Clark made case for Iraq war before Congress

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: tallest1
This is exactly why I have no intention to vote for Clark. Unbelievably, I agree with CAD here.

Did you support the war in Iraq? Might I ask why?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: mfs378
Drudge is wrong because Clark did not make the case for the Iraq war. Its as simple as that.

I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq

It doesn't get much simpler than that. Clark was against the war.

The problem you are having is that Clark doesn't give simplistic answers to complex questions. They didn't call him into Congress to answer yes or no questions. They also didn't call him as an advocate for his own position. The called him as a witness to answer questions.

In other words, to put it back into military parlance, Iraq they're an operational level problem. We've got other operational level problems in the Middle East, like the ongoing conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Al Qaida and the foundation of radical extremist fundamentalist Islam, that's the strategic problem.

Does this tell you where his priorities lie?

Care to post more of that quote?

You posted: "I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq" but what follows is more enlightening
..."but it is certainly time to put that card on the table, to turn it face up and to wave it and the president is doing that"
He then later on says: "I think I have proved to this body that I'm willing to use -- personally that I've been able when the time comes to pull the trigger, to pull the trigger. So you don't put that option on the table unless you really mean it."

Don't put it out there unless you really mean it ... it's certainly time to put the card on the table, turn it face up and wavet it.

...interesting.

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

You know Bush had me convinced with when he misled us about the WMDs, the alleged Nuclear weapons program and the ficticious link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussien. Maybe he had Clark fooled too!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You know Bush had me convinced with when he misled us about the WMDs, the alleged Nuclear weapons program and the ficticious link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussien. Maybe he had Clark fooled too!

Which still begs the question - should ANYONE support him?

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You know Bush had me convinced with when he misled us about the WMDs, the alleged Nuclear weapons program and the ficticious link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussien. Maybe he had Clark fooled too!

Which still begs the question - should ANYONE support him?

CkG

Same question could be asked of Bush? I think one reason people support Bush is because he isn't a Democrat, not because they believe he is doing a good job. Well some may support Clark because he isn't a Republican nor Dean or Kerry!
Again like it was in 2000 Americans have to pick from the lessor of two weasals!

 

[DealMonkey]

Well, the WashingtonPost.com has a story today entitled, "Clark Tries to Shake Earlier Comments" yet there's no mention of these Congressional transcripts. Frankly, I'd like a 2nd source before I take Drudge's word for it. Clark's certainly waffled on issues in the past, so I guess it wouldn't necessarily surprise me . . .

 

[mfs378]

So, we have the time to build up the force, work the diplomacy, achieve the leverage before he can come up with any military alternative that's significant enough ultimately to block us, and so that's why I say time is on our side in the near term. In the long term, no, and we don't know what the long term is. Maybe it's five years. Maybe it's four years. Maybe it's eight years. We don't know.

Time is on out side. There was no pressing need to go into Iraq. This was his position.

Here is the entire quote that you and I posted parts of:

I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq but it is certainly time to put that card on the table, to turn it face up and to wave it and the president is doing that and I think that the United States Congress has to indicate after due consideration and consulting our people and building our resolve that yes, this is a significant security problem for the United States of America and all options are on the table including the use of force as necessary to solve this problem because I think that's what's required to leverage any hope of solving this problem short of war.

Tell me that makes you think Clark was itching to go into Iraq. He acknowleges the problem (and I think we all can), but is intent on solving it through multilateral approaches short of war.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Oh, god, will you please stop WHINING about whether we should have gone to war or not? For fvck's sake it was 10 MONTHS ago, it's done, we're there like it or not, the Dictator has been ousted and a new chance for people to be free has been created. Like it--hate it--do what you want but stop whining so much.

fvck already.

Jason

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Oh, god, will you please stop WHINING about whether we should have gone to war or not? For fvck's sake it was 10 MONTHS ago, it's done, we're there like it or not, the Dictator has been ousted and a new chance for people to be free has been created. Like it--hate it--do what you want but stop whining so much.

fvck already.

Jason

Wow... thanks for that valuable contribution.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: mfs378

So, we have the time to build up the force, work the diplomacy, achieve the leverage before he can come up with any military alternative that's significant enough ultimately to block us, and so that's why I say time is on our side in the near term. In the long term, no, and we don't know what the long term is. Maybe it's five years. Maybe it's four years. Maybe it's eight years. We don't know.

Time is on out side. There was no pressing need to go into Iraq. This was his position.

Here is the entire quote that you and I posted parts of:

I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq but it is certainly time to put that card on the table, to turn it face up and to wave it and the president is doing that and I think that the United States Congress has to indicate after due consideration and consulting our people and building our resolve that yes, this is a significant security problem for the United States of America and all options are on the table including the use of force as necessary to solve this problem because I think that's what's required to leverage any hope of solving this problem short of war.

Tell me that makes you think Clark was itching to go into Iraq. He acknowleges the problem (and I think we all can), but is intent on solving it through multilateral approaches short of war.

Yes, but if you read the whole thing - you clearly will be able to draw the conclusion that Clark supported action if necessary. You know - the whole card on the table you must be ready and willing to use it thing No one said he was "itching" to go - that's a nice all or nothing type spin though.

"Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem and in taking this to the United Nations, the president's clear determination to act if the United States can't -- excuse me, if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage for under girding ongoing diplomatic efforts."

CkG

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Yes, but if you read the whole thing - you clearly will be able to draw the conclusion that Clark supported action if necessary. You know - the whole card on the table you must be ready and willing to use it thing No one said he was "itching" to go - that's a nice all or nothing type spin though.

"Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem and in taking this to the United Nations, the president's clear determination to act if the United States can't -- excuse me, if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage for under girding ongoing diplomatic efforts."

CkG

He opposed going to war when we did. He was opposed to this war. Can you agree with that?

If Clark was president, we would not have invaded Iraq before solving the Al Queda problem.

 

[smashp]

I just finished reading the whole 40 page memo.

The Feeling i Get from Clark on this issue is a person who was Willing to USe force to Get Saddam, Yet was ONLY willing to Use the Force to pressure Saddam to Behave and COntain Him Yet some more.

I got the Feeling that Clark was Definately for a Stronger Coalition Working on this to Increase the Preasure, And that he UNDERSTOOD unilaterlism aspect, yet didnt agree with it.


I think Clark IS an Overly Intelligent Man. He Argued With Perle Well enough to Get Respect. He is a Realist.


Though,

I must Agree with ol' Drugy Rush l. on this One.
Clark IS a plant of the Clintons to prevent Dean from Gaining too much steam.

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: tallest1
This is exactly why I have no intention to vote for Clark. Unbelievably, I agree with CAD here.

Did you support the war in Iraq? Might I ask why?

Ah, you must be new here

I've been very much against the war and I'm very much against what the administration is doing to this country but I won't change the topic. In short, Clark is a flip-flop. Always was, continues to be.

 

[mfs378]

Yes, I guess I am fairly new.

Originally posted by: tallest1

Ah, you must be new here

I've been very much against the war and I'm very much against what the administration is doing to this country but I won't change the topic. In short, Clark is a flip-flop. Always was, continues to be.

Can I ask what you base your flip-flop statement on?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Oh, god, will you please stop WHINING about whether we should have gone to war or not? For fvck's sake it was 10 MONTHS ago, it's done, we're there like it or not, the Dictator has been ousted and a new chance for people to be free has been created. Like it--hate it--do what you want but stop whining so much.

fvck already.

Jason

Define whining.

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: mfs378
Yes, I guess I am fairly new.

Originally posted by: tallest1

Ah, you must be new here

I've been very much against the war and I'm very much against what the administration is doing to this country but I won't change the topic. In short, Clark is a flip-flop. Always was, continues to be.

Can I ask what you base your flip-flop statement on?

My opinion of Clark became concrete after seeing the Hardball: Battle for the White House Harvard discussions. This is where you got to know the people as they truly were. Out of all the interviews, Clark was the absolute worst. Catch him unprepared with a 'quoted' contradiction, or a question he doesn't have a scripted answer for and he'll fumble like an old man and/or try to change the topic. Observe.

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? *insert silent pause here*
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: [...] 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.

Edit again: mm... actually, that quote isn't the best of examples but after following the campaign for quite a long time, I still can't figure him out.

Edit: Link: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660578

 

[mfs378]

I can understand that Clark doesn't want to say that he was 'fired.' Chances are, he would be unable to explain the circumstances on the broadcast, leaving viewers with that one word stuck in their heads.

In case you are interested, here's what a Clark affiliated site has to say about it. Link Their contention is that there was friction between Clark and the Pentagon over the Balkans war. The Pentagon wanted to fight a limited war, reducing the effectiveness of the American presence. Clark wanted to accomplish the mission the best way he knew how.

 

[tallest1]

I kinda veered off topic but what I mean to say is that after all these months after following the debates and such. We're not quite sure where he stands and not quite sure where he stood and that worries me. I've been trying to make sense of him but dissecting his words gives me a headache.

Edit: And yes, I even read through his website. He has decent ideas (many of which I've never heard him bring up) in theory but I don't think he's capable of implementing them.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I read Clark's statement before posting this thread
Let's start out with Clarks opening statement, shall we?

"CLARK: Thank you, sir. There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat."
Hmm..... then further down we have this:
"The U.N. weapons inspectors who, however ineffective they might have been and there's some degree of difference of opinion on that, nevertheless provided assistance in impeding his development programs. They've been absent for four years, and the sanction regime designed to restrict his access to weapons materials and resources has been continuously eroded, and therefore the situation is not stable."
next...
"The problem of Iraq is not a problem that can be postponed indefinitely, and of course Saddam's current efforts themselves are violations of international law as expressed in the U.N. resolutions."
That is directly followed by this little tidbit...
"Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem and in taking this to the United Nations, the president's clear determination to act if the United States can't -- excuse me, if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage for under girding ongoing diplomatic efforts."
[ *** ]
That to me doesn't sound like a guy who has "been against this war from the beginning". Seems to me that his comments were SUPPORTING of the President's efforts "to act on this problem". But yeah, I guess Clark supporters who think he is anti-war will try to spin it away somehow.
But then we have this - "I do believe that the United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing U.S. determination to act if the United Nations can not act. The use of force must remain a U.S. option under active consideration." Well, I'm not sure how he can say he never supported it when he just said we should express determination to act IF THE UN CAN'T.

Meh - spin it how you will. Clark is eating shoe leather.

CkG

Cad, you are shameless. You quote Clark's lead-up, then, just as he starts to explain his position, you ignore his words in favor of your spin on what you wanted him to say.

Let's take a look at what Cad omitted, marked with [ *** ] above:

I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem and in taking this to the United Nations, the president's clear determination to act if the United States can't -- excuse me, if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage for under girding ongoing diplomatic efforts. [ *** ]

But the problem of Iraq is only one element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished worldwide war against Al Qaida, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies and that ultimately will be won as much by persuasion as by the use of force. We've got to turn off the Al Qaida recruiting machine. Now some 3,000 deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaida, and I think everyone acknowledges that Al Qaida has not yet been defeated.

As far as I know, I haven't seen any substantial evidence linking Saddam's regime to the Al Qaida network, though such evidence may emerge. But nevertheless, winning the war against Al Qaida and taking actions against the weapons programs in Iraq, that's two different problems that may require two different sets of solutions. In other words, to put it back into military parlance, Iraq they're an operational level problem. We've got other operational level problems in the Middle East, like the ongoing conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Al Qaida and the foundation of radical extremist fundamentalist Islam, that's the strategic problem. We've got to make sure that in addressing the operational problem we're effective in going after the larger strategic problem. And so, the critical issue facing the United States right now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaida or our efforts to deal with other immediate mid and long-term security problems.

I'd like to offer the following observations by way of how we could proceed. First of all, I do believe that the United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing U.S. determination to act if the United Nations can not act. The use of force must remain a U.S. option under active consideration.

Such congressional resolution need NOT, at this point, authorize the use of force. The more focused the resolution on Iraq, the more focused it is on the problems of weapons of mass destruction. The greater its utility in the United Nations, the more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its utility is, the greater its impact is on the diplomatic efforts under way.

The president and his national security team have got to deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in working through the United Nations. In the near term, time is on our side and we should endeavor to use the United Nations if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or the development of a more intrusive inspection regime such as Richard Perle has mentioned, if necessary backed by force. It may involve cracking down on the eroding sanctions regime and countries like Syria who are helping Iraq illegally export oil enabling Saddam Hussein to divert resources to his own purposes.

We have to work this problem in a way to gain worldwide legitimacy and understanding for the concerns that we rightly feel and for our leadership. This is what U.S. leadership in the world must be. We must bring others to share our views not be too quick to rush to try to impose them even if we have the power to do so. I agree that there's a risk that the inspections would fail to provide evidence of the weapons program. They might fail, but I think we can deal with this problem as we move along, and I think the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by the opportunities to gain allies, support, and legitimacy in the campaign against Saddam Hussein.

Seems to me he's clearly saying we should avoid going to war with Iraq: "Such congressional resolution need NOT, at this point, authorize the use of force."


He then continues with his views on what we must do if we have exhausted all other options:

If the efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, then we need to form the broadest possible coalition including our NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if we're going to have to bring forces to bear. We should not be using force until the personnel, the organizations, the plans that will be required for post conflict Iraq are prepared and ready. This includes dealing with requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps even including a new constitution.

Ideally, the international/multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post conflict operations, the United Nations, NATO, other regional organization, Islamic organizations, but we have no idea how long this campaign could last, and if it were to go like the campaign against the Afghans, against the Taliban in which suddenly the Taliban collapsed and there we were.

We need to be ready because if suddenly Saddam Hussein's government collapses and we don't have everything ready to go, we're going to have chaos in that region. We may not get control of all the weapons of mass destruction, technicians, plans, capabilities; in fact, what may happen is that we'll remove a repressive regime and have it replaced with a fundamentalist regime which contributes to the strategic problem rather than helping to solve it.

So, all that having been said, the option to use force must remain on the table. It should be used as the last resort after all diplomatic means have been exhausted unless there's information that indicates that a further delay would represent an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations.

