If Clark is "anti war", why did he shill for the Administration

[sfecap]

on CNN?

I don't recall him stating any opposition to the Iraq attack while collecting a paycheck from CNN. I do recall him participating in the pro attack commentary, and CNN was a veritable propaganda machine for the * admin.

Am I not remembering this correctly?

Is it a valid question that an "anti war" candidate (which I think is a complete misnomer...) who participated in pro war media coverage is a bit of a hypocrite?

Before you attack this as flamebait....understand that I like Clark, have enormous respect for his military credentials, but I don't think he is a particularly good Presidential candidate.

If I am wrong about his CNN commentary, (please correct me...) I apologize in advance to the Clark supporters if this offends them...and congrats on the announcement, may the best candidate prevail.

[bahrbearian]

1. Yes there are a few Question's he must anwser...

[kysrsoze]

95. Whatever. It's a job - and his former. He still has always been against

the war. Give him a break. He's blasting Bush right now and people are listening.

[IranianDemocrat]

2. No evidence = No credibility.

Do you have any evidence to back up that clark was pro war during the war? No. You don't.

Opinions are like assholes, everbody has them, but without evidence I can't take your post seriously.

[sfecap]

5. Well, take it seriously...because the opposition will.

I am simply asking a reasonable question. It is my recollection that Gen. Clark, while a paid consultant for CNN never (to my recollection, and I COULD BE WRONG) mentioned his "opposition" to the Iraq attack, and appeared (perception here) to support the operation.

Perhaps he did express reservations, doubt, opposition, whatever, but I never caught it. If that is the case, I would like someone to please point it out for me, a link maybe?

This question will get vetted, and I'd like to know how it will come out.

This isn't a Clark bash, it's a legit question.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. He did

In fact, just like McAfreey he was dropped fairly early
in the run up to war as a regular.

Now my recollection is fuzzy since I stuck to BBC, but one thing that the Guardian did uncover is that either Clark or McAffrey did receive a call on 9.11 about pushing the Iraq option and this individual refused

[kysrsoze]

98. LOTs of generals resigned/were forced out b/c they didn't agree w/ the war

I hope they start talking about it.

[Classical_Liberal]

35. Lou Dobbs wouldn't have him on because he criticized the war

so I would say your memory is just bad.

[pruner]

41. that's not exactly why Lou Dobbs stopped having him on

he said it was cause he felt Clark was using the airtime to push his own agenda.

[Classical_Liberal]

45. What agenda would that be? hmm!

.

[Tinoire]

89. Clark, Lou Dobbs & CNN / Clark did not play straight with CNN

"I had a very clear understanding with CNN that if I ever decided to go forward in considering becoming a political candidate that I would at that point, leave CNN. That's what I did in June," he said.

because remember Clark was still "coy" and being "drafted" in June

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030827-120957-9413r.htm

Meanwhile back in November, the year before (2002)

Retired four-star general Wesley Clark, who has been famously opaque about his party preference and political future, met privately last week in New York City with a group of high-rolling Democrats and told them he was seriously considering a run for the White House, sources tell TIME.

Lunching with about 15 Democratic donors and fund raisers at the Park Avenue offices of venture capitalist Alan Patricof, a strong Gore backer in '00 who is neutral so far for '04, Clark laid out his credentials and his differences with George W. Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/18/timep.general.tm/index.html

Lou Dobb, not being amused that Clark essentially used CNN to launch his presidential run, banned him from coming back on his show for the duration of the war.

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark may still be a CNN analyst while he contemplates a run at the White House, but there's one network show he has been barred from: "Lou Dobbs Tonight." The reason? Dobbs believes that when Clark came on his show during the Iraq war and teed off on the Pentagon blueprint, the possible Democratic candidate was pushing his personal political agenda, not providing straight military analysis.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/whisphome.htm

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

[Eloriel]

100. That was my recollection as well -- AND you can find proof

in a post on Will Pitt's thread about Clark down toward the current bottom of the thread by Donna Zen. It's part of a transcript back then (slightly pre-war) with Tim Russert. Quite revealing.

Please also read my posts to that thread -- because I now believe Clark is a plant -- whether he knows it or not.

And Hedd-Foil, if you're watching, your daughter is QUITE perceptive, isn't she???

Eloriel

[sangh0]

106. What kind of plant?

A ficus? Aloe?

[Code_Name_D]

6. Here is your proof that dosn't exsit.

FAIR: Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"

Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sfecap]

22. Fair enough...

Can you offer one statement that shows he voiced oppositionto the war? You say he was against it...is there an article, a clip, a transcript?

This is kinda important, actually.

[John_H]

39. I love it when I smell fear...it smells like victory.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[Code_Name_D]

48. I just showed you one.

And your responce was to acuse me of slander, and to call me an extremist. All while saying nothing in responce to FAIR's aticel.

[calimary]

I recall him describing Iraq as "an elective war,"

as in - this is not an essential war to get into. It's not something we HAVE to do because our lives depended on it. It's a war by choice.

