Clark Wants Bush Iraq Action Investigated

AP ^ | January 15, 2004

[Shermy]

From earlier today:

"...At a town-hall meeting in Hudson, N.H., Wednesday, Clark defended serving on corporate boards after retiring from the military in 2000 and registering as a lobbyist. "We were trying to make America safe. That's what lobbyists mostly do," Clark said. "

[facedown]

Blah blah, blah blah blah. Bush is bad. Blah blah, blah blah blah. Bad Bush.

[greydog]

"This was an elective war," he said. "He forced us to go to war."

No Weezy, Mohammad Atta did.

[princess leah]

Clark - you moron - Congress APPROVED the President's plan even though some deny it now...Bush specifically went to Congress after the summer of 02 full of demos whining and complaining and THEN Bush went before the UN and set out his plan before them and THEY backed it up...SO, shut up already!Gees...

[AZLiberty]

I want Clark's sanity investigated.

[Shermy]

I think that's a question Congress needs to ask. I think this Congress needs to investigate precisely" how the United States wound up in a war "that wasn't connected to the threat of al-Qaida."

And Kosovo? By the way, just what was Wes doing during Gulf War I? Surely he seems to have missed it, along with our twelve years of hostilities with Saddam after it.

[Normal4me]

When is this pimple on the ass of the USA going to finally go away? Clark would be lucky to meet a congress critter much less get an investigation started.

[Peach]

How about just as soon as we investigate Clark for nearly starting WWIII. How about as soon as we investigate whether Clark was fired or, as he claims, he merely retired early. How about just as soon as we investigate where all those hundreds of thousands of bodies are in Bosnia.

[eureka!]

What a shameless putz. Really something to behold...

[DarthVader]

We will all discover that he is criminally insane.

[Steve_Seattle]

General, the war in Kosovo was not necessary, it did not have U.N. approval, it was not directed at al Quaeda, it was against a country that posed no security threat to the USA, it was done with little public debate, it was done to benefit Muslim extremists in the Balkans, and it was justified using exaggerated charges of genocide. Maybe we should investigate THAT war too.

[Indy Pendance]

What a patriot.

[adam_az]

KAKKATE KOI, WESLEY BOY!!!


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Indy Pendance]

The NATO Supreme Allied Commander:

Gen. Chutzpah

Call him "Gen. Chutzpah."

General Wesley Clark is riding high on what is universally considered his prescience about the current Iraq war. Going unremarked is his utter lack of prescience about his own war, in Kosovo in 1999.

Back then, Clark thought he had Slobodan Milosevic figured out, and that the mere threat of NATO bombing — and perhaps a day or two of the real thing — would bring him to the negotiating table and force him to be reasonable. When this turned out not to be the case, Clark had no Plan B, because President Clinton had ruled out ground troops from the outset.

So, NATO continued with a limp air campaign that was inadequate to stopping Milosevic's ethnic-cleansing campaign, that appalled other members of the military brass who thought Clark had helped drag the U.S. into a near-fiasco, and that led to such ill-feeling toward Clark in the Pentagon that he was fired at war's end, launching his career as a TV pundit.

In his memoir, Clark recounts a conversation with Gen. Joseph Ralston before the war that starkly demonstrates his flawed assumptions. Ralston wants to know what will happen if the threat of an air campaign doesn't work:

"Well, it will work," I said. "I know [Milosevic] as well as anyone. And it gives the diplomats the leverage they need."

"OK, but let's just say it doesn't. What will we do?" he asked.

"Well, then we'll bomb. We'll have to follow through," I said.

"And what if the bombing doesn't work?"

"I think that's unlikely, but in that event, I guess we'd have to do something on the ground, directed at Kosovo."

"And if that doesn't work?" he persisted.

"Well, then we keep going. But I think you have to work at the front end of the policy, on how to make it effective. Besides, I know Milosevic; he doesn't want to get bombed."

Clark insisted: "'I can't believe that Milosevic won't sign, when the crunch comes. He always holds out. He has to be leaned on very hard. But he will come around."

Of course, Milosevic didn't. Even when the bombing campaign began, Clark made threats that had no connection to the amount of force NATO was willing to bring to bear. Clark said NATO would, "systematically attack, disrupt, degrade, devastate, and ultimately destroy" Yugoslavia's military and security forces. Uh, no it wouldn't — partly because everyone believed, like Clark, in the rosy scenario.

Ivo H. Daalder and Michael E. O'Hanlon write in their balanced account of the war, Winning Ugly: "NATO did not expect a long war. Worse, it did not even prepare for the possibility. Many alliance leaders deny that assertion to this day, but the evidence is overwhelming. And the blame begins with Washington, ultimately the most important architect of the air campaign strategy."

And so NATO stumbled on. "In short order," Andrew Bacevich writes in American Empire, "it became clear that Clark — though not he alone — had miscalculated. A defiant Milosevic did not fold. The first several days' bombing succeeded only in stoking the fires of Serb nationalism and providing Belgrade with the excuse to accelerate its ethnic cleansing of Kosovo."

To Clark's credit, he pushed for a ground option, but for everyone else in Washington it was a nonstarter, because no one thought it worth the risk in a war in which the American national interest was so attenuated.

Things turned out in the end, of course. But one million refugees later, and only because one of Gen. Clark's subordinates, Gen. Michael C. Short, did an end run around Clark to institute an increasingly aggressive bombing campaign against Belgrade. By the end, Bacevich writes, "Clark found his control over ongoing operations eroding. Rather than the theater commander, he became hardly more than a kibitzer."

Something to keep in mind the next time — and it will be soon — you hear about Wes Clark's prescience.

[Dilbert56]

Does he realize that ordering military action with Congress' approval and the support of 75% of the American people is not a crime. Waiting until Saddam killed thousands might be.

[ladyinred]

Clark read Hillary, wants Bush Iraq Action investigated.

Ladyinred wants Clinton's inaction re: terrorist attacks against the USS Cole, and the World Trade Center investigated.

[Right_in_Virginia]

The RNC also released a transcript of Clark's testimony in September 2002 to the House Armed Services Committee in which he called Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein a clear threat and said military action could not be postponed indefinitely.

Even if Clark wants to forget this...we must not!

[Diogenesis]

“If the children at Waco had lived instead of being burnt alive
the children would be in their teens and 20's.
Through his tireless work as a Presidential candidate,
today, Democratic Candidate Gen. Wesley Clark
would have brought happy smiles to each of the children.”

[Rome2000]

I think this Congress needs to investigate precisely" how the United States wound up in a war "that wasn't connected to the threat of al-Qaida."

One of the prerequisites for Democratic Presidential canidates is to be completely out of ones mind.

He's on tape discusing the Iraq-OBL connection just last year, and yet he is so delusional that he thinks it doesn't matter.

Wuss Clark is done.

[Rome2000]

(Be vewy vewy qwiet, I'm hunting weftists.)

With a Blunderbuss, no doubt.