and neither passed, but that was not known until very shortly before the Bush-Lieberman Resolution vote.
I don't have any real faith that you will really read the info I provide here, but maybe someone else will, because as I have already stated Clark was consistent on his feelings and his expressions and his warnings in reference to Iraq and why we didn't need to do this, and why it would have been wiser for the United Nations to handle this, and why he was not a enabler....but in fact Wes Clark helped give rationale for those who stood fast against voting for the Blank Check resolution...which again is what the OP is all about; enablers to Bush's war vs the others. Clark was in the "other" camp.
First, information on the resolutions.....
http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102 10/09/02: Don't Let Congress Ratify Bush Preemption Doctrine UPDATE: UPDATE: Senate
If Sen. Daschle and Senate Democratic leaders cannot come to an agreement on the rules for debate by the end of today, then a cloture vote is likely. Cloture is a method of limiting debate or ending a filibuster in the Senate which takes at least 60 Senators. If a cloture vote carries, then it will deny Senators like Sen. Robert Byrd from filibustering. Thirty hours of floor debate is expected in the Senate, making an actual vote likely on Monday or Tuesday of next week.
The BUSH-LIEBERMAN WAR RESOLUTION is the Senate version of the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution.
The BIDEN-LUGAR AMENDMENT would authorize the use of force only to disarm Saddam Hussein, not depose him.
The LEVIN AMENDMENT, introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), would curtail the broad powers provided by the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution by requiring the President to first secure a UN Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq.
It would require a second vote in the Senate pending action or inaction by the UN Security Council.
Senators should be urged to vote for the only resolution that would mandate a 2nd vote be taken before the President can launch a war against Iraq. Thus, implore your Senators to vote YES to the Levin Amendment and vote NO to the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution – S.J.Res.46.
Don’t give up! To resist is to win!
Send Free Faxes to Congress from True Majority
Since you don't even know which of the resolutions Clark supported and are only guessing :shrug: , how can you know anything beyond that, in particular what his campaign staff had in their minds?......as the truth was what Wes was doing during that interview (in his lack of Political media training) is what he often had done, posing and answering his questions fully, looking at all sides, which Nargourney did at least kindly point out in his "gotcha" article.
And actually, your statement that Clark's CNN appearances were in line with "I probably would have voted for the resolution" is incorrect....
In fact, Clark's CNN appearances clearly had him stating that we needed to take our time, Iraq was not an imminent threat, and warned to not give Bush a Blank check, which is exactly what the Bush-Lieberman Resolution represented.
Since I'm assuming you didn't bother to go to the links I gave you, I will bring them to you:
ON CNN-On August 29, 2002, Clark said regarding a proposed invasion of Iraq, "Well, taking it to the United Nations doesn't put America's foreign policy into the hands of the French. What you have to do as the United States is you have to get other nations to commit and come in with you, and so
you've got to provide the evidence, and the convincing of the French and the French public, and the leadership elite. Look, there's a war fever out there right now in some quarters of some of the leadership elements in this country, apparently, because I keep hearing this sense of urgency and so forth. Where is that coming from? The vice president said that today he doesn't know when they're going to get nuclear weapons.
They've been trying to get nuclear weapons for -- for 20 years. So if there's some smoking gun, if there's some really key piece of information that hasn't been shared publicly, maybe they can share it with the French." CNN, 8/29/02
On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq,
"My perspective would be I'd like to see us slow down the rush to go after Saddam Hussein unless there's some clear convincing evidence that we haven't had shared with the public that he's right on the verge of getting nuclear weapons. CNN, 8/29/02
On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq,
"Going after Iraq right now is at best a diversion, and at worst it risks the possibility of strengthening Al Qaeda and undercutting our coalition at a critical time. So at the strategic level, I think we have to keep our eye on the ball and focus on the number one strategic priority. There are a lot of other concerns as well, but that's the main one." CNN, 8/30/02
On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "It seems that way to me. It seems that this would supercharge the opinion, not necessarily of the elites in the Arab world, who may bow to the inevitability of the United States and its power, but the radical groups in the Middle East, who are looking for reasons and gaining more recruits every time the United States makes a unilateral move by force. They will gain strength from something like this.
We can well end up in Iraq with thousands of military forces tied down, and a worse problem in coping with a war on terror here in the United States or Europe, or elsewhere around the world." CNN, 8/30/02
September 16, 2002:
Clark said Congress shouldn't give a "blank check," to Use Force Against Iraq. On September 16, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization to use force,
"Don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation?" CNN 9/16/02
WOODRUFF:
How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would passterms of what the president is able to do after?
CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.
So I think the -- what people say is,
don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.htmlOn October 5, 2002, Clark said, regarding debate on Congressional authorization for war against Iraq, "The way the debate has emerged, it's appeared as though to the American people, at least to many that talk to me, as though
the administration jumped to the conclusion that it wanted war first and then the diplomacy has followed." CNN 10/5/02
CNN quotes located here....
http://www.clark04.com/faq/iraq.html -----------
There were some of Democratic Senators who quoted the words of Wes Clark, and these senators just happen to vote "NO" on the resolution. So it is odd that Clark would have supported the resolution, when only those who bothered to quote his name in the Senate Floor speech and afterwards also were those who voted "against it".
Here's is
Sen. Ted Kennedy on Larry King pretty recently....
KING:
Why did you vote against?KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and
I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.
I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...
KING:
And that's what moved you?KENNEDY: And
that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.
And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."
snip
There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html and
Sen. Levin and what he said on the floor of the Senate BEFORE THE IWR VOTE when he submitted his own resolution THAT WASN'T A BLANK CHECK...:
"General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block." http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htmand the late
Sen. Paul Wellstone–
“As General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida." http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=2778&catID=298More words from Clark prior to any resolution vote:
Sept. 26, 2002
CLARK: Well,
if I could answer and talk about why time is on our side in the near term, first because we have the preponderance of force in this region. There's no question what the outcome of a conflict would be.
Saddam Hussein so far as we know does not have nuclear weapons. Even if there was a catastrophic breakdown in the sanctions regime and somehow he got nuclear materials right now, he wouldn't have nuclear weapons in any zable quantity for, at best, a year, maybe two years.
So,
we have the time to build up the force, work the diplomacy, achieve the leverage before he can come up with any military alternative that's significant enough ultimately to block us, and so that's why I say time is on our side in the near term. In the long term, no, and we don't know what the long term is. Maybe it's five years. Maybe it's four years. Maybe it's eight years. We don't know.
I would say it would depend on whether we've exhausted all other possibilities and it's difficult. I don't want to draw a line and say, you know, this kind of inspection, if it's 100 inspectors that's enough. I think we've got to have done everything we can do given the time that's available to us before we ask the men and women in uniform, whom you know so well (inaudible).
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm#WCWe don't want a bunch of young men in battle dress uniforms out there indefinitely trying to perform humanitarian assistance. That's not our job. We're not very good at it. We're also not any good at police work. Now we're doing a lot of it in place like Kosovo and Bosnia and we have and it's been unfortunate. So we should try to do better in this case.
snip
I no longer have access to the information this committee has. You may have information I have not seen, but
based on the evidence submitted publicly and my experience over many years of looking at classified information, I would say the balance comes down on time is on our side in the near term. We don't know precisely how long that is and we don't know exactly where we'll draw the line on that risk.
-----------
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-clark-092602.htm---------
same testimony 9/26/02:
Since then, we've encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait. We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an army of God, the mujahaddin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these Holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed Al Qaida.
My French friends constantly remind me that these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy, which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing. There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2035350&mesg_id=203655710/10/02: Retired General Reflects on United States’ Policy Towards Iraq
www.umb.edu/news/2002news/reporter/november/iraq.html
University of Massachusetts at Boston
Retired General Reflects on United States’ Policy Towards Iraq (October 10, 2002)snip
In comparing the two most recent presidencies, Clark described the Clinton administration as pursuing a foreign policy of engagement and reaching out as opposed to the Bush administration’s preemption policy and striking out.
Clark, when asked where the push to invade Iraq was coming from, rejected the idea that it was the military that wanted to go to war. He blamed civilian advisors to President Bush who were pushing in that direction.
Clark stated his view that terrorism is the problem, not Iraq. He also voiced concern that Americans not blame Islam, and spoke of his belief that US interests are best served in reaching out to those who do not embrace the ideals of radical Islam.
-----------------
Finally, Clark describes what was happening behind the scenes during the time right up to the vote (which is confirmed with Ted Kennedy's comment that the "NAY" votes column was building a momentum that was squashed in the rush to the vote - that they went from 8 to 23 votes and could have gotten an even larger number)on Al Franken's radio show recently....
Al Franken: Well, let's go back to the biggest principle of them all. Was this a mistake?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.
Al Franken: Okay, now.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I said it at the time. I warned the administration not to do it. I testified in front of the House and the Senate that this should, this was an elective war. I was on Tim Russert. I was all over saying, 'This is not such a great idea.'
Al Franken: Okay, so it seems to me, and, and this is again my way of raising the idea of your running, is it possible, I mean, it may be possible that, and I know you're focused on 2006, but that in 2008 we might need a candidate who actually said that before this war. Because this is a, is a debacle. And-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yes, it is.
Al Franken: And it's, it's one thing for somebody who voted for this war saying, you know, 'You have to assume the President's telling the truth. You can't assume a President is lying.' But then on the other hand, the American people want someone who's a better BS detector than they are. And, and you know, I think I would have voted for the use of force, because I would've believed, I believed Colin Powell. I didn't have any reason to think that I couldn't believe Colin Powell. I didn't have a reason to believe that the administration would be misleading us, and they did.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I didn't,
I didn't believe it because I went through the Pentagon a few days after 9/11, and the Generals in the Pentagon told me, "Hey sir," they said, " These guys have made the decision to invade Iraq."Al Franken: Right.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: This was like, the 20th of September. I said, "They have." He said, "Oh, yes sir. They've already decided." I went back a couple of months later, and said, "Are they still going to invade Iraq?" This is like, November. Said, "Oh, yes sir. In fact there's even a plan to- After they finish with Iraq, they're going to take on Syria and Lebanon. Eventually they're going to end up in Iran." This is a whole five-year campaign plan to go from country to country kicking out dictators and taking over and imposing Democracy.
Al Franken: Now I know you're a Four-Star General, and, and so the guys at the Pentagon would say, "Sir, they're planning (laughs) to invade Iraq. But how did,
how did the Senators on the Intelligence Committee not hear that?GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, a lot of them did, because I told a lot of them.Al Franken: Uh huh. And, and, and did,
did they believe you. I mean non-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: They may have believed me, but you know, there's a lot of different shades of truth in Washington. And it's, I mean,
I told people about the five-year plan, and people would say, 'Well you know, yeah, there may be somebody who wrote that, but maybe they won't do that.'Al Franken: Right, right, right.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: 'You know, we've got politics to worry about. Can we afford to be on the wrong side of President Bush on this?
Al Franken: Mm hm.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: He's going to turn the American people against us. Look what happened in 1990.'
Al Franken: Okay, but that's not, that's. I understand why. Yeah, anybody who voted against the first Gulf War was, was, was not considered to be on the ticket.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Exactly.
Al Franken: For example.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Exactly.
Al Franken: And so that's, that can- But that's not leadership. Is it?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well you know, when you're in politics, especially if you're a lifelong politician, you have to make sure you're also representing the people who follow you. So, there's a combination of leading and following that's involved in that. Even the President is, to some extent, a representative of the American people. He's certainly not the king. He doesn't dictate. I know he said he's the decider, but-
Al Franken: (laughs) Yeah.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But (laughs) in fact, he is supposed to be the Chief Executive Officer representing the American people.
Al Franken: Yeah, I, I, I know, I know, but I'm saying that these Senators- there is a certain point - and boy, at the point when you're voting to go to war or not - and they didn't- You know, in fairness I guess, they were told they were voting for peace. They, they were told they were voting so that, that we could go to the UN and, and make the convincing argument to the UN that we would be willing to go into Iraq unilaterally. Therefore, we would have the, the leverage to get the inspectors in.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, I went to several Senators, including I think a couple who later ran for office, and, for the Presidency. I said, "Don't believe him." (laughs) "He's made up his mind to go to war. Don't give him a blank check."Al Franken: Mm Hm.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But they gave him a blank check. I said it on CNN, "You can't give him a blank check." And I said it in the testimony that you have to make sure that there's a resolution. It's got to be a broad resolution so we can go to the United Nations, but it doesn't and shouldn't be a blank check.http://securingamerica.com/node/932More words from Clark post Iraq vote here:
USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002, in which Clark wrote:
"
Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them.
U
nless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem."http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htmClark's September 26, 2002 testimony to the Armed Services Committee, in which he stated:
"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...
"
"...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. "
In his Op-Ed dated October 10, 2002, "Let's Wait to Attack." Clark states:
"In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months.
....there is still time for dialogue before we act."
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/
Gene Lyons interview on Wes Clark with Buzzflash-
Going all the way back to the summer of 2002, I got a sense of how strong his feelings about Iraq were. Long before it was clear that the administration was really going to sell a war on Iraq, when it was just a kind of a Republican talking point, early in the summer of 2002, Wesley Clark was very strongly opposed to it. He thought it was definitely the wrong move. He conveyed that we'd be opening a Pandora's box that we might never get closed again. And he expressed that feeling to me, in a sort of quasi-public way. It was a Fourth of July party and a lot of journalists were there, and there were people listening to a small group of us talk. There wasn't an audience, there were just several people around. There was no criticism I could make that he didn't sort of see me and raise me in poker terms. Probably because he knew a lot more about it than I did. And his experience is vast, and his concerns were deep.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html
--------------
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
