Wes Clark, The Anti-War Candidate?

[sellitman]

How can a candidate who claims he is Anti-War write this? I have been charged to look into Wes Clark as a viable candidate by many here on DU. I came across this speech and now it looks like Wes Clark has done a little flip- flopping himself.


Published on Thursday, April 10, 2003 by the Times/UK
Anti-War Candidate?
What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory
by General Wesley Clark


Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.


More: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

[Schema Thing]

1. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we t

Reread till understood.

[MollyStark]

That is a very common tactic for Clarkies

Just keep claiming the rest of us don't understand. We understand, you just don't like what we understand.

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.

He's a warmonger.

[Donna Zen]

25. Your point?

If you don't understand, why advertise it?

He is "outing" PNAC. Ya gotta problem with that?

Pearl commented after Clark's congressional testimony: Clark doesn't seem to want to go to war under any circumstances.

Wellstone quoted Clark when he voted against the resolution. Now how would one resolve that dilemma--Wellstone lies?

Ya gotta a problem with that?

I have heard McCafferty and Tweety both testify that Clark was against this war.

Claiming to understand is fine talk, but reading, listening, and letting go of the baggage that clouds one's mind takes a liberal's sense of open mindedness and intellectual honesty. That is a quality I admire in people.

If people want to "hate" Clark, there is nothing that I can do about it. But letting lies stand about a man who does not lie; well, that would be another matter.

Clark will always complement the troops. Ya gotta problem with that? He will never ever diss his country, especially on foreign soil or in the foreign press. Ya gotta a problem with that?

Then expect the press and republicans to continue calling Democrats "weak" because it is those who scoff at someone praising the troops that bring that scourge upon us, and thus, condemn us to these awful fascist governments. I have a problem with that.

[dogman]

28. He's a warmonger for telling the world the true goal?

Stating the facts is understanding. He has said this was the goal when he first warned of the PNAC agenda when most Dem candidates were saying it was the right thing to do.

[Donna Zen]

34. Outing PNAC

ssssshhh! intellectually dishonest ain't buying. Not prudent.

[Sparkly]

29. What?!? You just showed that you obviously do NOT understand.

If you haven't heard General Clark say many, many times that "they are 'next' if they fail to comply," you haven't been listening.

What he's said is that countries in the region have an interest in seeing Iraq fail, largely because the Chimp's "axis of evil, with us or against us" crap has put them on notice that if we succeed in Iraq, we'll attack them next.

He is criticizing the administration and the PNAC in that statement, NOT agreeing with it.

"He's a warmonger" indeed!!!

[TwilightZone]

42. Your analysis is a misinterpretation.

This is a warning, not an endorsement.

The operative phrase is "with Washington's concerns." He is obviously saying that Bush put Iran and Syria on notice. Nowhere does Clark state that he condones this. In fact, he's presented the exact opposite opinion on a multitude of occasions.

I suggest that you read up more on Mr. Clark. He has been one of the most outspoken critics of the Bush administration and in doing so has brought much of the PNAC agenda to public view. Your highlighted text is a perfect example - Clark knew that the PNAC plan was to start with Iraq and move on to Iran and Syria. Clark's statement is intended as a warning and to make the public aware that all was not as it appeared.

Edit: typo

[ICantBelieve]

93. Read his testimony to Congress

While John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton were voting for the IWR, Wes Clark was testifying before Congress that it was not necessary to invade Iraq.

[sybil]

129. s'possible your own ego intrudes on your good sense?

...you might actually learn something.

Leave the press out of it altogether and study an official statement by Wesley Clark in September 2002.

If it taxes your brain to read the complete document, just read the last several paragraphs of Wes Clark's testimony on Iraq before the HASC (House Armed Services Committee).

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

I don't give a flying fig who you prefer for '08 but setting the record straight about Wesley Clark is long overdue.

[knight_of_the_star]

2. Very simple

You expect a man who spent most of his adult life in the US Army to not praise them when they do something right?

[MollyStark]

10. Question

What did they do right?

[knight_of_the_star]

11. Look at it from a military perspective

They won the conventional war in rapid time and did exactly what they have been trained to do. That's what Wes was praising in that article.

[MollyStark]

12. They haven't won anything

And as soon as we leave the country is a going to have a civil war. This war was no sucess.

[Sparkly]

15. This article

was written right after the fall of Baghdad.

The military succeeded in taking Baghdad.

In the article, General Clark warns that there is more to be done; this alone isn't real "Victory."

The entire thing was botched and Clark was outspoken about that before, during, and after it.

[dogman]

23. That is what he points out in the article.

They were successful in removing Saddam. Although that was not the stated goal.

[sellitman]

16. This is praising bush and Blair.

"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."

You can spin this article any way you like but that is not a quote of any Liberal I know of. In fact no matter what context this article he published leaves plenty of doubt in my mind.

[Sparkly]

21. That was a backhanded compliment at BEST

Consider where this article was published, and what Clark's position and testimony had been (against the war).

He didn't say, "What great brave men, we should really admire them, I congratulate them, I think they're wonderful." He said, "They should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt." In other words, they did it despite what we said, they're responsible for it, they got what they wanted, I hope they're proud of themselves, now they've got to deal with the aftermath."

"They should be proud of their resolve" is hardly a great compliment!

[sellitman]

30. It's hardly what I would like my candidate to say.

Spin it any way you like. Praising bushco and blair for stubbornly doing what they did in spite of the world saying stop isn't good.

[Sparkly]

33. It wasn't praise.

Sounds like you made up your mind some time ago and are seeking anything to back up your opinion.

[sellitman]

38. Maybe that is the case with you?

:shrug:

[Sparkly]

39. When I start pulling soundbytes out of decades of words

and jumping to huge conclusions based on them, then yes, you might consider it possible.

[cestpaspossible]

164. The article as a whole is more damning than any soundbite.

It is amazing to me that someone could spend a whole career in the military and still exhibit such a shallow understanding of the military situation on April 10, 2003.

[dogman]

220. It's only damning if you cannot comprehend what is being said.

It shows understanding of what has happened and what has not.

[cestpaspossible]

230. Is this hard to comprehend?

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people.

Still, the immediate tasks at hand in Iraq cannot obscure the significance of the moment. The regime seems to have collapsed — the primary military objective — and with that accomplished, the defense ministers and generals, soldiers and airmen should take pride. American and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.

Not difficult to understand so far, it speaks for itself.

There is something later on in the article that I don't comprehend, however:

Germany has already swung round from opposition to the war to approval.

Yes, that is a sentence I cannot comprehend, or let's put it this way, I cannot reconcile it with reality.

[dogman]

235. What have your diplomatic connections in Germany told you?

It would be interesting to everyone if you go ahead and tell us what your high level contacts have to say.

[cestpaspossible]

240. Yeah, I'm the issue, not Clark's judgement.

Did Germany really become a supporter of the war on April 10, 2003?

Do we really need diplomatic contacts in Germany to answer that question?

[dogman]

244. You made the challenge.

Prove otherwise. I think someone with contacts in the German government could answer better than you or I.

[cestpaspossible]

246. No, I made no challege, I simply quoted Wesley Clark.

If you want to believe that Germany is a supporter of Bush's war, you are welcome to believe that.

If you want to believe that the earth is flat, you are welcome to believe that, as well. I feel no compulsion to 'prove' otherwise.

[dogman]

You challenged his judgment.

Based on you superior knowledge of where the German government now stands, I simply ask for enlightenment.

[cestpaspossible]

249. Yeah, Clark exhibited poor judgement in this article.

If you disagree, I encourage you to distribute this article far and wide among Democrats.

[dogman]

255. Maybe his opinion was based on this.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/germ-j16.shtml

[cestpaspossible]

259. Clark reads the World Socialist Web Site?

wow. Nice to know he relies on such credible sources.

[Clarkie1]

37. Who said that?

He called Bush "almost irrationally resolute." Doubtlessly the prefix "almost" was added given this was a foreign publication.

[cestpaspossible]

264. Clark said Bush should have been proud of his resolve

in the face of so much doubt... http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

Was Clark right? Was Bush's "resolve in the face of so much doubt" about invading Iraq something to be proud of?

[Sparkly]

14. Answer

They succeeded in the mission they were given by Congress and the Chimp in Chief. So they did their job right. Whether or not that mission was "right" is another question entirely. (Didn't we learn 30 years ago to distinguish between the soldiers and the war? And you're still asking "What did they do right?" Unbelievable.)

[Clarkie1]

203. They served their country with skill and honor.

That's something you obviously don't comprehend.

[sellitman]

35. He praised bush & blair

They ain't the troops.

[Clarkie1]

40. No he didn't

I don't think calling someone "almost irrationally resolute" is praise.

Do you?

[cestpaspossible]

265. Clark said Bush should have been proud of his resolve

in the face of so much doubt.


If you want to believe that that is not praise, you are welcome to that belief.

[Lefta Dissenter]

3. and he goes on to say...

"Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people"

Wes Clark will always praise the troops when they have performed the duties asked of them. He was speaking out against the war before it started, as it was beginning, and throughout. You can certainly cherry-pick comments from ANY of the former candidates (except Dennis, perhaps), to make it sound as though they were in support of the war - but there's a lot more to Wes Clark than sound bites.

edited to add: You said, "I have been charged to look into Wes Clark as a viable candidate by many here on DU." Just wondering if you're looking into other potential candidates, as well, or just Wes. After all, if you want information about Wes Clark, we'd be happy to provide you with plenty of accurate information, web sites, stored video, etc....... :hi:

[sellitman]

18. This is a whole article not a sound bite.

Cherry pick? I think not. This whole article is disturbing.

Yes I am looking into other candidates. In fact right now I'm reading up about Barbara Boxer. I'm sure others will follow.

[Clark2008]

22. Good luck on researching Boxer.

Love her, but she won't beat the Republican.

[sellitman]

32. Neither will

Until the machines get fixed.

[Clark2008]

54. That may be true, but since there are a couple of red states

that could turn blue with the right candidate and who don't use Diebold, ES&S or Triad, then I'd rather have a liberal candidate who's seen as a moderate to snatch up some red states that are teetering.

[TwilightZone]

62. Bingo.

I'd rather have the appearance of a moderate and the views and governance of a liberal than vice versa.

Or a "compassionate conservative" that's really a far-right wacko.

[sellitman]

63. Your logic is good but...

I still consider that was what we had in Kerry. He wasn't the most progressive candidate yet his appeal should have won over some red States. If you wanted Liberal then Dennis or Howard were far better. It didn't do any good then and it won't in 2008. That is why I'd rather have Democrats return to their roots.

[TwilightZone]

66. Uh, you're joking, right?

Kerry is one of the most liberal members of Congress and was portrayed as such by the media.

Howard Dean is most certainly not more liberal than Kerry. He was fiscally conservative during his time as governor. The claim that Dean was a liberal was largely a media myth.

[sellitman]

69. Nope, not kidding

Howard was against the war when it wasn't popular to be against the war even as a Democrat. That was a lot better than Kerry's early responses.

[TwilightZone]

78. That doesn't make Howard a liberal.

Unless, of course, your interpretation of liberal vs. conservative is based on one stance on one issue at one point in time.

[Clark2008]

115. First, Howard Dean isn't a liberal.

Secondly, bless his heart and I adore him, but Dennis Kucinich simply wasn't imposing enough in the age of television (I hate that it's that way, but it is).
Finally, neither Dean nor Kucinich was perceived as a moderate in the red states - they were both perceived, justified or not, as wild-eyed liberals.
As far as Kerry is concerned, no moderate I knew pictured Kerry as anything but a Massachusetts liberal. Period. You could have read every position paper to them that Kerry made and they would have still seen him that way, despite his stances and despite the few months he spent in Vietnam (btw, no moderate I knew begrudged his Vietnam experience, no matter how "Swift Boated" it was. They just didn't see Kerry as viable in the national security/foreign policy department as a leader).
The thing Clark has going for him is that he can spout the Democratic manna from pro-choice to gun control and, still, NO ONE sees him as a liberal. His many years in what the media has turned into a right-wing institution, the military, renders him immune from being painted as anything but a moderate.
I know he's a liberal. Other supporters of his knew he was a liberal, but his many, many, many red state blue voters adored the fact that moderate Republicans who are fed up with the hijacking of their party by the Christo-fascists also saw Clark as a moderate.

[Sparkly]

24. I love Boxer.

I also love Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, Mario Cuomo, and Michael Moore. Heck, I loved Paul Tsongas, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis.

