Upcoming Events
To stop the scroller, place your cursor over it.
Clicking on links will open a new window.
92nd St Y, New York City
Tue, Feb 27, 2007 - 8:00pm
Lexington Avenue at 92nd Street
Kaufmann Concert Hall
Price: $25.00 All Sections
Gen. Wesley K. Clark on War:
Past, Present and Future
Tickets are available for purchase by calling (212) 415-5500.
You may also purchase tickets on-line at their website.
Wesley Clark To Host Conference On National Security March 6-7, 2007.
Wesley Clark will host the inaugural conference on national security of the UCLA Ronald W. Burkle Center for International Relations on March 6-7, 2007. The conference will "explore the emerging challenges of nuclear weapons in the 21st century".
To stop the scroller, place your cursor over it.
Clicking on links will open a new window.
Fox - Your World - 12/28/06
Fox News Sunday - The execution of Saddam - 12/31/06
Bloomberg TV - Money and Politics - Host Peter Cook with Wes - 1/02/07
Meet Wes Clark
Multi_Media
Media Players
Fair Use
Search
MYTH 3:
A pack of beltway reporters announced that General Clark had "flip flopped" on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Digby sets the record straight
Wesley Clark has been accused of flip-flopping on his support for the war with a comment he made to political reporters on his first day of campaigning and a clarification he issued the next day. The New York Times reported September 18:
"General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.
'At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question,' General Clark said.
A moment later, he 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."
This clarification was then characterized as a flip flop from the day before.
Clark made the rookie mistake of candidly musing on the record with "gotcha" obsessed political reporters about his thought processes on a complex issue rather than delivering a focus group tested sound bite.
In fact, many Democrats at the time had similarly struggled with the issue. They felt they had to give the president diplomatic cover as he went to the UN for a resolution to demand that Saddam allow inspections. The president in fact claimed that this was the point of the entire exercise, going so far as to change the policy of "regime change" to "disarmament."
On October 2, 2002, President Bush held a press conference in the Rose Garden with members of both parties. He said, "None of us here today desire to see military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and never seeks war unless it is essential to security and to justice. America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict. Saddam must disarm, period. If, however, he chooses to do otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable."
Many good people took the president at his word that day and voted for the resolution on the assumption that President Bush was using the threat of force to get Saddam to allow inspections and give up his weapons. And as with so many of his rhetorical sleights of hand, we know now that he was willfully misleading the world about his real intentions.
Wesley Clark's statements are not in conflict. He would have given the president leverage he said he needed in a diplomatic negotiation. But, if the president had told the congress and the American people of his real plans to invade no matter how Saddam and the UN responded, he would have voted no.
It's not a flip-flop. It's an honest answer to a complicated set of questions. The media, as usual, in its quest for puerile controversy and simpleminded storylines, simply refused to put it in context and explain it.
This was widely construed as conflicting with his previous criticism of the war. The next day he clarified his position by saying, "I would have never voted for war. I'm a soldier. I understand what war's about, but I would have voted for the right kind of leverage for the president to head off war and avoid it."
SOURCE: Clarkmyths.com which is no longer online.