Clark On Iraq: "It's a matter of ... DIPLOMACY!"

[berni_mccoy]

Many here read the article at CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/28/politics/main2213548.shtml

and started jumping to conclusions about Clark. For a change, let's read and comprehend what Clark is saying.

Here are the key statements about Iraq (listen carefully, I'll emphasis the essentials in bold):

Clark said Iraq will be a focus of the 2008 campaign. He disagreed with suggestions by some members of Congress that more U.S. troops should be sent to help stabilize Iraq. Neither would he begin reducing U.S. forces in Iraq within the next six months, as others have suggested.

“It's not a matter of fiddling with troop levels,” Clark said. “It's a matter of politics inside Iraq and diplomacy in the region. ... You can lose what's going on militarily inside Iraq, but you can't win it militarily, either by putting more forces in or by pulling them out.”

There. Is that clear now? He is saying that he would not send more troops, but we can't withdraw in 6 months. Why? Because changing the troop levels, either way, isn't going to have an impact (we're damned if we do, damned if we don't). What is needed is DIPLOMACY. And you can't send in diplomats, negotiators and ambassadors to a region that is not secured. 6 months is too soon for diplomacy to work.

Oh, and by the way, when was the last time you heard a politician speaking about diplomacy in Iraq? And one more thing... who created this fucking mess? That's right, the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT. It may have been the Bush Administration, but you are living in the country that CREATED THE MESS. You are a member of it. Like it or not, right or wrong (and this is going to be hard for many to hear), WE ARE OBLIGATED TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE NOW. We have an obligation to try using diplomacy if there is a chance it will work to stabilize the country.

[Schema Thing]

1. WE ARE OBLIGATED TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE NOW

Damn right we are.

[David Zephyr]

3. Well, we blew up their country and put them in chaos.

I agree that we have some "obligation". It's just horrible what we did to that country.

[flying_wahini]

2. It's just so bloody obvious that the whole fiasco is diplomacy starved.

and as far as Condi goes, she couldn't find her ass with both hands.
never could, she is a FRAUD, as is the rest of the Bozo administration.

[cynatnite]

4. He's right, though...

The only sane solution in Iraq is by way of diplomacy. Getting those neighbors to the table, talking and finding ways to bring about some peace and normalcy is the way to to go. Countries like Iran and Syria have a stake since they're next door. They don't want that war spilling into their countries and spreading.

They have to be involved. That's the only out I see for the US. There never was a win-situation from the very beginning.

[mom cat]

17. Diplomacy sounds wonderful. but who are our diplomats? Rice?

Bolton? Cheney? Wolfowitz? I see no one in the current administration who could possibly sit down with Iraq and its neighbors and have any postitive inpact.
How could we stabilize a situation that we are still stirring up and atfer all of our slaughter and destruction?
How could we possibly be an "honest broker?

[cynatnite]

19. It's too bad we've got those weiners...

It'll take years before the US can be an honest broker in anything...if at all.

[MrSlayer]

5. If he doesn't want to leave immediately, he's a WAR MONGER!

:eyes:

How long before someone posts something as idiotic as the subject line?

[kiahzero]

11. 10 posts. (n/t)

[Tatiana]

12. Six. n/t

[silverojo]

13. A "war monger", for wanting to use diplomacy?

Pulling out troops immediately isn't the answer. They need to train the locals to maintain order, before they can leave.

[mike_c]

6. two comments....

First, I disagree with the basic strategy being advocated in the paragraphs posted-- I do not support remaining in Iraq for any amount of time beyond the minimum necessary to effect an orderly withdrawal, and I do mean the minimum. One to two months at the most, I would say. The U.S. occupation is creating the violence, and if it is right to leave a year from now then it's right to leave now.

Second, why do Clark supporters spend so much time parsing Clarks statements? "Here's what he really meant...." If Clark supports an immediate withdrawal from Iraq then let him say so unambiguously and I will strongly consider supporting him. I have other misgivings about his candidacy, but that is issue numero uno for me and ANYONE who convinces me that they are genuinely opposed to the war against Iraq and will end it immediately if elected will get a great deal of support from me. If Clark's plan for Iraq includes prolonging the illegal war, then I'll do everything I can to work for his defeat-- and the same goes for ANY candidate for office.

[kiahzero]

7. Why do Clark supporters have to parse his statements?

Because his statements are routinely taken out of context maliciously.

[mike_c]

8. or because they are ambiguous....

Does Clark support immediate withdrawal from Iraq-- and please don't play word games about what "immediate" means. I'm sure we can agree that it does not mean "in six months or a year."

[kiahzero]

9. No.

That's perfectly clear from what he said.

[mike_c]

10. then with all due respect to DUer Mr Slayer...

...Clark is war mongering. The war against Iraq is an international crime against humanity. It's illegal. Since when is continuing the crime EVER an effective way to stop crime?

[silverojo]

14. When you change it from a "war"

To training local people so they can keep the peace. The troops aren't the problem...what they're being ordered to do, THAT'S the problem.

You can't just go in to some country, bomb the hell out of them, and then say, "Oops--my bad! I'm outta here!", leaving them in a bloody civil war. You need to restore order from chaos, THEN leave.

That's where diplomacy comes in.

[mike_c]

16. of course you can-- the war is a crime-- do you advocate continuing...

...any other crimes because it's not convenient to stop being a criminal?

[Clarkie1]

21. Clark supports waging peace.

What do you support?

[berni_mccoy]

15. two comments....

I'm not a Clark supporter. My choice for President in 2008 is Gore. But what I won't stand for is DUers slinging shit like "war mongering" on a great Democrat who is not doing that.

And secondly, I'm not parsing statements. It's the Clark attackers who are reading what they want to read into his statements.

[mom cat]

18. I have another deep concern about Clark and that is the usr of

depleted uranium in Kosovo under his command. Has he renounced the use of depleted uranium or does he still defend its use?

[Clarkie1]

22. I wish people were as deeply concerned about Rwanda and Darfur. nt

[mom cat]

24. I happen to be very concerned about both, but my specific concern about

Clark is the issue of depleted uranium. Perhaps you haven't seen pictures of all the deformed babies in Iraq. I think that if you had, you would be as concerned about this genocidal weapon as you rightly are about Darfur and Rwanda. All are horrific abused of the poor of the earth. All are suffering because they are caught in the crossfire of resource wars.
What is particularly disturbing about depleted uranium is that it stays around forever ... far longer than the existence of humans on this planet. It will be doing horrific genetic damage for millenia to come and will continue to wreak havoc on innocent civilians with cancer for as long also.
I suggest reading the following excellent synopsis of the issue:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9322.htm
And this extremely graphic video:
http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html
I do not ask this lightly. I want an answer.

[Clarkie1]

27. Do you have an issue with Nancy Pelosi over depleted uranium. How about Howard Dean

or Al Gore. Why single out Clark for your venom?

Those who bring up this issue typically aren't deeply concerned, or too concerned about the wrong issue because they have not educated themselves on greater horrors and dangers in the world. It's typically used as a way to try, lamely, to tear down a good man who stood when few others were standing against genocide.

If you want to discuss Clark, fine. If you want to discuss depleted uranium, that's not what this thread is about. The issues aren't connected. Every country in NATO used depleted uranium, and every poltician and citzen shares the responsibility equally for it's use. As an aside, much of what you see on the internet attributed to depleted uranium is bullshit...seriously. It's an issue picked up by radical anti-nuclear types who see anything with the word "uranium" in it as inherently evil. Sure, we should always investigate all issues scientifically, but the depelted uranium hysteria is more about politics and the power of the internet to decieve (just post a few grotesque pictures and make a claim that has no basis in proven cause/effect) and less about medical science. It's mainly an issue for environmentalists who don't understand science. Why do you think it's not a big issue with Al Gore? Answer: Gore understands real science.

I'm an environmentalist, and I'm 1000 times more concerned about global warming and habitat destruction than depleted uranium. There is genocide going on in the world right now that concerns me 1000 times more than the chance that there might have been medical damage caused by depleted Uranium to relatively few (still not proven). Uranium by the way is a naturally occuring element, not man-made. It's amazing how many people don't understand even that.

But that's really beside the point. The main point is Clark is not responsible for the use of depleted uranium any more than any other politician or citizen. If you want to fight depleted Uranium, write to your congressmen and senators, but don't expect them to buy into the hype just because you send them a picture of unknown cause or origin you saw on the internet.

[TheModernTerrorist]

23. that is one area of concern I have

for anyone, really. I just read an interview with Gen. Clark over at http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2001_spring/little_risk.html, and regardless of what he thought back then, I wonder how he feels about the subject now. Anyone have any recent info or interviews about the topic?

[mom cat]

25. That is also what I would like to know. Sometimes people have

serious second thoughts about what they have participated in. Howard Zinn was a bombadere in WW II and deeply regrets it now. He has since spent his life working for truth and justice. I wonder if Clark is up to that kind of transformation. For that matter, are ANY politicians willing to confront this issue?

[0rganism]

20. unfortunately, this administration doesn't have the diplomats to pull it off

and even if the bushies went and got a few, those diplomats would be tainted by association.

Any serious diplomatic effort is postponed, by default, until 2009 at least. We can try proxy diplomacy, but in this day and age, that has a tendency to be transparent. Most likely, Iran and Saudi Arabia will carve out their spheres of influence in Iraq while our troops "redeploy". We need to plan around such a framework for likely future scenarios.

By removing Saddam Hussein, we created a nasty power vaccuum that human nature is currently rushing to fill. Even the dimbulb in chief can see that by now. Things are going to change; the world will be a different place before we can once again negotiate settlements in the middle east.

[lillilbigone]

26. We need to leave Iraq ASAP. Clark's plan to stay until it's fixed would cost thousands of lives.

Especially since we can't fix it.

We are the bull in the china shop. First step: get the bull out of the china shop.