Clark: I would not have voted for this war

[Bertrand]

I know that this could belong to LBN, but since this board has become the residency of the anti-clarkers, it should have a spot here too

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/09/19/national1705EDT0659.DTL&type=printable

"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."

snip


Edit: Forgot source

[blm]

1. That's what the Resolution was for...

it was authorization for use as a last resort which is what any resolution is for - a tool to threaten. None of them wanted war Bush's way. No one thought some of the same characters who put together the coalition from the first Gulf War could be capable of such incompetency as they displayed for this one.

Those who call it vote for war are being intellectually lazy.

[Bertrand]

3. unfortunatly

clark had to clarify his statements because alot of people didnt understand the difference between the resolution and actually supporting the war.


Edit: He also supported ammending the resolution to make sure that the president came back to congress for approval.

[IranianDemocrat]

8. yup

.

[killbotfactory]

7. It authorized war.

What else would you call a resolution that authorized invading another country?

[MIMStigator]

16. You'd call it....

<i>"What else would you call a resolution that authorized invading another country?"</i>

an "authorization?"

[killbotfactory]

18. So he supported authorizing the war...

But opposed the war he would have authorized?

[regnaD kciN]

21. Those who believed it wasn't a vote for war are the ones who are lazy...

...if not totally disingenuous.

The resolution authorized Bush to go to war whenever he chose. It didn't require a coalition, it didn't require U.N. approval, it didn't require any further Congressional approval. As a matter of fact, attempts were made to put such qualifiers in the resolution, and all of them were defeated.

The only think it did was to urge Bush to take those steps, and to report back to Congress, within 48 hours after combat had begun, that all peaceful resolution had been tried and had failed. That evaluation was entirely up to Bush, no proof had to be provided, and Congress could do nothing if it found Bush's claim unjustified.

The simple fact is that the resolution allowed Bush to go to war whenever he chose, with no restrictions. Those who, whether out of stupidity or fear of being branded "unpatriotic," voted for the resolution and then impotently "washed their hands of the war" once they no longer had a say, deserve only contempt. Everyone in the world could see that Bush would take the authorization and use it to start a war, no matter what. He had already called for "regime change," he had already belittled any and every attempt at peaceful enforcement of prior U.N. resolutions, he had continually insisted that Iraq had WMD, despite the inspectors claiming that there weren't any. What made those blank-check writers think that, once he had Congressional blessing, and the last limits to his ability to take us to war had been cleared away, that he would suddenly turn to diplomatic means, when it was clear he wanted nothing to do with them before?

As I said at the time, it's a little like giving a clearly unbalanced, violent person a loaded handgun, and then professing shock when he actually kills someone with it.

:grr:

[tsipple]

22. Absolutely Correct

And Robert Byrd said so, at the time, as loudly and as forcefully as he possibly could. Pretending otherwise now is disingenuous.

[IranianDemocrat]

2. THANK GOD!!!!!!!!!

HALLELUJAH!

Bertrand come to my house and I'll buy you a drink.

[Bertrand]

5. lol

i dont drink :-)

[wroberts189]

4. I dont get his position - contradictory info - see here

HOLLYWOOD, Fla., Sept. 18 -- Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he "probably" would have voted for the congressional resolution last fall authorizing war, as he charged out into the presidential campaign field with vague plans to fix the economy and the situation in Iraq.

Clark said his views on the war resemble those of Democratic Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.),


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32450-2003Sep18.html

[IranianDemocrat]

6. Theres a differene between supporting the resolution and the war.

.

[maggrwaggr]

23. not to Shrub and thousands of dead!

the IWR gave Shrub the ability to declare war on Iraq without accountability.

It was like saying to a rabid pit bull "go ahead and threaten the bunny rabbit, but don't kill it!"

Gosh, now everybody's surprised there's a dead bunny rabbit!

"well we sure didn't give him PERMISSION to kill that bunny rabbit"

[DoveTurnedHawk]

9. Good, But Christ

He really needs to watch what he says to the whore media. These early campaign missteps, while all of the attention is focused on him, are very, very dangerous.

DTH

[Donna Zen]

12. What was the Q

One of the elements missing in both of the pieces written by two of the reporters present was the question that initiated the response. Yes, agreed Clark must watch this, but sometimes when they are out to get you....

Once more for the record: every clarkbasher that has posted on this subject today has ignored the line further down the page; the line that made me sit up and take notice...he would look for healthcare money in the Pentagon budget.

Damn Jeffords! Voted for Reagan. If he was a true independent that would have never happened. And since he was a "R" once, how can anything he says be believed.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

13. They Ignore It Because It Doesn't Further Their Agenda

he would look for healthcare money in the Pentagon budget.

I mean, this is STUNNING. He is the only one who could do it, too, especially in a Thug Congress.

Nixon goes to China, redux.

DTH

[Kahuna]

14. The reporter says he said it. I thoght that was very strange in

view of the hundreds of statements I have seen and heard Clark say to the contrary. I was somewhat upset. But still, the reason I'm an avid TV news junkie is so that I can see and hear for myself what influential people are saying because I DON'T trust the press. In my heart I felt confident that Clark would clear this up. Thankfully he has.

I still hope he gets questioned about it on air so that we can all learned how it got reported in the first place. It looks to me that the print media have received their order from Rove to "Gore" Clark. Everybody knows the White House was reeeeally looking forward to running against Dean.

[Julien Sorel]

20. They were inevitable, and there will be more.

It's a learning curve, and he's going to have to go through it. Dean is a seasoned politician, and how many 'mistakes' has he made? Clark is smarter than Dean, but he isn't perfect, and he's new to the game, and this game stresses different strengths than the ones that Clark succeeded by in the past.

What I will suggest to you is that you be patient, have confidence in Clark's character and ability, and not get carried away by the handful of liars and extremists here. The majority of the country isn't looking for every opportunity to skewer Clark, like the freaked-out Deanies here are. The garbage that people here pretend to get carried away over (most of them know better, but want to smear so bad they throw their integrity out of the window) isn't going to resonate with the average Democrat, let alone the average voter. Keep your perspective, and let other people lose theirs. Just like the Kool-aid swillers used to run around saying Clark wouldn't run, he was only trying to be the VP, and all that nonsense (and where are those people now?), this stuff will blow over, and then they'll be looking for something else.

[tsipple]

27. I'm Not Freaked Out...

I'm willing to cut Clark a lot of slack. This was sort of our (Dean supporters') point, though. This is tough business, running for the presidency. Even our guy is learning, and it takes a lot of time.

I think Clark has wonderful character. So does Max Cleland. See my point? We're looking for the ace communicator, campaigner, and fundraiser with solid character. We need the full package.

But, like I said, we'll cut Clark some slack. (Well, I will, at least.)

[KoKo]

10. Well, here, he says he Supported the War? Which is it? NYT's 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. Democrats sought that
provision without success.

"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."

Moving to fill in the blanks of his candidacy a day after he announced for president, General Clark also said that he had been a
Republican who had turned Democratic after listening to the early campaign appeals of a fellow Arkansan, Bill Clinton.

Indeed, after caustically comparing the actions of the Bush administration to what he described as the abuses of Richard M. Nixon,
he said that he voted for Mr. Nixon in 1972. He also said he had voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984."


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.

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

[DoveTurnedHawk]

11. That Was a Rambling, 90-Minute Interview

And the positions he expressed within that very interview were a bit discordant. It wasn't his best moment, or anywhere close.

That interview shocked me because it was so glaringly opposed to everything I knew about him.

His explanation today seems much more consistent with his past words. So I'm inclined to believe he means it in the Iowa speech, more so than the jumbled interview.

DTH

[Kahuna]

17. I'm going to be consistent here. I take everything I read with a

grain of salt. I personally NEVER vouch for something a reporter says as gospel. I don't care whether it's reporterd in the NYTs, WP or Counterpunch. I never use them as the source of truth. My only source of truth is watching a lot of TV and cable news where I can see the subjects interviewed and hear it for myself.

I learned a long time ago how reporteres spin the news toward a certain agenda.

