Dean said Clark advocated going to war in Iraq

[WillyBrandt]

To wit:

"That's why I had such strong disagreements with Senator Kerry, representative Gephardt and senator Edwards and Lieberman and now general Clark who also advocated last October that we go into Iraq, despite his opposition to it now."

(http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/001616.html#more)

So Clark ADVOCATED going to war against Iraq? As in, c'mon America, let's go to war against Iraq?

And, not only that, he did it last October?

Dean just lied. He lied straight through his teeth.

He could have said that he was the strongest or only "real" opponent of the war. Which wouldn't have been true, but would have been forgivable. He could have done a bit of distortion and said Clark's "flip-flops" show his lack of (fill in blank) on the issue.

But he just said Clark advocated going into war last October. Dean lied.

You know, this is really why I have such a strong disagreement with Governor Dean, who unabashedly lied about Wesley Clark's views on Iraq this September, despite Dean's forthcoming clarification and apology.

[salin]

1. great - another thread - with a slight twist

that fits with a bunch of other threads on this topic.

I appreciate your point - but could you make it on one of the existing threads?

Or is no discussion besides Clark or Dean allowed in GD anymore? Because the net effect of starting a thread that fits with several existing threads and that will result in a mirror Dean thread is pushing ALL substantive ISSUE topics off of the front page. Within minutes.

Sorry but this is frustrating.

*this is todays pat response to the proliferation of identical threads that has shut down all other conversations among people, on issues, that are about beating BUSH, fighting back against BUsh policies, but devoid of clark or dean.* If ya'll can spam the forum - then I can spam your threads

[WillyBrandt]

2. This is big

And it's new. There should be a Clark/Dean area though.

[salin]

3. Right and the energy policy about to be passed by congress

that deregulates energy (so we can all be the next california crisis)

opens not only anwr but shorelines to drilling

that takes local/state authority for regulation away and gives to bushman FERC Pat Woods

that opens Nuke Energy and Research that appears to be tied to the
push for "new generation nuke weapons"

that gives 19billion (and counting) in tax breaks/credits to industry

and a gazillion other things hazardous to our health.

Now thats NOT important.

Get some perspective - the primaries are months away this vote could be days away.

[bowens43]

4. You can't blame Dean

even Clark doesn't know if he was in favor of the war. Sept 17th he was, sept 18th he wasn't. It's hard to keep up with him.

[Pepperbelly]

11. horseshit!

Joe Connason put it this way:

"On his first outing, Mr. Clark provided his adversaries an easy target when he made a typical novice error: He told the truth about a complex problem. Specifically, he confessed to ambivalence about the proper way to deal with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. That led some of his more eager critics to declare his candidacy almost ruined only days after he declared himself. On the ABC News Web site, an anonymous Democrat wailed in "despair and anger." That single moment of vacillation, it was said, could even "define" the former NATO Supreme Commander—as if he had said and done nothing else in his 58 years.

What did Mr. Clark utter to provoke such silly overreaction? He acknowledged that the resolution on Iraq confronted Senators with a difficult decision. They could vote no—and embolden Saddam to block the U.N. inspectors from returning to Baghdad. Or they could vote yes—and offer George W. Bush a "blank check" to wage an unwise and unjustified war.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that’s too simple a question," he explained. "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." But his purpose in voting for the resolution, as he also explained, would have been to build "leverage for a U.N.-based solution." He would have fought for a resolution similar to one supported by some Democrats, requiring the President to seek further approval before invading."

[stickdog]

5. You could say almost anything about Clark's stance on the Iraqi War

and be right.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Because Clark's position on Iraq is identical to Kerry's

but unlike Kerry, Clark just "became" a Democrat and has no comparable record of support of liberal issues. Clark's only record, other than the war in the former Yugoslavia, is that he voted against:
George McGovern, Jimmy Carter (twice), Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis.

[Pepperbelly]

12. yawn ...

there you go again.

His position is clear and no amount of disingenious slurring will change that.

The problem you guys have is thinking that it was black and white. It was not to most of us. Maybe to a few ideologues it was but not to most Americans.

[stickdog]

15. His position is clearly

ambiguous.

[Kahuna]

14. Or Dean's on Social Security and Medicaid.

:eyes:

[stickdog]

16. Dean: 1995 vs 2003 -- Clark: 9/2003 vs. 9/2003 (NT)

[dfong63]

21. LOL

[tjdee]

6. Well, he lied about Edwards and the war too.

Don't worry, maybe Clark will get a letter 'apologizing' tomorrow just like Edwards did.
:+

[Cha]

9. Dean didn't "lie"....

And we'll see if Clark gets a "letter" ..tomorrow.:+

[LittleApple81]

8. Please find one of the other Dean/Clark threads and put this one

there. Do not start another one.

[salin]

10. I second that motion!

Applause!

[Kahuna]

13. Dean is desperate. You can hardly blame him...

He's been out there desperately trying to become president when along comes this former four star general who served his country in uniform and got shot four times while dean was sking and partying, who has the audacity to join the race and even though Dean had begged for his support many times and in his depesperation which the knowledge that Clark would soon join the race, tried to marginalize the general to be worthy ONLY as a VP choice and he also threatened that the support of his supporters is not transferrable (another childish, mean-spirited, egotistical remark). Upon entering the race, Clark immediately becomes the favorite of Americans to unseat bush. Dean has to be feeling slighted that he is no longer the frontrunner and has to strike out at the candidate that more Americans actually have confidence in. How can you fault him for for believing in his own hype.

[stickdog]

17. Telling the truth is now a sign of desperation. (NT)

[jonnyblitz]

20. well

It sure sounds like you have adopted the GOP's bullshit military litmus test for presidential candidates. Very similar to what they used to say about CLinton but in different words..

[dkf]

18. Clark advocated giving Bush the ok to go to war for "leverage".

So yes, he did give the ok for war.

If he was against going to war he should have suggested voting "no".

[Democat]

19. Dean is starting to seem desperate

I don't like seeing Dean turn into a Democrat basher.

Hopefully he will wake up and see that this strategy will backfire and hurt him.