Wesley Clark just lost me as a potential supporter

[leftofthedial]

I have no particular favorite among the likely 08 contenders, although there are a few I don't like.

Clark's conversation with Ed Schultz was enlightening and disappointing. IMHO his view of the big picture in the Middle East is absurdly flawed and is merely a watered-down version of the hubris that got us into this mess in the first place. Perhaps it is an artifact of Schultz's pathetic interviewing "skills," but I found Clark's comments disturbing. He thinks we can fix things by, in effect, staying the course militarily while pursuing a bona fide diplomatic solution in Iraq instead of the capitalist profit-fest the bush gang have pursued. What exactly is our mission, Wes? We stand down when the Iraqis stand up? Gee, where have I heard that before?

He thinks the voters (84% opposed the war unequivocally, Wes) want to "win" the war. That's just bullshit. At least he doesn't seem to support sending more troops, although his comments about Rangel's draft idea were so parsed and ambiguous that I guess he might be persuaded to send more troops if we had a bigger supply of cannon fodder.

We are NO part of a solution (other than possibly paying reparations at some point) in Iraq. We are a huge part of the problem. The key, the linchpin, of the current political problems in the Middle East is the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Along with other lingering artifacts of European colonialism, it is the engine that fuels extremism. That won't erase the ethnic, tribal and religious differences, but until there is substantive engagement on and progress on the Israel-Palestinian problem and the gross injustice that angers so many in the region, there will be no peace. Any "solution" we broker in Iraq will be a house of cards built on a foundation of sand. We should immediately leave and let nature take its course.

[wtmusic]

1. Fasten seat belts

:popcorn:

[leftofthedial]

23. gimme summadat popcorn, willya?

I want to watch awhile myself . . .

[FrenchieCat]

51. Well considering the title of your thread.....I would think that popcorn

is what you wanted to eat after posting! :eyes:



(My answer to your op is down below--But without the transcript, I'm not sure if what you interpreted is what I would interpret, so I cannot comment on your post about this interview as of right this moment...of course, this leaves many of us at a disadvantage of being able to respond to your rallying cry thread title).

[Bucky]

153. Bookmarking

Not because I give a shit about the topic but because I love that little popcorn shmeg-out smily.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[leftofthedial]

3. now there's an enlightened retort

[evilgenius602]

41. yeah, what he said!

and your momma too

[leftofthedial]

61. listen, pal

my momma can kick your honor student's ass!

[HCE SuiGeneris]

87. Well, hold it down damnit...

Baby on Board

[wtmusic]

8. Last time I got a response like that

was in 2004, when I criticized Wes' prediction that troop levels would start to fall that spring.

OH the wails of the Wes supporters..."I suppose you know MORE than a four-star general???"

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

Turns out I was right, and Wes was wrong.

I'm not smarter than Wes, but that doesn't mean Wes is always right.

[FrenchieCat]

54. Could you find that thread? You have a star....just do an advance

search with your name on it going back to 2004. Should be easy to find that way, and would illustrate exactly your point in an irrefutable way.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. Hmmmm. He Just Gained My Support With Those Comments. He's Obviously Quite Smart.

I respect his comments and do trust him to know what he's talking about.

[leftofthedial]

12. why?

He thinks we need to pursue a diplomatic solution in Iraq (three factions who have hated one another for most of the last 1000 years and tribal groups who have warred nearly continuously for 4000 years) and the success of that process will allow us to begin to withdraw troops. Israel has existed for 57 years and involves Israel and Palestinians. We've been seeking diplomatic solutions to that mess pretty much continuously for 55 years now with no end in sight.

He was totally silent on the issue of how we come to this diplomatic solution, but I can't support the idea that our troops will keep dying in a tribal-religious crossfire for as long as it takes for Clark's diplomats to broker democratic collaboration between Sunnis and Shia. Never mind getting every nation in the region to accept the Kurds (which hasn't happened since Alexander the Great). That's not a solution.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. "Why? He thinks we need to pursue a diplomatic solution in Iraq"

So do I.

To each their own.

[leftofthedial]

25. what would constitute a "diplomatic solution"?

if you want one, you must have some idea what it would look like

What if it takes as long as, say, a diplomatic solution between the Palestinians and Israel, or the Kurds and the Turks, or the Kurds and Iranians or the Sunnis and the Shia? (That's somewhere between 50 years and 4000 years and counting . . .)

Do you really -- think about it for a moment -- believe that 140,000 US troops should stay on the ground doing whatever the hell their current mission is (does anyone actually know what that is?) until that solution is reached?

[Hardrada]

36. Or the Turks and the Armenians.

That certainly worked out.

[leftofthedial]

39. I've said since before Baghdad fell

(and been flamed for it here on this forum)

that civil war is inevitable and that we have zero military role in any solution.

"civil war" is misleading. This is a continuation of conflicts older than our entire Civilization.

[FrenchieCat]

48. A diplomatic solution--Get the various parties to the table to agree

on political solutions: Bring various regional players to the table to find out what they want, and negotiate responsibilities for them to have a peaceful region.
Request that the Government calls for a vote to admend the Iraqi constitution to decentralize the government; take the American face off the reconstruction and foreswear permanent bases there; have a team of advisors on the ground in Iraq to assist Iraqi government in dismanteling the militias.
---------------------

Rachel Maddow: What kind of policy would you like to see the, the soon-to-be Democratic controlled Congress promote when it comes to Iraq?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, something like a reverse Dayton Agreement. You know, when we were doing the Dayton talks in '95, I went with Richard Holbrook on his team, and we talked to everybody in the region. We even talked to war criminals.


Rachel Maddow: Hm.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: And we got all their views. We, we went, we started with a set of principles, but then we went through the discussions, and we found areas of agreement. And we, as, as, as Holbrook said at the time, he couldn't tell we, whether we were negotiating or mediating.


Rachel Maddow: Huh.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It was a little bit of both.


Rachel Maddow: But it's a pro- it's a process of regional engagement.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Exactly.


Rachel Maddow: Yeah.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: This cannot be done just inside Iraq, and it certainly isn't just the military. And you cannot dictate it from Washington.
http://securingamerica.com/node/1931

“I do think that there should be no permanent bases there. I think that the United States should soon begin its process of redeployment,”
http://securingamerica.com/node/1017

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I'd be looking at a three-level strategy, Bill. I think first we have to talk to countries in the region. We must talk to Iran. We must talk to Syria…and Kuwait and Jordan. But it's Iran and Syria that we've resisted talking to. They're part of the equation whether we like it or not and we need to be talking to them.


Secondly, we've got to strengthen our ability to maneuver politically inside Iraq and that means a stronger team, more incentives - positive and negative for the Iraqi politicos.


And finally, our military needs to not only train and provide security but they provide crucial political leverage and we need to be very forthright in using them for that. I think we also have to be really serious about the objectives.


We're not going to get a democracy - not a western democracy, in Iraq. Our goals should be minimal. We should try to hold Iraq together, not have it become a source of conflict and then the Iraqi people will have to decide really their form of government and <crosstalk> how much federalism there is there.

Bill O'Reilly: We've been talking to them for three and a half years.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No we haven't, not from the right perspective. Go in there with what our conditions are. What are our conditions - our troops are leaving, you're going to take charge of the country, we'd like Iraq to stay together if possible, what is it that keeps you from doing this? And then lay out the puts and takes of each of the factions and try to work them together. Our diplomats know how to do this. <crosstalk> We did this in the Balkans.


Bill O'Reilly: I…I don't know


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It can be done in Iraq.
http://securingamerica.com/node/1766

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, he's always had a lot of power there and actually his power is constrained not only by the Sunni militias but also by the militia that's loyal to Hakim, one of the other Shiite leaders. So there's a 3-way, 4-way, 5-way, 6-way power split inside Iraq depending on where you are. The situation is not simply sectarian but there are conflicts between the sectarian groups within each sect.

Trace Gallagher: No matter how many ways you slice it, General, how do you convince people in Iraq to rely on the government instead of the militias? It seems like a very tough task.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well it's going to be a very tough task. You don't directly convince them of this. What you have to do is you have to convince the political leaders who head the militias to move away from using force to settle their differences and to work cooperatively together and ultimately this is just like negotiating between different countries. You have to have confidence-building measures. You have to be able to reestablish trust and then you have to start talks about laying down weapons. But, it's politics up front and in the meantime, there's a lot of people going to get hurt in Iraq, unfortunately.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I think you have to take two additional factors into consideration. One is that we don't…I don't believe we want to be the ones proposing this. The Iraqis are going to have to decide themselves how to survive. They've got to get along with each other whether there are borders in between that divide nations or borders that divide provinces or streets that divide Sunnis and Shias, or walls and houses. They've still got to get along with each other because there's no ocean that's going to appear between them. And secondly the process of doing this…can you imagine all these people being thrown out of their homes, chased down the street and having it 'made in America'? Why would we want to bring that on ourselves? We've got to work politically to help the Iraqis come to their own solution, not one made in America.

Trace Gallagher: The question would be then General, how long do we wait? How long do we keep troops in there while waiting for Iraqis to come to some sort of agreement and try and come to this solution? I mean, how long do we stay before somebody somewhere has to come up with a solution that is workable, feasible and something that could be accomplished in a limited amount of time?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well President Bush says we have to stay in there for years and years and years and years so I don't know that anybody's got a definite answer but I'll tell you what we need to do. We need to work at three levels. We need to have our diplomats and our national leaders talking to the leaders of other countries in the region. Countries that we don't like, included, like Iran and Syria. Secondly, we need to be working politically with the Iraqis. And third, our military has to not only provide security and training but it has to provide us some leverage so that we can get the Iraqis to stop killing each other and start working for a solution to their…what are political problems. This is not a war that can be won militarily but it could be lost militarily. We have to be able to help the Iraqis make their own solution. It's not a matter of a timeline, it's a matter of having the courage to have the right strategy.

http://securingamerica.com/node/1758

[leftofthedial]

62. and we get l'il george and Condi to engage in this process, how?

Or do 140,000 Americans keep dodging escalating violence on a daily basis until we have another Clinton in the White House?

[FrenchieCat]

73. Oh I see......

What you are saying is that General Clark's recommendations can only be good recommendations if he can be guaranteed that Bush/Rice will take him up on them and execute them as he so orders? otherwise, he should just shut up?

I think that any plan has to deal with what needs to be done.....no matter who would be doing it.

Bush and Rice can take pieces of the plan, none of the plan, or the whole enchilata.....Clark can only make recommendations.

Faulting Clark due to the question as to whether Bush/Rice would actual take anything Clark says and implement it is really a bit unfair to Clark, doncha think? :shrug:

[leftofthedial]

114. I never said he should shut up.

I just said that because of his position on Iraq, as stated on Ed Schultz today, I can't support him for President. In fact, I hope he doesn't shut up. He's a smart, apparently honest, charismatic leader at a time when we need to explore all possible solutions to our problems.

But frankly, I don't think we could roll FDR, JFK, Carter and Clinton (AND Wes Clark) into one package and reach a diplomatic solution, not in your or my lifetimes or even in a millenium. Rice, bush, and all poppy's men certainly could never do it.

The seeds of conflict in that region have been growing ever since the Persions conquered Mesopotamia a thousand years before Alexander. The indigenous people have alternated between tribal warfare and colonial or totalitarian repression ever since. At some point they will have to find a way to live together or live apart. We can't force a solution on them.

I don't think keeping our troops there is helping one bit. In fact, I think our presence is a huge source of ongoing violence.

His "plan" for Iraq hinges on a diplomatic process that has ZERO chance of even happening and a probable zero chance of working even if it did happen. It is perfectly reasonable to criticize a plan that won't work.

[FrenchieCat]

120. So who would you support? Who said that we should be out of

Iraq yesterday. Please do tell.

Clark's plan for Iraq in terms of doing regional dialogue, coming up with a diplomatic political solution and using the military as leverage is exactly the plan that NOW everyone on both sides of the aisle, including this Iraq Research whatever are precisely talking about as the solution--

Where have you been? Clark's plan is exactly the plan that is gonna "try" and be implemented. He might not get credit for it, but it will still be what he has been advocating for months.

But I'll tell you now, when it comes to issues of War and Peace....Clark ain't pandering for your vote...so he ain't gonna tell you what you want to hear just so that you can say you heard it. But I'm sure you'll find a calculating politician out there who will tell you exactly what you want, I even though it won't be constructive to the long term, at least he/she'll have your vote.

[mike_c]

31. a "diplomatic solution" to what end...?

In principle, I agree with you-- a diplomatic solution is certainly preferable to invasion and occupation. Now that's settled, what do we want to achieve?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. Lack Of A Civil War For Starters.

[mike_c]

43. do you honestly think that is possible...?

I don't-- but more to the point, there was no civil war or any threat of civil war in Iraq before March 2003. In other words, it is the American invasion and occupation of Iraq that has brought it to the doorstep of civil war. What makes you think that simply withdrawing won't be a positive step in the direction of restoring the pre-2003 peace? I doubt that it will succeed, but then we know for certain that our presence has caused the present difficulties.

[leftofthedial]

46. so we need to keep US soldiers on the ground in Iraq

until the Sunnis and the Shia no longer hate each other?

and until both are willing to grant the Kurds a homeland?

I see.

We're definitely gonna need a draft.

[Tom Rinaldo]

95. There are many regions of the world where deep hatred simmers...

...without breaking out into full scale regional warfare. That is the case in the Balkans now. That was the case in Northern Ireland for decades. That is the case on the Indian sub continent currently. That is the case on Cypress currently, and so on and so on and so on. Managing tensions and hatreds is not the same as eradicating them completely. The middle east is a real tinder box, if the wrong sparks fly, or to put it more accurately, if they land in the wrong place, violence can spiral into ever widening circles. What the hell do you think World War One was about that tens of millions of people had to die for? That was a conflict that was NOT managed.

What Clark is saying is that the Bush Administration is almost guaranteeing a worst case scenario by refusing to have open discussions with Iran and Syria and other regional players who have a direct stake in keeping some kind of lid on the chaos inside Iraq. What Bush has done is give them incentives to want chaos there, so that we are pinned down in Iraq and unable to attack states like Iran and Syria. Both Iran and Syria have significant leverage that they can use to effect what happens inside Iraq for either peace or war. They know that they are playing with matches there, Iraq could blow up in their faces too, but they don't think they have any other choice currently but to continue to make matters more difficult for the U.S. IF we refuse to treat them with enough respect to assure them that we won't come gunning for them next.

Here is something I just wrote on kos in a thread there, in reply to someone who asked me what can happen if Iraq spins totally out of control?:

"If Iraq spins totally out of control it is not at all the same contained human tragedy as the Congo spinning totally out of control. For one thing we are not the only nation in the world that will decide whether they can stand aside and live with the consequences if that happens.

As Clark points out there is a deep historic and frequently in the past violent split inside Islam between the Shiites and Sunnis, that has significant geopolitical consequence if it sets off a larger confrontation between those arms of Islam. The Persian Gulf becomes a narrow waterway separating Iran and the Saudi peninsular. Dubai has become a major international banking center. The U.S. is not the only nation dependent on Middle East Oil. There has been a balance of power of sorts between Iran, which is Persian but Shiite, and the Arab states which are mostly Sunni.

If the region destabilizes a regional nuclear arms race is likely. And of course there is always Israel to factor in. When push comes to shove, although the U.S. has influence with Israel, we do not have control over Israel. Who knows how they will act if one or more Middle Eastern states tries to rally popular support to it's side by rattling sabers at Israel?

Whatever you may think about Israel, Pro or Con, it is naive to think that the United States would not aid Israel if it finds itself at war.

I can go on. We can talk about a dramatic spread of Al Quada ideology and influence. We can talk about Turkey invading Iraq's Kurdish region. We can talk about hundreds of thousands more dieing in the region and tens of millions more being exiled. What if anything of the above might really happen? No one knows, and that is the most frightening part. Spinning out of control means exactly that.

Clark was speaking in NH recently about the possibility of the U.S. attacking Iran in the following comments, something he says the Bush Administration (pre-mid term elections) wanted to do, and something which he says all Democrats need to work now to prevent, but I think it applies almost universally:

"Most people are about equally brave, most people will fight. Most people love their families, they love their homes, they believe that whatever they believe in is the single one way to truth, reconciliation and the after life, and most people will fight for it. Most people are not philosophical about it, and whether you're walking into a bar in New York City after the Red Sox have played the Yankees, or whether you're dealing with the Bosnians and the Serbs, or whether you're talking about Christians and Iranians. People will fight for what they believe in. So if we want a war with a billion Muslims, we can probably have one. I don't think we want one, we certainly don't need one, and we should do everything we can to prevent it. And that means this election is the crucial moment for doing that."

Violence can spin out of control and when it does the world is a frightening place. I'll just say this, no matter what happens in Iraq next, there is no one I can think of who I would rather see as our President to attempt to deal with it than Wes Clark."

[FrenchieCat]

50. we would want a "stable" Iraq to the extent that it can function on its own

and not turn into a raging battlefield for Iran to play with.

I believe that this is all that we can hope for. If we can convince the other regional players in the vicinity that an all out Civil war in Iraq would not be good for them, we can possibly persuade them to play their part in keeping some semblance of a rickady peace.

We cannot hope for a Democratic Iraq to any great extent, nor can we believe that we can have permanent bases in the country or continue to have leases on their oil via contracts to American companies.

[mike_c]

52. but I'll say again that Iraq was all that and more prior to March 2003....

The single driving fource for the current situation in Iraq is the U.S. invasion and occupation. Political stability? Our invasion and occupation destroyed that. Sectarian violence? Not a major problem until the U.S. invaded. Utterly destroyed national infrastructure? Ditto. Lack of coherent leadership. Our presence prevents any national leadership from functioning. No security? We created that problem. An implacable insurgency? It's a response to the U.S. invasion and occupation. And on and on, so any diplomatic solution MUST begin with the removal of U.S. occupation forces.

[FrenchieCat]

57. A Diplomatic solution can be worked on with the removal of Occupation forces

as part of the negotiating leverage, rather than after we remove our troops then we can negotiate.

We take all of our troops outta there, we have no more leverage. Period.

The situation likely under your suggestion is that we watch from the sidelines the eruption with our hands tied totally and no options to offer. We end up with no plan A, B or C. We become unconsequential to the violence that we in fact started. I don't know what's more dangerous that would be in the long haul--violence that we have no control whatsover, or violence that we are a part of......

cause sometimes good intentions have unintended consequences.

[leftofthedial]

59. do we have leverage now?

I don't think so

we don't control ten square blocks of that whole frigging country

[FrenchieCat]

71. You are misunderstanding the leverage I am speaking of...

as well as what Gen. Clark means by leverage.

The Iraqi government understands at this point that we are leaving at some point, it's a question of when and how.

But keep in mind that the Iraqi Government does NOT want us to leave them in a shithole regardless of what the Iraqi people want; certainly the Govt doesn't want us to leave too quickly as that would totally weaken their hand and puts their government at the greatest of risk....and so,

when and how we leave becomes the leverage.....not whether we can or cannot control the country.

They would have to step up to the plate, in particular on the part of amending their constitution to decentralize the government.

That is what we use as leverage......

[mike_c]

60. whom do we negotiate this settlement with...?

The Maliki government cannot control events on the ground even with our tactical support. What you're suggesting would be tantamount to asking the insurgency to live peacefully under the yoke of occupation in exchange for getting us to leave-- but if they do that, they give up everything. Where is the diplomacy in that, from their perspective? Remember too that the U.S. is an illegal foreign occupier whose very presence is a war crime-- what incentive do the rightful owners of Iraq have to engage in diplomacy with us at all? In their shoes I would want to drive the U.S. into the sea, not make nice with it. Until the U.S. is out of Iraq it can only engage in armed gunboat diplomacy, the most duplicitous kind of all. "Negotiate with us, or we will ring your towns with razor wire and slaughter your children." What kind of "diplomacy" is that?

[many a good man]

63. There hasn't been a civil war in Iraq for the last 800 years

or so I've been told.

[eridani]

129. Agree except for the notion that we have been seeking diplomatic--

--solutions. That's nonsense. We've been seeking domination. (If you really meant that we have been seeking diplomatic cover for our attempts at domination, I apologize.) The ME would be a vastly better place if we had let the 1954 secular democracy of Iran serve as a model for the rest of the area. That, of course would have involved accepting their nationalization of their own oil.

Calling for "diplomatic solutions" doesn't mean jackshit unless you specify exactly what problems you are trying to solve.

[kiahzero]

5. I'd argue, but there's really not much point

When all we're presented with, fact-wise, is your interpretation of the interview, there's not much to say in response.

[The Count]

6. yeah, cuz "strategy" is only good when it involves drafting people

Which, BTW, Clark opposes.

[leftofthedial]

10. his response when Ed asked him about the draft

was not an unequivocal rejection

He thought we could send more troops a la McCain's idea, but that in six months we'd be in big trouble. He acknowledged that a draft could solve that problem (plus distribute the cost of the war more equally). He didn't say anything that made me feel better about Iraq.

[Gregorian]

7. Consider that he did not enorse the vote to go to war in the first place.

"Win" is a hot button for me, also.

I'm unable to recall the things Wes said about the war, or I'd be of some help. I don't think you should base your opinion on him as a result of this one interview. He's a pretty amiable man when it comes to situations like the one Junior and his friends have stirred up for us in Iraq.

My honest impression is that if anyone knows what to do there, it's Clark.

Again, sorry I'm braindead. I have nothing to base my statements on.

[leftofthedial]

17. I don't hate everything he stands for or anything

I like the guy and I admire his opposition to the war.

I just don't agree with him on "what now."

[jobycom]

127. I'm not sure about that.

There was his statement before the House Armed Services Committee, which Wesley's clones swear was not an endorsement of the IWR, but which contained statements like "Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President's clear determination to act if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts."

or

"The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. "

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

Clark supporters seem to overlook these comments and swear that this speach was a rejection of Bush's invasion plans, but I've read it a dozen times, and read Kerry's and H Clinton's statements before the IWR vote, and they seem to be following Clark's advice here to a T. Especially this line. "The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway."

[MrSlayer]

9. Whatever.

Don't support him then. I'll be on the front lines for the brilliant general when the time comes.

[leftofthedial]

14. you have no intellectual involvement in your politics then

it's just a cult of personality?

[MrSlayer]

44. No, I happen to think he knows a great deal more about the situation than you.

This is a man who really knows foreign policy inside and out, is a master diplomat and possesses a huge intellect. To you it's simple, just leave. But the situation isn't that simple, it's massively complex and one such as he can devise a way out that benefits everyone. They say you can't turn chicken shit into chicken salad but I think he can or at least come damn close. It's not a personality cult thing, it's a recognizing one of the truly great minds of our time thing.

[leftofthedial]

47. so you agree with what he said today?

that we need to keep 140,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq until we help the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds reach a diplomatic solution?

that (in effect (although he didn't use Rove's phrase) we can stand down only when the Iraqis stand up?

[FrenchieCat]

58. Why do you think it is impossible to negotiate a peace using our troops

as leverage in a reasonable period? It isn't something that has been tried as of yet. Democrats don't even take back congress until January....yet you don't even want to give the Democrats anytime what it took Bush 4 years to fuck up?

Sen. Levin is looking at 4 to 6 months. You are not willing to give Dems that? Are you saying that we should leave tomorrow? Cause that's what I'm getting which even Feingold was giving longer.

[Tom Rinaldo]

98. But see, I very much doubt he said exactly that today

I don't even think he came close to saying that.

Don't you see how hard this matter is to discuss when you keep raiding a secret stash of "information" based on your recollection and interpretation of what Clark "said" that none of the rest of us have access to? It's pretty one sided by definition.

[MrSlayer]

106. Unfortunately, he's probably right.

The sad thing is that the idiots in this administration should have listened to Wes when he told them not to go into Iraq at all but they didn't. Now we're stuck in a position of having to try to fix this thing and unfortunately that means we have to have troops there. I know fully that they shouldn't be there and that the fact that they are there at all is because of heinous lies but that doesn't change the situation of today. Simply leaving isn't going to reverse those lies or circumstances. The problem with the administration is that they have tried to win with the complete absence of diplomatic and political solutions in addition to military action, they've tried to win with military action alone and that's on purpose because they don't want to win, they want chaos because it makes it easier for them to steal. With the right people shaping a plan that incorporates diplomacy and political savvy and with the military acting as referee instead of as aggressor there may yet be a way to come out of this with a peaceful solution for the Iraqis and save our ruined reputation. I don't believe this in any way resembles the White House plan. Do I like this war? No. Do I think that Wes Clark is right in looking at it in this realistic way? Yes. The fact is, the troops are not going to be coming home soon no matter who wants it. The Democrats aren't going to cut the funding or instantly pull the troops. It's just not going to happen. So if they are going to be there, and they are, should we just bumble about and let them die with the same direction-less plan that is doomed to fail or should we offer a different approach that may work and not let those who have died in the fiasco created by the Bush administration to have died in vein?

It's ugly but I choose the latter since our troops are going to be stuck there no matter what. That's just the way it is, that's reality. It's folly to believe the Democratic congress is going to step in and end this thing in an instant as much as we want that to be the case.

[hlthe2b]

11. ok, so we LOVED Charlie Rangel last week, but hate him now....

we LOVED our first female Speaker, Pelosi two weeks ago, but deride her now...

we LOVED Barak Obama until he defended something or another we just can't countenance (sorry, the firestorm moves so quickly, I can no longer remember the details)...

we LOVED HOward Dean for his 50 state strategy UNTIL Carville had us questioning Dean's leaving money on the table...

we LOVED and respected Wes Clark for his common sense rebuttal to the Faux news pundits and his pointed counter to the Bush* spin.... until we heard something or other (not sure what) that pushed our buttons, so now we DON'T...


I can only hope we are not this fickle and superficial... This too shall pass?
:shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

15. That's the problem with idiot mobs - they're fickle.

[leftofthedial]

20. "idiot mobs"?

:wtf:

:mad:

[BlooInBloo]

21. Rangel-haters.

[The Count]

26. I love Rangel - but he was batshit crazy with the draft. I like Clark too.

Rangel was instrumental in drafting Clark to run in 2003 - so I'll always love him for that.So, where do I fit?

[BlooInBloo]

28. Right where I said, as far as I'm concerned - naturally, opinions may differ.

[leftofthedial]

19. I don't hate Clark

I just disagree with him on Iraq.

What's superficial about that?

FWIW, I like Pelosi. I like Rangel very much. I like Dean very much (and I did not always).

:shrug:

[hlthe2b]

24. It just seems that we have a hard time sticking with DEMS

and the first suggestion of something we can't fully agree with, incites a major pile-on against them on DU....

I appreciate that you haven't been part of these "dramas." Nonetheless, I still have a hard time understanding how one can make up their mind (pro or con) regarding one of our leading 08 contenders based on a single radio interview...:shrug:

[leftofthedial]

27. this is no "major pile on"

I disagree with his statements today on Iraq. I want to discuss them. I can't support anyone for President who holds those views on Iraq.

I'm not trying to tar and feather the guy.

It was a single radio interview, but it's the one I heard. He said what he said. He's free to change or clarify his positions. That would be terrific. But today, he said things I can't support.

[Tom Rinaldo]

100. I don't think you are piling on or in any way trying to be unfair

You have real concerns about something that is important to you. Nothing wrong with that at all. I just wanted to make sure I said that before I got lost in discussion about some of the detailed points you raised.

[LittleClarkie]

40. Yawp. Hope you packed you seasick meds. That's the way

the cookie bounces around here.

And you forgot Murtha. We loved him then hated him when we heard about ABSCAM and when some realized he's pro-life.

[Bucky]

155. I'm not sure the fickleness you percieve is accurate.

If several people post a common impression, it's natural for someone to assume that that is a popular opinion on DU. If the next day several different people post an opposing opinion, then it's again natural to think that now that is the common view. If the common view on DU switches so easily, yes, we're a fickle website. But the reality is that it's simply different people posting different opinions at different times.


I doubt the people castigating Charlie Rangel yesterday over his draft idea are the same people who were singing his praises as the new Ways and Means chairman last week. Don't let the facelessness of an internet forum fool you. People are a lot more consistant than the impression you might get from reading an online forum.

[hlthe2b]

157. Actually, Bucky... having been around since 2/01, I can assure you

many of these posters who sing praises one day and castigate the next ARE the same. Even with nearly 100k registered, the reguar posters in GD and GD politics tend to be a fairly small set of members.

I have no intentions of calling anyone out, but keep tabs. You will see the trend yourself...

[bowens43]

13. 'the big picture in the Middle East is absurdly flawed '

Of course it's flawed. Clark is a man who spent 30 years of his life looking for military solutions to political problems. He see's everything through the site of a gun. His indoctrination is complete and irreversible. The last thing we need is someone like him at the helm.

[The Count]

18. "Military solutions to political problems"?Clark?????????

I believe he is the one who introduced the concept of political vs military solution discourse about Iraq.
Do you even know what he did in Kosovo? How many Americans dies in that "military" solution?

[leftofthedial]

22. I found his notion of this "magical" political solution that would

someday allow us to start bringing troops home to be completely unrealistic.

then, the fact that our military would continue to be stuck in this crossfire is frightening.

I think if Clark intends to run for office, he'd better rethink the statements he made on Schultz's show and he'd better articulate a plan based at least partly in reality.

He also should retract the absurd lie that the election results of 2006 indicate that Americans want the military to stay in Iraq until we "win." That is an outrageous statement.

[The Count]

29. Did he say "magical" or you derride all notion of diplomacy?

He does know a bit on the subject.

[leftofthedial]

37. "magical" is my word.

What would constitute a "diplomatic solution"?

Are you familiar with the diplomatic history of the region?

I don't believe a diplomatic solution is possible. We've been seeking diplomatic solutions in the region since Eisenhower with no result other than to perpetuate hatred and instability.

He said leaving now would be viewed as a major loss for the US. He seems to think that is reason to stay.

I believe the people of the region must themselves undo all the artifacts of western colonialism, address their own divisions and find an equilibrium of their own. We can be supportive of that but it is not our place to impose our political will on the region, either diplomatically or militarily.

I also do not believe our military men and women should sit there with targets on their backs while the diplomats work on issues that are older than Rome.

[The Count]

68. See #66. A transcript, rather than someone's impressions of what he said

[Tom Rinaldo]

104. Again, we need to look at the transcript. I know Clark pretty well

And I don't think you are accurately reflecting his views with your summation of what you think you heard him say. He would not make that statement. I've heard him speak live at six events during the last 5 weeks. That is not the position Clark has.

[mike_c]

30. my feelings exactly....

eom

[Tom Rinaldo]

105. That is a cardboard two dimension distorted caricature of a generic military man

It doesn't remotely resemble Wes Clark.

[William769]

33. Dwight D. Eisenhower was actually a good President.

Shoots (no pun intended) your arguement right out of the water.

[mike_c]

45. I disagree-- but I think we've discussed this at length before....

Eisenhower stoked the cold war, for starters, and determined the paranoid direction of U.S. foreign policy for decades. More to the point, however, Dwight's perceived strengths were the lucky congruence of the time he lived in, the need of the nation for social stablity, and his personality. Eisenhower was right for his time, at least in some ways. He would not be right today. Nor would Wesley Clark, IMO.

