January 15, 2004
Exclusive falsehood
Drudge has a breathless "exclusive" today on the transcript of Wesley Clark's HASC testimony that Digby found three days ago and I commented on yesterday.
A reader wants to know what Drudge thinks is "exclusive." I think the answer is pretty obvious: what's exclusive is Drudge's complete misinterpretation of what Clark said.
Drudge says that Clark "made the case for war." That is the opposite of the truth.
Clark, in his testimony, made it clear that we ought to be ready to go to war, if Iraq failed to disarm and submit to inspections, but that war ought to be a last resort, and that in the absence of any imminent threat continued pressure short of an invasion was the better course.
I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq but it is certainly time to put that card on the table, to turn it face up and to wave it and the president is doing that and I think that the United States Congress has to indicate after due consideration and consulting our people and building our resolve that yes, this is a significant security problem for the United States of America and all options are on the table including the use of force as necessary to solve this problem because I think that's what's required to leverage any hope of solving this problem short of war.
Is that clear enough? Or is there some part of "I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq" Mr. Drudge needs to have explained to him more slowly?
In the course of arguing against going to war, or authorizing the President to go to war, right then, Clark brushed away a number of bad reasons against going to war before getting to the good ones. That's called "intellectual honesty." That is a virtue with which Drudge, like many of Clark's critics, seems unfamiliar.
Be sure to add Drudge to your bookmarks if you want exclusive misinformation delivered directly to your screen.
Update: Robert Tagorda, no Clark supporter, agrees.