NYT: Clark said he would support IWR in Oct. 02 according to AP

[dkf]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/21/politics/campaigns/21CLAR.html

On Thursday, the day after he announced his candidacy, he said, "I probably would have voted for" the resolution. On Friday, he backtracked, saying, "I never would have voted for war." But last October, according to The Associated Press, he said he supported a Congressional resolution to give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq. He then spent months as a television commentator criticizing the president's action.

[LightTheMatch]

1. Holy cow.

Sheesh! here we go again, huh? I'm not sure what this guy thinks when, so far.

[Eloriel]

2. Well, maybe the question is:

DOES he?

OR, perhaps, does he think WE don't?

Political opportunism makes people say and do the MOST amazing things.

Eloriel

[Cha]

3. Thanks, do you have a link to the AP story that ..

"said he supported a Congressional resolution to give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq."?

[Cha]

5. That's okay...I see where it is in the NYT story, now! I had missed

that part when I asked you for the link. My bad! :-)

[StephNW4Clark]

4. Link to AP story?

Thanks for the info, do you know where the AP story came from? Because I'm looking all over the place, and can't find anything like that from Oct. 2002 and would be useful to know.

Also, he spoke about the Iraq war in this interview in Oct 2002.

http://www.digitalnpq.org/global_services/global%20viewpoint/10-07-02.html

[elfin]

6. He will do a clinton parse

differentiating between voting for a strong resolution as a bargaining ploy to intimidate Iraq and "voting for war", which is actually going ahead and using the authority in the resolution.

Unfortunately, for him, the resolution didn't include going back to Congress for the actual war vote.

[Martin Eden]

7. Here is some KEY LANGUAGE in the RESOLUTION:

"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States...by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations. ..."

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

"Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

"Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

"... the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States ... and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;...

"Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism ... requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;..." that the President could use force against the perpetrators of terrorism, implicitly, of 9/11.

It's one thing to have voted for the resolution at the time, if you had actually been deceived by the bogus intelligence and innuendo the Bush gang was putting out (though that seems inexcusable when ordinary citizens at DU weren't deceived). But to say now that you would have voted for it, in retrospect knowing that the stated reasons in the resolution are bogus, raises a question:

Is Clark merely being honest, assessing what he would have decided at that time, or is he establishing consistency with his intended policies should he become president -- essentially continuing the "preemptive" policies of the Bush administration?

There was no good reason why Congress needed to vote for a resolution that ceded their Constitutional war powers to the president. They could have passed a resolution authorizing the preparations for war, with the stipulation that only an official declaration by Congress could launch the invasion. This would have been sufficient to apply "leverage", given the inspectors time to discover whether there were actual grounds for war, and kept the decision in the hands of Congress as stipulated by our Constitution.