Video: Gen. Wesley Clark Responds To Bush's Speech

[Mark Williams]

Gen. Wesley Clark is now a regular military analyst for FOX News. He gave a great response to the President's speech tonight. Go Clark!


Gen. Wesley Clark Video Link

[dave502d]

1. Thanks. n/t

[lumpy]

2. Thanks for posting this

Clark is to be admired. Cool, level headed, speaks with integrity.

[JHBowden]

3. See Clarkies, *I* am correct.

I said Clark wanted to stay the course, and the video proves it.

All in this video:

"We cannot afford to lose, we must prevail."

"Now that we're there, we have to succeed."

"We have to get out of there the right way, and the right way is when the job is done."

"We must succeed."

I recognize that Clark would do things differently, but please don't tell me Clark is against staying the course.

[tishaLA]

5. What does any one of those things say about

"staying the course"? It's about eventual victory and a critique of the way this war, which he opposed, has been managed.

[JHBowden]

6. Clark wants to stay until the job is finished.

Is that not clear?

[tishaLA]

8. Saying we need a plan for success is NOT staying the course

We know how well this course has worked, don't we? Why would we want to stay on it?

[JHBowden]

11. Clark doesn't even want a timetable.

The course is staying in Iraq until a democratic government is there, even if it takes an infinity of time and resources.

[FrenchieCat]

13. Correct....

Clark wants real benchmarks to what we are doing. Do you know what those are? That's what he wants.

Timetable, smucktable....

Clark did not say infinite anything. Those are your words.

[tishaLA]

14. No. The course is changing course

and working with Syria and Iran to help stabilize the nation, for one thing. WHen have you heard gorge suggest that course? When have you heard george say our presence is making more terrorists?

Clark advocates many things that are anathema to the current regime. It's just disingenuous to say it's "staying the course."

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. What you describe is achieving a goal

"Staying a course" is a way to reach a goal. I am not trying to be cute with semantics. I recognize that you said that Clark would do things differently, and I agree that he said a number of things like "we can not afford to fail". That does not equate with Staying Bush's course, which is why there is so much static in this discussion around this.

I can respect and understand that you disagree with Clark that a certain goal is achiebable. But Clark is not even setting the same goal as Bush. Clark does not define the goal as a "Democratic Iraq", he defines it as preventing actual terrorists from establishing deep ties and permanent bases in Iraq - he calls for an Iraqi government with the confidence of it's people, he doesn't stipulate that as having to be Democratic.

And the means to achieve it that Clark advocates differ significantly from Bush. Clark is willing to work on achieving a regional understanding whereby States neighboring Iraq will cooperate more in not helping to undermine Iraq's new government. Bush is going in an opposite direction.

Anyway, even if Clark and Dean and Biden and Bayh and other Democrats all agree that we should not simply pull out all of our forces from Iraq immediately, or even establish a specific timeline for doing so, that does not mean that there are not significant differences between them regarding who I can support in 2008. There are honorable, profound disagreements as to what we sholuld do to get ourselvves out of the mess Bush put us in, but my disagreements with those who do not think that Bush put us into this mess are of several degree orders higher. Bayh still thinks the Iraq invasion was a good idea for example.

[Goldmund]

55. Let me ask you this

Since you're eloquently defending Clark's appearance, I'm curious:

On the one hand, he says we're creating more terrorists, who are getting their battle training, and so on.

On the other, we must stiffen our resolve and can't back down.

How do we stiffen our resolve without continuing to create more terrorists?

[tuvor]

59. Clark said nothing about "stiffening resolve".

Did you watch the whole videoclip? He touched on the questions you're raising.

[Goldmund]

62. "We must prevail", "We have to succeed", "We have to stay engaged"

"Get out only when the job's done"... They're all synonymous.

[Tom Rinaldo]

61. Fair enough

Clark wasn't being cute when he called it "a dilemma". This is a classic dilemma, and they do happen in real life. People also call them "no win" situations. Eventually, hopefully after a lot of study, people are forced to make a decision based, if nothing else, on which course of action is likely to lead to less bad things happening.

By the way I am not literally accepting your description of Clark's position, but I know what you are trying to get at so I will not quibble over it.

Anyway actual airtight "no win" situations have to be resolved through "lesser lose" solutions. I think Clark is being brutally honest about what he sees our options being and the likely consequences of them. I accept that others may not read the situation the same as Clark does, but I tend to agree with him.

I will also say this. Because real lives hang in the balance Clark is willing to try to persuade some more or less reasonable Republicans in Congress to push the Bush Administration toward a more sane foreign policy. I pick that up when I see him testifying at Congress. A shift in U.S. policy toward Syria and Iran, some clear signals that Bush is moving away from the PNAC multiple conquest agenda, would significantly change dynamics in the region in a way that would more likely lead to stability inside Iraq and allow the U.S. to pull out which would further increase stability.