[IranianDemocrat]

18. Here is a good transcript showing Clark's anti war/anti repub position!

BLITZER: General, I want you to listen, during the war, when you were still working for CNN -- and just want to alert our viewers, you're no longer working for CNN as our military analyst.
CLARK: Right.
BLITZER: But during the war, early in April, Tom DeLay, the majority leader in the House, really hammered you directly. I want you to listen to what he told our Judy Woodruff then.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. TOM DELAY (R-TX), MAJORITY LEADER: Frankly, what irritates me the most are these blow-dried Napoleons that come on television and, in some cases, have their own agendas.
General Clark is one of them that is running for president, yet he's paid to be an expert on your network. And he's questioning the plan and raising doubts as he becomes this expert.
I think they would serve the nation better if they would just comment on what they see and what they know, rather than putting their own agenda forward as an expert.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Well, pretty strong words from Tom DeLay going after you. What do you say to that criticism?
CLARK: Well, first of all, I'd be happy to compare my hair with Tom DeLay's. We'll see who's got the blow-dried hair.
But beyond that, Wolf, he's got it exactly backward. It's upside down. I am saying what I believe. And I'm being drawn into the political process because of what I believe and what I've said about it.
So it's precisely the opposite of a man like Tom DeLay, who is only motivated by politics and says whatever he needs to say to get the political purpose. And so, you know, it couldn't be more diametrically opposed, and I couldn't be more opposed than I am to Tom DeLay.
You know, Wolf, when our airmen were flying over Kosovo, Tom DeLay led the House Republicans to vote not to support their activities, when American troops were in combat. To me, that's a real indicator of a man who is motivated not by patriotism or support for the troops, but for partisan political purposes.
BLITZER: Well, he was hammering you, and you're hammering right back.

http://slackerinc.blog-city.com/read/185001.htm

[sfecap]

25. With all due respect...

That exchange shows Clark's disdain for the Bugman, but says nothing about his opposition to the Iraq attack.

[Eloriel]

103. Anti-Repug, yes; anti-war, no

In fact, even DeLay doesn't accuse him of that. DeLay says he si questioning the plan --

The PLAN. The force strength and certain other details of the war PLAN, not the war itself.

Eloriel

[ignatiusr]

21. That's no proof

FAIR needs its own FAIR. I've lost respect for that organization. First, they issued a statement talking about Clark's Meet the Press comments, and (incorrectly) stated that he had said he received a phone call from the White House on 9/11. Their error caused a lot of confusion, and a lot of people are still confused about that. Now, they issue another Clark release that is even more misleading. They have picked out the 2 quotes that they could make the most effective implications with, and ignored the other 99% of his quotes that make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that Clark has never agreed with Bush's decision to go to war. This is slant worthy of Faux, and it's incredibly ironic that it's coming from an organization that's supposed to be dedicated to correcting "inaccuracies" in the media, when they themselves are contributing to them as much as anyone.

[OKNancy]

26. This just goes to show how things can be slanted

Fair needs to do a little more accurate reporting too. For example the last line.."Let's have those parades on the mall and down Constitution Ave."

Here is the context:

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 demobilise yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.

[calimary]

52. That's okay. We need people with fast comebacks like that.

That was a GOOD THING! Any time somebody publickly denounces that rat-bastard Tom "bug juice" DeLay (or would that be "Beetlejuice?") it's good for America. DeLay and the rest of 'em could use a GOODLY AMOUNT of public dressing-down and being put in their place. Their time's UP!

[Zuni]

82. OH MY GOD

That is just short of saying he wanted to bomb every man woman and child in the ME back to the stone age!!!!
He was practically running those pro-war rallies with the freepers!

I am sure it was Wes Clark who decided to invade Iraq in the first place.

He also worked very hard to make sure Serbian children were bombed in Kosovo, rigged the Florida elections AND set fire to the Waco compound.

Come on, those are innocous comments from a commentator.

[kysrsoze]

97. I believe the real quote is...

"and everyone else's stinks but mine."

[Starpass]

3. No--Clark was always pissing on the Administration's reasons,

planning, etc. That's why once they got closer to and started the war, Clark was dumped and replaced by "gung-ho" "ain't this gonna be fun" military analysts. They did not want Clark around any more because he pointed out things they didn't want people to hear.

[sfecap]

7. When did CNN dump him?

Do you recall?

I thought he did commentary after the beginning of the attack, but like I said, I may be wrong on this...

Thanks.

[indepat]

11. If Clark shilled for the war at any time, then what does he have to

offer?

[Bread and Circus]

12. Clark wasn't dumped by CNN..

he voluntarily withdrew this summer when the Draft
Clark thing heated up, I presume because he knew
it represented a conflict of interest if he chose
to run. That's my take, but hey, I like Clark
so what does my opinion matter on DU, we are all
being programmed by Rove :shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Before the shooting started

By weeks, since he was not playing ball

[sfecap]

34. Thanks...appreciate it.

n/t

[diplomats]

4. I seem to recall him saying the admin. shouldn't have launched

a unilateral attack.

[sfecap]

8. Is there a link somewhere?

Thanks...

[ignatiusr]

9. Yes, you are incorrect

You're definitely misremembering. Clark questioned the war throughout the commentary, so much so that Tom Delay felt it necessary to make those infamous inflammatory comments about Clark during his commentary. Lou Dobbs, Republican idiot, also banned Clark from his show because he thought he was bringing too much of his own Democratic-leaning views to his commentary.

[sfecap]

14. Can you find a link? An article? Something?

Thanks.

[CarlBallard]

27. Here you go

http://www.draftclark2004.com/news_detail.asp?nid=102

It's from the Draft Clark folks, but it shows the contraversy, and that the General handeled it well.

Clark showed that he will be a formidable opponent on the campaign trail, as he adeptly handled criticism from House Majority Leader Thomas DeLay. General Clark was reminded that Rep. DeLay had referred to him and other former military leaders critical of American Iraqi policy as “blow-dried Napoleons."

