Clark says we need to commit to Economic Development in Afghanistan.

[KoKo]

Says that we need to provide wherewithall to help Afghani's plant wheat and other agricultural products than growing poppies.

Clark keeps repeating that Iraq and Afghanistan are not Viet Nam, over and over.

He says that a level of resistence can't succeed in in Iraq. He says that Iraq is "Doable" :eyes: What the hell is this...he's spouting PNAC line. :nuke:

DU Clark supporters, in this discussion Clark sounds like a PNAC/REGIME CHANGE IS GOOD apologizer. :shrug: He seems to be "rationalizing Iraq invasion."


C-Span discussion right now replayed from Library of Congress from March.

[CJCRANE]

1. They probably

are "doable" with the right policies in place and an administration with international support. It's just that that's not gonna happen with the neocons in power.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. If you make any more of these leaps in logic

you could become a world class triple jumper! We can have an honest discussion about what Clark was talking about in March when he said Iraq was "doable", even though I am at a disadvantage because I did not see this and am relying on your reporting for both accuracy and correct context. But morphing that into spouting PNAC's line and "rationalizing the invasion" is simply a reckless rhetorical leap off the deep end. All the facts, hundreds of prior public statements, thousands of hours on the stump, tens of written articles not to mention two books, all this establishes that Clark is one of the most pointed and outspoken PNAC critics, and that Clark repeatedly has raked Bush over the coals for the "strategic blunder/elective war" he routinely characterizes the Iraq invasion as. So take a deep breath and calm down. Clark HAS NOT gone over to the dark side.

I'm gonna post this part first to get it on record then start on another post about the likely content and intent of his remarks.

[CarolNYC]

3. I believe that this broadcast

is a replay of that discussion from Book TV with Dana Priest and Sadako Ogata from a couple of months back.

The video can be seen here
http://www.u-wes-a.com/post.html
under March 2005...for those who'd like to see what the General actually said.

[Adelante]

4. Nice try, KoKo

No cigar, though.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. OK. On content

First off Clark is 100% right about economic development in Afghanistan, that's not controversial is it? If we had not turned our back on Afghanistan after we helped them defeat the Russian invasion there is an excellent chance that the world would be a much safer place now. See, it's one thing for the United States to ignore the plight of desperately poor and oppressed people around the world. We do that all the time, nothing news worthy about that. But once we stick our big noses smack dab into the middle of another countries business, regardless of whether our intent was ill or benign, we are branded by the results.

There is a larger conflict going on right now. The majority of the world's people are underprivileged. They know we in the United States aren't about to suddenly turn over all our riches to them, but will we at least offer some technical assistance here and there, will we at least not actively work against them at every turn? Afghanistan is an opportunity for the United States to show some minimal good will. We pledged to help Afghanistan, are all our words even worth the paper they are printed on?

As for Iraq. Do you remember Somalia? A nation dissolved into s patchwork of competing war lords? Now think of Iraq, a nation with an educated population with advanced technical and scientific skills, huge stores of ammunition and explosives, and potential vast oil wealth. Imagine Al Quada setting up a permanent deeply rooted and extensive series of bases in Iraq to use as a spring board for attacks on the West, the United States front and center. It can be 10 times worse than what developed in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

The thing is the Taliban were seen as oppressors by most in Afghanistan. They didn't welcome that kind of rule. And most Iraq citizens do not want Iraq to become home to a radical fundamentalist Islamic Jihad either. That's what Clark means when he says Iraq "is doable". The fact that it is "doable" doesn't mean that the Bush Administration is competent enough to know how "to do it". That is the crime we are all about to be punished for. Clark opposed going into Iraq. The United States went in anyway. The clock can not be rolled back. A complete American withdrawal tomorrow of all our military forces, our technical advisers, our contractors and aid (both with and without strings attached) will not restore Iraq to the state it was in Pre American invasion. We have a new reality to deal with. Post invasion Iraq. Standing on our opposition to the invasion in the first place is not a sufficient response to that reality.

[Jai4WKC08]

6. So you're against nation building?

That's pretty Reaganesque, isn't it?

[FrenchieCat]

7. Poster should really have stayed away

from making conclusions based on remarks without even providing a link.

That's not politics; that's dishonest.

Drudge does this, but even he posts a link.

My respect for OP poster has gone down several notches just based on this shameless run and hit op smear.

Not good. :shrug: