Gen. Wesley Clark at YearlyKos conference in Chicago, Aug. 3, 2007. Chicago Tribune photo by Charles Osgood.
by John McCormick
His answers were polite and non-critical, but retired four-star Gen. Wesley Clark made it fairly clear this morning in Chicago that he disagrees with two recent controversial statements Sen. Barack Obama has made on foreign policy.
Speaking to reporters and bloggers after his appearance before the YearlyKos blogger convention at McCormick Place, Clark said leaders should never remove any military option, including the most extreme one.
"I don't think you take options off tables," he said, when asked about Obama's statement Thursday that he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance" to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
When asked about a recent spat between Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton over whether they would meet with world leaders of hostile regimes during their first year in the White House, without preconditions, the Democrat and former presidential candidate seemed to land on Clinton's side of the argument.
"When you are the head of state of the United States of America, there's a process that works," he said. "When you meet leaders of foreign governments, you have to know what you're going to be talking about. What are the interests? You have to do your homework. They have to do their homework. And it generally helps if there's the kind of build up where the staffs can resolve things."
Clark said it is customary to try to have a specific goal, such as a treaty, pre-negotiated before such a meeting.
"Not just sort of, 'Hey, I've looked you in the eye, I've shaken your hand, I can see into your soul,'" he said. "It's not the way diplomacy works."
Then a reporter asked whether Obama's answer was naïve, as Clinton has suggested. There was a long pause.
"I think that both sides understand what this is, and I'm not going to get into the politics of this, the middle of this," he said. "The people around Barack Obama…they all understand what the process is."
Clark, who squeezed in a swim in Chicago this morning before his speech, said he likes the Democratic chances of winning in 2008, but isn't making any predictions.
"I couldn't call the 2008 World Series right now," he said. "That's a lot more predictable than politics. There is no reason for anyone on the Democratic side to take it for granted."
He also wouldn't bite on questions about endorsing any of the Democratic candidates or offering them advice. Nor would he talk about any interest in the vice presidency.
"I would never talk about something like that, but it's nice of you to ask," he said.
In his speech to the convention, Clark often angrily attacked the Bush administration for its moves in Iraq.
"We're not questioning the generals," he said. "We're questioning you."
Previous posts and coverage of the YearlyKos convention are here.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The Republic Party mistakenly belives that they can beat Hillary.
I saw a feature recently on a cat that lives at a retirement home and some of the people who work and live at the home say that the cat can sense inpending death and often goes to comfort these people in their time of need.
The cat was recently seen sleeping on a GOP blanket.
Posted by: John E | August 3, 2007 1:49 PM
Whoever gets the Democratic nomination should consider Clark as a running mate. At the very least, he should be Secretary of Defense in the next administration.
Posted by: jmike | August 3, 2007 2:28 PM
In more YearKos news not yet reported in the Swamp, the Kossites (and Wesley Clark) threw out a uniformed soldier who tried to present an anti-surrender point of view.
Shows how much they like free speech. And our soldiers.
Posted by: Bruce | August 3, 2007 2:53 PM
got a link to the story Bruce?
Posted by: BC | August 3, 2007 3:07 PM
Whoever gets the Democratic nomination should consider Clark as a running mate. At the very least, he should be Secretary of Defense in the next administration.
Posted by: jmike | August 3, 2007 2:28 PM
Very good idea.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | August 3, 2007 4:41 PM
"threw out a uniformed soldier who tried to present an anti-surrender point of view."
Bruce, should that uniformed soldier be dishonorably discharged for political participation while in uniform as soldiers who have protested the war have?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3244151
Posted by: Tony | August 3, 2007 5:30 PM
150 people in Karachi, Pakistan's most populous city, rallied against Obama for suggesting that he'd strike (without nukes) Pakistan if credible intelligence said bin Laden was there. The White House agreed.
Obama also said he'd be willing to talk to our enemies.
That is why only 150 people out of millions protested. Yet the Tribune carried the story as if 150,000 or even 300,000 people protested.
What's going on?
AS reported by yours truly, the media is out to dump (on) Obama.
150 people rallying in Karachi is equivalent to 1 person showing up at a rock concert. The story shouldn't be that 150 showed up but that ONLY 150 people showed up to protest.
