GOP Chair Claims Clark Supported War; Transcripts Show Otherwise

[Oilwellian]

I was away from DU last week and wasn't sure if this article had been posted. I checked Search and found nothing so felt it was important to share. I'm amazed at how quickly disinformation is printed by the rightwing media and if there's any recanting at all, it isn't until the message has sunk in and believed as truth. It's important to know Clark's pre-war comments did not support the approach that Bush eventually took.

<snip>
Posted on Thu, Jan. 15, 2004

BY DANA HULL and DREW BROWN
Knight Ridder Newspapers

<snip>

Clark's congressional testimony was further distorted Thursday by cyber-gossip columnist Matt Drudge, who quoted selected portions of Clark's testimony and added sentences that don't appear in the transcript on his Web site Thursday. Drudge didn't respond to an e-mail request for comment.

For example, Drudge quoted Clark on possible links between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's regime. "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as (fellow witness) Richard (Perle) says, that there have been such contacts," Clark testified. "It's normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information."

But Drudge didn't include Clark's comment that: "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. I'm saying there hasn't been any substantiation of the linkage of the Iraqi regime to the events of 9/11 or the fact that they are giving weapons of mass destruction capability to al-Qaida."

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat," Clark testified, according to the full transcript, which was reviewed by Knight Ridder. "He does retain his chemical and biological capabilities to some extent and he is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we … The problem of Iraq is not a problem that can be postponed indefinitely … ."

In addition, Clark said: "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 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."


More here.

[Memekiller]

1. Yep, it's the next "Gore invented the Internet Meme"

What people have yet to debunk is Kaus's equally distorted account of Clark's London times editorial. Drudge can be excused for his distortions of Clark's testimony because he answers to no one. But Kaus's work is presumably reviewed by an editor, so one would hope a similar creative editing would not have as easy a time making it past the desk. Yet after arrogantly proclaiming "It's possible to square Clark's Congressional testimony with opposition to the war as waged. But it's impossible to square this London Times article with Clark's current antiwar criticism," Kaus unbelievably goes on to do a Drudge immitation. Anyone who takes the time to read Clark's actual words will see that after praising the troops and the President for a swift military victory, Clark then goes point by point, discussing every problem we would face during the occupation that the Bush Administration failed to plan for:

There would be resistance: "The regime's last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight"

"Then there's the matter of returning order and security"

There aren't enough troops: "There are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes"

There's a price for acting unilaterally: "As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn't pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome. "

We have yet to find WMD: "Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven't yet been found."

We should be focusing on the terrorists: "Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West."

How conveniently none of these statements in an editorial that is "impossible to square" with Clark's current stand are ever mentioned. That's probably because Clark's stand before Congress, on CNN and in the very editorial Kaus distorts in a Drudgean fashion has been unchanged, and mentioning these quotes might accidentally leave his readers with the right impression. Any responsible reading of this editorial would see it for what it is: the words of a harsh critic who, once the decision had been made, gave his President some praise for his victory as a segue into a polite warning of all that would go wrong if he didn't act to avoid them.

And for the record, here's another story that shows how Drudge twisted the testimony, with links to similar stories.


"Fool Me Twice" asks why the media continually allows Drudge to bamboozle them:

"There’s an old saying, 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.' If that’s true, then the people who should be ashamed about the media frenzy that resulted from Matt Drudge’s cut and paste job of Clark’s prior testimony before the Armed Services Committee is the press. Drudge’s creative editing of transcripts is routine, but the media’s reporting of these hack jobs is also routine. Yet like the good little masochists they are, they keep begging for another flogging. “Thank you, daddy, may I please have another?”

[Moderator]

2. Locking

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

...

7. Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
DU moderator