The list of great liberals and Democrats is much longer than the list of great liberals and Democrats who can appeal across a wide range of geography, generations and biography; who can decimate decades of stereotypes and unite the country behind liberal principles; who can WIN, and in doing so alone, do great things for this country.

[Clarkie1]

27. I'm so proud Barbara Boxer is my Senator! n/t

[sybil]

133. Me too! And that's the way I wanta keep it!

She stays in the senate doing what she does best.

[Clark2008]

4. He praises the troops and he knows what it means to go to war -

therefore, he will ALWAYS choose that as the last, last, last, last option. Period.

[MollyStark]

13. Last resort

I was told bush would go to war as a last resort too.

[Clark2008]

20. Bush is an idiot chickenhawk; Clark is not. nt

[Sparkly]

5. This has been hashed, rehashed, re-rehashed and then some

Read the entirety and consider the context of the time. He was saying, essentially "Hurray -- the military did its job, and that's great. But while we're all celebrating the fall of Baghdad, keep in mind there's more work to be done, militarily, politically and diplomatically."

Even the quote you've pulled out includes, "Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph."

There's no "flip-flopping" represented here.

[Donna Zen]

6. Read on, unless your just on an agenda high.

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

He also refers to bush as "irrational."

Note: Clark is writing for a foreign publication--it is considered "bad" to diss America in a foreign publication.

Clark conseled against this war. Edwards, Kerry, Hillary, Gephardt--all, I repeat "all" not only voted for it, they said it was the right thing to do.

[high density]

7. Ah yes, that paragraph again

Gotta love the liberals who love fucking with their own without knowing the facts or seeking context.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Mass]

9. Anti-War candidate does not mean anything

Clark had spent the month before March 2003 saying that Bush was wrong in his hypothesis and the way he was going to war. He continued saying so after. This does not mean he was supporting Saddam Hussein or not supporting the Army. Read the full text and you will have a very correct idea of his view on this subject, view that is common to many people who opposed Bush on his way to the War with Iraq.

The other thing that should be said is that Clark, before he was pushed by his handlers, said he would have voted the IWR (which for me does not mean he was supporting Bush).

[Sparkly]

17. Agree, except...

He didn't say he'd have voted for the IWR that passed; he was talking about a different version requiring a return to Congress for authorization, and said on balance he'd probably have voted for that. (He's said ever since then that he made a mistake in engaging in that particular interview the way he did.)

[Clarkie1]

19. Wes Clark on the "high price" of war.

"As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome."

Clark was against the war from the beginning. When he saw that it was going to happen in early 2004, that the troops were amassing and the invasion inevitable, he SUPPORTED THE TROOPS, but NEVER the policy that got them there in the first place. Naturally, Clark was happy with the quick military (not political) victory in Iraq, because that meant less U.S. casualties during the initial military campaign that led to the "fall of Baghdad." To be unhappy with the quick military victory would have been treason against the men and women of our armed forces who had no choice in the matter.

[TwilightZone]

26. Unrelated - why on Earth are you quoting Stalin in your sig line?

While the quote may be accurate and applicable to Bush Co., I'd recommend finding a similar sentiment from someone who didn't kill 20 million of his own people.

Just a thought....

[dogman]

36. Don't worry it's unlikely Stalin said this.

That's why I recommended researching the sig line earlier. It is a good indication of the quality of info this poster will provide.

[sellitman]

41. There are plenty of bad historical figures that have

very relevant quotes attributed to them. This one in particular is used on many liberal sites that hardly espouse praise for mass murder.

[dogman]

43. Research made easy.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa121800a.htm

[TwilightZone]

48. Nice work.

:toast:

[sellitman]

53. This isn't reputing the quote.

The question of the quotes authenticity is still up in the air after reading your "easy reasearch" .

Besides isn't this picking hairs? It's a relevant quote in the current political climate.

Unless the reason you chose to pick it apart was not so altruistic?

[Sparkly]

55. Oh, come now...

You who've picked quotes out of context and leaped to false conclusions based on them now complain about "picking hairs" and being "not so altruistic?"

(Btw, it's "refuting," not "reputing.")

[dogman]

56. Actually I found the quote interesting but before I went further

I posted on DU and asked about it's authenticity. If we have learned nothing else in this last election it is check your sources. If you find enough doubt in the article that you feel it's worth going with, have at it. Some people require deeper research and don't choose to go off half cocked when they find something they feel meets their needs.

[TwilightZone]

58. The reason that I chose to bring it up...

was because I'm quite certain that with a little effort you could find a conceptually-similar statement from a political figure who didn't kill 20 million of his own people. You could just as well be quoting Hitler.

But, then, it might take a little work to find an alternative, and it seems that you're kind of busy denigrating Mr. Clark by taking his statements out of context.

[Sparkly]

44. Oh, I get it.

So if you like a quote, it doesn't matter if the person who said it is an evil murderous tyrant.

But if you decide not to like a quote, it doesn't matter if the person who said it is a good liberal Democrat.

[TwilightZone]

51. Good call.

That would indeed appear to be the case.

[Clark2008]

52. LOL!!

That just made me giggle, Sparkly. Good one! :thumbsup:

[sellitman]

60. Bad quotes can come from good men

and visa versa. I was commenting on the whole article. Not just the quote.

The following is one of my favorite quotes from what I concider one of our worst Presidents. I still like the quote though.

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
-- Ronald Reagan


I still hate the man.

[TwilightZone]

67. See response #58

n/t

[CJCRANE]

92. I don't agree

with your stance on Wes Clark but I think it's unfair for others to pick on you because of your sigline. I've seen that quote quite a lot on DU and also quotes by Hitler & Goebbels, doesn't mean the people using those quotes are communists or nazis.

[TwilightZone]

46. It is also often used to denigrate liberals for that very reason.

If you want to help create material for Rush Limbaugh, you're welcome to do so.

I choose to be a little more selective.

[welshTerrier2]

31. most fundamental questions re: Clark and the war

i am very strongly opposed to spending another penny on the war in Iraq ... NO MORE MONEY FOR WAR ... Democrats need to understand that bush cannot be trusted and that he will never do "the right thing" in Iraq ...

regardless of the past, i would like to know Clark's current position on the war and i would like to know the position of those who support him ... here are 3 key questions i have that i think would shed the most light on his position on the war:

question 1: regardless of what Clark said before the war, has he taken a leadership role in saying the US must withdraw from Iraq within the very near term?

question 2: does he support the current view being pushed by most Democrats that now that we're there, we can't withdraw until we "finish the job"? let me note that, all tap dancing aside, this is not an anti-war position ...

question 3: has Clark spoken out strongly, clearly and repeatedly that the proposed additional funding for Iraq ($81.4 billion) should be voted down?

if Clark is to be viewed as a real anti-war Democrat, these are the issues I see as relevant ...

can anyone shed any light on Clark's recent statements and positions on these issues? i'd also be interested to know your own views ...

[Sparkly]

45. No.

He's not Ted Kennedy. Sorry.

[welshTerrier2]

57. the question was asked without tone or criticism

the response contained both ... thanks for nothing ...

[Sparkly]

64. Sorry

Seemed to me you defined the only (non-tap-dancing) "anti-war" position as that of Kennedy & perhaps Kucinich. But in my view, at THIS point (yes, "now that we're there" or "now that we broke it"), the debate has to do with the shape of the shovel to dig out of the Chimp's mess, not whether one was supportive of the war or against it in the first place.

The terms "anti-war" or "pro-war" aren't rightly applied to what to do now, imho. I don't think they should be applied to different strategies for getting out, this late into the mess when the pile's as high as it is.

I thought you were simply stating one position, calling it "anti-war," and if Clark didn't adhere, he wasn't "anti-war," period. I thought it was a lazy argument and I answered in a lazy way. I apologize if I misinterpreted your post.

[welshTerrier2]

70. no problem ...

i agree with you that we need to be focussed now on where we go from here ... there will be plenty of time to study the history later ...

my last post stated that i implied no tone or criticism of Clark because i was not familiar with his position on Iraq ... HOWEVER, i AM STATING that i don't consider those who think we're NOW STUCK in Iraq as anti-war (i.e. anti-this-specific war) ... that IS my position ...

those of us who protested (last weekend) the continued occupation of Iraq did not listen to speech after speech of people who believed we had to REMAIN in Iraq ... that was not the position of those who attended the anti-war protests ... perhaps you're correct that we should not have the term "pro war" ... and to be clear, i didn't use that term ... but to be opposed to the Iraqi war based on the current situation, you have to call for near-term withdrawal ... if you believe we have to stay as long as necessary to "complete the mission", it's hardly fair to say you oppose this war (viewing it from today's situation) ... the "we broke it we have to fix it" argument does not fly with those of us who believe continuing the insanity is dead wrong ...

i won't repeat my reasons for calling for withdrawal ... i've already expounded on them in another post in this thread ...

[Donna Zen]

47. A civil war:

(My thoughts/not Clark's exactly) Iraq, for all bush's hubris and lies, is teetering on the brink of a civil war. As much as one would like to pull out, we must understand that we have wrecked that country, and we have only armed the Shias. The Shias by the way are also fighting among themselves. There were reports today that Sadar's forces have recently struck out at women who would not wear the veil; beating some of them to death.

What I've heard from Clark who always prefaces his remarks with "I did not believe we should have gone to war."

Although he offered several scenarios for an exit strategy during the campaign, none of which were listened to by the bush administration, he said about a month ago that there was no longer any viable exit strategy, the window has closed. That we could expect to spend billions of dollars and keep 100,000 troops there for the next 4-5 years. He has also pointed to Liberia as a case in point. He is not pleased with this.

He doesn't see this as Vietnam. He believes we can get out; however, we are engaged in a process that must include the "rights of minorities."

You may call this pro-war, but I have accepted it for what it is worth: the opinion of someone who sees the options very clearly. Leave now and you will be returning troops to a far worse situation. Personally, I wish he was in charge, at least then I would feel assured that what needed to be done was being done. As it stands, the creeps now in charge will be sure to get it wrong and make it worse.

[welshTerrier2]

61. "no longer any viable exit strategy"

thanks for your detailed response ... i really have not followed Clark's statements on the "war" and appreciate the details you provided ...

please understand that to those of us who are strongly opposed to the war in Iraq, your explanation of Clark's views (his views of the current situation) would not be considered an "anti-war" position ...

those who oppose the "war" do not agree that we should remain in Iraq ... we don't believe there is "no viable exit strategy" ... we, too, fear there will be civil war in Iraq when the US withdraws ... but we believe staying there 2 years or 5 years or 25 years will not change that ... and the time spent there (and the money and the lives) will result in additional devastation of the Iraqi infrastructure, an amassing of anti-US hatred, tens of thousands of additional Iraqi deaths, more poisoning of the country from depleted uranium, more "messed up in the head" returning war veterans, more corporate exploitation of the instability in the Middle East and on and on and on ...

we are not blind to the horrors you worry about ... leaving is not a "good" option ... it's the only option ... remaining will only bring more of the same ... and that is not an option ...

so, by your definition, at least as it applies to Iraq, I would not consider Clark to be my ally in the anti-war movement ...

[Donna Zen]

71. I'm ready to agree with you

but I can tell you that the political will necessary for what you want is not and will not be there.

I too am strongly against this war. I think that Clark sees that the political process may collapse at any time.

Normally, when ever there is conflict, there is an underlying cause that must be addressed politically. This is a curious case. True, the political conflict is among the rival factions that were strong armed under Saddam into submission, but it was not what caused the war: we caused the war.

So what is our responsibility? Again, if we leave--if that is our only option--then we will be return to stop genocide. Would you object to stopping genocide? Would you let the country disintegrate into open civil war? Those are moral questions.

I really have no answer because personally, I don't think there is an answer. As Clark has said, the invasion of Iraq is the worst foreign policy decision that this country has ever made.

Also, not one Democrat will advocate for what you want. Hillary? Give me a fucking break--she thinks we should punish Syria! Kerry? Edwards? Feingold? Bayh? Biden? Vilsack? Warner?

Yes, the wonderful Kucinich, who also warned about this "forever war." He has been a moral compass, but does he think we can walk away? I haven't heard him lately. I thought he was discussing gradual troop withdrawal.

BTW, Clark has also said that there is a possibility that we may be asked to leave, in which case we go. Again, he has said that Sistani is lying low until he gains legitimacy and that the government is probably going to be aligned with Iran. The moderate Arabs are very concerned about this. A man from Salon was on MTP today, a Muslim, who said that the Arab world is currently experiencing a religious reformation. Some time ago, Clark pointed this out: he said that we are on the periphery of a Muslim civil war. This is a religion that has been static until now.

