The guys is either back-tracking on things he's said in the past...or he's
"not committing" right now.

Let the Weasly Watch begin!


September 20, 2003
Clark Explains Statement on Authorization for Iraq War
By JODI WILGOREN


OWA CITY, Sept. 19 - On the third day of his campaign, Gen. Wesley K. Clark
struggled today to clarify his statement on Thursday that he would
"probably" have voted for the Congressional resolution authorizing the
invasion of Iraq.

General Clark, a former NATO commander who has retired from the Army, never
denied making the statement in an interview with four reporters on his
chartered plane. But he seemed stunned by the headlines that it generated,
as supporters worried that he had undercut his position as an antiwar
candidate with military bona fides.

"I never would have voted for war," he said here this afternoon in an
interview and in response to a question after a lecture at the University of
Iowa. "What I would have voted for is leverage. Leverage for the United
States to avoid a war. That's what we needed to avoid a war."

Speaking about the resolution on Thursday, General Clark said, "At the time,
I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a
question."

He then added: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways,
because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in
a position. On balance, I probably would have voted for it."

His clarification, along with a slapped-together schedule in which he met
few voters and offered no specifics on domestic issues, seemed to reflect
the inexperience of the first-time candidate and disorganization in his
nascent campaign.

His debut day in Iowa, whose early caucus is crucial to the Democratic
Party's nomination process, was barely a toe touch, with a brief diner stop
and a pageant of 10-minute news media interviews crammed between private
receptions surrounding the long-scheduled nonpolitical lecture, for which a
foundation paid $25,000. (General Clark receives 80 percent.)

Despite his disappointment with reports of his airborne interview, including
one in The New York Times, General Clark seemed as comfortable as could be
in his new role as candidate, stopping frequently to slap shoulders as he
strode across the university campus.

Although he considered a presidential race for a month, he balked at most
questions, saying he would spend this weekend at home in Little Rock, Ark.,
working on policy positions. Among the issues he told voters he was not
ready to discuss in detail were health care, education, employment, AIDS in
Africa, the USA Patriot Act and medical marijuana. In interviews this
afternoon, he referred to a talking-point tip sheet on the hot local issues
of ethanol and farm subsidies.

"I don't know enough to give you a comprehensive answer at this point," he
said in response to a voter's question about universal health insurance. "I
know enough not to give you a comprehensive answer at this point."

Regarding a complicated proposal about financing AIDS research and
prevention abroad, he said, "I'm not committing anything right now to
anything, until I've got my economic facts and figures in order."

snip

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

The guys is either back-tracking on things he's said in the past...or he's
"not committing" right now.

Let the Weasly Watch begin!


September 20, 2003
Clark Explains Statement on Authorization for Iraq War
By JODI WILGOREN


OWA CITY, Sept. 19 - On the third day of his campaign, Gen. Wesley K.
Clark
struggled today to clarify his statement on Thursday that he would
"probably" have voted for the Congressional resolution authorizing the
invasion of Iraq.

General Clark, a former NATO commander who has retired from the Army,
never
denied making the statement in an interview with four reporters on his
chartered plane. But he seemed stunned by the headlines that it generated,
as supporters worried that he had undercut his position as an antiwar
candidate with military bona fides.

"I never would have voted for war," he said here this afternoon in an
interview and in response to a question after a lecture at the University
of
Iowa. "What I would have voted for is leverage. Leverage for the United
States to avoid a war. That's what we needed to avoid a war."

Speaking about the resolution on Thursday, General Clark said, "At the
time,
I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a
question."

He then added: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both
ways,
because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself
in
a position. On balance, I probably would have voted for it."

His clarification, along with a slapped-together schedule in which he met
few voters and offered no specifics on domestic issues, seemed to reflect
the inexperience of the first-time candidate and disorganization in his
nascent campaign.