[ continues with the part CAD quotes at the top of this thread ... ]

To everyone except Sir Cad, if you feel you can no longer support Clark, that's cool. There are other good contenders and we must all make our own choices. I only suggest you not make that choice based on the deceitful slanders of slime like Drudge and Limbaugh. Take a look at the real record and make your own, informed decisions. Based on Clark's comments above, it seems to me his handle on the Iraq situation was 100-fold better than the Bush administration's.

 

[DealMonkey]

^^ That's exactly why I questioned the source on this. Yet another example of Cad hearing only what he wants to hear -- or more to the point, hearing this little nugget on dittoheadradio and then running off to Drudge to see if it's "true." Of course, I use the word "true" in only the loosest sense.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I just knew Bowfinger would show up in this thread trying to say I'm wrong and "spinning"

Ofcourse what Bowfinger tends to forget is that my position is backed up by the data and the words uttered by one Mr.Clark. Drudge "broke" this, I read it, THEN went looking for the actual transcript, THEN posted this thread and have provided ample evidence of his supporting the use of FORCE.

Yes, we can all read what he says(via the link), and how he tried to say things, but when you really look at the combination of what he said and his stated position now is - they differ. He did infact suggest Congress pass legislation to put the force card on the table and wave it around - he said he SUPPORTED BUSH doing so. Yes, he did make other qualifying statements and opined about many other things, but he was quite clear that a dominant forceful position was indeed the path that he thought should be taken. He said the UN must take a stand - they didn't. His statements show that he does infact think that Saddam was a threat - and one that shouldn't be taken lightly. He acknowledged that Diplomacy alone was not going to work(he was not optimistic) and that force was likely and should be used if necessary.
You can yap all you want and say he was against this war all day long but Clark clearly supported the actions Bush was taking and urged Congress to support him(Bush) in those efforts. I could easily quote the whole damn thing with bolding so Bowfinger doesn't think I'm purposely leaving things out but that ofcourse would take alot of space, time, and would rely on you to decipher the point being made. I presented the portions(IN CONTEXT) that make the case that Clark did infact urge Congress to use the "force" card. If you can't handle that - then fine - vote for who you wish - just don't blame me when he turns out to be something he tries to say he is not.

And no, Bow saying his "handle" on things were better than Bush's is utter tripe. You can sit here and point to things said in hind-sight, but YOU don't know what Bush considered or didn't, so to say Bush didn't consider Clark's statements, or have similar thoughts/plans before Clark said them is pure speculation and is unsupportable with fact. Try as you might to defend Clark - his position was NOT consistent as he now claims.

We can also sit here and claim that Clark didn't support "THIS" war, or he didn't support it because of the timetable, or try to spin some other excuse - but the FACT is - he supported FORCE. He supported Diplomatic force(congressionall legislation) to leverage the UN - and in lew of that - he supported FORCE. Sure he'll say he would have done something different or on a different schedule - that really doesn't matter - he supported passing legislation of force. If you say he said otherwise("Such congressional resolution need NOT, at this point, authorize the use of force.") - then he contradicted himself during his testimony(..."but it is certainly time to put that card on the table, to turn it face up and to wave it and the president is doing that" - "...So you don't put that option on the table unless you really mean it.").

But yes - make your own decision on the candidates - just make sure you inform yourself as to their actual positions - not some 30 second soundbite you hear every hour or so.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
^^ That's exactly why I questioned the source on this. Yet another example of Cad hearing only what he wants to hear -- or more to the point, hearing this little nugget on dittoheadradio and then running off to Drudge to see if it's "true." Of course, I use the word "true" in only the loosest sense.

No Monkeyboy - look again - the LINK to the actual transcript was posted I had read that ENTIRE transcript before posting this thread. If YOU would actually read it you'd see that my posts are correct - inspite of a few apologists here who wish to say otherwise.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Okay Cad, so I guess both you AND Drudge are guilty of taking quotes completely out of context to support your position and essentially twist Clark's speech to say what you want him to say. Whatever. That's the stupidest load of crap I've heard out of you yet.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Okay Cad, so I guess both you AND Drudge are guilty of taking quotes completely out of context to support your position and essentially twist Clark's speech to say what you want him to say. Whatever. That's the stupidest load of crap I've heard out of you yet.

No, actually what I posted was in Context. Have a nice day though.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Now just incase you people think I'm just out to bash Clark - if you'd look at the "rate the candidate" thread that was posted - I rated Clark as the second to last on how bad they'd be for America(second to Kerry). So that shows he in my mind would be better for America than all the candidates running except for Kerry(note - that doesn't mean he'd be "good" - just less bad).

Edit - linky

Worst for America if they actually beat Bush(worst to least bad)
Kucinich
Sharpton
Gephardt
Dean
Braun
Lieberman
Edwards
Clark
Kerry

CkG