b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

Clark Supported U.S. Policy & Intelligence On Iraq

Fri Jan 16, 2004 6:04 am

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."
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Clark Supported U.S. Policy & Intelligence On Iraq

Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:57 pm

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.
 
zak
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: Clark Supported U.S. Policy & Intelligence On Iraq

Fri Jan 16, 2004 9:20 pm

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
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Clark Supported U.S. Policy & Intelligence On

Fri Jan 16, 2004 9:50 pm

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
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Clark Supported U.S. Policy & Intelligence On Iraq

Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:05 pm

What intelligence?  Insane
Bring back the Concorde
 
globalexpress
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:53 pm

RE: Clark Supported U.S. Policy & Intelligence On Iraq

Fri Jan 16, 2004 11:19 pm

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.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Wrong Again.

Sat Jan 17, 2004 4:54 am

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.
 
MidnightMike
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

RE: Clark Supported U.S. Policy & Intelligence On Iraq

Sat Jan 17, 2004 5:23 am


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
 
mbmbos
Posts: 2568
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

RE: Clark Supported U.S. Policy & Intelligence On Iraq

Sat Jan 17, 2004 5:45 am

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.

 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: Clark Supported U.S. Policy & Intelligence On Iraq

Sat Jan 17, 2004 5:48 am

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."
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

B757300

Sat Jan 17, 2004 6:29 am

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.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Clark Supported U.S. Policy & Intelligence On

Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:08 pm

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
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Sabena 690
Posts: 6065
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 12:48 am

RE: Clark Supported U.S. Policy & Intelligence On

Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:22 pm

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.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Cfalk

Sun Jan 18, 2004 4:00 am

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.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Clark Supported U.S. Policy & Intelligence On

Sun Jan 18, 2004 4:35 am

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
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Cfalk

Sun Jan 18, 2004 4:50 am

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).
 
commander_rabb
Posts: 723
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:59 am

RE: Clark Supported U.S. Policy & Intelligence On Iraq

Sun Jan 18, 2004 5:11 am

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!
 
Sabena 690
Posts: 6065
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 12:48 am

RE: Clark Supported U.S. Policy & Intelligence On Iraq

Sun Jan 18, 2004 5:54 am

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'.
 
commander_rabb
Posts: 723
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:59 am

RE: Clark Supported U.S. Policy & Intelligence On Iraq

Sun Jan 18, 2004 2:12 pm

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.
 
commander_rabb
Posts: 723
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:59 am

RE: Clark Supported U.S. Policy & Intelligence On Iraq

Sun Jan 18, 2004 2:17 pm

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: EA CO AS, kevin, seb146 and 14 guests