It's almost funny, watching whomod fall all over himself touting Clark as an anti-war candidate, when, prior to his entry in the race, Clark supported the war.
Check out the
transcript of Clark's testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 26, 2002, 15 days before Congress voted to authorize the liberation of Iraq. Some highlights:
- [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.
Although Clark did say force should be a "last resort" and U.N. support was desirable, he also urged Congress to "adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not."
This is, of course. completely at odds with what he's been saying since he became a candidate for the presidency.
Remember how, after Clark jumped into the race, Hugh Shelton, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said "integrity and character issues" were behind the decision to relieve Clark of his position as supreme commander of NATO. Shelton has yet to elaborate, but Clark's public actions have certainly provided good reason to question his integrity and character
