Wes Clark is a Republican plant

The Republicans have skillfully portrayed Clark as a Clinton stooge.
It's clear that the NeoCons have dressed him up as a democrat and
planted him as a dem candidate. Lieberman is also more Republican
than Democrate (but that's another story).

----------

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JAN 15, 2004 11:28:25 ET XXXXX

WES CLARK MADE CASE FOR IRAQ WAR BEFORE CONGRESS; TRANSCRIPT REVEALED

**World Exclusive**

Two months ago Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark declared in a debate
that he has always been firmly against the current Iraq War.

"I've been very consistent... I've been against this war from the
beginning," the former general said in Detroit on October 26.

"I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was
against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm
against it now."

But just six month prior in an op-ed in the LONDON TIMES Clark offered
praise for the courage of President Bush's action.

"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the
face of so much doubt," Clark wrote on April 10, 2003. "Can anything
be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of
Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of
Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are
smashed and defiled."

MORE

Even the most ardent Clark supporter will question if Clark's current
and past stand on the Iraq war -- is confusion or deception, after the
DRUDGE REPORT reveals:

TWO WEEKS BEFORE CONGRESS PASSED THE IRAQ CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION
WESLEY CLARK MADE THE CASE FOR WAR; TESTIFIED THAT SADDAM HAD
'CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS'

Less than 18 months ago, Wesley Clark offered his testimony before the
Committee On Armed Services at the U.S. House Of Representatives.

"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is
simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to
take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark
told Congress on September 26, 2002.

"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's
done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in
advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the
commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in
Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did
so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and
regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t
agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to
support it with a resolution."

Clark continued: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a
threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those
for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much
different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of
2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear
capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were
to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would
face greatly increased risks as would we."

More Clark: "And, I want to underscore that I think the United States
should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that
doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard
Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's
longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt
with and the clock is ticking on this."

Clark explained: "I think there's no question that, even though we may
not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been
such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural.
These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are
going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information.
They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are
opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I
think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is
produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat."

END

In article , Fly Guy wrote:


Drudge has clipped and even added material -- the usual hack job to
mislead

if you are really interested -- read what clark has actually said not
GOP talking points


The Republicans have skillfully portrayed Clark as a Clinton stooge.
It's clear that the NeoCons have dressed him up as a democrat and
planted him as a dem candidate. Lieberman is also more Republican
than Democrate (but that's another story).

----------

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JAN 15, 2004 11:28:25 ET XXXXX

WES CLARK MADE CASE FOR IRAQ WAR BEFORE CONGRESS; TRANSCRIPT REVEALED

**World Exclusive**

Two months ago Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark declared in a debate
that he has always been firmly against the current Iraq War.

"I've been very consistent... I've been against this war from the
beginning," the former general said in Detroit on October 26.

"I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was
against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm
against it now."

But just six month prior in an op-ed in the LONDON TIMES Clark offered
praise for the courage of President Bush's action.

"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the
face of so much doubt," Clark wrote on April 10, 2003. "Can anything
be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of
Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of
Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are
smashed and defiled."

MORE

Even the most ardent Clark supporter will question if Clark's current
and past stand on the Iraq war -- is confusion or deception, after the
DRUDGE REPORT reveals:

TWO WEEKS BEFORE CONGRESS PASSED THE IRAQ CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION
WESLEY CLARK MADE THE CASE FOR WAR; TESTIFIED THAT SADDAM HAD
'CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS'

Less than 18 months ago, Wesley Clark offered his testimony before the
Committee On Armed Services at the U.S. House Of Representatives.

"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is
simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to
take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark
told Congress on September 26, 2002.

"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's
done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in
advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the
commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in
Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did
so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and
regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t
agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to
support it with a resolution."

Clark continued: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a
threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those
for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much
different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of
2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear
capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were
to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would
face greatly increased risks as would we."

More Clark: "And, I want to underscore that I think the United States
should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that
doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard
Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's
longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt
with and the clock is ticking on this."

Clark explained: "I think there's no question that, even though we may
not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been
such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural.
These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are
going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information.
They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are
opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I
think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is
produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat."

END