Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is Wes Clark's presidential chances helped or hurt by a rabid peace

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
henslee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:06 PM
Original message
Is Wes Clark's presidential chances helped or hurt by a rabid peace
Edited on Tue Sep-27-05 01:12 PM by henslee
movement... I mean he is not for an immediate withdrawal or setting a timetable. (Yes this was re-edited to make a little sense)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. Huh?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vektor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
60. I think Clark has great credentials, actually.
And it stands to reason that his military career might lend some very valuable and much needed foreign policy experience to the post.

Lord knows, we could use someone with foreign policy experience at the helm now.

I think he has "the right stuff", personally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #60
70. I wholeheartedly agree with you Vektor. But...
before the OP edited the post, it made absolutely no sense. I figured it was a slam on Clark, but it was hard to determine the original intent of the first post. Edited, and it's still a bit unclear, but has brought up some good discussion.

Clark is great. He is absolutely the man for the job right now. We need someone with diplomacy to get us out of the mess in Iraq. Clark has that in spades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vektor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. Tee-hee...I have to apologize...
I was trying to post to the whole thread, and since your post was the last one I had read, I accidentally hit "reply."

I totally got what you were saying, but I wasn't trying to actually address you as if I disagreed.

Sometimes I get a little "trigger happy" on the keyboard. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. I must do that at least once a day.
Then you spend the next half of the thread apologizing and explaining yourself to someone who was looking for a fight.

No problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vektor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. Hahahaha. Thank you for not kicking my ass.
I was so not looking for a fight. I am sick with a cold and am in my pajamas with a cat in my lap.

Very feeble indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. I certainly hope so....
Edited on Tue Sep-27-05 01:10 PM by mike_c
I loathe the thought of installing an ex-general and career militarist in charge of civilian government. Although I suppose there is a certain irony in that being the next step in America's descent into a fascist state....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. Sorry to have to be the one to inform you...that it is the
Edited on Tue Sep-27-05 01:41 PM by FrenchieCat
CIVILIAN lawmakers who started and voted for this war, and who vote for the 400,000 billion dollar budget that goes to the defense department every year...while social programs get cut, including those social programs that takes care of our military personnels.

It may also surprise you that the military as an institution is the most socialistic environment that one can find in America.

The so called militarists that you speak of currently represented by Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney barely if ever served...and certainly have not seen what War really means.

It is unfortunate that such biases as the ones you have evidenced in your post are never backed up with anything more than a statement using "hot button" terminology and disparaging prejudice.

Again, check out your elected lawmakers who initiates the wars and who votes for them and who funds them, and see if their vote played any part in Halliburton stock doubling as we speak. You obviously don't have a clue as to who does what in this country. It's unfortunate that does who bare the responsibility of laying their lives on the line based on CIVILIAN decisions of those we elect aren't even allowed to defend themselves from these narrow minded accusations that really are not substantiated.

Maybe that's why the mantra that liberal Democrats "hates" the troups works so well as a way of keeping Dems out of power. We cut our own throats very well, that, I can attest to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
27. So at what point does military service incline one to be a fascist?
Two tours of service in Vietnam? Is that okay? When do they cross that line? How about Paul Hackett? He served in the military and ran and will run again for office. How about Eisenhower? Was he a fascist? Does it have to be a career? How long is a career? Is one tour a career? If one re-enlists, is that a career? Bush* ducked service in TX-ANG...so is he a fascist...or not?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #27
56. perhaps you should re-read my response....
I did not say that Clark was a fascist. For the record, I have never believed that. What I do believe is that fascist governments usually emulate militaristic organizations, and a general staff level career military officer often ends up being left to pick up the pieces, sometimes after an election, other times through a coup. The result is rarely a model of democratic civilian government.

Despite the fact that your response distorted my comments, I'll attempt a general answer-- military service makes one generally unsuitable for civilian government when that service was an entire career and included significant time spent at general staff rank. The leadership model that's necessary in the military is not appropriate for civilian government, and the generals are steeped in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. This is what Clark has said
and fervently believes about responsibiliy and accountability in the general staff. From MTP on August 28, 2005.

Wes Clark:

"... when generals are given senior command positions and they've had their entire lives and professional education in the military, they're expected to have a body of professional knowledge and character that lets them stand up for what they believe.

We have a principle of civilian supremacy. No one doubts that the secretary of defense is ultimately in charge. He's going to make the right decision or he's going to make the right decision as he sees it.

It's up to the generals. If they feel he's making the wrong decision, they fight it. If they feel it's that significant, then they retire or resign from their position."

http://securingamerica.com/meetthepress/2005-08-28

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #56
71. I did and my post still stands as written
Clark is one of those people who subordinates LIKED because he was fair. He is not the typical general-type and I don't see how military service makes one generally unsuitable for civilian government. Someone like Clark was responsible for entire bases--schools, personnel, health care, infrastructure, etc.

Some generals are steeped in the leadership model I suspect we both dislike. Others, like Clark, think for themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #71
74. America is NOT a military base....
At least not yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. Of course not. That doesn't mean he will run it as one.
Listen to some of his speeches sometime or when he's on TV. He was on Russert's little show on Sunday morning a few weeks ago with 3 other retired generals. Clark was the only one who sounded like a human and showed some expression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. what other training or experience does he have...?
I'd feel a lot better about Clark if he'd demonstrate his ability in the Senate or in a state governorship first. Until then, his only experience is in military settings, including imposed military rule of civilian populations. That's it. Look, I'd like a liberal white knight as much as anyone here, but I just can't trust the military-- or an ex-general whose entire professional career was in military settings-- to run civilian government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #78
86. There is a reason why Clinton moved Clark up the ranks
Clark had a very different post cold war mind set than most of our military leaders for one thing. He is firmly committed to the importance of working through international institutions which is almost the opposite mind set from a might makes right stance.

Clark also had a very different set of work assignment experiences than most military leaders. For years he worked very closely with Congress in Washington, but most striking were Clark's assignments in Europe. He worked hand in hand with Richard Holbrooke in negotiating the Dayton Peace accords for Bosnia. As NATO Chief, commanding NATO's one and only war, Clark coordinated regularly with the heads of State of a dozen western democracies, operating under full consensus requirements. Any one of them could veto any decision Clark might make, and Clark made that work and went on to defend that as a model for future U.S. military engagements.

Clark also coordinated closely with civil authorities and international non profit aid organizations in delivering relief to untold thousands of refugees from the various baltic conflicts. Non profit humanitarian organizations gave Clark high praise for his sensitivity and responsiveness to their concerns.

You may also know that Clark was a Rhodes Scholar with advanced degrees from Oxford in Philosophy, Political Science, and Economics. But mostly I suggest you actually read and listen to what Clark has to say about issues of importance to you, and not be so reactive as to not even look past his prior uniform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #86
93. Don't forget he went to the Hague and testified against
Edited on Wed Sep-28-05 01:57 AM by FrenchieCat
Genocide guy Milosovic....the highest ranking Clinton official and highest ranking American ever to testify as such a court. And he did this because he wanted to, not because he had to. I remember the black out on his testimony by the Bush Admin. Didn't want him getting any publicity.

Wes Clark has always believed and supported International Organizations. Most American Generals don't do that.

He also taught at West Point. Economics and Phylosophy.

He reads Chomsky.....as a supporter/visitor to his library blogged.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #93
98. deleted post
Edited on Wed Sep-28-05 05:41 PM by AllyCat

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #78
101. Why? Many people with prior "elected" experience have done a LOUSY
job in the oval office. The LAST THING this country needs in Washington, DC is another politician.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #56
100. Unsuitable for civilian government? Yeah those "civilians" now
in charge of our government (on both sides of the aisle) have done a real bang up job of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
42. Do you even know what fascism is?
For one thing it was an Army General that warned of the MIC. Do you have an idea why? Do you believe they want their brothers-in-arms sacrificed for corporate profits? Now a corporatist dressing up in a military uniform might be a likely fascist. A career military person is more likely to be someone who has devoted his life to public service. An General is more likely to be a person who has shown leadership skills. It should not be a prerequisite nor a disqualification. The individual should be judged on his work record, just like any candidate for any office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #42
55. a general is more likely to be someone with a regimented...
...hierarchical, and autocratic approach to government. His entire training is in non-democratic, non-consensus, militaristic "leadership." That's NOT the proper model for civilian leadership-- it's the model for juntas. As for the rest of your response, yes, of course I know who warned about the MIC. Eisenhower was a bit of a different kettle of fish in some ways, mostly because he came to politics through his central role directing the European theater operations during WWII, but (1) that was a very different military than today's, (2) fighting a very different kind of war than any that have been fought since, (3) I would not have supported Eisenhower's candidacy in any event, and (4) nonetheless he DID warn about the MIC-- a warning Clark's supporters seem determined to ignore even while they cite it.

My comment about fascism had to do with the militaristic nature of fascist governments, who inevitably turn to rabid nationalism, uniforms, paramilitary organizations as elements of a secutity state, and dependence upon the real miltary to maintain order. That happens because the military is ideally suited to serve fascist interests.

I've had this discussion with Clark supporters many times, and it never changes. Americans should KNOW better than to mix career military officers from the general staff with civilian government-- they do not share compatible leadership models. Handing the reins of government to a career general is nearly always a terrible mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #55
63. Your prejudice is unbelievable.
You need to look at Clark as an individual, not an institution. Clark is also a different kettle of fish as SACEUR. His intellect is beyond your average officer as evidenced by the fact he was criticized by Shwartzkof for being to academic and not one of the boys. Clark fought a war to prevent genocide. Clark is a student of Eisenhower and aware of the MIC conflict.
Most fascists are like W and crew and like the uniforms for show. They don't need military to enforce it, in fact they are more likely to use police and hired goons. It is so narrow-minded to say that a military person is any less of a citizen than any one else. That is the mindset that enables the RW to portray liberals as ignorant. Given that there are few military that I would support for President but there are a whole lot of civilians that are unqualified. In case you are not aware, Clark is retired, it is not quite handing the reins to a General.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #63
68. well, it's true that my distrust of generals-- or ex-generals...
...as potential heads of state runs very deep. It usually works out badly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #68
97. Funny sig line.
Which Dem was brought in to debate Perle the most in the last year?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
48. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
49. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
NCarolinawoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
62. Maybe you need to read up on Cincinnatus.
Or at least read up on George Washington who has been compared to a modern-day Cincinnatus.

There have been many generals who have served as President of the United States (I think twelve)....some have been better than others. The closest I have seen of anything fascist is the current triumvirate of Bush/Cheney/Rove. And I will grant you that these chickenhawks have used the military shamelessly. These types are the most dangerous. They seem to lack for something....that is why Bush struts. As for Clark, I always thought he had a very unassuming graceful walk, despite his war wounds....he doesn't have that need to prove anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #62
73. bad examples, IMO....
Especially Washington. George Washington was nothing like a career general in any modern army. He was a large land owner, a gentleman, one of the gentry. His service was part of an entirely different tradition than today's military tradition, as was Cincinnatus's. He came to government with a great deal of CIVILIAN administrative experience, and his military experience was not in a professional standing army, whose leadership models were incompatible with civilian government.