[madrchsod]

15. "i would have not voted for this war"

well "neither would i"

[sandnsea]

19. Well what does this mean?

He's going to have to clarify some more. He's going to have to specifically refer to the Authorization, otherwise this is more hemming and hawing as far as I'm concerned. Congress was presented with an Authorization to challenge Saddam Hussein. That was the only option available and Clark still hasn't said what he would have done with that.

[tsipple]

25. Yeah, Unfortunately This Story Drags On...

And, honestly, I don't want to see Clark dragged down by this story. John Kerry had (and has) a tough time with this issue, too.

Clark is learning. (I hope!)

The problem is that war (and specifically the invasion vote) is pretty cut and dried. You're either for it or against it. It's REALLY tough to sit on the fence on this one. Dean, for example, has spent a lot of time honing his message into very simple, easily understandable, direct language. (Listen to his stump speech and you'll see what I mean.) It's hard, but every candidate is going to have to figure this out.

Lieberman has, too. He was pro-war and still is pro-war. Unabashedly. At least you know where he stands. Gephardt's pretty good, too. He voted for the war (complete with big wet Rose Garden Bush kiss), but he now says, in effect, he was lied to, duped, and wouldn't do it again. Not great, but at least he's explaining his position clearly.

So, can you be a brilliant person and net it out for people? If there is truly "gray," can you communicate issue complexities without coming across as evasive, indecisive, erratic, or all of the above? War just strikes people (including me) as one of those pretty straightforward issues. Do you invade or not? "Maybe" was not one of the vote options in Congress. And if you can't be direct on such an issue, on what are you going to take a firm stand? School uniforms?

Maybe I'm all wet, but I don't think any candidate in 2004, of either party, is going to get away with vague and ambiguous positions on major issues. Candidates are going to have to risk upsetting a few people once in a while. Democratic pablum certainly hasn't worked in recent elections, so it's time to try something new. Like telling the truth about what you believe, why you believe it, and why (and how) you'll help the country. If you try to please everyone you'll excite no one.

[tsipple]

26. Some More Thoughts...

...And thank goodness Congress (and candidates) are being held accountable for the gravest decision they could ever make, whether to send this country (and its young men and women) to die in war.

People who try and dodge that responsibility by falsely claiming that the vote didn't authorize the President to invade Iraq at any time he pleased are, well, lying. If you can't make the tough decisions, and make them right, whether popular or unpopular, then don't apply for the Big Job.

[sandnsea]

30. Well, glad you can be so nonchalant

The war vote was only an easy decision to people who want it to be. Have you read the DoD, State, CIA, and other reports and testimony for the last 10 years? The ones that are readily available online? If you had, it wouldn't be such an easy vote. And even Clark says he would have voted to get an international solution. Like I always ask Dean supporters, what solution did he have in mind? A solution that would have lifted sanctions for the Iraqi people and gotten inspectors back in with international support. If Clark can't answer it any better than Dean has, than he doesn't have much to say. I'm waiting to hear it, but it better consider the true facts and not be just a bunch of adle-minded rhetoric to appease the liberal base. You can't say you were against the war vote, yet have no feasible solution to put in its place. Especially if you're a General.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

24. What?

I came across this same article, that Clark said today that he would "never" have supported the war.

I know the Truth is Out There. Where does Gen. Clark stand on the Iraq war? We do want to know -- this is a deal-killer issue for many people.

I saw people questioning him and even jumping ship yesterday when he said he "probably" would've voted for the war; are they now back on board?

What's the dang deal?

[captain_crunch]

28. I'm confused,

but not as much as Clark!

[Sterling]

29. He really needs to make up his mind.

This stuff did not work for Kerry I don't see how it will work for him either.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

32. I Think His Mind Has Been Made Up for Months

My guess is that he just had a momentary lapse yesterday, because of his inexperience. I hope he learns from it quickly!

DTH

[moondust]

31. He's obviously not a sound bite artist.

I don't really doubt him. After all, he is virtually Mr. Nato Alliance. I can't see him charging into a pre-emptive invasion without a legitimate international mandate.

The generals at the Pentagon who did support the Iraq adventure without the requisite intelligence and coalition support should have their competence scrutinized.