Wesley Clark's Editorial On Securing Peace In Iraq (London Times)

[KittyWampus]

Written by a man who devoted 35 years to the Armed Services, who fought and lead, cared and cried for the men and women who were fighting in Iraq because their Commander-in-Chief sent them to fight an unnecessary Preventative War.

What must be done to complete a great victory.
By Wesley Clark.

10 April 2003

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 defence 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.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT. IF NOBODY CAN SUPPLY A LINK, THIS THREAD IS GOING BYE-BYE.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.ht

[KittyWampus]

1. This From The Man Who Has Take On The PNAC Crowd

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.

[CWebster]

2. Ahem, perhaps this might have been the appropriately

emboldened part:

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 skilfully 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...

That you find this complimentary to your candidate makes me wonder if we are in the same party.

[KittyWampus]

4. Why Pull Out That ONE Paragraph? Why Not Comment On Everything Else?

pulling one thing out of context is called doing a "hatchet job".

But since you saw fit to pull that out... may I highlight one sentence in what you yourself emphasise.

And especially Mr Blair, who skilfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe.

Wesley Clark says, and I will now post even fewer parts of the piece you yourself emphasise:

Mr Blair, who skilfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally...

Wesley Clark has, in essense, called President Bush an almost irrationally resolute ally.

Are you not familiar with the use of BACK HANDED COMPLIMENTS?

[CWebster]

5. I was referring to everything as a whole

I just noted what you failed to highlight. But still, some of the things that you did highlight, in my opinion, are not the stances one would praise a Democrat for taking. That is why when CommonDreams featured this speech, they asked the question "antiwar candidate?"

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

[KittyWampus]

7. And I Drew Attention To What YOU Decided To Highlight

and in doing so made it obvious that Clark was unfavorable to Bush.

And except the parts of the editorial where Clark is lauding the troops for work well done, he is taking apart Bush's handling of Iraq and pointing out the way it sidetracked our foreign policy and damaged our International Relations.

[CWebster]

9. that is ridiculous

You can't praise the idiot and his poodle and spin it as anything else.

[KittyWampus]

10. The Phrase "Back Handed Compliment"

refers to the practise of praising someone and yet detracting from them in the same sentence.

I demonstrated this in the Fourth (#4) post in this thread by using the very sentences you yourself decided to highlight.

I Thank You for highlighting that particular paragraph as it gave me the perfect opportunity to display how people tend to pull things out of context and distort their meaning and intent.

[CWebster]

13. There is no comparison

in one case he is singing high praises of Bush and Blair, in another he makes an observation that the ally is stubborn and resolute. So? At first read I thought it was a reference to Blair himself, but hell, Churchill was resolute and stubborn. It isn't a particularly accusatory statement since the speech was given in London, I believe, and was intended to, as Tom Rinaldo points out, appeal to a target audience.

[KittyWampus]

15. The Irrationally Resolute Ally Clark Refers To Is Bush

Therefore, in one sentence he appears to be praising Bush yet is obliquely slamming him.

[CWebster]

18. That is not a necessarily damning statement

just acknowledging the circumstances Blair was operating in. It isn't like he said Bush and Blair were wrong and that the entire enterprise was based on a lie. He isn't challenging Bush and Blair or claiming they didn't have a case. If anything, he is celebrating a victory, and we know how wrong-headed that illusion was.

[KittyWampus]

20. Clark Exposes Their Lie In His Testimony To Congress

which I have posted in another thread.

Clark's purpose here was to respond to the US toppling the Saddam Regime.

[CivilRightsNow]

29. Bolding is okay but not drawing attention to one specific item of concern.

Makes no sense.

But alot of this doesnt make alot of sense to me lately. I'd rather the man have given no praise at all then some supposedly backhanded criticism.

So, toe the line and then put in a little insult for the .2% of the population that picks up on it?

Whatever.

[kiahzero]

12. Back-handed compliments

There exist some who are familiar with the concept of back-handed compliments, but choose to focus on solely the "compliment" aspect, to score political points.

My understanding of the Clark fundraiser debacle is that, while Clark did say nice things about Republicans, he also nicely described how they were wrong in terms of foreign policy.

What was focused on? The few nice words he had to say.

[CWebster]

14. All you have to do is read the first sentence

to know where this speech is going.

[KittyWampus]

16. Diplomacy Dictates That One NOT Be Openly Insulting

And to say that one can characterize an entire editorial by considering one line, the first one at that, is comparable to saying that one can judge a book by its cover.

And when one wants to be heard and considered by many people, it seems being diplomatic when critiquing those in power, is the most deriable strategy. And Clark is a highly skilled tactician.

