Reply #38: blah, blah, blah [View All]

[plurality]

Spin it however you want. It still doesn't change history. And it's a historical FACT that on the day Clark announced his candidacy he said he would have voted for IWR and he then said he wouldn't have voted for it the next day.

If it's as clear cut as you state, then why didn't he come out and say it that way? Instead he stumbled around, said he would have voted for it, then called out for his press secretary for help.

Here's the evidence-
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/09/19/clark_says_he_probably_would_have_voted_for_war/


"On balance, I probably would have voted for it," Clark said. "The simple truth is this: When the president of the United States comes to you and makes the linkages and lays the power of the office on you, and you're in a crisis, the balance of the judgment probably goes to the president of the United States."

Now two weeks later

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/10/24/clarks_scrambled_message_on_iraq/

"I would have voted no on that resolution," Clark said during that call. "I had serious concerns that the president had no intention of really building an international coalition." Clark said his doubts came as the result of discussions with friends in the Pentagon.

So first he would have voted for it, then he wouldn't have voted for it. Sounds quite sure of his position to me.