Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Drudge:WES CLARK MADE CASE FOR IRAQ WAR BEFORE CONGRESS

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Cannikin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 12:49 PM
Original message
Drudge:WES CLARK MADE CASE FOR IRAQ WAR BEFORE CONGRESS
Edited on Thu Jan-15-04 12:50 PM by Cannikin
www.drudgereport.com

"I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."

But just six month prior in an op-ed in the LONDON TIMES Clark offered praise for the courage of President Bush's action.

"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark wrote on April 10, 2003. "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. This is a dupe. It's already been debunked on two seperate threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalnurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I did not see a through debunking but on the
contray, this issue is of grave concern and highly questionable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cannikin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I agree...I dont think I'd say it was 'debunked'
Just because we know the truth doesnt mean anyone else does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalnurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Denial is a strong demon.
Here is a post from Common Dreams...in the April 10,2003...

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.




<snip>

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. How can it be debunked? It is.
Besides, to even try to debunk it would mean it has been addressed and it has never been addressed, it has been avoided. Then when the subject is again brought up, the response is that it has been debunked just because it has already been raised in the debate but avoided because there is no way to debunk it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
20. Who THE FUCK cares about Matt Sludge anyway.
Edited on Thu Jan-15-04 01:31 PM by saigon68
Extreme RIGHT WING RADIO---- Clear Channel. WTMJ Milwaukee ---devoted 3 hours to this already today. I got 2 phone calls from friends who heard this on WTMJ.

What a CROCK OF SHIT --- it looks like Rove's operatives are out after CLARK today.

Yikes and YUCK !!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snivi Yllom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. I dont think it's Rove
As much as I support Dean, I think I know where it came from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Well if its from our side---
Someone needs to grow up, and go after the CHIMPANZEE.

He's the one, who should be the object of everyone's scorn !!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUexperienced Donating Member (506 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
4. It was NOT debunked.
But the thread was locked because it wasn't breaking enough to be in this section.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seventhson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. This is a new article just breaking, I believe
Clark was clearly lobbying for the Iraq war but, like Kerry, he wants to have it BOTH ways, i.e. he supported the war but wanted Europe etc to go along with it.

Clark was lobbying for the war while employed for the Stephens group whose contracts made such a war very profitable prospectively.

Clark's full of baloney IMHO. I agree with Dean that Clark is and has always been a republican and is only running as a Dem to screw us up.


It is clear that his socalled reservations about the war were not as to whether it should be fought - but how to drum up the support at the international level to make it work best.

NOW he claims incredibly that he OPPOSED a war he was lobbying for and cheering and said he would have voted for until just before he decided to run as a democrat when Dean's approach seemed the most popular for dems. Disgusting IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formernaderite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
29. no more Repuke-lites
I agree with you and Dean on which party Clark has been most supportive of...it seems to me that there are many in the democratic party who are so paranoid at the thought of losing they're willing to run with a Bush-lite candidate. I would point to all the elections since 1994...we need DEMOCRATS not Repukes to win an election. Repuke-lite encourages the public to vote Repugnant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUexperienced Donating Member (506 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
5. Judge for yourself. Here is the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. Force should be used as the last resort...
I wish all Dems would work together to defeat Bush* rather than work against each other to tear each other down.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

I am amazed that folks continue to use a tertiary source such as Drudge ofter numerous secondary and less biased sources have been given. Here is the actual testimony:


STATEMENT OF
GENERAL (RETIRED) WESLEY K. CLARK
U.S. ARMY


BEFORE THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 26, 2002

Mr. Chairman, Representative Skelton, Distinguished Members of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. This is a Committee that has been strongly supportive of the men and women in uniform, and I want to thank you personally for the assistance and support that you gave me, and have given so many others.
snip...

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as “preemptive.”

Once initiated, any military operation should aim for the most rapid accomplishment of its operational aims and prompt turnover to follow-on organizations and agencies.

If we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region, and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism. But there are no guarantees. The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere.

I look forward to answering questions and helping the Committee assess the costs and risks of the alternatives before us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cannikin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Rush is reading the report right now....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Well there you have it it MUST be true
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KissMyAsscroft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Well, its the truth...


Drudge or not, it's the truth. Wes is full of it and should be running as a Republican.

He is no better than Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld. He is part of the same team.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. umm, then how do you reconcile the differences?
Where did Drudges text come from? It doesn't appear the same as the other sources. I guess the fact that it is freshly written makes it LBN?

Whats going on here at DU that we are quoting Drudge and directing folks to Rush whiel we ignore original sources?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Bush can argue that he used force as a last resort too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpenMindedDem Donating Member (28 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. Snipped out all of the parts where Clark states Saddam has weapons
But it was a signal warning about Saddam Hussein: he is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. Were he to acquire such capabilities, we and our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks. Saddam might use such weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his neighbors, he might threaten American forces in the region, he might strike directly against Israel, or Israel, weighing the possibilities of nuclear blackmail or aggression, might feel compelled to strike Iraq first.

Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required. But what makes the situation relatively more dangerous today is that the UN weapons inspectors, who provided some assistance in impeding his development programs, have been absent from Iraq for over four years. And the sanctions regime, designed to restrict his access to weapons materials and the resources needed to procure them, has continuously eroded. At some point, it may become possible for Saddam to acquire the fissionable materials or uranium ore that he needs. And therefore, Iraq is not a problem that can be indefinitely postponed.

In addition, Saddam Hussein’s current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law.

Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President’s clear determination to act if the United Nations can’t provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. My attempt was to get folks to read the original text - thanks
Lets not rely on Drudge.

Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required.

Argue either side, I don't care, just use primary sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpenMindedDem Donating Member (28 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. I also like Primary Sources, they are the BEST.
Though, Clark also said in speaking of SH: " He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities.

Where did he get his info?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. This was the same position Clinton had.
Clinton said the same exact thing on Larry King one night. That's the last intellegence they probably saw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wftjet Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
14. Here's What Clark Wrote in the London Times



What must be done to complete a great victory - Comment - Opinion.


By Wesley Clark.


10 April 2003

The Times

(c) 2003 Times Newspapers Ltd.


Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled.


Liberation is at hand. Liberation - the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.


In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime's last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.


Then there's the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people.


Still, the immediate tasks at hand in Iraq cannot obscure the significance of the moment. The regime seems to have collapsed - the primary military objective and with that accomplished, the defence ministers and generals, soldiers and airmen should take pride. American and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.


But no one ever won a war or a battle with a plan. Every soldier knows there are only two kinds of plans: plans that might work and plans that won't work. The art of war is to take a plan that might work and then drive it to success. This, General Tommy Franks and his team did very well indeed.


Everyone who has ever served knows that battles are won at the bottom - by the men and women looking through the sights, pulling the triggers, loading the cannon and fixing the planes. The generals can lose battles, and they can set the conditions for success - but they can't win. That's done by the troops alone. And nothing could have been more revealing than those armoured fights in which a handful of US tanks wiped out a score of opposing Iraqi armoured vehicles, again and again, and usually without suffering any losses, while in the south, the British troops worked their way through the suburbs of Basra with skills born of sound training and firm discipline, minimising friendly casualties, civilian losses and destruction.


It's to the men and women who fought it out on the arid highways, teeming city streets and crowded skies that we owe the greatest gratitude. All volunteers, they risked their lives as free men and women, because they believed in their countries and answered their calls. They left families and friends behind for a mission uncertain. They didn't do it for the glory or the pittance of combat pay. Sadly, some won't return - and they, most of all, need to be honoured and remembered.


As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times.


Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn't pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad.


And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.


Now the bills must be paid, amid the hostile image created in many areas by the allied action. Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come - effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns. Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights.


Germany has already swung round from opposition to the war to approval. France will look for a way to bridge the chasm of understanding that has ripped at the EU. Russia will have to craft a new way forward, detouring away, at least temporarily, from the reflexive anti-Americanism which infects the power ministries. And North Korea will shudder, for it has seen on display an even more awesome display of power than it anticipated, and yet it will remain resolute in seeking leverage to assure its own regime's survival. And what it produces, it sells.


The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world.


And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West.


But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction.


Don't look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice - indeed, may have been already - that they are "next" if they fail to comply with Washington's concerns.


And there will be more jostling over the substance and timing of new peace initiatives for Israel and the Palestinians. Whatever the brief prewar announcement about the "road map", this issue is far from settled in Washington, and is unlikely to achieve any real momentum until the threats to Israel's northern borders are resolved. And that is an added pressure to lean on Bashir Assad and the ayatollahs in Iran.


As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skilfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.


Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven't yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.


Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue - but don't demobilise yet. There's a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.


General Wesley Clark was Supreme Allied Commander Europe 1997-2000 and led Nato forces during the Kosovo campaign

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snivi Yllom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
16. Clark was very clear is stating Saddam was a threat
Edited on Thu Jan-15-04 01:22 PM by Snivi Yllom
Clark was very clear that Saddam had WMD and was a threat. He also stated that it would be acceptable to go after Saddam IF all peaceful attempts were exhausted. I see his only clean argument is that those attempts were not exhausted. He agreed Saddam was a threat and was trying to develop a nuclear program.

"But it was a signal warning about Saddam Hussein: he is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. Were he to acquire such capabilities, we and our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks. Saddam might use such weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his neighbors, he might threaten American forces in the region, he might strike directly against Israel, or Israel, weighing the possibilities of nuclear blackmail or aggression, might feel compelled to strike Iraq first".

"Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required. But what makes the situation relatively more dangerous today is that the UN weapons inspectors, who provided some assistance in impeding his development programs, have been absent from Iraq for over four years. And the sanctions regime, designed to restrict his access to weapons materials and the resources needed to procure them, has continuously eroded. At some point, it may become possible for Saddam to acquire the fissionable materials or uranium ore that he needs. And therefore, Iraq is not a problem that can be indefinitely postponed."

In addition, Saddam Hussein’s current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law."

Clark goes on in his testimony to discuss the need to exhaust diplomacy:

"The critical issue facing the Unites States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda or efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security problems. In this regard, I would offer the following considerations: "

- 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. Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This includes requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance, and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution. Ideally, international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations, including the UN, NATO, and other regional and Islamic organizations.

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as “preemptive.”



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpenMindedDem Donating Member (28 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Agreed, this doesn't look good for the General
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snivi Yllom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. my question is which candidate gave this to Drudge
The dirty tricksters and dirt diggers are unloading this week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpenMindedDem Donating Member (28 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. And what other stuff are they still holding??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasSissy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
18. This is A DUPE message from last week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
27. Send this to MIchael Moore quick.
;)

Yep, I can see it now, Wes in his own words campaigning for Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
30. And so? This has been discussed before. It is the kind of thing that
takes up much space and time here on DU and Freeperland but has no legs out in the world.

Why? Because most Americans were for the war, and are for the war still.

Attacking Clark because he was "pro-war" goes nowhere. He has a lengthy record of being anti-war. Anything he said or did can be justified by all of the mis-information being spread by the Bush Admininstration. Attack him on this in front of the general population?

Hey, we were lied to as well. We thought Saddam was buying nuclear bombs and had rockets to drop them on Iowa too. We believed the President because we never thought good ol' George would have the balls to stand there and lie to us. He is one of us, not some Beltway politician, etc., etc., and so forth.

As far as this stuff goes, to quote Generalissimo Bush, "Bring 'em on!"



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SayitAintSo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
31. HELLOOOOOOO - Read the ENTIRE transcript - comments in context
And then judge for yourself. And think twice before you ever quote Drudge/sludge as a worthy source....



http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
32. More gotcha quote politics
Not interesred.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
33. CLARK ASKING FOR NARROW RESOLUTION (vs Blank ckeck)

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm )
Q. The one question I want to ask from your written statement, you have -- there's been a lot of effort put in on the resolution and the language. You state this one sentence: "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" and this to me is a key question because you know I want our president to feel like he's got all the support of the American people he needs to work this out dealing with the international community.
But, I'm not I don't think willing to vote at this time to say and here you've got my card to go to war six months, eight months down the line if in your mind it hasn't worked out well. I think that's a decision the American people want the Congress to make. What do you mean by that language?
CLARK: I think that what you have to do is first, the card has been laid on the table about the intent of the United States to take unilateral action, so we've moved past the point we were at in mid- August when there was a discussion and the president was saying he hadn't made up his mind what to do and so forth.
So the president, our commander-in-chief, has committed himself. I think it's wise to narrow the resolution that was submitted. I think it will be more effective and more useful and I think it's more in keeping with the checks and balances that are the hallmark of the American government if that resolution is narrowed.
And on the other hand, I think you have to narrow it in such a way that you don't remove the resort to force as a last option consideration in this case. So, not giving a blank check but expressing an intent to sign the check when all other alternatives are exhausted. I think in dealing with men like Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein that diplomacy has to be leveraged by discussions the threat, or in the last instance, the use of force.
I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
34. Clark went there to make the case AGAINST the war, WHICH HE DID.
That being Congress and not a playground, he used their arguments to refute as in: "About that Saddam being a danger -lemme tell you about it" (simplified for your use)
I am sorry this is too complex for some of you to understand, but maybe a cartoon from those times would help:
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/dissent.html
Mark Fiore, the man who drew it didn't need Drudge to translate it for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
35. Brought to you by people ragging on a NYT article with broken link -
Why read? Let Drudge do it for you!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DSkinner3 Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
36. Why can't people read the whole transcript?
Nothing but laziness.
You can cut and paste whatever you want it to say.

Need proof?
http://www.bushflash.com/nazi.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
37. More remedial reading help (I know, it's not Drudge, but...it's a letter )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cat M. Donating Member (62 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
38. Drudge is Illiterate
First of all, it was right that Clark be overjoyed when our troops easily conquered Baghdad. I was totally against the war but I was very relieved that it appeared to be over quickly; what were you hoping for? A long drawn out war with a lot more deaths? The rest of Clark's London Times editorial from which Drudge quotes goes on to talk about the need for a good post-war plan, which the Bush administratoin unfortunately failed to implement and which has prolonged the violence.

As for the testimony before the Armed Services Committee, Drudge presents quotes taken completely out of context and they give the completely opposite impression of the gist of Clark's presentation.

In fact, Perle was the speaker "for" the war and Clark was the speaker "against" the war.

1. Clark supported a resolution that did not authorize war and was not a blank check (his own words) but that threatened war, as leverage to peace.

2. Clark said several times "time is on our side."

3. Clark emphasized that war should only be taken as a last resort when EVERY other alternative was exhausted. He said this several times.

4. Clark said there may have been (probably were) some low level contacts between Al Qaida and Iraq but that there was no indication they were in cahoots (regarding 9-11 or any plan to attack America). He in fact was concerned that a resolution authorizing force could push Hussein closer to Al Qaida.

5. Clark stressed the need to continue the fight against Al Qaida and deal with Hussein using the UN and other diplomatic resources.

There's nothing incosistent at all--except a bunch of democrats who support Howard Dean apparently suddenly deciding that Drudge speaks only the truth and is a good source of information.

I guess that means we should all be really concerned that Drudge told us yesterday that Howard Dean signed an affidavit for a wifebeater, even after being told the guy was no good?

Smart Americans will read the entire testimony and there is no way any objective reasonable human being will reach the same conclusions Matt Drudge CHOSE to reach.

I can't even believe democrats are on here spreading the gospel according to Drudge.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
39. Not LBN... locking.
This is really nothing more than Drudge retread from 2002, and therefore doesn't qualify for posting in the Latest Breaking News Forum.

Please feel free to begin a new discussion in the GD-2004 Forum.

Thanks!

DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 06:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC