Wes Clark: Bush Went into Iraq to Cover-Up for 9/11 Failure

Yesterday morning I was able to attend a breakfast fundraiser for Russ Warner, a Democratic challenger to House Rules Committee chair David Dreier in California's 26th congressional district. Also at the event, which drew perhaps 100 people, was Wes Clark, one of the many leading Democrats to endorse Warner in the race.

The program began with a press conference (which you can listen to here -- a 20.8 megabyte .wav file) during which Clark and Warner both spoke and took questions. Topics included the war in Iraq -- in which Warner's son served for 17 months -- Warner's electability against the very well funded Dreier, progressivism and the Democratic Party, immigration, education, gas prices and energy independence, and universal healthcare.

Later, General Clark and Mr. Warner spoke to the donors and other attendees (which you can listen to here -- a 21.2 megabyte .wav file), hitting on some of the same themes as the press conference. The most interesting moment from either speech, at least to me, came from Clark roughly 14 minutes, 40 seconds into the file.

"I think they went because 9/11 was a monumental policy failure by the administration and going to Iraq was a cover-up for that failure."

Clark stopped short of calling for a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq -- far short, indeed. Instead, the retired General called for more diplomacy, more soft power and more effective strength to improve the situation in the country. Said Clark, "We've got a choice in Iraq between an F on our report card and a D-. And I'd rather have the C-/D+ than the F." In other words, rather than pulling out today, America should make one last push to save Iraq from complete calamity.

Finally, I had about two minutes to talk to General Clark as he left the event for other commitments including a Beverly Hills fundraiser for Arkansas Democrat Mike Beebe, who's running for Governor in the state (you can listen to the shorter 2.3 megabyte .wav file here). His message to the progressive blogosphere sounded a lot like what Chris has had to say right here on MyDD.

Let's change Congress this year. We can do this. All we've got to have are the resources. We've got the candidates. They need support. That means we need to get into every one of them - all 435 of them - and make a difference.

One final note: as I wrote yesterday, while California's 26th district is going to be difficult to win, it provides the Democrats with one of the three or four best chances for a pick-up on the West Coast this fall. Congressman Dreier barely managed 53 percent of the vote in 2004 despite outspending his Democratic challenger by greater than a 52 to 1 margin, and this year the Democrats have a very credible candidate in Russ Warner.

Check out Warner's campaign website, throw him a buck or two and keep an eye on this race. Just by running a real candidate here, the Democrats can keep Dreier at home throughout the election season -- and more importantly keep him spending his bucks in the district rather than spreading his largesse to endangered Republicans. And if the right climate does indeed arise come November, Dreier might just find himself out of a job.



Display:


Learned something about winning tonight (none / 0)

Warner. Winner.


by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 09:35:38 PM EST

Re: Wes Clark: Bush Went into Iraq to Cover-Up for (none / 0)

I really don't think Wes Clark is helping Russ Warner with comments like this one.  This just gives Dreier easy shots to take at him by alligning with Clark.  Saying things like this is ridiculous.  Whether you agree with it or not it's obvious most people don't and it's just foulish to give the republicans ammo to use against you.  Bush's war in Iraq is obviously not popular and attacking him for going into Iraq is both morally the right thing to do and politically smart, but saying he went in to cover up for his failure during 9/11 is plain stupid...


by blueryan on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 01:11:39 AM EST

Re: Wes Clark: Bush Went into Iraq to Cover-Up for (none / 0)

It is not in anyway a ridiculous statement.

It would be ridiculous if this administration had shown any indication that they took the terrorist threat seriously. If they had tried and failed that would be one thing, but can you show the attempt?

It would be ridiculous if this administration had actually developed a strategy based on an understanding of the enemy. Unlike many I actually believe that this administration began the Iraq debacle because of the nonexistent link between Saddam and Osama. In their cold war, black and white universe they couldn't conceive of a terrorist organization without a State sponsor.

Afghanistan was a reflex not a policy. Once it was underway the policy makers looked around for the next target and their predispositions led them to a military solution for Iraq. It all makes perfect sense, if you don't stop and think. The problem with this is that while the administration could make the tenuous case as late as the fall of 2002 by the spring of 2003 all evidence showed the opposite. This administration took us to war knowing that their assumptions had been disproved to cover-up those facts.

Bush Administration: Everybody thought Saddam had WMD before the war.
Reporter: Is that true after the inspectors had a couple of months to look?
Bush Administration:
Reporter: Before the war started the inspectors looked at 100 CIA supplied leads what did they find?
Bush Administration:

Why have this discussion on a political board? Because two thirds of the public thought the war was right at the time. Yes the public is upset about the management of the war, but enough of them are still scared and willing to believe this administration about Iran.

We need to start making our weakness, our strength. There were plenty of Democrats who supported the war, there were also Democrats voicing caution. We will fight if it is necessary, but we are the only ones who will ask the questions to find out.


by Judeling on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 03:14:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wes Clark: Bush Went into Iraq to Cover-Up for (none / 0)

Clarks' comment is right on time, but it needs
Followup. Many of the Dinos appear to want to promote themselves as "born again" warrior fighters for the safety of the "homeland!" It seems that if they don't support whorgies' big lie, they believe that if they don't- the'll be perceived as peacenicks. The ones that sacrificed
the "children of Iraq", just when they were getting trained in "new world order mobocracy!"
If the dems take us on another "VietNam style ride" they can forget even running for dog catcher. They may as well move down to Crawford,Texas with Lyndon Bushwack and Lady Bird Laura. Just needed a few more months to "win the war?" Call on Murtha. He needs to be enlisted in this battle with the chicken hawks!
by northwest on Fri Apr 28, 2006 at 03:00:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wes Clark: Bush Went into Iraq to Cover-Up for (none / 0)

Totally agree.  Cheney and Rumsfeld were planning to invade Iraq long before 9/11.  9/11 was an excuse to implement a plan that had already been devised.  

And for the record, Bush never had to make excuses for his 9/11 failures.  He was never called on this by either the media or the Democrats.


by Winston Smith on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 11:24:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wes Clark: Bush Went into Iraq to Cover-Up for (none / 0)

Totally superficial, but it looks like Russ and the General are both in uniform.


by Rafe Noboa on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 02:31:45 AM EST

Re: Wes Clark: Bush Went into Iraq to Cover-Up for (none / 0)

I like and respect Wes Clark, and backed him for a while in 2003.  However, I think he is wrong here.  I think that Bush went into Iraq because he really mostly wanted to do that, and not go into Afghanistan.  His oft quoted remark about how he doesn't really give Osama much thought is probably quite accurate.  THe real goal from day one was invading Iraq, then Iran, Syria....


by calscientist on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 04:38:18 AM EST

Re: Wes Clark: Bush Went into Iraq to Cover-Up for (none / 0)

Cover up what??? 9-11 was good for Bush until Iraq. And if there was a cover up, Clark could have provided some kind of substantiating evidence. He is privy to information upon which we can only speculate. I think he "mispoke."

At some point in time, perhaps we will learn the real reason behind the war. It seems to me that a plan for global domination is being implemented, with no regards to the consequences. Clark's ridiculous statement is a red herring and undermines the anti-war effort.


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 08:52:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What's there to undermine? (none / 0)

Can't say that it undermines the "anti-war" movement, such as it is, any more than giant puppets or thinking 9/11 was an inside job.


by Rafe Noboa on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 10:43:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wes Clark: Bush Went into Iraq to Cover-Up for (none / 0)

"Cover up" is probably a bad choice of words.  A fairer point would be to say it was a misdirection tactic.  "Look over here, I'm being a strong leader by sending troops into battle, pay no attention to that PDB I ignored," and so forth.

Had we simply chosen to lay low after Afghanistan, a lot more attention would have been focused on Bush's pre-9/11 failures and how we got into the mess in the first place.  But by keeping the country on a war footing, Bush managed to keep attention elsewhere.  No way does he win the 2004 election except as a "war president."

I think Clark is doing important work by attempting to reframe 9/11 as Bush's failure, which it was.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 10:53:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dead link (none / 0)

"Page cannot be found." Link is dead. :(


by akhenaten on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 09:15:01 AM EST

Re: Dead link (none / 0)

Thanks. That first link has been fixed.


Blogging here @ MyDD.com. Twittering @jonathanhsinger.
by Jonathan Singer on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 09:59:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wes Clark: Bush Went into Iraq... (none / 0)

Clark is charismatic and has already proven to have the makings of a great politician. He's says what he needs to say in the moment, much of it without any substance or login whatsoever. He's great with the rhetoric.

It's clear that we're in the Middle East for the hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) and, as others have pointed out, the plans to gain control of those most lucrative commodities on the planet have been in existence long before Bush was handed the White House.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and, of course, Iran have long been needed in order to gain control of the enormous Caspian Sea basin deposits which now constitute the largest remaining reserves of these commodities on the planet.

Clark's statement is not only ridiculous, it's absurdly ignorant and thus more likely disingenuous since he's been in the loop long enough to know why we're really there.

Typical politician.

Simon
Fresno, CA


by simplesimon on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 12:06:16 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.