POLITICS: Wesley Clark caught on Iraq statements

Just two months ago, Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark said that he has always been against the current war in Iraq. And during a debate in Detroit on October 26th, he even claimed to be very consistent in being against the war. However, less than 18 moths ago, he made the case for war, and even testified that Iraq had WMD's. link: DrudgeReport link: Lieberman Statement Statement by Joe Lieberman -- "Yesterday, Wesley Clark attacked me for pointing out his multiple positions on the war in Iraq. It is no longer credible for Wesley Clark to assert that he has always had only one position on the war - being against it. His own testimony before Congress shows otherwise. "He may think it is 'old-style politics' to point this out, but the only thing old here is a candidate not leveling with the American people. If we want to begin anew and replace George Bush, we need to level with the American people, which is what I have done in this campaign and throughout my career. You may not always agree with me but you will always know where I stand." It seems as though someone has issued each Democratic hopeful, a gun that is constantly aimed at their feet. [Edited on 15-1-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

Did it occur to you that maybe Clark wasn't allowed to express his opinion because he was still in the military wasn't he. Soldiers protect the first admendmant but cannot express it.

Let us not forget Clark said, in Sept 03, he would have been a Republican if Karl Rove returned his phone calls.

So, just like that he determines he'd join the Democratic party then go right onto running for president??

I am surprised that statement hasn't come back to haunt him. (plus, I believe I read Whitehouse phone records never showed Clark actually calling the WH. Unless, he wasn't calling Rove in the WH, Clark is telling another lie.

[Edited on 15-1-2004 by Bob88]

There are no groundbreaking events here, this is tit-for-tat political rhetoric amongst candidates in the same party in an archaic primary system.

I am interested in what qualifies this for ATSNN rather than the US Political Mudpit? Particularly the submitter's closing remark.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar I am interested in what qualifies this for ATSNN rather than the US Political Mudpit? Particularly the submitter's closing remark.

It's breaking news (today) in an escalating political environment in the U.S. The comment relates to an ongoing observation that every democratic candidate has some type of statement/policy/comment/skeleton that is now haunting them.

You are right.

Some non-US observers of the escalating political environment will also be perceiving an escalation in spin, grandiose Kennedyesque statements about space conquest, and ridiculous vote-buying policy attempts that make the observer continue to feel lucky to be untainted by the US political system.

Bush has a bigger self-directed arsenal in the political suicide of his administration than all other candidates of all parties put together, doesn't he? In the escalating environment of war horrors, mismanagement, corruption and the truth of 9/11.

"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002."

And he continues:

""Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution."

Clark continued: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."

More Clark: "And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."




regards
seekerof

[Edited on 15-1-2004 by Seekerof]

Frankly, I don't care if he is a republican...I like him a hell of alot better than Bush, for several reasons.

Ha, Lieberman calling someone a republican...that's rich. He's more Bush than Bush. Either way, Clark has said that the administration wanted to go after states instead of terror groups--which is the truth--that is when he split from their ideas. He has the right to change his mind as the president changes policy.

Reasons I like Clark...


Clark: The Confederate flag is a divisive and racist symbol of American history. I am proud to have served and fought under the American flag. That's what I want to see waved and supported. Perhaps some of those who have used the Confederate flag in the past don't realize how offensive it is to others. But I believe we have to take account of its association with practices that all America regrets. It is time to put that past behind us and move on into a future where we are all united. (my favorite)

Clark: I don't believe sexual orientation is a matter for the military to worry about, so long as behavior is appropriate. I will challenge the military to review the existing policy, and if it doesn't work, which all evidence suggests is the case, will ask the military to come up with something more fair and better for the people concerned and the country. In my view, every person who is qualified should be given the opportunity to serve, and each person should be treated with dignity and respect. There are other models, like don't ask/don't misbehave which some armies have adopted, and they should be looked at.

Clark: My father died when I was about four years old, leaving behind $450 in savings. My mom had to raise me all alone. She got a job as a secretary in a bank and worked hard every day just to provide the basic necessities. We never had much, but we somehow made ends meet. When you work so hard - in the wealthiest country in the world -- you shouldn't be struggling to get by. I'll put families first so that they can get the help they need before they reach the bankruptcy court.

Clark: The amount of money you earn in this country should be determined by one thing: the amount you contribute, and until women in this country earn 100 cents for every dollar men earn - we all lose out.

more...

universal preschool
Families 1st Tax Reform

This election isn't about soundbytes on Iraq--it's about the future of this country, and the values of the people running it. It's time to get a moderate back in the whitehouse...Clark's that guy.

Clark spouts more on Iraq... I think he will stick with this. Not just because it's easier to argue than the departing Bush's position, but because it's right.

Clark: Bush more concerned with 'political security' than national security

(01-13) 15:29 PST MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) --

Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark on Tuesday criticized the timing of an investigation of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and suggested President Bush was more concerned with "political security" than national security.

Campaigning in New Hampshire two weeks before its primary election, Clark called for a full congressional investigation into why the United States went to war in Iraq.

"We don't know what the motivation was. We just don't know. We've spent $180 billion on it, we've lost 480 Americans, we've got 2,500 with life-changing injuries," the retired general told reporters.

Clark contended that Bush was obsessed with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, and with establishing a national missile defense, in the months leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks -- and did not do enough to protect the nation against such an attack....

....Clark contrasted the speed of the O'Neill investigation with the slow pace of an inquiry into who last summer divulged the name of a CIA official whose husband had criticized the president's Iraq policy.

"They didn't wait 24 hours in initiating an investigation on Paul O'Neill," Clark said. "They're not concerned about national security. But they're really concerned about political security. I think they've got their priorities upside down."

Democratic candidate Howard Dean echoed the criticism: "Paul O'Neill is not a threat to our national security," he said in a statement. "But the disclosure of the identity of an undercover CIA operative undermines a key tenet of national security and is a violation of law." ....

www.sfgate.com.../news/archive/2004/01/13/politics1505EST0622.DTL

...Reich Wing, via their classic politics of personal destruction gambit, is finding the two front runners a tough target to stick something to. It begs the question: will they keep trying since every failed attempt brings to the forefront their vile nature? Really, everyone from the president to the RNC chairman has forwarded this particular lie, & now it's blowback time. Granted, they have a completely complicit media to make it go away.

Here's the full transcript from when he spoke in front of the ASC on 9/26/2002

commdocs.house.gov...

The problem of Iraq is not a problem that can be postponed indefinitely, and of course Saddam's current efforts themselves are violations of international law as expressed in the U.N. resolutions. 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 States can't -- excuse me, if the United Nations can't -- provides strong leverage for undergirding ongoing diplomatic efforts...

.................................
And so, the critical issue facing the United States right now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on al-Qaida or our efforts to deal with other immediate mid- and long-term security problems...
..................................................
The president and his national security team have got to deploy imagination, leverage and patience in working through the United Nations. In the near term, time is on our side and we should endeavor to use the United Nations if at all possible...
............................
We have to work this problem in a way to gain worldwide legitimacy and understanding for the concerns that we rightly feel and for our leadership. This is what U.S. leadership in the world must be. We must bring others to share our views, not be too quick to rush to try to impose them even if we have the power to do so. I agree that there's a risk that the inspections would fail to provide evidence of the weapons program. They might fail, but I think we can deal with this problem as we move along, and I think the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by the opportunities to gain allies, support and legitimacy in the campaign against Saddam Hussein.
If the efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, then we need to form the broadest possible coalition including our NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if we're going to have to bring forces to bear. We should not be using force until the personnel, the organizations, the plans that will be required for post conflict Iraq, are prepared and ready.

So, all that having been said, the option to use force must remain on the table. It should be used as the last resort after all diplomatic means have been exhausted unless there's information that indicates that a further delay would represent an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations.