Gen Wesley Clark on the record about the Iraq War

[MudSlideSlim]

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."

 

[SENDITIN]

Nice post Mud...you beat me to the punch. Dean is right...the Dems would be electing another Republican if they choose Clark. He's trying to dance now (maybe he should consult Lander

I guess we have another liar about the WMD's in Clark...let's here the outrage libs!!

 

[PatPatriot]

Heres a couple of things...Mosley Braun out of the race...she was a Clinton puppet put in to counter Sharpton because Clintons hate Sharpton....she out because Sharpton is a non factor now.
Clark is in because he is a Clinton puppet...to counter Dean.Clintons don't want Dean to control DNC money.....Its all about the Clintons like I have said for months...watch this continue to develop.

 

[FloydGondolli]

So was Clark lying then, or is he lying now? It is certainly one or the other.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998

 

[xpanda]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"...this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense ... 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 ... 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.

...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..."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not only is Clark exceedingly presumptive in his remarks concerning Sadaam's cache of weapons AND his remarks concerning a connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda (they are within 3000 kilometres of one another so therefore they must bump into one another? WTF?) but to declare that the war in Iraq was NOT preemptive, but was in self-defense is reliant entirely on the notion that there is truth to his presumptive remarks.

If there is no evidence to support a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, as Clark concedes, then there is no justification for connecting Saddam to 9/11, ergo, even if Saddam has [the same] weapons [as the US] it is not grounds for claiming self-defense. In a criminal court of law in any jurisdiction in the US, this would not hold up.

There is seemingly little difference between the arrogance and self-importance of the Republicans and the arrogance and self-importance of the Democrats. The major difference is simply that the right is less likely to hide behind a veil of sympathy for the common man ... merit aside, the Libertarian party is the only one of the three whose grassroots ideology isn't mired in blatant hypocrisy.

 

[D2bets]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mud Slide Slim:
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.

-- NOBODY would evr dispute this. Of course the US has the right to self-defense. The issue is whether the Iraq war was in self-defense? Clearly Clark believes it was not...

"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."

-- Again, the question is whether the 2003 Iraq was was necessary, Clark has consistently said it was elective and there was no imminent threat.

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."

-- A lot of IFS here that were never proven, and that's exactly the point. Saddam was a threat but as Clark always said the thresshold for any action, let alone unilateral action, is was this a necessary war due to an IMMINENT threat. The case was never made and thus war not justified.

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."

-- Be careful ad to what "this action" refers to. It did not refer to the 2003 war, I believe it refeered to returning the inspectors. And yes it needed to be "dealt with" -- those against the war did not dispute this. It is the HOW it was dealt with that was disputed.

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."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

-- Exactly. And if you quote more of his testimony from that day you'll see that he says there is no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. His words above are exactly right in explaining away the reports at the time of some low-level contacts.

Are you guys blind? There is nothing inconsistent here. NOTHING. I think it's just hard for non-military people (myself included) to understand the nuances and distinctions dran here.

 

[D2bets]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"...this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense ... 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 ... 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._

...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..."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not only is Clark exceedingly presumptive in his remarks concerning Sadaam's cache of weapons AND his remarks concerning a connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda (they are within 3000 kilometres of one another so therefore they must bump into one another? WTF?) but to declare that the war in Iraq was NOT preemptive, but was in self-defense is reliant entirely on the notion that there is truth to his presumptive remarks.

If there is no evidence to support a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, as Clark concedes, then there is no justification for connecting Saddam to 9/11, ergo, even if Saddam has [the same] weapons [as the US] it is not grounds for claiming self-defense. In a criminal court of law in any jurisdiction in the US, this would not hold up.

There is seemingly little difference between the arrogance and self-importance of the Republicans and the arrogance and self-importance of the Democrats. The major difference is simply that the right is less likely to hide behind a veil of sympathy for the common man ... merit aside, the Libertarian party is the only one of the three whose grassroots ideology isn't mired in blatant hypocrisy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

xpanda, you misread it! Look at the date here. This predated the war by 6 mos. He most definitely did not say that the war was in self-defensive and not pre-emptive. "The action" he referred to was the weapons inspectors.

Context, comtext, context.

 

[FloydGondolli]

D2 - Damn boy, you have really drank the Kool-Aid.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998

 

[D2bets]

Floyd, I just like to correct misconceptions and things taken out of context. I hate the politics of misqutoing and I'll defend all politicians who are clearly taken out of context. I know it's sort of a political artform to do so but it irks me.

 

[D2bets]

The title of this thread really should be changed. I mean, I know the General is a bright guy but somehow I don't think he was talking in 9/02 about something that ocurred 6 mos later in 03/03.

Hmmm...this is odd....Michalel Moore is endrsing Wes Clark. Who woulda thunk it? The ultra-liberal Moore endorsing a pro-war Republican. Go figure.

 

[MudSlideSlim]

"Yes, he [Saddam] has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time." - NATO Commander Gen. Wesley Clark

 

[xpanda]

D2 ... I did not misread the article. I saw that it was dated 18 months ago. Clark believes a. Al Qaeda and Saddam are/were in cahoots based on geographical commonality, b. Saddam has/had biological weapons and is on the path to creating nuclear warheads, and, c. a stance against Saddam should not be considered pre-emptive. (Weapons inspectors were U.N.-initiated ... why would the US need clarification that a move by the UN is not pre-emptive as outlined in the National Security Strategy - an American document???)

On the issue of Iraq, Clark is a Republican. Whatever he may or may not be saying in the middle of a leadership race does not erase the fact that the statements made in this article seamlessly echo those of Powell and Rumsfeld. Just like the Republicans, he is reaching for justification to exploit the American public's post-9/11 fears of the Middle East by providing some bizarre 'logic' that of course Saddam and Osama play tiddlywinks together. His statements were irresponsible, unjustified, and paranoid.

I hope Patriot is correct in his assumption that Hilary is going to come out of the woodwork in this one.

 

[FloydGondolli]

LIEBERMAN STATEMENT ON CLARK IRAQ TESTIMONY

MANCHESTER, NH -- Joe Lieberman issued the following statement in response to the Drudge Report's discovery of congressional testimony from September 2002 in which Wes Clark made the case for war in Iraq. The report provides evidence directly contradicting Clark's repeated claims that he has been "very consistent" on the war "from the very beginning."

Statement by Joe Lieberman

"Yesterday, Wesley Clark attacked me for pointing out his multiple positions on the war in Iraq. It is no longer credible for Wesley Clark to assert that he has always had only one position on the war - being against it. His own testimony before Congress shows otherwise.

"He may think it is 'old-style politics' to point this out, but the only thing old here is a candidate not leveling with the American people. If we want to begin anew and replace George Bush, we need to level with the American people, which is what I have done in this campaign and throughout my career. You may not always agree with me but you will always know where I stand."

Yesterday on Good Morning America, Host Charlie Gibson told Wes Clark that "Joe Lieberman [is] saying Wes Clark had six different positions on the war."

Clark responded, "Well, has he ever named the six different positions, Charlie? I meant that's just -- that's old-style politics. You can go back to my record. I've even been on your show - while I couldn't when I was on CNN. But, I was consistently against this since the guys from the pentagon told me two weeks after 9/11 we were attacking Iraq. It didn't make any sense to me. And I have been very, very consistent on this. This was a war we didn't have to fight. It was an elective war. I have said it at almost every opportunity."

END

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998

 

[D2bets]

Repeat it all you want, but Clark's 9/02 testimony did not make the case for war in Iraq. If you read the testimony IN FULL (3hours worth), you will surely realize this. He was basically invited there as the counterweight to the hawk, Richard Perle.

A lomg as we're quoting from the testimony, why has nobody quoted this portion: "...So, all that having been said, the option to use force must remain on the table. It should be used only 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..."

All diplomatic means were not exhausted (the inspectors were there and wanted to continue) and further delay did not represent an immediate risk.

His testimony taken as a whole is utterly consistent with his position on the war -- that it was elective war because an imminent threat did not exist. Those who canot grasp this simply do not understand the nuances foreign policy. Cerainly this is a probem because many voters don't grasp this. See, politicians make sure to talk so that they can't be taken out context. Clark wasn't a politician at that time so he spoke forthrighthly and with nuances not necessarily meant for the average public -- he was explaining the situation to the Arms Services Comm.

 

[lander]

Are these right-wing slanders a sign that the neo-nazi-con camp fears the mighty General?

 

[D2bets]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lander:
Are these right-wing slanders a sign that the neo-nazi-con camp fears the mighty General?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You better believe it. Good article in the WP today about Clark called 'Karl Rove's Worst Nightmare'. RNC is in full attack mode trying to derail his nomination. Unfortunately Dean and Lieberman are coming to the RNC's aid.

 

[SENDITIN]

Yeah XPanda, Dean and Joe Lieberman are real right wing slanderers! Why don't you boys face the music and concede? That way you can save all your money and energy for Hillary in 08.

 

[D2bets]

After actually reading the transcript, here's another little quote that has yet to be noted:

"If the efforts to resolve the problem by using the UN 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 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 was exactly his position also at the time we went to war, it was his position 2 months ago and it is his position now. Clark has never contended that Saddam should be ignored, but that force should be used only as a last resort after exhausting all other options, with the support of our allies and with adequate post-war planning...unless an imminent threat exists, which never did This is why he was against the war as prosecuted and history has proven Clark's positions to be validated.

 

[Shotgun]

It's all about the spin isn't it D2? You can cry all you want about context, but the quotes Clark made regarding WMD are quite clear. The straw man you throw up about the US not being prepared for the war aftermath is hardly enough to overcome the statements that Drudge quoted.

Nice try though.

 

[D2bets]

Go to www.campaigndesk.org to see how this 'story' manufactured by Dridge inappropriately used ellipses as a tool of deception. Basically he jumped around the transcrpit piecing together separate testimony and removin important context. After reading the full testimony, I am more impressed than ever with the fullness of understanding of this issue that Clark had.

One other quote deleted by Drudge on the portion where Clark says the clock is ticking, he ends with "but time is on our side in the near term and we should use it."

Clark's position in his testimony is sharp. Of course he's going to point out that Saddam was a bad guy and a threat. If he had said we should have no concerns about Saddam because he's a nice guy evryone would blast him to hell. His testimony in fact was quite prophetic and pointedly consistent with his current positions.

Drudge is a joke of a journalist and those who quote him as fact are fools.

Period.