Drudge Exposes Clark as Liar

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JAN 15, 2003 11:28:25 ET XXXXX

WES CLARK MADE CASE FOR IRAQ WAR BEFORE CONGRESS; PRAISED PERLE ANALYSIS; TRANSCRIPT REVEALED

**World Exclusive**

Two months ago Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark declared in a debate that he has always been firmly against the current Iraq War.

"I've been very consistent ... I've been against this war from the beginning," the former general said in Detroit on October 26. "I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."

But just six month prior in an op-ed in the LONDON TIMES Clark offered praise for the courage of President Bush's action.

"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark wrote on April 10, 2003. "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled."

Even the most ardent Clark supporter will question if Clark's current and past stand on the Iraq war -- is confusion or deception, after the DRUDGE REPORT reveals:

TWO WEEKS BEFORE CONGRESS PASSED THE IRAQ CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION WESLEY CLARK MADE THE CASE FOR WAR; TESTIFIED THAT SADDAM HAD 'CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS'

Less than 18 months ago, Wesley Clark offered his testimony before the Committee On Armed Services at the U.S. House Of Representatives.

"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002.

"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution."

Clark continued: "There' s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat.... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."

More Clark: "And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

Clark explained: "I think there' s no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat."

END

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If true this is a big gaffe for Clark.

Main Entry: gaffe  
Pronunciation: 'gaf
Function: noun
Etymology: French, gaff, gaffe
Date: 1909
: a social or diplomatic blunder

Main Entry: 1blun·der  
Pronunciation: 'bl&n-d&r
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): blun·dered; blun·der·ing  /-d(&-)ri[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English blundren
Date: 14th century
intransitive senses
1 : to move unsteadily or confusedly
2 : to make a mistake through stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness
transitive senses
1 : to utter stupidly, confusedly, or thoughtlessly
2 : to make a stupid, careless, or thoughtless mistake in

---

I don’t call not telling the truth a “gaffe” or “blunder”, rather I call it “lying”, “deceit”, etc.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All politicians lie.  But when they get caught in a blatant one it can best be called a gaffe.

Our differences may be due to religion - the bible never refers to sin as a "mistake" (gaffe, blunder, etc), therefore I don't call lying a "mistake".

When I catch my kids lying, I don't tell them they made a "mistake".  Likewise, if the Drudge story is true, Clark didn't "mistakenly" not tell the truth, it was deliberate, it was a lie intentionally meant to deceive.

This goes to "character", a word Clark loves to use in reference to himself.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Like I said, all politicians lie.

That does NOT mean that lies equate to making mistakes.  A mistake means that you had the facts in ERROR (either by confusion or lack of ability to arrive at the correct answer); not that you knew the facts and chose to tell a lie.  That is NOT a mistake, rather is a choice to intentionally deceive.

Main Entry: 1mis·take
Pronunciation: m&-'stAk
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mis·took  /-'stuk/; mis·tak·en  /-'stA-k&n/; mis·tak·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse mistaka to take by mistake, from mis- + taka to take -- more at TAKE
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 : to blunder in the choice of <mistook her way in the dark>
2 a : to misunderstand the meaning or intention of : MISINTERPRET <don't mistake me, I mean exactly what I said> b : to make a wrong judgment of the character or ability of
3 : to identify wrongly : confuse with another <I mistook him for his brother>
intransitive senses : to be wrong <you mistook when you thought I laughed at you -- Thomas Hardy>
- mis·tak·en·ly adverb
- mis·tak·er noun


Main Entry: in·ten·tion·al
Pronunciation: in-'tench-n&l, -'ten(t)-sh&-n&l
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1727
1 : done by intention or design : INTENDED <intentional damage>
2 a : of or relating to epistemological intention b : having external reference
synonym see VOLUNTARY
- in·ten·tion·al·i·ty  /-"ten(t)-sh&-'na-l&-tE/ noun
- in·ten·tion·al·ly  /in-'tench-n&-lE, -'ten(t)-sh&-n&l-E/ adverb

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

His point is that all politicians are sinners, by your definition, and that those who get caught are being stupid. What's wrong with that?

Well, if you want to say Clark’s mistake was that he thought he could get away with it, that the minutes of Senate testimony couldn’t be compared against his lie, then yeah, I would say that was a major “mistake”, probably to such a level that it borders on lunacy.

It reveals Clark’s hunger for power and dovetails into the insubordination that ended his military career.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, my first post said that if this is true, he's an idiot...

That he's a liar is to be expected, he's running for President, for crying out loud. Name a non-lying president ever...

I never said that people don’t lie.  We are all liars.

My first point was that lying couldn’t be considered a “mistake”, because it’s intentional.

---

My second point is regarding how it reveals Clark’s true character.

W is far from perfect, but I don’t remember him changing his positions on a major issue in order to run from president.  I remember Gore doing that, and that is the main reason why I can’t stand him.

If you were against the war – fine.  If you were for the war – fine.  But don’t lie about your position on an issue that is so important to many Americans.

And most of all, don’t insult the public’s intelligence by assuming that the American public is so dumb that it can’t compare Congressional testimony to a stated position during a campaign.

And NOT all politicians change their position simply to pander to the electorate – Zell Miller being a good example.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

JMF is loving his Drudge Report today.

I don’t believe in promoting people accused of insubordination...If you can’t be trusted with responsibility, why on earth would you be given more?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What about his claim that he was opposed to nation building?  Isn't that exactly what we're doing in Iraq?

Yeah, and the isolationists prior to Pearl Harbor changed their minds after 12/7/1941.  That doesn't make them liars.  In that case, the isolationists misjudged the threat.

Bush's nation building comment had to do with low level conflicts, it was not in the context of terrorism or a major conflict or a major attack on the American mainland.  He was simply saying he doesn’t believe America should be mucking around trying to fine tweak the world when we could be minding our own business.

If I say that I prefer to keep to myself, that doesn’t mean I won’t become aggressive if attacked.

In other words, you’re comparing apples to oranges.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

JMF is loving his Drudge Report today.

I don’t believe in promoting people accused of insubordination...If you can’t be trusted with responsibility, why on earth would you be given more?

What does that have to do with anything?

That's why Im loving my Drudge Report today...Clark is asking for a promotion during a time of war after being run out of the Army for insubordination.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So, if a somebody changes thir position to the helping of the Republicans (Zell), it's acceptable.  But is it is the other way around (Gore), it isn't.
"I only lie when it services me to do so."--Me

Zell is supporting Bush because the Dem party has changed, NOT because Zell has changed.  Also Zell has no skin in this game so he can't be accused of pandering.

And I tried to think of a GOP example, but couldn't come up with one.  Maybe Pat Buch would be a good example.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And may I also remind you that perhaps as many as half the US has changed it's mind, after first trusting Bush & Co. was telling the truth?

How was Clark "drafted", exactly?

And if you believe that Bush lied, doesn't Clark's Congressional testimony make him an accomplice in the deception?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

mossy,

<<You can read the story on how Clark was drafted on his site, htt://www.Clark_2004.org.   I was one of the earliest supporters before he was a candidate.>>

Clark was considering running for president for months, it was his choice, there is no "draft" for candidates.

---

<<I do not think you can fault a person in public life (or private, either) who publicly speaks in support of the sitting administration, when their only sin is trusting what is official policy, and they are being misled like everyone else.>>

To which sitting administration are you referring, Clinton or Bush?  

Are you seriously going to try to say that Clark, while in uniform and under Clinton’s reign, didn't believe Clinton's deception about Saddam having WMD; and then, once a civilian, became gullible to Bush to the point that Clark became Bush's puppet to march in front of Congress; and that you believe this gullible puppet, whose own insubordination led to his forced resignation of his commission as an officer and as supreme commander of NATO, is the one to lead America in the War on Terror?

Is that your theory?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Am I the only person who thinks that this article is very stupid? (even though I don't like Clark)

The comments about the jubilation shown on tv in the immediate aftermath of Baghdad's fall does not express a vindication of the policy.

Well, the article is nothing more than a transcript of Clark's own words.  But obviously Clark isn't stupid, he just believes Americans are.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

.... (tangled sentence, but it's been a long day)

For Clark, a VERY long day.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Wakie,

<<Now Paul O'Neil has revealed that Bush wanted to take out Saddam before he was even in office (prior to 9/11).>>

Gee, hasn't that been the official policy of the US since 1998, when Bill Clinton was president?

--

<<This translates into a simple reality.  Bush lied.>>

No, translates into someone who believes policy is more than print on paper.

