Josh Marshall debunks Drudges headline about Clark and the war

[59millionmorons]

Like I said today in a earlier reply to a poster who posted this Drudge story with glee. Be careful what you read on the drudge report. Well more great reporting from Josh Marshall sweeps this story of Clark supporting the war under the rug were it belongs. Like I suggested to the original poster, Drudge is not beyond picking and choosing selective sentences he wants you to hear without putting it in context and he did it again.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1020548&mesg_id=1020548

[Democrats unite]

1. Why does this not surprize me?

Having to stoop to drudge for news should say it all.

[59millionmorons]

3. Desperation

Desperation, sometimes cause good people to do and say dumb things.

[DrBB]

2. Gee I wonder how come Dredge didn't quote this bit

CLARK: 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. This is what U.S. leadership in the world must be. We must bring others to share our views and not be too quick to rush to try to impose them even if we have the power to do so.

Or this bit here:

CLARK:
If the efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, then we need to form the broadest possible coalition including our NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if we're going to have to bring forces to bear. 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. This includes dealing with requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps even including a new constitution.

Ideally, the international/multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post conflict operations, the United Nations, NATO, other regional organization, Islamic organizations, but we have no idea how long this campaign could last, and if it were to go like the campaign against the Afghans, against the Taliban in which suddenly the Taliban collapsed and there we were.

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.

I think that was fairly accurate, yes?

CLARK: But the problem of Iraq is only one element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished worldwide war against Al Qaida, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies and that ultimately will be won as much by persuasion as by the use of force. We've got to turn off the Al Qaida recruiting machine. Now some 3,000 deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaida, and I think everyone acknowledges that Al Qaida has not yet been defeated.

Again, that's pretty accurate, isn't it. And it's pretty much what he's still saying in his stump speeches.

CLARK: As far as I know, I haven't seen any substantial evidence linking Saddam's regime to the Al Qaida network, though such evidence may emerge. But nevertheless, winning the war against Al Qaida and taking actions against the weapons programs in Iraq, that's two different problems that may require two different sets of solutions. In other words, to put it back into military parlance, Iraq they're an operational level problem. We've got other operational level problems in the Middle East, like the ongoing conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Al Qaida and the foundation of radical extremist fundamentalist Islam, that's the strategic problem. We've got to make sure that in addressing the operational problem we're effective in going after the larger strategic problem. And so, the critical issue facing the United States right now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaida or our efforts to deal with other immediate mid and long-term security problems.

That's pretty close to how I see it, though corrected to our current knowledge that there really weren't any WMD to speak of. Saddam was clearly a problem, he was clearly a humanitarian disaster and it wouldn't hurt to take him out on that basis alone, other things being equal. But other things weren't--we had and have MUCH bigger fish to fry, and the way in which the Iraq thing was done made those bigger, strategic problems WORSE rather than better.