While I certainly don’t think Wesley Clark should be immune to criticism, I think it only fair to criticize him for things he’s actually said and done, not things his detractors wish he’s said and done.
Yesterday, cyberhack Matt Drudge, whose journalistic integrity appears to fall somewhere between the National Enquirer and Fox News Channel, claimed to have a devastating new scoop on Clark. The claim was that Clark, in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee in 2002, agreed with Bush’s war strategy and supported an invasion of Iraq.
Almost instantly, the Republican National Committee and Joe Lieberman’s campaign (they’re not the same thing, but sometimes I wonder) published press releases with banner headlines hammering Clark on the apparent inconsistency, both using Drudge as their source. Considering the timing, it seems obvious one or the other was responsible for feeding this nonsense to Drudge, though Josh Marshall makes a good case for the GOP.
This was a pathetic smear, even for Drudge. The “story” selectively wrenched parts of Clark’s testimony from context to make it appear Clark was saying something he wasn’t. Either the GOP put together this slam-job, fed it to Drudge, and Drudge was too lazy to check its accuracy, or Drudge hacked this together on his own. Either way, it’s patently dishonest. (And for Lieberman to use Drudge and GOP b.s. for campaign fodder is a new low, even for the most offensive Dem presidential candidate in 20 years)
I went through the entire transcript last night, word for word, and I’d encourage you to do the same. Far from supporting Bush’s approach in Iraq, Clark articulates a coherent and eloquent policy that encouraged the administration to pursue the opposite strategy that the White House ultimately adopted.
I’d post the whole thing here, but it’s a very long transcript, and my posts are already too long. Here are a few key points Clark raised:
* Clark said he saw “no substantial evidence linking Saddam’s regime to the al Qaeda network” and insisted al Queda was the bigger threat.
* Drudge’s report said Clark defended Bush’s “preemption doctrine.” That’s only half-true. Clark defended preemption as an approach, but specifically said Iraq doesn’t meet the necessary standards. “I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive,” Clark said. “Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem.”
* While the Bush administration said Iraq was an immediate threat that demanded immediate attention, Clark said the opposite, telling lawmakers that Hussein may be a long-term danger but that “time is on our side.”
* While Drudge emphasized Clark’s assertion that the use of force “must remain on the table,” he left out the very next sentence: “It should be used as the last resort after all diplomatic means have been exhausted unless there’s information that indicates that a further delay would represent an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations.” Indeed, Clark specifically said, “I think it’s not time yet to use force against Iraq.”
* Clark emphasized the need for United Nations support, urging the administration to “deploy imagination, leverage and patience in working through the United Nations.”
* Noting that U.N. support may not work out, Clark urged the White House to “form the broadest possible coalition including our NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if we’re going to have to bring forces to bear.”
These are hardly the comments of someone who backed Bush’s drive for war. Clark was actually advising the polar opposite of Bush’s strategy, and yet Drudge, the GOP, and Lieberman’s campaign were more concerned with smearing Clark than telling the truth.
The mind reels…