Clark lied, people...

16 Jan 2004 | § 5 Buckethead

In a world exclusive, Drudge is reporting that Clark, contrary to his statements in recent debates he has not always been against the war. In fact, in testimony before congress just two weeks before the Iraq resolution was passed, Clark had this to say:

"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."

"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."

This is rather dramatically different from what he's saying now. What are the reasons for the turnabout? The obvious guess is that he switched to an antiwar tack for purely political reasons - and to eat into Dean's base within the Democratic party. What this says about his character, I leave as an exercise for the reader.

Posted by Buckethead

on Fri 16 Jan 2004 | § 5

§ 5 Comments

But the more important follow

But the more important follow-on to this is: did people die?

*/ducks*

16 Jan 2004 | 00:41 Johno

I do this exercise, and come

I do this exercise, and come up with the following: The President of the United States tells the population that he has hard evidence of Iraq's WMD stockpiles. A lot of people in the country don't believe it, but give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, he's the President. He's the one who sees the evidence that's secret. He wouldn't be doing this without real evidence, would he?

So we all form opinions and make commentary based on the _assumption_ that the President isn't some wack job making it up as he goes along, and _betting_ that he'll find WMD.

In that context, Clark's comments are entirely consistent and reasonable. Pull away the logical support given by a predisposition to _trust_ (foolishly, in this case) that what the President says is true, or that he is acting responsibly, and you have an entirely different ball game.

Given _what we now know_ about the intelligence the President had before the war, reasonable people are reaching entirely different conclusions.

You want to talk about inconsistency? Go back to Bush's campaign speeches. If you can discern the meaning behind his twisted rendition of carefully crafted populism, you'll find reality-bending inconsistencies.

Over _two months_ to _begin_ an investigation of Plame's outing. Less than _24 hours_ before one was initiated against Paul O'Neill. The raw political forces control this President utterly. And they're for sale.

16 Jan 2004 | 00:54 Ross

There is no lie. Clark has

There is no lie. Clark has referenced his testimony before the House and Senate for months. The only new thing here is the spin. It makes the argument for full engagement and international coalition building. He has never wavered from this stance. He has always judged the necessity to go to war on the success or failure of engagement.

Let's read some more testimony:
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 Saddams 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.

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 Saddams 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.

Congressional">http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongre… Testimony

16 Jan 2004 | 04:58 ndr ndr

This brings to mind one of

This brings to mind one of the rules that floats around in my head: The full quote always needs to be considered. The sheer number of people (on both sides) who are out there shamelessly extracting sub-sentences and sub-thoughts at the moment is stunning.

_Ethics_ are rapidly disappearing, in the political discourse...

We Perfidians, of course, aim to raise that level...

17 Jan 2004 | 00:56 Ross

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]

perfidy