[PeaceProgProsp]

53. Before Eisenhower became president he participated in a coast-to-coast

drive across America to convince Americans that the automobile was the future. He was acting as a spokesman for the oil and automobile industry. When he became president he green-lighted a coup in Iran to which Truman was opposed when he was president. The coup was a huge favor for the oil industry.

In a lot of ways, Eisenhower's devotion to these causes and his lack of concern for the morality, the economic, and the political consequences of what he was doing have brought us to the crisis we are in now.

[Martin Eden]

42. I can't agree with your assessment ...

... that career military officers have necessarily been indoctrinated to the extent that they can see only military solutions. Clark will be the first to tell you there is no military solution to Iraq, which is why he is advocating a diplomatic solution. Whether or not we need to keep a military force in Iraq during that process is an issue worthy of debate, but we shouldn't dismiss someone on the basis of their military background.

[mike_c]

56. then why doesn't Clark seem capable of recognizing...

...that there is no "solution in Iraq" at all? If Iraq were "solved," whether by diplomatic means or by military force, (a) what would that look like, and (b) is any such outcome realistically achievable?

[Martin Eden]

80. a SOLUTION is merely the option you choose

The "solution" to Iraq may indeed be to extricate our military ASAP. I think Clark is advocating a diplomatic initiative that would result in the withdrawal of our troops under conditions that would minimize the potential for regional conflict. Without knowing more details of his plan, it is difficult to evaluate whether he is "capable of recognizing" the realities of the situation.

However, my previous response had little to do with the merits of Clark's position. Rather, it was to disagree with the assessment that a career military officer is necessarily too indoctrinated to conceive of non-military solutions.

[Tom Rinaldo]

109. See my post #95 above

I think what some people don't seem capable of recognizing is just how bad things truly can become if Iraq is left to chance to devolve on it's own with no interest in seeing if any positive leverage in the region can still be brought to bear to prevent a total worst case scenario.

There is no peace treaty in Korea, just an "armistice", guns still are pointed at each side across the border, but the massive killing stopped. Was that a "solution"? Depends on how you look at it I guess.

Iran and Syria have significant influence inside Iraq, currently they are working against any backing down of tensions inside Iraq. But don't assume that rational thinking will prevail and they will keep themselves out of a larger war, or that irrational thinking will confine itself to inside of Iraq's borders, once things begin slipping past the absolute point of no return.

It may get there no matter what anyone in this Administration or the next one does. Clark, unlike the Republican Chickenhawks, does not want to waste American lives for no good and important end, and unlike them he doesn't feel corporate profits and slightly cheaper oil is a worthwhile end worthy of sending our men and women off to death for. If there is no realistic chance left for preventing a true disaster by keeping some of America's military inside Iraq temporarily while we start our withdrawal, he's out of there.

I recorded Clark making this statement in New Hampshire last month:

"I don't think without a strategy to win we ought to be asking one more American soldier to die in Iraq, and that's the way I feel about it."

Be mindful that Clark thinks we can't win a military war inside Iraq, he thinks any solution there has to involve a negotiated regional political settlement, and "winning" anything at this point to him means not having Iraq spin out into full scale unrestrained civil war that spills over into a greater regional war involving further millions of people.

But the thing is Bush still controls the Presidency, and very few Democrats actually advocate for Congress cutting off all funds for troops in Iraq. Clark has been as effective as anyone in the Democratic Party at applying pressure on the Bush administration to get rid of Rumsfeld and open up talks with Iran and Syria.

Meanwhile Clark has, in my opinion, been the leading national Democrat warning against a drift into war with Iran, for at least two years now.

[William769]

32. Right now Wesley Clark is on my short list for President.

I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[Captain Hilts]

34. The short man is at the top of my short list for Prez. too. nt

[TwilightZone]

38. Wes can't lose something he never had.

n/t

[janx]

49. Is there a transcript of this somewhere?

It's hard to believe that Clark thinks most Americans want to "win" in Iraq, because nobody knows what constitutes a "win."

Did he elaborate?

[CarolNYC]

66. janx....

I haven't seen a full transcript but here's my transcript of what he said in answer to Ed's question about what the voters said on Nov 7....

WES: Pull back troops, stop taking so many losses...but don’t lose.

ED: That’s a tough thing to do, isn’t it?

WES: Yeah, but that’s where America is. They want to see the losses go down, they want to see the troops come home over time and they wanna see...they don’t expect to see a western style Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq. They just want to see the killing stop really and they don’t want to see Iran emerge as setting the stage for another war in the region.

The audio of the interview is here: http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/112006ClarkWesley.mp3

[janx]

69. Thanks.

As for "don't lose"--it's already lost. The only thing left to do now is to try and minimize the rest of the carnage as much as possible.

[CarolNYC]

81. yep....

minimizing the rest of the carnage...about the best we can hope for at this point.

Clark worries about us pulling out in a way that leaves a wave of ethnic cleansing in our wake....among other things.

[janx]

86. I worry about that too, but it's happening now.

There's very little we can do to stop it now. The damage has been done inside Iraq. Avoiding a larger, regional conflict might be a tough thing to accomplish.

[CarolNYC]

89. You're right, it's a mess.

There is no easy way and no good way left...

I think one of the reasons that Clark continues to believe that something can be done to leave behind something that is less bad, even in the face of the difficulties, is because they were led to believe that it would be impossible to broker an agreement between the parties at the Dayton Accords and, although it was difficult and the agreement wasn't perfect, it was done and Wes was a part of that. He saw it happen. He helped make it happen.

Of course, in this situation, we don't have players like Holbrooke and Clark and the others who were so instrumental in making that happen involved...not even close.

[janx]

94. It's also a different region and culture, with a different history.

Condi Rice made the same comparison last year. I admire Clark's optimism and wish that he could be a part of salvaging whatever is left in the region, but we're not dealing with the Balkans now.

[CarolNYC]

97. No doubt he is fully aware of that...

And no doubt, he is familair with the differences in the region's culture and its history.

I do hope you're not comparing Clark to Condi Rice.....

[janx]

101. I'm not comparing Clark to Condi Rice.

I'm only pointing out that the comparison has been made before.

[CarolNYC]

103. Cool....

'cause as far as I can see, there's no comparison between Gen Clark and Ms. Rice.

[janx]

108. Yes. Clark is a general.

Rice is a P.R. lady!

[leftofthedial]

116. it's already happening

and our presence is ensuring that it happens.

it also is killing Americans, draining our treasury and perpetuating our reputations as cruel, ignorant bullies.

[leftofthedial]

74. "over time"

and "don't lose"

seem to be the crux of the issue

The people I talk to don't qualify their desire for us to leave Iraq. They want out, period. Most of them don't have the slightest idea about Iran. That's DC talk.

[CarolNYC]

83. Iran...

Well, hopefully the people you talk to start paying attention to the talk about Iran before we start dropping bombs on them because then it will be too late and Bush will have us in another mess we won't be able to easily get out of.

[LittleClarkie]

92. Also, from WesPac

"Change the course in Iraq. Democrats must pressure George W. Bush to listen to the generals on the ground and the whole range of experts -- not just the GOP -- on how to change the course in Iraq. We must work with regional powers, promote gradual transformation and stability, and regain the 'strategic consent' for the long-term U.S. influence 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."

[janx]

96. How many more will die in the meantime?

How and why are we to "regain the 'strategic consent' for the long-term U.S. influence in the region"

??

Is the long-term U.S. influence in the region worth all of this? It seems to me to be part of the problem.

[LittleClarkie]

99. Hey, I'm not necessarily on Clark's side, name not withstanding

Just making sure the dude's being taken in context.

[janx]

102. My questions were rhetorical.

I didn't mean to aim them at you. The context is appreciated.

[mdmc]

55. 84 % opposed the war? YOU ARE ON ACID!

Everyone was all rah!rah!rah! back then. Dems, pukes, nonvoters alike.

[leftofthedial]

67. that was the result of a poll taken on Monday

before the 2006 midterms

I think you misread

and no, I'm not on acid

[skipos]

77. Link please. nt

[mdmc]

79. oh...i did misread ...

sorry about the acid remark.
peace and low stress

[leftofthedial]

84. re: the acid remark

got any?

:rofl:

it might help some of the replies I'm getting in a couple of threads tonight.

[mdmc]

123. i think jfk could use some

he needs to loosen up a bit:kick:

[Fleshdancer]

64. I can understand his reasoning

I personally think Iraq is screwed no matter what we do at this point but that's just my opinion.

However, I can see why others would support the "we broke it so we are obligated to fix it" concept. It's an honorable argument, especially coming from a man who knew we should have never invaded Iraq in the first place. I don't think anyone wants life to get worse for the innocent Iraqis who are stuck with this insanity and maybe Clark truly believes we can keep things from deteriorating further.

As for "winning" this war though, I wish one person would tell us what they meant by this concept because I truly have no idea what a win could be a this point.

[janx]

72. Nobody knows. n/t

[leftofthedial]

78. Carlyle Group thinks "winning" means sucking the last possible dime out of Iraq

and whatever Carlyle Group wants is good enough for the repukes.

Congressional Democrats apparently believe "winning" is whatever consolidates their power or best positions them to run for President in 2008. :sigh:

I think "winning" is a meaningless marketing term at this point.

[arewenotdemo]

146. Agreed. Talk of "winning" the immoral and illegal war

on Iraq is absurd. I like Clark, a lot (see sig line). But some of the things he says really bother me as well.

For one, this great concern of his about how the consequences of a rapid and complete withdrawal will be "read as a massive defeat for the United States".

Wasn't that an argument used against American withdrawal from Vietnam?

When the most optimistic of the generals in-country say that "it's too soon to tell if we've lost the war", why do some of our Dems think it's appropriate to speak of "winning"?

[Jcrowley]

65. The Iraqi people

want the US troops out. Last I checked it was their country.

Oh, my bad, I better check again while it's being discussed in the Beltway as to who's country it really is.

[leftofthedial]

76. that's the bottom line

It's their country and they want us out.

Sunnis, Shia, Kurds all agree on one thing. They want us out.

[Tatiana]

70. I didn't catch Wes with Ed Schultz, but I agree with his previous comments on Iraq.

In the old, familiar fashion, mounting US casualties in Iraq have mobilized increasing public doubts about the war. Now, more than half the American people believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. They're right. But it would also be a mistake now to pull out, start pulling out, or set a date to pull out. Instead we need a strategy to create a stable democratizing and peaceful state in Iraq – a strategy the Administration has failed to develop and articulate.

<snip>


Adding a diplomatic track to the strategy is a must. The US should form a standing conference of Iraq's neighbors, complete with committees dealing with all the regional economic and political issues, including trade, travel, cross-border infrastructure projects, and, of course, cutting off the infiltration of jihadists. Iraq's neighbors should be asked to assist. This will also provide a better opportunity for meaningful back-door discussions of Iran's nuclear program, Syria's interests in Lebanon, and Turkish interaction with the Kurds in Iraq. The US should tone down its raw rhetoric for US-style democracy as an answer to all problems and instead listen more carefully to the many voices within the region. A public US declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq would also be helpful in engaging both regional and Iraqi support at this point.

<snip>


On the military side, the vast effort underway to train an Army must be matched by efforts to train police and local justices. Countries as far away as Canada, France and Germany should be engaged to assist. Gulf states should also provide observers and technical assistance. In military terms, striking at insurgents is necessary but insufficient – instead, military and security operations must return primarily to the tried and true methods of counterinsurgency – winning the hearts and minds of the populace through civic action, small scale economic development, and positive daily interactions. Ten thousand Arab Americans with full language proficiency should be recruited to assist as interpreters. A more successful effort must be made to control jihadist infiltration into the country by a combination of outposts, patrols, and reaction forces reinforced by high technology means. Over time, American forces should be pulled back into reserve roles and phased out.

The growing chorus of voices demanding a pull-out should seriously alarm the Bush Administration. For President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam – failing to craft a realistic and effective policy, and in its place, simply demanding that the American people show resolve. Resolve alone isn't enough to mend a flawed approach. If the Administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that the Administration bring our troops home.

http://securingamerica.com/articles/wapo/2005-08-26

*******

I tend to subscribe to the Colin Powell school of ownership ("You break it, you own it"). No, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. I believe it was an illegal invasion and Congress (including our own Democratic critters) abdicated their responsibility by allowing Bush to pursue this neocon pipe-dream. Powell advised Bush against invasion. Wes Clark testified before Congress advocating diplomacy in the region and also cautioned Congress against invading Iraq. Nevertheless, we (because whether we like it or not, the Idiot-in-Chief committed this action on behalf of all Americans) did invade Iraq and now that we've "broken" the country, I do think it is our responsibility to "fix" it (as best we can).

To just say "well, they're headed for civil war and there's nothing we can do about it so let's just get the hell out of dodge" doesn't cut it. We f*cked up their country and to let it descend into further catastrophe would be as morally negligent as what we are doing over there right now. Even more civilians will be massacred and we'll end up destabilizing the whole region and leaving the civilians at the mercy of ruthless war lords.

Bush and the neocons have truly created an unsavory situation in Iraq. No, we can't "win." But we can find a solution that is tenable to the Iraqi people and Americans alike. I believe Wes Clark has a plan that is viable and effective for long-term stability in the region. This isn't about "resolve" or "staying the course." This is about CHANGING the course and fixing what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al. broke.

[leftofthedial]

75. we "own" what? what do you mean "fix"?

We're a bull in a china shop full of cows who are afraid of the bull. Everybody is breaking stuff, but we are the heart of the problem. We need to leave. Then we can pay the shopowner for the damages.

[Tatiana]

91. It's a metaphor (obviously) meaning we are responsible for the situation in Iraq.

The chaos, the lack of electricity and fresh water, the sewage system, the crumbling infrastructure... it's all OUR FAULT. We broke it. Why should the Iraqis be forced to rebuild what we destroyed?

What way would you suggest we pay the Iraqis for the damage we caused?

Again, in my opinion, Wes Clark has the most viable plan for rebuilding Iraq, stabilizing the region, and bringing our troops home.

[leftofthedial]

111. the large majority of Iraqis want us to leave

Sunnis, Shia, Kurds . . . they all overwhelmingly want us to leave.

They built their own country fjust ine without us there pointing guns at them and giving truckloads of money to gangsters because we think they're on "our" side.

We should leave and pay reparations once there is a valid conduit for that. International support will be needed. Face it. We have committed war crimes. We have to pay.

[Tatiana]

113. I agree international support will be needed.

But an immediate withdrawal from Iraq is not going to get any sort of international support at all.

Remember, we lied to the international community. What incentive do they have to support us?

We're only going to win back the trust and respect of the international community by putting forth a plan that removes American troops from the region in a way that doesn't leave Iraq in the midst of a civil war and further breeding ground for true terrorists and jihadists.

As far as the issue of reparations is concerned, it will never happen. Unfortunately Iraq would have to take a number and wait in line.

[leftofthedial]

118. the international community would not be doing it for us

they'd be doing it for Iraq, the region and for themselves

if we have to wait until we restore international trust to us, then we are talking a minimum of two years. At current rates, that's another 100,000 dead Iraqis (on our watch) and another 1000 or more dead Americans and another couple hundred billin dollars wasted.

[Tom Rinaldo]

115. Yes they do, but many of them say "Soon" or "Very Soon"

They have no confidence with Bush as American President that we have any intention of ever leaving Iraq, and no, they do NOT want us to stay there. But a lot of people inside Iraq nonetheless get nervous thinking about all of the Americans leaving next month say. Americans are more trusted to patrol the cities where sectarian violence is taking place than are people wearing uniforms of Iraq's security forces.

Yes Iraq is a true mess, and it is an excellent thing that Democrats won back control of Congress. That sent a signal to people in Iraq, both those who want us out ASAP and those who are afraid to see us leave, that the day IS coming sooner rather than later when America will pull back it's troops, so they damn well better sort out their mess because there ain't going to be anyone standing in the way of every side staging multi day full frontal assaults on each others neighborhoods if they don't. The worst has not been seen yet.

I think Wes Clark understands the reality of something that it seems many of us lose sight of. There is no force on Earth that will compel George Bush to remove all of our troops from inside Iraq before he leaves the White House. Given that Clark and others are doing the best they can to push for regional diplomacy, with some support now from Republicans who were part of Bush the elders Administration.

[brentspeak]

82. Is there any way you can change the title of your thread?

I understand that you don't feel comfortable supporting Clark as your presidential candidate, but your thread title is just a call for people to stop supporting Clark alltogether, candidate or no.

[janx]

88. If it matters, I didn't take it that way.

And I'm anxious to read the whole transcript when it becomes available--can't do audio here.

[JNelson6563]

85. And a swift kick

:kick:

:popcorn: :toast: :party: :popcorn:

[upi402]

117. Ouch! That kinda hurt...

but maybe it did some good.
:popcorn:

[sendero]

90. I don't find myself in complete agreement..

.... with Clark on this issue either. BUT - I defer to his obvious good intentions and wealth of knowledge and experience compared to my own.

There are exceeding few politicians I feel this way about. I think Clark is honest, and believes he can accomplish what he proposes, as opposed to jackoffs like Bush who can talk, talk and more talk but never have and never will have the walk to match.

Clark would be my dream nominee for 2008.

[lonestarnot]

93. Cat yack on that idea. What is wrong with these people! It is NEVER going

to be a winner. We are in a royal mess and the only solution is to get out of it ASAP. Up to 3 billion per week now. A war based on lies will always be a freak'n mess.

[David Zephyr]

107. I understand where you are coming from, but

I think that your use of the words "stay the course" is a bit unfair.

Clark opposed this stupid war from the very beginning and has consistently been a voice against it. I think that he is truly concerned about the subsequent carnage and mayhem that will follow our exit.

Al Franken, the other day, said that staying is a "disaster" and leaving is a "disaster". And either disaster is Bush's disaster.

As an opponent of the war, long before it began, I can still support Wes Clark, John Kerry (in spite of his IWR vote), John Edwards and most all the Democrats who have indicated they might run. The hardest one for me to support, I will admit, is Hillary. I am having a hard time with swallowing her attacks on John Murtha and John Kerry recently when coupled with her IWR vote. The Clinton attack via Carville on Howard Dean also was very troubling to me.

I'd ask you not to sour on Wes Clark. He helped end the genocide in the Balkans. I think, and I may be naive, that he, after being in a hot, futile war himself as a young man, knows the human suffering in war better than most can and he would truly like to prevent a civil war and still get our troops home quickly.

I don't listen to Ed Schultz's program. He drives me crazy.

[Tatiana]

110. Great post. I'm with you 100%

I really liked Franken's comments on staying being a "disaster" as well as leaving.

I think he's right. And I think the choice then becomes which "disaster" will leave us with best outcome long-term for Iraq, our troops, and the Middle East.

Wes Clark is a man who has not hesitated to put his own life on the line. He knows about human suffering and he's not one to take the use of force lightly. He's measured, thoughtful, knows the value of diplomacy, and only advocates the use of force as a last resort.

In short, he's everything the Republicans and the chickenhawk warmongers are not.

[oneinok]

112. I no longer like Clark

I don’t see what it is about Clark that everyone here at DU loves so much. I was fortunate enough to spend almost 20 minutes with him “one on one” last March. I found him arrogant and patronizing. I will not support him for any office.

[FrenchieCat]

119. Yeah....really, where did you spend one no one time with him at?

Gert, is that you? :eyes:

I spoke to Wes yesterday on the phone, and he said that you were not only arrogant and uninteresting but that you tended to make shit up whenever it suited you in your anonymous state of being.

So much bullshit, so little time!

[troubleinwinter]

121. Well, if you say so.

:eyes:

[earth mom]

122. Thank you for your rational OP & posts on this thread.

We need to get the hell out of Iraq NOW. Clark is not the guy who will do that.

I think there are many on DU who agree with you, but are afraid to post on this thread for fear of being attacked which is par for the course on any Clark thread.

[FrenchieCat]

125. I linked the broacast in another post prior to this one.....

And I would suggest to you that maybe there are enough DUers with the good sense to wait to listen to what the General actually said prior to commenting. Maybe there are DUers who would prefer NOT to judge based on one person's hearsay. Is that as possible as your take?

Maybe it's wisdom and prior experience with hearsay than fear as you suggest that DUers are "into".

It is really a shame that you would underestimate members of this community's intelligence just to get the satisfaction of a little snark against Clark Supporters and those who may not end up choosing to vote for Clark but still appreciate his intelligence and the work he has done for Democrats.

And it equally too bad that you feel that healthy debate on a very serious situation is to be considered an "attack" rather than a discussion. Guess that's what happens with all of the fearmongering that has occurred for all too long in this country. Maybe there are those who would want there to be fear even where there is none.

[wiley]

132. I'll ignore your ridiculous statement about Clark threads. But tell us,

who IS the guy who will get us out of Iraq NOW? As a country now very well known for it's logistical abilities - say, like Katrina - do you seriously think that anyone besides Clark actually knows how to withdraw troops? You don't hang out a sign saying we're leaving NOW without, say, conducting a massive airstrike on Iraq while losing a lot of human beings including American soldiers. Why do you think the right wing nutjobs are calling for an air offensive in Iraq?

Your one-dimensional hostility towards anything military involved in the resolution of the Iraq situation - including total withdrawl - doesn't offer any solution or even helpful hints. Kind of on the same par as the Pentagon's suggestion that we should "go long" and add more troops to stabilize Iraq.

I empathize with your concern about Palestine. Unfortunately, they've also seemed to drink the Kool-aid that says supporting insane Islamic extremists in Iraq to anger the American public will resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

And if you are afraid to post on DU for fear of discussion or disagreement I guess you're not ever going to be respected or even read around here.

Who the hell doesn't think we need to get the hell out of Iraq? It's not a selection on any vending machine I've seen and you can't vote with your phone or text message Dancing with the Stars or American Idol about it either.

[LittleClarkie]

136. Bah. I've seen people say the same in Kerry threads and Dean threads too

The supporters of each person are passionate. And nobody should be afraid of words in cyberspace. Hell, if that would stop me, I'd have been done long ago.

[FrenchieCat]

124. Here's is the broadcast......

which is important when attempting to "judge" what someone said. Heresey is not healthy, as we know....listening to the entire broadcast is much wiser.

http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/112006ClarkWesley.mp3

[The Count]

126. Thanks. Unbelievable the rancor someone's "impressions" can elicit

[Canuckistanian]

128. I heard that interview. And I must disagree.

The sense that I got was that Clarke agreed wholeheartedly that a purely military solution was out. BUT, that didn't mean that the troops get pulled out tomorrow.

He did suggest strongly that the US start talks with Syria and Iran to try and make a lasting peace in addition to Iraqi outreach programs and sensible rebuilding. More diplomacy. More political deals.
Less bombing campaigns to win more recruits for the insurgents.

About Americans wanting to "win", yes, he said that. But he also said that the election was a clear call for the military to leave or at least plan for it. But he said it to demonstrate the real ambivalence felt by Americans. They've been primed to accept nothing less than a full-blown rah-rah ticker-tape parade victory, but are alarmed at the growing body counts of troops.

In the end, he agreed with Schultz that this was one of the biggest dilemmas America had ever faced. Then Clarke commented that he had not been for it in the first place.

I NEVER got the impression that Clarke was offering quick solutions. He sounded sensible without being wildly optimistic.

And that, at least, would be a refreshing change in a leader.

[FrenchieCat]

130. It may be that Clark's approaching it from a point of view of coming up with a

reasonable solution for a conclusion rather than attempting to say what might get folks to vote for him. That's why I support him. He's a pragmatic realist looking at the bigger picture and attempting to come up with something that can do the least damage under the sorry circumstance created by an incompetent power hungry administration and a cowering congress who worried more about election results and their career than about the state of our world.

Honor, Duty and Country is always far the best decision to make in a long run; even in politics.

[Cameron27]

134. That's called being a diplomat

in the finest sense of the word.

[Canuckistanian]

142. True. Old Generals sometimes make the best diplomats

They know warfare AND they know the local people's desire for peace.

If he doesn't make it in politics, he's a good candidate for Secretary of State. Or Ambassador to Iraq.

[CarolNYC]

156. Yep, there's way too many people who don't want an honest answer...

but rather just want to have someone tell them what they want to hear...and way way too many politicians willing to oblige. Thank God Clark isn't one of them. If it costs him votes, so be it. No matter how much I'd like him to be President, I don't want him to have to turn into a typical politician to do it.

[upi402]

131. My friend in

the Netherlands says he is too careful, too stiff. That Kerry and Gore already failed to ignite a Kennedy-esque excitement that will be needed to move Americans away from wanting a strict-daddy leader in the whitehouse.. That said, he looks like a winner of a candidate to me. One of meany good choices out there, thankfully.

[Canuckistanian]

137. I heard that the Republicans are the most scared of him

A career military man. No skeletons in his closet. Sensible.

It would be like swift-boating Ike.

[upi402]

140. Yeah, nothing but net

But is he a corporatist? I have no firm idea, and I was a delegate for him.

[Canuckistanian]

144. You were a delegate for Clarke?

Awesome.

But I'd like to know where he stands on a great many issues, too.

[upi402]

145. Hard to tell

but some of his supporters are virulent anti-Chavez rightists. And Chavez is against neo-liberalism, that's for certain.

[leftofthedial]

135. he was definitely NOT offering quick solutions

he was offering essentially permanent occupation

that is, we won't leave until a diplomatic solution is reached.

I don't think a diplomatic solution is possible, especially while we have troops on the ground there

[Canuckistanian]

139. Permanent occupation is not so bad if the situation changes

Look at all the countries that have "permanent occupations". Japan. Germany. South Korea.

You can have an active occupation or a peaceful one.

But, I agree. For now, a peaceful occupation is out of the question. And especially with that giant target, the new embassy.

[FrenchieCat]

133. Now you can read Clark's plan as published in his op-Ed

dated 11/20/06, this evening.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-11-20-clark_x.htm?csp=34

Hey, maybe he wrote it just for you! :)

and you can "Critique" it here!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2772005


At least Clark has the guts to put his thoughts in writing.

[ruggerson]

138. The man doesn't even register in the polls

He's on no one's radar screen except for a small band of (very) vocal people on the web.

[FrenchieCat]

141. Did you see the 2003 poll round this time?

madfloridian (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-20-06 08:41 PM
Original message
A presidential poll from January 2003....it really says it all.
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/11/thank_you.htm...


The bottomline is this: these polls are all but meaningless. Perhaps nothing illustrates this point better than looking back at polls from this point in the last election cycle. For example, a Fox News poll conducted in January of 2003 (which was closer to the election than we are now) reported the following results:

Joe Lieberman……29%
Dick Gephardt……15%
John Kerry………..13%
John Edwards…….8%
Al Sharpton……….5%
Howard Dean……..2%


The blogger adds:

"The only polls that have even a sliver of relevance right now are those coming out of Iowa or New Hampshire -- and even they lack any significant predictive power. Primaries aren't decided in November of 2006, and the trends that will decide them aren't even yet in place. Remember that when, in a month, the media gets bored of 2006's aftershocks and turns its attention to 2008. Gephardt, of course, dropped out after the first primary, and Lieberman ended his ignominious campaign in a five-way tie for ninth, or something."

[Clarkie1]

143. Wrong and wrong again.

First, the polls at this time are clearly meaningless:

January, 2003
Joe Lieberman……29%
Dick Gephardt……15%
John Kerry………..13%
John Edwards…….8%
Al Sharpton……….5%
Howard Dean……..2%

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2981189&mesg_id=2981189

Second, assuming the polls at this time have some meaning (which they don't), he's on the radar:

1. Clinton 33%
2. Obama 15%
3. Edwards 14%
4. Gore 14%
5. Kerry 7%
6. Clark 4%
7. Biden 3%
8. Richardson 3%
9. Bayh 2%
10. Vilsack 1%

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2981139&mesg_id=2981139

[JNelson6563]

149. That's my view on the ground too

but I also know that doesn't necessarily mean anything at this point. I believe that was Dean's story at a similar point in time re: 04. What I don't get is the view that it's a horrifying thing Clark isn't all over the media. The field will be vast for 08 and whoever's perceived to be in the front of the pack will be everyone's main target.

Personally I'm hoping for Gore and if he does run his timing for entering the race will be important. Not too early, not too late. Gotta time this thing just right.

Julie

[puebloknot]

147. Better Clark than another Republican administration...

...but in reading one of his articles, he mentions diplomatic intervention in the region, to include the Secretaries of State and Defense. That would be Condoleeza Rice and the incoming Mr. Gates. This is what America has to offer the world? George Bush's lackeys dropping in to settle a problem we caused? People who are complicit in some of the high crimes and misdemeanors, now and in the past, of this regime?

I think Dennis Kucinich has it right that we should very quickly go into a phased withdrawal, involving the United Nations, cut off new funding, and get out. Troops would still be protected through the withdrawal phase, oil would be overseen by the U.N., and efforts could then be made to help rebuild the region.

Get out, get a Marshall Plan in place (my thoughts here), stop the killing. But do we have the money to fund a Marshall Plan or pay reparations? We may need a fiscal Marshall Plan of our own.

[FrenchieCat]

151. No, he doesn't want to send Rice and Gates to Iraq.......

he wrote specifically...."Form a high-level interagency diplomatic team, representing the White House and secretaries of State and Defense and led by an experienced, respected diplomat. "
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/illustration_by_2.html

Clark is calling up a Marshall plan for Iraq, which starts out with a regional summit...if you also didn't notice that.

[puebloknot]

158. Well, I realized last night, 30 seconds after hitting "post,"...

...that we are talking about the future, after a 2008 presidential election, unless the current administration would condescend to take his advice!

Thank you for your instruction. I would sincerely appreciate a link to information about said "Marshall Plan." If it was in a post that I responded to, no, I *didn't notice that*! The article you've linked to, which I read, was focused on diplomacy and security in the region. I did not see any reference to the type of rebuilding of Iraq that took place in Europe after WWII. It goes without saying that that cannot occur until the region is secured.

[B Calm]

148. He use to be a republican....

[FrenchieCat]

150. No he didn't used to be a Republican, he was an Independent General

but what he do is win a war for Clinton . That, he did do.

He also stomped for 42 congressmembers, of which 25 were elected to congress.....most in red districts replacing Republican seatholder in 2006. That he did as well.

[Clark2008]

152. Yawn... what a tired old meme.

He wasn't, but, even if he was, the general electorate has voted split tickets since kingdom come. Guess what? They don't CARE if Clark voted for Reagan 25 years ago - they did TOO! Including Democrats!

[Clark2008]

154. "It was a flawed, fatally flawed idea,"

said Clark, a presidential candidate in the Democratic primary in 2004. "Now we have to back away from it."

Speaking to a group of students at the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service, Clark said democracy can't stop or solve problems faced by people abroad. Rather, the United States should use its power through "coercive diplomacy" – forcing its enemies to realize when they should give in.

As an example of that, Clark pointed to former President Bill Clinton's policy of engagement and enlargement – helping "our friends and reinforcing those who have our ideas." But after the Bush policy of pre-emptive war, Clark acknowledged those hearing the Clinton-era phrase would probably think it was "spam on your e-mail advertising a new male pharmaceutical product."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/111106dntexclarktalk.1e55c78.html

No time to comment, but he doesn't seem to be suggesting what you thought.