Wes Clark - Testifying on Iraq: April 6, at DC for HASC

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITEE - Home Page
--------------------------------------------------------

The Full Committee will meet to receive testimony on Iraq's past, present and future.

Hearing Schedule for the Week of April 4 - April 8 2005
_________________________________________________________

Wednesday, April 6- 10:00am-2118 Rayburn- Open

Witnesses:

General Wesley Clark, United States Army (ret.),
Former Combatant Commander, European Command

Honorable (PNACklehead :freak:) Richard Perle,
Former Assistant Secretary of Defense,
International Security Policy

http://armedservices.house.gov/schedules/

_________________________________________________________

The American patriot vs the neocon (PNACklehead)

_________________________________________________________

[Clark2008]

1. So, basically, they're pitting these two against one another again,

which is what happened prior to the Iraqi war.
Perle was the Bush Administration's rebuttal witness to Clark's testimony.

[Jai4WKC08]

5. Yeah, but Pearle held his testimony

Until Clark had left the chamber. And if you read the the transcript, it's not like he wasn't there a long time.

Chickenhawks are amazingly gutless. By definition, I suppose. But unfortunately, they're also smart enough to avoid fights they know they'll lose... Unless they can make sure it's someone else who'll take the risks. Like the soldiers and marines in Iraq.

[Clark2008]

6. That doesn't surprise me

What makes this debate even more interesting is not only what will be said, but, to the sheeple, how it looks.
I'm guessing that an attractive and articulate Clark will be much better received by MOST Americans than the sneering and leering Perle (excepting, of course, for the hard-righters who think Perle actually has something usful to contribute).

[kevsand]

2. Weren't these guys together

on Fox a couple weeks ago? Any chance this could be turning into a Tim Leary/Gordon Liddy kind of deal? Or maybe a sitcom based on the old John Wayne movie ("The General and the Geisha").

Seriously, though, glad to see Congress asking someone who knows what they're talking about to speak publicly on Iraq. I'm referring, of course, to the general, not the geisha.

[Totally Committed]

3. I think one is meant to rebutt the other...

depending on who is set to testify first.

Since it is a Republican-led committe, my guess is Perle will get the last word.

Wes should kick some real butt... I hear C-SPAN may cover it live.

More information coming soon at:
www.securingamerica.com

TC

[kevsand]

4. I'm sure that's what they intend.

Perle is listed second, and the schedule listing is usually the order they actually go in.

[Totally Committed]

7. Rats!...

I knew it!

Well, at least he's testifying.

TC

[Clarkie1]

11. But of course...

[kevsand]

8. Has anyone heard

whether CSPAN will be carrying it? Some folks over at Yahoo were talking about contacting them...

[Jai4WKC08]

9. No word yet

But a few of us have written, asking them to. The HASC often does get covered, esp when it meets in full committee, like this time. Probably depends on what else is going on that morning.

[CarolNYC]

10. thanks for posting this...

I do hope CSpan telelvises it.

I understand the General had to postpone the April 5th Broadway thing until later in the month because he was asked to testify at this.

[paineinthearse]

12. Suggest to CSPAN

Whenever you learn of worthy events, suggest CSPAN cover.

Send email with full details to [e-mail]

[Totally Committed]

13. See this thread at Kos:

Go, Armando!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/2/171355/6258

TC

[Clarkie1]

14. I just heard Perle on NPR radio about an hour ago.

They had a soundbite of him talking about "Tsunami of freedom sweeping the Middle East."

:puke:

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

16. Perle is prepping for battle against Clark this Wednesday...

That neocon has used "Tsunami" in the right context,... PNAC'kleheads have caused utter destruction, chaos, and death with thier tsunami! to

Their failure to construct a real strategy for peace in the ME, was the real reason he chose to use, "freedom", but it's intended to just mask another illusion of PNAC's guilt for this disaster in ME policies.

Clark will expose Perle's magic act of deceit, with more "truth" this Wednesday, and hopefully he'll help contribute towards a "successful" outcome for America's that results in peace for the region.

[Totally Committed]

15. Clark Blogger Conference Call to Outline his Testimony:

Posted at Kos:

Mon Apr 4th, 2005 at 13:10:53 PST

This morning, I had the opportunity to participate in a blogger conference call with General Wesley Clark in preparation for his upcoming testimony in front of the House Armed Services Committee. Other bloggers also invited include Juan Cole, Armando from Daily Kos, and Jerome Armstrong (Jerome was apparently unable to make the call).

The General began by providing an outline of his testimony. The three areas he will adress are as follows:

1. What went wrong in Iraq

2. *How we get out of there the right way

3. The Implications for the Armed Services

More on the flip.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/4/161053/1412

* The emphasis is mine.

