What President Clark would have done after 9.11

[robbedvoter]

he published this article 3 days after the fact, in Washington post originally:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4257771-103677,00.html

Leah Faerstein wrote:

Decisive force

We must target and destroy the terrorist network. There is no room for
half measures
Special report: terrorism in the US

Wesley Clark
Saturday September 15, 2001
The Guardian

America is indeed at war. The attacks in New York and Washington have
raised the dangers posed by international terrorism to a new level. But
despite the awful familiarity of the devastation, an effective US
response is likely to be something unfamiliar.

For the US, the weapons of this war should be information, law
enforcement and, rarely, active military force. The coalition that will
form around the US and its Nato allies should agree on its intent, but
not trumpet its plans. No vast military deployments should be
anticipated. But urgent measures should be taken behind the scenes
because the populations and economic structures of western nations will
be at risk.

And the American public will have to grasp a new approach to warfare.
Our objective should be neither revenge nor retaliation, though we will
achieve both. Rather, we must systematically target and destroy the
complex network of international terrorism. The aim should be to attack
not buildings but people who have masterminded, coordinated, supported
and executed these and other attacks.More...."

In light of the "Fair" smears, I invite you to reflect: does this sound to you like that banner we were carrying in NYC saying: "Justice, not Revenge"?
Does the person planning this sound to you as 'not quite anti-war?

[imhotep]

1. empty rhetoric

from a mass murderer.

[Prodemsouth]

3. Cheap Shot from the uninformed

n/t

[imhotep]

5. its not a cheap shot

and I am a witness to his war wrimes.

[Crewleader]

2. Good link friend....I like what General Clark is all about!

:hi: robbedvoter

[laruemtt]

4. thanks for posting this, robbed voter.

i was already square behind clark, given the stakes in 2004, but this puts my mind further at ease.

[Hubert Flottz]

6. What no 'Dead Or Alive'?

They even named a candy bar after this General!

[BeatleBoot]

7. Justice Not Revenge

Sounds exactly like that to me.

I have no problem with what he said there.

[Enraged_Ape]

8. I agree with him completely.

This should have, and could have, been an international law enforcement matter, involving all nations who have to deal with terrorist groups murdering their people. For a fraction of the cost of these wars, we could have funded a beefed-up Interpol that could have truly "smoked the terrorists" out of their holes in the nations they plan to attack. This type of plan would have succeeded spectacularly in the days following 9/11/01, since we had the world's sympathy and support.

But the dumb, drooling chimp squatting in the White House blew it, because there was just so much more money to be made off oil in the Middle East.

You know, I knew almost nothing about Wesley Clark prior to last week. I'm a Dean guy. But the more people bash him on these boards, the more I like him.