Look, would you want the government run like a military unit? By someone whose commands must be obeyed at any cost, simply because he has the rank to demand obedience? I'm not suggesting that Clark would institute a military dictatorship-- but I am asserting that that's all he's trained to do. His lifetime of professional experience is in a military context, and I implicitly distrust military control of civilian government. It's disengenuous to suggest that Clark would not bring that style of leadership to the White House, since we have NO record of his being involved in civilian leadership and providing any other form of governance. Let him spend a term or two in the Legislature, preferably the Senate, to see whether he's able to work well in consensus building rather than autocratic settings, and maybe I'll be convinced. Until then, I fear Clark as much as I would fear any other general in the WH, which is to say even more than most republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #73
80. So how many of these non-General politicians
actually engage their supporters in conversations and consider those comments seriously?

'Cos that's what Clark does.

If he doesn't fit your stereotype of a 'typical' General, that's okay. I don't consider him 'typical' either. I doubt anyone has called Wes Clark "typical' in his entire life.

Frankly, I appreciate his insistence that grassroots ideas are important, not just their checkbooks.

I'm not longer a member of the "Candidate X sent you email/you send Candidate X money" wing of the Democratic party. Clark reaizes that there is more to the grassroots than cynically treating us as an ATM machine.

BTW, he's not a 'typical' politician either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NCarolinawoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #80
85. Yep, he's told us that he only wants the right-wing media to refer to him
as "General".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NCarolinawoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #73
83. Clark is a Diplomat. He is a consensus builder.
Leading a multi-national force in Kosovo involved working with 19 Heads of State.

Just because they were members of NATO doesn't mean they were going to agree on everything. He didn't work with JUST the military here....it was the Heads of State, which meant dealing with lots and lots of egos. Maybe this is why Paul Wellstone compared Clark to General George Marshall, who had to work with all of those European countries after World War 2.

Over 40 diplomats signed a statement endorsing Clark during the primaries of 2004.

He was a key player during the Dayton Peace Accords.

Right now he serves on a commitee chaired by former Senator George Mitchell, whose purpose it is to offer ways to improve the United Nations. They have to do all this while carefully tippy-toeing around Bolton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #83
87. please....
Edited on Tue Sep-27-05 11:38 PM by mike_c
His brief in Kosovo was-- as you stated-- as the general in charge of a multi-national military force with boots on the ground and a diplomatic protocol based upon a significant threat posture. Tanks and planes, guns and bombs, NOT civilian leadership or consensus brokering without a bristling military threat. That's gun boat diplomacy. With kid gloves and smiles all round, perhaps, but a military response nonetheless. I think Clark was a FANTASTIC general. I wish more generals were like him. But I still don't want someone with the mindset of a general in the WH. I'd REALLY like to see Clark prove himself in civilian government BEFORE he seeks the presidency. His consistent refusal to settle for anything but the CinC slot only reinforces my distaste for his candidacy. It's precisely what a general accustomed to a top command position would seek.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #87
89. You seem to have misunderstood
Edited on Wed Sep-28-05 12:25 AM by Texas_Kat
The lesson of Kosovo was not the military aspect (though amazingly successful for not losing Americans in combat).

The lesson of Kosovo was in persuading 19 nations to hold together in an alliance -- each with divergent agendas and constituencies -- in order avoid pending genocide. Bush wasn't able to intimidate these same nations into joining his bogus Iraq excursion, but Clark managed to hold the alliance together.

That's not 'gunboat' anything..... but diplomacy that, by all accounts, was directly attributed to Clark's efforts.

Below is a list of ambassadors and diplomats who endorsed Clark during the 03/04 primary. I doubt they considered Clark promoting gunboat diplomacy either.

1. Morton Abramowitz, Ambassador to Turkey and Thailand, Assistant Secretary of State
2. Brady Anderson, Ambassador to Tanzania.
3. Christopher Ashby, Ambassador to Uruguay.
4. Jeff Bader, Ambassador to Namibia, Senior Director National Security Agency
5. Robert Barry, Administrator, Agency for International Development; Head, OSCE
6. J.D. Bindenagel, Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues.
7. Donald Blinken, Ambassador to Hungary
8. Amy Bondurant, Ambassador to OECD
9. Avis Bohlen, Ambassador to Bulgaria, Assistant Secretary of State
10. George Bruno, Ambassador to Belize
11. Paul Cejas, Ambassador to Belgium
12. Tim Chorba, Ambassador to Singapore
13. Bonnie Cohen, Under Secretary of State
14. Nancy Ely-Raphel, Ambassador to Slovenia
15. Ralph Earle, Deputy Director of State, Chief U.S. Negotiator, SALT II Treaty
16. Thomas H. Fox, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development
17. Mary Mel French, Chief of Protocol
18. Edward Gabriel, Ambassador to Morocco
19. Richard Gardner, Ambassador to Italy & Spain
20. Robert Gelbard, Ambassador to Indonesia & Bolivia, Assistant Secretary of State
21. Gordon Giffin, Ambassador to Canada
22. Lincoln Gordon, Ambassador to Brazil, Assistant Secretary of State
23. Anthony Harrington, Ambassador to Brazil
24. John Holum, Under Secretary of State
25. William J. Hughes, Ambassador to Panama
26. Swanee Hunt, Ambassador to Austria
27. James Joseph, Ambassador to South Africa
28. Rodney Minott, Ambassador to Sweden
29. John McDonald, Ambassador to the United Nations
30. Stan McLelland, Ambassador to Jamaica
31. Gerald McGowan, Ambassador to Portugal
32. Arthur Mudge, Mission Director for Agency for International Development
33. Lyndon Olson, Ambassador to Sweden
34. Donald Petterson, Ambassador to the Sudan, Tanzania & Somalia
35. Kathryn Proffitt, Ambassador to Malta
36. Edward Romero, Ambassador to Spain & Andorra
37. James Rosapepe, Ambassador to Romania
38. Nancy Rubin, United Nations Commission on Human Rights
39. James Rubin, Assistant Secretary of State
40. David Sandalow, Assistant Secretary of State
41. Howard Schaffer, Ambassador to Bangladesh, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
42. Teresita Schaffer, Ambassador to Sri Lanka & Maldives
43. David Scheffer, Ambassador at Large for War Crimes
44. Cynthia Schneider, Ambassador to the Netherlands.
45. Derek Shearer, Ambassador to Finland
46. Richard Schifter, Assistant Secretary of State
47. Thomas Siebert, Ambassador to Sweden
48. Richard Sklar, Ambassador to the United Nations
49. Peter Tarnoff, Under Secretary of State
50. Peter Tufo, Ambassador to Hungary
51. Arturo Valenzuela, Senior Director, National Security Council
52. William Walker, Ambassador to El Salvador & Argentina, Head, Kosovo VerificationMission
53. Vernon Weaver, Ambassador to the European Union
54. Phoebe L. Yang, Special Coordinator for China Rule of Law, State Department
55. Andrew Young, Ambassador to the United Nations

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. ummm...your edit made your post even more vague..
nobody NOW will even know WHO you are talking about...:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. it was fixed. yay. my above post is now moot.
:thumbsup:

i am glad because i think the topic interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
henslee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
29. Yeah, i should have my thoughts together before I post.... but now
Edited on Tue Sep-27-05 02:49 PM by henslee
I realize that as much as I dig Clark, to be fair, he is just a Monday morning quarterback like everybody else, maybe a bit more in that he won a primary, firmly grasps military operations and can articulate his posititons. At the same time we can accuse him of being the pot calling the kettle black. He didn't really anticipate the problems his own postwar screw up in Kossovo -- the savage ethnic cleansing that went on during NATO occupation. Furthermore, all that bombing he was a big part of was pretty fucked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Considering that Clark was "retired" for insisting for
Boots on the ground and low flying helicopters to minimize civilian casualties, your post does him no justice....and in fact lacks any substance in facts.

Much of the later post war actions taken in Kosovo were done without Wes Clark at the helm, as he was "retired" early. His part was successful in returning fleeing Albanian Muslims to their homes. There's a reason he was so heavily decorated by the international community....and that Muslim Kosovars still have his picture hanging on their walls.

Nato peacekeeping troups did start out doing very well considering that this was not a "popular" conflict back home, as it was called Clinton's "wag the dog" war. The normal hawks were against it, as they felt no interest of theirs being threatened...while the extreme left seem to prefer Milosovic over war criminal Clinton (their term, not mine). Clinton himself was torn in reference to this conflict, as he didn't want any U.S. Casualties in fear of bad PR a la Somalia....yet he understood what he had stood by and let happen in Rwanda. Kosovo occurred at a time he was embroiled in Monicagate....and bad news in the foreign policy area would have lowered his approval numbers (the thing that saved him) considerably.

Wes Clark fought a losing battle against Republican Sec. of Defense Cohen, and yet still managed to keep the bombing casualty at approximately 500. Not anything to be proud of for those of us who value all human life...not just those of our soldiers...but it could have been worse.....certainly.

So the bottomline is that Clark did what he had to do, although there was possibly a better way...but being that his powers were restricted he did the best with what he had to work with....and again was "rewarded" for those actions after-the-fact.

I will forever be grateful for Wes Clark and what he was able to do for Kosovo, and the fact that he was willing to fight for what he believed even if he was treated as a pariah upon his return to Washington. Sometimes fighting for what is right garnets very little recognition....this was another one of those times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
henslee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #31
41.  Forever grateful for what Wes Clark was able to do for Kosovo?
Edited on Tue Sep-27-05 05:11 PM by henslee
Grateful for all the civilian casualties, the acceleration of atrocities? For the create of hundreds of thousands of refugees? Sure, Slabo was a baddie. But did we really have the morale high ground?... to go in there like a bull in a china shop? Wes has to take some of the responsibility as far as knowing these would be the results of such a massive bombing. And didn't he miscalculate politically when he thought his superiors would provide him the assets and capabilities to finish the job? And do you really think attack choppers and a ground war would have been a snap?
I'm just saying.... it ain' that black and white.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Grateful for 1.5 million lives saved.
I've seen the Albanians who have attended his rallies to thank him for their lives and the lives of their families. His superiors were the heads of nineteen nations that had veto power over his decisions, I'd say he did a hell of a job and displayed the diplomatic skills that are sorely needed today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. I'm sorry, but do I need to give you some reading material on
Kosovo? I know that the Milosovic apologists have their very own websites...but so does those who witnessed the genocide as it occurred. Please remember to put this Kosovo in Context with the 200,000 killed in Bosnia. Wouldn't want you to omit that....now, would we?


The Washington Post

The Unappreciated General
The General Who Did Too Good a Job

By Patrick B. Pexton
Tuesday, May 2, 2000; Page A23

Nine years ago, Washington put on a lavish victory parade for the conquering troops of Desert Storm. The nation cheered the men and women who, in a six-week air campaign and 100-hour ground war, with only 148 combat deaths, defeated a ruthless dictator who had seized and pillaged a neighboring land. The generals who led an unwieldy multinational coalition to triumph were feted, toasted and mentioned as presidential material.

