| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Clark: Freeing of Iraqis "major blunder" |
| 2003-09-20 |
| IOWA CITY, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark reversed an earlier opinion that he likely would have voted for war in Iraq, telling a cheering college-town crowd the invasion was "a major blunder" he never would have supported. "We should just have let Saddam keep his slaves and continue funding Hamas. Clark said his Army career taught him that "the use of force is only a last resort" that wasn’t justified in Iraq. "I’m a soldier," he said. "I’ve laid on the battlefield bleeding." While the use of force can occasionally be justified, he said, "It’s not a way to solve problems and resolve disputes. It’s very difficult to change people’s minds when you are bombing them and killing them." Clark sought to blunt a controversy that arose as he opened his campaign. The core is his resume as a retired four-star general with the credibility to challenge President Bush and oppose the war in Iraq. Many of his backers expressed surprise when Clark told reporters he probably would have voted to authorize the use of force. "At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that’s too simple a question," The New York Times quoted Clark as saying Thursday. He then added, the Times said, "I don’t know if I would have or not. I’ve said it both ways, because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position. On balance, I probably would have voted for it." In a speech Friday to more than 1,000 people jammed into a lecture hall at the University of Iowa and in interviews, Clark underscored his opposition to the war, explaining: "There may be times when you may have to use force, but only as a last resort. "Let’s make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war, never," Clark said in an interview with The Associated Press. "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." |
| Posted by:Katz |
| #12 Ed Becerra, I don't think he trusts clinton a bit... he's using clinton. Remember clinton fired clark and that's something a man doesn't forget. I wish he wasn't a waffler on this Iraq thing because I agree with so many of his stated view points. But I don't think I can vote for someone who's "opinion" changes with who he's talking to... |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2003-9-20 10:28:51 PM |
| #11 All right, he's bright, semi-articulate, and has a huge ego. He still doesn't have a microgram of common sense. I'm beginning to believe that there are two kinds of politicians - those totally clueless about common sense, and those with an idea of what "common sense" is all about, and may even have a pinch or two themselves. Clinton, Clark, Kucinich, Kerry, and Dean are in the first category. Joe Lieberman and George Bush (2) are in the second category. Ron Paul, btw, is in a class by himself, having DEMONSTRATED common sense - almost unheard of in a politician. What we need now is a "common sense filter" that will let us weed out those clueless politicians we keep getting saddled with. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-9-20 9:36:32 PM |
| #10 Clark's real problem isn't politics, not directly. What he suffers from is a severe case of General George Armstrong Custer Syndrome. He IS bright, though not quite a genius, brave, skilled and able. But he has an ego the size of a small nation, a severe tendency to micromanage even when he KNOWS doing so will damage the situation in question, and he's mildly paranoid, distrusting all of his subordinates and many of his superiors, believing that while there's no real plot against him, they will still attempt to interfere with his "rightful rise to the glory" that he feels is properly his. He wants, even NEEDS to be the next MacArthur, but unlike Mac, he intends to make it to the White House. Trouble with that is he still trusts Bill Clinton and the Klintonistas, Hillary included. This is due, I feel, to his ego. He realizes that the Clintons DO dump people who are no longer useful, but he sees himself as far too important a figure to be used, then discarded. Also, he believes that if they should consider the "use & dump" strategy on him, that he's personally powerful enough to ruin them in return. i.e., "You kill me, and I'll kill you right back. We'll BOTH die. So there. You're stuck with me." His ego again, I'd say. Ed. |
| Posted by: Ed Becerra 2003-9-20 8:14:02 PM |
| #9 Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark reversed an earlier opinion that he likely would have voted for war in Iraq, telling a cheering college-town crowd the invasion was "a major blunder" he never would have supported. Apparently, the people failed to notice that Clark had been out of sight holding his finger up in the air and turning it back and forth just before he addressed the crowd. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-9-20 7:47:37 PM |
| #8 nah, he's got a purple star... he got it in vietnam. He's actually got a good resume... unfortunaly he's a huge waffler and obviously trying to play both sides. Something we don't need in a president right now... |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2003-9-20 7:43:19 PM |
| #7 "I’m a soldier," he said. "I’ve laid on the battlefield bleeding." Does anyone know what he's talking about with this statement? I was unaware that he was a Purple Heart recipient; picked him more as a hair mouse type of general. This could be big if he was "Goring" the truth. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-9-20 7:20:33 PM |
| #6 no shivs, Hillary leaves the gun out with a note a la Vince Foster: "Dear probably has a stack of them to fill in, like Bill's copies of "Leaves of Grass" lol |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-9-20 7:05:28 PM |
| #5 I think Gary Coleman has a clearer view of American politics than Wes Clark, but hey he has the Clintons behind him ( watch out for the shiv in the shower Clark!) |
| Posted by: wills 2003-9-20 7:00:21 PM |
| #4 Matthew Hoy - a local San Diego blogger (shameless plug) notes: In reporting on Democrat presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark's flip-flop on whether he would support, the New York Times report spins like a Clark campaign operative. Clarify his statement? This is nothing less than a full-fledged flip-flop. Clark apparently wasn't pressed as to how exactly a resolution would have been worded that gave the president "leverage." The Congress hereby resolves to give the President of the United States a two-by-four and a fulcrum... I like that |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-9-20 6:56:19 PM |
| #3 I didn't think it was possible but this guy is making Kucinich look like presidential material. "I'm for the war? I'm against the war? Hey, folks, tell me what works here." |
| Posted by: Matt 2003-9-20 5:33:34 PM |
| #2 The war WAS the leverage needed. |
| Posted by: Tangara 2003-9-20 4:54:04 PM |
| #1 Sounds like Clark's having a John Kerry moment, trying to have it both ways. I expect the same results (i.e., dropping poll numbers). |
| Posted by: Raj 2003-9-20 4:28:17 PM |