Many Clark supporters were stunned when he told The New York Times on September 19, 2003, that he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing Bush to attack Iraq: "At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question." After pausing to reconsider his statement, Clark repeated: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position -- on balance, I probably would have voted for it."
In response to his supporters' shocked reaction to the "anti-war" candidate's statement, Clark quickly backpedaled, clarifying: "Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war " I've gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein."
But Clark's oft-repeated claim that the US should act in concert with the international community to a reach a diplomatic solution on Iraq was belied by statements he made on CNN prior to the invasion:
* "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us " The UN has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with." (2/5/03)
And let's not forget that as Supreme Commander of NATO, Clark led an undeclared war against Serbia that was never approved by the UN. Before the Kosovo War commenced in March 1999, Clark repeatedly called for US air strikes against Serbia. Clark's claims that he had a consistent record were simply false.
Maximum Violence
It is instructive to look at Clark's actions during the Kosovo War as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. "We're going to systematically and progressively attack, disrupt, degrade, devastate, and ultimately, unless President Milosevic complies with the demands of the international community, we're going to destroy his forces and their facilities and support," Clark insisted. As William Blum suggests, Clark bombed Serbia with "an almost sadistic fanaticism," making profligate use of deadly cluster bombs and depleted uranium, of the sort still ravaging Iraq. The Washington Post reported Clark "would rise out of his seat and slap the table. 'I've got to get the maximum violence out of this campaign -- now!'"
Clark, of course, wasted no time in doing so. As he led a brutal air war against Serbia, Clark, who considered schools, bridges, hospitals, electrical facilities, market places, trains, refugee convoys, and media outlets "legitimate targets," delivered death and destruction primarily to civilians and their infrastructure, leaving the Serbian military relatively unscathed.
Independent estimates of the civilian death toll in the Kosovo War range from over 500-2000, yet according to Clark's testimony before Congress, there were between 20 and 30 instances of what he called "collateral damage."
Clark's attempts to cover up instances of intentional NATO bombings of civilian targets had been exposed, though not properly publicized. In one case, 14 people were killed in Grdenicka, Serbia, on April 12, 1999, when a US jet bombed a passenger train crossing a bridge. Clark claimed the atrocity was a tragic mistake, as the pilot was firing on the bridge and the train only came into view after the bombs had been dropped. He showed two video films shot from the nose of the remote control-guided bombs to support his claim, which were later found to have been doctored. In fact, the train could be seen on the bridge when the pilot bombed it, and he turned around to make a second sweep on the burning bridge, dropping a bomb directly on the carriage.
***
The Wesley Clark story is just one more heart-wrenching exhibit of how the left deals with such "hopefuls" within the Democratic Party. Certainly many progressives in 2004 failed to deal with who these candidates really were. Even those who knew the genuine Clark still opted to make a strategic choice: "Vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, because said candidate is at least marginally better than George W. Bush."
Or so they claimed.
This was an difficult choice made by many on the left, including well-known and respected intellectuals and activists -- including Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Medea Benjamin, and Tim Robbins, among others -- in order to expedite the process of removing Bush from power. However, we must be clear what the costs of expedient choices are, even if the benefits seem predominant. Backing the lesser evil, as the ABB crowd did in 2004, keeps the entire political pendulum swinging right: as if it isn't conservative enough.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
