There is a current resurgence by certain Democrats who would like to believe that Wes Clark would have voted for the Blank Check Iraq Resolution that passed back in 2002. This may be occurring partially because so many of the Dem potential Candidates for 2008 did indeed vote for it, and so it would be useful for misery to have company.
One of the items used for their “proof” is that 2002 article that I previously discussed here
But there is one additional piece of evidence that has recently been pulled out again as proof of General Clark’s intent in terms of what he might have done had he been in congress.
It’s that ditty of an article written by Adam Nagourney based on an interview with General Clark on the day that Wes announced his candidacy in September of 2003. At the time, this article actually worked quite well in its aim (to squelch the General’s candidacy in the Democratic Primaries) due to the “headline” the New York Times so kindly decided on, and based on what was billed as a 90 minute “free rolling” interview by its author, Mr. Nagourney. Here’s a reprint of the original article http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm
Now on first glance the article “seems” damming! However, in closely reading this article, I had more questions about Mr. Nagourney's agenda than I did on Gen. Clark’s position on the Iraq Resolution.
The first paragraph although damning is not a quote, but simply Nagourney announcing that Wes Clark would have voted for the Resolution–Of course, after such a headline, this compliments it nicely–
Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, even as he presented himself as one of the sharpest critics of the war effort in the Democratic presidential race.
Mr. Nagourney writes this in the 3rd paragraph, clouding any certainty that Clark would have voted “FOR War”---
General Clark said he was conflicted. He offered the case on both sides of the argument, as he appeared to struggle to stake out positions on issues
So was Clark merely having a debate with himself before reporters? It does appear that Nagourney included Clark’s apparent lack of zest in supporting the resolution.
However, what I noticed this time, maybe due to the shock the article brought with it the last time, was this line found in the 4th paragraph–
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.
So there it is folks, Wes Clark is only acknowledging that he supported the Levin amendment! This was not a secret as Clark as asserted this fact time and time again. He said this before this article was printed, and he has stated it since. That would have been the amendment that required George Bush to go to the UN, get a vote from the Security Council and then come back to Congress for a 2nd vote! I believe that is what Wes Clark has been saying all along!
So let’s look at that line again....
but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading.
Now back to Mr. Nagourney, who then makes the journalistic decision to kind of dismiss that very important statement by immediately following with this line–
Democrats sought that provision without success.
Well, yeah.....we know that the amendment failed. But does that mean Wes Clark can’t mention it again as the one he wanted passed and was working to get passed? Does it mean that because Clark supported a failed amendment that it no longer has any bearing on what he supported at the time? I’m not sure why that would be the case?
The following are the most damning lines of the article in reference to General Clark’s quoted statements as published and is the lines that one will see most often quoted as the “proof” of Clark– These quotes appear in the 5 & 6 paragraphs:
"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."
It is interesting that Wes Clark statement that he would have “probably” voted for “it” came immediately following his statement as to which form of the Resolution he supported. His initial statement of differentiation is important because Wes Clark has consistently said he supported the Levin amendment once it was clear that there would be a vote on a resolution. He did not ever before or after say he supported the Lieberman "blank Check" amendment even if the article implies it by means of using two sentences out of a 90 minute interview which were shaky at best.
Read all of the qualifiers to understand what I mean by shaky for purpose of announcing that he supported “the resolution” officially on his first day out on the campaign trail!
probably.....but I think that’s too simple......I don’t know if I would have or not.....I've said it both ways......
If I asked someone out on a date, and this was the response, I’m not sure I’d go. So I’m not so certain why this seemingly uncommitted statement would have merited a “Clark said he would have voted for War” headline unless there was an agenda from the author.
Other parts of this article that when analyzed speaks more to the journalistic liberties of Nagourney. Here’s an example of what I mean found starting at paragraph 10–
"Mary, help!" he called to his press secretary, Mary Jacoby, at the front of the plane, as he faced questions about Iraq. "Come back and listen to this."
So Mr. Nagourney would describe the “most Decorated since Eisenhower” Four Star General as calling for help from a press secretary. But how was it really done? Was the General Clark saying it in good humor? Did he say anything apart from “Help Mary”? Or did the General call her in desperation like a child in a bad position or did he do it with intellectual concern or in a casual manner? A man who's faced dictators and won war was suddenly "crying" for help......okey-dokey! Certainly that is the "imagery" that Nagourney provides with his description...isn't it? I realize that it was Gen. Clark’s first day out on the trail, but come on, we are talking about a 4 times wounded war winning Rhodes Scholar for Pete’s sake!
Nagourney continues on.....
