It was a given by then that we were going in to Iraq; the only question was whether we were going in as a lonesome cowboy or as part of a posse. Clark strongly preferred the “posse” option and thought it was available, so he wouldn’t have voted for the “cowboy” option and would have tried to craft a resolution pushing for multilaterialism.
I think that the United States always has the option of acting unilaterally. But I’d say in this case it’s a question of what’s the sense of urgency here, and how soon would we need to act unilaterally? And so I think it’s very important that we recognize that so far as any of the information has been presented, as General Hoar said, there is nothing that indicates that in the immediate, next hours, next days, that there’s going to be nuclear-tipped missiles put on launch pads to go against our forces or our allies in the region. And so I think there is, based on all of the evidence available, sufficient time to work through the diplomacy of this.
Digby suggests that Clark is going to have to learn to dumb it down in order to win. I’m not so sure.
Reporters like it dumb, but lots of voters can handle complexity if someone makes it real and says it as if he means it. Remember how the reporters always complained about what they found to be interminable speeches by Clinton filled with policy detail? The viewers didn’t seem to mind.