

<snip>

Clark said yesterday that he was "against the war as it emerged" because more could have been done to build international support: "There was no reason to start it when we did."

He added that he also would have sought assurances that the president would consult with Congress again before taking action, and now that troops have been committed, they should be given the resources they need to be successful.

Asked about Dean's criticism of the war, he said, "I think that he's right that, in retrospect, we should never have gone in there."

[stickdog]

30. STOP COPYING KERRY!

Dammit.

[Emillereid]

33. Does anyone remember Clark hosting a symposium on the war

back in the Spring -- I watched it on C-Span and I have to say I was unimpressed by what I can only characterize as his 'mealy-mouth' positions regarding the war. He certainly didn't make it clear he was against the invasion -- he basically rambled on with niceties about needing to seek greater international cooperation, etc. Maybe he was just closing ranks around the troops on the ground and not wanting to criticize the operation -- but I don't remember any particular leadership qualities that jumped out. I remember so hoping he would assert his insights as military man to condemn the abuse of power that put our young people in harm's way on flimsy, distorted evidence against the wishes of the international community.

Before we jump on board the johnny come latelies who finally found it in themselves to criticize the war only after it started to go sour, let's remember those who showed real leadership in taking the unpopular position of opposing the war when it mattered -- Dean, Kucinich, Graham, Braun and Sharpely are the real heroes in my book!

[Guaranteed]

34. WHAT...THE...HELL???

How many times am I going to hear him change positions??
GET IT STRAIGHT. THE ANSWER IS "NO."

[truthisfreedom]

35. read my previous post. Clark was announcing bush*'s LIES.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=123588&mesg_id=123908&page=