At one point, Ms. Jacoby interrupted the interview, which included four reporters who were traveling on the general's jet, to make certain that General Clark's views on the original Iraq resolution were clear.
So when did this "interruption" take place? As soon as Wes Clark "cried" for her help? ...or was she sitting there for a good 15 minutes, or 20 or 30 before she decided to interject something...cause, er..She’s like the press Secretary...so I guess that would be part of her job....to participate somewhat! And why did she “interrupt” again? Oh yeah.....
to make certain that General Clark's views on the original Iraq resolution were clear.
Or maybe it was to make certain that the reporters had gotten it right as she was the press secretary. As she did qualify that statement by also saying this--
"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here,"
Was her statement to the General or to the reporters? We don’t know, do we? I'm betting that she wasn’t talking to her new boss General that way, that’s my intelligent assumption!
And what was that original Iraq resolution view that she wanted to make sure they got “clear”?
You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution.""Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."
So it appears that the specific resolution that Clark supported, The Levin Amendment was brought up more than once during the interview. Clark was obviously in agreement that this should have been clear. Right and Exactly are not probably. So the emphasis was really not on his support for the resolution, but rather in support for the one that Nagourney decided to more or less throw away in the way that his article was framed.
I could go on with this, because the entire article is actually quite bizarre, so I will!
Mr. Nagourney presses on–
The general's remarks in a free-rolling 90-minute airborne interview suggested the extent of the adjustment he faces in becoming a presidential candidate.Let's see...."suggested the extent of the adjustment"...how? Oh, wait, that’s right....The former NATO Commander called for his press secretary on his first day out on the campaign trail! And he had obviously cried for “help”. Of course, he used to give lengthy press conferences on the subject of war and peace in Kosovo. But as this was a 90 minute interview with Nagourney, I could understand a “suggested" adjustment. Kidding aside, I consider this to be a subjective remark to help Nagourney set the “mood” for us readers.
General Clark said he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — than that of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has been the leading antiwar candidate in the race.
Still, asked about Dr. Dean's criticism of the war, General Clark responded: "I think he's right. That in retrospect we should never have gone in there. I didn't want to go in there either. But on the other hand, he wasn't inside the bubble of those who were exposed to the information."
Sorry folk, but this part of the article makes no damn sense! Considering what Clark was saying shortly before the vote, I doubt that he likened his position on the war to everyone that was running except that of Howard Dean’s...consider that it is Howard Dean that he states was correct, and that he, Wes, held the same position.
I’m suspecting that this part of the article came last because Nagourney didn’t want to bother to make it make sense, and so it doesn’t. Considering that the statement about the IWR voting candidates was not even a quote, while the Dean comment was, makes one wonder. It may have been left ambivalent on purpose. Maybe Wes Clark was talking about his position as of late 2003, because as we know, by then all of the candidates were criticizing Bush on the war, and calling him a miserable failure. I just simply don’t believe that Nagourney wanted that clarified and so it was left to “imply” that Clark’s position at the time of the IWR vote was close to those who voted for it.
But what we do know is this--
What Clark was saying 2 days before the IWR VOTE:
USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002, in which Clark wrote:
Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them.
Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem.
What Clark was saying 1 day before the IWR VOTE: Clark's op ed on September 10, 2002....One day before the IWR Vote: In his Op-Ed dated October 10, 2002, "Let's Wait to Attack." Clark states: In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know,....there is still time for dialogue before we act.
Adam Nagourney should quit writing altogether and sell bridges. Without wanting to give this reporter too much credit, this one article by itself was prime in robbing the Clark campaign of much of its momentum fresh out of the gate, which was probably always the intent.
Wes Clark was never as inarticulate as Nagourney portrays him to be. Most of what is said barely makes any sense, and I cannot believe that this Rhodes Scholar who had testified multiple times before congress really articulated his views as Nagourney tells it. Plus Nagourney has "other" problems in reference to his journalistic "license".
In fact, the Internet is littered with articles on what a Hack this one reporter is.
Don't take it from me, just google Adam Nagourney, Hack !
And remember, the corporate media is not the friend of the American people and if you forget that, then at least always remember who really sold us this war, and understand this; it wasn't General Wesley Clark!
also read:
What Wes Clark said prior to The Iraq War
The Iraq War Resolution - Did Clark support "a" resolution or "the" resolution?
Mining and finding Prescient Gems-Clark's 2002 Iraq Congressional Testimony
Wes Clark in '08! Why Supporting someone who was Right on Iraq in 2002 makes sense.
Clark's 2002 Congressional Testimony - Youtube w/t Transcript
The Levin Amendment- The Resolution that Wes Clark was "For"!
Tags:
