Didn't Clark deny he ever said he guaranteed no terror attacks

[Hoppin_Mad]

-edit added sentence 2 -

in the debate tonight ?

What's this ?


"Clark told the Monitor that American citizens should not be worried. "Nothing is going to hurt this country - not bioweapons, not a nuclear weapon, not a terrorist strike - there is nothing that can hurt us if we stay united and move together and have a vision for moving to the future the right way."

( ADDED THIS AT 8:38 )

(2) "If I'm president of the United States, I'm going to take care of the American people," Clark told the Concord Monitor for a story published Friday. "We are not going to have one of these incidents."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/01/09/politics1207EST0586.DTL

[Joe the Revelator]

1. In your quote..

i see nothing about a gurantee. I see Clark saying that if certain variables stay true, then certain outcomes won't happen. That is not a gurantee.

[bicentennial_baby]

2. He said

that he did'nt use the word "guarantee", which he did'nt.

[Ramsey]

15. He was emphatic about that

A great moment for him tonight.

Edit: spell check

[Skwmom]

3. There is nothing that can hurt us

How anyone could read this to infer that Clark was guaranteeing that another attack would not occur is beyond me. It means that this country can SURVIVE anything if we stay united.

[bearfartinthewoods]

21. two points

there is a difference between 'surviving' and "not being hurt".

the idea that bioweapons or nuclear devices cannot 'hurt' this country is bizarre.

and this is the quote that implies a quarantee:


"We are not going to have one of these incidents."

i don't know how to read that without seeing a guarantee, whether he used the word or not.

[Skwmom]

24. My reply

"Clark told the Monitor that American citizens should not be worried. "Nothing is going to hurt this country - not bioweapons, not a nuclear weapon, not a terrorist strike - there is nothing that can hurt us if we stay united and move together and have a vision for moving to the future the right way." Why do you think he uses the language "if we stay united"? If he was guaranteeing no terrorist attack he wouldn't care if we were united or not. Again, I read this as IF we stay united, nothing can really hurt us, we will survive.


"We are not going to have one of these incidents." Why in the heck should we have another type of these incidents. We were FOREWARNED about 9/11 and could have taken steps to prevent it. Israel was warned and took steps to prevent it.

[Hoppin_Mad]

4. OOPS ! I forgot to include THIS sentence !

"If I'm president of the United States, I'm going to take care of the American people," Clark told the Concord Monitor for a story published Friday. "We are not going to have one of these incidents."

[arewethereyet]

5. no word "guarantee" but it IS implied

oh dear...

[gulliver]

8. Sounds like an expression of conviction, not guarantee.

Well?

[arewethereyet]

12. "We are not going to have one of these incidents."

if its not a pledge then it should have read more like 'Ill fix the intellegence processing community so that we see the handwritting on the wall'.

he screwed the pooch on that one. no getting around it.

[gulliver]

14. The pooch remains unscrewed.

This won't happen. Don't be afraid. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Conviction, not dog molestation.

[arewethereyet]

17. to-may-to to-mah-to i guess we'll see huh ? n/t

[truebrit71]

6. Where does the word guarantee appear in that quote??

Answer: It doesn't...

Next??

[HFishbine]

7. His denial

was of the use of the word "guarantee."

[Hoppin_Mad]

11. So the question was over the use of the WORD 'guarantee' ?

And not whether or not he ever asserted that no terrorist attacks would occur if he was elected President ?

That's what you're saying ?

[HFishbine]

23. The questioner made it so

(I can only find a transcript from ABCs abreviated version, which doesn't include the question, but...)

The questioner originally quoted Clark correctly (a quote that didn't include the word "guarantee") and then the reporter IN HIS WORDS asked Clark something to the effect of "How can you make such a guarantee?" Clark went on to answer and then the questioner followed up with something like "But, you said a guarantee."

Well, no. It was the reporter who used the word and he was trying to put it in Clark's mouth. Clark was right to insist that he never used the word. The reporter wasn't being very carefull about what Clark had in fact said.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. It was all hanging on one word...."Guarantee"...

I don't see that word in that quote, do you?

