A bird's eye view of the vineyard
Alternative Copy of thesaker.is site is available Thu May 25, 2023 14:38 | Ice-Saker-V6bKu3nz Alternative site: https://thesaker.si/saker-a... Site was created using the downloads provided Regards Herb
The Saker blog is now frozen Tue Feb 28, 2023 23:55 | The Saker Dear friends As I have previously announced, we are now “freezing” the blog.? We are also making archives of the blog available for free download in various formats (see below).?
What do you make of the Russia and China Partnership? Tue Feb 28, 2023 16:26 | The Saker by Mr. Allen for the Saker blog Over the last few years, we hear leaders from both Russia and China pronouncing that they have formed a relationship where there are
Moveable Feast Cafe 2023/02/27 ? Open Thread Mon Feb 27, 2023 19:00 | cafe-uploader 2023/02/27 19:00:02Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of
The stage is set for Hybrid World War III Mon Feb 27, 2023 15:50 | The Saker Pepe Escobar for the Saker blog A powerful feeling rhythms your skin and drums up your soul as you?re immersed in a long walk under persistent snow flurries, pinpointed by The Saker >>
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail?supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony Public Inquiry >>
Promoting Human Rights in IrelandHuman Rights in Ireland >>
The Economic Illiteracy of UK Energy Policy is a Sight to Behold Thu Jul 10, 2025 07:00 | Tilak Doshi UK energy policy is run by economic illiterates. That's the only conclusion Dr Tilak Doshi can come to after Ed Miliband's deputy said there is "no material difference" between importing oil and drilling for it ourselves.
The post The Economic Illiteracy of UK Energy Policy is a Sight to Behold appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
News Round-Up Thu Jul 10, 2025 00:36 | Richard Eldred A summary of the most interesting stories in the past 24 hours that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy about the ?climate emergency?, public health ?crises? and the supposed moral defects of Western civilisation.
The post News Round-Up appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Benefits Pay ?2,500 More Than Full Time Job, Analysis Shows Wed Jul 09, 2025 19:30 | Will Jones A life on sickness benefits will soon pay ?2,500 more a year than a full-time minimum wage job, according to analysis from the Centre for Social Justice. No wonder the country is going bankrupt.
The post Benefits Pay ?2,500 More Than Full Time Job, Analysis Shows appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Why I Might Vote Tory for the First Time Wed Jul 09, 2025 17:24 | Nick Dixon With Nigel Farage insisting he's relaxed about the UK's demographic shift and white British heading to minority status, Nick Dixon is seriously considering voting Tory for the first time. Hear him out, he pleads.
The post Why I Might Vote Tory for the First Time appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Net Zero to Cost Taxpayers ?800 Billion, Warns OBR Wed Jul 09, 2025 15:00 | Will Jones Britain?s move to a Net Zero economy will cost taxpayers more than ?800 billion over the next two decades, the UK?s fiscal watchdog has said. But even this is based on implausibly generous assumptions, say critics.
The post Net Zero to Cost Taxpayers ?800 Billion, Warns OBR appeared first on The Daily Sceptic. Lockdown Skeptics >>
|
Wesley Clark
international |
anti-war / imperialism |
opinion/analysis
Monday January 19, 2004 16:29 by William Ryan

Cheerleader For War!
"I've been against this war from the beginning. I was against it last summer. I was against it in the fall. I was against it in the winter. I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."
Retired General Wesley Clark, in a candidates' debate, October 26, 2003. This isn't really a test — after all, the answer is in the title of this article. But just for the exercise, please ask yourself the following questions:
Who said, in April of 2003, "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back"?
Who said, at the same time: "Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, eases lingering doubt and reinforces bold action. Already the scent of victory is in the air"?
Who said: "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"?
Who said: "If there is a single overriding lesson [from the campaign in Iraq], it must be this: American military power...is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact"?
Who said: "President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt"?
Who said: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don't demobilize yet. There's a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats"?
If you answered Wesley Clark to all the questions, you are correct. The quotes are from two op-eds Clark wrote last April for the Times of London. Taken together, they suggest that Clark's approval of the war was even deeper and more far-ranging than originally thought.
To be fair, Clark expressed some reservations in the articles. He cautioned that more work needs to be done in Iraq, "before we take our triumph." There was still resistance to be dealt with, by "armed persuasion." Looting had to be stopped, order restored, and humanitarian aid begun. And weapons of mass destruction had not been found.
Clark also wrote that the war had left the U.S. and Britain diplomatically isolated. Still, he said, "the immediate tasks at hand in Iraq cannot obscure the significance of the moment": "The scent of victory, if not the end of the operation, is certainly in the air."
Last week, Clark's supporters rushed to his defense over Republican accusations that Clark had supported the war in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in September 2002. A fair reading of Clark's testimony shows that he made statements that could be interpreted as supporting the resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq, and he also made statements that could be interpreted as questioning the need for such a resolution. Clark was, in short, playing both sides of the fence.
If the president went forward with war and all was a great success, Clark could say he was on board from the very beginning. If the president did not go to war, relying instead on extended diplomatic efforts that ultimately proved successful, Clark could say he was on board with that, too. And if either path ended in failure or political unpopularity, Clark could say he opposed the plan from the start.
Seven months later, in April 2003, with U.S. troops in control in Iraq, Clark made his choice. Liberation, "the powerful balm that justifies sacrifice," was at hand, and the U.S. had won a great victory. Clark was on board. It was only later, when the Iraqi insurgency proved more violent than expected and Clark decided to run for the Democratic nomination for president, that his position changed yet again.
|
View Full Comment Text
save preference
Comments (11 of 11)