...(Once) ...
I see you're an optimist!
My objection remains, although I don't believe I was completely clear. The fact is that Bush went to the UN twice, agreed to a short-term compromise the first time, and when the window for military action was closing, went back and got rebuffed. Regardless of whether he was sincere or not -- and I think he was and should have gotten the support he requested -- it still fulfills the legal obligations of a right of first refusal, if such a thing exists.
Clark was asked what he would have done differently. Had he answered, "I would have negotiated better because (a) (b) (c)," or "I would hire people who will deliver diplomatic success in these instances," then OK. You'd have to convince me that France would have given up its veto even if Jesus Christ was our negotiator, but that's something completely different.
On top of that, Clark starts talking about remaking the Atlantic charter in order to accomodate this "right". As I argued earlier, the NATO charter doesn't keep American presidents from working "with its democratic allies as a first, not last, resort". Even before going to the UN, Bush went to the UK, France, Germany, Russia, Spain, and others to discuss our intentions and consult on our options. It was this process that led Bush (and Powell) to agree to 1441 instead of simply declaring Iraq in material breach back in November 2002. The NATO charter clearly didn't prevent it then, and so itonly needs to be remade if you change it to restrain American action when disagreement occurs, as it did over Iraq.
At the end of this, there are only two possible explanations for Clarks' statement: either he didn't mean it, which shows that Clark doesn't have a coherent position (which I could completely buy), or he truly believes that American power needs to be restrained by Europe. Neither of these reflects very well on a man who wants to be President.
"or he truly believes that American power needs to be restrained by Europe."
Well, that's one way to put it. But at least now we're disagreeing about policy. It does seem to me that the exercise of American power under President Clark would be modulated according to the importance of our alliances. I, like Clark, think that's a good thing, not because I'm a big fan of Europe, but because I think that we'll ultimately lose the "war" on terror (or retrograde fundamentalism, or whatever you want to call it) without hearty cooperation from other nations. I am well aware that we are, in some sense, tying our own hands, and working through alliances isn't very satisfying in an important visceral sense, but, in the long run, I think it's the only way to succeed.
I agree that it's good we're debating policy. I disagree with your response, but the points are clear now. I would add again that Resolution 1441 shows that Bush clearly worked through alliances, even though hawks over here were not happy with us going through the motions a 17th time, and so in practice is doing precisely what you say Clark meant. Even when we invaded Iraq, we did so with military and diplomatic support of a significant number of nations, including most (not all) of NATO. The exceptions were France, Germany, and Turkey to a large extent. So we fulfilled exactly what you say Clark proposed ... so why was he saying his proposal was a change?
I've blogrolled you, BTW. The discussions here are too good to miss.
"so why was he saying his proposal was a change?"
There's no formal difference between the Bush and Clark approaches: one did and one would take the case to NATO and the UN. The difference is in the execution. I didn't believe (and neither did about half the country and most of the international community) that anything would keep the US from invading Iraq at the time of America's choosing. Without engendering that belief in our allies, the trips to the UN and talk of coalitions were a bit worse than nothing: they were insulting.
And "everyone but France and Germany" isn't a footnote, it's the story. There are two countries in continental Europe with the resources to lend significant aid to our efforts in Iraq. Neither is part of the coalition. Clark is saying that he could have convinced them to join.
I can see two good objections: the price of their joining would have been too high or nothing could have made them join. We may never know if France and Germany might have joined us. Even so, I think working with them in a more friendly way ("Old Europe" ring a bell?) would have been to our benefit in the long run.
But here's what it comes down to, for me, in the end. I think it's indisputable that world opinion is against us. I think that's a failure on the part of the administration and I'm attracted to a candidate who seems to agree that that's important and has experience in pulling coalitions together.
I can see two good objections: the price of their joining would have been too high or nothing could have made them join. We may never know if France and Germany might have joined us. Even so, I think working with them in a more friendly way ("Old Europe" ring a bell?) would have been to our benefit in the long run.
That's fair criticism; although I was amused by the "Old Europe" comment, it was clearly unhelpful, and Bush should have forcefully denounced it at the time. I plainly believe that France would never have come along, as it has hitched itself to Saddam too tightly, economically at least, to see him deposed. Captured IIS files may expand on that. We could have done more with Germany, I think, and should have. (But it's not as if no effort was made, or that it invasion was a fait accompli, because November would have been the best month to accomplish that. March was the last possible moment for the mission that year.)
Now, if that's what Clark wants to say, then I would have no problem with him taking that stance, although I still wouldn't agree with it. But to say what he did makes him at least incoherent, and at worst -- if you take what he said literally -- proposing an unprecedented emasculation of American sovereignty. Neither reflects well on Clark as a presidential candidate.
Thank you, by the way, for an intelligent debate.