 The Wholesome Photo of the Month Thu May 09, 2024 11:01 | Anti-Empire
In 3 War Years Russia Will Have Spent $3... Thu May 09, 2024 02:17 | Anti-Empire
UK Sending Missiles to Be Fired Into Rus... Tue May 07, 2024 14:17 | Marko Marjanović
US Gives Weapons to Taiwan for Free, The... Fri May 03, 2024 03:55 | Anti-Empire
Russia Has 17 Percent More Defense Jobs ... Tue Apr 30, 2024 11:56 | Marko Marjanović Anti-Empire >>
A bird's eye view of the vineyard
Alternative Copy of thesaker.is site is available Thu May 25, 2023 14:38 | Ice-Saker-V6bKu3nz
Alternative site: https://thesaker.si/saker-a... Site was created using the downloads provided Regards Herb
The Saker blog is now frozen Tue Feb 28, 2023 23:55 | The Saker
Dear friends As I have previously announced, we are now “freezing” the blog. We are also making archives of the blog available for free download in various formats (see below).
What do you make of the Russia and China Partnership? Tue Feb 28, 2023 16:26 | The Saker
by Mr. Allen for the Saker blog Over the last few years, we hear leaders from both Russia and China pronouncing that they have formed a relationship where there are
Moveable Feast Cafe 2023/02/27 ? Open Thread Mon Feb 27, 2023 19:00 | cafe-uploader
2023/02/27 19:00:02Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of
The stage is set for Hybrid World War III Mon Feb 27, 2023 15:50 | The Saker
Pepe Escobar for the Saker blog A powerful feeling rhythms your skin and drums up your soul as you?re immersed in a long walk under persistent snow flurries, pinpointed by The Saker >>
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony Public Inquiry >>
Voltaire, international edition
Netanyahu soon to appear before the US Congress? It will be decisive for the suc... Thu Jul 04, 2024 04:44 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N°93 Fri Jun 28, 2024 14:49 | en
Will Israel succeed in attacking Lebanon and pushing the United States to nuke I... Fri Jun 28, 2024 14:40 | en
Will Netanyahu launch tactical nuclear bombs (sic) against Hezbollah, with US su... Thu Jun 27, 2024 12:09 | en
Will Israel provoke a cataclysm?, by Thierry Meyssan Tue Jun 25, 2024 06:59 | en Voltaire Network >>
|
Wesley Clark
 international |
anti-war / imperialism |
opinion/analysis
 Monday January 19, 2004 16:29 by William Ryan
Cheerleader For War!
"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."
Retired General Wesley Clark, in a candidates' debate, October 26, 2003. This isn't really a test — after all, the answer is in the title of this article. But just for the exercise, please ask yourself the following questions:
Who said, in April of 2003, "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back"?
Who said, at the same time: "Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, eases lingering doubt and reinforces bold action. Already the scent of victory is in the air"?
Who said: "The operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don't look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are 'next' if they fail to comply with Washington's concerns"?
Who said: "If there is a single overriding lesson [from the campaign in Iraq], it must be this: American military power...is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact"?
Who said: "President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt"?
Who said: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don't demobilize yet. There's a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats"?
If you answered Wesley Clark to all the questions, you are correct. The quotes are from two op-eds Clark wrote last April for the Times of London. Taken together, they suggest that Clark's approval of the war was even deeper and more far-ranging than originally thought.
To be fair, Clark expressed some reservations in the articles. He cautioned that more work needs to be done in Iraq, "before we take our triumph." There was still resistance to be dealt with, by "armed persuasion." Looting had to be stopped, order restored, and humanitarian aid begun. And weapons of mass destruction had not been found.
Clark also wrote that the war had left the U.S. and Britain diplomatically isolated. Still, he said, "the immediate tasks at hand in Iraq cannot obscure the significance of the moment": "The scent of victory, if not the end of the operation, is certainly in the air."
Last week, Clark's supporters rushed to his defense over Republican accusations that Clark had supported the war in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in September 2002. A fair reading of Clark's testimony shows that he made statements that could be interpreted as supporting the resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq, and he also made statements that could be interpreted as questioning the need for such a resolution. Clark was, in short, playing both sides of the fence.
If the president went forward with war and all was a great success, Clark could say he was on board from the very beginning. If the president did not go to war, relying instead on extended diplomatic efforts that ultimately proved successful, Clark could say he was on board with that, too. And if either path ended in failure or political unpopularity, Clark could say he opposed the plan from the start.
