Rangel: Clark "can save this goddam nation from self-destruction"

[RichV]

While a Dem strategist said "If it doesn't get any better than the first 24 hours...he's going to be gone in two weeks."

Full article at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030929-488778,00.html

Whatever your views or preferred candidate, seems like Rangel is really investing in Clark. We'll see if he pans out, I guess.

[EagleEye]

1. Didn't Rangle say he could not support ...

..any candidate that would back the war? Well, didn't Clark back the war? I thought there was an AP article to that effect. And Clark's start was not very inspiring. I think the Dem establishment support him because they think Dean CAN win the election and then they will be on the outs. Dean did not have to bow and scrape to them to get the nomination.

[IndianaGreen]

2. And the long shadow of Bill Clinton is behind the Clark race

Big Dog is up to mischief again, this time trying to get a VP slot for his wife.

[EagleEye]

11. Actually, I don't think Clark is stupid at all

[diplomats]

22. Hillary is not going to be VP

for Clark or anyone else. It doesn't add up.

[The Zanti Regent]

39. Oh, please cut the 19th Century Fox BS

HILLARY IS NOT GOING TO BE THE VP IN 2004 AND SHE WILL NOT RUN IN 2008 PERIOD!

IT'S TIME TO STOP THIS 19TH CENTURY FOX BULLSHIT ONCE AND FOR ALL!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

3. You Already Know Better Than This

Because I've seen you pushing this same theme in several other threads.

Clark did not support the war. He made one stupid and inconsistent comment during a long and rambling interview, and that's all.

DTH

[EagleEye]

What about the AP article from last fall?

This is different than his stupid, inconsistant statements of late. This is another stupid, inconsistant statement.

[IndianaGreen]

7. I suspect Generalissimo Clark is disavowing his article

that was published in Common Dreams.

Look! We flame Kerry for wanting to have it both ways on the war, and it is obvious that Clark is another version of the waffling Senator.

[Pepperbelly]

15. perhaps ...

Clark's views are too nuanced for some readers here. He rarely writes statements such as, "Bush's move was based on a lie," but rather approaches it on the oblique, as fitting for someone whose writing has been professorial rather than polemic. I read the article carefully. It was not a political screed and it was not written simply. Although one can pick pieces out of it and say SEE!, but to do so is less than honest because his style of composition is to note X in one paragraph and then note Y in the next. It makes it easy for people of ill-will to cherry-pick quotations out of context.

I sincerely hope that you are not the type who would cherry-pick and ignore context in articles written in a scholastic style rather than as a polemic.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

My Fear Is That Clark Is Too Honest and Intelligent for the Presidency

I am really afraid that the American public isn't ready for him.

It's really, really sad.

DTH

[EagleEye]

25. I would respond, but I have a cherry pit in my mouth

[DoveTurnedHawk]

9. You Mean the One Congratulating the Troops, and Expressing Grave Concerns?

Oh yeah, that's a real damning article.

:eyes:

He's also written several other articles which were clearly anti-war, but those don't support your agenda, so I suppose you'll ignore them, too?

DTH

[kentuck]

16. Bush supporters know "stupid and inconsistent" also...

They've seen a lot of it...

[newsguyatl]

29. ummm

>>>>>>>Clark did not support the war. He made one stupid and inconsistent comment during a long and rambling interview, and that's all.<<<<<<<<

you sure about that?

At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

a few minutes later...

"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

and later...

General Clark said he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — than that of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has been the leading antiwar candidate in the race.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/politics/campaigns/19CLAR.html



does that sound like an "inconsistent comment" to the REST of you?


i didn't think so.


watch for the spin around du, it'll get you dizzy.

[WillyBrandt]

4. Clark did NOT support the war

Read the sources. Stop spreading GOP lies.

[IndianaGreen]

6. It is not a GOP lie to quote the Generalissimo Clark

particularly his "rambling" interview with the Washington Post and NY Times.

I suspect that Clark position of the Iraq war is identical to Lieberman and Kerry's. If that's the case, why are we not supporting Kerry who has more experience in governance that the Generalissimo?

[Pepperbelly]

20. once again ...

Viewing remarks made by someone who is not a professional pol requires a different paradigm of understanding. I read the remarks he made. And applying a non-pol paradigm to him, it was clear to me that what he was doing was empathizing with his opponents rather than taking what he perceived to be cheap shots. He doesn't take cheap shots and if you expect him to do so, you will be disappointed.

Just for practice though, try applying the non-pol paradigm as well as the pro-pol and see how it looks.

[IndianaGreen]

38. Explain Clark wetting his pants over the Iraq invasion....

Please take notice of Clark's silence regarding the legality of the war. Take note of how Clark, as he did in during the bombing of Yugoslavia, remains unconcerned about civilian bombing victims.

While Kerry is criticized for waffling on the war in Iraq, no one has ever accused Kerry of being desensitized to civilian casualties. I fear that Clark has a cavalier attitude about civilian casualties as Human Rights Watch pointed out in its report on the NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo.

Clark's silence about the legality of the invasion of Iraq is DEAFENING!

Also take notice of Clark's glee as he speaks of other countries being invaded and bombed. If this man is not a PNAC supporter, I don't know what is.

Published on Thursday, April 10, 2003 by the Times/UK
Anti-War Candidate?
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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

[Pepperbelly]

40. check this out then...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=378549&mesg_id=378626&page=

[IndianaGreen]

41. Where is the nuance in Clark's joyful endorsement of war?

Where is the nuance in Clark's joyful endorsement of war, as he did here:

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 where is the nuance in Clark's gushing endorsement of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, as he did here:

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 where is Clark's nuance when he endorses global war of imperialism as he clearly, and explicitly did here:

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.

All citations are from Wesley Clark's article, What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory, originally published by Ruper Murdoch's The Times, on April 10, 2003. The article was republished by Common Dreams:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

[Pepperbelly]

43. I cannot believe that you did exactly ...

what I posted about!

"Clark's views are too nuanced for some readers here. He rarely writes statements such as, "Bush's move was based on a lie," but rather approaches it on the oblique, as fitting for someone whose writing has been professorial rather than polemic. I read the article carefully. It was not a political screed and it was not written simply. Although one can pick pieces out of it and say SEE!, but to do so is less than honest because his style of composition is to note X in one paragraph and then note Y in the next. It makes it easy for people of ill-will to cherry-pick quotations out of context."

So when you cherry-picked those quotations, you left out the paragraphs that followed and in one instance, even left out the last sentence because it clearly led to his point Y in the next paragraph.

To finish the paragraph out for you, he wrote: "And more tough questions remain to be answered."

And what might those be? His point Y fleshes it out:

"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."

Regarding the first paragraph you cherry-picked, I am uncertain whether the problem with your interpretation is intentional or merely a mistake. What Clark was clearly doing was criticizing the Bush administration: "Don’t look for stability as a Western goal." He then went on to call them on what they are doing: "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."

He is saying very clearly and concisely that this is what Bush will do. Has he done those things? I don't know but it is certainly possible.

You, like so many, are making much ado over nothing and in order to do so, you are having to behave poorly. And did just what I asked you not to do. :shrug:

[EagleEye]

8. What about the AP article from LAST Fall?

This is different than his stupid, inconsistant statements of late. This is another stupid, inconsistant statement.

[EagleEye]

12. Actually, I don't think Clark is stupid at all

[Padraig18]

24. Clarks' formal statement before the Armed Services Committee 9/26/02

STATEMENT OF GENERAL (RETIRED) WESLEY K. CLARK
U.S. ARMY

BEFORE THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 26, 2002

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.

In October 1994, Saddam Hussein moved several Republican Guards divisions back into the attack positions just north of the Kuwaiti border, the same attack positions that had been occupied just prior to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. It was a foolish and to our minds unexpected and threatening move. We quickly deployed additional military forces to the region, preparing to enter a full-fledged battle against Iraq to defend Kuwait, and we also went to the United Nations. After a few tense days Saddam backed off, the divisions were removed, and we acted through the United Nations to further tighten the no-fly zone and regulate Iraqi troop movements.

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. Were he to acquire such capabilities, we and our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks. Saddam might use such weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his neighbors, he might threaten American forces in the region, he might strike directly against Israel, or Israel, weighing the possibilities of nuclear blackmail or aggression, might feel compelled to strike Iraq first.

Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required. But what makes the situation relatively more dangerous today is that the UN weapons inspectors, who provided some assistance in impeding his development programs, have been absent from Iraq for over four years. And the sanctions regime, designed to restrict his access to weapons materials and the resources needed to procure them, has continuously eroded. At some point, it may become possible for Saddam to acquire the fissionable materials or uranium ore that he needs. And therefore, Iraq is not a problem that can be indefinitely postponed.

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.

But the problem of Iraq is only an element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished, world-wide war against Al Qaeda, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately be won by persuasion as much as by force, when we turn off the Al Qaeda recruiting machine. Some three thousand deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaeda, and as all acknowledge, Al Qaeda has not yet been defeated. Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam’s regime to the Al Qaeda network. And while such linkages may emerge, winning the war against Al Qaeda may well require different actions than ending the weapons programs in Iraq.

