Tape Shows General Clark Linking Iraq and Al Qaeda

[KaraokeKarlton]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/12/politics/campaigns/12CLAR.html

THE RETIRED GENERAL
Tape Shows General Clark Linking Iraq and Al Qaeda
By EDWARD WYATT

Published: January 12, 2004


ANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 11 — Less than a year before he entered the race for the Democratic nomination for president, Gen. Wesley K. Clark said that he believed there was a connection between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda.

The statement by General Clark in October 2002 as he endorsed a New Hampshire candidate for Congress is a sign of how the general's position on Iraq seems to have changed over time, though he insists his position has been consistent.

"Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda," he said in 2002. "It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?"

At numerous campaign events in the past three months and in a book published last year, General Clark has asserted that there was no evidence linking Iraq and Al Qaeda. He has also accused the Bush administration of executing "a world-class bait-and-switch," by using the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as an excuse to invade Iraq.

At a town hall meeting here on Jan. 4, for example, General Clark said, "There was no imminent threat from Iraq, nor was Iraq connected with Al Qaeda."

I'll let people decide what this means on their own and reserve comment. Gotta go to work in a few anyhow.

edited to fix link

[Renew Deal]

1. Nice try. Here's more

In an interview, General Clark said his more recent remarks were not inconsistent with what he said in 2002. In those remarks, he said, he was trying to explain that based on his knowledge of how the intelligence community works, low-level contacts almost certainly existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda, But, he said, that does not mean that Iraq had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.

The 2002 comments, he said, were based in part on a letter to Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida and chairman of the Intelligence Committee, from George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence, which said that the C.I.A. had credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction. The content of the letter was reported in a front-page article in The New York Times on Oct. 9, 2002, the day that General Clark made the comments at the New Hampshire endorsement.
<snip>

"All I was saying is that it would be naïve to say that there weren't any contacts," he said. "But that's a far cry from saying there was any connection between the events of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein."

In his most recent book, "Winning Modern Wars," (Public Affairs, 2003), General Clark states, "No evidence thus far suggests any link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists of Al Qaeda."
<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/12/politics/campaigns/12CLAR.html

[xrepub]

5. Thanks for the working link and context

It is hard to read the whole article and come to the conclusion stated by the originator of this thread.

[ShimokitaJer]

7. Of course, if Dean said that, you'd call it "flip flopping"

I guess it's okay to change your mind as long as your last name isn't Dean.

[Renew Deal]

9. There was no change.

Sorry to disappoint you.

[ShimokitaJer]

12. Then he still believes there's a connection?

Allow me to quote:

"Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda," he said in 2002. "It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?"


Saying that there was "certainly" a connection does not sound like speculation to me. Does Clark still believe in this statement, or did he change his mind based on later information?

[Renew Deal]

23. I even believe there is a "connection"

That's a loose term, but he explains it. There is no question that there were terrorists in Iraq. The question is whether Saddam was working with Al Queda. They were not on any grand scale and had nothing to do with 9/11.

Clark explains it himself:

In an interview, General Clark said his more recent remarks were not inconsistent with what he said in 2002. In those remarks, he said, he was trying to explain that based on his knowledge of how the intelligence community works, low-level contacts almost certainly existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda, But, he said, that does not mean that Iraq had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.

The 2002 comments, he said, were based in part on a letter to Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida and chairman of the Intelligence Committee, from George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence, which said that the C.I.A. had credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction. The content of the letter was reported in a front-page article in The New York Times on Oct. 9, 2002, the day that General Clark made the comments at the New Hampshire endorsement.

[ShimokitaJer]

29. Then you're voting for the right candidate

He was advising a candidate for the House to give her support to IWR when he said he believed there was a connection, and she has come out saying so:

-snip-
One-time House candidate Katrina Swett said Friday that Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark appeared completely familiar with the Iraq resolution when he advised her to support it.

-abridgement-

On Oct. 9, 2002, Clark was campaigning with Swett, a Democrat who was running for Congress in New Hampshire. He told an Associated Press reporter that day that although he was concerned about the country's move to war, he supported the resolution and would advise Swett to vote for it if she were in Congress.
-snip-
http://schema-root.org/region/americas/north_america/usa/government/federal/executive/cabinet/defense/personnel/generals/wesley_clark/

Why is it so hard for you to just say "He changed his mind?" That's what reasonable people do when they find new information that sheds new light on an old subject. Of course, when Dean says that he gets attacked as a waffler and flip-flopper. I guess we just have to hold Clark to a higher standard, forcing him to lie about his past comments to pretend there was no change.

Frankly, that does more to convince me than previous support for IWR ever could.

[dfong63]

41. more excuses

... from the same folks who constantly berate Dean for supposedly "reinterpreting" what he's said.

well guess what. Clark has put his own army boot in his mouth far more than Dean has.

[Eloriel]

53. Well, hell, Bleachers

If you want to go there, YEAH, there were terrorists in Iraq, and that wasn't speculation. They were in the Northern area among the Kurd-controlled areas. We didn't have to bomb the whole damn country to get rid of them -- a few well-targeted strikes would've pretty much done the job. We all knew that going in. No secret, not even any doubt.

But that's a real weasely way to defend your guy, splitting hairs and parsing words nearly beyond all meaning.

If it works for you, terrific. Don't work for me, though.

But I do give Clark credit -- he has a certain ability to weasle out of things in just that way. It's a talent to be able to obfuscate and tap dance until people are confused or deceived. I can admire it, while disliking it immensely. Bet it served him well as a lobbyist, though, don't you think?

Eloriel

[KittyWampus]

73. SPLITTING HAIRS? How Dishonest Can Someone Get

Clark said:

"Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda," he said in 2002.

Are you implying that Iraq and Al Qaeda never met? Go ahead and say that. You've already admitted that Al Qaeda was in Iraq. And since Clark NEVER GOES ON TO SAY they were ACTUALLY proactively collaborating... there is no problem.

