Clark's testimony was not one that helped Bush.
In the Opening remarks, which was the bare bones, as the Q & A is where most of the quotes are, Clark was basically saying that Saddam was not a good guy, which was true (he wasn't all that nice at all)....and that Saddam had been trying to get weapons for over 20 years (meaning why the urgency now?), but that at this time although he may have biological and chemical weapons, But he didn't have nuclear capabilities (which is the only thing that would spell out an imminent threat to the United States), and in the best of scenarios Saddam still wouldn't have anything in terms of those before 2 to 5 years at best. Clark felt that we needed U.N. Inspections because at that time U.N. inspector hadn't been in Iraq since 1998.
His opening remarks also talks about the fact that Clark supported taking the issue of Iraq to the U.N. and that he supported a resolution, that needed not authorize force at this point.....if the UN wouldn't act, Bush should come back to congress for another authorization. And that the resolution should focus on the WMD issue and not be broad based.
USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002, in which Clark wrote:
"Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them.
Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htmInterview with Gene Lyons and Buzzflash:
"Going all the way back to the summer of 2002, I got a sense of how strong his feelings about Iraq were. Long before it was clear that the administration was really going to sell a war on Iraq, when it was just a kind of a Republican talking point, early in the summer of 2002, Wesley Clark was very strongly opposed to it. He thought it was definitely the wrong move. He conveyed that we'd be opening a Pandora's box that we might never get closed again. And he expressed that feeling to me, in a sort of quasi-public way. It was a Fourth of July party and a lot of journalists were there, and there were people listening to a small group of us talk. There wasn't an audience, there were just several people around. There was no criticism I could make that he didn't sort of see me and raise me in poker terms. Probably because he knew a lot more about it than I did. And his experience is vast, and his concerns were deep." http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html On August 2, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq,
"We seem to have skipped some steps in the logic of the debate. And, as the American people are brought into this, they're asking these questions." CNN, 8/2/02
On August 29, 2002, Clark said regarding a proposed invasion of Iraq, "Well,
taking it to the United Nations doesn't put America's foreign policy into the hands of the French. What you have to do as the United States is you have to get other nations to commit and come in with you, and so
you've got to provide the evidence, and the convincing of the French and the French public, and the leadership elite. Look, there's a war fever out there right now in some quarters of some of the leadership elements in this country, apparently, because
I keep hearing this sense of urgency and so forth. Where is that coming from? The vice president said that today he doesn't know when they're going to get nuclear weapons. They've been trying to get nuclear weapons for -- for 20 years.So if there's some smoking gun, if there's some really key piece of information that hasn't been shared publicly, maybe they can share it with the French." CNN, 8/29/02
On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, "I think -- but I think that underneath, what you're going to have is you're going to have more boiling in the street.
You're going to have deeper anger and you're going to feed the recruitment efforts of Al Qaeda. And this is the key point, I think, that we're at here. The question is what's the greater threat? Three thousand dead in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon underscore the fact that the threat we're facing primarily is Al Qaeda. We have to work the Iraq problem around dealing with Al Qaeda. And
the key thing about dealing with Al Qaeda is, we can't win that war alone." CNN, 8/29/02
On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq,
"My perspective would be I'd like to see us slow down the rush to go after Saddam Hussein unless there's some clear convincing evidence that we haven't had shared with the public that he's right on the verge of getting nuclear weapons. CNN, 8/29/02
On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq,
"Going after Iraq right now is at best a diversion, and at worst it risks the possibility of strengthening Al Qaeda and undercutting our coalition at a critical time. So at the strategic level,
I think we have to keep our eye on the ball and focus on the number one strategic priority. There are a lot of other concerns as well, but that's the main one." CNN, 8/30/02
On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "It seems that way to me.
It seems that this would supercharge the opinion, not necessarily of the elites in the Arab world, who may bow to the inevitability of the United States and its power, but the radical groups in the Middle East, who are looking for reasons and gaining more recruits every time the United States makes a unilateral move by force. They will gain strength from something like this. We can well end up in Iraq with thousands of military forces tied down, and a worse problem in coping with a war on terror here in the United States or Europe, or elsewhere around the world." CNN, 8/30/02
September 16, 2002:
Clark said Congress shouldn't give a "blank check," to Use Force Against Iraq.
On September 16, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization to use force,
"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?" CNN 9/16/02
WOODRUFF:
How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would pass in terms of what the president is able to do after?
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. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.htmlOn September 23, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization for the use of force,
"When you're talking about American men and women going and facing the risk we've been talking about this afternoon... you want to be sure that you're using force and expending American blood and lives in treasure as the ultimate last resort. Not because of a sense of impatience with the arcane ways of international institutions." Senate Committee on Armed Forces 9/23/02
http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html On October 5, 2002, Clark said, regarding debate on Congressional authorization for war against Iraq,
"The way the debate has emerged, it's appeared as though to the American people, at least to many that talk to me, as though the administration jumped to the conclusion that it wanted war first and then the diplomacy has followed."
All CNN quotes located here.... http://www.clark04.com/faq/iraq.html
CNN 10/5/02
Clark favored the Levin Amendment......which would have authorized exactly what Clark stated.
Did you also watch the linked video. Cause that might clarify what I just said.
But that is why some of those who voted "NAY" in the senate quoted Clark...while no one who voted for the IWR quote him.
KING: Why did you vote against?
KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.
I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures.
And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...KING:
And that's what moved you?KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html Sen. Levin said on the floor of the Senate BEFORE THE IWR VOTE when he submitted his own resolution:
"General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block." http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htmand the late great Sen. Paul Wellstone–“As General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=2778&catID=298Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, who also voted NO....“General Wesley Clark, the Former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, put it succinctly, and I quote: "If we go in unilaterally or without the full weight of the international organizations behind us, if we go in with a very sparse number of allies....we're liable to super-charge recruiting for al Qaeda." Let me repeat that. General Clark warned us: "We're liable to super-charge recruiting for al Qaeda."”
http://www.senate.gov/~conrad/issues/statements/defense/defense_stmt_021011.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
