In an article written in October of 2002 which was widely highlighted during the 2004 campaign to "prove" that Wes Clark was for "the" Iraq War Resolution, please take NOTE at what Clark actually said and what the choices were at the time that he stated that he would support "a" resolution....--He did not state that he would support "the" blank check resolution , and considering that amendments were being passed on the final language of the Resolution right up to the time that it was voted on....this leads me to believe that the press played gotcha with Clark one year later.
Read the whole article written in 2002 (as posted in this post), and understand that the context said more about Clark's true feeling on what was happening in America as we were debating the facts. Alongside the fact that when one makes the substitution of "THE" for "A", what the story told is "a" very different story than Clark simply supporting "the" resolution.
http://premium1.fosters.com/2002/election%5F2002/oct/09/us%5F2cong%5F1009a.asp Wednesday, October 9, 2002 Retired Gen. Clark supports Swett, raises concerns about Iraq policy By STEPHEN FROTHINGHAMAssociated Press Writer
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) — Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country’s move toward war.
Clark, who led the allied NATO forces in the Kosovo conflict, endorsed Democrat Katrina Swett in the 2nd District race.
He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for the resolution, but only after vigorous debate. The resolution is expected to pass the House overwhelmingly. Swett has said she supports it, as does her opponent, incumbent U.S. Rep. Charles Bass.
The general said he had no doubt Iraq posed a threat, but questioned whether it was immediate and said the debate about a response has been conducted backward.
"Normally in a debate, you start with a problem and consider possible solutions. Instead, the president has presented us with a solution before the problem has been fully articulated," he said.
"As far as the information we have now shows, there are no nuclear warheads on missiles pointed to America," he said. "You can’t wait 10 years to act, but there is time on our side."
He said al-Qaida remains the largest terrorist threat against the United States, and the connection between al-Qaida and Iraq is unclear.Clark met Swett in Europe while her husband, former U.S. Rep. Dick Swett, was serving as ambassador to Denmark. Clark came to New Hampshire as a guest of another Clinton-era ambassador, George Bruno, a Democratic activist and former ambassador to Belize.
He said he shares the concerns he hears from many Americans about whether the country should act against Iraq without United Nations support and about how the United States will deal with Iraq after a successful invasion.
Note that it is the Associated Press who claims Clark supports THE resolution that would give Bush authority to use military force, whereas Clark's own words indicate he would only support "A" (key word!) resolution "after vigorous debate." Surely that can be reasonably interpreted to mean vigorous debate that would result in changes (otherwise, why debate?) --meaning he did not support the resolution "as was." Considering he had previously testified to the Armed Services Committee that the resolution need not authorize force, we can guess what he might have felt one of those changes should be.
THE DATE OF THE CLARK STORY ABOVE IS DATED THE SAME DATE AS THE FOLLOWING "ACTION ALERT" ON BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS.
NOTE: AMENDMENTS WERE STILL WORKING THROUGH BOTH HOUSES, AND THESE WERE THE PENDING AMENDMENTS - NOTE THAT FACTS ON THE GROUND WOULD NEGATE CONTENTIONS THAT CLARK SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE LANGUAGE OF THE FINAL RESOLUTION. NO ONE KNEW THE FINAL LANGUAGE....BECAUSE THEY WERE STILL DEBATING IN BOTH HOUSES!
SO TO SAY THAT CLARK SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT THE FINAL FORM OF THE RESOLUTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN....WHEN THE RESOLUTION HAD NOT YET EVEN BEEN FINALIZED IS A DISINGENIOUS POSITION
CLARK INDEED FAVORED THE LEVIN AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THAT THE PRESIDENT COME BACK TO THE CONGRESS FOR ANOTHER VOTE AFTER OBTAINING A VOTE FROM THE UNITED NATIONS.
http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102 10/09/02: Don't Let Congress Ratify Bush Preemption Doctrine UPDATE: House of Representatives The House of Representatives is in the midst of 17 hours of floor debate on the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution – H.J. Res. 114. That debate is expected to end sometime tomorrow. There will then be one hour of debate each on an amendment introduced by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) and an amendment introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).The BUSH-GEPHARDT WAR RESOLUTION gives President Bush a blank check to skirt the Constitutional authority of Congress to declare war, and allows the President to act in violation of U.S. and International Law. IT CONSITUTES A CONGRESSIONAL ADOPTION OF THE BUSH PRE-EMPTION DOCTRINE. Urge your Representative to vote “No” on H.J. Res. 114.
The LEE AMENDMENT would urge the President to work “through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction..." through peaceful mechanism. It is important that we secure as many votes as possible for this amendment. Even Representatives who do not agree with our position should still vote for the Lee Amendment because it upholds the rule of law and supports the United Nations as the proper vehicle for securing a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis.
The SPRATT AMENDMENT will also reach the floor of the House and be debated tomorrow. This amendment to the Bush-Gephardt war resolution is the most important vote in the House against President Bush. Although it authorizes the use of United States armed forces, it does so ONLY pursuant to any UN Security Council resolution that provides for the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and ballistic missiles with ranges exceeding 150 kilometers, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. The Spratt amendment would mandate A SECOND VOTE IN CONGRESS, following the failure of the UN Security Council to adopt such as resolution, AND failure of the Council to sanction the use of force to compel Iraq's compliance. THIS SECOND VOTE IN CONGRESS WOULD BE REQUIRED BEFORE THE PRESIDENT COULD USE MILITARY FORCE.
The Spratt Amendment is being supported by an increasing number of House liberals and moderates alike who see it as the BEST CHANCE WE HAVE TO STOP BUSH. Therefore, any support for the Spratt amendment would be important. This amendment is certainly not perfect, but we need to secure as many votes as we can for Spratt to show the breadth of doubt and opposition to the peremptory approach of the president embodied in H.J.Res. 114.
A MOTION TO RECOMMIT -- At this writing it appears that those opposed to the Bush Resolution will have the opportunity to offer a Motion to Recommit. A “Yes” vote on the motion would send the President's resolution back to the committee of jurisdiction to ensure that Bush cannot go to war until he answers fundamental questions about long-term costs and consequences of an Iraq war to the U.S. economy and the stability of the Middle East. The point of this motion is to require the President to give Congress and the American people the answers they are demanding. (See previously distributed alert on “President Fails to Answer Basic Questions About Iraq War”).
Contact your Representatives and ask them to vote YES to the LEE and SPRATT AMENDMENTS and vote NO to the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution – H.J. Res. 114.
Click here to see summaries of the Lee and Spratt Amendments
UPDATE: Senate
If Sen. Daschle and Senate Democratic leaders cannot come to an agreement on the rules for debate by the end of today, then a cloture vote is likely. Cloture is a method of limiting debate or ending a filibuster in the Senate which takes at least 60 Senators. If a cloture vote carries, then it will deny Senators like Sen. Robert Byrd from filibustering. Thirty hours of floor debate is expected in the Senate, making an actual vote likely on Monday or Tuesday of next week.The BUSH-LIEBERMAN WAR RESOLUTION is the Senate version of the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution.
The BIDEN-LUGAR AMENDMENT would authorize the use of force only to disarm Saddam Hussein, not depose him.
The LEVIN AMENDMENT, introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), would curtail the broad powers provided by the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution by requiring the President to first secure a UN Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq.
It would require a second vote in the Senate pending action or inaction by the UN Security Council.Senators should be urged to vote for the only resolution that would mandate a 2nd vote be taken before the President can launch a war against Iraq. Thus, implore your Senators to vote YES to the Levin Amendment and vote NO to the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution – S.J.Res.46.
Don’t give up! To resist is to win!
Send Free Faxes to Congress from True Majority
also read:
"Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War "- Dissecting Adam Nagourney's '03 NYT article
What Wes Clark said prior to The Iraq War
Mining and finding Prescient Gems-Clark's 2002 Iraq Congressional Testimony
Wes Clark in '08! Why Supporting someone who was Right on Iraq in 2002 makes sense.
Clark's 2002 Congressional Testimony - Youtube w/t Transcript
The Levin Amendment- The Resolution that Wes Clark was "For"!
