Clark Hit by Republican Assault Over Iraq Testimony

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040116/pl_nm/campaign_clark_dc&cid=615&ncid=1480

MANCHESTER, N.H. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark (news - web sites) faced a barrage of questions over his much-touted opposition to the Iraq (news - web sites) war on Thursday, after Republicans released excerpts of congressional testimony in which he appeared to back the use of force against Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).


In excerpts posted on the Republican National Committee (news - web sites)'s Web site, the former NATO (news - web sites) commander described Saddam to the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 26, 2002, as a threat who already had chemical and biological weapons and was seeking nuclear arms.


"It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this," Clark was quoted as telling committee members six months before U.S. forces invaded Iraq last March.


He also told lawmakers that a U.S. president was justified in taking military action without U.N. approval, just as NATO forces did in Kosovo under his command.


A retired general who has made vehement opposition to the Iraq war a hallmark of his campaign, Clark fired back by accusing the Republican leadership of trying to discredit him by taking his remarks out of context.


He said Congress should investigate whether the Bush administration had committed a criminal act by misleading the nation into war.

more

[gulliver]

1. RNC reallly, really worried about Clark

"This is material that's been dug up by the Republican National Committee. (They) should have read the whole testimony because it totally refutes the Bush position," Clark said during a heated 35-minute press conference in Manchester, N.H.

I think this very clearly shows who the Republicans don't want the Democrats to run.

[KittyWampus]

9. Let The Record Show That Lieberman & The New York Times

Piled on.

[Leilani]

16. Lieberman is piling on again

right now on CNBC Capitol Report.

Really ugly stuff!

I have emailed Lieberman's campaign & will do so again.

[MidwestTransplant]

30. Call his campaign

http://www.joe2004.com/site/PageServer?JServSessionIdr007=sbjhqm9k72.app8a&pagename=getin_contactus

[RUexperienced]

2. "No question Saddam is a threat...Yes, he has chem and bio weapons"

Those are the words that will come back to haunt Clark.

-------------
"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."

[gulliver]

3. "In excerpts posted on the Republican National Committee ...

website..."

I'll wait for the version not edited by the RNC.

[lancdem]

4. Have you read the whole transcript?

Please do if you haven't.

[RUexperienced]

10. "Yes, he has chem and bio weapons"

Put that in context. The whole thrust of some Democratic hopefuls is that Iraq did NOT have chemical or biological weapons.

But Clark says Saddam DID have them.

[lancdem]

12. You didn't answer my question

You're taking RNC excerpts as gospel? What if they did that to Dean? Would it be OK then?

[Leilani]

18. Bill Clinton said this too

[mouse7]

34. Then Clinton was stupid too

Clinton shgould have listened to the reports from his inspectors in the field (Ritter).

[Media_Lies_Daily]

Has anyone found the alleged chemical and bio weapons?...

Even a general can be fooled by input from people he thought he could trust.

Even Clinton was fed information that he thought was truthful by the same PNACers that fed Clark his information abd that are now currently in positions of power in the Defense Department.

Put THAT in context.

[RUexperienced]

37. Name one PNACer who worked for the Clinton Administration

[NNN0LHI]

28. Even the most skeptical of us here at DU were convinced...

...that Saddam had some kind of prohibited stuff. That changed for me during last fall when the UN weapons inspectors could not find nothing after a few months in Iraq. See how many posts you can find here at DU where someone suggests that Iraq was WMD free before the UN weapons inspectors got there. I don't think you will find many.

Don

[salin]

44. Careful on absolutes

I wasn't. I was instead convinced by Ritter's detailed explanations of the inspection process - and how much had been destroyed and his skepticism.

Further more they way the UN Inspectors were set up (Admin was claiming it was a failure with in 3 days of the Inspectors entering Iraq) played too much from the script written for the Admin by James Baker in either the NYT or the WSJ the previous September - when he urged a more "international approach"... but then laid out (in public) that the terms should be set so high that Iraq would not be able to comply... but that in going to the UN (and setting terms at all rather than just invading) an international coalition could be formed. Yep - there was the blue print.

Just suggesting that saying that even the most skeptical DUers believed... isn't quite accurate.

[DrBB]

7. Hope you'll check MY excerpts (as opposed to Rove's) below n/t

[0007]

8. The criminal charges against junior will eradicate everything

Clark has said, LOL!!

[shanti]

31. richard perle eloquent??

wtf????

[Dhalgren]

38. Eloquence is morally neutral.

The Devil, himself, is probably quite eloquent - but then Clark already said that.

[KittyWampus]

40. You Realise Clark's Testimony Was The Opposition To Perle's Testimony?

Clark testified as the counterpoint to Perle who then testified after him with the opposing viewpoint.

[mouse7]

33. Yep... Clark didn't listen to the field people either (Ritter)

Ritter knew there was little to nothing left in Iraq. All the field inspectors knew that when they came back from that last round of inspections.

Clark is a fool for not listening to a US MARINE who had no reason to lie to help Saddam. Clark should have known better than to listen to the opinion of chickenhawks.

Clark showed his judgement is flawed.

[LTR]

5. Must have been reading Drudge

Sorry Karl, it's old news.

And debunked.

The RNC, as usual, is living in the past.

NEXT!

[DrBB]

6. And here are some of the bits they DIDN'T want you to see

CLARK: We have to work this problem in a way to gain worldwide legitimacy and understanding for the concerns that we rightly feel and for our leadership. This is what U.S. leadership in the world must be. We must bring others to share our views and not be too quick to rush to try to impose them even if we have the power to do so.

Or this bit here:

CLARK:
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 have 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. This includes dealing with requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps even including a new constitution.

Ideally, the international/multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post conflict operations, the United Nations, NATO, other regional organization, Islamic organizations, but we have no idea how long this campaign could last, and if it were to go like the campaign against the Afghans, against the Taliban in which suddenly the Taliban collapsed and there we were.

We need to be ready because if suddenly Saddam Hussein's government collapses and we don't have everything ready to go, we're going to have chaos in that region.

I think that was fairly accurate, yes?

CLARK: But the problem of Iraq is only one element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished worldwide war against Al Qaida, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies and that ultimately will be won as much by persuasion as by the use of force. We've got to turn off the Al Qaida recruiting machine. Now some 3,000 deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaida, and I think everyone acknowledges that Al Qaida has not yet been defeated.

Again, that's pretty accurate, isn't it. And it's pretty much what he's still saying in his stump speeches.

CLARK: 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. But nevertheless, winning the war against Al Qaida and taking actions against the weapons programs in Iraq, that's two different problems that may require two different sets of solutions. In other words, to put it back into military parlance, Iraq they're an operational level problem. We've got other operational level problems in the Middle East, like the ongoing conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Al Qaida and the foundation of radical extremist fundamentalist Islam, that's the strategic problem. We've got to make sure that in addressing the operational problem we're effective in going after the larger strategic problem. And so, the critical issue facing the United States right now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaida or our efforts to deal with other immediate mid and long-term security problems.

That's pretty close to how I see it, though corrected to our current knowledge that there really weren't any WMD to speak of. Saddam was clearly a problem, he was clearly a humanitarian disaster and it wouldn't hurt to take him out on that basis alone, other things being equal. But other things weren't equal--we had and have MUCH bigger fish to fry, and the way in which the Iraq thing was done made those bigger, strategic problems WORSE rather than better.

Excerpts thanks to TPM

[lowflyer10]

11. Are you sure it's the repugs?

Sure, they're enjoying the hell out of it. But so's the Clinton wing of this party. I think it's the Clintons. They're selling us out, I'm telling you. They don't believe a DEM can win in NOV and are ensuring that doesn't happen in 2004. Sets up Hillary in 2008. Mark my words. Repugs aren't the only ones capable of conspiracy. Those jerkwads. I've had it those two nincompoops.

EDIT: How do ya think his memo to Clinton got out in the open, huh? Funny how that happened. Damn funny..... (That would be Dean's memo)

[lancdem]

14. You need some serious help

Do you have even the slightest shred of evidence to back up your allegations? Anybody can get hold of a letter/memo that was made public. It wasn't confidential. Geez.

Edit: As for the Clark testimony, it was released by Ed Gillespie and the RNC, who leaked it to Drudge.

[lowflyer10]

15. Funny. I could have sworn I read all over this web site that

this testimony has been public knowledge for eons. No news here. How it that a repug can leak it to Drudge, then?

[lancdem]

19. The RNC took sentences out of context

and Drudge even added some that weren't part of the testimony. There's another post on that here. BTW, if the Clintons were convinced no Dem could win in 2004, they wouldn't need to sabotage them, would they? :eyes:

[lowflyer10]

20. Here's my point, my friend.

You have to admit that it looks pretty good for bush* in '04. Hillary can't risk a loss. But if by some fluke, the DEM candidate wins as a result of some OCT surprise, they damn sure don't want it to be anyone but Hillary. Otherwise she'd have to wait until 2012. They want it sooooooooo bad in '04 but aren't willing to risk a loss. Her giddiness is so obvious when people goad her about running this year. Are you telling me that if DEMS were hopeful of winning the presidency that Hillary would be on the sidelines. Really? No way. No freaking way, my friend.

[number6]

26. no , I think Hillary is content with being Senator and Bush will LOSE

;) ..in 04

[lowflyer10]

27. I hope you're right....

But me thinks you're wrong about Hillary. :-)

[kentuck]

29. Doesn't this terminology sound like that "libertarian" talk show host???

Neal Boortz? Listen to him talk sometime, "my friend".....:) Has lowrider already been busted?

[metisnation]

25. Traitors

Bush and Clinton are both pathelogical liars and any input coming for either group should be treated with a grain of salt.

www.clark04.com

[formernaderite]

43. I agree on one point...

Okay, I'll agree that I think it's in the Clinton's best interest that Clark is the nominee. That said, I don't think they are looking for a loss in 2004. If Clark wins, they will still be in control of the money, ie. Terry McAuliffe etc. Hillary could always run as Clark's VP, this time or next time he runs.
I however am supporting Dean...full stop. Dean is not a member of the power elite, and has openly criticized the DLC and it's repuke-lite policies. Frankly, I have no interest in Ms. CLinton as a candidate..she represents the status quo interests. I also find it offensive that everyone acts as if she is the only woman in this party ready to be President. Puhleeeeeze.

[joefree1]

13. Media playing gotcha - taking Dean's comments out of context!

Here we go again. The media or the "stop Dean" movement taking old comments from two, four, or eight years ago and trying to use them against Dean while ignoring his position today. :mad:

On edit: Whoops, I er, made a mistake. Didn't realize this was a thread on Clark. Sorry. Backing away from the keyboard now. S'cuse me. :+

[gulliver]

17. And here is TPM on it.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_01_11.html#002415

[LuminousX]

21. "Mary, help!!"

[mikehiggins]

22. How naive can DU'ers be?

Anyone who has entertained the thought that the RNC did not read the entire Clark transcript should have their knuckles rapped with Sister Marie Angelaines big wooden ruler.

Of course they read it all. That's how they found the sentences to take out of context in the first place.

None of this is accidental, or well-meaning mistake. This is what everyone has been talking about for months and if anyone wanted any further proof as to just who gives the RNC cold sweats, it should answer that question once and for all.

Will it work? Will Lieberman and Drudge and all the cable tv pundits and all the President's men be able to bring down Wes Clark?

Nah.

The train has left the station. George Bush has just told you all who he most definately does not want to face in November. I hope you all were listening.

[PSR40004]

36. come on...

Clark was a lock step republican till he decided to run under the Dem label, now we should all support this Republican in Democratic colthing because he can win. I feel electing clark would just just be electing a Republican under another banner.

[KAZ]

39. We need more Republicans like that!

Ones who voted Dem in '92, '96, and '00.

[Gato Moteado]

45. nice try

nobody here is foolish enough to take your bait.

[banana republican]

23. they lied to Congress

they lied during the State of the Union
How can I blame Wes if he was lied to...

[metisnation]

24. many in this flock

there are good republicans and good democrats that were misled by Bush and cabal. Wes was one of them as well, they lied in concert.

[shanti]

32. oh paleez

clark is military. he knew!

[tinanator]

35. well, seeing how Bill and Hillary are all for the invasion and occupation

whats their point? And why would he be any change from Bushcorp?

[PROGRESSIVE1]

41. The RNC and Joe Lieberman are attacking Democrats again!

:mad:

[KLA2004]

42. I just found out

about this.

[Beetwasher]

46. What did you find out? That it's bullshit?

Because it is bullshit...

[Moderator]

47. This story is over a week old

Please discuss in another forum. Thanks.