Thoughts on Presidential candidates
- Thread starter 2-0-Sixx
- Start date
Wesley Clark 2004 indeed.
Both Kerry and Edwards acts too much like sleazy politicians who say one thing and vote another.
Clark is a strong leader and is in my opinion the person that would be best fit to lead the country.
I can't see why people favor Kerry and ignores Clark besides the fact that Kerry is the front runner.
I would though vote for any of the democratic candidates, except black-heart-lieberman who would be just as bad as Dubya's regime.
Clark lashes out at Kerry, Edwards :
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/05/elec04.prez.clark.remarks/index.html
Both Kerry and Edwards acts too much like sleazy politicians who say one thing and vote another.
Clark is a strong leader and is in my opinion the person that would be best fit to lead the country.
I can't see why people favor Kerry and ignores Clark besides the fact that Kerry is the front runner.
I would though vote for any of the democratic candidates, except black-heart-lieberman who would be just as bad as Dubya's regime.
Clark lashes out at Kerry, Edwards :
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/05/elec04.prez.clark.remarks/index.html
Kucinich is the man!
Reinstate the Kyoto agreement!
Repeal NAFTA
Anti WTO
The only member of Congress who flat out opposed and voted against the War. (He will also work to get the UN to expidite reconsturction and our boys out)
Against the Death Penalty
Pro-Marijuana
Pro-Peace
Pro-education
Wants to restructure medicare/medicade for across the board equal coverage where EVERYBODY is covered.
He has consistantly demands accountabilty on numerous questionable issues in regard to mis-information and corruptness behind the scenes!
Excluding Dean (b/c he pumped so much into his campaign to get his name out there) Kucinich has the most small money donations (less than $200) and highest number volume of contibutors to his campaign. Which is indicitive that he is really a peoples leader.
Despite is socially liberal views, he is fiscally in the 'middle' "Reagan democrats" endorse his fiscal plans and tax structures. If interested go to this link to evaluate how you would be affected by his proposed tax plan http://www.kucinich.us/issues/tax_cuts.php
go check out www.kucinich.us to get hip to some more of his ideas as well as others who endorse this man.
Respect
Reinstate the Kyoto agreement!
Repeal NAFTA
Anti WTO
The only member of Congress who flat out opposed and voted against the War. (He will also work to get the UN to expidite reconsturction and our boys out)
Against the Death Penalty
Pro-Marijuana
Pro-Peace
Pro-education
Wants to restructure medicare/medicade for across the board equal coverage where EVERYBODY is covered.
He has consistantly demands accountabilty on numerous questionable issues in regard to mis-information and corruptness behind the scenes!
Excluding Dean (b/c he pumped so much into his campaign to get his name out there) Kucinich has the most small money donations (less than $200) and highest number volume of contibutors to his campaign. Which is indicitive that he is really a peoples leader.
Despite is socially liberal views, he is fiscally in the 'middle' "Reagan democrats" endorse his fiscal plans and tax structures. If interested go to this link to evaluate how you would be affected by his proposed tax plan http://www.kucinich.us/issues/tax_cuts.php
go check out www.kucinich.us to get hip to some more of his ideas as well as others who endorse this man.
Respect
thats why he got FIRED as the NATO commander by Clinton, or he actually resigned under pressure for almost starting WWIII against RUSSIA while being the top commander in Bosnia!!!!!!!
also he changes his opinion with whichever way the wind is blowing.
i remember seeing him on Tim Russert's show and within the span of 5 minutes he changed his position 3 times.
but hey, being a bush supporter, i would love to have wesley clark as an opponant almost as much as howard dean.
these are the guys that would have been hard for W. to beat in order
1. Lieberman
2. Gepheart
3. Edwards
these are the guys that would have been easy for W. to beat in order
1. Dean
2. Clark
3. Kerry
also he changes his opinion with whichever way the wind is blowing.
i remember seeing him on Tim Russert's show and within the span of 5 minutes he changed his position 3 times.
but hey, being a bush supporter, i would love to have wesley clark as an opponant almost as much as howard dean.
these are the guys that would have been hard for W. to beat in order
1. Lieberman
2. Gepheart
3. Edwards
these are the guys that would have been easy for W. to beat in order
1. Dean
2. Clark
3. Kerry
McSnatchmeal you're forgetting that not everyone thinks like you.
For you Satan's-Spawn-Lieberman might be the best democratic candidate because he is so similar too Bush, but Lieberman would scare off all the undecided and why would anyone vote for a Bush-copy when you can vote for Bush?
Source please on your WW3 claims, since I was under the impression that he didn't piss off Clinton but a lot of pentagon people that went behind his back and leaked that he was being canned if they hadn't done that Clinton would have saved his job.
Most of the claims I've heard against Clark is that he is being inconsistent, if you listen to people like Matt Drudge that are excellent at distorting facts :
Clark is vulnerable because he doesn't see the world in black and white and it's easy to find quotes that look contradicting, but if you read the whole the thing you get the impression that this guy is the best person to lead the country.
Interview with Wesley Clark :
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/interviews/clark.html
For you Satan's-Spawn-Lieberman might be the best democratic candidate because he is so similar too Bush, but Lieberman would scare off all the undecided and why would anyone vote for a Bush-copy when you can vote for Bush?
Source please on your WW3 claims, since I was under the impression that he didn't piss off Clinton but a lot of pentagon people that went behind his back and leaked that he was being canned if they hadn't done that Clinton would have saved his job.
Most of the claims I've heard against Clark is that he is being inconsistent, if you listen to people like Matt Drudge that are excellent at distorting facts :
Clark is vulnerable because he doesn't see the world in black and white and it's easy to find quotes that look contradicting, but if you read the whole the thing you get the impression that this guy is the best person to lead the country.
Interview with Wesley Clark :
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/interviews/clark.html
LEIBERMAN IS A MODERATE MAINSTREAM DEMOCRAT. HE IS FAR TO THE LEFT OF BUSH AND FAR TO THE LEFT OF DEAN, KERRY, AND CLARK.
DONT FORGET HE WAS ON THE TICKET THAT HAD MORE VOTES IN 2000 THAN BUSH!
HE (CLARK) RECEIVED HIS ORDER DIRECTLY FROM THE PENTAGON AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT (MADELINE ALBRIGHT). AND THEY WOULD GIVE HIM ORDERS AND HE WOULD GO BEHIND THEIR BACKS AND WITHHOLD INFORMATION TO GET A DIFFERENT ANSWER FROM THE NSA OR THE WHITEHOUSE.
I MEAN JUST LOOK AT WHAT THE ARMY SAIS ABOUT HIM.
LOOK AT HUGH SHELTON AND NORMAN SHWARTZKOF (SP) AND SEE WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT HIM.
I WILL TRY AND FIND SOME SOURCES FOR YOU.
AND AS FOR MR. "I WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR", 2 MINUTES LATER IN THE SAME INTERVIEW "I DONT KNOW IF I WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR THE RESOLUTION" 1 MINUTE LATER "I NEVER WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR THE RESOLUTION" CLARK JUST LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPTS FOR HIS APPEARENCE ON SUNDAY MORNING TIM RUSSERT SHOW "THIS WEEK " WITH TIM RUSSERT. THAT WAS THE ONLY INTERVIEW CLARK HAS EVER DONE WHERE THE GUY ASKS HARDBALL QUESTIONS. (BUSH WILL BE ON THAT SHOW THIS SUNDAY).
DONT FORGET HE WAS ON THE TICKET THAT HAD MORE VOTES IN 2000 THAN BUSH!
HE (CLARK) RECEIVED HIS ORDER DIRECTLY FROM THE PENTAGON AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT (MADELINE ALBRIGHT). AND THEY WOULD GIVE HIM ORDERS AND HE WOULD GO BEHIND THEIR BACKS AND WITHHOLD INFORMATION TO GET A DIFFERENT ANSWER FROM THE NSA OR THE WHITEHOUSE.
I MEAN JUST LOOK AT WHAT THE ARMY SAIS ABOUT HIM.
LOOK AT HUGH SHELTON AND NORMAN SHWARTZKOF (SP) AND SEE WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT HIM.
