Clark statement on 9/11

[dave29]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=703&e=4&u=/ap/20040109/ap_on_el_pr/clark_attacks

CONCORD, N.H. - Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark (news - web sites) said "the two greatest lies" of the last three years were that the Sept. 11 attacks could not have been prevented and that a future attack is inevitable.

"If I'm president of the United States, I'm going to take care of the American people," Clark told the Concord Monitor for a story published Friday. "We are not going to have one of these incidents."

snip

Meeting on Thursday with the Monitor editorial board, Clark said: "I think the two greatest lies that have been told in the last three years are: You couldn't have prevented 9-11 and there's another one that's bound to happen."

Most terrorism experts contend the country has much to do to defend itself against a future attack. However, they say complete security cannot be achieved because of the vast number of potential targets and if civil liberties are to be maintained.


While I agree with just about everything Clark says here - is it really wise to say we won't have another terrorist incident in this country if he is President? Blanket promises like that come back to haunt people in a major way. "No new taxes" comes to mind.

[Jack_Dawson]

1. It's a bit overreaching

But I like his attax on Bush.

[KittyWampus]

18. Overreaching? Where Does Clark Say He'll Prevent Anything From Happening?

The poster who started the thread (Dave) is trying to start crap.

Bush ignored warnings from Clinton, Domestic Intelligence and Foreign Intelligence. He even claims 9/11 couldn't have been predicted let alone prevented. This is FALSE.

Clark does NOT say he will prevent any type of terrorist event.

It's obvious that he means he will not allow warnings to go unheeded.

Recognize the original posters bias and spin, please.

[dave29]

23. hey, you guys are the ones

having to "explain" Clark's statement. To me it seemed pretty straightforward.

We have to defend Dean all the time on this sort of stuff, words being twisted, things taken out of context. I appreaciated the comments people made without getting hysterical - and I see he has indeed made some good statements re: civil liberties. I have some legitimate concerns with Clark and his lobbying activities before he became a candidate. When he makes comments like this, I pay particularly close attention, and need some reassurance he isn't going to sell out civil liberties in the name of "Homeland Security".

Thanks to all who cleared up his position.

[Donna Zen]

26. If you were really paying close attention

then you would know that the record shows he was the only person at the meetings standing up for your civil liberties.


Give me some assurance that Dean won't sell me out?

[dave29]

27. umm

what meetings are you referring to?

[Hep]

2. I agree wholeheartedly, but didn't Dean get bashed for this?

Can someone point out for me the difference between Dean's saying this and Clarks? I'm asking honestly. I agree with Clark 100% and am proud of him for saying this.

[dajabr]

4. Hep, I'm not sure it was simillar...

Did Dean guarantee that attacks on our soil would end with his Presidency?

Now, to be fair - I understand what Clark is getting at, but he may have overreached a tad...

But I think Dean and Clark's aggressive statements on this issue should be praised.

[NashVegas]

6. This is the Part I'm Going To ... Not Enjoy, Exactly, But

Throughout Nov and December I noticed that Clark was often seen on TV interviews and other footage that went well beyond some of the things Dean was saying, both in words and tone. And he was given a pass.

This is going to get interesting

[dansolo]

3. I like this a lot

I like that he is focusing on Bush and his lies, instead of trying to use scare tactics, i.e. Dean can't protect you so you must vote for me. Also, Clark isn't saying that there won't possibly be another terrorist attack, only that another attack is not inevitable, which is what Bush wants people to believe to continue to justify the Patriot Act.

[dave29]

7. He does pretty much say it won't happen if he's President

"We are not going to have one of these incidents."

I get nervous because of his ties to companies like Axciom - the Homeland Security Database company - I'm no fan of the Patriot Act - and I'd like him to back off from this a bit - or atleast affirm his support for civil liberties.

[isbister]

5. Oh, no, Dean-lite!

Looks like Clark is learning the way of the politician well... tell 'em what you think they want to hear:

"Vote for me and I guarantee there will never be another terror attack in the US"

bush has done little to protect America and the next President will have their work cut out for them...doesn't seem wise to be making such promises.

[graelent]

9. Clark's views on Civil Liberties are vague at best

The Issue page on his website has a section for civil liberties, which calls for the re-examination of the Patriot Act, with no statement on which, of any, proposals should be eliminated.

[OKNancy]

11. Just the other day in the "wireside chat"

this was stated

<Clark04.com> - talkleft asks: You have criticized the Patriot Act. Which portions of the Patriot Act would you ask Congress to repeal and why? As President, how will you protect our civil liberties while trying to ensure our safety?
<Wes Clark> - I will suspend the portions of the Patriot Act that have to do with search and seizure law, and we'll go back to old way with probable cause and judges and warrants, and then we'll take the whole act back to the Congress for legislative review. We will have all the authority we need to protect the country from terrorists, but you can't win the war on terror by giving up the very freedoms we're fighting to protect. Wes

[dave29]

13. any comments on holding people indefinately

without any rights? That's my other big concern.

[exJW]

8. This worried me at first

But I see his point now. It's all in the word "inevitable". If we view another attack as "inevitable", then there is nothing we can do to stop it. The man thinks positive and proactively.

[Renew Deal]

10. "We are not going to have one of these incidents."

Meaning that his administration wouldn't ignore the warnings.

[dave29]

12. Well

I can go for that interpretation. But it seems like a pretty straightforward guaruntee of no further attacks on our soil if he is Presdident.

Regardless, I could use some more specifics from Clark on Civil Liberties and his views on the Patriot Act.

[Renew Deal]

14. Here you go

http://clark04.com/issues/patriotact/

Civil Liberties and the USA PATRIOT Act

Using appropriate tools responsibly, for effective law enforcement

I believe that law enforcement should have access to all necessary tools to deal with the problems of terrorism, which is why I'm calling for an immediate $40 billion investment in homeland security. But I don't believe that we can win a war on terror if we give up the essence of who we are as Americans. That's why I think that Congress should fully review the so-called USA PATRIOT Act - and repeal the provisions that go too far.

The USA PATRIOT Act was jammed through Congress in a matter of weeks, when the country was still in shock from the horrific attacks of September 11th. It wasn't carefully drafted and it wasn't fully debated. More troubling is that, in just two years, the Act has grown the tentacles that many feared. Last month, a Justice Department report admitted that the John Ashcroft has actually expanded the substantial reach of the Act, using it to snoop in secrecy for evidence of crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism.

Now Ashcroft is proposing the PROTECT Act. Among other curtailments, the proposed bill all but forbids prosecutors from agreeing to downward departures from the rigid federal sentencing guidelines, increasing the chance that individual punishments won't actually fit individual crimes. It also instructs prosecutors to report judges that order departures from sentencing guidelines - creating the very real possibility that judges will be put on a DOJ blacklist.

I am concerned that the USA PATRIOT Act goes too far in expanding the authority of government investigators, and that it does so without sufficient oversight. We need to make sure that we are taking responsible measures to meet the needs of the time. That's why I'll call on Congress to fully review each provision of the Act, study the ways in which each has been used in practice, and eliminate those provisions that unduly threaten our civil liberties.

[dave29]

19. thanks for your responses

and the info. Still think this wasn't one of his brighter statements - but in the context of how good Dean or Clark or really any of the Dems will be on National Security compared to Bush - he's absolutely right about the failures of this administration.

[KittyWampus]

15. Exactly- Clark Won't Have An Incident Where Warnings Went Unheeded

seems pretty obvious that's what he's saying.

Junior DID have warnings. At the very LEAST from Clinton. Also from intelligence agencies abroad and at home.

No, Clark is not saying he can prevent ANYTHING from happening. But he will avoid Bush's sick polict of ignoring warnings.

[returnable]

17. Bingo

"Meaning that his administration wouldn't ignore the warnings."

Exactly.

A big theme of Clark's campaign was the failure of the Bush administration to take responsibility for the intelligence breakdowns pre-9/11 and all the finger pointing that went on afterwards.

It seems to me those are the kinds of "incidences" he won't allow to happen.

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. Here's what I "think" he means.

He would not have ignored the Clinton administrations briefings for, how long? 9-10 months? He would have heeded the warnings he was given. Bush and his administration ignored the entire thing. Poo pooed it for a while. Thought it was all an exaggeration. You know, that silly Clinton administration, they don't know anything. Clark would have been proactive.

As for future attacks? He will improve our relations with all the countries that Bush has alienated and HOPEFULLY change our foreign policies around the world. That's what he means by that statement. He will work his ass off to improve our standing in the eyes of the world and he won't ignore it, like Bush did.

[worldgonekrazy]

20. I think its damn near being a LIHOP allegation

Maybe I'm reading into it too much, but to say that it could have been stopped and won't happen under his watch certainly seems to imply that the Bush Admin. had something to do with it. At the very least we are talking extreme negligence but I believe (and I think Clark does too) that there is something more to it.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. It's close - it's a SHLIH allegation

Shouldn't Have Let It Happen.

The information was there, and a degree more concern about terrorism would have gotten the information together on the same table. As more and more comes to light, we may actually find the information on the same table, as in the August PDB on Al Qaeda tactics. Bush's ignorance may grow increasingly undefensible.

But for now, the responsible public position for any Democratic candidate is SHLIH.

[worldgonekrazy]

25. Yeah I agree

I'm just saying that I thought there was a bit of an underlying LIHOP allegation for those in the know. To say it outright though would definitely be political suicide at this point.

[Donna Zen]

29. Operation Ignore

Read Franken...he is very good and very well documented. I'm sure Clark knows even more details about Operation Ignore than those that appear in Franken's book. There is no problem in proving that the administration was negligent. It is very different than confirming Saudi telephone calls.

[dave29]

32. what a great book that was

I so hope he gets his radio show :)

[phillybri]

22. He should be commended for not peddling FEAR!!!!

Right on, General...

[Donna Zen]

24. Not a blanket promise

Hart and Rudman agree...you can stop the "big" ones. And those are the ones you have to worry about. Clinton stopped the big ones.

[sfecap]

28. What a stupid statement.

"The biggest lie at election time is when people running for office tell people like you that if you vote for me I will solve all your problems." - Howard Dean

[dave29]

30. I thought about posting this

but figured I'd get my head chewed off.

Kudos for bravery :)

[DoYouEverWonder]

31. The only way to stop terrorism

is to take on the BCF. Is Clark willing to do that? Is he willing to expose the rogue elements in our so called intelligence community that are the real source of terrorism against US interests?

[dave29]

33. kick - this was the original post

if you want to close the other threads

[killbotfactory]

34. What will he promise to end next? Death? Taxes? Cancer? Jealousy?

Dumb dumb dumb. This is the kind of false bravado bullshit you'd hear from Bush.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.