GOP chair claims Clark supported war; transcripts show otherwise

[robbedvoter]

GOP chair claims Clark supported war; transcripts show otherwise
BY DANA HULL AND DREW BROWN
Knight Ridder Newspapers
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/nation/7720762.htm
MANCHESTER, N.H. - (KRT) - 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.

snip

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."

snip

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.More

[DrBB]

1. Nice to see they got the headline right

And of course Drudge didn't respond. He's a coward.

[NNN0LHI]

2. Ain't Drudge still trying to find Clinton's illegitimate black love child?

I think even the Washington Post ran with that one? Unbelievable.

Don

[pinto]

5. LOL.........n/t

[kskiska]

12. And they're still looking for the Secret Service agent

who supposedly saw Bill and Monica getting it on in the White House screening room. Joe diGenova tipped them off to that one.

[CO Liberal]

15. Isn't Drudge Still Trying to Find His Way Out Of The Closet?

One subject he constantly avoids.

(Not that there's anything wrong with that......)

[Clark4VotingRights]

3. Thank you robbedvoter! This has been my experience.

Every friggen time I read a "quote" that purports to discredit
Clark, and am able to find the original source, his remarks
were taken grossly out of context. And the original meaning
is the opposite of what the unscrupulous quoter was alleging.

If they really need to distort his words to pin something on him...

Good for Knight Ridder/Tribune.
Actually doing their jobs. How about that?

[Snoopy2]

4. Can we find Gillespie's text anywhere?

It would be great if they had the same added text that Drudge has.

The shame is how many people use Drudge as a news source.

[Snoopy2]

6. I found the text and the video of Gillespie's speach -

Does anyone know which lines Drudge made up so I can cross check them?

[pocoloco]

7. The good news is

they have to make the shit up!!

[banana republican]

8. sue the sob

if dredge added statements that are not in Wes's statement sue the sob and put him out of business...

I am getting real tired of that BS.

[lowflyer10]

9. Which quotes are you saying are made up by sludge?

I almost hate to admit on this site that I listened to Rush today, some (you have to keep track of the enemy) and I heard Clark, in his own voice say much of what was on sludge's web site, I'm sorry to report...

[KittyWampus]

10. It Was HEAVILY Edited. Parts Patched Together That Originally Had

eleven THOUSAND words seperating them. Then he went back to the beginning. Here is an expose by the Columbia Jouranl Review:

Drudge is using the ellipse as a weapon, with malice aforethought.
Clark's statement that "Saddam Hussein is a threat" came from his opening remarks to the committee. An ellipse then carries the reader more than 11,500 words later into the transcript to a second quotation. Finally, Drudge uses the next ellipse to jump way back to the beginning of Clark's testimony. The effect is to make Clark's testimony sound more frantic than it really is and to incorrectly suggest that Clark had endorsed the war.

The deceptive reporting continues with two final excerpts. The first is drawn from a section in which Clark states that the use of force must remain on the table as a threat, but that all diplomatic measures must be taken before military action proceeds. Drudge's selective excerpt ends with Clark suggesting that the situation with Iraq has "been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

Drudge would like you to think that Clark's thoughts on the subject end there. In fact, only moments later, Clark clearly stated, "but time is on our side in the near term and we should use it."

Then Drudge leads into the final excerpt with the words, "Clark explained," implying that Clark's statements in the final excerpt modified his statements in the previous excerpt. Once again, however, Drudge is cavalierly skipping through Clark's testimony: There are 3,798 words in-between these two statements -- enough to fill four pages of Time magazine.

--Thomas Lang

http://campaigndesk.org/

[Mountainman]

11. Hanity was saying the exact same thing and calling Clark scary.

Clark is scary all right. Scary to the right's hopes of four more years.

Yes they have to lie to have any dirt on Clark. I hope the General calls them on it soon.

[demobandit]

13. I hate to admit it, but Clark got caught lying.

I like the guy, but he straight out said he supported the war. I understand that he needs to change his view to get votes in the Democratic primary, but he got caught. And Bush will hit him over the head with it.

[Kool Kitty]

14. If Bush tries to claim Clark is lying,

well...kinda like a pot calling the kettle black, you know? I'll put clark up against Bush any old day.

[hang a left]

16. Would be nice if someone could post a link to

Clark's entire testimony before congress. Then we wouldn't have to take everyone else's word for it.