Wesley Clark's Testimony To Congress September 26, 2002 (Drudge Lies)

[KittyWampus]

Posted because some are linking to Drudge who has heavily edited this speech and made it appear Clark supported a Preventatvie War in Iraq or a Resolution giving Bush an invitation to invade Iraq. Clark in fact did NEITHER.

House Armed Services Committee

September 26, 2002

Mr. Chairman, Representative Skelton, Distinguished Members of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. This is a Committee that has been strongly supportive of the men and women in uniform, and I want to thank you personally for the assistance and support that you gave me, and have given so many others.

In October 1994, Saddam Hussein moved several Republican Guards divisions back into the attack positions just north of the Kuwaiti border, the same attack positions that had been occupied just prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. It was a foolish and to our minds unexpected and threatening move. We quickly deployed additional military forces to the region, preparing to enter a full-fledged battle against Iraq to defend Kuwait, and we also went to the United Nations. After a few tense days Saddam backed off, the divisions were removed, and we acted through the United Nations to further tighten the no-fly zone and regulate Iraqi troop movements.

But it was a signal warning about Saddam Hussein: he is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. Were he to acquire such capabilities, we and our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks. Saddam might use such weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his neighbors, he might threaten American forces in the region, he might strike directly against Israel, or Israel, weighing the possibilities of nuclear blackmail or aggression, might feel compelled to strike Iraq first.

Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required. But what makes the situation relatively more dangerous today is that the UN weapons inspectors, who provided some assistance in impeding his development programs, have been absent from Iraq for over four years. And the sanctions regime, designed to restrict his access to weapons materials and the resources needed to procure them, has continuously eroded. At some point, it may become possible for Saddam to acquire the fissionable materials or uranium ore that he needs. And therefore, Iraq is not a problem that can be indefinitely postponed.

In addition, Saddam Hussein's current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law.

Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President's clear determination to act if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.

But the problem of Iraq is only an element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished, world-wide war against Al Qaeda, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately be won by persuasion as much as by force, when we turn off the Al Qaeda recruiting machine. Some three thousand deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaeda, and as all acknowledge, Al Qaeda has not yet been defeated. Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam's regime to the Al Qaeda network. And while such linkages may emerge, winning the war against Al Qaeda may well require different actions than ending the weapons programs in Iraq.

The critical issue facing the Unites States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda or efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security problems. In this regard, I would offer the following considerations:

- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

- The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in crafting UN engagement. In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force. This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam's weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action. Yes, there is a risk that inspections would fail to provide the evidence of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam.

If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear. Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This includes requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance,and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution. Ideally, international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations, including the UN, NATO, and other regional and Islamic organizations.

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as “preemptive.

Once initiated, any military operation should aim for the most rapid accomplishment of its operational aims and prompt turnover to follow-on organizations and agencies.

If we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region, and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism. But there are no guarantees. The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere.

I look forward to answering questions and helping the Committee assess the costs and risks of the alternatives before us.

TESTIMONY OF

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK, (RET.)
United States Army
Managing Director, Merchant Banking,
The Stephen's Group, INC.,
and Former Commander and Chief, U.S. European Comman

[Jack_Dawson]

1. Clark has been consistent...

There's nothing to see here people. Sorry Drudge.

[mmonk]

2. Thanks for the post

It seems it needs to keep being shown to keep setting the record straight.

[eileen from OH]

3. thanks, I saw and read this

the first (of the approximately 500 times) it was posted. Cleared and clarified. Got it. De-bunked thoroughly. Roger and out. I spit on Drudge!

Now, does anyone have a link to the other thing mentioned on Drudge (the London Times op-ed)? Would like to read for myself.

Thanks,

eileen from OH

[mike_c]

4. weak-- this is very similar to the statements the Bush* admin...

...was making at the same time, suggesting that Hussein had active banned weapons programs, could mount a nuclear capability if given time, the U.S. has to show strong determination to stop him, war is a last resort, and so on. I particularly remember shrubya reciting that last mantra over and over. Clark is ON RECORD as supporting Bush's foreign policy. Fool me once....

[KittyWampus]

7. Perhaps, My Friend, You Missed This Part OF What I Posted:

"We have an unfinished, world-wide war against Al Qaeda, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately be won by persuasion as much as by force, when we turn off the Al Qaeda recruiting machine. Some three thousand deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaeda, and as all acknowledge, Al Qaeda has not yet been defeated. Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam's regime to the Al Qaeda network. And while such linkages may emerge, winning the war against Al Qaeda may well require different actions than ending the weapons programs in Iraq. "

He also clearly says that SADDAM had NO Nuclear Capabilities.

And he spoke of a limited Resolution.

It's all there in black and white

[CivilRightsNow]

32. So why did he say they had WMDs on CNN?

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

[tameszu]

23. Really, so Bush said that "time is on our side"

and that we could wait through the UN inspections process?

Or that he was pretty certain that Saddam pose an imminent threat of developing nuclear weapons or delivering WMD to Al Qaeda? (And that making the intent to imminently strike would make it MORE likely that Iraq would give away WMD to terrorist groups?)

Sorry, I missed all that--must have been because I was distracted about Bush and Condi's comments about "smoking guns in the form of mushroom clouds."

[HFishbine]

5. This is Clark's prepared statement

Do you have a link to the rest of his testimony?

[KittyWampus]

8. This Is Clark's Testimony

given in opposition to Richard PERLE'S.

[HFishbine]

30. So

There was no further testimony, or are you unable to provide a link to the rest of it?

[TexasSissy]

6. That's a terrific article! Thanks for setting the record straight.

What a smart smart man. And a natural leader, too.

[robbedvoter]

9. But wait! Lieberman (like DU-ers) picks Drudge as well! TPM:

t)

Lieberman picks up on Drudge's line about Clark's September 2002 testimony.

Here's the lede from the just-released Lieberman press release ...

LIEBERMAN STATEMENT ON CLARK IRAQ TESTIMONY Drudge: Clark made the case for war against Iraq

MANCHESTER, NH -- Joe Lieberman issued the following statement in
response to the Drudge Report's discovery of congressional testimony
from September 2002 in which Wes Clark made the case for war in Iraq.
The report provides evidence directly contradicting Clark's repeated
claims that he has been "very consistent" on the war "from the very
beginning."

Statement by Joe Lieberman

"Yesterday, Wesley Clark attacked me for pointing out his multiple positions on the war in Iraq. It is no longer credible for Wesley Clark to assert that he has always had only one position on the war - being against it. His own testimony before Congress shows otherwise.

"He may think it is 'old-style politics' to point this out, but the only thing old here is a candidate not leveling with the American people. If we want to begin anew and replace George Bush, we need to level with the American people, which is what I have done in this campaign and throughout my career. You may not always agree with me but you will always know where I stand."



Woe to the Democrat who uses Drudge as a clip service!

I don't know if the Lieberman folks looked at the actual testimony -- as opposed to the drudged version -- before sending out this press release. But you can, in the post below.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_01_11.html#002417

[OKNancy]

11. Lieberman

should take his time and do his homework. I think it's so funny that Drudge and Lieberman act like this is some new find. The Clark people have been using this for months to back up their points.

It certainly was no big revelation.

[Kahuna]

18. I sent the story to the Clark campaign and suggested they send...

the transcipt to Lieberman in exchange for the flip flops Lieberman sent him. I also suggested that they link the transcript on the website and direct all supporters to view it there. So, that Lieberman and Dean will be exposed as liars.

[Jerseycoa]

26. On Salon Now

- - - - - - - - - - - -


"The yellow light is flashing"
Matt Drudge says Wesley Clark's statements to Congress in September 2002 made the case for war in Iraq, but the transcript proves otherwise.

Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from Wesley Clark's testimony before the House Committee on Armed Services on Sept. 26, 2002. The full transcript is available here.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Source: Salon

[kiahzero]

10. Drudge Lies...

In other news: Sky blue, Bush a whore.

[Hep]

14. Tell your friends!

Especially people who use drudge to go after Dean's wife! Or Dean!

[jonnyblitz]

17. Why just the other day

Drudge seemed to be the favorite source of the day for "some". :eyes:

[seventhson]

12. Sorry - this sounds to me EXACTLY like the Bush rationale/excuse

for the way they went about it.

Talking out of both sides of his mouth IMHO.

Example (which you did NOT highlight):

"Saddam Hussein's current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law."

"Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President's clear determination to act if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts."

In other words:

Saddam has illegal WMD's AND we should use the threat of going it alone to get others to go along and if not successdful Clark "strongly supports" Bushes "clear determination to act if the United Nations can't".

It sounds to me like Clark was IN ON the public relations strategy planning with Bush et al.

[kiahzero]

13. Here's the difference

"Saddam Hussein's current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law."

That was a truthful statement at the time - just about all the international community accepted that he had some chem and bio weapons. It was just a question of whether they were a threat.

"Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President's clear determination to act if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts."

Compared to the fucking over of the Iraqi people (also known as "sanctions"), the UN acting on the problem would have been good.

His point the whole time has not been "Force BAD!" Rather, he hoped that a threat of force could be used to get Saddam to cooperate (which, as you may remember, was working).

[CivilRightsNow]

33. So send a dont screw with the US message as a deterrent, eh?

"The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."

[arewethereyet]

24. it is customary to be consistant when presenting this sort of info

I'm confident that he was briefed as to what to say, how to say it and what not to say. He would have information from his Army days that remain classified so drawing those lines would be important.

This, in conjunction to the other things of this sort will recieve careful attention fro the republican spinners.

[thalerd]

29. Big difference

Clark didn't say he "strongly supports" Bushes "clear determination to act if the United Nations can't," as you claim. You've pieced together quotes from two separate sentences as if they were one and the same. He said he strongly supports Bush encouraging the UN to act. The then says that the "determination to act if the United Nations can't" provides leverage for diplomatic efforts.

Here's another point that wasn't highlighted but that I feel is crucial:

"Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This includes requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance,and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution."

He clearly says that there should be no invasion until all preparations have been made for post-war Iraq. As these preparations had not been made at the time and in fact still have not been made, Clark's testimony shows he would not have advocated force of any kind under the circumstances.

[HFishbine]

31. Ah, the Kerry Position

In that regard, his position was the same as John Kerry's then.

[phillybri]

15. Kick for the General...

Way to go Joe, who will you cite next? Dan Coulter???

[Leilani]

16. Clark Supporters

should deluge Drudge with emails.

He is such a shill for Bush & Co

[Kahuna]

20. We should deluge Michael Moore with emails..

Mike will rip Lieb and Dan apart for repeating these lies.

[Kahuna]

19. This is a job for Mighty Mouth! <check in clarkies>

http://www.michaelmoore.com/email/index.php

Debunking this story is what Michael Moore does best! The above link will provide contacts to Moore. Let's do this!! :bounce:

[funky_bug]

22. Thanks for the link

I just sent my letter!

[Kahuna]

25. Good for you! Thanks! Mike draws crowds and this type of thing...

is his shtick!

[funky_bug]

21. A Newbie Thanks You

I have been curious (but not diligently looking for a copy) regarding his speach. I am very happy you posted this (again, I take it).

It's quite clear to me that Wesley Clark was basing his testimony on what we now know were lies from the Bush administration regarding the supposed WMD in Iraq. He specifically said to go through the UN first, and only if that failed should we step in.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bush order the inspectors out so he could go in? Too bad he didn't listen to Wes. Now I understand why the general took matters into his own hands, registered as a Democrat and committed to fighting the good fight.

Like when we tell our kids to make good choices, and then they don't and we say, "Okay, I gave you a chance. Now I'm taking the matter into my own hands."

Anyone who refutes this should carefully read the speech again. I know we all see what we want to see, but this seems clear as crystal to me.

[mzmolly]

27. Dean's words have been cherry picked and used against him from the

beginning. Political smears are not based on context. Mr Clark and his supporters are in for a ride folks. Prepare.

[Kahuna]

36. Selectively splicing sentences is a bit different than what has been..

done to Dean. Don't try to compare the two.

[Clark4VotingRights]

28. Truth kick!

eom

[SeattleRob]

34. Drudge = GOP

Why would anyone listen to what Drudge has to say? You know his stuff is always shoddy at best and generated by his buddies at the RNC. I am a Dean supporter and I would warn Clark Supporters to be prepared for more GOP RNC phony attacks as the campaign goes on. Remember, we're all in this together!

[KittyWampus]

35. NYTimes Still Trying To Push False Impression Of Clark's Testimony

:puke: