[Peace-discuss] New peace candidate?

[Morton K.Brussel]

 From FAIR, comes this piece about new presidential contender Wesley 
Clark:

MKB

Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"

WASHINGTON  - September 16 - The possibility that former NATO supreme 
commander Wesley Clark might enter the race for the 2004 Democratic 
presidential nomination has been the subject of furious speculation in 
the media.  But while recent coverage of Clark often claims that he 
opposed the war with Iraq, the various opinions he has expressed on the 
issue suggest the media's "anti-war" label is inaccurate.

Many media accounts state that Clark, who led the 1999 NATO campaign 
against Yugoslavia, was outspoken in his opposition to the invasion of 
Iraq. The Boston Globe (9/14/03) noted that Clark is "a former NATO 
commander who also happens to have opposed the Iraq war." "Face it: The 
only anti-war candidate America is ever going to elect is one who is a 
four-star general," wrote Michael Wolff in New York magazine (9/22/03). 
        Salon.com called Clark a "fervent critic of the war with Iraq" 
(9/5/03).

To some political reporters, Clark's supposed anti-war stance could 
spell trouble for some of the other candidates. According to Newsweek's 
Howard Fineman (9/8/03) Clark "is as anti-war as Dean," suggesting that 
the general would therefore be a "credible alternative" to a candidate 
whom "many Democrats" think "would lead to a disaster." A September 15 
Associated Press report claimed that Clark "has been critical of the 
Iraq war and Bush's postwar efforts, positions that would put him 
alongside announced candidates Howard Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida 
and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio as the most vocal anti-war 
candidates." The Washington Post (9/11/03) reported that Clark and Dean 
"both opposed the war in Iraq, and both are generating excitement on 
the Internet and with grass-roots activists."

Hearing Clark talking to CNN's Paula Zahn (7/16/03), it would be 
understandable to think he was an opponent of the war. "From the 
beginning, I have had my doubts about this mission, Paula," he said. 
"And I have shared them previously on CNN." But a review of his 
statements before, during and after the war reveals that Clark has 
taken a range of       positions-- from expressing doubts about 
diplomatic and military strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. 
"victory" in a column declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime 
Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so 
much doubt" (London Times, 4/10/03).

Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine      
  (10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a 
counter-argument to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any 
Time." Before the war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an 
insufficient number of troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of 
international support.

As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark 
explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably 
wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just 
assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president 
is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have 
reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility 
of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these 
weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the 
rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in 
and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States 
has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that 
these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to 
have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark 
seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles 
O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." 
When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was 
resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he 
had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think 
they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the 
wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. 
Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases 
lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London 
Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." 
Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant 
about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the 
ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in 
March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late 
April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the  
  region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from 
a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt 
and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western 
standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister 
Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much 
doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the 
necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but 
probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having 
been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include 
himself-- obviously not "temporarily       silent"-- in that category. 
Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at 
home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution 
Avenue."

In another column the next day (London Times, 4/11/03), Clark summed up 
the lessons of the war this way: "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the 
continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is 
a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, 
especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable 
today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain 
fact."

Another "plain fact" is this: While political reporters might welcome 
Clark's entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views 
"anti-war" is to render the term meaningless.

### 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 0 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20030917/83360837/attachment.bin