"We can't do an attack on the US, Clark got elected!" Where is Clark's brain?
Clark Vows No Terrorist Attacks
Security Issues Dominate in N.H.
By Jonathan Finer and Paul Schwartzman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, January 10, 2004; Page A07
CONCORD, N.H., Jan 9 -- 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.
The "two greatest lies" told to Americans in recent years are that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks could not have been prevented and that future attacks are inevitable, Clark told the editorial board of the Concord Monitor, according to an article published Friday.
As president, Clark added, he would "take care of the American people" and "we would not have one of these incidents."
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), who often touts his record on security issues, and who is well behind Clark in New Hampshire polls as both men seek support from the state's independent voters, called Clark's claim "odd" and said such a blanket guarantee "runs the risk of creating a credibility gap."
Earlier in the day, on a New Hampshire public radio call-in program, Lieberman said that "one of the reasons September 11 happened was because we were disorganized."
He also reiterated a claim he last aired in mid-December that "repeated meetings" between al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence officers during the 1990s suggest the possibility of a link between the terrorist organization and the government of Saddam Hussein. "I couldn't conclude that they were not involved with al Qaeda, because there were all these contacts," Lieberman said. "There's smoke there, and I don't think we should dismiss the possibility that there might have been fire."
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said this week that he had not seen "smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection" between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Lieberman's hawkish reputation is a key aspect of his frequent claim to being "the electable Democrat" who could defeat President Bush by "going after him in areas where he is considered strong," such as national security.
Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), before leaving New Hampshire for Iowa, said: "I don't think any of us saw anything to prevent 9/11. The truth is we all failed on 9/11." Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), also campaigning in New Hampshire, called Clark's comments an "overstatement," adding that because the United States is an open society, it is vulnerable to attack.
Clark stood by his remarks Friday, but he acknowledged, "Nobody can guarantee anything in life but it's clear that we can do much more to prevent an attack on the American homeland."
"When I'm president of the United States, he said, "I will do more."
Bush, the retired general said, "took us after the wrong opponent." Clark typically chides Bush for focusing more on Hussein than on al Qaeda.
Staff writer Vanessa Williams contributed to this report.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company |