The critical issue facing the Unites States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda or efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security problems. In this regard, I would offer the following considerations:

- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

- The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in crafting UN engagement. In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force. This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam’s weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action. Yes, there is a risk that inspections would fail to provide the evidence of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam.

If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear.

Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This includes requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance, and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution. Ideally, international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations, including the UN, NATO, and other regional and Islamic organizations.

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as “preemptive.”

Once initiated, any military operation should aim for the most rapid accomplishment of its operational aims and prompt turnover to follow-on organizations and agencies.

If we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region, and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism. But there are no guarantees. The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere.

I look forward to answering questions and helping the Committee assess the costs and risks of the alternatives before us.

House Armed Services Committee
2120 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

It is crystal clear that Clark DID support the *idea* of possible military action against Hussein's regime with the qualifications set forth in his statement.

[tsipple]

28. That Wasn't The Question

Congress had two choices: yes or no on the Iraq Resolution as written.

I'm still trying to figure out how Wesley Clark would have voted if he had been in a position to do so. So is the media.

My guess is that his position at that time was the same as Kerry's. Deep reservations, lots of hang wringing, but a yes vote in the end.

It's a binary choice, folks. "Maybe" was not a choice in Congress -- nor does the Constitution provide a "maybe" option. So which was it?

[newyawker99]

35. Hi Padraig18!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Padraig18]

42. Thanks!

I've been hanging out for about 2 months sort fo getting a feel for the place, and now I'm jumping in with both feet! Wheeeeee! :p

[tjdee]

5. Being the TOP MAN in the polls isn't inspiring?

After running for two days, being at the top of the polls isn't inspiring?

How would you define inspiring? And inspiring to whom?

[AP]

13. With ten candiates, jumping to top by adding one more isn't a big feet

You attract the attention of one out of ten voters and even though 66% would never vote for you, you jump to the top.

It's not saying much to move to the top of a ten person field.

[tjdee]

18. Aww man....it kind of is, LOL.

I understand what you're saying, but for the other poster to pretend that Clark is somehow flailing in his campaign...that's not accurate at all. He's at the top of the polls, everywhere in the media, you can't really get much more "inspiring" than that.

Meanwhile, I've not seen John Edwards for days and days--even the day I saw him he was pushed aside for other people.

[wndycty]

27. Clark did not support the war. . .

. . .he said he would have voted for the resolution for giving the president the power to go to war, which he thought she be used as leverage. He never said he supported this war.

[MoonRiver]

30. What, are you now accusing Rangle of lying and/or hypocricy?

Rangle was and is very anti-Iraqi war. So, logic would lead one to assume he doesn't believe Clark was or is pro-Iraqi war. That is unless Rangle is a goddamned RNC plant too. Maybe it will reach the point where conspiracy theorists are lumping thousands upon thousands of Clark activists as well as every pro-Clark lawmaker, political insider, and celebrity, no matter how long a history of liberalism they have, into the PNAC camp of worker bees. :wtf: is going on?

[SoFlaJets]

10. Bush is held to a much

lower standard-the expectations for a leader a PRESIDENT have really fallen in this country.I'd like to see the sclm hold *'s feet to the fire every time he opens his mouth and utters another blunder but unfortunately the rules don't apply for republicans like they do for the dems.i want to see Clark standing alongside Dean Kerry Grahamn Braun Sharpton Kucinich and even Holy Joe b4 I make up my mind.Right now Howard Dean still gets my juices flowing every time I hear him speak.

[EagleEye]

14. Who has the AP site? I recall it was pretty clear.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

17. Do You Mean THIS Article?

:eyes:

DTH

---

Let's Wait to Attack

By General Wesley K. Clark

<...>

We must also have sustained public support, but so far, our national debate on Iraq has been upside down. The Administration announced its aim to change the regime in Baghdad before it made the case for action. To some, our government seemed to be seeking war as a preferred choice rather than as a last resort. We need a real debate to gain the full and informed support of the American people as we move ahead.

In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months. The U.S. has total military dominance of the region. Although Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, he has no long-range missiles with which to deliver them. Certainly, the clock is ticking, because Saddam may eventually acquire the nuclear weapons and delivery systems he seeks. Nonetheless, there is still time for dialogue before we act.

Some would say that since we can't be certain how much time we have until then, we must attack right away. It is true that any delay entails risks. But so does action. So we must balance those risks, and take actions that not only achieve our aim of disarming Saddam--and probably ending his regime in the process--but also help defeat al-Qaeda. How can we do both?

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. Even if the U.N. is ultimately unable to give us the strong resolution that we seek, the support of friends and allies will be important--as it was in Kosovo--in gaining worldwide credibility for our aims and legitimacy for our actions. Moreover, while we have the time, we must do everything possible to prepare for some unpleasant possibilities. What if Saddam uses his biological arsenal on his own people in southern Iraq? Are we prepared to deal with the ensuing catastrophe alone, or would we not be wiser to help ready international humanitarian and emergency organizations to come in with us? 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? Afterward, when agencies from the Islamic world enter Iraq to help rebuild, won't we want to inhibit anti-Americanism and anti-Western sentiment by having thought through the many possible humanitarian problems before we are blamed for them?

The answer to all these questions is yes, if we have the time. Well, we do. The key issue about Iraq has never been whether weshould act if Saddam doesn't comply with U.N. resolutions anddisarm. Rather, the problems are how we should act, and when. As for the how, the answer is clear--multilaterally, with friends and allies, with every possible effort to avoid the appearance of yet another Christian and Jewish stab at an Islamic country, with force as a last resort, and with a post-conflict plan in place to assure that the consequences of our action do not supercharge the al-Qaeda recruiting machine. As for the when, let's take the time to plan, organize and do the whole job the right way. This will only take a few more weeks, and it's important. It's not just about winning a war--it's also about winning the peace.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

[EagleEye]

19. Let's see, AP not CNN. A-P not C-N-N

It was the one where he said he supported the resolution. It was in the Fall of 2002.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

21. I'm Well Aware

After all, it has been posted here dozens of times already. As you know.

DTH

PS: My article is not only from CNN, it's also from Time. Perhaps you could pause in your agenda for a moment and actually read it?

[EagleEye]

23. Just ribbing you

I think Clark is a good man, but he is not god, none of them are. He is not the savior of the party, none of them are. We are the saviors of the party, and it will take every last one of us.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

26. I Don't Think He's God

I do think he has the best chance of unseating Shrub among the existing Dem field, however.

DTH

[Catch22Dem]

31. I like that

"We are the saviors of the party, and it will take every last one of us."

I like that. Good one.

[TorchTheWitch]

33. good grief

All this bashing of this candidate or that candidate is beyond absurd. Don't you bashers realize that you're doing EXACTLY what the Repugs do? Just cherry-pick something, skew it out of context and blatantly ignore every other bit of evidence that's out there and keep plowing through with your own agendas with blinders firmly in place... you know, like that Bush freak of nature does.

We have an obligation to back which ever candidate is more likely to beat Bush, whoever that candidate turns out to be - PERIOD. Obviously, everyone has their favorites at this point, but this ridiculous Repug style bashing (even chasing down every thread about the candidate that frightens you the most) is utterly STUPID. What are you going to do if your particular favorite doesn't make it? Vote Republican or abstain to avoid the embarrassment and accusations of 'waffling' you'd cause yourself by waiving the flag and shouting kudos over which ever candidate does end up going against Bush?

The one thing that is very apparent is that I've yet to see even ONE Clark supporter here (or anywhere else for that matter) doing any of this bashing nonsense, and you cannot deny that makes Clark look even better.

Pull your heads out of your asses already before you start convincing people that either a bunch of Repugs in disguise or dimwitted teenagers not even old enough to vote have invaded this place.

[Padraig18]

36. What he said!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

37. Great Post, and Thanks for the Kind Words

I think I can speak for at least a few Clark supporters when I say we appreciate it! I swear, sometimes it feels more like I'm in a war zone, than a place where it's supposedly safe for Democrats and progressives of all stripes to hang out together.

DTH

[roughsatori]

32. Here is the AP link to the article from Oct. 2002

http://www4.fosters.com/election_2002/oct/09/us_2cong_1009a.asp

[tsipple]

34. It's Like Meat Loaf's "Paradise By the Dashboard Light"

Press: "...What's it goin' to be, boy? Yes or No?"
Clark: "Ah, let me sleep on it. Baby, Baby, Let me sleep on it... Let me sleep on it. I'll give you an answer in the morning."

Press: "I gotta know right now!"

Clark: "Let me sleep on it..."
Press: "Do you love me? Will you love me forever? Do you need me? Will you never leave me? Will you make me so happy for the rest of my life? Will you take me away? Will you make me your wife?"

:evilgrin: