Reply #68: Some other things he says in that transcript:

[1932]

General Clark, from a military standpoint, is there -- is it a good thing, is it not a good thing for Congress to go ahead and move quickly on this resolution whatever the language is. and for United Nations to move quickly?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET), FORMER NATO SUPREME CMDR.: Well, I think from the military perspective, the sooner the ambiguity is taken out of this the better. This gives the military a free hand in terms of planning the specific details of the campaign.

Also, the full quote that you cited:

CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.

So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution.

Clark doesn't think ANY IWR is bad. He thinks that it should be more specific in terms of its objectives (which, from the rest of this piece, seem to have something to do with the vision of a post-invasion Iraq, but he's not specific about what he thinks those things should be."