I WILL TRY AND FIND SOME SOURCES FOR YOU.
AND AS FOR MR. "I WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR", 2 MINUTES LATER IN THE SAME INTERVIEW "I DONT KNOW IF I WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR THE RESOLUTION" 1 MINUTE LATER "I NEVER WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR THE RESOLUTION" CLARK JUST LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPTS FOR HIS APPEARENCE ON SUNDAY MORNING TIM RUSSERT SHOW "THIS WEEK " WITH TIM RUSSERT. THAT WAS THE ONLY INTERVIEW CLARK HAS EVER DONE WHERE THE GUY ASKS HARDBALL QUESTIONS. (BUSH WILL BE ON THAT SHOW THIS SUNDAY).
AS YOU CAN SEE MENTIONED IN THIS PIECE IS THE HEARINGS BEFORE CONGRESS AND THE OP-ED PIECE BY CLARK IN LONDON. WITH A LITTLE BIT OF WORK YOU CAN SEE WHAT YOUR CANDIDATE HAS BEEN SAYING
http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm
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."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
(c)DRUDGE REPORT 2004
Not for reproduction without permission of the author
http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm
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."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
(c)DRUDGE REPORT 2004
Not for reproduction without permission of the author
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_War_+_Peace.htm
Ordered attack on Russian troops in Kosovo
On June 12, 1999, in the immediate aftermath of NATO's air war against Yugoslavia, a small contingent of Russian troops dashed to occupy the Pristina airfield in Kosovo. Clark was so anxious to stop the Russians that he ordered an airborne assault to confront these units-an order which could have unleashed the most frightening showdown with Moscow since the end of the Cold War. Hyperbole? You can decide. But British General Michael Jackson, the commander of the NATO international force K-FOR, told Clark: "Sir, I'm not starting WWIII for you," when refusing to accept his order to prevent Russian forces from taking over the airport.
After being rebuffed by Jackson, Clark, according to various media reports at the time, then ordered the American Admiral James Ellis to use Apache helicopters to occupy the airfield. Ellis didn't comply either. Had Clark's orders been followed, the subsequent NATO-negotiated compromise with the Russians might well have been undermined.
Source: The Nation, Opionion, "Wesley Clark's 'High Noon' Moment" Sep 17, 2003
------------------------------------------------------
Retracts yes vote on Iraq: no imminent threat
Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark backtracked from a day-old statement that he probably would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, saying Friday he "would never have voted for this war."
The retired Army general, an opponent of the conflict, surprised supporters when he indicated in an interview with reporters Thursday that he likely would have supported the resolution. On Friday, Clark sought to clarify his comments. "Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war," Clark said before a speech at the University of Iowa. "I've gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein."
Source: Mike Glover, Associated Press Sep 20, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------
Supported Iraq war while we were at war
Clark spent much of the Iraq war as an expert military commentator. Clark had reservations before the war [about the number of US troops needed for a fight with Saddam], but his reservations seemed to fade as American progress became apparent. Clark said that Saddam "absolutely" had weapons of mass destruction, adding, "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this." In the April 10th London Times, Clark predicted that the American victory would alter the dynamics of the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express." Clark praised the Anglo-American alliance, saying that Bush & Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.
Clark called for victory parades down the Mall, and in another column, cheered the spectacular display of coalition force: "American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try!"
Source: The New Yorker magazine, "Gen. Clark's Battles" Nov 17, 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.aim.org/publications/guest_columns/fielder/2003/dec17.html
And what of Clark's leadership in the Kosovo War? In his book "Yugoslavia Unraveled: Sovereignty, Self-Determination, Intervention" (Lexington Books), Professor Raju G.C. Thomas claims that Clark directed NATO to attack civilian targets in order to demoralize the Serbian population during the Kosovo intervention, rather than attempting to stop the advancing Serbian military forces.
*****William Fielder is a retired army officer with 40-years experience in U.S. intelligence.
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html
In addition, Saddam Hussein’s current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law.
Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President’s clear determination to act if the United Nations can’t provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ordered attack on Russian troops in Kosovo
On June 12, 1999, in the immediate aftermath of NATO's air war against Yugoslavia, a small contingent of Russian troops dashed to occupy the Pristina airfield in Kosovo. Clark was so anxious to stop the Russians that he ordered an airborne assault to confront these units-an order which could have unleashed the most frightening showdown with Moscow since the end of the Cold War. Hyperbole? You can decide. But British General Michael Jackson, the commander of the NATO international force K-FOR, told Clark: "Sir, I'm not starting WWIII for you," when refusing to accept his order to prevent Russian forces from taking over the airport.
After being rebuffed by Jackson, Clark, according to various media reports at the time, then ordered the American Admiral James Ellis to use Apache helicopters to occupy the airfield. Ellis didn't comply either. Had Clark's orders been followed, the subsequent NATO-negotiated compromise with the Russians might well have been undermined.
Source: The Nation, Opionion, "Wesley Clark's 'High Noon' Moment" Sep 17, 2003
------------------------------------------------------
Retracts yes vote on Iraq: no imminent threat
Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark backtracked from a day-old statement that he probably would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, saying Friday he "would never have voted for this war."
The retired Army general, an opponent of the conflict, surprised supporters when he indicated in an interview with reporters Thursday that he likely would have supported the resolution. On Friday, Clark sought to clarify his comments. "Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war," Clark said before a speech at the University of Iowa. "I've gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein."
Source: Mike Glover, Associated Press Sep 20, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------
Supported Iraq war while we were at war
Clark spent much of the Iraq war as an expert military commentator. Clark had reservations before the war [about the number of US troops needed for a fight with Saddam], but his reservations seemed to fade as American progress became apparent. Clark said that Saddam "absolutely" had weapons of mass destruction, adding, "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this." In the April 10th London Times, Clark predicted that the American victory would alter the dynamics of the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express." Clark praised the Anglo-American alliance, saying that Bush & Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.
Clark called for victory parades down the Mall, and in another column, cheered the spectacular display of coalition force: "American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try!"
Source: The New Yorker magazine, "Gen. Clark's Battles" Nov 17, 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.aim.org/publications/guest_columns/fielder/2003/dec17.html
And what of Clark's leadership in the Kosovo War? In his book "Yugoslavia Unraveled: Sovereignty, Self-Determination, Intervention" (Lexington Books), Professor Raju G.C. Thomas claims that Clark directed NATO to attack civilian targets in order to demoralize the Serbian population during the Kosovo intervention, rather than attempting to stop the advancing Serbian military forces.
*****William Fielder is a retired army officer with 40-years experience in U.S. intelligence.
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html
In addition, Saddam Hussein’s current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law.
Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President’s clear determination to act if the United Nations can’t provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rnc.org/RNCResearch/read.aspx?ID=3768
WESLEY CLARK CONTRADICTS HIMSELF
ON IRAQ AND GEN. SHELTON’S COMMENTS
Tells ABC’s George Stephanopoulus He Wasn’t Part Of
2002 Iraq Debate, President Misled On Iraq And Gives Three Different Answers To Gen. Shelton’s Comments
CLARK BUNGLES QUESTION ABOUT HIS PARTICIPATION IN IRAQ DEBATE
Clark Tells ABC’s George Stephanopoulos He Wasn’t Part Of Senate Debate On Iraq War In Fall 2002.STEPHANOPOULOS: “Then why did you have so much trouble explaining your position on the war when you started this campaign? You couldn’t shake that for a week.” CLARK: “Well, I bobbled the answer to a question that I wasn’t part of that debate in the United States Senate to be honest with you. And I don’t want to give any excuses for this. A Rhodes scholar is not ever supposed to make a mistake. I made a mistake.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 12/21/03)
However, Seconds Later Clark Admits He Testified About Iraq In Front Of Senate And House Committees In Fall 2002. CLARK: “That’s right. In fact, I testified in front of the Senate and, as I recall, the House, and I argued against the resolutions as they were written. I believe…” STEPHANOPOULOS: “Hold on a second. You were part of the debate?” CLARK: “Yeah, but only at a point. After that I left it. I was in the business – I was commenting. I was on a board in Germany traveling abroad. I was all over the place during that period. But I didn’t believe that George W. Bush should be given a blank check.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 12/21/03)
ü Clark Testified About Iraq Before The Senate Armed Services Committee On September 23, 2002. “Thank you, Mr. Chairman – Senator Allard – distinguished members of the committee. I’m very happy to have this opportunity to testify here. And I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by General Shalikashvili. … Saddam Hussein does constitute a danger. He’s calculating, he’s stubborn – we watched him from Europe. I watched him when I was working on the Joint Staff.”(General [Retired] Wesley K. Clark, Senate Armed Services Committee, United States Senate, 9/23/02)
ü Clark Testified About Iraq Before The House Armed Services Committee On September 26, 2002. CLARK: “Mr. Chairman, Representative Skelton, Distinguished Members of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. This is a Committee that has been strongly supportive of the men and women in uniform, and I want to thank you personally for the assistance and support that you gave me, and have given so many others. … But it was a signal warning about Saddam Hussein: he is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities.” (Statement Of General [Retired] Wesley K. Clark Before The House Armed Services Committee United States House Of Representatives, 9/26/02)
CLARK ATTACKS PRESIDENT BUSH FOR MISLEADING US IN
TAKING THE COUNTRY TO WAR, THEN CONTRADICTS HIMSELF AGAIN
Clark Attacks President Bush For “Deliberately” Misleading American People, And Then Says He Doesn’t Know If President “Deliberately Misled.” CLARK: “But, George, that doesn’t change the fundamental problem. Our threat was not Saddam Hussein. It was Osama Bin Laden. And the President of the United States deliberately misled the American people away from a struggle against Osama Bin Laden. …He misled us and took us into an unnecessary war. … This is a captain who’s untrustworthy and should be replaced and that’s why I’m running.” STEPHANOPOULOS: “Untrustworthy, so do you believe that he deliberately misled the American people on the issue of weapons of mass destruction?” CLARK: “I don’t know what’s in his heart. I’d never pretend to know that.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 12/21/03)
CLARK OFFERS THREE DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS TO THREE
DIFFERENT AUDIENCES REGARDING GENERAL SHELTON’S COMMENTS
In September 2003, Former Chairman Of Joint Chiefs Gen. Hugh Shelton Said Clark Had “Integrity And Character Issues.” “[T]he reason [Clark] came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character
issues … I’m not going to say whether I’m a Republican or a Democrat. I’ll just say Wes won’t get my vote.” (Joan Garvin, “Gen. Shelton Shocks Celebrity Forum, Says He Won’t Support Clark For President,” Los Altos [CA] Town Crier, 9/24/03)
Clark’s Response To Shelton Comment To ABC’s Stephanopoulos: CLARK: “As far as Hugh Shelton is concerned, I can’t explain what Hugh Shelton said. … I can’t account for what is said in the heat of a political campaign.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 12/21/03)
Clark’s Response To Former Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic Who Brought Shelton’s Comments Up At Milosevic’s Trial At The Hague: CLARK: “Because in all candor, there was a policy difference between General Shelton and myself. I believed that the United States and NATO could not permit another round of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 12/21/03)
Clark’s Response To A New Hampshire Voter On Shelton’s Comments: CLARK: “You know, I don’t understand it either, and Hugh Shelton, I think - I’ll tell you what I really think happened. I think he just verbaled [sic] some words out in speech - there’s nothing behind it. He’s embarrassed about it. He’s afraid to retract it, but there’s nothing there.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 12/21/03)
WESLEY CLARK CONTRADICTS HIMSELF
ON IRAQ AND GEN. SHELTON’S COMMENTS
Tells ABC’s George Stephanopoulus He Wasn’t Part Of
2002 Iraq Debate, President Misled On Iraq And Gives Three Different Answers To Gen. Shelton’s Comments
CLARK BUNGLES QUESTION ABOUT HIS PARTICIPATION IN IRAQ DEBATE
Clark Tells ABC’s George Stephanopoulos He Wasn’t Part Of Senate Debate On Iraq War In Fall 2002.STEPHANOPOULOS: “Then why did you have so much trouble explaining your position on the war when you started this campaign? You couldn’t shake that for a week.” CLARK: “Well, I bobbled the answer to a question that I wasn’t part of that debate in the United States Senate to be honest with you. And I don’t want to give any excuses for this. A Rhodes scholar is not ever supposed to make a mistake. I made a mistake.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 12/21/03)
However, Seconds Later Clark Admits He Testified About Iraq In Front Of Senate And House Committees In Fall 2002. CLARK: “That’s right. In fact, I testified in front of the Senate and, as I recall, the House, and I argued against the resolutions as they were written. I believe…” STEPHANOPOULOS: “Hold on a second. You were part of the debate?” CLARK: “Yeah, but only at a point. After that I left it. I was in the business – I was commenting. I was on a board in Germany traveling abroad. I was all over the place during that period. But I didn’t believe that George W. Bush should be given a blank check.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 12/21/03)
ü Clark Testified About Iraq Before The Senate Armed Services Committee On September 23, 2002. “Thank you, Mr. Chairman – Senator Allard – distinguished members of the committee. I’m very happy to have this opportunity to testify here. And I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by General Shalikashvili. … Saddam Hussein does constitute a danger. He’s calculating, he’s stubborn – we watched him from Europe. I watched him when I was working on the Joint Staff.”(General [Retired] Wesley K. Clark, Senate Armed Services Committee, United States Senate, 9/23/02)
ü Clark Testified About Iraq Before The House Armed Services Committee On September 26, 2002. CLARK: “Mr. Chairman, Representative Skelton, Distinguished Members of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. This is a Committee that has been strongly supportive of the men and women in uniform, and I want to thank you personally for the assistance and support that you gave me, and have given so many others. … But it was a signal warning about Saddam Hussein: he is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities.” (Statement Of General [Retired] Wesley K. Clark Before The House Armed Services Committee United States House Of Representatives, 9/26/02)
CLARK ATTACKS PRESIDENT BUSH FOR MISLEADING US IN
TAKING THE COUNTRY TO WAR, THEN CONTRADICTS HIMSELF AGAIN
Clark Attacks President Bush For “Deliberately” Misleading American People, And Then Says He Doesn’t Know If President “Deliberately Misled.” CLARK: “But, George, that doesn’t change the fundamental problem. Our threat was not Saddam Hussein. It was Osama Bin Laden. And the President of the United States deliberately misled the American people away from a struggle against Osama Bin Laden. …He misled us and took us into an unnecessary war. … This is a captain who’s untrustworthy and should be replaced and that’s why I’m running.” STEPHANOPOULOS: “Untrustworthy, so do you believe that he deliberately misled the American people on the issue of weapons of mass destruction?” CLARK: “I don’t know what’s in his heart. I’d never pretend to know that.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 12/21/03)
CLARK OFFERS THREE DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS TO THREE
DIFFERENT AUDIENCES REGARDING GENERAL SHELTON’S COMMENTS
In September 2003, Former Chairman Of Joint Chiefs Gen. Hugh Shelton Said Clark Had “Integrity And Character Issues.” “[T]he reason [Clark] came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character
issues … I’m not going to say whether I’m a Republican or a Democrat. I’ll just say Wes won’t get my vote.” (Joan Garvin, “Gen. Shelton Shocks Celebrity Forum, Says He Won’t Support Clark For President,” Los Altos [CA] Town Crier, 9/24/03)
Clark’s Response To Shelton Comment To ABC’s Stephanopoulos: CLARK: “As far as Hugh Shelton is concerned, I can’t explain what Hugh Shelton said. … I can’t account for what is said in the heat of a political campaign.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 12/21/03)
Clark’s Response To Former Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic Who Brought Shelton’s Comments Up At Milosevic’s Trial At The Hague: CLARK: “Because in all candor, there was a policy difference between General Shelton and myself. I believed that the United States and NATO could not permit another round of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 12/21/03)
Clark’s Response To A New Hampshire Voter On Shelton’s Comments: CLARK: “You know, I don’t understand it either, and Hugh Shelton, I think - I’ll tell you what I really think happened. I think he just verbaled [sic] some words out in speech - there’s nothing behind it. He’s embarrassed about it. He’s afraid to retract it, but there’s nothing there.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 12/21/03)