[Classical_Liberal]

47. March 23, 2003

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/ Gen. Wesley Clark, unplugged

[Bread and Circus]

19. ingatiusr

where have you been?

Yeah, you are right. Lou Dobbs banned Clark
and the Fox is on all-out blitz attacking Clark.

Clark has been very intelligent, logical, and balanced
about the Iraq thing since last fall. God forbid anyone
who isn't a partisan hack with an axe to grind gain office.

[Zuni]

85. Clark offered a lot of restrained critiscm

I do not think at the time, he was supposed to say this and that--after CNN has sponsors, ratings. So while he was paid by CNN, he had to mute his critiscms and push them in an off hand manner.
His critiscms were tactful, made for soccer moms and TV viewers.

[CMT]

15. i'm sure the other campaigns

are poring over his CNN commentaries to find inconsistencies.

[readmylips]

16. Clark & McCaffrey rooted for the War...military minds.

McCaffrey is also a democrat and they both participated in pro war media coverage and strategy. You have to understand that military people take orders and feel bound to the commander and thief,no matter who he is. They are no different from Colon Powell. I'm for Dean. Dean hates littleman bush and he whole administration, and I do too.

[ignatiusr]

23. Huh?!

Readmylips, unfortunately, saying it doesn't make it so. You can make bizaare claims that Clark "rooted for the war" all you want, but the simple facts show that you're absolutely incorrect. Have you even looked at the facts, or are you just making shit up? I suspect the latter. Informed discussions are welcome, but this is nonsense.

[MoonRiver]

29. Clark was one military expert I would watch because he didn't pump up war

He just talked about the military maneuvers and strategic decisions. I don't remember the topic of whether Gen. Clark believed the Iraqi war was right or wrong coming up, ever.

What I got from Gen. Clark's commentaries was factual information about how stupidly Bu*h was conducting his illegal war.

[sfecap]

37. Thank you, saywhat...

n/t

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pepperbelly]

20. why don't you get specific rather than ...

just posting a steaming pile of poo-poo and insisting it isn't flame bait? How do you expect anyone to seriously answer you when you post on the most general terms and do not provide any specifics?

I think you misremembered completely as well as conflating two seperate roles: one as a paid military consultant regarding strictly military matters while on the CNN payroll and the other when Wesley spoke for himself, outside of his role as an analyst. As an analyst, he did exactly that. Any time he appeared OUTSIDE of that role, on another network, for example, he blasted the shit out of Bush.

[dfong63]

31. explain this

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. (snip)
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.''

these are not the words of an anti-war candidate, they're the words of a weasel who wants to be on the side that he thinks is winning.

[ignatiusr]

40. Another misleading, selective set of quotes

Your snips were quite convenient, dfong. Strangely enough, you failed to mention that directly after making the statement about victory, Clark says that more work and planning is needed, and spends the next 4-5 paragraphs talking about all that needs to be done. I would also point out that Clark was talking about the outcome of the war, not whether we should have gone in in the first place.

Equally as strange, you fail to mention that directly after making the comment about Bush and Blair, Clark says this:

"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."

[dfong63]

55. not misleading at all

nothing in the rest of the article can erase the pro-war cheerleading of the parts that i quoted, touting the "liberation" and congratulating Bush and Blair. if Clark had been truly opposed to the war, then why was he congratulating the POS liars who instigated it? don't tell me that isn't hypocritical.

[Bertrand]

42. I dont see anything there that would conflict with an anti-war position

Point to me where the conflict is and explain how it is a pro-war statement. I think you may be confusing pro-war with pro-victory.

[dfong63]

59. congratulating the liars who started the war,

... instead of calling them on their lies, that is pro-war.

you try to make a distinction between "pro-war" and "pro-victory", but if one is really against the war (which Clark supporters are saying he was), then what happened was not a victory, it was a travesty. that's what an anti-war candidate would have said. an anti-war candidate would have taken a stand, instead of pointed out the broader implications of this BLUNDER, rather than gently and politely raising questions about strategy.

[Bertrand]

73. Youre wrong

1. Clark has stated many times he believes the admin to have mislead the American people into war, so why are you saying he hasnt been calling Bush Co. on their lies?

2. I didnt try to make a distinction, i did make a distinction because the two are not the same. There are people out there who beleive that while they disagree with the war, because it was thrust onto the stage and now existed, they want the troops to win against Saddams Army. Im one of those people. Saddam was a tyrant, and while i would have wanted the situation to have been dealt with in another way, It wasnt. So the choice remained: are you rooting for saddams army or the US? I was rooting for the US.

[dfong63]

80. the man's own words

1. Clark has stated many times he believes the admin to have mislead the American people into war, so why are you saying he hasnt been calling Bush Co. on their lies?

i didn't say he "hasn't" been calling them, i said he "didn't" in the article. in that entire article, which CLARK wrote, there was not a word about Bush or Blair misleading the people; there was cheerleading and congratulating. Clark may have said different things to different audiences later, but when the heady scent of victory was in the air, Clark was quick to put a positive spin on it. that is not the behavior of a true anti-war candidate.

if you don't agree with me, then ask yourself WHY the commondreams web site carried that article under the title, "Anti-war candidate?" note the question mark.

the parts i quoted show that, at best, Clark tried to have his cake and eat it too. nothing in the rest of the article changes the meaning of the parts i quoted. obviously commondreams believes that the article AS A WHOLE calls into question Clark's anti-war credentials.

Saddam was a tyrant, and while i would have wanted the situation to have been dealt with in another way, It wasnt. So the choice remained: are you rooting for saddams army or the US? I was rooting for the US.

so you're either with us or against us? that's the administration's line. it's what's known as a false choice. i was not rooting for either side. someone who is against the war should be focusing on what's wrong with the war, and how to save lives, rather than "rooting" for either side.

you can try to make a distinction between "supporting the troops" and "supporting the war", but Clark didn't do that. instead, he congratulated the warmongers Bush and Blair, and gave them advice on how to "complete" their "great victory".

those are not anti-war statements.

[knight_of_the_star]

96. Did you consider this?

Saddam was a tyrant, and while i would have wanted the situation to have been dealt with in another way, It wasnt. So the choice remained: are you rooting for saddams army or the US? I was rooting for the US.

If you had to choose, would YOU want to root for a bloody-handed tyrant or your fellow countrymen? Granted, I didn't choose either side as well, but considering his position Clark doesn't really have the choice. Being a former general, it would 1.) look bad for him NOT to support the troops and 2.) Probably knows some of the people who are in there at the moment and would quite obviously want to see to it that they get home safe. Being a former general, he probably felt he HAD to make the choice between either supporting his comrades in arms or supporting the enemy, and he wouldn't do that. And from a political stance, it allows him to say that he supported the troops.

[Bertrand]

102. Re: the man's own words

say he "hasn't" been calling them, i said he "didn't" in the article. in that entire article, which CLARK wrote, there was not a word about Bush or Blair misleading the people; there was cheerleading and congratulating.

Its not Clarks job to express what you want him to express in every column. He has said many times (for those that care to research it) that the Bush admin mislead the public into war, and thats all that matters to the debate of whether he was pro or anti-war. Also, point out where he was cheerleading for Bush and Blair because from what ive read, he was admiring their political skills instead of their ideological beliefs.


Clark may have said different things to different audiences later, but when the heady scent of victory was in the air, Clark was quick to put a positive spin on it. that is not the behavior of a true anti-war candidate.

I completely agree with you that Clark is very diplomatic, which is a plus i guess if he were to get to the general election, but imo this article doesnt prove your assertion that the tag "anti-war" is false.

if you don't agree with me, then ask yourself WHY the commondreams web site carried that article under the title, "Anti-war candidate?" note the question mark.

the parts i quoted show that, at best, Clark tried to have his cake and eat it too. nothing in the rest of the article changes the meaning of the parts i quoted. obviously commondreams believes that the article AS A WHOLE calls into question Clark's anti-war credentials.

Yes, but this means nothing to me since it's the appeal to authority fallacy. I disagree with their premise that this article proves Clark to be anti-war.

so you're either with us or against us? that's the administration's line. it's what's known as a false choice. i was not rooting for either side. someone who is against the war should be focusing on what's wrong with the war, and how to save lives, rather than "rooting" for either side.

you can try to make a distinction between "supporting the troops" and "supporting the war", but Clark didn't do that. instead, he congratulated the warmongers Bush and Blair, and gave them advice on how to "complete" their "great victory".

those are not anti-war statements.

Youre right, i should have presented the neutral option. My fault. That said, i wasnt attempting to bring up the "us vs them" rhetoric since i sympathize with those that are against the concept of a nation-state, but pointing out that i would have prefered an American military victory over a Saddam one since i believe that the negatives of imperialism are much more positively ingrained within the psyche of the current dominant ideology, so the immediate impact of a postive reform of iraq (which this hasnt been to say the least) would have a greater significance on the lives of iraqis in a postive manner than the non-capitulation of the American Military Machine.

[IranianDemocrat]

88. So you loathe the images of cheering iraqis eh?

wow.

[Pepperbelly]

43. exactly what I expected out of you ...

and very consistent with the intellectual integrity thusfar demonstrated. However, in providing a link to it, the context for each remark becomes clear and the sentences following the snippets reveal the true meaning of the writing.

This paragraph summarizes it:

"It’s to the men and women who fought it out on the arid highways, teeming city streets and crowded skies that we owe the greatest gratitude. All volunteers, they risked their lives as free men and women, because they believed in their countries and answered their calls. They left families and friends behind for a mission uncertain. They didn’t do it for the glory or the pittance of combat pay. Sadly, some won’t return — and they, most of all, need to be honored and remembered."

And the paragraph directly following the sentence re: Blair and Bush:

"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."

Give it a rest, dfong.

[dfong63]

56. those are not anti-war statements

[Pepperbelly]

57. denial ...

dfong. You pulled the stuff out of context and it is there for all to see.

[dfong63]

65. you're the one in denial

the parts you added do nothing to change the meaning of Clark's pro-war cheerleading in the parts i quoted. Clark congratulated the LIARs for their "resolve", when he should have been damning for their TREASON.

[Pepperbelly]

66. man, you just can't let go of a cherished belief even when it isn't true.

But you can insist on calling it what you want because you will, despite the facts, despite the words, despite the fact that you pulled them out of context.

Kinda like the knight in Monty Python. What will you do next? Headbutt since your legs and your arms are gone?

[dfong63]

105. nice try

i'm going to type this r e a l s l o w for you: the commondreams web site carried the WHOLE ARTICLE under the title, "Anti-war Candidate?" obviously they felt that the WHOLE ARTICLE in sum called into question Clark's anti-war credentials. the excerpt that i quoted, contained the relevant parts. nothing in the parts you added changed the meaning of the parts i quoted. the quote was not "taken out of context".

just because Clark has taken inconsistent positions doesn't mean that i took his words out of context.

just because you can't defend his lame cheerleading, doesn't mean that anything was taken out of context.

your hero is a narcissistic opportunist who fund-raised for the repubs only 2 years ago. now he wants to be the leader of the dem party.

[Pastiche423]

71. The guy was having an orgasm

over the victory, for cripe's sake!

How in the world can you say that was taken out of context? Stick at the top, bottom or sideways in an article, it still means the same.

General Wesley Clark is not anti-war!

[Bertrand]

62. If you believe that

perhaps you could respond to my post (#42)

[dfong63]

68. see response #59

if one is opposed to the Iraq war, then the outcome was not something that the perpetrators should be congratulated for.

[Zuni]

86. You do not have to be raving like Ramsey Clark

to have subtle blows at the administration.

Remember, the hard core anti-war crowd preaches to the choir.
Wes Clark, a former high ranking official, expressed the kind of subtle doubt that the average people listen to in war time.

[CarlBallard]

49. Sounded reasonable to me

As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.

Perhaps you should have read the whole thing. It said we fought the war well but there are lots of problems. Basically the position of Dean and Clinton.

[carpetbagger]

69. Karl Rove couldn't have done a better pasting job.

The ends of both of these paragraphs say a whole lot about how Bush mismanaged the military victory, and the fact that they were left off says a whole lot about the validity of your "weasel" accusation:

"Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph."

"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. "

And the end of the piece is so accurate one would think it was written much later:

"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. "

[moondust]

72. Interesting article.

1. This was not on CNN. It was published in the Times/UK. To some extent I think Clark is being diplomatic with UK readers at a time of potential constitutional crisis.

2. Unless something else like this surfaces I'd be inclined to say it's an isolated incident heavily influenced by the circumstances of the moment.

[Amanda]

94. And dfong

Clark's article for the UK Times, as selectively quoted by you, simply states this: yes, it was very moving to see that big statue of Hussein toppled in Baghdad and yes, it was a moment that rivaled the fall of the Berlin Wall when throngs of people celebrated the ousting of their oppressive tyrant. If the war was worth it, then Bush and Blair will have shown the world that it was wrong to question their resolve. HOWEVER - there are far more questions than answers about this war, and once we move past that fleeting "victory" in Baghdad our leaders will have to own up to some pretty serious facts about this mission.

"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."

I found Clark's piece to be decisively critical of the way the US has handled itself in Iraq, and especially in regard to our strained relations with the rest of the world.

Again, I don't believe Clark has ever called himself "anti-war". But he has most certainly been critical of how Iraq has been handled and the dubious reasons for why we found ourselves there in the first place. Any criticism of the Bush White House is considered "anti-war" and "anti-American" in this day and age because they paint with just as broad a brush as you do.

I'd also like to point out that that article was written at a time where many other Democrats were put on the spot by the conservative propaganda machine. If you opposed the war, then you naturally opposed the sweet, sweet freedom of the newly liberated Iraqi people. You were anti-liberty for criticizing Bush and Rumsfeld's enthusiasm for blowing Baghdad off the face of the Earth. Naturally, most Democratic commentators were careful to preface all criticism with how wonderful it was that Saddam was finally gone. Yes, ALL Democrats need to stop compromising their political integrity by concerning themselves with the conservative spin game, and start voting and speaking their minds and from their hearts.

You can read into or take from the article whatever you like (another link in case anyone actually wants to read it), but continuing to argue your point off of a couple of SERIOUSLY out-of-context quotes seems a little silly. But hey, whatever - it's your free time.

[sfecap]

33. OK, here's a very specific question...

Can you provide me with any statement, clip, transcript, etc of Wes Clark declaring his opposition to the Iraq attack? (Either prior to being employed with CNN, or after?)

Is that specific enough?

He is being described (rightly or wrongly) as an "anti war" General. I would like to have some proof of this.

[Pepperbelly]

46. I don't collect links but ...

I do remember when he appeared on MSNBC contemporaneously with his employment with CNN and he hammered Bush like the punk he is. It was back during the war and I do not even remember which program he was on.

No, this isn't a link but rather my recollectiom and please, do not accuse me of lying about it although with the recent climate here, it would not surprise me.

[sfecap]

58. I'm not going to accuse you of anything.

I'm just looking for some information, that's all...

[Pepperbelly]

67. thank you ...

:D

If I had links collected on it, I would give them to you. That was my recollection.

[ignatiusr]

50. OK

Here's a quote. If you've been watching him even casually over the last few months, in almost every appearance he's made he's criticized the war. Here's one example, from a recent interview on Inside Politics:

WOODRUFF: I also asked Clark about his criticisms of the Bush administration's Iraq policy and whether he thinks the war that was fought there is worth it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLARK: It's clear right now, Judy, that it wasn't worth going in as it was billed to the American people. There was no eminent threat to the American people, there was no eminent threat. This was a policy sold on fear and intuition and an absence of evidence and now we're there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[sfecap]

63. Thank you, ignatiusr...

...but that's a quote post attack. I'd like to see somethign that he said before the attack on Iraq.

I don't mean to sound bullheaded, but I pretty much know what he has said after it became evident that * screwed the pooch. His pre war comments are what I'm looking for.

I appreciate your getting that transcript, though.

Thanks.

[dfong63]

75. clark made some post-attack comments that were pro-war too

see message #31 in this thread.

[IranianDemocrat]

90. You mean your out of context slander?

Co back to your CPUSA meetings.

[CarlBallard]

54. I already did on this page but here's the link again

http://www.draftclark2004.com/news_detail.asp?nid=102

Honestly people.

Iraq, Clark said, “is not" the centerpiece of the war on terror. “We went into Iraq under false pretenses," he said. “There was, you call it deceptive advertising, you'd be taking him to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq."

[sfecap]

64. Carl, thanks...

...but that's a press release from the campaign. I'd like something from the print media, a transcript, something pre attack if it ia available.

I appreciate Clark's comments post attack, and his going after this administration, but I'm trying to pin down what he said or did not say prior to the war.

Thanks again.

[OKNancy]

60. Damn I just saw Hardball re-run and he was

certainly anti-war tonight.

[Zero Gravitas]

24. Military Analyst

He was paid by CNN to analyse the military situation in Iraq, not to give political opinions about whether it was a good idea or not. He did what he was paid to do: analyse the military situation.

[Julien Sorel]

28. Puhleaze.

You 'like Clark,' but he 'shilled for the Administration,' is a 'hypocrite,' and 'don't think he is a good presidential candidate.' What, then, exactly do you like about him? His military credentials? How can you like military credentials? Personally, I don't like hypocritical shills, but we all have our own standards.

He worked as an analyst during the war. How does that make him a 'shill?' Because you obviously don't know what the word means, allow me:

Shill: to act as a spokesperson or promoter

Clark didn't promote the war; he analyzed it, and he sure wasn't its spokesman. Shall I provide a definition of that word as well?

Similarly, I don't think you have a good grasp of the word 'hypocrite.' He worked as an analyst for a war he felt was a mistake. How does that make him a hypocrite? Was Walter Cronkite a hypocrite for continuing to cover the Vietnam War after he decided it was unwinnable? Was David Halberstam? If one decides something is misguided, must one immediately sever all contact with it, or be a hypocrite? Not according to the definition of the word I know.


Forgetting the meaning of words so you can slam someone isn't the best way to 'let the best candidate win.' Let it go! The world does not revolve around Dean. If Dean loses, the sun will still rise and set, birds will not lose their song; women (or men, if you swing that way) won't turn ugly; food won't lose its taste -- it isn't the end of the world.

[dfong63]

36. clark did promote the war

Clark didn't promote the war; he analyzed it,

Clark did promote the war; see quote in message #31.

Forgetting the meaning of words so you can slam someone isn't the best way to 'let the best candidate win.' Let it go!

your candidate has more than a few words of his own to forget. and telling people to "get over it" isn't going to help.

[ignatiusr]

51. Nope

I saw message 31. It was deliberately misleading and a totally incaccurate representation.

[Pepperbelly]

53. you pulled that out of context, dfong ...

and if you don't know it or didn't do it intentionally, then you should re-read the piece because you are seeing booger bears where there are none.

[dfong63]

70. not at all taken out of context

nothing in the rest of the article altered the meaning of the parts i quoted. this is a discussion of whether Clark is truly an anti-war candidate. i say NO. if you don't believe that the article as a whole (which as you know i can't quote in full due to copyright restrictions) supported my thesis, then ask yourself this: why did the commondreams web site carry the article with the title "Anti-war Candidate?"

[Pepperbelly]

83. i cannot be responsible for what common dreams may or may not ...

conclude.

What I do know is that your quotations do not reflect the serious indictments he made of the rationale for the war, the results of the war, or his suspicions regarding what the Administration intends to do. But those things do not support the spin du jour.

[moondust]

32. Given his extensive international experience

I would believe that Clark sided with the U.N. and allies early on and did not waver much if at all. Can't see him abandoning long-time friends and allies for any "go it alone" invasion of a sovereign nation. He's way too smart for that. Of course he may have praised the job the military was doing.

[sfecap]

44. That makes sense...

Thanks, Buzzzz.

I have read the recent press releases that his campaign has put out, and I understand his present view. I just am trying to nail down somthing from the time prior to the attack.

[UTUSN]

38. Here We Go: If It's a DEM, Let's Rip'im n/t

[neverforget]

61. Clark's job on CNN as a military analyst, was to inform the viewer

of military tactics, strategy, weapons and capablities not to give a running a political commentary of pro or anti-war views. If he did either, he'd been fired.

[Zuni]

104. exactly

he was a military expert called in to comment on strategy. His job was not to push a political agenda.

[Donna Zen]

74. From the right

Morton Kondrake of Roll Call says, “The Democratic party should think very carefully about taking advice from Wesley Clark, who has been a doomsayer about this from the beginning.”

“The two big losers of the war in the media were Gen. Barry McCaffrey and Wesley Clark,” says University of Virginia political-science professor Larry Sabato. “They were so wrong. They got way out on a limb on criticizing the Pentagon and the war plan and obviously the success of the operation cut the limb off.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/geraghty/geraghty041703.asp

If you read the Counter Punch article carefully...he 1) describes the situation at the time (4/03) and on the ground...2) is critical of the diplomacy 3) says that the thing can come undone 4) says it ain't over til its over

Did he call bush and blair satan spawn while writing for a foreign paper during war time with General as a first name and thus representing his country? Well duh...diplo-speak is a pisser.

The above rightwing spew, although it can't even come close to the attempts at personal character attacks made by many DUers, clearly demonstrates and cites evidence of plenty of Clark's pre-war objections to "bush does baghdad."


Counter Punch...now are they a division of Fox News, if not they should get themselves a new agent.

[Classical_Liberal]

77. They're 3rd Party Marxist

who were always thrid party even before Nader. They also spread the Gore invented the internet ruse.

[dfong63]

78. those are not anti-war statements either

“They were so wrong. They got way out on a limb on criticizing the Pentagon and the war plan and obviously the success of the operation cut the limb off.”

note, "criticizing the war plan" is not the same as opposing the war.

Did he call bush and blair satan spawn while writing for a foreign paper during war time with General as a first name and thus representing his country? Well duh...diplo-speak is a pisser.

Clark was a private citizen at the time, not officially representing the country, and under no obligation to use "diplo-speak". if he thought Bush and Blair were lying, he could have and should have said so. or does Clark maybe have some kind of allergy to plain speaking? since when does having "General as a first name" mean you can't speak the truth?

[Zuni]

87. I agree totally

Counterpunch has moved from attacking Bush to attacking Democrats. In essence they are the new Naders, splitting the liberals and progressives.

[Clark Can WIN]

76. Because it's all become interchangable

Anti-Iraq ego trip II = Anti-Bush = unpatriotic = anti-war = scaryuniformilitaryindustrialcomplex = eats babies for breakfast = your head spinning.

It's the same song but sung by the bass and soprano section only, nothng in the middle.

And thanks Will, best of luck to you and yours too.

[readmylips]

79. TV military commentators were all for the war....

and they all sounded like republicans. It was not until a few weeks ago that we found out that Clark was a democrat. If Clark was against the war, he shouldn't have taken the full time CNN job, and publicly should have said that he was not for the war. Clark knew that military commentators for bush were the ones on tv 24/7. Besides, as a high military man, Clark knew the war was based on lies. He never told us shit.

Clark is beginning to sound like Ahhnold...I made up lies about sex, orgies and drugs for the good of body building, and to get publicity for my self interest.
Yeah Right.

I was cheering for the war on CNN but I was really analyzing for the big bucks CNN paid me. Right.

Dean was not cheering for the war, and CNN couldn't have bought him to cheer or analyze a war he did not agree with. A war based on lies.

[Julien Sorel]

93. An opportuniuty.

First, explain this:

If Clark was against the war, he shouldn't have taken the full time CNN job,

Why not?

Then, prove this:

I was cheering for the war on CNN but I was really analyzing for the big bucks CNN paid me. Right.

Prove he was 'cheering for the war.'

[Amanda]

81. I would just like to point out

that I don't believe Clark has ever described himself as "anti-war". "Anti-war" is a tag that the conservative media has tacked on to most if not all of the Democratic candidates in this campaign who opposed war with Iraq or who question this administration's handling of the attack. I think it's valid to examine Clark's position on Iraq, both now vs. when the attacks began just as it is valid to examine the political integrity of any official. I do think, however, that a lot of this "anti-war" rhetoric is being driven by a very scared White House whose only selling point happens to be national security and the war on terrorism. Convincing an American public (who is so misinformed as to think that Hussein was responsible for 9-11) that Dems are "anti-war" and thus anti-security and pro-terrorism is exactly what they need to win in 2004.

[TacticalPeek]

101. Precismo.

Clarity of language is necessary for clarity of thought here.

"Anti-war" is getting thrown around in a mish-mash. NO general is anti-war in a pacifist sense, despite what you may hear from faux or the WH. Clark was clearly anti-Iraq War, in the same way that Marine General Zinni was, "Wrong war. Wrong place. Wrong time.".

One of the most damning and valid criticisms of aWol's Iraq mess is that it detracts from the just and necessary war against Al Queda. It diverts finite military and intel assets; it alienates our allies who are vital to our effort against real terrorists who are a real threat to us; and it invigorates the terrorist recruiting effort.

I am pro-war against Al Queda and the like, and I am anti-aWol's war because it is anti-anti-war-on-queda.

[TacticalPeek]

84. Meet the Press, 16 Feb 03

Mr. Russert: Is this a necessary war?

General Clark: Probably not. I would say this is an elective operation at this time. This is like elective surgery. And the risks that we're facing right now is we've got North Korea out there. We know they are moving to produce weapons of mass destruction? It doesn't mean that you can't deal with Iraq also. But we haven't come full to grips with North Korea yet in my view, and now, we've got homeland security? And when you're contemplating a $100 billion resource expenditure against Iraq, but you can't put another $5 billion into Homeland Security to protect the American people, you have to ask: Which strategy best protects America?


Is political-speak good enough, sfecap?

I'm finding that a lot of his pre-war text is now in off-line or pay archives. Is this just a test of archive access or what? If you have greater access, I'm sure you could google up plenty of basis for an opinion of Clark's view of invading Iraq. Incidentally, I came across tons of pre-war Clark stuff that was prescient about the current mess, diplomatic isolation, cost, etc. My guy is brilliant.

[Zuni]

91. Clark never shilled

His tome was always skeptical--he did moderate his tone at a time of war--but there were always subtle jabs at the Administration.

[TacticalPeek]

92. Which is why, lest we forget, that KKKarl leaned on CNN to stifle him. n/t

[Tinoire]

99. Some quotes for your evaluation sfecap

For someone so...appalled, Clard certainly wasted a sterling opportunity to speak out. Not once did he mention the outpouring of citizen opposition to U.S. plans at home and abroad. Clark talked about this war as if it were a foot-ball game and never once mentioned the contractors who never showed up or the malfunctioning equipment. Never once mentioned how... "sanitized" what we were viewing was while real flesh and blood soldiers and Iraqis were dying. He went right along with the networks commenting

Those Generals hired by the networks were gushing so much that it shocked impartial DUers who commented about it at the time and have posts about it in the archives.