Clark is also constantly pushing for more cooperation with our Allies in an attempt to take some of the American face off of our occupation in Iraq. He has asked in the past that moderate Islamic governments be urged to become more involved in Iraq. Beyond that though Clark is trying to mobilize as many resources as possible from other countries in addition to the U.S. to speed up the training of Iraq's own security forces.

What Clark foresees, which many in DU may differ on, is that Bush has totally destabilized Iraq and that it could easily go critical mass into violent civil war and become a very active terrorist staging ground with very negative dramatic consequences for the region and the world. Our Armed Forces ARE a destabilizing presence, but they also are providing a security shield for Iraq's new government, allowing it to grow and take shape and work out agreements between Iraq's major groupings, while training Iraqi security forces that can provide that essential security and stability. I think Clark fears that if we pull out prematurely, Iraq's new government will be attacked, leaders assassinated, some newly forming security forces would dissolve under the assault etc.

Think of Iraq as a patient with an aggressive Cancer. The Cancer will kill it if left unchecked, but the only treatments known are dangerously lethal. Clark is gambling that the cancer treatments will allow the patient to live long enough for their immune system to recover sufficiently to be able to reduce the treatments before they kill the patient. That is the dilemma.

[Goldmund]

63. Thanks very much

I understand your position, and I understand his better than I did before. I passionately disagree with it, but as it's late I'm going to bed, will catch up tomorrow.

Thanks again! :hi:

[Goldmund]

91. The problem is...

...that "Iraq's new government" is cursed from the start. It is a government formed under the umbrella of the invasion, with the blessing of the invader, and consistent with the interests of the invader. Even if we assume that the invader has the best intentions (a wild assumption at that), and even if we assume that the elections were completely fair (another wild assumption), it's all for naught: in Iraqi psyche, this government is not indigenous, not a product of their own struggles and their own will. Yes, Clark is probably right that if we pull out, Iraq's new government will be attacked; but that will be true no matter when we pull out, for this new government will never be seen as truly Iraqi -- again, even if it were so by every other standard. That is the reality that we can face now or we can face after thousands more casualties. The only way to truly help Iraq establish stability is to pull out, apologize for the invasion, and work through political and diplomatic channels.

Bringing in allies (NATO, to be specific) won't change a thing. To Iraqis, it is the same Western world which has had a hand in their affairs for a century that is behind the invasion. Americans, British, French, Germans, Democrats, Republicans -- all beasts of the same domain to them.

This is why invasions like this NEVER work. I don't know of a single historical example in which an equivalent invasion produced an establishment of a stable government. Ever. Do you?

[Tom Rinaldo]

99. The Shiite dominated slate that finished strongest in the election

was the one with the blessing of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. From EVERY report I have ever seen about Iraq, he is the single most revered figure in Iraq, though he is far from universally loved of course. The current Prime Minister was nominated by and drawn from that slate. Bush was hoping that Allawi would win the office, Allawi was "our guy". If he had won what you are saying would be far more true. Even al-Sadr, the "radical" Shiite cleric with a strong following in Baghdad who had launched a holy war against Americans in the holy Shiite cities, is loosely aligned with the current governing Shiite slate. Meanwhile the Kurds, who are just as numerous in Iraq as the minority Sunnis, are very strongly in favor of the current Iraq government. And some elements within the Sunni community, mostly anti-Hussein dissidents, also are supportive.

In other words I think you are painting the situation in black and whites where more greys actually exist.

[Kahuna]

75. "Stiffen our resolve" by doing what is necessary to bring in our

allies to assist in stabalizing Iraq so that we can reduce our presence. If we have a lesser presence, we won't be there as targets for the terrorists. Got it now?

[Goldmund]

92. Allies?

You mean, the British, who started this whole clusterfuck to begin with? The French? Germans? Do you think it makes any difference to the average Iraqi?

[Kahuna]

74. You said it better than the rest of us, Tom. You have nailed..

exactly what Clark's very consistent message on the Iraq mess is. :yourock:

[Clarkie1]

That is not true.

He did not say that.

He said no timetable, because what good is a timetable when events on the ground are so fluid and unpredictable?

I think we need more clearly stated goals, and and a plan to achieve those goals in a given timeframe, and a plan B and perhaps even a plan C if we don't achieve those goals in a given timeframe, but that is not the same as a timetable for withdraw of X number of troops set in stone at a given date.

A timetable by itself is not a plan or a solution. What we need is better stategic planning.

[Clarkie1]

67. That is not true.

He did not say that.

He said no timetable, because what good is a timetable when events on the ground are so fluid and unpredictable?

I think we need more clearly stated goals, and and a plan to achieve those goals in a given timeframe, and a plan B and perhaps even a plan C if we don't achieve those goals in a given timeframe, but that is not the same as a timetable for withdraw of X number of troops set in stone at a given date.

A timetable by itself is not a plan or a solution. What we need is better stategic planning.

[tuvor]

7. "Staying the course" (as per bush) and "prevailing" are not the same thing

I'm not sure that you've proven anything.

