Clark camp backs off abortion statement [Non-Denial Denial! Still backs abortion to full-term!]

Clark camp backs off abortion statement
By GIL BLISS
Sunday News Correspondent

MILFORD — Pancakes and politics helped warm the frigid air yesterday morning as retired four-star Gen. Wesley Clark spoke to an adoring packed house at the Veterans of Foreign Wars post.

Outside the breakfast, Clark responded to criticism in an editorial last week in The Union Leader about the abortion rights issue that came following a midweek meeting with editorial staff. In that meeting, Clark said he would not appoint a pro-life federal judge and that the government should not impinge on a woman’s decision to have an abortion, even right up until birth.

“I’m pro-choice and I believe that if judges are of judicial temperament, that’s what they are, because Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and that’s what I stand by,” Clark said. “You can not get between a woman and her doctor — that’s the way it is.”

Press secretary Jamal Simmons said the editorial board “tried to get him to go on record as saying that Clark would allow abortions up until the moment of birth.”

“What he said is ‘We’re not going to get into a debate about timing,’” said Simmons.

A transcript of the session reveals the following exchange between Clark and Joseph W. McQuaid, publisher of The Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News.

McQuaid: Let’s take an issue. Abortion. Are there any limits on it in your mind?

Clark: I say that it’s up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience, and law — not the law. You don’t put the law in there. Yesterday, Simmons said “Republicans and conservatives want to pin you down in debates about timing, but this isn’t about timing, it’s about whether we trust a woman and her doctor to make medical decisions that are in the best interest about her and her life.”

“The issue here is whether or not we’re going to try to inject politics and government into a medical decision by a woman and her doctor and his answer is ‘No, we’re not going to do that.’” [Emphasis added.]

Generating excitement

At the pancake breakfast, Clark seemed to be generating the same level of excitement exhibited at the rallies of Republican Sen. John McCain four years ago. He was followed by a large group of media covering the event and the crowd had the expected Democrats — as well as quite a few independents — out to hear Clark along with a few Republicans wearing their veteran’s hats, drawn by Clark’s 34-year military record.

Clark was joined by former Navy Secretary John Dalton and was introduced by post commander Carl Silva of Mont Vernon, who served, as did Clark, with the Army 1st Infantry Division.

Shots at President George W. Bush were well-received by the crowd while Clark did not mention any of his fellow Democratic Presidential hopefuls.

“I want to bring a higher standard of leadership to this country,” Clark said. “I’m not running to bash George W. Bush — I’m running to replace him.”

He offered “leadership that will be good for the next generation — not just the next election cycle.”

“I don’t think it’s patriotic to dress up in a flight suit and prance around on the deck of an aircraft carrier,” Clark said. ‘Cloud of fear’

“George W. Bush didn’t do everything he could to protect us before 9/11 and after 9/11 he took us into a war we didn’t have to fight in Iraq and today, we’re still living under a cloud of fear,” he said.

“That’s a function of bad leadership and we can do better in this country,” Clark said. “We will protect American, we will go after Osama Bin Laden, we’ll get out of this mess in Iraq the right way and we will rebuild our armed forces after what we’ve put them through.”

Clark said his party wants to help those who are less fortunate and promote family values that will hold families together. That requires attention to new jobs, health care, education, the environment.”

“Under George W. Bush, college tuitions at public institutions have risen 28 percent in three years,” Clark said. “Now I don’t know anybody whose incomes are going up 28 percent unless they’re associated with Halliburton.” Promises made

Clark promised grants for college, income tax reform, health insurance and said his administration would lift two million children out of poverty. He said he would promote affirmative action.

Steve Rougeau of Milford said he had listened to Clark on the news, found that “he speaks well” and “wanted to hear him in person when he was right here in town.”

John Butler of Hollis said he had narrowed his choice down to Clark or (Howard) Dean and “wanted to hear what he has to say.”

Peggy Mithoefer of Hollis said she has become a Clark supporter and likes his “clarity and intellect. I think he has the best shot at beating Bush,” she said.

A few days ago, Wesley Clark made a blanket statement that if elected to the Presidency, he would support abortions up to the moment of birth and would not appoint “pro-life” judges. At the time, I didn’t think it was possible for a politician to be as politically clumsy as to dedicate himself to such an indefensible position. The positions attributed to Clark deserve serious coverage and debate, because Clark would presumably be in a position as President to appoint a Supreme Court justice within the next few terms of the Court. Given the seriousness of the issue, I personally thought that perhaps the newspaper that quoted Clark, the Manchester Union Leader, had somehow confused his words or misquoted him.

Right on cue, Clark is now attempting to back away from his statements on abortion. He now claims through his press secretary that the Machester Union Leader misquoted him and twisted his words in a deliberate attempt to get the candidate to support a position that amounts to political suicide. However, his strategy does not reassure the public that this candidate would not, in fact, support abortions up until birth or impose a strict litmus test in the appointment of judges to the Federal bench.

Unfortunately for Clark, the record seems to show that the newspaper did not misquote him at all. Wesley Clark expressed support for abortion up until the moment of birth. The story isn’t about his “confusion”, but rather about an embarrassing kowtow to an extreme constituency that will later require an astounding flip-flop. Here is a transcript of Clark’s interview with the Manchester Union Leader:

“A transcript of the session reveals the following exchange between Clark and Joseph W. McQuaid, publisher of The Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News.

McQuaid: Let’s take an issue. Abortion. Are there any limits on it in your mind?

Clark: I don’t think you should get the law involved in abortion—

McQuaid: At all?

Clark: Nope.

McQuaid: At all?

Clark: It’s between a woman, her doctor, her friends and her family.

McQuaid: Late term abortion? No limits?

Clark: Nope.

McQuaid: Anything up to delivery?

Clark: Nope, nope.

McQuaid: Anything up to the head coming out of the womb?

Clark: I say that it’s up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience, and law — not the law. You don’t put the law in there. Yesterday, Simmons [Clark’s press secretary] said ‘Republicans and conservatives want to pin you down in debates about timing, but this isn’t about timing, it’s about whether we trust a woman and her doctor to make medical decisions that are in the best interest about her and her life.’

‘The issue here is whether or not we’re going to try to inject politics and government into a medical decision by a woman and her doctor and his answer is ‘No, we’re not going to do that.’’”

I would say that Clark’s words speak for themselves. At the time of this interview, he did indeed support abortion of babies up until the moment of birth. In fact, he even went so far as to support abortion up to the moment “the head [is] coming out of the womb”. Clark’s press secretary has also come out with a non-denial denial, claiming that “Republicans” are somehow making the “debate” about “timing”, without denying that his candidate has announced an extreme position on abortion not shared by any candidate of either party. Amazingly, the newspaper editor even gave Clark several chances to qualify his answer rather than just let him hurt himself accidentally. The questions sound almost incredulous that a major party candidate for national office could really stand behind such an astoundingly ignorant and arrogant position, and Clark was given more than a few opportunities to qualify his remarks.

In short, Wesley Clark’s problem isn’t that the newspaper misquoted him, but rather that he is stuck between a rock and a hard place. For obvious reasons bearing on his ultimate electibility, Clark cannot stand behind the statement he made that abortion should be allowed until the baby is born. On the other hand, extreme feminists and abortion activists are bedrock Democratic Party activists, and if he wants to win the party primary, he had better bow and bow deep to them. Therefore, he can’t stand behind his own statement, and he can’t deny it.

He can, however, put out a laughable press release and send his flacks scurrying to somehow blame their candidate’s extreme position on “Republicans”.

Finally, I would like you to note that neither Clark or his campaign denies that the candidate intends to impose a strict abortion litmus test on Federal judicial nominations. Recall that a few days ago, Clark summed up his thoughts on the subject by saying:

“I’m not going to be appointing judges who are pro-life.”

Indeed.

Tasty Manatees

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.