I'm only posting this because the previous thread has scrolled away, and I have not received a sensible argument explaining Clark's inconsistent statements regarding the invasion of Iraq.
To wit:
Two months ago Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark declared in a debate that he has always been firmly against the current Iraq War.
"I've been very consistent... I've been against this war from the beginning," the former general said in Detroit on October 26.
"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."
But in this October 2003 article from the Black Commentator Clark is quoted as saying:
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."
-------------
The arguments I have heard from Armando and Rob are as follows (and forgive me if I am oversimplifying):
1) Clark was making those statements as an Analyst, describing the Bush Administration's thought process.
I do not have the full transcript of his second statement regarding "credibility." However, in his January 2003 statement, although he begins by saying that he would not have gotten us this far into the process, he does state his own opinion about what the President should do:
"I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations."
2) Clark was going as far as he could on CNN with anti-war statements without being labeled a Peter Arnett.
Howard Dean's entire point is that despite the chorus of criticism from the Democratic candidates, save Lieberman, about the Iraq Invasion, he was the only major candidate to have stood up against the war when it was unpopular to do so and when it could have made a difference--back in the Winter and Spring of 2003.
Clark's complicity in the invasion is compounded by his knowledge that the Administration was fishing for reasons to invade Iraq, soon after 9/11, and to "drain the swamp" of the Middle East as he reported in his book.
Regardless, Clark's current statement about always being against the war is not truthful. He was for an invasion in January 2003, if for no other reason than to save his job.
3) Why bash Clark?
Yes, I understand this is a bash of Clark, but I think it's important that he be held to the same standards as any other front-running candidate would. I understand that Dean has said some inconsistent things in the past too. No candidate is perfect and the fact that Clark has overstated his opposition to the war should not be a reason to not support him for the primaries or the general election.
Still, this is a crucial difference between Clark and Dean for those who are undecided between the two. I have many friends who support Clark over Dean, for varying reasons, but this is the one instance I will use when I am getting out the vote for Dean in Dubuque this weekend.
I won't use it if it's a smear, or unfounded, or takes his words out of context. Earlier today I posted a diary about the Drudge headline referring to Clark's congressional testimony. Clarkistas showed me how Drudge had smeared Clark by taking his words out of context, and I agreed with them .
However, this is something that nobody has been able to rebut.
Clark made the categorical statement that he has always been against the war, and there is a record of him stating his opinion that the President should invade. That to me is a glaring inconsistency.