[CWebster]

21. But gee

you get to highlight any line or dangling parcipitabley thing that you choose!

As for his diplomacy, yes, I did see the lets play hatsies with the murderous thug photo.

[LandOLincoln]

27. So, CWebster,

if you were going to meet with an enemy for the purpose of sussing him out, getting into his head, probing for his strengths and weaknesses, how would you handle it? Would you march right up and call him a genocidal maniac to his face, or would you pretend to be friendly, to throw him off his guard?

Clark says his first book that he found Mladic to be "coarse and boastful." Wonder how much Mladic gave away in the course of his boasting? My guess is a lot.

[kiahzero]

22. What's that saying again?

"Judge a book by it's cover - That's all you have to do to see how it'll turn out"

That doesn't seem right...

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. I agree CW

This is not overall the written statement by Clark most flattering to him in the current context. I can and have unflinchingly defended it here in the past, but it can raise questions for people who are not overly familiar with Clark that it then takes a lot of time and effort to answer.

I think it is a disease of modern politics, heck probably ancient politics also, that words once said or printed become moments forever frozen in time, often later viewed completely outside of the context in which they were first articulated.

Given the overwhelmingly celebratory public atmosphere in place at the time Clark wrote that piece, it was in my opinion remarkably forward thinking to raise the concerns that he did. However he delivered his words within a presentational framework that was meant to connect with the mind set of the people who would be reading that newspaper on that day in time. We are no longer in that mind set, partially due to Clark's continuing commentary, certainly due to Dean's and Kocinich's, and others good efforts since then also. Mostly though due to subsequent reality.

[CWebster]

11. Yes, leave it to you Tom

to diplomatically attempt to cast a credible perspective on this rather damning example (and I mean that in a nice way--everyone is a bit on edge at the moment). But even if he was playing for the target audience, that is not what we should be seeking in a leader--a follower of, as someone else described it, Bush's vision of America. We needed someone to challenge Bush directly then and it wasn't Clark who took the risk to do so.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Well actually, even with diplomacy aside

I stand by my full statement,which commented on more than just context and targeted audience. My agreement with you was that this particular statement by Clark is not the best one to bring up to advocate for him. There are many forceful and thoughtful statements Clark has made which reflect very well on him without need of any explanations. I was talking politics in other words.

Just because someone else might have "described it" doesn't make it true. Clark is not now, nor was he then, a follower of Bush's' vision of America. The Editorial in question does not support that assertion. Nor do positive comments that Clark previously made about members of the Bush Administration establish that, any more than Dean recently saying that there are things he admired about Bush the Elder establish that Dean is or was a follower of that Bush's' vision for America.

By the way CW, you are showing skill at staying on the correct side of the new rules. Good for you.

[CWebster]

19. Well, we have to base it on something

and his own words make the case pretty well..

"By the way CW..." Who me? That was downright back-handed of you, Tom. ;-)

[returnable]

26. Bush's vision of America...

Was Dean signing on to that vision when he said "This is a great day of pride in the American military, a great day for the Iraqis and a great day for the American people. I think President Bush deserves a day of celebration."?

Or do you agree that it is possible to applaud a military victory while still maintaining policy differences? :hi:

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. Can you give me a working link?

.

[ConsAreLiars]

6. link

The Times/UK editorial is reprinted at CommonDreams
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

The original source (doesn'tlike my browser settings)is here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-641193,00.html

[maddezmom]

23. they both work for me

:)

[maddezmom]

24. MODS~ the link in orginal is missing an "m" at the end

not working :)

[KittyWampus]

25. This Is What Drudge Is Linking To

why do we need a duplicate thread?

[robbedvoter]

28. Drudge Underground - the RNC tool - why feed from the sewer?

So imagine that. The same day Drudge has his 'world exclusive' with ridiculously distorted clips of Wes Clark's September 2002 congressional testimony on Iraq, RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie is in Little Rock giving a speech about Clark and he's using the same testimony to riff on.

What a coincidence they were both using google on the same day with the same idea, right? Amazing.

And then, according to KnightRidder, it turns out that Drudge didn't even play the smear straight. To quote the KnightRidder ...

Clark's congressional testimony was further distorted Thursday by cyber-gossip columnist Matt Drudge, who quoted selected portions of Clark's testimony and added sentences that don't appear in the transcript on his Web site Thursday. Drudge didn't respond to an e-mail request for comment.

Oh what a tangled web ...
-- Josh Marshall
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_01_11.html#002419

[Crewleader]

30. I have such respect for Wesley Clark

and I heard just this morning he's releasing everything about him, tax statements , his record everything unsealed...
Way To Go Clark! :thumbsup: