Reply #38: Tinoire......you are almost as good as the right in misrepresenting

[FrenchieCat]

someone you are obviously actively working to discredit.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Clark's September 26, 2002, testimony to the Armed Services Committee, in which he states:
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...

...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.

This hardly fits with your assertion that Clark vigorously supported the resolution

What a shame you take Clark's remarks out of context to convey the false impression!

What happened to his editorial..."Let's wait to attack"? written in on October 10, 2002? Why didn't you post that one...in which Clark states: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/
In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months. The U.S. has total military dominance of the region. Although Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, he has no long-range missiles with which to deliver them. Certainly, the clock is ticking, because Saddam may eventually acquire the nuclear weapons and delivery systems he seeks. Nonetheless, there is still time for dialogue before we act.

You also neglected to mention the USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002, in which Clark wrote:
Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them. Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem.

And here's to clarify Clark's statements to the Associated Press on October 9, 2002:
Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war. Clark, who led the allied NATO forces in the Kosovo conflict, endorsed Democrat Katrina Swett in the 2nd District race. He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for the resolution, but only after vigorous debate...The general said he had no doubt Iraq posed a threat, but questioned whether it was immediate and said the debate about a response has been conducted backward.

Note that it is the Associated Press who claims Clark supports a resolution that would give Bush authority to use military force, whereas Clark's own words indicate he would only support the resolution "after vigorous debate." Surely that can be interpreted to mean vigorous debate that would result in changes (otherwise, why debate?) --meaning he did not support the resolution "as is."

Considering he had previously testified to the Armed Services Committee that the resolution need not authorize force, we can guess what he might have felt one of those changes should be.

It is very disturbing that you would be in possession of some of Clark's statements that contradict your thesis but blatantly choose to misrepresent them. Perhaps you should Clark supporters more credit for being informed.