It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clark backtracks on 2002 quote: Iraq and Al Qaeda linked.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   
This is interesting, is it mud slinging coming out of the Democratic camp as infighting?

It is obvious that Clark supported a firm stance on Iraq in 2002 but he backed entirely away from this in 2003.

I don't think the Democrats can win if they flip flop so badly and so obviously. The political middle will reject them I if they keep appearing devious. Even in a leadership battle where the knives come out it seems that all the Democratic front runners are really have to duck and dodge past comments.

Here is a link that contains comments and background on his changing views:

www.nytimes.com...


[Edited on 12-1-2004 by THENEO]




posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Your idea of what is considered a "firm stance on Iraq" is a bit generous.

If the following Clark musing and specualtion pre-war is what you consider a firm stance:

"It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?"

Then this board is full of 'firm stances'. Does speculating that finding water on Mars wouldn't surprise you mean we should invade it? We'd have about as much luck finding WMD's.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Well since you find offense to my usage of language here then you can interpret it any way you wish. I just wish to bring to attention an obvious flip-flop for the benefit of certain Democratic voters (or should I say for certain Democratic policy makers?).



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
Well since you find offense to my usage of language here then you can interpret it any way you wish. I just wish to bring to attention an obvious flip-flop for the benefit of certain Democratic voters (or should I say for certain Democratic policy makers?).


I'm not offended, I'm just calling it spin. Saying it's a flip-flop is a bit of a stretch. And THAT insight is for the benefit of voters as well.

There are much more recent and relevant OBVIOUS flip flops you can post if you're concerned about voters.

Like Rumsfeld saying he knows the WMD's are in big piles around Bagdad. WHOOPS... I never said that.



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 01:57 AM
link   
One doesn't get elected without vehemently disagreeing with the incumbent.




top topics
 
0

log in

join