Long Wes Clark interview at www.salon.com

[roguevalley]

http://www.salon.com/news/lotp/2005/06/20/wes_clark/index.html

Q: Your presidential campaign stumbled right out of the box when you were asked about the Iraq war resolution. Looking back now, do you think that was the defining moment for your campaign, that you were doomed from that point on?

A: Well, what I said in testimony repeatedly was that I believed that Congress should empower the president to go forward with a resolution to the United Nations. But I warned against giving him a blank check. I would never have supported the resolution as it ultimately emerged.

Q: But you wavered on that over the course of that particular day.

A: On that particular day, I explained -- well, I tried to explain -- what my views were on the war. It was a conversation that was less than complete -- let's put it that way.

Q: Has the Downing Street memo had any impact on your views about the war?

A: You should go back and take a look at the book I wrote in the summer of 2003 <"Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire">. Essentially, the Downing Street memo confirms everything I said.

Q: Do you think the memo will change the way Americans think about the war or the president?

A: The Downing Street memo hasn't been given adequate recognition in the press. I think the truth about Iraq is this: It was an elective war; it was a war we didn't have to fight. But this administration chose to fight it. I've said that very consistently, from way before I became a candidate and all through my campaign.

[Justice]

1. Great article, thanks for posting

[Boo Boo]

2. Thanks for posting this roguevalley

:kick:
Kicked and nominated.

[ClarkUSA]

3. "Democrats talk alot about policy"

"People who don't know much about you probably assume that you're a one-trick pony -- that you're all about national security. But you've spoken out forcefully on other issues, too. Will national security still be the most important thing in 2008, or will other issues become more important as we get closer to that election?

I think the Democratic Party has to do three things. It has to prove itself a full-service party that is able to deal with and sustain the confidence of the American people on national security.

That's No. 1.

That's No. 1. No. 2 is that it has to show that it's a party that can appeal to, and has appeal in, all parts of the country. We're not writing people off. In fact, local Democratic parties in the South are quite strong -- they just don't have a national
connection. The reason is that a lot of the people who vote Democratic on bread-and-butter issues see the national election as something that's more about the future of America. It's not about road improvements, school improvement, Medicaid. It's about which party can best protect and take America forward.

The Democrats do a good job at the local level, but when you get to the national level, we've got to be a party that puts America first -- before any of the particular issues we like to talk about in our party. Democrats talk a lot about policy. But those policy issues, you know, they seldom decide a national
election. National elections are decided on convictions. They're decided, ultimately, on a gut check the voter makes. It's not head, it's heart, as the voter goes into the booth and says, Who's the best person and what's the best party to entrust the future of this country to?"

......

...when they go into the , they see the issue -- of who they can trust with the future of the country -- through their heart, while the (Democratic Party) tends to look at it in terms of policy competition.

Does that start with standing up for yourselves as a party?

It does.

:applause: Nominated!

[capi888]

4. WOW, Terrific Article: Everyone should read it!

Thank You for posting this Article RogueValley, I printed it off and saved it in my files...Sure appreciate!:toast:

[Adelante]

5. Life of the Party series by Salon

"Life of the Party," a series of discussions with policymakers, candidates, pollsters, analysts, big thinkers, bloggers -- you name it -- about the present and future of the Democratic Party.

I'm really glad they invited Wes. I like that he calls for "Americans to get moving" on what kind of country we want to be. The country really does need a clarion call and "Get Moving" seems like a good one.

So is it time for Democrats to come in with a forceful alternative view, or is it more a matter of letting Republicans hoist themselves on their own petard?

Democrats need a coherent vision of where we want to take America. I don't think there's been a time in recent memory when everyday life in America has been so affected by events abroad -- not just on national security and public safety but on our jobs, our healthcare, our retirement security. Nor has there been a time when what we did at home was so determinative of our future. For example, we're simply not going to be competitive at the levels we want to be in a global economic era unless we can really improve American public education.

And what can you do about issues like these over the next however long it is before you make a decision about 2008?

It's a matter of both formulating and speaking and acting. I laid out a strategy in the book I published in 2003, "Winning Modern Wars," in the sixth chapter. It's still the right strategy for America. It's even more current now than it was then about how we have to conduct ourselves abroad and what we have to do at home to meet the competition from overseas. And then I think we've got to encourage Americans to get moving.

"Get moving" in what sense?

On education, healthcare reform, dealing with the reality of poverty, heading off crises before they erupt into war, promoting better business practices at home and a better business environment at home.

[CarolNYC]

6. Wow, this is a great interview....

I think if we all post our favorite parts, the whole interview will end up getting posted. :)

I liked this message:

But for all that, Clark says that the success of any Democrat in 2008 will depend as much on the Democratic Party as on the candidate it runs. The party has "deep construction" to do before Americans will trust Democrats to keep them safe, Clark says, and the time to begin that work is now.

"It can't be done in the heat of a political campaign," Clark says, "and it's not about a candidate. It's really about a party, and I think it requires an array of voices over a sustained period of time whose views can be assessed and measured against events."


And here's what he had to say about Kerry and the campaign:

Clark: And as you know from the campaign, a lot of effort was made to distort Kerry's message, which I thought was very clear and should have been very reassuring to Americans.
.....