[JHBowden]

9. I've proven quite a bit.

Does "we cannot afford to lose" sound like a troop withdrawal to you?

[FrenchieCat]

12. The only thing that you've proven

is that like the "short attention span" fox viewers.....you like taking phrases out of context when it satisfies your point. You're not into the total message.....just soundbytes, it would seem.

Clark said that we must prevail, that we must attempt to suceed......but he also said that we are fighting a dilemna...in that in our goal to get rid of the terrorists we are actually making more of them.

You see, Clark said that "we have to get out the right way". That's Clark's definition of success, at this point. I don't think that he wants to leave the Iraqis worse off than when we invaded them.....So not to do that would be a "win" for him.

Hey JHBowden....what do you think Clark means by Prevailing as far as you can tell? What would be the state of Iraq when we left in order for Clark to say..."We won"?

[JHBowden]

23. Total message = we must stay in Iraq.

No amount of hermeneutical exegesis of Clark's words will change this.

My idea of success is arming a strongman, getting out of there, and using our airpower to bomb the crap out of any baddies in the region. Others would like to pullout soon in more peaceful ways.

Clark doesn't have these position. He wants us to stay in Iraq and is against providing a timetable upon which we should begin leaving.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Total in message.....

This was an elective war that Bush got us into, even though Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 nor did he have WMD.....and now, we have to act like big boys and, at the very least, clean the mess up some before picking up our toys and going home.

Seems like that message got past you. Hell, you're one of the few that didn't get it....I even think that most Faux viewers got that message...and they ain't the brightest bulbs.

Your bottomline interpretation says more about you than it does about Wes :shrug:

[tuvor]

16. I guess "stay the course" to you means to stay in Iraq, period.

You weren't clear about that.

And I wasn't clear that to me, "stay the course" is a phrase bush owns, and it means to stick with his exact same insane non-plan plan.

I don't believe Clark is proposing staying that course.

[Kahuna]

76. No. It sounds like the truth. We CAN'T afford to lose...

That's like putting an even bigger bullseye on America and Americans.

[shadowknows69]

89. prevailing against what?

the growing insurgency which he also admitted we are creating more of by staying there. I want a candidate that steps up and says he's bringing our troops home ASAP. Period.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. Like a dog with a chew toy.

Just can't let it go can you. Saying that we have to succeed now that we're there is not the same thing as saying "stay the course". Staying the course would be continuing to conduct things the way Bush has up until now. Please point out where Clark advocated doing that and please don't answer with the same "did so" that you've been answering with.

[AllyCat]

64. JH--do you read the Progressive? The June issue has an

interesting debate between two writers, one feels we must stay in Iraq (the Dean "we broke it, we bought it" scenario), the other feels we should get out now. Frankly, I thought I agreed with the latter until a progressive outlined clearly what will happen if we do. We cannot morally leave those people in this mess we created. We have to fix it as best we can. The author outlines what needs to change (not more troops, not stay the course) to make this effective and it involves all the things Clark is saying and more. I even heard a retired Lt. Gen. on NewsHour after the ** speech say as much and he actually supported the war. We cannot continue as we are. That is what Clark is saying. Prevailing and staying the course are not the same thing.

[Stinky The Clown]

66. Elephant has big ears. Bassett Hound has big ears. Elephant=Basset Hound

Equals

Your argument holds water if the basis is correct. Maybe it isn't ...... consider, just for a moment .......

"We cannot afford to lose, we must prevail." - maybe by prevail, he means we must get the mess **they** caused down to a manageable level before we can leave.

"Now that we're there, we have to succeed." - maybe by succeed he means making the way *morally* right for our exit.

"We have to get out of there the right way, and the right way is when the job is done." - well, this says he wants out ..... maybe by job is done he means getting things stable.

"We must succeed." - and maybe by succeed in this instance he means we can't shit and forget to flush.

Let's say there are three ways out ...... fast means just withdraw. Pack our shit and leave; fuck the mess we leave behind. Leave when we have done enough to earn back our standing in the eyes of the world would be way number two. Leave when the country, while perhaps not stable, is at least able to hold itself at some state of civility. Staying the course would be the third way ... and the course, of course, is to own the oil and have the bases and never **really** leave. I think Clark's between the first and second, but closer to the second way. I also suspect you disagree with that.

His words were very nuanced, as I heard them. I submit that perhaps your view is colored a bit and you're not seeing the basis for his remarks. If not seen on the correct basis, then your view is reasonable.

[Kahuna]

72. He's NOT for "staying the course".... You included his quote..

about doing things the right way. But you misinterpret it.

He's saying things aren't being done the right way as of yet. He's saying if and when things are done the right way, such as letting Europe assist in training Iraqis to provide security, we can leave. He's been saying that all along. Of coure we can't leave until Iraq is secure! We should leave them without an army to defend themselves against the insurgents and the impending cival war? How humanitarian is that? We fucked up your country. Sorry, but we have to go now because, errr... we should have never been here in the first place... Not very realistic or pratical.

What Clark is saying is, stop the bullshit. Do what has to be done and do it right. So we can leave and not give future terrorists the wrong idea about us. Namely, that we're punks who can be forced to leave before finishing the job because we're afraid of terrorists.

[eleny]

4. I had to turn it off I was so disappointed

When he agreed that we had to stay and "win", I became disgusted. Hopefully he was more encouraging as his segment went on. But he and I disagree on staying in.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Yeah....too bad you didn't listen to all of it....

as he was talking to the faux audience.

Hopefully, what you don't know won't kill ya! :hi:

[eleny]

18. I really like Clark and always have

If he was speaking for the faux watchers, that's almost worse. But I think this is probably his honest opinion. You see, the fact that we're building 17 military bases in Iraq means we aren't planning to leave. He must know about the bases. So, I'm down about his take on tonight's speech. I was hoping Clark would stay in reality.

I'll watch the video tomorrow. I think tonight was overload since I also watched * lie his ass off.

[Adelante]

22. I understand

It's dreadfully complicated -- as he says, a dilemma. He is in reality. He's never believed we can just cut out and has never taken that position no matter the audience. I am glad you will watch the video tomorrow.

[Kahuna]

78. Exactly. He hasn't changed his position on Iraq at all...

He's very consistent. We should have never gone. But since we fuched up that country we have to do what you have to do to stabalize it before we can leave.

[FrenchieCat]

25. I think when you see the video....you will see exactly how Clark

put it....and based on what you read on this thread and others....you will realize that JBowden is being his normal "self" hoping that Clark would have said the wrong thing. I say that Clark probably enlightened more RW tonight than any other Democrat who has ever appeared on Faux.

It starts out unpleasant enough with Clark Lauding Bush for appreciating our fighting men and women (and yeah...that was hard to take but it opened up the enemies' mind with a good "we love our troup" message from our only 4 star Democratic General)....But you will also see Clark clearly deconstruct most of the false notions that Faux viewers have about this war. What Wes did there was an important thing. It can't be underestimated.

I think, Eleny, that you will know what I mean....as long as you watch the whole thing.


Nite! :hi:

[eleny]

57. Hi FC

On the issue of getting out, I'm in disagreement with Clark. But I did support him for the presidency and I don't think we'd be in Iraq if he'd made it all the way.

Take care!

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. He called Bush out on many lies, just not all of them

You are right about the bases of course. Clark countered Bush on the wisdom of many of his decisions, and indirectly on his honesty with the public. I think time constraints and wanting to remain credible with a FOX audience (so that they don't just shut out what he has to say) kept him from saying everything that could be said against Bush. He still said a lot.

[Kahuna]

77. Of course we aren't planning to leave. Bush wants the chaos..

he has caused. Still, we can't as people of conscience, leave Iraq with the mess WE created. Neither can we give the terrorists the message that we will cut and run because they will perceive us leaving before Iraq is stabalized as a victory for their side. And if they perceive a victory for their side, we will put a giant bullseye on America.

[Stinky The Clown]

84. eleny, in all fairness to Clark

he's not the one who said to build the bases. I think he's very much responding to the situation as it exists today in the form of a 'plan' *not* of his making.

That being said, I have recently changed my own view of the mess over there. I would want us out faster than I suspect he does. What I mean by that is I think he has one 'standard' for when we can leave. The bar for *my* standard for when we can leave is, I suspect, lower than his. Militarily, we can never 'win' except by a show of overwhelming force and a very long occupation. For every 'insurgent (I **hate** that word anymore) we kill or capture, ten more are ready to come at us. Its like the whack a mole game. There is no single entity or finite number of 'insurgents' we're facing. So I'd like to simply see us get to some minimal level of civility, managed entirely by Iraqis and then leave. To be sure, there's a civil war in progress over there. I am deeply saddened that **we** caused it, but that's the fact. And we can't win a civil war in another country, no matter what.

But all in all, I trust Clark's judgement and would be willing to let him take over and run things. I know we're just talking about a teevee interview, but still ........

[jmcon007]

15. I agree with Clark. As much as I hate this war, how it was started

and how it has been managed....the simple fact now is that if we pack up and come home tomorrow, we haven't even seen carnage compared to the civil war that will erupt, not to mention the immediate executions of hundreds if not thousands of people.
I'd be ashamed to say I could just turn my back on that after America started it.
This is just an example of the length and breadth of the destruction George W Bush has instigated.

[Adelante]

19. Heartbreakingly true nt

[FrenchieCat]

20. You're right.....

and Clark never used the word "win"....cause in this, there are no "winners", unless Halliburton counts.

[Justice]

70. I agree with you and with Clark

I just refuse to allow them to stay the course - they want us to be supportive now b/c they are desperate. I want them to acknowledge they screwed up and they need democrats to help them - and then I want to see tone and manner change going forward.

[Kahuna]

73. I also agree. How would we look as a country if we left now?

Like heartless punks and cowards, who let the terrorists that we were supposed to be defeating take over and win. Not to mention what we did to Iraq in the process. We ruined that country. It would be so wrong to leave until they are able to protect themselves from what we created.

Unfortunately, while the bushistas are in charge, they have no real desire to leave, or they would have seen to it by now that the Iraqi security forces were trained.

[Crunchy Frog]

21. Thanks for posting this. Recommended.

This is nice for people like me who don't have cable.

[Adelante]

24. I love DemBloggers

They work so hard for us, Mark and Brian.

[Goldmund]

26. That was pretty lame.

[Adelante]

30. Lame in what way?

What exactly was "lame" about it?

[Goldmund]

37. Here's how

"Shaking hands was so heart warming". Right before he sends them off to die in a war he started on lies and wages on lies. Pure jingoism.

"We must prevail -- we must stiffen the resolve -- we have to succeed". As long as there is no clear definition of "prevailing", this is just a recipe for more senseless bloodshed.

Britt Hume: "Let me address the fact this has become a central front in the war on terrorism" -- Clark misses the obvious opening: "HAS BECOME". Wasn't before. Bush in his speech said "If we leave Iraq, it will turn into the pre-war Afghanistan, a sanctuary of terrrorism", therefore tacitly acknowledging that the pre-war IRAQ was not such a sanctuary. Clark does not bring that up.

Britt Hume asks "Why are 'terrorists' not flowing into Afghanistan?" Clark answers: "It's harder to get to." I suppose it has nothing to do with the fact that war in Iraq was clearly a war of agression, and as such it inspires muslim brethren from abroad to come and defend it against that agression. That doesn't mean that there aren't all sorts of shady organizations taking advantage of the chaos, but the difference is clear, and it has little to do with topology and everything to do with the respective natures of the two conflicts.

Doesn't support a timetable, but instead "benchmarks"; 'benchmarks' are intangible, inquantifiable, and Bush already has them: statue, sovereignty, elections, constitution. There already are 'benchmarks'.

That's what I caught on two viewings.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Well you left out a lot from your summary

Clark saying there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Clark saying that we helped Al Quada recruitment by allowing them to say we occupied an Arab nation. Clark saying that terrorists are now leaving Iraq better trained and moving on to Europe, which blows the cover off of Bush's "fighting them over there so they don't fight us here" cover. Clark saying Bush chose to get us into this war and Clark saying he and others warned it was the wrong choice to make. Clark pointing out a number of questions Bush doesn't address regarding benchmarks like how can he say we are succeeding when more car bombs are going off and more terrorists are streaming into Iraq than before, etc. etc.

You and Clark probably do sincerely disagree about what the best way out of this mess now is, but "lame" is a "lame" way to describe what Clark said against Bush tonight.

[Goldmund]

48. Ah geeze

I said "lame" because I expected more. I wasn't disgusted or outraged, it just felt deflated, that's all.

Yes, you're right, Clark did re-iterate some obvious truths such as the ones you list. But it's also true that many of those are in contradiction with his "we must succeed" rhetoric. I simply expected more, much more.

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. OK, I'll accept that you expected more and leave it at that n/t

[FrenchieCat]

56. Actually...Clark's answer on Afghanistan was dead on.....

Afghanistan is where we should have fought...because it is harder to get to. He also said that Iraq leaves us as "sitting targets".

I think in the big picture way of things, that the Fox Viewers got enough to fill a night's worth of nightmares right following Bush's speech. The fact that this was an elective war and Clark said so...will sink in.

Clark will be on again tommorrow.

You can criticize him and let us know exactly how he should have said what you though he should have said then too.

Thanks for your take though! It is appreciated.... :hi:

[Goldmund]

58. Well, let's make something clear

If Clark was answering with an agenda specifically tailored to Faux viewers, then good for him. But you shouldn't be surprised, in that case, that I considered it lame. I wasn't listening to it as an attempt to influence a Faux viewer, but as a set of questions and answers. The fact that I thought it was lame, as an expression of political positions, doesn't mean that it wasn't an effective piece of Faux viewer influence.

Also, I don't know what your "Afghanistan is where we should have fought" really has to do with the exchange I was refering to -- my point is exactly that he missed stating that clearly. The question was "Why aren't terrorists flowing into Afghanistan", which was a great opportunity to draw a clear distinction between the two conflicts. The fact that most Democrats supported Afghanistan and not Iraq is not unrelated to the fact that Muslims are much more outraged about the US attack on Iraq, which in turn isn't unrelated to the fact that many are flowing into Iraq to defend it. It was a chance to hammer those differences. He missed it, and gave that half-assed answer about the terrain.

"You can criticize him and let us know exactly how he should have said what you though he should have said then too."

Sorry you have to read less-than-adoring critiques of your superhero. It happens on public message boards. :hi:

[ClarkUSA]

87. Of course Clark was answering w/ an agenda tailored to Fox viewers

He knows he's not on AAR.

