Reply #48: You don't really have a point......other than attempting to [View All]

[FrenchieCat]

be a Black & white spinner here....

Sorry but all of the references that you mentioned are a bit more complicated than your "boil down".....

What type of threat did Clark say Saddam was? It was widely acknowledged that Saddam was not our friend...hence the "No Fly Zone", and a war in 1991. But, Clark did testify that Saddam was not an eminent threat; that was the standard.

Everyone thought that Sadam still had chemical and biological weapons. that's what the intelligence showed. Why would Clark somehow "know" any different? Even the U.N. thought that he had them. Whether he could deliver them....Clark didn't think that capability was there....again this was the standard to judge.

Whether Saddam was pursuing Nuclear capabilities, we still don't know the answer to that. Clark did acknowledge that Saddam did not have that capability, and Clark judged such possibility to be years away.

So your black and white statement that "Clark was wrong and that's that" is simplistic, elementary and pretty much the approach that a child would take on analyzing a serious issue such as life and death and war and peace.

Might as well stick your tongue out and say....nya, nya, nya, nya!
---------------------------------
USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002, in which Clark wrote:
Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them.

Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htm

Clark's September 26, 2002 testimony to the Armed Services Committee, in which he stated:
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...

...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.http://www.tacitus.org/user/Armando/diary/2

In his Op-Ed dated October 10, 2002, "Let's Wait to Attack." Clark states:
In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know....
....there is still time for dialogue before we act.
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/