Intelligent Thinking On Iraq
Can you guess which Bush supporter said this?
“[Saddam Hussein] is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. . . .
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. . . . 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.
(Emphasis mine)
This sounds very sensible when you consider what was generally known about Iraq before the Baathists were wiped out. Whoever said this was probably someone I could really support and agree with.
So…who was it?
The above quote comes from Wesley Clark’s testimony before the House Armed Services Committe on September 26th, 2002.
Mr. Clark does go on in his testimony to later warn the United States of the dangers of getting bogged down in Iraq and of neglecting efforts to stop Al Queda…he was right…about both things. Still…the above quote and the things he is saying now sure stand in stark contrast to each other. Almost every day he proves that he will say anything to gain short-term political gain…even if it directly contradicts what he testified before congress.
(Link courtesy Drudge via Best Of The Web)
1 Comment »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
While those on the Right have tried their darndest to turn these quotes of Clark against him, their dishonesty in attempting to do so is almost sickening. While they make it appear as though his testimony at that Congressional hearing solidly backed US military action in Iraq, nothing could be further from the truth. I attended that very hearing, and though Clark did indeed voice concern over the threat Iraq posed to its neighbors, and though he agreed that agressive action by the US might be necessary as a very last resort, noone who listened to or read all of his testimony that day would ever suggest he would be in support of Bush’s subsequent actions towards and in Iraq.
Let Drudge publish the transcript of the entire hearing, without ellipses, and we would see just how hesitant Clark was for the US to actually go to war in Iraq, and just how concerned he was about the possibly overwhelming consequences. Having heard both his testimony that day, and his statements since then, I see absolutely no contradiction and no abandonment of admirable principles on his part.
Comment by Nate — January 23, 2004 @ 12:26 am