Wes Clark issues another formal statement!

[Jai4WKC08]

This time on Giuliani's remarks this morning.

Statement from General Wesley Clark on Giuliani Comments

10/28/2004 2:29:00 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk, Political Reporter

Contact: Mark Kitchens of Kerry-Edwards 2004, 202-464-2800; Web: http://www.johnkerry.com

WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Gen. Wesley Clark issued the following statement today: "For President Bush to send Rudolph Giuliani out on television to say that the 'actual responsibility' for the failure to secure explosives lies with the troops is insulting and cowardly. "The President approved the mission and the priorities. Civilian leaders tell military leaders what to do. The military follows those orders and gets the job done. This was a failure of civilian leadership, first in not telling the troops to secure explosives and other dangerous materials, and second for not providing sufficient troops and sufficient equipment for troops to do the job. "President Bush sent our troops to war without sufficient body armor, without a sound plan and without sufficient forces to accomplish the mission. Our troops are performing a difficult mission with skill, bravery and determination. They deserve a commander in chief who supports them and understands that the buck stops in the Oval Office, not one who gets weak knees and shifts blame for his mistakes." ---

Paid for by Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=39090

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. Perfect n/t

[JusticeForAll]

2. Wes Rocks!!!

Go KERRY!

[efhmc]

3. I really admire that man. He is a true patriot.

[July]

10. I admire him, too.

And he's a serious babe.

[TrustingDog]

12. he's got such gorgeous eyes...

and a nice working brain too!

[efhmc]

37. That brain part sure comes in handy . Too bad about that *bush guy.

Too bad for our country for sure.

[Richardo]

4. "weak knees" Perfect!

Yes! :yourock: General!

[Sparkly]

5. Go General!!!

:bounce: Is he great or what?! :bounce:

[PSU84]

6. Give 'em hell, Wes!

Giuliani's comments were disgraceful.

[Bad Thoughts]

7. Screw the SoS

Wes needs a talk show ... he has been on fire the last few days!

[tishaLA]

8. We can't thank you enough. Wesley K. Clark

[Kahuna]

36. Ditto!!! Wes is Best!!!

:7

[michigandem2]

9. no response from shrub yet??? that ain't looking to good

[aden_nak]

11. Were troops specificly ordered to secure that weapons facility?

That's the central question. Was there a unit of soldiers (allocated the proper manpower) that was ordered to secure the facility, and then failed to do so? And if they failed to do so, was it because of negligence, or because they were given other orders?

Or, in the infinitely more likely scenario, was securing the facility never outlined as an objective or implemented? It's not like "the troops" are some amorphous creature that roam around just DOING SHIT. They follow orders. They are soldiers. When those orders fall short of important objectives, blame rests with those who GAVE the orders.

This is the same bullshit pattern that BushCo has always used. They used it with the banner on the USS Lincoln, they used it during the Abu Ghraib scandal, and they're using it now. "It was the troops, not their leader, that screwed up." And the administration believes that since their troops follow orders, they won't speak up for themselves.

That may or may not be true. But what they WILL do is lose confidence in their Commander In Chief, and when that happens, we have already lost. When that happens soldiers DIE.

[Jai4WKC08]

14. Probably not an assigned mission

But whether it was or wasn't, the simple facts are that Bush and Rumsfeld sent the military in with insufficient force to do everything it needed to, and they required the planners to base all their post-war plans on a "flowers and candy" scenario.

The Army Chief of Staff is the #1 go-to guy for planning and advising on manpower requirements. Shinseki told 'em what was needed and they blew him off. The commanders in the field probably knew they needed to secure weapons storage areas, but they were fighting a war, remember? You can only do what you can do.

War on the cheap and out in 6 months. A "low hanging fruit."

Yeah, right.

[aden_nak]

17. Oh, I agree. They were DRASTICLY under-numbered.

But my point is that if there was no assigned mission to secure and index this site, then the troops would have no reason to do so. And as few of them as we have on the ground, they doubtless had other goals to achieve on a mind-crushingly-abrupt schedule.

So in essence, Bush is critsizing the troops for NOT disobeying orders?

What a turd sandwich.

[Jai4WKC08]

19. Well, first they tried to blame the UN

That didn't work, so they tried to blame the Russians. That didn't work either.

Now Bush is blaming the military. We should be surprised?

[aden_nak]

20. I'm surprised. He forgot to blame Clinton.

And I really do mean that. I fully expected them to say that someone from the Clinton Administration misfiled the documents, or "misunderestimated" the importance of the facility. . . something assinine like that. But gladly accepted by his crazy fundie base.

[Jai4WKC08]

32. Forgot to blame Clinton...

LOL! Yeah, I forgot about that one. I'm surprised to.

[Jai4WKC08]

41. Ah, but you know who Bush did NOT forget to blame?

The "liberal" media. In fact, the campaign's very first reaction was to criticize the NYT for breaking the story right before the election.

[BootinUp]

13. Somehow I KNEW that was coming.

:)

[eataTREE]

15. Clark odds-on favourite for Sec'y of Defense in the Kerry Administration.

(n/t)

[aden_nak]

18. Hasn't been retired for 10 years, so he can't be SoD.

At least, I believe that is the rule.

[eataTREE]

22. That's too bad.

I did not know that rule. Could he be appointed to a different cabinet position, unrelated to the military?

[aden_nak]

25. I believe only Secratary of Defense has that rule.

So yes, he could. Secretary of State, perhaps? We have a General filling that spot now. How about if he heads up the Department of Homeland Security? You know, after we make that group USEFUL.

[Jai4WKC08]

28. Yeah, that's the rule

It would take a waiver from both houses of Congress, as opposed to just Senate confirmation.

There is a precedent, however. General Marshall was given a waiver and made SecDef for one year during the Korean War. But Truman had been president for a while when he nominated Marshall. I can't see any newly elected president taking the chance, especially with the opposition he's bound to get from Congress, even if by some stroke of luck or fate, we win back the majority.

Wes Clark should be Sec of State, but it ain't gonna happen.

I'd personally like to see him replace Porter Goss when a new Director of National Intelligence is created. Or before, in anticipation. What a perfect guy to make the transition of centralizing congrol of intelligence resources away from the military, while still making sure military intelligence requirements are met, and that the process is established to make sure they're met in the future. And besides, I can think of NO ONE I'd trust more to put the good of the nation above partisanship.

Which is probably why it won't happen either.

Chief of Homeland Security wouldn't be a bad job. Someone who knows the score needs to take that shaky, politicized, slapped-together organization and make it work. Clark could do it, and do it right.

[Donna Zen]

29. Not a biggie

The rule has been waived before, and can be waived for Clark.

That does not mean Clark wants the job, or is even mentioned by the leaks from the Kerry camp, it just means that the 10 year rule is not that great of an obstacle.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Wes rocks! He was only 4th down on my list of preferred

candidates, right in front of... well, nevermind.

Lets get those Bush bastards!

[faithnotgreed]

21. you know it has to chap those like wes to no end that republicans

always seem to send out (only ones they can find) those who never served in the military a day in their life

easy for them to talk it all up when they dont even know what theyre talking about

[sandersadu]

27. SECT'Y OF STATE

I love Wes Clark.

This man has to be Secretary of State, and Holbrooke can be his deputy or NSA.

I have to think that because the one point-persons on this issue, when Kerry wins, Wes will be in a high position. Please God let it happen, Clark is a true Patriot, and will be President one day after Kerry's 2 terms.

[JI7]

23. i would love to see Clark go face to face with Ghouliani

[wicket]

24. I love Wes!!!!!!

:kick:

[Texas_Dem]

26. Give em hell General!

[Donna Zen]

30. Secretary of Kicking Ass

...and Chairman of Taking Names




"This White House doesn't even know where the buck is." - Wes Clark

[blm]

31. Well done, General. BushInc WANTS to destroy the military so they can

finish PRIVATIZING it, like Cheney started to do when he was Sec. of Defense.

Recall that it was HALLIBURTON who was paid to do refueling on the USS Cole.

Look how much of the military has been outsourced to private firms already.

[byronm]

33. Yeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwww

GOOOO WES!!!!

[samtob]

34. Obviously I have been in a coma for the past 20 hours

Could someone kindly post a link to what the hell Giuliani said?

[LuminousX]

35. God Bless, Wes!

[Robbie67]

38. CLARK on Bill Maher Friday night!

11p EDT HBO

[Robbie67]

39. WHOA! On with Kevin Costner and Richard Belzer!

Annthrax Coulter and Tom Friedman by satellite!

http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/home.shtml

[Leilani]

40. Thats our guy! Go Wes!!!

Wes should be out on the talk shows defending our military against this corrupt regime.

To blame our troops for civilian mistakes is a disgrace!

This fubar plan was planned by civilian idealogues at the Pentagon, who do not have a clue.

[Shopaholic]

42. Damn I love that man!

Preach it Wes!