Reply #134: No....really, I don't see what you see. [View All]

[FrenchieCat]

Both of those pieces were written a year after the vote, so I don't know how they become evidence of what Clark said a year earlier.

Clark, at the time, said that he would have supported "a" Resolution...and he said this when the resolution had not yet been finalized. Whatever he may have said one year later doesn't "prove" anything about his stance at the time. He has repeatetly admitted that he "bobbled" the question during that 75 minutes interview on the day that he announced.....but that he would not have voted for the resolution that would have given Bush a blank Check.

In fact, the Boston Globe piece go on to say.... "Told on Wednesday that last October he had sounded as though he favored the resolution, Clark replied: "The thing was, I would have voted for it for leverage, but had I been there and been part of that process, I would never have voted for it for war. The resolution I wanted was a resolution that would have brought them back to the United States Congress and showed cause before you went to war."

"I would have voted no on that resolution," Clark said during that call. "I had serious concerns that the president had no intention of really building an international coalition." Clark said his doubts came as the result of discussions with friends in the Pentagon.

The general then cited an Aug. 29, 2002, column he wrote for The Times of London. Judging from that column, Clark, like many experts at the time, believed Iraq likely had chemical and biological weapons and was seeking nuclear materials. But the United States had "a year, two years, or maybe five years or more" before Saddam got nuclear capability, and "we need this time," Clark wrote. War might be necessary, but only as a last resort, he opined. Meanwhile, the United States should work to forge an international consensus on Iraq, with focused sanctions, intrusive inspections, and humanitarian efforts to undercut Saddam's repression.

That column largely backs up Clark's contention that he favored a more patient...."
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/10/24/clarks_scrambled_message_on_iraq/

Far as I am concerned, you are playing the same "gotcha" game that Fournier and Sigourney played after Clark announced is candidacy.

Your wish to continue railing on this reveals a lot more about you than anything about Wes Clark.

Thanks though....I'm sure you'll be railing on this until 2008! Good luck!