Not so for the general who won Kosovo, although he too ousted a murderous tyrant who burned and occupied a neighboring land. This general also led a cumbersome multinational coalition to victory in a short war--this time with zero combat deaths. But Gen. Wesley Clark, supreme allied commander Europe, will come home to no special welcome, no TV or book deals and no talk of the presidency. Clark's reward for victory is early retirement. Tomorrow, several months before his tour of duty would normally end, Clark will turn over the European command to an officer more to the liking of the ever-cautious White House and defense secretary.

Clark's problem was that he was a great general but not always a perfect soldier--at least when it came to saluting and saying, "Yes, sir." In fact, when he got orders he didn't like, he said so and pushed to change them.

Clark disapproved the gradualism of the initial bombing campaign against Belgrade. He wanted to hit hard and massively. But NATO governments and diplomats in Washington felt Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic would yield after only a few bombs and cruise missiles, as he had in Bosnia. They were wrong. Clark, who was part of the delegation that negotiated the Dayton accords with Milosevic, knew Kosovo was integral to Serb identity and to Milosevic's rise to power. He would not give it up easily.

When it became clear the initial NATO bombing wasn't working, Clark pushed for every airplane he could get, much to the dismay of the U.S. Air Force. Indeed, one of the unsung accomplishments of Kosovo is how quickly Clark built up air power--far faster than was done in Desert Storm. Clark prodded and cajoled the Europeans and the White House into accepting expanded, and riskier, target lists. He ordered 50 Apache attack helicopters to take the battle to the Serb ground troops, only to see the force reduced in size and then left to sit in Albania while the White House and Pentagon fretted about casualties. Clark also was right about readying troops for an invasion. The preparations for a ground war helped persuade Milosevic to surrender.

More presciently, Clark was right about the Russians. When fewer than 200 lightly armed Russian peacekeepers barnstormed from Bosnia to the Pristina airport in Kosovo to upstage the arrival of NATO peacekeepers, Clark was rightly outraged. Russians did not win the war, and he did not want them to win the peace.

Clark asked NATO helicopters and ground troops to seize the airport before the Russians could arrive. But a British general, absurdly saying he feared World War III (in truth the Russians had no cards to play), appealed to London and Washington to delay the order.

The result was a humiliation for NATO, a tonic for the Russian military and an important lesson for the then-obscure head of the Russian national security council, Vladimir Putin. As later Russian press reports showed, Putin knew far more about the Pristina operation than did the Russian defense or foreign ministers. It was no coincidence that a few weeks afterward, Russian bombers buzzed NATO member Iceland for the first time in a decade. A few weeks after that, with Putin as prime minister, Russian troops invaded Chechnya. Putin learned the value of boldness in the face of Western hesitation. Clark learned that he had no backup in Washington.

Recent events in Kosovo show that Clark's bosses in the Pentagon and White House still don't get it. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Henry Shelton, rebuked Clark in February for using 350 American soldiers to reinforce French troops who were unable to quell violence between Albanians and Serbs. After the American reinforcements were pelted with rocks and bottles, Shelton and the White House, panicky about potential casualties, told Clark not to volunteer U.S. troops again.

But Clark was right to act. He understood the value of using force quickly and early to show who was in control, and to demonstrate to the European allies that the United States is willing to put lives at risk too.

Both Desert Storm and Kosovo were imperfect victories because the despots who caused them were left in power. But the military fought them well. The thousands of Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps pilots and support troops who quietly rejoined their squadrons when the Kosovo war ended deserve more than a historical footnote. And Clark deserves more than a pink slip.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1¬Found=true


What Kosovo was really about
The Kosovo War started in April of 1999, and it was based on an active plan of Genocide by Milosovic that was being carried via displacement, starvation, destruction, and yes, murder as well.
http://www.refugees.org/news/crisis/kosovo_u0998.htm
September 1998
In mid September, the situation in Kosovo is getting worse and the lives of thousands of innocent people are at risk. Serb forces continue to pound villages in northern and western Kosovo, effecting over half of the province's population in the last seven months. International aid agencies estimate that between 270,000 and 350,000 people have fled the fighting, as many as 250,000 remaining "internally displaced" inside Although their plight has generated worldwide recognition, international attempts to foster a diplomatic resolution to the conflict have failed to yield tangible results.
According to the Associated press, there is talk of possible, eventual Nato-supported military action ranging from the deployment of troops along the Albania- Kosovo border, to air strikes, to the deployment of ground troops, but humanitarian organizations remain skeptical that decisive U.S., European, or Nato-supported action will come soon. In the mean time, daily reports of horrendous human rights violations, massive destruction, and increasing bloodshed document the dire prognosis for Kosavars "contained" in the crisis by recently erected border controls.
On September 16, the New York Times reported that Serbian forces were "rounding up men and boys from ethnic Albanian villages and refugee camps in Kosovo, an act that US officials fear could be the prelude to their execution, as happened during the war in Bosnia." One week earlier, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, Julia Taft said at a press briefing, "Without a cease- fire, without a pull-back from this intrusive fighting, there will be 100,000 to 200,000 casualties looming in the months ahead."
Still, there are no decisive plans by the U.S., NATO, or European allies to avert the current and impending disasters with military action. The U.S. is "considering a variety of options" for getting emergency aid into Kosovo and continues to support diplomatic interventions and the preservation of Yugoslavian borders.
On September 16, Serbian and Albanian leaders reported heavy fighting in the area between the towns of Kosovska Mitrovica, Podujevo, and Vucitrn, north of the capital, Pristina. German Defense Minister, Volker Ruhe, stated that the West could resort to military action "within three to five weeks," if Milosevic fails to comply with an impending U.N. Security Council Resolution designed to put an end to the conflict. According to U.N. officials, the Resolution will not explicitly authorize military action.

On September 17, the government of Montenegro began implementing a plan to send refugees from Kosovo to Albania. Over 4,000 refugees being held in the village of Meteh, Montenegro, were transported in busses to the Albanian border point of Vermosh.

On September 18, Ethnic Albanian Leader, Ibrahim Rugova, gave his preliminary endorsement to a 3-year U.S.-backed "temporary" plan to restore local autonomy to Kosovo (stripped by Milosevic in 1989). According to the associated press, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic "supported" the plan aimed at "normalizing the difficult and risky situation and halting the attacks and the use of force."

On September 21, amidst renewed Serbian attacks in the Drenica region, Ethnic Albanian leaders released their version of the U.S. supported "interim" peace proposal. Under the arrangement, Kosovo would become an "independent entity equal" to Serbia and Montenegro, with its own courts, police, and central bank. Its status as a province in Yugoslavia would be retained temporarily and negotiated in the future. Serbian officials rejected parts of the proposal but, reportedly, agreed to release their own version in the upcoming week.

On September 22, the New York Times reported that the "worsening plight" of refugees and internally displaced people from Kosovo was "increasing the possibility of NATO intervention." Britain and France urged the U.N. Security Council to finish drafting the Resolution designed to make (Serbian) "compliance mandatory," and raise the "specter of military force." According to U.S. officials, the pending resolution reflects an emerging consensus in favor of military action, however, "NATO allies have not yet reached an agreement on the use of force."

---------------
The Kosovo war was fought to STOP and PREVENT genocide.....

Genocide By Mass Starvation;
NATO Strategy Makes Sense On One Level. But, In Humanitarian Terms, It's A Fatal Miscalculation.
Los Angeles Times
April 25, 1999, Sunday, Home Edition

http://www.refugees.org/news/op_eds/042599.htm
President Slobodan Milosevic's ability to stop and start massive refugee flows out of Kosovo is a chilling sign of his power and intent. From the Nazis to the Khmer Rouge, closed borders have been a serious sign that genocide is occurring. Genocide does not require gas chambers or even mass graves. A favored tactic is calculated mass starvation. That is what is happening in Kosovo.

Serb forces used food as a weapon during the war in Bosnia. They rarely engaged in battle, preferring to surround and besiege an area, subject it to shelling and cut it off from food.

Long before the bombing began, Milosevic began a systematic campaign to deplete Kosovo of its food resources. Beginning last summer, Serb forces:

restricted importation of basic items into Kosovo, including wheat, rice, cooking oil, sugar, salt, meat, milk, livestock, heating fuel and gasoline;

looted warehouses and burned fields, haystacks, winter food stocks and firewood.

killed livestock and often dropped their carcasses into wells to contaminate the water;

shot at ethnic Albanian farmers trying to harvest or plant;

Harassed, persecuted and sometimes killed local humanitarian aid workers;

created nearly 300,000 internally displaced people, most of whom stayed with private families, eating what private stores of food they had managed to save.

In the best of times, Kosovo is not a self-sufficient food producer. By early this year, with planting and harvesting brought to a halt and with food stocks consumed or destroyed, there were no food reserves outside Serbian government shops. Most of the population was dependent on humanitarian aid delivered through a network of U.N. agencies and local and international nongovernmental organizations. That network is gone. The International Committee of the Red Cross, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Food Program are out of Kosovo. International nongovernmental groups have been expelled and are now working with refugees outside Kosovo. Local nongovernment groups have been decimated, their staff members lucky to become refugees themselves.

Before NATO's military objectives can be achieved, Milosevic will already have accomplished his objective: Grinding down Kosovo's 1.8 million ethnic Albanians. One rule of war is this: Men with guns do not starve; civilians do. NATO is not going to beat the Yugoslav military by starving them out, and if it did, the civilians would perish long before them.

As hunger and disease loom, various interim steps have been suggested: internal safe havens, food air drops, humanitarian corridors. Each is flawed, largely because each requires cooperation from Milosevic that in all likelihood will never come to be. Milosevic could achieve his aims simply by dragging his feet.

Everyone is concerned about the lives of NATO servicemen, but the people on the executioner's block cannot wait for a risk-free, soldier-friendly environment for their rescue. They can't wait for the amassing of 200,000 troops, if that will take months of buildup and field support. They can't wait for a "permissive environment."

Mass Graves, Mass Denial (PDF)
http://www.bard.edu/bgia/journal/vol2/63-66.pdf

http://www.religioustolerance.org/war_koso.htm
Did the Serbs commit genocide?
Civilian populations are increasingly being targeted during recent civil wars. However, atrocities must match certain specific criteria before they are considered genocide. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as "certain acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such. The proscribed acts include killings, causing serious bodily or mental harm, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, forcibly transferring its children to another group, or deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its destruction in whole or in part."
Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia during the mid 1990s started as mass expulsions of civilians. It escalated to include internment in concentration camps, mass executions, rapes, etc. There was a clear policy by the Serbs "to exterminate Muslim Bosnians as a group..." Their actions were generally considered to be genocide. There is a general consensus that widespread atrocities were also committed by the Muslims and the Croats (largely Roman Catholic). But the level of their war crimes did not reach genocidal proportions.

