Which Side Is Clark On?

Which Side Is Clark On?

The media shorthand for retired Gen. Wesley Clark’s much-anticipated presidential candidacy made him the “antiwar warrior,” a military man fully aware of the folly of George Bush’s Iraq war.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

The media shorthand for retired Gen. Wesley Clark’s much-anticipated presidential candidacy made him the “antiwar warrior,” a military man fully aware of the folly of George Bush’s Iraq war. But Clark rewrote the shorthand in the first hours of his campaign with a series of pronouncements that suggested he had completely misread the grassroots enthusiasm for his candidacy. Asked whether he would have voted for the October 2002 Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, Clark replied, “At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that’s too simple a question.” It certainly wasn’t a simple question for Clark. A day later, he was still struggling with it, telling a reporter in Iowa, “Let’s make one thing real clear–I would never have voted for this war, never.” He then proceeded to say, “I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein.” So, while Clark would never have voted for war, he would have voted for the resolution Bush used as his authorization to launch the war. For good measure, Clark explained that he had “a very consistent record on this.”

Clark is the only Rhodes scholar in the race, but his bungling of what should have been his strongest issue suggests that he doesn’t quite understand why so many grassroots Democrats wanted to draft the man who, as a CNN commentator, regularly criticized the Bush Administration’s rush to war. The question the general dismissed as “too simple” is a defining measure for much of the party’s base. After the majority of Congressional Democrats voted against the war resolution, Howard Dean used his outspoken opposition to position himself as the most genuinely anti-Bush candidate. Dean dismissed Democrats who supported the resolution–Representative Dick Gephardt and Senators John Kerry, John Edwards and Joe Lieberman–with the line, “I question the judgment of those who led us into this conflict….” Kerry aides contend that had their candidate voted differently, Dean would never have gotten traction. And they’re probably right.

Dean has been reasonably steady in his opposition to the war, but the man who says “I don’t even consider myself a dove” has taken hits for his willingness to keep US troops in Iraq for an extended period. Representative Dennis Kucinich–who with Florida Senator Bob Graham voted against the resolution–is the most consistent “bring the troops home” candidate. Yet the Washington Post, like most other major media, persists in pegging Dean as “the most visible Democratic candidate to oppose the war in Iraq.” It looked like Clark might wrestle that mantle away from him, but then the general opened his mouth.

Endorsement of the Week: The International Association of Fire Fighters–a union with an awesome political action operation (Al Gore hailed the firefighters as his best backers in 2000) and loads of post-9/11 street cred–has endorsed Kerry. A factor: Vermont firefighters gave Dean low marks because they said that as governor, he failed to push their legislative initiatives. A good bet: With firefighters backing Kerry, Gephardt’s chances of securing an AFL-CIO endorsement dwindle.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x