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