Gen. Wesley Clark

Gen. Wesley Clark is the next guest in the hot seat in our special series, ‘Hardball: Battle for the White House.’ Dec. 8, Monday, 7 p.m. ET

Gen. Wesley Clark's resume is impressive, even overwhelming — Rhodes Scholar, Vietnam War captain honored with a Silver Star for valor in combat, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO — and that resume, with his deep national security credentials, is the centerpiece of Clark’s campaign. The holes in that resume — nearly non-existent domestic policy experience, latecomer to the Democratic Party, limited time in the national spotlight — are his biggest weakness, sure to be exploited by his rivals on the campaign trail.

Clark was the last to enter the race for the Democratic nomination, after a months-long volunteer “Draft Clark” effort. But when he did finally enter the late start translated into star-power and significant media attention — perhaps more than all the other nine candidates combined in their first weeks campaigning.

As Clark likes to say, his sudden entry also meant they were “building the ship as it left the harbor.” With that, came the disadvantage of trying to find his voice and message under the spotlight.

His campaign style, a supporter said recently, is more “confident and surefooted” now, but he certainly did not start that way. Clark’s previous experience in elections was limited to a run for homeroom student council, not exactly preparation for the never-ending press conference of a presidential campaign. And while nuance served him well with the military diplomats in NATO, his position on the resolution to go to war with Iraq can’t be nuanced, and certainly can’t include the words “probably would have.” “Probably” doesn’t work in presidential politics.

The General tends to define his candidacy by one word: leadership. It is a powerful selling point in a post 9-11 world. This military man disagrees with the military involvement in Iraq. As former head of NATO during the Kosovo War, his foreign policy credentials are solid and his positions informed. He promotes patriotism in all forms and espouses a strong sense of duty, honor and integrity. But he left the Pentagon under a cloud of political conflict and accusations of grandstanding, and some of his former colleagues on the general staff are loud opponents of Clark for President.

The political battlefield is hazardous for any non-politician. Opting out of Iowa has not lessened the pressure on the campaign to canvass and multiply ground troops in all the other early primary states in a short amount of time. His campaign headquarters in Little Rock has walls covered with posters showing checkboxes still to be filled for state directors and coordinators. Although national polls keep him near or at the top, name recognition is still at a premium in places like New Hampshire and Arizona. At the moment, South Carolina looks like his most promising early state, with a recent poll showing Clark with a slight lead.

General Clark has to prove he is more than just a resume. He speaks as passionately on domestic issues as he does about foreign policy. He argues he has handled domestic issues when he ran various command posts, but he hasn’t had to deal with the minutia of gun control, Medicare, and education. On the campaign trail it shows with vague answers.

Clark’s four stars have shone most brightly with Democratic voters when he attacks President Bush and provides an alternative plan on the war on terror and Iraq. Still, there are any number of domestic issues Clark has to weigh in on in order to be considered as well-rounded and a strong a contender as he was first heralded to be.

Clark is nothing if not a quick study on the rules of engagement political or otherwise. On Hardball, there will be no excuses.

The Institute of Politics at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government hosts the series. The audience, which will be comprised mostly of local college students, will also ask questions of the candidates. Admittance to these forums will require a ticket. While most tickets will be distributed to Harvard and other local college students. Some tickets will be reserved for the general public. Instructions for obtaining tickets will be available on the IOP Website.

Links:
Clark embed page
Clark’s campaign website

To get news on the Hardball: Battle for the White House delivered straight to your inbox, subscribe to The Hardball Briefing. Click here to subscribe.

Read the complete transcript

ANNOUNCER: Live, from the John F. Kennedy Institute of Politics at Harvard University, HARDBALL’s “Battle for the White House.”        Tonight our series of interviews with the Democratic candidates for president continues.        Here’s Chris Matthews.                CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: For the next hour, he’s trying to be the first general to win the presidency since Dwight D. Eisenhower. Our guest tonight, General Wesley Clark.        let’s play HARDBALL.        (APPLAUSE)        MATTHEWS: You know, general, after that incredible warm welcome, and your campaigning through the here so illustriously, I cannot resist, I cannot resist, what does it feel like to visit the John F. Kennedy Institute of Politics for a guy who voted for Richard Nixon twice?        GEN. WESLEY CLARK (D), DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Great question.        MATTHEWS: It is a great question. What did you see, given your values...        CLARK: Now wait.        MATTHEWS: ... in Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. What did you see in these guys.        CLARK: I want to answer the question you asked me.        MATTHEWS: OK. Nixon...        CLARK: I was in Little Rock, Arkansas, and I decided I would go to West Point. It was right after the Berlin crisis. It was right after Kennedy had given the speech, ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do if your country. I went over and took my entrance exam for West Point. I started with an interview with the Arkansas army national guard. They were mobilized to go to Berlin. I took the physical fitness exam at Fort Lenardwood, Missouri in February of 1962. And I went in with 806 other young men from across the United States and John Kennedy was president and it felt wonderful. And it feels great to be here today.        MATTHEWS: And then you voted for Nixon. Why?        CLARK: Kennedy wasn’t there.        MATTHEWS: OK. You voted for Nixon twice and Reagan twice.        Why are you now running as a Democrat?        CLARK: Because I believe in what the Democratic party stands for. I believe in-I voted for people who were strong on national security and national defense. But we’re in a different era, and what this country needs is effective leadership. And it needs a party that engages abroad, not uses force abroad, necessarily. But engages abroad. And it needs party at home that lifts people up. Not leaves them behind. And the right party is the Democratic party.        MATTHEWS: Why do you think that (UNINTELLIGIBLE), the head of the Democratic Party, the man who ran for president this past time and won more votes, 600,000 more votes than the current president, why do you think he endorsed Howard Dean today?        CLARK: I have no idea. But I’ll tell you this, Chris, I don’t pay any attention to endorsements, unless they’re for me. I don’t think the country is looking for politicians. What they’re looking for are real people and real leaders at this point in American history. and that’s what I’m sensing out there when I talk to people on the campaign trail.        MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the leadership of the Democratic party. Bill Clinton has a lot of his people working in your campaign. Eli Siegel was here today, a great man.        CLARK: There he is.        (CROSSTALK)        MATTHEWS: Harry Tomlinson, a lot of people from the campaign. Chris Lehane.        A lot of Clinton people have come to work for you is that a signal that you’re the Clinton favorite?        CLARK: Well, I haven’t ever asked that question and I wouldn’t ask that question. President Clinton is the leader of the party. He’s the real leader, the intellectual force chin the party. He’s the man who created 22 million jobs during his administration.        MATTHEWS: Was he a good president?        CLARK: Absolutely. One of the greatest American presidents...        MATTHEWS: Was he better than Reagan?        (APPLAUSE)        MATTHEWS: Was he better than Reagan?        CLARK: Of course.        MATTHEWS: Better than Nixon?        Of course.        MATTHEWS: Better than both those guys, OK.        CLARK: Sure, but he wasn’t running against them.        MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask you about. Has Clinton given you any advice sort of in the middle of night he calls because he stays up late. Has he ever called you and said general, I’ve got some great ideas. You’ve got to work this guy Dean a little bit. Has he ever given you Dutch uncle stuff?        CLARK: No, he just told me to watch out for Chris Matthews.        MATTHEWS: Didn’t work for him. Let me ask you...        CLARK: I think it worked pretty well for him actually.        MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about Hillary Rodham Clinton.        Do you take her advice?        CLARK: Absolutely. She is very smart.        MATTHEWS: Why would you take the advice of a person who wants to be president rather than you.        CLARK: I like Hillary. I’ve known her a long time.        MATTHEWS: She wants to be president, doesn’t she?        CLARK: Listen, everybody has many, many different motives. And I think that most Democrats, most of all, want the man in the White House out. I certainly do.        MATTHEWS: If a Democrat goes into the White House after this election and hold the usually two terms, as Bill Safire said today in his column, by the time Hillary gets to run, she’ll be taking Medicare.        So why would she want you to win?        Do you really think she’s rooting for you?        CLARK: Listen, I think she wants...        MATTHEWS: Do you think she is rooting any Democrat?        CLARK: I think she wants George Bush out of the White House because it’s best for country. And I think every Democrat does.        MATTHEWS: Even if it means she’s put out, she’ll never get in. Even if it means she’ll never gets in.        CLARK: I think, you know, I think you’re going to somebody’s sort of inner motivation, but I believe that people in this country are, especially people who have given their lives in public service are patriotic, they are essentially selfless. Let me tell you something.        MATTHEWS: The Clintons are selfless?        The Clintons are selfless?        CLARK: Let me tell you something, Chris.        MATTHEWS: You’ve got to be kidding. Do you mean that?        CLARK: Nobody takes the abuse in public service unless it’s for some higher calling.        MATTHEWS: OK.        CLARK: I know that. I can tell you. You do because you believe in this country. That’s why you do it.        So, I want to finish my point, OK. Because a lot of people in this country who aren’t engaged in the political process, they may not see it that way. I didn’t see it for years, because when I was in the United States Army, I couldn’t see people who were out doing the work of politics.        Across this country, there are hundreds of thousands of people who give up their nights and their weekends. They stuff envelopes, they go door to door. They don’t get any money for it. They don’t get any recognition for it. They just believe in this country. In New Hampshire today, there are voters there who are coming and giving up their lunch hours an evenings just to listen to candidates talk. They’re not doing it because it so entraining, although it might be. But they’re really doing it because they have a responsibility and they know it. And this country runs on patriotic energy. It does. A lot of people aren’t engaged in that. I wish we would get 100 percent turnout for elections. I wish every American would vote. And I wish every young person would vote.        MATTHEWS: And list this battle may come down to a battle.        I don’t know, General, if you watch the poll, but a lot of us do watch the polls and they see Dean doing well but they see you creeping up. They see you may be moving up to pass John Kerry the Senator from this state in the New Hampshire primary. You were only two points back the last toll. That means you may already be ahead of him. What is the advantage in the voters selecting you, a man who’s had all this military experience. In fact, you were a supreme commander of NATO and a man who made an effort to avoid the draft.        What’s the advantage in you over him?        CLARK: Now, that’s a loaded question, isn’t it?        MATTHEWS: That’s why I gave it to you, because I’m trying to be nice to you now.        CLARK: You’ve always been nice to me and I’ve always appreciated coming on your show.        MATTHEWS: I’m not always nice. It’s called a gopher pitch. I have thrown a gopher pitch across the plate and now hit a home run.        CLARK: Listen, if you want to-if you want a lawyer to lead this country, pick a lawyer. If you’re looking for a doctor, get a doctor. But if you want a leader, somebody who’s actually been there, who’s helped negotiate agreements, who’s led alliance in war, then get a leader. And I’m the only person on that stage of candidates who’s ever laid awake at night and prayed the bombs that I ordered drop would hit the proper target and not innocent people. And I think you need in this in this country, someone who’s done it both at home and abroad that’s why I’m running. I’m the only person who’s been there and actually done it.        MATTHEWS: Is that a better standard of leadership than being elected? I mean it. In a democracy is a person who’s had a history of being elected to public office inferior to a person who’s been appointed to a high military position?        CLARK: No, but I think you have to look at what the real qualifications are. I think being elected to public office is a wonderful thing. And I admire every American who’s ever stood for elective office. I think it takes a lot of courage for people, especially people who are running for lower level offices, because it’s their own friends and neighbors that they have to really go to and really work. And they’re going to have to live with these people all their lives afterwards.        It’s like one politician told me, he said, be careful when you run, because it can cost you everything when you run. And people in elective politics know it. But I think this country right now needs a leader who’s more experienced in leading and less experienced in raising money.        (APPLAUSE)        CLARK: That’s a partial answer. I want to come back on it. It doesn’t take-running for office is different than governing. Running for office is-it’s an art form. It’s developed. And I’m doing it for the first time here. And it’s been a lot of fun, it’s been a real learning experience. And-and I’ve enjoyed it tremendously. But leadership, working with heads of state, thinking about strategies, talking to members of Congress, that’s something I’ve done for years and years and years, and I’m the only person in the race who’s done it and had the practical leadership experience.        It’s really up to the people in the country to decide what they want in a candidate. And I think Americans needed a choice and that’s why I’m running.        MATTHEWS: First question, up top.        UNIDENTIFIED MALE: General Clark, you’ve criticized Bush for his unilateral actions in dealing with Iraq.        CLARK: Right.        UNIDENTIFIED MALE: However, if you were in Bush’s shoes right now, what would you be doing differently to rebuild those international bridges you believe have been compromised?        CLARK: Well, if I were president right now, I would be doing things that George Bush can’t do right now, because he’s already compromised those international bridges. I would go to Europe and I would build a new Atlantic charter. I would say to the Europeans, you know, we’ve had our differences over the years, but we need you. The real foundation for peace and stability in the world is the transatlantic alliance. And I would say to the Europeans, I pledge to you as the American president that we’ll consult with you first. You get the right of first refusal on the security concerns that we have. We’ll bring you in.        And in return, we want the same right on your security concerns. And that would reinvigorate NATO. We then put the foundation in place to have a real transatlantic agreement. And working with our allies in Europe, we could move the world. We’re 600, 700 million people, we’re three permanent seats on the Security Council, we’re half the world’s GDP. We can do it. Whether it’s dealing with North Korea, the value of Chinese currency, or the problems of nuclear developments in Iran. And so that’s the essential first step. George Bush cannot do it. He’s compromised those ties. It starts with personal respect. He doesn’t have it. He’s forfeited it. I do.        MATTHEWS: Coming back with more questions on Iraq with General Wesley Clark at the Institute of Politics at Harvard University. Stay with us.        (COMMERCIAL BREAK)        MATTHEWS: We’re back with General Wesley Clark. By the way, General, packed house tonight. Big house tonight. The biggest-it’s really-it’s just seething with activity in here.        You know, you said something interesting about what happened after we were hit on 9/11, 2001, about how you got the word somewhere in the Pentagon or elsewhere that there were people already pushing for war with Iraq. Tell us about that, first, because it tells us, I think, about the mind-set of this administration going into 9/11.        CLARK: Well, I went through the halls of the Pentagon. I’d only-it must have been within a couple of weeks after 9/11. And I had been on CNN almost every day. I had been down in Atlanta and so forth. And I still felt like a military guy. You know, still looked at my sleeve, I wanted that big black stripe for general officer on there. And it felt funny, because the people-everybody that was going to be engaged in it, of course, I’d worked with them all.        So I went through the Pentagon and just kind of wanted to check in and make sure the stuff I was saying was about right in terms of what they could tell me about the intel and about their perceptions and so forth. I didn’t want to divulge any classified information, but just to sort of calibrate.        And so I went in to see Secretary Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz was there. And I went downstairs, and a guy said, sir, come in here. And I said, I don’t want to take up your time. He says, no, you need to hear this. He said, have you heard the joke? I said no, I haven’t. What joke? He said “9/11, Saddam Hussein, if he didn’t do it, too bad, he should have.        Because we’re going to get him anyway.”        Of course, it wasn’t a joke. It wasn’t funny. And he didn’t tell it to me to make me laugh.        MATTHEWS: Right.        CLARK: He was telling me that there was something seriously amiss in the way the administration was approaching the problem of dealing with terrorism.        MATTHEWS: Why did this administration build the case for war with Iraq after 9/11? What do you think was their motive?        CLARK: I think it’s-you know, we really need to ask that question, and we really should have a set of hearings and demand that the administration produce the answers. I don’t know.        I mean, I wasn’t in on the councils of state. It’s speculation. But I’ll speculate. There were some people who believe that it was essential to just have a strong show of U.S. force. There were others who believed I guess that you couldn’t expect to be successful against Osama bin Laden so you had to take down somebody that you could be successful against. There were some who believed in this greater geostrategic vision that you could kind of sweep through the Middle East, clean up these old, worn out, former Soviet client states, knock them off, get into democracy, and have it all set so the next peer competitor that came down would have to face.        And there were even those who made the argument that the real way to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians was to go after Saddam Hussein. This was the sort of road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad argument. There was a whole variety...        MATTHEWS: But not one of those motives was openly expressed by this administration.        CLARK: No. And you know, what was expressed was a sort of least common denominator, let’s go after the weapons of mass destruction. We’ve already got a U.N. mandate to use against Saddam Hussein. He’s probably in violation of it.        But I had seen some of that intelligence. Several members here in the audience have seen that intelligence. I always believed that he had withheld something from the inspectors. I mean, he’s a cunning guy. And there was no reason to think that he wouldn’t have tried to keep some material.        MATTHEWS: What do you think of the vice president’s story, there’s a story in “Newsweek” this week, it just broke today, the vice president’s office was developing intel to justify the war outside the CIA, outside defense intelligence. They had their own sources in the Iraqi National Congress and they were pushing this stuff right through the office there. If you had a vice president, if you got elected, are you going to allow a vice president to have a separate intelligence operation, a separate operation to justify a war?        CLARK: Absolutely not.        MATTHEWS: Do you think this vice president has gotten-do you think this vice president has got a sort of an extra constitutional role going right here now?        CLARK: Well, I think it’s the kind of-Bob Graham said if you take the country to war improperly, it’s an impeachable offense. And what we’ve had here is very hard for the American people to come to terms with this. But let me put it in very stark, clear terms.        When this administration came to office, they were advised that the greatest threat to American security was Osama bin Laden. Yet almost nine months later, there was no plan to deal with Osama bin Laden. Yet there were plans to start national missile defense and a lot of other things, but not to deal with the greatest threat. And then after 9/11, there was this massive bait and switch operation. I think they made the decision to go after Saddam and worked very hard to try to find the evidence to justify it.        But they failed. That evidence is not there. It was not there. It was the wrong war, it was an unnecessary war. And it’s a $150 billion mess today.        MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. Back with General Wesley Clark. Stay with us.        (COMMERCIAL BREAK)        MATTHEWS: We’re back with General Wesley Clark. Thank you. Just before we went to break, you made I thought a stunning statement about the use of intel by the vice president, this administration generally that justifies us going to war, not under the pretext that they gave the American people, but under another set of motives, using-well, do you think they used suspect evidence to make the case?        CLARK: Well, I think they used evidence that wasn’t properly, let’s say vetted by the intelligence community. And you know, it was...        MATTHEWS: Was it recklessly used when they’re using it?        CLARK: Of course it’s reckless, Chris. Look, anytime you’re dealing in the intelligence business, you’re getting information that you have to fully vet. Everybody who gives information has a motive. It may be monetary, it may be revenge, it may be they want back in power, and nobody had more motives to get us back into Iraq than the Iraqi National Congress.        MATTHEWS: Who’s guilty here, the president, the vice president, who, of using this inadequate intelligence to justify a war?        CLARK: Harry Truman said, the buck stops here. This is the responsibility of the president of the United States. And you can’t duck it.        MATTHEWS: Be right back. Be right back with General Wesley Clark.        Stay with us.        (COMMERCIAL BREAK)        MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL’s “Battle for the White House.” This half hour, we’ll ask Wesley Clark what can he do to close the gap with Howard Dean. I’ll ask him about all that in just a minute. But first, the latest headlines, right now.        (NEWSBREAK)        MATTHEWS: We’re back. We’re back with General Wesley Clark.        General Clark, I don’t think you failed to note the irony in that news report. He’s going to get 10 years in prison and they may even take him out of the House of Representatives.        CLARK: They’re going to have to use a lot of absentee ballot ifs they don’t.        MATTHEWS: OK, lets go to Bonnie Newman (ph).        BONNIE NEWMAN, KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT: If you were elected how would you keep American jobs from going offshore without violating free trade agreements?        CLARK: Well, I think what we first have to do is we have to make sure in our tax code we are not incentivizing the exports of jobs. So we have to go back through all the items of the tax code and make the companies who are putting headquarters out there taking jobs away from the United States are not being rewarded for it from the government. And then on the other side of it, we need to reward companies that are adding jobs in America. And then we need to take other broader measure. We’re going to have a $100 million jobs bill in America to restart this economy and really make job growth real. We’re going to work hard on science and technology, so we invest in the right research and development to create the leading edge technologies that will give us things that only we can manufacture in the years ahead. So it’s a multi-part program. But my number one domestic policy is jobs and we will work on that from day one.        MATTHEWS: General, do you think Osama bin Laden, if we catch him, when we catch him, should be tried here at the U.S. or in the Hague, the international court?        CLARK: I would like to see him tried in the Hague, and I tell you why. I think it’s very important for U.S. legitimacy and for building other support in the war on terror for trying them in the Hague,e under international law with an international group of justices, bringing witnesses from other nations. Remember, 80 other nations lost citizens in that strike on the World Trade Center. It was a crime against humanity, and he needs to be tried in international court.        MATTHEWS: Well, 3,000 Americans were killed here. Do you believe he should be held exempt from capital punishment, because if you send him to Hague he will be. They don’t have capital punishment at the Hague.        CLARK: I think that’s a separate issue. I think that’s a separate issues.        MATTHEWS: No, it’s a key issue, because the sentencing limitation, they do not execute people at the Hague.        CLARK: I think that you can adequately punish Osama bin Laden, and you’ve got to look beyond simple retribution against an individual. You have to look at what’s in the long-term security interest in the security in America and you have to look at how we handle the war on terror from here on out.        MATTHEWS: But doesn’t life in Holland beat life in a cave?        CLARK: Not in a Dutch prison. Chris, they’re under water, they’re damp, they’re cold, they’re really miserable.        MATTHEWS: Sir, during the past week, Governor Dean has discussed information being leaked to the Internet by conspiracy theorist that the president was tipped off by Saudis to 9/11 yet did nothing.        UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you think of Governor Dean’s comments?        CLARK: Well, I wouldn’t make comments like that, because I think when you’ve been on the inside of the intelligence community and national leadership, you recognize that’s just a very, very, very low likelihood of ever having happened. I mean, it just doesn’t work that way.        MATTHEWS: Let’s take a look at what General Schwarzkopf said about you, general. This was on our show recently.        CLARK: Yes, I didn’t get to see this.        MATTHEWS: Well, you will now.        (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)        GEN. NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF, U.S. ARMY (RET.): He was fired because of matters of character and integrity. That is a very, very damning statement which says if that’s the case he’s not the right man for president as far as I’m concerned.        (END VIDEO CLIP)        MATTHEWS: Well, response?        CLARK: Well, I think you cut off the first part of it, which is, first of all from him, it’s hearsay. He’s quoting another officer who says that that’s why I was fired. And he said if that’s the case. Well, it’s not the case. I wasn’t fired for reasons of character and integrity. In fact, according to the statements of Secretary Cohen, Hugh Shelton and everybody else, I wasn’t fired at all. What we actually had...        MATTHEWS: Why did Schwarzkopf say that?        CLARK: I have no idea. But I’ll tell you what we really did have, Chris, we really had a policy dispute. We had a policy dispute in which one group of officers in the Pentagon working with the Republican-dominated Congress didn’t believe that the United States should act to prevent another war in the Balkans with another round of ethnic cleansing. But it was my area of responsibility and it was my duty to warn the Pentagon and the entire U.S. government and NATO about the dangers ahead. I took my responsibility seriously.        I gave those warnings. I recommended a policy be adopted. It was adopted. The Pentagon had the chance to block that policy, it chose not to. When the diplomacy fail, we went to war. And it was my responsibility to hold NATO together and put the strategy in place. And I believe when you commit American soldiers to combat, or airman or sailor or Marines, once you commit this country’s forces to war and the prestigious of this country, and all of the moral authority of this country, you must succeed.        And I pushed very hard to make sure we did. And there was some people who didn’t like that. But I think my judgment is validated by the fact that today 1.5 million Albanians are back in their homes. And Kosovo is a place of peace. That was achieved through leadership. This is a comment about my leadership, and I think my leadership is proved by the events.        MATTHEWS: Did Bill Clinton agree in your policy?        CLARK: Absolutely.        MATTHEWS: Why did he relieve you?        CLARK: First of all, I wasn’t relieved.        MATTHEWS: You weren’t?        CLARK: No. Uh-uh.        MATTHEWS: You weren’t relieved as supreme commander as NATO.        CLARK: No, I wasn’t. No. I was asked to retire three months early.        MATTHEWS: How is that different?        CLARK: Because, the way it works...        MATTHEWS: Weren’t you hurt by that?        Weren’t you hurt by the president whose policies you supported against the opinions of other high-ranking military people that he would undercut you after you supported him against these other fellows?        CLARK: But you have to let me answer the first question you asked.        MATTHEWS: Go for it.        CLARK: If you relieve someone, you take them out of command. What happened here was, I was asked to retire early and then it was then leaked to “The Washington Post” in an effort to keep me from talking to Bill Clinton about it. So this was a behind the back power play. Bill Clinton told me himself he had nothing to do with it, And I believe him.        MATTHEWS: Why do you believe him?        CLARK: Why do I believe him? Because he’s the command-in-chief and he would not have done this this way. This undercut the ability of the Democrat administration to claim credit for success in the Balkans. And the first thing that happened to Bill Clinton when he went to overseas four days after it was announced everybody said why did you fire the commander who won the war. And he stood up there again and again and said he wasn’t fired, he wasn’t fired, he wasn’t fired.        Have you ever read the statements that Bill Cohen made on my retirement?        Have you looked at how he praised me and said I was a great leader?        Why do you think all this is happening now?        It’s one word, Chris, one word, it’s a word you’re not unfamiliar with politics.        (APPLAUSE)        MATTHEWS: You were relieved...        CLARK: Chris. Chris, now wait a minute, I was not relieved, OK?        MATTHEWS: You were asked to retire early.        CLARK: Yes.        MATTHEWS: Who asked you?        CLARK: Actually Hugh Shelton called me. I was in dinner with the president of Lithuania.        MATTHEWS: And what we reaction on being told to retire three months early.        CLARK: I said well why?        MATTHEWS: And he said?        CLARK: He gave me a couple of phony reasons.        MATTHEWS: Were you angry with him?        CLARK: I said can we talk about this?        He said no, I have to tell Secretary Cohen right away that I’ve told you.        MATTHEWS: So Cohen told Shelton to tell you?        CLARK: So I then went back and finished the dinner with the president of Lithuania. It was a really cheery evening. When I came back and got on the phone back in the hotel there and I had my secure communications guy, I said I want to speak to General Shelton. He said sir, there’s a Mr. Graham on the phone. And I was thinking Bob Graham, Bob Graham. I said what’s his first name? He said, well, I don’t know, do you want me to ask? I said no, no, put him through. I thought it was Senator Graham. He said, General, he says, this is Bradley Graham (ph) from “The Washington Post,” and we have an official authorized Pentagon news leak that you’ll be replaced by-he said, and I would just like to ask you when were you consulted with this and what’s your view on it?        CLARK: And I said well, Brad, I wasn’t consulted, I was informed about 45 minutes ago. And you don’t want my view right now.        MATTHEWS: But you weren’t fired?        CLARK: No.        MATTHEWS: Well, it sounds like it. You were told to leave. And I just want to ask you, why do you trust the president? Because the president heard about this, he must have read the news reports, that you had been asked to retire three months early. And he didn’t lift a finger to keep you in the post, when you had fought the war for him and won it. Isn’t that shocking to you and disappointing that the commander in chief you served so nobly and victoriously allowed you to be asked to be retired three months early and didn’t lift a finger to help you? And now you say such glowing things about this man.        CLARK: Well, let’s go back into the story a little bit more, Chris.        MATTHEWS: OK.        CLARK: Because this is a night that’s sort of indelible in my mind.        MATTHEWS: I would expect. What did you feel towards Bill Clinton as you were going to bed that night and you had your head on the pillow? I should ask your wife Gert (ph), by the way. But what were you saying? I just love that Bill Clinton. I mean, I won that war for him, and here’s how he thanks me?        CLARK: Well, as a matter of fact, the first person I talked to, of course, was Hugh Shelton. And the second person was Bill Cohen to talk to.        MATTHEWS: What do you feel about him?        CLARK: So I called Hugh, and he was in a meeting and he couldn’t take the call. And then I called for Secretary Cohen. Of course, he was in Japan.        MATTHEWS: They have phones in Japan.        CLARK: And he was busy preparing for an important meeting.        MATTHEWS: OK.        CLARK: So we had a little problem getting through.        MATTHEWS: You said a while ago...        CLARK: Finally I got through, and I said to Hugh, I said, you know, this is going-this is a mistake. I said, you don’t have to do this. I said, I can’t understand why you’re doing it. But you know this is going to backfire on you. And it’s going to make the United States look bad and look screwed up, and it’s going to look like all the frictions that were there during the war, the frictions that Norm Schwarzkopf had with Colin Powell were identical frictions. I mean, it’s a difference between the perspective of a guy in the field and people in the Pentagon. Always happens every war. And I said, all that’s going to come out, it’s going to make you look bad.        And he said, I’ll-you know, he said, I’ll check with-and I’ll check with our public affairs guy, you know. He called me back about five minutes later and said, he said, you know, he said, I’m really sorry, but the paperwork has already been sent up to the Senate on this.        MATTHEWS: Well, it sounds like you said the buck stops here with the president in another matter tonight, but it seems like in this case you don’t think the buck stops with the president. You don’t hold Bill Clinton responsible for asking you to retire three months early.        CLARK: Well, he could have-he could have reversed it after it was public. But I guess his judgment was that that would in turn undercut the secretary of defense.        MATTHEWS: He would rather undercut you, the guy who helped him win the war.        CLARK: The secretary of defense is-he’s his No. 2 in the national command authority.        MATTHEWS: Can we come back and talk more about this? We can talk about something else if you’d like.        CLARK: I want to talk about what’s important to this country.        MATTHEWS: OK, let’s come back and talk about...        CLARK: And this is not important to this country.        MATTHEWS: OK, this is not important. We’ll come back and talk about something important with the general.        (COMMERCIAL BREAK)        MATTHEWS: We’re back with General Wesley Clark. By the way in the middle of the audience is the general’s wife, wonderful wife Gert (ph). There she is. Right in the middle. And there, my wife is on her right.        Although she may be on her left, for all we know.        Let me ask you about, since we’ve brought up marriage here, on gay marriage, I asked you a couple of weeks ago about this, it’s a domestic issue. You want to talk domestic issues?        CLARK: You’re going to go back to gay marriage again?        MATTHEWS: I just want to ask you if you believe that gay people should be out, able to have marriages or something else?        CLARK: I think they should have exactly the same rights that every other American has.        MATTHEWS: Should they get a marriage license? Should they get a marriage license?        CLARK: You’re talking about a...        MATTHEWS: The Supreme Court of this state has specifically said that the legislature, as we call the great and general court of this state, is required, mandated by the courts under the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to write legislation allowing gay couples to apply for and receive marriage licenses. What is your opinion on that, General?        CLARK: My opinion is that I was ready to answer the question before you asked it a second time.        (LAUGHTER)        I want to get more questions in here. Now on gay marriage, I think that gays and lesbian couples need exactly the same rights as every other American, right of joint domicile, survivorship, inheritance, putting people on the same insurance policies. But the word marriage...        MATTHEWS: Separate but equal?        CLARK: ... the word marriage, that’s up to the church, the synagogue, the mosque, and it’s up to the state legislatures. So I’m in favor of civil unions, but ...        MATTHEWS: How about civil marriage?        CLARK: Civil unions is the term, and then it’s up to the states or the churches to whether they label that a marriage. I think the issue is equal rights..        MATTHEWS: So you don’t have an opinion, any state can do what it wants?        CLARK: ... under law.        MATTHEWS: Civil marriage or not?        CLARK: Equal rights under law.        MATTHEWS: Separate but equal?        CLARK: Equal rights under law.        MATTHEWS: Separate but equal?        CLARK: Equal rights under law.        (APPLAUSE)        MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about a couple of things, because you said you like domestic policies, I think of President Clinton.        Would you have signed the 1996 Welfare Reform Act?        CLARK: Yes, I would.        MATTHEWS: Would you have signed the Defense of Marriage Act?        CLARK: I’m not familiar with all the detail of that act.        MATTHEWS: It says that states with reject marriage licenses for gay couples.        CLARK: I don’t believe that’s the right way to proceed right now. I think we’ve got a new set of issue. I think we need to take a look at it after the last Supreme Court ruling and after this decision in Massachusetts.        MATTHEWS: So you and Bill Clinton are going apart.        CLARK: I think Bill Clinton is growing also.        MATTHEWS: Would you have supported the 1999 Iraq Liberation Act?        CLARK: I probably would not have supported that act. I remember telling at the time to Madeleine Albright, I remember telling her in the fall of 1998, and I said Madam secretary, your real problem that’s coming is not Iraq, it’s in Europe. But this problem for a New American Century started this movement to use force against Iraq in an effort to make the Clinton administration look weak. They built a case that the Clinton administration couldn’t handle international affairs. It’s exactly the same kind of movement that went against President Carter 20 years ago in a committee on the present danger they’re had to do with a salt treaty, but in this case it was directed against Iraq.        MATTHEWS: Would that crowd had pushed war with Iraq-would they have pushed war in Iraq and perhaps gotten us into war with Iraq ill regardless of 9/11, there hadn’t been a 9/11?        CLARK: They would have looked at a way to get us back into Iraq. I went back to Governor Bush’s second debate with also Gore. And in it, he said he doesn’t believe in nation building or peacekeeping. He believes U.S. military forces should be used to quote, you know, “Take out a dictator when it’s in our interest to do so.” Well, what dictator could he have been talking about but Saddam Hussein?        This was a sort of basic logic behind the Republican party. That wing of the Republican Party. I think they came into office looking for the opportunity, not quite sure how to get it and 9-11, presto, perfect opportunity.        MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, General Wesley Clark. Back in a moment with more questions.        (COMMERCIAL BREAK)        MATTHEWS: Let’s go to John. Go ahead. John (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in the back in here. He says, he was deputy secretary of defense in the Clinton administration.        JOHN WHITE, KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT: We have a huge trade deficit, a growing budget deficit and a zero savings rate, and if you were president, what would you do about these problems?        Well, Mr. Secretary, sir-John was my boss, but we never got to talk economics, though. What we need to do is we need to restore fiscal responsibility in this country, and it starts really with going back to the bush tax cuts. We need to bring back from the wealthiest Americans, those making $200,000 and more the tax cuts President Bush gave them. We didn’t have the money. They could have called those tax cuts for wealthy Americans theft, if it hadn’t been signed into law. Because we’re borrowing money from our children. We’re giving the notes to the Chinese and the Japanese, and we’re giving it to wealthy Americans to buy stock and Homes in aspen and other places. It’s not money that’s being spent for the best future of America. So, that’s the number-one thing to do, is restore some fiscal responsibility in this country, and I will do that.        WHITE: Thank you.        MATTHEWS: General, what’s your-on a lighter note, we’ve done this with all the candidates, every Monday night, favorite book, yours.        CLARK: I like Pat Conroy’s “Great Santini.”        MATTHEWS: Favorite movie.        CLARK: Well, I mean, we like “Dr. Zhivago.” I mean, if you look at all the things we’ve seen, I guess “Dr. Zhivago” is of all the things we’ve seen...        MATTHEWS: What do you have, a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in your pocket?        CLARK: No, I’ve got my wife over here.        MATTHEWS: It’s an old joke. I am sorry. I take it back. The longer you’ve been married, the more you say we. I know that.        OK, favorite philosopher, favorite philosopher.        CLARK: I used to teach it. I like them all, but Plato, obviously, but I did a lot with David Hume.        MATTHEWS: All right. Favorite music, piece of music or star.        CLARK: Fifth Symphony, Beethoven.        MATTHEWS: Favorite military assignment. This is unique to you.        CLARK: National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California.        MATTHEWS: What would be your rule about picking federal judges, Supreme Court nominees especially?        Do you have any particularly any thoughts about that?        CLARK: Well, I got-I don’t believe in litmus tests, but they must continue to advance the causes that have already been enshrined in law. I believe in Roe V. Wade and I believe in Affirmative Action.        Affirmative Action. OK. I have to thank Larry Summers, the president at Harvard. I have to thank Dean (UNINTELLIGIBLE), kind enough to come every week. Thank you, Dean. I want to thank Dan Glickman, a great U.S.        Congressman, now a great head of the Kennedy Institute at Harvard. Thank -        ” students, by the way, you’re so well behaved. And you’re not-and the crew here and everybody put this incredible scene together. I’ve said before it looks like a 19th century cock fight in a bad neighborhood. I love this place. Anyway, thanks you all for being here. Thanks to everybody who’s produced the show. And we are going to come up by the way.                        Jimmy Carter, is coming on the show tomorrow night. My old boss Jimmy Carter.        END                Copy: Content and programming copyright 2003 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2003 FDCH e-Media Inc. (f/k/a/ Federal Document Clearing House Inc., eMediaMillWorks, Inc.), ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user’s        personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and FDCH e-Media, Inc.’s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.

MORE FROM HARDBALL: BATTLE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE

Hardball: Battle for the White House Section Front

MSNBC coverage of Iowa Democratic caucus MSNBC to air Democratic debate Hardball: Battle for the White House Section Front   Add Hardball: Battle for the White House headlines to your news reader: