GOP chair claims Clark supported war; transcripts show otherwise

MANCHESTER, N.H. - (KRT) - Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, charged Thursday that retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark endorsed President Bush's policy toward Iraq two weeks before Congress voted to authorize Bush to go to war.

If true, that would contradict the core message of Clark's presidential campaign. The complete transcript of Clark's Sept. 26, 2002, testimony, however, reveals that Clark didn't endorse Bush's policy during the congressional hearing, and that the Republican charge is based on selected excerpts of his remarks.

Gillespie accurately quoted portions of Clark's testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in which Clark said he believed that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons and was seeking nuclear weapons. But the RNC chairman didn't mention that Clark also said America should work through the United Nations to seek a diplomatic solution and go to war only as a last resort.

Gillespie's speech, delivered in Clark's hometown of Little Rock, Ark., argued forcefully that Clark had endorsed Bush's policy toward Iraq in that congressional testimony and at other times. Gillespie apparently was contesting Clark's insistence that he consistently opposed Bush's war against Iraq - a stand Clark reiterated Thursday. "There was no stronger case made than that expert testimony, the testimony of General Wesley Clark," Gillespie concluded.

Clark's position on the Iraq war is central to his presidential candidacy, for as a former four-star general, he bases his appeal to Democrats on his credibility as a military man who can challenge Bush on national security issues.

"This is material that has been dug up by the RNC," Clark responded Thursday afternoon. "Ed Gillespie should have read the whole testimony, because it totally refutes the Bush position."

"What I was saying then is what I'm saying today. That Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat. That actions contemplated against Saddam Hussein did not constitute pre-emptive war, contrary to what the Bush administration was saying, because there was no imminent threat. Was he troublesome? Sure. Was he a threat? Eventually, sure. Was the clock ticking in the two-year, five-year, eight-year time period? Sure. Did we have to do this? NO."

Clark, however, hasn't always been consistent. The day after he officially announced his candidacy for president last September, he told reporters that he "probably" would have voted the previous autumn for the congressional resolution authorizing Bush to go to war, then reversed that position the next day.

The attack on Clark by the RNC chairman suggests that the Republican Party is now taking Clark's campaign seriously. Although opinion polls can be unreliable in primaries, in which voter turnout is low and many voters make up their minds at the last minute, the latest polls show Clark closing in on former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean for the lead in New Hampshire, where Democrats will vote on Jan. 27.

Clark's congressional testimony was further distorted Thursday by cyber-gossip columnist Matt Drudge, who quoted selected portions of Clark's testimony and added sentences that don't appear in the transcript on his Web site Thursday. Drudge didn't respond to an e-mail request for comment.

For example, Drudge quoted Clark on possible links between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's regime. "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as (fellow witness) Richard (Perle) says, that there have been such contacts," Clark testified. "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."

But Drudge didn't include Clark's comment that: "As far as I know, I haven't seen any substantial evidence linking Saddam's regime to the al-Qaida network, though such evidence may emerge. I'm saying there hasn't been any substantiation of the linkage of the Iraqi regime to the events of 9/11 or the fact that they are giving weapons of mass destruction capability to al-Qaida."

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."

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.