Q: Returning to the idea of standing up for what you believe in, I keep hearing the line, "If Kerry didn't stand up for himself against attacks from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, how could we know that he'd stand up for our country?" Do you think that's the right analysis of what Kerry did wrong?

Clark: I don't know whether that analysis is right, but I don't think that, going forward, it's the question we should be focused on. What I'd like to focus on is, how do we ensure that the American people trust the Democratic Party?

Me: Amen to that! :thumbsup:

[AllyCat]

7. Love this part:

Wes: And so, as I started to say, there's three things the Democratic Party has to do: No. 1 is full service. No. 2 is, across the country, nobody left out. No. 3 is we've got to be a party that the American people understands will fight and stand up for what we believe in.

Salon: Does that start with standing up for yourselves as a party?

Wes: It does.

See? Howard Dean and Dick Durbin are right on the money!

Great article! Thanks for posting that. About time to renew subscription and this is a good kick in the pants to get it done.

[Totally Committed]

16. you betcha!

Salon: Does that start with standing up for yourselves as a party?

Wes: It does.

It's about effing time, too! Go, Wes!

TC

[AllyCat]

20. Sent a LTTE at Salon stating as much

Nice article. Makes a lot of good points about what needs to happen to the Dem party.

[Sparkly]

8. I wrote the author/interviewer a short "thank you."

It's nice to be able to write something positive to a reporter, for a change! :D

Thanks for posting the link!

[ClarkUSA]

18. I did too...

Good idea!

[TwilightZone]

9. Get moving!

The title certainly sums up the article and Mr. Clark, in general (pun not intended).

I find it a bit surprising that there is so much surprise in the media (and even here on DU) about the Downing Street memo. Clark had been saying all of those things on nearly a daily basis during his campaign and before.

The outcome of Election '04 could certainly have been different had he jumped in a few months earlier. If (when?) he runs in '08, he'll be a serious contender.

[ksclematis]

13. Wes is sooooo inspiring...

If he doesn't get the Dems moving, I don't know who will ever be able to get them off their butts..... It's been a long time since anyone has taken the whole party on his back.

But, just because he's got a job on FOX, when will the other cable/net media give him anything????

I like this thread better than the last one I was on....:)

[Clark2008]

10. My favorite party was this exchange:

It seems like that would have, if not the dual purpose, at least the dual effect, of shaping the debate and broadening your own portfolio a bit.

Well, I have a broad background. People in uniform have had incredibly varied careers, and they've done a lot of things. Because so many Americans don't haven't gone through the military themselves, they may be not aware of that.

In the military I was responsible for 44,000 schoolchildren in Europe. I had a number of hospitals , I had to deal with problems of diplomacy, I had to deal with base-closure problems and job problems in the civilian economy, I had a big budget to manage -- in addition to being a sort of traditional general. And in the military, we got all the education that you could possibly want. I had a degree in philosophy, politics, economics. I taught political philosophy and economics. I was an assistant in the White House Office of Management and Budget. I saw how budget decisions are made. I saw how the president goes through the annual budget, and I worked the process with Congress.

:woohoo: You go, Wes!

[AllyCat]

21. Yeah, lets keep this handy for those who say Wes doesn't know

domestic policy. :eyes: He'll have it in spades by the time he is finished with the next two years, not that he really needed help in that arena.

Go Wes!

[FrenchieCat]

11. Thanks.....

for this Article where Wes tells it like it is!

See folks, just like you and me.....Wes Clark doesn't mind stating that he knew, just like we knew about the DSM (the contents, that is)long before it was published. What are others saying about the DSM? Are they saying they knew....or are they treating it as a brand new revelation?

I support Wes Clark, and this interview illustrates why.

[ClarkUSA]

12. Still waiting for most of the DNC establishment to speak up on DSM....

I'm proud that Wes Clark brought it up in the interview and actually wrote about what we now know actually happened.

Not that anyone paid him any careful mind to what he wrote but us.

[Totally Committed]

14. The "DNC Establishment"....

hasn't got a single working set.

It's people like Clark, Boxer, Conyers, and Dean that are going to be kicking butt and taking names on our behalf. These are the people we should support to the hilt!

TC

[Clark2008]

15. Which is how I knew, because he told me.

His courage is why I support him.

[Clarkie1]

17. Thanks for posting this.

I was going to post it myself if somebody hadn't already. It's nice to have such a long, in-depth interview with such good questions and analysis (unlike many 5-10 minute T.V. spots).

[Larry in KC]

19. Thanks for posting, and let's write to thank them

I wrote to Salon and Mr. Grieve in thanks. No big deal as a letter, but I think it's an important something we forget too often. Many of us are quick to get our hackles up, and to write and speak out angrily when we're covered poorly, but forget both to thank them and to let them know we're paying attention when they report fairly and well.

Anyway, I wrote:

Dear Salon and Mr. Grieve,

Thank you for the in-depth interview with General Clark. It is so refreshing to encounter interviews which allow the subject to answer at some length, and do not appear driven by a reporter's agenda.

Especially in the political arena, in which we're asked to judge politicians (and potential presidents) by such a wide variety of criteria that in essence, we're weighing the whole person, it's crucial that we are allowed to read or hear their thoughts at some length without having to dodge another's biased filter. That doesn't mean, of course, that the reporter shouldn't ask pointed questions, to bring out interesting and thoughtful answers, and Mr. Grieve did just that.