----

Here is the diary about the call:

When he appeared before the committee in September 2002, he stated his belief that force should be used as a last resort, only after all diplomatic actions had been exhausted. Because these steps were not fully achieved, America lacks legitimacy in the region. As a result of this lack of legitimacy -- which is also based in part on a poorly implemented de-Ba'athification, a lack of security in the country, and the failure to reconstruct parts of the Iraqi infrastructure -- we "emotionally empowered the insurgency."

In September 2002, the army claimed that it would only need 75,000 troops in the country. Today, there are seventeen brigades on the ground (out of the 33 active duty brigades available. As a result, the situation is not sustainable. To get out the right way, three tool kits must be implemented. They are:

An effective military: It is extremely important to be effective in training the Iraqis. Right now, we are not resourced for that.

Political: Paul Bremer was completely ineffective, and thought Ambassador Negroponte got an election, he will be leaving soon. (At this point, I was briefly bumped off of the line)

Diplomatic: (I was still off the line for most of this bullet point)
This is the first time that the all-volunteer army has been in sustained action. Already, the effects on the troops can be seen, and there has been an "incalculable consequence for their families."
We need a larger active duty force. This will cost significantly more money, but that money has not yet come. As a result, we are "overextended and off balance."

At this point, the floor was opened to questions. As no one stepped in immediately (I think they asked for a question from Armando, but he may have still ben on mute), I stepped in and asked a slightly off-topic question. (As interested as I am in Iraq -- the topic of this conference call -- my interest primarily lies in the political consequences of the war and General Clark's political stature and ambitions.)

In a somewhat rambling way, I noted to the General that he seemed to be taking a larger role in Democratic politics in the past few weeks (with the re-launch of his website, his mass email and blogad campaign on FCC restrictions, etc., though I didn't mention them at the time) and asked him if this foreshadows something to come in 2006 or 2008.

The General replied that I had worded my question in an interesting way (I suppose I had) because he had never stopped campaigning for John Kerry ("I've never stopped being active"). Though he reiterated his commitment to forwarding and improving the Democratic Party -- to make it "know enough" and be "strong enough" to defend the American people -- he gently neglected to answer my question. (He's clearly much more adept at navigating such questions than he was in September 2003.)

Armando jumped in next and asked if the Iraqi election meant anything. Clark responded that though "the administration has taken advantage of the election," Sunni participation was low (as Armando noted in his question). As a result, the election has not yet brought the country together.

Juan Cole followed up with an extremely interesting question (I will not even attempt to reword it) inquiring as to how we get a soft landing in Iraq. General Clark explained that we need to bring in Arab troops from Gulf states and train more Iraqi troops so we can begin to decrease American participation. This presupposes the legitimacy of the Iraqi government, which will be contingent on politics on the ground and diplomacy in the region.

A larger question surrounding American involvement in Iraq that must be answered is if the American presence in Iraq will lead to (or rather is a result of) the larger US involvement in the region. The President laid out a plan to the American Enterprise Institute for reshaping the Middle East along the lines of policies created by Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and others for Benjamin Netanyahu. The plan entailed Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon and regime change in Syria and Iran. Teheran "sees what's coming," so they have a vested interest in aligning with Syria. As a result, right now we're not moving "towards a soft landing but a deeper, quixotic involvement in the region.

Armando brought up the recent attack on Abu Ghraib and asked General Clark what to make of the Zarqawi attack. Clark noted that it is relatively unguarded and has been attacked before. He then explained that the attack was Zarqawi's attempt to gain legitimacy in the country by attacking the symbol of American hubris. (Hubris is my word. I can't remember exactly how Clark put it, but it was something to that effect.) Unlike the case in Vietnam, he said, there's no chance for the Iraqies to keep up with superior American strength. As a result, the situation will remain relatively static: suicide attacks and guerilla tactics.

Armando followed up in asking about the advisory role for the Americans in the future (something Clark referenced in his previous answer). I apparently did not take coherent notes on the answer.

I jumped into the conversation with another meandering question on oil. Many in the administration predicted that Iraqi oil revenue would support rebuilding of the country so that American costs would not be more than $1-2 billion. As we've seen, though the Iraqi oil infrastructure is no where near being rebuilt entirely. In related news, oil prices hit a new high of $58 per barrel. I finished this rant by asking how we can get Iraqi oil production up and running again for us, and more importantly, the Iraqis.

Clark noted that even at the end of Saddam's regime, the infrastructure was getting old, so there were preexistring problems with the pipelines. That having been said, the pipelines are being attacked because it's easy. There's no shortcut to protecting the oil lines aside from securing the country as a whole. There simply aren't enough troops, and even if there were one million troops defending the pipelines, insurgents would be able to break through. Nevertheless, the low production level in Iraq has less to do with the price than the rapidly increasing demand, particularly from China and India. Unless the supply begins to grow more rapidly than demand, the price will continue to increase.

Juan Cole -- much more of an expert on oil and Iraq than I will ever be -- followed up by noting that $10-15 of the price of each barrel comes from security concerns in the region (thanks for explicating my question!). He then commented that the pipelines weren't safe during the Saddam period because insurgents didn't want to attack them but rather because the tribes protected them (as a result of bribes and other tactics by the Ba'athists). When the pipelines are attacked today, it shows the complicity of the tribes in the insurgency, in effect proof that the guerilla war is not winding down.

Clark replied, "I don't think you can tell if you're winning this or the attacks are down" for unrelated reasons. He then brought up his bullet points on how to fix the situation before opining, "If there's a way out -- if there's a way -- this is it."

Armando got the last question of the morning. He asked what are the risks of misreading whether we're winning or if the insurgents are merely laying low. Clark first stepped back and reminded us that he's not over there (so he is not seeing the latest data and reports). Nevertheless, he explained that there are three risks:


Staying there and overstaying your welcome. America could become ineffective and eventually be thrown out by the government.

Pulling out too soon. This could lead to a civil war, thus requiring America to step back in.

The risk to the all-volunteer army. If the Armed Forces become discredited (as they were following Vietnam), much work will have to go into rebuilding the army. Part of the problem is that American involvement in Iraq had never solely been about Iraq. This makes the soldiers' job harder.

It was a true honor to get to speak with General Clark again and further to be included with the likes of Juan, Armando and Jerome. As I digest the event, I'll have more on the conversation to come, so check in to my blog Basie! later on for further coverage.

----

For more, see the above link.

TC

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

17. Strategies for Success....

Strategy for Success:

1. An Effective Military:
-"Well,...that's a given!" - WKC

2. Political Participation:
- for internal political fractions within Iraq: Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds.

3. Diplomatic Talks:
- to promote, encourage, engage regional governments in diplomacy, so they may share and express their own interests, and then contribute towards Iraq's stability.

___________________________________________

Clark has always defined these as the "tools" that are needed for a successful strategy, necessary to engage in any campaign. But Perle, the PNAC'kleheads and the neocons relied solely on our military as their ONLY plan, which is why Bu$hCo failed,:wtf: ...and why they still do today with no strategy for success.

I hope Congress, esp the Repub members in HASC, are more interested in our national security over their own partisan interests; and finally force these neocons to come to terms and construct in remediation a success strategy, ...but I wouldn't put much faith in that hope.

[Totally Committed]

18. And, this, from Juan Cole...

Again, the emphasis is mine:

Monday, April 04, 2005
Wesley Clark Conference Call

Wesley Clark held a conference call on the situation in Iraq with some bloggers Monday afternoon, in advance of testifying in Washington on the situation.

He began by pointing out that the US military made an assessment in September of 2002 that it could hold Iraq with 70,000 troops.

(I had not heard this before, and if it is true, and if the assessment came from the officer corps, it means that the typical opposition set up between Gen. Shinseki and others who wanted more troops, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who wanted a small force--might actually reflect a dispute within the officer corps itself, with Rumsfeld siding with the minimalist faction in the brass.)

I asked Gen. Clark how the US attains a "soft landing" in Iraq. I pointed out that the conventional wisdom is that if we just stay the course we will eventually be able to put down the guerrilla insurgency and stand up an Iraqi force that can keep them down.

But the problem is that if we over-stay our welcome, and if we do in fact weaken the Sunni guerrillas sufficiently, there is a danger that at that point the Shiites (no longer afraid of the Sunnis and by then very tired of our military presence) will just toss us out unceremoniously.

Clark replied with words to this effect:

He said that this way of posing the problem suggests the need to bring in Arab troops from regional countries, to have Arab advisers in the field with the Iraqi troops, and to continue train the Iraqi forces.

But the success of this enterprise requires that the government in Iraq have political legitimacy.

He went on to imply that it also requires the cooperation of Iraq's neighbors. He saw a key contradiction in Bush administration policy in Iraq, which is that the operation in Iraq was seen as only a stepping stone to also overthrowing the regimes in Syria and Iran.

He located this policy in part in the Neoconservative circle of Richard Perle and Douglas Feith (Undersecretary of Defense for Policy).

He said the aim was to punish Asad's regime and topple it, and likewise with Iran.

The problem with this idea of using Iraq as a springboard to finish off the regimes in Damascus and Tehran is that Bush has given Syria and Iran every reason to interfere with a soft landing of the US-- indeed, there is a danger of a wider entanglement of the US in the region. (This is all loose paraphrase, not verbatim, but I think I've caught the implications.)

I said I saw no evidence that the guerrilla war was winding down.

Clark: You can't tell where you are with this. If there is a way out, this is the way . There is no basis for the administration to crow that the guerrilla war is winding down.

Clark also made clear that he is not seeing military reports from the ground in Iraq, is not speaking from there, and so his assessment of the military situation is from a distance and not that of an insider. He did insist, nevertheless, that the Iraq crisis differs significantly from Vietnam in that the guerrillas in Iraq are so over-matched that they can never hope to engage in more than hit-and-run operations.

Those operations, however, could go on a long time if the political situation is not handled well.

Cole: I thought Clark put his finger on a key contradiction in the Bush administration "forward policy" in the Middle East, of targeting the governments of Syria and Iran for destruction even while the US needs their cooperation to avoid widening disaster in Iraq. This policy is not rational if it were intended solely for the benefit of the United States, and he thinks it derives from a concern to bolster regional allies even at the expense of US interests.

Clark was asked if this conference call was a sign of his interest in a 2008 presidential bid. He replied that he had supported John Kerry and John Edwards.

If the Democratic Party has any sense, it will indeed go for someone like Clark (who you could imagine winning Arkansas and West Virginia against the Republican candidate) in 2008. If the Dems go for Hilary or someone else with that profile, the red/blue split will look in 2008 exactly as it did in 2004, barring some huge disaster that befalls the Bush administration in the meantime. Plus Hilary has started giving that disgusting standard AIPAC stump speach that Fritz Hollings told us is distributed to you as soon as you get elected to Congress. Now that AIPAC is under investigation for espionage for the Likud Party, maybe someone in the US political establishment can finally start standing up to them and pointing out that what's good for Likud isn't necessarily good for Peoria (or even for Israel, more to the point).

posted by Juan @ 4/4/2005 03:30:00 PM

http://www.juancole.com/

TC

[JohnOneillsMemory]

19. Kucinich: Clark advised a 5 yr/$245billion occupation secretly in 7/03.

What do you think of that? (And isn't it odd for Clark to poll before public testimony on military life-and-death matters? I think it smacks of campaigning, not democracy.)

The allegation of (supposedly) retired General Clark complicity in the occupation of Iraq came from Dennis Kucinich on live TV during a Dem primary debate in September, 2003.

Clark had just joined the race and Kucinich, when asked about providing $87 billion for the war, said it was important to clarify Clark's position. Kucinich said that Congress had been given a security document which Clark helped write which advised Congress to "stay the course" for a 5 year occupation by 150,000 troops costing up to a quarter trillion dollars.

Clark did not deny it. And noone else ever mentioned this document.

It appears that Kucinich blew the whistle on Congressional complicity in a long expensive occupation and Clark's role in it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A433-2003Sep25¬Found=true
Text: Democratic Candidates Debate
FDCH eMedia Millworks
Thursday, September 25, 2003; 6:45 PM
Following is the full text of the democratic candidates debate held in New York and hosted by Brian Williams.

>snip<

KUCINICH: The message is now I will not vote for the $87 billion. I think we should support the troops and I think we best support them by bringing them home.

Our troops are at peril there, because of this administration's policy. And I think that the American people deserve to know where every candidate on this stage stands on this issue, because we were each provided with a document--a security document that more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion.

A matter of fact, General Clark was one of the authors of that document that was released in July.

>snip<

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

20. "Correcting and restoring"regional stability is more important now

You forget,... Kucinich IS a politician, "more or less" , while Clark is not. I actually supported Kucinich's stance on Iraq, before the war. I even protested against it, mostly against the lies and deception used by Bu$hCo to lead us to war.

But after the war, our troops NEEDED the $87 Billion Dollars, imo; and I disagreed strongly Kucinich's decision not to support it, even though I respect why he did so, in principle.

Everyone at HASC knew that $87 Billion wasn't going to be enough to restore the disaster this administration created, it was an open check. But it is Bush who made it 20-fold more difficult, $200 Billion and 1538 American lives too costly!

What you refuse to acknowledge, is that leaving Iraq now, would be like leaving Afghanistan following the ouster of the Soviets. If the US left, Iraq would be open wound - a host for infection by Iran, Syria, Russia, and particularly AQ, another breeding ground for chaos that would have compromised our security, by which even John Oneill would've agreed.

"Correcting and restoring" regional stability is more important now, imo - it's America's only "strategy for success". Since I don't have the "security document",... either,...I can only argue, and not conclude what Clark may have "advised"; but personally, another 5 years and $245 Billion is probably conservative estimate. But it likely outlines measures for a successful exit strategy, which includes engaging Iraq's people and culture towards stable and effective "rebuilding efforts". And if it's appropriated effectively, it definitely won't be billed under Bu$hCo's neoconic policies nor offered as another blank check for Halliburton.

One thing that stinks about politics is partisanship that places their special interests above America's security interest by Dem's and Republicans. Clark has devoted his life and career solely to defend America's national interests over partisan interests - that's the foundation for success and progress that I'll follow through Clark's leadership, as he takes back our country from the neocons.

----------------------------------------------------------

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

23. Clarkies 'spammed' atleast 3 times and I responded twice. Evidence here:

Thanks for highlighting the Clarkie spamming.
This thread is bookmarked.
Clarkies are spamming all over the place with "get everyone to vote":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=235x6203
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1704730
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1701204

I merely responded to the same topic in two threads. That's called 'participating.'
And you also post things you've posted in the past. Lots of times.

You also have a large file on Clark. I see the same lengthy excerpts with links all the time.
No crime.
That's called forming and presenting your views. You keep it up, ok?

Oh, and please keep using maligning obscenities about me instead of addressing the topic. It helps your argument..lots.

I elaborate on what you so eloquently call "bullshit." Even though I'm intimidated by your obvious Rhodes scholar debating skills!

Why are you demanding a document? What does that mean? To touch?
Dennis Kucinich said something about an intel document on a live TV debate.

The transcript...of his words...in the Washington Post...with a link...is the topic. Is that clear? Moving on.

DK is answering another related question and he mentions Clark as an aside so it is a very brief but telling statement. DK says the people need to know where the candidates stand on the war when he mentions Clark's role in an accusatory manner.

The issue here is Clark's relationship to the NEO-CONS at the time.
It suggests that Clark is enmeshed with the White House, not seperate and opposing despite his criticisms of the 'prosecution' of the war.

This episode of DK mentioning an intel document never heard of again indicates both that the White House and Congress very early on hid the expected cost and duration of the occupation from the American people AND that Clark was in on it with them.

*Admittedly, maybe Clark has become as horrified as we are by the inept war and disengaged from the neo-cons to oppose them. But reading his website thoroughly (for I do my research) finds him planning, like Kerry, to do 'better' warring, not less.*

1) DK says "we were all given..."
-- "we" probably means Congress, not candidates since Sharpton wouldn't have been given an intel document advising "stay the course."

2) DK calls it an "intel document,"
-- this means it probably came from the White House, not CIA since Clark is in on it.

3) DK says the document "basically advises us to stay the course"
-- this means it did come from the White House because the NEO-CONS are the ones trying to get Congress to gear up for a long expensive occupation.

4) DK says that Clark "helped author it."
-- this places Clark much closer to the NEO-CONS than merely 'advisor.'
To say that Clark "authored" the document strongly suggests he signed it.

This means that Clark is personally advising Congress
>>>>for the NEO-CONS<<<<
to spend 5 years/150,000 troops/$245,000,000 in the Iraq occupation.

There isn't much assuming needed.
Obviously, some in this thread say 'so what?'

The White House and Congress withheld this from us and Clark was in on it.
That's what.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. "Staying the course" does not equate with Neo Con. Way too simplistic

Kerry was/is a "Stay the Course" in Iraq Democrat for example. CMB's famous "we broke it, we have to fix it" line from the 2004 campaign is another "Stay the Course" position. Dean was in this camp also. You may have favored immediate unilateral withdrawal, or Kucinich's call for U.S. out U.N. in (which would have been dependent on a whole lot of help from the U.N. in order to work, what if no U.N. nations were willing to replace the U.S. troops with their own?) But it is an unfair stretch to say all who believed that Iraq now needed to be restored to stability were in bed with the Neo Con agenda.

The upstream comment about Afghanistan is right on the money. If the United States had not completely lost interest and abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviets were defeated there Bin Ladin would never have been able to make it his base for operations. Failed States breed terrorism. Iraq was a despotic State, but not a failed State. It was not a threat to the United States before we invaded. A chaotic Iraq however is a threat to the United States, and to Spain, and to the Philippines, and to Indonesia etc etc.

And it really is shoddy to build an entire palace of cards on the single statement "helped author it" about a report which no one has produced. Take this wild slide of logic:

"4) DK says that Clark "helped author it."
-- this places Clark much closer to the NEO-CONS than merely 'advisor.'
To say that Clark "authored" the document strongly suggests he signed it.

This means that Clark is personally advising Congress
>>>>for the NEO-CONS<<<< "

First off you conveniently morph the original comment from "helped author it" to simply "authored" the document in the course of a couple of sentences. What "help" did Clark provide? Do you know? How much help did Clark provide? In what section of the report was his help used? Were there any dissenting comments in the Report? If so, which of the people who "helped with" the report made those comments? Can you answer any question about this report, or are you instead reading into Kucinich's comments your own theories?

Helping with a report is a very vague concept. Proof readers help with reports. Now I am sure that if Kucinich is correct (I have no reason to doubt his comment, but good people have been mistaken before) Clark almost certainly provided expert advice, but on what? If a military question was asked of Clark how many U.S. forces at what cost would be required to secure Iraq's Oil infrastructure, wells and pipe lines against insurgent attacks and attempts to sabotage it, so that it would be able to generate the ongoing funds for Iraq to become economically independent, the answer might well literally be "5 years/150,000 troops/$245,000,000 in the Iraq occupation." This is just an example, since it seems neither one of us has any information as to what role Clark played in that report.

For all we know that report could have layed out various post invasion scenarios for Iraq with differing implications for the United States. Dennis was campaigning, remember? Candidates very often lift facts out of context that help their own positions. I'm not saying he was flat out lying, I'm saying he was framing the debate on terms he felt were favorable to him and Dennis was clearly on record saying he would withdraw the U.S. from Iraq and the other candidates weren't. None of us are so naive as to not understand the politics of that moment , are we?. What you have done is take an undocumented vague 30 second campaign sound bite and spun it into an accusation that Wesley Clark supports the Neo Cons. The substance is lacking to make that claim.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

28. Your many questions are valid and I want answers, too.

You write: "neither one of us has any information as to what role Clark played in that report." BINGO! ("helped author" only.)

Your many unanswered questions are excellent ones. Thanks for expanding on it so rationally. At the very least I think that validates my concerns about Clark's post-retirement/pre-candidacy period.

You are right about candidates tendency to support themselves, too.
Absolutely correct.

But you mischaracterize my conclusions as 'Clark IS working for the neocons.' Not the right tense and not that simple.

I imply at the very least a past tense relationship (with implications for the future) in that 'ambiguous' time (obviously not to me!) between retirement and candidacy when Clark was praising Reagan and the Busheviks, meeting Admiral Poindexter at DARPA to sell Acxiom's data to the Total Information Awareness program, joining the Stephen's Group (linked to BCCI and Bush finances), and a military commentator for CNN at the same time he was a registered lobbyist seeking Pentagon contracts.

Revolving door military/investment/media relationships.

You see how enmeshed Clark is with the White House crowd before his candidacy in the period this alleged intel document he "helped author" was produced for Congress, not the American people.

Secret document, secret occupation, secret war policy.
And Clark was there.

I'm surprised this doesn't raise more eyebrows at DU and I'm portrayed as either as kooky, lefter-than-thou, or an operative with an agenda by a few hostile Clark supporters.

Like 9/11 starting all of US history, Clark's history begins with his criticising the neo-cons and his career and business ties are dismissed or ignored altogether.

Have you read all of his Securing America website position papers?
I have. They add up, IMHO, to continuing oil wars with better PR by cutting some deals with Europe. And adding troops. What a surprise.

The US oil-driven economy and military occupation of the middle east WILL continue regardless of who is president in 2008. I have tried to document that Clinton's policies in the Balkans were economic, not humanitarian, Clark's claim to being a 'just war' hero in a bad situation.

That doesn't go over well with those who think only in red/blue sports team fashion without seeing the bigger picture, the forest AND the trees. The neo-cons are merely a symptom of the US government, not something new.

Ignoring the War Powers Act...
ignoring the Geneva Conventions...
ignoring the UN security council...
ignoring Posse Comitatus...

This is standard operating procedure in every administration.


MY question is do we want 'better' executed wars or change?

Clark 'authored' two books with these titles:
'Waging Modern War'
'Winning Modern Wars'

I think this tells us a lot about the future. If we are going to settle for 'better wars' than we are damning ourselves and those who will die.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. John my primary issue with you is your use of 6 degrees of separation

That and guilt by association. Though I am also troubled by the way you sometimes edit information that you present into bold arrows to conclusions that are at the very best highly tenuous when one actually views the entire unedited picture. And like I said in an earlier post to you, you tend to use Clark as your target child for attacking a host of policies and positions that are embraced by the overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party, including many progressives, yet you fail to note that context while continuing to focus virtually all your negative attention on Clark.

Having said all that this post of yours is fairly straight forward. You clearly have your suspicions and suspicions presented as such can be discussed a lot more cleanly than suspicions presented as conclusions. I will again note however that all this talk of yours about a secret document aka "alleged intel document" is smoke and mirrors without any real hooks to hang it on. You assert this alleged document was "produced for Congress not the American people". Are you staking out a position here opposed to the very concept and existence of "classified information"? If so you are pushing the issue of government transparency a whole lot further than any elected official I know of from any party would be willing to advocate. Congress has always held closed hearings. Congress has always handled classified information. The theory is that Congress represents the American people through being elected by them. Are you saying that no degree of government secrecy, where sensitive information is shared with elected officials but not released for full media distribution, can be justified? I will not take that position.

Further, regarding this security document you bring up, you have done it again John, exactly what it is about so many of your posts that troubles me so much. I do believe that you mis-characterize information John, based on fragments of real or "so called" data. Here is exactly what Kucincih said in the transcript of the debate:

KUCINICH: The message is now I will not vote for the $87 billion. I think we should support the troops and I think we best support them by bringing them home.

Our troops are at peril there, because of this administration's policy. And I think that the American people deserve to know where every candidate on this stage stands on this issue, because we were each provided with a document--a security document that more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion.

A matter of fact, General Clark was one of the authors of that document that was released in July."

Note that Kucinich only said "we were each provided with a document--a security document" so that document could even have been produced by a think tank under contract with the Democratic National Committee for all that we know. Second, even Kucinich had to qualify his brief comment, first by using the phrase "more or less advised us" (an oil tanker could safely sail through that loophole), then by qualifying the costs supposedly stated by prefacing all of the figures with the phrase "up to" such and such. That implies that those were all upper end figures associated with certain negative scenarios. Hypothetically let's say that all the leading Shiite Religious leaders were assassinated by insurgents and/or radical Islamics and the Iraq was about to plunge toward a civil war with Turkey then threatening to invade and annex the Iraqi Kurdish regions and Iran threatened to invade Iraq itself if Turkey did. That could be a "5 year effort" keeping a lid on an awful mess scenario discussed in that report.

But you took it further. You accidentally, lazily, or intentionally blur all the time lines with your commentary. A key example. Above you note that many Clark supporters key in on Clark's public criticism of the Neo Cons:

"Like 9/11 starting all of US history, Clark's history begins with his criticizing the neo-cons and his career and business ties are dismissed or ignored altogether."

It is documented that Clark criticized the Neo Cons well before the invasion of Iraq. From context it is almost certain that the "security report" noted by Kucinich was written post Iraq invasion, hence the reference to "staying the course" in Iraq. So whatever role Clark may have had in the preparation of that report, he already was a public opponent of the Neo Con's ambitious Mid East greater war plans prior to being involved with in some way helping author that report. Yet you take the mere fragments of information found in Kucinich's campaign appearance to reach this conclusion:

"To say that Clark "authored" the document strongly suggests he signed it.

This means that Clark is personally advising Congress
>>>>for the NEO-CONS<<<<
to spend 5 years/150,000 troops/$245,000,000 in the Iraq occupation."

Every part of your statement is mere speculation spun to reach conclusions that fit your viewpoint about Clark, often at odds with evidence to the contrary.

And you blithely talk about Revolving door military lobbyists but fail to note that Clark worked to win a minor military contract for a small company producing highly energy efficient motorized dual use bicycles. Geeeze. You also fail to note that many TV viewers found Clark to be remarkably objective in his military commentary at CNN, actually expressing statements at odds with the rational for the Bush war build up. Clark later became a non person at CNN, his name literally not being mentioned on their Inside Politics show for three weeks preceding the New Hampshire Primary. Some feel he was too supportive to the war's critics while he worked for CNN and that was his pay back. Michael Moore's interest in Wesley Clark springs from those days.

Yeah Clark learned about the secret war policy, and he was the most widely reputable person involved in blowing the whistle on it. Clark broke the 4 wars scenario to the larger public. Clark called out PNAC. Thank God Clark "was there" with the inside connections he had from his long years in the Military. He had the sources to back up his words and he used them to fight Bush across the board.

Yes corporations, and even the literal current American dependency on imported Oil to maintain our current economy, play a huge role in America's foreign policy and will under whatever President gets elected in 2008. You don't doubt that do you? I certainly don't. Neither electing Clark or Boxer will swiftly undo that reality, so I do not expect the Presidential Election to be a cure all nor do I expect any specific President who can be elected to single handedly lead us out of this mess. Who are you backing and why?

[Kinkistyle]

24. Gen. Shinseki also advised more troops. He got canned by Rumsfeld for it.

Gen. Shinseki is a general. A soldier. So was Wesley Clark. They know military strategy. Just because they give advise on how to conduct a war properly doesn't mean they support it.

[Totally Committed]

21. Here is Armando's take on the Phone Call:

Armando just blogged about his conversation with Clark.

General Clark on Iraq
by Armando
Mon Apr 4th, 2005 at 15:06:51 PST

This afternoon I had the privilege of participating in a conference call with some bloggers, including the great Prof. Juan Cole and the very good (Sorry Jonathan, can't hand out the greats for everybody) Jonathan Singer, that was offered by General Wesley K. Clark on Iraq (Note - Clark has posted a survey asking for views on Iraq.)

General Clark provided a preliminary statement in which he noted his opposition to the Iraq invasion, as evidenced by his testimony before the House Armed Services Commission and the necessary steps to be taken before even considering such an action, including the need for building a broad alliance, exhausting all diplomatic possibilities and thorough planning for a post-conflict Iraq with a definite and coherent exit strategy.

General Clark noted that the Bush Administration had failed on all counts. He then proceeded to describe the current situation and the issues he believes should be the focus of U.S. policy:

(1) The military role. Clark stressed that an effective strategy required both a diminishment of the capabilities of the insurgency coupled with a bona fide and achievable handoff of security responsibilities to Iraqi security forces. Clark noted that these goals needed to be achieved quickly as the U.S. military presence was proving a hindrance to other similarly important goals. To wit -

(2) Political Legitimacy of an Iraqi government. As Jon Singer noted, Clark said that "Paul Bremer was completely ineffective, and though Ambassador Negroponte got an election," he will be leaving soon," and much is left undone. Clark stressed the criticial importance of this issue as being strongly tied to the ability to achieve any rational military objectives.

(3) Diplomatic. Clark spoke of important diplomatic objectives as well. I believe he was referencing finding acceptable solutions to relations with Syria and Iran, again based on the premise that an acceptable security situation required ratcheting down Syrian and Iranian aid and comfort to Iraqi instability. Prof. Cole captured a great point:

I thought Clark put his finger on a key contradiction in the Bush administration "forward policy" in the Middle East, of targeting the governments of Syria and Iran for destruction even while the US needs their cooperation to avoid widening disaster in Iraq. This policy is not rational if it were intended solely for the benefit of the United States, and he thinks it derives from a concern to bolster regional allies even at the expense of US interests.

I also asked a few questions. I'll discuss them on the flip.

Democrats :: :: Trackback ::

I thought my most important question dealt with a comment General Clark made regarding the difficulty of gauging the strength of the insurgency. In essence, Clark described the assessment as extremely difficult, due to the fact that it is difficult to know whether the U.S./Iraqi Gov't. operations were damaging the insurgents' fighting abilities or whether instead the insurgents were just laying low. Clark did stress that he believed that U.S. military superiority was such that the insurgents would be largely limited to hit and run operations, not really able to stand up to American power.

That answer brought this question to my mind - "General Clark, given the inherent difficulty in assessing the efectiveness of the campaign against the insurgency, what are the risks involved in pulling out U.S. troops early, and vice versa, given the difficulties that the U.S. presence places on the Iraqi government's ability to achieve political legitimacy, the risks of not leaving soon enough?"

Jonathan Singer described Clark's answer as follows:

Armando got the last question of the morning. He asked what are the risks of misreading whether we're winning or if the insurgents are merely laying low. Clark first stepped back and reminded us that he's not over there (so he is not seeing the latest data and reports). Nevertheless, he explained that there are three risks:

1. Staying there and overstaying your welcome. America could become ineffective and eventually be thrown out by the government.

2. Pulling out too soon. This could lead to a civil war, thus requiring America to step back in.

3. The risk to the all-volunteer army. If the Armed Forces become discredited (as they were following Vietnam), much work will have to go into rebuilding the army. Part of the problem is that American involvement in Iraq had never solely been about Iraq. This makes the soldiers' job harder.

Truly an impossible situation in my opinion.

A few other issues were covered as well -

On the attack on Abu Ghraib, Clark seemed to criticize the level of defense given the prison in light of its symbolic importance, and ventured the view that Zarqawi's attack on the prison was intended to renew his group's legitimacy.

On the value of the January 30 election, Clark stated that he remained skeptical of its value, as he was prior to the vote, because of the very low participation of the Sunni population.

On runnng for President again, Clark deftly sidestepped the question, keeping his focus on the Iraq issue.

http://tinyurl.com/4ch3b

---

TC

[FourStarDemocrat]

26. Thanks for posting that..

Also looking forward to hearing or reading a transcript of Clark's testimony tomorrow.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

27. Important to Contact C-Span on Coverage

General Letter:

----------------------------------
Dear C-Span,

I recently learned that the House Armed services Committee (HASC) will be holding hearings and recieving testimony about the war in Iraq, tomorrow at 10am. Two of the principle leaders, yet who represent opposing camps in Middle East foreign policy will each offer their testimony regarding the strategies for success in Iraq; Richard Perle, George Bush's neoconservative advocate for Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and General Wesley Clark, the most outspoken critic, who has advocated more political and regional diplomatic stategies for success.

I urge C-Span to cover these hearings live. It is clear that the Bush administration has already begun to undermine broadcast of Clark's testimony by conveniently scheduling Yurschenko's speech before Congress at the same time. Please make every effort to insure proper coverage of this important hearing, especially General Clark's.

The American public must bear witness to the flawed policies from the Bush Administration that still leads this country into deeper policy failures towards the Middle East.

I am certain that General Clark's testimony will propose insightful, accurate and credible strategies for success in Iraq and the Middle East region.

Thank you,
Your name

-----------------
Please Contact:
[e-mail]
-----------------

[FrenchieCat]

29. Thank you.

I wrote a letter to C-Span.

Hope they oblige.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

30. **ACTION ALERT** FROM WesPAC/CCN

-------------------------------------------------------------

**ACTION ALERT** FROM WesPAC/CCN : (#142) (Rated 5.00/1)
by larry on 04/05/2005 03:00:33 PM EST

Please write CSPAN to get them to air General Clark's HASC testimony live tomorrow. They will be having a meeting in the next couple of hours to make their decision. Please contact them NOW.

Contact:
[e-mail]

--------------------------------------------------------------

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

32. Clark on C-Span - Washington Journal (9am EST)

Wednesday April 6, 2006 - Washington Journal - CSPAN:

· Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.), Fmr. Supreme Allied Commander

Clark will appear alone with host Peter Slen in a segment from 9:00am until 9:30am.

------------------------------------------------------