Ted Kennedy on Larry King last night re Clark

[Adelante]

I thought Senator Kennedy's acknowledgment of why he decided to vote against the IWR after hearing testimony by Clark and other military experts in September 2002 might be enlightening to some on DU who like to claim that Wes Clark did not oppose the Iraq invasion.

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

"In your life?" King asked.

"Absolutely" Kennedy answered.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

-snip

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.

-more

[RDU Socialist]

1. who has said that?

wes clark may not have always been a democrat (but nobody ever is a democrat their whole life, hell reagan was a democrat for more than half his life), but he was right on the issue of our invasion of Iraq...

[Adelante]

2. You will see it said over time, perhaps in this thread

Welcome to DU :hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. RDU Socialist, meet poster number 8

Appearing right on time just as predicted. I don't know if KCabotDullesMarxIII was actually watching Ted Kennedy make his comments, but I was. My disagreement with his "reading" of the interview is entered below his comment.

[rodeodance]

3. thanks for the post. Ted did good.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Ted was excellent last night through out the entire interview

He made Democrats feel proud. It was a pleasure to see him talk on a full range of issues, making so much damn sense.

[rodeodance]

5. k and r.

[blm]

6. I thought it was significant, too.

One thing you'll find (and get sick of) is that men like Clark and Kerry who speak to every aspect of any mission and offer more detailed analysis, are men who understand nuance, and people are waiting in the woodwork to take their words out of context and use it against them.

Why? Because they BOTHER to think of every angle and express their thoughts.

Nothing is black and white the way Bush and the GOPs make it out to be. Unfortunately, they can tap into a corporate media in the US that attacks the intelligent and the nuanced and brands them as elitists, while every other country knows and respects the nuance of their leaders in their efforts to get along with the rest of the world.

I was glad for what Kennedy said, because Clark gets attacked so often here for daring to express his opinions and state the facts as he knows them at that moment and dares to see all sides, all layers in an effort to give a more complete, nuanced answer. And THAT is what political opportunists will seize upon and take his words out of context to spin for themselves.

[Jai4WKC08]

7. Well said, blm

I know the media is controlled by the GOP, but sometimes I wonder if the American people don't want it all made simple for them. It often seems they have no interest in any story that's too complex, or takes longer to play out than a 50-minute episode of CSI, and won't listen to anyone with who actually tries to take the time to explain things openly. It's so much easier for someone like Bush to tell 'em what they're supposed to think.

I heard some pro-Bush bozo on Washington Journal th'other morning complaining about "egg-heads" who over-analyze everything. I don't even remember what he was talking about, but it doesn't matter. His attitude would be the same no matter what the subject.

It's so depressing. :cry:

How will this country ever survive if we will only elect "leaders" who give simple answers to complex questions and have only simple remedies to complex problems?

[blm]

9. I appreciate your notice.

Thanks.

[sandnsea]

14. Clark suggested a process

Which included the threat of force. That was the purpose of the IWR. I understand Democrats who voted no at any mention of war at all, but I also understand Democrats who saw the need to get inspectors into Iraq and the threat of force as the only way to do it. I have never seen anybody say Clark supported going to war, only that the process lined out in the IWR is what he suggested in his Sept testimony.

[blm]

17. Truth be told, process is what many expected because that is how it's

supposed to be done.

I really don't think many knew that Bush and his gang would go so far as lying to Powell and ignoring his own father, Brent Scowcroft, and James Baker to pursue the military action without allowing weapons inspections and diplomacy work first.

I was cynical about what Powell knew back then, but Wilkinson has convinced me that Powell was lied to, as well. In fact, it was probably crucial to lie to Powell, too, for them to carry it off, as Powell was sent to meet with Senators privately. If he knew the truth, it would've been more difficult to get it past people who knew him.

[Joe Chi Minh]

8. He did mention Clark first, when mentioning his vote against the

war, but quickly followed it up by adding, "at that time". Did you miss that? It's quite significant to his critics, as he has a shocking reputation for changing his positions on issues. In fact, I think it's his key flaw in our eyes. His superiors in the military apparently saw it as a significant character flaw.

Incidentally, it as very pleasing to note Senator Kennedy's refusal to bite, when Larry tried to get him to call Bush incompetent. In fact, though much more politically acceptable, it is least arguable that what he did accuse Bush of, namely, of being wrong, was AT LEAST as damning; in other words, it was a mistake arising from the disposition of his heart, his volition, his will. He's a wrong'un, and the fruit he bears, bears it out. By their fruit, you shall know them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. A creative use of Syntax I would say.

Kennedy was taking King back to the time when his opinion on the matter solidified, prior to having to cast a vote on the IWR. That was the context of the interview, Kennedy retracing how he came to reach the decision that he did.

So when Kennedy said:

"I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time."

I think it's obvious Kennedy was referring to what was going on "at that time" rather than your twist, which is to claim that Kennedy, to use your words; "quickly followed it up by adding, "at that time".

In fact, I was watching the interview, there was no follow up added at all, quickly or otherwise. It was all a single clearly spoken sentence that was obvious in it's intent. Or so I would say. You obviously feel otherwise.

[Joe Chi Minh]

16. I think you have a creative imagination. I know what I heard and

made particular note of it at the time, in view of Clark's chameleon-like record, not least on this particular issue. Senator Kennedy would have been foolish not to have added it. And he's no fool.

[Clarkie1]

18. I suggest you stop now...unless you have an advanced degree in English.

I do have an advanced degree, and Tom is absolutely correct in his analysis of the syntax. You are the one who is taking the syntax out of context in order to twist the words meet your own ends.

[Joe Chi Minh]

100. Oh. I AM impressed. " Two degrees wow...

Degrees are just levers of power, and have scant relevance to having a heart and a mind for the truth. Mengele had a doctorate. Are you saying he was smart?

"I suggest you stop now...unless you have an advanced degree in English." You really let yourself down when you have to appeal to formal academic accreditations, rather than the authority of your own insight.

You need to make up your mind as to wherein my alleged error lies. With all that piffle about syntax, you make a simple phrase sound like a tortured longueur. In fact, what really gives the lie to your confusion, is that apparently you can't make up your mind whether my putative error is in my analysis of the syntax of Clark's words (I don't study the syntax of plain phrases and statements); or whether it is in taking their syntax out of context? Two totally different things.

It's the context of his words - which you want people to ignore, isn't it? You're partisan Clark lovers. As even putative Democrats, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Why don't you believe the Perfumed Prince's record. You don't have to look in a crystal ball when you can read the book.

[Jai4WKC08]

113. Umm... it was Kennedy's syntax in question

But in your desperation to impress us with erudition, I guess you got confused.

The quote is obvious. You're the one taking it out of context, reading something into three little words that aren't there at all.

Kennedy said plainly, "...I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going. I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni..."

But you know, it's really just a lot of pole vaulting over mouse turds. All of them, even Kennedy, thought it might be necessary to go to war later. No one is saying Clark is anti-war. So if that's your issue, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Or maybe you think Clark was telling the Senate committee what they wanted to hear? You know, considering how most of 'em voted? :rofl:

Oh, and by the way, "perfumed prince" is right out of the right-wing media. No one in the units he commanded ever called him that. Yet you call us neo-cons (below) and "putative Democrats." My momma used to say that most people tend to accuse others of what they themselves are most guilty.

[Joe Chi Minh]

117. (Deleted by self)

[Joe Chi Minh]

119. It's good that you recognise erudition (credit where it's due),

even if your colleagues prefer to tout their academic accreditations, while unable to answer my posts to the point.

Of course it was Kennedy's syntax. Nice strawman! But too transparently elementary.

"Perfumed Prince" was the nickname given Clark by his European fellow-officers. Or didn't you bother to read about it?

Oh, it was nice that he almost started WWIII, too. But, hey, everyone makes occasional errors of judgement. That was another criticism, somewhat more susbtantive, made by British general, Sir Mike Jackson. I mention it, as you surely will not have read it, or else consider your judgement in the matter to be more sound.

My momma used to say all sorts of things, but I try not to regale the posters here with them. They're not what they want to read, really. I'm sure our mommas said many wise things, and many that were not so wise.

[Jai4WKC08]

121. Nope, wrong again

"Perfumed prince" was used by David Hackworth. It was later retracted by him. But it was never used in Europe.

And you know damned well that Clark did not "almost" start WWIII. There was never any chance of anything of the sort. But hey, go ahead and take RIGHT-WING, pro-Iraq War, Sir Michael "Bloody Sunday" Jackson's word for it. Just proves my point.

[Joe Chi Minh]

123. "'Perfumed prince" was used by David Hackworth.

It was later retracted by him.' Why? Because he didn't drench himself in Cologne? Or because he felt sorry for him, having hit a little below the belt. Anyway, I'm going to check who said it - for all that it matters! My memory is not usually that faulty.
Why is it,anyway, that you people concentrate on matters of scant relevance, while ignoring the herd of elephants in the living-room.

"But hey, go ahead and take RIGHT-WING, pro-Iraq War, Sir Michael "Bloody Sunday" Jackson's word for it. Just proves my point."
When a right-wing, pro-war general says it, it has to be the truth or pretty close to it!

[Tom Rinaldo]

125. Here's why Hackworth retracted it:

Reporting for Duty: Wesley Clark

By David H. Hackworth


"...No doubt he’s made his share of enemies. He doesn’t suffer fools easily and wouldn’t have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he’s ripped into during the past three decades.

Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign when I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a “Perfumed Prince.” Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was wrong – the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen, U.S. SecDef at the time.

At the interview, Clark came along without the standard platoon of handlers and treated the little folks who poured the coffee and served the bacon and eggs with exactly the same respect and consideration he gave the biggies in the dining room like my colleague Larry King and Bob Tisch, the Regency Hotel’s owner. An appealing common touch.


But if he wins the election, don’t expect an Andrew Jackson field-soldier type. Clark’s an intellectual, and his military career is more like Ike’s – that of a staff guy and a brilliant high-level commander. Can he make tough decisions? Bet on it. Just like Ike did during his eight hard but prosperous years as president."
http://www.sftt.us/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks+Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=35&rnd=908.3537190930426

[Jai4WKC08]

127. And which "elephant" did I ignore?

Except maybe the "elephant" making these posts?

I just thought of something. You're claiming Clark is a right-wing, pro-war general, but you don't believe anything he says. But Jackson you take at face value.

I'm not gonna explain what Clark tried to accomplish at Pristina, and did by other means. It's been explained many many times. Either you don't have the military background to understand, or you choose not to. But suffice it to say Clark was proved correct by the results, and Kosovo was not divided into separate NATO and Russian sectors like some sort of 1990s Berlin.

[Joe Chi Minh]

126. "The Ultimate Perfumed Prince" was a nickname reportedly

given to General Wesley Clark by those serving under him. David Hackworth first picked up on it during the Kosovo conflict."

Really, you people are incorrigible! Literally.

Here's a different link: http://chuckmansotherchoiceofwords.blogspot.com/2006/04/perfumed-prince-wesley-clark-and-other.html

[Jai4WKC08]

129. What's your source?

You use quotes. Anyone can say whatever they want and put quotes around it. Information is only credible if it comes from a reputable source. That ain't you.

Hackworth was never in Kosovo. And Tom has shown you the retraction: a quote with a link.

I say again, no one in Clark's command used the term. Give me a name. You never can.

You're believing what you choose and expecting other people to as well. It's bullshit, pure and simple.

[Joe Chi Minh]

131. Here you are. Though I'm sure it will be wasted on you:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

After all, I've posted it for you in the past, without any discernible effect on your enthusiasm for the general.

[Tom Rinaldo]

138. No text to your message. An apt metaphor. n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

141. It sure was apt, since whatever is written to open your eyes might

just as well not have been written. A felicitous error, if ever there was one. However, I have given you a link now, for all the chance it has of your reading it and digesting it.

[Jai4WKC08]

150. Please see my #147, "So What?"

But while I'm at it, the only mention of "perfumed prince" at the link is the exact same former oil exec blogger that you cited above. And he's just repeating Hackworth. No first-hand account. Meaningless.

[Sparkly]

153. Key word: "reportedly"

"It's been said..."
"Some say..."
"According to sources..."
"Reportedly..."

You know the game.

[Tom Rinaldo]

155. That was mostly from the initial onslaught against Clark...

when he first announced. Note the initial framing blasting Moore and others for backing Clark:

"This is even lamer than folks of liberal, progressive, or left persuasion backing the non-liberal Howard Dean this early in the campaign, when clearly there is a genuinely progressive alternative in the form of Dennis Kucinich."

Do you really think that I haven't had enough years yet to see through most of that garbage? The Republican noise machine was in highest gear, helping define Clark as someone who Democrat's shouldn't support, because they did not want Bush to have to run against a General for reelection. You have there an intrieging mix of attacks against Clark from both the hard left and from the hard Right, acting as an echo chamber against Clark. I'm not saying that all attacks against Clark were made by the Right. I am saying that many on the Left eagerly picked up any attack being made against Clark from the Right to use against Clark, and the sources for many of the characture smears against Clark were almost always traced back to Republicans and right wing media.

And I and others who studied Clark closely have given detailed responses to all of those charges in the past also, without any discernible effect on your disenthusiam for the General. At least be honest enough to acknowledge that detailed back and forths have taken place on these points on numerous occaisions. It's not like no one was willing to address them with you.

And there were so many lies and slander and distorted edited transcripts and the like. You have a nice assortment there, I'll give you that. Right from the start, can anyone doubt that they are in the presence of a total hatchet job propaganda assault when they read language dripping with subjective hateful shading like this:

"As a public service, here are links to a number of articles describing the real Wesley Clark, and it ain't pretty. He's a four-star general on account of his commanding ability to kiss the asses of those above him, probably his only skill when you consider what some of his military colleagues have to say (see the CounterPunch articles), and the man is clearly a pathological egomaniac. If any of you have seen his appearances in different settings (during NATO press conferences, giving testimony to Congress, etc.), one can't fail to be struck by the arrogance and pomposity of this twit, who appears on any scene like a pasha, accompanied by a huge entourage of underlings nervously setting the stage and dusting the seats for his genteel derriere in advance of his grand entrance. Can you imagine this man on the White House throne? It makes King George II look mighty appealing by comparison."

The very first piece printed immediately starts out with misinformation and it all goes down hill from there:

"The putative new Great White (Male) Hope of the Democratic Party, General Wesley Clark, came of age politically when he was seduced by Richard Nixon, for whom he cast his first presidential vote. He later voted for Ronald Reagan (twice), and for Bush père. As recently as two years ago, Clark was appearing at Republican fund-raisers. In Arkansas, at the Pulaski County Republican Committee dinner on May 12, 2001, Clark said “that American involvement abroad helps prevent war and spreads the ideals of the United States.”

Clark voted for Reagan, but not for George Bush. It is a lie that Clark appeared at Republican fund-raisers (plural). He appeared at one Republican Fund Raiser in his entire life, and Clark appeared at a Democratic Fund Raiser the week after that, which that piece conveniently fails to note.

The second story raises a big Democratic fear; Big Brother, but it places Clark completely in the wrong camp.

The Author of "No Place to Hide", Robert O'Harrow Jr., fully vouches for Clark and the brief work he did on behalf of Axiom regarding screening plane passengers for possible terrorists trying to board immediately after 911. Clark hasn't worked with them for many years.

Here is a link to a web site put up by O'Harrow and the Center for Investigative Journalism in case you are not familiar with O'Harrow's work:
http://www.noplacetohide.net /

Here's what O'Harrow had to say about Clark and his involvement with Axiom at this conference held in 2003:

"“NO PLACE TO HIDE: WHERE THE DATA REVOLUTION MEETS HOMELAND SECURITY”

MODERATOR:
P. J. CROWLEY, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS

FEATURING:
GENERAL WESLEY K. CLARK
JAMES X. DEMPSEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY
NUALA O’CONNOR KELLY, CHIEF PRIVACY OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
ROBERT O’HARROW, JR., REPORTER, WASHINGTON POST; AUTHOR, NO PLACE TO HIDE

ROBERT O’HARROW:
"...There is a guy that I think many of us in the room respect and admire deeply, General Clark, and he serves as a great example of someone who was deeply involved in representing a company called Axiom. And Axiom was one of those companies that responded with – I know that from my reporting – very patriotic motives. They had a lot of that as a marketer and they shared it and they shared it to good effect; it helped. They also saw ways that they could change their business model and become part of the security industrial complex. And one of the people that was helping open doors for Axiom in Washington was General Clark. The reason I raise that is because I kept finding that General Clark got to places before I did and people spoke admiringly of his ability to say what he knew, to say what he didn’t know, to play it straight, and to in every case do it in the smart way, which is why people respect him."

Here's what Clark had to say himself about working with Axiom at that same event:

"...Can I just say one more thing about this impulse to privacy that you’ve mentioned, Bob, because when I was doing this – and I want to say this because Nuala is here, because when the government starts working programs and it does know where they go and where they going they are always cautious because everybody knows that these programs that do data are very sensitive. Before the government could even get a grip on some of these programs, when the word comes out on them they are blasted before people even understand it. So on the one hand, I understand exactly why there is an impulse for privacy. People – companies like Axiom were told, “Look, you just can’t compete for this contract if you talk about this to the press because we don’t know what the program is and we want to have – we want to be able to –“ this is – I’m speaking for the government – “We want to be able to see what data you have available. We want to figure out if we can use it, and we don’t want to have to answer a million inquiries from the press about it until we get it done. Then we’ll run it through.

You know, my instinct on it was a little bit different than the government’s, but I didn’t have any influence on them. I mean, my instinct would have to bring in the ACLU and to say, “Please create a group that’s sort of like a trusted group that we can bounce ideas off of and we want to run these ideas by you. And if you have strong objections, we want to hear them. We want to hear them right upfront. What we ask is that you will work with us in a collaborative sense so that – you know, you tell us before you run out to the Washington Post the next day and we have got (unintelligible.)” So, you know, we are just exploring ideas. We want to try to put this together and I do think there is a need for that. There is a need for enough privacy in governmental decision-making that the government can come out with programs and then have a chance to explain them, not to take anything away from the press because that balance is a dynamic balance. It’s fought by and maintained by hardworking reporters who make a lot of phone calls and get turned down a lot, but it’s a very important public duty.

So I am not sure if the balance is right is what I am saying. I don’t know if it’s right and that is one of issues we ought to explore..."

Clark's with the good guys on this one, not the good old boys network.


And it goes on and on like this. Obviously I can't point for point refute every inaccuracy in every one of the articles that you linked to in a single DU Post. But all of them have been fully discussed at DU on many times. The best overview that I would urge DU readers to check out regarding the meta picture here is this DU thread:

"The Swiftboating of Clark has already begun"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=321522

Perhaps the best single major media overview article on Clark from the time period during which most of the attacks originated, that takes on many of the attacks that were made against Clark is this, from the New York Review of Books:

Waiting for the General
by Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

The best prediction of exactly how the Republicans would attempt to take down Wes Clark was provided by Gene Lyons, Co-Author of "Hunting of the President, in this BUZZFLASH interview about Wesley Clark:
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

[Joe Chi Minh]

132. What is the matter with you! Who said he was in Kosovo for

crying out loud! It was you who brought him up, too. I've given a link, (by no means complimentary to Kerry) to one of your pals, or in response to another post of yours. It bears out my contention that it was his European subordinates who dubbed him "The Ultimate Perfumed Prince."

If you can't do better than this, I won't be wasting my time responding to your posts.

[Tom Rinaldo]

133. You really insult the entire basis of free speech and debate

by constantly morphing disputes you involve yourself in into a battle between yourself, as a courageous truth teller, against "you people". "These people", "you people" it's always the same. You deny me the standing of an individual who has my own personal beliefs, my own opinions, and my own reasons for holding them and acting upon them. You strongly imply membership a cult or a conspiracy. You take me, and other supporters of Clark who I do not agree with on all things, and make us into a nameless blob, a "them".

Totally Committed and I disagree on the degree of our automatic opposition to any Democrat who belongs to the DLC. Clarkie1 and I disagree on the extent of significance Kerry's IWR vote had in relationship with the rest of his beliefs regarding the Iraq War. Many Clark supporters have strong positive regard for Russ Feingold, and could back him enthusiastically for President were Clark not the nominee. However some Clark supporters think it would be a mistake to run any Senator for President. Most Clark supporters gave enthusiastic support to Howard Dean when he ran to be DNC Chair, though I also knew of several who were suspicious of giving Howard that central a role in the Democratic Party at the time. And so on.

So stop pussy footing around. Spit it out. You have no problem with the cadre of regular DU posters who always start threads any time John Kerry issues one of his twice daily press releases. You find no evil agenda in the cadre of regular DU posters who constantly scan the media to find mention of "Gore is the guy in 08" to promote here on DU. But supporters of Clark are what? What do you accuse me, and TC, and Carol, and Jai etc of being? How are we less individuals than the rest of the DUers who have Democrats that they back. Am I in a special status in your book? Do you think I have a covert agenda that is qualitatively different than any other activist on DU who organizes on behalf of what they believe in? Am I an enemy of true Democrats. Do you think I am taking orders from somewhere? What exactly are you accusing me of belonging to when you say "you people"?

[Joe Chi Minh]

137. I regret to say that in your wilful refusal to see through his

chameleon-like opportunism, you act as one. I'm not the only DUer who has noticed the little concerted-seeming blitzes of the board by you and your colleagues at different times. And why not? We all have agendas. That's the nature of politics. But I can't help finding it offensive that you all seem united in your determination not to see what I and others see as Clark's enormous, glaring deficiencies and plum unfitness for the presidency. He's not alone in that, of course, but it's of the greatest significance in the context of our arguments.

I won't quote you chapter and verse for precisely the reason I've stated: for those who have eyes to see, it's all a matter of public record, reams of it easily discoverable by Googling.

[Sparkly]

139. LOL -- What a fancy way of saying we dare to disagree!!

"But I can't help finding it offensive that you all seem united in your determination not to see what I and others see..."

We've seen the "record" you speak of. One thing that unites us is our understanding of the truth. Sorry it's hard to take us "acting as one" in that regard.

:rofl:

[Tom Rinaldo]

145. I refer you back to my post #115, and my discussion there

of who else in the Democratic Party, by your standard, seem united in determination not to see what you and some others see as Clark's enormous, glaring deficiencies and utter unfitness for the presidency. You skipped right over that point.

You also skipped right past my point about all of the other very frequent concerted-seeming blitzes of the board, to use your words, in support of other Democrats. For months now those activities in support of Gore and Kerry have been much more constant than those in support of Clark. Notable blitzes happen for Feingold and Warner from time to time also. But you see something more evil in Clark and anyone who would support Clark, and you treat me differently than others because of that.

As to Google, oh that's brilliant. Yes, fine, folks should go to google. Google has lots of information. But be prepared to do a lot of reading because Google has lots of disinformation also.

For your information I just googled "John Kerry" & Viet Nam War". The first result was Wikipedia. The second result was an Amazon.com sales pitch for the Kerry DVD "Going Upriver". The third result was "Hanoi Kerry's War Record - Setting straight Kerry's war record". It is an out and out swift boating piece which I won't dignify with a quote from or a link, but it comes up under the innocuous title "War Record". The fourth result had this as the teaser: "Viet Nam War Hero. Have you ever noticed that real war heroes don't run ... John Kerry is a freaking nut case who can't think for himself while GWB can at ..." and that is all I will note about that entry.

Have you ever heard of "Google Bombs"? That's where people learn how to position search results for political purposes. Do you think the Republicans have enough money and staff and motivation to do something like that against their Democratic enemies? I do. When they want to knock a Democrat in a General Election they mostly attack from the Right, when they want to knock a Democrat within his or her own natural support base, they do so from "the Left".

[Jai4WKC08]

136. You just don't get it...

Hackworth didn't serve with Clark. The blogger you cite in your link (a former oil company exec fer gods' sake) didn't serve with Clark. Hackworth coined the term and a gazillion hacks repeat it. But NO one has EVER provided an original source for the accusation. It's bogus without it.

I otoh can provide some original sources -- people who know Clark and have ZERO political aspirations of their own nor any axe to grind. Many of them. More than anyone here has the patience to wade through. Here are two of my favorites.

Mario Cuomo: "Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. (Hardball with Chris Matthews, Nov 03)

Michael Moore, asked why Clark lost the nomination: "He just isn't a politician. He didn't know how to lie." (Playboy interveiw, July 04)

[Joe Chi Minh]

101. (Deleted repetition)

[Joe Chi Minh]

103. That's it Tom. I feel otherwise. There was in fact, a slight but

noticeable pause, which I interpreted as a qualification, in case people thought he was saying Clark had been opposed to the war ever since. When I said follow-up, that's what I meant. It didn't have to be a new phrase or sentence, but simply an addendum to what preceded.

[Jai4WKC08]

20. His superiors in the military?

Based on what? Who ever accused Clark of changing positions in the military? Name me a name.

You can't, because it's pure bullshit.

Hells bells, Clark was fired precisely because he stuck to his guns over the use of ground forces in Kosovo. Reimer fought against him over the Apaches because he had refused to certify two National Guard brigades for duty in Desert Storm, and because he killed a construction project in order to protect an endangered habitat. Clark has always stood against the system when he believed he was right.

There was never a general who criticized Clark who wasn't doing it for political reasons, with a single exception of the guy who lost the plum assignment to Southern Command to Clark. On the other hand, he had dozens who praised him as a soldier, a patriot, and a man of conviction.

You can repeat a lot of right-wing smears about Clark, but this one is so far off base, even the GOP wouldn't touch it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

102. That's a good one! Right wing smears.!I love it. You people are

beyond parody. His voting record could scarcely have been more loyally Republican. Indeed, it's difficult to avoid wondering if he is a plant, a fifth columnist. Like Blair and Cameron in the UK, he seems to have always said what he thought to people would want to hear, and kept changing his positions accordingly.

It's not difficult to look him up on Google. Read what his superior said to say about him there. You won't because you people are as averse to truth as the neocons. Are you neocons? That's the question.

[Jai4WKC08]

111. Can't name one, can't you?

Of course not. There aren't any.

Just repeating bullshit you heard somewhere.

Voting for Clinton, Gore and Kerry is hardly a record of voting "loyally Republican." For that matter, neither is voting for Repubs over 20 years ago. But tell me something. If Clark "always said what he thought to people would want to hear," (sic) why would he admit to voting for Nixon and Reagan? He was running for the Democratic nomination at the time. No one had to know how he voted--there's no public record but his own words. Do you think he's so stupid to think that's what people wanted to hear about a Democratic candidate?

So we should just look him up on google, huh? LOL. You think "we people" are so ignorant that we would support Clark knowing nothing about him? We've all researched Clark's background every which way to Sunday, and have been doing it since 2003. That's why we know the truth about his record. It's a LONG record of courageously standing up for progressive values at great personal and professional risk.

[Joe Chi Minh]

114. "'But tell me something. If Clark "always said what he thought

to people would want to hear,' (sic) why would he admit to voting for Nixon and Reagan? He was running for the Democratic nomination at the time. No one had to know how he voted--there's no public record but his own words".

Simple. To try to defuse his ineviable exposure.

"It's a LONG record of courageously standing up for progressive values at great personal and professional risk."

I was going to say, "I wonder you have the gall...", but it's par for the course for Clark followers. You know, it wasn't so long ago that Clark was stating that we should keep the bases being built in Iraq indefinitely - the basic infrastructure for the neocons' dreamed of empire.

I mentioned Clark's condoning of the School of he Americas in an earlier post (really courageously progressive), and what was the response. So shallow and meaningless as to defy belief. Something like, "Oh you people are always bring up that kind of nonsense".

Wow, what a courageous progressive! Favours the School of the Americas and the retaining of the military bases being built in Iraq! Oh he's changed his mind, has he? Oh well, that's all right then. Two more in a long line of Damascene epiphanies.

I'll bet you people aren't too averse to an American empire. But I can only point to your acceptance of your leader's taste for it.

[Jai4WKC08]

124. LIes, lies, lies

"Inevitable exposure"? How on earth could his votes in the privacy of a voting booth (or in Clark's case, probably an absentee ballot), ever be exposed? What nonsense. But then, you said somewhere else he had "the staunchest records in voting for Republican presidents possible" and that's another outright LIE. Two republicans, both over 20 years ago, in at least 40 years of voting is hardly the "staunchest... possible," is it?

Clark has NEVER advocated retaining bases in Iraq, indefinitely or otherwise. In fact, he has gone on record, in a WaPo op/ed iirc, that they should be renounced. No change. Another lie.

I have no idea what response you got for bringing up the SOA (since I can't take your word for anything... "you people" sounds more like your own wording) but whatever response you got, it was probably deserved. The SOA has been brought up so many times, and the accusation refuted again and again. But always brought up with nary a criticism of the senators who voted to fund it. In any case, Clark's defense of the SOA was for the ttime he was associated with it, a time when there were no abuses and it was serving American (not just US) interests in promoting democratic values.

You still can't provide a name. Because you were lying about that too.

I'm getting awfully tired of this same old shit.

[Joe Chi Minh]

134. You're living in a fantasy world. Beyond correction.

[Jai4WKC08]

140. And you run from one ridiculous accusation to the next

You make bald statements that are factually untrue, and when your statement is refuted, you ignore the specific details of the response and run to the next untrue accusation.

This all started with your statement that Clark's military superiors accused him of changing positions in the military, remember? But not one ever did. Not one. NOT ONE.

Then you capriciously called him "the perfumed prince" but can't provide a single first-hand source for that either. Hell, I had to point you to the guy who originally called him that. And you ignore the FACT that that same guy retracted his accusation.

I hope you will give it up. If you want to believe the fantasy you yourself create, that's your business. It won't fly here.

[Joe Chi Minh]

142. See below:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

Here is one interesting excerpt from it, which seems particularly germane to the thread:

Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?

9/16/03

The possibility that former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark might enter the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has been the subject of furious speculation in the media. But while recent coverage of Clark often claims that he opposed the war with Iraq, the various opinions he has expressed on the issue suggest the media's "anti-war" label is inaccurate.

Many media accounts state that Clark, who led the 1999 NATO campaign against Yugoslavia, was outspoken in his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. The Boston Globe (9/14/03) noted that Clark is "a former NATO commander who also happens to have opposed the Iraq war." "Face it: The only anti-war candidate America is ever going to elect is one who is a four-star general," wrote Michael Wolff in New York magazine (9/22/03). Salon.com called Clark a "fervent critic of the war with Iraq" (9/5/03).

To some political reporters, Clark's supposed anti-war stance could spell trouble for some of the other candidates. According to Newsweek's Howard Fineman (9/8/03) Clark "is as anti-war as Dean," suggesting that the general would therefore be a "credible alternative" to a candidate whom "many Democrats" think "would lead to a disaster." A September 15 Associated Press report claimed that Clark "has been critical of the Iraq war and Bush's postwar efforts, positions that would put him alongside announced candidates Howard Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio as the most vocal anti-war candidates." The Washington Post (9/11/03) reported that Clark and Dean "both opposed the war in Iraq, and both are generating excitement on the Internet and with grass-roots activists."

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).

Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine (10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a counter-argument to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time." Before the war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.

As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the 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."

In another column the next day (London Times, 4/11/03), Clark summed up the lessons of the war this way: "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."

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.

[Sparkly]

146. Wow, you mean somebody doesn't like Wesley Clark?

Imagine that! I'd just never seen that page before! :sarcasm:

Oh dear -- what if other Democrats have bad things written about THEM on the internet, too? Why, if our eyes were all truly opened by smear sites, we'd have to accept the "truth" that ALL Democrats are EVIL!!

:eyes:

[Joe Chi Minh]

149. Your reading of my posts is somewhat clumsy.

You are only able to make such a callow accusation because anything critical of your hero must be on a "smear site", its sources all inevitably in bad faith. You make my argument for Democrats not taking you people seriously, perfectly. Many of the stories are a matter of public record, even supported by photographs.

[Jai4WKC08]

151. It's you we do not take seriously

We've seen it all before. The incidents may be a matter of public record, but the "stories" are just that. Pure slander and spin.

[Sparkly]

152. "You people" again...

What accusation did I make?

The point is, there are smear sites (citing "matters of public record," complete with photographs) of ALL major Democratic candidates from the last election.

Quotes out of context, leaps of logic, things "reportedly" said, generalizations, baseless accusations, harsh opinions, and twists of facts -- it's pretty easy, and very common. Even with "matters of public record" and photographs!

[Jai4WKC08]

147. So what?

Dissidentvoice.com was hawking Dennis Kucinich at the time (nothing wrong with that), and lashing out at Michael Moore for supporting Clark. Michael Moore... the same guy who, by their own admission, has "spent a great deal of time and money working on issues kindred to progressives."

You think I haven't seen all that crap before? You think it hasn't been discussed over and over again here at DU?

I'll take Moore and Cuomo (and Carter, and Clinton, and many many other good Democrats... like Ted Kennedy, getting back to the OP) word about Clark over a bunch of far-left media types. Moreover, I take my own experience with and observations of the man.

Isn't it funny how the very far left and the far right make the same smears, usually with the same sources? A very good sign that Clark is made of the right stuff, but it makes you wonder about what their real agenda is.

[Clark2008]

80. "Our" eyes?

Not "my" eyes because I don't believe the corporate media. Not my husband's eyes - and he served under him in Bosnia. Not anyone's eyes who knows anything about reading comprehension.

I think you mean "YOUR" eyes.

Try these eyes on for size: :eyes:

[CarolNYC]

87. Hahahaha!

That is one of the funniest posts I've ever seen here..."at this time"...That's supposed to be a joke, right? I mean you don't expect anyone to take that post seriously.....do you?

[tabasco]

135. You're really grasping at straws to condemn Clark.

Your unsupported arguments in this thread are laughable.

You have nothing but your own bluster. Pretty pathetic.

[Clarkie1]

10. That's encouraging to know Senators like Kennedy were listening to Clark

and acting on Clark's advice. It is interesting to think how many might have been persuaded if there was just a little bit more time before the vote, as Kennedy acknowledges.

[sandnsea]

13. "at that time"

Which isn't to say that Clark didn't support a threat of military action in order to get inspectors into Iraq. He did, he said he did. Kennedy looked at the IWR as a war vote and voted no, that's his opinion. Others, including Kerry, looked at the IWR as the plan Clark recommended, a threat of force to get inspectors into Iraq. Nobody has said Clark supported going to war in 2002, but he did support the threat of force from both the US and the UN, which is what the IWR did.

[Clarkie1]

15. Then Kerry wasn't a very good listener, was he?

"Kerry looked at the IWR as the plan Clark recommended, a threat of force to get inspectors into Iraq."

If Kerry thought what he voted on was "the plan Clark recommended," he wasn't listening very carefully to Clark. Clark wanted the President to be REQUIRED to come back to CONGRESS for APPROVAL to go to war if an imminent threat developed and all other options had failed.

I disagree with you...I think Kerry probably was listening to Clark as well as others, he just didn't follow Clark's advice. Of course, neither you or I know if he was listening or not listening for certain. In any case, it was not a wise course of action for Mr. Kerry.

[blm]

19. But, then, you have

no respect for anything about Kerry, so his entire career leaves you underwhelmed, while those of us with longheld convictions about government corruption see him as a hero for this nation and its historic record.

Some of us prefer constitution scholars, some of us prefer military men, some of us prefer the firebreathing speechifiers, some of us prefer the exposers of corruption, some of us prefer the legislative compromisers.

There is plenty of good and pleanty of work to go around. One person cannot do it all. Why you cannot acknowledge Kerry's integrity and historic significance is puzzling.

[Clarkie1]

27. Why are you putting words in my mouth? n/t

[blm]

31. I've read your posts.

It's clear where you take your opportunities on threads to portray Kerry as an insignificant figure wherever you can.

[Clarkie1]

40. Please provide links. I call 'em like I see 'em. n/t

I've never said that I have no respect for Kerry.

[blm]

46. It's a conclusion drawn over time.

No reason to play coy. You don't have to SAY something outright to make sure it's implied.

[Clarkie1]

71. Then you have drawn the wrong conclusion if you think I don't respect

Kerry's service in Vietnam, and the work he has done as a senator.

Just because I point out mistakes he has made does not mean I disrespect him.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. I don't want this to spin out into an augment between Clark and Kerry

supporters if possible. I accept that Kerry did not believe his vote would be used the way that it was and that had Kerry been our President the mess would not have happened. Kennedy, who did vote against the IWR, had no trouble supporting Kerry for President when all was said and done. Neither did Clark, and neither did I. I preferred Kennedy's vote for several reasons to Kerry's, and I preferred Clark to Kerry for several reasons also, but that is history.

Clark did not want an IWR that gave blanket authorization for the President to use force against Iraq, he did see strategic value in Congress going on record with the world community that Hussein could not be allowed to disregard U.N. resolutions in place without consequences, including the possible use of force later. There were several drafts of IWR's being debated at the time. But again, I think most DUers understand that both Kerry and Clark opposed the actual use of force against Iraq when Bush chose to invade as he did, and advised against it..

[Clarkie1]

26. I agree with you Tom.

"I think most DUers understand that both Kerry and Clark opposed the actual use of force against Iraq when Bush chose to invade as he did, and advised against it."

I must add, however, that Kerry and others who voted for that resolution failed to do their duty as senators that day by giving the President a blanket authorization to use force, and not incluuding language in the resolution that would have required the President to come back to the congress for authority to go to war. Kerry wasn't the only senator who failed that day, many senators failed.

23 senators did their duty.

[wisteria]

95. I wonder how Gen Clark would have voted. It is easy to sit in judgment

when the decision is not yours.

[Clarkie1]

98. It was not Clark's responsibility, however...

Clark never would have voted for that resolution because he is not one to abrogate responsibility, and he said so. He seems to have a better grasp of the importance of the separation of powers than many of our elected officials, with a few notable exceptions such as Byrd, Feingold, and others.

Clark's not a politician, and I take him at his word. And even if you are not willing to take Clark at his word, a close examination of Clark's statements up to the time of the vote will lead any reasonable and unbiased person conclude he never would have voted for that resolution as it was written.

[sandnsea]

23. No he didn't

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

"The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail."

He didn't support immediate military action, but he did lay out a plan that included the threat of force. He didn't say the resolution should require the President to come back to the Congress, he said it was an option, a way to go. This is why Democrats worked towards crafting a resolution, people like Wes Clark recommended it.

[Clarkie1]

24. Yes he did.

"The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail."

[sandnsea]

32. NOT "president must come back to congress"

Big difference. "need not" does not mean "should not". Clark supported a process to threaten force and he meant that threat to mean USE force if necessary in the end. Exactly the same as John Kerry and many other Democrats.

[Clarkie1]

37. Yes he did.

"The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail."

[sandnsea]

44. "President" and "Congress" aren't EVEN THERE

Good grief. You are reading into it what you want to see there. "need not" is not "should not", it's just an alternative option, that is all.

[Clarkie1]

69. Yes, he did.

"The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail."

[FrenchieCat]

28. So why did Kennedy, Wellstone and Levin all voted NO

and each mentioned Wes Clark as part of their talk as to why NO?

The IWR that passed was crafted by Lieberman...who was for the his war, and still is.

There were other resolutions crafted.....which Kennedy, Wellstone and Levin voted for.
But, when it came time to vote on the Lieberman blank check one (which Edwards co-sponsored).....they passed on it by voting NO!

[sandnsea]

35. Because of Richard Perle

Who was making shit up about Clark never being willing to go to war in order to discredit his testimony. They grabbed on to that as justification to vote no. They all knew which resolution was going to pass in the end, I would bet the 3 of them would have voted no on any of those resolutions if they had been the final one. Some Democrats really won't vote for any military action unless we're actually attacked, others just vote reflexively against Republicans.

[FrenchieCat]

38. You are just talking.....

Because, your only goal is to make Kerry and Clark equal in their stance on Iraq from the beginning. I believe that you believe this....no matter what quotes are provided to you, etc....

But your goal is getting in the way of truth..because I have witnessed you call Clark a liar (which you have in a few threads).....while you lyonize John Kerry.

It's pretty amazing!

John Kerry's name wasn't even in this OP....

and I can link you to a yesterday Kerry thread, where a (non Clarkie) poster said some negatives against Kerry, and you again brought up Clark's name and started dissing him AGAIN.

[sandnsea]

41. I read the testimony

I read what Wes Clark said, in total, in context. I never bought the spin just like I never bought Dean's anti-war spin.

Yes I said Wes Clark is a liar, ONCE, and every time he says he didn't suggest a threat of force resolution, he's lying again.

The poster yesterday made a reference to Clark and campaign mistakes, which is the only reason I responded.

The direction of the OP was pretty clear.

And I can say any good or bad thing about anybody that I want to.

[Jai4WKC08]

47. When?

When has Clark ever said he didn't support the threat of force?

How dare you call him a liar without a specific quote?!

You can say "any good or bad thing you want," but it ain't worth shit when you can't back it up.

The IWR was a threat of force, but it was obviously a lot more. It was authorization to use force--a blank check. Kerry has said he believed that it wasn't. He must have been wrong, since force was used. But no one is calling him a liar for it.

[FrenchieCat]

48. You see......you have neatly determined that the operative words are

"THREAT OF FORCE".

Well they weren't.

The operative words were "USE OF FORCE".

Wes Clark never denied using the term "Treat of Force"...in fact he used the term during an interview just yesterday in reference to Darfur.

When dealing with Foreign policy issues....the right to "THREATEN FORCE" is not the same as the right to "USE FORCE".

The authorization to "USE FORCE" issue is what the IWR gave Bush the power to invade Iraq without ever having to consider congress again....

No politician, including Ted Kennedy, ever denied the right to use a "THREAT" along with diplomacy.....

it was the "USE OF FORCE" that enable the Iraq Invasion.

Maybe you need to read the resolution again.....as well as it's title...as it is called.....tada! THE

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

Authorization for USE of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114, it passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

The Resolution cited several factors to justify action:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
Iraq's alleged connection to terrorist groups including Al Qaeda
Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States

The Resolution praised President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." Before being permitted to use force, the President determined that further diplomatic efforts alone would not satisfactorily protect the United States or ensure Iraq's compliance with UNSC resolutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html
Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.


On October 10, the House and Senate passed identical resolutions authorizing the use of force against Iraq, H.J. Res. 114/S.J. Res. 45. The final vote in the House was 296-133 for the resolution, and 77-23 in favor in the Senate. The joint resolution provides broad authorization for the President to wage unilateral, preemptive war against Iraq at his discretion. Although the resolution passed both houses by significant margins, the opposition vote was notably larger than expected.

[sandnsea]

50. "use of force must remain a US option"

Arrgh, the use of force IS the threat, the threat he recommended in his Sept 2002 testimony, that was authorized in thw IWR, IF all peaceful means failed, which is EXACTLY what Clark recommended.

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

"The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail."

[FrenchieCat]

52. You are hell bent......

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

It did, in it's title even.....

[sandnsea]

53. "need not" is not "must not" or "should not"

It IS NOT stating a requirement that the President come back to Congress, AT ALL. It's plain English.

I gotta go babysit, I'm sure we'll have this argument again. :)

[FrenchieCat]

56. Please go.....

Clark didn't have to use the words you have decided can only have been used. His words were clear enough...to me, Wellstone, Kennedy, and Levin. It isn't needed in the Resolution.

When I say I don't NEED to use the bathroom.....I mean....I ain't gotto go, I ain't got to pee! dammit!

there is not need!

need ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nd)
n.
A condition or situation in which something is required or wanted: crops in need of water; a need for affection.
Something required or wanted; a requisite: “Those of us who led the charge for these women's issues... shared a common vision in the needs of women” (Olympia Snowe).
Necessity; obligation: There is no need for you to go.
A condition of poverty or misfortune: The family is in dire need.

v. need·ed, need·ing, needs
v. aux.
To be under the necessity of or the obligation to: They need not come.

v. tr.
To have need of; require: The family needs money. See Synonyms at lack.

v. intr.
To be in need or want.
To be necessary.


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

Usage Note: Depending on the sense, the verb need behaves sometimes like an auxiliary verb (such as can or may) and sometimes like a main verb (such as want or try). When used as a main verb, need agrees with its subject, takes to before the verb following it, and combines with do in questions, negations, and certain other constructions: He needs to go. Does he need to go so soon? He doesn't need to go. When used as an auxiliary verb, need does not agree with its subject, does not take to before the verb following it, and does not combine with do: He needn't go. Need he go so soon? The auxiliary forms of need are used primarily in present-tense questions, negations, and conditional clauses. Unlike can and may, auxiliary need has no form for the past tense like could and might.
Regional Note: When need is used as the main verb, it can be followed by a present participle, as in The car needs washing, or by to be plus a past participle, as in The car needs to be washed. However, in some areas of the United States, especially western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio, many speakers omit to be and use just the past participle form, as in The car needs washed. This use of need with past participles is slightly more common in the British Isles, being particularly prevalent in Scotland.

and no, Wes Clark and John Kerry are not identical twins! :hi:

[Joe Chi Minh]

104. That's rubbish FrenchieCat. You could be forced to go

to the bathroom, even though didn't need to use it. A very artless argument.

[Clark2008]

84. God! Do you have no reading comprehension

Yes - I'm the Clarkie with low tolerance for BS.

Yes - I'll cut you to the quick on this shit.

READ, for FUCK'S sake and UNDERSTAND it.

"Use" and "threat" are NOT the same word. Get a fucking dictionary.

[CTLawGuy]

110. I'm amazed at the ability of some people to

delude themselves to such a great degree as to believe that:

-despite Bush proposing and approving and SIGNING the IWR, it was a resolution to limit his power and the make war harder to start, the same war Bush wanted since as far back as 2001.

-Bush somehow violated the IWR in going to war. looking at the text, it is nearly impossible to violate. All he needs to say is: diplomatic alternatives have failed, we're going to war. No evidence needed, no questioning, no criticism, no mechanism to overrule his determination, no nothing.

-that Dems had reason to be surprised that Bush would go to war. You don't ask for a war resolution if you are not going to use it. You don't GIVE a war resolution unless you are ready willing and able to accept imminent war.

[Jai4WKC08]

45. Oh that's just a crock

Sheesh.

Richard Perle may be a lyin' sonuvabith, but he was speaking RIGHT AFTER Clark's testimony (but after Clark left the room... so Perle is a gutless lying sonuvabitch). He did not mischaracterize that Clark said, and what everybody in the room heard Clark to say. For crying out loud, I saw the video of Clark banging the table, saying it is wrong to spill blood and spend treasure because of frustration or impatience with allies and international institutions.

Was Kerry even there? I don't remember seeing him in the video or reading his name anywhere on the transcript.

Yes, Clark was for giving the President the authority to threaten force. That is not AT ALL the same as the resolution Kerry voted for. I am willing to believe what Kerry has said about Bush's promise, but the words of that promise was not in the resolution and they could have been. Democrats controlled the Senate.

Personally, I think the Kerry folks are protesting just a little too much. The OP is about what Kennedy said about who convinced him to vote against the IWR. It had nothing to do with Kerry until some people brought it up... like it makes them feel better to think Clark had the same position... like Kerry's position is better justified if Clark had the same one. Maybe that says something in itself.

But that doesn't make it true.

[sandnsea]

51. Authority to threaten to USE force

That was what threat of force and the IWR was all about.

This is what the OP said:

"might be enlightening to some on DU who like to claim that Wes Clark did not oppose the Iraq invasion."

Nobody ever said Clark didn't oppose the invasion, which is what I objected to.

People have objected to Clark pretending he didn't support, and even suggest, exactly what was in the IWR.

[FrenchieCat]

58. The USE OF FORCE was in the title of the resolution.....

Doh!

[Jai4WKC08]

62. That's a crock too

Nobody ever said Clark didn't oppose the invasion?

People say that all the time. Just yesterday, some yahoo was dredging up that old London Times article to "prove" Clark was positively thrilled with the invasion.

And in fact, you were saying it too, when you said, "...Richard Perle... was making shit up about Clark never being willing to go to war." Maybe that's not what you meant, but that is what you said, and what I was responding to.

But the IWR says absolutely nothing about "threat." It authorizes the use of force. Period. There were a lot of things said at the time that led some to believe it would used as a threat, even that it needed to be open ended like it was to make the threat credible. But Clark was NEVER one who said that. And he did not suggest the wording of the IWR. That's just wrong.

[Clarkie1]

97. Clark did not support, or even suggest, what was in the IWR. n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

105. Sandnsea, don't waste your breath. There's none so blind so

blind as those that will not see. These people are a very special catgory of apologists, who are long beyond reasonoing with.

[Tom Rinaldo]

107. "These people"

Targeting a group for ridicule is as old as the worst parts of America. Everyone knows about "These People" right? "These people" are all alike.

So where else do we hear about "These people"? Actually "These people" get talked about a lot. "These people" are brought up in contexts like:

"These people aren't like you and me.." And "These people can't be educated..." And "These people are causing all the trouble in this town.." And "These people are what's wrong with America..." And "These people are too lazy to go out and get a good job...".

People who turn a legitimate political discussion about Democratic politicians into attacks on "These people" are individuals with an agenda.

[CarolNYC]

108. Tom,

I think this one's agenda was evident LONG before the words "these people" came up....

[Joe Chi Minh]

112. You bet. The agenda is to expose Clarke as a very very faux

Democrat - with probably one of the staunchest records in voting for Republican presidents possible. Agendas are what politics are about. Or hadn't you noticed?

You don't have an agenda to push Clark? Fortunately your voice, I suspect, is much louder here than in the Democratic party or the country.

Your colleagues are always requsting links, yet I and others have given plenty of links and actual passages, obtainable from the most cursory visit to Google, but it's as if they were all writen in a foreign language to you people.

[Tom Rinaldo]

115. I'll let those who know me form their own opinion

of whether or not it is fortunate that my voice is heard in the Democratic Party, at whatever volume. I am involved with local Democrats you know, I'm not just sealed off somewhere typing, and I don't confine my activities or my writing to only supporting Clark.

You must be very disappointed that such a broad cross section of Democrats are pleased to have Wesley Clark inside the Democratic Party. What do you make of Clark being asked to speak before the Democratic National Convention during prime time in 2004, and of the repeated standing ovations his speech received? What do you make of Wesley Clark being asked to deliver the National Democratic Party's Saturday Radio address three times in the last year? What do you make of all of the State Democratic Party Conventions that have asked Wesley Clark to be their keynote speaker? What do you make of all the Democratic Party candidates for office who have welcomed Wesley Clark into their districts to campaign for them?

Either you must essentially think that virtually the entire Democratic Party is immoral and corrupt to be in bed with such a very very faux Democrat as Wesley Clark, or you must think that Democrats at every level are very very stupid to have been taken in like that, and it is your personal mission to teach them just how stupid they have been.

[Clark2008]

116. Those statements give cherry-picked passages, but when one goes

to the link, they either see that the passage supports Clark's assertion that we NOT go to war in Iraq or gets some anti-military site that would rather puke than admit there MIGHT be some good in a former military leader.

Sorry, I'm not buying your ridiculousness. If you can't read complete sentences and comprehend that, while Clark clearly thought Saddam Hussein was a very bad man, he still didn't think we needed to waste human, political and the public's capital on a war that had nothing to do with 9/11, then we can't help you.

[Joe Chi Minh]

120. I think you're right. Our respective positions are somewhat

entrenched. Whether on the basis of sound judgement or otherwise will be a matter of opinion, though one will surely be right and the other wrong.

[wisteria]

73. Kerry is a good listener, I am sure he respected Gen. Clark's

opinions, but like any great man, he assimilated many differing opinions weighed that against the possible risks, and made a decision. Senator Kerry never voted for the war,he has however apologized for trusting President Bush to do the right thing in Iraq. Please do not make this threat a Clark versus Kerry thread.

[Clarkie1]

92. I consider Kerry an average senator. I do not consider him a "great man."

Unfortunately, even average senators these days seem to have forgotten their responsibilities under the U.S. constitution.

It's our responsibility as citizens to hold every senator who abrogated their constitutional responsibilities accountable. To put it bluntly, they didn't do the job they were elected to do. 23 others did, and their names are listed here:

****SENATE HONOR ROLL****

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

If a senator's name is not one of the names listed above and was serving when the IWR vote was taken, then in my opinion that senator is unfit to serve as a U.S. senator, and is certainly unfit for the presidency. That doesn't mean we vote them all out of the senate even if we could...politics, after all is the art of the possible. But it does mean we hold them accountable.

And, I will say it again for the benefit of those who will accuse me of "bashing Democrats." The full responsibility for the Iraq war rests on the utterly incompetent shoulders of G.W. Bush and Co., not those who "didn't know" he couldn't be trusted.

"Not knowing," however, is no excuse for failing to meet constitutional responsibilities. If the framers of the constitution thought even the most benevolent president deserved that kind of trust, there would have been no need for a congress.

[wisteria]

94. Well you are entitled to your opinion, I don't agree. Senator Kerry

should never be judged on just one vote only. I also think you fail to see the concern for our country that can along with that vote. I think you have more of a problem with the fact that Senator Kerry didn't just take Gen. Clark's assessment and make his decision based on Clark's words.

Again, I believe Senator Kerry is a great man and a great Senator.He would make an excellent President. I won't stoop to your level by basing my judgment of Gen. Clark on one vote or one opinion he may have held. Unlike your assessment of Senator Kerry.

[Clarkie1]

96. It's more than just "one vote."

It was probably the most important vote of Kerry's career. By saying I am basing my judgement on just "one vote," you put the IWR vote on equal footing with other votes. It's not the same. Every senator who voted yes on the IWR abrogated their responsibility and authority under the the Constitution of the United States. That is a BIG DEAL. Much bigger than every piece of policy legislation put together. It's not on the same level at all as any other vote, and I am not "stooping." I am making clear that I expect senators to uphold their most important responsibilities under the Constitution and that their actions have consequences.

[zann725]

148. I agree (JK would be "excellent Prez"), & Ted said so too on Larrry's show

Though no one seems here to mention that portion of the interview?

Larry asked the question: 'What did Ted think of Hilary as '08 Prez candidate?' And Ted smilingly, firmly said essentially, 'We already have another Mass. Senator who's fully-qualified for the job...Kerry. And I think he's seriously considering running.'

It was funny how Larry uncharacteristically was caught off-course, lost his breath, and eventually brought it back to Hilary, saying essentially, 'But Hilary would make a good candidate, right?'

(Pardon the paraphrasing...I didn't google the exact transcript. But essentially recapped that portion of the interview no one else here curiously failed to mention.)

[Jai4WKC08]

156. I too think Kerry would be an excellent President

Not the best possible, or I wouldn't be supporting Clark. But I honestly voted FOR Kerry, and not just AGAINST Bush... not that the latter motivation wouldn't suffice.

But Kennedy's opinion wasn't the point of the OP, so I don't know why you're surprised it wasn't included.

Still, I'm glad you brought it up. I missed seeing the interview and haven't read the whole transcipt. What is definitely NOT surprising to hear is that LK was trying to extract an opinion on Hillary Clinton. Now I may have to look up the transcript to see what Kennedy said.

[blm]

21. All resolutions re war are supposed to be threats

The process was violated by BushInc.

[Clarkie1]

29. I agree Bush was the one ultimately responsible.

The senate made it so.

[blm]

30. actually, the original UN resolution made it so....

and THAT was what BushInc would have used if IWR failed, which there was no chance of that happening, so SOME senators and congressmen were STUCK negotiating the best resolution they could get from the WH, and for their efforts got weapons inspectors in first and got Iran and Syria taken OFF the table.

But, then, some people refuse to acknowledge that aspect of the IWR in their effort to paint it as a blank check, which conveniently lets Bush off the hook, as if he had no boundaries and no guidelines.

[Clarkie1]

33. We operate under the U.S. constitution, not the U.N.

At least, that is the way it is last time I checked.

We have 3 co-equal branches of government that are designed to provide "checks and balances." Of course, it only works that way when each branch of government asserts it constitutionally derived power.

The congress failed us.

[blm]

34. The UN resolution from 1991 was still operable.

If you want US out of the UN then you side with many a freeper on that.

[Clarkie1]

36. I side with the Constitution of the United States of America.

Section 8 is quite clear: "The congress shall have the power...to declare war."

[blm]

49. By that reasoning you must be furious that Clark even worked with the UN

during Bosnia. I know many on the right who were furious then using that same rationale. Clark didn't disobey what should have been an unlawful command in their eyes.

I think he did a great job that needed to be done, even if it was unpopular.

[FrenchieCat]

54. You know...this is getting silly.....

The Op was about the fact that Ted Kennedy stated that he voted against the IWR...

He attributed the fact that he listened to Wes Clark and others in the military testify, and that is partially how he arrived at his vote.

John Kerry was first mentioned by you in the thread....and then SandandSea came back with her usual John Kerry listened to Clark, the liar.... which is why he voted for the IRW. :eyes:

Now, John Kerry has never mentioned Clark as a reason why he voted for the Resolution.

Now we are in this heated debate where Clark has to be defended.....

John Kerry is just peachy Keen....

And what Ted Kennedy said is not even the issue anymore....

But rather that Kerry and Clark are the same person.

That's just not proper! To hijack a thread to make a point that John Kerry, even if he voted differently from Ted Kennedy, somehow was influenced by Wes Clark....is really kind of sad.

There have been quite a few "Kerry for president in 2008" thread round here lately....and I've tried to not piss in every single one of them.

[blm]

57. Read my original post on this thread. I think it is very appropriate and

it points out HOW I see Clark gets attacked just as Kerry gets attacked, and usually for the same reason. To fulfill an agenda.

Now - why anyone would choose to use this thread to ATTACK Kerry is beyond belief. I believe my points are always respectful to Clark and serve to point to the absurdity of Clark and Kerry detractors.

[FrenchieCat]

63. Listen...I know that you are fair.....but that's not the problem.

The problem is that you mentioned John Kerry first in this thread...which was fine...but then, SeaandSand came into the thread saying that Clark pushed for use of threat of force....and that is what the IWR was all about....and Kerry listened to him, and that's why he voted for the IWR.

That is what is the problem.

The Iraq War Resolution authorized the Use of Force.....which is not what Clark was recommending, and indeed he stated what would possibly happen if we did invade Iraq as something other than a last resort. Hell, he was even questioning the "imminent" issue....and didn't feel that this was so.

So SeaandSan substituting "Threat of force" with "Use of Force" and saying...yeah, Clark did suggest that, and Kerry heard that. They were on the exact same page ... is not what I conclude.

Now, I realize that John Kerry probably didn't really want to vote for that resolution....

But putting Clark in the same boat to vindicate John Kerry is unfair.

Clark testified.

Kennedy voted.
Levin voted.
Wellstone voted.
and Kerry voted.

That's how it must remain.

One can rationalize why Kerry voted as he did....but the problem is that Clark is dragged into it and is made to appear to have been advocating us invading Iraq, when he wasn't.....which really is what the IWR did allow The power for Bush to Use Force.

[blm]

64. Mentioned in an APPROPRIATE way significant to the Original Post

There is NOTHING in what I wrote that can be misconstrued. Bringing up Kerry is actually essential to the point of the post - it's WHY I understand HOW Clark gets attacked unfairly. In fact, the subsequent postings that ended up attacking Kerry MAKE my point, and I find that sad on a Clark thread. It shouldn't happen, given the lifetime work and the integrity of both men.


MY POST:

I thought it was significant, too.

Edited on Fri Apr-21-06 02:10 PM by blm

One thing you'll find (and get sick of) is that men like Clark and Kerry who speak to every aspect of any mission and offer more detailed analysis, are men who understand nuance, and people are waiting in the woodwork to take their words out of context and use it against them.

Why? Because they BOTHER to think of every angle and express their thoughts.

Nothing is black and white the way Bush and the GOPs make it out to be. Unfortunately, they can tap into a corporate media in the US that attacks the intelligent and the nuanced and brands them as elitists, while every other country knows and respects the nuance of their leaders in their efforts to get along with the rest of the world.

I was glad for what Kennedy said, because Clark gets attacked so often here for daring to express his opinions and state the facts as he knows them at that moment and dares to see all sides, all layers in an effort to give a more complete, nuanced answer. And THAT is what political opportunists will seize upon and take his words out of context to spin for themselves.

[FrenchieCat]

66. Like I said....I believe you to be fair and rational......

and I believe that many other Kerry supporters are as well. But I also believe that not all Kerry supporters are alike....as is the case for all supporters of others.

Back to the OP--
Bottomline is Ted Kennedy did vote NO on the resolution.
Ted Kennedy attributed the direction of his vote to the testimonies of Wes Clark and other military experts.

period.

Peace! :hi:

[blm]

67. Sorry - but, I feel you still didn't understand a word I said.

And I really don't see how it could be made any clearer, ao I will hope for a better day.

[Tom Rinaldo]

68. Any "problems" on this thread are not of your fault, blm

You are always thoughtful, respectful, positive and most of all fair, toward Wes Clark and John Kerry in specific, but really toward most anyone. I know that Frenchie knows that. Sometimes the effort to unravel how a thread spins out can be harder than following the spins itself. Most Democrats realize that Clark and Kerry had far far more in common than there were differences in their position regarding Iraq prior to the invasion of Iraq. But their positions were not exactly identical, and that some times leads to these endless debates. We already saw with the 2004 Presidential campaign that virtually all Democratic activists were able to put aside whatever issue they may have had or not had with Kerry's literal IWR vote, to unite behind him for President. I certainly did.

I could take up space and time describing what I felt were the differences in Kerry and Clark's positions back then, but I don't find it useful. I am not attacking either man. As Little Clarkie noted elsewhere, it was Bush & Co who did this to America and Iraq. Maybe if both men actually declare for President we will revisit this point then.

The reason why, I think, so much space is devoted to this mini debate has very little to do with splits between most Clark and Kerry supporters. Sure there will always be some Clark supporters who don't respect Kerry that much and vice versa, but that isn't what this is really about. There is another element of poster who continually seek to discredit Clark as not ever really having been an opponent of the Iraq war, and/or they constantly question that Clark is progressive or even a liberal of any sort at all. Past Clark threads are littered with their arguments, and one of the bases that some of them like to launch attacks from is saying Clark always really supported Bush's policy, and certainly that he was no more opposed to it than your average Democratic office holder. Many of those posters never trusted Clark, period, and think of him as an infiltrator in the Democratic Party. Usually the same people who stand ready to debate Clark's position on "AN" (not "THE") IWR, move seamlessly into arguing that Clark was an enthusiastic war booster once the Iraq invasion finally approached and was fought.

It echos attacks on Clark from the Right, which try to portray Clark as an opportunist with no real fixed beliefs. They are hopeful that because Clark has not called for an immediate fixed withdrawal from Iraq, that Clark's political history can be rewritten to portray him as a war supporter all along, to those who were not paying close attention to Clark back in 2002, 2003, and 2004. None of that has anything to do with what you posted here today, or what you typically post about Clark.

[CarolNYC]

88. aw blm,

I'm sorry you're feeling a bit put upon in this thread...You're definitely one of the good guys.

Just wanted to throw that in here.

:hug:

[Clarkie1]

55. I support the U.N., and I don't understand your reasoning.

There is a big difference between supporting the mission of the U.N., and missions by the U.N, and criticizing United States Congress for abrogating it's authority to declare war to the executive branch.

How did the U.N. ever get brought into this?

[blm]

60. Bush was prepared to go in to Iraq under original UN resolution

from 1991. It's all in the posts above - no reason to wonder - just reread what you said.

[Sparkly]

65. Agreed, and moreover..

He got UN Security Council Resolution 1441, as well:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

That was a definite threat of force, passed 11/08/02. The IWR was passed by Congress the month before (10/10/02), in what I believe was (and was sold as) a show of unity, support, weight, and "teeth" if you will, for Bush to take to the UN.

With both of those things in place, there was NO need for BushCo to rush into Iraq. The UN Security Council was NOT on board with that, senators including Kerry stated when they voted that they were not on board with that. While we can go on forever about what they should have known, shouldn't have done, etc., it's BUSHCO who did what THEY did with those two resolutions, when there were still plenty of options left.

The "threat of force" was ALWAYS there. Always.

I, for one, believe Kerry when he said he didn't know Bush would f*** it up as badly as he did.

And I know exactly what General Clark said about the matter.

And I agree with you -- the rightwing is all about games of "gotcha."

[Clarkie1]

70. Not knowing isn't an excuse...it was every senators responsibility

not to abrogate their constitutional authority to declare war to the President.

It isn't a matter of trust, it's a matter of constitutional duty.

77 senators failed in their duty that day, 23 did their duty.

[blm]

99. Then you must be angry that the same process has been used for decades

and that congress abrogated their duties many times, including Bosnia. If your anger is about the duty, then there is PLENTY for you to be angry about historically, not just the IWR.

[Clarkie1]

154. You are mixing apples with oranges.

And you're smart enough to know it.

[LittleClarkie]

61. I agree, but not even with that caveat. I don't think Bush would have

shrugged his shoulders and said, "Oh well" if the Senate had not voted for the IWR. They were too set on this war.

They were going if they had to fall back on the earlier resolution (the one voted on just after 9/11) that said that the Prez was authorized to do whatever it took to fight terrorism.

Bush Co. is ULTIMATELY responsible, period.

[Clarkie1]

72. I agree Bush Co.. is ultimately responsible, however...

That does not let 77 off the hook, in my mind. They failed in THEIR responsibility.

[FrenchieCat]

25. What others?

I have quotes from "Others" who voted NO on the IWR, and gave attribution to Wes Clark

I don't find any "Others" who voted FOR the IWR and attributed their vote to what the General said. If you find some, including from John kerry, post their quotes here, OK.

Wellstone's Senate speech on his NO vote on the IWR:

"But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
http://www.wellstone.org/archive/article_detail.aspx?itemID=5423&catID=3605

Sen. Levin speech when he proposed HIS Resolution which would have made Bush come back to congress after going to the UN....

General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm

Levin voted No on the IWR as well.

Clark and Iraq war resolution
Which Iraq war resolution in the Senate did Clark say he supported? There were five that were proposed: the one that passed 75-25, proposed by Lieberman; the Byrd amendment that would provide a termination date for the use of force authorization, which failed 31-66; the second Byrd amendment that would limit Bush's authority to Iraq (the Lieberman version mentions a number of terrorist organizations that force was also authorized against), which failed 14-86; the Levin amendment that would limit the authority to destroying or removing WMDs and require a new UN Security Council resolution, which failed 24-75; and the Durbin amendment that would limit the authority to any imminent threat posed by Iraqi WMDs not a continuing threat, which failed 30-70.

Here's what Clark had to say about which resolution he supported:
"Well, what I said in testimony repeatedly was that I believed that Congress should empower the president to go forward with a resolution to the United Nations. But I warned against giving him a blank check. I would never have supported the resolution as it ultimately emerged.

Levin's speech cited the testimony of Clark, along with Generals Shalikashvili and Hoar in favor of UNSC resolutions.
http://www.muhajabah.com/clarkblog/2005/06/clark_and_ir...

Video of Clark talking about his supporting the Levin Resolution. Howard Dean was the one that supported the Biden/Lugar Resolution......
http://www.ammrx.com/~ice/vidclips/Clark_on_Swett.rm

even the NeoCons were saying that Clark's testimony didn't encourage any action....

Pentagon adviser Richard Perle, a strong supporter of going to war, testified with Clark at the same hearing and said, “I think Gen. Clark doesn’t want to see us use military force . . . . The bottom line is he just doesn’t want to take action. He wants to wait.”
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/01/23/gillespie/index.html

[sandnsea]

39. They viewed the vote differently

Rather than frame it for what it was, a process, they CHOSE to take the political gamble of framing it as the final say in war. In the end, they gave up their opportunity to require Bush to follow a process because they gave away their voice by saying that vote was the final word. Clark did not support any action in Oct 2002, and that's what these Senators referred to. HOWEVER, he did support a process, which they chose to ignore, and Kerry and others didn't. Others including everybody who voted for the process and said so at the time, and I am not going to spend hours digging up resources because it's obvious on its face that they listened to him or he wouldn't have been called to testify.

[Clarkie1]

42. Yes, every senator who voted yes on the IWR gave up their voice.

"In the end, they gave up their opportunity to require Bush to follow a process because they gave away their voice."

I could not have expressed it better myself.

You seem to have think the senators should have trusted Bush, but that's not why we have 3 branches of government.

Congress failed in their constitutional duty.

[FrenchieCat]

43. That's precious and simple.....But the facts belie what you are saying....

Clark and other military experts were called to testify.

Clark testified. It wasn't his place to "command" what the Senate should do....only influence them into what action they might take.

Some of those who voted NO cited Wes Clark.
None of those who voted YES cited Wes Clark.

Those are the facts.

[Hippo_Tron]

76. The Senators were naive to believe that Bush would follow the process...

Or they were just worrying about their next election, you take your pick.

Wes Clark, however, never voted for or against the process because he was not in the senate. Assuming that he would have supported some sort of process, I don't believe that his testimony states what his position would have been on giving the president a resolution that would be more strict and force him to actually follow the process, because that is not what he was called to testify on. What we do know is that Wes Clark did go to testify before congress before the war started and gave them some damn good advice that they should have followed. I don't think that we should try to use that advice to determine whether he would've voted YEA or NEA on the IWR.

[Clarkie1]

83. They were worse than naive...they failed in their duty as senators

to uphold the constitutional authority of the congress to declare war. They didn't do their job.

This was more than just another floor vote, much more.

It separated the true patriots from the politicians.

[Clark2008]

122. Wow, you're a mind reader!

:eyes:

Honestly, how the hell do you know how they viewed their vote? Did they tell you? I somehow doubt that.

[0007]

59. I slept through it and also the Jon Stewart show.

I find the comments extremely interesting.

[Hippo_Tron]

74. I wonder who the original 8 against it were

I'm fairly sure that five of them were...

Kennedy (obviously)
Boxer
Byrd
Feingold
Wellstone

As for the other three, I'm going to speculate that they are from the following...

Jeffords
Leahy
Levin
Corzine
Graham
Durbin
Sarbanes
Inouye

[politicasista]

75. We don't need to let Blinky off the hook

It's really unfortunate that we continuously play right into the hands of Bush, Cheney, and Rove by helping the media frame the dems that voted for it as warmongers. I didn't like it either, but we need to put the blame on the people that caused all this mess instead of posting divisive mess such as this. Bush would have invaded regardless.

[Hippo_Tron]

77. Actually, I'm kind of a senate enthusiast

I wasn't really placing the blame on anyone. I was just trying to see if I knew the senators well enough to guess who the original 8 were.

[politicasista]

78. Oh, I get it. n/t

:hi:

[Clarkie1]

81. No reason we can't hold the senators accountable and blame Bush.

When elected officials fail in their duty, it is our duty as citizens to hold them accountable whether they be Democrat, Republican, or neither.

[politicasista]

85. I hold them accountable, but it's always a few........

that would rather bash and promote their candidate of choice instead of getting behind those who ARE holding Blinky accountable and wanting to get out of this mess.

[Clarkie1]

89. Yes, it's unfortunate there are a few people like that here on DU.

It's just as unfortunate that some confuse "bashing" with holding someone accountable for their actions.

The IWR vote was a BIG DEAL. It was the most important vote of the decade, at the very least. It was much more important than a vote on any particular legislation not only because it dealt with war, but because it dealt with constitutional powers. The senate voted to give up their constitutionall derived power and responsibility; the 77 who did not vote against the IWR did not do their job. That's a bigger issue than voting the wrong way on a particular piece of legislation. I do not believe any senator who voted for it deserves the nomination of any political party. By saying that, I am holding the senators who voted accountable.

And yes, Bush Co. absolutely deserves all of the blame for Iraq. And the senate deserves all of the blame for not doing everything it could to stop him, or at least make the process more difficult and deliberative.

[FrenchieCat]

79. Well here are the full 23 Senators......

for the original eight, I'd say maybe Dayton should have a place there...to replace maybe Sarbanes? :shrug:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

[Clarkie1]

82. Our best and finest senators. n/t

[mapatriot]

130. I know...

Jeffords, Leahy and Durbin. As a Vermonter, I'm proud to say that the ENTIRE Vermont congressional delegation voted against the resolution - the only state in the nation.

[CarolNYC]

86. I saw that...

Interesting because we were just the other day discussing Clark's influence on Kennedy's vote. Cool to hear him credit Clark with helping him to change his mind on the vote...I found it interesting that he said he was inclined to go along with the Administration on this until the hearings...

No doubt, there are some who will tie themselves in knots over the fact that there are Senators who credit Clark's testimony with influencing them to vote against the WR, who will go to the lengths of calling these Senators liars, but the fact of the matter is that the statements are out there...Kennedy and Wellstone both credited Clark in their statements explaining their decisions to vote against the resolution...Anybody can see him and they can't be taken back...Maybe there were others too but I haven't seen them. I've yet to see anyone credit Clark's testimony with helping them to decide to vote FOR the resolution, though....

I also find it interesting that Ted says things may have been different if there had been more time before the vote...too bad.

[Adelante]

90. Also Senator Levin cited General Clark

in his own alternative resolution to the IWR. That would be Senator Carl Levin, who also voted AGAINST the IWR. Funny how that works, Carol.

[CarolNYC]

91. Yep, yep...You're right...Levin too...

It is funny, isn't it?

[tishaLA]

93. Clark also got a few nice mentions on Franken....

the other day. First Franken named him as someone who has been saying important things (and singled him out for his intelligence), along with some other (elected) Dems. Then Franken was interviewing someone from Time, perhaps, who was talking about our poor Iran policy and said that we really need to bring Iran into the diplomatic field, "which is what Wesley Clark has been saying for a long time now."

It's nice to see thoughtful men like Sen. Kennedy (and others) giving props where they are due.

[CarolNYC]

109. Cool about Franken....

Glad he's mentioning General Clark in that light. I think he sometimes tends to overlook him.

Great that the Time guy recognized that Wes has been crying out for us to talk to Iran for a while now.

[Totally Committed]

106. Just another reason why I remain proud as hell to have Ted Kennedy

as my Senator. And why I support Wes Clark.

TC

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[mapatriot]

128. Ted for President??

As I watched that interview, I couldn't help but think how sad it was that Kennedy's personal behavior many decades ago eliminated him from all consideration for the presidency. He is the most gifted man in government today but the black cloud of Chappaquidik and all the drinking still hangs over him. Of all the potential democratic candidates for '08, I'd prefer him. The conservatives hate him even more than they hate Hillary. And that's not just because of what happened nearly forty years ago. They KNOW that he's charismatic, smart and highly respected by his colleagues in the senate - left AND right. Anybody think there could be a chance...?????

[zann725]

143. I think Fate (Chappaquidik) dealt Ted the (Senatorial) "hand"...which

he's served loyally and fully as a TRUE Dem for 40 years (EIGHT times the "service") any Presidency would've given him. And given his brothers' misfortunes running for Prez, he was safer and better able to serve as Senator. And he seems quite proud of his service, and wishes to continue for some time to come.

I'm impressed.

[zann725]

144. I think Fate (Chappaquidik) dealt Ted the (Senatorial) "hand"...which

he's served loyally and fully as a TRUE Dem for 40 years (EIGHT times the "service") any Presidency would've given him. And given his brothers' misfortunes running for Prez, he was safer and better able to serve as Senator. And he seems quite proud of his service, and wishes to continue for some time to come.

I'm impressed.