The problem is the misleading title of the article and your own bias.

Clark recognized that Saddam probably tried to figure a way to manipulate Al Qaeda...

Clark NEVER SAYS SADDAM ACTUALLY DID. NEVER! So who is being dishonest and a weasle here? Clark or the Times for using an erroneous title or Democrats who actually buy the Times' spin.

It doesn't take a brilliant military strategist like Clark to figure the following:

"It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?"

Where in the NYTIMES text does it say, besides their warped title, that Clark said that Saddam or the state of Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked in definite actions that actually took place?

Further, Here's Clark's Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in September of 2002.

SAXTON (R-NJ): Mr. Perle, General Clark indicated a few minutes ago that he wasn't sure -- I'm sorry, I don't want to
mischaracterize what General Clark said but something to the effect that we don't have information that Al Qaida and
the Iraqi regime are connected. Is that a fair characterization, General Clark?

CLARK: 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, yes sir.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm#WC

[Turkw]

112. This is from the Lieberman campaign, I wonder if that influenced Swett's

recollection. "he was trying to explain that based on his knowledge of how the intelligence community works, low-level contacts almost certainly existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda, But, he said, that does not mean that Iraq had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks."

We are talking about hundreds of people in two organizations, Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, in the same area of the world. Of course some people from each group had some kind of contact with people from the other. That does not mean that active communication or support was occurring between the two groups.

"If Iraq had been there as the base of Al Qaeda to organize and train everybody, then maybe we could have justified the attack on Iraq,"

[Toucano]

10. Thanks

It seems like Clark was discussing the news of the day and trying to extrapolate a scenario where Saddam and Al Qaeda might join forces in opposition to a mutual enemy, the US.

It's interesting conjecture, but it isn't a declaration that a link actually existed.

[dkf]

17. He's not discussing the news of the day...he's talking about his

recommendation that Katrina Swett to vote YES on the IWR.

This is his justification for voting yes.

Jeez...

The point is the guy just can't admit he supported the dang thing. Why can't he just say "Yes, I supported the IWR" and move on. Instead he says he never would have supported it.

Blech.

[CWebster]

21. LOL

You are kidding, right? Kerry is still trying to justify it, it has been the lodestone around his neck.

[CWebster]

13. Oh, so Clark supports the argument?

The statement by General Clark in October 2002 as he endorsed a New Hampshire candidate for Congress is a sign of how the general's position on Iraq seems to have changed over time, though he insists his position has been consistent.

"Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda," he said in 2002. "It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?"

[Renew Deal]

24. Way to ignore what you don't want to see.

In an interview, General Clark said his more recent remarks were not inconsistent with what he said in 2002. In those remarks, he said, he was trying to explain that based on his knowledge of how the intelligence community works, low-level contacts almost certainly existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda, But, he said, that does not mean that Iraq had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.

The 2002 comments, he said, were based in part on a letter to Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida and chairman of the Intelligence Committee, from George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence, which said that the C.I.A. had credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction. The content of the letter was reported in a front-page article in The New York Times on Oct. 9, 2002, the day that General Clark made the comments at the New Hampshire endorsement.
<snip>

"All I was saying is that it would be naïve to say that there weren't any contacts," he said. "But that's a far cry from saying there was any connection between the events of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein."

In his most recent book, "Winning Modern Wars," (Public Affairs, 2003), General Clark states, "No evidence thus far suggests any link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists of Al Qaeda."
<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/12/politics/campaigns/12CLAR.html

[CWebster]

27. I am sure that Bush has a similar explanation. nt

[mike_c]

20. spin, spin, and more spin from the Clark campaign...

...does anyone find it ironic that Clark seems to speand nearly as much time distancing himself from remarks made 2 and 3 years ago as Bush* does?

[Renew Deal]

25. Do you have him mixed up with Dean.

Because Dean think Bush is a moderate that can't lose in '04.

[bitchkitty]

54. Wheeeeeeeeeeeee!

I'm dizzy!

[mot78]

105. Send that to the Clark campaign

Don't want the whore media and other DUers piling on him.

[xrepub]

2. link does not work

I usually like to read an entire article to understand it. THe link you supplied does not work.

[Renew Deal]

3. My link works.

Look up one.

[KaraokeKarlton]

4. thanks for pointing that out, I fixed it

n/t

[AntiCoup2K4]

6. The General seems to keep changing his mind on this.

I remember him saying that someone within the Bush Fraudministration begged him to go on TV within a few days of the 9-11 attacks and tie them to Iraq. He told them he would be happy to do so, except they didn't have any evidence. So apparently he changed his mind, and then changed it back again. Now there has been reasonable questions about Saddam having WMD's for years, but there was never any evidence linking him to Al Qaeda. So why did the General change his mind? And then change it back again? Was this another result of Karl Rove not returning his phone calls?

[Renew Deal]

8. Read post 1

That should help.

[bearfartinthewoods]

100. he's admitted that was a lie when confronted

the phone call came from some guy in a canadian ,i think, thinktank,
not from bushco.

[Qutzupalotl]

107. Not a lie--the thinktank was connected to the administration.

[Gloria]

11. The rebuttal is itself in the article:

The rebuttal is itself in the article:

"I never thought there would be any evidence linking Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein," General Clark said. "Everything I had learned about Saddam Hussein told me that he would be the last person Al Qaeda would trust or that he would trust them."

"All I was saying is that it would be naïve to say that there weren't any contacts," he said. "But that's a far cry from saying there was any connection between the events of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein."

In his most recent book, "Winning Modern Wars," (Public Affairs, 2003), General Clark states, "No evidence thus far suggests any link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists of Al Qaeda."

