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.
...
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.
...
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.
However, just recently, Clark said this:
quote: Wes Clark said:
I've been very consistent... I've been against this war from the beginning,..
...
I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now.
He even compliments Richard Perle, hated neo-con! What will moveon.org do if Clark gets the nomination?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wes Clark has been far too hard to pin down on the issues. He's either a waffler (likely) or just someone without very firm opinions (possible). Either way, he's not the sort of person I would prefer to be President.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When Clark first came onto the scene as a candidate, I felt pretty excited at the idea of a Clark presidency. I thought that in him we had a potential leader who would be able to draw on his international experience to heal some of the wounds that Bush had managed to inflict on our relationship with the rest of the world. Now though...I've kind of cooled toward him. As someone else noted, he's been hard to pin down on a number of issues, and frankly I just don't quite trust him, for reasons I can't put my finger on. I find myself feeling the need to guard myself when I see him or hear him. I just don't quite trust him. Anybody else have a similar reaction to him, or am I alone in that?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, with Clark, I get the feeling that his late start in the race is catching up with him. It's as if he hasn't had the chance yet to fully formulate his stances and is still waiting on the opinion polls to come rolling in from his campaign workers.
Or he could be stalling a bit, keeping his name out there, but waiting to make a bigger push in the later primaries. If I remember correctly, Clinton laid low in the early primaries and then really cranked it up at the halfway point in the season. His opponents had all either run through their money or had been too badly damaged by the constant infighting among the candidates. Perhaps he's smart enough to play "Let's you and him fight" while looking for the right opening.
I do believe, though, that the media has spotted it and is trying to wrangle him out into the fray by calling him a waffler and indecisive. We'll see for sure by mid February before the big primaries in March.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Either he lied to congress while giving this testimony, or he is lying right now on the campaign trail. I think waffler is a little too nice for this major of a flip.
quote: the media has spotted it and is trying to wrangle him out
Observation does not support this claim. The media seems to be giddy that there is a Dean alternative out there. Be reminded that the major media has picked up this contradiction story, which should be huge.
quote: As someone else noted, he's been hard to pin down on a number of issues, and frankly I just don't quite trust him, for reasons I can't put my finger on.
Here's a perfect reason to put your finger on. He was wholeheartedly for th Iraq war last fall, but has come full circle and is now classified with Dean as completely against, and he even claims to have always been against it.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe he's changed positions too much too, and as a result he may have much more difficulty beating Bush than Dean would. On the other hand, he's got "General" as his title, and if he is consistent in his anti-Iraq War position from this point forward, he could be a strong candidate. Mind-changing is a much less serious charge than waffling.
posted
It was his job to make that report to Congress. It's obvious he didn't agree with the current administration. He was fired and all for his position on Iraq. How is that waffling?
Not that I'm voting for Clark, I just wonder.
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It was his job to make that report to Congress. It's obvious he didn't agree with the current administration. He was fired and all for his position on Iraq. How is that waffling?
Firstly, Wes Clark was "fired" during the Kosovo/Serb thing by Bill Clinton. It was not his job to testify in front of congress. He was not fired for his position on Iraq.
Second, it is waffling because he changed his position to the complete polar opposite of what it was less than 1 year ago. He was very much in support of the war, saying "Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons" referring to Saddam. Then, just recently has told everyone that he has always been against the war. Still don't see the flip-flop?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:US filmmaker Michael Moore, an outspoken opponent of US President George W. Bush, has declared his official support for Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark.
His, um, official support? What is he, the New York Times?
posted
If you read through the entire testimony (http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm) Clark comes down clearly on the side of working through the United Nations in Iraq.
Drudge completely mischaracterizes Clark's remarks with those excerpts, I would say. Clark's point is that Hussein is a threat but not an immediate threat.
Here's more from the testimony:
quote: 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. This includes dealing with requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps even including a new constitution.
quote: 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. 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.
quote: But I will say this, that the administration has not proceeded heretofore in a way that would encourage its friends and allies to support it. One of the problems we have is the overhang from a number of decisions taken by the administration which have undercut its friends and allies around the world and given the impression that the United States doesn't respect the opinions of other.
More on working through the U.N.:
quote:CLARK: Well, if I could answer and talk about why time is on our side in the near term, first because we have the preponderance of force in this region. There's no question what the outcome of a conflict would be. Saddam Hussein so far as we know does not have nuclear weapons. Even if there was a catastrophic breakdown in the sanctions regime and somehow he got nuclear materials right now, he wouldn't have nuclear weapons in any zable quantity for, at best, a year, maybe two years.
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, so people are alert here. Our homeland security is certainly not perfect but we've, I think, taken some very significant steps. We're much more observant than we have been before.
So, we have the time to build up the force, work the diplomacy, achieve the leverage before he can come up with any military alternative that's significant enough ultimately to block us, and so that's why I say time is on our side in the near term. In the long term, no, and we don't know what the long term is. Maybe it's five years. Maybe it's four years. Maybe it's eight years. We don't know.
We know the situation can't be permitted and beyond that, we don't want to live in a world where the United Nations is increasingly enfeebled. This is an important opportunity that the president has seized to strengthen the United Nations.
But to strengthen it, we've got to have the patience to work with it and we've got to twist some arms and bend some elbows and do all the kinds of things in international politics that I guess domestic political leaders do in their home constituencies and in their races. I mean this is about leadership. It's not just about a threat. So that's why I say time is on our side.
posted
Clark could get away with saying that the Iraq war was justified, but he didn't fully agree with the timing or manner it was undertaken. Most American's will nod and say "that's how I feel". However, Clark doesn't have the "temperment". Dean has the best temperment in the field, but he doesn't come close to Bush. It's part of what intellectuals really hate about Bush, that Americans refuse to see through his likeability. Clinton was the same problem.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, while he was president a lot of intellectuals complained about Clinton, saying he was too centrist and moderate. Now that we have Bush they are writhing in horror. But when they miss Clinton, they are really saying "ANYTHING would be better than this. EVEN Clinton."
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regardless of campaign rhetoric and quick shot sound bites that are easily turned to look like lies (an easy target with any candidate - saying things to please the immediate audience), Clark and Lieberman are the most viable 'centrist' on any ballot for president this year.
If voting for the most popular Democrat, the choice is a reasonably far left, charismatic candidate (Dean) or a drier, intellectual centrist (Clark).
It seems, unfortunately, that Sen. Lieberman will not garner the support necessary to move forward, but lots of folks may find they like his message if we really looked hard at the facts and records instead of the faces and 'talk show' analysis.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least with Lieberman he doesn't lie about what he said and has remained consistent in his stances. His issues were the same a year ago as they are today. He's definitely the only canidate I would possibly consider voting for over Bush.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except for when he was given the vice presidency in 2000 and promptly switched his views on anything that opposed Gore's.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
