HELP! Wash Post transcript DELETED Clark's preemption answer

[robbedvoter]

I need the transcript from your tapes - those who watched.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5841-2003Oct9.html

Here's the "complete transcript. I was looking for his answer urging
candidates in the debate to do away with preemption. I only found its
vestiges: "Well Judy, people want leadership - the rest WAS EDITED OUT!

[Renew Deal]

1. I checked it, you are right. Post this on the Clark Blog, and

email it to the clark blog people and the campaign. Also call Little Rock. This is bullshit.

[robbedvoter]

3. I posted it on the blog, I dunno know how to get the other venues

Please do it if you can! This must be addressed - I sent it to MWO, I put it on the DNC blog and I asked Atrios&al to look into it. I waited before writing the post for a transcript of the missing answer. Maybe I shouldn't.

[madfloridian]

2. That is NOT complete by any means.

They should not say it is. I do not see a word about the *fax* Judy Woodruff and Kerry brought out. Was that edited out also. I do not see that Dean had any time at all without being interrupted by Judy and everyone else.

[robbedvoter]

4. Good. Than we should all write and point these things out.

C-Span will have the debate this weekend - I am sure. I'll tape it then. But in the meanwhile if people in the other campaigns would get involved we could blow this conspiracy of dunces to bits. Thanks so much for your imput. I am sure others will find more.

[KittyWampus]

5. Here Is What Was Deleted

CLARK:

"...This administration's preemptive doctrine is CAUSING North Korea and Iran to ACCELERATE their nuclear
weapons development. Now there are some of us who aren't in Washington right now, but I'd like to ask all
those who are...lets see some leadership in the United States Congress. Let's see you take apart that
doctrine of preemption NOW. I don't think we can wait until November 2004 to change the administration on
this threat. We're marching into another military campaign in the Middle East. We need to stop it." WC.

They Ignored him after that!

[robbedvoter]

6. THANK YOU! Fortunately, CNN covered this too:

Clark, who has been very critical of the Bush administration's foreign
policy since entering the race, charged Thursday that its "pre-emptive
doctrine," as expressed in attacking Iraq, "is causing North Korea and
Iran to accelerate their nuclear weapons development."
He also challenged other candidates who serve in Congress to directly
confront the president on that issue.
"Let's see you take apart that doctrine of pre-emption now. I don't
think we can wait until November of 2004 to change the administration on
this threat," he said. "We're marching into another military campaign in
the Middle East. We need to stop it."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/elec04.prez.democrats.debate/index.html

Time to call the Post on it!

[Octafish]

7. "There are some things the general public does not need to know...."

... and shouldn't," is how the late Katherine Graham put it, when discussing her responsibilities as publisher of that great newspaper in a speech at the CIA. In part, I agree. Not here, by a long shot.

http://www.counterpunch.org/graham.html

Thanks, cryingshame!

[John_H]

8. just e-mailed geller, or whatever his name is

Aaron browns excuse when i wrote about CNN's altering Blix's transcript was that some low level web nerd did it. Wonder what the Post'll come up with.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Why was this deleted from a transcript?

Preemption justifies WMD by any country that fears a future US invasion, and I will include Brazil on that list. This is an important issue.

Was this an oversight on the part of WP, or is there something sinister about it?