[maddezmom]

14. thanks for pointing it out

sometimes it's important to read the entire article. :)

[CWebster]

16. That is what his rationale is

for his original position, but that is not what his orginal statements says. You can not use his follow-up to cover-up as credible.

[Renew Deal]

26. I mean why pay attention to everything he says

when you can have a sound bite.

In an interview, General Clark said his more recent remarks were not inconsistent with what he said in 2002. In those remarks, he said, he was trying to explain that based on his knowledge of how the intelligence community works, low-level contacts almost certainly existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda, But, he said, that does not mean that Iraq had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.

The 2002 comments, he said, were based in part on a letter to Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida and chairman of the Intelligence Committee, from George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence, which said that the C.I.A. had credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction. The content of the letter was reported in a front-page article in The New York Times on Oct. 9, 2002, the day that General Clark made the comments at the New Hampshire endorsement.
<snip>

"All I was saying is that it would be naïve to say that there weren't any contacts," he said. "But that's a far cry from saying there was any connection between the events of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein."

In his most recent book, "Winning Modern Wars," (Public Affairs, 2003), General Clark states, "No evidence thus far suggests any link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists of Al Qaeda."
<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/12/politics/campaigns/12CLAR.html

[DuctapeFatwa]

15. Maybe he should just call it a "potential" for links

That's what Colin Powell is saying now :)

[ShimokitaJer]

18. Is that anything like the "potential" and "desire" for a WMD program?

I can't tell you how disappointed I've been that Powell has fallen into this same habit of disinformation.

I guess even when he seemed like an honorable man he still had the "potential" to be a lying warmonger.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

19. I wonder if Clark would like to talk about Al Qaeda links to the KLA?

Of course, Clark supports the KLA, so I guess not...

[DuctapeFatwa]

40. He has to support the Serb ethnic cleansers now

they are going in to join the crusade in Afghanistan

.."Serb paramilitary troops who last saw action in the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo in 1999 are being trained for anti-terrorist duties in Afghanistan beside some of the US forces who helped expel them from the Yugoslav province. The 1000-strong force comprises some former members of the "red berets", a feared military police unit which helped lead the campaign to drive the Albanian majority out of Kosovo and wipe out Kosovo Liberation Army resistance fighters.

http://www.nni-news.com/current/world/news-10.htm.."

[mike_c]

22. maybe Saddam had an Al Qaeda links "program"....

Yeah, that's the ticket.

[mmonk]

28. If one is seeking the truth about someone

they will not pull something out of context. And by the sheer volume of appearances by Clark (I'm sure are on tape) where his position is clear (Iraq is not connected to 9/11, wasn't an imminent threat, not linked to al Queda terrorism), an honest person can find his position.

[ShimokitaJer]

30. An honest person admits to earlier mistakes

And Clark refuses to do that here. Instead, he stubbornly insists that his statement that there were "certainly" connections between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to convince a candidate for the House to support the IWR is consistent with his later statements that there is no connection.

I don't think he still believes there's a connection there. It would be ridiculous to think that at this point. However, I believe he is being deceptive when he claims he would not have voted for the IWR, despite his earlier comments to the contrary.

[KittyWampus]

33. He Said Saddam Certainly Considered How To Manipulate Al Qaeda

Does Howard Dean contend that Saddam would NOT have tried to use Al Qaeda to his advantage IF POSSIBLE?\

Is Dean even aware that that Iraq and al Qaeda had common enemies in both the US and the Kurds?

[ShimokitaJer]

36. "considered?" -- now who's spinning?

He said "Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

He said this to someone running for the House

He said this in order to convince that person to support IWR

Your little "considered" and "if possible" are cute, but they won't fool anyone who wasn't fooled by Bush's dissembling on Iraq. Can't we do better than this?

[KittyWampus]

58. Are You Or DEAN Implying That Al Qaeda Wasn't In Iraq?

I IMPLORE you to say that... go ahead and say that... go ahead and say that DEAN says that.

That al qaeda wasn't in Iraq.

Please make my day and say that.

[ShimokitaJer]

72. You're obviously looking for a statement to parse

No thinking person believes that there was any connection between Iraq and al Qaeda that justified the Iraqi War Resolution. Both Clark and Dean have said that on numerous occasions

Clark said there was "certainly" a connection between the two, and he did so specifically to convince a legislator to support the IWR.

Clark now says that his statements at the time and his current statements are not inconsistent. He also says he would not have supported IWR.

Tell me how these statements are consistent? I fully accept that Clark may have changed his mind about Iraq after seeing additional evidence. That's what reasonable people do. However, Clark insists that he was correct when he made the earlier statements and that they are not in conflict with his current position. In other words, he prefers to insist he was right rather than admit he has changed his position. This attitude worries me, as I see it employed on a daily basis by the Bush administration

And you seem compelled to insist that there was a real Iraq-al Qaeda connection, despite all evidence to the contrary. In addition, you seem to want to do so by parsing the language to the point where you can find a way that Clark's statement was technically accurate, without admitting that he meant it. How is this supposed to convince anyone that Clark is the right man for this job?

[KittyWampus]

79. Clark Does NOT Say That And Here's The Quote To Prove You Wrong

Clark in no way says that Iraq or Saddam are "Linked". He says theres certainly a connectin between Iraq & Al Qaeda.

Are you saying Al Qaeda is NOT in Iraq or that Al Qaeda operatives were not meeting with members of Iraq state?

"Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda," he said in 2002.

Clark's statement is literally true. And he NEVER goes on to say that Saddam and Al Qaeda ACTUALLY conspired or worked together. All he goes on to say is that Saddam would have tried to figure a way to manipulate Al Qaeda.

Are you saying that Saddam probably DIDN'T at some point want to do this- that there wouldn't have been common enemies with the US and the Kurds?

"It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?"

Congratulations! you have just take the ERRONEOUS TITLE of the NYTIMES as a fact and repeated their misquote of Clark!

[ShimokitaJer]

86. What are you arguing?

I'm really having difficulty seeing what you're trying to say.

Are you saying there were connections between al Qaeda and Iraq that justified IWR and thus Clark was justified in saying so?

Are you saying Clark never said there was a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq?

Are you saying Clark still believes there's a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq?

I honestly have no idea why you are trying to argue this point. Everything you are saying makes Clark seem like a shill for Bush, claiming a connection in order to justify support for IWR, but using language that is deceptive but technically correct. What are you trying to argue?

[KittyWampus]

91. Where Does Clark Say There Were Connections Justifying IWR?

Where???

Nowheres.

Clark did say there was a connection between Iraq & Al Qaeda because there absolutely WERE meetings between the State of Iraq and Al Qaeda. If you believe otherwise, you will easily and summarily be proven WRONG.

Clark NEVER said that Iraq OR Saddam and Al Qaeda actively collaborated. NEVER. In fact he gave testimony before Congress stating the EXACT OPPOSITE.

All the passage the Times quotes Clark as saying is that Saddam CONSIDERED trying to figure out a way to manipulate Al Qaeda.

And that is a FACT. Again, for you to state otherwise will prove you are not in command of the FACTS.

Congratulations, you bought the spin and believed the Times' misleading Title.

Here is Clark's TestimonyLet's look at his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in September of 2002.

SAXTON (R-NJ): Mr. Perle, General Clark indicated a few minutes ago that he wasn't sure -- I'm sorry, I don't want to
mischaracterize what General Clark said but something to the effect that we don't have information that Al Qaida and
the Iraqi regime are connected. Is that a fair characterization, General Clark?

CLARK: 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, yes sir.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm#WC

[ShimokitaJer]

95. He said it while trying to convince Katrina Swett to support IWR

Do you think he was just making conversation, and didn't really think anyone would make the connection between what he was saying and who he was saying it to?

Maybe it was another joke he was making, like the one where he said he'd be a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his calls?

Clearly you won't be happy until I find a quote somewhere in which Clark says "Saddam and bin Laden are golf buddies who planned 9/11 together and thus we should all support IWR" and even then you'd probably find a way to spin it such that Clark appears to be more anti-war than Kucinich. Your attempts to divorce Clark's language from his intended meaning borders on the ridiculous, right up there with Bush's carefully chosen wording in the SOTU speech.

If it's not okay when Bush does it, why is it okay when Clark does it?

When I started posting on this topic, I still had a fairly positive image of Clark. The only problem I had was his insistence that he never changes his mind and his supporters insistence that he is never inconsistent. In listening to his supporters here and doing the research necessary to debunk these claims, I have changed my mind. I now feel that Clark is an opportunist, an arrogant liar, and a Republican in Dems clothing.

You did that for me, and for that I suppose I should thank you.

[KittyWampus]

101. Using Hyperbole To Hide The Fact You're Wrong Is Sad

No, don't find me a quote where Clark says Saddam and bin Laden are golf buddies...

Just find AT LEAST ONE that has Clark saying that Saddam and Al Qaeda or even bin Laden were ACTIVELY collaborating against the United States.

What the record shows is that Clark said the exact opposite numerous times and went further and pointed out that the Neo Cons and PNAC crowd were using that falsehood to invade the Middle East.

And Clark's comments were appropriate and based on fact... ALL of them.

And Swett's comments concerning Clark's advise are based on hearsay... she never attributed an actual quote to Clark. She just asserted he said something... and used the words "my impression". Further, she works for Lieberman.

But that's besides the point because we have Clark's actual words on record in various places and they are all consistent. The only place there is a discrepancy is in the NYTimes' TITLE and his detractors imaginations.

And why do people who consistently pick at Clark say things like: I originally use to LIKE Clark but NOW bla bla bla?

[ShimokitaJer]

103. Then why is that a reason to support IWR?

If Saddam and bin Laden only had the potential to maybe eventually have connections, how does that justify authorizing the President to use force?

Why was Clark bringing this up to Swett at all if there was no evidence that there was a real connection? You have yet to deny that Clark was making a case for supporting IWR. Feel free to do so now if you can put a sentence together strained enough to be both technnically factual and effectively meaningless.

And if you want to know why so many people tell you they used to like Clark and don't any longer, read back over your old posts.

[Turkw]

114. Their recollections are different, She is co-chair of Lieberman's campaign

Clark has had to stop going into detail when explaining complex issues, it looses some people.

[mmonk]

34. he would have backed it

if there was a provision for a second vote for war by congress. He said if he were president, we would not have gone to Iraq. I'll take him at that.

[John_H]

31. Boy the media is taking no chances: They KNOW we're stupid.

Al Queda connections = 9-11 connections, right? See ya Clark. Every governor that had Enron contacts = Enron stockholder defrauding connections, right? See ya governor Dean. By this logic, everybody with contact with anyone is responsible for their subsequent actions.

Here's the shitty part.

The reporter understood the difference before he wrote the story. Whoever tipped him to the tape (another campaign's or RNC research dept) did too. They didn't care. What they knew was that 85 percent of the voters will fall for the leap in logic. Mission accomplished.

But this is just a tiny little amuse bouche of the ten course shit menu they'll serve up the eventual nominee on the big issues. National Security, the war on terror, etc.

Who can withstand it the most? That's the always has been and always will be the question.

[CWebster]

35. but then again

it just might be the truth.

Can't afford to have that shattering any illusions.

[John_H]

47. I see they fooled you. Which means, if you're honest, you

must believe that Dean's contacts with Enron is responsibility for Enron's crimes, his contacts with th NRA is the same as endorseing Wayne LaPierres ugly statements, etc.

Now, I don't mind the other Dem campaigns using this to hit Clark, And I expect Rove to do worse to the nominee. Cynicism is part of the game. I was just reminding Dem voters to vote for the candidates who can best withstand the inevitable attacs on the election's biggest issue:

National security.

[CWebster]

52. Hmmm

with that rationale you could excuse Bush I suppose.

National security eh? Well, goes to show you that Clark along with all the others called it wrong, and he should be subject to the same scrutiny on the issues of buying into a illegal and fabricated war, instead of falling back on I am a general who knows better....A fired general who was accused of threatening to start WW3 as well. A running start on national security that will insure we lose.

[KittyWampus]

32. Are Dean Supporters Saying Saddam Never Conferred With Al Qaeda?

or that there were no Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq?
or that Saddam may have tried to figure out how to manipulate Al Qaeda to protect himself against a belligerent US?

Are Dean supporters saying that Saddam and Al Qaeda didn't have common enemies such as the US and the Kurds?

Are Dean supporters suggesting that National Defense experts shouldn't consider all possiblities?

Are Dean supporters suggesting that National Defense experts shouldn't comment or QUESTION assertions made by Bush about Al Qaeda/Saddam links?

"that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?"

Would dean supporters like to point out what in this statement even IMPLIES that Clark considers Saddam/Al Qaeada link as a DEFINITE REALITY and ACTUAL THREAT?

Clark has already issued a statement about O'Neill's revelations. What did Dean say besides backtracking by saying that 'it's not who voted for what Resolution'?

[joefree1]

42. So this is what it's like?

So this is what it's like to see trivial attacks happening to another candidate? So Clark supporters, how about we get back to the issues the Candidates talk about today and forget what Clark or Dean said two, three, or four years ago? And can we ban the words "flip flopping.?"


Images from Dean Rocks the House of Blues, Hollywood
From wtmusic http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=919849
From Joefree1 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=921300

[ShimokitaJer]

44. Actually, I think most DUers, not just Dean supporters, would say that

Are you saying that there IS an Iraq/al Qaeda connection and Clark was thus correct to use that connection to encourage legislators to approve IWR?

If you are, then I doubt Clark appreciates the way you're trying to support him.

[KittyWampus]

59. Again, I INVITE You To Say That Al Qaeda Wasn't In Iraq

Hopefully you will.

I especially hope you say that HOWARD DEAN says Al Qaeda was not in Iraq.

[Melinda]

46. Yep, I'll say it. Saddam was secular, OBL & Al Qaeda radical fanatic

and until objective evidence proves otherwise, I won't believe the two ever conferred, period.

And "objective evidence" precludes anything by Richard Perle, Ahmad Chalabi, Douglas Feith, Newsmax, The Weekly Standard, the boys at PNAC, and the like.

[KittyWampus]

60. Again Will You Say On Record That Al Qaeda Was NOT In Iraq?

Please go ahead an assert that... I really hope you do.

[CWebster]

62. In the context of

justifying the cause to invade Iraq?

Sorry no.

[KittyWampus]

68. Well Neither Did Clark

and if you read his acutal statements rather than the misleading title the Times uses...

That is obvious

"Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda"

Yes, there is no doubt Al Qaeda was in Iraq.

Clark then goes on to talk about how Saddam certainly would have tried to manipulate that fact.

Are you or Dean trying to imply that Saddam would not at some point wanted to have used that fact?

Are you aware that the Kurds were killing Al Qaeda operatives?

WEre you aware that Saddam and Al Qaeda had common enemies with both the US and the Kurds?

[CWebster]

80. Ahem

the little frame of reference you keep overlooking:

Clark was arguing the connection in the context of convincing someone to support the IWR.

[Melinda]

71. I will say there is absolutely no evidence that Al Qaeda was in Iraq

prior to the illegal, immoral Bush* war.

[KittyWampus]

82. Wrong Again Melinda... Will You Admit That?

First, I'd say google Kurds and Al Qaeda. I'd do it but it's getting late. Kurds were killing Al Qaeda members. FACT.

Second, Some kind soul in Hong Kong posted this further down thread. Due to limited time, I'll just use this:

It seems some people have been saying that there were no meetings between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The latest Carnegie
report disagrees: http://wmd.ceip.matrixgroup.net/iraq3fulltext.pdf

Go to page 48, second column, point 2, 2nd paragraph:
"Bin Laden and Saddam were known to detest each other, the one for his radical religious beliefs and the other for his
aggressively secular rule and prosecution of Islamists." . . .
"The fact that they were strategic adversaries does not rule out a tactical alliance based on a common antagonism to
the United States. However, although there have been periodic meetings between Iraq and Al Qaeda agents, and vists
by Al Qaeda agents to Baghdad, the most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no evidence of a
cooperative relationship between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda."

Squares exactly with what Clark was saying. Connections existed, and contacts were made to feel out if their mutual
hatred of the US trumped their hatred for each other. But there was no tactical alliance, and no alliance regarding Sept
11. If Clark said that there was a connection between the two vis a vis Sept 11, that would be noteworthy and
obviously wrong. But he didn't here, or anywhere else to my knowledge.

I

[Melinda]

93. Parse, parse parse. Northern Iraq was NOT under Saddam's control

and you know it. A little thing called Guf War I took control of that part of Iraq away from Hussein.

This sounds remarkably like the Bush* assertion of alleged chemical weapons labs (converted trucks) found in Northern Iraq (outside of Saddam's control) being proof that Saddam had chemical weapons.

Was there a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda - any evidence that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were in cahoots? Again, I'll say it loud and clear:


There is no verifiable evidence that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda (OBL) were working together, period.

[KittyWampus]

94. Can't Admit You're Wrong.. Too Bad. Here's Clark's Congressional Testimony

Clark not only NEVER said there was a REAL, ACTIVE CONNCETION he testified the exact opposite to Congress.

And again, the FACT is that Al Qaeda and the state of Iraq DID meet. And Saddam at some point most certainly DID try to figure a way to use Al Qaeda.

And yet again, Clark NEVER said anything other than that.

