Wesley Clark & Howard Dean

So why are liberals and progressives so star struck over Clark? One reason is the widespread perception that, as Michael Moore writes in his aforementioned letter, Clark “oppose[s] war.” As the media watchdog group FAIR reveals in a review of statements made by Clark before, during, and after the Iraq war, if Clark is “anti-war” then the term has been gutted of any meaning.  

• In an article published in the London Times, April 10, Clark savors the U.S.’s great “victory” over Iraq: “Liberation is at hand. Liberation—the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.... President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.”  
• As the U.S. and its client Israel are presently focusing the crosshairs on Syria and Iran, we have Clark writing in the same article: “But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice—indeed, may have been already—that they are ‘next’ if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.” 

The above sounds straight out of the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century playbook. 

Many Clark supporters were stunned when he told the New York Times on September 19 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 consider 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 the shocked reaction among supporters to the “antiwar” candidate’s statement, Clark backpedaled the next day: “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.” 

Clark’s claim to having a consistent record is simply false. In October 2002, Clark traveled to New Hampshire to endorse Katrina Swett’s run for Congress. The Union Leader newspaper reported, “Clark, who supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, said if Swett were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for the resolution, but only after vigorous debate” (October 10, 2002). 

Clark’s oft-repeated claim that the U.S. should act in concert with the international community to reach a diplomatic solution on Iraq is belied by statements he made on CNN before the war: 

• “I probably wouldn’t have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we’re here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead....” (January 21, 2003). 
• “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 U.N. 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” (February 5, 2003). 

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 began in March 1999, Clark repeatedly called for U.S. air strikes against Serbia. 

During the Kosovo War, as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, Clark waged a brutal air war against Serbia that brought death and destruction mostly to civilians and the infrastructure that was their life support but, by most post-war accounts, left the Serbian military relatively unscathed. “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.” 

It’s clear that Clark included as legitimate targets schools, bridges, hospitals, electrical facilities, market places, trains, refugee convoys, and media outlets. Clark bombed Serbia with “an almost sadistic fanaticism” (William Blum), making profligate use of deadly cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells, of the sort used to ravage Iraq. The Washington Post reports Clark “would rise out of his seat and slap the table. ‘I’ve got to get the maximum violence out of this campaign now’!”

Independent estimates of the civilian death toll in the Kosovo War range from 500-2,000, yet Clark, in testimony to Congress, said there were between 20 and 30 instances of “collateral damage.” 

Clark’s attempts to cover up instances of intentional NATO bombings of civilian targets have been exposed, though not properly publicized. In one case, 14 people were killed in Grdenicka, Serbia on April 12, 1999 when a U.S. 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. This is the anti-war, anti- unilateralist candidate? 

The former governor of Vermont, Howard Dean, has rallied progressives with his populist rhetoric and media hounds have praised him from coast to coast. Howard Dean catapulted onto the national stage when he announced his position opposing Bush’s unilateral attack on Iraq. He was the first Democrat to enter the race for the White House and therefore the first presidential candidate to speak out in opposition to Bush’s dubious war. However, he was never wholeheartedly opposed to dethroning Saddam. Like Wesley Clark, he’s swapped positions more than once. 

Dean announced in September 2002 that if Saddam didn’t comply with UN demands, the U.S. reserved the right to “go into Iraq.” Dean claimed he would have gladly endorsed a multilateral effort aimed at destroying Saddam’s regime. On CBS’s “Meet the Press” last July, he said that the United States must increase its pressure on Saudi Arabia and Iran. “We have to be very, very careful of Iran,” he said, Bush “is too beholden to the Saudis and the Iranians.” 

As the quagmire in Iraq thickens, Dean boasted to the Washington Post that he had no intentions of bringing U.S. troops home. Later Dean flip-flopped, stating in a New York primary debate, “We need more troops. They’re going to be foreign troops [in Iraq], not more American troops, as they should have been in the first place. Ours need to come home.” 

When drilled during that same debate about Bush’s $87 billion dollar Iraq package, Dean said that he would support it and “we have no choice...we have to support our troops.” So do we support our troops by bringing them home or by financing the occupation? He hasn’t clarified. 

More recently, in an October issue of the Jewish Week, Dean was quoted as saying that he has been very clear in his support for “targeted assassinations” of Palestinian terror suspects. He believes these men are “enemy combatants in a war” and added, “Israel has every right to shoot them before they can shoot Israelis.” 

Dean’s campaign fundraiser, Steven Grossman, is the ex-director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the most influential Israeli lobbying force in the United States—ranked number 4 on Forbes top 25 most giving organizations in Washington. AIPAC’s unwavering ideology includes defending Ariel Sharon at every mishap. Grossman spent many nights in the Clinton White House and it’s certain he would be doing the same during a Dean tenure. 

In an interview with the Forward, Dean admitted that his position on Israel was “closer to AIPAC’s” than Palestinian advocates. He has also announced his support for the wall now separating Palestinians from their homeland, as well as championing Israel for taking their battles over the border into Syria. “If Israel has to defend itself by striking terrorists elsewhere, it’s going to have to do that,” Dean said in a CNN interview with Judy Woodruff, “Terrorism has no place in bringing peace in the Middle East…nations have the right to defend themselves just as we defended ourselves by going into Afghanistan to get rid of Al Qaeda.” 

Dean is also opposed to curtailing any of Israel’s loan guarantees from the United States. Even though he’s claimed he’ll take an “even-handed” approach to the bloody conflict, Dean has made it clear he’ll support the billion dollar U.S. loan guarantees to Israel. His campaign website exclaims that the United States should “maintain its historic special relationship with the state of Israel, providing a guarantee of its long-term defense and security.” 

So how did Dean get labeled a progressive antiwar candidate? Dean wonders, “(I’m) out here talking about a balanced budget and a healthcare system run by the private sector,” Dean said in a New York Times article, “It’s pathetic I’m considered the most progressive candidate.” He’s even remarked that he doesn’t “think the Democrats are going to be able to beat the president with the equivalent of Bush-Lite.” So why isn’t he offering us a clear alternative? 

Dean is unlikely he’ll be hailing the progressives in the Democratic Primaries—Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton—anytime soon. Why would he point his supporters to their camps? Dean’s generous patrons have anteed up over $10.5 million in small donations since his campaign’s inception. 

Looking at Dean’s hawkish foreign policy positions, it’s difficult to see what all the hype is about. The right wing has so controlled the political landscape, that Dean and Clark look decent to some progressives. Even if one of them manages to unseat Bush, the left still won't be victorious. 

It’s hard to imagine that either Dean or Clark would be monumentally different than George W. Bush. Our struggles must continue well beyond the 2004 elections. The Democrats may save us from Bush, but, with the likes of Dean and Clark leading the opposition, it’s apparent the Democrats won’t be able to save us from themselves.