Clark: U.S. Needs New Plan on Terror War

[Blue State Bandit]

By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press Writer
22 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Former Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark accused the Bush administration Saturday of taking the nation on a "path to nowhere" with misguided moves on national security.

The retired Army general and NATO military commander argued in the Democrats' weekly radio address that the United States needs a new plan to win the war on terror after failing to find Sept. 11 terror mastermind Osama bin Laden, fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq and stumbling in halting weapons proliferation in North Korea and Iran.

Clark coupled his criticism of President Bush's policies with a renewed call for the Democratic plan on national security that party leaders unveiled this week.

Portrayed by opponents as weak on national security, Democrats contend that they've cut into the Republican advantage in this midterm-election year based on White House missteps on Iraq and ports security.

"This administration has taken us on a path to nowhere — replete with hyped intelligence, macho slogans and an incredible failure to see the obvious," Clark said in the broadcast.

A candidate in 2004 for the Democratic nomination, Clark has been mentioned as a possible contender again in 2008.

The administration "has shown tragic incompetence in everything from nation building in Iraq to disaster relief in Louisiana," he said. "Let's face it: We're not going to win the war on terror unless we start making more friends and fewer enemies in the world, and we're not going to be able to protect the American people without a new strategy."

Clark joined House and Senate Democrats on Wednesday in calling for a strategy that would provide U.S. agents with the resources to pursue bin Laden, redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, better equipment for the military and improved screening of containers and inbound cargo.

They amount to many of the proposals that Democrats have offered previously.

"Security is the first promise of any government, and Democrats mean to help deliver it," Clark said.

He argued that the nation "is in danger from the administration's mistaken policies and priorities."

Clark offered a litany of missteps, from the failure to get bin Laden to the more than 2,300 U.S. military deaths in Iraq and the thousands wounded. Domestically, he cited several challenges, including rising gasoline prices, illegal immigration and the impact of global warming.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060401/ap_on_go_co/democrats_clark;_ylt=AhAjkNVFm4pQapkmFyLFe5atOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

[Rowdyboy]

1. Who better to address the issue of national security.....

I'm really glad the General is on our side. He knows what he's talking about and he sticks it to the Republicans with devastating accuracy.

[RaRa]

2. "macho slogans and an incredible failure to see the obvious"

God, that's great language and has special impact coming from a general. We need more of that. Lots more of that.

[mike_c]

3. U.S. politicians need to stop advocating a ridiculous "war on terror..."

...in any form. Those who do so buy right into the Amerikan security state meme so dear to the neocons. We do not "need a new plan to win the war on terror." We need to stop this nonsense.

[BootinUp]

4. Really it sounds more like you want

the democratic party to runaway from the responsibility of leading the nation.

Should we hunt down terrorists that kill thousands of people in their office building or not?

[cleofus1]

5. i agree

and general clark hit one out of the ballpark with that speech...i hope he runs again next election...if only to give voice to these important issues...

[MrPrax]

6. No...

Not if it leads to the needless death of tens of thousands of INNOCENT people, destruction of your Constitution and a much larger war that might include 'real enemeies'

They are criminals...and what does this make you?

[BootinUp]

7. And where does the plan above advocate that?

Please be specific and I don't think we are talking about dealing with the aftermath of a mistaken foreign policy of Bush so keep Iraq out of this.

[MrPrax]

8. Plan for WHAT?

Plan for a war that doesn't exist? HUH? Clark is planning to what? Fight 'terrorism'? HUH? Redeploy? Where? HUH?

Which part of this foreign policy/'war on terror'/whim/adventurism do we keep Bush out of--the oil part, the world domination, 'top cop', self-aggrandized sense of entitlement in a very changed world?

We KNOW Wes is macho...he nearly started a war with Russia 'over' nothing...but how is he on the domestic front?

Is Clark pledging to 'cut military spending' to help out you folks, or is he 'staying the course' with the 'terrah/fear' shit?

