Katrina Swett is reporting nothing but the truth- a truth corroborated by Clark's campaigning FOR the war in January of '03 and which Clark himself told AP when he was campaigning for her. And about Lieberman, if there's one thing most of us give him points for. it's for having the courage to own up to what he did, said and believed- withouth waffling or spinning.
Sunday, 26 January, 2003, 17:15 GMT
Powell fails to woo scepticsLeading European figures say a speech by US Secretary of State Colin Powell warning that time is running out for Iraq to disarm has not persuaded them that a military strike is necessary.
<snip>
From the business community, Cem Kozlu, chairman of Turkish Airlines, said the message from Mr Powell was bleak.
"What Mr Powell said is that if there is evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq there will be war. And if there is no evidence, there will be war. That is bad news."
<snip>
Praise for Powell But for the US,
Wesley Clark, former Nato supreme allied commander for Europe, led the plaudits for Mr Powell's speech.
"He gave a very reasoned explanation of US policy," Mr Clark said. "It will help bring everyone together." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2696033.stm ===
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Opposition is confident it can build a coalition after SaddamMark Landler The New York Times Wednesday, January 29, 2003
DAVOS, Switzerland After five days suffused by fear and anger over the American push for war in Iraq, Europeans and Arabs attending the World Economic Forum spent their last day here talking about life after a conflict that few want, but most now believe is inevitable.
As the debate subtly shifted Tuesday, eight prominent members of the Iraqi opposition arrived, with impeccable timing, to sketch out a vision of their country following the ouster of Saddam Hussein.
<snip>
Before their presentation, the Iraqis had listened
raptly to a military briefing on Iraq given by
General Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander, who is rumored to be pondering a bid for the presidency.
Davos is worlds away from the grange halls of Iowa, but some Americans here remarked that Clark's three-day blitz of the conference looked suspiciously like the dress rehearsal for a campaign.
He was host at a cocktail party for young people. He spoke at a breakfast for senior journalists. And he gave the briefing, complete with giant maps of Iraq and an electronic pointer, for an overflow audience of business executives and public officials. He requested that journalists not report his remarks, as they were based only on "informed speculation."
<snip>
Clark, who directed the air war in Kosovo, has also expressed doubts about invading Iraq without a United Nations mandate. But he said he came to Davos to rally the allies in support of a campaign.
"I've told all the Europeans: They need to get on the team," he said. "It's better to be inside the tent than outside."<snip>
http://www.iht.com/articles/84929.html ===
Here's the speech Clark was praising when he told the Europeans
to get on board:
Secretary Colin L. Powell :puke:
Davos, Switzerland
January 26, 2003
I am especially pleased that the theme of this year's gathering is "Building Trust," because trust is a crucial commodity, not only in this but in all eras. I've been here for just over a day, long enough to speak and meet with a number of you, long enough to hear directly and from others much of what has been said about the United States over the last two or three days, about whether America can be trusted to use its enormous political, economic, and above all, military power, wisely and fairly.
<snip>
When we talk about trust, let me use that as a bridge to one of the major issues of the day, Iraq. Let me try to explain why we feel so strongly about Iraq and why we are determined that the current situation cannot be allowed to continue. We are where we are today with Iraq because Saddam Hussein and his regime have repeatedly violated the trust of the United Nations, his people and his neighbors,
to such an extent as to pose a grave danger to international peace and security. <snip>
What happened to
nearly 30,000 munitions capable of carrying chemical agents? The inspectors can only account for only 16 of them. Where are they? It's not a matter of ignoring the reality of the situation. Just think, all of these munitions, which perhaps only have a short range if fired out of an artillery weapon in Iraq, but imagine if one of these weapons were smuggled out of Iraq and found its way into the hands of a terrorist organization who could transport it anywhere in the world.
<snip>
Where are
the mobile vans that are nothing more than biological weapons laboratories on wheels? Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons? <snip>
The United States believes that time is running out.
We will not shrink from war if that is the only way to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.
We continue to reserve our sovereign right to take military action against Iraq alone or in a coalition of the willing. As the President has said:
"We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. History will judge harshly those who saw a coming danger but failed to act." ((This I think best applies to someone who knew of the administration's plans to attack 7 countries and was not only keeping mum but was right there with Powell praising his speech and telling the Europeans to get on board))<snip>
The United States has already stepped forward with bold and sweeping proposals to liberalize trade in both agriculture and in industrial goods. Now other major players must join us. Governments must resist the temptation to erect new barriers such as those blocking trade in agriculture and biotechnology which have the effect of reducing trade while depriving food assistance, for example, to hungry -- nay, starving -- people.
<snip>
QUESTION: Thank you. Mr. Secretary of State, I am Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International, a global human rights movement. I would like to thank you for coming to speak to us. And I have a question for you which I know is troubling many civil society groups around the world, including many of us who are represented here today.
My question is: Do you believe that the threat which Iraq poses today is
so great, so grave and so imminent, that it justifies provoking a massive human rights and humanitarian crisis?I say this because the humanitarian situation in Iraq is very fragile and military action could easily precipitate, in our view would certainly precipitate, a huge humanitarian disaster. We have seen -- we remember in 1991 -- the millions of refugees who were trapped on the border. There could be a bloodbath inside, a ripple effect as well.
And my question is: How does one balance the human rights and humanitarian concerns with that military action, the threat, the military action both with the humanitarian concern? Thank you.
SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you very much.
SECRETARY POWELL:
We do believe the threat is great and the Security Council believes the threat is great, and it's reflected in the 15-0 vote on 1441. Iraq must be disarmed.We are sensitive to the plight of the Iraqi people, not only in the case of a conflict, but their plight right now. The Iraqi leadership has more than enough money to take care of the needs of the Iraqi people if the money would be spent in the right way, as opposed to being used to punish the Iraqi people by withholding aid.
And perhaps if a conflict were necessary -- and once again, we are hoping it will not be necessary -- but if it is necessary, the contingency planning that we are doing in the United States includes actions directly related to ensuring that the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people would be taken care of, and perhaps with a regime that is more responsive to the needs of its people and more interested in using the wealth of the Iraqi people for the benefit of the Iraqi people, and not for weapons of mass destruction and not wasting the money on armies that invaded Kuwait, armies that invaded Iran.
Perhaps not only would the Iraqi people be better off in the aftermath of such a conflict, but so would the whole region.
<snip>
Released on January 26, 2003
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/16869.htm===
Nope. Sounds like Katrina just told the truth on Clark.
I wonder who Scot Lehigh works for?
SCOT LEHIGH
Clark's scrambled message on Iraq By Scot Lehigh, 10/24/2003
MANCHESTER, N.H.
WHEN RETIRED General Wesley Clark campaigned here on Wednesday, a short interview with the Globe led to an admission that may help explain the inconsistencies in Clark's position on Iraq.
First some background. My last conversation with Clark about Iraq came when the former supreme allied commander, Europe, spoke at the University of Massachusetts at Boston on Oct. 10, 2002. Congress, that day, was finishing debate on the resolution that clearly authorized the president to use force unilaterally against Iraq if he deemed it necessary.
Back then Clark sounded like a man who thought a tough threat was needed to motivate Saddam Hussein. Indeed, just the day before, while campaigning for New Hampshire congressional candidate Katrina Swett,
Clark had told the Associated Press that he supported the congressional resolution despite reservations about the administration's approach to Iraq.
<snip>
You can find the rest of the information here at
http://pub73.ezboard.com/fwesleyclark200463811frm12">Clark's Strike Force- Jeez- you practically have to be a lawyer to support this guy!
http://pub73.ezboard.com/fwesleyclark200463811frm12.showMessage?topicID=40.topic
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
