WESLEY CLARK TALKS TO GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY AND BILL PRESS...
msnbc.com
Type: SHOW
Head: BUCHANAN & PRESS for August 25, 2003, MSNBC
Sect: News; Domestic
is the Democratic field and the battle for the White House about to grow even bigger?
MCCAFFREY: We’ll ask our next guest, General Wesley Clark. But first, to MSNBC’s Alex Witt for the headlines.
(NEWS BREAK)
PRESS: OK. Thanks very much, Alex. Continuing now with General Wesley Clark, it’s starting to look like American troops could be stuck in Iraq for years. The question-will the human and financial cost of this occupation hurt President Bush politically?
We’re joined by a man who may try to take the president’s job away from him, former NATO supreme allied commander and possible presidential candidate in 2004, General Wesley Clark.
General Clark, welcome back to BUCHANAN & PRESS.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK, FMR. NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: Thanks, Bill.
PRESS: I’ve got to ask you, first of all, you said last week that the United States is in a very dangerous position right now. In a-at a very dangerous juncture right now is the exact quote. Tell us where exactly is the United States in danger and what would you do about it?
CLARK: Well, let’s just take a quick survey. First of all, in Iraq, we have about half of the United States Army, it’s there. Some of the 3rd Infantry Division just came home. We don’t have sufficient forces to do a proper rollover so we can’t sustain this level of commitment. We’ve also got between, or around 10,000 troops in Afghanistan. They have to be sustained and Afghanistan is crumbling as we speak. It’s clear that we didn’t put enough effort into that.
Meanwhile, we’ve got North Korea, which is trying to flex its nuclear muscles to get some kind of an agreement from us. We stiffed them for over a year now, focused on Iraq. Talks are about to begin, I guess, tomorrow in Beijing. Nobody expects much to come of this. So, there’s tension on the Korean Peninsula, and al Qaeda is still there.
In fact, we’re drawing in resistance from al Qaeda in Iraq. So I don’t see how we’re safer. I see how we’re more committed, we’re more engaged. The lessons of Iraq were lost. Syria was supposed to become more friendly. Instead, it’s become more hostile. Iran was supposed to understand that if we-if they get nuclear weapons, we might do the same thing to them that we did to Iraq.
Instead, they’ve accelerated their nuclear program. And North Korea early on took the message that if they were going to be considered an axis of evil, then they’d be damn evil-excuse me, they’d be very evil as rapidly as possible and get those weapons out there. So...
MCCAFFREY: Wes...
CLARK: ... we’ve got a tough problem.
MCCAFFREY: Wes, let me intervene and I probably should, you know, add the truth in advertising. You and I have been lifelong friends and I have enormous admiration, not just for your brilliant public service, but more importantly for your integrity. Having said that, aren’t you being a bit harsh on the administration now?
Aren’t we actually safer for intervening against the Taliban in Afghanistan? And for that matter, going to Iraq and taking out a regime that perhaps in the next five years would be a huge threat to us? What are your own views?
CLARK: Well, I certainly support what we did against the Taliban regime. We did the right thing by going after them. I just wish we’d had enough troops on the ground to be able to roll off al Qaeda at the same time. And I think that was a real strategic opportunity that was missed because we just hadn’t factored in the possibilities of sudden success and the opportunity that could be there. So we lost that opportunity.
As far as Iraq was concerned, Barry, I had reservations from the beginning. You and I have talked about this. I know you felt differently, but here’s the way I saw it. Saddam Hussein probably had weapons of mass destruction, some. He might be a threat at some point. But the question was, what was the degree of urgency? Why did we have to do it now? Couldn’t we have done more against al Qaeda first?
Couldn’t we have brought our allies on board? I think the way the administration used the threat of force in the summer of 2002 to empower the United Nations to take action was fine. But there was no reason to set an arbitrary deadline at the end of March. I remember people saying well, you know, they have to finish by the end of March so they’ll be out of there before the hot season starts. Well, they’re over there in the hot season.
MCCAFFREY: Wes, you talk about what we should have been doing against al Qaeda as a tradeoff with Iraq. What should we have been doing against al Qaeda and the war on terrorism?
CLARK: Well, I think that there’s no doubt that once the administration decided early on and I-and you probably have heard the same thing, but I’m told the decision was made to go after Iraq early on, like the end of September, early October 2001, and it was just a matter of sort of teeing it up and building the case for it. And that always presented us with a problem in dealing with Afghanistan.
First of all, as soon as we went into Afghanistan, we didn’t put the follow-on forces that were needed in there to finish the job because we were preparing to go into Iraq. I know because people would talk to me and say, you know the troop levels have been capped in Afghanistan. This was early in 2002. We pulled intelligence assets away from that mission. We pulled special operation forces away from that mission. That’s...
(CROSSTALK)
CLARK: ... just a known fact to prepare for Iraq. It was a distraction.
PRESS: Well, General, when we’re talking about the connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, you yourself have gotten in a little hot water talking about that. Let’s-let me go back to when you appeared on “Meet The Press” last June with Tim Russert and pick up from there. Here are you and Tim Russert first.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLARK: There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.
(CROSSTALK)
CLARK: Well, it came from the White House. It came from the people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN and I got a call at my home saying, you’ve got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PRESS: Now, just a little later you clarified in “The New York Times”
” in a letter to “The New York Times”-quote-”I received a call from a Middle East think tank outside the country-actually in Canada-asking me to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to September 11.”
And then “The Weekly Standard” last week did a little research and said, “You would think Clark has a positive duty to expose the man. But that assumes he exist.”
They say, General, there is no Middle East think tank in Canada. You made the whole thing up.
CLARK: Well, first of all, Bill, what I said on “Meet The Press” was exactly accurate in the interchanges...
PRESS: Who called?
CLARK: ... as we through it.
PRESS: Well tell us who called...
CLARK: A man from a-of a Middle East think tank in Canada, the man who’s the brother of a very close friend of mine in Belgium. He’s very well connected to Israeli intelligence and he follows Middle Eastern events very closely. And so when he called, I listened and I returned the call. I subsequently discovered that at the same time people in and around the White House were also attempting to use this as an opportunity to pin the tail on Saddam.
And so, it came from all over. It’s exactly what I said. I haven’t changed my position. There’s no waffling on it. It’s just as clear as it could be. There was a concerted effort made in many quarters to link 9/11 to Saddam and it’s not true. There’s never been any evidence that’s established it.
PRESS: OK, General, we’ll come back. General McCaffrey.
MCCAFFREY: Look, coming up, he hasn’t formally announced he’s running for the presidency, but loyal supporters are pushing him into the race. More with General Wesley Clark ahead on MCCAFFREY & PRESS.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PRESS: Coming up next, is General Wesley Clark the man who can beat George W. Bush?
MCCAFFREY: We’ll ask him about his political ambitions ahead live right here on BUCHANAN & PRESS.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MCCAFFREY: The battle for the White House is heating up as Labor Day is right around the corner.
Welcome back to BUCHANAN & PRESS. I’m General Barry McCaffrey.
We’re joined once again by retired General Wes Clark. Wes, I have no intention of asking you whether you’re going to run for the presidency.
CLARK: Thank you.
MCCAFFREY: But two years out, where will you be working?
CLARK: I don’t know, Barry. And it’s just an amazing thing that’s happened. You know, I wrote a book. I started...
MCCAFFREY: Wes...
CLARK: ... speaking and all of a sudden...
MCCAFFREY: Wes, let me interrupt...
CLARK: ... this thing has taken off.
MCCAFFREY: Let’s put up a poll that Bill Press and I just got, rather astonishing results comparing a notional President Bush run against you. Look at the numbers here. What’s your comment on all of this?
CLARK: Well, I think the American people are desperate for good leadership, Barry, and I find it when I go everywhere across this country. People don’t understand what’s happening to this country. They don’t understand the war we’re fighting. They don’t understand the job losses. They don’t understand this hard partisanship that’s taking place in Washington, this sort of closing down of government and discussion. It’s just-it has people worried and that’s why they’re looking for an alternative.
PRESS: All right, let’s see some leadership here, General. First of all, I want to ask you a couple of quick questions. If you were to run, would you run as a Democrat or a Republican?
CLARK: Well, I have not crossed that bridge yet. But if you look at my policies...
(CROSSTALK)
CLARK: ... and look at what I have said, Bill, I think it’s pretty obvious, OK, and so, when I make the decision to go ahead or not to go ahead at that point, then I will make the decision...
PRESS: Why don’t you just...
CLARK: ... on partisanship.
PRESS: ... tell us? I mean one of the first things they want to hear from a leader is what party he belongs to, General...
CLARK: One of the...
PRESS: ... Democrat or Republican?
CLARK: One of the most important traits of a leader is to make no decision before it’s a timely decision and not to speculate on things, and that’s what I am doing.
PRESS: When are you going to tell the world what your decision is?
CLARK: When it’s the appropriate time to do it. I’ve said in the next week or two.
PRESS: And you are leaning which way right now, on a scale of one to 10, 10 being I’m running for president, General Clark? I mean look...
CLARK: I’m not going to speculate on that.
(CROSSTALK)
PRESS: Let’s be honest. Wait, wait...
CLARK: Let’s talk about the issues, Bill.
PRESS: General, I’m going to get to the issues, General. You’ve been on this show twice before, OK, and each time you have given us that same line. I’m thinking about it. I’ll tell you...
CLARK: That’s right.
PRESS: ... when I decide.
CLARK: You know, it’s a very...
PRESS: It’s getting close, General. Let’s get close to a decision.
On a scale of one to 10...
CLARK: Bill, consistency is a very important thing and I’m very consistent on this. And I just want to remind you, you guys invited me to be on the show, and I came on the show to talk about the issues...
PRESS: Well...
CLARK: ... not to be feeding this frenzy about is he-what party is he and is he going to decide...
(CROSSTALK)
CLARK: ... let’s talk the issues.
PRESS: The first issue is, is General Clark going to run for president? We just want to get this behind us. Are you a guy who would run away from a fight?
CLARK: I never have.
(CROSSTALK)
PRESS: And OK...
MCCAFFREY: And Wes, let me add to the, you know, the pressure on you a bit here...
PRESS: Did you hear that? He never ran away from a fight.
MCCAFFREY: Is it appropriate or not for a military officer to be considering a run for the presidency? Is there something in our political culture that would be made uneasy by all of this?
CLARK: It’s a question I’ve asked myself a lot, Barry. I think if I were to run as a Republican, I would be welcomed, respected and accepted. I think if I were to run as a Democrat, I think the-there would be a huge issue with this. And I can’t tell you why, except that you know in my gut, I believe that the armed forces shouldn’t belong to any political party...
PRESS: General Clark...
CLARK: ... and, yet, it seems that they do. It seems that they’re the...
PRESS: General...
CLARK: ... property of the Republican Party. I don’t get it.
PRESS: Now, General Clark, can I tell you something, please.
CLARK: Tell me.
PRESS: As a life long Democrat, you will be-would be welcome in the Democratic Party if you ran as a general...
CLARK: Well, thank you.
PRESS: ... with your record, seriously...
CLARK: Thank you.
PRESS: ... and everybody respects what you have done for your country and we love the military. All right, my next question, if you even think about running, you must think that the nine candidates running now are not strong enough on national security, especially perhaps Howard Dean. Do you think Dean is strong enough on national security to lead this party?
CLARK: Well, if I choose to go into this, it won’t be because of any particular view about any of the candidates. It will be because people have asked me to do it and I consider it an obligation. But, you know, I weigh that against my loyalty to the military professionally. When you’re in military, you’re not in the military and wearing a uniform, you cannot be partisan. But after all, Colin Powell declared he was a Republican...
(CROSSTALK)
CLARK: ... and it does happen. You just need to make it clear and...
PRESS: And we remember General Eisenhower as well...
CLARK: Right.
PRESS: General, I have to tell you, among Democrats what I hear more and more all the time now is the perfect ticket, Howard Dean/Wesley Clark. Do you accept?
CLARK: Well, you know, that’s an issue that just-it just hasn’t even crossed my mind yet. For me, the decision is to enter the race or not. If I enter the race, I’ll be entering the race because I believe that I have qualities of leadership that the American people would need and appreciate. That’s all-that’s the motivation for entering the race. And should I choose to do so and it has nothing to do with any sort of political gainsmanship.
PRESS: OK, General Clark, keep us posted. OK.
CLARK: Thank you.
PRESS: We’ll talk to you again...
CLARK: Good to be with you, Bill.
(CROSSTALK)
CLARK: Good to see you, Barry.
MCCAFFREY: All right, Wes. Good luck. |
