Has the media mislabeled Clark "anti-war"?

[greyl]

Many months ago, I thought a "blank"/Clark ticket would be a great for Democratic causes, and victory. The more I learn, I don't want Clark involved with the Dems at all.

snip>"Hearing Clark talking to CNN's Paula Zahn (7/16/03), it would be understandable to think he was an opponent of the war. "From the beginning, I have had my doubts about this mission, Paula," he said. "And I have shared them previously on CNN." But a review of his statements before, during and after the war reveals that Clark has taken a range of positions-- from expressing doubts about diplomatic and military strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. "victory" in a column declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt" (London Times, 4/10/03)."<snip

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

[renie408]

1. Clark is NOT anti-war

And from what I have read, I don't think he was all that much anti-Iraq war, like everybody says. To me, his objections revolved more around timing and how, not whether or not to go. He totally believed that there were WMD in Iraq (which I don't blame him for, lots of people had that impression). But he was a big believer in international involvement and did think we should have waited for more of a coalition, in which he was correct.

[DannyRed]

2. Read this,

Published April 10 in the Times/UK

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

Clark got some 'splainin to do....

I think he can spin his way out of this, perhaps his supporters can too, but let's talk about "nuancing" things a bit, shall we?

THERE IS NO HERO ON A WHITE HORSE.

Welcome to the Crucible, general Clark, good to have you here.

[renie408]

3. Oh boy

You ain't lying, you ain't never lied...Clark DOES have some 'splainin' to do.


>>What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory
by General Wesley Clark

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.



As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt...<<

[greyl]

4. Yes, I wonder if his uniform and not-a-hawk stance both

contributed to his early popularity. I must say, the popularity seems a bit irrational to me. It's like he's been knighted "electable" (an oh so nebulous term) without sufficient awareness of what kind of shoes he stands on.

Is it a style vs substance thing?...

[renie408]

5. I don't even get the 'electable' thing...

[DrFunkenstein]

8. Popular With The Activists, Out of The Mainstream

Or simply too much baggage to be able to fend off the inevitable media onslaught by Bush. Any Dem will have to be at the very least Bush's equal on foreign policy (in popular credibility, not idiocy) and better on the economy.

[DannyRed]

6. I am starting to think

that the various "meetings" between Clark and the others, including Dean and Kerry, came down to:

"There may be a Veep slot or cabinet position in your future, Mr. Clark, but we want to see what you got, whether you can run a campaign, and whether you can deal with the scrutiny and stand up under withering attacks.

Run your campaign, Mr. Clark, and if you win, then good on ya, and if you run a good campaign and comport yourself with courage, honor, and toughness, then we'll revisit the appointment or ticket-mate question later on next summer..."

Yeesh...I wonder how this is gonna pan out?

Politics is not combat. Presidential races are not Pentagon infights. Dealing with the media, the opposition within party, dealing with the OTHER party is much different than hashing out strategic or tactical differences with Allies over the gaming table, Mr. Clark.

[renie408]

9. I also read

at least one article (and it seems like I read it here, too) that Clark was tough to work for because was abrasive and hard on staff and did not particularly like being questioned. That's gonna make it interesting to watch how he deals with the media, if its true.

[DannyRed]

11. Clark's record

as far as dealing with the media goes is a mixed one.

He did very well as a consultant over the last months...but his performance during Kosovo was pretty bad.

[meegbear]

7. like dean

[greyl]

16. like dean what? nt

[DrFunkenstein]

10. Who In This Race IS Anti-War?

It seems that none of the major contenders are really anti-war, although all of them (except Grandpa Joe) are highly critical of Bush's rush to war. The main squabble is over the IWR. Dean and Clark are the two guys that didn't have to vote on it. Hmmm.

[DannyRed]

13. I take it

that you concede my point.

Fine.

The point you raise is an excellent one, and should be addressed - correct, Dean and Clark did NOT have to choose a yea or nay position on the IWR, and are lucky to have had the freedom to critique without having the responsibility to choose.

HOWEVER, that said, Dean most certainly DID risk a lot by coming out as early as he did with the position that he did - after all, where would Dean be if the Iraq Venture went as it was billed by the Admin? He would be in Vermont, dusting off his desk, getting out his Diplomae, and gearing up to restart his Medical Practice, that's where.

Dean risked his political reputation and his chances at success in this campaign on that stance, and that's a lot.

Kerry would, had the war gone as planned or billed, be in a very strong frontrunner position right now, with no weakness on that front.

Regardless of the political risks, the underlying question still stands - how can ANYONE argue, in the face of the comments and articles written AT THE TIME by Robert Byrd, say that "they did not know"?

Kerry's vote was wrong.

Bush was MORE WRONG, and was dishonest in the extreme...Kerry either fell for it, didn't see it, didn't read it closely enough, or didn't think it would go the way it did....He screwed the pooch, and now he's paying for it.

Clark waffled on it all, quite a bit...as evidenced by that Times/UK piece, and others.

He will pay the price for that.

The question is, how well can either Kerry or Clark recover, nuance, explain, or defend their positions in a way that will bolster their respective candidacies?

Dean had it easier then, but not that much easier. He has it easier now due to the subsequent chain of events that make his position look very smart (as well as daring and risky)...but Dean TOO has a lot of work to do to maintain his stance, maintain his cred., and keep the wolves (GOP media and SCLM) at bay.

[w4rma]

12. IMHO, Gen. Clark was Anti-Iraq war. Here's my analysis of the FAIR article

I think FAIR did a good job, but came to a different conclusion that I did

Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
…
Another "plain fact" is this: While political reporters might welcome Clark's entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views "anti-war" is to render the term meaningless.
http://truthout.org/docs_03/091803A.shtml

FAIR brought the facts together and really built a very good timeline on Gen. Clark's thoughts about the changing situation. I'm not as strict on using an anti-war label as the FAIR author is. From what I could tell, Gen. Clark tried to do all he could to keep us out, up until the point where he no longer thought that anything anyone did would stop Bush from following through.

Is Gen. Clark a dove? No. He's an owl. Gov. Dean is also an owl. Neither are pacificsts or doves. Neither will hesitate to use military force when they feel it's neccessary.

I do consider Gen. Clark to be anti-Iraq war. He was consistantly against invading leading up to the point that I think he felt was the point of no return. After that and up until it was obvious that the occupation was failing, I think Gen. Clark self-censored himself for whatever reason.

Here is an editorial written by General Wesley Clark, April 10, 2003:
What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory
…
As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

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

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

For contrast, Dean wrote this editorial on April 17, 2003:
Bush: It's Not Just His Doctrine That's Wrong by Howard Dean
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0417-07.htm

And posted this blog entry on April 10, 2003:
DEAN PRESENTS SEVEN POINT PLAN FOR IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000359.html

[DannyRed]

14. An interesting take,

And one that has merit.

Let's see how it plays out.

[goodhue]

18. for the war

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/politics/campaigns/19CLAR.html?ex=1064635200&en=3cf55b5c39e03a89&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

September 19, 2003
Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Sept. 18 — Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, even as he presented himself as one of the sharpest critics of the war effort in the Democratic presidential race.

"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."

[Brucey]

15. It's inconceivable to me

that a guy who has chosen the military as his life's work would be anti-war. He is now against the Iraq invasion. But, apparently, he is in favor of wars, at least some of the time. Maybe nearly everyone is. But I've never seen a time when it is soooo unfavorable, such an insult, so incredibly evil to be called a pacifist. The good ole USA has always been bloodthirsty, but in my lifetime I've never seen such warmongering nonsense. It is scary. I am glad that Clark sees the light about the Iraq invasion. I hope others will see it too. But I'm still apprehensive about having a military leader become our civilian leader. Banana republic is not far from the truth anymore. We can't run a fair election, then we turn the government over to the military commanders. Not my cup of tea, thanks.

[kang]

17. "Anti-war" isn't an accurate description of Clark

I don't think he flip-flopped on the issue. I think everybody thinks it's good that Hussein's regime is no longer in power, but Clark in the article points out that the war was about WMD that have yet to be found. Of course America should act if we thought we were at risk, but the point is that Clark and the rest of us were lied to.

As far as Clark being the beginning of the banana republic as somebody mentioned, it's the GOP that's solely responsible for that trend (impeachment, recount, recall). He's not planning a coup, he's going to campaign just like any other citizen can. It's not like it's an unfamiliar thing in American politics. Our first pres. was a former general too.