GOP chair claims Clark supported war; transcripts show otherwise

Mississippi Sun Herald ^ | Jan. 15, 2004 | DANA HULL AND DREW BROWN

[Buck W.]

MANCHESTER, N.H. - (KRT) - Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, charged Thursday that retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark endorsed President Bush's policy toward Iraq two weeks before Congress voted to authorize Bush to go to war.

If true, that would contradict the core message of Clark's presidential campaign. The complete transcript of Clark's Sept. 26, 2002, testimony, however, reveals that Clark didn't endorse Bush's policy during the congressional hearing, and that the Republican charge is based on selected excerpts of his remarks.

Gillespie accurately quoted portions of Clark's testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in which Clark said he believed that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons and was seeking nuclear weapons. But the RNC chairman didn't mention that Clark also said America should work through the United Nations to seek a diplomatic solution and go to war only as a last resort.

Gillespie's speech, delivered in Clark's hometown of Little Rock, Ark., argued forcefully that Clark had endorsed Bush's policy toward Iraq in that congressional testimony and at other times. Gillespie apparently was contesting Clark's insistence that he consistently opposed Bush's war against Iraq - a stand Clark reiterated Thursday. "There was no stronger case made than that expert testimony, the testimony of General Wesley Clark," Gillespie concluded.

Clark's position on the Iraq war is central to his presidential candidacy, for as a former four-star general, he bases his appeal to Democrats on his credibility as a military man who can challenge Bush on national security issues.

"This is material that has been dug up by the RNC," Clark responded Thursday afternoon. "Ed Gillespie should have read the whole testimony, because it totally refutes the Bush position."

Clark appeared exasperated.

"What I was saying then is what I'm saying today. That Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat. That actions contemplated against Saddam Hussein did not constitute pre-emptive war, contrary to what the Bush administration was saying, because there was no imminent threat. Was he troublesome? Sure. Was he a threat? Eventually, sure. Was the clock ticking in the two-year, five-year, eight-year time period? Sure. Did we have to do this? NO."

Clark, however, hasn't always been consistent. The day after he officially announced his candidacy for president last September, he told reporters that he "probably" would have voted the previous autumn for the congressional resolution authorizing Bush to go to war, then reversed that position the next day.

The attack on Clark by the RNC chairman suggests that the Republican Party is now taking Clark's campaign seriously. Although opinion polls can be unreliable in primaries, in which voter turnout is low and many voters make up their minds at the last minute, the latest polls show Clark closing in on former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean for the lead in New Hampshire, where Democrats will vote on Jan. 27.

Clark's congressional testimony was further distorted Thursday by cyber-gossip columnist Matt Drudge, who quoted selected portions of Clark's testimony and added sentences that don't appear in the transcript on his Web site Thursday. Drudge didn't respond to an e-mail request for comment.

For example, Drudge quoted Clark on possible links between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's regime. "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as (fellow witness) Richard (Perle) says, that there have been such contacts," Clark testified. "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."

But Drudge didn't include Clark's comment that: "As far as I know, I haven't seen any substantial evidence linking Saddam's regime to the al-Qaida network, though such evidence may emerge. 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."

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat," Clark testified, according to the full transcript, which was reviewed by Knight Ridder. "He does retain his chemical and biological capabilities to some extent and 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 … The problem of Iraq is not a problem that can be postponed indefinitely … ."

In addition, Clark said: "If the efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, then we need to form the broadest possible coalition, including our NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if we're going to bring forces to bear. We should not be using force until the personnel, the organizations, the plans that will be required for post-conflict Iraq are prepared and ready."

[Buck W.]

Here's a different spin on the Clark story that claims that Drudge took liberties with the transcript.

[gov_bean_ counter]

The original transcript was posted in its entirety earlier. There is no misinterpretation. Clark is going to screw himself into the ground spinning this one.

[nwrep]

Drudge did take liberties with the transcript, only highlighting part of his expert testimony, and not his prepared statement, which was more cautious and in line with his reluctance to commit one way or another.

Not that I have any problem with that.

[MJY1288]

I read the entire transcript and if this guy thinks Clark didn't endorse going to war with Iraq, HE IS NUTS

Clark made a strong case for confronting Saddam and he even called Saddam Hussein an "immanent threat"

[pissant]

It ain't drudge who is spinning, its the idiotic authors of this article who probably keep a picture of weasley in their pillow cases.

[Guillermo]

said America should work through the United Nations to seek a diplomatic solution

12 years and 17 UN resolutions wasn't "working through" the UN?

[Torie]

The problem for Clark is not so much that Clark tacked, although that is a problem, but that he is a dissembler who has troubling just telling what happened and why. Granted Clinton doing the same thing was not a problem for him, but Clinton came off as a charming dissembler when he was running for election, while Clark comes off as a prickly pear. So the question is, can a prickly pear dissembler gain traction? The answer for the moment is apparently yes, at least among a considerable number of Dems.

[Inyokern]

Clark appeard exasperated

[Shermy]

The attack on Clark by the RNC chairman suggests that the Republican Party is now taking Clark's campaign seriously.

Clark/Demo spinners looking to frame the Republicans.

But months ago the Demo opponents were pointing out the same inconsistencies.

[woofie]

Clark made a strong case for confronting Saddam and he even called Saddam Hussein an "immanent threat"

Its a lot like talking to Bill Clinton ...it depends on the meaning if immanent

[Shermy]

said America should work through the United Nations to seek a diplomatic solution

France said no.

[Cicero]

But the RNC chairman didn't mention that Clark also said America should work through the United Nations to seek a diplomatic solution and go to war only as a last resort.

That's pretty much what Bush did.

[Buck W.]

"Drudge did take liberties with the transcript, only highlighting part of his expert testimony, and not his prepared statement, which was more cautious and in line with his reluctance to commit one way or another. "

In that case, the fact that his testimony differed in a material way from his prepared statement is equally troubling.

[nwrep]

In that case, the fact that his testimony differed in a material way from his prepared statement is equally troubling.

Oh, no doubt about that! The guy can't make up his mind about anything.

[gov_bean_ counter]

That is what the Fox All Stars said he would get nailed on when the 7 dwarfs return from Iowa.

[Ethyl]

Here's a different spin on the Clark story that claims that Drudge took liberties with the transcript.

1 posted on 01/15/2004 10:49:46 PM EST by Buck W.

Night ridder or what ever it is, is a known liberal group, not considered credible.

[MJY1288]

I have spent some time reading about Wes Clark and I find him to be a dishonest man and not worthy of the post he held as General, not to mention being qualified for the highest office in the land.

His bazaar claim that he was approached by the White House shortly after 9/11 and told to blame it on Saddam as well as Osama is simply a bald face lie. He was questioned about this claim and he changed his story several times and in the end he said it was a Pro-Israeli think tank in Canada he told him to blame Saddam...

This man is a flake and I believe he will exit the scene before much longer. I say this because I believe those who are defending him will give up before they see their credibility destroyed along with Wesley Clark's

[goldstategop]

That's what you get when you have an ex-general who's not sure who he is running for President. He makes Nikita Dean look like he's got his marbles together - though when you see the veins popping from his forehead it makes you want to run for the hills. The Democrats Two Big Favorites can't level with the American people about who they are and what they stand for. I wouldn't trust either of them a thumb's reach away from the Big Red Button.

[Republican Wildcat]

There's audio of these remarks available. Clark is lying, and the people who wrote this are apparently just as dishonest.

[cwb]

"said America should work through the United Nations to seek a diplomatic solution and go to war only as a last resort."

Kinda like he and Clinton did before going into Kosovo, right? It is an accumulation of statements that prove this guy to be a liar. He can spin this anyway he wants, but if you've seen quotes from his book, he's even lying about his spin. In the book he tells of how NATO was an impotent organization because of Europe's special interests. Someone needs to ask him why he should expect Bush to go to an international organization (which he did) when in his book he talks about how these organizations are ineffective when it comes to military operations. The guys a General liar.