Why don't you just admit you fell for the Time's spin and be done with it.

Let's look at his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in September of 2002.

SAXTON (R-NJ): Mr. Perle, General Clark indicated a few minutes ago that he wasn't sure -- I'm sorry, I don't want to
mischaracterize what General Clark said but something to the effect that we don't have information that Al Qaida and
the Iraqi regime are connected. Is that a fair characterization, General Clark?

CLARK: 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, yes sir.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm#WC

[Melinda]

99. cryingshame, why are you attacking me? I've addressed one issue only

and that issue has nothing to do with General Clark or his words or his testimony. You do your candidate a great diservice by trying to make me out the enemy.

The one issue I have addressed on this thread - there is no verifiable evidence that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda (OBL) worked together, period.

I'd appreciate you losing the vitriol and hatefulness you express toward me - I am not your enemy, I am not General Clark's enemy, and I surely don't deserve to be the recipient of your ire in this way.

[Cheswick2.0]

111. who are you, the senate investigative commitee? LOL

Give it a break CS. Do you really think your going to score points or win some prize here on DU?
The point is that there was no reason or evidence to believe Iraq was not connected to 9-11. No amount of lying by bush or spinning from Fox news is going to change that fact.
I realize that Kerry's new position is that Saddam was a bad bad man and we needed to remove him. But that's not going to play, as a good reason for thousands of dead people, once people figure out that lies were told to get us into the war.

It ain't going to sell in Peoria, it'll close in Scranton.

[bearfartinthewoods]

102. if they can set aside their religion to use drugs to fund their efforts

i think they'd deal with saddamn

[Snivi Yllom]

37. add this to the long list

of Clark comments that make you wince.

[KittyWampus]

63. Wince? Clark Knows International Relations And Military Strategy

while other candidates like Dean are still taking Foreign Policy 101.

The fact is that al Qaeda WAS in Iraq and that Saddam most likely at some point DID try and figure out a way to ecpolit that.

It doesn't take a brilliant military General like Clark to figure this out.

And this is bascially what he said.

Nowheres does Clark say that it was a fact that Saddam and Al Qaeda were working together.

[Mattforclark]

38. No way

This is reposted from another thread in which Tinoire references the same article and (surprise, surprise) snips the same things out!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=105036



"What I see here in black and white"

That is the problem.

"Do you not see any immorality there? This from a man who walked around with Bush's plans to invade 7 countries in his head and said not a word?"

I see NO BLACK AND WHITE MORALITY in the world WHATSOEVER. I do NOT share Bush's worldview that the world consists of the forces of GOOD and EVIL. It VASTLY oversimplifies the EXTREMELY complex situations that we face.

There is a part of the NY Times article that you conveniently snip out, apparently because it does not fit in with your pre-conceived black and white notions of the world. Ignoring information when it does not fit in with your black and white view of the world is POSITIVELY DANGEROUS both when the Bush administration does it about pre-war intelligence and when you do it NOW. :

"At a town hall meeting here on Jan. 4, for example, General Clark said, "There was no imminent threat from Iraq, nor was Iraq connected with Al Qaeda."

"If Iraq had been there as the base of Al Qaeda to organize and train everybody, then maybe we could have justified the attack on Iraq," he added.

In an interview, General Clark said his more recent remarks were not inconsistent with what he said in 2002. In those remarks, he said, he was trying to explain that based on his knowledge of how the intelligence community works, low-level contacts almost certainly existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda, But, he said, that does not mean that Iraq had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.

The 2002 comments, he said, were based in part on a letter to Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida and chairman of the Intelligence Committee, from George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence, which said that the C.I.A. had credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction. The content of the letter was reported in a front-page article in The New York Times on Oct. 9, 2002, the day that General Clark made the comments at the New Hampshire endorsement."

The facts of the matter are that there was SOME information indicating that there were low level contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The fact that this is taken to mean EITHER "THERE IS NO CONNECTION WITH AL QAEDA WHATSOEVER" or "AL QAEDA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11" is a profoundly DAMNING example of the dumbing down of our politics to the level of BLACK and WHITE. That is the ABSOLUTIST way of thinking that Bush practices, and I reject it.



Back to you,

"So killing Iraqis and destroying their country is ok as long as you can get some allies on board?"

Black and white reasoning - NO, that is NOT it AT ALL. FEWER PEOPLE total will LIKELY BE KILLED (just so you are sure what we are talking about, that means DEAD. D-E-A-D. Death is a very serious thing.). There would have been less damage to our international reputation, and things would have been better overall.

"Getting the young men and women of your allies killed is ok?"

Black and white reasoning - NO, that is NOT it AT ALL. It is OK to get the young men and women of your allies killed if it means that there will be FEWER total deaths OVERALL and less of a CATASTROPHE overall.

"The giant catastrophe was going there in the first place, regardless of how or when they went, and Clark was totally on board with going there."

Black and white reasoning - NO, that is NOT it AT ALL. You are CORRECT in asserting that the giant catastrophe was going there in the first place. You are INCORRECT in asserting that the Catastrophe would NOT have been ANY LESS CATASTROPHIC if we had Allies on board.

For example: Do you honestly believe that it would have been NO BETTER if we had had 15,000 extra French troops in Baghdad? Do you not think that perhaps the looting would not have occured, or at least would have not occured on such a sclae, if it were not? If you honestly think so, it is my equally honest opinion that you are mad.

Let's say that on a sliding damage scale (0 lowest, 100 highest). Not going to war with Iraq and keeping up a policy of containment is about 20. Going to war unilaterally is about 90. Going to war with Allies is about 75. (though you apparently think it is 90?)

General Clark would have preferred to not go to war with Iraq in the first place, which would have put us at 20. But it was quite clear that Bush intended to go to war anyway, so the only realistic options open to Clark were to either leave the damage scale at 90 or do whatever he could to lower it to 75. That is precisely what he tried to do.

"What I think Clark should have done- if he is the great hero many of his supporters want to make him out to be- is say what he had to say against the Bush administration back then because campaign rhetoric means nothing.

There are too many sudden metamorphoses going on with Clark to entrust him with the Presidency of the US. Some things you simply can not spin no matter how great your personal admiration for the man."

HE DID SAY AGAINST THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION BACK THEN WHAT HE IS SAYING NOW. The difference between you and him is that when it was clear to anyone without eyes sewn closed that that we were very likely going to war whether or not we had allies, he wanted to get Allies.

Here is a very simple analogy to help you understand. Imagine you are a train captain and you see a car stopped in front of your train on a road crossing. What do you do? You slam on the breaks of course to hit the car at a lower speed. You don't just throw up your arms in the air and say, "we never should have boarded the train in the first place." Doing that can get people UNNECESSARILY KILLED. NO SHIT SHERLOCK that we would have been better off not boarding the train in the first place.

You seem to say that saying the propostion "WE SHOULD SLAM ON THE BREAKS" (we should try to get allies) is in contradiction with the proposition "WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BOARDED THE TRAIN IN THE FIRST PLACE." That is CERTAINLY TRUE in the sense that if we had never boarded the train we would never have to worry about hitting the breaks. But you know what? If you throw up your hands in the air and say that rather than hitting the breaks, your train is going to collide with the car at (say) 90 MPH rather than 60 MPH. And you know what? More people are going to die because of it.

It is complete rejection of any Utilitarian calculation such as you seem to demand that is positively DANGEROUS and gets people UNNECESSARILY KILLED. It is that kind of REJECTION that BUSH engaged in with his good/evil spiel.

It seems to be only by CHANCE that your ABSOLUTIST AXIOMS led you to be against going to war. If they had told you that going to war was the "moral" thing to do, you would have supported going to war. There is no fundamental difference with your REASONING than with BUSH's, only a difference in AXIOMS.

If this doesn't hammer it into your skull, I am skeptical that anything will. For the sake of humanity, please think about this very frankly, please think about this very seriously. Thank you for reading this message.

[CWebster]

50. You again repeat clark's own explanation

to cover his arse. And then you scramble to cover it up with as much verbage and frantic rambling to cover the general's arse some more.

Timely, eh, now that Bush and his schemes and fabrications have been outed by O'Neill.

[mmonk]

39. If you truly believe

Clark's views on foreign policy are similar to the bush admin or the PNAC, you are incorrect. The evidence is more than overwhelming that his foreign policy outlook is not. Any attempt to paint them as similar is a fabrication. If he agreed with the bush admin, he would see no reason to run against it (logically thinking).

[CWebster]

55. Well, the story goes, he did seek to run on their ticket

first...Then there wouldn't be such a troubling problem in trying to explain it all away.....perhaps.

[mmonk]

61. debunked a long time ago.

[CWebster]

65. dismissed, you mean.

He was just joking he claims... Not according to the two who he announced it to.

[mmonk]

67. believe what you want

but he supported Gore.

[CWebster]

81. Huh?

LOL!

[mmonk]

87. Its obvious

you're not very informed on Clark.

[lib 4 all]

43. Clark was doing the Bush administration's bidding then, just as he is now

[mmonk]

48. lol

[ClarkGraham2004]

51. Cue suspenseful music!!

[Qutzupalotl]

108. Is Bush saying, "Defeat Me"?

[mmonk]

45. Its also odd

that Lieberman, Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt are closer on foreign policy to the admin view and nobody's calling them on it on except primarily Dean and Kucinich.

[CWebster]

56. and Clark

well, he tried to anyway.

[mmonk]

57. yep

but then had to keep trying to fend off Lieberman's attacks about being a "true democrat" (which I thought ironic coming from him).

[ClarkGraham2004]

49. HMMM, linking Iraq with al-qaeda or being seen as HORRIBLE on race

THATS A TOUGHIE~!~

[bitchkitty]

64. I'm so surprised -

You mean that Clark is lying? Who would have thought that he would lie about something like this. I mean, he did make those fawning statements about how wonderful the Bush admin was, and there's his undying love for Reagan, but haven't you heard? He's a Democrat now! And Dean supporters are switching to Clark in droves, throwing away their buttons, HONEST! Everything is fine - go back to sleep.

[KittyWampus]

85. No BitchKitty. Clark Isn't Lying. The NYTimes Wrote A Deceptive Headline

and you fell for it. Congratulations.

[Tim_in_HK]

66. As you can see from my name . . .

It's 2AM where I am, so I just want to add my two cents then I'm off to bed.

It seems some people have been saying that there were no meetings between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The latest Carnegie report disagrees:
http://wmd.ceip.matrixgroup.net/iraq3fulltext.pdf

Go to page 48, second column, point 2, 2nd paragraph:
"Bin Laden and Saddam were known to detest each other, the one for his radical religious beliefs and the other for his aggressively secular rule and prosecution of Islamists." . . .
"The fact that they were strategic adversaries does not rule out a tactical alliance based on a common antagonism to the United States. However, although there have been periodic meetings between Iraq and Al Qaeda agents, and vists by Al Qaeda agents to Baghdad, the most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda."

Squares exactly with what Clark was saying. Connections existed, and contacts were made to feel out if their mutual hatred of the US trumped their hatred for each other. But there was no tactical alliance, and no alliance regarding Sept 11. If Clark said that there was a connection between the two vis a vis Sept 11, that would be noteworthy and obviously wrong. But he didn't here, or anywhere else to my knowledge.

[CWebster]

69. Not exactly what clark said

If this was part of the Bush cabal's intent--to link saddam and al Queda as part of a ploy to justify attacking Iraq, then why would clark even broach the subject in relation to the IRW vote unless he was sold on the tactic?

