Skip to main content

View Diary: 2008 Dems and Iraq (215 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well of course Pelican (none)
    we all know the MSM doesn't lie.

    I'm weary posting the same thing over and over again, but I guess that's how it's done...

    from factcheck.org:

    ...But Clark actually was making a case for waiting, and using strong diplomacy backed by a threat of force, not for going to war.

    Here's some of what else Clark said (with emphasis added by FactCheck.org):

    "I do believe that the United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing U.S. determination to act if the United Nations can not act. The use of force must remain a U.S. option under active consideration. Such congressional resolution need not, at this point, authorize the use of force.

    . . . . In the near term, time is on our side and we should endeavor to use the United Nations if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections . . .

    . . . . We have to work this problem in a way to gain worldwide legitimacy and understanding for the concerns that we rightly feel and for our leadership.

    . . . .We should not be using force until the personnel, the organizations, the plans that will be required for post conflict Iraq are prepared and ready . . . . We need to be ready because if suddenly Saddam Hussein's government collapses and we don't have everything ready to go, we're going to have chaos in that region.

    Clark said any military action should be with the support of NATO allies, and criticized the Bush administration for decisions "which have undercut its friends and allies around the world and given the impression that the United States doesn't respect the opinions of others."

    He made a clear distinction between threatening force and using it: "I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq but it is certainly time to put that card on the table, to turn it face up and to wave it."

    Last year, soon after he began his campaign for the White House, Clark stumbled by saying he "probably" would have voted for the war-authorizing resolution that Congress passed soon after his testimony, then amended his words several times. (See our earlier article on that.) But in his House testimony at the time he pushed for patience and dipolmacy, not war.

    The yellow light is flashing. We have a problem . . . . but time is on our side in the near term and we should use it.

    _______

    "He Wants to Wait"

    Also testifying at the same hearing was Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser and leading advocate of the military action that followed.

    "What I would like to see us do is go into Iraq (and) liberate the people of Iraq from the scourge of that nightmare regime," Perle said. "I don't believe that time is on our side and I don't believe that this fuzzy notion that the most important thing is building legitimacy . . .  should be the decisive consideration."

    And how did Perle summarize Clark's position?

    I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait.

    http://www.factcheck.org/...

    •  Thank you, jen..... (none)
      .......for dropping the F bomb......FACTS!!!!!

      'The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing combined with the stupidity of our people.' Bill Maher

      by pelican on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:30:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (none)
        because my quotes from Clark and from journalists who interviewed Clark sure aren't facts.

        You Clarkistas live in a fantasy land.

        Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

        by philgoblue on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:48:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site