Oh yeah and thousands of innocent people were killed in Afghanistan--if you'all want to act like crackhead gangbangers who just heard your 'homies' got beat up at a busstop...I am sure Wes will be a fine OG.

[BootinUp]

10. why is it necessary to

attack this effort to make the kind of changes to our policies that I can tell you would favor? It seems you just don't like the messenger. If the phrase "War on Terror" is so offensive to you and so dangerous to mankind, there are plenty of other democrats you can attack besides Wes.

[MrPrax]

13. Oh so this General

is different than the 30 or so working on this problem already...right...Wes has all the answers, his collegues stupidly ignore...of course.

And Republicans might vote for him!!!

and yeah I find undeclared wars with NO sense of purpose other than murder, rape and torture to be OFFENSIVE--you bet.

[BootinUp]

16. I understand some of your anger

which is shared by many who support the democratic party. But I don't see that you have justified it here in your rant against Clark. Certainly you have the right to speak your mind just as I have the right to end my participation in this discussion.

[MrPrax]

21. Angry like Dean?

Angry like Hillary? or 'angry' as a cheap Repuke smear...

You want to support a phoney opportunist, go right ahead...but your voter demographic is already covered by McCain, so you will have an uphill battle...riddle me this: Who was the last Democratic Presidential candidate that ran on his war record, huh?

Now how did that work out...

[BootinUp]

22. No, as in

unable to make a decent case to back even one of your over the top claims. cya.

[MrPrax]

31. Why do I have to?

Clark is still drinking the fuckin' kool-aid as late as last December

The clown doesn't make any sense and you claim is that 'I am angry'--NOTE I have posted in this thread my objections to Clark...you seem a little light on the debate, pal.

[BootinUp]

32. Thanks for linking that Op Ed (edited)

I call that a bold suggestion for bringing together the political factions not drinking koolaid.
The kind of thing he has helped accomplish before at the Dayton accords. But don't let his history of successful peace negotiations stop you from calling him derogatory names, I mean that takes more intelligence than Clark has demonstrated in his career. :eyes:

Edited to reference the Clark Op-ed in the post I replied to: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/opinion/06clark.html?ei=5090&en=54d89019ebc70bb2&ex=1291525200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

[MrPrax]

39. His successful negotitions?

Jeez thought it was Holbrooke that chaired that one which became the Paris Protocol...co-chairs were the EU's Bildt and the still very current Russian diplomat Igor Ivanov...

But YES since Clark was head of US forces, he got to go as well...

But since Bosnia is still occupied by NATO, I am not SO quick to call it a complete success...but don't let that stop you from the 'mission accomplished' rhetoric

Try again...

[BootinUp]

41. Clark became

the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO forces. I don't mean to detract from Holbrooke or any other diplomats. I do intend to point out that Clark also has experience in diplomacy.

The ending of the ethnic cleansing operations on all sides of the Balkan ethnic groups are a pretty good justification for the operation in question and a record of success for all involved in the NATO operation.

edited post title.

[Sparkly]

11. I was going to reply to you

by repeating what General Clark actually SAID.

But then I saw: We KNOW Wes is macho...he nearly started a war with Russia 'over' nothing...


And I realized it's not worth it. :eyes:

[MrPrax]

14. Good...

I can read as well--and I disagree with your choice.

Very simple...

[dogman]

15. If you could read , you would know the answers to some

of your questions. Yes, Wes has advocated cutting DOD spending. You would also know it is not the Generals, but the civilian leadership that has gotten in the mess and have more messes scheduled. You would also know the WW III with the Russians was pure hype.

[MrPrax]

19. oh so this was hype as well...

by Wes "Let's Wait to Attack," Clark:

"I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." Jan 21/03

"The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with." Feb. 5/03

WMDs? (Saddam) "does have weapons of mass destruction... Absolutely" Jan. 18/03

"I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this." Mar.2/03

"Already the scent of victory is in the air...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."<--did Rove write this...oh no it was Clark April 10/03

(Bush and Blair) "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," ... "Their opponents(anti-war folks like Clark presumeably), those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." same column April 10/03

So when did Clark have his epiphany...the next day in another column

"The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."

OH and as far as Clark wanting to bomb Russian planes and warships being 'hyped', you will have to take that up with Gen. Jackson, the British general, that countermanned Clark's orders...

But tell me--why are you supporting a shameless opportunist war -profiteer...because he grew up in Little Rock with Bill? Coz he's a Rhodes Scholar like Bill? Coz the DLC likes him?

McCain already has the 'war vet' demo wrapped up...think outside the box.

[Sparkly]

20. Wow, quotes taken out of context -- what a novel idea!!

:eyes:

[MrPrax]

25. Figured it was on record...

and well discussed back in 2004...

It was from when Clark was fighting the good fight over at CNN as their 'military' guy...

From a FAIR look at the 'hot new' Democratic candidate's anti-war credentials

[dogman]

29. Well, they call themselves FAIR, so they must be.

I mean with a name like that, they absolutely have no agenda beyond that. Of course that gets you off the hook for out of context quotes. They did it. Clark was not fighting he was analyzing the news.

[MrPrax]

33. Oh so Clark

was just playing the role of 'commentator', just before he played the role of a 'presidential candidate'... LOL Since I don't like the guy, I suggest YOU find out which context this guy is blowing out his ass...

The Real Battle

Winning in Fallujah Is Just the Beginning

"..Even the use of force required a further calculus. Had we relentlessly destroyed the city and killed large numbers of innocent civilians, or suffered crippling losses in the fighting, we most certainly would have been judged "losers." And if we can't hold on and prevent the insurgents from infiltrating back in -- as has now occurred in the recently "liberated" city of Samarra -- we also shall have lost..."

"...The battle plan was tailored to prevent significant destruction. It called for a slow squeeze, starting with precision strikes against identified targets, and followed by a careful assault directed at taking out the opposition and reoccupying the city, while minimizing civilian and friendly casualties. We have superior mobility, with heavily armored vehicles; we have superior firepower, with the Bradley's 25mm cannon, M1A1 Abrams tanks, artillery and airstrikes; we have advantages in reconnaissance, with satellites, TV-equipped unmanned aerial vehicles and a whole array of electronic gear. But urban combat partially neutralizes these advantages. A weaker defender can inflict much punishment with only a meager force fighting from the rubble, provided they fight to the death. So this has not been a "cakewalk." This has been a tough battle, and the men and women fighting it deserve every Combat Infantryman's Badge, Bronze Star or Purple Heart they receive..."

Wrong Wes...but that WAS back in November 2005...BUT he's probably right now, hey? He probably figures the Fallujah thing was shocking war crime, hey?

Probably out of context again, eh?...

[dogman]

42. I'd say so.

Selective quotes prove nothing.
Snip>Instead, the outcome of the battle must be judged by a less clear-cut standard: not by the seizure and occupation of ground, but by the impact it has on the political and diplomatic process in Iraq. Its chances for success in that area are highly uncertain. Will Fallujah, like the famous Vietnam village, be the place we destroyed in order to save it? Will the bulk of the insurgents simply scatter to other Iraqi cities? Will we win a tactical victory only to fail in our strategic goal of convincing Iraqis that we are making their country safe for democracy -- and specifically for the elections scheduled for the end of January?
Snip> But in what sense is this "winning?"
To win means not just to occupy the city, but to do so in a way that knocks the local opponent permanently out of the fight, demoralizes broader resistance, and builds legitimacy for U.S. aims, methods and allies. Seen this way, the battle for Fallujah is not just a matter of shooting. It is part of a larger bargaining process that has included negotiations, threats and staged preparations to pressure insurgent groups into preemptive surrender, to deprive them of popular tolerance and support, and to demonstrate to the Iraqi people and to others that force was used only as a last resort in order to gain increased legitimacy for the interim Iraqi government.
Snip>During the recent presidential campaign, there was a lot of talk about supporting our troops in wartime. And yet calling what's going on in Iraq "war" has distracted us from marshaling the diplomatic and political support our troops need to win.
Snip>We should be under no illusions: This is not so much a war as it is an effort to birth a nation. It is past time for the administration to undertake diplomatic efforts in the region and political efforts inside Iraq that are worthy of the risks and burdens born by our men and women in uniform. No one knows better than they do: You cannot win in Iraq simply by killing the opponent. Much as we honor our troops and pray for their well-being, if diplomacy fails, their sacrifices and even their successes in Fallujah won't be enough.

There is even more but due to DU rules I cannot paste it. If there are any doubts, I would suggest it be read in full. It was brilliant then and is brilliant now. Clark has always maintained that there is no doubt we can win a military confrontation but the diplomatic and political solutions are the ones that will determine success or failure. That is also the bottom line message in the op-ed that you earlier cited where he writes about the military success in capturing Baghdad but the fact that a military victory is meaningless if we fail to win the peace.

[MrPrax]

44. What victory? What Peace?

Iraq HAD nothing to do with 911!!
Iraq HAD nothing to do with WMDs!!
Iraq didn't DO anything to threaten the American people!!

Clark STILL doesn't get it...from the posting above

"This administration has taken us on a path to nowhere — replete with hyped intelligence, macho slogans and an incredible failure to see the obvious," Clark said in the broadcast.

Same path Clark was on and probably still is...

Rem what started Fallujah?
Iraqis demonstrated against the US military occupation of the school...the US military open fired killing a bunch of unarmed people...the Iraqis retaliated by killing four 'mercs'...the US proceed to 'do the Ludice' and teach them a lesson...they flattened the city, targeted hospitals, shot in cold blood, unarmed men, women and children, they, according to the British sources, used chemical weapons...

If Clark was SO wrong about Fallujah...what the fuck else is he wrong about...he believed everything god damn thing...including the fake 'war on terror' nonsense.

Give it up...

[Sparkly]

45. Did you even READ the article you're citing?!?

If so, what is your problem?

You act as though he said, "I am so happy BushCo invaded Iraq, and I hope the US forces slaughtered as many innocent civilians as possible. Long live the King!"

He has spoken and written consistently on the need for a political solution, and this article is yet another example of that.

What's your solution?

[MrPrax]

47. My solution?

Get the fuck out of Iraq and behave yourselves...how about that?

[Sparkly]

48. How you gonna make that happen

and what would happen as a result?

[dogman]

24. I don't support a shameless opportunist war -profiteer, I support Wes

Clark.
In order:
The first four quotes are from his work as a military analyst and were based on the "conventional wisdom" at the time. As an outsider he would not have knowledge at that time that intelligence was being manipulated in the White House by the VP and his group. Colin Powell was also fed this intel and had gone to the UN with it. Many Americans were in the same position at that time. But look for key words, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming","I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this". Much of the rest is reporting what was the news, not his views.
The second two quotes are out of context from an op-ed that set up the arguments that he then dissembled in the rest of the op-ed. This has been covered in these forums in depth.
The WW III statement by Jackson (of Bloody Sunday fame) was reputed by James Rubin who has said that Jackson has since told him it was hyped. Your facts are completely wrong on this matter. There were no warships or planes on the airfield. He had ordered Jackson to block the airfield so Russian planes could not land. He subsequently was able to have Bulgaria deny airspace to the Russians and stop them from dividing Belgrade as they had Berlin after WW II.

[MrPrax]

34. So if Clark is conventional?

why bother...

OH and Clark himself discusses the Jackson incident in his own biography...

