from today's drudge report: http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm and here's clark's testimony: http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html -- DRUDGE REPORT WED JAN 15, 2004 11:28:25 ET XXXXX WES CLARK MADE CASE FOR IRAQ WAR BEFORE CONGRESS; TRANSCRIPT REVEALED **World Exclusive** Two months ago Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark declared in a debate that he has always been firmly against the current Iraq War. "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." But just six month prior in an op-ed in the LONDON TIMES Clark offered praise for the courage of President Bush's action. "President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark wrote on April 10, 2003. "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled." MORE Even the most ardent Clark supporter will question if Clark's current and past stand on the Iraq war -- is confusion or deception, after the DRUDGE REPORT reveals: TWO WEEKS BEFORE CONGRESS PASSED THE IRAQ CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION WESLEY CLARK MADE THE CASE FOR WAR; TESTIFIED THAT SADDAM HAD 'CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS' Less than 18 months ago, Wesley Clark offered his testimony before the Committee On Armed Services at the U.S. House Of Representatives. "There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002. "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." Clark continued: "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." More Clark: "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." Clark explained: "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat." END ----------------------------------------------------------- Filed By Matt Drudge
STATEMENT OF GENERAL (RETIRED) WESLEY K. CLARK U.S. ARMY BEFORE THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SEPTEMBER 26, 2002 Mr. Chairman, Representative Skelton, Distinguished Members of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. This is a Committee that has been strongly supportive of the men and women in uniform, and I want to thank you personally for the assistance and support that you gave me, and have given so many others. In October 1994, Saddam Hussein moved several Republican Guards divisions back into the attack positions just north of the Kuwaiti border, the same attack positions that had been occupied just prior to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. It was a foolish and to our minds unexpected and threatening move. We quickly deployed additional military forces to the region, preparing to enter a full-fledged battle against Iraq to defend Kuwait, and we also went to the United Nations. After a few tense days Saddam backed off, the divisions were removed, and we acted through the United Nations to further tighten the no-fly zone and regulate Iraqi troop movements. But it was a signal warning about Saddam Hussein: he is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. Were he to acquire such capabilities, we and our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks. Saddam might use such weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his neighbors, he might threaten American forces in the region, he might strike directly against Israel, or Israel, weighing the possibilities of nuclear blackmail or aggression, might feel compelled to strike Iraq first. Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required. But what makes the situation relatively more dangerous today is that the UN weapons inspectors, who provided some assistance in impeding his development programs, have been absent from Iraq for over four years. And the sanctions regime, designed to restrict his access to weapons materials and the resources needed to procure them, has continuously eroded. At some point, it may become possible for Saddam to acquire the fissionable materials or uranium ore that he needs. And therefore, Iraq is not a problem that can be indefinitely postponed. In addition, Saddam Hussein’s current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law. 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 Nations can’t provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts. But 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. The critical issue facing the Unites States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda or efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security problems. In this regard, I would offer the following considerations: - The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway. - The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in crafting UN engagement. In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force. This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam’s weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action. Yes, there is a risk that inspections would fail to provide the evidence of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam. If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear. Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This includes requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance, and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution. Ideally, international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations, including the UN, NATO, and other regional and Islamic organizations. Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as “preemptive.” Once initiated, any military operation should aim for the most rapid accomplishment of its operational aims and prompt turnover to follow-on organizations and agencies. If we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region, and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism. But there are no guarantees. The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere. I look forward to answering questions and helping the Committee assess the costs and risks of the alternatives before us.
From your link, this seems pretty consistent with Clark's stance on the war from day one. Let me paraphrase in my own words. Saddam sucks but Al Qaida sucks more. We should not let Saddam make us lose our focus on Al Qaida. We should not use preemptive force and we should get the backing of the world. Force should be used as a last resort. There is no hard link between Al Qaida and Iraq. And if we do go into Iraq, we should have a plan for a post War Iraq.
Typical drudgereport editorial practice. Anyway, wasn't Clark's stance always that he said he was for the war only because he believed in the Bush Admin's portrayal of the intel, and was duped along with everybody else? Regardless of whether or not you believe this story, isn't it consistent with it?
Clark is meaningless in this race unless he changes his position (like he did on the war) and decides to accept a VP role. For this reason, I have decided to focus my efforts like a laser beam on Mengele Dean.
I suggest you cease using this quaint phrase, Jorge, unless you actually enjoy insulting people like me who lost loved ones in the Holocaust.
I think it was rimrocker who started the whole "Mengele gambit" issue. Either him or rimbaud. Blame them. Dean is a crazy, angry doctor. They have that in common.
I would suggest that everyone stop using it. It is insulting. Howard Dean is a crazy angry doctor. Joseph Mengele killed thousands of innocent people at Auschwitz through the use of hideous medical "experiments". Mengele was a wee bit more than just a "crazy angry doctor". There is no comparison. You, and everyone else, need to get the f*ck over it and stop using it...pronto. Like I said, it is insulting to anyone who lost loved ones in the Holocaust. There is a huge difference between the usual repartie in the D&D and this disgusting, insulting wordplay.
It was me... and I think it was in a response to some nutty charge about Dean doing abortions (which is false). IIRC, I had seen that reference somewhere in wingnut land and was wondering how long it would take the crazies to start repeating that or something similar.
Wesley Clark is now claiming that he was AGAINST the war from the beginning. That is untrue from his comments. He clearly was not anti-war from his testimony.
Wesley Clark is now claiming that he was AGAINST the war from the beginning. That is untrue from his comments. He clearly was not anti-war from his testimony. He wasn't anti-war from the beginning - he was anti-war in the way Bush went about it. In other words, he was "anti this-war" from the beginning. I think rockbox probably summarized his position as well as anyone. Now, if only Clark would summarize it this well, he might get past this issue. Unfortunately, everytime Clark speaks about it, he seems to make it even more confusing.
What in the testimony leads you to believe he was not anti Iraq war. I just don't see that at all and I was wondering how you came to that conclusion.
Interestingly, at least some of the quotes that are in the Drudge report don't seem to appear in the actual transcript posted by rockbox. (I searched for "no question that" which appears twice in Drudge, but doesn't seem to appear in the rockbox transcript) That likely means that the Drudge stuff were answers to questions. In other words, possibly taken well out of context, given that minutes before, in his opening statement, he said things that say the exact opposite of what Drudge tries to imply.
Re-reading the transcript. I guess he can weasel out that way. He does give a lot of reservations. Although, it would be nice if he told his Democratic audiences that he was quite open to the idea of war with Iraq, provided it was waged properly.
He is talking about what we should do and how we should proceed to have a succesful war with Iraq. "If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear." "If we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region, and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism." Sounds to me like he was giving Bush advice on how to wage the war. If he was anti-war, I doubt he would be giving such advice.
Although, it would be nice if he told his Democratic audiences that he was quite open to the idea of war with Iraq, provided it was waged properly. Honestly, I wish he would too - I think that position would resonate very well with Democrats and more so, ultimately, in a general election. However, I think Dean's message resonated so well in the primaries that all the other candidates have tried to duplicate it as closely as possible, given their past statements and votes. My hope for Clark was that he would ultimately stand above the politics and be willing to say things that weren't the most popular soundbites. To his credit, he has stayed above the fray in regards to political infighting. He's criticized Bush, but he hasn't really attacked Dean or any of the others much.
Most Democrats aren't anti-war. They, like Wesley Clark, just didn't believe their was enough justifiction for this war. No one here yelled when we went into Afghanastan. I doubt anyone here was against us going into Iraq the first time. I for one would have supported the war if, there were WMD, clear ties to Al Qaida, and we didn't go pissing off the whole world while doing it. However that wasn't the case, and now we know that the case that the white house did make for the war were based on mistakes and/or lies makes it even worse.