Obama is right on both of these issues. Talk to enemies; let them know you're willing to bomb them if they harbor terrorists; but don't bomb with nukes, which is akin to nuking South Central LA in order to stop a crime wave.
Of course, all of the regular politicians are going to say the exact opposite. And when Hillary wins we'll have more of the same witless politics that the first Clinton administration used to enable al Qaeda.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | August 3, 2007 11:08 PM
GEN CLARK IS RIGHT IN THIS ONE-HES AN EXPRETONE SO HILLARYC LOINTON. OBAMA HAS TO ADMIT HES NOT READY FOR THIS JOB- ALSO AMERICA IS NOT READY FOR BLACK CANDIDATE AT LEAST CLINTIN IS SO PERFECT FOR THE JOB AS A FIRST FEMALE PRES.08
Posted by: rearose | August 4, 2007 1:16 AM
I am an Obama advocate, and I agree that we should never take options off the table by the things we say. Fortunately, this is something he has already learned and will not likely repeat that small mistake.
Clinton can talk all she wants about what she wouldn't or would do, but my belief is that she hasn't the gumption or the tenacity to implement a nuclear response in the very circumstances that she is maligning Obama for verbally shunning.
Be that as it may, it is nice to know the world has two viable democratic candidates to rid Capital Hill of the likes of Bush & Co.
Posted by: Fabian Blache III | August 4, 2007 2:13 AM
Bruce, you are spreading misinformation. The uniformed soldier you speak of was addressed by VoteVet's Jon Soltz, NOT General Clark.
From SunTimes:
...
None of the veterans on Friday morning's panel wore uniforms.
"It is against the law to speak for or against the war when you are in uniform," Soltz said.
Then U.S. Army Reserve Sgt. David Aguina, who describes himself as "pretty liberal" on most issues but a supporter of the Iraq war, stepped up to the microphone in full uniform. He challenged the panelists to prove to him that the "surge" in Iraq is not working.
But Soltz shouted him down and tried to order him outside -- captain to sergeant -- telling him it was illegal to use the uniform as a prop while making a political point.
"I want the name of your commanding officer," Soltz shouted at him.
Soltz proclaimed the panel over, left the stage to approach Aguina and point him firmly toward the door. But Clark, still sitting on the dais, took the microphone and reopened the discussion with conciliatory remarks...
~~~
Jon also asked the man to change into civilian clothes and come back, but he declined.
Obviously you weren't there and are spreading misinformation gleaned from one of the radical right smear machines. Good try though.
Was the man in a military uniform a plant? From Democracy Arsenal:
I was just informed that the guy in uniform this morning.....the one who posed a question to the panel about Progressives and the Military..... was a plant from the Right Wing....one Michelle Malkin to be specific, who has a blog called hot airbags or something self-referential like that.
More on this later. If this is true, it represents the most egregious, ugly, shameful and anti-American tactic I've ever witnessed in my own experience of studying and trying to improve US civil-military relations.
I'm not going to link to her blog, which I just checked out...and indeed, she's accusing the conference of stifling dissent. QED Malkin, you are an idiot.
Posted by: jen | August 4, 2007 5:36 PM
Wesley Clark is overrated. If it weren't for Arkansas and Bill Clinton he would be a nobody. He is the most boring person I have ever listened to his ramblings. I can't believe the Clintons are so tasteless and self serving narcissitic--egomaniacal people. Never will America give them 8 more years for what--destruction of America with a bunch of scurrilous people running the show. They have never answered simple questions like where are your Rose Law office papers been Hil since it is just past the statututes of limitation. And guess what you just found them. Hum. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | August 4, 2007 5:53 PM
every other generation a leader like Wes Clark comes
along
it is TIME we had real leadership in our country again
please email Gen. Clark at info@securingamerica.com and tell him to run
Posted by: bill hardman | August 4, 2007 6:29 PM
I object to the headline here. If anyhing is clear it should be that General Clark does NOT WANT TO APPEAR to take sides.
That's one of the reasons he has given for being reluctant to declare as a candidate; he does not want his words to be misunderstood OR to be called 'just politics,' tho he says that he thinks about running every day.
Posted by: elleng | August 5, 2007 3:32 AM