TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Wesley Clark --D'OH!
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Wesley Clark --D'OH!

How do you like him now? This should be entertaining. Just a Clinton puppett.

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

quote:

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."

Stuff like this comes out on Clark all of the time, and I think it's pretty funny. Until this guy wanted to run for President, he could have been mistaken for a pretty decent Republican.

Correction--I'm pretty certain he WAS a Republican prior to deciding to run.

The full Clark article:

quote:

What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory by General Wesley Clark 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. Liberation is at hand. Liberation � the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph. In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime�s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed. Then there�s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people. Still, the immediate tasks at hand in Iraq cannot obscure the significance of the moment. The regime seems to have collapsed � the primary military objective � and with that accomplished, the defense ministers and generals, soldiers and airmen should take pride. American and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call. But no one ever won a war or a battle with a plan. Every soldier knows there are only two kinds of plans: plans that might work and plans that won�t work. The art of war is to take a plan that might work and then drive it to success. This, General Tommy Franks and his team did very well indeed. Everyone who has ever served knows that battles are won at the bottom � by the men and women looking through the sights, pulling the triggers, loading the cannon and fixing the planes. The generals can lose battles, and they can set the conditions for success � but they can�t win. That�s done by the troops alone. And nothing could have been more revealing than those armored fights in which a handful of US tanks wiped out a score of opposing Iraqi armored vehicles, again and again, and usually without suffering any losses, while in the south, the British troops worked their way through the suburbs of Basra with skills born of sound training and firm discipline, minimizing friendly casualties, civilian losses and destruction. It�s to the men and women who fought it out on the arid highways, teeming city streets and crowded skies that we owe the greatest gratitude. All volunteers, they risked their lives as free men and women, because they believed in their countries and answered their calls. They left families and friends behind for a mission uncertain. They didn�t do it for the glory or the pittance of combat pay. Sadly, some won�t return � and they, most of all, need to be honored and remembered. As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn�t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome. Now the bills must be paid, amid the hostile image created in many areas by the allied action. Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come � effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns. Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights. Germany has already swung round from opposition to the war to approval. France will look for a way to bridge the chasm of understanding that has ripped at the EU. Russia will have to craft a new way forward, detouring away, at least temporarily, from the reflexive anti-Americanism which infects the power ministries. And North Korea will shudder, for it has seen on display an even more awesome display of power than it anticipated, and yet it will remain resolute in seeking leverage to assure its own regime�s survival. And what it produces, it sells. The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West. But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don�t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice � indeed, may have been already � that they are �next� if they fail to comply with Washington�s concerns. And there will be more jostling over the substance and timing of new peace initiatives for Israel and the Palestinians. Whatever the brief prewar announcement about the �road map�, this issue is far from settled in Washington, and is unlikely to achieve any real momentum until the threats to Israel�s northern borders are resolved. And that is an added pressure to lean on Bashir Assad and the ayatollahs in Iran. As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered. Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven�t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed. Let�s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue � but don�t demobilize yet. There�s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.

Time magazine October 14, 2002:

quote:

"President Bush was right to carry the problem of Iraq to the United Nations. And he is right to stay with the diplomatic process, as we seek to sway international opinion to our side. . . . Moreover . . . we must do everything possible to prepare for some unpleasant possibilities. . . . After Saddam's government collapses, are we prepared to maintain order and prevent mayhem? Wouldn't we be wiser to arrange for police support from other nations and international organizations? And if, as a result of conflict, Iraq's economy collapses, wouldn't we like to have international organizations ready to assist in nation building?"

CNN, 2/5/03:

quote:

"The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

I guess this is what happens when you trust the credibility of the current president of the united states . It's not like Clark has access to NSA/CIA documents that accurately depicted the state of being (or lack of info thereof) of Iraq's WMD program that Bush had.

quote:

Stuff like this comes out on Clark all of the time, and I think it's pretty funny. Until this guy wanted to run for President, he could have been mistaken for a pretty decent Republican.

Clark has voted for republicans and democrats in the past. He doesn't blindly tout the party line as so many do today.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I guess this is what happens when you trust the credibility of the current president of the united states . It's not like Clark has access to NSA/CIA documents that accurately depicted the state of being (or lack of info thereof) of Iraq's WMD program that Bush had.

Maybe not, Occ, but as a General in the U.S. Army and commander of NATO forces, I can assure you he had access to plenty of classified documents and other information. Enough that this type of flip-flop campaigning should not have happened to him if there weren't something suspicious going on behind the scenes.

