Clark people- can he really stop these "incidents"

[jadesfire]

Some of these comments seem a little implausable and ridiculous to me but I wanted the opinion of those who support him.


National Review

January 13, 2004

General Disqualification Commanding disrespect.


Last week, retired General Wesley Clark disqualified himself for the job he now seeks, and for which he incessantly claims he is the most prepared of any Democratic presidential candidate: commander-in-chief.

In a meeting last Thursday with the editorial board of New Hampshire's Concord Monitor, the would-be president made statements that no one staking a serious claim on the office, let alone anyone who claimed to be an expert about national security, could make. Referring to the murderous 9/11 attacks, he declared: "If I'm president of the United States, I'm going to take care of the American people. We are not going to have one of these incidents."

According to the Monitor, Clark, when asked to clarify his position in a follow-up interview that night, reaffirmed his belief that taking appropriate measures would keep America safe. "I think <9/11> could have been prevented...I think it can be prevented again if we have the right leadership. That's me. I will protect America."

Now, one can contend that there was more the U.S. government could have done to prevent the sorts of terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. One can even promise to do a better job than the incumbent when it comes to protecting the American people.

But anyone who pledges that, if elected, he will ensure the American people are never exposed to future terrorist incidents — including ones vastly more destructive than those that befell us 27 months ago — is sufficiently delusional or dishonest, or both, to be disqualified for the Oval Office.

No one who held the sorts of senior positions in the U.S. military that General Clark did could be ignorant of an unpleasant truth: Even if America were a far less free and open society than it is today, we would still be vulnerable to murderous attacks by determined people willing to kill themselves in order to do us harm.

This reality renders dangerously misleading Clark's assertion that "nothing is going to hurt this country — not bioweapons, not a nuclear weapon, not a terrorist strike — there is nothing that can hurt us if we stay united and move together and have a vision for moving to the future the right way."

"Stay united," "moving together," and "hav a vision for moving to the future" are all desirable. To the extent that a leader can deliver on such goals, the country would presumably be better off. Even if he does, though, we will absolutely, positively not be invulnerable to bioweapons, nuclear weapons, or a terrorist strike.

[Skwmom]

1. Does Clark mean that he can prevent an attack

or that if we stay united etc. another terrorist attack won't destroy this country, we will still be able to move ahead. On eidt: Clark is a very smart man who understands this country's vulnerability.

"This reality renders dangerously misleading Clark's assertion that "nothing is going to hurt this country — not bioweapons, not a nuclear weapon, not a terrorist strike — there is nothing that can hurt us if we stay united and move together and have a vision for moving to the future the right way."

I don't take this above passage to mean that we will be invulnerable to another attack.

on edit: In addition, in regards to another 9/11 incident (that particular type of terrorist attack - considering we were warned and could have taken steps to prevent it) should have been prevented. Israel was also warned and they managed to take steps to prevent their planes from being hijacked and used as weapons.

[bearfartinthewoods]

20. this had to be something he came up with on his own.

no one with any political experience would let him say that. heck, no one with a lick of sense would say that. any of those occurances would nail the economy and that sure as hell would hurt this country.

not to mention the death, sorrow and fear....little things like that.

clark is either off his rocker with some sort of superman complex or just desperate to try and further that image with the people who want a "big, strong daddy" to protect us.

as i said when i first heard the comment...bear's bullshitter of the month award fer sure...

[arewethereyet]

2. this claim is just silly

and being silly calls into serious question anyone older than 14 who would make it much less a former four star general and Rhodes scholar.

Its been shown in my little city of Richmond that the water supply is so easily open to bio attack as to be laughable, a teenager could and, in fact, did put himself in a position to do it.

Yes a more organized government may have pieced together the haphazzard crew who "did" 9/11 but anyone with a little common sense and a Coke can of agent can inflict havoc on any large or mid-sized city.

[Skwmom]

5. What's silly is the reporters interpreting

Clark's statements to mean he could protect us from all terrorists attacks. I guess reporters are included in the dumbing down of America/

[arewethereyet]

8. "We are not going to have one of these incidents."

Reporters did not make this up with a video editor.

You can blame the press for a lot but this was the General's statement. For good or ill.

[James T. Kirk]

14. link to Concord Monitor article - "Clark says he can keep U.S. safe"

http://www.concordmonitor.com/stories/front2004/clark010904_2004.shtml

It seems to me that what he said was pretty dumb. If the remarks were taken out of context, it's his own fault for saying things that could be so easily misinterpreted. Either way, not good.

[James T. Kirk]

17. Original, unedited transcript?

Does anyone have a link to the original, unedited transcript?

[Exgeneral]

3. It seems they took this out of context?

And I admit it sounds strange without the rest of the speech wrapped around it. But that's the media. And It sure sounds better than shrubs approach of attack a weak country with oil or heroin ( what's the difference I wonder sometimes?raand that will solve things.

[gulliver]

4. Yawn. National Review very afraid of Clark obviously.

Thanks for channeling the National Review. Somebody needs to drag that crap in here, I guess.

[KittyWampus]

6. If You Believe The "Incident" That Was 9/11 Happened Due To Negligence

Then Clark could certainly prevent another occurance... by PAYING ATTENTION TO THE WARNINGS.

The "Incident" that was 9/11 was the result of the Bush crowd ignoring the warnings given by the Clinton Administration... that were in the Hart Rudman Report which was shelved by Cheney... that came from both Domestic Intelligence and Foreign Intelligence...

[GainesT1958]

7. Why take seriously anything the National Review says?

It's one of THE ultimate right-wing Repub magazines; always has been. They consider it their business to DESTROY any Democratic candidate with a serious chance of winning the presidency.x(

Having stated that, I do think we need to take General Clark's remarks seriously. He means that no attacks like 9/11/01 would happen on his watch, and I'd hope he would be right; the one that DID occur should NOT have happened on Dub's watch.

Moreover, his desired goal of keeping the U.S. safer is one he could achieve by getting funding--and better Federal bureaucratic organization--for greatly "ramped-up" domestic security measures and strategic planning to prevent an attack, going beyond simply mitigating one should it occur.

It's just like a Buckley-founded rag like the "Review" to convolute the General's straight-forward words into something they consider to be "wacko"--when in fact the statement, and the goals implied by it, are not wacky at all.

B-)

[Brian_Expat]

9. This also touches on electability

WAKE UP, people. What other warning signs do we need?!? It might feel good to support Clark, but he is UNELECTABLE. Joe Lieberman has decades of experience running for office and while he may not be perfect, he is experienced AND a Democrat. I worry that we are going to lose an election because some people want to feel good rather than beat Bush.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

10. I do NOT want someone who will be like Bushco on.....

foreign policy! Lieberman is my very last choice. I do NOT look forward to having him as our nomminee. By the way, Wes Clark is a FOUR STAR GENERAL with 30+ years experience on defense issues. Where do you get off assaulting him by claiming that he is "unelectable". Clark has much more knowledge on defense issues than Lieberman could ever have!

:puke: Lieberman

[Brian_Expat]

12. Wesley Clark is unelectable

His endorsements from Madonna and Moore help Rove paint him as "ultra-liberal," and his position on the Iraq war is out of the mainstream. Bush would defeat him in a landslide, especially if he keeps making promises like the one cited.

Joe Lieberman has decades of experience in politics, diplomacy and foreign relations. He also has credentials on morality and balance, which are important. This sort of well-balanced candidate is who we need to win, not someone who is inexperienced in politics and domestic policy.

With Joe, we get the real deal in every area -- the only Democrat who does so.

Is he perfect? No. But he's the only candidate who can win.

[Cheswick2.0]

18. Clarks is unelectable

He has never run for office, can't debate and is soft on just about everything.

[dogman]

11. Sound as stupid as "We have nothing to fear except fear itself"

Why wouldn't he just say we are inevitably doomed and must stay on red alert forever? What is wrong with a person that would make them think leadership could make a difference?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[eileen from OH]

15. Oh, General, you've just been "Deaned"!

Seriously, it's starting now on Clark. Micro-parsing, pulling stuff from context, not allowing a fuller explanation, blah-blah-blah.

Honestly, folks, we have to watch out for this kind of shit for ALL our candidates. That was the premise of Eric Bloehert's (sp?) article in Salon. He showed how it was being done to Dean, but it will be done to anyone who looks like they COULD be the candidate. And once they ARE it goes into hyperdrive.

eileen from OH

[Cheswick2.0]

19. so now it's Dean's fault Clark made this stupid statement?

I thought military was all about personal responsility? If we get Clark are we getting 4 more years of "it's the other guys fault". Lovely!

[mikehiggins]

16. Yup

I know it goes against "popular wisdom" to deny the idea that simply because they hit us once, they'll hit us again and that nothing we do can possibly prevent it.

But, what the hell, I'll do it.

First of all, as we all recall vividly, the 9/11 terrorists took four airplanes and managed to slam three of them into American targets. The fourth one, supposedly targeted on the White House went down far away, possibly due to the passengers finding out what was happening.

Two jets managed to hit the Trade Center towers, and another plane, supposedly targeted on the capitol had to switch targets towards the end and managed to hit the Pentagon, causing severe damage and lost of life. The actual plan was only 50% successful, though that is of little solace to the people who were killed and the families they left behind.

The saddest fact is that they succeeded at all, with any of it. Their success was little less than an absolute miracle, and constitutes a damning indictment of the Bush administration's inability to find their own asses if there isn't a bonus check from Halliburton stuck up it.

There were any number of ways in which this attack could have been foiled and none of them were implemented. Even today, container freighters and cargo jets pose as much of a menace to the US as the four passenger planes did, and we're already past the second anniversary of that murderous day.

What Clark is saying, and what I agree with, is that a rational, non-political approach to this question (which would include NOT invading countries that were no threat to us) could make such attacks impossible to mount within the US, whether from outside or inside this nation. Is anyone interested in arguing that safety precautions on the airlines were sketchy because the airlines didn't want to spend the money to follow the Israeli system? Of course not. It is just ludicrous how easily any corporation can buy their way out of regulation and observation by any level of government.

And the administration is their willing accomplice in this negligence.

So can Clark say with confidence that during his time in office no terrorist will be able to mount a successful attack on American targets on US soil? Absolutely. Can he get it done, even in the face of a GOP congress? Absolutely.

Even this administration could have prevented 9/11 if they'd cared more about the people of this nation than about political considerations and pandering to their corporate supporters. This is the price we pay (among many) for an administration headed by a clown and administered by thieves and liars and conmen.

Of course, we'll only be able to prove our case if we elect Clark, right? Otherwise you'll never know.

[robbedvoter]

21. "No guaranties, but I can lift the cloud of fear" he said today

on GMA. Will say more later today. You can listen, see if he convinces you. Or, you can stick with the National review. BTW, is that the issue with that cover?