Wesley Clark
The General was on Crossfire yesterday. Very Impressive.
There is a Draft Clark organization which starts on July 4th, I think.
I was really impressed by everything about him yesterday. I have always like him but am excited by his manner and command of facts. He graduated top of his class in West Point, Bronze and Silver Star in VIetnam, Supreme Commander of Nato, and Investment Banking Experience. He has not claimed a party affiliation yet. I think both sides and the Independents would love him. Exciting to think of a President who is not dumbed-down.
Transcript here:
Today, General Clark steps into the CROSSFIRE.
Ladies and gentlemen, Wesley Clark.
(APPLAUSE)
Good to see you.
CARLSON: How you doing?
BEGALA: They love you.
CARLSON: Senator Clark, thanks for joining us. I was going to ask you the obvious first question, have you decided to run for president. Then I read in "U.S. World & Report" that you have not yet decided to become a Democrat. I haven't crossed the bridge becoming a Democrat, you said.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: That's what I said.
CARLSON: What have you decided about politics? CLARK: Well, I've decided this is a very important time in this country. And that if you have a chance to speak out, you should. And I have been speaking out. I have been traveling around the country really for about ten months, in what I've been calling a strategic dialogue. Because I think more important than candidacies has been the elevation of the issues and getting the American people over the shock of 9/11 and back engaged in the dialogue of...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: General Clark, before we even get there, give us the framework. Are you a Democrat or a Republican?
CLARK: Well, I haven't crossed that bridge yet. I haven't. But I have looked around America. I have looked around at our relationships with the rest of the world and what we are doing here at home. And I has some definite views.
BEGALA: Well, let me ask you about one of the issues. Whether it's you or Mr. Bush or one of the Democrats running, the next president is not only commander in chief, he is the occupier of Iraq. And we have already lost 51 men since the day President Bush landed on that aircraft carrier. What should we do, rather than complain about how we got into the war, what should the next president do about that occupation? Should we stay or should we go?
CLARK: Well, I think we've got to try to do as much as we can to make that a success. We can debate whether we should have been there or not, but the fact is, we are there. And if we make it a success, there will be some benefits that come from it. To make it a success, the Iraqi people have to want us there. We have to legitimate our presence. International organizations in there supporting us. I believe we need a greater role from the United Nations, at least in terms of overall legitimacy, and we need to get the Iraqi political process moving at the greatest possible speed.
BEGALA: But you would not withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq?
CLARK: Not at this point. No. I think there is still a chance that we can do some very, very good things in there now that we're there.
CARLSON: General Clark, you went up to Capitol Hill last week, and apparently were very warmly received by Democrats, a measure of how weak the current field is. I want to give you one example. Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, on NBC this weekend, admitted he had no idea how many military personnel there are in the United States. That's embarrassing, isn't it, that he didn't know that?
CLARK: No, I don't think that's necessarily embarrassing. He gave an answer, as I recall. He said 1 to 2 million. So, I mean, when you count the active and the reservists, he's certainly in the ballpark.
CARLSON: Do you think he has the experience to be president? CLARK: I'm not going to pass judgment on that. I think that's for the American people to decide after they hear the issues and compare the candidates.
BEGALA: Well, let me ask you about the current president again, and then come back to analyzing his performance in office. Tucker and I, a minute ago, had a heated argument about this analyst from the State Department, Christian Westermann , who says he was pressured. The White House says, well, maybe it was only about Cuba. There is another analyst, Greg Tielman (ph), another State Department Intelligence analyst. He told "Newsweek" magazine that there was shock and anger over how intelligence was being misused by the Bush administration. Are you concerned that our president might have manipulated intelligence to mislead the American people?
CLARK: Well, I don't know what the role of the president was. I think that remains to be determined, but I do know this. That when you mix up policy with intelligence, as we have apparently done from this -- there was a predetermination that started back in the 1990s to go after Saddam Hussein. 9/11 provided the opportunity to mobilize public opinion to do that.
And then it was, as the former speechwriter, David Frum says in his book. He says he was told in December. He says, write for the president's State of the Union. Make your strongest case in one or two sentences for why the United States should attack Iraq. And I think when you mix up policy and intelligence, you get bad intelligence for sure, and you may get bad policy, also.
CARLSON: But, fill out that theory a little bit, which I've heard a lot from the Democrats, certainly. What would be the motive, do you think? Why the Bush administration want to sort of mangle or spin intelligence in order to invade Iraq?
CLARK: I don't know if you can -- like I say, I think that the American people deserve a hearing on this. I think it needs to be openly, transparently presented as to what exactly the issues were.
CARLSON: Are you suggesting that's what's happening...
(CROSSTALK)
CLARK: But here is my speculation...
CARLSON: ... on Capitol...
CLARK: According to my speculation on this thing, because I did talk to a lot of people both before and after 9/11. There were a lot of reasons to be concerned about Saddam Hussein. Number one is we always believed he retained some weapons of mass destruction, although I for one never believed they were an immediate threat.
Number two, the Clinton administration's inability to really focus on Iraq and do something about Saddam Hussein provided a partisan opportunity for the next administration to make it a centerpiece of progress. And there was a larger belief that somehow there was a window of opportunity that the United States had a period of maybe 10 or 15 years before China would become too strong where we can use our unchallengeable military muscle and clean up the area.
And there was a thought that the road to Jerusalem ran through Baghdad and maybe if you could just whack Saddam Hussein and take away his support to the Palestinians and the terrorists that are there, then maybe the terrorists wouldn't fight so hard. Then you can go to the Israelis and say, OK, now, make some concessions and let's get some peace. There were a whole lot of things, and I think what sort of emerged is, it was how can we conventionally explain this in a simple way that doesn't get us into geostrategic calculus. And it was fixated on a problem of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
CARLSON: Okay.
We'll keep it right there for a moment. We will be right back after a quick break. Wolf Blitzer will have the headlines, and then it's "Rapid Fire" where the questions and answers resemble the staccato fire of machineguns, metaphorically, apparently, according to scriptwriter.
Later, an update on the junior Senator from the New York's latest incredibly long book. How is it selling? We have some good news and, tragically, some bad news. We'll explain both in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Time for the quickest question and answer session in television. We call it "Rapid Fire". Our guest is former NATO Supreme Commander and possible presidential candidate, retired General Wesley Clark.
BEGALA: General Clark, a few issues. Do you think abortion should be a constitutional right?
CLARK: I am pro-choice.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Are you going to run for president?
CLARK: I have made no decision. I like it where it says possible. Leave it in that column right now.
BEGALA: Should gays be able to serve openly in the military?
CLARK: I think the military and the chain of command have to decide that.
CARLSON: General, did the president do an appropriate thing when he landed on the aircraft carrier after the war in Iraq?
CLARK: Well, I think it was a good thing for him to come out and see the troops. I think the way it was stage-managed was awkward and really wasn't appropriate for the president. BEGALA: Do you support additional gun control laws?
CLARK: Haven't looked at that issue, but in general, I have got 20 some odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons they should join the United States Army, we have them.
CARLSON: General Clark, was it a bad idea for John Kerry to call for regime change in Washington at the height of the war in Iraq?
CLARK: Well, it caused a lot of consternation, but in the American political process, we have to take adversarial positions. I mean, part of the political process is to give the voters a choice. He was simply doing that.
BEGALA: Do you think it would it be easier for Tucker to eat his own shoes or an MRE from the military? We are just talking in jest.
CLARK: I think he is going to have a tougher time working through all the issues associated with Iraq and why we went to war.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: General Wesley Clark, on that quick, quick note, we thank you very much.
BEGALA: Thank you much.
CLARK: Thank you.
cnn.com
wesleyclark.blogspot.com
google.com
Rascal@ firetheliar.com |