Thanks for the thoughts but next time, leave out the last bit of gratuitous sniping
at Clark supporters. I sure as hell don't say these things to other groups of former 2004 candidate supporters, though I very well could on any number of similar occasions everyday if I wanted to be rude and derisive.

[Goldmund]

90. IMO, all you personality partisans are a bit silly.

Of course, we all supported one candidate or another, and we all worked for Kerry in the GE. We all have our favorites and those we agree with less. But some take it a level beyond that into personality cult land, and criticism of your hero is taken almost personally.

I voted for Kucinich in the primaries, and Clark probably would have been my second choice. And I still like the guy, a lot. But does that mean that I have to think that every time he opens his mouth, gold flows out? I believe in things, not people. I believe in ideologies, and I believe there are good arguments and bad ones. Then, when campaigns come around, I look at the net sum of those and I decide which person is most to my liking. I don't get married to them and I don't have children with them. So when I said "that was lame", I simply meant "this appearance on Faux was less than I expected" -- not "Clark is a lamo". And within 2 minutes, 3 responses of rolling eyes, sour smiles and such. That's what I was "sniping" at, and it wasn't gratuitous. I don't think I was rude and if I was derisive, it's this attitude I was deriding, not Clark and not his supporters.

I think that the existence of such sub-cultures within the Democratic party, and within the liberal wing of American politics, does much more to divide us than criticism of this or that candidate or appearance or argument.

So, as I said, I voted for Kucinich in the primaries, but when people criticize something he said or an interview he gave, I don't get my panties in a wad.

[ClarkUSA]

31. Thanks for sharing.

:eyes:

[Goldmund]

38. Why are you thanking me?

I'm not the only one who has shared an opinion in this thread.

[FrenchieCat]

43. Thus far, I think the problem is that your opinion was nearly

no opinion.

When one states "THAT was pretty lame"...we see the "That" ...but have no idea as to what THAT is for sure.

Then we see the negative word Lame.

Apart from that, you give no substance. Without substance your opinion is an empty one. I'm sure that others have opinion about 1/2 as empty....but I think that yours taketh the prize.

[Goldmund]

47. Read post #37 if you want it justified.

As I said in my other reply to you, let's be clear and admit that you only challenged my opinion as "empty" because it was negative about your superhero's appearance on TV. You personality partisans are such pains in the ass. :)

I simply posted a short reaction, as we all do sometimes, without the intention to get into the nitty-gritty -- not because my opinion is "empty" but simply because I went on to read other threads.

[FrenchieCat]

34. Geeze.....

thanks for that tiny teeny weeny piddly "grain" of thought. Anymore, and we might just get "overwhelmed"! :sarcasm:

[Goldmund]

40. If I had said "it rocked" I suppose you would have written the same thing?

Or do only some opinions need to be justified?

[FrenchieCat]

49. You supposed wrong.....

an opinion is like an asshole, everyone has one. I would think that you would want your opinion to be a "just"ified one.

[Goldmund]

50. Of course, an opinion

But that doesn't mean that every comment I make, or you make, has to be a term paper. We're human beings, sometimes we just sigh and roll our eyes and move on.

[zulchzulu]

28. Thanks Wes!

I do hope you're using your Murdoch payroll checks for a good cause. Other than that, good times, brother.

Now it's time to take a shower after having heard and seen Brit Hume.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Now...that really didn't ring a bell....

and I know for sure that you're more articulate than that.

As a "documentary" filmaker, it would seem that you would just put a little more "meat" on that comment.

I've noticed that you've had only little elbow nudges here and there to say about Clark for some time. Guess the fact that Kerry felt that he made the right decision in voting for the IWR made a whole lot more sense!

[zulchzulu]

44. Not sure what you meant...

Yes, I am working on a documentary...I guess that makes me a "documentary filmmaker"...

It does even include some close-up footage of Wes when he visited Madison. In the footage, he is about a foot away from me when I'm shaking his hand while holding the camera and he makes some comments about his prospects...

As for Kerry's IWR vote, that is also addressed as well as best as I can say in my own voice...and footage from Kerry from various small venues in Iowa and elsewhere...the scenes before that are footage/photos/commentary on March 1st, 2003 in San Francisco of the protest against Bush's War...I was there screaming against the war with millions of other citizens on this planet...

On Wes' commentary, I can see how he wants to walk a fine line and keep his gig with Fixed News as well as throw in some fairly moderate views about the war... I like Wes.

And over the past year or so, I respect your opinion too, FrenchieCat.

[ClarkUSA]

29. Sorry about C-SPAN, Mark but this is a great alternative!

Makes my heart glad to see so many of Bush's lies countered so firmly by General Clark!

The Fox audience must have been dumbstruck by his comments. Hopefully, this means they will be less dumb by 2006.

[YvonneCa]

51. To: ClarkUSA

"The Fox audience must have been dumbstruck by his comments. Hopefully, this means they will be less dumb by 2006."


What a great line ! You made me smile!:D :D :D :D :D

[ClarkUSA]

86. Welcome to DU, YvonneCa!

Glad to spread some smiles!

