I’ve previously mentioned Wesley Clark’s previous statements about the war that contradict his current line of Bush-bashing anti-war rhetoric. Granted, with his comments to the House Armed Services Committee there’s some room to argue that Clark could have had a reasonable change of mind.
However, his op-ed in the Times of London after the fall of Baghdad makes it clear that if Iraq was "the wrong war at the wrong time", Clark didn’t think so then. He described the war like this back on April 10, 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. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.
In essence, Clark was saying the same thing that the "neoconservatives" and the "warbloggers" were saying at the time. Clark clearly supported the war until he found it was politically expedient not to, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Sullivan.
The only better thing for the GOP than Dean getting the nomination is Clark getting the nomination. All the Democratic candidates are weak, but Clark’s empty uniform run provides plenty of opportunities to expose the way in which Clark has shaped his policies by political expediency rather than principle. Clark was a pro-war Republican last year, an anti-war Democrat this year, and who knows what his position will be next month? It is clear Clark has been wildly inconsistant in such a way that reaks of opportunism.
I seem to recall that Bush ran on a platform totally opposed to nation building and American intervention in foreign affairs. But I notice that you haven’t characterized his flip-flop as “politically expedient.”
If the voters’ memories are as short as yours seems to be, I doubt Clark’s change of heart will have any effect whatsoever.
Bush’s change was a reaction to the events of September 11, which made it clear that nation building was not only the right policy, but the only policy. Furthermore, it was hardly a politically expedient move – it was considerably risky.
If Clark had changed his mind, all he needed to do is say why, and indeed the reason why is because he decided to run as a Democrat – and then lie about his previous positions.
Furthermore, it was hardly a politically expedient move – it was considerably risky.
I’d say that taking the opportunity to substantially reduce the obstacles to executive power is the very definition of political expediency.
If Clark had changed his mind, all he needed to do is say why, and indeed the reason why is because he decided to run as a Democrat – and then lie about his previous positions.
Or maybe it was a response to the dawning realization after the war that the adminstration had no plan whatsoever about what to do in Iraq after we rolled tanks into Bagdad? I mean, that might very well inspire somebody to oppose the occupation, don’t you think?
You can spin this anyway you like, but quite frankly I don’t think consistency is what American voters have come to expect from any elected official.
And those steps would be? There’s nothing in the PATRIOT Act or the war in Iraq that expands executive branch powers – PATRIOT expands pre-existing RICO statutes and the President got approval from Congress in October of 2002 under the War Powers Act. This is yet another example of a throwaway partisan allegation that has no basis in fact or law.
We did have a plan, and most of it has worked very well. Considering that the infrastructure of Iraq was much worse off than anyone had predicted much has been done including restoring many basic services and holding local elections.
No one expected that rebuilding Iraq would be easy, and less than a year later the number of attacks against troops are down, Saddam has been captured, and the Iraqis will have a sovereign government by July. That is significant progress.
Furthermore, if that’s Clark’s reasons, all he had to do is say it. Again, this is what Clark said:
He wasn’t against the war that fall, and he wasn’t against it in the spring. He was only against it when he decided to run as Democrat. (And he’s on record as saying that if Karl Rove had called him back he would have been a Republican, which shows how solid his convictions are.)
There’s no way around it, Clark is clearly being disingenious and Gen. Shelton’s statements about Clark’s "character issues" are being justified.
And those steps would be?
1) Drastic reductions in government transparency, i.e. Freedom of Information Act restrictions.
2) Classification of American citizens as “enemy combatants” to circumvent Constitutional rights.
When you take make the government unaccountable to the populace, and unaccountable to the Constitution, exactly what restrictions of power are left?
And those steps would be?
1) Drastic reductions in government transparency, i.e. Freedom of Information Act restrictions.
2) Classification of American citizens as “enemy combatants” to circumvent Constitutional rights.
When you take make the government unaccountable to the populace, and unaccountable to the Constitution, exactly what restrictions of power are left?