"In his book Waging Modern War, Clark says Jackson protested, "Sir, I'm a three-star general; you can't give me orders like this," and that he responded, "Mike, I'm a four-star general, and I can tell you these things."

Clark seems proud of his record, why do you want to ignore it?

[dogman]

38. He was reporting.

The same is true of the Jackson story. I didn't say Jackson wasn't ordered to block the runway, he wasn't ordered to bomb any one. The "starting WW III" was the hype. It wasn't about to start a war and Clark was still successful in blocking the Russians without repercussions.

[Sparkly]

40. Oh for cryin' out loud!!

Here is the POINT: General Clark made strong, important statements AGAINST BushCo this morning, covering a lot of issues with pointed remarks, specific challenges and advocacy of Democrats' proposals for change. This critically important, because our only hope for effective change is to get Democrats in office so they can CHANGE THINGS.

Now you can spend your time harping on 3-year-old smears, quotes taken out of context, and "The Jackson Incident," all of which are much ado about nothing that rightwingers like to bring up in order to DIVERT focus away from what is actually happening and what is actually possible and what is actually IMPORTANT and instead change the debate to an irrelevant game of "gotcha" and "invented the internets" and "voted for it before I voted against it's" and whatever the hell else they can come up with.

THAT is the POINT.

[cleofus1]

9. hi mr pax

i hope and believe that if a democrat were in office it would not have happened in the way it has happened...no invasion of iraq...no destruction of the constitution...etc etc...i believe general clark is a good man...and though i voted for big al, i would not have lost any sleep if clark had been elected...

a war on terrorism done correctly does not equate to the invasion of middle east...or the deaths of thousands...

[Warren Stupidity]

23. We should bring the criminal murderers to justice.

All of them. Senator Kerry, very briefly, attempted to reframe the entire issue during his campaign. He stated, and then retracted the novel concept that we ought to use police tactics and law enforcement tactics to go after criminal such as bin Laden. He flopped right away from that statement. Too bad as if he had more courage it might have been an opportunity to break through the cocoon of bullshit that has been spun for us.

The problem with a 'War On Terror' is that terror is a word, a concept, a tactic, not a nation, not an organization, not an entity with which one can wage war.

The Bush Cabal has used the language here, the phrase 'War On Terror' to then turn around and insist that they are above the law, that they have extraordinary powers, because 'we are at war', that they can discard international treaties, Constitution, and laws and do whatever they please in the name of this war. They further pronounce that this supposed war will last a very long time (the 'long struggle' they have called it.) Indeed, as there is no defined enemy to defeat, as it is a war against an abstraction, it can go on forever, it can be perpetual war.

The supposed War On Terror has not even managed to achieve what would be a legitimate goal: the bringing to justice of the alleged mastermind of the attack on 9-11. In fact, that effort, what ought to have been the primary focus of our efforts after the attack over four years ago, has never been of much importance to this administration. Instead they have used their phony war on the ill defined term 'terror' to go on their mission to conquer the middle east and establish their PNAC American Hegemony.

What are the conditions for victory? Who is the enemy? How will we know that victory in this fictitious war has been won, or that defeat is upon us?

[dogman]

26. Terror is a concept and so is the "War on Terror"

That is the point that should be made, especially to counter the justifications for Bushco breaking the laws. After watching parts of the censure hearings, I would like to see Feingold and others make that point. Resolutions have been passed for various actions but leave the legal questions of what those resolutions actually authorized.

[BootinUp]

28. Of course

and the Democratic party has gone a long way today to put some concrete definitions to the questions you pose, that we all have posed at one time or another. The fact that they used the phrase we, on the left, have found objectionable and then connected it to some rational plan is a good thing in my view, it bodes well for an end to the thing someday.

I am excited to see the party make such a strong statement and I think Wes will make a good impression on the public as well.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

30. Yes of course we should, but stop calling it a "war"

and treat it as the criminal act it is.
Go get the money, stop the shit.
Leave innocent people out of it, or we are no better than they.

[BootinUp]

35. please see post #28

n/t

[leesa]

50. A 'war on terrorists' is ludicrous at best. It was a crime and it should

be treated as a crime...and that included an INVESTIGATION into who actually did 9-11. We haven't the vaguest idea who actually did the deed. We only know who the liars in this administration SAID were the culprits in order to launch their war against Muslims.

Responsibility doesn't mean running around like vigilantes with our heads cut off bombing whatever country some fool in the White House points a finger at. My money is on 9-11 being done by people inside our government...shouldn't we find that out first?? Wouldn't that be the RESPONSIBLE thing to do?? Investigate the crime?

[Mark E. Smith]

12. Clark Kicked Failed "War President's" Ass

The myth of Bush being the essential man in the war on terror has now been officially demolished.

[Sparkly]

17. An outstanding address.

I don't think they'll be able to ignore this.

General Clark called BushCo out on their incompetence on a range of issues (including veterans' benefits and disaster relief as well as gas prices, global warming, and the other issues mentioned above).

Links to audio provided by Ice, on this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2546265

[Maddy McCall]

18. I hope he runs in 2008...

I truly love this man, and I think he's got the experience and ideas we need to get out of Iraq...without leaving it a waste hole in our wake.

And I'm keen on him on domestic policy, too.

[Eurobabe]

27. I spread the meme daily in SW Ohio

a place that desperately needs to know more about Wes Clark. (Read my plate!)

[Sparkly]

37. Today's AP article is easily forwarded from Yahoo...

Just in case anyone didn't think of it... (Click "email story" at the bottom...)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060401/ap_on_go_co/democrats_clark;_ylt=AkkMdyWVEYpFj2ZXEicPDCOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

[WhiteTara]

36. Rate this up on Yahoo only has a 4

and this is important and clear. We have had enough. There is a better way and the Democrats have finally found a footing and may get a message out. Either my new meds have kicked in or this is a small light down a very long tunnel.

[OKNancy]

43. Clark represents the Democrats

This was a political speech. It is meant to show what DEMOCRATS think about the failed Bush presidency. There is not one single elected Democrat who would disavow the war on terror.
Not one. There is not one who would say Iran is not a threat, even Feingold.
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/01/2006131CR.html

In the real world and in the real world of politics people like Clark give Democrats a strong voice when it comes to national security. This is the political "theme of the week". This is the theme that has been chosen so we CAN WIN ELECTIONS. I realize some people don't care about winning, but unless Democrats win, who knows what hell awaits us.

Truth be told, I actually think that Clark probably thinks the "war on terror" as Bush describes it is bogus. He has constantly said that if you don't want people to hate you, you stop killing them.
He also has constantly stressed that diplomacy is the way to solve problems, not war.

Clark speaks for Democrats in this case and he did a fine job of articulating our party's views. He also did a wonderful job of articualting the Bush administrations failures.

[Maddy McCall]

46. Yes, Yes, Yes.

You said, Truth be told, I actually think that Clark probably thinks the "war on terror" as Bush describes it is bogus. He has constantly said that if you don't want people to hate you, you stop killing them.
He also has constantly stressed that diplomacy is the way to solve problems, not war.

It IS bogus. In military history, there's nothing with which to compare it! And with every revelation of bogus Bush claims, we see that this was never meant to be a war on terror, but a war to line the pockets of Bush's cronies. I honestly think that Bush was chosen for president by the neocons because he was easily manipulatable, and while HE might think that he was "waging a war on terror," the neocons who in the beginning controlled his puppet strings knew that this was NEVER about fighting terror. I think he realized at some point that he was being used, so he asserted his authority, and that ended up fucking up the "war on terror" even more than the neocons had.

At any rate, we need to rid our administration and representative pool of these evil bastards, and we need to start doing it THIS FALL.

:hi: Nancy.

[kysrsoze]

49. Kick for Clark

Go Wes!