[Hoppin_Mad]

16. So the question was about the use of the 'word' guarantee ? -nt-

[maxanne]

19. it's simple enough

Hoppin_Mad - whatever Clark says should not be questioned. His support for the SOA is justifiable, his speaking at Bush fundraisers is justifiable, his past voting record...you name it - it's all okay, because he's a Democrat NOW. It may seem inexplicable to the unconverted - but to the true believers all aspects of his past are to be glossed over, explained, or excused.

[in_cog_ni_to]

25. Yes, it was.

Clark never used that word and the questioner TRIED to make it look like he had...the QUESTIONER used the word GUARANTEE, not Clark. Clark pointed that out to him. The question was loaded. Clark did not "mean" what the questioner was insinuating he did. Clark handled it well and explained exactly what he meant. Chalk one up for the General!

[DuctapeFatwa]

10. Yes, and he has said he will go to Iraq but not to deliver turkeys

He is a career soldier.

The voting class can count on him to get the job done in Iraq and assure that America prevails in imposing its will and crack down to win the war on terror and keep the Homeland secure.

[arewethereyet]

13. there are lots of career soldiers there now working ass off for this

are they chopped liver ?

Its not like Bush is dictating strategy over there.

[krkaufman]

18. No quarantee, and an attack is NOT inevitable

Anyone honestly trying to understand Clark's point can.

Meeting on Thursday with the Monitor editorial board, Clark said: "I think the two greatest lies that have been told in the last three years are: You couldn't have prevented 9-11 and there's another one that's bound to happen."

Bush's backers have been saying that a future attack *IS* inevitable. Why is a future attack inevitable? An attack is certainly *possible*, maybe even likely, but "inevitable" only comes into it if an Administration is doing nothing to prevent one.

Clark never "guarantees" that an attack won't happen, though the following quote from the article implies something close:

"If I'm president of the United States, I'm going to take care of the American people," Clark told the Concord Monitor for a story published Friday. "We are not going to have one of these incidents."

The rest of the article fleshes out Clark's position that the 9/11 attacks *may* have been preventable (had the Bush Administration made *any* effort), and that he would bring the focus back to Al Qaeda.

So, depending on what one *wants* to take from the article, either viewpoint can be supported.

[bearfartinthewoods]

22. the second thought i had on 911 was 'and now it begins"

personally, i am totally shocked that nothing else has happen yet.
.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[democratreformed]

26. I'm glad they asked him this question

as I had missed the orginal "hoopla". Now, I understand that he means that we will not have another attack where our government has discounted warnings and the American people are taken by complete surprise.

I also understand his meaning of "togetherness" that he talks about.

[returnable]

27. Clark, Clark, Clark

[HFishbine]

28. Read the exchange for yourself

(Transcript now available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39875-2004Jan22.html?nav=hptop_ts)

DISTASO: General Clark, earlier this month you said that if elected, there will be no more 9/11s in the United States. Then you scaled back, saying no one can guarantee anything in life. Some might say that leaves a little bit of an air of inconsistency in your positions. What exactly at this point are you guaranteeing along those lines?

CLARK: What I'm saying is I believe President Bush must be held accountable.

Before 9/11, he did not do everything he could have done to keep this country safe. After 9/11, he took us to a war we didn't have to fight and Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida is still going strong. We were at terrorist condition orange.

As president of the United States, my top priority will be to keep America safe. We're going to go after the terrorist networks. We're going to go after Osama bin Laden. We are not going to live in fear in this country. And we'll use all the resources of the United States -- international law, diplomacy, allies, economics and military force, if necessary -- to keep this country safe.

DISTASO: General, a top priority -- sure, that's everyone's top priority. That's a far cry, some might say, from a guarantee. So...

CLARK: I never used the word "guarantee." I never said that, John.

DISTASO: What did you say?

CLARK: What I said was that the president had been saying that the attack at 9/11 could not have been prevented, and that further attacks were inevitable.

I consider the statement that the attack at 9/11 could not have been prevented as an excuse to cover the fact that this administration didn't do everything they could have done.

CLARK: And I consider their statement that further attacks on the United States are inevitable as an excuse to cover for the fact that they are today not doing everything they could do to keep America safe. And that's wrong, that's why I'm running and that's what I'll fix.