Clark's position on the Iraq war resolution was the most progressive one. Like Byrd and Kennedy, he was mindful of the requirement for checks and balances - having Congress having an authority on declaring war.
Here's what Byrd and Kennedy tried::
> Two senior Democratic senators, Robert Byrd
> of West Virginia and Ted Kennedy of
> Massachusetts, this week proposed separate
> bills on the matter. Byrd's would require President
> Bush (news - web sites) to seek a fresh vote
> in the U.N. Security Council before attacking Iraq;
> Kennedy's would require new votes in
> Congress before doing so.
Here's what Clark pleaded for in his September deposition to Congress:
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.
Here's what the rest of the senators did (from the same article)
> But the chance of approval for either
> measure is slim, given GOP control of the Senate and a
> lack of enthusiasm from Democratic
> congressional leaders.
> The bills aren't supported by any of the
> four Democratic members of Congress running for
> president:* Sens. John Kerry of
> Massachusetts, Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) of
> Connecticut and John Edwards of North
> Carolina*, and Rep. Richard Gephardt (news, bio,
> voting record) of Missouri.
Howard Dean endorsed Biden Lugar which was also lax on checks and balances limiting only the scope (WND as opposed to regime change)
This is important to be stressed since these days Kerry tries to equate his position toi Clark.
If so, why did anti-war Wellstone quoted Clark's arguments in his speech?
But 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."