[welshTerrier2]

81. excellent post !!

very well said, Donna ...

the truth of the matter is i have become a "teetering" Democrat (i.e. i'm not sure how long i can remain in the Party)... i answered the call to "get involved" and help reform the Party ... i was recently elected to my town's Democratic Committee and I have aspirations of fighting for real change ... wonderful ... but your astute observation that i can't see my views reflected in the Democratic Party are dead on the money ... all the candidate supporters keep telling me how out to lunch my views on the war are and that their guy is the real "anti-war" candidate ... but all their guys think we have to stay in Iraq until we achieve some kind of goal ... and i don't think there will be any progress whatsoever as long as the corporate state exists ... this is corporate exploitation at its worst ... bush doesn't give a damn about "training Iraqis" ... in fact, just the opposite is true ... his goal is to prolong the justification for US military operations in the Middle East ... little or no training was done ... reconstruction funds were not spent and some are missing ... and Exxon-Mobil just reported record profits directly attributable to high oil prices which is directly attributable to the instability in the region ...

so, you're right to look at the political realities ... maybe the Democrats will trade me for a player to be named later ...

and finally, you raised a couple of killer questions about genocide and civil war ... i met Cam Kerry last April and told him Iraq would end in civil war no matter what the US did and no matter how long we did it ... he looked like a deer caught in the headlights ...

here's about the best i can offer on these two questions ... "we have met the enemy and they are us" ... the US is a major source of the violence in Iraq right now ... there will be no stability while we remain ... and the dying is happening everyday ... the US should withdraw ... in the meantime, the international community, with as much Muslim nation support as possible, should convene negotiations among the key regional players in Iraq ... and, to whatever extent a military presence is required, the help should come from the UN and the international community ... the US is not and never can be part of the military solution; we are part if not most of the problem ... the US role to help the people of Iraq should take the form of humanitarian, not military aid ...

and if Iraq doesn't do it for you, the following was taken directly from the Democratic Party's 2004 platform ... looks like the list of Democrats will be voting for perpetual war ... Iran next ... or Syria ... what Party does one join when one opposes all this militarism ???

Even as we have scoured Iraq for signs of weapons of mass destruction, Iran has reportedly been working to develop them next door. A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us and our allies.

The same is true for other countries that may be seeking nuclear weapons. This is why strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is so critical. We must close the loophole that lets countries develop nuclear weapons capabilities under the guise of a peaceful, civilian nuclear power program.

[Donna Zen]

111. And back to you WT!

I'm at work now and just checking in. I want you to know how much I appreciate "honest dialog" that leaves the he-said-she-said at the door.

I have more thoughts about "goals" and would like to air them here--but later. (The roads are getting bad and I must get home.)

My mother was an elected Democrat for 30 years--my great uncle worked for FDR--I am and have been a member of our county committee and if it wasn't for Clark, I'd have left this party some time ago. Surprised?

Anyone, thank you for that great response. That post is an example of what should be happening on Democratic boards.

[Clarkie1]

49. Bush fucked up

We can't pull all the troops out tomorrow and add to Bush's fucked up mess, if that's what you mean.

That would be a diservice to Iraq, America, the troops, and the World.

Clark supports fulfilling our moral obligations in Iraq now that we are there, so our troops can come home as soon as possible.

So, yes, we are there. That is the reality we must deal with now.

A better question to ask might be, how do we avoid this in the future. Here's Clark's plan:


Preventing Foreign Misadventures Going Forward

Promote security through multilateralism. No nation will ever have veto power over our security. But turning our back on our allies makes it harder to protect ourselves and our interests. Despite our overwhelming military, economic and political strength, we cannot pursue Arab-Israeli peace, support reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, deal with the challenges of North Korea, track down Osama bin Laden, fight the global war against terrorism, face the problem of Iran, and return to prosperity in this country, unless we have allies to help us.

Modernize international institutions to combat new threats. Wes Clark recommends pursuing a new Atlantic Charter to repair and modernize our security partnership with Europe. The Charter that will define the threats we face in common and demand action from our allies to meet them while offering a promise to act together.

Create a new agency for international assistance. Wes Clark believes America should lead the world in addressing the causes of human misery by attacking the problems of poverty, disease, and ethnic conflict with the same energy and skill we have brought to the challenge of warfare. A new agency would combine the existing development efforts of our government with a real budget for research and development, planning and the ability to draw on the new national Civilian Reserves that Wes Clark proposed in his campaign last October. These efforts will reduce the anger and alienation that gives rise to terrorism, and win us more friends and partners around the world. It will be far easier to ask gain international support for our concerns when other countries see us helping them on theirs.

http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=issues/iraqplan

I also recommend this thread for some insight into Wes Clark's vision of the role of America in the world community, and the necessity for the correct kind of American leadership:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1684921&mesg_id=1684921

[welshTerrier2]

65. "preventing foreign misadventures"

thanks for the details you provided, Clarkie1 ... i strongly disagree with Clark's assessment of what should be done (i.e. remaining in Iraq until we "stabilize" the country) in Iraq now that we're there ... see my post just above this one for details ...

HOWEVER, I very much appreciate the position Clark takes in his statement on "preventing foreign misadventures" ... i like his vision on the importance of building global alliances ... i wish it went a little further to expound on whether he thinks we need to increase or decrease the military budget ... i believe the excessive emphasis on bloated, super-costly weapons systems could yield some very significant cost savings ... we can already blow up the entire planet ... how much firepower do we really need ??? a more effective military would put far more emphasis on specially-trained personnel ... smaller, lighter, faster forces are what is needed ...

so, I can't see myself supporting Clark in the future because I see the war in Iraq as a neo-con evil that will only get worse as more dollars, more lives and more time are squandered there ... staying the course has to implicitly involve "trusting bush" ... and I don't and never have ... bush will never do "the right thing" for the Iraqi people ... he's there for his corporate buddies ... however well-meaning those who say we're stuck there may be, i'm afraid they're investing in an administration with evil motives ... and no good will ever come from that ...

[dogman]

68. Clark was influenced by Rwanda.

He feels that you can not stand by while genocide is taking place. He feels you can not walk away from a situation that you have created that leaves a minority defenseless and will require returning at a later date and killing more than if you finish the job of restoring stability. He has proposed that we reduce our footprint in Iraq and bring in international help to get Iraq stabilized. This would require high level diplomacy directly from the White House to show it is a commitment on our part. he has recommended reducing the bloat and unnecessary buildup in yhe Pentagon. He has said we should maintain a limited Army and reduce the strain on our servicemen and their families. If we pull out and let Iraq descend into chaos we will have shown the people of the Middle East that their security and long term stability are not our concern and we will suffer longer term problems.

[welshTerrier2]

72. "we will have shown the people of the Middle East"

i wonder what they think of bush and the American military intervention in the region right now ... do you think they believe the US actions are being done to truly help the Iraqi people or do you think they believe they are being done for self-serving reasons?

and worse yet, will more years of neo-con-trolled occupation in Iraq actually lead to a better life for the Iraqis? i say "no" ... am i correct in assuming Clark says "Yes"?

the problem isn't that i don't trust Clark; the problem is I don't trust bush ... and bush is running the show over there ... it's time to do all we can to shut down this war ...

[Donna Zen]

74. Clark's words

"We need to talk to them, that is all we've ever needed to do."

Clark believes that Syria and Iran must be asked to the table as the process plays out. To date (according to this weeks' talk by Hersh) that is not being done. Everything Clark warned us about in the article that started this thread has come true.

Truly_if I could, I carry this man on my back into the WH tonight. I think he's the only one that has a clue.

By 2008_this will be a clusterfuck.

[dogman]

76. I would bet they think it is being done for Israel.

The "street" believed 9-11 was done by Israel to frame them. The rest of the world probably believes, and probably rightly so, that it was for oil. I agree that with bush running the show, we have little hope. I was asked to sign an anti-war petition and balked at first because i basically agree with Clark's assessment. I signed it however as a sign of dissaitsfaction with the bush agenda. I realize this petition is not going to change anything anyway. Clark's solution begins with turning the country's rebuilding over to the international community and removing the US and it's corporations from the equation. The major problem with that right now is the corruption in the oil for food program, much of which occurred under US supervision. But removing the neo-con control was the keystone of his solution. He proposed keeping are forces there for several reasons. One is to secure Iraq from attack by its neighbors, something we owe since we destroyed its ability to defend itself. Another is to provide strngth of force to back up the new Iraqi internal security force, since we dismantled its police forces. Last is to provide security for international aid organizations, only when absolutely needed. Alsoto secure border security until they can provide their own. We need to pull out of most areas where we are the target and thereby destabilize the population centers. We must also be prepared to deal with a government that is not of our choosing, which seems likely.

[Donna Zen]

79. Excellent post.

With NGOs needed there, they will need protection. Guard the borders. Keep the neighbors out.

[Donna Zen]

73. Decrease

Clark has said that the "make-want" Pentagon budget can be decreased by 25% just by getting rid of the pork.

He believes that we must spend much more preventing conflict.

There are many clips around including his roundtable last week at the Library of Congress. He speaks to this in detail.

[Donna Zen]

50. No word on the funding.

[Lefta Dissenter]

59. unfortunately, there's a difficult thing to face in all of this -

it's called reality. Wes is one of the few who can take us from where we are and see a path to a brighter future. It's easy for us to sit here and say, "pull the troops out now." However, the reality is that there WILL be civil war if we do that (not that there won't be anyway), and since we brought Iraq to its knees, we have the responsibility to get it to the point at which it can actually function as a country.

Wes Clark never would have taken us to war in Iraq - I first noticed him on NPR when he was speaking out against the prospect of war in Iraq. But here we are. It IS the sad reality, and I want a leader who knows how to get us out, knows the value of a well-trained volunteer army, and knows better than to take us to a war that is not absolutely necessary for our preservation.

[MollyStark]

75. bullpucky

Clark could be the first to take us to war.

Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.

He is threatening them with war for not complying with Washingtons concerns.

[dogman]

77. Because you say so? N/T

[MollyStark]

80. Because he says so and I take him at his word... n/t

[Donna Zen]

82. Yes! But of course!

And it is sooooo cute. I love it! Great informed discourse does show off the intellectual powers of the as defined by some long lost posters. The mark of the little ones who travel among us to this very day.

[Donna Zen]

83. Dogman

Aren't you feeling impressed now? huh? I'm swooning with unabashed admiration and new found wisdom. Thank you to the political gods and goddesses!

[dogman]

86. I wonder.

Since FDR said the only thing to fear was fear itself, was he a fearmonger?

[MollyStark]

98. No, Clark is a fearmonger

Just like Bush, he wants us to be afraid so he can win the next election.
Roosevelt was the opposite of a fearmonger, he encouraged us to refuse to be fearful.

[dogman]

100. Cheese Wiz, it's the energizer bunny for Easter week.

Clark condemns what B$$$co has done so you say they're connected. Clark does not at all encourage us to be fearful, he encourages us te deal with problems in an intelligent manner. You should try that some time.

[MollyStark]

102. He doesn't condemn bush, he praises him

He says we can attack ME states if they don't go along with American interests.

[Clark2008]

The Bush Administration's Inadequate Record

In the hunt for bin Laden and Al Qaeda, the Bush Administration has left a string of failures in its wake:

* Failure to capture bin Laden at Tora Bora. The Bush Administration's failure to commit US ground troops early in the December 2001 offensive in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, permitted the escape of many Al Qaeda militants, most likely including bin Laden and his top-ranking associates. The Bush Administration should have used every available resource to capture or kill terrorists who were targeting Americans at home and abroad.
* Failure to maintain adequate international intelligence sharing and law enforcement relationships. The Bush Administration's unilateral approach to national security issues has alienated key sources of international support for the fight against terrorism. Specifically, the Bush Administration's bullying approach has inhibited efforts to develop accurate intelligence regarding terrorist activities and bring terrorists to justice. For example, it is reported that Syria provided extensive information to the CIA and the FBI regarding Al Qaeda operations and personnel prior to the war in Iraq. During the Bush Administration's unilateral march to war, this flow of valuable intelligence dried up.
* Failure to use international legal resources. By shunning the United Nations and ignoring international law, the Bush Administration squandered an opportunity to gain legal sanction and credibility for its pursuit of terrorists. After the September 11 attacks, the Administration should have sought the establishment of an International Criminal Tribunal on International Terrorism that would develop an agreed legal definition of terrorism and obtain indictments of terrorists like bin Laden.

http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=issues/bushrecord

Some "praise." :eyes:

[MollyStark]

110. You don't think that is the only thing he has every said about Bush do U?

I can cut and paste too but why bother. I have read his speeches where he praises bush and so have you. I have read and posted in this thread the statements agreeing with bush on foreign policy. They are right in the original post. Prove to me he didn't say those things.

[Clark2008]

114. I'm not bothering to "prove" anything to you

You have made up your little mind and I'm done.
You go ahead and support some candidate that won't flip one red state and lose the GE and I'll just shake my head again.

[elleng]

134. I'm just jumping in here

to note that many people in the U.S., encouraged by the media, look for fights and dramatic rhetoric. General Clark DOES NOT PROVIDE that, because he understands that agreement/compromise/success is arrived at by dialogue.

So if it were demonstrated that he strongly dumped on Bush and Blair, for example, in a presentation in Britain, he would be scorned by the international community as not trustworthy to SPEAK FOR or ABOUT U.S. policy.

In hoping to encourage an opponent/adversary to move toward one's view, it is hardly likely to occur when one has begun with 'you b*****d!' General Clark appreciates the nuance that few others do.

[Clark2008]

101. It's useless arguing with people like you who don't take the time to

read his works.
Clark was the most REALISTICALLY optomistic candidate to run in 2004. No, he wasn't sugar and spice like John Edwards and he wasn't pounding-the-podium anti-Iraqi-war like Howard Dean and he wasn't cow-towed by the Republicans like nearly every other Dem primary candidate (save Kucinich), but he tries NOT to scare people while still educating them regarding the PNAC's plans.

Institutionally, our Constitution remains the wellspring of American freedom and prosperity. We must retain a pluralistic democracy, with institutional checks and balances that reflect the will of the majority while safeguarding the rights of the minority. We must seek to maximize the opportunities for private gain, consistent with concern for the public good. And we must institute a culture of transparency and accountability, in which we set the world standard for good government. As new areas of concern arise -- in the areas of intellectual property, bioethics, and other civil areas -- we will assure continued access to the courts, as well as to the other branches of government, and a vibrant competitive media that informs our people and enables their effective participation in civic life. And even more importantly, we will assure in meeting the near term challenges of the day -- whether they be terrorism or something else -- that, we don't compromise the freedoms and rights which are the very essence of the America we are protecting.

http://www.securingamerica.com/vision

[MollyStark]

97. no because he is saying so n/t

[dogman]

104. Reading is easy.

Comprehension is the difficult part.

[dogman]

84. By stating the facts that exist he is making a threat?

Where on earth do you come up with this nonsense? He is not calling the shots, the neo-cons are. He is explaining to the world what the situation is. Is he wrong? This is not what B$$$co is up to?

[Clark2008]

85. Umm. Here Clark is talking about the current political strategy

not what he'd do.
It's no secret that Bush has put Syria and Iran on notice that they are "next."

[Clarkie1]

87. Yes, THAT IS BUSH'S NEO-CON POLICY

And, "Don't look for stability as a Western (neo-con) goal."

The reality is the neo-cons are in charge of the show right now. Do you blame Clark for that as well?

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[MollyStark]

99. Is that all you have to respond with?

Insults?

[Clark2008]

105. Because, apparently, that's all you answer to.

I just read the thread and when someone gets you on the facts, you don't respond.
When they call you out for being close-minded, then you say something.

[MollyStark]

108. ROFL

Answer the charge of closemindedness? That is an opinion. I don't agree that I am closed minded. There's your answer.
When I see any facts I will be impressed. So far I have seen people who have opinions which differ from mine based on the things Clark says.

[Donna Zen]

106. No no

You and only you are brilliant! You don't have to make any points or display any dedication to serious dialog for all us to fall in line. Thank you for appearing with disparaging remarks in every Clark thread! I don't know how to thank you enough for sharing your unique intellectual dishonesty.

[MollyStark]

112. I am not a fan of expecting people to "fall in line"

Perhaps that is why I am not a Clarkie. So if you are waiting for me to convince you to fall in line you are in for a long wait. I'm just saying what I think of Clark.

On Edit: Your continuing attempt to insult me is falling flat.

[Donna Zen]

199. My deepest apologies!

I would never attempt to insult you. I said you were wonderful at all times. I take back the fall in line--I'm sure since you accused ALL Clark supporters of "falling in line" you will do the same.

Why your one liners are great! I've read them so many times on Clark threads, that I just wanted to share with you my admiration for your writing and thinking abilities. And persistence. Over and over the same line with variations. Reasons? Research? Responsible behavior? Throw out the 3 Rs, here is a sage!

Awesome!

[sandnsea]

88. Who does? NOBODY

I know I've posted both Nader's and Hooley's "withdrawal plans", which are the exact same plan the Democratic Party has proposed since the invasion. NOBODY in government supports pulling out of Iraq and risking chaos and I don't know why you can't face that reality.

[jmcon007]

89. I'm not apologizing for Gen Clark, but...

I'm 55 and a veteran combat Marine from Viet Nam era.
I feel ashamed to admit it now, but when the war began I was so pissed at the chickenshit tactics of the enemy I actually wrote the White House and asked them to allow me back in to go over there. (btw, it was the first time out of maybe five letters I've mailed to the WH over the years, that I didn't receive even so much as a form letter reply)
And, then, when they were on the streets of Baghdad pulling that statue down, I was happy myself and proud of our troops....and damned relieved, mainly because I thought the fighting was over with. Little did any of us know....
It wasn't long after that when we began learning about all the things that had actually been choreographed and staged (like the statue pulled down)and all the things we had been lied to about. I wouldn't have gone over there at the point of a gun after learning all that shit! Not for lying asshole Bush!
I see General Clark made these comments when the war wasn't yet a month old and as someone who understands the misery of war, I can understand exactly what he was feeling. I would ask that you give him the benefit of the doubt until you know for sure something different about how he feels today, although I think we all know that now.
The bottom line is: We were all taken in.

[ZootSuitGringo]

91. Unfortunate story you have there, my man

But Clark was not taken in. Watch his testimony to both houses of Congress and realize that he always knew that going into Iraq would be a disaster.

He's probably one of the very few Democrats that knows how to put down the administration, while praising the troups.
Wish other Dems were as good at it.

[WI_DEM]

94. It's as if the primaries have never ended

[Jai4WKC08]

95. Clark was not and will never be an "Anti-War Candidate"

Nor has he ever claimed to be, and in fact has made a point of saying he is not. How could a man spend 38 years in the military and be "anti-war"?

What Clark has said, over and over, is:

1) that war should only be a "last, last, last resort";
2) that all diplomatic, economic and other means should be exhausted first;
3) that, if war becomes necessary, every effort should be made to go in with the support of allies and international institutions;
4) that the reasons for going to war should be presented transparently to the American people, so that there is open debate as to whether the war is justified, and,
5) that Bush purposely misled the nation to war in Iraq by hyped and manipulated intelligence.

But remember that Clark pushed for military intervention in Rwanda. He supported, obviously, the war in Kosovo. He was for taking down the Taliban in Afghanistan, and thinks we haven't done enough to finish the job with al Qaeda (militarily and thru other means). And he has said that if there had been an imminent threat from Iraq, he "probably" would have supported it too. Clark also believes in the judicious use of the threat of military force for leverage in diplomatic negotiations.

So a Democrat or other liberal who is against any war, any time, under any circumstances, should probably not back a future Clark candidacy. It's as simple as that.

Oh, you might want to consider whether a true "anti-war" candidate can actually win national office. And whether a "reluctant warrior" who is progressive on essentially every domestic or social issue might not be a good choice compared to the usual crop of candidates who bend to every political wind. You might even think about the idea that a former high-ranking military man might actually have greater insight into how the military-industrial complex works, and thus certain advantages in curbing its influence within our society.

But if total, isolationist pacifism is your single-issue priority, then Wes Clark is not your man.

Edit for spelling and minor word-smithing.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

96. He's not anti-war - he's against NEEDLESS wars....

:eyes:

[cestpaspossible]

103. It's Clark's judgement that is faulty, not his motives.

April 10, 2003: Wesley Clark declares: " Already the scent of victory is in the air. "

1409 American soldiers have died in Iraq since General Clark made that statement.

Just what does this say about Clark's competence and judgement as a military leader?


Isn't it General Clark's experience, competence and judgement as a military leader that supposedly qualifies him to be President?

[dogman]

107. Back to the first posts, hey.

As has been pointed out read the entire op-ed in context.

[cestpaspossible]

113. I READ IT AND IT MAKES CLARK LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT

That is the whole thing, in context, reveals Clark's poor judgement and incompetence. It should be read by everyone who wants to understand Wesley Clark. And it will be distributed far and wide if he ever quits the lecture and lobbying circuit and attempts to run for President again.

[dogman]

116. The idiocy is displayed by those who pick a morsel that meets their needs.

This is beyond understanding a complex sentence. This has been argued in the preceding threads. Put in context he is pointing out that a moment of success is not a way to capture the overall picture. The same could be said for your logic. You think by taking a statement out of context you have scored some great victory. The essay in whole points to the failures of the coalition and the problems that lie ahead.

[cestpaspossible]

119. I'm talking about the whole article, not "a morsel"

This article IN ITS ENTIRETY gives a good insight into Clark's lack of judgement.


Please stop falsely claiming that I am 'picking a morsel' or taking some statement out of context.

That's not what I'm doing.

I encourage everyone to read the whole article: What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory and see what it reveals about Clark's ability to assess the tactical, strategic, and diplomatic reality on April 10, 2003.

[dogman]

122. This article in its entirety points to the failures in spite of

the perceived success. The Mission Accomplished was not. These are the points he is making. Is your comprehension that low or your disdain that high? Your tactics are nothing new and have not been effective yet, but keep trying, their are others with low comprehension that might be convinced. It's worked well for other misinformers..

[cestpaspossible]

125. folks should read the article for themselves

Here's the link:

April 10, 2003: What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory by General Wesley Clark


I think it is important that people read this article for themselves and judge for themselves whether your characterization of it is accurate.

[dogman]

222. That's for sure.

It only works in total. You can then see where he starts by telling the "conventional wisdom" of the day and then shows you where it fails. You seem to be hung up on the repetition of the "conventional wisdom" and can't follow to the end where he explains the truth in the failure to accomplish the pre-stated goals. It's like a story, read it from beginning to end with an open mind. Not with a predetermined bias, looking for confirmation of your theories.

[ClarkUSA]

109. You are taking his words out-of-context as usual, c'estpaspossible...

General Clark goes on to say:

"Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They havenÕt yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed."

This Clarkbashing is ridiculous. For anyone to question his judgment is laughable, considering everything he ever warned us about has come true.

[cestpaspossible]

121. IM TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE ARTICLE

This article IN ITS ENTIRETY gives a good insight into Clark's lack of judgement.



I encourage everyone to read the whole article: What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory and see what it reveals about Clark's ability to assess the tactical, strategic, and diplomatic reality on April 10, 2003.

[ICantBelieve]

117. READ HIS TESTIMONY

Until you people read the only thing that matters, what Wesley Clark said in 2002, you have no right to comment on anything. While Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton were busy voting to give George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq, Wesley Clark was TELLING THEM NOT TO!!!

HELLO!!! And you guys call Clark the war monger? Who's been saying all along that this was the wrong war at the wrong time? Who? Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, and Wesley Clark. I'll say that again because it sounds good. Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, and Wesley Clark.

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

For those of you who are too lazy to read beyond the opening remarks, here is the conclusion:

Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This includes requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance, and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution. Ideally, international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations, including the UN, NATO, and other regional and Islamic organizations.

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as “preemptive.”

Once initiated, any military operation should aim for the most rapid accomplishment of its operational aims and prompt turnover to follow-on organizations and agencies.

If we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region, and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism. But there are no guarantees. The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere.

[Clark2008]

118. Howard Dean as DNC Chair

Dennis Kucinich as the whip and
Wesley Clark as the president.

Boy, wouldn't I be in heaven! Grassroots, baby!

[ChrisPhx]

120. You gotta read and see all the perspective he brings to it

And yes he is a general.

He is not a pacifist, how could he be? I am not either. Sometimes you have to fight.

I don't know about you folks, but I couldn't help but feel good about the fall of Bagdad, when it seemed to delight the Iraqis.

Later we've learned that some of the demonstrations were orchestrated by our own government.

Wes also discusses that "Now the bills must be paid, amid the hostile image created in many areas by the allied action."

And the following:

"The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West."

Okay towards the end he says, "As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair..."

And goes on to say:

"Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed."

This article can be used against General Clark, if one is determined to do so.

It can be quoted out of context.

In my opinion it shows his ability to deal with a complex situation, to accept his own reaction to what seemed to be a happy day to many.

But to measure that against what was yet to come, what was yet to be determined.

Chris

[Clark2008]

123. And most Americans felt this way, too.

As much as I hate to admit it, many Americans were delighted at the fall of Bagdhad, whether it was because they are warmongers or because they simply wanted Johnny Soldier to come home, but they were happy (mostly as a result of our inept media, but that's another subject).
The fact is that Clark, upon the fall of this city, knew there was no political structure in place and no exit strategy developed to complete this most misguided war. He wanted to troops to come home and be done and out of there once they were there, however, like most of us.
But the Bush Doctrine doesn't support an exit strategy because they want another base from which to work out of the Middle East (14 bases?), yet, the entertainment industry that we have parading around as legitimate watchdog media doesn't point this fact out.
In choosing a leader, we cannot choose in a vacuum. We cannot simply say that the media doesn't matter or the voting machines don't matter or that the regional diversity doesn't matter. They all do, as well as the candidate we choose to nominate.
I took all of these factors into consideration when I first began to look at Clark the last time around. On the surface, his resume was made for these times: He is a Southern man, but well-traveled, he could get us out of this illegal war, he is a liberal seen as a moderate, he has a masters degree in economics, politics and philosophy and he is very telegenic. A General populist with a brain and good looks.
Upon reading his position papers, thoroughly, I have come to expect he would be the best president in my lifetime, bar none. He actually understands what's like to struggle in low-paying jobs and what true patriotism is (and it's isn't just supporting a war).
On the surface and deeply entrinched in his psyche, he could actually win in a landslide.

[cestpaspossible]

124. Some of Clark's perceptions in this article

I encourage everyone to read the whole article: What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory and see what it reveals about Clark's ability to assess the tactical, strategic, and diplomatic reality on April 10, 2003, as well as his vision for the future at that date.


His tactical perception: the prime military objective had already been achieved as of April 10, 2003.

His strategic perception: the lean plan was the right call -- waiting to go in with more troops would have been a mistake. According to this April 10, 2003 article, it was already time to celebrate victory with parades on the Mall and and down Constitution Avenue.

His diplomatic perception: 'Germany has already swung round from opposition to the war to approval.'

His vision for the future: Further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have 'supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction'. A rejection of 'stability' as a Western goal.



This is not some out-of-context cherry picking of quotes -- this is my assessment of what the article said in it's entirety. If you wish to dispute me, please tell me where I have misintrepeted General Clark.

[ICantBelieve]

126. HAVE YOU READ HIS TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS?

If not, your opinions are completely invalid.

[cestpaspossible]

127. When you have no answer change the subject.

[Clark2008]

128. Well, I've read the article and I don't see someone advocating

the war.
I see someone who knows troops want to protect the troops since they are ALREADY THERE.
Clark advocated AGAINST going to war in Iraq in 2002, as I Can't Believe is pointing out. However, once the troops were sent, Clark then advocated what was necessary to win and get the fuck out.
Why can't you separate the two issues?

[cestpaspossible]

132. I never said Clark was 'advocating' anything.

I just pointed out his poor judgement as regards the military and diplomatic situation on April 10, 2003. I'm not pretending to know his motives; I'm simply commenting on his failure of leadership, and poor judgement, based on what he wrote in this article.

It really is illustrative of a weak position when you can't respond to what I actually said, but instead are reduced to responding to something I never said.

[Clark2008]

138. This is your opinion, O' Sage of the Military.

I don't think his comments showed any sort of failure of leadership or poor judgment, based on what he wrote in this article. In fact, I am of the OPINION that he was the first person to shout out from the mount that the fall of Bagdhad, while good for the troops and their morale, didn't mean the war was over and that there was a lot of political work left to do (which wasn't done by Bush and, ultimately, has resulted in 1,400 more dead Americans. I'm sure he, like the families of those 1,400 had hoped Bush had a plan, but, the truth is, he didn't).
Yours is an OPINION, only, and I can't change that for you. I don't happen to share that OPINION, however.
What I can do is point you to a more full body of work - which is what others are attempting to do - so that you would know that one article at one moment in time doesn't a position make. Clark's positions on the Iraqi war have developed along WITH the Iraqi war - and that is a sign of intelligence. It's the rigidity in Bush's positions on this matter that have led us to this impasse.
Clark isn't "anti-war," per se. He was and is anti-Iraqi War because it wasn't necessary. He, like 97 percent of Americans, were for the Afghanistan invasion after 9/11, but he feels, like about half the country, that that has been since botched by poor military command and a diversion into Iraq.

[cestpaspossible]

142. As a General, Clark should have known better

than to think that April 2003 was the time to have victory parades down Constitution Avenue. Such blatant incompetence in what is supposedly his field of expertise does not bode well for his abilities in other areas.

[Clark2008]

148. As a general, Clark is supposed to know that Bush doesn't really

want to exit Iraq?
He's supposed to be a mind-reader because he's a general?
He's supposed to assume that ANYONE, including Bush, was so wanton that he'd actually leave soldiers in Iraq without an exit strategy and to their own peril?
I must confess that I always thought Bush was an idiot, but even I didn't know that Bush was as evil as I've come to believe - not back in 2003, even if only because leaving troops in forever is political suicide.
And, had Bush taken Clark's advise and gotten the hell out of there back in April 2003, you can bet your sweet buttons that we would have been having parades down Constitution Avenue. Our soldiers deserve no less.

Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

[cestpaspossible]

156. Your comments are a blatant mischaracterization of what Clark wrote.

had Bush taken Clark's advise and gotten the hell out of there back in April 2003

That is a pretty blatant misrepresentation of the article.

[Clark2008]

165. And your opinion is an opinion

IT'S YOUR OPINION - YOURS AND YOURS ALONE.
And, based on this ONE conversation with you, I'm of the OPINION that you're just being annoying (maybe you aren't, but this ONE conversation is all I have to go on). You know, just like you have, based on this ONE article, alleged that Clark is somehow derelict in a leadership role he wasn't even involved in.
It's also MY OPINION that I was not misrepresenting anything of this article in my response to you. My reading comprehension is supurb.
You are allowed to have your OPINION about Clark, but I am of the OPINION that your OPINION is not accurate.

[cestpaspossible]

168. Let's see one quote from Clark, 4/03, that supports your 'opinion'.

Once more, for the record, here is what you wrote:

had Bush taken Clark's advise and gotten the hell out of there back in April 2003

I say the implication that Clark advised withdrawing from Iraq in April 2003 is a blatant falsehood on your part.

I'm challenging you to provide one quote from Clark that supports your assertion that he advised withdrawing from Iraq in April 2003.

He did no such thing.

[Clark2008]

171. Nope. Gringo just pointed out your agenda.

And I will no longer be drawn into your games.

[cestpaspossible]

174. NO SUCH QUOTE EXISTS BECAUSE CLARK NEVER SAID IT.

had Bush taken Clark's advise and gotten the hell out of there back in April 2003

Your implication that Clark advised withdrawing from Iraq in April 2003 is a falsehood.

[ChrisPhx]

223. Oh puh-leez!

Give me a break!

[dogman]

225. Were you out of the country?

Maybe you are illiterate and have never seen this type of chiding. Bush did his Mission accomplished. Clark says "Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — BUT DON'T DEMOBILIZE YET." Don't you understand he is saying "MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED". At least this was published in the UK. I'll bet those people get it. This is the trouble with nuance, it requires thought process.

[cestpaspossible]

228. Clarke was fooled by the Saddam statue photo-op?

Wow, what a military analyst. In his words:

Still, the immediate tasks at hand in Iraq cannot obscure the significance of the moment. The regime seems to have collapsed — the primary military objective — and with that accomplished, the defense ministers and generals, soldiers and airmen should take pride. American and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.

No, General Clark, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and Wolfowitz DID NOT make the right call.

[dogman]

237. Not quite.

He was describing the picture presented to the world. You are saying they did not capture Baghdad. He is describing one aspect of the War, defeating Saddam. Militarily it was one of the most successful campaigns in history. Because the outcome was wrong has nothing to do with the military success. That is the point of the complete article, military success alone was not a solution. You still refuse to see the obvious. You are reading the words of a diplomat. This article was published in the UK. He gives faint praise and then proceeds to point out the shortcomings. How effective would a hate filled diatribe be? Would anyone bother to read and think about what is being said? It obviously does not work for you, but I think most people are capable of seeing the obvious.

[cestpaspossible]

243. The facts indicate that he was fooled.

Revisionist history aside, his words speak for themselves.

[Name removed]

247. Deleted message

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

[dogman]

253. The facts are obvious.

snip>"Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled."
What is not factual about that statement? Where is any indication he was fooled?

[cestpaspossible]

257. It's that whole 'context' thing.

If you selectively quote 9 words of the article you can create a particular impression.

But if you read the whole article, you learn what Clark was thinking at the time.

[ChrisPhx]

221. He wasn't in a leadership position at the time

"I just pointed out his poor judgement as regards the military and diplomatic situation on April 10, 2003. I'm not pretending to know his motives; I'm simply commenting on his failure of leadership, and poor judgement, based on what he wrote in this article."

So how can there be a "failure of leadership" on his part?

And how can you presume to judge him based on one article at a moment in time, in which he himself states that much is left to be determined?

Chris

[ICantBelieve]

130. I'm not changing the subject

I'm telling you people that you have NO RIGHT TO TAKE ONE ARTICLE completely out of context that was written 6 months after what really counted was said.

I'm not listening to a goddamn word any of you say until you read his testimony.

Why don't you just read it? Can't you handle the truth? Can't you handle that a General is the least hawkish of all the Democrats you've been pushing? Can't you handle the truth?

Once you've read his testimony, I will respond to your questions about this article. This article that was written immediately after the fall of Bagdad when the whole f'ing country was running around cheering. Do you think anyone would have READ it if it had come off criticizing everything???

[cestpaspossible]

159. LOL, I have no right to judge the article as I see fit?

Sorry, but I've got every right to my opinion just as you have every right to yours.

BTW, your statement that I am 'taking the article out of context', is silly. The context of the article is, it was written by Wesley Clark and published by the Times UK on April 10, 2003. That is the context and it is known to all of us.

Once you've read his testimony, I will respond to your questions about this article.

Again, LOL. I have read his testimony, and I have no questions about the article.

[ICantBelieve]

185. The context of the time is of course important

Everyone knows that. The Constitution says that slaves are 3/5 of a person. The context of the time is important.

And no, you will not have a valid opinion of something if you haven't read the appropriate background information and thoughtfully placed it in the proper context, which you clearly still have not done.

It's obvious that you have not based on the pieces of the article that you are picking on. You are analyzing the article on a very naive level and you do need to pick it up a notch if you expect to be taken seriously.

[cestpaspossible]

187. EXACTLY! how could a General exhibit such poor judgement?

An entire career in the military and yet he was still so very wrong... imagine how poor his judgement must be in areas that are not his field of 'expertise'.

[x_y_no]

131. Yes it is cherry-picking, or context picking ...

"His tactical perception: the prime military objective had already been achieved as of April 10, 2003."

Tactically, it had. But he goes on to enumerate the many difficulties of the post-war situation.


"His strategic perception: the lean plan was the right call -- waiting to go in with more troops would have been a mistake. According to this April 10, 2003 article, it was already time to celebrate victory with parades on the Mall and and down Constitution Avenue."

No ... he said "If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call." But he had always argued that this was not what the alternatives were. He consistantly argued that there was no need to invade when we did.


"His diplomatic perception: 'Germany has already swung round from opposition to the war to approval.'"

At that time, that's what they were doing. But you ignore the lead-in to this section of the article: "Now the bills must be paid, amid the hostile image created in many areas by the allied action."


"His vision for the future: Further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have 'supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction'. A rejection of 'stability' as a Western goal."

He's talking about what Bush was set to do - not what he would do. Assigning Bush's "vision" to Clark is just plain wrong.

[ICantBelieve]

135. I'm not sure we should discuss this article...

With anyone who refuses to read Clark's testimony to Congress in 2002. How can anything be more a clear and a more relevent display of Clark's opinions than his testimony to Congress on the matter?

[x_y_no]

137. I don't intend to waste a lot of time on this guy ...

There are hard core anti-Clark people out there for whatever reason and this guy appears to be one of them.

But others read these threads too.

[cestpaspossible]

139. LOL I READ HIS TESTIMONY

and I've read this article in its entirety, as everyone should who wants to understand just how perceptive a leader Wes Clark is. After a much-touted career in the Army, was he able to adequately judge the military situation in Iraq on April 10, 2003?

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

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

[ICantBelieve]

145. Well, now that you've read it, here's my response

Anti-War Candidate?
What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory
by General Wesley Clark

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

Analysis: He's juxtapositioning postive outcome that most Americans were feeling at the time with the reality of the situation. Acknowledge their feelings, then hit them with the downside. Remember April 2003. People were excited. The statue of Hussein had just come down. Do you honestly think anyone would have read this article if he hadn't started it this way?


In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people.

Still, the immediate tasks at hand in Iraq cannot obscure the significance of the moment. The regime seems to have collapsed — the primary military objective — and with that accomplished, the defense ministers and generals, soldiers and airmen should take pride. American and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.

But no one ever won a war or a battle with a plan. Every soldier knows there are only two kinds of plans: plans that might work and plans that won’t work. The art of war is to take a plan that might work and then drive it to success. This, General Tommy Franks and his team did very well indeed.

Everyone who has ever served knows that battles are won at the bottom — by the men and women looking through the sights, pulling the triggers, loading the cannon and fixing the planes. The generals can lose battles, and they can set the conditions for success — but they can’t win. That’s done by the troops alone. And nothing could have been more revealing than those armored fights in which a handful of US tanks wiped out a score of opposing Iraqi armored vehicles, again and again, and usually without suffering any losses, while in the south, the British troops worked their way through the suburbs of Basra with skills born of sound training and firm discipline, minimizing friendly casualties, civilian losses and destruction.

It’s to the men and women who fought it out on the arid highways, teeming city streets and crowded skies that we owe the greatest gratitude. All volunteers, they risked their lives as free men and women, because they believed in their countries and answered their calls. They left families and friends behind for a mission uncertain. They didn’t do it for the glory or the pittance of combat pay. Sadly, some won’t return — and they, most of all, need to be honored and remembered.

Analysis: The military should be proud of their military victory. The military made the right call by not waiting 6 weeks for unnecessary soldiers as it turns out that we most certainly did not need them for the initial battles. But the real work is not nearly over.


As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.

Analysis: This was a diplomatic failure.

Now the bills must be paid, amid the hostile image created in many areas by the allied action. Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come — effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns. Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights.

Germany has already swung round from opposition to the war to approval. France will look for a way to bridge the chasm of understanding that has ripped at the EU. Russia will have to craft a new way forward, detouring away, at least temporarily, from the reflexive anti-Americanism which infects the power ministries. And North Korea will shudder, for it has seen on display an even more awesome display of power than it anticipated, and yet it will remain resolute in seeking leverage to assure its own regime’s survival. And what it produces, it sells.
Analysis: The world is going to be afraid of us for a while.

The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West.

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.

And there will be more jostling over the substance and timing of new peace initiatives for Israel and the Palestinians. Whatever the brief prewar announcement about the “road map”, this issue is far from settled in Washington, and is unlikely to achieve any real momentum until the threats to Israel’s northern borders are resolved. And that is an added pressure to lean on Bashir Assad and the ayatollahs in Iran.
Analysis: We don't know how things are going to turn out. Will it cause more recruiting of terrorists or not? Will we be able to use this show of force to scare people away from supporting terrorism? And who do we plan to attack next? And none of this really means anything til we resolve the problems in Israel.

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

Analysis: Say something nice, and then say that their opponents (including the author) are unconvinced.

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Analysis: So, the beginning went well. We can honestly acknowledge this and still ask: Why are we there and what is to come?

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.

Analysis: The immediate military action went well and we should celebrate the troops' victory; however, it's not over by a long shot.

General Wesley Clark was Supreme Allied Commander Europe 1997-2000 and led Nato forces during the Kosovo campaign

[cestpaspossible]

146. LOL, I think people are capable of doing their own analysis.

I mean, why would they want you to tell them what Clark meant, when they can just read it for themselves?


Clark did write the article in English, it doesn't need to be translated for people to understand what it means... lol.

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

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

[x_y_no]

154. Many people are ...

But apparently not all.

[ICantBelieve]

155. You are very polite

I envy your ability to keep a cool head.

[ICantBelieve]

182. Apparently, many people are, but your analysis was not competent

Your biggest mistake was failing to read this entire paragraph:

Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue -- but don't demobilize yet. There's a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.

Only Faux News would interpret that paragraph as meaning that we should have parades. And, yet, that is exactly what you said it meant.

So, yes, you should read my analysis and so should anyone who has been tainted by having read your unthoughtful analysis. I trust most people to be able to interpret that article on their own. You, however, have shown by your faulty analysis that you required some help, which I have now graciously taken the time to provide you.

[cestpaspossible]

183. OK

Clark says:
Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue -- but don't demobilize yet. There's a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.

And you say: Only Faux News would interpret that paragraph as meaning that we should have parades.


No comment from me is necessary.

[Name removed]

189. Deleted message

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

[cestpaspossible]

136. Everyone should read the article for themselves:

Here's the link:

April 10, 2003: What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory by General Wesley Clark


I think it is important that people read this article for themselves and judge for themselves whether your characterization of it is accurate.



I don't need to characterize the article; it speaks for itself.

[x_y_no]

140. I've read it a dozen times

And I just answered, point by point, your claims of what he says in that article by providing the context from that article.

[cestpaspossible]

143. Good for you, I hope you spread it far and wide.

The actual article, that is, not your 'explanation of what he really meant'.... lol.

[x_y_no]

147. LOL .. you keep weilding that link like a bludgeon

... as if beating everyone over the head with it will persuade people you are right.

Your problem is, however, that anyone who actually follows your link and reads with an open mind and a working memory will see that your assessment of this article is just plain wrong.

[cestpaspossible]

152. I think we should keep the subject of the discussion in sight.

and the subject of the discussion is the article Clark wrote on April 10, 2003.


I am in a similar situation as someone who is in an argument with someone who insists that the Sun looks like a pink elephant. There is no point in trying to persuade that person that he is wrong, all you can do is keep pointing at the Sun for the benefit of third parties.

[ICantBelieve]

149. I've responded to you...

I do believe that anyone who has read enough of Clark's pieces to understand his position and who is bright enough to see that the article was written after a glorious military victory will understand that you are taking Clark's words out of the context of both the article and the greater context of the American public's jubilation at the time.

When everyone is running around cheering about a victory, you have to acknowledge that, and THEN throw in the "but." Clark did this masterfully.

[cestpaspossible]

158. I wasn't jubilant at the time.

and I think anyone who was jubilant on April 10, 2003 lacks the judgement to be President.

[FrenchieCat]

169. "jubilant" is your word.

You are illustrating one of the problems many Americans have in their perception of many liberals. You, unfortunately, spell this out plainly in your posts in where you denigrate Wes Clark. You belong to the club of those who would have wanted the US to fail militarily in order to prove the point that Bush was wrong.

That is your problem, and as far as I can see, it is a very simplistic way of interpreting what's right and what's wrong.

Clark was exactly right in how he analysed the military success of the fall of Bagdad (up to the point when he wrote the op piece) and in his warnings of the difficulties that still layed ahead, as he was clearly prescient. As a retired General and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, he had the duty and the intelligence of understanding that as Americans, we should always want success for our troups, no matter the wrongness of the policies. He is intelligent enough to separate our troups from our policies....which is why WE, AS LIBERALS, CAN SUPPORT OUR TROUPS, WHILE NOT SUPPORTING THE ACTIONS THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION TOOK. However, it would take one who has intelligence to understand (that's why Freepers have a problem understanding just that) That separating the various aspects of this war...the military vs. the political vs. the economical is key in seeing all of the pieces that make up the whole....

Being a true American patriot means, that in the end, you want the best outcome for your country and for your fellow citizens being sent to war (some of who's only crime in joining the military was a wish to see the world or having no other real economical option.)

Unfortunately, you sound like one who wished that the armed forces would have failed miserably, as that would have helped your case in point about Bush and his war.

I, for one, am not from the school of hoping for the worst to happen to America in order to make the point that Bush is a terrible President. That's exactly the case that conservatives made to the American Masses....that liberals only want to see America fail to prove their point about Bush. You, my friend, are just such a liberal. You actually cause more problems for your party than you realize...because you are the stereotypical liberal that conservatives hope exists; you really don't support our troups.

[cestpaspossible]

177. No, that's not true.

""jubilant" is your word."

YOUR COMMENT IS UNTRUE.

'Jubilance' was the word used by the poster I was replying to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1689807&mesg_id=1691275">post 149


it really gets tedious having to point out blatant falsehoods like this. Wouldn't your arguments be more effective if they were truthful?

[x_y_no]

178. jubilation ...

Yes, post 149 mentions that there was jubilation in the American public at that time. Do you deny this?

But you attempted to advance the twisted interpretation that General Clark was "jubilant." This is simply false.

He was making a sober assesment of the situation, and pointing out that while there had been success, there were great difficulties to come. Are you claiming this was wrong?

[cestpaspossible]

181. I am claiming that people should read the article for themselves.

If, after reading it, they agree with your interpretation, good for them and you.


Do I deny that the American public was jubilant? I can only speak from my own experience. Neither I, nor anyone I talked to on April 10, 2003 was jubilant.

But you attempted to advance the twisted interpretation that General Clark was "jubilant."

everyone can read the article for themselves and judge General Clark's mood for themselves.

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

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

[Clark2008]

170. Aha! I understand now.

Thanks, Gringo.
And, you're correct - the person the poster in question supports will never have my support.
I'm done arguing, then.
Let the thread drop into oblivion.

[cestpaspossible]

175. LOL

[dogman]

224. Item by item.

"His tactical perception: the prime military objective had already been achieved as of April 10, 2003.'

snip>"In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured."

"His strategic perception: the lean plan was the right call -- waiting to go in with more troops would have been a mistake. According to this April 10, 2003 article, it was already time to celebrate victory with parades on the Mall and and down Constitution Avenue."

snip>"Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes."

"His diplomatic perception: 'Germany has already swung round from opposition to the war to approval."

snip>"As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome."

"His vision for the future: Further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have 'supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction'. A rejection of 'stability' as a Western goal."

snip>" don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats."

[cestpaspossible]

229. Except, he really did say all the stuff in my post.

He did in fact say that the primary military objective had been achieved, he did in fact say that they were right to go in when they did with the number of troops they did, he did in fact say that Germany had become a supporter of the war.

Yes, in hindsight, those judgements seem kind of foolish -- well okay, to be blunt, they were foolish at the time.

[dogman]

238. Show exactly what is wrong with those statements.

The primary military objective was the defeat of the Iraqi army and the capture of Saddam. That was done. The fact they were right to go when they did is born out by the success and the fact that weather and logistical conditions would have deteriorated. Maybe your military experience and knowledge differs, if so please enlighten us. The government of Germany had in fact dropped much of its earlier alignment with Russia and rejoined its NATO allies in seeking a solution to stabilizing the region. Again, if your NATO contacts have told you differently, please enlighten us.

[cestpaspossible]

241. I'm content to let people form their own judgements.

No one at DU needs me to tell them whether or not Germany is a supporter of Bush's Iraq war, or whether Saddam had been captured on April 10, 2003 or to interpret any other portiuon of reality for them. The facts speak for themselves.

[dogman]

245. Yes, hopefully they will approach it with an open mind.

He did not say Germany was a supporter of Bush's Iraq War, they are ready to accept and deal with the results. If they have the mindset that they are going to read it to prove Clark wrong, they might well agree with you. You can lead the horse to water but cannot make it drink, knowledge and understanding are much like the water.

[cestpaspossible]

248. Umm

He did not say Germany was a supporter of Bush's Iraq War

Wesley Clark: Germany has already swung round from opposition to the war to approval. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

Look I understand that you support Clark in spite of this article. But why be untruthful about what he says in it when your falsehood is so easily refuted?

[dogman]

251. You added the adjectives.

If you had said the coallition's Iraq War, I would not disagree. As has been pointed out this was published in the UK and it is seen differently there than here. You add adjectives that have a different meaning for us to slant the debate. Once again I merely ask for your source on the position of the German government.

[cestpaspossible]

252. I speak English, most of the folks at DU do, the use of adjectives

is not really a complicated or difficult issue for most of them.

Wesley Clark, April 10, 2003: Germany has already swung round from opposition to the war to approval.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

[dogman]

254. Do they use adjectives to misrepresent a quote?

Probably some do. Adding adjectives to a quote is quite disingenuous.

[cestpaspossible]

258. How about we just look at Clark's exact words?

Germany has already swung round from opposition to the war to approval. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

That's what Clark wrote. Again, just as I feel no compulsion to convince you that the earth is not flat, I feel no compulsion to convince you that Germany does not approve of the war.