Taking General Clark's answers into account, and adding them to what I've learned about the man to date, I can only say, I HOPE he runs for president in 2008. He's the sort of president we sorely need.

[1932]

22. The thing that Clark isn't up-front about:

In his book he says that we didn't have to FIGHT the Iraq war because we could have achieved our imperial agenda using our economic power.

To me, that begs the question, can't economic imperialism be as bad as military imperialism?

If Clark is -- and I do believe he is -- in the Robert Rubin/Larry Summers/Wall St/Treasury Department camp, which believes in the Washington Consensus -- that privatization and market liberalization is cool (rather than building up middle classes and letting foreign countries rather than Wall St make money off their natural resources) -- then his version of soft conquest is ultimately going to be as destabilizing as military conquest, and it's going to cause as much misery for Americans as well as foreigners.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. The opinion aspect of your post is fair enough

but I never like it when people put words in other people's mouths like "In his book he says that we didn't have to FIGHT the Iraq war because we could have achieved our imperial agenda using our economic power." Ummm, he doesn't "say that", that is your read on the implications of what he did say. There is a difference you know, and the difference is important from an intellectual honesty stand point.

[ClarkUSA]

30. Are you going to keep misrepresenting Clark on every thread you can?

Well, well, and you're a newbie and so far, I've met you on several threads saying the same garbage about General Clark. And you sound SO familiar.

You have an obvious Clarkbashing agenda.

And you have yet to present any factual quotes about what he says "in his book".

Why don't you pick up "his book" and quote from it as many of us have the same "book" plus provide complete footnotes.

:tinfoilhat:

[Totally Committed]

31. All this is just so much...

:tinfoilhat: bullshit.

If you are anti-Clark, have the balls to just say so and be done with it.

TC

[1932]

23. Is Clark OK with conquest?

Clark:...The administration's overall strategy is sort of unarguable in the broadest sense. The problem is that it is not executing it well.

Salon: "Unarguable" in the sense that the United States has to stay in Iraq until the job is done?

Clark: "Unarguable" in the sense that you have to create an Iraqi government that people can have confidence in, that has legitimacy. You also have to have the ability to train the Iraqi military and security forces to take over an increasing proportion of the burden. And you have to deal with Iraq's rough neighborhood.

Clark's pretty vague here. The administration's overall strategy is that it wants a military presense in the Middle East to scare Arab countries into cooperationg with the US. It can do that through manipulating the government the US wants into power. Creating a government doesn't address the issue of what kind of government there should be -- one that represents Iraqis or one that represents the US's interests. The answer can't be implied. Clark needs to be up front about where he stands on this issue.

The US trained Phillipines to police Philippines 100 years ago and that didn't stop the guerilla war. It helped the US make a great deal of money off its colony, but it destabilized the country, caused misery, and what resulted is still a mess a century later. So, just saying we need to train an Iraqi police force isn't providing a solution. It wasn't a solution in the Philippines, and unless the police force is enforcing laws which benefit the people of Iraq, it's not going make things better.

Clark's third vague solution -- "dealing with the rough neighborhood" -- might be tipping his hand. Yes, that's why Bush invaded Iraq. It wasn't WMD. It wasn't (legitimate) humanitarian concerns. And it wasn't the desire to give Iraqis a government which worked for the people of Iraq. It was to have a base from which the US could put pressure on the rest of the Middle East to bend to its will. We do this with the IMF and we do this with soldiers. Either way, it was never worked out well.

[Donna Zen]

24. John O'Neill thought it was a rough neighborhood too!

[1932]

25. Is John O'Neill a neoliberal representing Wall Street's interests?

If he is, then I don't want him as my president.

Or, another way to put this, whether the Middle East is a rough neighborhood isn't the issue.

The issue is whether we're going to have a government driven by Wall Street, the Treasury Department and Republicans and Democrats who believe that the most important thing for American foreign policy is rapid privatization and unregulated markets (and that economic competition, employment in decently-paying jobs, and large middle classes aren't so important).

Conquest, whether by a large military, by surgical strikes, or by the IMF is all equally destabilizing and, the thing about pure economic imperialism is that it can create quite a bit of misery -- sometimes more than a war alone, or, at least, coupled with a war, it causes the maximum amount of misery.

If you want to make the Middle East not so rough, then how about using the IMF and the World Bank and the spending powers of the US Congress to make sure all the countries in that region are building up employed middle class populations and that that there's education, entrepreneurialism, and opportunity, and that the power of the oligopoly dissipates?

Don't we know by now that conquest in all its forms does way more harm then good?

Africa is a rough neighborhood too. Does Clark think we need to invade one strategic country and use it as a base from which to deal with neighboring countries?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[1932]

27. John O'Neill was head of security at the WTC and was a US intel ofcr

before that.

That you don't understand my point -- that it doesn't matter what John O'Neill thinks about how rough the neighborhood is if I'm not electing him president -- suggests that you...well...don't have a good answer to the questions I'm raising.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Unfortunately, there is nothing to comment on.

Good you found out who O'Neill is!

The rest of my comments still applies.

Here they are again...
You're not making any sense. Clark didn't say any of what you did.
Your problem is that you don't know Jack....and you don't know Clark.

[1932]

35. Why attack messenger rather than message.

I am so sure that my observations are legitimate.

Why not address them? Why label me?

OK, my turn to make this personal.

Say Clark is a Rubin-Summers-Gore neoliberal who is more interested in economic empire than in seeing wealth develop in countries with large middle classes all over the world. Say he is interested in projecting military and economic power around the globe in a way the protects the Washington Consenus -- in a way that's good for the financial interests first and foremost.

Would you have a problem with that?

Do you consider yourself a neoliberal?

Or would that be a problem if Clark were a neoliberal?

[FrenchieCat]

36. That's not what I am doing.....

If you are not really making sense; grabbing on any word that you read and interpreting it like a snowflake that turns into an avalanche, then a discussion cannot be had.

You remind me of someone I used to know....who, from one out of context sentence would end up writing a book.

He sometimes went by the name of JOM. He has since "passed on", but I remember him like it was yesterday.

[1932]

42. If Clark were a neoliberal?

If he were a neoliberal who represented the interests of finance and Wall St (as Rubin, Gore, Summers, etc do) would you have a problem with that?

BTW, I'm not JOM, but I will be passing on soon enough. Just bare with me and help answer my questions. They're all legitimate questions to ask. Many are simply a matter of interpreting Clark's two books.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Unfortunately for you,

I'm not here to answer your hypothetical questions....

"IF Clark was a Neoliberal.....would you have a problem with that?"

Clark is an FDR Liberal, http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html
and his economic/foreign policy philosophy does not reflect that of a Neoliberal based on the definition as provided below:
See.....

The term neoliberalism was coined by Conservative Republicans to describe a political-economic philosophy that had major implications for government policies beginning in the 1970s – and increasingly prominent since 1980 – that de-emphasizes or rejects positive government intervention in the economy (that complements private initiative), focusing instead on achieving progress and even social justice by encouraging free-market methods and fewer restrictions on business operations and economic development. Supporters argue that a 'trickle down' approach whereby society eventually benefits is genuine, whilst detractors tend to think that government intervention can focus the social dimension of big business.

It can be contrasted with economic nationalism, fair trade and anti-capitalism, three different alternatives to neoliberalism.

Brief discussion
The term neoliberalism is not the only one for this movement, many supporters argue that it is simply "liberalism," while critics often label it pejoratively as "Thatcherism." Because of close association between this philosophy and neoclassical economics, and confusion with the overloaded term "liberal," some advocate the term "neoclassical philosophy." It is criticized (in different ways) by socialist, social liberalist, anarchist, and conservative parties, as well as by intellectuals and economists. Some portray neoliberalism as the imposition of "free markets from the top-down" since it has been promoted by international financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank and by centralized state organizations such as the European Union and the U.S. government. Others identify neoliberalism with neo-corporatism, and political-economic domination by multinational corporations.

Though many liberals adhere to neoliberalism, their ideology has a broader content, and other liberals oppose neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is not a version of the new liberalism of John Dewey, Woodrow Wilson, John Maynard Keynes, Franklin Roosevelt, or the British Liberal Democrats, which saw a positive role for government through interventionism in the economy. Rather, it focuses on the establishment of a stable medium of exchange, and the reduction of localized rules, regulations and barriers to commerce, and the privatization of state-run enterprises. Critics of neoliberalism associate it with globalization, and with the rise of multinational corporations, as well as monetary and fiscal austerity at the expense of social programs.

The term is often used as a pejorative; in this context it means not the economic theory, but the implementation of global capitalism and the power of multinational corporations, as well as the effects of free trade on wages and social structures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

[1932]

53. So you don't know if Clark is a neoliberal?

[FrenchieCat]

55. See

Sentence #3 of post #47. If you can't make out my answer to that questoin from that sentence and the information provided with it...but yet, you can cull all kinds of meaning from a couple of Wes' words....

then Houston Honey.....I think we've got a problem!

[1932]

57. "They're all legitimate questions to ask. "

?

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. This is a very clear and to the point sentence:

Clark: "Unarguable" in the sense that you have to create an Iraqi government that people can have confidence in, that has legitimacy."

What is not easy to understand about that? Now I am not claiming that that is Bush's policy, but that is what Clark is calling for. Do you have a problem with that?

You said: "Clark's pretty vague here. The administration's overall strategy is that it wants a military presence in the Middle East to scare Arab countries into cooperation with the US. It can do that through manipulating the government the US wants into power. Creating a government doesn't address the issue of what kind of government there should be -- one that represents Iraqis or one that represents the US's interests. The answer can't be implied. Clark needs to be up front about where he stands on this issue."

I'm sorry but Clark was NOT vague, you are the one being vague in your implications about what Clark did say. Let's go over this again. You said: "Creating a government doesn't address the issue of what kind of government there should be -- one that represents Iraqis or one that represents the US's interests. The answer can't be implied. Clark needs to be up front about where he stands on this issue."

Clark said: ""Unarguable" in the sense that you have to create an Iraqi government that people can have confidence in, that has legitimacy."

Clear talk from Clark, it's your spin that is confusing. You are the one talking about conquest and manipulation, not Clark.

[1932]

34. What does Clark mean by "confidence"?

On the one hand, he's talking about how Iraq should be used as a platform from which to put pressure on the rest of the middle east, and on the other he's making vague allusions to governments that people have confidence in.