His debut day in Iowa, whose early caucus is crucial to the Democratic
Party's nomination process, was barely a toe touch, with a brief diner
stop
and a pageant of 10-minute news media interviews crammed between private
receptions surrounding the long-scheduled nonpolitical lecture, for which
a
foundation paid $25,000. (General Clark receives 80 percent.)

Despite his disappointment with reports of his airborne interview,
including
one in The New York Times, General Clark seemed as comfortable as could be
in his new role as candidate, stopping frequently to slap shoulders as he
strode across the university campus.

Although he considered a presidential race for a month, he balked at most
questions, saying he would spend this weekend at home in Little Rock,
Ark.,
working on policy positions. Among the issues he told voters he was not
ready to discuss in detail were health care, education, employment, AIDS
in
Africa, the USA Patriot Act and medical marijuana. In interviews this
afternoon, he referred to a talking-point tip sheet on the hot local
issues
of ethanol and farm subsidies.

"I don't know enough to give you a comprehensive answer at this point," he
said in response to a voter's question about universal health insurance.
"I
know enough not to give you a comprehensive answer at this point."

Regarding a complicated proposal about financing AIDS research and
prevention abroad, he said, "I'm not committing anything right now to
anything, until I've got my economic facts and figures in order."

snip

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 04:26:29 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


The guys is either back-tracking on things he's said in the past...or he's
"not committing" right now.

Let the Weasly Watch begin!


September 20, 2003
Clark Explains Statement on Authorization for Iraq War
By JODI WILGOREN


OWA CITY, Sept. 19 - On the third day of his campaign, Gen. Wesley K. Clark
struggled today to clarify his statement on Thursday that he would
"probably" have voted for the Congressional resolution authorizing the
invasion of Iraq.

General Clark, a former NATO commander who has retired from the Army, never
denied making the statement in an interview with four reporters on his
chartered plane. But he seemed stunned by the headlines that it generated,
as supporters worried that he had undercut his position as an antiwar
candidate with military bona fides.

"I never would have voted for war," he said here this afternoon in an
interview and in response to a question after a lecture at the University of
Iowa. "What I would have voted for is leverage. Leverage for the United
States to avoid a war. That's what we needed to avoid a war."

Speaking about the resolution on Thursday, General Clark said, "At the time,
I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a
question."

He then added: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways,
because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in
a position. On balance, I probably would have voted for it."

His clarification, along with a slapped-together schedule in which he met
few voters and offered no specifics on domestic issues, seemed to reflect
the inexperience of the first-time candidate and disorganization in his
nascent campaign.

His debut day in Iowa, whose early caucus is crucial to the Democratic
Party's nomination process, was barely a toe touch, with a brief diner stop
and a pageant of 10-minute news media interviews crammed between private
receptions surrounding the long-scheduled nonpolitical lecture, for which a
foundation paid $25,000. (General Clark receives 80 percent.)

Despite his disappointment with reports of his airborne interview, including
one in The New York Times, General Clark seemed as comfortable as could be
in his new role as candidate, stopping frequently to slap shoulders as he
strode across the university campus.

Although he considered a presidential race for a month, he balked at most
questions, saying he would spend this weekend at home in Little Rock, Ark.,
working on policy positions. Among the issues he told voters he was not
ready to discuss in detail were health care, education, employment, AIDS in
Africa, the USA Patriot Act and medical marijuana. In interviews this
afternoon, he referred to a talking-point tip sheet on the hot local issues
of ethanol and farm subsidies.

"I don't know enough to give you a comprehensive answer at this point," he
said in response to a voter's question about universal health insurance. "I
know enough not to give you a comprehensive answer at this point."

Regarding a complicated proposal about financing AIDS research and
prevention abroad, he said, "I'm not committing anything right now to
anything, until I've got my economic facts and figures in order."

snip

Politicians in general (left, right, in-between) develop a wonderful
ability to actually chew words as they say them. It helps digestion,
in the likely event that they will have to eat those same words at a
later date.

It is unfortunate for our country that he who minces most is most
often elected, but we have ourselves to blame. Perhaps we didn't
create the system, but we *are* the system, and we don't seem inclined
to change it.

Straight-shooters scare the funders, put the media into a frenzy, and
generally don't get elected. It's become our heritage. It stinks.
noah

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

The guys is either back-tracking on things he's said in the past...or he's
"not committing" right now.

Give the guy five minutes to get his feet wet. There's not a person on
earth who could step into this kind of scrutiny and not be thrashed,
especially someone who hasn't polished his skills as a professional
politician for a couple of decades.

He's a player and he's going to effect the outcome of this election, either
as a Presidential nominee or the VP.

Southern military man with a long record of successful and continually
higher profile leadership responsiblities. He's Karl Rove's worst
nightmare.

jps

What's this?

NOYB running scared of a Democrat?




http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Damn, after one day and jps is already backing down from his prediction
that Weasly would be the next president. Talk about being slick.


"jps" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
...

The guys is either back-tracking on things he's said in the past...or
he's
"not committing" right now.

Give the guy five minutes to get his feet wet. There's not a person on
earth who could step into this kind of scrutiny and not be thrashed,
especially someone who hasn't polished his skills as a professional
politician for a couple of decades.

He's a player and he's going to effect the outcome of this election,
either
as a Presidential nominee or the VP.

Southern military man with a long record of successful and continually
higher profile leadership responsiblities. He's Karl Rove's worst
nightmare.

jps

Gould 0738 wrote:
What's this?

NOYB running scared of a Democrat?




http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm


I don't believe there is a more frightened poster in this newsgroup,
actually. He's a real Nervous Norvus.

"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:bJWab.391682$Oz4.176605@rwcrnsc54...
Damn, after one day and jps is already backing down from his prediction
that Weasly would be the next president. Talk about being slick.

you haven't been paying attention.

"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:bJWab.391682$Oz4.176605@rwcrnsc54...
Damn, after one day and jps is already backing down from his prediction
that Weasly would be the next president. Talk about being slick.

Is this "Weasley" name something that Limbaugh, Hannity, or some other kind
hearted, compassionate conservative dreamed up on the rw talk show format?

If so, this guy bears looking at. It would appear the right is *already*
mobilizing against this guy as if he were the male version of Hillary Clinton.
Anybody that can make the right pee themselves in fright is worth considering.
:-)

Most important aspect of a president? Leadership. It's been a missing
ingredient
at times. Look back in history- the government always worked best when we had
and effective leader at the helm- regardless of party affiliation.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:bJWab.391682$Oz4.176605@rwcrnsc54...
Damn, after one day and jps is already backing down from his
prediction
that Weasly would be the next president. Talk about being slick.

Is this "Weasley" name something that Limbaugh, Hannity, or some other
kind
hearted, compassionate conservative dreamed up on the rw talk show format?

First time I've heard it. Pretty weak. Wouldn't doubt it came from the Fox
News crew but tooth boy could've come up with this moniker on his own.

If so, this guy bears looking at. It would appear the right is *already*
mobilizing against this guy as if he were the male version of Hillary
Clinton.
Anybody that can make the right pee themselves in fright is worth
considering.
:-)

He's a scary opponent. 30 year military man who's regarded as brilliant
strategist. Once he gets his sea legs he's going to be formidable. I think
no matter what, this guy is going to change the complexion of the election
cycle.

Most important aspect of a president? Leadership. It's been a missing
ingredient
at times. Look back in history- the government always worked best when we
had
and effective leader at the helm- regardless of party affiliation.

Our present leader is a testosterone driven child. We need someone with the
moral fiber, presence of mind, and a vision that'll help guide the country
back to self dignity and self restraint -- not possible with a sock puppet
(thanks to Joe Parsons) who's vision extends from protecting the super
wealthy all the way to the rich.

Bush and his administration are unraveling before our eyes. His Presidency
is a series of missteps based on hopeful theories. It's a fitting
circumstance that Wesley Clark should show up just as the cascade of ****
begins piling at Bush's doorstep. Little Shrub is finished, the jig is up.