Reply #91: In September of 2002, [View All]

[Pithy Cherub]

Clark testified before the Senates Armed Forces Committee under oath that is was the wrong war and not to stray from Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin Laden. He also argued the point with the prevailing PNAC neocon, Richard Perle, in front of the Committee. Clark was against it pure and simple without equivocation or weasel words.

The vote for IWR was in October of 2002 giving senators enough time to heed his words before that odious vote. Clark tried every option he could while maintaining his integrity and his valor as a General Officer to say not to do this. That is being anti-war in the specific regarding Iraq. Clark made a persuasive case to NOT give Bush a blank check as the resolution was not worded in favorable terms and would give authority unilaterally to the president. Senators Kennedy and Wellstone heeded his prophetic words others chose differently.

After the troops were committed Clark fully supported them, not the vile actions of the civilian leadership. Clark loves the troops and David Asman of Faux News got his ass handed to him in a humiliating fashion when Clark was questioned in the manner of his devotion to troops while denouncing Bush and the Iraq war action. Clark is a military expert, national security expert and foreign policy expert that knows the meaning of nuance in supporting troops while utterly eviscerating the command of those troops. So yes, he is anti-Iraq war and has always been anti-Iraq war.

WMD's was part of bad information and intel permeating DC at the time. It doesn't make an at all persuasive case that Clark was for the war. the premise was flawed from inception and Clark is on the record stating that. The lack of WMD's made Clark more credible for his rationale not to go into Iraq.

Your read is an interpretation of selected quotes that don't fit the frame. Some of your statements indicate that your personal view should be THE view because you presented it and believe it. It is rejected not because it is your opinion, but because it is not factual. Clark is and was against the war.

Edwards made a choice to vote Aye. He admitted it was wrong. What can not be allowed to stand is any diminution of Clark because Edwards made a horrible mistake. Edwards can rise and stand on his own merits and his actions. So, your central thesis that Clark waffled is summarily rejected because it is a desire not the truth of the historical record or the facts. Clark's integrity is all he has so yes his supporters will vigorously defend it until the end.

Personally, not mad at all. Just a zealous guardian of the Truth and if Clark did anything untoward, I would have the Grace to admit it. In this very critical judgment area regarding his arena of expertise, Wes's record is clear, unambiguous, documented and available that he was against the Iraq War and giving a blank check to Bush. Alas, others were not.