Clark: "I (told) senators...Don't give * a blank check."

[Clarkie1]

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/932

[YOY]

1. I hope Clark gets a chance to run in 2008

and I hope he has any swiftboating attempts cut off before they can harm him.

[FrenchieCat]

2. I think he said....."I'll beat the shit out of 'hem!"

Listen.....as he says it here.... http://www.dunckleystreet.com/clark/shitout.mp3

[roguevalley]

3. I love this man.

[Clark2008]

4. I do too, and I love that cute little doggie in your sig line.

How precious! :loveya:

[roguevalley]

8. That's my Tippy, who is the love of my life. :-D

[Totally Committed]

5. Wes is best...

I love this man. Such integrity and honesty. I trust him to do what is best for me, my family and friends, and for America. If he doesn't run, I will be very sad, indeed.

TC

[xkenx]

12. A Really Telling Comment From An Earlier Poster on DU

THIS WAS ESPECIALLY MOVING AND SAYS JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING ABOUT WES CLARK---

"Everything you've posted so eloquently could have come from my heart. AND I have another, completely selfish, personal reason.

My son decided long ago that he intends to make the military a career. This kid is not a gung-ho shoot-em-up type kid, but one that turned down a nomination to the Air Force Academy because he so adamantly opposes the way the leadership has dealt with women's issues there. A kid who is a 4.0 honors scholar and is majoring in political science and international affairs. A kid who is a Democrat through and through and values the leadership in a military that is based on a meritocracy.

My selfish, personal reason: I would trust Wes Clark with my son's life.

Wes Clark is a man who understands the value of each and every life and what a tragedy it is to lose even one. He understands that every action he takes has consequences. Wes has used his talents, his skill and his conscience to make sure that every decision he makes guarantees the best outcome with the least cost in lives and heartache. Tirelessly, sleeplessly and with unfailing courage and unceasing care.

Oh, there are a lot of politicians that I might vote for, but there are NONE that deserve to make the decision about whether my son lives or dies.

Except Wes Clark.

Because you see, I think he may be the only one out there that values my son as much as I do."

[sendero]

6. Clark..

... is on the mark :)

[Jacobin]

7. I think he could win

I'd be happy to have him as president.

No. I take that back. I'd be THRILLED to have his as president

[autorank]

9. "Blank check" givers need not apply for DEM nomination. n/t

[xkenx]

17. To Reinforce Your Comment,

I attended a WESPAC (Clark's PAC) meeting in D.C. last November. Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan was there for part of the time. Someone asked a question about the "Intelligence" prior to the vote on the IWR. Sen. Levin replied that there was PLENTY of information given to all the people in Congress that debunked the claims of Bushco. That's why Levin voted NO. He hedged around a bit on why so many Dems. voted YES, implying that they did so because they were chickenshit to vote the moral way (NO), fearing that they would be labeled unpatriotic/weak on terror, etc. So all those unprincipled Dems. who voted for the political expediency can go stuff it! No way can we vote for one of them in 2008. It's Wes Clark who always says that dissent is patriotic. He stood up to be counted when it was unfashionable. Well, Wes Clark can be counted on to do right by the American people when he becomes President.

[autorank]

24. I believe you and thank you for posting. I've been saying this

...since I knew it was true but it's nice to hear testimony from someone who heard it from Sen. Levin.

They all knew, they had to know. Hell, we knew. I agree with you, anyone who voted yes on this is
a political hack of the worst kind. I don't give a damn how many times they apologize!

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

[robbedvoter]

10. He did indeed. October 2002. Glad he mentions it!

[CarolNYC]

11. That caught my ear too...

Well, we know Senator Graham wasn't one who didn't listen...He voted no....

[NightOwwl]

13. Is he going to run in 2008?

Anyone care to hazard a guess?

[FrenchieCat]

16. We'll have to see......

But truly, without a win in 2006, an election coming at a time when the Republican party is in more disarray than ever before in a long, long time.....nothing else will be hopeful! That's how the General sees it, and so do I!

[mtnsnake]

14. Everytime I see or hear this guy, I crave to see him in the White House!

Oh if he could just make it through the Democratic primaries, I think he'd be a sure bet to win the presidency. What an asset his wife would be, too!

[FrenchieCat]

15. Ah....yes! Real Person Gert from the Bronx!

aka, the General's General!

