I know this is a little off topic, but I had to post this from Drudge: It should get a post of its own.

From Wesley “I’ve been against this war from the beginning” Clark

But…….

/////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.”//////

Anyone want to guess why Schwartzkopf, Franks, and Shelton won’t vote for him?

How about a pathological inability to tell the truth?

Posted by: johnnymozart at January 15, 2004 12:22 PM

Liberals love Wesley Clark every single time he lies. They loved Bill Clinton when he lied to the American People.

They love liars because they keep lying to themselves and to their friends… themselves. Political leaders that lie justify liberals who lie.

Democrats who make an embarassment of themselves gain stature as Rush Limbaugh continues to say and Rush is right!

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at January 16, 2004 02:20 AM

Heres a news headline: Drudge Pulls a Bush- Cherrypicks to make unsupported point…

Looking at the transcript you can see how the Rethuglicans have cut and pasted quotes out of order to make the point that they want, and passed it to Drudge to print it.

Copy of the transcript-
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/clark.perle.testimony.pdf

And remember its unpatriotic to ask where the WMD’s are…

Posted by: AnyoneButBush2004 at January 19, 2004 06:04 AM