Reply #97: Easily [View All]

[tameszu]

Delay called Clark a "blow dried Napolean" for a reason--because of his criticisms of Bush and his justifications for the war. How do you reconcile this with your claims?

How do you reconcile the reports that Lou Dobbs refused to have Clark on his show as a commentator becuase he was too critical of Shrub?

Answer: you can't. You were simply watching a different Clark than most of the draftniks, who saw in Clark as a CNN commentator a credible critic of the war.

In this vein, check out this Salon article from March 2002, when Clark was basically the only mainstream military commentator who dared question the war:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/index1.html

The key passage:

Q: You've referred to the campaign against Iraq as "elective surgery"; I imagine that means that you support disarming Saddam in principle, just not with the same urgency the Bush administration feels.

WC: My view on it was and has been that at some point you're going to need to take actions to deal with the problem of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. But those actions didn't have to necessarily be military and they didn't have to be now. It's the administration that chose to do this set of actions at this time. And the reason they've had problems persuading people of the necessity for doing it has been because they couldn't address the urgency.


Anyone who reads the article FAIR parses from the Times of London in full can see that Clark's point is to capture the mood of jubilation that exists after a great (military) victory but still press home the point that we cannot lose sight of the WMD on which the war was justified and the crucial rebuilding that comes next.

BTW, your later posts demonstrate that your statement that "you are trying to be respectful" to Clark was not written in good faith. You don't seem to have considered much of the evidence on this thread at all.