I would be more inclined to be somewhat forgiving if it was someone clueless like Carol Mosely Braun or Al Sharpton getting caught in a slip up like this, but you've got to admit Clark is in a position where his credibility has lost some lustre by this development.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Maybe not, Occ, but as a General in the U.S. Army and commander of NATO forces, I can assure you he had access to plenty of classified documents and other information. Enough that this type of flip-flop campaigning should not have happened to him if there weren't something suspicious going on behind the scenes. I would be more inclined to be somewhat forgiving if it was someone clueless like Carol Mosely Braun or Al Sharpton getting caught in a slip up like this, but you've got to admit Clark is in a position where his credibility has lost some lustre by this development.

The man retired almost 3 and a half years ago. Are you saying that the primary evidence Bush relied upon to invade Iraq dated back to that period? Or are you saying that we have huge intelligence leaks throughout our entire system of government such that every former high level official has access to the same up-to-the-minute intelligence that the president of the United States has?

Say what we may of Clark but he wasn't the Commander in Chief that executed the order for the Armed Forces to go into Iraq so no one can know exactly how he would have made his decision or if his agenda would have been one to invade Iraq under such circumstances. Remember that Bush has a group of "neocons" that greatly influenced his thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The man retired almost 3 and a half years ago. Are you saying that the primary evidence Bush relied upon to invade Iraq dated back to that period? Or are you saying that we have huge intelligence leaks throughout our entire system of government such that every former high level official has access to the same up-to-the-minute intelligence that the president of the United States has?

For starters, he didn't retire, he was fired for character issues.

A lot of the evidence Bush relied on dates back into the Clinton administration, as well as into Bush I's administration. The original UN resolutions that created the clusterfuck that eventually resulted in 1441 were drafted years before Dubya took office.

I'm not saying we have huge intelligence leaks, but Generals don't just lose all of their contacts and information sources when they leave the Army. I'd still consider him an insider. In the very least I am sure he has a multitude of inside contacts in the military that he can get information from. I'm not trying to imply intelligence leakage, but I'm sure he has better sources than you or I.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Say what we may of Clark but he wasn't the Commander in Chief that executed the order for the Armed Forces to go into Iraq so no one can know exactly how he would have made his decision or if his agenda would have been one to invade Iraq under such circumstances. Remember that Bush has a group of "neocons" that greatly influenced his thinking.

And Congress authorized it. The U.S. isn't a dictatorship, though many on this board like to compare it to one.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka For starters, he didn't retire, he was fired for character issues. A lot of the evidence Bush relied on dates back into the Clinton administration, as well as into Bush I's administration. The original UN resolutions that created the clusterfuck that eventually resulted in 1441 were drafted years before Dubya took office. I'm not saying we have huge intelligence leaks, but Generals don't just lose all of their contacts and information sources when they leave the Army. I'd still consider him an insider. In the very least I am sure he has a multitude of inside contacts in the military that he can get information from. I'm not trying to imply intelligence leakage, but I'm sure he has better sources than you or I.

Supposedly he was fired for disagreements and issues with the then Defense Secretary Cohen. And it's possibly true he is still more of an insider than you or I. But I would wager that the majority of his contacts are within the military rather than direct links to the CIA or NSA for raw data. At any rate, we can hypothetically guess that his insider contact is God and therefore he should have known everything however it's all conjecture. Truth of the matter is, we have no clue what kind of contacts he has and what kind of information he gets.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Supposedly he was fired for disagreements and issues with the then Defense Secretary Cohen. And it's possibly true he is still more of an insider than you or I. But I would wager that the majority of his contacts are within the military rather than direct links to the CIA or NSA for raw data. At any rate, we can hypothetically guess that his insider contact is God and therefore he should have known everything however it's all conjecture. Truth of the matter is, we have no clue what kind of contacts he has and what kind of information he gets.

I can concede that. But it's not as if he was flying blind. Next year's race just keeps getting more and more interesting. Funny how the older one gets, the more interesting politics becomes. I can't decide if I would've been happier had I majored in Poly-Sci vs. Economics!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka And Congress authorized it. The U.S. isn't a dictatorship, though many on this board like to compare it to one.

LoL!! No No No.. just the president.

Just for future reference once the Democrats have a nominee: Not only does that person get full Secret Service protection, but they are also given classified national security briefings and information to keep them up to date during the campaign. The US affords the opposing major party candidate some of the same benefits that he would have as an incumbent.

Wesley Clark has been nothing more than a four-star idiot since he retired - and maybe before!

{{{smoke}}}

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa I believe that Clark still has significant intelligence and military contacts. Those may even be the very reason why he decided to run for President so quickly (wasn't that telling) and as a Democrat. He seemed to have very little experience about politics and no realistic chance of being elected, so the only goal of his campaign may be to help in sabotaging Bush, a common goal of both Democrats and some GOP veterans.

quote:

General Clark, who repeatedly refers to himself as "a leader, not a politician," said of the critical flier, "I guess that's what professional politicians do."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/p...gns/08DEAN.html

And, on who he voted for:

quote:

Clark also dismissed critics' questioning of his Democratic credentials. He said he voted for Al Gore and Bill Clinton in presidential elections, and he defended his earlier votes for Ronald Reagan by saying he "voted for people who were strong on national security."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Jan14.html

Keep in mind, when Clark registered to vote, it was quite a long time ago, and placing you party as "None party affiliated" was not as popular, if even in effect, back in the day. Is it not our right as citizens of America to vote for whom we believe to be a good President, regardless of what our voter registration card says?

Another note- I've said plenty of times that I'm against something but give kudos to people who are brave enough to do it.

This is one of the first things to go against Clark. How many are there on Dean? Gephardt? Kerry? They can't even speak for themselves, representatives do. It's now official that Dean will not be holding any more confrences with the public:

quote:

While Dr. Dean continues to draw impressive crowds at nearly every stop, he has also begun to face daily questions from voters about some of his recent statements and his vulnerability to President Bush.

quote:

Then there is the new clamp on Dr. Dean's mouth. On Saturday morning, Doug Thornell, his traveling press secretary, announced that the candidate would less frequently face groups of reporters, or chat freely in transit, but instead would field questions, one-on one, by request. Three days passed without the kind of group interview with national reporters that used to be frequent, and the promised one-on-ones never happened (until Wednesday morning, when a Washington Post reporter was allowed to ask a question after a pancake breakfast in Muscatine about civil unions). Dr. Dean has met individually with local television and radio reporters, but he has not had a group meeting with local reporters, once a regular occurrence, since Dec. 16 in New Mexico.

quote:

He said, "There's been more than one time when I've said something, and sort of the middle of what I've said is not said but thought, and therefore assumed to be understood, which is a ridiculous assumption on my part, but sometimes gets me in trouble."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/p...gns/08DEAN.html

quote:

And Congress authorized it. The U.S. isn't a dictatorship, though many on this board like to compare it to one.

No it isnt but then it doesnt need to be. What really amazes me is how the USA gives its citizens through the legal system and the constitution rights that people anywhere else would fall over themselves to get such as the first amendment, the fifth amendment, freedom of information laws, many excellent pieces of legislation such as the Alien Torts Act but you still have autocratic secretive government, a compliant judiciary. The ruling class in america dont need a dictatorship to have control.

The US media seldoms questions authority, trivialises issues or is straight outed biased like Fox News. The standard of US journalism is appalling, and dont flame me because I dont live in america, I get Fox News, CNBC and CNN. I am watching Fox News right now and there is some idiot from a think tank ridiculing Global warming. No I am not making this up. Insanity. Now the host of this show Mr Cavuto is ridiculing a conservation spokesperson saying their is no proof about global warming. But I digress.

In any other country George W and his gang would have been railroaded out of office for stupidity if not for all of the bold out and out lies they have told. And the most amazing thing is that Dubya will win in 2004.

The vested interests in america the lobby groups for big business, the military, guns, Israel own the government they dont need to control it.

Right now Mr Cavuto is talking about how much money the democratic candidates are raising Mr Dean is leading the way in case you were interested. They always talk about how much money they raise. The talking head just said that if Dick Gephardt doesnt get Union money he will have to pull out of Iowa. Which demonstrates my point exactly US politics is all about money, that is the only thing its about. And all the big money is given by the vested interests. It is crazy to think that they dont get their pound of flesh when there lad get into that Millionares club called Congress. Why not be clever and give contributions to both sides.

And the talking head on Fox News had to throw in a sledge against Hillary Clinton. I have noticed they really hate her a lot, followed slightly by Howard Dean and then the French.

I am perhaps venting against Fox News but I for one am glad that loathsome right wing fanatic, hatefilled, greedy scumbag Rupert Murdoch abandoned his Australian citizenship to become an american. All of those adjectives enable him to meet the selection criteria for the perfect CEO, a born to rule ivy league parasite.

