\t18 septembre 2003 Le g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Wesley Clark est officiellement candidat \u00e0 la d\u00e9signation du parti d\u00e9mocrate. De fa\u00e7on tr\u00e8s caract\u00e9ristique du go\u00fbt que nous avons pour les \u00e9tiquettes, il est class\u00e9 comme un adversaire de la politique aventureuse de GW, donc comme candidat anti-guerre. Par ailleurs, son pass\u00e9 de g\u00e9n\u00e9ral lui assure un tr\u00e8s grand cr\u00e9dit au niveau de la politique de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale, ce qui en fait une bonne combinaison pour partir \u00e9ventuellement (s’il est nomm\u00e9 candidat d\u00e9mocrate) \u00e0 l’assaut de GW Bush.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tN\u00e9anmoins, quelques mises au point ne sont pas inutiles. Nous autres, en Europe devrions \u00eatre les premiers \u00e0 ce propos puisque Clark a men\u00e9 la guerre contre la Serbie \u00e0 propos du Kosovo. Il est donc partie prenante dans l’immense pol\u00e9mique qui a accompagn\u00e9 cette guerre. On peut \u00e9galement rappeler que Clark, le 11 juin 1999, avait donn\u00e9 l’ordre au g\u00e9n\u00e9ral anglais Jackson de prendre l’a\u00e9roport de Pristina au risque d’affronter les Russes<\/a> (Jackson avait refus\u00e9 d’ob\u00e9ir).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tL’organisation FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting Media analysis), examine le probl\u00e8me et publie un texte sur Clark anti-guerre, face \u00e0 la guerre contre l’Irak<\/a>. Le bilan est r\u00e9v\u00e9lateur. (Le texte, publi\u00e9 le 16 septembre 2003, d\u00e9marre sur la possibilit\u00e9 que Clark annonce sa candidature. Comme l’on sait, Clark l’a effectivement annonc\u00e9e<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tThe possibility that former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark might enter the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has been the subject of furious speculation in the media. But while recent coverage of Clark often claims that he opposed the war with Iraq, the various opinions he has expressed on the issue suggest the media’s \u00a0\u00bbanti-war\u00a0\u00bb label is inaccurate.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tMany media accounts state that Clark, who led the 1999 NATO campaign against Yugoslavia, was outspoken in his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. The Boston Globe (9\/14\/03) noted that Clark is \u00a0\u00bba former NATO commander who also happens to have opposed the Iraq war.\u00a0\u00bb \u00a0\u00bbFace it: The only anti-war candidate America is ever going to elect is one who is a four-star general,\u00a0\u00bb wrote Michael Wolff in New York magazine (9\/22\/03). Salon.com called Clark a \u00a0\u00bbfervent critic of the war with Iraq\u00a0\u00bb (9\/5\/03).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tTo some political reporters, Clark’s supposed anti-war stance could spell trouble for some of the other candidates. According to Newsweek’s Howard Fineman (9\/8\/03) Clark \u00a0\u00bbis as anti-war as Dean,\u00a0\u00bb suggesting that the general would therefore be a \u00a0\u00bbcredible alternative\u00a0\u00bb to a candidate whom \u00a0\u00bbmany Democrats\u00a0\u00bb think \u00a0\u00bbwould lead to a disaster.\u00a0\u00bb A September 15 Associated Press report claimed that Clark \u00a0\u00bbhas been critical of the Iraq war and Bush’s postwar efforts, positions that would put him alongside announced candidates Howard Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio as the most vocal anti-war candidates.\u00a0\u00bb The Washington Post (9\/11\/03) reported that Clark and Dean \u00a0\u00bbboth opposed the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \twar in Iraq, and both are generating excitement on the Internet and with grass-roots activists.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tHearing Clark talking to CNN’s Paula Zahn (7\/16\/03), it would be understandable to think he was an opponent of the war. \u00a0\u00bbFrom the beginning, I have had my doubts about this mission, Paula,\u00a0\u00bb he said. \u00a0\u00bbAnd I have shared them previously on CNN.\u00a0\u00bb But a review of his statements before, during and after the war reveals that Clark has taken a range of Positions from expressing doubts about diplomatic and military strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. \u00a0\u00bbvictory\u00a0\u00bb in a column declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair \u00a0\u00bbshould be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt\u00a0\u00bb (London Times, 4\/10\/03).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tMonths before the invasion, Clark’s opinion piece in Time magazine (10\/14\/02) was aptly headlined \u00a0\u00bbLet’s Wait to Attack,\u00a0\u00bb a counter-argument to another piece headlined \u00a0\u00bbNo, Let’s Not Waste Any Time.\u00a0\u00bb Before the war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAs time wore on, Clark’s reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained on CNN (1\/21\/03) that if he had been in charge, \u00a0\u00bbI 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, despite the fact that the allies have reservations.\u00a0\u00bb As he later elaborated (CNN, 2\/5\/03): \u00a0\u00bbThe 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<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tthe 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.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tOn the question of Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN’s Miles O’Brien that Saddam Hussein \u00a0\u00bbdoes have weapons of mass destruction.\u00a0\u00bb When O’Brien asked, \u00a0\u00bbAnd you could say that categorically?\u00a0\u00bb Clark was resolute: \u00a0\u00bbAbsolutely\u00a0\u00bb (1\/18\/03). When CNN’s Zahn (4\/2\/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: \u00a0\u00bbI think they will be<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tfound. There’s so much intelligence on this.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAfter the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. \u00a0\u00bbLiberation is at hand. Liberation the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions,\u00a0\u00bb Clark wrote in a London Times column (4\/10\/03). \u00a0\u00bbAlready the scent of victory is in the air.\u00a0\u00bb Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of \u00a0\u00bba lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tClark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region: \u00a0\u00bbMany Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights.\u00a0\u00bb George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00a0\u00bbshould be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt,\u00a0\u00bb Clark explained. \u00a0\u00bbTheir opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced.\u00a0\u00bb The way Clark speaks of the \u00a0\u00bbopponents\u00a0\u00bb having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself obviously not \u00a0\u00bbtemporarily silent\u00a0\u00bb in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: \u00a0\u00bbLet’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tIn another column the next day (London Times, 4\/11\/03), Clark summed up the lessons of the war this way: \u00a0\u00bbThe campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tespecially when buttressed by Britain’s, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don’t try! And that’s not hubris, it’s just plain fact.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAnother \u00a0\u00bbplain fact\u00a0\u00bb is this: While political reporters might welcome Clark’s entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views \u00a0\u00bbanti-war\u00a0\u00bb is to render the term meaningless.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \t[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit \u00eatre lu avec la mention classique \u00e0 l’esprit, Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only..]<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Clark comme anti-war President? Pas si vite … 18 septembre 2003 Le g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Wesley Clark est officiellement candidat \u00e0 la d\u00e9signation du parti d\u00e9mocrate. De fa\u00e7on tr\u00e8s caract\u00e9ristique du go\u00fbt que nous avons pour les \u00e9tiquettes, il est class\u00e9 comme un adversaire de la politique aventureuse de GW, donc comme candidat anti-guerre. Par ailleurs, son… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[3675,3168,3085],"class_list":["post-65741","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-antiwar","tag-clark","tag-kosovo"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65741","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65741"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65741\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65741"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65741"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65741"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n