I suspect that Iraqis are not going to have confidence in any government that enables the US in their mission to occupy Iraq and use the occupation to pressure neighbors to fall in line with American policy. Say, part of the American goal is to flood the market with Iraqi oil to reduce the wealth of Saudi Arabia so that Saudi Arabia can't finance Islamist movements. Do you think the Iraqis are going to have confidence in a government that makes that happen?

I noticed that Clark passed off on the 'solutions" question in his Salon interview by referring the interviewer and readers to Chapter 6 of Winning Modern Wars.

Let's set aside the problem of Clark not being able to summarize for readers his solutions in way that is clear (and I still say that (a) a confidence-inspiring government, without saying what the government would do or look like, (b) a US-backed Philippines-style police force, and (c) Iraq as a platform for pressure on rough neighbors are three solutions that raise many more questions than they answer).

The bigger problem with Clark referring people to Chapter 6 of winning modern wars is that it is wishy washy and vague. In it, Clark lauds conquest -- he talks about how successful and breathtaking the army's conquest of Iraq was. (What does it matter how breathtaking it was if it is the mess it is now -- and no matter how breathtaking the invasion, what is happening now is the consequence of that invasion, so why even laud conquest like that? Clark only criticizes Bush for how he conquered Iraq and not that he conquered Iraq,and he makes an argument for the US projecting its power economically and with precision-guided wars (like the one he commanded in Iraq).

All this begs the question of why we go to war. Clark never talks about that, because to talk about that would be to reveal the neoliberal in him -- the fact that he's all for the Wall St, Ron Brown, Lawrence Summers, Robert Rubin, Clinton Treasury Department, Washington Consensus, economic imperialist, do it for the financial interests version of spreading "democracy"?

Yugoslavia wasn't the right thing because it helped project American economic power. It was the right thing because it stopped the spread of fascism. Clark doesn't seem interested in that discussion, and, in fact, seems to think conquest to project the new economic empire is fine. He calls it 'humble' and talks about its success. But in the wake of new empire has been a great deal of misery.

One of the biggest problems with Clark as a candidate is that the difficulty in resolving his pro-conquest arguments with his anti-Bush arguments. The Salon interview pointed this out, and we didn't get an answer form Clark. It's not enough just to have a pro-military person call himself a Democrat. That doesn't do much unless that person can make a very clear argument about "new" imperialism that conforms to democratic principles.

Had the US Treasury Department under Clinton been subjected to a public referendum on their attitudes toward neoliberalism, it would have lost, and that is why so much of their policy-making is done secretly.

Now Clark is trying publicly to walk this line between being pro-certain kinds of American empire, and being anti-a very narrowly defined sort of military empire (which he fails at, if you ask me, in his book-length argument culminating in Ch. 6 of WMW). It is so confusing and unsatisfying that the best he can do is pass of people to wade through the chapter without being able to summarize it clearly, and to leave his supporters arguing only about his character and the criticizing people like me who have real questions about his neoliberalism for being uninformed.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[1932]

41. That's my point:

Clark doesn't have a problem with projecting empire. He only has a problem with how it's projected.

There are good reasons for deposing Hussein. Liberal internationalists would say that one shouldn't let fascists grow their power and that we must step in when people are oppressed, and the solution is a kind of democracy and society where a middle class can form and accumulate wealth and power.

There are bad reasons, in my opinion. Neoliberals say that American economic empire is wonderful because privatization and free markets solve all problems and it doesn't matter if wealth concentrates in the hands of the wealthy so long as markets are free. That's the philosophy financial interests have projected on the world through the IMF and by even Clinton's Treasury and State Departments, while liberals I respect --for example, Clinton's anti-trust section of the Justice Department, Council of Economic Advisors, and a few other places--said liberal internationalism is the best route for global security and prosperity.

Clark never explicitly aligns himself with one or the other philosophy. However, the silence (and his extra-political activities) is incriminating. I encourage people to read his books so they can understand this issue.

I admit that I could be wrong about neoliberalism. I simply would prefer a world not run by people like Rubin, Gore and Summers who represent the interests of finance. I could be wrong. They could be right. All I hope for is that when people decide for whom they vote, they're making an informed decision and if they don't want neoliberals governing, they're not voting for neoliberals.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. Your issue is with 95% of the Democratic Party and 99.98%

of the Republican Party, at least be honest about that. The reason why you remind so many of us so much of another tombstoned poster is because you always inject Clark into the center of your fight against American Imperialism. OK, you are including a couple of other Democrats this time, but still you pinned it on Clark when it is Clark who is actually speaking out authoritatively against the Bush/PNAC plans.

What about Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Warner, Clinton, Biden etc. Hell, what about McCain, Frist, Allen, Hagel etc. etc. ?

You have a big problem about how America is in the world. Yes, it is a big problem. Much much bigger than your fixation on Clark.

[1932]

56. No it isn't. There were plenty of Dems in Clinton's administration

who disagreed with Summers and Rubin and Gore.

Ann Bingaman was one (a lot of people in the Justice Department were good Democrats). Joe Stiglitz is another. Furthermore, there were candidates running in 04 and there will be candidates running in 08 whose objection to Hussein stemmed from a liberal internationalist perspective rather than from a neoliberal perspective.

