with the following text as quoted here in Paragraph 4?
"General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading."
Paragraph 4.
AGAIN....
"IT SHOULD HAVE A PROVISION REQUIRING BUSH RETURN TO CONGRESS BEFORE INVADING".
Now, let's look at the resolutions that were available to vote on up to the day that the final version was voted on....shall we?...cause I remember a Blank check one, and then I remember an "After this vote, go to the UN and then come back here for another vote" one!
10/09/02: Don't Let Congress Ratify Bush Preemption Doctrine UPDATE:
URGENT ACTION ALERT! UPDATE: Senate
If Sen. Daschle and Senate Democratic leaders cannot come to an agreement on the rules for debate by the end of today, then a cloture vote is likely. Cloture is a method of limiting debate or ending a filibuster in the Senate which takes at least 60 Senators. If a cloture vote carries, then it will deny Senators like Sen. Robert Byrd from filibustering. Thirty hours of floor debate is expected in the Senate, making an actual vote likely on Monday or Tuesday of next week.
The BUSH-LIEBERMAN WAR RESOLUTION is the Senate version of the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution.The BIDEN-LUGAR AMENDMENT would authorize the use of force only to disarm Saddam Hussein, not depose him. The LEVIN AMENDMENT, introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), would curtail the broad powers provided by the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution by requiring the President to first secure a UN Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq. It would require a second vote in the Senate pending action or inaction by the UN Security Council.Call NOW to stop the President from getting a blank check from Congress and ensure a second vote by Congress before the President can launch a war on Iraq For the House, urge your Representative to support the Spratt and Lee Amendments. In addition, encourage them to support a “motion to recommit” (see below for more information).
Senators should be urged to vote for the only resolution that would mandate a 2nd vote be taken before the President can launch a war against Iraq. Thus, implore your Senators to vote YES to the Levin Amendment and vote NO to the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution – S.J.Res.46.
Don’t give up! To resist is to win!
Send Free Faxes to Congress from True Majority
President's War Resolution. You can reach your Representative and Senators via the Congressional switchboard at 202-225-3121 or 202-224-3121 or call toll-free 800-839-5276.
Contact Members of Congress at www.congress.org
http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102 Wes Clark has consistently said he supported the Levin amendment once it was clear that there would be a vote on a resolution. He did not say he supported the Lieberman "blank Check" amendment even if the article implies it by means of using two sentences out of a 90 minute interview--Who knows what was "left out"? :shrug:
What Clark was saying 2 days before the IWR VOTE:USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002,
in which Clark wrote:
Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them.
Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem.http://www.p-fritz.net/p/irc.html What Clark was saying 1 day before the IWR VOTE:Clark's op ed on September 10, 2002....One day before the IWR Vote:
In his Op-Ed dated October 10, 2002, "Let's Wait to Attack." Clark states:
In the near term,
time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know,
....there is still time for dialogue before we act.http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/----------------------
Now, let's look at the rest of that NYT article you proudly display 3 sentences via assorted threads of as though you've hit paydirt!....it is amazingly short considering it's based on a 90 minute "free for all" interview (reporter's term)!
As Mr. Nagourney, your fav Journalist extraordinary goes on....
"Mary, help!" he called to his press secretary, Mary Jacoby, at the front of the plane, as he faced questions about Iraq. "Come back and listen to this."
At one point, Ms. Jacoby interrupted the interview, which included four reporters who were traveling on the general's jet, to make certain that General Clark's views on the original Iraq resolution were clear.
"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."
So now a General is calling for help from a press secretary And how was that really done? Was Clark kidding? was anything else said apart from Help Mary? Did Wes just scream it out in desperation like a child in a position that he couldn't control or did he do it with intellectual concern? A man who's faced dictator was "crying" for help......OKey-DOkey! Me, I don't know...cause we weren't there...but that is certainly the "impression" that Nagourney provides us in imagery....isn't it? And of course, that's what a General would do on his first day out on the trail right???? :sarcasm:
Then your best bud Nagourney writes...
"at one point the Press secretary "interupts" the interview.
:wow:
When did this "interruption" take place? As soon as Wes Clark "cried" for her help :cry: ...or was she sitting there for a good 15 minutes and decided to interject something...cause, er..she's like the press Secretary...so I guess that would be part of her job....to participate somewhat!
And what did she say again?.....oh yeah...that the resolution that Clark would have voted for was "the" resolution that called for leverage for a U.N. based solution.....and what did the general answer to that according to the article?......"right?" "exactly?". Did he only say that, or did he say some other things in that 90 minute interview between those two words.......? How long was Mary there after she came running to "rescue" the 4 star General to the end of the interview? Was it that she came running in the first 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60? We don't really know, do we?
I could go on....
The general's remarks in a free-rolling 90-minute airborne interview suggested the extent of the adjustment he faces in becoming a presidential candidate."
Let's see...."suggested the extent of the adjustment"...why? He used to give press conferences all of the time while NATO Commander. Why would a 90 minute interview "suggest" adjustements? Was he chocking? Was he just acting like he wasn't feeling well and it all seem very difficult to him? Or is this a subjective remark that doesn't really say much of anything...other than the interview was 1 1/2 hours long.
Maybe that was the problem. Maybe Clark said a whole lot of things in that 90 minutes, and considering how short the article was....maybe the aim was not to get Clark's real views on things.....but to get enough quotes that could be strung together in a way to discredit Clark. Is that even possible, or is the media a paragon of virtue these days, with absolutely no agenda?
Again, my point is that we just weren't there.....and considering the media we have, I'd rather think that the media had more to do with how this all played out than you want to think.
Clark said numerous times before and since that he was against going into Iraq, and if we were to go it should be with a UN mandate and that we should give Bush a "blank check".
Considering that you support the candidate with the "Botched Joke" and others supported the "candidate who Screamed".....I think you know where I'm coming from.
I believe Clark when he said that he supported the Levin resolution and would not have voted for the blank check. So his statements are consistent enough here.....even with the hack doing the writing and who knows what else the reporter did with Clark's words.
But you should believe Adam Nagourney of the New York Times :eyes: ....and if this comes back to haunt you when Journalism "Gotcha" is dissing your candidate of choice.....don't look over at where I am....cause I won't see you.