- "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."
-
- 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 Ö 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
-
- © 2004 KRT Wire and wire service sources. All Rights
Reserved.
-
- http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/nation/7720762.htm
-
-
- Comment
- From Little Joe
- 1-174
-
- When you watch as much news on cable as I do, one thing
sure stands out lately - Dean's supposed slip in the polls just before
Iowa is nothing more than a manufactured non-event, orchestrated by the
Cable News Cabal and the Networks. The intensity of their disinformation
campaign is a lesson in electronic mass-brainwashing on a tremendous scale.
It began with the networks digging up old quotes from a maverick Dean way
back when. Where are the old quotes on Clark calling for the invasion of
Iraq? It's now steamrolling into a many-headed Godzilla rampage, with Wolf
Blitzer at the lead. Why this mad attack on the only front-runner? Because
Dean represents a very real possibility that all the insanity unleashed
on America and the world since Bush was installed (as opposed to elected)
may actually be consigned to the trash heap of history. It scares the pants
off the millionaire set, who are having a Ken Lay field day under Bush.
God bless Paul O'Neil for letting us know our intuitions were always right
about Dubya's mental capacities, not to mention his total disregard and
contempt for debate. If anyone out there still believes in honest polling,
they are dreaming. They are all lobbyists, especially now. W has a LOT
of bread to throw around right now too. The current program of "De-glorifying
Dean" is a last ditch effort to derail a true dark horse who turned
out to be Seabiscuit. It's the ultimate "Dirty Trick". Nixon
never had it so good.
|
