Clark made case for Iraq war before Congress

[CADsortaGUY]

"And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

Yes, it's drudge but it's transcripts.

<snips>
"I've been very consistent... I've been against this war from the beginning," the former general said in Detroit on October 26.

"I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."
...

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."
</snip>

Ooops...I guess he forgot what "consistent" means Oh wait...this is politics - it doesn't matter

CkG

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

Yes, it's drudge but it's transcripts.

<snips>
"I've been very consistent... I've been against this war from the beginning," the former general said in Detroit on October 26.

"I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."
...

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."
</snip>

Ooops...I guess he forgot what "consistent" means Oh wait...this is politics - it doesn't matter

CkG

Lets not forget the part about him praising Bush and Blair for going to war, he did that in April 2003...

 

[chess9]

I like General Clark, but I think he jumped on the anti-war bandwagon after he saw what a political killing Dean was making beating that horse.

Politicians have done worse, however. If he's geniuinely anti-war now (how do you test that-draw blood?) then I'm not as concerned.

I'd like to hear his response to those quotes.

-Robert

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Lets not forget the part about him praising Bush and Blair for going to war, he did that in April 2003...

Yeah, well -we've been over this before and it really is secondary to this current issue.

Hehe - I wonder if Micheal Moore changes his endorsement now.

CkG

 

[KK]

Interesting...

"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution."

Damn, that is the exact opposite of what he said last time I seen him on one of the TV talk programs. I guess it's only allowable if a democrat does it. What a bunch of bandwagon hypocrites.

KK

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

What a bunch of bandwagon hypocrites

They're *Politicians*, dude, what do you expect, honesty?

Jason

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

What a bunch of bandwagon hypocrites

They're *Politicians*, dude, what do you expect, honesty?

Jason

From people calling other people liars...yeah I expect a little honesty.

 

[Witling]

Chess9, your material was:

"I like General Clark, but I think he jumped on the anti-war bandwagon after he saw what a political killing Dean was making beating that horse.

Politicians have done worse, however. If he's geniuinely anti-war now (how do you test that-draw blood?) then I'm not as concerned."

I'm confused. "I like General Clark but . . ." And where do you finally come down on that? Dean has his faults -- and is not a successful as a politician should be in covering them up. But at least he says what he thinks. What your first paragraph says is that Clark has a head that turns like a doorknob.

 

[MonkeyK]

Isn't there an old Newsweek article quoting Clark saying "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my calls."

What basis is that for being a Dem???

 

[Chadder007]

Clark = OWNED

 

[mfs378]

Sorry, but you are suffering the consequences of Drudge's inability to read.

Read this

Here are some quotes from the congressional record:

I think you have to narrow it in such a way that you don't remove the resort to force as a last option consideration in this case. So, not giving a blank check but expressing an intent to sign the check when all other alternatives are exhausted.

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

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.

I think that we do have time and we should use that time to promote and exhaust all of the non force of arms remedies

Re the pre-emptive strike policy:

It's probably a flawed doctrine as expressed doctrinally and unfortunately it's out there in public.

I am concerned about this doctrine.

 

[mfs378]

Some more...

The administration has not proceeded heretofore in a way that would encourage its friends and allies to support it. One of the problems we have is the overhang from a number of decisions taken by the administration which have undercut its friends and allies around the world and given the impression that the United States doesn't respect the opinions of other.

I think what's also clear is that the way you deal with the threat from Iraq is different than the way you deal with the threat from Al Qaida. And so, my contention has been we need to look at different means for dealing with these threats. We need to take advantage of all the resources at our disposal, not just the military.

The problem of Iraq is only an element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished, world-wide war against Al Qaeda, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately be won by persuasion as much as by force, when we turn off the Al Qaeda recruiting machine. Some three thousand deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaeda, and as all acknowledge, Al Qaeda has not yet been defeated. Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam's regime to the Al Qaeda network. And while such linkages may emerge, winning the war against Al Qaeda may well require different actions than ending the weapons programs in Iraq

 

[DealMonkey]

Is any other media outlet besides Drudge picking up this story? Drudge is notoriously partisan IMO.

 

[mfs378]

But by all means, read the whole thing. Link Read that and then tell me you believe that Clark supported the war.

Its long, so I guess it is understandable that many will not read it, but if you are not going to check the thing out yourself, at least don't blindly believe someone's conclusions drawn from a handful of cherry-picked quotes.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Is any other media outlet besides Drudge picking up this story? Drudge is notoriously partisan IMO.

Nope. Because it is partisan BS with no basis. Although I guess that won't neccesarily keep it from making the rounds, given some recent events.

 

[Tab]

He certianly shot himself in the foot.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Is any other media outlet besides Drudge picking up this story? Drudge is notoriously partisan IMO.

No, they are too busy "picking on" dean.

CkG

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Ooops...I guess he forgot what "consistent" means Oh wait...this is politics - it doesn't matter

CkG

And apparently truth and ethics in reporting do not matter either.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: mfs378
But by all means, read the whole thing. Link Read that and then tell me you believe that Clark supported the war.

Its long, so I guess it is understandable that many will not read it, but if you are not going to check the thing out yourself, at least don't blindly believe someone's conclusions drawn from a handful of cherry-picked quotes.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Is any other media outlet besides Drudge picking up this story? Drudge is notoriously partisan IMO.

Nope. Because it is partisan BS with no basis. Although I guess that won't neccesarily keep it from making the rounds, given some recent events.

Tell that to Lieberman. Its not partisan, its fact, the congress transcripts prove that. Other recorded statements, like his praising of Bush and Blair, are also proven fact. Maybe he has multiple personalities.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Is any other media outlet besides Drudge picking up this story? Drudge is notoriously partisan IMO.

Liberman has picked up on it. Actually Liberman has been saying the same stuff about Clark for awhile now. Clark blew it off by calling it "oldschool politics". But he can't do that anymore.

 

[chess9]

"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. And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. "

After taking a second look I think the problem Clark has is the way he speaks in generalities. In sum, he appears to be suggesting that the U.S. should have waited a lot longer than the President was willing to wait to see if measures other than invasion were having an effect and to build a broad international coalition of support. His approach would have been the better one, IMHO. Bush not only acted unilaterally but he imperiled our international relationships at a critical time in the country's history. For this reason alone, I feel Bush is a danger to America and should be removed from office by impeachment.

-Robert

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: mfs378
Sorry, but you are suffering the consequences of Drudge's inability to read.

Read this

Here are some quotes from the congressional record:

I think you have to narrow it in such a way that you don't remove the resort to force as a last option consideration in this case. So, not giving a blank check but expressing an intent to sign the check when all other alternatives are exhausted.

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

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.

I think that we do have time and we should use that time to promote and exhaust all of the non force of arms remedies

Re the pre-emptive strike policy:

It's probably a flawed doctrine as expressed doctrinally and unfortunately it's out there in public.

I am concerned about this doctrine.

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

 

[CADsortaGUY]

dp

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Ooops...I guess he forgot what "consistent" means Oh wait...this is politics - it doesn't matter

CkG

And apparently truth and ethics in reporting do not matter either.

Actually they do - please explain how Drudge is wrong - especially after reading my previous post. Clark can't talk his way out of this one - he supported the action - he asked Congress to support the legislation.

There is no "truth and ethics" problem with what Drudge reported. There will be "problems" if the mainstream press doesn't pick up on this. Clark has NOT been consistent - end of story.

CkG

 

[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?

 

[tallest1]

This is exactly why I have no intention to vote for Clark. Unbelievably, I agree with CAD here.