-----------------------------
And meanwhile, every network news set was transformed into a boozy officers’ club, with a succession of current and former military guest analysts who lined up to be gently fellated on air: Wesley Clark, Norman Schwarzkopf, William Cohen, Brigadier Gen. David Grange (ret.), even the evil narc monster Barry McCaffrey, a person whose acceptance in polite society I remain completely unable to comprehend. While these overgrown kids were allowed to stomp around the sets doing their best Buck Turgidson impersonations (in one particularly chilling segment, Clark and CNN anchor Miles O’Brien played with a model A-10 Tank killer plane, with O’Brien zooming it back and forth over a map of Iraq), the reporters did their best to add their own rhetorical flourishes to the Bush administration’s transparent efforts at myth-making.

3/26/2003 ((I remember this memorable scene clearly, you can probably still find photos of it on the net.))

http://www.nypress.com/16/13/news&columns/cage.cfm
---------------------------------------------------------


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

He ((Clark))doesn't want to second-guess President Bush on the eve of battle.

"I've told all the Europeans, they need to get on the team," he explains. "It's better to be inside the tent than outside."

<snip>

Clark doesn't doubt that overwhelming U.S. military power would quickly crush Saddam Hussein's relatively weak forces. Indeed, he gave a dazzling briefing for global leaders at the World Economic Forum here this week about how U.S.-led forces will move toward Baghdad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A4006-2003Jan30¬Found=true
-------------------

STEVE RENDALL: I'm going to stress that I'm glad Aaron Brown came on here, and I meant what I said- to face the music. And it just so happens that I have looked at some of the transcripts, and what I see is gross imbalance. Some of the conversations you had with retired General Wesley Clark are downright gushing. I've heard Clark on there saying, 'Don't those troops look great?' Quote, 'Now I'm looking at the troops, they're all in uniform, they've got their gear, they've got their stuff together, you look at those men, they're physically fit, they're ready- that's a great Army'. And a few minutes later you say, 'They are, they are, in many respects, marvelous things to see'.

Contrast that with a few nights ago you had on Daniel Ellsberg, it was one of the rare times we were actually hearing articulate anti-war voices on the television and I'm grateful for that and it's good that you put these voices on.
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/889601/posts

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

Thursday, October 10, 2002

The key issue about Iraq has never been whether we should act if Saddam doesn't comply with U.N. resolutions and disarm. Rather, the problems are how we should act, and when. As for the how, the answer is clear--multilaterally, with friends and allies, with every possible effort to avoid the appearance of yet another Christian and Jewish stab at an Islamic country, with force as a last resort, and with a post-conflict plan in place to assure that the consequences of our action do not supercharge the al-Qaeda recruiting machine. As for the when, let's take the time to plan, organize and do the whole job the right way. This will only take a few more weeks, and it's important. It's not just about winning a war--it's also about winning the peace. (:puke:)

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/index.html
---------------

September 18, 2001

CLARK: I hope that people will understand that this is a threat to Western civilization, not to the U.S. And it is a threat that cannot be appeased by apologies or changing policies toward Israel. It is derived from fundamental conflicts within Islam itself, and the impoverishment and tragedy that has befallen Afghanistan.

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/09/18/clark.cnna/index.html
----------

Several days after Fox News began accusing anti-war protesters of betraying our troops, yet before that network's Geraldo Rivera got bounced by the 101st Airborne for revealing its movements, a friend called from the East Coast. He began ranting about how the war coverage was being distorted by military analysts - from lucid ABC zombie Tony Cordesman to CNN's politically ambitious General Wesley Clark - who would never talk honestly about U.S. policy. "Watching TV," he growled, "you'd think that everybody in America worked for the Defense Department."
http://www.hempfarm.org/Papers/Soldiers_of_Fortune_500.html

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

Wesley Clark
Saturday September 15, 2001

Our objective should be neither revenge nor retaliation, though we will achieve both. Rather, we must systematically target and destroy the complex network of international terrorism. The aim should be to attack not buildings but people who have masterminded, coordinated, supported and executed these and other attacks. I can hear warnings to us to narrow our objectives because the task is so difficult, warnings there may be failures and actions that can never be acknowledged. But now all must accept at face value the terrorists' unwavering hostility to the US and all that it stands for. There is no room for half-measures in our response.

<snip>

Our methods should rely first on domestic and international law, and the support and active participation of our friends and allies. Evidence must be collected, networks uncovered and a faceless threat given identity. In some cases, astute police work will win the day, here and abroad. In others, international collaboration may be necessary. Special military forces may be called on to operate in states that are uncooperative or unable to control their own territory. In exceptional cases, targets will be developed that may be handled by conventional military strikes.

But this will be mostly arduous, detailed and often covert work to track, detain or engage and take down adversaries, rolling them up cell by cell and headquarters by headquarters. These networks may well have state sponsorship. And here, more intense, visible action, involving not only strikes but also substantial ground action, may be required to gain the surrender of hostile governments or the end of their support for terrorists. But we should not underestimate the overpowering impact of a determined America and its allies in forcing pre-emptive changes in previously uncooperative states.

<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,552315,00.html

[cosmicdot]

107. transformed into a boozy officers’ club

~exactly~

brilliant ~ great work