The USA has two parties of big business, one that is prepared to make minor compromises with the Hoi Polloi and another that isnt. Some choice. The corporations know that whomever gets in office will have their best interests at heart. All US politicians know the golden rule. He who has the gold rules. I have had enough of Fox News for one night, I think I will change the channel for more quality american broadcasting this time Worlds Wildest Police Videos.

wasn't Clark told about the invasion plans right after 9/11? i think thats the case, and if it is then his opinion on whether or not the war should happen didnt really matter since he was told it WAS going to happen.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert What really amazes me is how the USA gives its citizens through the legal system and the constitution rights that people anywhere else would fall over themselves to get such as the first amendment, the fifth amendment...

Part of what makes America beautiful!

quote:

I am watching Fox News right now and there is some idiot from a think tank ridiculing Global warming. No I am not making this up. Insanity.

I think Global warming is overhyped by many as a doomsday tool. There is plenty of scientific evidence that has shown that the sun has actually grown hotter in recent years. Hotter sun = hotter Earth, duh. I'm all for conservation and moderation, but let's not hit the panic button and call an alternative opinion idiotic just because it goes against your personal beliefs which are based on speculative science at best.

quote:

And the talking head on Fox News had to throw in a sledge against Hillary Clinton.

I wasn't aware that anyone liked Hillary!

quote:

I am perhaps venting against Fox News but I for one am glad that loathsome right wing fanatic, hatefilled, greedy scumbag Rupert Murdoch abandoned his Australian citizenship to become an american. All of those adjectives enable him to meet the selection criteria for the perfect CEO, a born to rule ivy league parasite.

It sounded more like a rant on Fox--you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

I was a bit fazed by Drudge�s article, but then I remembered that Matt is good "friends" with Sean Hannity and the boys, if you get my drift.

I just finished reading more of the full transcript that Drudge has cut and pasted small pieces out of to make Clark look bad:

http://cat-m.forclark.com/story/2004/1/15/11369/7727

And I realize that Clark was actually calling for more diplomacy, and not a rush to war. In fact my support for Clark is stronger now thanks to you Shakka. Thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz I was a bit fazed by Drudge�s article, but then I remembered that Matt is good "friends" with Sean Hannity and the boys, if you get my drift. I just finished reading more of the full transcript that Drudge has cut and pasted small pieces out of to make Clark look bad: http://cat-m.forclark.com/story/2004/1/15/11369/7727 And I realize that Clark was actually calling for more diplomacy, and not a rush to war. In fact my support for Clark is stronger now thanks to you Shakka. Thank you.

That's a good find. Goes quite nicely with the article I posted in the other Clark thread about Republican attacks on Clark

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz I was a bit fazed by Drudge�s article, but then I remembered that Matt is good "friends" with Sean Hannity and the boys, if you get my drift. I just finished reading more of the full transcript that Drudge has cut and pasted small pieces out of to make Clark look bad: http://cat-m.forclark.com/story/2004/1/15/11369/7727 And I realize that Clark was actually calling for more diplomacy, and not a rush to war. In fact my support for Clark is stronger now thanks to you Shakka. Thank you.

I'm all for individuality and freedom of thought. I'm glad you're voting how you want to vote, that's how it should be.

Drudge fabricated some lines of transcript...?


http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7720784.htm

quote:

GOP chair claims Clark supported war; transcripts show otherwise By Dana Hull and Drew Brown Knight Ridder Newspapers RICH GLICKSTEIN, The State Democratic presidental hopeful Gen. Wesley Clark (U.S. Army, Ret.) talks with students at Dillon High School in Dillon, South Carolina. MANCHESTER, N.H. - Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, charged Thursday that retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark endorsed President Bush's policy toward Iraq two weeks before Congress voted to authorize Bush to go to war. If true, that would contradict the core message of Clark's presidential campaign. The complete transcript of Clark's Sept. 26, 2002, testimony, however, reveals that Clark didn't endorse Bush's policy during the congressional hearing, and that the Republican charge is based on selected excerpts of his remarks. Gillespie accurately quoted portions of Clark's testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in which Clark said he believed that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons and was seeking nuclear weapons. But the RNC chairman didn't mention that Clark also said America should work through the United Nations to seek a diplomatic solution and go to war only as a last resort. Gillespie's speech, delivered in Clark's hometown of Little Rock, Ark., argued forcefully that Clark had endorsed Bush's policy toward Iraq in that congressional testimony and at other times. Gillespie apparently was contesting Clark's insistence that he consistently opposed Bush's war against Iraq - a stand Clark reiterated Thursday. "There was no stronger case made than that expert testimony, the testimony of General Wesley Clark," Gillespie concluded. Clark's position on the Iraq war is central to his presidential candidacy, for as a former four-star general, he bases his appeal to Democrats on his credibility as a military man who can challenge Bush on national security issues. "This is material that has been dug up by the RNC," Clark responded Thursday afternoon. "Ed Gillespie should have read the whole testimony, because it totally refutes the Bush position." Clark appeared exasperated. "What I was saying then is what I'm saying today. That Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat. That actions contemplated against Saddam Hussein did not constitute pre-emptive war, contrary to what the Bush administration was saying, because there was no imminent threat. Was he troublesome? Sure. Was he a threat? Eventually, sure. Was the clock ticking in the two-year, five-year, eight-year time period? Sure. Did we have to do this? NO." Clark, however, hasn't always been consistent. The day after he officially announced his candidacy for president last September, he told reporters that he "probably" would have voted the previous autumn for the congressional resolution authorizing Bush to go to war, then reversed that position the next day. The attack on Clark by the RNC chairman suggests that the Republican Party is now taking Clark's campaign seriously. Although opinion polls can be unreliable in primaries, in which voter turnout is low and many voters make up their minds at the last minute, the latest polls show Clark closing in on former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean for the lead in New Hampshire, where Democrats will vote on Jan. 27. Clark's congressional testimony was further distorted Thursday by cyber-gossip columnist Matt Drudge, who quoted selected portions of Clark's testimony and added sentences that don't appear in the transcript on his Web site Thursday. Drudge didn't respond to an e-mail request for comment. For example, Drudge quoted Clark on possible links between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's regime. "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as (fellow witness) Richard (Perle) says, that there have been such contacts," Clark testified. "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." But Drudge didn't include Clark's comment that: "As far as I know, I haven't seen any substantial evidence linking Saddam's regime to the al-Qaida network, though such evidence may emerge. I'm saying there hasn't been any substantiation of the linkage of the Iraqi regime to the events of 9/11 or the fact that they are giving weapons of mass destruction capability to al-Qaida." "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat," Clark testified, according to the full transcript, which was reviewed by Knight Ridder. "He does retain his chemical and biological capabilities to some extent and 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 � The problem of Iraq is not a problem that can be postponed indefinitely � ." In addition, Clark said: "If the efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, then we need to form the broadest possible coalition, including our NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if we're going to bring forces to bear. We should not be using force until the personnel, the organizations, the plans that will be required for post-conflict Iraq are prepared and ready." --- (Hull, of the San Jose Mercury News, reported from New Hampshire, Brown from Washington.)

If you want to be misled by people like Drudge, then by all means that's your right. The truth however, is more powerful than any lie.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz Drudge fabricated some lines of transcript...? http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7720784.htm If you want to be misled by people like Drudge, then by all means that's your right. The truth however, is more powerful than any lie.

I hardly see how that article changes anything. I read the Drudge report and it was more of a quick flash story--a summary if you will, with bullet points. The article doesn't change anything.

quote:

Gillespie accurately quoted portions of Clark's testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in which Clark said he believed that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons and was seeking nuclear weapons. But the RNC chairman didn't mention that Clark also said America should work through the United Nations to seek a diplomatic solution and go to war only as a last resort.

THEY DID! We all watched it on TV for half a year! It was only when France said they would veto any new resolution, no matter what it's content, thus forcing the U.S. hand in the big game. Who knows, maybe France wanted to force the U.S. to attack Iraq for their own selfish reasons? Regardless, it was abundantly clear that dealings with the UN were going nowhere fast.

The rest of the supposed "forgotten lines" don't do anything to change the case either. Sounds like Clark is trying to gently back away from this one and sweep it under the rug.

The article doesn't say Drudge fabricated anything. At the most it says they didn't quote every line of text from the Clark testimony, which may or may not have influenced your opinion of the article. Drudge wasn't misquoting anyone.

Clark has a personal idenity problem. He's the biggest hypocrit of this election.

I still fail to see what Clark has to defend on the Iraq issue, he is not the staunch critic of Bush as Dean is on the Iraq issue, he never issued or approved or conducted the policy of war in Iraq. From some of these commentaries you would believe that Clark is the Commander in Chief, whether he was for or against the Iraq war doesn't make him responsible for it in any way whatsoever. What I have gathered from listening to the man is that unlike Bush he would have been more patient in dealing with the immediate clear and present dangerous lie, I mean threat that G.W.Bush told us Iraq represented I am so fed up with the current admin and its policies that for someone who once had some trust in them no longer can I say so, Genug ist Genug(Enough is Enough)

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.