Matt Stoller: I was a supporter of yours in 2004.
Wes Clark: I know you were.
Matt Stoller: I just want to thank you for your service and your work. Let's just get down to questions, particularly your endorsement of Senator Clinton. When did you decide to support her and why did you decide to support her despite her support for the war?
Wes Clark: I've supported, I've known for a long time that she's the most qualified capable person in the race and when it was clear that I couldn't meet my preconditions it was just normal to support her. I mean, she's experienced, she's seen it all, she's been in the White House, she's been there in crisis, she knows how to make decisions, she's seen good decisions and bad decisions. I mean, it's a priceless set of experiences she has, she's spent her whole life learning how to run for elective office and how to serve the people once they're in elective office. And that's another great set of experiences, just like I've spent my life learning about force and diplomacy, she's spent her life in the more general sense of public office. And I think she's got great character and I think she's very tough so I think she's the best candidate in the race.
Matt Stoller: But specifically on the war, though she spent her whole life training for office, that was a terrible judgment call.
Wes Clark: Yeah that was a bad decision and I'd like to think I wouldn't have made that decision had I been in the United States Senate. A lot of people did. She said if she knows now how it would have been used she wouldn't have done it. Yeah it was a mistake but I think it's the kind of mistake you gotta let pass. You can't call everything right, and I think she's made so many right calls I think she'll make the majority of the calls, she's the best hope we've got for the kind of government we need in the future.
Matt Stoller: Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are all calling for residual troops in Iraq while they claim they will 'end the war'. How long do you think residual troops will remain in Iraq under a Clinton Presidency?
Wes Clark: There's no way of knowing because the problem in Iraq is Iran. And you can't deal with Iraq unless you're willing to deal with Iran and the Clinton administration, I meant the Bush administration is not facing reality. When you issue threats unintelligeable they're really working throughout Iraq preparing for the departure of the Americans, they've got a broad front, economic, cultural, political, religious strategy of engagement inside Iraq and so what happens with the troops is entirely incidental to that. They are arming and supporting militias only because those militias serve Iran's interests so when you think you can succeed by popping off at the militias from time to time that really fails to meet the strategic nature of the challenge we're up against. So I don't think there's any way of knowing how long it's going to take to work against the strategic challenge of Iran. First we have to get someone in office who will face it.
Matt Stoller: Can we handle a nuclear Iran? Can we live with that?
Wes Clark: I don't think so. The reason is, there are three reasons. Number one is that I think a nuclear armed Iran would use its clear deterrent to promote conventional or unconventional aggression against other states in the region and believe it could sit back with its nuclear power and not be threatened in return. I think the second reason is you never know how these nuclear capabilities might be smuggled abroad or used in some way. Maybe the way we saw the Israelis strike at this nuclear depot in Syria is an indication of that and apparently that came from North Korea. And the third reason is that once Iran gets a nuclear weapon lots of other countries will want them and the more countries that have them the greater chance a nuke will be used and kill hundreds of thousands of people and so no I don't think you can tolerate a nuclear armed Iran. But I think the right course of dealing with it is to directly engage Iran in dialogue.
Matt Stoller: Ok, I want to change subjects for a sec. Sorry for being so curt, but limited time. You recently called the Moveon ad criticizing Petraeus a 'big mistake'. Why is it a big mistake?
Wes Clark: Because it distracted attention from focusing on the failures of the policy and let the other side play a game of personal attack again and you know sort of outrage at that. That's a mistake. It distracted us from the dialogue we needed.
Matt Stoller: So your argument is...
Wes Clark: It gave something that Republicans could all agree on.
MS: So your argument is not that it was inaccurate in any way.
Wes Clark: No, I'd say it was a mistake tactically. But I also, I know Dave Petraeus, and he's not gonna say something he thinks is incorrect, he's not gonna lie, but the truth is relative, it's relative to where you sit and to what your responsibilities are. He sees the war in a certain way, he sees the circumstances in a certain way. Other people might look at the same situation and not being in his shoes might see it differently. That's what the dialogue is supposed to be all about. I don't think it's accurate to call him someone whose... it's a big mistake tactically.
Matt Stoller: How do you respond to millions of Americans, well I feel betrayed by this administration, and David Petraeus put Ed Gillespie in his operation and did 17 days of PR work in August, you know I think that's a betrayal I don't think he's acting like a military officer I think he's acting like a politician.
Wes Clark: I think that you've got to hold the political leadership accountable for that. Why let Bush get away with hiding behind his general? Why not just attack Bush directly?
Matt Stoller: Well, I don't think..
Wes Clark: He's had to hide behind Petraeus. Petraeus is being taken advantage of. In the military you have to be loyal to the chain of command. You have to. And Petraeus knows that if Congress pulls the forces out it will be by his definition a defeat in Iraq and so naturally he's trying to tell you why he needs those forces and why those forces should be there and that's no more than what's to be expected by someone in that position. He's like the quarterback on the football team, you don't like the plays that are being called go to the playcaller.
Matt Stoller: Ok, but David Petraeus claims that violence is down, and his report is the outlier. The Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, the GAO, all say that violence remains high. I don't understand why Petraeus should be above criticism for representing information that isn't credible.
Wes Clark: He shouldn't be above criticism. You should quarrel with the information, don't quarrel with his character.
Matt Stoller: I'm sorry to drill down on this, but it's important to my readers.
Wes Clark: It's very important.
Matt Stoller: Chuck Hagel called his performance "a dirty trick on the American people... It's not only a dirty trick, but it's dishonest, it's hypocritical, it's dangerous and irresponsible." Admiral Fallon was reported saying that he thinks Petreaus is 'an ass-kissing little chickenshit" for the way he sucks up to politicians.' There are a lot of rumors that David Petraeus wants to run for President. My question is, um, is their criticism a mistake as well?
Wes Clark: Well, I think for Chuck Hagel, who's a sitting Senator who wants to criticize a General, that's fine. That's his right to do so. As far as Admiral Fallon was concerned, if he's got a personal quarrel with Petraeus, you know, that's between the two of them. Petraeus works for him, obviously he feels cut out and to some extent I've known situations like that, but, um, as for Moveon.org, it was a mistake.
Matt Stoller: But why can a sitting Senator criticize a General and millions of grassroots activists not do that? That's really what Moveon is, it's not like it's an entity.
Wes Clark: Moveon's an organization, and when it does that it distracts from the dialogue that the Senator's trying to have. Frankly, I think the better course of action is to bring out all the statistics and challenge Petraeus directly to explain how he can say that in the face of all these statistics. Did we do that? Did Moveon do that? Did they lay out the statistics and say 'Petraeus says this, here's the other fact he doesn't tell you, General Petraeus come back to us and explain to us.
Matt Stoller: Absolutely they did that. That's what the ad was, was there anything in the ad that was factually inaccurate?
Wes Clark: What instead came out was the play on his name, and that's all that came out. And that was the mistake. If it was a serious ad, did it ask those serious questions, no one could have objected to it.
Matt Stoller: But what's the problem with, I appreciate that, I'll just change subjects now. What do we do about the, I ugh, as someone who has seen a rogue administration that has engaged in multiples acts that are beyond the bounds of American legitimacy in the political system and the international system, this country's done some very bad things over the last seven years, what do we do after the Bush administration is out of office to root out the networks of people who have engaged in these kinds of behaviors?
Wes Clark: Hold them accountable. We've got to hold them accountable under law and do the investigations and have the heart and fortitude to stay with the investigations against the partisan cry of the right-wingers who say 'oh it's over now let's move on and let's look to the future'. No, it's not over, because the people who did it are still there.
Matt Stoller: So you think Senator Clinton as President will do those investigations?
Wes Clark: Yes.
Matt Stoller: And you think Congress should continue those investigations once Bush is out of office?
Wes Clark: Absolutely.
Matt Stoller: And we have very serious fiscal problems, we're printing huge amounts of money, and I don't think the media is dealing seriously with the problem and the public isn't necessarily engaged on the issue. In 2004 you talked about reducing the military budget, and you said you know where the money is, where the weapons systems are. Do you still believe we need to reduce the amount of money that is spent?
Wes Clark: I think we're going to have to look very carefully at our military programs. We've got about $100B shortfall in the ground forces budget over the next five years, we've got to make up that shortfall, we've got to look at other programs to make sure we have well-balanced programs necessary to provide deterrence and maintain America's traditional areas of superiority in unintelligible, space and air.
Matt Stoller: Ok so let's go back to the Petraeus ad. In particular you said that truth is relative, so truth is sort of malleable, can you go into that concept a little bit more?
Wes Clark: Well I've got about two minutes Matt before I've got to get on. Petraeus set up his criteria, I'm sure he's trying to project progress, he's using those statistics to guide the performance of his forces out there, and I'm sure that's what he sees, an effort to move towards progress. And yet, the fact is there's not a lot of progress, and people need to see both sides and that's what the dialogue's about but I don't think you advance the dialogue by name-calling and that's the Republican side. I've been called a lot of names by Rush Limbaugh and I don't appreciate it and I don't think we advance our own efforts by making a pun off his name. Let other people do that.
Matt Stoller: So how do the millions of people who feel lied to by General Petraeus express themselves? What's the appropriate way to express themselves?
Wes Clark: Send emails, write editorials, call Senators, write Op-Eds, letters to the editors, but make them substantive, serious letters. If you feel like he has lied to you say so, but don't make the pun on his name. Show it with facts and let people draw the conclusion. It's inflammatory rhetoric to hurl out accusations of lying, that's a conclusion that has to be drawn by a careful review and examination of the evidence and it has to be used with great circumspection. That kind of reckless language, especially the use of puns and so forth, people don't like it, it doesn't change peoples' minds, it alienates support, and this is a democracy. We've got to convince moderate middle of the road Americans to come our way. We won't do it with those kinds of ads.
Matt Stoller: Ok, thanks a..
Wes Clark: I'm sorry, you're asking my straight up opinion, I know there are a lot of people who will disagree, but I'm gonna tell it to you straight, that's what I feel.
Matt Stoller: I appreciate that. And you know, General, thank you so much for being willing to talk to me and for this interview and for your service, and you know, hopefully we'll see each other and start to fix this country, and I'm honored, and you make me proud of my country.
Wes Clark: Matt, thanks a lot, I appreciate your time and your sincerity and your good questions.
STATE BLOGS
