As you never have much positive to say about him beyond appearing in threads with his name and either discussing Warner or questioning Wes Clark (with the ....Oh, "but I'm for Clark" qualifier at the end).
I don't understand how you, someone that promotes Mark Warner who is a "Doesn't support a timetable in Iraq" guy who also doesn't want to "RE-fight" how we got into this war....somehow have managed in multiple posts to repeat that you can't seem to understand how Clark has survived daily Dem Bashing due to his stance of wanting to get out of this using diplomacy but not announcing a date certain....although he's definitly for getting the hell out of there ASAP.
Here as some reasons why Clark may not be getting "bashed".....
Because he has a track record of wanting to do the right thing.....including when many were voting and supporting this war, and not sticking his finger to the wind while reading polls. Instead he leads!
Read this and maybe the next time you post, you will have informed yourself and you will be defending Clark (that you say you support)instead of raising issues that would allow others to attack him.
Skipos, face it--You are FOR Clark about as much as I am for Mark Warner.....not much. I wasn't born yesterday! What Clark was saying 2 days before the IWR VOTE:
USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002, in which Clark wrote:
Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them.
Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem.http://www.p-fritz.net/p/irc.html What Clark was saying 1 day before the IWR VOTE:Clark's op ed on September 10, 2002....One day before the IWR Vote:
In his Op-Ed dated October 10, 2002, "Let's Wait to Attack." Clark states:
In the near term,
time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months.
....there is still time for dialogue before we act.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/
What Clark actually said in reference to "a" Resolution on 10/09/02:http://premium1.fosters.com/2002/election%5F2002/oct/09/us%5F2cong%5F1009a.asp"Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports A congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war. Clark, who led the allied NATO forces in the Kosovo conflict, endorsed Democrat Katrina Swett in the 2nd District race.?
He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for a resolution, but only after vigorous debate... The general said he had doubt Iraq posed a threat, and questioned whether it was immediate and said the debate about a response has been conducted backward. Note that it is the Associated Press who claims Clark supports a resolution that would give Bush authority to use military force, whereas
Clark's own words indicate he would only support "A" (key word!) resolution "after vigorous debate." Surely that can be interpreted to mean vigorous debate that would result in changes (otherwise, why debate?) --meaning
he did not support the resolution "as was." Considering he had previously testified to the Armed Services Committee that the resolution need not authorize force, we can guess what he might have felt one of those changes should be.
--------
What Clark said on 9/26/02 in his testimony to congress....
Sept. 26, 2002CLARK: Since then,
we've encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait.
We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an army of God, the mujahaddin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these Holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed Al Qaida. My French friends constantly remind me that
these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy, which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing. There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must.
snip
Well, if I could answer and talk about why time is on our side in the near term, first because we have the preponderance of force in this region. There's no question what the outcome of a conflict would be.
Saddam Hussein so far as we know does not have nuclear weapons. Even if there was a catastrophic breakdown in the sanctions regime and somehow he got nuclear materials right now, he wouldn't have nuclear weapons in any zable quantity for, at best, a year, maybe two years.So,
we have the time to build up the force, work the diplomacy, achieve the leverage before he can come up with any military alternative that's significant enough ultimately to block us, and so that's why I say time is on our side in the near term. In the long term, no, and we don't know what the long term is.
Maybe it's five years. Maybe it's four years. Maybe it's eight years. We don't know.I would say it would depend on whether we've exhausted all other possibilities and it's difficult. I don't want to draw a line and say, you know, this kind of inspection, if it's 100 inspectors that's enough
. I think we've got to have done everything we can do given the time that's available to us before we ask the men and women in uniform, whom you know so well (inaudible).http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/clark.perle.testimony.pdf-----------
PROOF HERE THAT THE DEBATE WAS STILL GOING ON ON OCTOBER 9, 2002, AND AMENDMENTS WERE STILL BEING VOTED ON:http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102EPIC ACTION ALERT- 10/9/02
Don't Let Congress Ratify Bush's Preemption Doctrine
URGENT ACTION ALERT! Call NOW to stop the President from getting a blank check from Congress and ensure a second vote by Congress before the President can launch a war on Iraq. For the House, urge your Representative to support the Spratt and Lee Amendments. In addition, encourage them to support a “motion to recommit” (see below for more information).
Implore your Senators to support the Levin Amendment. Finally, if the amendments and motion to recommit fail, urge your Representative and Senators to vote against final passage of the President's War Resolution. You can reach your Representative and Senators via the Congressional switchboard at 202-225-3121 or 202-224-3121 or call toll-free 800-839-5276.
Contact Members of Congress at www.congress.org
98% right thus far.....
I ain't about to doubt him now, that's for damn sure!
"My views on Iraq were very clear. You've heard them expressed on this show many times, Judy. And you yourself know very well how I felt about Iraq. That's the reason I was attacked all through the war by guys like Dick Cheney for being an armchair general, because they knew I was against what they were doing. And they were right. And now we see why everybody should have been against it. 1.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/12/ip.00.html Media Silent on Clark's 9/11 Comments
Gen. says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence6/20/03
But the June 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz that it didn't generate.
Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.
Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL."
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842 "There was a hunger in some quarters to go after this fight. It was as though using force was a reward in itself, that, by putting our forces in there and showing our power, we would somehow solve our problems in the international environment. And I think the opposite is the truth. I think you should use force only as a last resort." Wes Clark
http://www.studioglyphic.com/mt/archives/2003/07/general_wesley_1.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/17/sprj.irq.clark.comments/Ex-NATO commander: Iraq shouldn't be center of war on terror
Sunday, August 17, 2003attacked the Bush administration Sunday for launching a war with Iraq on "false pretenses" and spreading the military too thin amid the global war on terrorism.
snip
"We've made America more engaged, more vulnerable, more committed
less able to respond," he said. "We've lost a tremendous amount of goodwill around the world by our actions and our continuing refusal to bring in international institutions."
He said that if Iraq "is the centerpiece of the war on terror, it shouldn't be."
snip
Clark has called on Congress to investigate allegations that the Bush administration overstated intelligence about Iraq's weapons programs.
Clark also lashed out at House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican.
snip
"The issue is the issues," he said. "What does America stand for? How do we want to behave in the world? What does it take to fulfill America's dreams at home?" Democrat Clark Blames President Bush
for Sept. 11 Intelligence Failures Clark, a retired Army general who led NATO forces in Europe, delivered his sharpest critique yet of Bush's foreign policy. As the newest entry in the Democratic presidential race, he echoed many of his rivals arguments for removing Bush from office.
Clark argued that Bush has manipulated facts, stifled dissent, retaliated against detractors, shown disdain for allies and started a war without just cause. He said Bush put Americans at risk by pursuing war in Iraq instead of hunting for Osama bin Laden and other terrorists, pulling a "bait-and-switch" by going after Iraqi President Saddam Hussein instead of al Qaida terrorists.
He called Bush's labeling of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an axis of evil in his January 2002 State of the Union address -- "the single worst formulation in the last half century of American foreign policy."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/103003A.shtml Saturday, October 04, 2003
Wesley Clark Calls for Criminal Investigation of Bush Iraq policy beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. So, I thought, this is what they mean when they talk about 'draining the swamp."
"Nothing could be a more serious violation of public trust than consciously to make a case for war based on false claims. We need to know if we were intentionally deceived. This administration is trying to do something that ought to be politically impossible to do in a democracy, and that is to govern against the will of the majority. That requires twisted facts, silence, secrecy and very poor lighting." Wes Clarkhttp://www.juancole.com/2003/10/wesley-clark-calls-for-criminal.html
17-Jan-04Wesley Clark
AP: "Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark said Thursday it was up to Congress to determine whether President Bush's march to war in Iraq amounted to a criminal offense. Asked if misleading the nation in going to war would be criminal, Clark told reporters, 'I think that's a question Congress needs to ask. I think this Congress needs to investigate precisely' how the United States wound up in a war 'that wasn't connected to the threat of al-Qaida.'"http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Wesley%20Clarkhttp://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/16916/Let the General Lead the Charge
By Robert ScheerLast week, in calling for an "independent, comprehensive investigation into the administration's handling of the intelligence leading to war in Iraq," Clark raised the key issue facing this president.
"Nothing could be a more serious violation of public trust than to consciously make a case for war based on false claims," he said.
And there you have it -- the basic issue that the Democrats must raise in the next election, or it isn't worth having one. ----
And to this day.....
CLASH OF TITANS DEBATE 2005-
Clark said that joint staff officers told him 10 days after 9/11 that the Bush administration was planning to invade Iraq. “I said, ‘But why?’ They said, ‘Well, um, we don’t know, but if the only tool you’ve got is a hammer, then every problem has to look like a nail,’” said Clark. “And they proceeded to explain that the administration really didn’t know what to do about the War on Terror, but did want to take apart a regime to show that we were powerful …”
When several audience members cried out, Clark also generated some applause after yelling “Stand up and say it! Let’s hear it! And lets hear you explain it and justify it to the families of those who have suffered the loss!”
On Prisoner Abuse.....Clark jumped in, and the issue escalated. Clark took issue with what he said were memos that came from the White House that basically said that the Geneva Convention didn’t apply.
Clark told his fellow officer that the military that he served in for 34 years “didn’t torture people. It didn’t abuse them. It didn’t punch out prisoners when it captured them.” Clark blamed the guidance from the top for undercutting the armed forces’ training.
“We never had the investigation, but I’ll tell you what, if you believe everything that has happened at Abu Ghraib, and at Guantanamo, and the rest of it, is the responsibility of a colonel or a corporal or a couple of sergeant’s somewhere,” said Clark, “then I’ve got a bridge or two I’d like you to buy!”
http://www.regent.edu/news/clash_titans_debate05.htmlAlso see....his call on investigation of prisoner abuse!
http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=node/184 AND YESTERDAY IN THE VILLAGE VOICE.....
Flashback: Bush's Exit Strategy, Meet Wesley Clark's General: Make friends, plug borders, get outNovember 30th, 2005 10:56 AM
Editor's note:
So President George Bush has a new plan for winning the war, the 35-page "Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq."
And Hillary Clinton may be feeling the need for one, too.
Earlier this fall, General Wesley Clark, a 2004 presidential contender, gave a Washington, D.C. crowd a few pointers for getting U.S. troops out of Iraq.....
Wesley Clark Sketches an Exit Plan for Iraq
Meanwhile, Charles Rangel talks impeachment
by Sarah Ferguson
September 23rd, 2005 10:54 PM
The grief and outrage that Cindy Sheehan and the other dissenting military families have evoked this week in Washington, D.C., is palpable, as is the evidence they muster of just how careless this administration was in putting their loved ones at risk for the Iraq war.
But in calling for an immediate withdrawal, the peace movement can’t duck a central question: Just how do we leave?
On Friday, Sheehan appeared on a Congressional Black Caucus breakfast panel with General Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander and presidential hopeful, who was there to address the issue of whether the U.S. can "win" the war in Iraq.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0549,news,70568,2.html The link at my sig takes you to where you can Sign a petition.....to hold the majority Republican congress accountable.
We must pressure them to support an investigation on how we got into this war regardless to timetables/benchmarks and other bickering issues that keeps us fighting amongs ourselves while the ones with the real power are doing just what they want to.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
:headbang: 