Look at what Blair did after the UK invaded Basra: they turned it over to theh Shiites. They refused to take political control once they saw Iraqis were able to take political control themselves. There were democrats who advocated that in 04. There were democrats running who clearly didn't side with neoliberals and the Treasury Department and the IMF during the 90s.

I'm definitely in their camp.

It's kind of sad that the response to my questions is a not so latent expression of the wish that I would get tombstoned.

[Tom Rinaldo]

62. You are all over the map. Literally

You talk about global visions of U.S. domination and conquest for economic reasons in one sentence (ignoring the fact that the economic world order has deep roots in London also) and then you hone in on the Brits in Basra as liberators. You know Clark called for the U.S. giving up it's political control of Iraq in late 2003. But here again you twist this into Clark lining up with the bad guys when the facts run contrary.

You have an Axe to grind against Clark and you are hijacking this thread from a discussion of what ACTUALLY was said in the Salon interview to whatever global charges you want to level at Clark.

[1932]

64. Clark incorp'd by ref Ch 6 of WMW

and that's my primary source.

My argument is that clark is very vague about his notion of empire. He lauds it on the one hand, and criticizes Bush's version of it on the other without setting out whether it's neoliberalism that makes him support (new) empire or liberal internationalism that makes him oppose Bush's empire by force.

However, there are other things like Clark's current job, his NED membership and also, to some degree, the elephant in the corner that he creates by studiously lauding masculine conquest (see the first paragraph of Chapter 6) while studiously avoiding negotiating the difference between neoliberalism and liberal internationalism.

[Tom Rinaldo]

66. More of the same

By your definition Kerry Edwards Dean Warner Clinton Biden Gore etc. are all pro empire. A case can be made for that but then the discussion should move in a different direction, like whether or not a third Party movement is best for America right now or instead should we be forming a United Front with moderate empire advocates to resist the more virulent Bush type ones. But you have a Clark fixation. Clark doesn't advocate an "American empire", those are your words again put in his mouth.

And if you call what Clark believes in "Empire" then we are back to the first sentence of this reply; virtually the whole Democratic Party believes in empire. A few may stake out a radical "anti empire" position by your definition, but many more stake out positions to the Right of Clark, upholding America as the leader of the "Free World", and acting as if the Free world is obligated to support us in our leadership. But you show no interest in being critical of virtually the entire Democratic Party, you get off on making Clark your poster boy spokesman for American Empire instead.

Show me one single time, by the way, where Clark has ever used the adjective "manly" or "masculine" in any type of laudatory manner. You are spinning faster than a top. Spin is part of politics sure, but it's still spin and negative spin is what you are pushing when you describe Clark as "lauding masculine conquest" and it is exactly that blatant bias with every spin that you make that leaves your intent exposed.

Clark respects the abilities of our Armed Forces as Armed Forces. He isn't commenting on their suitability as pre school teachers for Christ's sake. Clark also says that force should only, only, only be used as a last resort. Yes I will grant you that once that point is reached that Clark advocates winning over losing. Geeeze.

[Sparkly]

58. That is a TORTURED analysis!!!

Clark's "silence is incriminating?" :eyes:

He's said explicitly "America is NOT an imperial nation." He has never espoused "concentrating wealth."

It's amazing how you're spinning assumptions out of absolutely nothing -- even "silence."

Seems to me if Clark said "The cow jumped over the moon," some would twist it into "What Clark is really saying is that America should wield power in the middle east through imperialist hegemony for the sake of gaining economic power through military force. Not that he ever said that, but we can certainly infer it."

Give me a break!

[1932]

65. He says America isn't a COLONIAL empire.

Then he spends two books lauding "new" empire and economic persuasion.

He takes two sides.

[Sparkly]

69. Do you have a quote?

Can you provide a direct quote in which Clark "lauds new empire?"

As for "economic persuasion," that's long been part of American foreign policy (trade, aid, sanctions, etc.).

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Look Pal, I asked you nicely once

Stop putting words into other people's mouths, OK? It isn't helpful and it isn't nice. I read the Salon interview. I don't know what you were reading when you say: "On the one hand, he's talking about how Iraq should be used as a platform from which to put pressure on the rest of the middle east..."

Clark DID NOT SAY THAT. This is as close as he came:

"And the administration hasn't ever really talked about how to deal with Iraq's neighbors other than to threaten them; and it doesn't talk to some of the neighbors, like Syria and Iran."

Which really has the OPPOSITE meaning from what you implied. Clark is being critical of the Bush Administration attempt to threaten the region from a base inside of Iraq. Clark points out that Bush won't even talk to Iraq's neighbors, and he has consistently been critical of Bush's attempts to bully the world into compliance with our wants.

It is amazing how consistently you twist the meaning of what is actually being said and then turn it into a soap box to espouse your world view.

What does Clark mean by "confidence" as used in the context of his sentence that Iraq needs a government that has the confidence of it's own people? Are your really stumped or do you just refuse to accept that Clark could possibly mean what he says? Do we have to go through the entire Dictionary defining every key word? It seems to me that a government that would have the "confidence" of Iraq's people would be one that Iraq's people were confident was acting in their own interests.

You have an agenda, fine. Most people have agendas. But you insert yours into threads about Clark and you misrepresent what is actually said in them to fit your agenda.

Here is a Clark quote for you:

WKC: Pragmatically, we’re the lone superpower, but we have to be careful: Power creates its own adversaries. We need to use our power in the most generous, constructive way, because our security depends on everyone else. We can’t be safe, secure, or prosperous if we attain it at the expense of the world. So we must be internationalists. If we participate properly, it will serve the interests of the American people."

http://www.maximonline.com/grit/articles/article_5504.html

I have many more, but whenever you find a Clark statement you have an amazing ability to take from it virtually the opposite of what he actually says. You put words in his mouth and they are the words you can use to hammer home your own agenda. You remind me of someone else who used to post here before he was tombstoned.

Start a thread about U.S. global Imperialism if you want, but have the decency to attack 98% of America's elected officials for being complicit by your standards, rather than looking constantly for ways to pin the blame solely on Wesley Clark and several co horts. Include the millions of American who are investing in multi national corporations while you are at it, why don't you.

[1932]

39. Clark's problem isn't that America projects empire.

It's how Bush projected it that is his problem. And he never draws the line between neoliberalism and liberal internationalism, and I think that's a major problem, especially considering that he must know the difference, and because of his ties to major financial interests and the N.E.D. who are neoliberals.

Here's the quote that suggests Clark thinks it's OK for the US to use Iraq as a base from which to project empire on the neighboring countries:

Clark: "Unarguable" in the sense that you have to create an Iraqi government that people can have confidence in, that has legitimacy. You also have to have the ability to train the Iraqi military and security forces to take over an increasing proportion of the burden. And you have to deal with Iraq's rough neighborhood.

Furthermore, Clark's two books are an extended argument on that same theme.

[Clark2008]

40. That is NOT what he's saying!

Where the hell are you reading that out of "deal with Iraq's rough neighborhood."

He's using "deal" as anyone would - not as a "military" term (as in bomb). He's saying it just I would say, "Yeah, well, I have to deal with this problem sooner or later."

You're reading too much into this statement because you're apparently blinded by the military aspect of Clark's career and can't fathom that he can actually speak like a civilian.

Do you also have trouble understanding what the British meant when they said, "fixed?" I'm just asking.

[1932]

43. Many conservatives, including George Friedman, say this:

The real reason the US invaded Iraq was not to secure WMD. He says they did believe they were there, but that was the reason they thought they could sell people. He says the real reason was to establish themselves in a strategic location in the ME from which they would give the rough neighborhood something to think about.

Clark is vague, but when he says the general strategy is good and then says the neighborhood is rough, I suspect what he's saying is that it's right for the US to be in Iraq dealing with the neighborhood.

[Clark2008]

44. But he's never said it before - he's said the opposite

for years.

Maybe you should read his Congressional testimony:

The problem of Iraq is not a problem that can be postponed indefinitely, and of course Saddam's current efforts themselves are violations of international law as expressed in the U.N. resolutions. Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem and in taking this to the United
Nations, the president's clear determination to act if the United States can't -- excuse me, if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage for under girding ongoing diplomatic efforts.

But the problem of Iraq is only one element of the broader security
challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished worldwide war against Al Qaida, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies and that ultimately will be won as much by persuasion as by the use of force. We've got to turn off the Al Qaida recruiting machine. Now some 3,000 deaths on September 11th
testify to the real danger from Al Qaida, and I think everyone acknowledges that Al Qaida has not yet been defeated.

As far as I know, I haven't seen any substantial evidence linking Saddam's regime to the Al Qaida network, though such evidence may emerge. But nevertheless, winning the war against Al Qaida and taking actions against the weapons programs in Iraq, that's two different problems that may require two different sets of solutions. In
other words, to put it back into military parlance, Iraq they're an operational level problem. We've got other operational level problems in the Middle East, like the ongoing conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Al Qaida and the foundation of radical extremist fundamentalist Islam, that's the strategic problem.
We've got to make sure that in addressing the operational problem we're effective in going after the larger strategic problem. And so, the critical issue facing the United States right now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaida or our efforts to deal with
other immediate mid and long-term security problems.

What he's said is that Saddam couldn't go on indefinitely - and has said the intelligence showed Saddam was working to get WMDs (but that that intelligence was, ultimately, wrong), but NOW was NOT the right time.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/clark.perle.testimony.pdf

[1932]

51. That's my point again.

His problem with American foreign policy isn't that America has designs for empire. His problem is how we've gone about it in Iraq.

If you read his books, they're an argument that America doesn't need to use such extreme agression to achieve big or small aims. He says that economic domination is one tool, and the surgical strike is another tool.

In other words, he has no problem with conquest, and he spends little time distinguishing between liberal internatioinalism and neoliberalism, and a lot of the evidence suggests he's OK with neoliberalism.

In some respects, his argument sort of presumes that someone higher up in the command chain decided Iraq has become part of America's foreign policy sphere (or that empire appropriately includes Iraq) and that now the question is how to conquer it (economically, with surgical strikes or whatever). But the fact is, the reasons we invaded Iraq are going to determine how things turn out. That part, Clark doesn't talk about. Success in Iraq almost entirely revolves around the question of whether America can legitimately extend empire to include Iraq. Invading Iraq, deposing Hussein, bringing in a coalition of many nations to help with the transition, and then turning over Iraq to Iraqis so they can build an economy which creates a large, wealthy middle class might work. Invading Iraq, installing a government which allows the US to dominate Iraqi policy, and creating an economy that serves the wealthy will not work no matter how breathtaking the show of American force is that starts off the whole thing. That's what Clark needs to talk about.

