Am I the only one who isn't confused about Clark's position on Iraq?

[dolstein]

Clark seems to be saying two things -- first, that he wouldn't have voted to go to war against Iraq, and second, that he would have supported a resolution threatening the use of force in order to give the president the kind of diplomatic leverage necessary to disarm Iraq without going to war. That sounds pretty close to Kerry's position. And it also sounds very similar to the kind of arguments I heard Lieberman making during the debate on the Iraq resolution -- that the best way to avoid a war was to give the president a strong hand to play at the UN. I don't find anything contradictory or hypocritical about this position.

[returnable]

1. Also quite similar to Dean's

Who backed a 60-day disarmament deadline followed by UN-sanctioned force.

[xray s]

2. That's how I understood his comments n/t

[cjbuchanan]

3. I am also confused

Before he got in the race, I thought he was against Iraq as the wrong war at the wrong time.

A day or two after he got in the race he said he probably would have voted for the resolution.

A day or so after that he said that he was fully against the war.

Do any Clark supporters have a link to an explanation of his views?

I really want to know what he thinks, thanks.

[papau]

11. Post 1 and 2 (and I) say there is no confusion - Kerry, Dean, Clark all

have same war resolution position -they supported a resolution threatening the use of force in order to give the president the kind of diplomatic leverage necessary to disarm Iraq without going to war.

Then they are all anti-war as timing - it was not needed at that moment - and execution.

Dean goes further saying that he would NOT have gone with the Oct resolution without it being changed to demand a return to Congress for a second resolution before going to war and Clark seems to be saying the same thing these days.

They all seem to be on the same page - with Dean a bit more "anyi-war" since he was out there saying the war resolution was defective in the beginning (Kerry said that he read the resultion as asking Bush to come back - but even he agrees that the resolution did nor require such a return to Congress before the war. Kerry also notes that Bush lied - as Kennedy has noted - in making his case for the war resolution..

I like Kerry - but I am botherred by the fact that after he said Bush lied - and he was burned by our GOP controlled media for saying that about a "popular president" - he seemed to tone it down - very much unlike my hero Kennedy!

[kayleybeth]

4. No, you're not the only one.

That's the way I understood it, too.

[dfong63]

5. what's confusing is not Clark's "position" per se, but his statements,

... which have been inconsistent with each other and with his "position".

[Bucky]

17. A lot of the "waffling" is...

A lot of the "waffling" is coming out of the slanted hatchet job that Democracy Now did on him. They took a lot of his statements about the war our of context and made him seem like a fair-weather supporter of the war who turned anti- once we started losing the peace. As a candidate, he'll need to get used to having his words used against him in unfair ways. There is a reason why successful pols only talk in short oversimplified sound bites today.

In fact, Clark has been quite specific and consistant in hacking away at the administration's incompetance and lame justifications. He did always favor sanctions and containment. In fairness, let's keep in mind that the sanctions killed a LOT more Iraqis than the bombing did.

Just like Dean, Kerry, Lieberman, Graham, Gebhardt, and the whole Hee-Haw gang, Clark is neither pro-war nor anti-war in the abstract. He wanted to give diplomacy more of a chance in Iraq. He's a process-oriented person, much as our Founding Fathers were, and his experience in Kosovo informs him that focusing on the peace process saves lives. Like his fellow Dems, he was appalled by the dishonesty of tying Iraq to terrorism. But they were also constrained from denouncing the president out of a genuine desire, I think, to not undermine Bush's handling of a dangerous man.

They honestly "misunderestimated" Bush's stupidity and greed.

[calimary]

6. Shoot, no! And I THINK I rather like the guy. Still a Dean supporter, tho.

I was waffling. But I've SEEN enough waffling to firm myself up again. Just really uncertain about him. Still, there is a lot to like about him, from what I've read. Enough I can live with. And a whole lot better than the garbage we've got now.

"I'm not a fighter jock, but I play one on TV." - Captain Cakewalk

[bicentennial_baby]

7. I got it

Made sense to me...not that I agree with him 100%, because I don't really, but I knew what he meant.

[Cocoa]

8. I thought it was the other way around

I thought his first comments were that he would have voted for the resolution, which statement surprised a lot of people, then he later said he would "never" have voted for it, which is his latest position. Either way, I'm with you that it's confusing.

[Merlin]

9. There's a bottom line distinction between Clark/Dean and the rest.

They opposed a unilateral war under the Bush doctrine of preemption. They would have supported a UN sanctioned war, however. The other Dems gave Bush a blank check to do whatever he wanted. That's the difference. That's all the difference in the world.

[blm]

18. Here's what Dean said in February

From Josh Marshall:

But on this point Dean's position has evolved too. In that same Face the Nation interview, when asked whether there were conditions under which he might favor war, Dean said ...

"My question is not that we may not have to go into Iraq. We may very well have to go into Iraq. What is the rush? Why can't we take the time to get our allies on board? Why do we have to do everything in a unilateral way?"

...

"My problem is not whether we're going to end up in Iraq or not. Saddam Hussein appears to be doing everything he can to make sure we do go into Iraq. My problem is, it is important to bring in our allies."

Now, my point is not to say that Dean was some sort of war-hawk. Clearly, he was no friend of the president's policy. But then neither was John Kerry, and certainly not Wes Clark. So let's drop this idea that support for war under some circumstances and not others is some sort of waffling or dodge. Because if it is, then Dean isn't in the clear either.

