|
JANUARY 16, 2004 – Right on cue,
the right-wing is breaking out a dishonest, last-minute attack on
presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark. And, right on cure, The
Moderate Independent is here to show how dishonest and pathetic he
and the rest of the right-wing that will follow his lead, are.
This is attack is being led directly by
the Republican Party and its chairman Ed Gillespie, so there can be
no claims that it is just some media big mouth. As FOX News (Clark:
Congress Must Mull Legality of Iraq War) reports:
“Earlier in the day, Ed Gillespie, the
RNC chairman, had traveled to Arkansas -- Clark's home state -- and
criticized the Democratic candidates, singling out Clark and arguing
that he had changed his position on the war for political gain.”
“The RNC also released a transcript of
Clark's testimony in September 2002 to the House Armed Services
Committee in which he called Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein a clear
threat and said military action could not be postponed
indefinitely.”
And what claims exactly was are the
right-wingers making? Drudge spells them out directly on his
infamous right-wing puppet website today:
“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'”
Yes, lots of capital letters to make it
seem so big and shocking.
Drudge then goes on to repeatedly quote
Wesley Clark out of context, doing a very good job of making it seem
like he has clear evidence that Clark did actually go before
congress and back President Bush’s rush to unilateral war with Iraq.
In reality, nothing could be farther
from the truth than these claims being directly made by the chair of
the RNC, and propelled by the right-wing machine, led by Drudge,
seconded by FOX News, picked up by talk radio, and soon to be in the
mainstream press.
In the statement General Clark gave
before the armed services committee the day Drudge talks about,
September 26, 2002, Clark made clear he thought the President should
not distract from the actual war on terror with Al Qaeda, should not
rush to war but instead employ diplomacy, and that the gun was not
to our heads and we had some time to deal with things. In addition,
he warned of the potential consequences of war.
So here is what Clark actually had to
say when he testified before the House Armed Services Committee on
September 26, 2004, told in context, and not in the typical amoral,
dishonest way the right-wing Bush-butt-kissing puppeteers like
Drudge abuse things:
“Saddam has been pursuing nuclear
weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made
available he does not now have these weapons.”
Oops, Drudge, not exactly talking about
“yellow cake,” is he? Clark continued:
“The best public assessment is that… he
might field some type of weapon in two years…perhaps five years
might be required.”
Yes, he was in no way saying we had
better go in right away. Clark then talked about the actual level
of threat Saddam was:
“What makes the situation relatively
more dangerous today is that the UN weapons inspectors… have been
absent from Iraq for over four years.”
Rather than saying this means Iraq is an
immediate threat and we must attack now, Clark said:
“Iraq is not a problem that can be
indefinitely postponed… I strongly support (the President’s) efforts
to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem.”
Wait a second, Drudge and right-wing lie
machine – you said Clark spoke out supporting the President’s rush
to unilateral war. In fact, it is already clear he said nothing of
the sort, but instead was recommending exactly what he now says he
recommended, working with the UN to get the inspection process going
again and bringing multi-lateral diplomatic pressure to bear.
Clark then made clear, as he does
frequently now, that Iraq and Saddam should not be the President’s
primary area of focus:
“The problem of Iraq is only an element
of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an
unfinished, world-wide war against Al Qaeda, a war that has to be
won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately will
be won by persuasion as much as by force, when we turn off the Al
Qaeda recruiting machine.”
Exactly the recruiting machines that
have gotten worse and flooded with new prospects as President Bush
acted against his advice. Clark continued:
“Some three thousand deaths on September
11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaeda, and as all
acknowledge, Al Qaeda has not yet been defeated.”
Yes, he is saying exactly the opposite
of what Drudge claims he was saying. Flat out intentionally
dishonest and misleading propaganda, and further proof as to why no
good American can support the Bush/Limbaugh Republican machine.
Clark continued:
“The critical issue facing the United
States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his
weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda and
efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security
problems. In this regard, I would offer the following
considerations:
He then said to attack Saddam that very
day, then go after Mexico, followed by Taiwan. No, of course he
didn’t actually say that, but it’s as accurate as the nonsense
Drudge put on his site. What the General actually recommended was:
“1) The United States diplomacy in the
United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can
adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United
Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under
active consideration. 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… The more nearly
unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic
efforts underway.”
Yes, again, exactly the opposite of
telling the President to flip the bird to our allies and rush to
war. His second recommendation:
“2) The President and his national
security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in
crafting UN engagement. 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. Yes,
there is a risk that inspections would fail to provide the evidence
of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this
outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and
support in the campaign against Saddam.”
Nothing could be clearer. Clark
absolutely and unquestionably said we did not need to go to war at
that point by any means, that we had some time to work with, and
that diplomacy, used properly, might forgo the need for use of force
ever at all. And he said working with inspections process, even if
difficult, would be worth it.
Clark then said:
“If efforts to resolve the problem by
using the United Nations fail… the US should form the broadest
possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic
Council if possible, to bring force to bear. Force should not be
used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in
post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied… This includes…
humanitarian assistance, police, and judicial capabilities,
emergency medical and reconstruction assistance and preparation for
a governing body … Ideally, international and multinational
organizations will participate… including the UN, NATO, and other
regional and Islamic organizations.”
What was that? “Force should not be
used until…” Wow, again, exactly the opposite of what Drudge claims
Clark said. And again, Clark making the case that anything that is
done must be unilateral, and that the post-war should be planned and
include all nations – the opposite of what Bush did.
And perhaps just in case idiots like
Drudge were sitting around out there waiting to try and misquote
him, Clark made everything very clear again at the end of his
statement:
“Force should be used as the last
resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted…”
What was that, did he say, “We must go
to war right now, as the President says?” or, “Screw the UN,” as the
President said all summer, “we need to do this now and by
ourselves?” Sorry, Drudge you idiot, the actual words were “as a
last resort, after all diplomatic means have been exhausted,”
barring the sudden appearance of an immediate threat, which Clark
made clear was not the case at that time.
And to conclude, Clark both made clear
once again our main focus must remain Al Qaeda and that using
diplomacy instead of force could have great result not just with
Iraq but with the entire region:
“If we proceed as outlined above, we may
be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against
Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region,
and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such
as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear
capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism.
And he ended with one final warning
about invading Iraq:
“The war is unpredictable and could be
difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an
open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper
sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our
problems in the region and elsewhere.”
Drudge excerpts the question and answer
session which took place after this statement on his site, of course
misleadingly and out of context, so just for a capper, here are a
few excerpts from there that definitively show Drudge, RNC Chairman
Gillespie, and the rest of them to be flat out lying scum.
General Clark: “The honest truth is
that the absence of intelligence is not an adequate reason to go
forward to war in and of itself.”
And Drudge claims Clark embraced the
same pro-war stance as Richard Perle that day. Well, here, to
finish things off conclusively, is Perle himself speaking after
Clark had left the hearing for the day.
“So I think General Clark doesn’t want
to see us use military force, and he has thrown out as many reasons
as he can develop for that, but the bottom line is he just doesn’t
want to take action. He wants to wait.”
Nothing could be clearer. These
right-wingers who now are pretending Clark spoke with them clearly
stated on that day that Clark doesn’t support the war and was
opposed to their plan.
And now, to see them come out, led by
the Republican National Committee Chairman President Bush directly
appointed, and lie and smear, pretending Clark said the opposite, is
an open and shut case. Once again you see the Bush/Limbaugh right
sinking beyond all possible comprehension and decency to serve no
other purpose than keep Bush/Limbaugians in power – and the direct
involvement of RNC Chairman Gillespie proves this is not just talk
radio or FOX News but President Bush and the Republican Party he
leads directly. They clearly show they are a party that doesn’t care
about truth, doesn’t care about America – they have no moral code of
any sort.
Luckily, The Moderate Independent now
exists to keep them inline. And, unlike Drudge, who doesn’t want
you to consult the sources he uses lest you see he is full of it,
we, whenever possible, put the links right here so you don’t have to
take our word for it, you can see for yourselves. (Clark’s
Statement before the House Armed Services Committee, September 26,
2002) (Question and answer session:
U.S. Policy Toward Iraq)
So let them misquote as they may, now
that you have M/I and the facts, soon they will be nothing but out
of work lying losers who nobody cares to listen to anymore. | 
