For those who were as underwhelmed with the Detroit debate as I was, MSNBC has a transcript up from last Friday's interview with Chris Matthews for Hardball.
I've also posted it as variable bandwidth streaming video here. A permanent link is in the Multimedia section to the right.
Many will agree that the 9 candidate debate forum is awkward and superficial: last night, perhaps because Fox was broadcasting, everyone seemed to be shouting at the top of their lungs, including Gen. Clark, who should be taking it easier on his voice. Though I shouldn't have been surprised, I found the panelist's regurgitation of the Shelton canard to be particularly snarky.
All of the candidates, with the exception of Sharpton, Braun, and Kucinich (who all came off better than the "first tier" on Sunday) are spending too much emotion on Bush and the past and not enough time on their programs for the future. Even John Edwards, who usually does well in these fora, kept telling us, somewhat pathetically, that he'd "written it all down" and was giving "it" to people across the country but he didn't tell us much about "it." Though I don't agree with him (or Clark) on voting "no" on the $87B, Edwards' "blank check" line resonates because "trust us or your kids will be bombed on the way to school" seems to be the sum of the administration's efforts at dialogue.
It's such a good line that Gen. Clark couldn't seem to do much better than parrot it when his turn came immediately after Edwards'. In the retelling, the NY Times actually made it appear as if Clark had used it first, followed by Edwards.
[Clark said] "I want to commend John Edwards and John Kerry and those who voted on the resolution. I didn't believe last year we should have given George Bush a blank check in Iraq. Now we're trying to give him another blank check."All in all the debate was not pretty.Mr. Edwards, who was the first of the pro-war Democrats to announce his opposition to the $87 billion, also shrugged off Mr. Lieberman's attacks.
"My view of leadership is standing up for what you believe in, Joe," he said. "For me to vote yes on that would be to give President Bush a blank check, and I am not willing to give George Bush a blank check."
Now, Chris Matthews' attitude toward the general spoke volumes about Clark's credibility whenever he's lucky enough these days to enter a "no-spin" zone. WKC had apparently impressed Matthews in previous conversations which they both alluded to in the course of the interview, and the Hardball host was both respectful and genuinely interested in what the general had to say. He really seems to "get it."
Some highlights:
CLARK: But actually, the administration, in my view, and what I heard from people on the inside and around the edges is, this administration did want war. They wanted the show of force, the use of force in the Middle East. They wanted a country to pound and they wanted that country as a stepping stone to other adventures.I was told in the Pentagon, and in November of 2001, before we ever finished the campaign in Afghanistan, they had a list of seven countries. Six after Iraq that they were intending on taking down. Now, that doesn't sound like an administration that was worried about threats or weapons of mass destruction.
That sounds to me like an administration that didn't have any strategy other than to go after states because they were afraid they couldn't go after terrorists effectively. And that's what we've just seen now in the Rumsfeld memo. He admits it.
MATTHEWS: Do you think the president still buys into that line? Do you think he is still in line with people like Wolfowitz and Fife and Scooter Libby and the whole crowd of them who are pushing war and trying to get the evidence to bring to us war? Do you think that he is still backing that line to the point where we're going to Syria next and then on to Iran? Do you think he is still of one war after another? Of conquests?CLARK: I think he has kept his cards close, but I think there are those in the administration still pushing for the Syria option. I think I can see that option being set up now. You can see it in the rhetoric, you can see it in the legislation that's going in front of the Hill. And you can see it as the sort of logical outgrowth of where they are right now in Iraq.
There is no exit strategy from Iraq. This administration hasn't given us a strategy. They haven't given us a success strategy. And they've got a clean bill from Congress on the $87 billion without having to come forward with the strategy for Iraq. So I think the odds are that this administration is still looking for another foreign policy crisis.
MATTHEWS: Do you believe that the war, the case for war against Iraq was sexed up?
CLARK: Well, I think that what they did is they took the existing information and they made the strongest possible case with it. And intelligence information really doesn't come that way. It really is balanced.It is nuanced, and there's no one more eager than an intelligence analyst to tell you that there are two sides of this information. None of that came through in the public discussion. I think there was a lot of pressure that came from the highest levels within the administration to show the need to go after Saddam Hussein.
MATTHEWS: . . . Have we put ourselves in a position where the game now, the horrible game, the tragic game is, our enemies can defeat us by simply knocking off a trooper who is out on patrol every night or standing guard duty in front of a bank or something? Isn't that a position we can't possibly win in?
CLARK: Well, I think the American people are well prepared to accept sacrifices if there's a reason for them and there's a clear strategy for success. The problem is, in this case, we haven't been given a valid and accurate and truthful reason for why we went to Iraq, and we haven't been shown why we're there and where we're headed after that. And so I think because of that, the lack of information the administration's lack of candor, it's lack of planning, I think that the impact of the deaths of these American is magnified.
This administration went to war without the real support of the American people. It never came back and went to the Congress of the United States just before going to war and got a vote. It was afraid to do that.
Instead it pushed it through. You had the president going around in January and February of this year saying, if we're forced to go to war, if we're forced to go to war. But who was forcing us to go to war? He was the only one forcing the action.
And so the American people are rightly concerned now. And they should be. So I don't think anyone should misunderstand the courage and resolve of the American people. We'll stay and fight as long as it is necessary for a real objective when the American people are told the truth that there's a reason for it, and public support lines up behind it. That is simply not the case in Iraq.
MATTHEWS: . . .Let me ask you this, General. What about the politics of winning? How do you win having started so late?
You're now contesting Iowa; you are contesting New Hampshire. But Howard Dean has a huge lead up there. When will you begin to show your fire power in this campaign for president?
CLARK: Well, I'm in New Hampshire now. I'll be here about half the time.
It's really not about electioneering. It is really about ideas, it's about credibility, and it is about leadership. There's two things going on right now across America. One is there's a deep sense of anger at the administration that is in office right now not only for what they've done in Iraq in misleading people and the casualties we're taking, but also for their failure on the economy and for the neglect of so many of the promises that were made during the election.
But beyond that, there's a real hunger for leadership. That's why the draft movement got started. That's why I got pulled into this.
. . . Clearly, in my case, this has come about because this country is at war. We are at war right now. It doesn't matter whether the president landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit and said it was over. It's not over.
And when you look at the Rumsfeld memo that was released or leaked a couple of days ago, you realize that at last, the Pentagon started to ask the same questions. It's, OK, we're there, we spent $160 billion in Iraq. And we're no-not really any closer to winning the war on terrorism.
Rumsfeld asked, maybe we should have a real long term strategy. That's what I've been saying for two years. I think that's why people are coming to me. They're looking for someone who can help create and ask the honest questions, ask the tough questions, and help create a real long-term strategy.
MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, General Wesley Clark. Good luck up in the snow. I think it is coming. I'm feeling the weather already down here. Thank you, General Clark.
General Clark will be joining us at Harvard University on December 8, as our series, "The Battle for the White House" continues.