Seven months later, in April 2003, with U.S. troops in control in Iraq, Clark made his choice. Liberation, "the powerful balm that justifies sacrifice," was at hand, and the U.S. had won a great victory. Clark was on board. It was only later, when the Iraqi insurgency proved more violent than expected and Clark decided to run for the Democratic nomination for president, that his position changed yet again.
|
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (11 of 11)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Michael Moore is backing Wes Clark so he must be half decent!!
Clark supports School of the Americas
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-01.htm
-- -- --
in American politics it is not easy to vote one's conscience - so it is all lesser of two evils.
Dean would be a better bet, I think but I'd prefer John Kerry
Lets start from the premise that ideologically the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is mostly negligible.
Lets further accept that the best left wing candidate in the bunch Dennis Kuchnich is not going to either win the nomination, or beat Bush.
Lets accept that defeating Bush is the primary over-riding goal of the November election, and that while the Nader analysis in 2000 seemed sensible, it does not hold up after three years of Bushism.
We must then find a candidate that can beat Bush. I think Dean for President, with Clarke as his running mate could pull it off. Dean has energised that liberal activist base in the Democratc party. Clarke would counter attacks from Bush that the Dems are weak on national security and a draft dodger can hardly attack a medal encrusted military veteran.
None of this is to say I would put Dean and Clarke in charge if I had my choice, but they may be the best team capable of beating Bush, and right now that might over-ride the need to create a genuine opposition in America, something near impossible with the political structures in that state as it stands.
Dean is an idiotic conspiracy theorist, a spineless coward and utterly divorced from reality both at in the United States and abroad.
He publicly and bizarrely claimed that Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks and had to retract his loony toon allegations. He sounded more like Michael Moore who claimed that because the Bush family had business dealings at one time with the Bin Laden family that somehow Bush is connected to Osama who the rest of the Bin Laden family who are involved in legitimate business and completely unconnected with terrorism would gladly see dead as much as any Americans.
In a recent public debate Dean allowed AL Sharpton to humiliate him. Al who at every opportunity throws gasoline on racial tensions and hatred in New York while living in lavish hotels and claiming to represent his black brothers dwelling in slums had the cheek to criticise Dean on race issues.
Why hadn't Dean employed a single black in his administration while Governor of Vermont? Dean of course blubbered awkwardly and Sharpton went in for the kill.
Dean of course was too politically correct to tell his opponent to jump in a lake and point out that he would have to import a black to Vermont seeing that it is the most white state in the nation. One city alone has only a few dozen black citizens!
Dean bawled for months that they had not yet captured Saddam citing this issue as a crucial proof of the guagmire in Iraq. Yet suprise suprise when he was finally and inevitably captured Dean whinged that the continuing deaths of American soldiers made it only a cypher. One wonders what he will say when Donald Rumsfeld hands out phials of Ossama DNA?
He claims that the war in Iraq was unconnected to the war on terror besides clear proof that Iraqi agents met with Muhammed Atta on several occasions prior to 9/11 and that other than Mullah Omar of Afghanistan , Saddam Hussein was the only world leader who praised the attacks. If Dean wishes to solve the Israel Palestinian conflict if he were elected he wont be very successful while denying that Saddam gave gifts of $25000 to every family of suicide bombers.
If you think Bush is a militarist and a supporter of Israel then shouldn't Wesley Clark attract the same concerns?
After all he is a General and in his time killed thousands of Serbs in the Kosovo war?
Did you also know he is also part Jewish?
I thought you left wing peaceniks and Israel haters would notice that?
Willie, wheres the proof that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi agents?Did they meet in the US where Mohammed Atta was residing prior to 9-11? Why wasnt he picked up before then? Someone wasnt doing their job!! Probably because they were too busy arranging to rob from the poor to give to the super rich! Wheres the proof Saddam paid 25K to the families of suicide bombers? Propoganda i reckon. Where'd you get all the hatred-quote "I thought you left wing peaceniks and Israel haters would notice that?' You must have a severe head problem with that rant, on this thread. Who said anything about hating jews here.!!!
Dubya is an idiotic conspiracy theorist, a spineless coward who dodged the draft during the Vietnam war and utterly divorced from reality both at in the United States and abroad as he continues to pamper his oil buddies with lucrative contracts.
Dennis Kuchinich is the only electable candidate on the democratic side. I dont trust the others as far as i could throw them. And ever day that passes i miss-trust Dean more and more.
We all have to be careful in our desire to get Bush out. Its not simply a matter of the lesser of two evils. The replacement could be just as much of a monster as Bush...but in a more covert way, like Clinton.
I dont believe Dean, Clark or Kerry (especially Kerry) will get rid of the USA-PATRIOT act, nor will the ban guns (Dean is a member of the NRA), or bring proper social welfare reform or do any of the things that must be done by a good president to make America a transparent, fare and safe place to live.