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. I'm glad you don't write Cliff Notes because anyone who used them

would fail all of their exams. Your point is your opinion, and in a best case scenario your opinions repeatedly betray your bias, and in a worse case scenario they are outright disingenuous. Your summary of Clark's problem with American Foreign Policy is but the latest in an unbroken string of sweeping condemnations presented as reasoned conclusions supported by "facts" that either are alluded to (take your word for it) or outright twisting of fragments of quotes.

Your "rough neighborhood" extrapolation was priceless, really, but with this one you are really swinging for the fences: "In other words, he has no problem with conquest".

In other words, you have no problem with character assassination and lies. See, it is that easy. Obviously I proved my case through keen logic and references to source materials. You're guilty. This is an easy game to play, being judge prosecutor and jury combined, isn't it?

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. You are listening to your inner voices more than you listen to Clark

Not to mention; There you go again.

To quote you: "Clark is vague, but when he says the general strategy is good..." That is a ludicrously VAGUE summary. Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle black! And then you conveniently define the "strategy" that Clark has supposedly called "good". Friedman is talking about Bush and the Neo Cons, remember? The same people Clark opposed.

If you listen to Clark himself rather than your own sock puppet of Clark, the one that you are always flailing against, he frequently defines exactly what he means about that "rough neighborhood". He says that Syria and Iran in particular are in a position to create almost permanent instability in Iraq if they see it in their national interests to do so. He is right. Nation State Borders in the Middle East are not organic, they were largely imposed on the region by Britain and others. Loyalties flow across borders in Iraq's Neighborhood. I can be more specific about this if you insist. Iraq will never be stabilized in a vacuum that does not involve some degree of regional agreement and accommodation.

Clark states frequently that the Bush Administration policy gives Syria and Iran disincentives to support stability in Iraq. They believe that the U.S. is gunning for them, and Bush gives them every reason to believe that. They want the U.S. bogged down forever in Iraq because that way we are less able to come after them, and there is much they can do to help make sure we stay bogged down in Iraq, at the expense of the people who live there. Clark says we need to stop threatening Iran and Syria and enter into serious regional negotiations with them for a mid East that they all can live with. He is NOT suggesting we impose America's will in the region. He says we should stop threatening the region.

Look, start your own thread if you want to spin way out into left field off your interpretation of a few words Clark said in this Salon interview. The only way you can get to where you have from what Clark said here is through several long leaps of bad faith. Don't hijack this thread to make your own soap box.

[FrenchieCat]

48. Sad to say, but I think that

1932 is talking to himself, and is here trying to make the case that one of HIS voices is Wes Clark....but it isn't.

Imagine how desperate one has to be to cull from the words "Rough Neigborhood" the entire conversation that 1932 has just had with himself.

If find it pretty stupendous.

[ClarkUSA]

49. Warning Will Robertson!! *AFLAC * phenomena detected!!

:shrug: and :tinfoilhat:

*RIP Aflac

Too bad some other tombstoned DUers won't RIP.

[FrenchieCat]

50. With a "Disabled" profile, at that....

Weird how some New to the scene are compeled to "disable" their profiles. Now why would that be?

[Texas_Kat]

61. AFLAC!

[ClarkUSA]

63. BWAHAHAHA!!!

Heeheehee <wiping tears from my face!>

That .gif is positively inspired, Texas_Kat!

:rofl:

[1932]

52. From a reading of Ch. 6 WMW:

clark distinguishes threats of force from economic imperialism and has little problem with economic imperialism.

He believes America should get its way in the middle east and has many tools to do so.

America getting its way, including through economic imperialism, hasn't worked out well in the last couple decades. You'd get the opposite impression from reading Clark's books.

[ClarkUSA]

54. Try giving us actual quotes instead of your Clarkbashing spin

We're still waiting. :eyes:

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. See my post #59. I already completely discredited you based

on a thorough review of all the facts. It was fun. Thanks for the pointers on how it is done.

[roguevalley]

68. since when does 'deal' mean anything beyond that? I 'deal' with

people everyday in working. They are not invaded, killed or imprisoned. Its a term meaning getting together and working out solutions. Bush shoots people. Clark talks to people and mediates. Its the biggest damned difference between the faux weinie and a real man.

[roguevalley]

67. Clark is saying that since we are there, this is what we have to do.

If he had been in charge, we wouldn't be there. Big difference.

[trillian]

33. Kick Ass Interview!

Hope the powers that be in the Party pay attention.

Wes Clark 08 :patriot:

[CarolNYC]

70. I liked this from Eric Alterman's Altercation blog...

Siva Vaidhyanathan (Sivacracy.net) commenting on the salon article:

"Earlier than all the rest, Clark called Bush et al a bunch of liars who had trumped up this illegal invasion of Iraq to distract the country from the real dangers of Islamic fundamentalism. Earlier than the rest, Clark told Democrats they had better have a clear message about defense and security. Earlier than the rest, Clark understood how far draft-dodging cowards on the right will go to discredit a war hero.

Clark is a brilliant and brave patriot. This is what our country needs, more than anything, from either party. The Democrats offered one last time, but he could not stand up the barrage of lies about his record. Clark might have what it takes. But he might not be willing to endure what Kerry did."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/