Clark with Aaron Brown on CNN boldly indicte Saudi Arabia

[adityanm]

It was so refreshing to hear Clark say that we should have attacked SA before attacking Iraq because SA had more direct links with 9/11.

[sfecap]

1. Clark said we should have attacked Saudi Arabia?

He really said this?

Seriously?

[madaboutharry]

4. I think

he was pointing out the irony.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. Clark should talk about the Carlyle Group

Good for him quickly dismantling the neo-con's propaganda. If we want to stop terrorism, we need to do something about the Binladens and the Saudi royals and their partners in the US, like Bush and Exxon-Mobil.

[samurai_jack]

2. D'oh!

Geez that was smart (NOT!)

[diplomats]

5. I think the point is

if we were going to go after regimes with links to 9/11, Saudi Arabia should've been at the top of the list, not Iraq.

[BurtWorm]

15. No, that was not the point.

The point was about the consequences for terrorism against US targets from hitting Arab countries. He was actually trying to say that invading Saudi Arabia would be foolish, if our aim was to reduce the threat of terror, and he feels attacking Iraq was on the same level of "genius."

[Catshrink]

3. At least he has cajones n/t

[leesa]

6. That it not appropriate!! You do not attack countries for criminal

actions done by a handful of people. This is why I CANNOT accept this man for Pres...better than bush because he MIGHT think a little more, but the bloodlust is there.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

7. Please...

LEt me predicate this by saying I am not a Clark supporter. I am not an anyone supporter. I have to hear a lot more, and I suspect I will wait until the last minute to decide.

Having said that: BLOODLUST??!! BLOODLUST????!!!

To paraphrase Mr. Jon Stewart: You must think we are all retarded.

Please, get a grip or do something equally constructive.

Bloodlust. Bloodlust. <shakes head>

[BurtWorm]

16. Please don't take posts at face value.

The original poster was wrong. Clark was not in favor of invading Saudi Arabia. If the original poster had listened more carefully he or she would have known that was the last thing Clark was advocating.

[Brian Sweat]

21. While I agree with you in principle

at some point, we will have to cut SA loose. These actions may have been the work of only a few Saudis, but they SA government is not actively discouraging them. In fact, in my opinion, the SA government passively approves of their attacts.

However, attack SA would be a huge mistake. SA is the holy land for muslims and we would be asking for it by attacking. SA should only be considered a target if we get involved in a real war.

[enki23]

8. when i saw him on cnn he said:

the only thing we could have done *worse* than invading iraq would have been to invade saudi arabia. he was specifically addressing the increase in terrorist recruitment which invading iraq has helped bring about.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[sfecap]

10. Thank you for the clarification.

n/t

[knight_of_the_star]

11. He didn't say that

I hope what he said doesn't get spun that way though.

[BurtWorm]

12. He didn't say that.

In fact he said we couldn't have done a better job of recruiting for al Qaeda if we'd attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq. He phrased it a little bit awkwardly, and I was afraid people were going to hear it wrong. He clearly did not think it was a good idea to attack an Arab country without considering the consequences for Islamist terrorism.

[disgruntella]

13. transcript link

Since there appears to be some confusion. You'll have to scroll down about 2/3
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/17/asb.00.html

[JasonBerry]

20. Can Watch it again at around 1:20 ET or so on CNN N/T

The transcript is correct. The original post twists Clark's comments. It's worth seeing John King's tough report AGAIN on Bush. He's been going after King George II in a tough way lately.

[jamesinca]

23. The actual part from the transcript

<SNIP>

BROWN: You said -- you just said and you have said before you wouldn't have gone in. Do you think the world and the region, perhaps more particularly, is a better place because Saddam Hussein has been overthrown?

CLARK: Well, all things being equal, yes. But all things are never equal.

And this is a case where there are -- there are pluses and minuses on this. Certainly, the Iraqi people now have an opportunity to grasp for freedom. And we've uncovered some of the horrendous excesses and depredations of the Iraqi regime and brought them to light.

On the other hand, personal security, economic security is down in many places in Iraq. There is terrorism in Iraq that wasn't there before. We have charged up the al Qaeda recruiting machine. I guess we could have done even a better job of reinforcing Osama bin Laden had we invaded Saudi Arabia. But next to Saudi Arabia, going into Iraq was a pretty good thing for al Qaeda. It put a U.S. and British force on the ground in an Arab country and gave them all the ammunition they needed to raise the intensity of hatred against the West.

So these things balance out. And it's really too soon to say. I would say, at best, it's a net wash. It may be negative for U.S. security on the whole.

<SNIP>

[jab105]

14. NO...Israel and Palastine.....

Why wont anyone say that the Israel/Palastinian conflict needs to take the first priority...that is what is most important to quench the anger in the middle east...

[aneerkoinos]

22. Israel and neighbours

It's even bigger priority. Saudi's want a nuke too:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=120348

First thing to do is to force Israel get rid of it's nukes and other WMD, together with all ME.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[JasonBerry]

19. Aaron Brown: A quick note

I thought the interview was pretty good. Brown has a way of being TRULY "fair and balanced." He'll ask a question that might be a little rough ( fair enough ) but doesn't badger after they give an answer. The purpose of my post is to tell you I know why Brown asked the partial birth abortion question....I was listening to local talk radio last night and Matt had Brown on as a guest via telephone. The topic was covering the campaign for the Democratic nomination. A caller went off on him as being a "liberal" and the caller said, "For example, you never ask any of the candidates if they support partial birth abortion!" His response was along the lines of, "Well...I have General Clark on tomorrow night....tune in and I'll ask the question." He was kind of defensive saying that's a little ridiculous as everybody could phone in and find there own pet issue that he's not asked of all the candidates. "Interviewing a candidate for office is usually a lose-lose proposition." He kept his word though. I had forgotten he had said that, but as soon as he asked the question I laughed. At least he keeps his promises! It was a fair interview and I thought Clark handled all of it very well.

Edit: spelling