Clark: W afraid of Osama

[Renew Deal]

Says Saddam takedown bait, switch

By JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark accused President Bush yesterday of going after Saddam Hussein because he didn't have the guts to take out Osama Bin Laden first.
" did a bait-and-switch on us and substituted Saddam Hussein, and boom, $150 billion, 460 American lives and no telling how much more of our Treasury before this is all over," the Democratic hopeful told ABC's "This Week."

"This administration didn't have the heart to put the effort and the innovation and the ingenuity into fighting terror," Clark said. Clark said he "wouldn't have been afraid to try" to kill Al Qaeda's leader, Bin Laden, had he been President in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001.

The four-star general and former NATO supreme allied commander also said Bush should accept responsibility for failing to stop Al Qaeda from attacking America and not let "a few midlevel officials in the FBI and CIA" shoulder all the blame in the 9/11 commission's final report, expected in May.

"National security is the responsibility of the President of the United States, and as President Truman said, 'The buck stops here.'"

<snip>

http://nydailynews.com/front/story/148277p-130756c.html

[MarianJack]

1. He's Right, But...

...a bush accepting responsibility????? I thought that everything since Noah's Ark was the fault of Bill Clinton's Penis!!!

[rasputin1952]

2. Getting Osama, (remember him?)...

would have been relatively easy. Instead, the Afghan people took a terrible beating, Osama took off with a dialysis machine and a large group of people. Seems that all of this 'high-tech' crap ain't worth a damn. Sattelites that can read license plates, but can't find a 7' goon with an AK-74. Something is amiss.

"Bait and Switch", I guess so; and let's not forget the OIL!

O8)

[TeacherCreature]

3. how convenient

A few short months ago he was praising the bush team and saying how lucky we were to have them in office. I'd call that quite an insensitive slap in the face to the man he claims to have voted for and all the democrats who know bush lost the election.
Yeah and now he's a democrat? Come on folks, are you really that gullible?

[WoodrowFan]

4. he voted for Gore

He voted for Clinton and then for Gore, at least try to get your RW slander points straight.

[Jack_Dawson]

5. Clark is a Democratic Party Godsend

Better get used to it. You can't be a senior officer and partisan - it just doesn't work. He voted for Clinton, he voted for Gore. Turn the page.

[TacticalPeek]

6. Come on, TeacherCreature, are you really that counterfactual?

Clark has Shrub's number.

:evilgrin:

[meow mix]

10. lol as-if

repeating myth #1
Clark is a Republican! bwahahahah!!

teacher needs to read =)
id look here - go to debunker.
http://www.ex-deaniacsforclark.com/MainPage.htm

[Gloria]

7. During this piece he also said that Newsweek knows that bin Laden is

in Western Pakistan....

AND, when asked about his early "bobble" he referred to his testimony before the Armed Service Committee before that....I would love to see that testimony, because apparently, it spells out his stance against the war before that. Was it before he entered the race??

Does anybody know anything about this or where it can be tracked down???

[TacticalPeek]

9. It was easier to track down a few months ago, but I still found it.

Funny how when I searched for 'wesley clark' at the armed services committee site, this does not come up. I'm guessing the Bugman is making them use some of the same disgusting search tweaking techniques that the WH has been caught using. Scuzzy bastards.


snip

"If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or
ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO
allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear.

Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in
post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This
includes requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities,
emergency medical and reconstruction assistance, and preparations for a transitional
governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution.
Ideally, international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of
such post-conflict operations, including the UN, NATO, and other regional and
Islamic organizations.

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been
exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an
immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be
categorized as 'preemptive.'

Once initiated, any military operation should aim for the most rapid accomplishment
of its operational aims and prompt turnover to follow-on organizations and agencies.

If we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the
ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in
the region, and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such as the
Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding
for terrorism. But there are no guarantees. The war is unpredictable and could be
difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American
ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab
world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere."

more
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html


Love that second paragraph.

[Gringo]

8. W is a Nickname!

You broke the new ridiculous draconian "no nickname" rule!!!