Reply #95: You beat me to it Frenchie

[Tom Rinaldo]

There is a reason why there are cliches such as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". People acting in good faith misread events that they witness all of the time, for many possible reasons, and that is not even factoring in acting in BAD faith.

Someone with a security background like Clark would never say "we should never take military action" in a situation where an unknown degree of threat could possibly be present or later shown to exist at a high level beyond any reasonable doubt. Actually few if any responsible leaders would. Clark laid out several essential pre conditions for war that he felt were not present in regards to Iraq, pre conditions that conceivably would never be demonstrated to be sufficiently present to justify military action. It wasn't simply a matter of waiting to get enough allies on board, though Clark certainly was critical of the Bush Administration for not caring about the value of Alliances. When push came to shove, unlike many Democrats in Congress, Clark opposed entry of U.S. forces into Iraq and he said so. Had it subsequently been proved that Hussein was passing biological and nuclear materials directly over to Bin Ladin, of course Clark would have favored military action. But not as matters stood. Important decisions with sweeping life and death implications must be justified by facts, not ideology. Clark is an eloquent advocate of that sensible position.