The Command Post
2004 US Presidential Election
« Michigan's Online Ballot Spurs New Strategies for Democrats | Main | Candidate RSS Feeds Added »
January 10, 2004
Clark | Clark Vows No Terrorist Attacks

You want a campaign promise? THIS is a campaign promise. From ED / WaPo:

After two days of jousting over their various tax plans, Democratic presidential candidates crisscrossing the Granite State turned their attention to national security Friday, prompted by a statement from retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark that if he were elected president there would be no further terrorist attacks in America.
Editor: Willing to write that in blood, Wes?



Posted by Alan at January 10, 2004 03:09 PM | TrackBack
Comments

How can the former general possibly think he can prevent any and all attacks the evil doers may decide to launch against the U.S? The Bush administration has successfully done so for over two years, but eventually the evil doers will find a vulnerability and get lucky. So much for the national security experience.

Posted by: Dan Spencer at January 10, 2004 06:15 PM

He could just get China to nuke us, Europe, Australia, and Japan. Maybe India, too. Then there’d be nobody left to terrorize. The Islamists that survive would then implode; with no developed nations left to hate, they’d turn their hatred on one another.

Posted by: gus3 at January 10, 2004 06:43 PM

Maybe Wes can arrange to have state actors (instead of non-state actors) do the attacking. That way, it isn’t a terrorist attack, it is an act of war.

MG

Posted by: MG at January 10, 2004 08:16 PM

What a pompous conniver. He sound like Brett Favre in those tv commercials.

“I would have stopped all those terrorists.” as he strolls by the WTC.”

Posted by: jones at January 10, 2004 09:41 PM

So help me, this reads as: He’ll stop attacking America if elected.

You mean, he’ll have what he wants? So why continue? ( Phone ringing in background. “Hey, guys, we won. Knock it off.)

Ye gods.

Posted by: Jrm at January 10, 2004 11:16 PM

Is Clark planning to use torture? Is he in favor of the Patriot Act or does he want even stricter law enforcement? He wants to abandon the Bill of Rights? He wants to pass a UN resolution banning terrorist attacks against the US? Or will he just make the terrorists eat some of those New Hampshire pancakes he’s been flipping-without the syrup?

Posted by: Barry at January 11, 2004 12:53 AM

Anyone know of a link to an actual transcript… Clark has a rep as a serious military man, this alleged statement sounds to rediculous to be true.

Posted by: AnyoneButBush2004 at January 11, 2004 03:13 AM

Clark has a reputation as a pompus ass who lets nothing stand in the way of his ambitions.

“As president, Clark added, he would “take care of the American people” and “we would not have one of these incidents.” “
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4718-2004Jan9.html

On the other hand, maybe Clark is planning to bring onboard his buddy and famous war criminal Ratko Mladic seen here palling around with our serious general and trading head gear.
http://realpolitik.us/archives/001376.php

Posted by: Mark Buehner at January 11, 2004 04:42 AM

Bush2004,

Clark made an idiot out of himself on CNN as a Military Expert. Need more troops, bogged down, Sadaamgrad, 10,000’s of casulties. Everytime he opened his mouth a toad popped out.

Posted by: jones at January 11, 2004 08:40 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.


Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)