Reply #10: It doesn't clear anything up except that

[Tinoire]

Under a President Clark we would have tried to strong-arm the other nations into supporting us (which probably wouldn't have worked because trust someone who lived in Europe a long time, they're tired of supporting our wars- they're still smarting from the way they were played and ripped off during Gulf War I & taking a beating from their people for involvement in Yugoslavia) and gone about the same thing with a little more finesse. That is not an improvement. That is merely having the cannibal use a knife and fork.

let me hightlight the parts I think you missed:


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 Saddam’s 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.

If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear.

((In short- Let's go to war and here's how to pull it off))
------------------------------------------------------------

Is this not exactly what Bush did? He sure tried but our allies were not amused with American greed nor were they amused with the cruel campaign against Saddam and his people. We went to war for 2 reasons and everyone knew it and no one was buying either. We could barely get the UN to keep the sanctions. They were rebelling to lift them with France and Germany at the head of that movement. Do you really think they would have gone to war with us? They knew what most of us here know, that the whole thing was a greedy sham. And worse, sadly, I am convinced that Clark knew also.

You seem only concerned that there is no coalition to assist in follow-up.

What follow-up? The occupation? So in your reasoning we need people on board because the war was ok but we needed help with the follow-up? Help me out here. Sometimes I think I can't possibly be understanding the reasoning of some Clark supporters.