GOP chair claims Clark supported war; transcripts show otherwise

Mississippi Sun Herald ^ | Jan. 15, 2004 | DANA HULL AND DREW BROWN

[Mike Darancette]

Agreeing with Richard Perle as he did I would like to welcome Clark into the Neocon Fold.

[cwb]

Yeah...and what about the part were Clark says that this wouldn't even be a preemptive war? Technically speaking, wasn't 1441 that last resort. When did the vote on 1441 take place in respect to Clark's statement...becasue if it took place after Clark's statement, than Bush did exactly what Clark wanted him to do. In this case, how can Clark condemn Bush for anything when Clark himself made the same damaging cliams about Saddam...and Bush did go to the UN.

[Mark]

Wesley Rodham Clark is a dork.

[Dolphy]

But months ago the Demo opponents were pointing out the same inconsistencies.

There is something wrong with this man. While he was pressing for military action in Yugoslavia (which posed no threat to the United States) bin Laden roamed freely training, attacking US targets and planning September 11 and Saddam was throwing the weapons inspectors out while continuing his brutality in Iraq. Now I am going to suppose that he didn't imagine bin Laden to be the threat September 11 proved him to be. And I am going to further suppose that he has absolutely no idea what threat Saddam posed or how many ticks were left on the clock he described.

[Recovering_Democrat]

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat," Clark testified, according to the full transcript, which was reviewed by Knight Ridder. "He does retain his chemical and biological capabilities to some extent and 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 … The problem of Iraq is not a problem that can be postponed indefinitely … ."

In addition, Clark said: "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 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."

The writer of this piece is trying to cover for Weasley Clark. Look at Clark's testimony here: in the first paragraph, he's advocating factual knowledge about the Hussein. IN THE SECOND, he's providing a political position--not data. So Weasel Clark is still caught in a lie. At least that is how I see it.

[jagrmeister]

I can't believe this is a "news" article purportedly an "objective" one. It reads like an opinion piece and makes highly subjective claims in defense of Clark. In the transcript, it appears Clark made a case for war, with hints of caution. We really need a mechanism to shame or fine journalists who engage in this behavior.

[zook]

Total BS. Clark supported the use of war, if necessary, to protect the U.S. from the threat Hussein posed. The strategy outlined by Clark is the exact strategy followed by Bush. Clark's only complaint now can be that the strategy did not work perfectly (i.e., we were unable to isolate or convert France and Germany).

But more importantly, perhaps, Clark's words then and words today suggest that Clark never really had the balls to his money where his mouth was--that is to say that for Clark, the "war option" was nothing more than an empty threat.