Richard Perle Said Clark's Testimony Anti-War!

[KittyWampus]

The following quote is from Neocon Richard Perle's Testimony on the U.S. POLICY TOWARD IRAQ at the Hearing Before the House Armed Services Committee on September 26, 2002.

Richard Perle's Testimony followed Clark's as the COUNTERPOINT or OPPOSING viewpoint.

.
PERLE: "So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."
.
Perle's statement occured after Clark left the hearing early to catch a flight. Which is why it probally wasn't noticed before since it occures well after Clarks testimony.


DU'ers are encouraged to email this to CNN and others!

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm

[returnable]

1. Bingo!

Good work :toast:

[SlavesandBulldozers]

2. tight work

wow. :think:

[mmonk]

3. sssssshhhhh!

You're messing up all the opposition's strategy.

[KittyWampus]

4. Funny, Don't Have To Heavily Edit Perle's Statements Either!

it's all there in black and white!

:D

[windansea]

6. good one smilingproud!!

I mean crying shame...

:)

[maddezmom]

5. cryingshame

thank you for this post and the others related to this point. :hug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. I like these comments by Clark also

"Since then, we've encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait. We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an army of God, the mujahaddin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these Holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed Al Qaida.

My French friends constantly remind me that these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy, which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing. There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must."

Thanks for posting that link!

[returnable]

10. French friends?

Uh, oh - Rove is gonna have a field day :evilgrin:

[Guaranteed]

8. Sent a heads up to Paul Begala and James Carville

Hopefully they'll get it. You know Novak or Carlson is going to bring this up.

[KittyWampus]

16. Don't Think Begala Would Care To Correct Himself

Either Begala is so misinformed he bought the RNC crap or has an agenda that includes helping to smear Clark.

[Toucano]

9. Good job! n/t

[MoonRiver]

11. He, he, he

Bushwackers are probably scrambling desperately to shut down that link. Too late, bottom feeders!

:D

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. Send this to the media!

We need to get this out! I just sent it to Chris Matthews on MSNBC. ALL the networks need to be bombarded with this! Drudge is a less than honorable person. :grr:

[TacticalPeek]

13. Exxxxxcellent!

If one listened between the lines during the run-up, almost every military talking head on tv thought that Saddam was contained and a large-force ground invasion was not wise, even though they were largely silent on this 'foreign policy' angle and stuck to bombs-and-bullets analysis. Even some on Faux.

This pearl from the Prince of Darkness is priceless. Thanks.

:evilgrin:

[VolcanoJen]

14. Nice research, cryingshame!!

You should send your resume to the Clark folks. I think they could use you!

:D

[Clark4VotingRights]

30. Goody! That means it'll be in the next RNC press release.

}(

[Bread and Circus]

15. Yeah, it's also funny how the PNAC'ers were very complementive of

Clark for his courageous stand in Kosovo (where Cohen
and Shelton were wimps).

It seems a lot of people respect Clark until he is about
to beat them at their own game -- then the lies and misdirection
come out.


here's the search, if you read the articles you can see
many were very impressed with his courage, vision, and fortitude:

http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=2557452&pid=r&mode=ALL&query=wesley+clark&t=s

[KittyWampus]

17. Please Repeat As Necessary

:kick:

[Clark4VotingRights]

18. Good quote cryingshame!

Right from the neocon's mouth.

[TacticalPeek]

19. Kick.

[Tatiana]

20. Good work cryingshame!!!!!!

Skimmed Clark's testimony earlier, and missed this very important tidbit.

[KittyWampus]

21. Thank Goodness We Found This. Now Send It To News Organisations.

:)

[sandnsea]

22. Can we ever read the whole thing

Clearly Clark saw Saddam as a threat that had to be dealt with. It's the how of it that he was arguing. Richard Perle may have concluded Clark wouldn't use force at all, but that sounds a little like that pre-war weanie rhetoric we're all so accustomed to. He was clearly saying we had to handle Iraq in a diplomatic way, through the UN, with force as an option and absolute last resort. And we needed to make sure it didn't divert us from al qaeda and there had to be an absolute strategy from start to finish. I don't particularly find this statement being for or against war, rather being for a thoughtful, diplomatic and patient approach to dealing with Iraq. With war as a last resort if the UN failed to act and intelligence showed a need to act. Kind of like what I've heard somebody else say.

"I'd like to offer the following observations by way of how we could proceed. First of all, I do believe that the United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing U.S. determination to act if the United Nations can not act. The use of force must remain a U.S. option under active consideration.

Such congressional resolution need not, at this point, authorize the use of force. The more focused the resolution on Iraq, the more focused it is on the problems of weapons of mass destruction. The greater its utility in the United Nations, the more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its utility is, the greater its impact is on the diplomatic efforts under way."

"So, we're swimming a little bit upstream on this, but I think a strong resolution from this body sent up promptly with broad support and narrowed the focus on the problems of weapons of mass destruction would give additional leverage, and I would urge that it be adopted."

[KittyWampus]

23. Reading The Whole Thing Is Anathema To Hatchet Jobs

But the LIE has been planted in the media... and it now feeds off itself.

[sandnsea]

27. He told Congress Saddam was a threat

Now he acts shocked that they believed him. Shocked that they followed his advice to move forward and get the UN to force Saddam to comply with UN resolutions and let inspectors back in. That isn't a lie, those are his own words.

And you're using Richard Perle as an honest messenger of Clark's intentions? Sorry, that's kind of funny. It's clear to me Clark wasn't advocating a war. But it's equally clear that he wasn't against war under any circumstances the way Perle said either.

[Leilani]

32. This lie is till going on

All the talking heads are still talking about "flip-flops on the war."
It's really very frustrating to try to respond to a falsehood.

[Lurking Dem]

24. Well done, cryingshame!

For a PNAC plant he must be deeeeeeeeeeep undercover! :crazy:

[wyldwolf]

25. DAAAAAA-YUUUUUUM!

!

[wyldwolf]

26. kick

kick

[_NorCal_D_]

28. Kick

:kick:

[wyldwolf]

29. kick

[lurk_no_more]

31. This is a great find

Thank You, I needed this very thing to battle the onslaught of the altered statement earlier this week that is somehow missing on both Drudge and Rush's site.


And then there were none!
” JAFO”