|
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.
___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/
|
