Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Clark Supported U.S. Policy & Intelligence On Iraq  
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1406 times:

Clark has been saying for months now that he has always been against the war in Iraq.

"I've been very consistent... I've been against this war from the beginning," the former general said in Detroit on October 26.

"I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."


Well, I guess he must have forgotten about his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 26, 2002. During his testimony, he not only supported President Bush’s position on Iraq but also supported the analysis that Iraq did posses chemical and biological weapons and was actively seeking nuclear capability.

Here are a few quotes from the Perfumed Prince’s testimony.

"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."

http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

Less than a month later, he said he believed there was a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam.

"Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/12/politics/campaigns/12CLAR.html?ei=5062&en=9f6c7ece0c21223f&ex=1074574800&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1362 times:

I just read Michaels Moores endorsement of Clarke.

And all the reason he listed for supporting him are reasons why I will never vote for Clarke.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1359 times:

thing with clark is, as general you dont say what you think. whatever clark said as boss of SHAPE does not really matter in regard to his personal opinion. he was the nato head honcho, in such a position you usually end up saying stuff that you might not always agree with.
on the contrary i could imagine the outrage of conservative people like you b757300 if a high ranking military official would oppose the war in iraq for example.
its not their duty. the military just does what the civilian government tells them. it is not the job of a soldier to publicly have opinions about things in such a position.



10=2
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1364 times:

I guess that shows that Clarke is not only a liar (that in itself not too rare in politicians), but a bad liar to boot.

His record in former-Yugoslavia is hardly a good reference either.

Charles


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40035 posts, RR: 74
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1350 times:

What intelligence?  Insane


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineGloBaLeXpResS From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2002, 251 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1341 times:

Turns out hes just as bad as Bush then? A big, fat liar.

Anyone who accepts what Bush said and then turns around and says "blah blah, Clark is a lying asshole" should be strung up.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21496 posts, RR: 53
Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1340 times:

As it turns out, reality is not as simple, yet again.

Salon.com does nothing more than quote from the full transcript, not just a convenient snippet. The header before the quote:

Salon: "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


The Salon excerpt with just the "juiciest bits" is here.

(Get a day pass if you´ve got no subscription to read the article.)


As usual, it pays to actually look for the truth.


User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1320 times:


Nice try Clark, wait till Wesley Clark receives company in NH, the other contenders are going to smash him around like a tennis ball.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineMbmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2606 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1308 times:

Hey 757300,

So it appears that you're just a Matt Drudge sychophant. Instead of pulling quotations out of context, you might want to look at Clark's speech in its entirety.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/15/clark/index.html

It's quite clear he didn't support the war.



User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1308 times:

Salon.com? That leftist whacko website that has been on the verge of bankruptcy for well over a year now? Please… They’re on the same order as Moveon.org The only thing keeping them online is a bunch of rich leftists sinking millions into that bottomless pit. Try for a less bias source next time.

Obviously Klaus you are incapable of believing anything bad about anyone who is against President Bush. Clark, Dean, John F---ing Kerry, or any other of the 8 dwarfs could admit to murder and you and the other lefties would try to spin it as a good thing or a right wing conspiracy.

Clark’s statements show that until he entered the Presidential race, he was backing President Bush, and supporting the claim about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. He only began to back track once we entered the race. Now he is all over the map and cannot tell a consistent story on a daily basis. During one interview, he said he would have supported the war and @ an interview the next day he said he would NOT have supported the war.

Oh, BTW. Does changing the subject line in every one of your posts provide some kind of special feeling for you?



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21496 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1300 times:

B757300: Salon.com? That leftist whacko website...

They´re quoting verbatim from the original transcript. Shock! Horror! Treason!

If using actual sources and looking at actual facts go against your religious beliefs, I´ve got an island to sell to you...  Big thumbs up


B757300: Obviously Klaus you are incapable of believing anything bad about anyone who is against President Bush.

I consider myself a friend of your nation and its (former) ideals. That automatically puts me in opposition to the Bush administration. Sad but true.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1291 times:

That automatically puts me in opposition to the Bush administration. Sad but true

i'm sorry Klaus, but statements like that show you to be a knee-jerk opponent, rather than one who actually thinks about each issue. I myself often agree with the Bush Administration on many things, but disagree with it on others, such as its treatment of the budget deficit. A thinking person cannot be entirely (automatically) for or against a highly complex political platform which encompasses a very wide range of issues.

Charles


User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1278 times:

Cfalk: that's a reason why I respect your passion for the Bush administration: you do still think.

That can't be said of people like B757300, who are so extreme that everything anti-Bush comes from idiot lefties, being anti Bush makes you an America hater etc etc

I do not read the posts of B753 etc anymore, just because they only contain extremism. I keep on reading your posts because, although I often dissagree with them, they contain theories etc about many evolutions in the world. And it is only by checking theories from both sides that we all can learn.

From there my anger towards people like B753 who want to make from America an all-Republican "democracy". Every thing the opposition claims is, following him, bull sh*t from extreme lefties. While he is against pluralism in his own country, he finds that America has to spread the ideas of democracy around the world. Quite a contradictory situation.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21496 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1259 times:

Cfalk: i'm sorry Klaus, but statements like that show you to be a knee-jerk opponent, rather than one who actually thinks about each issue.

Read my responses to the topics and say that again.

I´ve given them their due where appropriate. There just weren´t a lot of opportunities to say something positive about this administration.

Especially when it was about talking of things like truth, honour and courage and then looking at their actions. The discrepancies are hard to stomach.

And in this sense I very much hope that the ultimate democratic contender will be able to restore at least some of the respect and goodwill people all over the world once had for the USA.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1256 times:

Read my responses to the topics and say that again.

That's why I called you on that statement. Your posts are usually on a higher plane than that, and I saw that and said "WTF?". I'm sure that if you go through the entire Bush/Republican platform, you will very likely find some things that you agree with. Even Superfly might be surprised  Smile/happy/getting dizzy.

Thanks for the comments, Sabena, although I hardly consider my attitude as a "passion" Big grin. More likely the least bad choice among some pretty miserable contenders (both on 2000 and 2004).

Charles


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21496 posts, RR: 53
Reply 15, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1247 times:

Cfalk: That's why I called you on that statement.

I didn´t have the nerve to go into details... Those are all spent on the "Britain+Euro"-Discussion with Banco at this time.  Wink/being sarcastic

Cfalk: Your posts are usually on a higher plane than that

I´ll just cash that one in as long as it´s valid...  Big thumbs up

Cfalk: I'm sure that if you go through the entire Bush/Republican platform, you will very likely find some things that you agree with.

I agree with a whole lot of what they´re saying. It´s what they´re doing that makes my lunch want to get back out. Especially when I compare the two.

If there´s one trait I can respect even old-fashioned conservatives for, it´s honesty. Integrity would be next, but that´s even harder to find (everywhere, I might add).


User currently offlineCommander_Rabb From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 771 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1241 times:

How disingenuous that one says they don't read posts from a particular person yet they post in a thread started by the person. I also find that being close minded and ranting and raving over the same thing also is very telling. Vitriolic words have no bounds.

But then again this person can't vote anyway. Heh, probably a good thing.

As for Clark, he is already an also ran.

Like it or not, it is Bush in 2004. Get ready!


User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1242 times:

Commander: I make myself no illusions, I know that Bush will probably be re-elected.

The problem is that most of the 2004 candidates are miserable (like Charles says).

I would prefer a moderate Republican over a moderate Democrat, but yes I would vote against Bush in 2004.

Idiot remark about "luckily you can't vote": I back my posts up when I say something about Bush and I have a lot of respect for other people backing their posts up with facts (like Cfalk), even when I do not agree with them. I think this makes me very tolerable. What I do hate, is people like you in this topic who come up with idiot remarks only representing their feelings. 'Bush will win in 2004, full stop'. 'You can't vote here so shut up'. You really have nothing else to say?

Once again: you are so 'proud' on your democracy, well than: allow freedom of speech, and do not attack people representing what they think based on facts. You don't see me writing things like 'Bush is an idiot, point'.


User currently offlineCommander_Rabb From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 771 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1223 times:

I think this makes me very tolerable.

You think it does, but it does not.

Read the post again. Where did I say "luckily you can't vote"? Or,"'You can't vote here so shut up"?

Get your facts straight. I enjoy my freedom of speech as an American as granted to me by OUR Constitution. I am merely exercising that right here. Yet you seem so offended. Why? Because it does not "sit" well with you? Or because I make a simple statement as Bush in 2004? If that really gets under your craw well...poor you. You don't like Bush and that's fine. But I do, and that's the only issue for you isn't it?

So much for you being nice in the New Year.


User currently offlineCommander_Rabb From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 771 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1228 times:

I might add...

What I do hate, is people like you in this topic who come up with idiot remarks only representing their feelings

That's an interesting statement I am sure you would rather retract considering your vast amounts of posts of a similar nature.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Bush: Voters Have Spoken On Iraq Policy posted Sun Jan 16 2005 19:22:31 by Rsmith6621a
Koran Prophecy On Iraq/9.11? posted Sun Nov 12 2006 19:58:38 by PPVRA
Woodward: Kissinger Advising Bush On Iraq posted Fri Sep 29 2006 18:34:21 by Falcon84
US Military Hearing On Iraq Rape Case Begins posted Sun Aug 6 2006 19:16:46 by Rammstein
Cindy Sheehan & Other On Hunger Strike posted Tue Jul 4 2006 07:29:08 by NeilYYZ
Pure Pacifists On Iraq: Kind Of Clueless posted Sat Mar 18 2006 12:20:44 by AerospaceFan
Blair Says God Will Judge Him On Iraq posted Sat Mar 4 2006 14:21:01 by Scotty
War On Iraq - An A.net Opinion Poll posted Wed Dec 21 2005 02:34:41 by Jean Leloup
Democrats: Dishonest On Iraq. posted Wed Nov 16 2005 03:16:06 by SFOMEX
Boston Legal Takes On Iraq War posted Thu Nov 3 2005 22:13:33 by Tbar220