[x_y_no]

260. That is what was happening at the time

April 3, 2003: After failing to support coalition efforts, Germany's Gerhardt Schroeder apparently reversed himself now saying Saddam Hussein should be overthrown. The Chancellor had solidly opposed the Iraq war and did not express his desire for a military victory by the US-led coalition. Schroeder did not use today's speech to improve US-German relations that he battered for months in outspoken rejection of US and British policy.

http://www.warinformation.com/Iraqi_Front_Journal/Diplomatic_Journal.htm

[cestpaspossible]

261. 'Apparently' history has it's own lessons, that can't be changed

by wishful thinking.

You are welcome to believe anything you want.

Your link asserts without a reference that Schroeder "apparently reversed himself" but, looking back in hindsight, we can use the reality of the present day and the events of the last two years to judge for ourselves whether German approves of the war.

[x_y_no]

263. Which was the whole point ...

of many things Clark was writing and saying at that time (including this piece) - that despite some significant success we had barely begun with the difficult tasks. And having burned so many bridges, it would take extraordinary skill in diplomacy and extraordinary deftness in handling the post-war situation to bring it off. Characteristics this administration has failed miserably to display.

I marvel at such energy and persistance in this hostile campaign. Something to do with a childhood trauma involving a man in uniform, perhaps?

[mikehiggins]

150. Is an anti-war candidate going to win in 2008?

Not likely, pal. There is too much else going on in the world, and more to come, for BushCo's Iraq disaster to turn the trick for us.

What is needed is someone very much like Wes Clark and, voila! there he is.

If you can come up with another candidate feel free to put him/her forth, especially if you would prefer losing again.

[salin]

157. *sigh*

yes, this is among the things I was talking about on another thread. What a great use of time at this point in the cycle.

All this energy - so much that we can currently be doing - but instead the energy gets sucked back into old battles and wars between duers that were fought more than a year ago. This is so premature. Take the energy - and work towards local races (enlarege the pool of future candidates); work towards the 2006 elections... then start worrying about the next round of presidential primaries.

Just my two cents.

[jfenway]

160. It is not one or another...

For some, having something to look forward to in 2008 is what keeps them going for 2006.

J.

[salin]

161. but maintaining

rifts between fans of different candidates can definitely hurt the postiive momentum... eg ill will just keeps building and pushing blood pressure up.

[Leilani]

162. This entire thread is an obvious "Clark Hit" Thread

I don't think it's productive to try & debate with posters with a clear agenda.

No matter what FACTS are presented, they are ignored to instead place a hit on Wes Clark.

I think it's quite sad that someone who devoted his entire life to serving our country is so unfairly maligned.

And to those of you with the same old tired message, we tried it your way in 2004 & it obviously got us real far.

[wyldwolf]

163. I see you're a donor...

Good. You can search the archives and find that this and just about any other mention of Wesley Clark in the media has been discussed already in multiple threads.

But I want to ask a question I may not get an answer to:

Who did YOU support in the primaries?

See, one thing we learned here during the primaries is that if you think you've found some dirt on someone, YOUR guy has done the same thing or similar.

I'd like to demonstrate that for you.

[Clark2008]

173. LOL!!

Thanks for making me smile, wyldwolf.
I can now leave the thread, satisfied.

:hi:

[sybil]

176. didya know?

Little known facts:

Wes Clark was the first of the Dem candidates to make his complete records accessible to the public and the only one to do so of his own volition?

Didya know that Wes Clark was never a Republican in spite of the fact that the other viable Dem candidates all branded him as such with the possible exception of Dennis?

Didy know that Wes Clark testified before both branches of Congress against making a unilateral attack on Iraq and expressing grave doubts as to the quality of the intelligence on which it was based?

Yep, Dennis and Wes Clark were the ONLY viable candidates who opposed going to war in Iraq. That's just a matter of public record.

[CJCRANE]

166. The article is pro-troops

but not really pro-war. He was being pragmatic. You have to comment on the war you've got, not the war you'd like not to have.

[sharonking21]

167. Your entire premise is invalid

in that you try to limit the discussion to even just one article, much less a few sentences from an article. My educational background, before I shifted to public health, was in history and social psychology and most of my working life has been in research. One of the principal tenets of investigating anything (whether it be history, politics, or science or whatever) is never make judgments based on knowledge gained from one source.

Is Wes Clark anti-war? Usually, but certainly not always.

However, trying to sum him (or anyone or anything) up from one article is intellectually dangerous.

For those of you interested in further reading, I will try to go back and give some URLs to give you a rounded view. This will take a while. Back later.

[FrenchieCat]

172. Freepers do this, which is why

we shouldn't. I thought that we were better than "they"...but it appears that only SOME of us are, while others are just like the "Freepers" they claim to destain.

I guess that's why simpletons are dangerous.

[cestpaspossible]

179. LOL

never make judgments based on knowledge gained from one source

So we shouldn't make judgements about John Doe based on knowledge gained from, oh, let's say, John Doe? Like his own words would not be sufficient for judging what he thinks?

[ICantBelieve]

184. You know better...

Or at least you should. Taken in the context of everything that Wes Clark has ever said about the war, this article is clearly not pro-war. But you've repeatedly refused to read other things and recognize that. So, yes, you've taken it out of context and it is technically wrong to do that.

Furthermore, it's repeatedly been explained that this article was written in the myst of an American euphoria over the success of our military. It had to be written to praise the military in order to make its point. No one would have taken seriously an article that claimed the hard work was just beginning if it had not praised the ease with which our military had taken Bagdad.

Moreover, it's especially powerful to have a General sing the praises of the military and then say "But..." I have a book for you to read that explains this. It is not out yet, but it comes out in June and will explain to you the technique of using your "privileged" position to express discontent with the status quo. I've seen one of the authors' lecture on this technique. I thought of General Clark immediately when she explained it. She was, however, speaking of gay rights, not war. But the technique holds and General Clark, in fact, used his position as a retired General and former SACEUR to denounce "don't ask, don't tell" as well. You can find the book at Amazon and pre-order it. It's relatively inexpensive.

Straightforward : How to Mobilize Heterosexual Support for Gay Rights
by Ian Ayres, Jennifer Gerarda Brown

[cestpaspossible]

186. Clark bears the responsiblity for his own words.

and no amount of revisionism will change what he wrote into something other than what he wrote.

Furthermore, it's repeatedly been explained that this article was written in the myst of an American euphoria over the success of our military

I don't know, maybe I live in a different America than you. I don't remember any euphoria, I remember a lot of anxiety over the safety of the troops and Iraqi civilians, I remember shame that America had engaged in an uprovoked, illegal war of aggression, I remember a staged photo-op of some American troops pulling down a statue... definitely no euphoria -- at least not among the thinking segment of the populace.

[ICantBelieve]

188. You still don't get it..

And, frankly, you are not worth arguing with any longer. You've repeatedly twisted things--that "jubilation" think was positively ridiculous. I said that America was jubilent and you attributed to Clark and then proclaimed that he was not competent to be President.

[autorank]

190. Welcome to DU!!!

Good points. This is an uprising of the anti-Clark folks. It happens every now and then. This article was discussed long ago and the points here are much more emotional than anything else. cya around :hi:

[cestpaspossible]

191. I think most DUers are capable of forming their own judgements.

They can read the article and decide for themselves if the author is someone who they believe has the judgement to be President.

And they can also form their own judgement as to whether or not I'm 'twisting' anything, lol.

[Pepperbelly]

192. Yep ...

sure looks like you are.

:shrug:

[cestpaspossible]

193. And

what, in your judgement, is it that I am 'twisting'? And in what post (please identify by number), using what words, did I do so?

[Pepperbelly]

194. From your very first post ...

in # 103, when you wrote: "April 10, 2003: Wesley Clark declares: " Already the scent of victory is in the air. "

1409 American soldiers have died in Iraq since General Clark made that statement."

And, of course, you left out the very next sentence in the piece. Cotninuing DIRECTLY from where you left off, Clark wrote: "Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph."

Seems that he actually intended the exact opposite of what you posted and in fact, said it in the next sentence. Did you see the next sentence? If not, did you just pick out parts that could be snipped in a damaging way? If you did see it, why did you not include it in your post?

If you saw the sentence and failed to include it in your post, you are very selectively picking out what you want to pick out and attempting to make it appear as though Clark meant something that was clearly the opposite of what he wrote.

[cestpaspossible]

196. Pretty funny, if it weren't so tragic.

I think Clark's words, the entirety of the article, speak for themselves. You can quote any portion of it and it still means the same thing.

For example " Already the scent of victory is in the air. " really does mean " Already the scent of victory is in the air. " even if it is followed by "Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph."

I think Clark exercised poor judgement in believing on April 10, 2003 that: "Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph."

No, the scent of victory was not in the air. And Clark's comment that "a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph." shows just how wrong he was. In fact, April 10, 2003 was one step in a long road of American failure in Iraq, and Clark's inability as a military man to properly assess the military situation -- and the 1409 American lives lost since Clark smelled 'the scent of victory' are the bitter proof of his incompetence -- do not speak well to his qualifications to be President.

1409 American lives are not 'a bit more work'.

[Pepperbelly]

198. very weak reply...

Did you read the sentence before you made the post? Clearly, anyone who reads this can see that the last sentence of the paragraph is the conclusion he reached in the paragraph. He is a very discipline wrtier and he builds on each sentence. When he said the scent of victory, yadda yadda, he was setting the reader up for the conclusion.

Jebus, what you did changed the meaning of what was said and that, by any definition, constitutes twisting what was written. I could do the same thing ... deconstruct this nonsense line by line ... I've done it before on this very article ... but what point would there be. You have your mind made up and now, after showing the manner in which you twisted what was said, anyone else reading this exchange will probably discount what you've writtten.

[cestpaspossible]

201. Pretty funny - I am saying people should read the whole article

and judge it as a whole. I must have repeated that point at least 50 times in the thread. Yet I'm being accused of taking something out of context, and then I'm told I should focus on one single sentence to understand the meaning of the article, or paragraph.

LOL, that's some logical consistency you've got going there....

[Pepperbelly]

202. I proved what I asserted ...

and you have not yet come to grips with that. I'll leave it at that.

[cestpaspossible]

205. Actually you said

that I 'twisted' something, but all you did was show an example of me quoting what Clark wrote, specifically this quote: "Already the scent of victory is in the air."

you claimed that simple quoting Clark was twisting his words and as evidence you provided the sentence that followed:

" Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph. "


But the truth is that the statement " Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph." does not negate the statement "Already the scent of victory is in the air."


it simply reaffirms Clark's belief that with 'a bit more work' we would be able to 'take our triumph'


However, events have shown that Clark was totally wrong, victory was nowhere at hand and still is not almost two years later.

1409 American lives lost are a grim testimony to just how wrong Clark was about whether we needed 'a bit more work' in order to be able to 'take our triumph'.

[Clarkie1]

206. You should practice what you preach.

You tell people to read the whole article, yet then cherry-pick and twist Clark's words to fit your agenda.

Nice try, but most DUers see right through your ploy.

[cestpaspossible]

207. Your accusation is false.

In the overwhelming majority of my posts I have simply pointed people to the article itself and asked people to read it and judge it on it's own merits. I've stated my opinion that Clark was wrong in his judgements, in the specifics as well as the overall thrust of the article, which I don't really need to characterize, because it is short enough that everyone can read it for themselves.

I don't need to 'twist his words' -- I'm simply pointing to them.

[Clarkie1]

208. Yes, anyone can read it for themselves.

I encourage everyone to do just that. This thread could have just as easily have been started by a Clark supporter posting this article in support of Clark.

You seem to be implying that Clark supporters don't want anyone to read the article, which is silly, hypocritical, and disingenous of you.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

[cestpaspossible]

213. LOL

This thread could have just as easily have been started by a Clark supporter posting this article in support of Clark.

yeah, ok, that statement is credible :eyes:

[Clarkie1]

217. It's ABSOLUTELY credible.

Please read the entire article without prejudging what it says, then get back to me.

You can find it here:


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

[cestpaspossible]

226. I tell you what, get back to me when you find an example

of a Clark supporter starting a thread using this article.

Just post the link that shows a Clark supporter raising this article out of the blue as an example of why Clark should be President.

lol

[Clarkie1]

231. That's a very weak and childish response

It's not necessary to "find a post" to validate my point.:eyes:

[cestpaspossible]

242. Now I'm supposed to get upset because you called me childish?

lol, that would be childish.

[Donna Zen]

195. Clark has a job!

I remember when someone--now who was that?--anyway, someone who likes to flame Wes Clark started a flame fest about what does Clark do for a living? Ya know, it is those transparent attempts to degrade someone's record that make it so sad. I like creative thinkers! I like honest dialog! I like people with open minds!

Reading and comprehension are not fungible.

*
*
*
*

As humans we have many ways that we can feel, why chose hatred? I read that in a book. What do you think?

[FrenchieCat]

197. And you bare some of the responsibility for the perception that

many voters have who professed that liberals do not support our troups.

You shamefully criticize Clark for supporting our troups in an article, while in the same article, he forewarns of what eventually did happen....premature celebration of a U.S. victory by many.

Maybe that's why this article was written for publication in the U.K. where the those who read, at least, are smart enough to "get it".

[cestpaspossible]

204. LOL, you think accusing me of being against the troops

is going to have some rhetorical effect? Am I supposed to get all upset and respond in kind with a similar personal attack? :eyes:

Here's what Clark wrote on April 10, 2003: What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory by General Wesley Clark

[Name removed]

210. Deleted message

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

[cestpaspossible]

200. PS

Taken in the context of everything that Wes Clark has ever said about the war, this article is clearly not pro-war. But you've repeatedly refused to read other things and recognize that. So, yes, you've taken it out of context and it is technically wrong to do that.

I never in this thread or in any other claimed that this article is 'pro-war'. All I have claimed is that it gives insight into Clark's judgement and his qualifications to be President.

[FrenchieCat]

209. PSSt.....

I think that your many exchanges of multiple posts basically saying the same thing is the insight that you have provided. Insight on your way of thinking, and not that of Clark's.

As you are a Kerry supporter, I suggest that you look at the person you supported and what he did about this war. If I recall, he voted for it. Was that what qualified him to be president? If so, tell me how?

What insight did John Kerry have that Clark lacked? I need to know.

[cestpaspossible]

212. Clark wrote this article on April 10, 2003.

What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory by General Wesley Clark


It may indeed be enlightening to see what other the other candidates, Dean, Kerry, Kucinich, Edwards and the others said at the same time. Did they also predict just a bit more work before we could take our triumph? Did they also make the bizarre claim that Germany was a supporter of the war? Yes indeed, the contrast between Clark's comments and the other candidates' comments should be enlightening.

[Clarkie1]

218. Stop putting words in Clark's mouth.

As I said, reread the entire article without prejudging it. He did not say that "just a bit more work" was needed. He clearly enunciated that a lot of work was needed. If you can't see that by reading the entire article, you should take one of my English compostition classes.

Please do reread the article. You can find it here:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

[cestpaspossible]

227. It is untrue to say I put words in Clarke's mouth.

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

Yeah, that really is what he said.

[Totally Committed]

232. It's C-L-A-R-K, not...

ClarkE, thank you.

You don't see me spelling it "Kerrie", or "Edwerds", do you?

It's as if once you can't find anything else to bolster your obvious bias against him, you just misspell his name as one last shot... Whenever the RW media or the freepers go after Wes, the first thing they do is misspell his name, exactly as you misspelled it. It's a small thing, but, imo, a sign of disrespect, nonetheless.

TC

[Totally Committed]

214. Amen, amen, and a**************men!

Kerry voted FOR the IWR, and never recanted that vote... ever. Not once. He hinted it may have been a mistake but only because he had been duped. And this man is an elected official.

TC

[Donna Zen]

216. Can't give Kerry all the credit!

Edwards said it was the right thing to do without allies.

To all the K and E supporters, I gave them money, I worked for them, and I voted for them. I'm just stating the obvious. After all, as someone who wants to get the junta out of the WH, I have never gone into a thread, or started a thread, to flame another Democrat.

There have been moments of civil discourse on this thread--a few; punctuated by a wrath that needs to be reserved for our enemies. Negative and draining, when we should be taking our cue from the spring and building on positive energy.

Of course it is mostly easy to read; there are posters who just show up with the same mindless memes. (Do we think that they are stored in a file on their desktops?) If not, it might be an idea. Then they could be even more breathtaking in their writing abilities; more erudite with quips on the road to no where.

[Totally Committed]

233. I'm rolling my eyes, Donna...

and you know why.

Of course Edwards backed it. They are part of that same "military-industrial complex" that so many here seem to think Wes runs. Every candidate that has ever brought a bill to the floor, voted on a bill, taken Special Interest $$$... whatever... is part of it.

So, I ask myself, why is it only Wes who cannot escape their wrath? Why is it only Wes who is a "war-monger", "fear-monger", or any of the othernames they see fit to hurl around so freely?

GMAFB!

TC

[Name removed]

239. Deleted message

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

[sharonking21]

211. Here is a sample

of both primary and secondary sources. No particular order.

Broken Engagement
The strategy that won the Cold War could help bring democracy to the Middle East -- if only the Bush hawks understood it.
by Wesley Clark
May 2004
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/search.html#2004
Unfortunately for these purposes, you will have to get the magazine to get the article, but here is a little of it.
……………..
This dream of engineering events in the Middle East to follow those of the Soviet Union has led to an almost unprecedented geostrategic blunder. One crucial reason things went wrong, I believe, is that the neoconservatives misunderstood how and why the Soviet Union fell and what the West did to contribute to that fall. They radically overestimated the role of military assertiveness while underestimating the value of other, subtler measures. They then applied those theories to the Middle East, a region with very different political and cultural conditions. The truth is this: It took four decades of patient engagement to bring down the Iron Curtain, and 10 years of deft diplomacy to turn chaotic, post-Soviet states into stable, pro-Western democracies.To achieve the same in the Middle East will require similar engagement, patience, and luck.
…..
September 11 gave the neoconservatives the opportunity to mobilize against Iraq, and to wrap the mobilization up in the same moral imperatives which they believed had achieved success against the Soviet Union. Many of them made the comparison direct, in speeches and essays explicitly and approvingly compared the Bush administration's stance towards terrorists and rogue regimes to the Reagan administration's posture towards the Soviet Union.
…….
In the neoconservative interpretation, Reagan's moral absolutism allowed him to take on the Soviet Union by any means necessary: Because he recognized the supreme danger the Soviets posed, he was willing to challenge it with a massive military buildup. In this understanding, the moral equivocation of Carter and his predecessors left them satisfied with the failed, halfway strategy of containment. Only when Reagan changed the moral template of the conflict, their argument goes, was America able to get past the weak pieties of containment and rid the world of Soviet tyranny.
…..
Perhaps most fundamentally, the conditions of the Middle East today are vastly different from those behind the Iron Curtain in 1989. And the fact is that the Soviet Union did not fall the way the neoconservatives say it did.

Retired General Reflects on United States’ Policy Towards Iraq
(October 10, 2002)
University of Massachusetts at Boston
By Michael McPhee
www.umb.edu/news/2002news/reporter/ november/iraq.html

Iraq: What Went Wrong
NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS
VOLUME 50, NUMBER 16 • OCTOBER 23, 2003
Feature
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16650

Let the general lead Democrats' charge
Will voters like Clark, if Clark is like Ike?
Robert Scheer
Creators Syndicate
10.08.03
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=15779

Liberals Get A Think Tank Of Their Own
New Shop Will Develop Ideas, Fight Conservatives
By David Von Drehle
Washington Post Staff Writer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2623-2003Oct22.html

COMMENT: Success of military diversity proves affirmative action works
October 24, 2003
BY WESLEY CLARK
http://www.clark04.com/articles/010/


'Winning Modern Wars': Wesley K. Clark's Warpath
By MAX FRANKEL
Published: October 26, 2003
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00EEDA173EF935A15753C1A9659C8B63
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/books/review/26FRANKET.html?ex=1067745600&en=bc7ddecc212e4e39&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Waiting for the General
VOLUME 50, NUMBER 18 • NOVEMBER 20, 2003
Feature
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

Bush beater: Is Wesley K Clark the man who can stop George W Bush's re-election? He sets out his stall in Winning Modern Wars
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/politicsphilosophyandsociety/0,6121,1091064,00.html

Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism and the American Empire
Jason Burke
Sunday November 23, 2003
The Observer
by Wesley K Clark
Westview Press £18.99, pp208
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1091146,00.html

Clark Says O'Neill Book Vindicates Him
Jan 11, 8:16 PM (ET)
By KATE McCANN
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7720784.htm

Josh Marshall on Drudge charge that Clark supported the war
September 26th 2002 congressional testimony: Now, I've been suggesting that people go and read the actual testimony to get a sense of whether these cherry-picked lines at all represent what Clark said that day. But I know people's lives are busy. And perhaps you don't have the time to get through the whole transcript. But maybe that's not necessary.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_01_11.php

An Army of One?
by Gen. Wesley Clark
September 2002
http://www.clark04.com/articles/001/

Occupation No Model for This One
Wesley K. Clark
March 23, 2003
http://www.clark04.com/articles/002/

Strategists win their spurs with overhaul of military
General (ret.) Wesley K. Clark
April 12, 2003
Times of London
http://www.clark04.com/articles/003/

Nato's way forward uncertain as it takes on new members
General (ret.) Wesley K. Clark
April 16, 2003
Times of London
http://www.clark04.com/articles/004/

Brits brilliant but short in resources
General (ret.) Wesley K. Clark
April 17, 2003
Times of London
http://www.clark04.com/articles/005/

After the storm we must wait for blue skies
General (ret.) Wesley K. Clark
May 1, 2003
Times of London
http://www.clark04.com/articles/006/

Deaths are inevitable as rebels vie for control
General (ret.) Wesley K. Clark
Thursday, June 26, 2003
Times of London
http://www.clark04.com/articles/007/

To stay in, we've got to define our exit strategy
General (ret.) Wesley K. Clark
July 1, 2003
Times of London
http://www.clark04.com/articles/008/

Josh Marshall Interview with Wesley Clark
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_09_28.php
(October 01, 2003 -- 12:44 PM EDT // link // print)
YESTERDAY, WESLEY CLARK came to DC to make the rounds on Capitol Hill.
I got the opportunity to interview him during the car ride from Dulles Airport back to Washington.

Unofficial Transcript: Clark at Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing
http://www.usembassy.it/file2000_02/alia/a0020414.htm
02/04/00, (Feb. 2: Excerpts from question-and-answer period)

•Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affair’s annual Morgenthau lecture
LECTURE | May 2003
Waging Modern War
by General Wesley K. Clark (ret.)
Introduction
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/viewMedia.php?prmTemplateID=8&prmID=930

[Totally Committed]

215. Truly outstanding post, Sharon!

I challenge anyone who doesn't know Wes Clark or his positions on the issues to read each and every one.

Thank you.

TC

[sybil]

219. Wes Clark on pre-emptive doctrine...

MOST SIGNIFICANT STATEMENT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DURING THE DEBATES:

"...This administration's pre-emptive doctrine is CAUSING North Korea and Iran to ACCELERATE their nuclear weapons development. Now there are some of us who aren't in Washington right now, but I'd like to ask all those who are...lets see some leadership in the United States Congress. Let's see you take apart that doctrine of preemption NOW. I don't think we can wait until November 2004 to change the administration on this threat. We're marching into another military campaign in the Middle East. We need to stop it."

Wes Clark's rebuttal to an attack by Gephardt, Kerry, Lieberman in an early primary debate.

[Totally Committed]

234. WTG, Sybil...

great post, as usual!

TC

[Itsthetruth]

236. We Can Turn Anyone Into A "Peace" Candidate!

If John Kerry can be portrayed as an anti-war candidate, why not General Clark?

And why stop with them? Remember the great anti-Vietnam war candidate from 1964 and "peace" President, Lyndon B. Johnson. And let's not forget LBJ's famous election campaign "peace" statement against sending more GI's to Vietnam: "They call upon us to supply American boys to do the job that Asian boys should do."

All we have to do is ignore hard facts, the actions and statements by politicians. If we do that we can turn anyone into a "peace" candidate!

[x_y_no]

250. Oh come on!

Now Wes Clark is LBJ?

Do you not see how silly this looks?

[sybil]

256. Gack

Obviously no matter WTF Wes Clark says he WILL be seen as a "war-monger" by this group of enlightened "progressive-thinkers".
:puke:


So glad I dropped by!
:sarcasm:

[Totally Committed]

262. I'm beginning to agree with this, actually:

"Obviously no matter WTF Wes Clark says he WILL be seen as a 'war-monger' by this group of enlightened 'progressive-thinkers'".

Some just will not see, no matter what, and the Democratic Party is all the worse-off for it.

TC

[Bo]

266. CLARK OBAMA IN 08

[Moderator]

267. Locking.

This thread is a flamefest.