Clark Statement Before House Armed Services Committee 9/26/02

An interesting read.

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.

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

More on Clark's past here:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

http://www.prorev.com/politics.htm#clark

Personally, I'm holding out for a Department of Peace!

goes by where you don't post the same exact thing.

Spam, spam and more spam.

WILLIAMS: …President, would be the least popular, most right thing you would do? Again, 30 seconds each.

KUCINICH: Three things come to mind. First, I would take action to stop the federal death penalty.

Second, I would move to cut the Pentagon budget by 15 percent, which would in no way affect adversely our national defense, and put the money into child care.

Third, I would move to create a Department of Peace which would seek to make nonviolence an organizing principle in our society and to work with the nations of the world to make war itself archaic.

Transcription from Democrat Debate.

:dem:Make war archaic. Vote Kucinich.

Kucinich would make war archaic. I keep thinking about the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and the League of Nations, and the United Nations, and thinking, 'Department of Peace.' Right.

Why even try to have peace, it's out of the question, I guess. Peace is an insane, idealistic idea, and we should not even bother to attempt to take productive steps in trying to achieve it.

I noticed the UN did not back sanction the War in Afghanistan or in Iraq. Or the War in Kosovo, for that matter. What a worthless organization. Richard Perle was right when he said, "Thank God for the death of the UN". Oh, yeah, didn't Bush just crawl back to the UN and grovel for help? Maybe he should have listened to Kofi.

Last I looked, the US was starting all the wars. Perhaps a domestic Department of Peace and an intelligent President like Kucinich would actually make war archaic. Somebody's gotta do it.

:dem:Make war Archaic. Vote for Dennis Kucinich.

He proposed a department of peace. He wants a to form a new Department of International Assistance.


Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14400-2003Sep28.html

and 100% consistent with everything he said. His supporters have been spinning yarns about him being anti-war but Clark's own words in front of the House are the blueprint for everything he said and did afterwards.

I have also noted, with chagrin and amusement, that some of the biggest Clark supporters here were unapologetically pro-war and hawkish when it comes to foreign relations.

This is creepy. Same war. Same number of 'enemy deaths'. Same imperialist push but just better executed and better coordinated.

I wouldn't consider that an improvement. All it would do is make it possible for us to bury our heads in the sand and it would be even worse.

If there's one good thing Bush did, it's that he brought the horror of war front and center and into our living rooms. Clark would manage his just like Clinton did and we'd think the world was fine and peachy keen. God, that's just not good enough.

We can do so much better than that.

Thanks, I'm book-marking this.

... when Clark stated:

"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."


Notice the formation of "the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies" was the catch. This never materialized, and perhaps Gen.(retired) Clark realized that this would not happen. Look where we are now, no coalition to assist in follow up, it is our worst nightmare.

Something to think about, huh?

Under a President Clark we would have tried to strong-arm the other nations into supporting us (which probably wouldn't have worked because trust someone who lived in Europe a long time, they're tired of supporting our wars- they're still smarting from the way they were played and ripped off during Gulf War I & taking a beating from their people for involvement in Yugoslavia) and gone about the same thing with a little more finesse. That is not an improvement. That is merely having the cannibal use a knife and fork.

let me hightlight the parts I think you missed:


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.

((In short- Let's go to war and here's how to pull it off))
------------------------------------------------------------

Is this not exactly what Bush did? He sure tried but our allies were not amused with American greed nor were they amused with the cruel campaign against Saddam and his people. We went to war for 2 reasons and everyone knew it and no one was buying either. We could barely get the UN to keep the sanctions. They were rebelling to lift them with France and Germany at the head of that movement. Do you really think they would have gone to war with us? They knew what most of us here know, that the whole thing was a greedy sham. And worse, sadly, I am convinced that Clark knew also.

You seem only concerned that there is no coalition to assist in follow-up.

What follow-up? The occupation? So in your reasoning we need people on board because the war was ok but we needed help with the follow-up? Help me out here. Sometimes I think I can't possibly be understanding the reasoning of some Clark supporters.

that Clark was saying that, after an exhaustive search for WMD, that we should form a coalition and pre-emptively attack Iraq anyway, even if no WMD were found?
And not call it a pre-emptive attack?

The REAL anti-war candidate, besides Braun and Sharpton.