Reply #26: You're right and I apologize [View All]

[Jai4WKC08]

I had read this item before, and forgot that part. I only plead that DU doesn't let you look at the OP when you hit reply farther down the thread.

I guess it didn't stick in my memorty for a couple reasons. Mostly because to me, the point of the article is that Congressional Democrats are finally getting serious about national security, and they're looking to Clark to help them define (and frame) their message. (Whoohoo!) ;)

But the other reason I had sort of glossed over that part, I think, is because Clark's position has always been that we never should have gone into Iraq, but that now that we're there, we must have success (which he has clearly defined, unlike the Bushies). So it wasn't controversial or surprising when I read it the first time, and didn't make an impression.

Seems to me, no matter how stupid the war is, to let Iraq collapse into civil war and/or Taliban-esque control is just not an option. Not if we want some sort of regional stability and not mo' bigger war later on. We have to deal with the world as it is, not as it ought to be. Besides, I think we owe something to the Iraqis.

One more thing. I realized I was wrong when I read FrenchieCat's most excellent explanation and went back and re-read the OP. Should have offered my "mea culpa" then, and apologize for being remiss in that too.