[Tatiana]

76. Actually, it's EXACTLY what Clark said.

He said they may have had some connections, but was not convinced there was an alliance between the two groups.

[CWebster]

77. h c'mon

he downright speculated that Saddam was appealing to them.

[Tatiana]

83. Once more....

Let's look at his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in September of 2002.

SAXTON (R-NJ): Mr. Perle, General Clark indicated a few minutes ago that he wasn't sure -- I'm sorry, I don't want to mischaracterize what General Clark said but something to the effect that we don't have information that Al Qaida and the Iraqi regime are connected. Is that a fair characterization, General Clark?

CLARK: 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, yes sir.

[KittyWampus]

88. Are You Suggesting At Some Point Saddam Would NOT Have?

Since Saddam and Al Qaeda had common enemies in the Kurds and the US?

Fact is, Iraq State DID meet with Al Qaeda...

Clark NEVER said Iraq or Saddam ACTIVELY Collaborated with Al Qaeda.

[ShimokitaJer]

97. "at some point?"

This is how he justifies IWR?

[w13rd0]

110. By that logic...

...Rumsfeld should most certainly be one of the men in the "Iraqi Most Wanted" deck of cards. He did more than just meet with Saddam, he assured him that despite public condemnation of Saddams use of chemical weapons, he had only lots of love for him and a desire to improve Iraqi-US relations.

[mmonk]

70. A thread where

nobody is going to change their minds. Same talking points by the Clark detractors no matter how much is out there in Clark's own words from interviews and writings and where context is easy to see.

[CWebster]

74. In other words

You won't think twice about stringing Dean out on a trumped up racism charge by some clown embittered and resentful of Dean's attention and high profile Afro-American endorsements, but should a little uncomfortable revelation be exposed about your shinning general you just poo-poo it or sink into a somnambulistic state?

[mmonk]

78. Show me where I've done that

[mmonk]

84. I'm still waiting...

[Tatiana]

75. Clark believed in his heart Al Qaeda and Iraq were separate issues.

Let's look at his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in September of 2002.

SAXTON (R-NJ): Mr. Perle, General Clark indicated a few minutes ago that he wasn't sure -- I'm sorry, I don't want to mischaracterize what General Clark said but something to the effect that we don't have information that Al Qaida and the Iraqi regime are connected. Is that a fair characterization, General Clark?

CLARK: 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, yes sir.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm#WC

[RetroLounge]

89. Clark believed in his heart ???

Now that's funny.

So now Clark *and* Bush have the unique gift of looking into people's hearts and souls?

Wow! Does he walk on water too?

[Tatiana]

90. Perhaps melodramatic.

But I heard him speak on this issue in person. And I didn't just take his word for it (impassioned though they were). I went back and read his testimony in the House and Senate and came to the conclusion that he understood and supported the position that Al Qaeda and Saddam were not conspirators.

Your sarcasm is duly noted. And do you have a response to statement made by Clark that I referenced? Do you think he lied to the Committee?

[ShimokitaJer]

92. I agree that he probably believed there was no connection

The question is why he would say the opposite was true in his efforts to convince Katrina Swett, who was running for the House, to support the IWR.

[KittyWampus]

96. Changing The Subject? Swett Said "Her Impression"

in her quote she said "her impression" was Clark knew alot about Iraq and the Resolution.

Further she never attributed a direct quote to Clark but came out with a "he said this" bullshit.

Swett works for the Lieberman campaign and maligns Clark... even though Clark previously had done her a favor by campaigning for her.

She has no crediblity.

Clark is on the record testifying to Congress and wrote a book laying out his reasoning and positions.

That in this context you'd fall back on mentioning Swett is sad.

[ShimokitaJer]

98. His statements while trying to convince Swett are on the record

That is, after all, what we are talking about here.

And we've seen how much fun you have parsing Clark's "direct quotes."

[Larry Gude]

104. This thread...

...is illustrative of why (if you also read the IRW) these people voted for it:

(Senate) Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Breaux, La.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carnahan, Mo.; Carper, Del.; Cleland, Ga.; Clinton, N.Y.; Daschle, S.D.; Dodd, Conn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Edwards, N.C.; Feinstein, Calif.; Harkin, Iowa; Hollings, S.C.; Johnson, S.D.; Kerry, Mass.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Miller, Ga.; Nelson, Fla.; Nelson, Neb.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Schumer, N.Y.; Torricelli, N.J.

The resolution was Congressional approval to use force against Iraq pre-emptively. Pure and simple.

These people said NO:

Akaka, Hawaii; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif; Byrd, W.Va.; Conrad, N.D.; Corzine, N.J.; Dayton, Minn.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis; Graham, Fla.; Inouye, Hawaii; Kennedy, Mass.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Reed, R.I.; Sarbanes, Md.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wellstone, Minn.; Wyden, Ore.

Plus Chaffee (R)

Have to mention a certain member of the House as well, seeings how his position is relevent to November.

Dennis Kucinich.

If opposition to the IRW resolution is a litmus test then Clark people have some soul searching to do because his statements are not going away.

Of course it will be easy enough, if he wins the nomination, to say he was all for it, the IWR, from the get go.

[maddezmom]

106. kick

:kick:

[slinkerwink]

109. kick

[Turkw]

113. Swett is a Democrat, Clark was involved with her campaign, Look

everybody, Clark helped Democrats before he ran. Guess that makes him a Democrat.

[nomaco-10]

115. See the tape for yourself on Hardball Tues night....

Announced this morning that Tweety has the tape and will discuss it on Hardball tonight.
This tape along with the tape of Clark praising bush* Scumsfeld, Cheney and other members of bushco and throw in his lobbyist activities and the board seats he sat on while analyzing the war for CNN, will finish off any credibility he may have had in the race for 2004. When you match up these little tidbits to his voting record for four out of the last five repub presidents, I think it will be pretty clear that the general is not what he seems.