The only one that i miss-trusted least was Gephardt, a working class candidate, who had backing from the AFL-CIO. But he (the only trade union candidate) just pulled out after coming fourth in the Iowa election.
But whatever happens...Kerry must not win that election. He is a corporate candidate, a capitalist who will listen to profit first and people second. Clarke is a military candidate, wheather he is anti-war or not, and Dean is a Blairist liberal.....i believe he will be another Clinton.
D
Since then he has garnered quite a bit of homeland support including Mr Moore.
Why?
Because quite simply he is a general.
There are many of us who feel the best of the truly horrible options at the moment, is a general.
No more billionaires please, no more family spooks, no more of the usual dark and sinister forces in the White House, for at least four years. And who better to redeem the democratic system than a military man?
It has been over 50 years since the last general got the job of "leading" the world's military industrial capitalist complex appreciated by some to be "an empire", and contrary to the usual "knee-jerk" reactions, US generals have generally moved against the Military industrial complex. It was trhe last soldier president who warned us all of the Military Industrial Complex.
A veteran of RTS! London, bumped into me yesterday on the train, and confirmed something we've known for a long time,- the american young dissidents are hiding out in Europe. And strange things are occuring. Howard Dean has placed a huge amount of effort and party activism into internet chasing of anarcho-syndicalist "non-voters" and greens. and the weirdest thing is for the first time in many of their lives, these people are considering using their right to vote "against" Bush.
So the next US election is important. really important. Bush must be got out. And if he is- who will move in?
A general to my mind seems the best option.
I like things when they are simple & clear.
And if one looks back to Rome, calling in generals from the fields is occasionally the only option to redeem the tiny shreds of credibility that are left in ·civilised values·.
Emmm....no
Bush has done nothing by himself over the past four years. He has been lobbied by many many groups including the millitary to give trillions upon trillions upon trillions to its expansion. Trillions that should have gone to running American society will now go to aiding American hegemony.
Clarke may not support a preemptive war, but that doesnt mean that he wont find anyother excuse...it is a myth that soldiers dont like war. Further more he's a general...he will never have to fire a gun. There is nothing romantic about the army...its a sick pointless thing that shouldnt exist.
Clarke will aid the expansion of America's globalisation, and the expansion of American millitary across the world, and around China where over the last 20 years, America have been surrounding. Check it on a map...it's scary.
Why will he aid it, because its all he knows. He will listen very closely to the demands of the most pointlessly obese millitary on the face of the earth. War will continue, and capitalism will be aided ever further by haveing a general at the head of government.
Furthermore i think you are romantisising the Roman example. During the time of the Roman Republic, in a time of war or emargency, a general would be chosen by the senate to take complete control for no more than one year. The Roman called this general a "Dictator," meaning one who speaks, or "Magister Populi," which means Master of the people. The most famous were Sulla, Gius Marius...and last one ever was Julius Caeser, who with the support of the entire Roman Army, refused leave power at the end of year and forced the senate to appoint him dictator for life...and ruled like a king until his murder. He was murdered by people who demanded a return to democracy. A civil war started and Augustus' army won, which brought about the end of democracy in Rome forever, and a lineage of Roman Emperors, Almost all of whom had a millitary background.
Clarke will do nothing to aid American workers, or provide for American society.
Iosaf they're getting to you, plug out man .....PLUG OUT!
I agree Janus, my ideal candidate would be Dennis Kuchinich and with Dean for vice pres but now thats not going to happen.
So Dean for pres with Clark vp are the most viable candidates to win and more importantly the republicans are afraid of Dean. This can be seen by republican advisor Karl Rove, and others, consistently saying that his preffered candidate is Dean.
Many columinists in the papers heer seem to think this guy isn't lying (Iraq war anyone) yet they say that perhaps why the Clintons are supporting Clark is because he can't win so paving the way for Hilary in 2008!
What the Republican startegists have their eye on the ball is the re-awakening of the erstwhile apathetic, Democratic core support into an angry mass, who most importantly are willing to fund a candidate by donations via the internet (in Dean). I'm talking about your average blue collar workers and students etc here. Michael Moores support of Clark also wouldn't hurt matters.
This has the prospect of countering republican sources of support and income i.e bible belt/christian coalition/clearchannel right wing radio etc.
The prospect of not only a Democratic ticket that appeals to the Democratic core and the apathetic middle ground ( through Clarks security image), winning in November, but that Deans angry/internet strategy could result in a democratic sweep of Congress, albeit probably in the long term, is whats the Republicans are really worried about.