:hi:

[Mz Pip]

36. Best bait and switch I've ever seen

He starts out complimenting the troops and the words of support Bush used.

Then after he got their attention proceeded to lay out what a dilemma we are facing and how this was an elective war that had nothing to do with 9/11.

If he had started out right away trashing Bush, he would have had 90% of the audience changing channels. He lured them in then hit home the points that needed to be made.

Excellent.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[FrenchieCat]

39. That's cause Clark's got strategy......

The haters don't see it....but it's there. The fox viewers couldn't escape this one.....and it will sink in.

Clark did a lot of damage in that one appearance...to Bush, that is.

he crafted the perfect message for Faux Viewers. He'll have them eating out of his hand momentarily.

[Kahuna]

81. Exactly. The people who are supposing that Wes dampened..

his * criticism to "keep getting his FAUX paycheck" are barking up the wrong tree. Clark isn't on FAUX to preach to the chior or to throw red meat for the liberal viewers...all five of them.. :eyes:

He's there to tell the truth as he sees it. In order to engage the typical FAUX viewer and put them in the mood to receive the truth, he can't come across as anti-bush... Even though we all know he is. So if he says a few nice things about his speech before he lowers the boom, it has to be done that way. And yes, I almost hurled the first minute into the message listening to him praise * for anything at all. Then in typical Wes fashion he so expertly lowered the boom.

[SquireJons]

41. Clark was speaking to the Fox audience

So he balanced and prefaced his comments with lots of praise, for the troops and for bush. Then he went on to refute many of the arguments made by the administration. Particularly important was his assertion that this was a war of choice. He said specifically that we did not have to be in this war in the first place.

I was disappointed that he did not specifically refute the connection between Iraq and 9/11, but if you want to get air-head Fox News watchers to consider your opinion, you can't push them too far, too fast. All in all, I thought it was a decent and measured response to bush's speech, given the audience.

[FrenchieCat]

46. I heard him clearly say

that Saddam had "nothing" to do with 9/11, and that Saddam did not have WMD...right after stating that this was an elective war that that the President CHOSE to take us to.

Please watch it again. :hi:

[zulchzulu]

54. Wes did good...under the circumstances...

When you have a Repug brownshirt like Brit Hume who has the authority to hire or fire "contributors" at any time, you have to do what Wesley did in the interview.

Start with the patriotic "Support the Troops"...go to the part about how Bush thinks he's doing the right thing....and then go subtly into the myths most Fixed News watchers believe and offer some solutions, albeit vague...but when you have 40 seconds, you bounce the ball off your nose as best as you can.

We can overanalyze the footage...but, like other posters on this thread, he was able to slip in some good anti-Fixed News talking points without being shrill or over uber-provocative...

[Catch22Dem]

69. Huh?

"I was disappointed that he did not specifically refute the connection between Iraq and 9/11"

He said those words almost verbatum.

[Kahuna]

71. Listen again. He did mention that Saddam has nothing to ..

do with 9/11.

[SquireJons]

98. My bad, he did say that. But I had a thought...

I wasn't thrilled with the way he kind of sucked up to the hawks, but then I got to thinking. If he is planning on running for president again in 2008, what better way to build brides to folks who have tuned out traditional democrats than to provide even handed commentary on the very propaganda network that has caused so much damage to our party? From that point of view his working for Fox is brilliant, particularly if he stick to this script. Folks like my mom only watch Fox so now they have to listen to reason - or at least hear more than one point of view.

[bling bling]

42. Something I realized tonight about Clark and Fox

As I posted on another thread...

Clark is using Fox's airwaves to spread the truth! And he's speaking to people who are ordinarily brain-washed with pro-Bush propaganda -- and Fox is paying him to do it!! It's brilliant.

But besides that, if the truth finally reaches people thanks to Clark's efforts, then he's done a valuable service for us and for all Americans.

From that perspective I think what he's doing is incredibly patriotic.

[Clarkie1]

65. Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:patriot:

I wonder how many Faux viewers he got to actually listen for the first time to someone pointing out the mistakes and shortcomings of the Bush administration.

I am sure some of them will vote Dem in 06' and 08'....Clark is doing a valuable service for America and the Democratic Party. He is engaging the other side in "civil discourse" without namecalling and doubtless creating turncoats.

[YvonneCa]

53. Great job, General Clark ! ! n/t

[Mark Williams]

60. I agree

he was great!

[FourStarDemocrat]

80. Thanks for the video Mark. Much appreciated!

:yourock:

[McCamy Taylor]

68. Effective for his audience. Kick out Rummie, hire Ckark!

[Donna Zen]

79. In Alabama

...and that's pretty darn red, they already have a road named after Wes Clark. One could say that if the ground is already soft, let's start planting the seeds.

• Saddam not connected to 911

• an elective war that we did not have to fight

• the resident did not answer the big questions

• creating more terrorist

• no wmd

• need benchmarks

• if things are going soooo well, then why the increased insurgents and car bombings

• training ground for people who are then leaving the country to take action elsewhere

Yep, those are some thoughts ripe for the planting.

[Adelante]

82. A road in Alabama?

No shit! :D

[ElectroPrincess]

83. Damn! Wes Clark has been assimilated

No wonder he's on FOX news. He's done and about-face regarding how * lied us into war and how you cannot lessen "terrorist attacks" by a military solution.

Whoa! What a shame. I hardly knew thee ... yep, he's perfect for FOX but will not EVER score my vote for President.

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. Nope. Oh, and let me add this; Nope. I would argue more persuasively but

I am trying to maintain balance. I've already backed up my opinion as throughly as you have yours. Oh well, sorry you feel that way.

[ElectroPrincess]

88. Yeah, the poor, damn stupid Iraqi People

are just too "without a clue" to sort this out themselves. We need a slick guy like Wes Clark to lead our imperial army to show those poor dumb savages how to have a representative government. :sarcasm:

If you haven't noticed, here in America, we are losing our civil rights with each passing day.

Someone has to have the guts to stand up and say, no more! You do not defeat terrorism with a military solution. Iraq IS NOT the central area in the war on terrorism.

We need to leave. I've had the opportunity to interact with numerous General Army Officers. Many stand their ground when challenged, but most will go with whom ever is in power at the time.

The introductory complements Clark gave to Dim-Son literally made me wrench. Clark is proving to be an excellent kiss-a** politician.

I'm done with giving him a chance. He's lost my vote.

[ClarkUSA]

93. It's called bait-and-switch. Did you listen to anything else he said?

"Former presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark took a more measured approach in his criticism, saying on the strategic level, the president recited some points that needed to be said but Bush left several questions unresolved. "He didn't really explain why car bombings have gone up despite our effective operations or why the insurgents are coming in increasing numbers or why the insurgency is still the same strength. These are all the elements that create doubt and uncertainty in the minds of the American public," Clark said. "I said this was an elective war ... Saddam wasn't a part of 9/11, Saddam didn't have WMD to threaten America... adding that the war in Iraq is a great recruiting tool for terrorists who want to suggest America is the evil invader."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160974,00.html

Then read this:

"Clark is using Fox's airwaves to spread the truth! And he's speaking to people who are ordinarily brain-washed with pro-Bush propaganda -- and Fox is paying him to do it!! It's brilliant.

But besides that, if the truth finally reaches people thanks to Clark's efforts, then he's done a valuable service for us and for all Americans.

From that perspective I think what he's doing is incredibly patriotic."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1893455&mesg_id=1893765

And this:

"He starts out complimenting the troops and the words of support Bush used.

Then after he got their attention proceeded to lay out what a dilemma we are facing and how this was an elective war that had nothing to do with 9/11.

If he had started out right away trashing Bush, he would have had 90% of the audience changing channels. He lured them in then hit home the points that needed to be made.

Excellent."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1893455&mesg_id=1893736

[ElectroPrincess]

94. I do hope and pray that you are right in the analysis above :-)

I know that Wes Clark is a brilliant man and accept that I am blessed with basically, average intelligence.

I will watch more closely in the future and not necessarily SLAM the door on him. It just really sucked to hear him praise *, but that was understandably an emotional response.

Yes, let's hope that there's more going on with Wes Clark than what appears on the surface.

Thanks, I will step back, a little, because I respect his record.

Cheers, EP

[Tom Rinaldo]

96. I really respect this post, regardless of what opinion you finally reach

Too few people are open to receiving feedback given them, and saying "OK, I will take that into consideration". Really, whatever you decide about Clark, thank you for having this open attitude. It is a breath of fresh air.

[ElectroPrincess]

97. You're welcome - Good to try and stay flexible...

I have always had a fiery temperament and often draw out arguments like yours. That's a good thing - to put forth one's feelings as this occupation hits close to home for our family.

But I also know that one can NOT survive without "tap dancing" politically. I've given up on purity long ago.

My point: Even If Clark wanted to try and make life better - it would be a less IMPOSSIBLE task. I think he would "clean house" of the war profiteering. However, when it comes down to it, the Iraqis do NOT and will NOT stay occupied. The only shred of hope with regard to helping them is NEW leaders and a truly clear plan for USA's troop withdrawl. Sooner or later, this will happen.

Thanks, I'm not sold on Clark but I will follow his positions more thoroughly in the future.

[phylla]

95. Wes wasn't kissing * 's ass

He, in the first part, was trying to help the morale of his beloved armed forces.

Wes is a realist and a tactician.

His comments were not, in any way, a justification of the cabal's stated reasons for the Iraq war, or of the Bush et al.'s disastrous battle plans, or of Bush as a person.

Au contraire, Gen Clark has all along been right about nearly everything. And I have to believe that he is right when he says now that things are so screwed up that we must not leave the country in turmoil.

Every fiber of my being says cut and run, but I trust Wes. And I stand where he does.