There have been allegations that the Serbs were engaged in genocide in Kosovo before and during the NATO bombing. Media correspondents and human rights investigators conducted large-scale interviews of Kosovar refugees. The data collected show that the Geneva Conventions concerning civilians had been ignored and that extremely serious war crimes were perpetrated by the Yugoslavian army, police and militias. There appeared to be a consensus of human rights investigators that the quantity and type of documented atrocities proved that genocide was committed by the Yugoslavian government against the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. This belief was confirmed as the NATO forces occupied Kosovo. Mass graves were located and are being systematically examined by forensic specialists. Ethnic Albainians came out of hiding with horrendous stories to tell. In excess of 11,000 murders were reported to authorities. According to a report by the U.N.'s chief prosecutor in Yugoslavia, Carla Del Ponte, on 1999-NOV-10, 2,108 complete corpses and an unknown but large number of incompete corpses were found. By 1999-NOV, a total of 195 grave sites in Kosovo had been analyzed; another four hundred remained to be investigated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2147781.stm
Mass grave found near Srebrenica
Tuesday, 23 July, 2002, 22:35 GMT 23:35 UK
Forensic experts in Bosnia have discovered a mass grave in the north-east of the country, close to the site of the Srebrenica massacre in 1995. It is thought the grave contains the bodies of Bosnian Muslims killed by Bosnian Serb forces after they captured Srebrenica.

Skeletons 'incomplete'
The grave site was discovered on Monday near the Serb-held village of Kamenica, some 70 kilometres (45 miles) north-east of Sarajevo.

The commission said it had "reliable proof" that the remains were transported to the grave from another location, in order to conceal the remains from war crime investigators.

He said some of the skeletons were incomplete, and that others were found with their hands bound by wire.

More than 7,000 Bosnian Muslims were killed after the fall of Srebrenica, in the worst massacre Europe has seen since World War II.

So far 6,000 bodies have been exhumed from numerous mass graves around the town, but only 300 have been identified.


Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadzic and his army chief Ratko Mladic have been implicated in the Srebrenica massacres.


New mass grave found in Kosovo as Milosevic trial nears
Posted: 02/11/2002 11:10 amLast Updated: 2002-02-11 11:58:09-05
Kroni I Mbretit, Yugoslavia - Kosovo villagers have discovered a new mass grave, just two days before former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic goes on trial for engineering genocide in their province.

The remains were uncovered in western Kosovo on Sunday. The remains of up to 20 bodies were found in a shallow grave by children playing in the area.

Several villagers living near the grave will offer testimony in the upcoming trial of Milosevic, which starts tomorrow in the Hague, but their testimony will focus on other events, and not the grave uncovered Sunday.
http://www.wndu.com/news/022002/news_12301.php

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/09/serb.grave/
BELGRADE, Yugoslavia -- Serbian forensic experts have discovered another mass grave near a lake in southwestern Serbia.
The grave is believed to contain bodies of ethnic Albanians killed during the 1999 war in Kosovo

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/11/bosnia.pit/index.html
Bosnia mass grave found
June 11, 2001 Posted: 3:58 AM EDT (0758 GMT)
MOUNT MALUSA, Bosnia -- A mass grave containing bodies of victims of the notorious Foca prison camp has been discovered in Bosnia, Reuters has reported.
Bosnian Muslim officials found the grave hidden deep in a dense forest after receiving a letter signed by "a Serb from Foca," the agency said.


Barbara Boxer at Rice for SOS hearings:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/politics/19cnd-rtex.h ...
"My last point has to do with Milosevic. You said you can't compare the two dictators. You know, you're right; no two tyrants are alike. But the fact is Milosevic started wars that killed 200,000 in Bosnia, 10,000 in Kosovo and thousands in Croatia, and he was nabbed. "
















Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. As well....
Edited on Tue Sep-27-05 06:03 PM by FrenchieCat
Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Clark displeased the defense secretary, Bill Cohen, and General Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by arguing strenuously that—contrary to Clinton's decision— the option of using ground troops in Kosovo should remain open. But the problem seems to have gone further back. Some top military leaders objected to the idea of the US military fighting a war for humanitarian reasons. Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.

http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html
Clark was almost alone in pushing for a humanitarian intervention in Rwanda.

Pulitzer award winning Samantha Power for her book "A Problem from Hell" : America and the Age of Genocide
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060541644/qid=1114936910/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-7692952-2877630?v=glance&s=books
endorsed Wes Clark http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2003/12/redeeming_wes...
The following excerpts from Power's book give the details. The narrative surrounding the quotes was written by another person commenting on the book. Note especially Power's last comment below on Clark's pariah status in Washington:

General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi.

She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .

He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).

According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.

She details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, "The man who probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic's battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance."

"Yet in Washington Clark was a pariah. In July 1999 he was curtly informed that he would be replaced as supreme allied commander for Europe. This forced his retirement and ended thirty-four years of distinguished service. Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move."


Samantha Power's comments on Wesley Clark at the December 17, 2003, press conference in Concord, New Hampshire after the General's testimony at the Hague .

"Good afternoon. It's a real honor for me to be here with General Clark, and with Edita Tahiri. My name is Samantha Power. I spent about seven years looking into American responses to genocide in the twentieth century, and discovered something that may not surprise you but that did surprise me, which was that until 1999 the United States had actually never intervened to prevent genocide in our nation's history. Successive American presidents had done an absolutely terrific job pledging never again, and remembering the holocaust, but ultimately when genocide confronted them, they weighed the costs and the benefits of intervention, and they decided that the risks of getting involved were actually far greater than the other non-costs from the standpoint of the American public, of staying uninvolved or being bystanders. That changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military.

The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing. And it was Pentagon reluctance to intervene in Rwanda, and in Bosnia, that actually made it much, much easier for political leaders to turn away. When the estimates started coming out of the Pentagon that were much more constructive, and proactive, and creative, one of the many deterrents to intervention melted away. And so I think, again, in discussing briefly the General's testimony, it's important to remember why he was able to testify at the Hague, and he testified because he decided to own something that was politically very, very unfashionable at the time."
http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/index.html


Washington's Long Knives
Friday, August 13, 1999.

The Clinton administration's decision not to reappoint Gen. Wesley Clark for a second term as Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR) of NATO forces following his victory over Serbia in the Kosovo war reveals the state of high-level Washington confusion over fundamental Balkan policy aims.

More than any senior U.S. civilian or military official, Gen. Clark epitomized a tough, no-nonsense approach to Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic. Belgrade no doubt views the decision and its timing as a reflection of Washington's unwillingness to stay the course in the region that can be exploited in the months ahead.
snip
So much for the People magazine view of Washington personnel decision-making. The real story, of course, is that Gen. Clark was not reappointed because he had ruffled too much senior Washington plumage in achieving NATO's victory. The administration expected that a brief and light NATO bombing campaign would bring Mr. Milosevic to heel, put a lid on the violence in Kosovo, and enable the United States to restore the frayed credibility of its European leadership role and the viability of the alliance itself. All at little price and minimal risk.

Belgrade's decision to intensify the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo that it had begun the previous year, when over 500,000 Kosovo Albanians were displaced from their homes and 500 villages destroyed, challenged these comfortable assumptions. The alliance could either make peace with Mr. Milosevic on his terms, or adapt its strategy and tactics to the new Belgrade-driven realities. Washington hesitated, Gen. Clark did not. By exercising his option as field commander, forcefully advocating escalation of the air war to defeat Serbia and pressing for all necessary resources to achieve that objective, he left little room for the administration to follow its preferred course of action whenever Mr. Milosevic called its bluff.

This was a decisive break with the policy that Ambassador Richard Holbrooke had brokered of coming to terms with Mr. Milosevic and giving him a major "peacemaker" role. As a key participant in the Dayton peace negotiations with Mr. Holbrooke, Gen. Clark believed that such coddling of the Serbian leader had only tempted Belgrade to believe that Washington had an almost inexhaustible patience for Serb-inspired destabilization of the region. When negotiating the crucial written details of the October 1998 Kosovo cease-fire after Mr. Holbrooke had obtained oral commitments from Mr. Milosevic, Gen. Clark concluded that Belgrade would not abide by it for long, that the cease-fire would break down, and that this would present Washington with a national crisis. Anticipating war, he sought to prepare the administration and the allies for the looming conflict.

Any conflict produces inevitable tensions between field commanders and headquarters. Those tensions are multiplied when the alliance is as disparate as the 19 member nations of NATO. Gen. Clark's achievement was to provide the NATO alliance with the will, vision and strategy to win and not let tactical obstacles overwhelm his strategic objectives. His bombing campaign, moreover, set the stage for the resurgence of democratic activism in Serbia aimed at displacing Mr. Milosevic.

That Gen. Ralston differed with Gen. Clark over many of the key war-fighting recommendations made by SACEUR does not augur well for the firmness of future alliance policy in the Balkans. That the Army was prepared to let the NATO command go to an Air Force officer for only the second time in alliance history suggests that the Pentagon's senior Army leaders have yet to digest the lesson that their inclination to field the best-equipped force that does not fight-witness the Apache helicopter non-deployment fiasco-is impelling the service toward strategic irrelevance in Europe. That Secretary of Defense William Cohen would undercut Gen. Clark as he begins the enormously complicated and difficult task of implementing the KFOR security mandate raises questions about the secretary's military judgment (though not, of course, his right to remove Gen. Clark).
snip
Gen. Wesley Clark has earned the nation's gratitude. He learned well the lesson of using force to prevail in the Balkan snake pit and emerged as a genuine allied commander of stature. In so doing, however, even a leader of his talents and professionalism was unable to survive the more harsh and unforgiving Washington snake pit. He will depart NATO next April as the shortest-tenured SACEUR since Dwight Eisenhower. That's not bad company to be in.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #47
65. YOU GO GIRL!! BRAVO!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texifornia Donating Member (399 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. As opposed to...
anti-war candidates like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Joe Biden?

Clark was against the war before it started and is for the best possible outcome now that it has.

Has Hillary missed hers?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
28. Welcome to DU Texifornia!
I like your post. Sure puts things in perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
81. Welcome to DU, Texifornia!
from another Texan!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
faithfulcitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. peace movement? just because some people have turned on *,
doesn't mean there's a large constituency for a peace movement or pull the troops out now. So, one could say there's an anger movement growing.

Besides, Clark would welcome peace. He did not simply run for personal glory, it's because he believed he had the best shot at winning. If his time were to pass so be it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lena inRI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
6. More like the Democratic Party, under. . .
the gripe of Billary and the DLC/DNC, missed their presidential moment!

Wes is marching to a different drummer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
8. Seems to me Clark was against the war
so why would the anti-war movement gaining visibility (and momentum) hurt his chances for anything?