---

<<Is it good that Saddam is gone?  Yes.  Was he removed because of terrorism?  Of course not.>>

Looks like the Gen Clark of Sept 2002 would disagree with you.  But, you're right, Iraq was not about terror, that is why it's just a coincidence that Libya is rolling over and Syria and Iran are shaking in their shoes, and that Kim Jong Il spends his nights in a  hardened bunker.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So, you're really worried about Bush going up against Clark, are you?

No, I think Dean has the best chance of beating Bush, but I also think Dean has the best chance to lose in a landslide.

What does Clark bring to the table?  

A career ending in insubordination? The GOP has Clark's CO waiting in the wings to clean his clock.  Not to mention Gen Schwarzkopf and Gen Colin Powell.

And Clark's position on abortion (up to the last minute) is not going to fly with middle america or the South.

Clark has dodged answering the insubordination question and he continues to lie about his support on going to war in Iraq.  But he is nailed to the floor on both counts and he will not be able to continue to duck these questions.

I'd rather have Al Sharpton as president than someone as desperate as Clark.

Bring on Clark.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst, I am just amazed that you can't accept that Bush blatantly lied when he said he was opposed to nation building yet wanted to invade Iraq.  Do you think he was just stupid and didn't realize we'd have to rebuild the country afterwards?

I understand what Bush was saying, I understood it then and I understand it now, and it is not inconsistent.  Basically he was saying that he didn't want the US involved in a lot of low level conflicts.  Instead he wanted the US prepared for bigger threats (i.e. missile defense, etc).

Also, you're forgetting that Bush never put Iraq into motion until AFTER 9/11.  He may have wanted to take Saddam out since taking office, but Bush's actions prior to 9/11 were simply to beef up US capability in order to be fully prepared.

Once 9/11 took place, then it became necessarily to not only to go after bin Laden, but to shake up our enemies by letting them know that America had finally awoken and their time was running out.

If Bush is re-elected, that lesson will probably (better) continue and it should be made known that if we are attacked again, our next response will be magnitudes greater than simply chasing terrorists and overthrowing Saddam.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't see a 2004 prediction for you?

I have said that barring a major geopolitcal event, Bush's chances for reelection are 90%.  But I think the chances for such a major event are good, so I currently have Bush at 60%.

I still think Bush can win by 20% or lose by 10%.

---

I think there are two winners on the Dem side to this week's events:

1) Edwards - very long shot, but at least he still has a shot at winning the nomination.
2) Sharpton - can't win the nomination, but with Braun out and the others bunched up together, Sharpton could win several states in the South.

Kerry and Geph are toast.  Geph is toast because he probably can't win the nomination.  Kerry is toast regardless if he wins the nomination.

Joe Lieb is dead.  Dean and Clark have the money, but Clark has been getting a free ride for the last two weeks.  That free ride ends Monday.

But if 4 candidates finish above 15% in IA and then go on to battle Clark in NH, all hell is going to break loose and the battle for the Dem nomination will become a blood bath.

The best possible GOP scenario is for Dean to emerge the victor from a very bloody fight having spent all his cash on his Dem rivals with Sharpton ensuring himself a speech at the convention.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't see a 2004 prediction for you?

Why so much interest in my predictions?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

In jmfcst's defense, the question he responded to wasn't really a question, it was actually a statement with an erroroneous question mark at the end instead of a period.

Don't confuse mossy's pseudo-grammar issue with the facts.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What is Pseudo-grammar?

It's exactly like your Pseudo-punctuation...but different.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't see a 2004 prediction for you?

Why so much interest in my predictions?

Do you always respond to a question with a question?

Had your statement actually been a question, I still would have answered it with the same question I gave in response.   There is nothing wrong with responding to a question with a question in order to promote logical thinking ("think before you ask") or to expose motive ("why are you asking").

John 18:33-34 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" 34"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So, jmfcst, you're going to use this forum to troll with garbage???

Well, I must say:  that is the first time I've been called a troll on this forum, though I have referred to others using that term.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So now you know how it feels. You can share the pain of those you abused now.
No, just joking. But that Drudge report is garbage.

I think you've got the wrong car McFly.  I only called foreigners "trolls".  And...no, not joking.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What for? I haven't been around long enough I guess, so please explain. Not joking now.

I find it more than a little strange that a person would desire to go on a foreign web site to discuss another country's internal politics.  But this new version of the forum has sections for international politics, so things are better now.