Key Transcripts & Audio Files; Clark/Perle testify to Congress on Mid East

[Tom Rinaldo]

Very important in light of developments regarding possible attack on Iran.

Just up at Securing America. Top feature on front page. Here is the announcement:

"New Addition to the Securing America site: WKC's HASC testimony from April 6, 2005

Posted by Kat on January 2, 2006 - 3:20pm.

ON April 6, 2005 General Clark and Richard Perle testified again in front of the House Armed Services Committee about Iraq. The first time, General Clark argued against the invasion. This time, the committee was much more open to his thoughts and advice. Several Clark volunteers have contributed to the effort to make this testimony more accessible and easier to follow. RegNYC, Melange, and Incap all participated in making this effort possible. Kudos, too, to Knightrider for the photos. General Clark made an extemporaneous statement that followed the lines of his prepared statement (both transcripts are available). We have summarized all of the questions asked (but not transcribed them). Richard Perle's answers to questions are not transcribed, but available on the audio files. All of General Clark's answers are fully transcribed. In light of the current discussion of Iran, this is even more relevant than when we first began the project, so it is now accessible on the front page of Securing America at http://www.securingamerica.com Take a few minutes to explore the information from the HASC testimony. It's worth the time."

http://www.securingamerica.com/

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

1. Thanks, this was a very heated and little publicized session that should

be heard and/or read by a wider audience, especially now.

[Sparkly]

2. WaPo article on the same...

I liked this summary, too...

When Hunter's GOP colleagues didn't join his line of questioning, he took another turn grilling Clark. The chairman likened President Bush's Middle East policies to those of President Ronald Reagan in Eastern Europe.

"Reagan never invaded Eastern Europe," Clark retorted.

In another try, Hunter said Clark was "overstating" the risk in challenging other countries in the Middle East. Clark smiled and showed his trump card -- reminding Hunter of their exchange at the 2002 hearing. "I kept saying time was on our side," Clark said. "I could never quite satisfy you."

As for who proved correct, the general said, "I'll let the record speak for itself."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32440-2005Apr6.html

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. The audio tapes are great, and broken up into specific questions

That makes downloading easy. Plus you can read quick summaries of the questions first before deciding which audio tape you want to open, or you can read the transcripts, or both. Half of the Republicans ended up tearing into Perle over his slimy positions. Great moment: Clark saying the Bush Administration should stop acting like a rooster crowing over the dawn trying to take credit for the sun rise regarding stirrings in the Arab world toward wanting more democracy.

But look for the sections about what Clark foresaw would happen if Bush Administration policies did not change and if Congress refused to question them. Specifically look at the discussion about Iran. It is chilling to say the least.

[judy from nj]

4. This is great news

I listened to this testimony, and thought it was very important. The committee really was very hard on Perle, and complemented Wes Clark for being right. I am looking forward to reading the transcript and listen to this again.

[AuntiBush]

5. Will Any of this Ever be on C-SPAN or the Tube?

I really want to see all session televised from here on out. Sick of the secrecy. Not everyone is on the Internet, nor has the time.

On Note: Good For General Clark's team getting this out here, though.

[Texas_Kat]

6. Cspan failed to show up for the hearing

They finally admitted that they were tied up somewhere else.

In one of the questions D Hunter says they arent' breaking for lunch, but the vote (whatever it was) was going so there would be members in and out.

I guess that's where CSpan was.

[NCarolinawoman]

17. Funny about C-Span. Their current favorite seems to be Bill Bennett.

He keeps showing up at these little forums with about two people in the audience.....but C-span seems to just LO-O-O-OVE him.

[Donna Zen]

7. I've never heard this before!

Great.

[wiley]

8. Thank You

I had missed this.

[Jai4WKC08]

9. Sounding the alarm

Clark tried to warn Congress of the dangers of invading Iraq, and now he's doing everything he can to warn us all how BushCo will use the same political tactics to strike Iran.

Question is, is anyone listening? Or is Clark some sort of a modern-day Cassandra, foretelling the future but fated to have no one believe him?

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Well, the relative lack of interest in discussing this matter

outside of Clark related threads, is not encouraging. I'm not saying no one else is bringing it up here at DU and elsewhere, but preventing a crisis from exploding always makes infinitely more sense than organizing to end one after it already is out of control. If Democrats put one tenth as much energy into preventing war with Iran as they put into dealing with the consequences of the war with Iraq, we might be able to stop the next one.

[CarolNYC]

11. Agreed

Thanks for posting this Tom...Too bad so few listen.....

[FrenchieCat]

12. He's not a governor, so of course, no one is listening!

I mean.....after all, keeping our head in the sand and discussing "other things" is soooo much easier to manage!

In reference to the substance of Clark's words.......I'm gonna listen, so I won't be surprised or unprepared. Wish the Democratic politicians would do the same! :eyes:

[Clark2008]

13. Not a governor nor a senator.

Yet, he's warned us once about Iraq - and was 99.9 percent correct.

Now, he's warning us about Iran, and, because he's not a governor or a senator who was "elected," some people are "scared" of his being president (I swear I just read that - and from someone on DU in MY home state! :eyes: )

Maybe they should be a little more scared of what he's saying BushCo will do instead of being worried about whether Clark has leadership abilities.

[Jai4WKC08]

15. Well, what should we expect?

Few governors are capable of speaking credibly to national security issues (Richardson being the exception, but I don't hear him doing it). So natch' the corporate media is gonna give them the airtime and lines of print and ignore the people who will tell us what's really going down.

Imagine how inconvenient it would be to let the American voter be exposed to knowledgable Democrats willing to call BushCo out on their incompetent policies and the domestic motivations behind them. Wouldn't be good for corporate profits at all. Can't have that.

Much better to keep feeding us the Hillary horse race. It's so much more fun than serious politics or the ho-hum wonkishness of government accountability and public debate. That is, when they bother at all to divert our attention from the really important stories, like missing white women and celebrity criminal trials.

[Clark2008]

14. Thanks for posting this, Tom.

I can't listen to it now since I'm at work, but I'll be listening to it again tonight (I streamed it off the CSPAN website when it was live).

However, there were so many points Clark made there that need to be repeated over and over again to conservatives and the media (and even to some people on DU), so that its settled, once and for all, what Clark's position on Iraq truly was.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Comparing "The Iraq Model" for spreading Democracy to end of Cold War

Wesley Clark to Duncan Hunter:

"We did not invade Eastern Europe. We did not excite patriotic East Europeans to fight American soldiers. We did not kick down people's doors, throw their women on the ground, rifle through their belongings and, and shoot them up. We've had to do that in Iraq. So please, be very careful when you say 'The Iraqi Model.' 'The Iraqi Model.' To you it may only mean, when you say it, that there are elections. But to the rest of the world what it means is: The United States invaded a country under false pretenses that turned out to be false, bad intelligence, weren't weapons of mass destruction, had ulterior motives that Mr. Perle has suggested, didn't go in there just for WMD, went in for a lot of different reasons, and then occupied the country and finally got elections, and in the meantime, put the Iraqi people through chaos."

How is that for truth to Power?