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. the "get out NOW "people won't buy his "stay and fix it "position.
that could be what the OP might be inferring..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. True, there's a disparity there
Edited on Tue Sep-27-05 01:40 PM by JNelson6563
it'll be interesting to see how it all plays out. I don't think either will happen while BushCo. is running the show.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
9. Rabid peace movement??
Edited on Tue Sep-27-05 01:26 PM by AntiCoup2K4
Yeah, god forbid something like peace would ever break out on this planet.....just imagine how awful life would be if companies like Halliburton and Blackwater were forced out of existence....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. i thought "rabid" was a curious choice or wording also.. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
henslee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. I should have said in the event that the peace movement snowballs
which it very well might. And though I like Clark... he doesn't get an "A" for winning the peace in Yugoslavia. I wonder what his initial stand was re: Invading Iraq. Was he pro invasion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #15
46. He opposed the Iraq invasion and he blew the whistle on PNAC
Clark outed PNAC plans to invade up to seven Islamic nations in their ideoogical power drunk plans to remake the Mid East to their liking. In fact Clark still is blowing that whistle. Clark testified before Congress this year that current Bush policies will lead to war with either and/or both Syria and Iran, and urged Congress to focus on that while there still is time to prevent it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
25. I had to laugh out loud at the use of "rabid..."
But what the hell, I'm in favor of "rabid peace."

At least I think I am... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redwitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
64. A peace pandemic for which there is no known cure
ah, what a blissful way to go!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
12. rabid!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
henslee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Not yet... but hey it could very well grow to be a category 5.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
13. the short answer is:
Edited on Tue Sep-27-05 01:31 PM by welshTerrier2
neither ...

Clark's position, as best i remember what i read about it, calls for 1. involving surrounding countries in a negotiated settlement while the US remains in occupation and 2. the building of permanent bases to protect US troops while they are in Iraq ...

i think Clark's success as a candidate will be based on whether his views are validated by coming events and by the American people ... i don't think he will be either helped or hurt by the peace movement ...

fwiw, i disagree with Clark on these two points ... it seems to me Clark's views are predicated on the false premise that foreign fighters are a significant source of the insurgency ... they are not ... and I think the building of permanent bases sends a terrible signal to those legitimately concerned about US imperialism and long-term occupation ... our troops should be provided whatever protections they truly need as long as they remain in Iraq; most who have been killed or wounded sustained their injuries while in transit or during direct confrontation with insurgents ... safe housing on permanent bases does not seem to be necessary and causes more problems ...

Clark's call for regional involvement is a good solution at the wrong time ... the US should have built stronger ties to Middle Eastern countries during and after the Gulf War ... and we should seek to improve these relationships after we honor the national sovereignty of Iraq and "sacred Muslim lands" by withdrawing our troops ... i don't see what role these negotiations can play while bush and his imperialist occupiers are allowed to pursue their agenda ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. I agree that his political future is not challenged
Edited on Tue Sep-27-05 02:17 PM by Texas_Kat
by a growing 'peace' movement. But you are incorrect in your #2 point.

Clark has called for immediate disavowal of any 'permanent bases' in Iraq. Bush should announce publicly (and follow through with immediate action) demonstrate that there will be no permanent bases.

Wes Clark

"In addition, a public U.S. declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq would be a helpful step in engaging both regional and Iraqi support ...."

http://securingamerica.com/node/253



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #21
30. Clark supports the building of permanent bases
you've raised a very important point here and i'm glad we have a chance to clarify Clark's position ...

Clark has been very clear, specifically in the link you highlighted, that we need to make it eminently clear to Iraqis and others in the Middle East that the US does NOT intend to remain in Iraq permanently as an occupying force ... point one: the credibility of the US in making this argument and providing these assurances, especially while we remain in Iraq, is less than zero !!

but you are right to point out that Clark does not intend to use the military bases "permanently" ...

unfortunately, however, this misses the point I raised ...

Clark clearly supports the building of these permanent bases and supports their use by US occupation forces ... that's the point i was making in my post ... building these "permanent bases", regardless of what assurance Clark seeks to provide to those in the Middle East who understand American imperialism, sends a horrible signal to those who don't trust us ...

here's is a link to Clark's statement condoning the building of the bases and the subsequent usage of them by US occupation forces:

General Clark was asked the following question by a poster at the TPM Cafe:

General Clark, included on the last Bush administraton spending request for Iraq were billions for "permanent" bases for US armed forces, as well as billions more for the world's largest embassy. It would be a virtual fortress, owned and staffed by the US, with state-of-the-art technology for surveillance, etc. Once built....f not already built.....the US embassy and camps would costs US taxpayers billions more to maintain.

The assumption by most is that these constructions are to give the US a permanent presence in Iraq and the Middle East...to control oil and political affairs and to conduct surreptitious surveillance.

here was the General's response:

source: http://www.tpmcafe.com/comments/2005/8/29/94325/1284/44

"The truth is that our soldiers are under attack in Iraq. The fact that these are listed as permanent bases is probably an indication that they'll be constructed to provide better protection for our soldiers. They don't necessarily mean that we'll stay there indefinitely. I would certainly not want us to stay there indefinitely, but we do need to do everything we can to protect our troops."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. Building bases for the future Iraq army.....
is an infrastructure issue. I suppose it may be a little different than rebuilding (or building) Iraq government buildings -- though not by much. I would hope (though with Bush's cronies, I understand that it's unlikely) that the construction employ Iraqis rather than US Halliburton people. It's hard to know what those 'bases' consist of.... are they barracks and admin buildings along with a landing strip? Are they underground bunkers? Or are they just pushing sand around?

It seems the poster at TPM was more concerned with "....the world's largest embassy. It would be a virtual fortress, owned and staffed by the US, with state-of-the-art technology for surveillance, etc." rather than 'bases'. So far as I can tell, the Bush administration has always gone for excess in everything. It's their typical modus operandi.

Clark didn't comment on "....the world's largest embassy." His concern is for the troops.... the embassy issue and its "billions more to maintain" will be resolved by kicking the neo-cons out of office. The embassy operation can then be scaled back to reasonable proportions.

Clark's right that housing troops temporarily in buildings is safer than housing them in a tent city...... I don't see anything nefarious in that.....

Though I suppose you could argue that the less safe American troops are, the sooner the country will demand that they come home. I'm not sure if that's what you're saying, though.

I don't see a building (or buildings or bases, for that matter) as the issue. I would rather focus on the intent (which Clark rightly does) that Americans should NOT be in Iraq on a long term basis.

The declaration of intent to leave should be public, it should be immediate and it should be believable. Whether US troops live in a tent city or something logistically safer seems to be a side issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #30
37. WT2, Clark is in favor of the US Forswearing permanent bases in Iraq....
Edited on Tue Sep-27-05 03:52 PM by FrenchieCat
and I think that as thoughtful as you might possibly be, you lose the meaning in your translation as to the position of those you don't quite agree with...

I have to say that you are "nit picking" at this point....and all for no real reason that I can think of.

Clark clearly stated in his "Plan" overview he offers in the WAPO....
In addition, a public U.S. declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq would be a helpful step in engaging both regional and Iraqi support as we implement our plans.
http://securingamerica.com/node/253

I don't know about you....but the US publicily forswearing permanent bases in Iraq means that Clark believes that we should not have long range plans for these bases.....regardless of the fact, that for now, considering the 140,000 troups we have in Iraq...they do serve a convenient purpose.

The bases are called permanent for a reason. But the issue as to who will populate these bases is the real crux of the matter, not the fact that they have been built (at this point anyways...since Clark was not part of the planning in getting that done).

Clark doesn't believe that these bases are a positive thing in the larger view politically and diplomatically speaking...even if militarily they serve a useful purpose...and he also understands that these permanent bases are something that the middle east doesn't want....and that the could be of value to the US diplomatically, in effect...as leverage to gain some trust with those we should be working with us as opposed to against us. Foresaking those bases would certainly provide an indicator that our true motives are not to make Iraq our satellite base in the Middle East.

I find it amazing how you systematically closely peruse certain statements, but yet omit and neglect to bring forth other statements that would add context and flavor to what Clark truly believes. I find that unfortunate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. please don't comment on me ... stay focussed on the issue
Edited on Tue Sep-27-05 04:56 PM by welshTerrier2
i'll tell you what ... i don't focus on your biases and preferences and i would very much appreciate your not focussing on mine ...

your post did NOT respond at all to the point i made ...

let's try this one more time ...

the other poster clearly stated, and posted an excellent link, to Clark's "forswearing" statement ... you call me "nit picking", "losing meaning in how i translate, etc ... please don't ...

i very clearly pointed out that US assurances, i.e. forswearings, is not going to be accepted by anyone in the Middle East ... you make it sound like i never addressed the point ... the truth is, you didn't respond to the point i made about this ... the point is that i don't think any assurances given by the US while we remain an occupying force will be accepted ... you did NOT address this key point i made ...

i wish we could get along without the ad hominem stuff ...

i wrote that the symbolism of the bases to those in the Middle East will be horrible ... you responded by pointing out Clark's "forswearance" statement but didn't discuss the symbolism of building permanent bases ... you talk about using them to "gain some leverage" but don't explain how that process will work ...

do you agree with what i stated about Clark's view of 1. building the bases and 2. occupying the bases with American troops?

i don't see how anything has been twisted or improperly interpreted ... i provided a direct quote and a link to exactly what Clark said ... they aren't my words; they are his words ...

let's recap the basics here ... let me know if this is a fair recap (NOTE: my comments and opinions added in parens)...

1. Clark said that we should provide assurances to Iraq and other countries in the Middle East that we will not permanently occupy these bases (i think US assurances are worth nothing to a region that has witnessed decades of US imperialism - Clark may be trustworthy but bush surely is NOT)
2. Clark believes the bases should be built and that there is even a value to giving them a "permanent infrastructure" to ensure high quality (i think this sends a terrible signal at a time we are trying to enhance US credibility as a broker for peace or at least stability)
3. Clark believes US troops should occupy these bases to provide for their security (again, i think this sends the wrong message and i don't see why "more secure housing" is required ... it seems like most if not all attacks on US troops have come from roadside bombs while troops are in transit and from direct engagement of armed insurgents)

please let me know whether i have correctly stated Clark's views on building "permanent bases" and feel free to discuss/debate my opinions on each of these points ... let's try to steer clear of personal remarks ... that will not lead to productive discussions ...

on edit: i have to go out now - going to hear Deval Patrick who may well be the future governor of Massachusetts ... back later ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #40
51. Some of this is semantics (I didn't say all of it, just some).
The term "permanent" has a technical as well as political meaning, and I am not minimizing the political meaning at all in saying that. "Temporary" military bases are not built to the same standards as "permanent" bases. They are not as secure, meaning that they are not as "hardened" against possible attack. They lack certain capacities, ranging from advanced communications infrastructure, to living and dining quarters resistant to rocket and mortar attacks, to advanced medical facilities, to landing strips capable of sustaining major operations. Permanent bases cost a whole lot of money to build, much more money than "temporary" bases, money that simply can not be justified within tight economic restraints if the foreseeable need for those bases is of short term duration, say a year or two or less. That is what I mean by semantics.

We all know from watching our own base closing commission that there is nothing sacred about the word "permanent" when applied to a military base. Plans change when needs change. I believe Clark was addressing his anticipation that Iraq will remain a dangerous environment for years to come, whether or not the U.S. has forces stationed there. A temporary base is much like a temporary bridge, is is a stop gap measure put together quickly, not one expected to hold up to continuing needs. If a base is being used to provide logistical relief support to Tsunami victims for example, there is no need for anything more robust than a temporary facility. That is not the case in Iraq. Like many, including it seems Rumsfeld, Clark unfortunately does not see an early end to military conflict inside Iraq, whether or not the U.S. stays involved for now. He fears a slide into circumstances that will promote dangerous instability in both the region and the world if a U.S. exit is not handled carefully, (and he acknowledges that Bush may misplay the situation so thoroughly, assuming there is not a change in course regarding increased diplomacy, that the U.S. will have no better alternative than to withdraw no matter how unstable the situation in Iraq remains).

Clark believes that elements of the current Iraq insurgency, those that can not be drawn into a political process, will need to be defeated militarily, either by American and Allied forces fighting along side Iraq government forces, or by Iraq Government forces fighting alone at a later date. While American forces are stationed in Iraq, Clark wants them based in facilities adequate to the threat he believes they are facing, and I am sure he anticipates that in the future Iraq government forces will need bases that meet those same standards if they are to succeed on their own. Nothing I heard Clark say implied that those bases should remain solely for American use as long as Americans are in Iraq. Joint uses are conceivable prior to a hand off.

I know that you commented in your post that you do not see a military need for "high quality" bases to combat the insurgency. I won't take a cheap shot at you and say you are an armature compared to a four star General, because I really do think that would be a cheap shot. I will admit that it is conceivable that someone who is so closely identified with the safety and welfare of the men and women serving in our Armed Forces might be biased toward going over board to protect them from harm. I am not conceding that is the case here, just acknowledging that you may have grounds for your opinion, or you may simply be wrong. I am not in a position to personally know but my instinct is to trust Clark on that one.

Regarding the political side of the equation concerning "permanent bases" you are of course correct. Most Arabs, with good reason, do not trust American intentions. It certainly would not hurt though for Bush to make a very clear statement that the U.S. does not intend to hold onto those bases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #51
84. well said, Tom ...
re: "permanent bases", i tried to have General Clark respond to the following in my TPM exchange with him but he focussed on other issues in his response ... I wrote:

"Furthermore, we see disturbing signs of long-term occupation. First, we see the construction of permanent military bases. I don't accept the idea that such structures are needed for the protection of our troops. What evidence is there that our troops need these more permanent installations? Most of those killed or wounded seem to incur their injuries while in transit. The troops should clearly be provided with whatever security is needed but permanent military bases send the wrong signal."

I appreciate your not taking a cheap shot ... let me assure you that the intent of my posts regarding General Clark's position is in no way to demean either him or his political prospects ... i am sincere in my disagreements with his position as i understand it ... in fact, my goal is to engage General Clark with my ideas and wrestle back and forth until one vision emerges ... sure, i expect someone with his experience will bring far more to the table than I can ... but that's how i see democracy working ... i'm not convinced his plan makes sense so i should try to communicate what i see and then work to evolve a consensus ... could i be totally out to lunch with my views? you're damned straight i could be ... but before i support anyone or any view it has to make sense ... Clark's position does NOT make sense to me ... it's not a criticism of him ... i'm not "anti-Clark" ... i'm just fighting for what i believe in and i'm listening and learning as i go ...

Most confusing, beyond the narrower issue of military bases, is Clark's call for regional negotiations and involvement with Iraq's neighbors ... no one should construe my comments as opposition to the idea ... i'm all for enhancing communcation and understanding with all stakeholders in the region ... what makes no sense to me, however, is making this a key piece of a plan that calls for continued occupation ... i reread Clark's piece very carefully on this theme ... the most obvious objective is to shut-off the flow of foreign jihadists into Iraq ... i've already highlighted that these foreign fighters may be as little as 4% of the "insurgency" ... and an article i cited indicated that at least Syria would not have the capability of locking down their border even if they chose to ... so, while i'm not at all opposed to regional discussions, their objective in support of continued occupation makes no sense to me ... Clark listed issues in his speech about travel, common "border" projects, etc ... all well and good but i don't see that quelling the opposition to a US imposed solution inside Iraq ...

most interesting to me in Clark's piece was this statement: "If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home."

Clark acknowledges that if the WH drunk boy (my expression not his) won't alter course, we might as well get the hell out of there ... he wrote his Op-Ed more than a month ago (8/26/05) ... since then, we've seen hundreds of Iraqi deaths, we've basically flattened another Iraqi city leaving more than 200,000 homeless, and, surprise, surprise, bush has NOT altered course ...

Clark also wrote: "With each passing month the difficulties are compounded and the chances for a successful outcome are reduced. Urgent modification of the strategy is required before it is too late to do anything other than simply withdraw our forces."

Well, since it's now one month later, and Clark was obviously right that "difficulties are compounded and the chances for a successful outcome are reduced", is it "too late" yet?? how about after two months have passed?? three?? the problem is that bush is NOT going to change course!!! or do you or other Clark supporters genuinely believe he might?? we certain haven't seen the "urgent modifications" Clark said are necessary ...

if no one believes bush is going to change course, and if Clark is right that if bush does not change course then we should just withdraw, then why are we still there ????? is this a fair question to ask those who still are NOT ready to call for immediate withdrawal ???

i'll leave you with that question ...

again, Tom, i appreciated the civility of your response ... thanks ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #84
90. I appreciate this discussion.
Edited on Wed Sep-28-05 12:36 AM by Tom Rinaldo
And I have no difficulty at all in being civil with you WT2, because you always raise substantive points very worthy of discussion. First let me say that I fully agree with you that it is the responsibility of citizens in a Democracy to ask probing questions of experts, no matter what their field of expertise. The wisest experts become more expert partially from taking seriously questions asked by those with less perceived expertise than their own.

OK, on to the discussion. Other nations in the region have significant cards to play above and beyond allowing insurgents to pass through their borders into Iraq unhindered, but I wouldn't limit the threat posed by porous borders to foreign fighters only. Porous borders create sanctuaries and staging areas that Iraqi citizen insurgents can and do exploit also, moving back and forth across them to regroup, resupply, or simply to escape pursuit.

The best example I have read regarding regional influences and potential interference not directly related to border crossings involves Iran (I've read sketchier reports about Syria in this regard - some related to the estranged but still somewhat compatible Baath parties in both nations). Because Iran is a heavily Shiite majority nation, it has great potential influence within the Shiite population of Iraq. Many influential Iraq Shiite religious leaders fled to and lived in Iran for years while Hussein ruled Iraq, to avoid assassination. Many of their followers did as well. I wish it weren't true but human nature seems far too often to allow the manipulation of larger populations by those pursuing a hidden agenda to their own advantage. We saw that in the former Yugoslavia under Milosevic and we sure as hell see it here in the US also.

If Iran wants Iraq to remain or become more unstable than it already is now, it has numerous strings it can pull to achieve that end. Currently it is in Iran's perceived national interest for Iraq to remain unstable, because they fear a stable Iraq would encourage, empower, and enable the American Government to move onto other nations with their regime change, military driven, social engineering projects. How the United States chooses to signal Iran that we do not actively seek to overthrow their government is far less important than whether or not the United states chooses to send that signal. Nixon used ping pong diplomacy with China. Bush could use "travel" or "common border projects" with Iran for example.

This of course begs the larger question of whether or not Bush would ever show such a willingness to reduce the incentive of Iraq's neighbors to promote instability in Iraq, or heaven forbid, actually offer concrete incentives to them to do the opposite. And I fully note your observation of the lack of evidence that Bush has or would during the short window that Clark is referring to. My short answer is this. There is a slim chance he might do so. Bush turned around and embraced the Department of Homeland Security when he realized it was about to be shoved down his throat like it or not and there was nothing he could do about it.

A better example though might be North Korea, and admittedly the jury is still out on that one. Bush never admits when he makes a mistake, and he is very very slow to even recognize when he makes one, even in the privacy of his own bathroom, but the latter has been known to occur. Inch by kicking and screaming inch, Bush has adjusted his North Korea policy to the point where now he unofficially is allowing bilateral negotiations to take place, and where he now is virtually promising that he will not pursue military options or other attempts at regime change in North Korea (though he has his own face saving language that he uses to describe this evolved position). Bush, who always said that you can not reward bad behavior so no economic preconditions can be spoken of let alone negotiated prior to North Korea abandoning it's nuclear program, has been dancing away from that hard line and allowing South Korea to be our proxy in that regard.

In Iraq Bush was forced by the lack of any other viable options to give the United Nations a significantly larger role than he originally wanted to in the formation of Iraq's interim government. Not that Bush ever admitted that his policy had changed, he pretended that was his plan all along.

If Clark did not believe that the stakes were as high in Iraq as he believes they are, he might not be trying now to fight against the tide until the very point of no return, but that is exactly how high I believe Clark sees the stakes in Iraq as being. Having said that I have full confidence in Clark that when he sees that that small window still left open for the possibility of positive developments closes, he will say so and adjust his position accordingly. I believe I saw him throw around the guesstimate of a 6 month window for a significant course correction about two months ago, but don't hold me to those figures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #90
92. another excellent response ...
first, you killed me with this one: "The wisest experts become more expert partially from taking seriously questions asked by those with less perceived expertise than their own." ... therein lies my purpose for participating on DU ... well, one of them anyway ... we can learn many things from "experts" but we should never accept their knowledge without challenge ... otherwise we might as well let them cast our votes as they see fit ...

let's take one more look at Iran ... actually, as an aside, let's take two more looks ... i'm hearing a little bit too much macho coming from some (i.e. not you and not Clark) in the Democratic Party regarding Iran ... what i'm not hearing too much of is avoiding a confrontation ... what i'm not hearing is that "dirty word": peace ... what i'm not hearing is using war as "a last resort" ... just a lot of political talk about being "tough on defense" and how it will help the Party's image ... i'm all for a strong defense; i'm not for pounding war drums to make political points ...

so, question one is: has Clark made any statements about Iran's nuclear program (i haven't done my homework on this yet)? what analysis has he provided about global oil supplies and Iran's oil contracts with China? what risks does he see regarding an alliance of oil producing states that might seek to refuse to sell oil to the US? what risks does he see to Iran moving to the euro or some other currency to deal in petrodollars? i have no idea if you're familiar with his views on any of this stuff but thought i would ask ...

anyway, back to the previous discussion ... i came away with two key understandings of arguments you presented for dealing with Iran ... first, you stated that the issue of porous borders goes beyond merely dealing with infiltrating jihadists ... you indicated that a second concern is that porous borders could provide sanctuaries for native Iraqi insurgents ... and second, i understood your point about Iran having the capability to keep Iraq unstable and that perhaps simple diplomacy (like ping pong in China) could convince the Iranians that we want to work with them rather than attack them ...

on point one, the "sanctuary" argument, if most of the "insurgents" are Sunnis, how likely is it that they would cross the border in Iran for sanctuary? ... as a military argument, i think the point has great merit; as a religious / cultural issue, i wonder whether it has any functional significance with regard to Iran and the composition of the Iraqi insurgency ... i have no answers; just questions ...

and point two keeps bringing me back to the same theme: is it conceivable that a bush WH can in any way, even if bush yodels and cheney tap dances, convince the Iranian government that we don't want to topple them? if you were in Iran, could i convince you with bush still in the WH? and worse yet, could i convince you while i still had such a huge, proximate military presence in the region? could a President Clark perhaps signal the dawning of a new day where all options were genuinely on the table and a new openness with all countries in the region might become possible? sure ... why not? ... but bush? cheney? PNAC? and even "we have to look tough" Democrats piling on? i just don't believe it's credible ... we assassinated Mossadeq ... we propped up the Shah ... how many innocents did he kill in Iraq? we toppled Saddam and numerous other governments ... we even toppled numerous democratically elected governments ...

and behind all of this, General Clark believes that we can find a way to influence Iran not to destabilize Iraq by supporting the internal insurgency ? first, it's not exactly clear what role Iran is playing in the instability ... aren't most of the insurgents Sunnis? it seems to me the Shiites in Iraq have been fairly cooperative with the US ... wouldn't this be where Iran would be able to exert any destabilizing influence if they were so inclined?

so, let's recap ...

1. what does General Clark think the US position should be regarding Iran (even absent considerations regarding Iraq)?
2. the "sanctuary" argument, while militarily valid, seems less relevant given a Sunni insurgency and a Shiite Iranian population and
3. does Iran have any real power to promote instability in Iraq given the Sunni-based composition of the insurgency? perhaps there is merit to the idea that they want the US to be tied up in Iraq so that there are insufficient resources to target them ... but the insurgents battling the US do not seem to come within Iran's sphere of influence ... the Iraqi insurgents, in fact, are fighting the US to resist the imposition of a pro-Iranian government ... so the "we need to negotiate with Iran so that they will stop destabilizing Iraq" doesn't fit well with anything i can understand either ...

again, i'm all for negotiation ... i'm sure something positive might come from enhanced communication ... there's no reason not to start building bridges in the region ... but going beyond these intangibles and calling for negotiations as one "pillar" in a justification to remain in Iraq in the hopes of achieving something positive seems to lack adequate rationale ...

keep trying though ... if nothing else, you and General Clark would have a persistent, tenacious ally were you to convince me ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #92
99. There is too much macho coming from the Democrats on Iran
I am concerned about that also. Clinton is inching over toward a Lieberman like orientation in general, Bayh is staking out hard line turf, Biden sometimes seems intent on proving Democrats can be tougher than Republicans etc.

Some national Democratic leaders are concerned that the Democrats overly forfeited foreign policy leadership, and "protecting America" specifically, to the Republicans in the arena of public debate. There is some truth in that but the answer is NOT to mimic the Republicans.

I think a philosophical cornerstone to Clark's world view is the commonality of values and beliefs given expression through "Western Democracies." That is on the "big picture" level, the study of historical forces and social organizing principles. Clark thinks in those terms from what I can tell. He is very much an intellectual with a deep appreciation of various historical forces, including a keen interest in how they are likely to play out into the future. That is why early into Clark's 2004 run he issued a "100 year vision" for America.

So what does that have to do with the price of tea in China (literally)? Clark takes very very seriously our trans Atlantic alliances, both the formal NATO Alliance, and the larger shared set of common Democratic values found in Western European and North American societies. When he looks to the future he sees China continuing to emerge as a major global force to be reckoned with. I strongly suspect that Clark also sees fundamentalist theocratic ideologies as another world force in play and potentially growing. Clark believes that Americas natural allies are the Western Democracies, not that he views other blocs necessarily as enemies, but that still is an important distinction.

On a short term very practical level, America's credibility with the Arab world will almost certainly fall painfully short without perceived more honest brokers vouching for our true intentions. So when you ask how can Iran trust anything the United States says, the answer is with great difficulty, but possibly with diplomatic reenforcement from France, Germany, Great Britain, The Netherlands etc, they might choose to engage in a careful staged withdrawal from the brink of confrontation with the U.S.. Kind of like Reagan's line about the Soviet Union, "trust, but verify. So I think Bush would first have to convince Europe that he was serious about a new approach to the Middle East before there could be any chance of traction there. For Clark, this is almost as natural a state of affairs as breathing. For Bush it is labored and painful. I really don't know if he can go there, but the road to Tehran runs through Paris and Berlin. He doesn't have to parachute directly into a Mid East Mosque to begin dialog.

I am going to have to answer in multiple posts since dinner draws near. Here is an outline of some thoughts. The Syrian border is more where the "sanctuary" issue is in play, but it is very much in play there, and Syria does have some local influence and similar reasons to Iran for wanting the U.S. to stay bogged down in Iraq. Regarding Iran, they do not have to influence the insurgents directly. All they have to do is influence enough Shiites to be hard line in their negotiations with Iraq Sunnis who either are not part of the insurgency, or who might be willing to abandon the insurgency given some somewhat reasonable concessions. That freezes the situation and prevents movement toward any reconciliation or truce between warring elements inside Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #92
102. Time for one more short post,
I leave town on business in the morning for a few days...

About the connections Syria and Iran have inside of Iraq keep in mind that both Syria and Iraq were ruled by secular Baathist parties for decades that had common roots. Though a deep split had existed between them for years, all ties were not broken and their world views were not that different. It was mostly a rivalry for Arab leadership that separated them, not beliefs. There were credible reports that at least one of Hussein's sons fled to Syria for a period after the American invasion. Money that originated with Hussein is believed to still flow through Syria to insurgents in Iraq. Syria definitely knows they are on Bush's shit list, and from time to time Syria has tried to pursue a thaw with Washington. They were actually part of the Desert Storm Coalition under Bush the elder, and they did provide some intelligence cooperation with the U.S. after 9/11.

Regarding Iran, the Iraq Shiite cleric al-Sadr has connections with Iran and he certainly has not been a friend of the Americans. His militia have openly launched military campaigns against American forces and he has at times aligned himself with Iraq Sunni elements against the U.S., so there is direct leverage in addition to indirect leverage that Iran can bring to bear inside of Iraq.

Clark has been a constant advocate for careful eyes open engagement with Iran. He believes that significant elements of Iranian society are voluntarily open to positive western influences if we do not position ourselves as an enemy of Iran. He thinks it is important for the United States to recognize that Iran is an ancient society with great cultural and historical pride. Iran has always been a major regional power and it is unrealistic for the United States to believe that Iran won't continue to strive for what it perceives to be it's legitimate national interests and traditional influence in that region.

Clark does believe that it will be destabilizing at minimum and quite dangerous at maximum for Iran to develop nuclear weapons, and has been openly highly supportive of European initiatives to pursue an agreement with Iran that would prevent that, urging the United States government to support that initiative. Clark blasts the Bush Administration for having signaled that if you already have nukes, like North Korea, we will not invade you, but if you don't, like Iraq, Syria or Iran, we either already did or may still.

I do not have detailed information about how Clark believes the U.S. can best handle it's energy needs vis a vis Mid East Oil and Iran. I know he believes that when the U.S. needs foreign oil, it should be prepared to pay world market prices to get it rather than somehow use force or the threat of it to gain a more advantageous arrangement. I know he feels the United States is under utilizing our technological base toward efforts to develop alternative energy sources and conservation, and that he is a strong advocate of government support in those areas. He is definitely concerned about the U.S. dependency on mid east oil.

This I believe is one of many reasons why he feels the Bush Administration's ineptness in International diplomacy is creating a National Security problem for the United States. He sees real and significant risks for the United States if it continues to position itself at odds with most of the world, especially when there is no valid reason for the United States to adopt that posture in the first place.

Sorry I can't be more helpful than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. I don't look at it from your angle, WT2
although I do agree, that there is no "saving" Iraq nor is there a "victory" in the hallways of the non strategies offered by this administration.

That being said, I do believe that it is in Dems' best interest to offer up plans.....no matter that they will not be implemented...which is what Wes Clark is doing (and I wish more leaders would. In this way, Dems will be able to repel the "Cut and Run" label...that although is bullshit in itself, could stick to Dems running for congress in 2006, as the media is not on our side in this. Remember that they have awsome power, no matter whether we think so or not. They would only have to substain certain perceptions until after the election....and then they can tell us to kiss their asses, e.g., Election 2004.

It's not about facts with this administration and this media...its about perception and how "they" will propagandize the stance of Democrats no matter how untrue, slanted, biased, or otherwise. Unfortunately we cannot underestimate their power.

In a world of "fair" media, Dem leaders could demand that we leave immediately considering that there are excellent reasons to do this....but considering that our calls will only be answered by political manipulation, we would be fools to step into the trap set for us..... we cannot lose sight of an appropriate political strategy to regain power in 2006...which is when we will be able to demand what we want, and actually see it happen.

Possible scenarios that we should not want to see:
1. Bush hears the call for "Immediate Withdrawals" and heeds the public outcry and starts to "withdraw" some troops just prior to the 2006 election (say Sept...which is when the GOP new election product line seem to appear)....using twisted rational and some PR media fanfare- This leaves congressional Dem candidates who could use this issue running on empty. After the election, Bush re-introduces troups and claims that we need them there...and goes about his business once again.
2. Bush ignores the public call for immediate withdrawal, and the media continues to state that Democrats have no alternative plan beyond cutting and running, which then Democrats are forced to explain...but with slanted news coverage that will make them look bad in the end. Don't think the media will not work overtime creating this image.
3. Bush says F*ck the clamor and initiates another crisis elsewhere to distract from Iraq concerns....like Syria or Iran.


Scenario that would work to our advantage:
1. Democrats offer up various plans on strategies that sound plausible, but offer the caveat that if the administration does not change it's course, then Dems are justified in demanding a way out as immediately as possible.
2. Democrats demand that American Bases in Iraq be turned over to the Iraqis, and that we either turn to a diplomatic solution, or get the F*ck out.
3. "Do this or get out" will work better than the simpler "out".


Whatever happens, we must not lose sight that we only have the power of the people's voices...which can be shut down fairly easily by the media. We must gain power back in order to call the shots. At this point in time attempting to demand "immediate" withdrawal may hurt us more than we have actually determined....and considering that none of what we want will happen in the way that we want it too, wanting to do the "right" thing may become a dangerous political exercise, no matter how "correct" it might seem.

This is Big Boy Time aka Clark time.....as far as I can tell. Political shrewness is definitely required for Dems to come out as the winners in this all around losing scenario.

Demanding something is one thing....getting it is quite another.

My post is not an abstract of what I wish...it is our political reality...and this war and this administration are nothing more than political in every aspect of everything they stand for.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
14. Clark was among the advisers invited by the Out of Iraq Caucus
of Congressional Representatives to advise them. Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who launched the Caucus, had this to say about Clark's session with them:

This is from Roll Call:

Clark Sways Some on Iraq Strategy

By Erin P. Billings
Roll Call Staff

September 22, 2005


"Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who formed the Out of Iraq Caucus, said Clark gave the group “good recommendations” about how to move forward in talking about bringing an end to the war and developing a strategy to bring home U.S. forces. The Out of Iraq Caucus is developing a strategic plan on the matter to be released in the coming months.

“I think he gave us some more to think about, and more to think about in this whole area of diplomacy,” she said. “He gave us good recommendations that we can form a consensus around.”

“What he did was refocus me, and all of us, in coming up with a plan for diplomacy,” Waters added. “We decided we would get together and talk about and formulate a plan based on what he told us to lead this country and pressure this administration on the diplomatic issues that it hasn’t been involved in.”

The Out of Iraq Caucus is a band of about 50 liberal Democrats dedicated to increasing pressure in the White House to end the Iraqi conflict and bring U.S. troops home. The caucus formed in June to offer a divided party a more forceful voice on the issue."

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/51_27/news/10609-1.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
henslee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Who better to invite on board. He is "credibility in a can" plus he is
uber popular across the spectrum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. LMAO!! "Credibility in a can." I like that. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
23. interesting article.
If he can get Maxine Waters to listen, well, she is no pushover, put it that way. Clark is a very likable person. I can see why many would be drawn to him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #23
82. The "Out of Iraq" Caucus has grown to 67 since last week.
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bmbmd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
19. The development of a de novo peace movement in this country
can only mean that Agent Gary Seven and Isis have escaped from the Enterprise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
26. Well, being a rabidly peaceful candidate didn't help Dennis any
and most of the rest of our candidates had a similar stance to Clark's.

I'm not sure the rabid peace movement is a high enough percentage of the vote to effect things that dramatically. I would think not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfkrfk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
32. define 'withdrawal'?
my guess at what Bush's plan is...

an as fast as possible 'Iraqi-ization' program,
with Iraqi police being helped by mercenaries,
the US-British military fading into the background,
a buildup of UN and NGO humanitarian efforts,
but with the long term need for some kind of
'stabilization' force of 'mercenary-Nato-UN-???',
with the purposes of...keep the Iraqi police loyal,
and to deter opportunistic gangsterism.

if things unfold something like that,
define 'withdrawal'.

just because it gets to the point
where the US is not taking any casualties,
does not mean that US influence is zero
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
33. He is helped by a sense of fear and impending doom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
34. He is helped by a sense of fear and impending doom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
35. I'm going to answer your question with no mention of Clark other than
in the post's title.

The 'rabid peace movement' you mention is actually many things. To call it a rabid peace movement would be quite wrong.

As we all know from watching the demonstrations this weekend, there were many constituencies. Some of them were pure 'anti-war'. Some of them were demonstrating for things having little or nothing to do with war.

But I will grant that there is a widespread disposition to peace.

That being said, there is also a widespread recognition that we are, indeed, the target of violent extremists. So, while there is an anti-war element out there, I dare say the sentiment is better defined as anti **Iraq** war. Just by way of example, had we never gone into Iraq, but still went into Afghanistan, the 'rabid peace movement' would be neither rabid nor a movement.

Rational people are going to want someone who against the War in Iraq©, but also someone who they percieve as able to keep them safe. To be absolutely clear, 'keeping them safe' does not equate to a propensity to call for military action. It means someone who will, in the totality of the government's resources, will work to keep them safe. But it also means that people accept that, in extremis, war might be a needed option.

In the end, I think your question goes far more to jingoism than a realistic choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
38. He met with Cindy Sheehan.....
and had pics and movie taken and everything! A move that now that he has made it, others will follow to emulate if it seems like it would be "beneficial" to their personal political careers.

I heard that Hillary had also met with Cindy...but I doubt that there was any photo session. I don't know when Hillary met with Cindy, but it sure doesn't seem to have worked for her...but I don't think that Clark worries so much about those things.

Finger in the wind is soooooo 2004, why are so many still doing it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #38
44. This came to mind today when I heard McCain met with her.
Not to long ago he said bush didn't need to. I figured he saw the "credibility" Clark gave her. Will O'Vilely attack McCain now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #44
50. Clark: "I'm not endorsing anything she says except for her grief."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=235x7571

I'm not sure he "had a meeting with her" so much as he was at the same meeting that she was at. He wasn't there to see her and he would have gone even if she hadn't gone.

It's interesting how much mileage he's gotten from just being in the same room. She didn't agree with what he said at that meeting, and he says he's not endorsing anything she said (other than her grief).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. And how is that relevant to my post?
They were introduced and discussed the issues, hence meeting. He was one of the first high profile leaders to meet with her. He did not avoid her, even though he knew she would be there and that they had different views. He was attacked by O'Vilely for giving her credibility and did not back down. I am quite aware that you do not like Clark and that he is not your choice. But that does not excuse you for jumping on every positive post about Clark to denigrate him, even if you find it necessary to go off topic and spin. Why would a statesman and diplomat endorse a solution he does not believe in. He has a plan and he has a platform of his own to deliver it. He was not using her, he did not bring it up. He respects her sacrifice and her right to expression. I haven't seen any one say otherwise except O'Vilely. Now McCain has met her, Hmmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. That is correct. He did not embrace nor attack her positions.
But Clark very pointedly did not embace the position that O'Reilly was pushing during the interview you are quoting from. Instead he made a very cutting come back at all the chicken hawks who are attacking Cindy.

The following is taken from the WesPAC web site:

"GEN. WESLEY CLARK: If we do the diplomacy right, we can take the pressure off our troops.

Bill O'Reilly: Let's get to that next week. We'll book you next week when we don't have a hurricane to deal with. But I was a little surprised that a man of your stature, would go to meet with somebody who said the following, America is a bad country, we've been murdering people since we first stepped foot on the continent. That the insurgents who are killing our soldiers right now are "freedom fighters in Iraq." I mean this is talking about Sunni fanatics and al Qaeda, right?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well

Bill O'Reilly: I mean meeting with her you gave by meeting her, with all due respect

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Bill, I'm not endorsing anything she says except for her grief...



...Bill O'Reilly: Alright. And we will have you on next week to get into a very serious discussion about this. But I will tell you, and we disagree. Gentlemen disagree. We're both gentlemen. You gave her credibility. She does not like this country. I fill bad for her loss. But her statements over the last month

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well I, no, no

Bill O'Reilly: have been absolutely irresponsible and outrageous, I am, I am just flabbergasted.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I can't imagine that she doesn't like the country.

Bill O'Reilly: Well she said we committed murder

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: She supported her son serving in the Armed Forces and I can tell you there is a lot of people who wear that American Flag pin who wouldn't let their children serve in the Armed Forces, so I honor any parent who's son serves in the Armed Forces, or daughter."

http://securingamerica.com/foxnews/2005-09-23
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
39. Helped. Need someone with experience to organize sensible withdrawal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
53. You started this thread
to spew your anti-Clark meme, again. The thing that always seems to be a constant among your type is that 1.5 million people being saved from sure death appears to be completely irrelevant. Figuring out a way to enable Milosevic to continue his ongoing "purification" of the country so that those who "rightfully deserved" to be in charge based on rabid ethnic nationalism was really the goal, wasn't it? You seem to blame Clark for the 200,000 deaths caused by Milosevic. Why don't you just come right out and say what the end result that YOU were looking for was, instead of just hiding it in a discussion about Clark and starting little flame wars. Whose side were you on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
57. Is any Democrats' chances helped by a rabid peace movement?
Will we ever learn? :eyes:


America will never hand control over to a party that is not serious about running the most powerful country in the world in a responsible manner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
59. To be quite frank. Although I strongly support Wes Clark for the
'08 nomination, I would be incredibly happy if I never saw another '08 candidate thread as long as I live.

For God's sake, can we just lay off it for awhile?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
61. Just a little update on what lies ahead: ICG
When talk of negotiations rears up, I'm not sure of how people imagine those negotiations. Do they think that we are talking about some "peace treaty?" This document outlines the internal role that diplomacy can play in finding a soft-landing. I personally don't think that the bush administration is capable of doing what needs to be done. Afterall, reading this document only illustrates how bush has made the situation worse for the usual political reasons. Of course diplomacy would also need to take place outside of Iraq's boarders as well; just another thing that the bushes will fail to do. This document does not discuss the influence of outside forces being played out in the power struggle that it Iraq.

Clark has said that the window of opportunity, however small, is about 6 months (approx.) I also think that Clark's plan takes into account that bush will be forced out anyway, thus negating any need for Democrats to shoulder the blame for failure in Iraq, as they would if they called for "out now." Politically, the tail belongs between bush's legs. Finally, bush will do nothing, heed no call that is made, before they are forced to. While it may not please anyone, taking the long view has some decided advantages.

Here is the ICG report (Note: internationally, this group's groups reports are highly valued. It is they who run the Darfur ads at Kos.)

Unmaking Iraq

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
66. How many names does Clark want on the Iraq War Memorial?
That's the question that should be asked of any man or woman that is running for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008.

I think 2,000 names is 2,000 names too many, therefore I demand an immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq. I also want Bush & Co. to be prosecuted for war crimes, either on US soil where they can get the death penalty, or at the International Crimes Court at The Hague where there is no death penalty.

We should also pay war reparations to Iraq, and we should have a debate about repealing the Commander-in-Chief clause that has been used by Presidents to commit the country to military adventures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. How about congress doing their job?
The executive should not be able to declare war, something that Clark was trying to stop, when congress decided to hand bush a blank check for war. The congress has that responsibility. Did you know that Clark was on the phone late into the night trying to craft an amendment that Dems could present to stop the insanity before it started when Gephardt decided to cave?

I think Clark would want to see fewer names of Americans on the Iraq war monument than we see on the Kosovo War monument. How's that?

Clark counciled against this war, but then again, he doesn't have his finger in the political winds. Didn't then; doesn't now. Maybe your question needs to be asked of politicians who knew, but put their political aspirations ahead of those who would needlessly die.

So my question would be: how much of a blood bath do we want to see after bush pulls out? And if even if it wrecked one's political chances, would one try to stop that blood bath?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. Clark would have never attacked Iraq, had he been President
The problem is that he, like many others, may be unable to bite the bullet and get us out of Iraq.

We already know that Hillary will escalate the war, so she is out as far as I am concerned.

Never throw good money after bad. Let's stop throwing lives at a war we have already lost!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #69
79. That is correct: generals actually hate wars.
Sun Tzu says that the best generals win and never have to fight the war.

I read the ICG report, and they see the chances of averting a civil war as bleak, although they did cite one sliver of a possibility. bush does have enough leverage there to pull it off, but it is doubtful that he will use it. What a fucking asshole.

The political class is busy collecting checks at fundraisers, so I'm not betting on them to apply any pressure. Clark is working the backrooms trying to get someone, anyone, to force the bush administration to stop the coming bloodbath. Al Sadre's militia has recently taken over villages along the Syrian border; 100,000 Sunis are now on the roads and homeless.

Fasten your seatbelt, we are in for a bumpy ride.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NCarolinawoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #79
88. It is all such a tragedy.
The surrounding countries do not want this. They need a consensus builder; but Bush, who should be a middle-manager at a lawn-mower parts company, is not up to the job.

I apologize to any middle-managers of lawn-mower parts companies who might be
DUers. We all know that the shrub is not up to that job either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladylibertee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
91. I think it was hurt.Unfortunatly, I do not have time to CUT and Paste
information to validate why I think this way, I just do.:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #91
96. It was? Where's this Rabid peace? Did it happen
and I missed it? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
94. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
95. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC