Wes Clark is Toast

Invader ZIm · Post by **Invader ZIm** » 2004-01-15 01:01pm

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm

Two months ago Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark declared in a debate that he has always been firmly against the current Iraq War.

"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."

But just six month prior in an op-ed in the LONDON TIMES Clark offered praise for the courage of President Bush's action.

"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark wrote on April 10, 2003. "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled."

MORE

Even the most ardent Clark supporter will question if Clark's current and past stand on the Iraq war -- is confusion or deception, after the DRUDGE REPORT reveals:

TWO WEEKS BEFORE CONGRESS PASSED THE IRAQ CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION WESLEY CLARK MADE THE CASE FOR WAR; TESTIFIED THAT SADDAM HAD 'CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS'

Less than 18 months ago, Wesley Clark offered his testimony before the Committee On Armed Services at the U.S. House Of Representatives.

"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002.

"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution."

Clark continued: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."

More Clark: "And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

Clark explained: "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat."

I am very interested in how this will play with the Democratic primary voters (not well)! It's also going to be interesting to see how he saves the anti-war position he has been building since declaring he was running.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-01-15 04:56pm

Don't forget his outright PROMISES that if he is elected NEVER AGAIN will a terrorist strike the US. Or his statement that if he had been Pres. there would have been NO 9-11. No explanation why, just his feeling on the matter.

Man I used to think Dean was crazy, this guy is on crack.

buzz_knox · Post by **buzz_knox** » 2004-01-15 05:06pm

Wait until the real reason for his being removed from command comes out. It apparently was over a moral issue that rendered him unsuitable for command. Now, what kind of moral issue does that, but his ordering his troops to attack Russian soldiers in charge of an airbase does not? Could be interesting.

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2004-01-16 08:10pm

Beating the more voracious anti-Bushers here to the punch.

LIES, LIES, THESE ARE ALL REPUBLICAN LIES. THAT DAMNED BUSH IS TRYING TO SMEAR A GOOD MAN'S NAME. clark CAN DO EVERYTHING HE PROMISED, THERE WON'T EVER BE ANOTHER ATTACK ON US SOIL IF HE IS PRESIDENT

REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL FUNDIE SOBS WHO WANTS TO SHOVE THE CHURCH DOWN YOUR THROAT AND THEY KNEW ALL ALONG ABOUT 9/11!!!

ANYBODY WOULD BE BETTER THAN BUSH... EVEN HOMER SIMPSON.

[shrill mode off]

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-01-16 08:15pm

0.1 wrote:Beating the more voracious anti-Bushers here to the punch.

LIES, LIES, THESE ARE ALL REPUBLICAN LIES. THAT DAMNED BUSH IS TRYING TO SMEAR A GOOD MAN'S NAME. clark CAN DO EVERYTHING HE PROMISED, THERE WON'T EVER BE ANOTHER ATTACK ON US SOIL IF HE IS PRESIDENT

REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL FUNDIE SOBS WHO WANTS TO SHOVE THE CHURCH DOWN YOUR THROAT AND THEY KNEW ALL ALONG ABOUT 9/11!!!

ANYBODY WOULD BE BETTER THAN BUSH... EVEN HOMER SIMPSON.

[shrill mode off]

And how many here support Clark? You're a god damn idiot.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-16 08:39pm

Yeah, Clark started out sounding half decent but no more.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-01-16 09:13pm

0.1 wrote:Beating the more voracious anti-Bushers here to the punch.

LIES, LIES, THESE ARE ALL REPUBLICAN LIES. THAT DAMNED BUSH IS TRYING TO SMEAR A GOOD MAN'S NAME. clark CAN DO EVERYTHING HE PROMISED, THERE WON'T EVER BE ANOTHER ATTACK ON US SOIL IF HE IS PRESIDENT

Good man? I thought we were talking about Clark?

REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL FUNDIE SOBS WHO WANTS TO SHOVE THE CHURCH DOWN YOUR THROAT AND THEY KNEW ALL ALONG ABOUT 9/11!

Some of them are, but there are some (ie, future libertarians) that are just economic conservatives. They're okay. And no one here (except maybe Blackberry) believes in a Republican conspiracy about 9-11.

ANYBODY WOULD BE BETTER THAN BUSH... EVEN HOMER SIMPSON.

Ideally, his replacement would have some political experience.

Are we all done beating up strawmen now?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-17 02:21am

And no one here (except maybe Blackberry) believes in a Republican conspiracy about 9-11.

I don't know, a few of our other semi-regulars seem to have become Tin Foil Hat Brigade Auxilliaries on that point.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-01-17 02:24am

Stormbringer wrote:
And no one here (except maybe Blackberry) believes in a Republican conspiracy about 9-11.
I don't know, a few of our other semi-regulars seem to have become Tin Foil Hat Brigade Auxilliaries on that point.

Don't be shy, fill us in

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-01-17 04:20am

Clark was not a popular general officer, even among fellow generals. His staff loathed him...

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-01-17 09:51am

He flips and flops even more then Dr Dean if thats possible....

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-01-17 03:22pm

Stormbringer wrote:Yeah, Clark started out sounding half decent but no more.

No he really didn't, and fact that he's been lying about his position on Iraq was known months ago.