[WillyT]

10. And It All Worked Out So...... Swell, Didn't It ???

:shrug:

[LynneSin]

12. That October vote was never a "Gung-Ho we're going to War"

Many of the democrats who supported it (including my own Joe Biden) felt that we wanted to give the Bush Regime the right to use force as a diplomatic leverage in conjunction with the UN.

I know, I know - we (as members of DU and other progressive thinkers) knew that Bush couldn't be trusted with that kind of power. We (again see above comments) knew that Bush would never wait for approval from the UN before he sent in forces.

Hence they (the Bush Regime) built a case to appeal to the fears (Hussein has WMDs and they will be unleashed on your community) and Compassion (Hussein had ties with those who committed the atriocious acts on 9/11). Bush knew if he got America (or at least those who aren't atune to progressive websites and literature) behind him by wrapping the flag so damn tight around himself, that he could have slaughtered virgins and saints and America would have still plastered magnetic flags on their SUVs.

What many of the democrats honestly believed was that if war was necessary that it would be in conjunction with the UN - in a similiar path like Kosovo. We would share the cost and the burden of our troops with other countries and no not countries like Uzbekistan, Tonga and Columbia - real countries who would supply troops like France, Germany and Russia.

We know the rest of the story. We're angry because we knew Bush would lie but some of the Democrats in trusted him.

[nomaco-10]

13. I'm just trying to be patient

until he comes out with something more substanial by way of an indepth interview or a debate forum.

[OKNancy]

14. Do you like this

LITTLE ROCK, Ark., Sept. 23 /U.S. Newswire/ -- General Wesley K.
Clark (Ret.), Democratic candidate for President, made the following
statement today in response to President Bush's speech to the United
Nations:

"The President did great damage to our decades-old international
coalitions with his Iraq war policy. Now the President is asking
those same nations to help him rebuild Iraq with their money and
their troops.

"No one can be surprised that the President is having a hard time
convincing other nations to cooperate now. This demonstrates just how
badly the President has handled the Iraq situation from the start."

[nomaco-10]

16. Clark's had my attention

for several weeks. I've been clamoring for a Dean/Clark ticket. Dean/Clark Clark/Dean Kerry/Clark, I don't care as long as buzzard brains is defeated in 2004.

[Mz Pip]

15. Taken out of context

The media just won't let go of this, which makes me think they are really desperate to keep recyling old material. If this is the only "mistake" he makes he's doing damn good.


THis is from his U of Iowa speech. Pretty clear.

''Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war,'' Clark said before a speech at the University of Iowa. ''I've gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein.''

MzPip
:dem:

[IndianaGreen]

19. Clark's position on Iraq is identical to Lieberman and Kerry's

Particularly in the case of Kerry, other than his vote authorizing Bush to invade Iraq in violation of the UN Charter, Kerry has a solid Democratic record. While many of us have taken strong issue with Kerry on his Iraq vote, none of us doubted Kerry's commitment to Democratic ideals.

I can't say the same about Clark. It is not that Clark used to be a Republican what bothers me, or even his fudging on the Iraq war vote. What bothers me the most about Clark, apart from NATO bombing of the former Yugoslavia, is that to this day he thinks Ronald Reagan was a great President. Clark refuses to criticize Reagan or any of his policies. Making things more troubling, is that Clark has expressed his admiration and deep friendship with neocons such as Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld.

Clark's admiration of Reagan and Reaganism is the most troubling of all (except for the NATO thing)! Not even the most DINO of DINOs has ever said that Reagan was a great President.

[Pepperbelly]

23. re: wolfie and Scummy ...

If you read his words carefully, he did not claim admiration for wolfie nor friendship, choosing instead to note that he had "known him" for a number of years.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Clark's Position

was diametrically opposed from Gephardt's and Liebermans....


His position was closer to Dean and Kerry but onl Kerry had to vote...

To compare Wes Clark with Joe Lieberman is a calumny....

[blm]

20. His position to me sounds much in line with Kerry's.

No mystery there. It's all a matter of basic comprehension.

[IndianaGreen]

22. So, given a choice between Clark and Kerry (and no other choices)

Kerry will win hands down. Kerry is a long-time Democrat that has been there in the trenches all along, even when he was wrong.

Clark was too busy voting against Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Fritz Mondale, and Michael Dukakis. I still don't know if Clark voted for George W.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Let Me Give This A Shot

I started a thread.... "An Impartial Look At The Iraq War Vote"


AS, DK, and CMB were flat out anti-war so their positions are easiest to deal with....

Gephardt and Lieberman were gung ho Bush Supporters... They believed, rightly or wrongly that Saddam was a tyrant and an imminent threat with wmds....

Mr.'s Kerry, Clark, and Dean had a nuanced position.... They believed that Saddam was a threat but the UN sanctions coupled with the no fly zone had him in a box.... They supported action against Saddam if it was under a U N umbrella.... Kerry looked at the vote as making war less likely because he believed that Saddam would cave... He guessed wrong ....

Mr.'s Dean, Clark, and Kerry would have supported the war if it was under a U N umbrealla but only Kerry had to vote on the resolution as it was written....


on edit- I would put Edwards somewhere between the Lieberman-Gephardt camp and the Kerry, Clark, and Dean camp... I don't where I'd put Bob Graham .....

[Kahuna]

25. He always said the ONLY way he would have voted for the IWR..

was to make bushie come back to congress before beginning military action. Still he believes it was an elective war with no immediancy.