[Clark2008]

18. She's from Brooklyn, isn't she?

eom

[incapsulated]

21. Yes, Brooklyn. :)

Like my mom, who also shares Gert's birthday. :)

[FrenchieCat]

23. I knew the Burrow started with a "B"......But yeah....Brooklyn it is!

Over here on the West Coast....it doesn't roll of the tongue as easy; the names of those areas, that is. :hi:

[Clark2008]

19. Yea! We agree on this one!

We don't, however, agree about Hillary's ability to win a national election. :hi:

Nice to bat 50/50 with you, though. :7

[xkenx]

20. Hillary is worth about $100M in

advertising to get out the Rethug vote.

[mtnsnake]

28. Stop being scared that Republicans hate her. There's a reason. nt

[xkenx]

31. The sad fact is

that Hillary is a lightning rod for Rethug attacks. They may fear her on some level (maybe channeling Bill into her), but they would love to run against her. They know that she energizes THEIR base to vote, and turnout is, after all, important. 2008 is all about flipping a few red states. People who promote HRC are constantly asked which red states she can flip. Answers seldom come, none with any logic behind them. So I ask you, name some red states she can flip, and why?p.s. See the posts about Senators who voted for the IWR when they has plenty of intel that refuted Bushco's claims about WMD, nucular, etc. Time to haul out my old Peter, Paul, and Mary album with "Blowin' in the Wind." Please, no more candidates whose stands and votes are determined by focus groups, polls, wet-finger-in-the-wind, offend no one, and that affliction known as "chickenshititis."

[mtnsnake]

22. I'm not so sure Hillary would win if she ran. I come off that way because

I always find myself sticking up for her over some of the ridiculous things that are said about her, for example when someone says she's Republican Lite or a neocon. Other than her perceived hawkish stances on the war, she's as progressive or more-so than most of them.

President Hillary would be okay by me, but President Clark and First Lady Gert would be THE BEST!

:toast:

[Gloria]

25. He is the only one I would trust...he's the one I will work my heart out

for.

Anybody else, I'm afraid, are second best in terms of overall experience and the specific skills we'll be needing in terms of re-establishing our crediblity in the world in terms of our military's behavior and diplomacy.

[CTLawGuy]

26. Wes is OBVIOUSLY

a revisionist historian...

everyone was voting for the IWR to STOP war. Through a little reverse psychology!

:sarcasm:

[FrenchieCat]

27. Well of course!

With a Resolution titled

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

that has the next 6 lines....

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To

authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

I'm sure "they" thought they were voting for peace or were just plain "misled" ! :sarcasm:

[CTLawGuy]

29. you sure you didn't misread that?

I thought it said..

IRAQ FLOWERS AND CANDY RESOLUTION

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To
authorize the President of the United States to go to the UN and only use force as a super-duper last resort

[FrenchieCat]

33. I'll tell you,

That's Funny, what you wrote....although it really ain't! :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

44. For those who "doubt" that Wes Clark advised against a blank Check..

for Bush from Congress during the run up to the war....This is for you!

Here's what Clark said on 9/16/02 (one month before the vote)...
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?"

WOODRUFF: How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would pass in terms 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.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.html

Here's is Ted Kennedy on Larry King a few days ago....

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, who showed up with Clark at a WesPAC fundraiser a few months ago....here's 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.htm

[CTLawGuy]

45. wes is right on

you should not give power to go to war, unless you are willing to see it used.

Voting for IWR was stupid. No one should be surprised Bush used it.

[Zorra]

30. "He's made up his mind to go to war. Don't give him a blank check."

Gen. Clark really needs to tell us the names of the Senators that he said this to, so that we can be sure that we do not nominate one of them should they decide to run for the Presidency. Think about it - anyone that can be so easily fooled, even after being personally warned by an informed, intelligent, and experienced military strategist like Gen. Clark, does not have the basic characteristics necessary to be a competent President.

We need a President with intuition, accurate perceptions, and sound judgment. Even little old me knew that Bu*h and the cabal were lying just from listening to their BS on the radio. Since these Senators believed Bu*h and went ahead and gave Bu*h a blank check even after being warned by Gen. Clark, they have no excuse for their actions.

Actually, that's pretty darn scary to me.

Much better to have someone in office that knows a rat when they see or smell one.

[LandOLincoln]

32. He already did...

"Gen. Clark really needs to tell us the names of the Senators that he said this to,"

...when he said some of them had later run for office, including the presidency.

[FrenchieCat]

34. How many Senators ran for President in 2004?

Edwards
Kerry
Lieberman
Graham, but he didn't vote for it, so the General isn't talking about him

So that leaves-- the one who apologized 3 years after the fact for his vote, cause he was misled...but who had co-sponsored the IWR that Lieberman authored and who was a member of the Intelligence Committee, as was Graham.

The one who kinda of apologizes, but said he felt like he had to "trust" the President....

and the one who doesn't and hasn't ever listened to anything anyone has had to say, cause invading Iraq was and still is a good thing as far as he is concerned....and who Sponsored the Blank Check Senate resolution that passed.

[Jai4WKC08]

35. Don't know if he ever will

I'm SURE he won't say anything before November. Some of those he told may be running for re-election this year, and he wants a Democratic Senate more than he wants to call out any Democrat for a lapse in judgment or integrity. It's not like any incumbent Democratic senator is being challenged by someone who might be any better. Lieberman, assuming he's on the list, doesn't count because he still supports the war; the quality of his judgment is already out there to question, and this isn't an integrity issue for him (not that there aren't others).

But maybe Clark will tell later. Or maybe he'll just let what he's said so far hang out there and see if anything comes of it. I doubt we'll see anyone he told bring it up, but they will probably wonder if he will. Could it make them walk a little more carefully during the run-up to the primaries?

I think Clark is more cynical (and maybe that's not the right word... savvy?) about other Democrats and the party establishment than he was when he ran in '04. Perhaps he'll be willing to play a little "rougher" in '08 than he did last time. Perhaps an implied threat of playing rough is what he's after.

But for now, his first priority is still to get Repubs out of office, out of control of Congress, and to keep them out, so he's not likely to do or say anything that Repubs can use against us.

[incapsulated]

42. All good points, Jai.

And I'm on record, repeatedly, in favor playing "more rough" next time around, lol.

[blm]

36. IWR added the referral to United Nations res that put weapons inspectors

back into Iraq and stepped up diplomatic efforts - this was when it was being negotiated and Biden-Lugar was still on the table. But, the measures from the original UN resolution WERE ADDED.

Bush made a travesty out of those guidelines and he bears the blame for the LIE he committed when he told congress he determined that weapons inspections and diplomacy weren't working - HE LIED - IMPEACH HIM.

I was under the impression from all I've heard Clark say the past 3 years that Iraq was more complex and there were many issues to be considered which has contributed to his detractors' habit of taking his quotes out of context and spinning him into a warmonger.

I don't recall him ever warning the American people back then that Bush was going to attack Iraq no matter what and would violate the IWR to do it. His op-ed from that time certainly seemed to be very similar in tone to Kerry's op ed.

Clark should have told Colin Powell what he knew - Wilkerson claims that Powell even was being lied to at that point by BushInc. Maybe Clark did tell Powell what was going on inside the Pentagon and Powell CHOSE to believe Bush instead.

I also wonder why Clark didn't say this during the debates. Especially when so many on the left had twisted his former statements and made him ssound like he supported the invasion. It would have been a powerful way to tell the American voters that his detractors were wrong.

[incapsulated]

37. A few points

Clark did speak out, publicly, about the "5 country plan" and that they had planned to go into Iraq from day one. He was attacked in the media and called "crazy" and a liar. :tinfoilhat:

Which may be why he was advised not to drag it up again throughout the primaries too much. He was advised badly during his entrance into retail politics and most Clark supporters will admit this. He has said as much himself, when you are new to a process, you can take bad advice from people who are supposed to be the "pros". He has promised that will not happen again.

He did speak out during the lead-up to IWR, but remember, he was concentrating on advising behind the scenes, talking to the people who really mattered, those who would do the voting or make decisions. He wasn't involved in politics himself at this point, so broadcasting his views about the matter to the public was less of a concern to him than speaking to people in DC.

Once the invasion was underway, he viewed it from the pov of a General, which is to be expected. This is why so many were confused or condemned him for his pride in the military during that time, they forgot, and I include myself in this, that these were his people out there. And his instinct was to praise and support them. But he quickly went into foreign policy mode, and as you say, always viewed this as a very complex and dangerous situation Bush got us into. He rarely draws attention to "I told you so's" except when he is on Fox, so that he can repeat that this was "a war of choice" and "a strategic blunder". And he defended Kerry's vote up and down during the election, putting the blame squarely on Bush. This conversation with Franken was unusual, and I knew that what he said would touch some nerves. But I am glad he did. I want it on the record for the Clark bashers who like to play games about what he did and did not "really" support.

[blm]

38. I'm always quick to point out how his detractors spin him into

something he is not for political gain. I don't even want to imagine that Clark would do it. Especially after his early statements positioning himself with the IWR before his spokesperson declared he misspoke after the backlash. Politics reared its head then.

Kerry and Dean's camps both exaggerated the other's positions when they were actually never that far apart re Iraq, both had more nuanced positions than the pro or anti label, and it served neither of them well in the longterm.

I'm familiar with Clark's op-eds, btw. I've followed his career for years. Since the gays in the military hearings. He always sounded accurate and wise when he tried to convey the big picture from all sides, but it was easy to discern that he would never go to war unless all other options were exhausted - which is what ALL war resolutions have been about. Bush lied when he said he made his determination war was necessary when it is a FACT that weapons inspections and diplomacy (as per the IWR) were WORKING.

[incapsulated]

39. Really, as far as this whole issue goes...

It's something that did and will come up again in the primaries, and I prefer to leave it until then if it does. Although there are some on DU for whom this will always on the agenda, as I said, and I'll take all the counter ammunition I can get, heh. I can't think of many Dems who were even just involved in the debate who didn't say something that will be dissected, distorted or blown completely out of proportion during a primary battle. Clark and Dean in particular, since they didn't vote on it. Only candidates like Warner, who wasn't involved, won't have to go through all of this again.

[Jai4WKC08]

43. Whoa now... hold it just a minute

I think you're a fair person, blm. We agree a lot, and where we don't, we can usually agree to disagree without rancor.

But I can't let you get away with, "...his early statements positioning himself with the IWR before his spokesperson declared he misspoke after the backlash. Politics reared its head then." I think you're misremembering the detail.

Clark never "positioned himself with the IWR" in the form that the Senate approved. It's true that in a single interview, he said he "probably would have voted for it," but later (yeah, "after the backlash") HE said (not a spokesperson) that he was not talking about the IWR that the Senate passed. His spokesperson was called by Clark during the interview, not later, to help him clarify at the time that he wanted a resolution that would "leverage for a U.N.-based solution," and he also said in the same interview that "it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading."

You seem to be implying that Clark changed his tune about what he meant ONLY after the fact. But if you look at the transcript of the HASC testimony, he was pretty clear that he did not approve of the blank check Bush was given, whether intentionally or otherwise. He put in his formal statement, "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." And when asked specifically about that statement (it was read back to him aloud), he explained,

"I think that what you have to do is first, the card has been laid on the table about the intent of the United States to take unilateral action, so we've moved past the point we were at in mid- August when there was a discussion and the president was saying he hadn't made up his mind what to do and so forth.

So the president, our commander-in-chief, has committed himself. I think it's wise to narrow the resolution that was submitted. I think it will be more effective and more useful and I think it's more in keeping with the checks and balances that are the hallmark of the American government if that resolution is narrowed.

And on the other hand, I think you have to narrow it in such a way that you don't remove the resort to force as a last option consideration in this case. So, not giving a blank check but expressing an intent to sign the check when all other alternatives are exhausted. I think in dealing with men like Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein that diplomacy has to be leveraged by discussions the threat, or in the last instance, the use of force.

I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq but it is certainly time to put that card on the table, to turn it face up and to wave it and the president is doing that and I think that the United States Congress has to indicate after due consideration and consulting our people and building our resolve that yes, this is a significant security problem for the United States of America and all options are on the table including the use of force as necessary to solve this problem because I think that's what's required to leverage any hope of solving this problem short of war.

[blm]

46. Except for the FACT that weapons inspections, diplomacy were ADDED to

the IWR. People like to throw round stuff that was said in Sept and Oct. - hey, I do, too - but IWR was being negotiated and tweaked 48 hrs before the vote and measures were added to it, specifically the addition of the referral to the original UN res. that carried
the weapons inspections and diplomatic efforts guidelines.

And why does everyone manage to FORGET or IGNORE that fact? There was no blank check the way people use that phrase.

Bush had to resort to LYING when he said that he determined war was necessary even after the weapons inspections and diplomacy were WORKING.

Bush would have made ANY resolution into a blank check no matter what - had Biden-Lugar passed (in its original form and not the watered down one) BushInc would've made planting WMDs a priority. Then where would the argument be now? They'd be coasting on that "discovery" for the entire duration.

And it WAS politics that made Clark's camp say he misspoke. He wouldn't have felt the need to revisit his remarks if the backlash hadn't forced it. That's not casting aspersion on his character, that's accepting political maneuvering for what it is - political. They all do it - just like I said Dean and Kerry's camp did it - and it's not always the best move in the long run.

[Jai4WKC08]

47. Ok, but what about the "FACT"

That the version passed allowed Bush to make the final determination that there had been enough diplomacy and inspection? The "FACT" that it included no provision to require him to come back to Congress before he could invade? The "FACT" that it specifically authorized Bush to use force when HE saw fit.

Please pay close attention to the words I put in bold above, "...not giving a blank check but expressing an intent to sign the check when all other alternatives are exhausted." Sign the check WHEN the other alternatives were exhausted, not sign it before on a promise that they would be. And he said that in the specific context of checks and balances, so there's really not much there that's open to interpretation.

Clark didn't trust Bush. He knew that Bush had been looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. Possibly he knew before 9/11, but for sure on 9/12. By just a few months later, he knew the plans were already being finalized. He told Democrats in Congress. Didn't they believe him (some of them... Kennedy, Wellstone and others who voted against and credited Clark obviously did)? Do you think the others trusted Bush more than him? I think it more likely that they consciously chose to ignore his advice. It's a fair question to ask why. There aren't many possible answers.

Look. I agree with you that Bush lied, that he never intended to pursue the diplomatic course the IWR required, that he would have found a way to attack without any IWR at all, or a with a much stronger one. He is ultimately responsible for the war, not Kerry or Gephardt or even Lieberman, or anyone else in Congress, not even most of the Repubs.

But if the Democratic Senate of 2002 had required Bush to come back and he didn't, it could have made going to war far more difficult for him, and getting funding more difficult as well. Maybe not, because by Nov 02, there would have been a Repub Senate. BUT (and this is important) the Oct 02 Senators didn't know that they would lose the Senate. AND (and this is even more important), if Bush had gone to war without Senate approval, or even started the tasks necessary to go (such as positioned troops and materiel, trying to get basing rights in Turkey, putting together his "coalition," to name just a few examples, all of which had to start before a Repub Senate could be installed), it would be MUCH easier to hold him accountable now. Who knows... perhaps his approval ratings would have fallen more quickly, Kerry and others would have had little problem justifying voting against the $87 billion, there might have been no flip-flop charge (altho I'll grant you, they'd have found something else), and maybe, just maybe, Kerry would have won the election... by a margin too large to cheat him out of. And MOST all, and this another "FACT," the Repubs running for re-election this year would have a lot more 'splainin' to do.

Not to mention... it would have been the right thing to do.

I don't agree that Bush would have planted WMD if the resolution had been toughter, or not passed at all. I think if he could do that, he would have. It's not as easy as it might sound. Especially when so many in the intelligence community would love to expose something like that, and few in the military could be trusted to go along. Sorry, but there's no good reason to think how the IWR was worded was a factor.

As for Clark (not "his camp" ...that's a significant distinction you seem determined not to make) coming out to clarify what he told Nagourney, of course it was "politics" and because "the backlash forced it." I said as much in my reply above. No candidate revisits a faux pas unless forced to. But that does not mean that what he said wasn't true: that he had made a mistake and was not talking about the version of the IWR that ultimately passed. Clark, Nagourney and three other reporters sat in open discussion for several hours, on an airplane in flight where no one could leave, and Nagourney distilled it all down to a single short article with a yellow headline. Only Clark and those reporters know what preceded the comment, but not of them ever said he was not being truthful. Do you really think they would have let him get away with a lie of that magnitude? With all the publicity his original mistatement got, spanning several months and brought up by more than one primary opponent in more than one debate? It would have been a bigger story than the original.

[blm]

48. Prior to the war the intel guys didn't have the same urgency to

watch BushInc's every move in Iraq. They hadn't been made the fall guys for not finding WMDs then.

So it would have been significantly easier for BushInc to plant them BEFORE, because by the time the WMDs became an issue, more watchful eyes were upon them.

They were going to go in with or without WMDs and with or without the IWR, even. So, to BLAME the IWR vote is disingenuous. Would any of you be blaming the original UN resolution from 1991 that Bush was going to use if there was a chance the IWR failed?

Not that the IWR had ANY chance of failing, Bush had the votes needed to get it EXACTLY as he wanted - without weapons inspections and with no further diplomacy.

At least those actions gave us the evidence we now have that Bush lied. And the Dem negotiators also got Iran and Syria off the table - another factor that never gets mentioned by the blank check crowd.

Sorry, but I believe if Clark truly felt the IWR, itself, sent Bush to war, he would have made a bigger case about it during the primaries and before that during his television appearances. I believe Clark KNOWS Bush would have gone into war with or without ANY resolution. And that is what he should convey.

I think he over-reached on his current comments to cajole a left that still feels wary of him. I don't think he needs to do that, since they believe what they believe because they so often quote him out of context. Just as I believe Kerry should never have said he spoke awkwardly about Voting for a bill before he voted against it - He was right - but he gave in to the corp media just to get beyond the issue instead of trusting the public to grasp the complete explanation. (Not that the media was looking to be helpful in that regard.)

Sorry, but I see these men - both men - as too good for that route. I loathe the media and the complainers who force soundbites and backtracking when none is needed.

[Jai4WKC08]

49. Prior to the war, Bush had no reason to plant WMD

Nor did he have the capability.

Remember, WMD includes nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. It is not physically possible to plant a nuclear reactor, and not very easy to plant any of the major parts. Nor would it have been possible to plant chemicals in the quantity necessary to pose a threat to troops or another nation. It would not have done him any good to plant less. Got insecticide? Got nerve agent. Bio is a little easier to plant, because it's pretty easy to produce and doesn't take much to cause damage... like the guy or guys who sent anthrax to the Senate and a few media folks. But for a militarized bio agent, you would have to plant the delivery means, and those are much more difficult. It's more than a few missiles; it takes a very specialized warhead. I suppose a few bi-plane cropdusters could have been made to look like they had been prepped, but would it have convinced anyone?

Besides, I don't think Bush thought he had to plant WMD because I think he thought they would find chemical and/or bio agents. Many countries in the world have them, Saddam had them during the first Gulf War, and he was certainly the type to keep them. There is even strong evidence that he thought he had them.

Note that (as I said in a different thread you've probably read), this doenn't mean Bush didn't lie about the details of where they were or how significant and imminent the threat was. It only argues that he would not have had cause to plant them before, even if he could.

And to be honest, you're wrong that many in the intell community weren't already fed up with Bush. They had taken the rap for 9/11 too, and MANY were not happy about it. They were blamed for some of the screw ups in Afghanistan, were not given much support, nor was their advice heeded. And many also saw what was going on in the build-up to Iraq. Maybe most weren't upset enough to do anything about it at the time; these things have to gain momentum before the resentment reaches some sort of critical mass. But remember too that even then, before there were known "defections," the Bushies didn't trust the intell community much. They would have been as afraid of what they might do as anything they actually did, and before they did it.

Whether or not there were enough Democrats willing to vote for the IWR for it to pass does NOT relieve a single senator who voted for it of the responsibility for his/her own vote. They had the majority. If they had all stuck together, it would not have passed. And more than the number of votes, they controlled the agenda and the committees. They controlled what went up for vote. Besides, your very point seems to argue that it was in fact just a matter political expediency for most of those who voted for: "It would pass anyway, so why should I stick my neck out?" Obviously some were willing to take the risk. Don't you think they deserved the support of as many of their collegues as possible?

I don't think anyone has said that Clark thinks Bush wouldn't have gone to war without the IWR. I know Clark has said all along, since well BEFORE his campaign, that Bush was planning to go no matter what, even before he got IWR. As a matter of fact, he pretty much says that in the testimony to the HASC I quoted above. And since Bush couldn't be sure he would get his IWR, it sort of follows that Clark doesn't think he felt he needed it, but I must admit I don't know. It's a moot point, since Bush did in fact get what he wanted.

But you're wrong that Clark didn't make a big deal about it during the campaign. Maybe not a big enough deal, but that's easy to say now. He was trying very hard to focus on attacking Bush and not any of the other candidates. But that said, I remember one debate where he practically raged at the members of Congress on the dias with him, as a group, for not fulfilling their Constitutional responsibilities. I think he was genuinely angry.

As to why Clark chose the Franken show to raise this issue, I can only speculate and that's all you're doing as well. So you can have your opinion and I can have mine, but neither of us knows. But whatever the reason, it doesn't mean what he said was any less true. I don't believe Clark makes things up. If he said it, it happened. Your milage may vary.

[LittleClarkie]

40. That quote right there

When said in 2003, is the reason I am called Little Clarkie.

The sheeple I used to be was just starting to think such things, and that was the EXACT phrase I kept using "No blank checks".

That's all I knew about Clark at the time, but it was enough for me.

[incapsulated]

41. Well, I'm glad you kept the name

Even though you changed allegiance, heh. :hi: