Clark says Iraq's Oil belongs to Iraq. Only the Iraq people should control it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

Clark also says the United States should fully participate in guaranteeing Iran and Syria's security. And that the U.S. should have no permanent bases inside Iraq.

Somehow I think Clark's message is getting distorted on Democratic Underground this morning. Why aren't people talking about these things?

USA Today
Next move in Iraq?
Updated 11/20/2006 9:12 PM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Subscribe to stories like this

By Wesley Clark
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-11-20-clark_x.htm?csp=34


... These principles could include: Iraq would remain whole; oil revenue would go to the Iraqi people based on a formula they determine; the rights and security of individuals must be protected; the United States would have no permanent bases in Iraq; the covert flow of military arms and equipment into Iraq would be halted; and the security needs of all states would be respected.

Regional dialogue needed

A permanent Gulf regional security dialogue could emerge that includes Syria and Iran, and the United States could undertake a role as regional security guarantor. Preliminary discussions should lead to a more intensive dialogue with Iran in which security assurances and nuclear programs are discussed.

In terms of diplomacy, our team would engage each state and party, solicit its views and challenge it to participate in moving forward, just as U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke did in the Balkans a decade ago. Next steps might include confidence-building measures, hosted discussions between factions, and perhaps one or more larger meetings to conclude firm commitments, timetables or sequence of events....

... Ultimately, security in the Gulf and winning against al-Qaeda will require that we work with regional powers, promote stability and gradual transformation, and regain "strategic consent" for long-term U.S. assistance in the region. We must use the situation in Iraq to propel us toward this larger goal, and in doing so, we will also find the right way to wind down our deployment there.

The outline of what needs to be done is clear. But does the administration have the courage and foresight to do it, or will it continue to march into profound failure?

[Captain Hilts]

1. What a radical idea....nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Unfortunately it is; to Bush/Cheney/Big Oil

We didn't invade Iraq to stop nuclear armed glider planes from attacking the United States.

[rocktivity]

2. There he goes being sensible and realistic again...

:eyes:
rocknation

[Eurobabe]

12. Oh, I like that ticket rocknation!!

[mitchleary]

4. My question is

Who in the F should it belong to if not the Iraqis?

[FrenchieCat]

13. Well in a Bush Administration, I believe that the rules are

First come, first served.

And of course, this mentality is a big part of the problem, if not the biggest!

[blm]

5. I agree with that point about oil every time it comes up by Dem lawmakers.

I think it is THAT important and that every Dem should be making it, even when they disagree on other aspects of withdrawal.

[The Count]

6. But, but...someone remembers their hairdresser said Clark said differently...

Why are you confusing us with his actual words? We make decisions on other people's reports of what they heard on dubious radio shows!:shrug:

[Clark2008]

8. LOL!

I heard my step-neighbor in-law once removed say that Clark actually wants troops to be killed in Iraq in the interest of Big Oil and that he would allow a take-over of the White House by monied interests.

:sarcasm:

[Clarkie1]

7. Clark also said yesterday on Air America radio there must be no permanent bases in Iraq. nt

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. One thing you learn in the military (because mistakes are fatal):

Keep your eyes on reality. Wishful thinking is not tolerated. Anyone who thinks that the netroots activists or anyone else can deliver the votes in Congress before the 2008 Elections to cut off funding for the troops inside Iraq, let alone over ride a certain Presidential veto if by some miracle that legislation did pass, is engaging in extreme wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking has it's place. Wishes over time can become a reality, but that wish will not become reality in this Congress. Meanwhile we have a very dangerous situation continuing to slide out of control in the middle east. Clark is focused on exercising pressure to push this Admiinistration to do the things that will lesson the chances of a new war with Iran. That is critical. A focus on the need for a region wide diplomatic process is critical, and given shifting perceptions among some Republicans, possibly even doable before 2008. God help us if it isn't.

edited to add: I'm not at all saying that I think cutting off funds for our troops inside Iraq is the right approach to take to the mess with Iraq. I am saying however that anyone who thinks that IS a good strategy needs to stay in touch with reality. It is not going to happen in this Congress, with or without the support of Democratic Congressional leaders. The votes for that will never be there from the people who sit in Congress now. I don't mean this in a sarcastic way, just a literal way: That's reality, deal with it.

[Texas_Kat]

11. Clark's been the Dems "GO TO" guy on Iraq since 04

Reid and Pelosi have been depending on him for insight into how to solve the Iraq issue. Besides, he would never cut funding to hurt the troops and their families.

General Clark briefed Congressional Leaders several times this cycle as part of his effort to assist Democrats in framing both the message and substance of Democratic alternatives to the Administration’s vision.

• Senate Chiefs of Staff Luncheon (x2)


• House Democratic Caucus (x2)


• House Democratic Caucus Retreat (x2)


• United States Senate Democratic Caucus Retreat (’06)


• Democratic Policy Committee (US Senate) Luncheon (x2)


• Joint House and Senate Leadership Briefings (x2)


• Rollout of Joint House and Senate “Real Security” Plan at Union Station


• House Democrats Rollout of the “New GI Bill”


• Gave the National Democratic Radio Address (x2)

[Mass]

14. Excellent call by Clark.\nt

[elehhhhna]

15. What's he say about Carlyle buying all our infrastructure?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2764352&mesg_id=2764352

[democrank]

16. Every time Clark opens his mouth

sanity starts breaking out! No permanent bases....YES!

[Clarkie1]

17. Are any other Dems publically saying this? I'm sure this is something we can agree on. nt

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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